Dont understand some people on here - my rant

[chisled2bone]

I have to be honest. A forum is suppose to be about discussion. I always try and bring something to the discussion when i reply to a thread or make a thread. Any thread i make i try and make sure it is a "conversation starter". But people need to understand that when you are a in a forum, a community essentially, people are going to have their own opinions... and thats OK. So many threads get started because they have an opinion about something that they wouldnt mind seeing in the game, or a said feature that they would be happy to see. And thats OK. So many people's first response to threads like these are, "No i dont agree, just let Obsidian make the game the way they want." I can understand this sentiment, however a forum is meant for discussion. Especially when you are in the section labeled "General Discussion". These people who make these threads arent saying that Obsidian shouldnt make the game they want, they are merely making a suggestion that they like and think maybe others might like as well. Anyway I know posting this thread isnt going to change anyone's responses to these threads, but I felt the need to rant about it. Why? Because i suppose it is a release for me... As i stated earlier i like to make thought provoking and discussion oriented threads so, as usual your opinions are always welcome.

[HangedMan]

I have to be honest. A forum is suppose to be about discussion. I always try and bring something to the discussion when i reply to a thread or make a thread. Any thread i make i try and make sure it is a "conversation starter". But people need to understand that when you are a in a forum, a community essentially, people are going to have their own opinions... and thats OK. So many threads get started because they have an opinion about something that they wouldnt mind seeing in the game, or a said feature that they would be happy to see. And thats OK. So many people's first response to threads like these are, "No i dont agree, just let Obsidian make the game the way they want." I can understand this sentiment, however a forum is meant for discussion. Especially when you are in the section labeled "General Discussion". These people who make these threads arent saying that Obsidian shouldnt make the game they want, they are merely making a suggestion that they like and think maybe others might like as well. Anyway I know posting this thread isnt going to change anyone's responses to these threads, but I felt the need to rant about it. Why? Because i suppose it is a release for me... As i stated earlier i like to make thought provoking and discussion oriented threads so, as usual your opinions are always welcome.

 

Dude, you need to relax, and just let obsidian make the game the way they want to!!

 

But, seriously, I can understand, and agree, with the sentiment you've expressed here. Though I won't hold my breath, I do hope it changes at least one person.

[RaccoonTOF]

This sort of thing actually reminds me of some of the comments/"discussions" over on the Amplitude "Endless Space" forums - which are particularly confusing when the stated goal of the developers there is to deliberately solicit and actively act on and implement player/forum suggestions through a voting process and the "Games Together" approach, people STILL come out with "I really hope that the developers don't implement feature x that I don't like, it would just be stupid, and they should do things how they want to, even though 97% of the poll responders voted the opposite of what I think it should be...it's their game"

[rjshae]

I'm not seeing a problem. If we start excluding people who disagree with a concept, then it becomes a degenerate discussion. (Like the Bush White House... 'member that? ) It's up to the people who like the idea to adapt to the disagreement; either by ignoring it or by attempting to find a useful compromise.

Edited October 18, 2012 by rjshae

[norolim]

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the only acceptable answers in a discussion are the "Yes, I agree" types? Or is it that people shoudn't write that "Obsidian should make the game they want"? I seriously don't understand your point.

Edited October 18, 2012 by norolim

[HumanFlesh+5]

Correct me if i am wrong, but are there a lot more of moral threads since the kickstarter project has closed? ... as well as strange topics like "I want to be a dragon" ?

 

Odd.

[Technatorium]

It's really hard to read a big wall of text.

If you actually put a little bit of effort to make it easy for me to follow your thoughts I would respond more to your concerns.

 

Anywho from what my fellow repliers have said, I just say let Obsidian do the work.

Can any of us really name a game were everything about it was perfect?

Or it could have been better if?

Honestly I can't think of any game like that.

Even the failicies of a game can make it amazing.

I believe that Obsidian has every right to make the game the way they envision it. We also have every right as "backers" to voice our opinions and frankly they have every right to ignore us since we never made a Contract with them. They are being very generous by listening to us. I appreciate the very transparent communication so far even with the various mistakes made along the way.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Technatorium

[JFSOCC]

@norolim I think the issue is that not all cirticism is constructive, and sometimes ideas are shot down when they are just that, ideas. More than just discussion, I also think we can be as a source of inspiration. The Devs might not copy our ideas directly, but it might spark something in their minds that they can work with.

also, no opinion is wrong, but often, they are poorly expressed. Not everyone knows exactly what they want to communicate or how to communicate it. If you start negative feedback because someone puts something down you disagree with, I think you're missing the point. Someone might say he wants xp for kills (or not) to use a recent discussion.

 

personally I think what that person might really want to convey is a fear that combat becomes irrelevant to progression.

In this sense, I think discussion should include alternatives or constructive critisism, possibly compromise.

Saying "Your idea is wrong and you suck" doesn't help anyone. because majority held positions don't have to be right (or wrong), I feel it is more useful to discuss ideas posited, than tallying those who are for or against an idea.

[Fluffle]

Everyone is free to agree or not agree on things on this forum.

Diversity will enrich the game, not a common agreement on everything.

 

So I would not criticise the ones who disagree on a topic I like, but

the ones who cannot do so without insulting me.

 

Agreement and disagreement should be delivered

in a civilised manner.

 

And for some people this seems to be the hardest part:

To withstand the temptation that comes with being

SEEMINGLY anonymous on the internet.

[Darth Trethon]

If nobody disagrees with the horrors some users want to see implemented Obsidian might start thinking that all are in support.....we couldn't have that. I rather they ignore the horror and do things their way if they are not completely convinced to follow my way. If an idea is bad it's important that it is identified as bad.

[JFSOCC]

If nobody disagrees with the horrors some users want to see implemented Obsidian might start thinking that all are in support.....we couldn't have that. I rather they ignore the horror and do things their way if they are not completely convinced to follow my way. If an idea is bad it's important that it is identified as bad.

I trust enough in Obsidian that I'm not afraid that will happen.

However if you disagree with something, arguing why you disagree is much better than saying "OmG NO this is DUMB"

I know we all fall to that temptation sometimes, but it should be avoided.

[Merin]

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the only acceptable answers in a discussion are the "Yes, I agree" types? Or is it that people shoudn't write that "Obsidian should make the game they want"? I seriously don't understand your point.

 

I think it's this -

 

When someone creates a thread (or posts in a thread) advocating for their own personal tastes in what should (or should not) be in a game, acceptable (read: productive, in the spirit of the forum, worthwhile) responses can range from "Yes, I need this" to "don't care if this is in or not" to "For the love of all that is holy, don't include this!", as well as "this is how I'd like to see it" to "okay if like A, not okay if like B" to "it is always bad - examples C-F"...

 

but what OP is saying (and I tend to agree with) is that the response to every suggestion being "don't ask for that thing!" to "let Obsidian make the game they want!" to "I sure hope Obsidian DOESN'T listen to the forums at all!" are all against the spirit of the forums.

 

Disagreeing with a suggested feature is not only okay, but encouraged.

 

Disagreeing with features being suggested, however, is not okay.

 

See the difference?

[Darth Trethon]

If nobody disagrees with the horrors some users want to see implemented Obsidian might start thinking that all are in support.....we couldn't have that. I rather they ignore the horror and do things their way if they are not completely convinced to follow my way. If an idea is bad it's important that it is identified as bad.

I trust enough in Obsidian that I'm not afraid that will happen.

However if you disagree with something, arguing why you disagree is much better than saying "OmG NO this is DUMB"

I know we all fall to that temptation sometimes, but it should be avoided.

 

I always do and so do most around here....where do you even get the idea that reasoning is an issue? BSN?

[Catharsis]

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the only acceptable answers in a discussion are the "Yes, I agree" types? Or is it that people shoudn't write that "Obsidian should make the game they want"? I seriously don't understand your point.

 

It's perfectly possible to disagree without attacking.

[Fluffle]

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the only acceptable answers in a discussion are the "Yes, I agree" types? Or is it that people shoudn't write that "Obsidian should make the game they want"? I seriously don't understand your point.

 

It's perfectly possible to disagree without attacking.

 

That's the point. For some people it is not.

[norolim]

I think it's this -

 

When someone creates a thread (or posts in a thread) advocating for their own personal tastes in what should (or should not) be in a game, acceptable (read: productive, in the spirit of the forum, worthwhile) responses can range from "Yes, I need this" to "don't care if this is in or not" to "For the love of all that is holy, don't include this!", as well as "this is how I'd like to see it" to "okay if like A, not okay if like B" to "it is always bad - examples C-F"...

 

but what OP is saying (and I tend to agree with) is that the response to every suggestion being "don't ask for that thing!" to "let Obsidian make the game they want!" to "I sure hope Obsidian DOESN'T listen to the forums at all!" are all against the spirit of the forums.

 

Disagreeing with a suggested feature is not only okay, but encouraged.

 

Disagreeing with features being suggested, however, is not okay.

 

See the difference?

The problem is that "let Obsidian make the game they want!" is also an opinion. Someone may honestly believe, that the game will be the best it can be if backers let Obsidian do the game they intend to do. Otheres may disagree, but it doesn't make that opinion any less valid. It's the point a discussion. To present and support various ideas related to a subject.

 

It's perfectly possible to disagree without attacking.

The OP didn't say anything about aggressive replies.

[Fluffle]

I think it's this -

 

When someone creates a thread (or posts in a thread) advocating for their own personal tastes in what should (or should not) be in a game, acceptable (read: productive, in the spirit of the forum, worthwhile) responses can range from "Yes, I need this" to "don't care if this is in or not" to "For the love of all that is holy, don't include this!", as well as "this is how I'd like to see it" to "okay if like A, not okay if like B" to "it is always bad - examples C-F"...

 

but what OP is saying (and I tend to agree with) is that the response to every suggestion being "don't ask for that thing!" to "let Obsidian make the game they want!" to "I sure hope Obsidian DOESN'T listen to the forums at all!" are all against the spirit of the forums.

 

Disagreeing with a suggested feature is not only okay, but encouraged.

 

Disagreeing with features being suggested, however, is not okay.

 

See the difference?

The problem is that "let Obsidian make the game they want!" is also an opinion. Someone may honestly believe, that the game will be the best it can be if backers let Obsidian do the game they intend to do. Otheres may disagree, but it doesn't make that opinion any less valid. It's the point a discussion. To present and support various ideas related to a subject.

 

It's perfectly possible to disagree without attacking.

The OP didn't say anything about aggressive replies.

 

The OP spoke of disagreement with other people.

And for some people this is defined as replying in a rude, aggressive way.

[mr.Ermac]

What don't you understand? This forum is half rpgcodex, some /v/ and reddit, bsn refugees and tiny bits of people not related to either of those sites. A deadly combination if I ever saw one.

[Merin]

The problem is that "let Obsidian make the game they want!" is also an opinion. Someone may honestly believe, that the game will be the best it can be if backers let Obsidian do the game they intend to do. Otheres may disagree, but it doesn't make that opinion any less valid. It's the point a discussion. To present and support various ideas related to a subject.

 

Except that Obsidian asks for donators to give their opinions. They are soliciting wants, likes and dislikes. They repeatedly say how happy they are with being able to communicate directly with us and being able to base decisions on the backers and not on the publishers.

 

So, when you advocate "let Obsidian make the game they want" as a way to make someone NOT talk about a given feature...

you are advocating AGAINST what Obsidian explicitly wants.

 

Q.E.D.

[Fluffle]

The problem is that "let Obsidian make the game they want!" is also an opinion. Someone may honestly believe, that the game will be the best it can be if backers let Obsidian do the game they intend to do. Otheres may disagree, but it doesn't make that opinion any less valid. It's the point a discussion. To present and support various ideas related to a subject.

 

Except that Obsidian asks for donators to give their opinions. They are soliciting wants, likes and dislikes. They repeatedly say how happy they are with being able to communicate directly with us and being able to base decisions on the backers and not on the publishers.

 

So, when you advocate "let Obsidian make the game they want" as a way to make someone NOT talk about a given feature...

you are advocating AGAINST what Obsidian explicitly wants.

 

Q.E.D.

 

If Obsidian wants likes and dislikes, I could still tell Obsidian that I dislike that they want likes and dislikes.

Nothing keeping me from doing so.

 

What's the matter about advocating against what Obsidian wants?

They want agreements and disagreements.

 

By advocating against what they want you disagree.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I honestly hope Obsidian does not take into consideration anything the fans say, other than a few special exceptions.

[chisled2bone]

@norolim I think the issue is that not all cirticism is constructive, and sometimes ideas are shot down when they are just that, ideas. More than just discussion, I also think we can be as a source of inspiration. The Devs might not copy our ideas directly, but it might spark something in their minds that they can work with.

also, no opinion is wrong, but often, they are poorly expressed. Not everyone knows exactly what they want to communicate or how to communicate it. If you start negative feedback because someone puts something down you disagree with, I think you're missing the point. Someone might say he wants xp for kills (or not) to use a recent discussion.

 

personally I think what that person might really want to convey is a fear that combat becomes irrelevant to progression.

In this sense, I think discussion should include alternatives or constructive critisism, possibly compromise.

Saying "Your idea is wrong and you suck" doesn't help anyone. because majority held positions don't have to be right (or wrong), I feel it is more useful to discuss ideas posited, than tallying those who are for or against an idea.

 

Honestly couldnt have put it any better. It is perfectly ok to disagree. Thats is actually what makes conversation exciting and engaging. It wouldnt be much of a conversation if we all agreed on the same thing. Just like if someone doesnt agree with what i posted. I value your opinion, but i would also like to know why it is not agreed with. That way i can better understand where you are coming from. I already know what i like so it is interesting to know what others think and like as well. I just prefer conversation on the forums that has something to offer. Something that might make me think about my own opinion and maybe think twice, even if afterwards i still dont agree, it made me think. But hey, thats just how i like things

[norolim]

Except that Obsidian asks for donators to give their opinions. They are soliciting wants, likes and dislikes. They repeatedly say how happy they are with being able to communicate directly with us and being able to base decisions on the backers and not on the publishers.

 

So, when you advocate "let Obsidian make the game they want" as a way to make someone NOT talk about a given feature...

you are advocating AGAINST what Obsidian explicitly wants.

 

Q.E.D.

But I'm afraid you demonstrated nothing. How does Obsidian asking for opinions make an opinion invalid? "let Obsidian make the game they want" is a perfect response to Obsidian asking about opinions. It means "I trust you and believe that the game will be better if you develop it the way you indended." Furthermore, why would saying "let Obsidian make the game they want" automatically mean that you don't want someone to "talk about a given feature?". If I say it, I don't mind that the discussion continues after that. I stated my opinion. That's all I wanted to do.

[chisled2bone]

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the only acceptable answers in a discussion are the "Yes, I agree" types? Or is it that people shoudn't write that "Obsidian should make the game they want"? I seriously don't understand your point.

 

I think it's this -

 

When someone creates a thread (or posts in a thread) advocating for their own personal tastes in what should (or should not) be in a game, acceptable (read: productive, in the spirit of the forum, worthwhile) responses can range from "Yes, I need this" to "don't care if this is in or not" to "For the love of all that is holy, don't include this!", as well as "this is how I'd like to see it" to "okay if like A, not okay if like B" to "it is always bad - examples C-F"...

 

but what OP is saying (and I tend to agree with) is that the response to every suggestion being "don't ask for that thing!" to "let Obsidian make the game they want!" to "I sure hope Obsidian DOESN'T listen to the forums at all!" are all against the spirit of the forums.

 

Disagreeing with a suggested feature is not only okay, but encouraged.

 

Disagreeing with features being suggested, however, is not okay.

 

See the difference?

 

Also written much better than i probably could lol

[rjshae]

I honestly hope Obsidian does not take into consideration anything the fans say, other than a few special exceptions.

 

Too late. That's how we got the mega-dungeon, player house, paladins, bards, and stronghold. I only hope they listened to the pet flying monkey idea.