People opinion will ruin this game.

Riverside

Riverside
Genus said:
For clarity. I was being ironic with this statement. And I happen to agree with your reiterated points.



Explicitly, I think it is rarely acted upon. Furthermore, implementations seem top follow the pattern of going only halfway on popular needs at best, doing something that often undermines gameplay at worst, although the latter thankfully seems to be a series of small things that have added up.

Moreover, not wanting to sound moany rather than trying to provide constructive feedback for FDev, the statements made by others that I have been privy to, which I happen to agree with and are relevant within the context of the opinion you voiced is that it is unsure as to whether the development path unknown outside of FDev, is at all clearly understood inside it.

If a clear set of objectives for the game were made public, and a consensus formed on what it is actually supposed to be at the end of that 10 year arc of which 5 has passed, then this and all similar conversations on these boards and through other channels could be bracketed and more constructive opinion proffered.

However we know that a more "organic" evolution of the game is favoured by the decision makers and he who holds the keys, so "we" are faced with a dichotomy in both witnessing and ultimately consuming developments of the game, until "we" are happy, or the camel falls over.

At the present time, I feel there is a danger of the camel having the hump, therefore the next set of design decisions and the quality of implementation that allows consumption of the next version of the game need to be spot on.

And for that to happen, maybe a small move away from organic evolution, toward having an actual plan is advisable.
Click to expand...

That was awesome, I understood that ;)

Yes, I agree that vagueness & ambiguity should be diminishing over time, not increase. However they do already have our money :|

___

I try to be precise with my choice of words. I enjoy a good discussion or debate & will usually only post a point if it has not already been said, so I regularly find myself in the minority. I apologise for my excessive paranoia, I'm just more used to my view being attacked ;)
 

Genus

Genus
Riverside said:
However they do already have our money :|
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Maybe due to the nature of my work, but when I hear that phrase above said out loud and agree with it, I'm of the opinion alarm bells should ring in the heads of the decision makers of the organisation which have been paid. Also, it would be advisable to actually demonstrate that steps are being taken to rectify the sentiment, which seems to be somewhat common amongst the player base.

Anything less breeds apathy on both sides, the supplier and the consumer. Which may well be in evidence from a great deal of the topical discussion surrounding this of late (as if it's the first time...right?).

For my part at least, that payment is not an inconsiderable sum for a puter game and I won't be donating anymore until clarity is provided on what I'm actually paying for.

Moreover, not all the functionality I have already paid for actually works at the moment, let alone not knowing what I'll be getting before the end of '18.

So those alarms should be ringing quite loud by now.

Like the noise an Advanced Disco makes.

BONG.
 
Last edited:

Archduke

A
Fdev have to please shareholders, that's all. Share prices and investment are where their bread is butteted.It may serve them inm promotion to claim a statistic regarding end-user satisfacrion, but it's far less relevant.These discussion boards specifically request feedback as well as stimulating discussion generates interest and busy forums is good dor targetting market research.Your opinion is equally unimportant to every otyher.
 

Archduke

A
Genus said:
For my part at least, that payment is not an inconsiderable sum for a puter game and I won't be donating anymore until clarity is provided on what I'm actually paying for. Moreover, not all the functionality I have already paid for actually works at the moment
Click to expand...
You paid for a license which is in full, wortking order. Nothing has been pro!mised in terms of functionality. You agreed by digital signature on contractual obligations.
 

Demascus

Demascus
Compares a masterful work of literature written by a man brilliant enough in invent a complete fictional language to...... misspelled galnet ariticles, half baked ideas and "telepresence"....brilliant!
 

sollisb

Banned
S
You should take a look at FunCom & Conan. _ How a company basically went from triple A to bust, because they didn't listen to the players. What was started out as 'best of breed' AAA MMOrpg went from millions of sales to 'free to play' because of not listening to the playerbase.


For sure, you can't do everything the base wants, but you should at least listen, take notes, and compromise with what you can deliver rather than just delivering what you say so.

Players can be a fickle bunch. Don't give them the game they want and they go elsewhere. And so does your money.
 

Aussiedroid

Aussiedroid
The only ones that can truly ruin the game are the devs. Likewise the only ones that can truly improve the games are the devs.

The community may have a vested interest, may have a voice, & may have an avenue to share their opinions, but we are not the ones programming the game.
 

Spacecat

Spacecat
Then explain engineers, cqc, powerplay, multicrew, rescue missions and Thargoids. These were pretty much delivered with a resounding "Meh" without any community input.
 

Straker

Straker
AdriánGuth said:
Well, I am completely against "people" imposing their tastes and opinions on a project that does not belong to them. (No, it does not belong to us, it belongs to David Braven, we only pay movie tickets for YOUR movie "it's metaphor")

It's like Tolkien had written The Lord of the Rings asking people what they wanted them to say or not. "What a it would have been".

Elite Dangerous started and started as a Swiss watch, since they started doing what the people going downhill asked for.
My simple opinion[heart]
Click to expand...

Well, I totally disagree with you regarding the current state of the game and its development, however I will say one thing (not as an argument) - the Kickstarter was to make the game that Frontier wanted to make, not the game we wanted them to make - this is the basic principle of Kickstarter and backers don't often understand or acknowledge the level of risk involved. In the traditional model, a developer would seek funding from a publisher and face publisher restrictions on development, however as (Kickstarter) funders for the initial game, we actually don't get a say in the game's actual development. It's a subtle difference that shouldn't be ignored.

I believe now it is different though and Frontier should be closely monitoring what players want (as a broad community), although I don't wish to entertain an argument in this domain as I get the feeling it wouldn't be worthwhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom