169 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

addiction21 wrote...
And we don't even have a release date at this point. Plenty of time for the trailers. teasers. and more information. I am rather sure a long time ago they confirmed human only and voiced PC and have gotten plenty of feedback about these things.

I just don't see the point of comparing what BIoWare does with Kickstarters. Very different operations and like always I will judge them when I have the final product and all is done and said.

I am comparing the "hide development information" model with the "very open to the public with development information" model.  That's the point.

And when you read interviews with people who have done Kickstarter campaigns (Chris Avellone, Brian Fargo, etc.) you'll see how much they vastly prefer the openness and community interaction.

It's a better model for designing a product for your consumers.  It might not be a better model for making the largest profit.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
It's a better model for designing a product for your consumers.  It might not be a better model for making the largest profit.

That's pretty debatable. There are companies - such as TD Bank - that have made a tremendous fortune of creating a postive experience for customers. 

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
The pledgers are producers in the same way as producers are pledgers, its a binding contract to give money to a developer to develop the game they want them to make. Both want a return on investment that satisfies their needs. The only difference is the need being satisfied, i.e a profit, or a specific style of game.

Not to super derail the thread, but there's a difference between a different corporation acting as a publisher, and what investors do/want when investing in a publically traded company like EA. It's just a totally different financial kettle of fish. 

That...is not what I was talking about at all.

[MerinTB]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Well, I have been ignored then, since my attempts to voice my concerns regarding Project Eternity have been met with deaf ears by the majority. I regret even buying into the project because of the direction they are taking the game, each update makes it more disconcerning, but well see in the end how the final product goes. 

The motivation for the kickstarter model is the same as the publishers in spirit over cause. Crowdfunding wants them to make their vision of a product, and want their input to be respected, yet that is not going to happen for many backers in the long run because its impossible to cater to everyone. Publishers want to make money and will cater to general markets most of the time, again limiting what is right for everyone.

So really, the cause may be different, but the effect will likely be the same. We have no guarentee that Project Eternity will be a good game, even for the backers intimately involved in its process. 

You are ONE VOICE.  You backed them because you wanted THEIR VISION.  If you didn't, if you pledged because you thought that made you get some kind of vote, that's your fault for misinterpretting.

They will LISTEN to feedback.  Feedback will influence them.  But backer feedback isn't the driving force in decision making.  It's an element.

I'm sorry you are unhappy with how they are making the game.  I think you'll find you are in the minority with that, however.

Modifié par MerinTB, 02 juin 2013 - 03:55 .

[LinksOcarina]

MerinTB wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Well, I have been ignored then, since my attempts to voice my concerns regarding Project Eternity have been met with deaf ears by the majority. I regret even buying into the project because of the direction they are taking the game, each update makes it more disconcerning, but well see in the end how the final product goes. 

The motivation for the kickstarter model is the same as the publishers in spirit over cause. Crowdfunding wants them to make their vision of a product, and want their input to be respected, yet that is not going to happen for many backers in the long run because its impossible to cater to everyone. Publishers want to make money and will cater to general markets most of the time, again limiting what is right for everyone.

So really, the cause may be different, but the effect will likely be the same. We have no guarentee that Project Eternity will be a good game, even for the backers intimately involved in its process. 

You are ONE VOICE.  You backed them because you wanted THEIR VISION.  If you didn't, if you pledged because you thought that made you get some kind of vote, that's your fault for misinterpretting.

They will LISTEN to feedback.  Feedback will influence them.  But backer feedback isn't the driving force in decision making.  It's an element.

I'm sorry you are unhappy with how they are making the game.  I think you'll find you are in the minority with that, however.

I did want their vision. They changed that vision to cater to others in a way that ruins the intent of their vision. This even goes back to stretch goals and bonuses that players can purchase too. 

If backer feedback is only an element of their decision making, would it be fair to say they are just going to listen to the majority and go with that? And by this logic, what is the difference between backer feedback and publisher feedback besides intent?

So I got to ask, if they did share information on Inqusition right now, would you want to give feedback and have it implemented? And what if they can't because its far into production? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 02 juin 2013 - 04:01 .

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
Pledging to a Kickstarter is NOT pre-ordering.  Some use it as such, sure, but that's those pledgers prerogative (fault?) for seeing it as such.

For professional reasons, I make it a policy not to discuss legal matters online. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring your post. 

[MerinTB]

LinksOcarina wrote...
I did want their vision. They changed that vision to cater to others in a way that ruins the intent of their vision. This even goes back to stretch goals and bonuses that players can purchase too. 

If backer feedback is only an element of their decision making, would it be fair to say they are just going to listen to the majority and go with that? 

I'm going to hate myself for this comparison later, but here I am about to make it.

They will listen to the feedback that makes sense to their vision, and take the feedback to heart when it points out something they hadn't realized.

Like ME3's ending and the Extended Cut.

Lots of people complained about the ending to ME3, for MANY reasons.  But when BioWare realized they had made a particular mistake, that they agreed was something of an omission, they fixed it.

Was it getting rid of the hated star child?  Nope, they didn't agree with that negative feedback and largely ignored it.

Was it making a happy ending so Shepard was alive?  Nope.

Was it changing the choices so that the ending wasn't A, B or C?  Nope.

But they took to heart the following: the confusion on what, exactly, happened with each ending; the look that all three endings were just color-coded same things; the lack of closure for the party / companions; the sense of defeat with all the endings, lack of hope.

And they fixed most of that with the Extended Cut, and the rest they over-fixed with Citadel and a bit with Leviathan (granted, you had to buy Citadel and Leviathan, but...)

Did that listen to EVERYONE?  No.  They did not do the popular (not to me, but to many) Indoctrination Theory.  They did not change the ending at all, really, just mostly filled in gaps.

They reacted to feedback, and addressed what they felt were legitimate concerns / shortcomings on their part.

Did that make everyone happy?  No.  But that does NOT mean they didn't listen to and consider the feedback.  They just didn't agree with all of it.

... and I am already regretting this.  I just praised BioWare for their handling of the ME3 ending controversy.  

sigh

[Knight of Dane]

^
They didn't really fix the color thing either, they just "extended" it to showcase what happened. There was no explanation of how it was possible to upload shepard by disintegrating him, or how the same reaction would trigger mass DNA change across the universe in a beam of green light.

[LinksOcarina]

MerinTB wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
I did want their vision. They changed that vision to cater to others in a way that ruins the intent of their vision. This even goes back to stretch goals and bonuses that players can purchase too. 

If backer feedback is only an element of their decision making, would it be fair to say they are just going to listen to the majority and go with that? 

I'm going to hate myself for this comparison later, but here I am about to make it.

They will listen to the feedback that makes sense to their vision, and take the feedback to heart when it points out something they hadn't realized.

Like ME3's ending and the Extended Cut.

Lots of people complained about the ending to ME3, for MANY reasons.  But when BioWare realized they had made a particular mistake, that they agreed was something of an omission, they fixed it.

Was it getting rid of the hated star child?  Nope, they didn't agree with that negative feedback and largely ignored it.

Was it making a happy ending so Shepard was alive?  Nope.

Was it changing the choices so that the ending wasn't A, B or C?  Nope.

But they took to heart the following: the confusion on what, exactly, happened with each ending; the look that all three endings were just color-coded same things; the lack of closure for the party / companions; the sense of defeat with all the endings, lack of hope.

And they fixed most of that with the Extended Cut, and the rest they over-fixed with Citadel and a bit with Leviathan (granted, you had to buy Citadel and Leviathan, but...)

Did that listen to EVERYONE?  No.  They did not do the popular (not to me, but to many) Indoctrination Theory.  They did not change the ending at all, really, just mostly filled in gaps.

They reacted to feedback, and addressed what they felt were legitimate concerns / shortcomings on their part.

Did that make everyone happy?  No.  But that does NOT mean they didn't listen to and consider the feedback.  They just didn't agree with all of it.

... and I am already regretting this.  I just praised BioWare for their handling of the ME3 ending controversy.  

sigh

BioWare through feedback changed aspects of their game. BioWare's vision was clear in intent because we had a full product.

Fans are asking Obsidian to cater to their tastes for their game. Obsidians vision is not clear, because the final product is not out yet. 

I agree that they both are changing their game due to feedback, and my point has never been that they don't listen to feedback at all, but rather are selective in what to implement so long as it doesn't change their focus.

The difference however is what I stated above, one was a finished product, the other is stll in development. My point of contention is that the feedback given by backers is no different in practice by the feedback given by a publisher. As I said before, the cause is different. The effect is virtually the same. So yeah, I am getting burned because I disagree with their direction and the feedback they are listening to. I think however, it is compromising the vision of the game because we still no final product to judge their original intent on. That is a major difference if you ask me, one that we can only judge based on the original kickstarter promises to the final product. 

And again, considering the model for kickstarter, it works for these smaller games anyway, since in all likelihood the audience interested in them is already invested in it, its perfectly fine. I personally see it as stringing people along because most of the kickstarters have done so thus far, but  If BioWare implemented a similar approach to share info on Inquisition, I doubt it would work because we would get similar cries asking for changes and control in a product they have control over. 

It is smarter for them to wait until the ducks are in a row, give out info all at once on the basics of what is happening, and then go from there with the "fluff" info. Neither approach is right or wrong in this case. It depends on what is appropriate for the given situation in terms of finance and adaptability of the product. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 02 juin 2013 - 04:21 .

[MerinTB]

Knight of Dane wrote...
^
They didn't really fix the color thing either, they just "extended" it to showcase what happened. There was no explanation of how it was possible to upload shepard by disintegrating him, or how the same reaction would trigger mass DNA change across the universe in a beam of green light.

Don't get me wrong.  The reason I was cringing from that example is because BioWare's fixes were nowhere near enough to satisfy me.

[Knight of Dane]

Perhaps try not calling it fixes? For it was not.

Extended cut just extended the same mess.

[garrusfan1]

guess we will find out at E3. but I think it we be out this year and on current and next gen consoles

[MerinTB]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Perhaps try not calling it fixes? For it was not.

Extended cut just extended the same mess.

You are arguing symantics.

I won't apologize for using the word fixes, even if it annoys you.  They consider them to be fixes, many players do, too.  Because it only exacerbated your problem doesn't mean it wasn't a fix - it just means it didn't fix things for you.

The Wolf Man wrote...
A thought:

If da3 is released for cross gen, then why can't they give the player the option between importing saves or just using a checklist? If people want to import (bugs and all) then why not have that option? If people would rather manually tally up a checklist, then there's that option too.

I don't see why there can't be both options...

It could be a simple text or ascii file that any OS could read.  It could be like those Nintendo codes I spoke earlier of, only the drives could read it instead of the player having to enter it.

Think of how BSN works.  If they could upload the "save information" to your account, then you connect the new game to your account, then the new game could download the info.  Q.E.D.

Modifié par MerinTB, 02 juin 2013 - 05:28 .

[Knight of Dane]

MerinTB wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Perhaps try not calling it fixes? For it was not.

Extended cut just extended the same mess.

You are arguing symantics.

I won't apologize for using the word fixes, even if it annoys you.  They consider them to be fixes, many players do, too.  Because it only exacerbated your problem doesn't mean it wasn't a fix - it just means it didn't fix things for you.

Not looking for an apology, and It doesn't annoy me. But you did answer me, so I assumed it was right of me to do too.

And no, that's not how a fix works. A fix corrects something, extended cut didn't correct anything. Which is why it wasn't called the "Fixed cut," not even bioware thinks it's a fix. Bioware never felt anything needed fixing.

If a extention worked for you or anyone else then that's great. But I was looking for a fix.

Anyway, I think you are putting emotion into my arguments, please don't.

[SafetyShattered]

Ryzaki wrote...

If DA3 only comes out on Xbone I will laugh then cry. Even DA3 won't tempt me to buy that. Nope. I'll just have to make due with let's plays.

Same here man, not even DAI would convince me to buy that crap.

[MerinTB]

Knight of Dane wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...
Perhaps try not calling it fixes? For it was not.

Extended cut just extended the same mess.

You are arguing symantics.

I won't apologize for using the word fixes, even if it annoys you.  They consider them to be fixes, many players do, too.  Because it only exacerbated your problem doesn't mean it wasn't a fix - it just means it didn't fix things for you.

Not looking for an apology, and It doesn't annoy me. But you did answer me, so I assumed it was right of me to do too.

And no, that's not how a fix works. A fix corrects something, extended cut didn't correct anything. Which is why it wasn't called the "Fixed cut," not even bioware thinks it's a fix. Bioware never felt anything needed fixing.

If a extention worked for you or anyone else then that's great. But I was looking for a fix.

Anyway, I think you are putting emotion into my arguments, please don't.

You ARE arguing semantics (not symantics - sorry I didn't catch that earlier.)  You are telling me here how a ""fix" works."

The Extended Cut did "fix" things for people who were missing explanations, were confused by stuff, who wanted more closure.  Those missing things were filled in, hence it was fixed.  If you have a wall with a hole in it, and you fill said hole, you have fixed the wall... without fundamentally changing what the wall is, what it is made of, you did just add more to the wall.

You don't like the ending.  You don't think the Extended Cut solved what concerns you. That is fine.

But it DID fix things for many people.  Not you.  Not really me, either.  But for many people.  And BioWare acknowledged that people were upset and tried to address part of the reason part of the people were upset.

You are arguing the semantics of the word fix.  It didn't fix your problems, and that's legitimate that you call that out, but to say it wasn't a fix is just being disengenous.

[Mr.House]

The Wolf Man wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

So you don't want a checklist that ensures you will see you're content, you instead want a crappy system that is risky. Sometimes bsn....

Oh, please. I think a move to a checklist MIGHT result in character decisions being overlooked. I'm hardly saying I'm dead-set against it.

How is it going to be overlooked? Choices are already being overlooked because of a crappy import system and it's not just DAO>DA2. ME2 and ME3 also had important bugs. A checklist is not going to cause choices being overlooked. Thinking that is just foolish.

. 

It's all worded wrong. I will clarify. Forget "Overlooked" - wrong choice of words.

A checklist will cause choices to be greatly minimized/watered down. The checklist is not going to be some survey of 100+ questions. It's not going to ask what your warden's gender/race was, or if you rivalmanced vs. friend-manced Merrill over Isabela. Nor will it say, "Did you bring your sibling to the deep roads with or without Anders and did you choose to let them die or become a warden? By the way, what class were you In DA2?"

It's just that I do *not* see the checklist being all that involved. If it is, then awesome. But I strongly doubt it. Strongly.

You assume a chechlist would be waterdown so it can fit your agenda of having a broken import system. GIB save ediitor, hell even the DA2 save editor shows us a checklist can do it's job and still go in-depth.

DA3 does not need importing unless it takes place in Ferelden, Orzammar or certain things play a role thus THOSE choices should matter. If say Merrill is not in DA3, who cares about her stasus when going into DA3? She is simply talking space up when she's not included and that applies to all party members who do not return as a cameo or whatever but their stasus is still a flag. It's useless and most likely to bug.

[LaraCroft16]

As you all know the new Dragon Age will be run with the Frostbite engine that was used for many games such as Batman (I believe. Sorry if i am wrong) and Battlefield 3. Now both of these games came out on the current gen consoles and they run perfectly in regards to graphics and everything else. Why would they want to release them for just the new PS4 and XBOX ONE if they know that the Frostbite engine works on the current consoles.

If Dragon Age 3 is indeed going to be released for next gen consoles then at the end of the day they will loose more people as from the forum in regards to the new XBOX ONE it is not something that a lot of people are going to consider buying. I hope that Bioware really think about this and see how much support they would gain if they announced at E3 that the game will be released on the original gen consoles.

[MerinTB]

The Wolf Man wrote...
Interesting

"Cons – Employs a ridiculous amount of contractors with almost no capability for advancement into full-time positions as the company is too stingy to pay for benefits. Regardless, employees are promised a chance of getting full-time if they work hard enough, which is a blatant lie: even my friend who was one of the most important tech staff in the studio, who often outpaced his full-time coworkers, was not brought on after the end of his contract.

Most of the full-time staff looks down on the contractors and sometimes even takes credit for their work. Senior management almost never communicates or even acknowledges contract staff. Very cloak-and-dagger about unannounced information, to the point of management outright threatening employees that they would intentionally ruin their career in the gaming industry if they said leaked a word of new content.

Horrible software and often dysfunctional hardware supported. Benefits are barely worth mentioning."

Compare that with how games like Wasteland 2 are accepting, even encouraging, contributions and praising the contributors -

wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/unity

[Knight of Dane]

MerinTB wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...
Perhaps try not calling it fixes? For it was not.

Extended cut just extended the same mess.

You are arguing symantics.

I won't apologize for using the word fixes, even if it annoys you.  They consider them to be fixes, many players do, too.  Because it only exacerbated your problem doesn't mean it wasn't a fix - it just means it didn't fix things for you.

Not looking for an apology, and It doesn't annoy me. But you did answer me, so I assumed it was right of me to do too.

And no, that's not how a fix works. A fix corrects something, extended cut didn't correct anything. Which is why it wasn't called the "Fixed cut," not even bioware thinks it's a fix. Bioware never felt anything needed fixing.

If a extention worked for you or anyone else then that's great. But I was looking for a fix.

Anyway, I think you are putting emotion into my arguments, please don't.

You ARE arguing semantics (not symantics - sorry I didn't catch that earlier.)  You are telling me here how a ""fix" works."

The Extended Cut did "fix" things for people who were missing explanations, were confused by stuff, who wanted more closure.  Those missing things were filled in, hence it was fixed.  If you have a wall with a hole in it, and you fill said hole, you have fixed the wall... without fundamentally changing what the wall is, what it is made of, you did just add more to the wall.

You don't like the ending.  You don't think the Extended Cut solved what concerns you. That is fine.

But it DID fix things for many people.  Not you.  Not really me, either.  But for many people.  And BioWare acknowledged that people were upset and tried to address part of the reason part of the people were upset.

You are arguing the semantics of the word fix.  It didn't fix your problems, and that's legitimate that you call that out, but to say it wasn't a fix is just being disengenous.

I don't really care what we are arguing. Arguing about what we are arguing about is pointless.

Bioware didn't fix anything for they didn't explain anything. Explanation was the fix. The closest thing to a fix was that at the very least people got to know that the Normandy wasn't stranded, and destroy enders wasn't doomed. That's it.