333 réponses à ce sujet

[Firky]

nightscrawl wrote...

Let's take the "show full dialog line" issue. People have thrown out various examples from other games in order to show that it can be done, so why doesn't Bioware just do that? According to David, "Displaying the full text of the line for a voiced PC does not work for us. We investigated it. We tried it out, and discussed it, and ultimately discarded the idea." I highly doubt they are going to elaborate more than that. We just have to take their word on it and wait to see the result of their paraphrase tinkering before we decide.

Unfortunately, there will still be people who will still insist that it can be done another way, even though they don't know why the devs "ultimately discarded the idea."

I think that's a good example. Trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who is really invested in showing the full line (which I'm not, in a particularly potent sense) well then, either why not? Or, of course they could do it. (They could  - it just doesn't work for them, for whatever reason.) I think, then, moving on to, well why are you doing multiplayer? Is a logical next step. (Probably not very useful to anyone, but logical.)

Maybe I don't really understand the thread because it feels a bit - thou shalt not say x, y, z - to me. I find that hard to reconcile in any discussion.

[nightscrawl]

Gotta quote, Jimmy. Too many people responding to use " ^ " .

Firky wrote...

Maybe I don't really understand the thread because it feels a bit - thou shalt not say x, y, z - to me. I find that hard to reconcile in any discussion.

I don't think that's the case though. I'll just repost something I wrote earlier in the thread...

I don't believe that Shorts suggested that implementation shouldn't be discussed at all, rather that if it is discussed, it is still framed in the manner of your preference, rather than why or how the devs should do something to conform to your preference. (This is a general you, not directed at anyone in particular.)

Modifié par nightscrawl, 23 janvier 2013 - 09:58 .

[Orian Tabris]

^ I was hoping someone would point that out.

[Fast Jimmy]

krul2k wrote...

Few objects tell the history of Thedas as eloquently as the chair. Aesthetics trends, the emergence of new technologies, ergonomics, social and cultural developments are all reflected in the evolution of chair design and specifically the Armchair

my bad couldnae resist

I still get mental pictures of magical, cartoon dancing chairs a la Beauty and the Beast when I see this thread title. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Gotta quote, Jimmy. Too many people responding to use " ^ " .

I know, one of the (MANY) disadvantages of posting primarily from a phone, it makes doing quotes a nightmare with the psychosis-inducing lightbox.

[Firky]

nightscrawl wrote...

Firky wrote...

Maybe I don't really understand the thread because it feels a bit - thou shalt not say x, y, z - to me. I find that hard to reconcile in any discussion.

I don't think that's the case though. I'll just repost something I wrote earlier in the thread...

I don't believe that Shorts suggested that implementation shouldn't be discussed at all, rather that if it is discussed, it is still framed in the manner of your preference, rather than why or how the devs should do something to conform to your preference. (This is a general you, not directed at anyone in particular.)

I take your point, but I still think the way people frame stuff can reveal important information about their position on the subject. Not that I'm trying to play armchair psychologist.

[eroeru]

Firky wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

Firky wrote...

Maybe I don't really understand the thread because it feels a bit - thou shalt not say x, y, z - to me. I find that hard to reconcile in any discussion.

I don't think that's the case though. I'll just repost something I wrote earlier in the thread...

I don't believe that Shorts suggested that implementation shouldn't be discussed at all, rather that if it is discussed, it is still framed in the manner of your preference, rather than why or how the devs should do something to conform to your preference. (This is a general you, not directed at anyone in particular.)

I take your point, but I still think the way people frame stuff can reveal important information about their position on the subject. Not that I'm trying to play armchair psychologist.

I'm with this.

Oh, and that paragraph is really nicely put, nightscrawl.
(if only I didn't get a slight feeling of bad hypocrisy in Shorts' posts, in general and moreso here)

[upsettingshorts]

You mean the thing I acknowledged in my OP? And in several subsequent posts that brought it up as if I didn't do so? That hypocrisy?

It's not really hypocritical to say, "Hey we - and that includes me - keep screwing this up. Maybe we should change because that'd be great for these reasons."

If you want to address my alleged hypocrisy on display elsewhere, feel free to do so in the threads in question.  Maybe I am.  Maybe you're wrong.  Nobody's perfect.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 10:27 .

[eroeru]

Yeah, sorry about not being specific.

And sure, you do acknowledge that your own posts have been at odds with what you're saying here - but in my opinion they continue to do so. As in the comments about MP affecting SP (in ME3).

[upsettingshorts]

I disagree. Please demonstrate how the comments about ME3 are inconsistent with what I have been saying.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 10:36 .

[upsettingshorts]

Filament wrote...

I get that the idea is we should be humble enough to recognize our limits and understand that we're not qualified to hand out prescriptions to the devs. But I think if you get too gung ho in clamping down on such 'offenses' (which is what the internet likes to do more than anything, I find), it can be easy to misplace where that limit actually is, and make it sound like you're just telling people to turn off their imagination altogether. Whereas IMO there's nothing wrong with anyone imagining specifically how they want something to be, the problem is when it comes with the arrogant assurance that their solution is both good and feasible.

Specifically addressed and refuted the idea that I think people need to turn off their imagination and refrain from making requests.

Specifically addressed and refuted the idea that I would engage in anything like a consistent enforcement of these principles.  

Hoorayforicecream specifically addressed the issue with imagining specifically how someone wants something to be.

Meh, I need to take a break from the thread. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 10:41 .

[nightscrawl]

Filament wrote...

... the problem is when it comes with the arrogant assurance that their solution is both good and feasible.

Exactly.

[eroeru]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I disagree. Please demonstrate how the comments about ME3 are inconsistent with what I have been saying.

Ok you're not "armchair-developing" as per your exact narrow definition, but as an example, it does seems you're doing something so very similar here:

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The vast majority of negative
feedback about the integration of multiplayer in ME3 would have been
prevented by changing an integer.

You don't draw upon any "conclusive evidence" to arrive here. It seems clear to me that you simply do not *know* what you're saying. Yet you still post.

And that's good with me. Yet so is most of so-called armchair developer-ing.

Modifié par eroeru, 23 janvier 2013 - 10:46 .

[upsettingshorts]

It's not the same, I visit the forums the same as everyone else and probably more. I can make a reasonable estimation as the content of most complaints I have read. It's not a closed system like game development. Furthermore, since it's not closed, anyone can challenge the assertion that this was indeed the biggest issue people had about ME3 MP, and we can have a substantive debate on the subject. The information we need is within our grasp.

The details of the development process are unknown to us, and will continue to be unknown, save for the glimpses devs offer us from time to time on their own accord. That's the difference.

So sure, you can say it is a bold assertion and demand I provide evidence, and had this been a ME3 MP thread I'd have been sort of compelled to provide it.  But it's not a baseless assumption.

Edit:  Forgot to address the narrow definition of armchair developing.  It's precise and narrow for a reason.  If I'm going to be critical of some behavior, and I'm not precise with regards to what that behavior is then why bother?  If it was broader, it would be less specific, which would mean I'd have to account for more practices and motivations, which would mean I'd have to be broader with my criticisms, which would in turn make the whole thing open to further criticism.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 11:03 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I stand by my post on the previous thread that ME3 had a very poorly received SP experience. It is also Bioware's first game with non-co-op MP.

Can I say that the MP development had absolutely everything to do with the SP being poorly received? No, not without violating USFEO guidelines and common sense.

Can you (or even hoorayforicecream who, despite her extensive game development knowledge, does not work for Bioware and cannot know the inner workings of their process, a fact she pointed out in regards to other developers in a previous post of her's) say that the MP of ME3 had NOTHING to do with the resulting SP campaign that caused such fan outrage? No, you (and her, or anyone else) cannot.

Therefore, can I say DA3 will have MP, therefore the SP will be regarded as a trainwreck? No. BUT... can you, or hooray, or anyone on these forums say that the SP will be completely unaffected by it? No. You cannot.

So me saying that budgets and timelines are affected by such a big piece of the puzzle like MP is just as wrong as anyone other than a Bioware developer saying that the SP development is totally isolated, secure and unrelated to the MP aspect.

It's a two way street, this armchair thing. Just because I don't have the knowledge to say two things are inherently related doesn't give anyone else the right who isn't a Bioware employee to say two things AREN'T inherently related.

And even if they did, I'd still be sure to follow up by asking if the MP segment of a game was finished on time and had a staff in place and being paid to have it live by X date and the SP portion wasn't finished yet, that there would be NO way that the lost money of the MP staff who would just be twiddling their thumbs wouldn't be called into question or result in pressure to get the SP portion of the game out the door sooner than it possibly should be.

[eroeru]

@Shorts
However I still fail to see how the more "closed" nature of the system (yet not entirely closed, is it?) leads us to fault hypothesis'-making of the players. It's not our place to say what sketchy reasonings hit more to the mark than others.  It's maybe the devs' place, and even that is not always so. Hence, *you* by your own program's point-at-hand cannot conclude that they often hit so very off it, hence "should" have felt too humbled to post the program at hand in the first place.

...

Yes, I actually think there's more to Bioware' game-making than Bioware's employees' entirely-closed-system decisions. The "trends" and attitudes in the market, for one thing, largely influence their ideas. We are part of that trend.

I like to see these trends also as having a certain autarchy to them. Sure, the devs' need to be respected more, and I'm also at fault in not taking heed of that sufficiently - because of being a part of the other side in this discussion I do feel I don't take that into account as well as I should. Yet if it's a conflict between expressing something that's essential to my perspective and *not* doing so, politeness and respect aside, and if I think doing so *can possibly* add something to the current of trends then why not...

Being polite is one thing, and entirely useful/required, but framing what I "should" say by epistemic "what I know" does seem unnatural, and certainly not "rational", at least as "in every case". I'd agree that it's wrong and ill-conceived to make up my mind on something so that it wouldn't change in any case - but to require spoken thought to framework into "don't know much, hence cannot hypothesize" (or hypothize a defence for the hypotheses:P) is entirely (too) constraining in my view.



ok, I'm done with editing for clarity, grammar and additional thoughts.

Modifié par eroeru, 24 janvier 2013 - 12:02 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

@Fast Jimmy: Unless I am mistaken, the only thing poorly received about ME3's SP campaign was the ending. The rest of the game was fine. Its would be dishonest to say the entire SP game was poorly received.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 23 janvier 2013 - 11:10 .

[Xewaka]

Pseudocognition wrote...
@Fast Jimmy: Unless I am mistaken, the only thing poorly received about ME3's SP campaign was the ending. The rest of the game was fine. Its would be dishonest to say the entire SP game was poorly received.

Clearly you fail to understand how the ending retroactively turned the whole Mass Effect into the worst videogame franchise EVURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR and RUINED GAMING FOREVEREERERRRRRRRRR and several other hiperbolic statements.

[axl99]

Several thousand other hyperbolic statements.

Actually they're over 9000.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It's a two way street, this armchair thing. Just because I don't have the knowledge to say two things are inherently related doesn't give anyone else the right who isn't a Bioware employee to say two things AREN'T inherently related.

No one, not even hoorayforicecream, is saying that MP and SP are completely isolated from each other in development, because no one has that information.

We are simply trying to assert that nobody knows ANYTHING about what goes on behind the scenes and to assume anything and base arguments and suggestions around those assumptions is unhelpful behavior.

The thing we do know on this subject: Resources are alotted for SP. Other resources are alotted for MP.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 23 janvier 2013 - 11:26 .

[Masha Potato]

Can you exlain HOW EXACTLY do you think ME3 MP affected the ending (which carried like 75% of the fan outrage) Fast Jimmy? Because so far you're just throwing out very non-specific assumptions asking people to somehow prove them wrong to you. That's hardly a constructive argument going on

[mcsupersport]

1) This thread is actually in the wrong location...it more propperly should be in the off-topic forum as it doesn't really pertain to DA:I but instead is a commentary on posting in a forum.

2) The idea that MP in ME3 took away resources or hurried development causing them to "half-arse" the ending is what most people(MP tack on haters) think. They feel that Bioware used people and thinking time on MP instead of working out a great ending as they promised. Whether this is true or not is impossible to prove for or against and thus will be argued into the mists of time.

Modifié par mcsupersport, 23 janvier 2013 - 11:44 .