CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
13
   |
Posted - 2013.09.09 19:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
KGB Sleep wrote:CCP Logibro wrote:We are not making decisions on aim assist yet. But we are discussing your feedback. Thank you. I refer you to the Kotaku articles regarding community feedback.
WoundedBum said, "I'd be interested to know how much interaction he feels a developer should have with the community during game development - obviously there needs to be communication between the two, but is it possible to have too much? Should the developers have a clear vision of what should and shouldn't be done in their game and tweak it accordingly, or should they be completely open to the communities wants and needs? It's interesting because with movies, the community has next to no input on what will be done, but with gaming it's a long development period and things can be more easily changed and affected."
Yes, it is absolutely possible to have too much community input in game development. Probably the scariest thing that can happen is that a developer will cater to the ultra-hardcore, super vocal community members. The problem is that these players usually do not represent the average player, and request things that don't appeal to most people.
For instance, we received a lot of useful feedback from the Hybrid beta. However, some things were just completely out of scope or were not what the game is about. There was someone petitioning for vehicles in the game, but that doesn't fit with Hybrid's design.
Also, during development, people don't necessarily know what they want until they see it. Henry Ford said it best: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." Ultimately community input is very important, but like anything, moderation is best. We do this for a living, so trust us to make the best game possible!Source
Thank you much, KGB Sleep.
I actually posted a similar message to a CCP dev in another forum, and the fear rings true. Too Much Kindness can Kill the Care-giver.
"Input" and "Feedback" are concepts that we invite with the CONCEPTION they will be a collection of individual thoughts (objective ones and subjective ones), that will always have some details or insights or observations that we can sort through and CONSIDER. Perhaps that conception is misguided.
Historically, "feedback opportunities" are heavily abused by
... the obsessed fan who rants if he feels you are not directly responding to his letters (or posts),
...the obsessed complainer who wants to use your feedback program as another example of why no one has any intelligence except him,
...and a kind of 'mob-intimidation" energy that shows itself in the form of petition-lists and threats of diviorce if their demands are not met by the next public announcement.
Promising THIS much feedback access can only lead to CCP's anxiety, double-guessing what decisions they've made, and being more likely to make WRONG decisions (much the was dropship camera changes are being argued as wrong, but I suspect were the result of trying TO HARD to decypher the constantly adolescent presentation of some players' "ideas").
The WAVE of posts in the collective forums should be enough to rid ANY doubt from CCP's mind that Dust 514 is an unmitigated game of interest and popularity.
It is not a game that HAS to invite or rely on THIS MUCH "feedback" and "input". And the CONTENT of those posts make it clear that we console players mostly don't have (the scope or faculties?) to give consistently valuable input in our games.
I'm hoping they HOLD THE LINE with "aim assist" and any similar components introduced in 1.4.
Don't be a congressman who reverses his stand because too many voters tried to picket his front door.
I am embarrassed to feel this way about my own fellow gamers (because only the few are making things difficult for the rest of us), but I think CCP should close some of the doors and windows and scale back this "feedback" approach. Way, way back.
|
CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 17:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'll make my last post for this thread.
It WAS a really good debate, but err, I can see it only took a couple more pages for it to decay. The severe thing in Dust that needs a "fix", is still... US.
When CCP offered this game FREE (paid for by others, not by the players), it was supposed to be ONE of the indicators that this was NOT going to follow the stencil and cut-out of previous FPS games. It wasn't going to be your fav FPS "improved". It wasn't going to be like you fave FPS, period.
Some of us (you know who you are without being embarrassingly called out by name....you reveal your mindset in your posts), strangely have voluntarily entered the game, and are trying their best to turn Dust into "another repeat of the same traditional 'ole FPS to add to their repetative collection of FPS's that got too dry for them to play because they know the maps by heart".
This is like a person leaving her comfy hardwood bedroom, telling herself she wants to explore new places, and then demanding that the new places be renovated to duplicate her hardwwood bedroom.
The right solution is, go back to her comfy hardwood bedroom to find her satisfaction.
Perhaps some of those classic FPS games were called "team-based".
But when referring to them in this thread, some of us (you know who you are) only use the terms "Pub-Stompers", "Competitive-based", "The Noobs can shoot us", "the Marksmanship endevour", etc. These are phrases concerned with the single individual being better than the others around him... so clearly when you played those other FPSs, you played them to be PERSONAL ACHIEVERS, and the "socially-coop/team play" tilt of the game was baggage you just tolerated as long as you had teammates as sharp as you.
Do you really expect Dust to support your competitive-individual concerns when in every new patch it's showing its EVE "social cooperation"-based intentions?
Dust is continuing to reward "groups" more than individuals, reward "players balance" more than single-player excellence, even to the point of blatantly taking away private stomping rights and blatantly slowing the speed at which you can surpass in SP. That's what EVE does, and Dust is aiming there too.
I've viewed and listened to their player-submitted combat videos (maybe we all should look at a couple). It takes SEVERAL DOZEN players working feverishly in concert to win a single night's EVE battle. You can't ID vets from Newberrys, and the struggle is so hot they don't seem to give a damn about that.
If Dust is the extension of EVE, it should take the entire PACK of clone players to win a single district (no more stomper/ marksman/ noob or any other alienating tags you're bringing with you from your OTHER FPS's).
....any INDIVIDUAL excelling in a strength should also have a crippling weakness (I am paraphrasing some of the the Devs' 1.5 aspirations).
If you're looking to label it all as "broken" still hoping to change and duplicate all these FPS's that you played with a so called "TEAM-based" mindset, please...
Just go back to your comfy hardwood bedroom to find your old satisfaction. There's no shame.
Dust is not trying to be the old hardwood. |