333 réponses à ce sujet

[Danny Boy 7]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

Oh I understand, but in an industry like gaming (which yes I'm afraid I have no first person knowledge on so forgive any ignorance on my part (no rudeness intended by previous comment) time contsraint/scheduling etc can't be universal across studios let alone projects. As pseudocognition said it's a very tight knit (my words) community where crossover between developers is natural and not uncommon, but developement of a new product/feature system may take no time at all or forever depending on the people working on it and the tools they have at their disposal. Please correct me if I'm wrong though, but depending on the company say an indie developer compared to a bigger one (maybe not triple A) either could still develop something such as idk a new zone at the same time or drastically different?

I mean from my understanding the mechanics of gaming can take forever, but I (minor indie developer) may beable to produce x feature in a day or two, where big Bioware or Ubisoft may produce that same feature in an hour or so.

So a misundertanding or complete lack of knowledge of developement of a system isn't non-dev specific is all I'm saying. Again I may be wrong though.

The term "indie developer" runs the gamut from the amateurs and hobbyists who make mods and small apps on the app stores to the large established independent studios who do things on their own, like Telltale Games, Obsidian Entertainment, and Double Fine. Saying "indie" isn't really saying much, but what divides the hobbyists from the serious ones is a real production schedule. There's a huge difference between someone who spends their free time on something, and one who actively makes a living doing it.

The other main issue is the sheer size of the project. There's a whole world of difference in terms of scale that one has to think about. While a hobbyist could spend a few weeks on a specific feature, at the AAA level it's about getting the project done within a certain amount of time. It takes this much time to create environment art, so you need this many environment artists. It takes this much time to create game systems, so you need this many gameplay programmers. It takes this much time to create the engine on top of which the game programmers build the tools, so you need this many engine programmers. And as you add more people, you need people to make sure they are getting what they need, tracking the development, and keeping them on schedule. So you need this many producers. The production schedule makes a huge difference.

It's like being a baker at home and making some awesome cupcakes, then deciding you want to start a whole cupcake company. You can't just use your oven and tools at home and ingredients bought from the local supermarket, it doesn't work on the kind of scale you need in order to make a livable wage. You need an industrial oven, wholesale ingredients, a store front, and with it you need bakers to keep the ovens running, store managers to stay on top of the inventory, and cashiers and sales people to make deals and such. There's a world of difference between someone who sells cupcakes on weekends at the flea market, and someone who incorporates and employs people.

As an indie dev, there is some stuff that can potentially carry over. But not everyone understands what it is like at a macro level with dozens of peoples' livelihoods and careers hinging on it, as well as the constraints and requirements involved from multiple sides. Not all indie devs are the same, and not all of them understand what sort of constraints and requirements there are in AAA game development.

Well that's basically what I meant, the term "dev" could be as you said a hobbyist (though I was referring to groups that produce games such as Chivalry) in that the term dev can refer to small three people teams or groups of fifty or such. But the divide is still there, I'm a writer, in that I write reviews for certain magazines, sites and such as a job, I rely on this money as much as I do my security work, but if I were to walk into the actual office where the magazines I write for have their day to day business I'd be as knowledgable of the process as the guy who delivers my boss' donuts. Know what I mean? I sometimes write for competing magazines, but if someone were to just stand around in the office they'd probably pick up more than I do when I deliver my reviews which is getting even less likely due to how most industries are switching to digital as opposed to actual paper.

I visit workshops, take part in get togethers with fellow writers, but beyond word limit and format the jargen is very much company based. But I'm rambling. What I'm saying is that a dev might not seem like a dev, based solely on what they're writing and a non-dev wih a specific skill set may sound like a dev, despite not being one, see what I mean?

You can build a computer...doesn't mean you know how to verbalize how you do it.

[Fortlowe]

I don't know much about cars. I can change the oil, the filters, the spark plugs, maybe even the belt if I got a little direction. Beyond that, I gotta go to a shop. Thing is, I've been driving cars for some time now. My current vehicle for close to ten years. So if I take it somewhere for some work, and she seems a little 'off' when I get her back, well even if I don't know exactly what the problem is, let alone how to fix it, I know there's still a problem. And I take it back and get it fixed.

So this notion that experience requires expertise rings a little hollow if you ask me. I've been gaming longer than a lotta folks on this forum have been breathing air. I know what I like, I know what I don't, I know what I want, and I know why. Just because I no even less about coding than I do about cars doesn't mean I can't tell when something is working for me or not.

[In Exile]

Fortlowe wrote...
So this notion that experience requires expertise rings a little hollow if you ask me. I've been gaming longer than a lotta folks on this forum have been breathing air. I know what I like, I know what I don't, I know what I want, and I know why. Just because I no even less about coding than I do about cars doesn't mean I can't tell when something is working for me or not.

It's more a thing of, if you ask for a new engine, the fact that it's costly doesn't change. And sometimes, it's important to appreciate what the shop gives you.

I don't think shorts is saying people don't know their preferneces really well - what he's saying is that how to get it all to gell, that's harder to do. 

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

@fortlowe: One's personal taste is not what is being criticized here, just the fact that some people presume to know what constitutes 'easy' or 'simple' or whatever else they assume about the actual process of game development.

[Fredward]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

 Before everyone rolls their eyes and dismisses this as yet another parody thread, let's put aside the obvious criticism of certain topics implied by this post's existence and take the topic seriously for a while.

There exists a clear - to me, anyway - issue with regards to the way fans frame their criticisms and requests and that is their our lack of knowledge or experience with how games are actually made.  What does this mean?

It means, often, that such issues are discussed almost entirely reliant on a set of assumptions that are by definition baseless.  It's not impossible to overcome this, of course, sometimes someone with real knowledge  will shed some light on the whole debate, but more often than not people are left to fight over things they really do not understand.  In this manner, fans give themselves permission to believe that playing games for years gives them insight into how they are made, which is the same kind of delusion sports fans yelling at their favorite team's quarterback engage in on a regular basis.

What can be done about this?  Short of educating the entire BSN - which is not possible even if the BSN was willing to admit that they need to be educated at all - there's really only one option:  We need to stop pretending we have a right to have a "conversation" with BioWare.  Or at least, that such a conversation would be useful at all.  This is not an equal partnership.  That is not to say our preferences and opinions are not valuable, on the contrary.  Only that pretending our preferences give us something to teach the developers is not only presumptuous, it introduces a lot of noise into the discussions as half the topic is flooded with arguments over whether or not development even works the way people are assuming (and the answer is almost always "no.").  

Practically this means that when we talk about what we want to see in future installments, or what we didn't like about previous ones, we shouldn't frame a single aspect of our argument on exactly how we think the developers could do something differently.  We should frame it, instead, around what we prefer to experience and why as gamers we prefer to experience it that way. 

In short, telling developers that... for example... a toggle would be an "easy" answer, or that they should "simply" include something, etc, is not productive and just causes bickering among fans, it isn't actually useful to anyone.  Unless providing fodder for internet arguments is a kind of use.  For my part, I've gotten into so many pointless arguments with this board over whether or not something can be implemented or not, and what it might cost to do so, usually with barely any more knowledge of how things actually work than the person I'm arguing with.  It's thoroughly pointless.  

TL/DR:  Could we please just stick to describing what we liked and didn't like and why, and cut back on pretending we actually know how game production works?

I love this post so much I want to take it home, make babies with it and place them in key governmental positions so that the world can be a better place.

[Danny Boy 7]

Pseudocognition wrote...

@fortlowe: One's personal taste is not what is being criticized here, just the fact that some people presume to know what constitutes 'easy' or 'simple' or whatever else they assume about the actual process of game development.

I hope that's not what your getting from what I'm saying if so then I screwed up somewhere.

[axl99]

Fortlowe: Fixing a car is nothing like working with a game engine - be it in a small team setup, a 50-man endeavor or you on your own. The metaphor doesn`t work out here. The expertise required is different.

Besides. You don`t take a game engine you licensed and send it back to its makers and go ``FIX IT``. Silicon Knights tried something similar and look what that got them.

Modifié par axl99, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:26 .

[TEWR]

As a general rule for myself, anytime I say what I'd like to see or not see, I'll tend to preface it by saying "Now, I don't know much about game design". Unless it's stuff that really doesn't need that because... well.... not everything is going to be a case of "Don't know how much of a hassle this might be for Bioware."

Like bowstrings.

But that's rare. As I said, I usually go for an "I'd like to see this. Here's X, Y, and Z for why and here's 1, 2, and 3 for why the game in question didn't accomplish this."

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:35 .

[upsettingshorts]

Fortlowe wasn't trying to compare working as a mechanic to working on a game.  He was trying to compare diagnosing that his car had a problem - because he can recognize when his car has problems, having driven cars for a long time - to knowing when he dislikes something in a game because he has played them for a long time.

Where there's a problem isn't in that comparison. Knowing something unusual is up with your car or game is something you can learn simply from the experience of operating it. The problem is that his example doesn't really address what I'm getting at.

In Fortlowe's car example, he's perfectly justified in taking his car back to his mechanic and telling him that he done goofed. If he then proceeded to tell the mechanic how he should rebuild the engine, or suspension, or w/e, and had no experience with or training in automotive engineering, then he'd be doing what the BSN does that I have a problem with.

This is of course assuming the mechanic in the hypothetical situation is not simply trying to cheat him, or that there's as much subjectivity in car maintenance, or that he'd have to share the experience of his car with millions of other people.  But let's not overcomplicate the example.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:36 .

[Fortlowe]

I'm not laboring under the impression that development is simple or easy. However I do believe that a good idea is still good regardless of its source. So even if it'll take heaven and earth to make it so, then if its worth doing it should be done.

Experts are sometimes too close to their craft to notice a weakness. A novice might find that flaw and how to buff it out by accident.

[TEWR]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This is of course assuming the mechanic in the hypothetical situation is not simply trying to cheat him

No such thing. All mechanics are evil. 

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:41 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

Well that's basically what I meant, the term "dev" could be as you said a hobbyist (though I was referring to groups that produce games such as Chivalry) in that the term dev can refer to small three people teams or groups of fifty or such. But the divide is still there, I'm a writer, in that I write reviews for certain magazines, sites and such as a job, I rely on this money as much as I do my security work, but if I were to walk into the actual office where the magazines I write for have their day to day business I'd be as knowledgable of the process as the guy who delivers my boss' donuts. Know what I mean? I sometimes write for competing magazines, but if someone were to just stand around in the office they'd probably pick up more than I do when I deliver my reviews which is getting even less likely due to how most industries are switching to digital as opposed to actual paper.

I visit workshops, take part in get togethers with fellow writers, but beyond word limit and format the jargen is very much company based. But I'm rambling. What I'm saying is that a dev might not seem like a dev, based solely on what they're writing and a non-dev wih a specific skill set may sound like a dev, despite not being one, see what I mean?

You can build a computer...doesn't mean you know how to verbalize how you do it.

No. Not at all. 100% wrong.

The most critical skill to a game designer is the ability to communicate one's ideas to other people. The #1 skill on any designer job requirement is always excellent written and verbal communication skills, because they must read, write, and interpret documents specifically for the explanation of features to other people. It is not the ability to be creative, or come up with cool ideas. Cool ideas are a dime a dozen, and everyone in the entire game industry has had many "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" moments. Game designers in specific must be able to convey exactly what a feature is, why it is the way it is, and how it is to be done with minimal questions from the implementors. If someone does not understand, internalize, and communicate with the correct terminology and ideas, there is no way that he or she would be believable as a real designer. 

It seems like you're just fishing for exceptions to try to break the rule (and it is true, there are exceptions to every rule), but in reality, there really aren't many exceptions. The BSN's posters are not special snowflakes. This is not a place where the brilliant indie developers gather to share ideas with Bioware. I've read the posts here, and I've been to and participated in other forums where actual developers gather, and the general feeling is very different because at those other forums they know what it is like to be a dev. They've been in those trenches, they've worked those 12 hour days, they've dealt with the pressures and constraints, and that experience shows in the things they say, the assumptions they make, and the suggestions they put forth.

That isn't to say I haven't seen other game devs here either. They are here, and they do occasionally post. But they also tend to agree with me (especially on topics having to do with game development), because they also have that experience, and have all been through those trenches too. 

[upsettingshorts]

Fortlowe wrote...

 However I do believe that a good idea is still good regardless of its source. So even if it'll take heaven and earth to make it so, then if its worth doing it should be done.

The point is, in lacking volumes of relevant information, most of us are completely unqualified to evaluate whether or not a suggestion is actually good.

We can only assert with any confidence that we have experienced it before and enjoy it, or are excited by the promise of it.  That's good stuff, stuff we ought to talk about.  As loudly as we like.

Beyond that though, our opinion is completely worthless.  

Fortlowe wrote...

Experts are sometimes too close to their craft to notice a weakness. A novice might find that flaw and how to buff it out by accident.

Sure, a novice in the industry, with access to the relevant facts at hand and tools at their disposal might be able to provide a unique perspective.

But we're not simply "novices" here.  We're completely unitiated outsiders with no grasp of the consequences of our proposals, nor the impact on other features, nor the cost of successfully implementing it.

I'm not saying we're uniformly stupid.  I'm saying that we, as a matter of fact, don't have enough information with which to make serious suggestions on how to proceed in a complex endeavor we have no involvement with.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:51 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Fortlowe wrote...

I'm not laboring under the impression that development is simple or easy. However I do believe that a good idea is still good regardless of its source. So even if it'll take heaven and earth to make it so, then if its worth doing it should be done.

Experts are sometimes too close to their craft to notice a weakness. A novice might find that flaw and how to buff it out by accident.

We're not talking about finding the flaws. Finding the flaws is what the experts find useful from the forums - they know they can't catch everything. What we're talking about is when the novice tells the expert how to fix it. That isn't really helpful, and actually obscures the actual useful information.

[Fiddzz]

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...

I'm fairly new to the industry and was blow away by by the difference between what I thought and what it actually takes to make a game.

Not to say this confrontationally or in a rude manner, but are you saying I'm wrong, which I have no issue with as you actually work for the company I'd be requesting things from. 

it was just a general comment

[Biotic Sage]

I agree with the sentiment, Upsettingshorts. Furthermore, I am of a mindset to add one more suggestion to the mix: That is for gamers to present their feedback to the developer (in the manner that you described) and then move on. Some people have a chronic problem that I like to call yelling-the-same-complaint-repeatedly-loudly-and-incessantly syndrome. Whatever one's criticism of Bioware may be, I don't see how anyone could in good conscience make the complaint that they do not look at the forums and listen to feedback. For example, they've seen that some (or many, depending on who you ask) people do not like the Catalyst in ME3, yet thread after thread comes along about the hatred even a year later, created by people who have already presented their disgruntlement (ad nauseum) to the developers and to the community.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 janvier 2013 - 07:11 .

[AmstradHero]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The most critical skill to a game designer is the ability to communicate one's ideas to other people.

THIS. Seriously, to anyone here talking about game design, this is what is important. You have to be able to clarify your idea, and if you're going to succeed, you should have some idea about the limitations and ramifications of this idea.

I'm 100% with Upsettingshorts on this one, because it infuriates me how many people go "I want X" without any remote understanding of the consequences and knock-on effects that such a thing would have, and no matter what aspect of design you're changing, you're almost certainly going to be having an effect on another aspect of gameplay. I've had arguments on here with people demanding feature X, but when it comes down to what they want, feature X would do NOTHING to solve the problem they're complaining about. Yet it's impossible to convince them of that because "I've been playing games for years, and I know what I want." I'm sorry, but there is a huge difference between playing games and making games.

Comments like "level scaling sucks, get rid of it" are completely useless because the player is not saying WHAT about level scaling was bad, thus the developers have no idea what the problem was or how to fix it. Players don't necessarily understand the complexities being a power curve and the necessity for a difficulty curve that allows player skill progression and good pacing.

This occurs throughout all software development - it's users providing solution-space demands rather than problem-space demands. It's the difference between a user telling me "I need a database" rather than "I need something that will allow me to track my inventory." If the root problem isn't clearly identified, then the developer isn't going to know whether the solution the person has provided is actually going to solve the problem they have.

[Danny Boy 7]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fortlowe wasn't trying to compare working as a mechanic to working on a game.  He was trying to compare diagnosing that his car had a problem - because he can recognize when his car has problems, having driven cars for a long time - to knowing when he dislikes something in a game because he has played them for a long time.

Where there's a problem isn't in that comparison. Knowing something unusual is up with your car or game is something you can learn simply from the experience of operating it. The problem is that his example doesn't really address what I'm getting at.

In Fortlowe's car example, he's perfectly justified in taking his car back to his mechanic and telling him that he done goofed. If he then proceeded to tell the mechanic how he should rebuild the engine, or suspension, or w/e, and had no experience with or training in automotive engineering, then he'd be doing what the BSN does that I have a problem with.

This is of course assuming the mechanic in the hypothetical situation is not simply trying to cheat him, or that there's as much subjectivity in car maintenance, or that he'd have to share the experience of his car with millions of other people.  But let's not overcomplicate the example.

So having reread your original post, I do have to apologize if only because I misunderstood exactly what you were getting at, more on personal error than anything, but I think what you're suggesting sort of demands that the people who read this would even be able to admit that they are the people who frame their requests in that way and if they legitimatelly just write something that is interpreted as telling the devs how to build the game. I mean hindsight is twenty twenty, but when you or I are framing our request (in the moment) we're not really...um aware of how it's gonna be taken. Sometimes someone can read the first line of what we've written and find it incredibly offensive, which if we're writing for the masses which the audience of forums tend to be we need to be aware of how it'll be recieved by the people, not just the general, gamers, but developers, players, fans, newcomers etc,

For example: Sorry if these are bit annoying btw...I just like examples.

If I said "I don't want all my romanceable options to be Bi"...already I'm setting a tone that could be taken as offensive, with good reason mind you, but that's a whole 'nother can o' beans.

I could also alternatively say, "Hey Bioware I don't want all my romanceable companions to be Bi" which if I've read your initial post right is the problem that you have with these posters, the percieved...um self-entitlement that goes with making these requests compounded with the smug assumption that because they were laid out by the poster in an easy to follow format it's is somehow correct and all they need to do is open up a word document and add the lines that change something?

My only issue is that where do you draw the line between self-entitlement and how someone thinks it could be better implemented. I ask because there is a really thin line there.

As to the Bi line I meant to continue on to say....

Good (Er better recieved): Bioware I don't want all my romanceable companions/characters to be Bi, I want just as many straight and gay/lesbian options. So in my game, I'd have two straight characters (male and a female), two bi characters (again male and female) and two gay characters (once again male and female) so that each orientation has at the very least two to choose from. I'd implement it in a way similar to ME3 where some of the romances can blend in with the conversations...not any particular orientation just what the resources demand/can support.

Bad: Bioware I don't want all my romanceable companion/characters to be Bi, you should just make as many straight and gay/lesbian options. So in my game I'd have two straight characters (male and a female), two bi characters (again male and female) and two gay characters (once again male and female) so that each orientation has at the very least two to choose from. I'd implement it in a way similar to ME3 where some of the romances can blend in with the conversation...not any particular orientation though, but you know what I mean.

Now if you want less of the latter I can understand (it's directed at the devs, it belittles the work they've likely went to school for and have to put up with daily while also assuming that they can read my mind and understand what I said because it's easy to read), but if you had a problem with the former then idk what the issue exactly is. I used Bioware to let them know if they read this that it's my personal request while also letting the rest of the readers know that I'm looking for flaws in my argument (yes I know there are some obvious one's but this is just an example) and would like to see if my thread has any traction/if others feel like they could add to what I already have. It's not a letter to the devs, but if they liked it and could implement it I'd really like them to. If they could also tell me why it's impossible, not likely than that's fine, but if I countered with another question it's not me belittling work it's simply me asking why my "solution" wouldn't work.

It's like asking my waiter why they don't just bring food out one at a time instead of chancing dropping it especially if we're his only table. He might say the food could get cold or that they want to eliminate the time one person is eating and the other is waiting. I could then ask why not have someone "not working" help out? It's not a stupid question, but it may be a silly one. Still doesn't mean it should be asked, since the serving industry which the gaming industry debatably may be a part of is meant to...appease? Entertain their customer's questions? Idk how to phrase it. 

Now if I don't like someone's answer that's something else entirely, "But that makes no sense" or "I hate that idea." it's entirely...reasonable (sorry brain on melt down, very late/early here) for them to disregard that question or comment. But until a question is answered, everyone has the right to ask the question (though I'd suggest politely) just be forewarned you might not like or agree with the answer.

[Danny Boy 7]

Blair Brown wrote...

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...

I'm fairly new to the industry and was blow away by by the difference between what I thought and what it actually takes to make a game.

Not to say this confrontationally or in a rude manner, but are you saying I'm wrong, which I have no issue with as you actually work for the company I'd be requesting things from. 

it was just a general comment

I know, I was just wondering if that meant you thought my previous comments were wrong. In which case I would have to rethink my stance. That's all.

[Orian Tabris]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Meh, just let people talk about what they want. I avoid the Fenris and Anders threads simply because the fandom of those characters doesn't interest me.

If you think someone is being ignorant or stupid, just ignore them. No one asked for you to educate them on how to request, demand or suggest game content.

I try to educate people on facts, rather than on making their voice be heard (probably because most people ignore me anyways). I haven't seen anyone actually do what you've descirbed here, anyway.

I feel I have to get out my frustration at people who hate on Leliana, purely because they are ignorant and stupid . Even if people ignore me. I especially have to do this, when there is clear evidence to the contrary of what they believe (i.e. Leliana can be trusted, because if she had an alterior motive, the Guardian would have mentioned it when he looked into her mind or soul or whatever).

I also have to defend Tallis, because people are uptight, and thus, can't help but look down on her character. This happens with other characters as well, but you can't change everyone's opinions - as I've found the hard way.

And yes, you cannot open the eyes of those who are closed off and unwilling to receive criticism or to settle on a topical truce (as is the history of humankind). You also can't get people off their high-horse, without being a master of communication and all it contains.

Modifié par Orian Tabris, 22 janvier 2013 - 08:33 .

[Danny Boy 7]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

Well that's basically what I meant, the term "dev" could be as you said a hobbyist (though I was referring to groups that produce games such as Chivalry) in that the term dev can refer to small three people teams or groups of fifty or such. But the divide is still there, I'm a writer, in that I write reviews for certain magazines, sites and such as a job, I rely on this money as much as I do my security work, but if I were to walk into the actual office where the magazines I write for have their day to day business I'd be as knowledgable of the process as the guy who delivers my boss' donuts. Know what I mean? I sometimes write for competing magazines, but if someone were to just stand around in the office they'd probably pick up more than I do when I deliver my reviews which is getting even less likely due to how most industries are switching to digital as opposed to actual paper.

I visit workshops, take part in get togethers with fellow writers, but beyond word limit and format the jargen is very much company based. But I'm rambling. What I'm saying is that a dev might not seem like a dev, based solely on what they're writing and a non-dev wih a specific skill set may sound like a dev, despite not being one, see what I mean?

You can build a computer...doesn't mean you know how to verbalize how you do it.

No. Not at all. 100% wrong.

The most critical skill to a game designer is the ability to communicate one's ideas to other people. The #1 skill on any designer job requirement is always excellent written and verbal communication skills, because they must read, write, and interpret documents specifically for the explanation of features to other people. It is not the ability to be creative, or come up with cool ideas. Cool ideas are a dime a dozen, and everyone in the entire game industry has had many "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" moments. Game designers in specific must be able to convey exactly what a feature is, why it is the way it is, and how it is to be done with minimal questions from the implementors. If someone does not understand, internalize, and communicate with the correct terminology and ideas, there is no way that he or she would be believable as a real designer. 


But you don't NEED jargen to convey your message, nor when speaking on a public forum which is what I'm getting at, I'm not telling you what skills you need to be a game developer, I'm saying that while some people want to use said jargen in their off hours, not all of them do nor should they have to, but that does not make them "non-devs". That is ALL I'm saying in this particular conversation (with you I mean). So to say, this guy is a dev, because his writing on a public forum suggests so in my opinion is a little short sighted and what I got from your and Upsettingshorts initial comments (if that's not what you intended I'm sorry but that's what I'm hearing) because I was saying that a person could still be a dev, but could still partake in the "wishful" thinking, never gonna happen discussions and make a suggestion that seems out there from a developement stand point.

Yes you're right they should be able to do that, but it's not some amazing event when they don't is it? Otherwise you wouldn't need to have meetings, have people ask questions regarding some feature even though it's been laid out for you on a document. Takes notes so that they aren't confused as to what you meant by using x terminology because how are you going to let the artists know that they might need to cut back on Y to make room for Z in Q's departement? 

That doesn't however mean that when you get out of work you are still using that terminology. Besides wanting to make a certain aspect of their request clearer to someone else (likely a fan which is what I'm referring to, devs speaking in a forum, in particular one that isn't a game of their own) aren't devs likely to speak freely as they would with family? 

Which again is what I'm referring to...when a dev, lets say a writer...gets off from work, goes home pops onto Skyrim's forums and discusses how they'd like for X feature to be in the next game or DLC using no terminology so that his or her fellow posters who are probably NOT devs as you mentioned and because really why does he/she have to? He/She probably knows the likely hood of a dev from the game actually reading the thread, but let's say they are targeting their peers. Why not just have a no BS conversation with someone in thread format. Especially since as devs since your commenting on another game's forum in the first place you're avoiding other maybe more official or social mediums in which to deliver your message to your peers. 


It seems like you're just fishing for exceptions to try to break the rule (and it is true, there are exceptions to every rule), but in reality, there really aren't many exceptions. The BSN's posters are not special snowflakes. This is not a place where the brilliant indie developers gather to share ideas with Bioware. I've read the posts here, and I've been to and participated in other forums where actual developers gather, and the general feeling is very different because at those other forums they know what it is like to be a dev. They've been in those trenches, they've worked those 12 hour days, they've dealt with the pressures and constraints, and that experience shows in the things they say, the assumptions they make, and the suggestions they put forth.

And you seem to think I'm belittling your work as a dev which I'm NOT. I'm saying that while it's fairly obvious who is a dev where developers gather, you cannot make the assumption that because someone asks for something in a thread and explains how they might do it, which might be a perfectly feasible option for HIS company/product they are not a dev as they might be indie, suffer under different constraints or just have different work regiments. They might be a smaller company, their company may work differently, they may use jargen in a different way or NOT AT ALL. Whether you personally experienced this does not mean that it 1. Doesn't happen or 2. Is the basis for which we can determine what a "real" designer is or 3. That the constraints of their project record has been the same as yours or the general developer community.

As I said if a group of friends choose to develope a company which is comprised of just three developers with a decent understanding of game design yet are able to communicate what they need done without the industry jargen they still are making video games for a living (it's more cemented when they actually produced the game but that's another discussion), they may not know what it takes to make that triple AAA game, but that doesn't exclude them from being developers, it just means they haven't needed to use industry jargen while working on their company/group's projects.

If I make a 2D game I'm a developer, but if I talk about something I know nothing about maybe voice acting in games that doesn't make me less of a dev, it might not fit your personal criteria for one, but I may not have the experience with certain facets of a game, but have my own personal opinion on a way you could go about doing it. Does that mean I'm right no. But it doesn't make me any less of a dev and so if I'm talking about this on a forum, it's silly to assume I'm not a dev.



That isn't to say I haven't seen other game devs here either. They are here, and they do occasionally post. But they also tend to agree with me (especially on topics having to do with game development), because they also have that experience, and have all been through those trenches too. 

I don't see how they're agreeing with you is relevant though. Does lack of experience in a field preclude true dev status? Sorry if I'm getting snippy I don't mean to. My uncle was in the army, he never fired a rifle, never uses the jargen when talking with me or my cousin's husband, yet we don't think he's NOT a soldier because his job wasn't one that we or the general ranks were involved in, nor do I call the men guiding our ships in or filing papers civilians because they haven't been in combat. They just either haven't had the chance or there skill set don't require them to leave. 

[AmstradHero]

Orian Tabris wrote...
I try to educate people on facts, rather than on making their voice be heard (probably because most people ignore me anyways). I haven't seen anyone actually do what you've descirbed here, anyway.

I feel I have to get out my frustration at people who hate on Leliana, purely because they are ignorant and stupid .
...
I also have to defend Tallis, because people are uptight, and thus, can't help but look down on her character.

If you haven't seen what the OP is talking about, then you must not have ventured into threads on game design on these forums.

Furthermore, the concept of liking or disliking a character doesn't really involve game design per se, but is more a question of the personality of the characters involved. Liking or disliking these aspects is wholly subjective, and has nothing do with facts. Even things stated by these characters are not necessarily facts, as they may not be wholly accurate. Getting into specifics of characterisation and how this is achieved is perhaps more arguable, but again, this is very much an issue of personal preference and perception rather than facts.

[Kulyok]

Perhaps we do not know enough about how games are made - even those of us who modded or participated in indie game development. But if we invest ourselves in these games, and want something, and have an opinion, I think it's best if we say it anyway - in a polite manner, of course, but say it.

You remember, a few years ago someone wanted to wear helms BUT not show it on a character, to have pretty "hatless" look AND all benefits of a powerful helm? I remember that a designer said no, because it was an ideological choice - if you want to look pretty, don't wear a helm and don't receive extra protection.

Yet, a few years later, what do we see? DA2, and a toggle for helms - and perhaps one of the reasons we got this toggle was that player I just wrote about.

Maybe if we keep asking for these toggles, one day we'll get toggles for romances we don't like. Maybe one day we'll have a "happy romance" and not find out that Zevran/Leliana/Alistair abandoned us in the next game. Maybe, if enough people ask about it, we even get different races. Yes, likely with a single character voicing a female elf/human/dwarf - which sucks, but playing an elf is alone worth everything to me - and not me alone, I'll wager.

Also, it may be just me, but I think "don't bash the developers personally, ever" is a golden rule, because developers are subtle and quick to anger.

[AmstradHero]

Danny Boy 7 wrote...
I don't see how they're agreeing with you is relevant though. Does lack of experience in a field preclude true dev status? Sorry if I'm getting snippy I don't mean to. My uncle was in the army, he never fired a rifle, never uses the jargen when talking with me or my cousin's husband, yet we don't think he's NOT a soldier because his job wasn't one that we or the general ranks were involved in, nor do I call the men guiding our ships in or filing papers civilians because they haven't been in combat. They just either haven't had the chance or there skill set don't require them to leave. 

In a word? Yes.

(Please note that throughout this post that I am using "you" in the generic sense, not "you" specifically)

If you haven't done something and don't understand the in-and-outs of the practical application of the knowledge, it is very difficult to make an accurate comment on how things work.  To quote: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

If you've never fired a rifle, you're not a combat soldier. You might serve in the army, but you're not qualified to talk about what it is like to be on the battlefiled. You might know about the tactics involved at a macro level and strategy and logistics, but you have not a whit of understanding of what it's truly like to be in combat and being fired upon. This doesn't mean you're a civilian or less of a soldier or anything like that. It simply means that you do not have understanding of that aspect.

If you've never tried to balance and continually test a game to judge the appropriate power curve for a character to ensure a good challenge for players of different skill levels, then you don't understand how much time is involved and the complex relationships between the different factors at play.

This isn't to say that players can't necessarily make good assessments and criticism of a game, but the routinely simplistic suggestions of "just change this" overlook the complexities of a modern game and their mechanics, because players haven't delved into the field to understand all the effects that "simple" change would have.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 22 janvier 2013 - 09:05 .