DixieWolf, what is the name of the magazine where Mathieu Ferland made these "unmistakeable" comments on SC:C?

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:
the ones who scream the loudest aren't necessarily the people developers should be aiming at.

Like you for instance.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:
the ones who scream the loudest aren't necessarily the people developers should be aiming at.

Like you for instance.

Or you...

quote:

Originally posted by ElBaero2007:

quote:

Originally posted by soron:

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:
the ones who scream the loudest aren't necessarily the people developers should be aiming at.

Like you for instance.

Or you...

The pro-L/S are not the only ones "screeming loud." It is a debate and saying UBI should ignore lodgic baised on a few who would like SC turned into a 3rd person fighter with some steath aspects is just lame.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:
the ones who scream the loudest aren't necessarily the people developers should be aiming at.

Like you for instance.

I'm not shouting the loudest Soron, but thanks for more of your ad-hominem, ironically your comment proves my point about intimidation. I have not complained on this forum that ubisoft are sell outs, or that Splinter Cell isn't splinter Cell without the past things. Simply put everyone has their own opinion what Splinter Cell is. I haven't complained that, what I like to see should be done, or if it isn't done is considered ignoring. I understand development a little better, not everything can be done and there are 101 reasons to why. As for me I'm just along for the ride, I didn't request Ubisoft to change to this new direction, but they have done for reasons they have already explained, you can either be interested by it or upset by it. If the latter, rehashing the same complaints i.e screaming the loudest isn't always where the developers should be aiming.

However I rather wait till I see all of the jigsaw puzzle before I come to conclusions how the game will play from a feature complete perspective, rather then judge on pre-alpha gameplay demo. You're free to judge the game on the pre-alpha, but if you know what a pre-alpha is it is really niave to do so.

quote:

The pro-L/S are not the only ones "screeming loud." It is a debate and saying UBI should ignore lodgic baised on a few who would like SC turned into a 3rd person fighter with some steath aspects is just lame.

You misinterpreted what I said, so let me re-phrase for you. Many posters who don't like conviction will attack a poster directly, instead of debating what they have substance wise, to basically destroy any credibility they have, such as did you play the original game? If not your points aren't valid and many others, this is what many consider intimidation, and many don't post because they will be intimidated. In such case if the pro side or the con side did it, the feedback you get will be one sided and biased. You have to use more sources then the forum for feedback, where non-biased and much more constructive feedback can be compiled, this is just common sence from a marketing stand point.

quote:

I have not complained on this forum that ubisoft are sell outs, or that Splinter Cell isn't splinter Cell without the past things. Simply put everyone has their own opinion what Splinter Cell is. I haven't complained that, what I like to see should be done, or if it isn't done is considered ignoring.

I don't think anyone expects to have Ubi cater to their every whim. The "ignoring" idea comes from a large population with questions getting no answers.

quote:

I understand development a little better, not everything can be done and there are 101 reasons to why.

You might be surprised how many people here are familiar with the industry (myself included). In my case, I'm probably that much more demanding because I know what can be done.

quote:

I don't think anyone expects to have Ubi cater to their every whim. The "ignoring" idea comes from a large population with questions getting no answers.

I think one of the biggest reasons for no information right now, is due to the Assassin's Creed controversy with early previews/reviews which where negative. How is that related to Splinter Cell? Take a read Here. There was hardly anything on Rainbow Six really until 2-3 weeks before launch, officially from Ubisoft ofcourse.

quote:

You might be surprised how many people here are familiar with the industry (myself included). In my case, I'm probably that much more demanding because I know what can be done.

This I understand, but from what I saw when I was at some of my prior companies I've been to. A lot of ideas will be scrapped even internal ones the developers where aiming for, due to development time, cost, technical challenges, usability and so on. You will more then often here something was cut or couldn't be done is due to that. A good example co-op in Assassin's Creed, great idea, it is possible to do as jade even said herself. But to do such a task would of taken 6 months or more development time to achieve, not only creating ways that two Assassin's could interact co-opertivily, but creating new mission types, recording new sound bites for the new character, animation and texture creation etc.. Then taking into consideration balancing the two characters it's a big deal breaker. So I say many things can be done in many games, but all things considered is not always possible.

Ubisoft could go and change Conviction to original Light and Shadow gameplay, it's possible to do we all know it, they wouldn't lose any of the development they've done in the respect the level could be the same but just night time, but now you've got to re-balance the game for that context. Many things would have to be removed from the level designa and re-built, then re-tested, new textures would have to be created for characters to fit the theme, story would have to be changed to fit the overall re-imagined theme, it's a lot of time. If they changed the game after the pre-alpha demo this is all possible ofcourse, yet if you're in the middle of development you might aswell cancel said project and start fresh to go back to the previous inception, because to do such a thing is just time consuming.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:
the ones who scream the loudest aren't necessarily the people developers should be aiming at.

Like you for instance.

Not cool Soron. Chill it out or you may be looking at a warning. If you don't have anything to say other than directly attacking it's best not to say anything at all.

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:

quote:

I don't think anyone expects to have Ubi cater to their every whim. The "ignoring" idea comes from a large population with questions getting no answers.

I think one of the biggest reasons for no information right now, is due to the Assassin's Creed controversy with early previews/reviews which where negative. How is that related to Splinter Cell? Take a read Here. There was hardly anything on Rainbow Six really until 2-3 weeks before launch, officially from Ubisoft ofcourse.

It doesn't really matter why, though. All that matters is that they're doing it, and those who feel ignored aren't wrong.

quote:

Ubisoft could go and change Conviction to original Light and Shadow gameplay, it's possible to do we all know it, they wouldn't lose any of the development they've done in the respect the level could be the same but just night time, but now you've got to re-balance the game for that context. Many things would have to be removed from the level designa and re-built, then re-tested, new textures would have to be created for characters to fit the theme, story would have to be changed to fit the overall re-imagined theme, it's a lot of time. If they changed the game after the pre-alpha demo this is all possible ofcourse, yet if you're in the middle of development you might aswell cancel said project and start fresh to go back to the previous inception, because to do such a thing is just time consuming.

I just don't think it needs to be that complicated. Anyway, we started talking about this stuff, what, ten months ago now? That's a long time...

quote:

It doesn't really matter why, though. All that matters is that they're doing it, and those who feel ignored aren't wrong.

No information is a good and bad thing, and yes it does matter why. In 2002 Ubisoft showed off Raven Shield, similar to Conviction pre-alpha build. They had a lot of information out that was "work in progress" many people should understand work in progress doesn't nessarily mean those things will be there in the end. Many things in the trailer wern't present in the final build due to being taken out and many not developed due to time constraints, it annoyed so many people that these things where shown and didn't have work in progress on them. So they show conviction off with work in progress in it and people display the same displeasure, it makes sence to show nothing till the game is feature complete where the things won't change one month to the next, otherwise why tell someone, "Oh yes, we will explore this part of the game" only two months later be told this has been changed. That doesn't make sence at all.

Dark Sector is a great example why no information should be given, they made a transition from sci-fi to a more contempory look, ( Before) and ( After) if you got information about the game it would simply contradict later information. It makes sence to make that transition, solidify it, get to a stage of feature complete and show off information. Which by the way, they didn't give out information for more then a year due to that transition. So does it make sence? Yes it does. If you don't know whats going on behind the scenes all we can do is assume, it should be easy to say something thats what many think, it's not always the case depending whats going on development wise.

quote:

I just don't think it needs to be that complicated. Anyway, we started talking about this stuff, what, ten months ago now? That's a long time...

But it is that complicated, development around even the smallest things could take months. Let me give you an example, many gamers who play Rainbow Six: Vegas dislike the cover mechanic, they want the option to disable it. It sounds easy to do right? remove a few lines of code I'm sure someone would say, Wrong. You have to disable the code that allows that function to be done, now you have to play test the game to make sure it's balanced and the code doesn't work anymore, but because the game wasn't designed to work in first person perspective all the time it isn't balanced. So things would have to be changed to fit that new way to re-balance the game. That is something simple, yet ever so complex. There are other ways of doing it, such as removing the cover function from objects in the game world so that glicthes such as getting in cover wouldn't work anymore, but again this takes time. Does your ideas take into consideration time, coding, play testing, balancing, usability and much more into considerations?

Like I say to many people, there are so many games in production that have nothing. Resident Evil 5 has had a trailer in 2005 and an extended one in 2007, bar that there has been no real information, apart from there is MP, or certain little tid bits what you have from Conviction. It is now 2008 3 years later, 10 months is really nothing. When it is done I expect to see something solid, until then I'll wait.

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:

quote:

It doesn't really matter why, though. All that matters is that they're doing it, and those who feel ignored aren't wrong.

No information is a good and bad thing, and yes it does matter why. In 2002 Ubisoft showed off Raven Shield, similar to Conviction pre-alpha build. They had a lot of information out that was "work in progress" many people should understand work in progress doesn't nessarily mean those things will be there in the end. Many things in the trailer wern't present in the final build due to being taken out and many not developed due to time constraints, it annoyed so many people that these things where shown and didn't have work in progress on them. So they show conviction off with work in progress in it and people display the same displeasure, it makes sence to show nothing till the game is feature complete where the things won't change one month to the next, otherwise why tell someone, "Oh yes, we will explore this part of the game" only two months later be told this has been changed. That doesn't make sence at all.

Dark Sector is a great example why no information should be given, they made a transition from sci-fi to a more contempory look, ( Before) and ( After) if you got information about the game it would simply contradict later information. It makes sence to make that transition, solidify it, get to a stage of feature complete and show off information. Which by the way, they didn't give out information for more then a year due to that transition. So does it make sence? Yes it does. If you don't know whats going on behind the scenes all we can do is assume, it should be easy to say something thats what many think, it's not always the case depending whats going on development wise.

I wasn't talking about giving details about the game. I was merely talking about communication.

quote:

But it is that complicated,

It doesn't need to be.

Point Blank right now there really is no New info and it does seem that the game will not come this year

Maybie
Maybie
Not.
-----------------------------------------------
UFO's and Aliens
www.UFOcasebook.com

quote:

Originally posted by zakbase222:
Maybie
Maybie
Not.
-----------------------------------------------
UFO's and Aliens
www.UFOcasebook.com

ehh this sucks and to people that say its coming out april 1st its not

forget it we will just have to wait until next year or until winter and we dont even know when the new info is coming anyways im going nuts just waiting for it.

quote:

Originally posted by ERN456:
forget it we will just have to wait until next year or until winter and we dont even know when the new info is coming anyways im going nuts just waiting for it.

well till then lets play CT

quote:

I wasn't talking about giving details about the game. I was merely talking about communication.

What type of communication? Thomas had a blog up and writing about some Ubi stuff some not, that was "communication", but because it wasn't game related in so many details he said due to many complaining it wasn't, he stopped posting. So I mean which is it? Communication of any sorts or not at all? And either way someone is gonna complain.

quote:

it doesn't need to be. Wink2

You're right, they could skip our, balancing, focus testing, bug testing and all the complex things that come with the game design teritory, but you get a buggy glitchy bad game, why would you want that? So, for all things good, it has to be complicated, if it wasn't game development wouldn't take 3-4 years, it would be 2 and the coding was be held together with celotape. A good example of not being thourough about bugs, is Counter-Strike: Source, Valve seeked help from a 3rd party company to re-create an old map called de_inferno, they didn't follow standard testing, nor balancing, and guess what? The map would fail to load on Lan play, it was not optimized so the frame rate was very low, and the map had errors. The saddest thing if any tester had simply created a lan game they would of seen the error as it fails to load the map, unlike online play which works fine. So complex is the best way I think.

quote:

ehh this sucks and to people that say its coming out april 1st its not

At least if it did they'd have an excuse for the game being a total joke. XD

Sorry, lame, I couldn't resist it.

quote:

The map would fail to load on Lan play, it was not optimized so the frame rate was very low, and the map had errors. The saddest thing if any tester had simply created a lan game they would of seen the error as it fails to load the map, unlike online play which works fine. So complex is the best way I think.

Nice. My SCDA for PC has load and save bugs in Kinshasa, framerate in SCCT Coop PC is low, because it renders TWO screens. This causes abnormalities which in turn make up for 80% of the disconnects.

So all in all: SCCT Coop wasn't properly tested for multiplayer.
SCDA wasn't tested at all in the Kinshasa level.
FYI: that's supposed to be a AAA Ubi game, which got 10 months or more delay for 'financial reasons', then for 'polishing'. Bull.

quote:

Originally posted by Tidenburg:

quote:

ehh this sucks and to people that say its coming out april 1st its not

At least if it did they'd have an excuse for the game being a total joke. XD

Sorry, lame, I couldn't resist it.

i dont think they have even finished level because of the ruomred changes