In the current deluge of online commentary, where most voices speak in the performative dialect of brand maintenance and consumer appeasement, Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 was greeted not with discernment but with an undeserved digital hosanna.
We must separate the art from the artist," and the people who preach this so comfortably say it at the same time that—if they notice something they don’t like in a work—they accuse the author of being a fascist or a Nazi, implying that everything they created is, therefore, a corrupt work. "break his skull". Meanwhile, the horrible acts committed by the authors of their favorite manifesto are given a pass because the point is the "intent and its cultural value to art"—absolute nonsense.
Ideas do not exist in a vacuum; they were thought up by men, and therefore, they will put part of themselves into their works. If you add lobbies to the mix, they will obviously do the same. We need to be mature about this topic, as it’s also useless to take the opposite stance and dismiss everything just because. There are levels to this; the implications of an author writing a manifesto are not the same as those of someone writing a song. And among songwriters, a composer who only uses instruments is not the same as one who adds lyrics to their work.
Because of this, there can be works with nefarious messages that have an interesting point, made by questionable people, just as there are works with good teachings that are simply bad, made by truly likable people. You can have talent and be questionable—though in today’s industry, they are simply a bunch of useless hacks subsidized by corporate interests.
But what I’m getting at is that a work can be made by someone questionable but still have some value; at the same time, we can point out their vices within the work and provide a genuine critique. Behaving like those on the "other side" is on par with saying that killing is okay because a murderer told me killing is wrong; therefore, I will do the opposite of what he tells me.
One way to see an author's vices is to observe one of their bad works. For example, James Cameron created great sci-fi works and other hits like Titanic a long time ago; but if you want to see his misanthropic vices, look at one of his bad movies. You will realize that even in his good works, he was already showing how he dragged those ideas along. Once you notice it, you can’t unsee it.
Best review of a review ever. Thank you for highlighting the video, it's even funnier in hindsight.
I mean damn… Even DSP trashed it.
If Phil thinks a game is boring and too full of scripted scenes, maaaybe we can quit pretending it was a masterpiece?
Useful, you should point out other honest reviewers. They're rare.
We must separate the art from the artist," and the people who preach this so comfortably say it at the same time that—if they notice something they don’t like in a work—they accuse the author of being a fascist or a Nazi, implying that everything they created is, therefore, a corrupt work. "break his skull". Meanwhile, the horrible acts committed by the authors of their favorite manifesto are given a pass because the point is the "intent and its cultural value to art"—absolute nonsense.
Ideas do not exist in a vacuum; they were thought up by men, and therefore, they will put part of themselves into their works. If you add lobbies to the mix, they will obviously do the same. We need to be mature about this topic, as it’s also useless to take the opposite stance and dismiss everything just because. There are levels to this; the implications of an author writing a manifesto are not the same as those of someone writing a song. And among songwriters, a composer who only uses instruments is not the same as one who adds lyrics to their work.
Because of this, there can be works with nefarious messages that have an interesting point, made by questionable people, just as there are works with good teachings that are simply bad, made by truly likable people. You can have talent and be questionable—though in today’s industry, they are simply a bunch of useless hacks subsidized by corporate interests.
But what I’m getting at is that a work can be made by someone questionable but still have some value; at the same time, we can point out their vices within the work and provide a genuine critique. Behaving like those on the "other side" is on par with saying that killing is okay because a murderer told me killing is wrong; therefore, I will do the opposite of what he tells me.
One way to see an author's vices is to observe one of their bad works. For example, James Cameron created great sci-fi works and other hits like Titanic a long time ago; but if you want to see his misanthropic vices, look at one of his bad movies. You will realize that even in his good works, he was already showing how he dragged those ideas along. Once you notice it, you can’t unsee it.