There's a bunch of discourse on my tl about respect and curiosity towards game design and I agree generally speaking but also I think for me there's an element of optimism to statements like these in that probably 70% of the games I've ever worked on were, to quote the excellent Karla Zimonja, "drunk-walking towards completion" and sometimes you really do end up with a design cobbled together from a bunch of goals you're not sure how to execute, a bunch of decisions that might have been good ideas separately or at the time and now you're stuck with them. Treating that as always intentional and artistic is well meaning but well and truly, sometimes game development is in fact a polite disaster that somehow turns out okay (or doesn't)
I realize I was complaining about the amount of notifs the first post got me but I'm beginning to feel somewhat misinterpreted and I want to be clear about my thoughts here - reposting part of this from a comment I made.
First off, I want to be clear that I don't think and never thought this take was in opposition to critical analysis. There have been a number of replies treating this more or less as an argument against good faith, but I promise you, I start the post with "I generally agree with what's been said" for a reason! The primary thought line of this post is a lot less wide than all this - I simply think it's funny how often the games I've been on have been such piles of compromises. In my time as an artist I've always felt that demystifying art was important to me - god knows people spend so much time acting like drawing requires some sort of talent you were born with, and I've always strongly opposed that sentiment, as someone who learned it later in life. From a gamedev perspective, that includes discussing the ugly, boring, etc parts of it. Imo gamedev can and maybe even must exist both as a critically analyzed artform.and as one where we acknowledge that it's full of struggle and compromise. I want players to take design thoughtfully and I also want them to understand that sometimes compromises are necessary, that sometimes something isn't perfect because people are doing their best. Games is very secretive. Honestly I don't think we often do the best job of exposing the human side of it. It's bad marketing to admit you aren't seeing through your pristine vision, after all.
This is all to say that discussing the ugly and messy sides of gamedev is a topic of interest for me. I don't think that has to be in opposition to good faith or thoughtful analysis by any means. In fact I'd argue that both elements of this discussion are key to a future where maybe our audience is literate enough to not rage at concepts like "there aren't an infinitely increasing number of pokemon in every new game". And beyond that, idk. I just like talkin' about stuff sometimes.
