So That Bloodstained Trailer Was Weird, Right? (Kotaku)

Ahh Kotaku; still putting zero research into the articles they post, all for the sake of taking another pot-shot at gamers who want a better game.

Seriously, this writer clearly has not only not been following the Bloodstained development the past 4 years, but seems like they don't even get references from Symphony of the Night. And yet the editors thought this was a good piece to let fly? What a joke.

No, it wasn't weird. The trailer showcased exactly what it set out to; that IGA and the rest of the team were actively listening to fans input and doing their best to implement what the biggest requests/ideas were. No shit they listened to ALL the backers, big and small. We all threw in to make this game regardless of how much we individually could throw at it. Nobody was being "aggressive" and we all love that the devs are taking criticism seriously. It's a breath of fresh air.

I'm not sure what stance on crowdfunded games that the article writer is really taking.

Yeah, I don't know about that chief. Most of this piece I disagree with, then the rest seems to be off point or just incorrect. And I agree with Galamoth, what side are they taking?

This isn't something to worry about, because what this writer doesn't know (among numerous other things) is from the start the development team has been clear that they do not move forward with any feedback that they don't personally agree with. If you've seen any interviews where Iga is asked any questions about feedback, that's what he will reply with. Him and the others are experienced and smart enough to know that your customers don't always (or even usually) know what they want.

That isn't to say we did not influence the direction of the game at all, because clearly we did, but only within the scope of what the team already was thinking of doing. Even the most prominent example of a "fan change" that comes to mind quickly is Vepar, which as stated when they introduced that change "we were thinking this too, so we went ahead and made it look better".


I'm sorry PM, but that just isn't true. The dev team listened to and responded to our feedback. Surely you remember the feedback process for (both) betas, where everything was officially sorted and collected here and other places (which didn't include Youtube comments). It was an arduous but necessary task, and even back when I was added as a moderator in 2016 for that demo's feedback it was intense here.  The "Demo Graphics Downgrade" thread is very specific and critical of the games' graphics, wherein almost everything mentioned has been improved, and a thread that Angel was watching very closely and reported very specifically to Mana/Iga about, adding his own screenshots and examples to what he gave them. There was an advocacy for the actual fans who care about what the game looks like as a direct line to the development team, and I can guarantee that no "poop" landed on Igarashi's desk. That "poop" deal likely, if anywhere, sat in Angel's meme folder, and maybe not even there (see below about how we got these comments at the end)

Gamer culture might be toxic, or rather just it's big enough/certain games are big enough to where the loud mean/angry/depressed people within them seem that way, but the truth of the matter is that our community is not. That's the people this article is talking about, whether it knows or not, and paints us as whiny children that didn't like an earlier build of a game and put up short, nasty youtube comments about it that made them change it. What actually happened, as above, is that the earlier build was a "beta backer demo", as you know and this person doesn't, that was created specifically for its fans to give feedback on which could be implemented for the betterment of the game that the team agreed with and that's what happened.

The article's main objective beyond doing something meaningful is exposure. I'm thankful in that respect, as I'm seeing new fans in the comments section, but it's still negative attention and reporting on something they did little research on. I really respect your stance as always that game developers should be left alone to make their art and not worry about how people might want to change their vision - but how the game has developed and changed isn't black and white like that. The things that have improved/changed are even within the realm of possibility that they came up with every bit of it, and what lines up with what we said could be coincidental. We can't prove that in most cases one way or the other, and funny thing is, Mike was generally disappointed with the forum's old feedback process because he didn't think it was doing anything.

If you're still unsure - as for the direction, creation process and point of the trailer itself using those comments - those are not examples that the team used for the improvement of the game or what they showed ArtPlay. Those comments were screenshots that Angel and myself cut (and I think castledan did some, or his own lol) from around the net in one night when he told us he needed things like it for a trailer. Specifically, April 12. I know he didn't already have these things from showing the team before because it took us a long time to actually find these things lol; in our minds it seemed like there were more of them than there really are. I was worried about what he might do with that stuff at first, but what ended up happening was executed very well and put my fears at ease. Until, at least I guess a week later when Kotaku decides to be Kotaku about the whole thing.

edit: Oh, lastly, I commented on this article when I saw it, but I really wish I hadn't. Here's the text of it:

Is this being serious? Anyway:

“Because in situations like this one, being toxic seems like a good way to get results.”

This is not the case at all, and as you can see from everywhere else and the votes on the video itself, the reception to the trailer was universally very positive. Neither the community nor the developers are toxic, they just listen and improve things, and I don’t know why someone would try to tear that down or villainize it in some way. I am a community leader as a fan, and all of us, and including the people quoted in these comments, are happy and satisfied.

The video itself shows self-awareness of their criticism by calling the first comparison on the left “poop”, besides. Regardless, thanks at least for the alarmist marketing.

purifyweirdshard

To be fair, i remember that i was part of that feedback myself. I may be wrong, and i don't want to sound pretentious at all, but i remember thart the 2016 demo feedback thread wa something i made (and they made it official on the kickstarter page) and the procedural generation discussion was something i made too (and they made a whole update to talk about it, due to that), so, i do know that they listened to us. What i wrote up there didn't sound good enough, I DO KNOW they listened to us and to constructive criticism, I understand your reasoning, and to be fair, i said "mostly", not "everyone". I think you are right and i refrain from what i said, BUT, that trailer itself does give the vibe that they listened to "whinning" instead of constructive criticism.

Also, i usually dislike a bit when IT SOUNDS LIKE people are generically attacking gaming journalism (i'm not saying this is the case). I am graduated on journalism myself (although i don't work with it, but with soemthing completely different, long story) and gaming journalism is indeed a very hard job. Neutrality doesn't actually exist (yes, we learn that on journalism college, at the first year), EVERYTHING has a point of view. What gaming journalists do, and what any journalist SHOULD do, is try to present a point of view based on facts and evidence that can support their claims.
I didn't said that article is good, it actually fails to do the deeper research to say what it said, but that article had a good point in pointing out that the "louder wins", based on that video, they didn't followed all the four years of Bloodstained development, and, to be fair, no one would do such a huge and time-consuming research just to write an article on Kotaku, so, from this point of view, the article itself didn't fail completely. It is based on evidence at hand: Bloodstained trailers and interviews.

Also, gaming journalism is like any other kind of journalism: you have X articles / news / texts to produce with a certain deadline and good luck researching, interviewing and digging up evidence and facts to support everything you are typing.
Deep research is part of the job, but who would do such a research just to talk about one game in a sea of articles and texts inside Kotaku anyways...

But i was wrong on some parts of what i said, so i accept that and take back what i said.

Finding it a bit humorous to read how it missed a 2017 deadline which was stated during 2016 that it was a date they had to put because Kickstarter mandated a release date so they chose a SotN reference. The feedback seeming to be "vague" shows all the person who wrote this article went on was the video; as if a video in less than five minutes is going to highlight the complaints about lighting and depth in the image, something backers on the Discord constantly brought up, and why IGA and co brought in a studio to literally do cleanup in this respect.

This was written by a person who seemingly doesn't understand Castlevania, Koji Igarashi, and the history of Bloodstained other than a Google search. Screams like an article that's all about faking knowledge to come off as knowledgable.

Nothing to see here folks, just Kotaku things.

The article is pretty much a glorified blog post that does its best to overtly imply that gamers are bad meanies that bully the innocent developers into making worse games. In other words, a hitpiece that completely twists what is actually happening. I wouldn't even really complain but this guy is getting paid for this aggressive lack of journalism (maybe, see Persona 5).

Kotaku must be one of the most bewildering outlets there are. On most days, they're desperately trying to make mountains out of the tiniest molehills they find, then see if they can be warped to fit the idea of "gaming crowd is bad and they should feel bad", whether the facts or the context agree with that.
Hell, considering the Persona 5 lyrics thing, this article might not have been anything more than "Bloodstained trailer is weird but IGA seems to be handling it well. Kudos to the man." when the original writer wrote it. But then it was handed over to the editors and the end result is this mess, completely twisting both what actually happened and the original intent of the writer.

But then once in a blue moon Jason Schreier does some actual journalistic work and posts some stellar stuff onto Kotaku. The duality is very odd.

1. Developer / Publisher release demo for backers and specifically ask for feedback.

2. Community response is overwhelmingly positive towards the gameplay but lukewarm towards the graphics, for which they provide detailed, constructive feedback, producing comparison videos, screenshots and highly detailed critiques. Countless other QOL-related suggestions are also made.

3. Brand Manager and Co. note all these critiques, convene with developer and conclude that yes, the critiques are valid and the game will do better critically and financially if the issues noted by backers are addressed. They accordingly delay the game and let the backers know that, when next they show it, it shall kick ass. 

4. Game is shown and, surprise! It kicks ass!

5. Kotaku calls backers whinny little bitches.

6. Bloodstained community utters a collective sigh, as members get on with their lives, looking forward to playing bloodstained about a month from now.