Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[platypus]

I was mostly drawing from the thick vein of 'Why Dragon Age: Origins sucks and many RPGs are lazy/uninspired/cliche' present at the beginning of the thread (and, admittedly, some lingering resent from the cheese thread).  I didn't have the fortitude to go much past page five before I typed the above.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Footkerchief. You're not exactly presenting yourself as a paragon of clear thinking. If you have a problem with something someone said, please have the courtesy to address them directly by quoting the offending statement.

In the modest paragraph I reproduced, you've managed to shoot yourself in the foot by making an indiscriminate generalization (ostensibly something you're objecting to) and admitting you're not really interested in following the chain of arguments in the thread.

If you're after anything more than an empathetic nod of support for the plight of the average gaming industry employee, you may want to refine your approach.

[dragnar]

The biggest problem with developers creating new, ground-breaking games is that the industry has grown massively. Most of the games that have changed gaming were made by small companies/one person. That is becoming harder and harder because most gamers don't but low budget games. They are focused on the more expensive stuff to develop, like flashy graphics, or massive worlds. A lot of games with innovative ideas are ignored, claiming they focus too much on gimmicks because they lack the massive budget these things require.

[Firgof Umbra]

... justify that empathy, especially in light of the defense contractor analogy I posted?

The analogy you posted didn't make sense to me, which is why I asked you to re-assess what I wrote.  Apparently the problem is not so much in reading comprehension as it resides in problem comprehension.

Allow me to expand on your situation:
There is an engineer working for a defense contractor on a new missile; this is the first set of missiles that engineer's team has made and they had to fight hard to land even this contractor.  The missile they designed has a perfectly functional, well-drawn-out, form and function that, though would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to produce, would satisfy an underexploited 'niche' of the arms market. 

The contractor says, flatly, 'no, we're doing this design' (largely because they think they would get more money by building the missile with substandard parts on an accelerated schedule and with only requisite allotments to the engineers to build the missiles) and then hands them a design.  Is it the engineer's fault that they cannot build a better missile with the materials and time they have been allotted?  Should that engineer put their job in jeopardy by saying 'no change it or I leave'?  With what should the engineer respond to the contractor who says 'the market desires this and your niche market is too risky; you don't even have a platform of data to rest that assumption on.  you don't even know for sure that market exists.'?

If you believe that the engineers should be held responsible for a decision which they cannot argue against and also responsible for building a missile which is crappy when they cannot feasibly make anything but crap even with their formidable knowledge of engineering, then I am led to believe that (in essence) you believe it is their fault for designing those missiles, for not getting shown the door when they 'fought the power', and for not being able to demonstrate that the missile market wants AAA missiles and not AG missiles (which the defense contractor not only asserts, but provides hard market data in which those buying missiles overwhelmingly favor AG missiles)* I believe that is unfair.

Similarly, you might believe a game designer should be called lazy for building a missile for which they neither had the parts nor the time to build correctly wherein it is not laziness, it is the inability to counter the assertion of their investors with any reliable facts that could not immediately be countered with other hard facts and the inability of the engineer to propose something better with a stern investor who may leave their team to 'die' of non-investiture if they encounter enough resistance.

So, in a nutshell: Yes, I do argue that you should show some empathy toward those 'engineers' who show the fortitude to not get attached to companies which don't care at all what gamers desire in their game but instead what their charts and NPD estimates tell them to make (and really who can blame them? they're just trying to make the maximum amount of money for their dollar -- they are investors after all, it is a function of their job as an investor to increase the capital worth of whatever they invest in so as to draw further monies from their relationship with it).  And I also argue that you should show a little empathy toward those 'engineers' who can't really do anything about the games they make other than try to make the best of what they've been given to do with what they have available.

I show empathy toward the artist with no paintbrush just as I show empathy toward the artist firmly pinned by both his investors and financial status to do work with time and money enough as to be a completely emaciated end-product no matter how hard the artist tries to show the best side of whatever they have been commissioned to make.  Should both still hold both responsible for their work?  Yes, certainly!  But are they all lazy for being in their impositions?  No, not at all; that's generalization at best and bias at worst.  I fear you are allowing the contextual relationship between developer and investor to slip undetected by your decisions of when something is lazy or not.  Not that I am saying that developers can't be lazy but this is an incredibly difficult field of work to be 'lazy' in.

I am simply saying more should be mindful of this relationship when they pass judgment on the people working on the end-products you buy and allow this relationship to play a larger part in what games (and thus which companies, investors, developers, and ideas) they want to feed back to those corporate executives who only respond to hard data. 

Dragnar has the rest of my reasoning already typed out in his post.

If you have a problem with something someone said, please have the courtesy to address them directly by quoting the offending statement.

I disagreed with the tones and contexts in which things were said, not that they were stated; which tones and contexts I was perturbed by I believe are firmly highlighted by the long and short of my arguments.

Also:

You're not exactly presenting yourself as a paragon of clear thinking.

Was this an insult or a misguided attempt to focus my attentions inwards?

and admitting you're not really interested in following the chain of arguments in the thread.

:|  Uh huh.  So not interested I have posted at long lengths in responses to both of your counter-arguments and so not interested that I could not stomach much more of the tone that I was encountering earlier.  Are you asserting that I 'jumped the gun' and that my problem was quelled well before my post?  I would find this hard to believe, as I encountered it afterward.  Or are you asserting that I should read the rest of the thread before I comment on the matters at hand?  A fair point but unless what I typed up was already addressed I see no harm in having posted what I have.  If neither, then exactly what are you getting at as the context of your message doesn't seem to allow much room for other interpretations?

*note: I am not making this assertion, this is only for the sake of providing a better, more comprehensive, look at the problem through the lens of the context you gave.

[Neonivek]

This is my first warning I am going to give that ths conversation is seriously going downhill and very close to trolling/flaming

I ask that everyone try to remain calm and that commenting on another poster to somehow weaker their arguements are a general bad idea.

As well if someone does it to you, don't do it back. The Internet is void of Tone and Body language and often people mistake what you mean. If you remain polite there is a good chance, ok not that good of a chance, that they may realise that they are acting a bit crazy.

[Footkerchief]

Of course I have empathy for the designer/engineer who never had a chance to do a good job.  But I don't have the special degree of empathy that it would take to refrain from saying that the result sucks.  You're failing to make the crucial distinction between bashing a game and bashing the people who worked on it -- you conflated those acts in your first post (at the beginning you say they're calling developers lazy, at the end you say they're bashing games), and ignored the fact that, like, 2 posts in this thread directly said anything bad about developers.  People in this thread obviously understand that developers are not solely responsible for games sucking.

[platypus]

I show empathy toward the artist with no paintbrush just as I show empathy toward the artist firmly pinned by both his investors and financial status to do work with time and money enough as to be a completely emaciated end-product no matter how hard the artist tries to show the best side of whatever they have been commissioned to make.  Should both still hold both responsible for their work?  Yes, certainly!  But are they all lazy for being in their impositions?  No, not at all; that's generalization at best and bias at worst.  I fear you are allowing the contextual relationship between developer and investor to slip undetected by your decisions of when something is lazy or not.  Not that I am saying that developers can't be lazy but this is an incredibly difficult field of work to be 'lazy' in.

You keep returning to "lazy". I ran a search of this thread: There are eigth separate instances - all yours.

Was this an insult or a misguided attempt to focus my attentions inwards?

Look, you descended on this thread with a rather confused-looking appeal for sympathy. I agree with your position that most of the people actually working on commercial games are caught between a rock and a hard place as far as certain overarching decisions are concerned, and I have no problem acknowledging that it's hard to please everyone - especially in the light of what most people choose to endorse by purchasing.

A main theme of this thread has been ideal design; few posters, if any (see what Footkerchief said), have claimed it would be entirely unproblematic to "fix" the perceived failings of parts of the gaming industry, or those of certain games.

EDIT: I'm sorry if I seem haughty or belligerent. As Neonivek pointed out, our interactions here are devoid of many of the social cues we otherwise depend on to gauge intent. You're obviously a decent guy, and passionate about what you do, which is admirable. No one is lambasting you or your colleagues. As Footkerchief mentioned, there is a stark contrast between attacking a product with which one has a beef and attacking people who are mostly just trying to make a living.

[Neonivek]

Well from what I read no one implied lazy

They implied that they put less effort (and effort is time and resources... though Time is Money) into games because they sell better.

[Foa]

This is why I love DF, it gives me a great guideline on how to critic about a game for it's story, gameplay, and of of those other fun stuff factors.

If only these multi-million dollar designer know that they are being out classed by a home brew rogue-like, made by two people, and inspired by it's thousands of followers.

Other than the large amount of logic infringement I am enlightened that society would rather consume blindly what is placed infront of them than what is displayed in the menu that they could ask for.

[dragnar]

Well from what I read no one implied lazy

They implied that they put less effort (and effort is time and resources... though Time is Money) into games because they sell better.

Really the problem is less lack of effort, but where the effort is going. Most AAA games probably have more hours of work put into them that DF has so far due to the sheer number of people that work on them, and yet which is the better game? Toady has created a game that most modern gamers would never consider playing because of the ACSII graphics. But the most important part of the game, actual gameplay is much better than almost any other game out there.

[Shades]

I searched through the thread and was able to find only one insult directed at developers (Shades' post above), and not even a specific developer.  Why are you taking this so personally?  Again, please quote examples of what frustrated you.

In my defence I am a games developer for a major triple A title working for a high profile company. I'm allowed to be insulting the frustrating "realities" in my own career choice.

And I disagree with Firgof Umbra point of view quiet heavily, from what I can tell the main reason we get so many sub-par triple A games is the push from publishers on both time and profit margins and the fact the games industry as a whole has no idea how to run a software company.

[Firgof Umbra]

You would be agreeing with my point of view if that is your stance on the matter.

[Shades]

You would be agreeing with my point of view if that is your stance on the matter.

Clearly I misunderstood what I thought you said then

Edit: I see your second post is along those lines, I should read the whole thread before replying to a comment.. hey ho.

[Draco18s]

Actually from what I understand Shadowrun actually has hard coded Railroading rules that can actually end the game and penelise the players.

No it doesn't.

Some of the published official campaigns do, which is a fault of the mission writer, not the rules.

The closest you can get in the rules for "hard coded 'rocks fall, everyone dies'" is forcing the players into fighting (or letting them fight) a great dragon who anticipated their arrival.  There is a very good reason why you never deal with dragons (they are mechanically Just That Much Better Than You, which is supported by the fluff).  Killing one is a major accomplishment and usually requires lots and lots of missiles.  And some luck, both mechanical and metaphysical.

If you go to Google and type in "never deal" the first suggestion is "never deal with a dragon" (#3 is preceded by "shadowrun") and the third link of said search (the first two being amazon links to a book by that title) is this nice article.

[Neonivek]

Asking for reasonable pay is railroaded. Some of the rules specifically state that you should stop getting jobs.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

TL;DR: Choices vs. Problems. How much players value Choices is an individual thing.

I don't think it's been specifically teased out in this thread, but I think the issue is with player expectation at the interesting choices available.

Choices are decisions you make between multiple options with equal but different outcomes. Problems are like choices, except there is really only one outcome or there is one objectively "best" outcome.

---

Problem 1: Old style JRPG character asks you if you want her to join your group? If you answer no, she laughs at your joke and asks again. Forever. The only way to progress is to answer yes.

Choice 1: She asks you to if she can join. If you say yes she comes with you. If you say no she might sneak along and follow you, or give up on her quest, or try to do it on her own.

---

Problem 2: There are six types of armor in the game. Each one has better Armor Class and higher cost than the previous. There is no reason to use a lesser armor if you can afford the later type. One might argue an opportunity cost in spending money on armor instead of something else, but the decision of which armor to wear is easy: the later type.

Choice 2: Armors come in Light, Medium, and Heavy. There are materials that you can use that are tougher, more energy-resistant, lubricate your psychic abilities, dampen psychic abilities, or are lighter and quieter than normal. Some random pieces also carry a special ability you can invoke if you wear it. All of this means you may desire a specific weight and material of armor for your character, but a less-optimal armor with a good special ability may be worthwhile.

---

Problem 3: You can eat anything you like to regain health. Everything costs the same and heals the same amount. Eating food is the only way to regain health.

Choice 3: There are many ways to regain health. Different foods do it with varying amounts healed. Higher-healing foods tend to cost more. But certain foods are very heavy, heal little, and are cheap. Others heal a lot, are very light, but go bad eventually. And of course you can heal using psychic powers, resting, or drinking from a non-mobile healing spring.

---

I hope this illustrates, without inviting criticism of the examples, what I mean by the difference between problems and choices.

Game players desire different things in their games. Some players value graphics highly. Others value a strong story. Others value interactivity. Many here seem to value the breadth of interesting choices available.

When we speak of a railroaded game, we mean that there are few or no real choices - only problems. And problems can be fun too. Every game features problems. Will your spaceship shoot the alien invader or not? Well, to win you have to shoot. And that's what makes the game fun.

But choices are more difficult to create. They take more time to implement. They're buggier. And the player will miss almost all of your content on the first play-through. He needs to go through the game again and again making different choices to see everything.

I can give you a quick rundown of my gamer profile:

* Values graphics to Tomb Raider 1 or Thief 1 levels but not beyond
* Wants as much interactivity as possible
* Wants to be able to influence the plot as much as possible
* Prefers huge amounts of content, which is most easily afforded through procedural generation
* Prefers a Picaresque storytelling style
* Wants as many interesting choices as possible.

Sid Meyer (Civilization, Pirates!, and Spore) said that he felt players want lots of interesting choices, so that was what he tries to deliver in his games.

But I would go so far as to say that interesting choices define the gaming medium. We never expect interesting choices in a movie. We expect an absolutely linear experience. But because gaming requires player interactivity, leaving out choices is like a movie leaving out the sound. It can be a powerful thing when done right and for the right reasons, but if done arbitrarily and because you don't want to spend the time on it ... it just feels wrong.

I can give examples of linear games that I love.

Zelda: Link to the Past is a fantastic game with only problems, no choices. One could say that the order of dungeon completion is a choice but there is an optimal order in most cases and no meaningful difference in another.

Super Mario Brothers is an example of an incredibly linear game with a few actual choices therein. Mainly if you take a side jaunt in a level you're spit out later but you miss what was in the other path. In these cases there is almost always a best path, and so it is a problem and not a choice. But use of warps and certain path decisions have meaningful and different outcomes. There just aren't more than a handful in the whole game.