Post by Sin Shadow Fox in Wet Candy comments

Viewing post in Wet Candy comments

Sin Shadow Fox62 days ago (2 edits) (-2)

You're looking at this the wrong way. These aren't personal "requirements" or things "I" need to enjoy something. They're principles that exist because they've been stress tested for decades. People keep returning to them because they work.

And your spoon analogy doesn't hold. If the spoon is so misshapen that it doesn't hold soup or cuts the user, then yes, the form matters if the goal is actually delivering the experience. Art can do almost anything, but that doesn't mean every combination of techniques is equally effective at producing a specific effect. When a work aims for immersion and moral horror and then actively undercuts both, pointing that out isn't sad or limited thinking. It's just using the lessons of the past to enhance the future.

zanpai62 days ago(+1)(-1)

But it is personal. I felt pretty immersed, and even though I've never heard of the term moral horror before reading your comment, I thought the message still hit very well. How can this be if these two things supposedly clashes with each other... ? I don't know, but I still think the whole experience was well-blended. Perhaps being too technical just ruins your fun. Because it's obvious that despite these "flaws" you mention, people have had the exact opposite reaction than you did — which may speak for something that your cookie-cutter "principles" cannot.

Sin Shadow Fox61 days ago (1 edit) (-2)

Ah, I see the problem. You’re treating your personal reaction as conclusive. It’s not. It’s anecdotal. You (and some others) managing to stay immersed and still feel the message doesn’t mean the two modes weren’t clashing. It just means you’re one of the people who could still get something out of it despite the friction. Exceptions exist. That doesn’t make the pattern wrong any more than some people liking anchovies on pizza means the general consensus is invalid.

These aren’t arbitrary “cookie-cutter principles” invented by someone in an ascot. They’re patterns observed across a huge number of works that came before — approaches that consistently help immersion and moral weight land when they’re respected, and consistently create drag when they’re ignored. The fact that some people still had a positive reaction doesn’t erase that drag. It just means the piece managed to work for them anyway.

Being able to look at the craft isn’t what ruins the fun. It’s what lets you see why something succeeds or falls short and helps to generally improve it. There's nothing wrong with making something better.

itch.io

Viewing post in Wet Candy comments