I apparently received an e-mail from Chris Crawford today. The e-mail address seems legit, as does the writing style.
I just wanted to point out that this is one of those times when I appreciate the opportunity given by blogs.
I can badmouth an industry veteran and every so often they will send me an e-mail telling me that I'm wrong. Oh, and that I'll eat my words.
Awesome.
4 comments:
Interesting. I haven't even blipped on his radar yet, and I have done my share of straw-man burning.
I've been there. I had a long e-mail argument with him at one point. It was every bit as mature, farsighted, and knowledgeable as Chris Crawford's reputation would imply.
You know, he's really just a good person trying to do something interesting and untested. His only real fault, in my opinion, is that he's developed Storytron by the waterfall method, instead of testing non-extensible prototypes to make sure his interaction model was solid. I think it will prove to be solid, but only for a specific range of niches. He's also a generation older than most of us, I guess half a generation older than you, but you can chalk up his goofs to that difference in perspective.
I can understand Corvus' arguments about participation vs. explortion of dramatic environments, thats a dichotomy I find useful in application.
I don't understand why Thomas has to beat up on him so much, let the man work. Its hard enough trying to pursue your dreams without funding when you don't have hundreds of people on the net besmirching your name and efforts.
Now I personally think my efforts regarding "interactive storytelling" will be more commercially succesful, but I'll see to it that Crawford is remembered for his vital contributions to the foundations of game design and its future forms.
Don't be ridiculous. I'm not stopping him from working. Clearly I don't have any power to do that. Nor have I personally denied him funding, and I have no way to stop other people from funding him if they wanted to do so. As far as I can tell, nothing's stopping him from pursuing, more's the pity.
He's said stupid things in the past, and I've pointed out why those things were stupid. He publicizes his "interesting and untested" ideas with inflammatory and insulting rhetoric, then pretends to be hurt that people don't react with adulation. Welcome to the world of being a public figure. If he didn't want to be critiqued, he shouldn't be writing online.
The e-mail exchange in question took place after he wrote his ill-considered Escapist piece on women and their genetic desire for soap operas and romance novels. He responded a couple months later to the letter that I sent to the editors, which they did not publish. In other words, he went looking for trouble, and I was happy to help him find it.
It is always the height of irony when someone attempts to defend a dream by calling for the silencing of its critics.
Post a Comment