Dear Obsidian, don't listen to the crowd. Make the game as you have planned it.

[pluton]

I agree with the op

some people are making some crazy suggestions

[Wombat]

Maybe not good at adjusting to new technologies, they are pro. In fact, I've been quite surprised to find the number of factors they have told on the net had eventually appeared in various works of theirs. It seems that they put ideas which are not used in their previous games, including canned ones, in their newer projects. For us players, it's like finding materialized pieces of ideas scattered in their games. In the case of the project lead Sawyer, if you were around BIS boards during the development of Van Buren and Jefferson and haven't played Fallout: New Vegas yet for some reasons, play it to find out what I'm saying.

 

That said, I'd like them to drop some hurdles to possible new people to RPG, too, just like inviting a new person to a PnP session. I'd like to see some new people (especially when they are mature - and by mature, it doesn't necessarily mean their physical ages) lean to enjoy CRPG. Of course, for old fans, something like hardcore mode would be nice. Since they are building the system from scratch, they may be able to achieve this simply by adjusting various numbers such as recovery rate.

[Sammael]

DEV SIGHTING! Are dwarves in?

Yes. They are 14-15 feet tall, completely bald, wear chainmail leotards, generally wield rapiers and bows, and speak with a French accent.

[The Sharmat]

Yes. They are 14-15 feet tall, completely bald, wear chainmail leotards, generally wield rapiers and bows, and speak with a French accent.

Now I want to meet the race that calls them "dwarves".

[Volourn]

L0L

[Altarf]

Good ideas are good ideas, no matter where they come from. There are certain things we feel passionate about pursuing and there are other things that we are more neutral on. Often fan input into those more neutral areas (e.g. fantasy "flavor", types of races/classes, etc.) is actually very useful.

 

First of all, thanks for your reply!

 

I trust your judgement completely. Ideas are ideas wherever they come from and they're cruicial to anyones' learning experience. The only thing I wanted to stress is that whining and bitching are so popular and aggressive these days that every dev could start questioning himself if his ideas or concepts will please the audience. Don't let such emotional tone get to you.

[Troller]

Hell yeah, leave the Bioware stuff for the Bioware please!

[Monte Carlo]

OK, I give you Diablo 3. Jay and the others knew best. Fan input was spurned. Game is released and guess what? All the ideas (perma-online, AH, skills, loot drops) sucked. Now they are re-patching all the things back in that the fans wanted in the first place.

 

Developer confidence is one thing: hubris is another. I trust Obz to listen but not to pander. But not listening at all?

[Altarf]

OK, I give you Diablo 3. Jay and the others knew best. Fan input was spurned. Game is released and guess what? All the ideas (perma-online, AH, skills, loot drops) sucked. Now they are re-patching all the things back in that the fans wanted in the first place.

 

Developer confidence is one thing: hubris is another. I trust Obz to listen but not to pander. But not listening at all?

 

Then only thing that Diablo 3 dev team did wrong was to completely destroy the dark gothic setting of the original Diablo. All else they did as the fans asked. Fans wanted some major problems from Diablo 2 addressed and Willsons' team did exactly that. It turned out that it was not for good. Fans wanted harder game, but thy didn't like it so Blizzard nerfed it. Fans wanted to do something different than Baal runs, Diablo 3 gave it to them (rare and champions packs) and the fans didn't like it. Fans wanted more choices of endgame items, Blizzard gave them rares to improve randomness and diversity but fans did not like it and wanted legendaries back, again making them the most sought items (as runewords and uniques were in D2). The list is long.

 

So the whole development of Diablo 3 was centered around addressing the issues of Diablo 2, but in the end the fans didn't like it and wanted the old issues back. If anything ruined D3's launch, it was too much listening to the fans.

 

The main issue is that fans don't know what they want. In most cases a good idea turns out to be bad when actually implemented.

[Mystwalker]

Agreed.

 

In the end, we're giving you all this support because we have faith in YOUR vision and YOUR talents. We've seen what you're capable of in BG, Planescape and KoTOR 2, and that's what we want to see. We want to see you guys make your game, the way you've always done it.

 

Don't feel obligated to let our demands put weight on your game. This is your game Obsidian, this is the opportunity for you to put everything you can in making the game you guys have always wanted to make. That's what we want. Please keep that in mind.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Mystwalker

[Diagoras]

I agree. My pledge is hiring Obsidian to make me an awesome game. I'm not hiring any of the other backers to do it - I'm hiring Obsidian to do it.

[Gurkog]

I wasn't paying too much attention to the Kickstarter video as I was watching it, because I was convulsing with joy, but it seems like they might have seen and taken some inspiration from fan ideas already. Some fans and I had various suggestions about the use of souls and how the behavior of the characters can shape the form and function of their abilities. I noticed that an emphasis on character souls was mentioned in the video and it definitely intrigues me.

 

I have no illusions to think they would take fan ideas and implement them without polish and consideration for the situation and environment they will be utilized in. Taking the raw form, moulding it and making it their own is the only way to have ideas fit seamlessly. I just hope we can add a perspective that sheds light on aspects of the world they might have overlooked.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Gurkog

[generic.hybridity]

Nothing wrong with speculating and discussing things. Some players demanding features if vocal enough might give Obsidian useful feedback. I doubt of course they would allow it to change or take over their vision for the game. But influence or allow them to take into consideration player considerations is probably quite useful. They're after all not designing the game in a vacuum.

[Gurkog]

 

Then only thing that Diablo 3 dev team did wrong was to completely destroy the dark gothic setting of the original Diablo. All else they did as the fans asked. Fans wanted some major problems from Diablo 2 addressed and Willsons' team did exactly that. It turned out that it was not for good. Fans wanted harder game, but thy didn't like it so Blizzard nerfed it. Fans wanted to do something different than Baal runs, Diablo 3 gave it to them (rare and champions packs) and the fans didn't like it. Fans wanted more choices of endgame items, Blizzard gave them rares to improve randomness and diversity but fans did not like it and wanted legendaries back, again making them the most sought items (as runewords and uniques were in D2). The list is long.

 

So the whole development of Diablo 3 was centered around addressing the issues of Diablo 2, but in the end the fans didn't like it and wanted the old issues back. If anything ruined D3's launch, it was too much listening to the fans.

 

The main issue is that fans don't know what they want. In most cases a good idea turns out to be bad when actually implemented.

 

Some of my thoughts about your comments:

 

Diablo 2 was not very dark, but it had a more realistic art style.

 

They made D3 harder, but they did not alter the gameplay to do so. Arbitrary gear checks are an artificial form of challenge that gets repetitive and boring. Mixing in a variety of tactical challenges, via unit behavior, would extend my interest.

 

Encouraging the player to deviate from a set routine extends interest, but they reduced the randomness of levels so it turned into the same boring grind anyway. This is a case where the developers tried to fix a problem by attacking one of its symptoms.

 

In D2 the best gear was often times rares, but finding highly useful rares had extremely low odds - way beyond finding uniques, sets and runes. The 'fixed' stat items in D2 usually had extremely varied tactical value because of their unusual properties. D3 got rid of the variety in those properties which cut loot diversity down to mainly stat enhancement. Another case of trying to fix a problem by attacking a symptom instead of the underlying cause.

 

The problem is not with what the fans said, but in what blizzard heard. They tried to fix a rusty pipe by plugging holes instead of changing to a more oxidation resistant material.

[Lostbrain]

I have total faith in Obsidian, but I think they can listen to fans. Few ideas from others can lead to something that they don't already think, or explore in a different way.

[Monte Carlo]

They've listened already. Most of the grognards on this forum have been asking for an isometric, party-based, tactical old-skool CRPG for ten years or more. Since the death of the infinity engine and the Atari / D&D screw-ups it's been a fallow period. Then fast forward and some of us were pinning our hopes on the Dragon Age franchise. And look what happened there.

 

Now Obz have listened and done something about it. Did we, as fans, have any input into that? Probably not but then again they knew that the grass-roots were out there, waiting quietly, and would respond favourably if something like this came along.

 

Again, there are vast swathes of design decisions that the devs should and will ignore. But if they let us air our views on some of the other stuff... that can only be good.

[Meshugger]

I expect Josh & Co do the following:

 

- Understand the difference between senseless pandering and actual sensible critical input. Many of the suggestions here are pretty much hollow and superficial that adds nothing to the game at best.

- Do not change the original intent of the game. You guys design it, we decide to pay with our wallets or not in advance. The community only offers critique, we should not change the design itself. Otherwise, it is not *your* game anymore.

 

Do that, and it will turn out fine.

[Hornet85]

They've listened already. Most of the grognards on this forum have been asking for an isometric, party-based, tactical old-skool CRPG for ten years or more. Since the death of the infinity engine and the Atari / D&D screw-ups it's been a fallow period. Then fast forward and some of us were pinning our hopes on the Dragon Age franchise. And look what happened there.

 

Now Obz have listened and done something about it. Did we, as fans, have any input into that? Probably not but then again they knew that the grass-roots were out there, waiting quietly, and would respond favourably if something like this came along.

 

Again, there are vast swathes of design decisions that the devs should and will ignore. But if they let us air our views on some of the other stuff... that can only be good.

 

I agree with this.

 

Obsidian can and did listen to the major demands like having Linux support etc etc

 

But when it comes to the details, lets be honest. We can never agree on anything. You have people who don't want house, want house, want homosexual characters only, etc etc its crazy. The dev can never please everyone. So they should make the game to the best of their creative ability.

 

Whenever they want our opinion on something, that's where we come in but other than that, they should make it the way they see fit.

[Meshugger]

Oh, here's a critical input:

 

Lets say that in the lands of Eternity, there's a strong tradition in rug cleaning every 5th day. It is bound to the local culture, it is there in the myths and stories that the bards sing in taverns at night and the streets in the day. Festivals are celebrated in terms of the fastest cleaner, best cleaning compound and so on.

 

When we have that premise, please do not:

 

1) Add a character in the party or the world that do not believe in rug cleaning without consequences. Make the character constantly question the rug cleaning tradition and be questioned himself/herself for not participating in the festivities surrounding it. If anyone breaks the local custom, let there be consequences.

 

2) Add a local moral code that makes sense in the world that you are creating. Avoid applying standards that we see in our western society that is in conflict with the world that you are creating, otherwise the results are just jarring and dishonest. For example: It is a moral imperative in rug cleaning-land that the men clean the rug and the women prepare the compund for cleaning. Breaking this is social taboo that in some villages might lead to a hanging. The very moment the player suggest that everyone should be able to participate according the best of their abilities, expect a heated debate that might lead to the player fleeing the village, or the player admitting his or hers ignorance and begging for forgiveness to the local high council.

 

3) If the player seeks to bring social change, like changing the tradition of rug cleaning to rat flaying every 6th day, then let it happen organically according to how the customs are in the world you are creating. People might die, there might even be a revolution. Let the player see the results of his or hers personal philosophy applied to others and the world.

 

 

Point being, make sure that world makes sense in the context that you create it.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Meshugger

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I don't expect them to bow to our demands at all and I have no problem with that. I trust Obsidian to make a great game. It's just fun to speculate.

[GrayCodex]

OK, I give you Diablo 3. Jay and the others knew best. Fan input was spurned. Game is released and guess what? All the ideas (perma-online, AH, skills, loot drops) sucked. Now they are re-patching all the things back in that the fans wanted in the first place.

 

Developer confidence is one thing: hubris is another. I trust Obz to listen but not to pander. But not listening at all?

 

Then only thing that Diablo 3 dev team did wrong was to completely destroy the dark gothic setting of the original Diablo. All else they did as the fans asked. Fans wanted some major problems from Diablo 2 addressed and Willsons' team did exactly that. It turned out that it was not for good. Fans wanted harder game, but thy didn't like it so Blizzard nerfed it. Fans wanted to do something different than Baal runs, Diablo 3 gave it to them (rare and champions packs) and the fans didn't like it. Fans wanted more choices of endgame items, Blizzard gave them rares to improve randomness and diversity but fans did not like it and wanted legendaries back, again making them the most sought items (as runewords and uniques were in D2). The list is long.

 

So the whole development of Diablo 3 was centered around addressing the issues of Diablo 2, but in the end the fans didn't like it and wanted the old issues back. If anything ruined D3's launch, it was too much listening to the fans.

 

The main issue is that fans don't know what they want. In most cases a good idea turns out to be bad when actually implemented.

 

Three things that ruined Diablo 3 : the auction house, always online DRM and fixed skill tree( no point allocation in different branches ). I cannot think any of them being supported by fans.

[Umberlin]

Asking them not to listen to the crowd when their video stresses how important our input is to them is . . . odd. I don't think they should do everything we say, but if what we say ever just happens to inspire them, I don't see the harm in that.

[descalabro]

It's a good thing Obsidian is hearing out suggestions, and although there are awful ideas most people reply accordingly and the idea goes down the sewer, so what's the problem?

[HansKrSG]

Though I agree with teh OP, I do not trust Obsidian as a company to make good games, I trust the people in charge of this project to make a good game, since I have already seen what magic they can do (and which they did not do under the Obsidian banner). Dungeon Lords 3 is the prime example for me that I won't trust a company to make a good game, just because that company has other good games under the belt.

[Lucas]

They're experienced developers, I'm sure they participated in forum discussions, flame-wars, debates and all the package in the past, so they should be able to recognize what might be valuable input, feasible mechanic design suggestions and so on; no matter what, they'll make questionable decisions that a portion of the playerbase may not agree with or despise, but we shouldn't consider them like an unsure bunch constantly changing ideas whenever a topic pops up in the forum