It doesn't seem like a proper principle if you can ditch it when it becomes inconvenient. Freedom in of itself buys you nothing, it's a means, not an end. Similarly with uniqueness, if it lends itself to making the end result better, it's good, otherwise it doesn't really matter - what use is a novelty that has no appeal?
Who said anything about ditching? As any principles, mine have limits too - and those I pointed out, that's all.
As for the question of freedom - yes, I deny the notion it is an end in itself. In this topic, it is means for people's self-expression.
Of course, we must have balance between freedom of expression and quality. We need limits against which art will struggle to grow up, not sideways. Like railing for the grapevine.
And I think there exist a sweetspot of sorts, where freedom starts to drop quality - but not too much. That spot where gems in the rough are made - things like Stalker or Pathologic. Unfriendly for those who will interact with them, they nevertheless provide unique experience.
And uniqueness, in most cases, is an end in itself. It expands your views, expands, basically, the data that is your memory and your mind. Enriches you, gives you new intellectual tools to interact with the world.
But yeah, better it be benignant and high-quality rather than turbo-junk.
I fully resonate with your sentiment, but I would argue that stalker is good despite it's jank, not because of it. It's "soul" aspect comes from the quality of its world-building, the atmosphere, these things are material to the game itself. How much joy, tears, or sweat went into the game is not important here - CoD games have hundreds of people dedicating their craft, crunching hours to get it done on time, but it does not change what it is at the end of the day. Quality has many dimensions to it, and while stalker might not be "refined" in a traditional sense, what makes it good is precisely it has qualities other games don't.
Stalker won't be nearly as much fun, if it not for the fact that you have to fight the game to get it. It gets ridiculous at times, how this game can just screw you over for no reason. My favorite example is bucket in Novice Village - for some reason, when you step on it, there is a chance it will kick you from below, instakilling you and throwing your corpse 50 feet in the air.
In Soviet Ukraine, you do not kick the bucket - the bucket KICKS YOU!
Another one is the fact that enemy will remember your position mid-loading. Meaning if you save to close to the enemy - well, fuck you! Now they get X-ray vision and see you through walls for some reason!
It wouldn't have been that much fun, if the game wouldn't have been this huge uphill battle against bugs and janky mechanics. It's basically a huge meme - and that is important! It makes it more memorable.
Won't argue against your point of quality dimensions. That's just true! But when I say "quality" I mostly mean "polished", not "having a certain quality". My bad, I guess.
Tangent: slight difference in words' connotations coming from language differences. In Russian (my native) word "качество" (cachestvo) seems to be clear equivalent of "quality". But it is not, in fact. In Russian, it is mostly used in technical sense - how well something is made, heavily associated with the word "качественный" (cachestvenniy), which means "high-quality". It's very rarely used in sense of having certain quality, because in Russian, the plural form ("качества", cachestva, "qualities") is mostly used for that, not the singular.
And sometimes I just forget about this slight difference, using the words interchangeably - which they are not.
In all due respect, this is consumption of the art by definition. Counter-consumerist perspective would be more akin to believing that what people feel about the artwork is irrelevant because regardless of how many gaze upon it, what their opinions are, art just *is*, it exists for its own sake. While here, you seem excited because it draws you in on a personal level, saying that this is good because it makes you feel those things.
I was talking of consumption as approach, not the matter of fact deed. Yes, if you partake in art, you consume it - no way around.
I just try to look past this fact, I guess. Find meaning in the act beyond the act, something more elevated, so to speak.
Liking the prequels is fine, but I would again contest that people tend to like it despite's its flaws, not because of them. I did not mean to imply they were better or worse than the original trilogy, just that a certain aspect of it - the writing (dialogue in particular) - has suffered. Which in turn has led to him selling the franchise off to Disney, when it could have been avoided had he not made those mistakes, which could have been caught had he challenged his notions more, or had people help him with that. It would have just as much "soul" to do that because it would still be his work, just more refined. This is why I don't think it's a good idea to conflate people's ideas and concepts with their personality, it's not a healthy thing for a mind to do, it becomes harder to adapt and grow with time.
Also, obligatory:
You must be registered to see the links
Here comes the interesting part - one's flaws is another's boons, oftentimes. Yes, there exist objective downsides, like subpar dialogues and actors playing as if they were these guys:
Guess George Lucas' real name was Urfin Jus all along! (Not that many people get this reference, but I am leaving it here anyway)
But so many people hated politicing in the Prequels - and I love that part. People were pointing out that like that's a downside - to me, it's an up.
Other than that - yeah, I agree. If you don't get your opinion challenged, it - and you yourself! - will become stale and stagnant, usually garbage too. That's a basic loop of any autocracy, BTW - any fan of that thing here? Yeah, probably not - that thing sucks huge horsefuta-balls (of which I have reference in mind, of course).
But funnily, there exist a balance in that too. If you listen to others too much, you'll just muddle your view with their ideas. Basically, any creator must pinpoint what is absolutely necessary to his work and stand their ground on that one, while also listening to criticism and freely changing less important details. Also importantly - listening to own doubts, since those are often our best advisors.
As an author it's your job to say - but do not forget to be ears too, so to speak.
