kreszantas wrote:Darkside, conjecture like this without supporting facts puts your statement into a very dismissive and demeaning tone. (at least in the text world)
That was the intention, actually. I find people dictating my opinions to me somewhat insulting.
kreszantas wrote: Could you give us your feelings of why you feel this is wrong? What is causes this update, in your mind to be cast in such a negative light? This is a new writing medium, therefore I feel that there is going to be some sort of disconnect with this style, due to it being an "after discussion" of a closed book. I personally felt like it was a compendium or a bonus feature that could be marketed as a "additional piece" much like a subscriber email update feed, only we have to go to it instead of it being auto-sent to a mass email list that is constantly changing. (my viewpoint on this will send this thread on a tangent.)
When Giant first posted about the klogs, my first thought was "Oh great, we'll get a few sentences and a picture instead of a comic, and it'll be a waste while dragging the comic down." What I saw changed my mind immediately; they were large text dumps with a single illustration, yes, but what they did was clarify and advance the plot, while also letting us see Parson's internal thought processes without going "Then Parson though/wondered/speculated." They also provided things like hard facts and numbers not likely to come up in conversation, but that made perfect sense in the context of a paper or computer record. When this was first advertised as "Similar to the klogs", I assumed similar in purpose, and not design.
This entry was what I was originally afraid the klogs would be; an empty bit of text and a picture.