333 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

Wulfram wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

This sort of post is actually more useful to devs than economic/arguing/accusatory ones.

I don't see how. 

It doesn't tell you anything about whether I'd want what would result from those features meeting reality.

But it tells me what you want. I might not be able to deliver a 200 hour epic, but it tells me you want a longer game experience. I might not be able to create a city with hundreds of thousands of people in it, but it tells me that having believable ambient NPCs to make an environment feel city-like is important to you. I might not be able to deliver every single strand of hair and blade of grass rendered photorealistically, but it tells me that graphical fidelity is important to you. I might not be able to deliver a gold statue of Leliana, but it tells me that swag is important to you.

This is useful information. It's up to me as the dev to interpret what it is you want, and try to accommodate if and how I can, even if the demands aren't reasonable in and of themselves.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 22 janvier 2013 - 04:28 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't see how. 

It doesn't tell you anything about whether I'd want what would result from those features meeting reality.

No, but neither does anything on the BSN now. Not even the various design teams gets the game exactly how they want it, even if they get in a feature they really wanted, it's not a given that they will like how it turns out.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

That tells the devs that you like sandwiches, which means they should think about doing promotional pre-release Marketing with Subway. Obviously.

[Wulfram]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

But it tells me what you want. I might not be able to deliver a 200 hour epic, but it tells me you want a longer game experience.

But it doesn't tell you what I'd be prepared to sacrifice for it, so it's meaningless.  All it tells you is that I want more stuff for my money.

I might not be able to create a city with hundreds of thousands of people in it, but it tells me that having believable ambient NPCs to make an environment feel city-like is important to you.

So you'd try to make your cities more Skyrim/Oblivion like, because that's the closest you can get realistically to my request.  And then I'd really hate your cities, because that's how I feel about Skyrim/Oblivion style cities.

Because what would be my ideal is different from what would be my preferred compromise

I might not be able to deliver every single strand of hair and blade of grass rendered photorealistically, but it tells me that graphical fidelity is important to you.

Except it doesn't tell you how important it is, because I'm not taking into account costs.  And it doesn't tell you if I might prefer stylisation when true realism is impossible

I might not be able to deliver a gold statue of Leliana, but it tells me that swag is important to you.

But since I wouldn't be able to melt down the swag and sell it at a profit, I'm not interested in it.

Modifié par Wulfram, 22 janvier 2013 - 04:43 .

[eroeru]

@Wulfram'spost
I think the main thing wrong with it is that little to no thought has gone into it. Thus it is negligible.

[Fast Jimmy]

But since I wouldn't be able to melt down the swag and sell it at a profit, I'm not interested in it.

I took the golden statue to mean he really likes Leliana. He may totally hate non-Leliana swag, so including swag in your game would be worthless. And he also might not be willing to pay an extra dime for swag, regardless of if it was Leliana themed or not.

So you may have pulled completely incorrect information from his requests. The reason why? You couldn't give him exactly what he requested, due to real world limitations.

As someone who has next to no coding knowledge and has a job where I have to write requirements documents to fulfi requests from clients, I am aware of how not being able to fulfill a request and "getting close enough" without first making sure that the compromise I have created is okay with the client can result in absolute disaster. For anyone to want this forum to require Bioware to make interpretations of what fans may or may not want off of such a format is similarly dangerous.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 janvier 2013 - 04:48 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Wulfram wrote...

But it doesn't tell you what I'd be prepared to sacrifice for it, so it's meaningless.  All it tells you is that I want more stuff for my money.

So you'd try to make your cities more Skyrim/Oblivion like, because that's the closest you can get realistically to my request.  And then I'd really hate your cities, because that's how I feel about Skyrim/Oblivion style cities.

Except it doesn't tell you how important it is, because I'm not taking into account costs.  And it doesn't tell you if I might prefer stylisation when true realism is impossible

But since I wouldn't be able to melt down the swag and sell it at a profit, I'm not interested in it.

You can go deeper into what you want without starting to pretend you know something about game development, which is what this thread is about. Like: "I want more of this, but not at the cost of that.", "I want to see this feature, but only under these circumstances.", etc..

You can post detailed lists of what you want to see in a game, and why you want them, without being pretentious. That is the point of this thread.

[Fast Jimmy]

eroeru wrote...


@Wulfram'spost
I think the main thing wrong with it is that little to no thought has gone into it. Thus it is negligible.

Thought requires data. Many in here are saying that any data we think we have as mere peasants in the video game hierarchy is worthless and inaacurate. It may very well be.

Therefore, we as the unwashed masses are to assume no knowledge of anything, other than our own wish fulfillment for the perfect video game. That's the only way we can give developers the information and feedback they need to make a game.  

[Thomas Andresen]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Thought requires data. Many in here are saying that any data we think we have as mere peasants in the video game hierarchy is worthless and inaacurate. It may very well be.

Therefore, we as the unwashed masses are to assume no knowledge of anything, other than our own wish fulfillment for the perfect video game. That's the only way we can give developers the information and feedback they need to make a game.  

Forming a list of features that you want to see in a video game does not actually require you to have knowledge of how a game is made, nor does it require you to talk about the game developing process.

[hoorayforicecream]

Wulfram wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

But it tells me what you want. I might not be able to deliver a 200 hour epic, but it tells me you want a longer game experience.

But it doesn't tell you what I'd be prepared to sacrifice for it, so it's meaningless.  All it tells you is that I want more stuff for my money.

Doesn't matter. People are notoriously bad at communicating what it is they want to sacrifice, because they have no context and don't have that information, nor care to get that information. It tells me what you care about. I don't necessarily have to act on it, especially because there's also the opinions of thousands of other fans that I can take random samples of.

I might not be able to create a city with hundreds of thousands of people in it, but it tells me that having believable ambient NPCs to make an environment feel city-like is important to you.

So you'd try to make your cities more Skyrim/Oblivion like, because that's the closest you can get realistically to my request.  And then I'd really hate your cities, because that's how I feel about Skyrim/Oblivion style cities.

You're making assumptions again. No, that's not necessarily the case unless the Skyrim/Oblivion method is literally the only means of populating a city. That's not necessarily the case. Plenty of other games have cities that feel populated.

I might not be able to deliver every single strand of hair and blade of grass rendered photorealistically, but it tells me that graphical fidelity is important to you.

Except it doesn't tell you how important it is, because I'm not taking into account costs.  And it doesn't tell you if I might prefer stylisation when true realism is impossible

Doesn't matter. That sort of information comes from aggregating all of the data that we as devs gather, not just from one person. It just tells me that it is important to you enough to mention it, and it's up to me to interpret it. If we are wrong in our interpretation, then that's our fault. But we can hardly fault the feedback given. It just means we should be more careful about acquiring that data, and possibly ask further clarifying questions.

Stylization vs realism are direction choices, and we aren't about to put that sort of decision into the hands of the users anyway.

I might not be able to deliver a gold statue of Leliana, but it tells me that swag is important to you.

But since I wouldn't be able to melt down the swag and sell it at a profit, I'm not interested in it.

Then perhaps you didn't think things through when asking for stuff, since you can safely assume that games will never be sold at a loss. But that's ok, because it isn't a requirement that the devs implement every suggestion. It's just one more feedback mechanism that helps shape development. It is hardly the only one.

Just because something is important to you doesn't mean the devs have to act on it. It just means that it's another data point from which to draw conclusions. There will be those who are misinterpreted. When you've got thousands and thousands of data points, there are bound to be false positives and false negatives. But as you increase that sample size, the number of false positives and negatives grows at a much smaller rate, and you can identify trends.

[Fast Jimmy]

But as Wulfram said earlier, what if you give him the five features he requests, but at the cost of cutting out ten features he didn't mention, but loves more? How was he supposed to know that more features can result in cut content? He shouldn't be encouraged to try and think in terms of game development, because he knows nothing about it.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Thought requires data. Many in here are saying that any data we think we have as mere peasants in the video game hierarchy is worthless and inaacurate. It may very well be.

Worthless != inacurate. You could be wrong about how much a feature costs, or how much removing it will add in, but that doesn't mean that your expressing your preference isn't valuable.

[eroeru]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

How many times do I need to say I have no authority to compel anyone to post the way I want? 

That's damn obvious. Why do you keep yapping about that when the posts you're referring to are not concerned with the authority you're handed but rather your tone or your "arguments" themselves, which frankly seem to come down to "no criticism is justified before event X"?

Whatever event "X" might be (the coming of a new game in your case, I'd presume), thoughtful criticism and discussion (which on these forums mostly rely on previous games) is always a good thing. And this stuff: ...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
"Do I need to say it again?  All I'm doing is arguing why people ought to.  Nobody has to agree.  There is no penalty for disagreeing with me.

As to the rest of your post, I'll defer to others.  My instinct is - again - that we don't really have enough information.  Maybe post release, when we can frame the discussion around our reaction to what ended up actually happening, but before it seems like it's speculation among people who don't know anything over statements a dev said that may or may not mean what people think.  

... seems ad hoc to me!

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But as Wulfram said earlier, what if you give him the five features he requests, but at the cost of cutting out ten features he didn't mention, but loves more? How was he supposed to know that more features can result in cut content? He shouldn't be encouraged to try and think in terms of game development, because he knows nothing about it.

Then that's the dev's cross to bear. Game development doesn't happen in a vacuum. Devs have post-mortems where they identify what went right and what went wrong during production, after collecting and tabulating data and responses after the last game for a while. They also rate the popularity and success of features that were introduced in the last game. Then they use this information that they gather in the months that follow release to help tailor the content they create for DLC, as well as the next game they work on.

So all Wulfram needs to do is answer any questions he's posed honestly, and talk about what features he liked and disliked. It's up to the devs to interpret the solutions, and the more data points they get, the more the statistical anomalies get ironed out, and the more informed decisions they can make.

Edit: And what if Wulfram clutters up his posts with bad assumptions and false information? Not only does it obscure the message he is trying to send, but it actually makes things worse by forcing any dev who is reading it to try to gain any meaningful information. Sure, saying what you like and dislike has room for error. But adding bad context and bad assumptions is going to make things worse far more often than it makes things better.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 22 janvier 2013 - 05:13 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

It's not the dev's cross to bear... it is also the players.

Many developers have stated in the past that after immersing themselves in the game development for years at a time and testing content over and over again, they hardly touch the final product. It's the players themselves who also suffer if the game isn't what they want, just like the developer suffers if they do not sell enough units. If I have paid money expecting a quality product, but the devs misinterpreted request data because I feign ignorance on not what I like, but how I would prefer it be implemented, then the developer may face real consequences, such as losing their jobs, but I also have a game which I paid money for that I do not enjoy, I have a series I enjoyed now looking at no future releases and I have a developer who has done great work and whom I have enjoyed content looking at shut down.

The developer isn't the only one with a dog in the fight if they think gamers want one thing and turn out to want something completely different.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 janvier 2013 - 05:19 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

It's not the dev's cross to bear... it is also the players.

Many developers have stated in the past that after immersing themselves in the game development for years at a time and testing content over and over again, they hardly touch the final product. It's the players themselves who also suffer if the game isn't what they want, just like the developer suffers if they do not sell enough units. If I have paid money expecting a quality product, but the devs misinterpreted request data because I feign ignorance on not what I like, but how I would prefer it be implemented, then the developer may face real consequences, such as losing their jobs, but I also have a game which I paid money for that I do not enjoy, I have a series I enjoyed now looking at no future releases and I have a developer who has done great work and whom I have enjoyed content looking at shut down.

The developer isn't the only one with a dog in the fight if they think gamers want one thing and turn out to want something completely different.

The problem is that the quality of information provided through uninformed speculation isn't very useful because you dilute it with bad assumptions and improper understanding of context. There might be more information there than simply stating what it is you like and dislike, but the cost to retrieve (forcing them to wade through a bunch of uninformed assumptions) makes it inefficient to do so.

[upsettingshorts]

@eroeru

It's hardly that complicated.

Good conclusions, regardless of how smart or perceptive any given individual might be, require accurate information.

When it comes to the process of game development, we do not have this information.  So we fill the gaps with assumptions, most typically baseless ones.  The arguing over these assumptions is noise, and also perpetuates the assumptions raised to the point that they become - frankly - urban legends that developers (be they BioWares or not) have to whack down constantly like so many moles.

If we instead limit ourselves to arriving at conclusions derived from facts we have access to (such as how the game plays) our conclusions will be better.  That doesn't mean we can't be skeptical of marketing, only drawing conclusions from it is a suspect, hit-or-miss practice.  

I'm not really concerned with tone here, but content.  

Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to contributing to the downfall of the BSN.  Or class.  One or the other.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 janvier 2013 - 05:36 .

[Addai]

I can't disagree with anything Shorts has said. How irksome.

I wish him well on his epic quest to impose order on the chaos.

[Wulfram]

If we were talking about an actual conversation with the designers, or even taking a survey prepared by them, or even responding to a question prepared by them, then I'd see your point. They can bring reality into the conversation in a better way than the layperson can by using common sense and whatnot.

But we're not. We're engaged in undirected chatter, overwhelmingly among lay people. For that to remain even tangentially related to the sort of game we're going to get, that requires people exercise some sort of common sense as to what is practical.

[Fast Jimmy]

The problem is that the quality of information provided through uninformed speculation isn't very useful because you dilute it with bad assumptions and improper understanding of context. There might be more information there than simply stating what it is you like and dislike, but the cost to retrieve (forcing them to wade through a bunch of uninformed assumptions) makes it inefficient to do so.

I don't inherently disagree with you, but does that immediately preclude anyone from having (what they think is) a good idea and posting it? Lets not forget that developers are normal humans as well. Lead Developer Mile Laidlaw was an online writer for a magazine before being hired on at Bioware. Now, ten years later, he is one of the big shot callers about major decisions in a AAA game.

What's to say that something someone on the BSN posts isn't a new idea, or an old idea dressed up in a new way that could be done, but just hadn't been thought of in a long time? An idea that actually would be really interesting and unique? I'd say it doesn't happen every day (or even every month) but I'm sure there have been some gems in the past. Should we discourage talking about specifics on a party system that could incorporate more than four people, just because we don't know the system hard lines that prevent it from working well? Instead of just saying "I'd like all my party members with me/I don't like being limited to only four" but saying "I understand that having too many characters on screen during combat creates lots of issues, so how about if X were to happen to conserve Y?"

It may be totally of base and wrong. Or it might be a unique solution to a problem that the devs hadn't considered because they had long ago written off having a full party with you at the same time.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 janvier 2013 - 05:41 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Wulfram wrote...

If we were talking about an actual conversation with the designers, or even taking a survey prepared by them, or even responding to a question prepared by them, then I'd see your point. They can bring reality into the conversation in a better way than the layperson can by using common sense and whatnot.

But we're not. We're engaged in undirected chatter, overwhelmingly among lay people. For that to remain even tangentially related to the sort of game we're going to get, that requires people exercise some sort of common sense as to what is practical.

What I am (and have been) saying is that if you want your posts to be useful to the devs, you will treat your posts about game features you want as if they were survey answers or answers to questions prepared by them. That would be most useful to them. Tell them what you like. Tell them why you like it. Tell them what you dislike, and tell them why you dislike it. Be as specific as you can. Don't muddy it up with how you'd do it, or how they should do it, or what you'd rather have instead of this, or what you think about the development schedule.

If you don't care about providing useful information to the devs, then by all means continue with the speculation. You can do what you like. Just know that the devs most likely won't find those posts particularly useful.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The problem is that the quality of information provided through uninformed speculation isn't very useful because you dilute it with bad assumptions and improper understanding of context. There might be more information there than simply stating what it is you like and dislike, but the cost to retrieve (forcing them to wade through a bunch of uninformed assumptions) makes it inefficient to do so.

I don't inherently disagree with you, but does that immediately preclude anyone from having (what they think is) a good idea and posting it? Lets not forget that developers are normal humans as well. Lead Developer Mile Laidlaw was an online writer for a magazine before being hired on at Bioware. Now, ten years later, he is one of the big shot callers about major decisions in a AAA game.

What's to say that something someone on the BSN posts isn't a new idea, or an old idea dressed up in a new way that could be done, but just hadn't been thought of in a long time? An idea that actually would be really interesting and unique? I'd say it doesn't happen every day (or even every month) but I'm sure there have been some gems in the past. Should we discourage talking about specifics on a party system that could incorporate more than four people, just because we don't know the system hard lines that prevent it from working well? Instead of just saying "I'd like all my party members with me/I don't like being limited to only four" but saying "I understand that having too many characters on screen during combat creates lots of issues, so how about if X were to happen to conserve Y?"

It may be totally of base and wrong. Or it might be a unique solution to a problem that the devs hadn't considered because they had long ago written off having a full party with you at the same time.

How many truckloads of garbage should one be willing to sift through to find a single pearl? Especially when you have a crew of professional pearl farmers?

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 22 janvier 2013 - 05:45 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

Wulfram wrote...

If we were talking about an actual conversation with the designers, or even taking a survey prepared by them, or even responding to a question prepared by them, then I'd see your point. They can bring reality into the conversation in a better way than the layperson can by using common sense and whatnot.

But we're not. We're engaged in undirected chatter, overwhelmingly among lay people. For that to remain even tangentially related to the sort of game we're going to get, that requires people exercise some sort of common sense as to what is practical.

We can't apply common sense to a development process we are not privied to.  We might think a demand is reasonable, but the developers might not agree.  They are not obligated to be transparent about that, either.

HOWEVER, there are ways of offering input to the developers that are more useful than "I want X in the game."

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 22 janvier 2013 - 05:48 .