Youtuber Wrel uploaded this video for his Thoughts on Better gaming series. I found it interesting so thought I'd share. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AI_hlN5Hp0 "Beyond the concerns about dev studios living up to promises they made, I think a lot of this "more, more, more" comes from how our vision of a game conflicts with the reality of a game's life cycle. First you have a lot of development, then the game launches, then the game eventually goes on life support, possibly dies. As players, we want to see the games we enjoy in constant development. We don't want them to become a maintenance project, we want them to continually provide us with new experiences. So [the] more we think we're being listend to the more we ask to be done for us." - Wrel in above video's afterthoughts. ---- I fold my slice.
You'll have to forgive me for not watching, but I'm gonna up my post count a little here and continue with saying I'll agree that transparency is a tricky thing to deal with. Particularly with an eagerly awaited project. With transparency: You see all the changes, the could-have-beens, the might-haves, and see them one, by one, two by two, thrown away as priorities shift, technology changes, and reality stomps down hard. Without transparency: You get what happened to World of Darkness online. You hear absolutely goddamn nothing for years, and then "It's dead guys." You get the Bioware slogan: "You see it when it's done." I don't know what's more infuriating, because even WITH transparency, you still are going to come across empty patches of development where nothing can reliably be said. Where so many changes are being wrought, or just shit is so unstable, that people can't really say whats happening, and it all goes dark.
Great video! I was a third party developer for a game called Myth2 and I totally get what this guy is talking about.
I've been saying on occasion that the community here often proves it does not understand and cannot handle early design realities (goals and possibilities shifting which you can do little about, even when you've made a "promise". Reality doesn't change because you promised.). The devs are forced to make a change that pains them more than anyone else, and people waste hour upon hour clamouring for the change to be "undone", while that is just not an option that ever existed as the change would not be here if it was. I don't think any game developer reading these forums would ever opt to go the transparent route themselves. It's just so much of a hassle.
short version of the video: "the internet" people opinion are personal, not a blob of all the opinion on a forum and the comment section of some social network. nothing more to add. and the issue was never be the change of direction but how was communicate to the players. A day the tecnology work perfectly with pages and pages of explanation, the next day the same tecnology don't work at all we need to find a totally different approach. Instead of "we still have to test some stuff and we can tell you how this will work", we have the pages and pages of answer about how the tecnology will work, and why they have make certain decision on the game development based on that tecnology (like for example the hitscan weapons).
but I fold two pieces into a pizza sandwich, why is there no poll option for me? but on topic, I feel as though transparency increasing demands is kind of true, I've been looking at Space hulk Deathwing and the developers have said very little that the fans hadn't already heard, and I haven't heard a lick of complaint other than wanting the game to be out now. But, with other games that have been very transparent leading up to launch/beta/alpha what have you, I'veven seen quite a lot of complaining about things people haven't had the ability to actually experience yet.
Pretty much proving my point here. The community asks tons of questions, gets "pages and pages" of answers about how everything is "going" to work, then when things change by necessity you are angry about having gotten those answers in the past. When you don't get answers because "we're still testing it", you are also angry. We must understand that *everything* the devs say, no matter how often they say it, is subject to change. We must understand that even the things they are certain of today, 100% certain, can have hidden flaws that will mean changes in plans tomorrow. If you want the devs to only tell you something when it is 100% certain, beyond any shadow of doubt, impossible to change, then you would get 0 info. Because nothing is certain. "One day it seems like it is going to work, the next day the same thing doesn't work and a different approach needs to be found." -> This is how it works and how it will always work. When this happened, people should have gotten a revelation: "Ah, so this is how uncertain game design is, I learned something today." But many people here believe in a dreamland where the devs are superhumans who can predict every problem that might come up ahead of time, and refuse to believe the lesson they were taught. If we want transparency, we must learn to live with disappointment. We have to be ready to hear "sorry, it does not work as we hoped" and accept that these things happen. Think about it logically, realize that this is how it works, and accept it. As you said yourself: I thought that was a very wise thing for you to say. There is a solid reason behind what the devs do. They have more info than us. It is wise to consider that in our disappointment and anger.
*sound of nail being hit firmly on head* Something to carve in 15 foot high letters on the forums. Problem is, people seem to want transparency that the game is being built exactly as they imagine it, where all promises are always made early and kept, and where nothing ever goes wrong or has to be scrapped or delayed. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.
This is rooted deeply into psychology. Loss aversion, specifically. We are hard-wired to hate losing something more than we like gaining something. If you give a man 5 monies and then take four away again, you will leave him more unhappy than he was before. Even though he gained 1 money. Losses are twice as powerful as gains. So in order for people to be "happy", the EW team would have to come out with two times more unexpected positive things than unexpected negative ones. Which is never going to happen. So ultimately, it's just human nature. It still annoys me, though.
I thought of what's going on with Eldar & Orks currently after I watched the video. They're focusing on the core and sticking with 2 similar factions makes sense for efficiency. They've also said they need to get enough stuff for a stream along with the permissions to show the stuff. But there's still pressure from crusaders on them, mostly for Eldar. Strange that. I also remembered something. Nathan said this before in a part of the updates he gives us in the forums, "Mainly because we think we found a way to start off with territories containing 3 outposts, the strongold, the campaign aspect and so forth, all as one open world, each even as big as 16x16KM if we deem that fun. Then we have multiple territories as before. You will see us attempt to do that in closed alpha or beta." - here in "One of those early morning tea messages from the crusher of dreams" That thread title alone tells on transparency but he makes a few more posts in there. One highlight is this, "We don't know yet, so I'll say same for now just to keep us grounded here, we're still setting up and testing. But I think it'll be more fun still. Defending the territory means you need to spread out etc. and with a territory being open already, I think the upcoming expansions post-launch are more likely to include bikes, flyers etc. than earlier than before. They have more of a purpose. But this is all friendly speculation. I'm throwing you guys a bone and being transparent. But sharing good hopeful news should be good. Hopefully. I'm sure someone will say "BUT YOU PROMISED" but you know I won't care because I'm evil. I don't know why that came out in bold and red, probably the devil inside me." - here. The fact he has to remind people that it's speculation, even to Devs, and subject to testing so unconfirmed tells about people with transparency too. To me that goes without saying. Past events not only related to EC make me think that way plus it's just how I am. Patient and tolerant. I like to think he's having fun with talking like that but still there's got to be a reason (like internet folk being aggravating). I know I couldn't stick with it. He does stick with the transparency thing still so there's that too. Which is great and I am certainly appreciative of it. It shows his professionalism too and what he says shows he's human. Can apply that to the other devs too, they're not work machines to be "smacked" when something isn't working right (only the orc peon in Warcraft 3 can truly claim the title of Work Machine lol). --- Side thing: Some more transparency if people didn't know yet! The sound designer Ian Chuprun aka Noisemaker made a thread dedicated to the sounds of the game, @ "Let's Make Some Noise!" ---- Because I haven't even heard of that method. It makes so much sense that I'm confused why I havn't! I shall now try it.
