Actually my topic is more of a request than a suggestion, and also doubts too...
1- Seeing all these suggestions from players, they come up to the creative team ?
2- if were approved, how will we know ?
And now my request ... Please moderators, take our doubts about the suggestions, I'm really curious to know if our suggestions are being well used ... is very good feeling when we can make a difference. 
Thanks!
I know I read feedback and the stuff that catches my eye I do pass on to people like Mike. And then he often pushes them out from there.
At this point few suggestions, game wise, could really make it into the game now. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't provide some sort of feedback if that's what you like.
As long as you pass along the suggestion that any sort of summoning of animals or what have you comes along with our PC saying "I choose you!" that's cool.
In seriousness, it depends for me on what type of suggestion is being made. If it's about something like bringing back a character or even a type of build, I don't need to know it's been approved or what have you. I'll see it in the next game.
There are other suggestions, like improved gender dialogue, improved dialogue wheel, etc, that I don't so much need to see an 'approved' stamp on it, but do enjoy when people making the game take a few minutes to engage in the conversation. They don't have to give opinions or spill secrets, but knowing where their thoughts are at on the topic is good.
For the most part, I'm willing to adopt a wait-and-see approach. Most people on here never believe anything anyhow until they see it first hand. And, depending on how obnoxious the suggestions get, sometimes I think that allowing people on the boards to think they have too much influence over the game-making process can only lead to further annoyances.
I think it's fair to let people speak their mind. I think it's also important to note that any individual's overall influence is still very small, and that in many cases it competes with mutually exclusive things. It also comes from more places than just the forum too.
The biggest issue I find is the assumption that because something was voiced, that that was the reason why we did something (i.e. Cullen romance is one I've seen come up a lot).
To be honest I always assumed that that's why Cullen was included.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing... to think that Bioware did x y or z because they took note of fans' suggestions and ran with it.
It's in alignment, but I do know that there were internal people that wanted us to do a Cullen romance (and no I'm not saying who )
I couldn't say if it made the decision easier, or if it had zero impact whatsoever. I mean, if I was thinking on doing something and I saw a very visible group of people going "YES PLEASE! :D" it'd certainly let me know "this is something some people want!"
But I think that it's a bit easy for our brains (all brains, including my own) to see patterns when there isn't necessarily one.
Well as long as feedback is put into consideration and has a bit weight on some develpment aspects or processes, it's ok.
After all, the fans are the ones who buy the game.
Fans also have a predisposition to ask for "the thing they already have had." (Which is fair) Fans of Psychonauts didn't want a game like Psychonauts until they received Psychonauts. Before Psychonauts, it was more Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, and so forth. Would it have been worth it if BioWare simply made Shattered Steel 2 instead of Baldur's Gate?
Fans also have competing viewpoints. The most common complaint that I heard regarding DAO was the combat pacing was too slow, followed by the outdated list for conversation responses. DA2 there is plenty of complaints that the combat pacing is too fast and the conversation list should return in place of the wheel.
Fans also don't have a full understanding of the development process. They'll trash on EA for the EA Spouse situation and "overworking people" while having no problem that BioWare's early games were built on the same long hours. In the end all they want is a good game and are mostly just fueled by their assumptions for how things go. Which isn't really a bad thing, but suggestions can get made that lack this context.
From what I understand Rockstar doesn't really interact with their fanbase at all. They just make a game that they want to make, and their games aren't really hurting in terms of their success level near as I can tell.
Finally, fan feedback is only really useful in aggregate. On some rare occasions I'll see an idea that makes me go "ooooo" but that's still having to pass the "Does Allan think it is interesting" filter. But for the most part it's aggregating the collective of feedback. Often it's a lot of deciphering the words that have been used to try to figure out what exactly is being said.
That said, I do think that there are a lot of successful games that don't rely too much on fan feedback or fan requests (think of indie games that burst onto the scene, or even games of yesteryear that existed before internet made communication so easy). I'm not saying it hurts, but I couldn't say that it's a requirement either.
Well i'm not sure if Psychonauts is such a good example. I bought it budget and i admit, i liked to play it...but it seems it didn't sell enough to afford a sequel and wouldn't that mean, the fanbase is to small?
I couldn't make a comparison between the success of Psychonauts and Schafer's previous games. I don't play them. I don't know how they sell. I do know that these are the people that kickstarted Broken Age.
Also.. no offense but shattered Steel and Baldur's gate, well.. ain't it a bit far-fetched using examples from 1996 and 1998 in 2014?To me, it seems that was a completly different era with a much greater variety of games.
I consider it both convenient, and arbitrary, to not include them.
It seems as though your solution for the lack of variety is to... force developers to only make games that fans say they want (fans typically ask for sequels).
Oh, so that was the reason for the change... strange. The combat wasn't what bothered me in Origins. Ah well, maybe because i'm a bit too oldschool...
And i think anyone would have to admit that there is not much tactic needed in DA2 and the system is a bit... overpaced.
No, it wasn't the reason for the change. I just said earlier in this thread that people will make assumptions about why things change based on fan feedback, and you've done so right here. I didn't give any reason for why the change was made, I simply pointed out that people have competing wants for games.
Ok, point given. Even though, from time to time, i get the impression , that developers and publisher like to make a big secret of the working-process - which is, of course, their right but in succession some (like, i have to admit, me) fail to understand the full process... although i would really like to do.
I don't think it's that big of a secret. I think it's something that you can't fully appreciate unless you are a part of it, however. This goes for a lot of jobs.
Well everyone has his own practices and... i guess i'm outing myself as someone who dislikes the GTA-series (since it's birth already). Every once in a while i try it, but the fun never reaches me.
But if Rockstar feels so assured of their work, then ok... makes me just wonder when they'll fail the first time.
I am not a fan of the GTA series (I loved the old top down games, but when they went to 3D I lost interest). Being assured of their work is one thing, but making a game that hits a checklist of "what fans tell us they want in the game" isn't a recipe for success either.
It has not to be a requirement but i hope it's a useful addition. To get to know what fans liked or dislliked and what they wished for... but it would be naive to guess, such would have huge influence on the design-process. I always thought it's more like: "Hmm, well let's see, what could we put inot the game? Ah, i got an idea... but would it fit in and would it be liked? What? Oh, so many fans already wished/asked for something similar? Ok, then let's try it."
Well, there are certainly times when it clearly does happen (ME3 Extended Cut is a direct response to fan reaction). But a lot of the time it's also "what would I like to see in the game?" Now we don't just add anything and everything that we want. Fan feedback can help us decide whether or not the idea is viable, and we still need to decide if it's the direction we want to go in the game (this is what people like Mark, the Executive Producer, ultimately decide... as development isn't a democracy). But I do feel that it's very, very important for a developer to work on a game they want to make, because that's how you leverage the passion and enthusiasm.
A big part of that was that space sims just never sold that well. This demand apparently exists now, but it did not exist then. Like flight simulators.
I think it's also important to note that there's a degree of "content starvation" (for lack of a better term).
Imagine trying to crowd fund a modern military shooter, and I suspect you have a more difficult time. I love Titanfall, but I'd be surprised if it would get the type of funding that Star Citizen did. Isn't the "average contribution" for Star Citizen quite high? Like close to $100?
If dozens of space flight sims existed, there wouldn't be people chomping at the bit for it.
And since some more innovative games like Mirrors Edge weren't as successful as hoped (at least i remember to have read this), this whole "we make sequels because the fan want them" seemed to me like an excuse for not taking risks. Like: "Why shall we make something innovative which might fail and won't pay off, if we can do the 100. sequel of this or that which we know the fans will buy".
Preaching to the choir here, I'm afraid. It's why I love digital as it breaks down barriers to entry and lets people like Chris Roberts work on his dream (and get the support), allows indies and smaller studios to fill in some of the gaps. Those studios are going to do things that blow peoples minds from time to time, and the bigger projects that are more risk averse due to their scope will start to implement them.
It's no wonder since, Dice, Bohemia and Activision constantly fill the market with their products. But even there i can see some... let me cal it "signs of fatigue".
BF4 ain't so much different from BF3 and i already mentioned the problems i got with CoD.
It makes me wish to tell them: "guys, no offense but... please take a rest for let's say 3 years and do some other project. After that, come back with brand-new ideas!"
I mean, those "realistic" military shooters are mostly the only thing we get on PC since years (and no, i refuse to play shooters with controlers on a console. To slow, to unprecise for me, i want a mouse). That's why i'm also looking forward to the next wolfenstein (i could really use a straight action-arcade shooter once again... and without Unreal or Half life this is my only hope).
The reason why i took space-combat as an example is exactly because of this "content starvation". Because of Chris Roberts extreme success on kickstarter and the attitude of many big developers and publishers.
For more than 10 years no AAA-Title in that genre was developed because of this "lack of demand" from fans. But Star citizen showed, there is a demand.
SOOOO my question is: Aren't the higher-ups actually underestimating the fans and stating things without any proof (pushing the fault at us)?
Earlier in this thread you made a comment about how we shouldn't completely ignore fans, because we have to give fans what they want as a business.
Here's the quote:
Well as long as feedback is put into consideration and has a bit weight on some develpment aspects or processes, it's ok.After all, the fans are the ones who buy the game.
Modern military shooters will stop being so common when they stop setting sales records. It could be argued that by focusing on those types of games, they are giving customers what they want.
I won't dispute that big companies are possibly too data driven and sometimes that comes to the detriment of fans of particular titles. It's why I like the smaller scale games as well as digital, and why I'm all in favour of reducing barriers to entry in the game market.
Retour en haut
