PDA

View Full Version : New Game Informer AC:R Aftermath Interview



GLHS
01-18-2012, 08:49 AM
There's an interview with some interesting questions on the "aftermath" of AC:R, and the devs mention some interesting things about their take on the game, plus about questions that were/were not answered in AC:R. Just wondering if anybody else saw this and what your thoughts are.

SixKeys
01-18-2012, 11:45 AM
Is there a link to the article somewhere?

catkiller97
01-18-2012, 01:32 PM
Is there a link to the article somewhere?

Where is the link ?

GLHS
01-18-2012, 04:23 PM
You can't view it online unless you've subscribed to digital copies. I just have the magazine. It's just a minor article, so it's not up on the site.

lukaszep
01-18-2012, 08:24 PM
Maybe you could post the article on this thread?

SixKeys
01-19-2012, 12:48 AM
Maybe you could post the article on this thread?

That would be against the rules as it would be copyright infringement.

LightRey
01-19-2012, 10:56 AM
That would be against the rules as it would be copyright infringement.

True. However, a small summary might be allowed.

GLHS
01-19-2012, 01:47 PM
I can post a few things I thought was interesting anyway, sure.

Q: When development on Revelations began, what goals did you have to set the game apart from Brotherhood?
A: From a narrative standpoint, our goal in Revelations was to finish Ezio's story and craft a tale that focused on his internal conflicts rather than the external, revenge-driven plots of the previous two games. We wanted Ezio to face some legitimately difficult decisions about his own life and actions, so we introduced the Altair story moments as a way to let Ezio see what it means to be utterly devoted to the Assassins....This is also why we took Ezio to a completely new city and country- it is much harder to play the untouchable hero when you're a stranger in a strange land. ....Of course we wanted Revelations to provide a satisfying conclusion to our two beloved Assassins...I think we struck just the right balance. Fans still have some questions lingering, but not about Ezio and Altair.

Q: A lot of players had problems with the Den Defense system. In retrospect, are there any changes you would have made to this game system?
A: The Den Defense system was actually rated quite highly in our numerous play tests, so we still believe it's a well designed minigame. ...Admittedly, Den Defense is quite a departure from the normal AC fare. I think the lesson to learn here is that the system feel so far removed from the "Assassin" aspect of AC, that it seems like more of a detour than an upgrade.

Q: One Notable addition to the franchise from AC2 was the The Truth, which offered a dramatically different puzzle style and encouraged world exploration. Why did Revelations eliminate this system?
A: The glyph and rift puzzles fromthe previous games were fun, but they also had a very specific narrative justification; they were the encoded "pieces" of the hidden Subject 16 A.I. Program. So when Desmond completes them all by Brotherhood, he is literally executing a program that reconstructs the Subject 16 A.I.--which we then see the result of in Revelations. Sadly, I had to cut some dialogue that explained this, for reasons of length and sensibility.

Q: Though Revelations finally gave us a clear look at Subject 16, a lot of questions remain unanswered about that character. Will we see more from Desmond's predecessor in the Animus, or do you consider that story arc to now be closed?
A: As far as we're concerned, Subject 16's story has reached it's conclusion, though it's not inconceivable that more information about him might surface. ....So while what he did uncover a ton of information about various worldwide conspiracies, not everything he says is necessarily a clue to some future secret. Some of it is just the confused ramblings of a man trying to make sense of too much information. Much of what he says is true, or tru-ish, but some of it is confused and not everything is meant to be taken at face value. But we're not saying which is which.

Q: What questions do you feel that AC:R successfully answered for long-time players? What big unanswered questions remain?
A: Before Revelations was released, the most frequent questions we got from our fans were :"What ultimately happened to Altair?", "What did Altair see in the Apple when he went back for one last look?" , "Who did Ezio continue his bloodline with?" , "Is Lucy dead?" , and "What ultimately happened to the First Civilization?" All these questions have been answered. Naturally, some remain..."WHY was Lucy killed?" is a big one. But have no fear. We'll get there.

My favorite parts of that are his little hints on more of Clay and the explanation of Lucy. *cough, DLC, cough*

LightRey
01-19-2012, 02:15 PM
"As far as we're concerned, Subject 16's story has reached it's conclusion, though it's not inconceivable that more information about him might surface. ....So while what he did uncover a ton of information about various worldwide conspiracies, not everything he says is necessarily a clue to some future secret. Some of it is just the confused ramblings of a man trying to make sense of too much information. Much of what he says is true, or tru-ish, but some of it is confused and not everything is meant to be taken at face value. But we're not saying which is which. "

Everyone on the forum should read this.

GLHS
01-19-2012, 02:22 PM
Lol Exactly what I was thinking.

luckyto
01-19-2012, 03:35 PM
A: The Den Defense system was actually rated quite highly in our numerous play tests,

Some serious changes are needed in testing.

GLHS
01-19-2012, 03:51 PM
I kinda laughed when I read that too, and all I could think about was non-AC fans sittin in a room playin it goin "Oh yeah, this is pretty cool. It's like a strategy game." That's honestly my biggest thing I didn't like about the game. I'm not like a lot of other people on here. I loved the game and didn't really have the problems with as many things as other people did. But I honestly think Den Defense just has no place at all in AC and it really wasn't a good decision. The idea is good....but the execution just wasn't done right.

LightRey
01-19-2012, 03:51 PM
Some serious changes are needed in testing.

I disagree. It was fun to play and I haven't met anyone that hated it and didn't fail at it all the time.

Will_Lucky
01-19-2012, 03:59 PM
So, the glyph and rift puzzles actually reconstructed the Subject 16 AI. I hadn't thought like that before but that does make sense.

LightRey
01-19-2012, 04:05 PM
So, the glyph and rift puzzles actually reconstructed the Subject 16 AI. I hadn't thought like that before but that does make sense.

I thought it was obvious. The fact only that he randomly appeared after they executed the Truth file from ACB was evidence enough.

dxsxhxcx
01-19-2012, 04:36 PM
I disagree. It was fun to play and I haven't met anyone that hated it and didn't fail at it all the time.

the times I played the Den Defense (around 6 or 7 times when I didn't have nothing better to do) I never failed at it and I still think that this kind of feature has no place in AC, I would have prefered a massive battle in the middle of the street with my assassins helping me and with me in the middle of the confusion killing guards with them than just stay there placing units and shooting at the guards...

SixKeys
01-19-2012, 05:12 PM
Thanks for the info, GLHS.

About Den Defense: that feature has gotten nearly universally panned by fans and critics alike. I'm not saying it's impossible that some people like it, but from what I've seen the majority dislikes it. Yet the devs are still defending it. It sounds to me like they're not being quite honest with themselves and admitting that it didn't work out the way they had hoped.

I'm disappointed that they confirmed the Subject 16 part of the story is concluded. Maybe we'll see something related to him in the upcoming DLC, but I was kind of hoping they still had SOMEthing in store to tell us why he acted so differently in Revelations compared to all the other games. After all ther mysteries, Desmond didn't seem interested in what 16 had to say when they finally met face to face and there was none of the urgency with which 16 had tried to communicate with Desmond in the past. There was no reason given for this in the game. The most ridiculous thing is that the devs claimed that some of the explanation for 16 was cut for "length". The game was already the shortest of AC games as it is! Would it really have hurt to give us a few more extra minutes to clear up some important plot points, really?

"it is much harder to play the untouchable hero when you're a stranger in a strange land."

This is where I felt they totally failed. If they were trying to make this a fish-out-of-water story for Ezio, maybe they shouldn't have made him so damn invincible. I would have liked to have seen him really struggle with this different culture, feeling a little out of place with the Ottoman assassins who have been doing things their way for decades while Ezio is stuck doing what he's always done. But really, there was absolutely none of that. Ezio could still kick every guard's a**, despite their having new techniques he has never encountered in Italy, everyone in the assassin order respected him as a mentor and treated him no differently even though he was basically an outsider, Ezio was open and quick to learn every new gadget Yusuf threw his way instead of acting like a grumpy old man: "I don't trust these new-fangled hookblades, in my days a hidden blade was enough and we were grateful for it!".

Honestly, that's the kind of Ezio I could have connected with better in regards to the story. Someone who has spent his whole life assassinating people for revenge but without seeing the deeper meaning behind the creed. As he grows older, he grows bitter and hardened, and watches as the world around him changes rapidly as he struggles to keep up. I would have liked him to be suspicious of new gadgets like the hookblade because at his age, he would rather stick with his own tried and tested methods. He was supposedly on a journey of self-discovery yet spent very little time soul-searching and more time blowing stuff up. He was a stranger in a strange land yet he didn't hesitate for a moment to throw himself in the middle of a politically volatile situation working for people he knew very little about. Really, Ezio in Constantinople was no different at all from the self-assured, all-powerful Ezio in his own country. The reason for this rant is because the devs clearly state what they set out to do with this story and I feel like they completely lost sight of that goal. It just feels like such a huge missed opportunity and it makes me even more disappointed to have them clearly acknowledge how the story was meant to be when it turned out to be anything but that.

luckyto
01-19-2012, 07:41 PM
Everyone I know who has played Den Defense (and yes, beaten it) does not like it. I didn't buy AC to do Den Defense; and two, clearly, obviously, absolutely, beyond doubt; those development efforts could have been used elsewhere. I recognize that in the infinite wisdom of evolution that there is a person who is bound to like anything; but I do not believe for a second that an ACCURATE sampling of gamers or AC fans would have green-lighted that disaster.



Honestly, that's the kind of Ezio I could have connected with better in regards to the story. Someone who has spent his whole life assassinating people for revenge but without seeing the deeper meaning behind the creed. As he grows older, he grows bitter and hardened, and watches as the world around him changes rapidly as he struggles to keep up.

I liked the story - overall. But I do think you are hitting the nail on the head when it comes the story's biggest weakness. The character arc which should have been there, just did not play out. It's possible that those elements (dialogue, etc) were there in the early drafts; and was cut for time/budget. Which is a shame... because we could have had something great, instead they ended up with good enough.

twenty_glyphs
01-19-2012, 08:28 PM
@GLHS: Thanks for posting some of the questions. Who was the interview with?

I also find some of the answers funny, like cutting things for length. The Subject 16 moments in the story were so short and meaningless that I can't believe they thought it needed to be cut for length, especially at the expense of important dialogue that would have explained a few minor story points. Perhaps they were so boring that they cut them down because people were getting bored during those moments? I found those scenes boring, despite being on the edge of my seat waiting to hear what Subject 16 was going to say. Subject 16's personality was so unlikeable, and different from who we had seen in the previous two games. I can't believe they think this was a conclusion to 16's story. I hope they mean a conclusion to what will happen with his character, and not a conclusion to what he has been trying to say. He said in Brotherhood, "I shut it down. I can shut it down, but it does not go away. It is almost time, Desmond Miles. I know how to open the Path. Soon, my true purpose will be revealed. Soon I will not be alone." Awesome true purpose to have of not explaining anything to Desmond or even mentioning the Path once he got to meet him. I also understand the narrative reason for not having the Truth, but the concept of those puzzles revealing tiny snippets of the greater mystery within a cool atmosphere of conspiracy and mystery was what was important about them. They should have found a narrative reason to continue a similar gameplay element.

It seems like they gameplay-tested the Den Defense segments in isolation without considering how it fit into the overall game. I could see people thinking the gameplay was kind of interesting in an isolated play session, but to go from that to thinking that it fit within the overall game and that fans of the existing gameplay would like it was a big stretch. I never lost a single session of Den Defense, but I still found it to be very boring and pointless. Even though I never lost, it definitely didn't explain enough about itself to make it easier to understand. I don't fault them for trying something new though. I could see my line of thinking having prevented The Truth from ever getting into AC2, but that was a hit. I think part of the difference is The Truth is narratively engaging while Den Defense has nothing to do with story. And The Truth's gameplay was a welcome contrast from the normal gameplay while Den Defense is similar enough to the normal gameplay (like existing in the same 3D-modeled world) to make it feel jarring that it's so different.

E-Zekiel
01-19-2012, 09:46 PM
Some serious changes are needed in testing.

Not really. I liked it. As they said in the article, more of a detour than an upgrade. It's mainly a playstyle thing. If you don't like RTS games, you're not going to like Den Defense. Simple as that. Many people dislike RTS. I'm not one of them.


On a different note, I really don't recall the question of "What did he see the last time he looked into the apple?" being answered.

luckyto
01-19-2012, 09:54 PM
Do you work for testing? ;)

I like RTS games at times. I've got two on my iPhone that I play all the time. But if I wanted to play one, I'll play one. I don't play AC to do Tower Defense.

I'm not trying to dog on people who like it (well, except maybe LightRey)... I just don't see it as a "winner."

dxsxhxcx
01-19-2012, 10:03 PM
Not really. I liked it. As they said in the article, more of a detour than an upgrade. It's mainly a playstyle thing. If you don't like RTS games, you're not going to like Den Defense. Simple as that. Many people dislike RTS. I'm not one of them.


On a different note, I really don't recall the question of "What did he see the last time he looked into the apple?" being answered.

[SPOILERS]

I don't remember this being answered too, for a moment I thought they were talking about that cutscene where the first civilization is destroyed but if I'm not wrong, Altair talk about that vision in one of the previous pages of the Codex and not in the last page (where he mentions the "last look")...

Codex page 17

"Of all the things I've seen, none troubles me more than the image of the flames... Pillars so tall they seemed to pierce the heavens. The ground rumbled and shuddered. Mountains split and crack. Great metal towers splintered, their innards strewn about the ground... And everywhere there was screaming. A chorus so terrible that even now I feel its echoes still.

What is this madness I have seen? Is it them, I wonder? Those who came before... Is this where they went? Into the fire? Into the dust? Perhaps this destructive power is what the Templars seek. That they might hold it over us a command devotion. What hope would we have, then, if they held such darkness in their hands – that they could murder the world..."

IMO this look a lot like a description of the cutscene we saw at the end of ACR..



Codex Page 30 (last page)

"Soon I shall pass from this world. It is my time. All the hours of the day are now colored by the thoughts and fears borne of this realization. I know that the elements of my body will return to the Earth. But what of my consciousness? My identity? That is to say – what of ME? I suspect it will end. That there is no next world. Nor a return to this one. It will simply be done. Forever.

Our lives are so brief and unimportant. The cosmos cares nothing for us. For what we've done; Had we wrought evil instead of good. Had I chosen to abuse the Apple instead of seal it away. None of it would have mattered. There is no counting. No reckoning. No final judgement. There is simply silence. And darkness. Utter and absolute... And so I have begun to wonder – might there not be a way to stop – or at least delay – death's embrace? Surely the ones who came before were not so frail and feeble as we. But I have sworn to be done with the artifact. To not gaze into its core. Still: faced as I am with the prospect of my end, what harm is there in one last look..."

mustash
01-19-2012, 10:24 PM
I'm fairly sure that last look into the apple revealed to Altair the message for Desmond from Jupiter :)

LightRey
01-19-2012, 11:00 PM
Do you work for testing? ;)

I like RTS games at times. I've got two on my iPhone that I play all the time. But if I wanted to play one, I'll play one. I don't play AC to do Tower Defense.

I'm not trying to dog on people who like it (well, except maybe LightRey)... I just don't see it as a "winner."

Lolwut?

All I said is that I disagree. They don't need to change anything regarding the testing as far as I'm concerned.

Also, mustash2003 would be correct.

GunnarGunderson
01-20-2012, 12:53 AM
I can post a few things I thought was interesting anyway, sure.


Q: A lot of players had problems with the Den Defense system. In retrospect, are there any changes you would have made to this game system?
A: The Den Defense system was actually rated quite highly in our numerous play tests, so we still believe it's a well designed minigame. ...Admittedly, Den Defense is quite a departure from the normal AC fare. I think the lesson to learn here is that the system feel so far removed from the "Assassin" aspect of AC, that it seems like more of a detour than an upgrade.

Typical Ubisoft

We don't care if the majority of players hated this feature, we liked it. It stays

LightRey
01-20-2012, 12:54 AM
Typical Ubisoft

We don't care if the majority of players hated this feature, we liked it. It stays

Have some respect. It's their game.

GLHS
01-20-2012, 10:00 AM
@GLHS: Thanks for posting some of the questions. Who was the interview with?



I'm sorry, I should've put that in there to begin with. But I'm glad you all are stating your opinions about the article! The interview was with the Scriptwriter, Darby McDevitt.

daniway91
01-20-2012, 10:20 AM
I'm honestly going to say this; as much as it hurts me. Assassin's Creed is quite probably one of the most important things in my life (at the risk of sounding fanatically delusional) but Revelations disappointed me. I know how the guys from Ubisoft claimed and claimed to have the whole storyline written out already, but if you ask me, Revelations just proves otherwise. It presented so many discrepancies that I really feel it was just a rushed effort to have a pretense for the new Multiplayer, which I do admit to enjoying but if it ceased to exist my life would not be any worse.
I kind of wish Revelations could be undone, unacknowledged. :(

SixKeys
01-20-2012, 10:20 AM
Have some respect. It's their game.

Yes, but it's gamers whose money funds the games. A lot of gamers complained about the repetitiveness of the first AC. The devs could have just said "well, we like it as it is, so we're not going to change a thing". And that would have been their right, but it also means the second game wouldn't have been nearly as successful. There is a reason player feedback is so important to game companies. As soon as you start ignoring majority opinions and stubbornly stick to broken features, you're heading the wrong way.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 11:24 AM
Yes, but it's gamers whose money funds the games. A lot of gamers complained about the repetitiveness of the first AC. The devs could have just said "well, we like it as it is, so we're not going to change a thing". And that would have been their right, but it also means the second game wouldn't have been nearly as successful. There is a reason player feedback is so important to game companies. As soon as you start ignoring majority opinions and stubbornly stick to broken features, you're heading the wrong way.

That means you should be thankful they listen from time to time, instead of being angry when they're not. It's nice of them when they listen, but it's not mean of them when they do not.

GLHS
01-20-2012, 02:27 PM
I'm honestly going to say this; as much as it hurts me. Assassin's Creed is quite probably one of the most important things in my life (at the risk of sounding fanatically delusional) but Revelations disappointed me. I know how the guys from Ubisoft claimed and claimed to have the whole storyline written out already, but if you ask me, Revelations just proves otherwise. It presented so many discrepancies that I really feel it was just a rushed effort to have a pretense for the new Multiplayer, which I do admit to enjoying but if it ceased to exist my life would not be any worse.
I kind of wish Revelations could be undone, unacknowledged. :(

I saw no discrepancies. Everything fit into place and was chronologically correct. It continued the story the way it should've and most of people's questions have been answered. Most of the "discrepancies" people have asked about, on here for example, have been answered as nothing more than them not understanding the story fully. Once you understand everything, it should all make sense and fall into place. A lot of people have had questions and then asked them on here, and the populous as a whole has answered them. Remember, the game isn't over. There's also DLC to be released, and certain things might also be explained more clearly in the next game.

D.I.D.
01-20-2012, 04:01 PM
That means you should be thankful they listen from time to time, instead of being angry when they're not. It's nice of them when they listen, but it's not mean of them when they do not.

I think the problem is we can't really know what he thinks. It beggars belief a little - it's not just dubious to have it in a AC game, but it's a really bad tower defence game anyway and nobody who enjoys that genre could possibly say any different - but of course this is political. He can't admit a mistake in the writing, or he'd be asking to be fired, and he can't admit a mistake he can't own himself or he would be damning his colleagues. Only a creative director could possibly give honest answers to such questions without hurting the studio.

luckyto
01-20-2012, 04:44 PM
It's nice of them when they listen, but it's not mean of them when they do not.

It's intelligent and in the interest of self-preservation when they listen; and daft and suicidal when they do not.

^Fixed.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 05:37 PM
It's intelligent and in the interest of self-preservation when they listen; and daft and suicidal when they do not.

^Fixed.

So basically you're accusing him of being stupid. Tbh, until I see a well-executed survey, I see no reason to believe that any majority of the gamers dislike Den Defense. People more often go out of their way to complain than to compliment.

EscoBlades
01-20-2012, 05:39 PM
I liked Den Defense. Scratch that....i REALLY liked it.

Go figure.

D.I.D.
01-20-2012, 05:49 PM
So basically you're accusing him of being stupid. Tbh, until I see a well-executed survey, I see no reason to believe that any majority of the gamers dislike Den Defense. People more often go out of their way to complain than to compliment.

I take your point about people being more likely to make an effort to express dissatisfaction than satisfaction, but still this articles such as this one (and the responses) are pretty important:

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/an-assassins-revelation-6348303/

The number of people saying "I agree with everything you said" and/or specifically mentioning the den defence is very high. You won't see a survey; it remains a decision for the team.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 05:53 PM
I take your point about people being more likely to make an effort to express dissatisfaction than satisfaction, but still this articles such as this one (and the responses) are pretty important:

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/an-assassins-revelation-6348303/

The number of people saying "I agree with everything you said" and/or specifically mentioning the den defence is very high. You won't see a survey; it remains a decision for the team.

Maybe so, but as you said it's not a survey and it's not scientific, thus it's not reliable data. I see no reason to jump to conclusions on this, especially if such conclusions involve accusing someone of being "self-centered" or "stupid".

D.I.D.
01-20-2012, 05:55 PM
I liked Den Defense. Scratch that....i REALLY liked it.

Go figure.

But it's a bit mashy though, isn't it? All you have to do is make sure you keep replacing fallen assassins/barriers and keep hitting "shoot". I'm a bit mystified at the number of people who found it hard to win.

There's potential there, but a real tower defence system works by making strategic use of range and resources: making sure you get the most hits out of every placement. The mode as it stands can't do that, and it's hard to imagine how it can without using a much longer route. A lot of people have said they like the concept but just don't like the mode, and would prefer to be running around the streets doing the defending in person. Maybe that's a better way to do it. Personally I don't like the whole theme of the Assassins being this well-known and visible, putting their logo on flags around the ziplines and so on - just doesn't feel right.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 05:59 PM
But it's a bit mashy though, isn't it? All you have to do is make sure you keep replacing fallen assassins/barriers and keep hitting "shoot". I'm a bit mystified at the number of people who found it hard to win.

There's potential there, but a real tower defence system works by making strategic use of range and resources: making sure you get the most hits out of every placement. The mode as it stands can't do that, and it's hard to imagine how it can without using a much longer route. A lot of people have said they like the concept but just don't like the mode, and would prefer to be running around the streets doing the defending in person. Maybe that's a better way to do it. Personally I don't like the whole theme of the Assassins being this well-known and visible, putting their logo on flags around the ziplines and so on - just doesn't feel right.

I've always interpreted that behavior as the Assassins hiding in plain sight by acting like a local "gang" of sorts (similar to the Byzantines). It actually makes quite a lot of sense when you think about it and the main base still remains hidden.

D.I.D.
01-20-2012, 06:01 PM
Maybe so, but as you said it's not a survey and it's not scientific, thus it's not reliable data. I see no reason to jump to conclusions on this, especially if such conclusions involve accusing someone of being "self-centered" or "stupid".

I didn't call him self-centred or stupid.

All kinds of games studios have talked about responding to this kind of feedback in the past, and I don't know of any who've used rigorous scientific surveys to gauge it. Is a survey from the games company itself any better? Would it not be skewed towards people who've signed up to their mailing lists, and be weighted towards the less critical fanboys/fangirls?

Seriously, it's almost unanimous there: several pages of responses, and that's a big gaming site. Lots of other places linked to the article, and of course the journalist was moved to write it in the first place. You'd expect a flood of fans defending the game - normally any kind of criticism on that level gets people leaping to their favourite games' defence.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 06:09 PM
I didn't call him self-centred or stupid.

All kinds of games studios have talked about responding to this kind of feedback in the past, and I don't know of any who've used rigorous scientific surveys to gauge it. Is a survey from the games company itself any better? Would it not be skewed towards people who've signed up to their mailing lists, and be weighted towards the less critical fanboys/fangirls?

Seriously, it's almost unanimous there: several pages of responses, and that's a big gaming site. Lots of other places linked to the article, and of course the journalist was moved to write it in the first place. You'd expect a flood of fans defending the game - normally any kind of criticism on that level gets people leaping to their favourite games' defence.

I never said you did. As you might have noticed you and I are not the only ones taking part in this discussion.

A scientific survey is no different from a regular survey. All it requires is a good sample and the right kinds of questions. Game companies don't just randomly go ask questions either. Usually they're quite professional about it.

Haha, not really. People generally look up reviews that agree with them. Those comments are as biased a sample as it gets.

D.I.D.
01-20-2012, 06:11 PM
I never said you did. As you might have noticed you and I are not the only ones taking part in this discussion.


Ah okay. I know the comment you were referring to, but I couldn't be sure if you'd confused me with the other person who posted that.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 06:14 PM
Ah okay. I know the comment you were referring to, but I couldn't be sure if you'd confused me with the other person who posted that.

Well, as long as we're on the same page now.

luckyto
01-20-2012, 06:17 PM
So basically you're accusing him of being stupid. Tbh, until I see a well-executed survey, I see no reason to believe that any majority of the gamers dislike Den Defense. People more often go out of their way to complain than to compliment.


I didn't call anyone stupid. You did. You made a generic comment about developers of games, and I tweaked your generic comment. But if a game company chooses NOT to listen to gamers, then yes, that's probably not the smartest direction. I recognize that the hardest part is filtering out all the noise and finding a commonality which most users agree on --- at any rate, it all begins with listening first.

Darby is certainly not stupid. In fact, his writing was one of my favorite parts of Revelations. I just wish more of it had made it in the game.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 06:28 PM
I didn't call anyone stupid. You did. You made a generic comment about developers of games, and I tweaked your generic comment. But if a game company chooses NOT to listen to gamers, then yes, that's probably not the smartest direction. I recognize that the hardest part is filtering out all the noise and finding a commonality which most users agree on --- at any rate, it all begins with listening first.

Darby is certainly not stupid. In fact, his writing was one of my favorite parts of Revelations. I just wish more of it had made it in the game.

You have no evidence to support your claims though. I haven't seen a bit of reliable data that supports your claim that they do not listen to their audience or that a majority of the players don't like Den Defense.

EscoBlades
01-20-2012, 06:33 PM
Typical Ubisoft

We don't care if the majority of players hated this feature, we liked it. It stays

I've been involved in a Ubi Playtest before. I also had a good chat with Darby a while back about how features (like Den Defense) make it into the game (or are cut). Please bear with me while i explain:

Ubisoft have a list of people from the public -- NOT ubisoft employees -- who are usually between the ages of 18 and 25. They come in at regular intervals MANY months before the game releases, and test the various new features Ubi show them. They play for a few hours and then get interviewed and asked to fill out a survey... this is how Ubisoft determines what is fun and what isn't... and the objective FACT is that these playtests went really well this time around.

Note that Ubi do this A LOT (across many of their franchises). I can safely say that they don't want to sully the brand any more than the fans do.

so no Bradkinn...the majority of players didn't hate the feature. The majority of players (from a cross section of those called in to test) actually liked it. Who knew? :P

LightRey
01-20-2012, 06:35 PM
I've been involved in a Ubi Playtest before. I also had a good chat with Darby a while back about how features (like Den Defense) make it into the game (or are cut). Please bear with me while i explain:

Ubisoft have a list of people from the public -- NOT ubisoft employees -- who are usually between the ages of 18 and 25. They come in at regular intervals MANY months before the game releases, and test the various new features Ubi show them. They play for a few hours and then get interviewed and asked to fill out a survey... this is how Ubisoft determines what is fun and what isn't... and the objective FACT is that these playtests went really well this time around.

Note that Ubi do this A LOT (across many of their franchises). I can safely say that they don't want to sully the brand any more than the fans do.

so no Bradkinn...the majority of players didn't hate the feature. The majority of players (from a cross section of those called in to test) actually liked it. Who knew? :P

I didn't, but I'm not surprised either.

Thanks for clearing that up EscoBlades. :P

EscoBlades
01-20-2012, 06:41 PM
No probs. At least people will have a better idea of what goes on. Bear in mind all of this has to happen within deadlines and schdules set by PR, Marketing and other departments. Not everything people like Darby would like to include in the game can be included. Such is the nature of development. To rubbish an idea or feature and make a sweeping generalisation about its popularity, without having the facts (or at least some of them) is folly.

luckyto
01-20-2012, 07:46 PM
To be fair, Escoblades, just by skimming through reviews, comments on these forums and chatting with other gamers; one came come to a reasonable assumption that Den Defence is not popular. It certainly doesn't top an accurate sample group, but it trumps a poorly selected sample group every time. Some companies do use such sources in market research methodology, and some companies have been built on providing such data in the form of market intelligence (number of mentions, total number of tweets about subject, etc) to other companies.


You have no evidence to support your claims though. I haven't seen a bit of reliable data that supports your claim that they do not listen to their audience or that a majority of the players don't like Den Defense.


The only "claims" I made was that some changes were needed in testing and that a good company should listen to their customers. I stand by those claims. I never said McDarby was stupid or that Ubi doesn't listen to its audience, but as you often do, you put words in people's mouth.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 07:55 PM
To be fair, Escoblades, just by skimming through reviews, comments on these forums and chatting with other gamers; one came come to a reasonable assumption that Den Defence is not popular. It certainly doesn't top an accurate sample group, but it trumps a poorly selected sample group every time. Some companies do use such sources in market research methodology, and some companies have been built on providing such data in the form of market intelligence (number of mentions, total number of tweets about subject, etc) to other companies.



The only "claims" I made was that some changes were needed in testing and that a good company should listen to their customers. I stand by those claims. I never said McDarby was stupid or that Ubi doesn't listen to its audience, but as you often do, you put words in people's mouth.

You implied as much and what you just said in response to EscoBlades shows that my assumption was a correct one. You seem to believe that comments on reviews, chatting with other gamers and threads on forums are reliable sources of data, which they are absolutely not.

luckyto
01-20-2012, 08:11 PM
"Implied as much" translates to, "I heard what I wanted and then made up my own fictional version of what you said." In the south, we call that "putting words in people's mouth."

Those sources are quite valid. How reliable they are? Well, we are all still trying to figure that out. Web Analytics is barely 15 years old and the rules are being written and rewritten every day. But, a lot of companies pay a lot of money for other companies to go summarize and report on such sources. And without doubt, it certainly has value in marketing. I would never advise a client to discount such sources. More often than not, analyzing such trends as positive or negative mentions (of said product) on the internet is validated by traditional market sampling and polling data.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 09:46 PM
"Implied as much" translates to, "I heard what I wanted and then made up my own fictional version of what you said." In the south, we call that "putting words in people's mouth."

Those sources are quite valid. How reliable they are? Well, we are all still trying to figure that out. Web Analytics is barely 15 years old and the rules are being written and rewritten every day. But, a lot of companies pay a lot of money for other companies to go summarize and report on such sources. And without doubt, it certainly has value in marketing. I would never advise a client to discount such sources. More often than not, analyzing such trends as positive or negative mentions (of said product) on the internet is validated by traditional market sampling and polling data.

Doesn't matter if I wanted to hear it or not, I turned out to be right, so it's beside the point. Unless, of course, you're trying to insult me.

You're not a web analyst, nor do you seem to know anything about the basics of statistical analysis, so whatever your conclusions you based on these "data" are, they are not at all reliable. Furthermore, considering the contradictory evidence from a most likely much better executed survey by Ubisoft, I'd say the opposite is actually more likely to be true.

luckyto
01-20-2012, 10:52 PM
You weren't right, you said I stated McDarby was stupid - and that couldn't be more wrong. You do this to everyone on these boards. Someone says something and you twist their words into something else to fit your argument. It's the worst kind of trolling. You weren't right about ANYTHING.

With all due respect, I ran a creative and design team. I started out at the ground and I've done everything from web analytics to app architecture to creative design to code development to project management. And more so, I have worked with some very talented people in these fields -- people who do know what they are talking about. I've personally sat with CEO's as they filtered through comments on message boards, so yes, these sources do matter. Furthermore, I know ALL about statistical analysis, as my degree is Econ - which is mostly, guess what, analysis of data. And I know that if your sample group or testing methods are screwed up, then yes, your answers will be wrong. And Yes, Yes, I realize that random comments on the Web don't make for a reliable field study. But one can draw a "reasonable" assumption off of enough of them without being a moron. And then one would hope to confirm that 'assumption' with good sampling data. It's done all day every day in the real world.

Please, before you twist people's comments or jump to conclusions about them personally, hesitate and ask yourself if you really know a damn thing about what you are speaking. Try this on --- http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4887-35-social-media-kpis-to-help-measure-engagement --- it's the tip of the iceberg. Go find someone whose involved for market research for a $Billion/year company and ask them. Meauring social media stats is the real deal.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 11:14 PM
You weren't right, you said I stated McDarby was stupid - and that couldn't be more wrong. You do this to everyone on these boards. Someone says something and you twist their words into something else to fit your argument. It's the worst kind of trolling. You weren't right about ANYTHING.

With all due respect, I ran a creative and design team. I started out at the ground and I've done everything from web analytics to app architecture to creative design to code development to project management. And more so, I have worked with some very talented people in these fields -- people who do know what they are talking about. I've personally sat with CEO's as they filtered through comments on message boards, so yes, these sources do matter. Furthermore, I know ALL about statistical analysis, as my degree is Econ - which is mostly, guess what, analysis of data. And I know that if your sample group or testing methods are screwed up, then yes, your answers will be wrong. And Yes, Yes, I realize that random comments on the Web don't make for a reliable field study. But one can draw a "reasonable" assumption off of enough of them without being a moron. And then one would hope to confirm that 'assumption' with good sampling data. It's done all day every day in the real world.

Please, before you twist people's comments or jump to conclusions about them personally, hesitate and ask yourself if you really know a damn thing about what you are speaking. Try this on --- http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4887-35-social-media-kpis-to-help-measure-engagement --- it's the tip of the iceberg. Go find someone whose involved for market research for a $Billion/year company and ask them. Meauring social media stats is the real deal.

I was right about you jumping to conclusions about the general opinion of Den Defense.

I really don't care what you did. Unless you have a degree in mathematics, your self-declared expertise in any kind of analytics means absolutely nothing. Assuming you are not lying about your degree, I would ask you if it's merely a bachelor's degree, or if it's actually a master's degree.

Furthermore, I would again point out that an actual study has been performed by Ubisoft, contrary to you, a random, obviously biased individual claiming without presenting any sort of data, not even said comments, or any evidence of actually having seriously analyzed it. It doesn't matter what kind of degree you claim to have. No serious individual in the world of science is going to believe anyone, if they do not present any evidence, regardless of their reputation.

Until you actually come with something at least somewhat resembling a scientific paper, your words are as reliable as the ramblings of a drunk hobo, so excuse me, for not believing you.

Also, I would advise you to leave your opinion about me out of the discussion. It evidences lack of objectivity, lack of self-control and it makes you look like an idiot (no offense). Not to mention that any such discussions are against forum rules.

luckyto
01-20-2012, 11:21 PM
Pot meet kettle... please try quote people accurately without twisting their words or making assumptions about who they are what their background is.

Reasonable assumption is just that, a reasonable assumption. An educated guess. And that's all I ever claimed that I was making. Try talking to someone out of the academic world about how marketing decisions are really made and see how often scientific papers are used.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 11:29 PM
Pot meet kettle... please try quote people accurately without twisting their words or making assumptions about who they are what their background is.

Reasonable assumption is just that, a reasonable assumption. An educated guess. And that's all I ever claimed that I was making. Try talking to someone out of the academic world about how marketing decisions are really made and see how often scientific papers are used.

So, what? You're saying it's excusable to do something wrong to somebody that did the same thing?

And as I already argued many times it's not a reasonable assumption. Biased data won't do you any good and the results from Ubisoft's study clearly show it. Of course marketing rarely uses scientific studies, because it's often a waste of time and money. Most often studies similar to your blatant disregard of the Scientific Method work just fine, but that doesn't mean you can just blatantly jump to conclusions like that. The fact of the matter is that you suspected them from at the very least "going down the path" of not listening to their fanbase, which aside from the fact that that is their choice and maybe even for good reason, you don't have anything solid to back it up.

Unless you do a scientific study, or something similar, anything you say is speculation and speculation should never be used to draw conclusions.

luckyto
01-20-2012, 11:43 PM
Bologna. These sources (message boards, blogs, reviews, internet mentions, etc) should be and ARE used. Social Media is an invaluable resource these days. It gives you some idea of what to look for and what needs more research. You can make a reasonable assumption based on what you see on the ground, and then you verify that assumption with a solid sample group. Things in the real world move fast. The real world has deadlines and a million other factors which affect the decision or the methodology. And yes, it is much more accurate than a drunken hobo.

And two, if your sample group is poor, your results will be poor. That's Polling 101. "Scientific Papers" are proven wrong all the time by researchers who come along later and show that the testing methods were inaccurate or misguided.

LightRey
01-20-2012, 11:53 PM
Bologna. These sources (message boards, blogs, reviews, internet mentions, etc) should be and ARE used. Social Media is an invaluable resource these days. It gives you some idea of what to look for and what needs more research. You can make a reasonable assumption based on what you see on the ground, and then you verify that assumption with a solid sample group. Things in the real world move fast. The real world has deadlines and a million other factors which affect the decision or the methodology. And yes, it is much more accurate than a drunken hobo.

And two, if your sample group is poor, your results will be poor. That's Polling 101. "Scientific Papers" are proven wrong all the time by researchers who come along later and show that the testing methods were inaccurate or misguided.

That is only useful when you're actually part of a marketing team that's using that data and it's certainly not relevant to this discussion. We're simply talking about reality, not whatever the quickest way is to find a relatively reasonably reliable solution.

That's what I'm saying. Your sampling group is poor. Extremely biased in fact. Not to mention that you yourself are biased, because of both your opinion of Den Defense and your opinion of me.
I can't say that that of Ubisoft's sample wasn't biased, nor that their study was executed in a (relatively) scientific manner, but as they seem to have an interest in doing it right and there really isn't that much time pressure as they're basically just trying stuff out and answering questions about it, there really is no reason at this point to assume they didn't do it correctly. It's certainly more reliable than your "educated guess".

And scientific papers can't be "proven wrong", as they don't state anything else than the measurements made and the interpretation of said measurements. It's not even regarded as science as long as the results haven't been duplicated.

luckyto
01-21-2012, 12:04 AM
I will grant you that a forum of Assassin's Creed fans is a biased source for opinions about an Assassin's Creed game. And that I made an assumption based on message posts, reviews and comments... and that is not nearly as accurate as a scientific study; but perhaps a little more accurate and reasonable than, say, a drunken hobo.

My opinion of you has nothing to do with my conclusion. I was, in fact, debating with Escoblades originally. In fact, if you hadn't changed what I was saying, I would have never have mentioned you.

LightRey
01-21-2012, 12:10 AM
I will grant you that a forum of Assassin's Creed fans is a biased source for opinions about an Assassin's Creed game. And that I made an assumption based on message posts, reviews and comments... and that is not nearly as accurate as a scientific study; but perhaps a little more accurate and reasonable than, say, a drunken hobo.

My opinion of you has nothing to do with my conclusion. I was, in fact, debating with Escoblades originally. In fact, if you hadn't changed what I was saying, I would have never have mentioned you.

Nonsense. This discussion started the moment I responded to your first post in this thread. Escoblades hadn't even joined the conversation yet.

luckyto
01-21-2012, 12:18 AM
Absolute nonsense. :D

LightRey
01-21-2012, 12:22 AM
Do you work for testing? ;)

I like RTS games at times. I've got two on my iPhone that I play all the time. But if I wanted to play one, I'll play one. I don't play AC to do Tower Defense.

I'm not trying to dog on people who like it (well, except maybe LightRey)... I just don't see it as a "winner."

*cough* *cough*

masterfenix2009
01-21-2012, 06:24 AM
Even if the majority didn't like Den Defense, that is no reason to take it out of the game from the creators stand point. It is THEIR vision. Not yours. They should follow their vision. If an RPG came out, and critics and gamers say it should be a linear hack and slash and the Devs wanted it to be an RPG, should they change THEIR vision? No, they shouldn't.

dxsxhxcx
01-21-2012, 01:06 PM
Even if the majority didn't like Den Defense, that is no reason to take it out of the game from the creators stand point. It is THEIR vision. Not yours. They should follow their vision. If an RPG came out, and critics and gamers say it should be a linear hack and slash and the Devs wanted it to be an RPG, should they change THEIR vision? No, they shouldn't.

say this to those who give the Devs the resources (money) to create the game.. if something is highly criticized and these people think it should be removed/changed, it'll be removed/changed, and there's nothing the Devs can do about it, only quit their jobs if they want to stay "true" to their vision...

LightRey
01-21-2012, 01:19 PM
say this to those who give the Devs the resources (money) to create the game.. if something is highly criticized and these people think it should be removed/changed, it'll be removed/changed, and there's nothing the Devs can do about it, only quit their jobs if they want to stay "true" to their vision...

Only if the higher-ups care and they really only start caring when they start losing money. I doubt a significant amount of people actually started "quitting" AC just because of Den Defense.

GLHS
01-21-2012, 02:31 PM
If I may, since this is my thread after all. I just want to say that while places like comments online and forums and such may not be a scientific analysis, or may not be exactly accurate because of all the fanboys/girls, I know for a fact that players opinions stated in said places absolutely are used by developers. I've been on other forums were the devs have actually come and talked with us, asking our opinions of the games and answering questions. During development of the game and also after. And the devs for this game had said before Revelations was released, in it's very early stages, that they had went onto these forums and other areas about Assassin's Creed to get ideas from players about how and what to change in multiplayer and things of that nature. Of course, it's not scientific proof that the majority hates Den Defense or anything else for that matter, but our opinions as players of the games that they make are extremely important in swaying their decision making on what to change in the series. That's one of the reasons we have these forums. It's a collective suggestion of what the majority of hardcore AC fans think, or whatever the forum may be.

I also know a little about play testing, and while of course I don't know exactly how Ubisoft does everything, I do know that they are random players. They are not fans of the series. Most of the time, they don't even know what game they're testing for, or know very little detail. It's done that way on purpose to prevent bias opinions. So these are just random game players who could possibly like any kind of game genre. That being said, (now specifically talking about Den Defense) since they don't know how the game plays or what it's about, they wouldn't know how well or not well the mechanic fits in with the rest of the gameplay. It's because of this reason that I think a lot of us are saying we don't like it. Not because it's bad gameplay, but because it doesn't quite fit with the rest of the gameplay of AC that we're all used to. The testers could test a portion of an RPG game, for example, but not know it's for an RPG. Lets say the developer decides for whatever reason, to include a shooting portion into their game. It could be well done and the testers could love it. But that's not at all based on the fact that this shooting portion is for an RPG that wouldn't fit in with the rest of the RPG styled gameplay. So play testers aren't necessarily extremely accurate, nor are they extremely inaccurate. They're a good opinion of whether it's fun and runs smooth or not, but not on whether it fits into the rest of the game environment like it should. I think that's what Darby was trying to say. It was rated highly gameplay-wise, so they still believe it's a good mechanic. But he did admit that it's a little too far removed from what AC is really about and maybe should've been done differently.

LightRey
01-21-2012, 04:47 PM
If I may, since this is my thread after all. I just want to say that while places like comments online and forums and such may not be a scientific analysis, or may not be exactly accurate because of all the fanboys/girls, I know for a fact that players opinions stated in said places absolutely are used by developers. I've been on other forums were the devs have actually come and talked with us, asking our opinions of the games and answering questions. During development of the game and also after. And the devs for this game had said before Revelations was released, in it's very early stages, that they had went onto these forums and other areas about Assassin's Creed to get ideas from players about how and what to change in multiplayer and things of that nature. Of course, it's not scientific proof that the majority hates Den Defense or anything else for that matter, but our opinions as players of the games that they make are extremely important in swaying their decision making on what to change in the series. That's one of the reasons we have these forums. It's a collective suggestion of what the majority of hardcore AC fans think, or whatever the forum may be.

I also know a little about play testing, and while of course I don't know exactly how Ubisoft does everything, I do know that they are random players. They are not fans of the series. Most of the time, they don't even know what game they're testing for, or know very little detail. It's done that way on purpose to prevent bias opinions. So these are just random game players who could possibly like any kind of game genre. That being said, (now specifically talking about Den Defense) since they don't know how the game plays or what it's about, they wouldn't know how well or not well the mechanic fits in with the rest of the gameplay. It's because of this reason that I think a lot of us are saying we don't like it. Not because it's bad gameplay, but because it doesn't quite fit with the rest of the gameplay of AC that we're all used to. The testers could test a portion of an RPG game, for example, but not know it's for an RPG. Lets say the developer decides for whatever reason, to include a shooting portion into their game. It could be well done and the testers could love it. But that's not at all based on the fact that this shooting portion is for an RPG that wouldn't fit in with the rest of the RPG styled gameplay. So play testers aren't necessarily extremely accurate, nor are they extremely inaccurate. They're a good opinion of whether it's fun and runs smooth or not, but not on whether it fits into the rest of the game environment like it should. I think that's what Darby was trying to say. It was rated highly gameplay-wise, so they still believe it's a good mechanic. But he did admit that it's a little too far removed from what AC is really about and maybe should've been done differently.

I absolutely agree with that.

GLHS
01-21-2012, 05:06 PM
At least I hit equal ground with both of you anyway....I hope lol.