DixieWolf, why do you keep responding to my posts like we're in total disagreement? I'm not arguing your points. Okay?

quote:

Originally posted by TFS_Jackie:

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.

If I had a nickle for every time I...
I was not the one who made the original statment indirectly attacking a group of ppl.
So saying UBI should not listen to you is a warnable offence?
Ill prob. get a warnning of a possible warnning again for "talking back" lol.

well idk about that so chill

quote:

I was not the one who made the original statment indirectly attacking a group of ppl.

It's an opinion based on reason. Raven Shield is a good example why developers shouldn't of listened to gamers, and backs up what I was saying about about balancing to costagirl. Let me give you a history lesson. In 2003 when Raven Shield launched, many gamers complained that the supressors didn't give enough damage, they where the ones shouting the loudest, but shouldn't of been where the developers should of been aiming.

The weapons where already balanced, such as a weapon without a supressor the recoil would have to be controlled manually, otherwise the weapon would shoot up into the air. If you add a supressor it adds controlability to the weapon, due to the weight, and obviously less recoil, but the downfall is it does less damage. In principle this is great, it workled great. But gamers wanted more, so what Ubisoft did is they took the supressor like the gamers wanted and increased the damage. Guess what? Everyone had a supressor on their weapon, it was more controllable then without one, and there was no negative. Then due to that gamers where adding C-Mags which had 100 rounds in them, and due to the controlabiity, there wasn't a reason to not take one, it was more accurate then a Light Machine Gun rendering the Light Machine Guns useless, taking what those gamers wanted screwed up the entire balance of the game three fold.

So much so that gaming leagues had to ban C-Mags from competition. If it was left in it's original state everything would of been fine. This is one example where the loudest voice shouldn't be heard. But then again the blame goes on the developers, and that it does for listening!

The next example Ghost Recon. Pc gamers have this attitude that, they're above console gamers, realism only resides on PC. Ok. So Ghost Recon 2 was being made for the console, PC was going to get the same game. PC gamers wanted their own game built ground up not a port. So Ubisoft said, ok, what we will do is we will skip this game for the PC and design a game from ground up for the PC, so they cancelled Ghost Recon 2 for PC. Ghost Recon 3 aka GRAW was shown at E3, PC gamers didn't want what they saw, they wanted their own Pc version. So Ubi got GRIN to make their game for them, so while the original Red Storm team with some old members from the original GR project worked on the console, a new unknown and inexperienced team worked on the PC version, who only made a few titles and made simulations for the Swedish Govermnet for Military purposes.

The gaming community kept asking for this that and the other, like I said in another post, they changed practically everything that was in the early beta screenshots to what the community wanted. The problem? It was a detriment to the game, the game lacked in so many areas due to the fact they spent 20% of their time doing the requests. Time which should of been spent polishing the game. But they didn't so, when the game came out it was unbalanced, cumbersome, frustrating and buggy. That's due to listening to the loud voices, when they should of concentrated on what needed to be done.

Third Example? Splinter Cell: Double Agent. The game for the Pc was set to have what you see on the xbox, Light and Shadow gameplay, but with Spy versus Spy Multi-player. Jumping to conclusions that SvU is what many wanted requests in signatures SvU or I don't buy was the new the new thing. Gmaers got what they wanted, Rhoulette, passed it on and they listened to the loud voices. But with little detail in how the mode worked, when getting the game complain how bad the Multi-player is. But in an almost ironic slap in the face, a game which is considered excellent on xbox for it's singleplayer and co-op which was originally set to come on the PC, but was scrapped due to requests. I could almost laugh, at the irony, and how Pc gamers today say Ubi should of just put the xbox verson on the PC. Well yes, they would have if you didn't of keep requesting haha! So you see that's how gamers voices can be detrimental, and it's why a lot of the time develoeprs should ignore these loud voices. But the excuse is, Pc gamers didn't know how it would of turned out, well thats the point!! You don't know so maybe you should let them do their thing without interuption.

I'm not the only who says this. Bioware have said it in the gamespy article "do hardcore gamers really matter?" and they say exactly the same thing. Developers need to becareful who they take feedback from, especially if you want to make a game that allows to to hit a wide audience. You cannot have a game like GRAW, broken and horrible, while it sold 800k and is a success for ubisoft in sales as it makes a 7 figure number, the game is a failure for delivering a product. Where as the console version, which wasn't dictated by the community, was a more the roots game, had all the MP modes of the Original Pc version, and much much more, and ironically again PC gamers jumped ont he forum at GRAW launch and asked why it wasn't the same or they wanted it ported to the PC because it was better. Some Pc gamers went out and got Xbox 360's to play the game, that's what it's come to.

I have seen what can happen when develoeprs appeal to the loud voices, you can make a niche game which only appeals to a certain group of gamers, while that may sound great, the whole idea of games as an art form is to hit as many people as you can not limit it.

I disagree a lot.

SCDA PC would have been good, if they had tested better. SCDA had less than 20 testers listed in the credits. I call them monkeys, because obviously they didn't do their job well.

Also, there was a lack of good multiplayer information, lack of videos, lack of everything including a demo. If they would have released a demo before the game shipped, many would have seen that the game doesn't work with high-end graphics cards, which is an inexcusable mistake. Also the lacking support for Vista is laughable.
SCDA PC needs a major overhaul on quality.

Changing directions doesnt work if you keep the timing constraints the same (should be expanded).

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
I disagree a lot.

SCDA PC would have been good, if they had tested better. SCDA had less than 20 testers listed in the credits. I call them monkeys, because obviously they didn't do their job well.

Also, there was a lack of good multiplayer information, lack of videos, lack of everything including a demo. If they would have released a demo before the game shipped, many would have seen that the game doesn't work with high-end graphics cards, which is an inexcusable mistake. Also the lacking support for Vista is laughable.
SCDA PC needs a major overhaul on quality.

Changing directions doesnt work if you keep the timing constraints the same (should be expanded).

there was one too many bugs in the game

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
I disagree a lot.

SCDA PC would have been good, if they had tested better. SCDA had less than 20 testers listed in the credits. I call them monkeys, because obviously they didn't do their job well.

Also, there was a lack of good multiplayer information, lack of videos, lack of everything including a demo. If they would have released a demo before the game shipped, many would have seen that the game doesn't work with high-end graphics cards, which is an inexcusable mistake. Also the lacking support for Vista is laughable.
SCDA PC needs a major overhaul on quality.

Changing directions doesnt work if you keep the timing constraints the same (should be expanded).

You missed the whole point. Gamers made assumptions, based on multi-player alone. Nothing to do with Singeplayer experience, which at the time didn't care about. There where plenty of videos out before the games release, but where brief 5 minutes long. What excuse did PC gamers have with Console being out 2 months before? That invalidates the excuse, you didn't know what to expect. There was also video footage before the delay back in March 2006 when the game got delayed, when Ubi announced they would port it to the PC. The delay was due to financial reason IIRC. Secondly, for people who got SCDA to work, who mainly like Light and Shadow, say the game failed, this is regardless of "bugs" it's the gameplay that was in the game, that the didn't like the most, such things are the traffic light system, dayligth missions and JBA HQ and mini games. You're focusing on the technical issues, while valid, is not what i'm talking about which is the community requests.

My point is, gamers who speak loud and base things on assumptions like they do now, shouldn't be where developers should be aiming otherwise you get the same problem, I could imagine them showing a game which was meant to come out but was changed to fit the gamers then everyone goes well it's your fault all over again. How where they to support Vista? SCDA came out November 2006 and Vista in Feb 2007? It makes no sence to support Vista for numerous of reason. A game that did Supreme Commander supported vista 32 and 64 bit, and look how badly it was supported due to lack of driver support for graphic and sound drivers. Which by the way wasn't even WHQL tested they where in beta stage on Vista, not only for motherboards by Nvidia but VIA and other makers. It simply doesn't make sence from a developers perspective to support that at that time, and some developers still don't support vista due to that, until it's stablaised in the community.

Games that use the "Games for Windows" brand, (which specifies that it must support windows Vista.) support vista. Quite a few games have it, many don't. You simply cannot expect all developers to start supporting a new O/S which has just been out 14 months. Some do, and are exclusive to that platform, such as Alan Wake, which is DX10 only no DX9 code base afaik.

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:
My point is, gamers who speak loud and base things on assumptions like they do now, shouldn't be where developers should be aiming otherwise you get the same problem, I could imagine them showing a game which was meant to come out but was changed to fit the gamers then everyone goes well it's your fault all over again.

When you're talking about basing things on assumptions, are you talking about SCC? Because, that would obviously go for both sides. You don't "know" that the new style will work any more than we "know" it won't.

Also, it's the developer's job to make things work. If they decide to use someone's idea, but don't implement it properly, or test it thoroughly, would you seriously blame the person with the idea for a failure? I sure wouldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:
My point is, gamers who speak loud and base things on assumptions like they do now, shouldn't be where developers should be aiming otherwise you get the same problem, I could imagine them showing a game which was meant to come out but was changed to fit the gamers then everyone goes well it's your fault all over again.

When you're talking about basing things on assumptions, are you talking about SCC? Because, that would obviously go for both sides. You don't "know" that the new style will work any more than we "know" it won't.

Also, it's the developer's job to make things work. If they decide to use someone's idea, but don't implement it properly, or test it thoroughly, would you seriously blame the person with the idea for a failure? I sure wouldn't.

You're right I don't know if the new style will work, that's why I haven't come to this conclusion the game sucks, or it's an Assassin's Creed rip off, it hasn't got the Spy suit etc etc... I've always said I will wait till I see more footage, as what I saw in the pre-alpha build and concepts that where shown looked interesting, bar that there isn't anything else to go on.

I blame both sides when things like that go bad, the thinsg they implemented was perfectly how they wanted it Costagirl but then complain that it looked crappy when it was done, then complained they wanted the console version ported to the PC, happened with GRAW happened with SCDA. I remember a case where SOE made an MMO game and used Beta testers, who where meant to give feedback, but because they where so biased, they only put forward their own ideas. Which forced everyone down the same route, because they screamed the loudest, when in reality it was only a few people spamming. Sony took what they said onboard and the game sucked at release, a majority left the game project and wasn't interested anymore. Those who had requested the changes, looked sheepish and also left, the game was bad and they where to blame. Developers like Bioware have said they have to becareful where they take feedback from these days. To quote:

Can hardcore gamers ever be harmful to development?

quote:

Muzyka: We think there's a definite difference between your garden-variety hardcore gamer and the vocal minority that sometimes erupt online on message boards. You need to be able to tell the difference between the two groups and understand that the people yelling the loudest aren't necessarily the majority of players, nor are they necessarily even an influential hardcore player or early adopter... We should note that a minority of hardcore gamers actually do seek niche-type features that might cause the mainstream gamers to get turned off by complexity or difficulty, and, to be successful in reaching a large audience with their titles, developers definitely need to be aware of this phenomenon and be careful to screen all comments carefully before changing their designs based on those comments from fans.

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
When you're talking about basing things on assumptions, are you talking about SCC? Because, that would obviously go for both sides. You don't "know" that the new style will work any more than we "know" it won't.

Also, it's the developer's job to make things work. If they decide to use someone's idea, but don't implement it properly, or test it thoroughly, would you seriously blame the person with the idea for a failure? I sure wouldn't.

You're right I don't know if the new style will work, that's why I haven't come to this conclusion the game sucks, or it's an Assassin's Creed rip off, it hasn't got the Spy suit etc etc... I've always said I will wait till I see more footage, as what I saw in the pre-alpha build and concepts that where shown looked interesting, bar that there isn't anything else to go on.

So why debate at all? I mean, I like to debate, and on this issue I have a side (bonus). You don't seem to, so, why? You must realize by now that you're not going to change anyone's mind. Only Ubi can do that.
Besides, we've long accepted that we don't know much about the game, and it may look very different in the end. There's really no need to push that concept.

Also, I don't recall saying the game sucks, or will suck. I have said that it shared features with AC. If you want to deny that they look alike (based on what we know now), go right ahead. But, all things considered, it's hardly far fetched to think that Ubi would copy features over. Companies do it all the time. It's just not usually done with an established series, nor so blatantly...

quote:

I blame both sides when things like that go bad, the thinsg they implemented was perfectly how they wanted it

If that's true (which I doubt), you know what I'd do if it were my idea that failed? I'd own it.

But, I don't think ideas are implemented perfectly. They're mangled along the way - too many cooks in the kitchen type of deal. Not to mention, even if it was, by some miracle, done "right", if it's not working, the developer should know better than to use it.

Not that I think a developer would use an idea just to appease someone in the first place... They use ideas because they agree they're good. If they didn't agree, they'd do something else. It doesn't matter what company - they're not going to pursue an idea that they don't think will be successful.

And, sure, people could complain if an idea wasn't used, but big deal. If they make a good game without it, it's a moot point. On that note, Ubi's more than welcome to prove me wrong about this "new" style of stealth. Just because I don't think they can (based on what I've seen), it doesn't mean I won't own it if they do.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
When you're talking about basing things on assumptions, are you talking about SCC? Because, that would obviously go for both sides. You don't "know" that the new style will work any more than we "know" it won't.

Also, it's the developer's job to make things work. If they decide to use someone's idea, but don't implement it properly, or test it thoroughly, would you seriously blame the person with the idea for a failure? I sure wouldn't.

You're right I don't know if the new style will work, that's why I haven't come to this conclusion the game sucks, or it's an Assassin's Creed rip off, it hasn't got the Spy suit etc etc... I've always said I will wait till I see more footage, as what I saw in the pre-alpha build and concepts that where shown looked interesting, bar that there isn't anything else to go on.

So why debate at all? I mean, I like to debate, and on this issue I have a side (bonus). You don't seem to, so, why? You must realize by now that you're not going to change anyone's mind. Only Ubi can do that.
Besides, we've long accepted that we don't know much about the game, and it may look very different in the end. There's really no need to push that concept.

Also, I don't recall saying the game sucks, or will suck. I have said that it shared features with AC. If you want to deny that they look alike (based on what we know now), go right ahead. But, all things considered, it's hardly far fetched to think that Ubi would copy features over. Companies do it all the time. It's just not usually done with an established series, nor so blatantly...

quote:

I blame both sides when things like that go bad, the thinsg they implemented was perfectly how they wanted it

If that's true (which I doubt), you know what I'd do if it were my idea that failed? I'd own it.

But, I don't think ideas are implemented perfectly. They're mangled along the way - too many cooks in the kitchen type of deal. Not to mention, even if it was, by some miracle, done "right", if it's not working, the developer should know better than to use it.

Not that I think a developer would use an idea just to appease someone in the first place... They use ideas because they agree they're good. If they didn't agree, they'd do something else. It doesn't matter what company - they're not going to pursue an idea that they don't think will be successful.

And, sure, people could complain if an idea wasn't used, but big deal. If they make a good game without it, it's a moot point. On that note, Ubi's more than welcome to prove me wrong about this "new" style of stealth. Just because I don't think they can (based on what I've seen), it doesn't mean I won't own it if they do.

Ofcourse Conviction shares some things from Assassin's Creed in many aspects. But in all honesty this is no different then Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six Vegas, sharing the same cover scheme and picture in picture. The gameplay styles are very different and still each game is unique in its own way. Splinter Cell shares things from Dead Rising, GTA, Assassin's Creed, Thief, Syphon Filter, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, and many many other games from before the early millenium and games from 2007. But it still is its own unique game.

I don't deny that the game doesn't have features from these games which it does in many aspects which aren't obvious to many people, but they're there. I don't base my conclusions based on this. When Chaos Theory trailers came out Costagirl, many who post here you would be suprised to know where saying all you do in the game is aggressive things, due to the trailers only showing back stabs and shooting, no stealth elements until the showed a tech demo. This was of a janitor mopping up the floor showing some new engine abilities, how when he mopped the floor it would go wet and reflective, then Sam hung upside down on a pipe and broke his neck lol. Later on more trailers came out co-op ones, and many others, it looked great even aggressive in them. But we know how Chaos Theory turned out. So I may know what I would like to see, but I rather be kept in the dark. The same with Music, many bands I like are in the studio now, they're not allowed to give any sound bits from their music due to how labels work, (if you release demo's it reduces the value of the product) other then say it's the best thing we've worked on for 4 months.

The ideas people wanted Coastagirl where implemented perfectly to how people requested it how could you do them wrong? I would say check the GRAW forum november 2005 till march 2006 when requests where made, for a game which was set back to May 15th. For example the drone view on the PC was colour originally, many said it's not realistic, so they wanted it grey tone like real military planes that you see from gun cam or missile cam. So it was changed to grey tone. This is one small example of many, in the screenshots they where shown of the update they where happy with it, video's, again happy with it. The game came out the same people who requested the change complained it was rubbish, how can a developer take those people seriously? It's why I say you can't always take from the loudest shouters. From then we all had to use that grey tone which we never wanted, and ironically thos ewho requested grey tone perfered the colour version, so it's like what was the point in changing it in the first place?

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:
The ideas people wanted Coastagirl where implemented perfectly to how people requested it how could you do them wrong? I would say check the GRAW forum november 2005 till march 2006 when requests where made, for a game which was set back to May 15th. For example the drone view on the PC was colour originally, many said it's not realistic, so they wanted it grey tone like real military planes that you see from gun cam or missile cam. So it was changed to grey tone. This is one small example of many, in the screenshots they where shown of the update they where happy with it, video's, again happy with it. The game came out the same people who requested the change complained it was rubbish, how can a developer take those people seriously? It's why I say you can't always take from the loudest shouters. From then we all had to use that grey tone which we never wanted, and ironically thos ewho requested grey tone perfered the colour version, so it's like what was the point in changing it in the first place?

Well, I can't be sure about what you're talking about, as I've never played the game, but honestly that sounds superficial. My issue is with Ubi changing the core gameplay mechanics, not the fluff on top of it.
I mean, for example, I liked DA for the 360. That said, I don't think it was anywhere near what they could have done. IMO the enhanced NVG were pointless; had I actually needed to use them the funky look would have annoyed me. I didn't like the traffic light, nor the lack of a sound meter, nor the repeating JBA missions, nor the mini-games, nor the daylight sections. But, you know what? It doesn't really matter, because things like that are almost trivial. The only thing that really makes or breaks a game, for me, is the gameplay. I'll forgive a LOT, as long as the gameplay's there. Of course, that isn't to say I don't appreciate a game like CT, that really, truly delivered.

Also, in regards to not knowing much based on what's been shown, since I've heard people from Ubi say, flat out (and repeatedly), the gameplay's changing to something more fast-paced, something "easier", with no safety in shadows, it doesn't really matter. They've said what the new deal is, and, more importantly for me, isn't.