Criticism of criticism/advice
Aeronomer
Ohio Join Date: 2015-07-16 Member: 206192Members
Ohio Join Date: 2015-07-16 Member: 206192Members
Just bought early access on Steam because my buddy turned me on to Subnautica and the early access builds are more polished and more fun than many 'finished' games. Which is why I'm perplexed at much of what I see in these forums. The devs obviously know what they're doing and have a vision for the final game. If I were them, I wouldn't even bother with the nitpicking and voluminous 'suggestions' by game-maker wannabes that clog up these forums.
Given the state of the game in PRE-ALPHA, I bought early access to support the devs because I can't wait to see what their fully realized vision for this game is going to look like. Some of you need to chill out IMO.
Given the state of the game in PRE-ALPHA, I bought early access to support the devs because I can't wait to see what their fully realized vision for this game is going to look like. Some of you need to chill out IMO.
Comments
People have a right to voice their opinion, and developers who don't listen to their fans aren't worth a damn. Now, the devs don't have to respond, or remotely accommodate any criticism, but calling for its abolishment is frankly the dumbest thing I've read during all my time on this forum.
It's the way of things, we all do it over one thing or another (favourite sports team, tv show etc).
Some of the time it is because people don't understand Early Access, or some people don't realise how early in it's life Subnautica really is. People see, as you say, a product that is already a lot higher quality than some 'released' games. therefore they think the game is much closer to being finished than it is. It is in those later stages that some of the issues become more important.
It's not that the feedback is not important, but yeah, there are people worrying about things that don't need to be worried about yet.
Then again, not everyone is a game dev or has an understanding of game development. That is kind of the point of Early Access, to educate gamers about how games are really made, and how things differ between different developers.
Also, many of us have experience with UWE, so we know we don't have to worry in about the way things are going to turn out, Beautiful with lots of toys to play with.
An example of how NOT to do it has been done by many developers in the past and their games have disappeared into obscurity with few sales. Those games had little or no content beyond the basic model and quite honestly, some should still have been in Alpha when they were declared release versions.
An example of a subaquatic survival game that failed was Farsky, it could have been good but the devs stopped when they reached their own set content and ignored the players ideas completely. The result was a game that could be completed in a couple of hours with nothing but exploration after that and a lot of the exploration resulting in seeing much the same everywhere.
Without ideas from the players in this game, we would not have the ability to board and explore parts of the Aurora, (which I believe could be expanded on a lot more to provide more tech and blueprints that we could use).
But I don't see how a thread giving feedback in the form of trying to police the rest of the forum's feedback on the developer's behalf is productive. UWE is composed of adults, with big boy pants on and everything. Successful ones who know fully well how to respond to feedback, to listen to the good feedback and disregard the bad, and integrate the things they learn into their product. They don't need you to protect them. They'll manage.
Edit, not the ones that are less provocative xP
But as I said above, it's not the devs who will buy the game. Ignoring genuinely good ideas that wouldn't tax the kitty would be financial suicide. By adding one or two suggested ideas means they will generate more sales from referrals.
David Braben said with Elite Dangerous that he would make the game HE wanted to make originally. Despite the number of complaints from players, he has made negative changes and nerfed a lot of things to make it the way HE wants rather than listening to the majority of the players. As a result, he has lost a lot of players and consequently, a lot of referrals. On top of that, he angered a lot of players like myself who bought it on the strength of his promise to make a single player offline mode for the game which he has now gone back on.
My actual point was that saying that the devs don't have to add things based on request is, at best, a pathetic statement, not even worthy of being called an argument, even though from a purely technical sense it's very true, and the way David Braben has handled Elite Dangerous is an excellent example as to why it's such a bad idea.
The problem with any creative endeavor meant to be enjoyed by a broad audience is that you're going to have a broad and diverse set of opinions, and no two people are going to want the exact same thing. So while you have to honor the original vision and stay true to what you want to create, you do have to be willing to compromise as much as feasible to appeal to the people you're expecting to give you money. You have to balance artistic desire with financial responsibility, otherwise you're going to wind up with something nobody but you wants and a lot of people expecting a paycheck that you can't provide. Look at 3d Realms, and tell me how worthwhile it is to ignore what your customers and fans want in favor of your "vision".
Well both of what you guys are saying is true, they aren't mutually exclusive though. It's a matter of balancing the customer's needs / requests with actually being realistic and not giving in to bad ideas :P
That's pretty much it, yeah. Genuinely bad ideas usually aren't hard to spot or turn down, anyway.
I remember an interview (or a forum post... might have been on these forums!) that sums up what should be the status quo:
(I'm summing this up ofc)
The developers are the professionals, and while the customers may be modders, game makers, or just very creative, the customers, no matter their experience, don't have the knowledge that the devs at UWE have with their own project :P trusting them on the decision making has so far worked quite well
If I had a good idea (or two maybe), I'd start a thread and leave it at that. I don't know how anyone could expect the devs to read through voluminous posts with a dozen ideas from someone's wish list. Plus, we don't really know at this point everything they have planned for the game. Likewise, if there's a bug, report it. Some of what I read sounds like b*tching to me.
Wasn't trying to offend anyone, but much of what I was reading seemed (overtly or not) disrespectful to the devs. Hence my opinion that people need to chill. Folks are free to ignore my admonishment.
I agree about the bitching part :P lol
I haven't (and I'll stop saying this eventually :P ) been on the forum for a long time, but I really haven't seen any entitled posts
Personally, I would like to see mods that can add terrain to the existing map rather than have a fixed size map. I feel that the problem that comes with a fixed size map is that there is little to do once you've explored it all. Adding more terrain means the map will only increase, maybe with new biomes and creatures created by modders.
I would like to see a forum for suggestions, each new post making the suggestion automatically has a yes/no poll. The Subnautica devs can post there to say if the idea is viable or not in terms of cost. This would allow them to see just how many would support the idea. No promises are made that the particular idea will be used though, it's just an indicator to give the devs some idea as to what direction the players would like to see the game take.
Calling for a stop to frankly incomprehensible, sometimes
hare brained, suggestions tsunamis is like shooting a bullet at the ocean and then proclaiming to the world you've killed it.
There is no stopping people from voicing their opinion. Just let other people continue in their own little worlds. You cannot change them. I suppose this post is counterintuitive then... I'm just trying to pull your head out of the idealistic sea you are drowning in.
You don't have to read it. The devs don't have to read it, but frankly they are inclined to. Despite intentions, there is an exuberant enthusiasm that is present in all these said posts. Even if the devs aren't going to take a second look at them, the posts are something that keeps a developer going. It shows that the game is changing the way people think - it is impactful. Some might say those posts are what make great games. Perhaps buried deep in all the walls of text there is a gem of an idea or something that sparks the devs own imagination.