Take some Advice from REAL game developers

[_____________Trosida]

Originally posted by Paldorr
The games are the visions of and creations of the developers. It is not up to the player/consumer to make the rules. It is up to the player/consumer to decide which games (and rules as created by the developers) they wish to play.

Contrary to what seems logical on the surface, it is NOT a good idea for developers to "bend" the rules based on vociferous input from any one segment of the player base. This is probably the easiest way to "break" a game. The game should be as envisioned by the developers; period. Then if you like that vision, you should play the game. If not, someone else will make a game with a different vision and a different set of rules you may like better.

This is actually a very good point. However, it assumes the game developer has ultimate wisdom in what the player base wants and will enjoy. This isn't the case. Which is why so many games should go through a large open beta phase and get feedback from those playing on what's working and what isn't. Typical in a PnP RPG in that the GM wants feedback from his group so he can fix problems in the game. What's the point of making a RPG is no one wants to play?

The problem is...

These games create these boards and ASK for player input. Now frequently an outside view (player rather than dev) may see something that a developer will not see. Players are for more adept at breaking things because they try it all (just ask any GM).

When you do this, ask for input, to disregard it especially in the face of overwhelming opposition from players who can write rational reasonable dissections of the problem and offer solutions does nothing but generate hostile feelings which will reflect poorly on the game.

Games especially RPGs need to be built and tuned on the expectations of the players. Remember it is for the players enjoyment that RPGs are made. Of course all changes should be approached rationally and carefully. Especially game altering ones.

Take level requirements on nanos. There is no real need for them is there? This is a skill based game at a given level, a given skill range can be expected. If you want that nano to be used at only as soon as level 125 calculate what is required to get the skills assuming: idea breed, perfect implant setup, max skills, buffs, etc. Then set the requirements to that. That way those characters that have been chugging along will get to use the nano at 125, and those that have done some different things will have to wait a bit longer.

Gosh, problem solved.

Instead FC has gone and said skill reqs have no meaning because we can't be bothered to work out a way to balance that. Rather, we'll randomly pull a level we want to see people using this nano.

In my solution you still use level as a starting point for determining reqs, but level in and of itself is not a req.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Warlock
A quote from www.somethingawful.com in their review of AO

I really can't claim that AO is a "game" since the word "game" insinuates that there is some amount of fun involved, not just running around and doing the same things over and over and over again, which I refer to as "work." Finally, there is very little "roleplaying" exhibited by the players, excluding repeated complaints of lag (from the FUTURE!) and others roleplaying as horny and obnoxious 14-year olds who will hit on anything with a pair of breasts and a shotgun. A more proper title and description for the game would therefore be:

"Anarchy Which is Online a Minority of the Time: A Tiny Multiplayer Semi-Online Non-Role Playing Job That You Pay to Work For"

That review was from almost a year ago and www.somethingawful.com hasn't revisted the game since. Geez, that review is about as valid as travelling back in time and asking King George what he thinks of the USA

AO has wildly varying reviews, most of them revolving on when the reviewer actually tried the game. Personally, I usually read about games to find out when they're coming out and what system reqs they'll have. Then I'll make up my own mind

[________DarkGatherer]

YOU are actually quite wrong there. The reason programmers write their own engines is not to make things proprietary as a way to suck money..
it is to stop *******s like you from hacking their games and sucking the fun out of it for honest players, which eventually destroys the game..

Get your facts straight

Get your facts straight buddy, a game that exists totally online, where MOST information resides on the Server cannot be hacked easily. You have to go through the server, or find a backdoor of some sort and so far with this game Funcom has done a good job of shutting those things down.

It has Nothing to do with the engine they use.

[_____________Yureiko]

Originally posted by PipBoy
Hey Yureiko, this is OT, but where can I find info on "Uplink" and "Project Eden?"

I loved System Shock II, one of the best games ever. If they at least added something in AO like it is in System Shock, things would be cool. Ever better would be gridhacking stuff; Fixer enters the grid and has to attack nanobot encoded ICE in order to hack the object. Maybe allow them to hack certain items that way that other players would be unable to hack. When combatting ICE, your attack rating should be based off of your B&E and your defense based on Comp Lit. Now THAT would be cool.

Uplink can be found (and ordered since it's not in stores) at:

http://www.introversion.co.uk

This is a game that is all about computer hacking. The makers do not distibute this normally because they don't want to. But you can order it online (we did!) It is very engrossing.

It also proves that glitzy graphics do not make a game. It is at best 256 colors but then it doesn't need to be more because it simply simulates a fancy GUI and other software.

(My friend has played this game at work and has convinced co-workers that it is a new program he's using for his job. Which indicates that this game has all it needs to make you, the player, feel like you are really hacking into something.)

There is a demo on sight so you can check it out. Which is why we ended up buying it.


Project Eden can be found at:

http://www.eidos.com/gameportal/project_eden/

This game might still be found in stores. It is set in an arcology setting (like BladeRunner). The computer character actually accesses camera systems (something you might have seen recently in Jedi Knight II), manipulates security doors, and works building components through the computer system. It's very neat.

Also, you see characters utilizing tiny bots (and using telepresence to see through their cameras.)

So, it too is immersive.

Oh, I forgot to mention, I think the hacking elements would be wonderful to have in this game, too.

These games try to do something different and creative. And that's what makes them worth looking at.

[_____________Yureiko]

Originally posted by Emiko
YOU are actually quite wrong there. The reason programmers write their own engines is not to make things proprietary as a way to suck money..
it is to stop *******s like you from hacking their games and sucking the fun out of it for honest players, which eventually destroys the game..

Get your facts straight.

You think it's all funcom's fault? that's bull****. Take some responsibility.

If they didn't want to make any money they wouldn't sell the game, eh?

If they don't want customer input then don't have forums asking for input.

To have both means, 1) FunCom want sot "suck money" from their customers. 2) Funcom wants to hear our thoughts.

Of course, wanting to hear our thoughts and suggestions doesn't mean that they necessarily will USE them. They just want to be percieved as "considering player" interest.

I am sick of the so called developer/fan relationship that these companies try to develope. This implies that the player (and consumer) owes the devs respect and loyalty without even SEEING what they can do. (I.e. trying their "creation.")

I don't know about you, but I don't respect an artist simply because he paints or draws. I don't respect a singer simply because he sings. I don't respect a movie maker simply because he makes a movie.

I have to actually LIKE what they make. ("Like" being a broad term and not necessarily connotating a happy response. For example, I liked the movie Phenomenon from the late 90's, but it made me sad. And I liked "Lilo and Stitch" which made me laugh my head off.)

One has to understand that computer software games have to make something that will make enough money to cover the cost of making, and distributing it, in the same fashion that movie studios do.

Yes, studios DO make "art films" (that is, movies that are designed to have a huge emotional impact and will take home lot's of awards) but for the most part, unless they are fairly encompassing these movies do not make a lot of money. (There are a few exceptions like "Titanic" which was critically acclaimed and a blockbuster.)

And this comparison works fairly well with singleplayer, and non-massively multi-player games. Right now, the industry in glutted with schlock games, that is games which are released to syphon money from a particular trend. If one game sells, usually a dozen copies try to capitalize off the original game. (Like MMORPGs --- most of the ones currently out are fairly similar in how they handle game balance, world set-up and the like. )

Keep in mind, Spielburg still keeps his audience in mind when he makes a movie. Why? He wants to suck in your money. He make want to give out a specific message, but he glosses that message in such a way that it will (hopefully) sell.

Finally, a lot of companies enjoy letting their customer make what they want out of a game. Take Raven, ID, Bioware, Gas Powered Games. They realize that many players want to make new stuff for the game so they can keep on playing.

This kind of philosophy makes the Developers look GOOD, which makes the customers (not fans) want to buy more products.

Also, Raven has proven one can use another's engine and make something neat and new out of it. They used the DOOM engine for Heretic, the Quake engine for the sequal (can't remember the name at the moment), and now Quake III for JediKnight II.

Here's another example: one of the most popular games of all times: Halflife was built off another engine.

Because they didn't have to waste time making a whole new engine for their game they can concentrate on things like gameplay, story etc.

They could, also, work in their own security code. So that was an erroneous statement.

But the reason new engines are built for most games is that you have egos controlling game design. That is, the devs want to show off their programming muscles. They are saying, "I can program, damnit! So I am gonna program!" They also don't want to pay anyone else for their engine. They think they are saving themselves money when, in reality because they are spending all that extra time MAKING and engine, they are spending more. (Time=money.)

And yes, I do think it's all FC's fault. Or at least AO is. They made the game didn't they? Did Verant? Did I? Did you? No.

They also decided they wanted to make money off it. Trying to make money off of something means you have to consider making customers happy. Because even a fan in a dues paying fan club run by a corporation is still a customer.

And that is what gets forgotten.

Oh, and one last thing. If FunCom wants to tell a computer graphical story without any outside input, and try to make money as well (and you'd better realize that a big part of their plan is to make money) then they could just release their little movies and try to sell those. Wonder how that would go over.

Hmmmm...

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Kuroshio


That review was from almost a year ago and www.somethingawful.com hasn't revisted the game since. Geez, that review is about as valid as travelling back in time and asking King George what he thinks of the USA

Granted, and I dont believe I presented it as a review of what we have now.

The points I was raising were

a. The more things change the more they stay the same (other than server stability the summary comment is just as applicable now as it was a year ago)

b. Sarcasm (a recuring theme in most of my recent posts give FC's recent behaviour)

c. The players pay to work. I consider camping (either unique MOBs like Neleb, missions NPC's like Alvin or missions terminals for NOBUY nanos) to be work. I dont enjoy it and I should nt have to do it. This also applies to team mission boss loot only stuff (which forces me to team) and level restrictions on new nanos (which forces me to level-treadmill to use the stuff I have invested the IP in).

Fortunately the SA review saved me buy the game too early (which may has resulted in me quitting by now). Sure I didnt get a pioneer backpack but I did get to play a decent game when I finally decided to.

Problem is FC now seem to be trying their damndest to take the tings that make this game unique and good and turn it into Everquest

-edit-
Typos

[______________Orchid]

I'm merely upset that everytime I work my butt off for some thing in this game, it turns out that I completely wasted many hard working hours and ctredits for nothing, because the item or weapon I worked for is BROKEN!!

1. BBi's

2. Wen Wen

Now is there anything else I should know before trying for some new weapon or item ?