What are you talking about? It's your definition of bad that I'm working with. I just pointed it out that the level of creative writing you're talking about it entry level stuff like characters with motivations and clear English language skills.
My response has been that 1- that's a low bar to clear, 2- it's your choice to place the bar that low, and 3- that it clears the low bar you've set shouldn't prohibit people from behind upset about the long development time.
There are many shades of grey between competency and mastery. However, I've never demanded a masterpiece. Only that your subjective standard allowing you to accept that the developer is delivering 'good quality content', and therefore permitting the long development time doesn't mean everyone should accept that as the measure, or that they're wrong to do so.
Sweet holy hell my dude. Being upset that the game is long in development is NOT the fucking same things as saying the content that is already there is 'bad'. My original point, the one you've been entirely missing the goddamn point of, is that you cannot unbiasedly call the content itself 'bad'. You insist on taking your standard, which appears to be the game is bad
because of the long development time, and failing miserably to equate that with the point I was making. Being upset at the long dev time is an ENTIRELY separate topic, divorced from the subjects of art or writing critique. Yeah, the game has been in development a long time. You know what that means? There is a metric fuck-ton of content, as one would expect from team that has been working and putting out solid content uninterrupted for such a long amount of time. Congrats, we have now discovered how to account for the variable of TIME in our collective assessment.
This isn't
Duke Nukem Forever, a game with a long troubled development cycle that ultimately released a half-baked amalgamation of a decades worth of trend-chasing design tropes. DNF isn't a bad game
because it was in development hell for 12 years; it would still be a 'bad' game on its own merits even if the end product had only been made in the more typical 2~3 year long dev cycle. You can remove DNF from the drama of its history, assess the game for what it was (rather than what over a decade of hype demanded it to be), and still make a very strong case that the end product is not good.
To be unbiased, you need to be able to separate your assessment of the quality of the content that is there from your obvious disappointment that it isn't the end of the story you want to see. You keep failing to do that, and thus you keep proving my point. You haven't posited that the content is 'bad' because it fails at characterization, or the dialogue is wooden, or the prose is uninteresting, or the art botches the perspective or fails to keep characters looking consistent, or literally any other failing on the part of the authors and artists; your only assessment is that the content is 'bad' because it's not the content you personally want to see after all this time. The writing and art didn't magically get worse because the game has been in development for 9 years. But according to your logic, they somehow have. As if content somehow spoils like milk left out on the counter too long...
