I'm usually a very lazy person, but when I read your statements in this thread, Nifflas, I just had to create an account to post my opinion here! I'm not a native speaker, so please excuse possible mistakes.
This is gonna be a long post I guess...
First off, I recently bought KU and I've played halfway through chapter 3. And although I don't like everything about the game, I really don't know how to express the joy that the game is for me. I've played some games throughout my life and I think that all Knytts (including KU!) are some of the best games I ever played. But I will adress the details later on.
The tl;dr-Version of this post is: I agree with all of the people answering OP in this thread. As I see it, KU received the most criticism for matters that are personal taste. People tend to express their thoughts as facts - that an artstyle/game mechanic/story element is 'inferior' or 'superior'. However, when you reach a certain level of refinement, it simply isn't possible to compare elements in a way that the one is 'better' than the other. KU - as well as the other games in the Knytt universe - seem to me as games that are very much thought through. Therefore I think that a simple "Knytts/KS's artstyle was better" doesn't do each game any justice. I guess the main reason for people voicing their opinions in that way is simple: They get emotional when talking about a feature they don't like and for that reason tend to say it's objectively 'bad'. They are disappointed that their tastes are not met.
I think you already know all of the stuff I'm trying to tell you, Nifflas, but I want to stress that again: Don't let these statements go to your head. They are, for the most part, not written with evil ('trolling') intentions, but... let's just say... phrased poorly.
Think of it in that way: People get so emotional about your work that they have to contact you in order to express their feelings, and that's a good thing. I too find myself playing games or enjoying movies/music and thinking: "You know what? It would be reeeaally cool if that thing was different." I guess everyone can relate to that. And if the bottom line of the medium you're experiencing is, that the (subjectively!) negative elements don't outweigh the positive ones you get frustrated. That happens to every one of us. How often did I think about contacting a band or writing a review, suggesting them to "make the new album more like this album than that", because I just needed to get this out of my system. It's just that desire that with my 'help', I can contribute to a 'better' result. Yet I've never contacted any artist about his work, because I share the thought, that I would distort the artists way of doing his thing. I can't be the one to superimpose my tastes on the ones of the artist as if the artist was just a worker constructing a product for my personal appeal. The work belongs spiritually solely to the artist, and no other person is able to view it from his perspective. However, as I mentioned before, I as a consumer can understand when people do that, because it's just so damn tempting to write in some forum expressing my opinion in the hope of being considered for future developments. And that's the way you should read these statements: as emotionally influenced opinions that are for the most part not posted with evil intentions, but with a desire to be heard and considered. But in most cases they cannot understand why the artist made something in a particular way, because only the artist can.
In short, I'm just repeating the old truth - "just do your thing." Like me, there are a lot of people which find all of your work incredibly unique and awesome, and if you did something just for the sole purpose of meeting someones taste, it wouldn't be as honest and good. Even if you made a game I disliked, it would be great if it's the real you making it and not some mashed up opinions on the internet in order to reach the most common denominator.
That is NOT to say that one should ignore criticism. It's just the line between actual flaws and personal taste which gets obscured far too often. I also don't want to say that you should completely ignore other opinions. To be in constant self-doubt and to view the things from the perspective of someone whose opinion you do not share is the essence of creativity. But it gets harmful when you discuss with someone who cannot view the things from your perspective.
That all said, lets get to MY opinion of KU and its criticism. I know, I know, according to the things I said, I shouldn't write this, but there's a point to it other than simply voicing my opinion, I promise!!
- the ball: I must confess that I didn't play WADF just because of this mechanic. I tried playing it, but I don't have the best reactions and I'd say that I'm a bit clumsy considering my motor skills. But I think that, as an ability in KU only useful at some challenges, I've as of yet managed to handle it. The game has gripped me so far that I have tried some challenges countless times until I managed to succeed. That's a big thing for me as I get easily frustrated. Yet the game manages (much like Hotline Miami) for me to say to myself: "Ah, let's have just one more try, this time I CAN do it."
- the story: as I haven't played through the whole game as of now, so I cannot discuss that to the full degree, but I have witnessed one thing - man, your way of narrating the story (phrasing of the dialogues) is the best one I experienced in a loooong time. Let me explain that: the most games tend to go in either a very 'sober' way of telling things, keeping the language casual, occasionally throwing in swear-words when appropriate. They just want to make conversations like in real life that depict their setting. Telltale's The Walking Dead would be a good example for that. No magic, no hero-story, just the real world gone to hell. Then there's other games which have a symbolic language, which - when well executed - gets almost a poetic note. The last game I played where I expericenced that to some degree was Alice: Madness Returns. But I'm sure that there are countless other examples. These games have in most cases settings that are extremely solemn and other-worldly. Now, KU manages to merge both worlds in a way which I've never seen before. The 'poetic' games tend to be overly serious, whereas the 'sober' games like to keep it very colloquial. I literally laughed out loud at some lines which were spoken in KU because it just was so hilarious. The setting is so beautiful, yet I guess your idea was to kinda de-mystify the world by showing that there are actually normal people living in it with normal problems and normal language. And that clash of the themes for me is the coolest thing ever! It's poking fun at both ways of designing a game and that's so funny, but not in an obvious way. I understand that there can be other opinions to that, but the vulgar language - only used in certain moments - didn't break the immersion for me at all. To the contrary, It made the world you play in even more interesting. That way of fitting the dialogues to the setting really blew my mind, and I think that's also what I like the most about KU as of yet... The message I get from this is an extremely positive one: Don't take things too seriously.
- the art style: I must say that I also had to get used to KUs art style. I don't really know which style I personally like better, but I must say one thing about pixel art. Sure, it's hell of a lot work to draw even simple sprites, but in my opinion pixel art is a rather 'cheap' way of making something really charming. I guess that has something to do with what you give the viewer's brain to interpret. If you compare Monkey Island 1/2 to Monkey Island 3, I would say that I like the first two better. But like reading a book, MI1/2 leave room for the brain to interpret/visualize the things seen on the screen. In other words, I would maybe see the face of Guybrush quite differently than someone else, while we both start with the same pattern of pixels. That's a good thing, because what you 'complete' with your imagination will always be pretty for you. When you, on the other hand, take a distinctive art style, the viewer's brain can interpret nothing, it just sees what it sees. So the immediate consequence of that is that you have to 'get used' to it, even if you don't like it. But the advantage of such an artstyle is, that it's unique. Sure, you can achieve some level of uniqueness with pixel art, if not a very high level. But not choosing pixel art is always more 'on the spot'. I know, it's a matter of taste, but after playing some of the game, the art style really grew on me and I think KU is a very pretty game.
- there's some criticism I can understand. But - as I said - these aspects are based on my personal opinion. I think it wouldn't be that productive to name them here. They do not outweigh the overwhelming ammount of positive aspects for me...
To sum it all up, I'd say that I surely would have designed certain aspects of KU differently. I guess everyone except you would have to some degree.
I can understand your frustration, considering that you simply have to look at blatant aspects like sales for your games in order to keep doing what you do. I think what matters is that you have to stay positive, even to the people using harsh words to value your games. It's just human communication, which is terribly ineffective and often misses the point it wants to convey.
Just do what you want to, and if that means brewing the meanest beer in town, go for it! And if you reboot under a new name, PM me.
I promise you to... uhm... instantly write you an E-Mail telling you that all your previous stuff was WAYYY BETTER!!!