333 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

'shorts, I admire the Quixote in you.

Mine's a little beaten and battered by dealing with the wild west nature of the Obsidian forums so I've been laying low lately.

But I admire it when I see it.

Keep fighting for rational, reasonable discussion. Even if you have to use snark to do it.

[Fast Jimmy]

MerinTB wrote...

'shorts, I admire the Quixote in you.

Mine's a little beaten and battered by dealing with the wild west nature of the Obsidian forums so I've been laying low lately.

But I admire it when I see it.

Keep fighting for rational, reasonable discussion. Even if you have to use snark to do it.

Preach rational thought every day. If necessary, use words. 

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...
The baseless insistence that the presence of MP MUST somehow be affecting SP is armchair-developing.

There are several developers who've made recent public statements to the effect that publishers push MP onto games where it doesn't belong for monetization purposes, and they cite it detracting from developer focus and resources and affecting the tone of the game.  Example here and here.

That doesn't mean that the same is true with Bioware, but with EA pushing online components on all its game, it's not too long a leap to think that making the game better is not the drive here.

So developer comments are taken at face value when they reinforce existing biases towards the inclusion of multiplayer, but when developer comments say the opposite (from obscure and not relevant companies such as say, BioWare, for example) are we supposed to treat them with suspicion?  

If BioWare is, in such cases, alleged to have an agenda in presenting the case the way they do, and that is usually the response.  Why do we not filter Yager Developments (Spec Ops: The Line) comments through the same lens?  Maybe they're just making excuses.  Do you know?  I don't know.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:30 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Are other developers armchair developing?

...mind blown.

[lil yonce]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Preach rational thought every day. If necessary, use words.

I like this gospel.

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Are other developers armchair developing?

...mind blown.

Nah, but I think they know their audience.  It's an audience with certain.... preconceptions.

I mean, if you can pander to a person, you also know how to make excuses they'll believe.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:38 .

[Iosev]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...
The baseless insistence that the presence of MP MUST somehow be affecting SP is armchair-developing.

There are several developers who've made recent public statements to the effect that publishers push MP onto games where it doesn't belong for monetization purposes, and they cite it detracting from developer focus and resources and affecting the tone of the game.  Example here and here.

That doesn't mean that the same is true with Bioware, but with EA pushing online components on all its game, it's not too long a leap to think that making the game better is not the drive here.

So developer comments are taken at face value when they reinforce existing biases towards the inclusion of multiplayer, but when developer comments say the opposite (from obscure and not relevant companies such as say, BioWare, for example) are we supposed to treat them with suspicion?  

If BioWare is, in such cases, alleged to have an agenda in presenting the case the way they do, and that is usually the response.  Why do we not filter Yager Developments (Spec Ops: The Line) comments through the same lens?  Maybe they're just making excuses.  Do you know?  I don't know.

I think that this is just simply different developers have different perspectives.  Rather than thinking that one developer is lying and one is being truthful, I think that it is safer to think that developers can view or want different things.

[upsettingshorts]

arcelonious wrote...

I think that this is just simply different developers have different perspectives.  Rather than thinking that one developer is lying and one is being truthful, I think that it is safer to think that developers can view or want different things.

Or have a different relationship with their publishers.

Or simply do things differently.

Who knows?

The only thing is if some comments are going to be treated one way for an arbitrary reason, and another set of comments treated another way for a different arbitrary reason, well... it's not getting anyone anywhere but back where they started:  Their assumptions about game development.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:41 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Are other developers armchair developing?

...mind blown.

Nah, but I think they know their audience.  It's an audience with certain.... preconceptions.

I mean, if you can pander to a person, you also know how to make excuses they'll believe.

Preconceptions? ...or ArmChairception?!!! 

<Cue Loud Inception Fog Horn>

I was waiting to see your response to my Save Import reply last page, btw. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:48 .

[upsettingshorts]

If you're listing your likes/dislikes, and saying you wouldn't mind if [x] was removed, and have extensive developer comments to back you up... I'm not sure precisely where I could object.

What I'm advocating for here, or more usefully, against, is baseless assumptions and pretension towards developers. If neither of those things are present, it's not an issue this thread is really intended to address.

Hoorayforicecream or someone else might have a better or different answer though.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
So developer comments are taken at face value when they reinforce existing biases towards the inclusion of multiplayer, but when developer comments say the opposite (from obscure and not relevant companies such as say, BioWare, for example) are we supposed to treat them with suspicion? 

2K and Take Two/ Irrational are obscure, really?  It goes to the statement that complaints about MP affecting SP campaigns and developer resources and focus can only be armchair developing.  Or do real game devs engage in armchair developing, too, if their names aren't illustrious enough for your list?

While I agreed with the sentiment of the thread, and in general that players should focus on talking about their experience and be respectful of developers as people and professionals, this seems to me a bit like trying to shut up the plebes- at least the ones who disagree with you.  Who appointed you BSN arbiter anyway?

On the subject of players talking about their experience, I'd also add that in DA2 marketing and post-mortem, Bioware was guilty of basically telling Origins fans that our experience didn't matter.  So they didn't set a very good tone with fans themselves.  Allen does a good job of cutting through bull graciously, however, so kudos to him.

[hoorayforicecream]

Addai67 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...
The baseless insistence that the presence of MP MUST somehow be affecting SP is armchair-developing.

There are several developers who've made recent public statements to the effect that publishers push MP onto games where it doesn't belong for monetization purposes, and they cite it detracting from developer focus and resources and affecting the tone of the game.  Example here and here.

That doesn't mean that the same is true with Bioware, but with EA pushing online components on all its game, it's not too long a leap to think that making the game better is not the drive here.

But it's still speculation. And as such, since you really don't know all of the facts, any sort of demands about how they allocate resources is still armchair development - you aren't a producer on the project, you don't know what the production schedule is, you don't know what resources are available, you don't know how those resources are allocated, and you won't know any of these things unless Bioware chooses to tell you (if at all).

There is no way that you can draw an informed conclusion from this. All you can do is infer from a handful of examples out of hundreds of games with multiplayer in them how things might be for Bioware, and you can't do that with any sort of accuracy. For every Spec Ops: The Line and Bioshock Infinite, there's also Gears of War, Mass Effect 3, Assassin's Creed, Journey, Call of Duty, Madden NFL, FIFA, Team Fortress 2, Duke Nukem Forever, Far Cry 3, and all sorts of other games with multiplayer who don't necessarily have the sorts of problems that Yager or Irrational had, or who had other development problems, or who had a good plan and executed it well.

It isn't necessarily applicable, and there's no way you'd know if you were right or wrong without being privy to the development process yourself. Which is why you shouldn't do it... because it's all speculation on your part. Developers don't all follow the same rules, or have the same relationships with the same publishers, and each project is different. I've worked on a LOT of different projects, and while there is certain continuity within a studio, it certainly doesn't apply between studios.

If there's something about multiplayer you dislike in particular (I don't want it to affect my Single Player experience, I don't like horde mode, I don't like leaderboards, I don't like random items from packs, etc.) then by all means, share what you do and don't like and why. But saying things like "I don't want you to take zots away from single player to make multiplayer" has very little inherent value to any developer because you have no idea if they are or are not even doing such a thing, and they certainly aren't going to tell you. It's just more noise that they have to wade through to get to the useful stuff.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:07 .

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

So developer comments are taken at face value when they reinforce existing biases towards the inclusion of multiplayer, but when developer comments say the opposite (from obscure and not relevant companies such as say, BioWare, for example) are we supposed to treat them with suspicion? 

2K and Take Two/ Irrational are obscure, really?

You missed the point.

By labeling BioWare's comments on the subject as "obscure" and "irrelevant" I was criticizing your choice of having quoted other developers on the issue of multiplayer integration when BioWare has talked about their own games.  The games we are, you know, talking about.  As a source for discussing multiplayer in BioWare games, BioWare is an inherently better one than some other company with some other publisher talking about some other game.  Unless you're treating them as inconsistently truthful for arbitrary reasons.  

Addai67 wrote...

 It goes to the statement that complaints about MP affecting SP campaigns and developer resources and focus can only be armchair developing.  Or do real game devs engage in armchair developing, too, if their names aren't illustrious enough for your list?

You missed the point.

A forum user claiming that multiplayer in a BioWare game will draw resources away from singleplayer in a BioWare game, they are basing that on an assumption.  If they're relying on isolated examples from other companies (statements they are taking at face value) and ignoring BioWare's own statements to the contrary (that they are taking with a grain of salt) they will only be reinforcing their own assumptions.  Which are, as I said, baseless.

Addai67 wrote...

While I agreed with the sentiment of the thread, and in general that players should focus on talking about their experience and be respectful of developers as people and professionals, this seems to me a bit like trying to shut up the plebes- at least the ones who disagree with you.  Who appointed you BSN arbiter anyway?

You missed the point.

I have said from the start that baseless assumptions about game development lead to armchair development.  Another user brought up the specific example of multiplayer "drawing resources" from single player.  This is one of the urban legends I've talked about earlier.  Can it be true?  Sure, if we take 2K's comments at face value, and for the sake of argument I will.  Does it have to be true?  No.  Are any of us qualified to determine when it is true and isn't true?  Nope.  Not in the least.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:07 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsetting Shorts wrote...
You missed the point.

Please tell me you are pre-Law. That's the only way I can wrap my head around things.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Please tell me you are pre-Law. That's the only way I can wrap my head around things.

He's not pre-Law.

He is the law.

[upsettingshorts]

Nah I study History.  But Cicero is one of my favorite figures from antiquity and he had a LOT to say about rhetoric.

Pseudocognition wrote...

He's not pre-Law.

He is the law.

Lol

Obligatory off-topic link to The Onion because it's one of my favorites (NSFW language).

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:22 .

[Iosev]

For me, I simply try to respond respectfully, as well as be mindful of my own ignorance on game development. I'll often talk about game elements that I have no experience from a development perspective, but I'll try not to be rude and assume that I know better than someone in that field of expertise.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I have said from the start that baseless assumptions about game development lead to armchair development.  Another user brought up the specific example of multiplayer "drawing resources" from single player.  This is one of the urban legends I've talked about earlier.  Can it be true?  Sure, if we take 2K's comments at face value, and for the sake of argument I will.  Does it have to be true?  No.  Are any of us qualified to determine when it is true and isn't true?  Nope.  Not in the least. 

So we agree that it's there is at least some basis other than backseat developing for concern about the impact of MP on SP games.  Good.  That's the only reason I posted the links.

[Fast Jimmy]

If there's something about multiplayer you dislike in particular (I don't want it to affect my Single Player experience, I don't like horde mode, I don't like leaderboards, I don't like random items from packs, etc.) then by all means, share what you do and don't like and why. But saying things like "I don't want you to take zots away from single player to make multiplayer" has very little inherent value to any developer because you have no idea if they are or are not even doing such a thing, and they certainly aren't going to tell you. It's just more noise that they have to wade through to get to the useful stuff.

But again, we are back to a point you and I were discussing yesterday.

It is fear that drives these posts. Fear from the player. Because if you say "I don't want SP to interact with MP, I don't want MP to have RNG microtransactions stores and that Horde mode in a DA MP does not sound at all appealing" Bioware, just may, listen to you and make a game that does all of the following. However, what if they DO cut the budget on the SP player because of it, where the story is rushed or the gameplay suffers?

It's not just the developer's fault or their mess to clean up. It's the players who are let down and see their favorite series go down the tubes. A bad business decision may not be something the average gamer can have any knowledge too, but that doesn't mean that game companies don't make them or that they don't hurt the players.

Saying "I don't want the budget of SP to be affected by MP" may not be an argument your average gamer can make, but that doesn't make it not any of their concern. Bad business decisions get made daily... HOURLY, even. Just because someone doesn't have a Ph.D in economics, a graduate degree in Computer Science and twenty years in the gaming industry doesn't mean they aren't afraid a bad business decision will get made by a game developer. Expressing that fear and concern shouldn't be banned or discouraged. Maybe phrased better or even framed better, sure.

But saying "you're not an expert, therefore you have nothing to worry about" is a silly mentality to promote in ANY industry.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:17 .

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

So we agree that it's there is at least some basis other than backseat developing for concern about the impact of MP on SP games.  Good.  That's the only reason I posted the links.

You missed the point.  

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Please tell me you are pre-Law. That's the only way I can wrap my head around things.

Pre-Law, and taking geology? Seems unlikely. Though I suppose it's possible.

Earth Science general education requirement.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:17 .

[Wulfram]

People exposing their mistaken assumptions allows Bioware or others to address them, and thus potentially make them more accepting of the decisions that are made.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Earth Science general education requirement.

Ah. So you are law, then. Interesting.

Actually, he said he was a history major. 

Which, for the record, can be used to enter Law School with the appropriate LSAT scores. I have a friend who did that. I also have a friend with a master's degree in history and wasn't able to do much with it and works at an insurance company. But... I guess that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. 

More on topic, did I read Short's reply earlier correctly? Did I win my validity to post against the Save Import?

Victory for the Forces of Democratic Freedom!

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:40 .