Don't mention Godus.... That's another Kickstarter disaster.
A game labelled as next-generation Populous slated for release June 2013.
It's more akin to Farmville with a tacked on sub-par Lemmings 3D mini-game and is still only "51% Complete."
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
Don't mention Godus.... That's another Kickstarter disaster.
A game labelled as next-generation Populous slated for release June 2013.
It's more akin to Farmville with a tacked on sub-par Lemmings 3D mini-game and is still only "51% Complete."
Basically he promised one and did another. I pledged only because offline mode. I not need anybody to play with me . It have to be my own sandbox even if i just play somewhere in the airport or aircraft. He just created usual extra MMO with strict online. In case if he promise from start that it will be Strict online MMO i never pledge for him.
Why can't they implement a manual 'sync' option on the main menu so users can play offline when they want without relying on server upkeep, and then allow the user to update the world dynamics when they choose? And if the game relies on the servers to dish out the dynamics, why not create a downloadable server so the game looks for it locally, then the 'offline' locally installed server could sync with the main online ones at intervals? This would at least be an answer which would prevent a large rewrite of a huge amount of existing code! It would also improve the performance too!!
I don't mind not being able to play without an Internet connection personally, but I definitely sympathise with those that may have a really poor connection. Yet saying all that, I too am concerned that should those servers one day go down, we would all be unable to play anymore!
I don't mind not being able to play without an Internet connection personally, but I definitely sympathise with those that may have a really poor connection. Yet saying all that, I too am concerned that should those servers one day go down, we would all be unable to play anymore!
I think, they were in a damned if you do, damned if you don't problem with the kick-starter, though. With hindsight, they made a lot of promises to get that back on track, after the initial wave of enthusiasm died down, and people started criticising the lack of actual content on the kick-starter site. At the time the timescales seemed, ambitious (March 2014 -really?) Again with hindsight, I think they've been in 'batten down the hatches, and catchup' mode, since being caught on the hop with the 'p2p multiplayer meet the big nasty internet' issues early in the year. This whole 'vertical slice'/'magic patch'/'single player' thing could have been nixed very quickly with clear statements and better 'expectations management' in the Summer. However, after calming down a bit, I genuinely believe that they did hope it would be 'alright on the night' and come good in the end.
I've never been a fan of multi-player in Elite, and recognise that us single-player retro-heads are going the way of the dodo, however the core issue would be the same - people (rightly or wrongly) signed-up due to a feature that was then pulled. Indeed, as a realist, I feel that situation would of course be far worse as it would be 90% of the player-base affected, rather than 10% (NB: Numbers pulled out of my nether regions), therefore from a purely selfish viewpoint, even more likely to damage the game as a whole.
Now if that had been said back in the kickstarter - I'd have held an impromptu street-party.
Last edited:
This is a fair point. However, Frontier have made a decision. If the decision was the reverse as you suggest, then I would have to think seriously as to what action I would take. But we are where we are, and the reality is that a decision has been made. Consider if Frontier reneged on this decision, then where would we be?
Last edited:
To be fair, back in the day, Peter Molyneux wasn't anything like that... he just pushed amazing games out through the door, one after the other... I'm not certain on my history, but I'm pretty sure things went a little downhill when someone said "Wow, ok, here's a massive pile of cash - do what you want!"... Source: Nothing.
But remember Populous, Powermonger, Theme Park, Theme Hospital, Black & White? Amazing games...
Reneging on their decision doesn't quite have to be the doom and gloom that you are implying, (i.e. delays to or death of the game). It can be as simple as a statement saying, "We now realise how important Offline Mode is too many of our loyal users and hence we have decided to re-prioritise it and look at it again at a future date".
Even something as generic and non-committal as that would satisfy some/most people. Of course there will always be some who will never be satisfied, (rightly or wrongly), and no matter what FD comes up with, they are a lost cause.
There were mainly a lot of things stated that he 'wanted' - often phrased as 'done'. http://kotaku.com/the-man-who-promised-too-much-1537352493
If you don't want it to fail its simple accept the changes and move on.
I absolutely agree with this. Some people? No way to satisfy. Others? I'm certainly not happy about the newsletter carpet being lifted and this swept in there.
Impressed by a company listening to their supporters?
+1 Agree .. that will leave some anger and let open the door.
I also backed Wasteland 2.
It wasn't as good a game as I had hoped, but it was a fine game and afaik they delivered everything they promised.
There was another game I backed that IMO turned out pretty boring.
Still, even they delivered all promised features. That it wasn't as good as I hoped doesn't matter: I am sure they did the best they could and in the end I got what I pledged for. So while it wasn't as good as I hoped, I list it under "successful" among my Kickstarter projects.
Elite Dangerous, assuming they don't change their mind, will probably end up "failed". It doesn't matter how stellarly good the game will be (in fact, it all looked very well until friday), they will not deliver the promised features. Worse: They will not deliver the one feature that would have made me NOT backing it.
Even the bad (or at least not good) game that I backed did not do such a thing.
To all the people who wanted offline and have been clearly explained to that it isn't going to happen because it isn't viable, what do you expect to achieve with your claims of fraud and treachery against FD?
No offline? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
If it had not been promised as a game-mode from the beginning, I could easily live without it, but I probably would not have payed out £200 for Alpha access. Thing is, I spend quite a fair chunk of my spare time away from an internet connection of any kind, and was hoping to be able to play the game in the offline game mode. Now, FD have removed that option, which would have been around 60% of my playing time. I am not pleased.
What concerns me a bit more, is that this could be the first of many decisions that remove expected features that we all bought into nearly two years ago. What's next I wonder?
If it had not been promised as a game-mode from the beginning, I could easily live without it, but I probably would not have payed out £200 for Alpha access. Thing is, I spend quite a fair chunk of my spare time away from an internet connection of any kind, and was hoping to be able to play the game in the offline game mode. Now, FD have removed that option, which would have been around 60% of my playing time. I am not pleased.
What concerns me a bit more, is that this could be the first of many decisions that remove expected features that we all bought into nearly two years ago. What's next I wonder?
Remember the FAoff speed bleed kerfuffle? FD listened and tweaked.
-
Maybe after all this FD will put more effort into offline. But some of the rhetoric (scam, dishonest, liars) has been rather inflamed and unhelpful.
To kill the game for the rest of us? Seems a bit selfish to me!!
Stop trolling whiteknight .. thats not what most of people said .. i follow the thread since the beginning and seen that few time .. so you take some exception for a generaly as usual.
Apologies - I wasn't clear. Firstly, going back on a big decision like this would, in my opinion, be a big dent in their credibility (or further dent, depending on your view). Secondly, it would leave other past decisions relating to game content all the more disputable - ie, backers might feel they can get things previously decided on, changed. This, in turn, might lead to further unrest, etc, etc...
- Status