A discussion on taking criticism
I wrote a length post about criticism on @quintond 's post that I think would have derailed the topic so I've made a new one here!
Namely @dislekcia 's comment that he didn't feel his critiques/comments weren't being taken too well. Before we all get too excited I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm mentioning the comment and the OP for context. Everyone is right, I love you all, I want to sit down and have a grown up discussion about the general topic of criticism. We can all have a coffee, clipboards, insurance policies, stroked chins and other grown up things to facilitate this
Let me know what you think. Be nice, I think there is stuff to learn here and I'd love to write and discuss more around this topic in a friendly manner. Taking criticism is valuable and everyone should learn to take criticism, but I think it's not as simple as (I think) many people make it out to be.
I've not had time to edit it too much, but this is what I wrote:
--------
A general noteabout criticism since it's come up often on the forums... it's a tricky beast. This is my proto-opinion though so salt, pinch, whatevs: Learning to take criticism well involves a few things, first lets assume you've clearly opened up your game/thing to criticism ('cause one could totally be doing a personal project for themselves only and that cool). It boils down, I think, to being able to clearly/articulately and openly filter that criticism into a useful and 'not-useful' category. What is useful and not useful? Well whatever you want it to be, the trick is being able to clearly and openly articulate why. To this end it's up to what your goal is with the project/thing and also maybe what the focus of the criticism is.
This is contentious but I don't think all criticism is valid. I think it's contextual, but that context must be made very clear to yourself and to everyone involved. If you get criticism on your marketing model and you think it is not useful then you should be able to articulate why. And it's important to articulate truthfully (with everyone and yourself) that you understand the root of the critique, but don't think it's going to be useful because XYZ. If XYZ are valid points it either goes back into the discussion or the both ppl (ideally) go "oh yeah, fair play. Good luck!". Now, this isn't easy. This requires language, articulation, debating skills, understanding, emotional understanding. See through any ego (real or perceived) and respond to the actual claim... or at least ignore the emotional side of things if you want to go sociopathic on it :p (though this can lead to long term animosity so I don't recommend it).
Like I said, it's tricky, when is too much/little? When do you engage (or not)? When is someone actually critiquing or being a tool/dick about it? When is it no longer worth your time? What's a good focus? How do I explain myself better? These are questions as difficult to answer as "how do I get boys/girls to like me" "how do I make great business connections" "how can I be a better designer",
There are no straight answers, you can find guidelines and work towards getting better at it [but those are always inherently incomplete and leave out important subtleties], it's likely people are also trying to figure it out as well, it's probably useful to get as many perspectives on it if you are confused, and usually the answer is not what you'd expect it to be ... also it often involves a lot of difficult coming to terms with <insert difficult thing> moments that humble you.
Anyway i"m getting ahead of myself now. I think I'm going to take this offline and write a proper article on it. I could go on for ages and I don't have the time to edit this post further nor have I earned the attention span of the reader (I don't think) to say too much more right now :p
--------
P.S: I use 'you' in the plural sense, I'm not pointing out you do X! Just 'one' does X ^_^
P.P.S: Please share experiences that we could read as "case studies" I have a feeling this is the sort of thing someone like me would try to find a formula to solve (do, X, then Y, and Z if W) but actually is too complex to reason out like that. Examples and stories for us to consider, deconstruct and understand would help more I think. So more like a humanities approach, not so much scientific, or maybe a mix of both! Philosophy-tea anyone?
Namely @dislekcia 's comment that he didn't feel his critiques/comments weren't being taken too well. Before we all get too excited I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm mentioning the comment and the OP for context. Everyone is right, I love you all, I want to sit down and have a grown up discussion about the general topic of criticism. We can all have a coffee, clipboards, insurance policies, stroked chins and other grown up things to facilitate this
Let me know what you think. Be nice, I think there is stuff to learn here and I'd love to write and discuss more around this topic in a friendly manner. Taking criticism is valuable and everyone should learn to take criticism, but I think it's not as simple as (I think) many people make it out to be.
I've not had time to edit it too much, but this is what I wrote:
--------
A general noteabout criticism since it's come up often on the forums... it's a tricky beast. This is my proto-opinion though so salt, pinch, whatevs: Learning to take criticism well involves a few things, first lets assume you've clearly opened up your game/thing to criticism ('cause one could totally be doing a personal project for themselves only and that cool). It boils down, I think, to being able to clearly/articulately and openly filter that criticism into a useful and 'not-useful' category. What is useful and not useful? Well whatever you want it to be, the trick is being able to clearly and openly articulate why. To this end it's up to what your goal is with the project/thing and also maybe what the focus of the criticism is.
This is contentious but I don't think all criticism is valid. I think it's contextual, but that context must be made very clear to yourself and to everyone involved. If you get criticism on your marketing model and you think it is not useful then you should be able to articulate why. And it's important to articulate truthfully (with everyone and yourself) that you understand the root of the critique, but don't think it's going to be useful because XYZ. If XYZ are valid points it either goes back into the discussion or the both ppl (ideally) go "oh yeah, fair play. Good luck!". Now, this isn't easy. This requires language, articulation, debating skills, understanding, emotional understanding. See through any ego (real or perceived) and respond to the actual claim... or at least ignore the emotional side of things if you want to go sociopathic on it :p (though this can lead to long term animosity so I don't recommend it).
Like I said, it's tricky, when is too much/little? When do you engage (or not)? When is someone actually critiquing or being a tool/dick about it? When is it no longer worth your time? What's a good focus? How do I explain myself better? These are questions as difficult to answer as "how do I get boys/girls to like me" "how do I make great business connections" "how can I be a better designer",
There are no straight answers, you can find guidelines and work towards getting better at it [but those are always inherently incomplete and leave out important subtleties], it's likely people are also trying to figure it out as well, it's probably useful to get as many perspectives on it if you are confused, and usually the answer is not what you'd expect it to be ... also it often involves a lot of difficult coming to terms with <insert difficult thing> moments that humble you.
Anyway i"m getting ahead of myself now. I think I'm going to take this offline and write a proper article on it. I could go on for ages and I don't have the time to edit this post further nor have I earned the attention span of the reader (I don't think) to say too much more right now :p
--------
P.S: I use 'you' in the plural sense, I'm not pointing out you do X! Just 'one' does X ^_^
P.P.S: Please share experiences that we could read as "case studies" I have a feeling this is the sort of thing someone like me would try to find a formula to solve (do, X, then Y, and Z if W) but actually is too complex to reason out like that. Examples and stories for us to consider, deconstruct and understand would help more I think. So more like a humanities approach, not so much scientific, or maybe a mix of both! Philosophy-tea anyone?
Comments
1. You thank the person for the crit, and you implement a solution.
2. You thank the person for the crit, but write it off because it's something you can't do anything about (right now).
3. You thank the person for the crit, but ask some questions to clarify things that you don't understand.
At the end of the day, if nobody gives you crit, that says something about your project. Maybe it's actually just boring. Maybe you didn't present it well and need to work on your marketing. Maybe it's really bad, but nobody has the heart to tell you that. Maybe you are presenting it in a way that makes them think you're not actually looking for their opinion (e.g. This is something I've been working on for 7 years. I'm looking to ship next month. Any feedback is appreciated. Heh, not really, because whatever you say I've already decided what I'm going to do). And if somebody does give you crit, then they think that your project/time was worth some of theirs. Either way, the response is useful.
--
One thing that I think might not be as obvious as above is that defending yourself or rationalising your decisions isn't useful. This isn't an interplay, a conversation, between the person giving the critique and the person receiving it. The person giving critique has zero investment in your product. They don't care if it fails, and they don't care what your reasons are for ignoring what they have to say (except for the community vibe we have where all of us want all of us to succeed). It's likely that your defending yourself will result in the person giving the critique thinking "Eh. He doesn't really get it, and I don't think he's actually open to listening, so I'll shut up now", and I don't think that's something you should leave as a possibility. So, rather than saying, "Your criticisms are invalid because XYZ logic doesn't hold up" -- which might well be true -- it's more about acknowledging that somebody has something in your product that they don't like so much that they're actually going to tell you about it, and then asking questions until you know exactly what the REAL problem is.
I mean, there's definitely some value in debating things and banging heads until you come to an agreement. It absolutely has to happen between people working on the same project, because that leads to both of them gaining more insight and growing as game designers. But until you're certain that the person offering the critique is invested in your project enough to want to listen to your disagreements and work through them with you (which, really, is kind of hard to have when it's basically a stranger on the internet), I don't think this should be the default position.
There's a semi-relevant story that Jesse Schell (I think it was him) tells about how a client told them that they wanted them to change the models to their cars in a racing game. Something about the back fin or something. Changing all of the car models is obviously a very costly change. Instead of getting grumpy about it, or going with the change, the development team asked the client what it was they thought they'd achieve by doing that. The client said it could help the cars to feel faster. The dev team suggested just... making the cars a bit faster, or adding trails to them, or something relatively trivial like that. The client was happy. Apparently client thought changing the car models would be a cheaper/faster way to fix their perceived problem than just changing some numbers. If you don't agree with the reasoning of the person offering critique, ask more questions, understand what fleeting feeling they're not getting. It's much more useful than saying the car models are totally fine because they're based on real car blueprints...
On the one side, is to offer suggestions for improvements instead of just what is wrong with the thing, which is not always easy, but it surely helps the person who asks for feedback to at least make a connection with the feedback and to adjust their strategy for that specific issue.
On the other side, follow up to previous suggestions/criticisms if a person has made changes and requests some more feedback. In fact, it is this follow up which is most valuable - and my reasoning behind this is as follows: if you provide feedback it should be intended to help the creator to achieve something better, and if you care enough to invest some time in the first place, normally it is nice to see that feedback evolve into something over time.
If you don't care enough about a game or genre, or (as I understand from dislekcia's comments) don't share the passion for the game, or why it should exist, etc. then it is actually best not to provide feedback, and be honest about it - this should also be accepted and respected as well. No feedback in some cases is probably also a good thing, as this is an indicator that the passion/need for the game to exist is missing - and this in turn is an opportunity by itself.
Naturally this is just my own point of view, and this by no means work the same for all people.
Try to put in smilies everywhere to show that you are not being a ass-hole. :)
Pick something you LIKE and start off with that. Dont just list all the things thats bad or wrong.
If you cant find something good to say about a game then please dont comment.
As for people receiving the crit. I havent really come across someone that takes crit badly except that one guy who blew his top at @dislekcia for commenting on his Justin Bieber thing.
And I would like to thank @Elyaradine for explaining that that defending yourself or rationalising your decisions isn't useful. I tend to do that.
I'm not going to reply directly right now, just describe some thoughts I've been having since I wrote it. I think it somewhat gets at what both you dudes were saying, or responds to a degree. I've actually been thinking quite hard on the "zero investment" issue that @Elyaradine raises. It's quite important and I'll get to it a bit down the line:
[edit: err sorry dudes, I was kinda hoping that in my long response I'd address most.. err some things you guys say. I just don't think a point by point reply to each of your points would actually be useful for something like this ... ... but I love you dudes for putting in time to reply I'll promise to address you more directly asap! Also, the following should be a blog post or something so sorry if it seems to ignore you guys, not my intention!]
So, I'm going to distinguish criticism between "youtube criticism" and "community criticism". I don't think it'll 100% work but I think it might 70% work and honestly that's the best I can hope for for such a complicated topic. Youtube criticism is just any critisim from someone, it may be nice it most likely isn't and is along the lines of "your ****ing controls suck, as does your mom! HAHAHAHA". We know the deal with that one. One good strategy is to very, very clearly remove the obvious emotional aspect from that and note that the control scheme didn't work for this person. Fair comment, badly expressed yay we are good people for distinguishing vitriol from critique.
However I'm more concerned with "community criticism" where we are talking to each other, person to person, human to human. Not always, but sometimes I see very blunt criticism of someones' game, I think that this need not be the case (or at least, not the norm, I'm worried that bluntness might be the norm.... but again, this is a complicated and contentious issue to raise). Now I'm going to be very careful here, as there are a multitude of possibilities that could be at play. The poster could be genuinely too bullheaded to see what is right in front of them, the critiquer could genuinely not have quite understood what sort of critique the poster wanted. One or all parties could just be arrogant and difficult to deal with. Everyone could not give a damn about what the other thinks and everyone wins because we all knowledged++, right?
I'm trying to express, maybe badly, that things aren't this simple always. We are all humans and we are all talking to each other like humans would. And in my experience this is never a simple thing. It can't be reduced to 3 'types' of responses for all criticisms because that's a general rule and general rules are great for getting us most of the way but does not acknowledge the subtitles of what is going on, the context the emotions of people you are talking to and... well anything else that might be in the air... look I know I'm probably not sounding too clear on the matter but this is my point, it's not always cut and dry and I'm worried that people think that it is. Btw @Elyaradine I'm not digging at your 3 solutions to criticism, you weren't using it in a wider context. They are totally a great guideline for the forums, but they are just that, a guide, y'know?
So, I have an example I want to share, I kindof don't want because I'm not trying to point out anyone, but I think it might clear up what I'm thinking. First, I just want to address a potential query one might have: I understand that people's time is precious. Trust me I know I'm always stressed for time and I'm not even that active on the forums to warrant me demanding time of others here. So, yes, blunt short sharp criticism is the most efficient way to impasse knowledge onto others. Why layer it with loads of context and fluff and niceties when it just a blocking factor to getting your information across? Ain't nobody got time for that! I really do understand that and a fair few people (in this community and in life) will say to this, "yes, this is the best route, we agree? Yes? Good!" and move on with important discussion. This is fine, but this is not how everyone operates (I personally do operate like this 90% of the time but sometimes it's not the most helpful attitude).
Receiving harsh criticism is not nice, even fair criticism in a blunt way is not fun. And yes we should learn to #dealwithit but we all know it's not easy at first. But we are not youtube commentators and more often than not we actually have a moment to consider the situation of the target of our criticisms. With a bit of consideration we can all understand that we are trying to help each other. It's just not all that clear all the time. I'm trying to express in my long winded way that this isn't easy but we can maybe spend a moment to consider the context in which we are conversing. We won't always get it right but it's like speaking to people about anything, we won't always 'click', we won't always understand each other's perspective.
So that example: I'm sticking my neck out here a bit, I don't want to ruffle feathers so bear in mind that I love you all and here we go anyway: The post about Re-Spawn, I'm was not 100% sure what the goal of the post was. I tried to express that, and I think I did it successfully. I don't always express myself very well but in this case I delivered what was basically asked/queried already but in a different way (I feel). I mean, I think @quintond understood what I was saying, because I thought, wow this dude is getting kinda railed on. Railing further in a trail-by-fire fashion is the last thing that is needed here (and hey, a fair number of times people respond well to that sort of stuff so strong direct critique is not 'wrong' by any means!). So rather I'm gonna relate with something I've gone though in the past and maybe we'll see eye to eye. I think we did though? I donno but I got a positive response and I think we had a good exchange! ^_^ Sorry to bring your name into it, it's just the most recent example and I was genuinely happy that you felt you gained some insight!
And look, this is a difficult topic, because there are usually fair questions raised and they probably should be responded to, just that sometimes I don't entirely blame people for not responding though. I read some critiques and I don't feel the love, we don't have to show the love, but sometimes people show the opposite. It's difficult to manufacture goodwill and understanding from people saying "I don't get it" in a straightforward matter and listing the ways in which your game sucks very plainly and bluntly. Not that this is what people are meaning, but sometimes it comes across as that and people shut off before the criticism is even processed. I mean, we are not youtube commentators, we are trying to help out, no?
I'm overstating the issue quite a bit, I mean a lot of the time we all get on well and I'm not saying we should act one way or another. I (personally) know we all mean good, generally the people in this community are great people and just want to help. I just sometimes feel that the topic of giving and receiving criticism is reduced to a formula of directness that works, say, 80% of the time but distances certain people and ignores many subtleties and situations of the person being communicated with. I'm not saying I have a solution, I have some guidelines I use to help me along but I try recognise the boundaries of those guidelines (it's not always clear but that's part of being an human, no?). I'm mianly saying there is no one solution. it's just people talking to people and although the guidelines are working well I fear there is a lack of recognition of the situations when those guidelines are not furthering the agenda we all want to follow: that of helping and growing a great community of game makers
<deep breath>
So, I mean no ill, I wish to be very clear about that. We are all different people and we all see things differently. This is my perspective and no-one has to agree (or disagree even!). I would like to hear others perspectives if anyone is willing to share? We are a community of creators and it was founded with an understanding of growth and positive discussion (I think? That's my reading of it anyway ;) ). Sorry for mentioning/hinting at people in this and if you felt negatively represented I really don't mean any ill-will, let me know we can have a chat about it! But I'm not trying to call anyone out on anything. This is not a question of right or wrong, just a perspective.
I still believe that in terms of taking criticism, the 3 responses I listed are pretty much the only useful ways of dealing with it. Sometimes (actually, often) I get emotionally attached to a project, and I start to get a bit blurry, and struggle to separate criticism of project decisions with criticism of me as a person, and I believe this is common, but it's not useful. At the end of the day, I've got to realise that it's an error in my thinking, and go back to responding in a useful manner. If I get pissed off at a comment, it's because I allow it. I hate to quote a self-help author, but one of the "habits of highly effective people" is to be proactive, not reactive. People don't "make" me angry, or sad, or discouraged: they do something, and I choose a response.
--
In terms of giving criticism, something I've tried to do, especially with colleagues at work, is something I've heard described as the "sandwich" method. Start with a compliment. (There's got to be something nice to say about it... somewhere, somehow...). Follow it up with the biggest, most important problems. (Sometimes there are LOTS of problems, but listing them all can be overwhelming, so only talk about the really big problems so that the list feels more manageable. A GIANT sandwich is really hard to eat.) End with something positive. (Sometimes all I can say is some generic, "Keep it up! I look forward to seeing more!" And yeah, the truth is that sometimes I'm lying. Sorry.)
If I had to pick extremes, I'd rather someone gave me super harsh crit with nothing nice to say than to say nothing at all. I really, really like bluntness. I think having to pretty things up is a waste of brain-cycles, both for the writer and the reader. But I get that in the real world we rarely have to deal with extremes, and that maybe my skin's thickened after years and years of being involved in online art communities and working in the industry, so I get that not everyone can take it that way. (And even then, I do sometimes catching myself getting defensive, and have to push myself out of it.) But yeah, if you're going to release a game seriously, there are going to be WAY harsher things said about it than anything people say here. Some practice might not be a bad thing.
Although at the end of the day, we do want to encourage more game development, and not less, so sure, maybe spending some brain cycles/time cushioning the blow might be worth it. Or not, in which case my project thread stays empty.
<tl:dr version>
Totally hear what you are saying: do we not say anything and leave it be or at very least say something and it's up to them to decide how to deal with that? I'm saying that in most cases here this works great, but that extreme discourages some people (fortunately it is a minority in this community). And although we don't necessarily hold a responsibility to hold anyone's hand, people do take a look at the community, get harsh feedback and never really try join in. Is it their problem? Should they just learn? Well they are gone now... so... um, I guess we'll hope for the best then? That's my main worry about the whole thing.
Disclaimer: Not saying you are right or wrong, I'm not saying anyone is. That's just my worry and I was wondering what people's thoughts on this sort of this are.
</tl:dr version>
<Ok, one more time with feeling...>
I do like the sandwich method, it's a great way to broach someone who might react badly, I was going to try mention it somewhere down the line as well! It's like tutor 101 and I've learnt a lot from interacting with people this way instead of saying what's on my mind unchecked. It's a nice filter to have and works in many situations, especially ones where you are uncertain of the person you are talking to, even if it is a bit of an effort to do.
And actually, that's part of what I was trying to say re your other post. That sort of thing takes a bit of time and effort and it's fair to ask "why should we bother if we can all come to an understanding that the positive reinforcement is just fluff, let's all growup/getoverit/#dealwithit and get to the core". And the lovely thing is that there are a lot of people here who have come to that understanding, implicitly or explicitly and they get a lot of rapid critique done very efficiently. Win! But there are a fair number of people that have come in after (I think) that understanding was established and find it a bit hostile.
And yeah, for sure between the two extremes anyone would probably want some critique rather than nothing. This is something I certainly agree with myself. But I just worry that we focus too much on the one extreme to be safe (namely giving critique even if harsh and unfiltered) and it discourages people to the point of them quietly going off to do something else because "I don't think these people are very nice". Not saying that blunt critique is a bad default stance to have, but I think it has some pretty significant drawbacks that aren't really understood all the time.
So for context: this worry has manifested in multiple places over my game dev life. I've been involved with the UCT games course in the past and I can tell you firsthand from being a UCT games course student myself that many of the people there love games, but get discouraged before they even get a chance to find out if they love making games. A lot of it is to do with the inherent elitism of UCT compsci (my opinion, but I was there and one of those difficult ones) and the top students are the ones that speak the loudest, they very often don't listen to criticism or at least need a very well constructed sandwich in order to (there is also a trickle down effect that means that the not so top student body portion of the class usually gets sidelined in tutorials and shouted over, further compounding the problem... but this is a different issue.. also just my opinion). And I know firsthand that the tutors are not trained to give critiques well (like the sandwich method. I only found that out waaay after my tutoring days were over... that said you ever tried to train an arrogant tutor? Those arrogant students just become arrogant tutors, and the whole thing goes on... again just my opinion). The main point is that only a handful of students ever really consider game dev at all. And these are people who did the course going OMFG GAMES! I LOVE GAMES! I had a friend saying they loved games, until they did that course. It's disheartening to see and I just worry that sort of attitude might manifest here.
Not saying it's a rampant problem here but these are my worries and that is the reason I think about this sort of thing. Thing is it's not a big thing in this community, it's actually kinda small but it's worrying to me so I'm voicing my views to see if anyone else has had similar thoughts. This all said I do understand that some people just won't take criticism, no matter how you sandwich it (though I'd say then one needs to look at the situation and understand why that sandwich isn't working). But my underlying theme to all my ramble is that these are people, they are probably competent humans and generally there is a way to "get through" to people. Some people you just shove it in their face and they are like "awesome! I needed that!", most people like a sandwich, for some poeple it might be something obscure that is far too much effort to warrant a group of quasi-strangers to deal with. Those "difficult" people are difficult to deal with, be weren't we all at some stage? I was, I'll say that at least, and it took some awesome people in my life to get me to realise that dealing with things is actually difficult. I, like the "difficult" people I talk about, have to go through a story to get themselves to a point where they can take critique from a community in the face and go "awesome! I'll add that to level 5!". I, like those people, needed a sandwich down the line and I don't want to see some of those people disappear faster that you can say "damn, that thing I shoved in their face was really useful, their loss I guess..."
NOTE: Yes people don't have time to hand hold everyone. It's as complicated as is man-management, social interactions, and nearly everything in life. In this case it can be seen as a tricky balance between, do I give critique and risk insult, or hold back and risk them acting on ignorance. It's usually contextual and often the solution lies somewhere in between the two... I think.
It would be nice if everyone just took critique secure in the mind that we mean no foul, like what seems to be the norm in this forum. But this isn't the case because human.
Also @Elyaradine thanks for the responses, dude! I know I'm a bit tl;dr with these things and I really appreciate that you took the time to write your thoughts down. Hope this one was a bit more focused. ^_^
Like @Elyaradine, I tend to feel that the important thing about criticism is how you handle it. It's going to come in at you every which way if you want to make things for other people to use, so you'd better learn how to be good at using it... In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you're not hungry for criticism, not desperate for people to play what you've made, then you're probably not a game designer.
There's always going to be a necessary amount of self-directed improvement when you choose to interact online with people for a greater goal. After all, we know that making games is hard, building the skills to make them is even harder. If someone's not in the right headspace or stage of personal development to be able to distance their personal ego from the perception of their work, well... Then maybe they're not in the right headspace to be super-engaged by an online community about making games. And that's fine. I'm not saying we should abandon those people, but if they're not comfortable participating online, they don't have to... Maybe they just like coming to the meetups where they can see people's positive body language, maybe they just enjoy playing games other people have made and the comparison with their own work keeps them going.
Often a great way to defuse any bad feelings around criticism is to be sure that it's all coming at you with the same goal. That means that you need to state your goals so that others can frame their interactions with you well. That also means that you're more likely to constantly refer back to your goal when hearing something, which deals with a lot of negativity right there. It's not anyone else's fault if you're not honest about your goals. It's not your fault if someone doesn't speak to your goals either... Because critique is help. It's supposed to help you get somewhere, so people have to know where you're trying to get to. Often the worst-handled critique threads (on here and on other forums) are ones in which people's goals aren't well-stated, or misunderstood and critics end up trying to change someone's goal. That's a hard thing to do. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it isn't.
The worst thing to do anywhere is assume you know what someone's goals are, both in giving and receiving criticism. Too many people assume that a critic's aim is to tear them down personally, that's stupid. Too many people assume that the goal of a creator is the same as theirs when creating, that's stupid too. And yes, sometimes people have stupid goals. Figure out what you're talking to, figure out why you're listening.
P.S. I think one of my biggest personal gripes around criticism is the "do you know who I am" issue. I hate it when I'm saying reasonable things, supporting them with evidence and logical examples, delivering them with encouragement and no personal attacks, and someone's response is "Who the fuck are you to be saying these things? Shut up!" ... And then, when they actually do discover my personal background, their whole attitude to the critique changes. Because somehow a logical argument is *more* logical when delivered by someone who knows C++. This annoys me immensely, both because I hate "bragging" and because I hate the idea that other people who lack my background are being dismissed even though they're making logical sense. That's extremely silly.
TL;DR: Ask questions. Establish goals. Assume good. Say thanks. Encourage. You can try to be people's friends, but if they're not treating forum text as an adult medium, you've got a hard road ahead of you.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that people should not be game designers if they can't take criticism, people learn and people change. I would have been a terrible game designer 3 years ago. In the height of my CompSci degree because I did philosophy courses and computer science, I got good marks and I fuckin' rocked and I was humble as FUCK (that's right I was humbler that all the other people HAHAHAHA! :p)
Like, obviously I'm highlighting my flaws out of context but I did think this way at one point. I was insufferable and annoying to many people but I've changed my views now... I hope for the better. I might not be a great designer now but I think I've learned a lot in just 3 years and am heading the right way. So yeah, gotta give ppl a chance to find out that taking critique is important. It's not always possible but I find it easy to dismiss someone saying arg, their ego is just getting in the way, not worht any more effort. It's harder to come back at them with something they might respond to because ... well fuck what are they thinking? What's their motivations, what's their context?.... it's tricky (my mantra... ohmmmmmmm)
I like your example about the coding XP (I may or may not have had similar misunderstanding when I first met you... forgive meeeee T_T I know better now). I have my own similar story on that: I was giving a talk the other week at UCT for the games course, and I knew that people probably don't know anything about me. I could have walked in and said. Cool! This is how unity works and this is how you do this and I suggest this and that because reason reason reason and if you aren't listening to the reason than well maybe you shouldn't be here. But I'd loose them in no time. So I started out with 5 mins of who I was, that I did code and had industry experience in coding, because I reckoned that's what they would likely respect and respond to. And well I don't know for sure but I think it worked pretty well. I wasn't trying to "trick" or "game" anyone into respecting me, just it was a common point we could see eye to eye on. And even then it might not have worked at all! I didn't have a guideline or rule that I followed for that, I had my usual lecture style for the framework but I had to really think about the specific context of the situation for me to best get across what I wanted to get across. It was based on a few concepts related to what you mentioned, though not in an order of any kind. What's my goal, what's the intention, what's the message, because those concepts were important in that case. In a sense I guess I'm saying it's difficult to cover all situations in a tl;dr. Like most for sure, like the Ask questions. Establish goals etc etc. Great rough sketch but not everyone will see the value of that first up. And there are a lot of things that can deviate from that plan that I don't think can always be planned for.
Maybe what I'm trying to get at is having some guidelines for what works most of the time, and be sure of what the intentions of those guidelines are. But those guidelines can be overridden by a broader context when they are not doing what they intended to do. I donno, I'm trying to figure this stuff out in my head, hence this whole post in the first place! ;)
Oh, not saying that anyone is incapable of recognising context, in case anyone is thinking that(!) We all talk pretty well here I think. Just was having fears of things running one way when someone comes along that is unable (yet) to take criticisms like we do. For the most part we all see eye to eye. For the minority that don't, I don't want to chase them away before trying to show them what we mean, and understand what they mean. Maybe their way of taking critique is different, maybe they have a different perspective or methodology that they don't quite articulate too well.
Thanks for your story! Only thing I've not addressed properly is that we are on an adult e-forum and hence there are certain expectations attached to that. Totally agree with that, if someone is not not playing fair in that understanding then why are they there at all? I guess my nature would be to try reasonably to understand why this is the case before saying, "well I'm not sure they should be here".
The thing said about how to take criticism being the important thing about criticism in general. For an individual I totally agree with this. For a community however, being able to give criticism is (I think) just as or maybe even more important... depends on the community maybe(?)
Thanks again for sharing, I feel this is useful dialog. Sorry it's not edited at all so it's a bit wishy washy!
This. Especially in a community with the public goals of this one.
For me the principles are quite simple, because my own principles seem to really align with the prevailing principles around here. (I say prevailing because I understand everyone is a unique snowflake and we are all different)
And that prevailing principle is: Don't take criticism as insult, but take it as a chance to BE BETTER. Because not a single one of us, not what we do, not what we say, is perfect.
If you *do* take criticism as an insult, you're only hurting yourself by not giving yourself the chance to GET BETTER.
Then, on the corollary, offer criticism when you can, as often as you can, in as constructive a manner as you can, because what goes around comes around. This isn't because of karma, this is because we are humans and we form relationships. And this is a community :)
People who refuse to, cannot, or will not take the above positions are people who refuse to learn and erm, will only be sad here. I'm sorry that they're sad here, because we're not a bunch of people whose goal is to make people sad. Our goal is to make each other make better stuff.
Sounds about right, yea?
...Made certain time-costly decisions during the design/development cycle. Criticism may bring them to the awareness that some or even a lot of that time, has been wasted. They may not admit it openly, but at some level they may see the kernel of truth in that criticism and it brings frustration, pain and even (based on circumstances) fear, which are states which exist purely subjectively and should remain within the individual and if anything, self-directed. However, more often that may then be reflected back out to those offering the criticism, as defensiveness or anger. The output here is sorely misdirected. One must learn to forgive oneself and others for mistakes, and move on.
...An emotional investment in some work which goes beyond the purely practical. This happens to the best of us; it's normal to form emotional attachments. But it's how we deal with it that shows our calibre as individuals. There are two core beliefs in conflict here: Abundance vs. Dearth. If a person believes in the former, then changes to an idea or ditching an idea or a section of work altogether are not seen as threats to success (within reason), i.e. the person is willing to rise to the challenge, because abundance in this instance means an abundance of new ideas, new possibilities; whereas a belief in the latter leads to a perception that few or no alternatives to success exist other than what lies directly ahead... which is unfortunate and leads to a sense of threat when confronted by valid criticisms from others. Patently invalid criticisms are usually brushed off, because they create no sense of threat to the extant investment of time and effort.
Conclusion: It is foolish to be threatened by those who lack ultimate control over your work. It is wise to be open-minded to criticism, and adapt strategies where appropriate. And it is very self-destructive to be fearful, to allow fear to control your decisions, under any circumstance. That is no way to live; certainly not a road to success. Horace said, Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem.
P.S.
@Elyaradine makes some valid points here.
@dislekcia, I found your comments about validity of arguments based on perceptions of professional experience, incisive.
As a community this is important because we can't control how developed someones abilities to take critique are. We can only choose how we deliver it. If someones comes in real fresh and is super excited to show off their precious thing and the reaction falls short of their expectations and the defenses go up - that leads to very negative feelings being anchored to this community ensuring they won't come back again. Yes it's their fault and clearly their current path will never succeed. But the net effect is that maybe they could've learnt to do better and less awesome games get made.
I've experienced this when I was much younger in other creative disciplines. Let's be better than that.