To everyone complaining about the recent change . . .

[decado]

Just remember:

 

Diablo 3 Auction House

 

Sometimes it is very wise indeed to listen to the player base. Of course you can't design a game by committee (well, actually you kinda can!) but getting designers to listen to fan feedback has been something we, as CRPG fans, have been demanding for the last 25 years.  I'm glad the devs are listening to people on something that is in many ways inconsequential anyways.  Let's face it, crafting and durability are not going to be deal breakers here.  There have been no fundamental changes to the game mechanics, structure or playability.  We're not suddenly raising chocobos or collecting in game playing cards with scantily clad women on them.  Neither are we pressing a button to see something awesome happen.  

 

Everyone enjoy your weekend! I plan on drinking a lot.

[C2B]

To everyone complaining about the recent change.

 

1. We have been through that multiple times now (Beginning with the original Map)

 

2. Feedback is exactly what the developers want. They react to feedback and do things accordingly. If you read Sawyer's posts he explains why he does something.

 

3. As such THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DESIGN BY COMMITTE.

 

J.E. Sawyer and the rest of Obsidian holds up to his own opinions and how they work. If he thinks mechanic X works, he will do mechanic X despite protest. Likewise if he looks for feedback, he will take the opinions of fans into account where it makes sense. There is NOTHING to complain over.

Edited July 5, 2013 by C2B

[Sacred_Path]

Sometimes it is very wise indeed to listen to the player base. Of course you can't design a game by committee (well, actually you kinda can!) but getting designers to listen to fan feedback has been something we, as CRPG fans, have been demanding for the last 25 years.

What I'm concerned about is that there is a very loud minority of backers who I think originate mostly from a few hubs on the net and who will continue to try and take influence on the design. While my own preferences and theirs may align in some points, this is certainly not true for everything (I liked the durability mechanic, for one thing).

 

Where's the problem?

 

If customers raise valid complaints/ concerns about certain elements of the game that the devs simply hadn't thought of before, fine. I'm not asking for the devs to be uncritical of their own decisions.

But if the design is changed simply to appease what is in all probability a minority among the customers, this is obviously not in the best interest of most of us. I'm not thrilled about a game whose specifications are tailored to the tastes of the Something Awful crowd and the RPG Codex. That's also not what I paid for, btw.

[C2B]

Edit

Edited July 5, 2013 by C2B

[Hormalakh]

There really aren't a lot of people complaining about the recent change. Most people seem to be happy that Obsidian listens to its fanbase and takes their opinions into consideration. Josh Sawyer is the last person I would think would bow down to the pressures of the majority or vocal minority (however you want to see it).

[Sacred_Path]

There really aren't a lot of people complaining about the recent change.

The vast majority of backers has been completely silent about the whole affair.

[Orogun01]

 

Sometimes it is very wise indeed to listen to the player base. Of course you can't design a game by committee (well, actually you kinda can!) but getting designers to listen to fan feedback has been something we, as CRPG fans, have been demanding for the last 25 years.

What I'm concerned about is that there is a very loud minority of backers who I think originate mostly from a few hubs on the net and who will continue to try and take influence on the design. While my own preferences and theirs may align in some points, this is certainly not true for everything (I liked the durability mechanic, for one thing).

 

Where's the problem?

 

If customers raise valid complaints/ concerns about certain elements of the game that the devs simply hadn't thought of before, fine. I'm not asking for the devs to be uncritical of their own decisions.

But if the design is changed simply to appease what is in all probability a minority among the customers, this is obviously not in the best interest of most of us. I'm not thrilled about a game whose specifications are tailored to the tastes of the Something Awful crowd and the RPG Codex. That's also not what I paid for, btw.

 

I trust Obsidian's judgement based on their previous games. Maybe there is a vociferous minority, that doesn't exclude them from having a good point.

Maybe in this case the developers felt that said minority was right and durability was a feature that did more harm than good and was detrimental to the overall experience.

[Hormalakh]

 

There really aren't a lot of people complaining about the recent change.

The vast majority of backers has been completely silent about the whole affair.

 

Then it is one vocal minority against another vocal minority. Regardless, those who choose to voice their concerns feel heard. Both those who liked the item durability and crafting system and those who didn't. At the end of the day, if one thing is taken out of the game, something better will likely replace it. The point is that Obsidian listens and considers the feedback.

 

Josh Sawyer could have left everyone in the dark about changes occuring in the game. He stated that he spoke with the development team and they made a decision after listening to feedback. There is more to the story than "forum-members are phoning in their game."

Edited July 5, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Sacred_Path]

 

 

There really aren't a lot of people complaining about the recent change.

The vast majority of backers has been completely silent about the whole affair.

 

Then it is one vocal minority against another vocal minority. Regardless, those who choose to voice their concerns feel heard. Both those who liked the item durability and crafting system and those who didn't. At the end of the day, if one thing is taken out of the game, something better will likely replace it. The point is that Obsidian listens and considers the feedback.

 

If Obs wanted to show that they didn't just try to appease the crowd, they should follow the suggestion to keep at least the durability mechanics, possibly with minor adjustments, for Expert mode. It would fit their goals for that mode very well ("weighted gold") and it's obviously something they spent a good amount of time planning.

[Micamo]

This debate happens literally every time a company publically goes back on something it previously said.

 

"Flip-flopper!"

 

"Stick to your guns!"

 

"Where are your principles!?"

 

"Spineless hacks!"

 

"Design by committee!"

 

 

What the people who say these things don't realize is these complaints are exactly why we can't have transparency about anything, ever. These kinds of changes in course happen internally all the time, especially in a creative endeavor, and they're perfectly healthy. Really, I'd be much more concerned if the design didn't change over the course of the development process, especially this early. In the creative process your first idea is almost never the best, and is usually the worst.

[Hormalakh]

If Obs wanted to show that they didn't just try to appease the crowd, they should follow the suggestion to keep at least the durability mechanics, possibly with minor adjustments, for Expert mode. It would fit their goals for that mode very well ("weighted gold") and it's obviously something they spent a good amount of time planning.

 

Josh Sawyer quotes.

 

As I posted on SA, Crafting (the skill) and its associated subsystems (like durability) were the elements I felt least confident about in our skill system.

 

Based on discussions on the forums and conversations I had with people on the team, we will be doing the following:

 

 

There are an enormous number of features/systems that people have complained about that I have not changed because I believed (and still believe) the game would ultimately be more enjoyable as-designed.  I always listen to/read what people have to say, but I only rarely make changes based on what they say.  I don't think anyone would benefit from me ignoring all of the points that people put forward.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Ieo]

I saw four camps, basically.

 

* Hate crafting

* Hate durability

* Don't care either way

* Hate "You Must Take Crafting If You Want Durability To Be Less Annoying"

 

I'm in that fourth bracket. Either may be implemented well for the right reasons, but shoehorning the two together like that just felt manipulative, which in turn tainted the feel and potential of both systems/mechanics for me.

[Sacred_Path]

What the people who say these things don't realize is these complaints are exactly why we can't have transparency about anything, ever. These kinds of changes in course happen internally all the time, especially in a creative endeavor, and they're perfectly healthy.

Me personally, if you've read my post, I give them the benefit of the doubt. It's quite possible they were never exactly sure of how good an idea their implementation of the crafting skill and durability were. Nothing wrong with abandoning it in this case.

[Hormalakh]

I do think a lot of people take these decisions that Obsidian makes too personally. It isn't a matter of who "won" or who "lost" the argument. At the end of the day, everyone wants the best RPG game that can be made, in whatever way we each think best.

 

The important point here is that Kickstarter has allowed us to speak directly to the developers and to share our thoughts with them on a personal level. There are an innumerable number of occasions where I've read posters on different forums say "Whoa! The developer is reading what I write" or something to that effect. At the end of the day, the developers always have the final say and the fact that a gamer's input matters more than a shareholder's is in-and-of-itself something to cherish.

[Malekith]

 

What the people who say these things don't realize is these complaints are exactly why we can't have transparency about anything, ever. These kinds of changes in course happen internally all the time, especially in a creative endeavor, and they're perfectly healthy.

Me personally, if you've read my post, I give them the benefit of the doubt. It's quite possible they were never exactly sure of how good an idea their implementation of the crafting skill and durability were. Nothing wrong with abandoning it in this case.

 

Also, i'm pretty sure it was the complains here and in the kickstarter comments (they are not the same groups) that the team listened and not so much the Codex. People on the Codex had disagreed with pretty much every single desision the PE team made, and if it was in their power we would have a Fallout/Arcanum/Pool of Radiance spiritual successor instead of an IE one.

[Ieo]

I do think a lot of people take these decisions that Obsidian makes too personally. It isn't a matter of who "won" or who "lost" the argument. At the end of the day, everyone wants the best RPG game that can be made, in whatever way we each think best.

 

The important point here is that Kickstarter has allowed us to speak directly to the developers and to share our thoughts with them on a personal level. There are an innumerable number of occasions where I've read posters on different forums say "Whoa! The developer is reading what I write" or something to that effect. At the end of the day, the developers always have the final say and the fact that a gamer's input matters more than a shareholder's is in-and-of-itself something to cherish.

 

Indeed, either we get this Kickstarter-and-Obsidian model where sloppy forum explosions happen here and there, or we can go back to the traditional route:

 

Company invests 3-5 years and meeellions developing a secret hush-hush game, making decisions based on "what we think players like" and "what players should like." Then gamble that consumers will actually buy the game upon release. Additional gamble that consumers will like the game enough to buy more games. 

 

Consumers invest $$ or $$$ and a bunch of hours playing a game they may have read a few reviews about or whatever. And gamble that they'll actually like it. No refunds, by the way.

 

 

I really want to post that Josh quote where he's describing trying to develop for so many different people and we have a bunch here taking something personally and then another bunch there taking something else personally and everyone has their flaming vorpal pitchforks +5. Can't find it at the moment, off for hot dogs.

[Hormalakh]

 

 

What the people who say these things don't realize is these complaints are exactly why we can't have transparency about anything, ever. These kinds of changes in course happen internally all the time, especially in a creative endeavor, and they're perfectly healthy.

Me personally, if you've read my post, I give them the benefit of the doubt. It's quite possible they were never exactly sure of how good an idea their implementation of the crafting skill and durability were. Nothing wrong with abandoning it in this case.

 

Also, i'm pretty sure it was the complains here and in the kickstarter comments (they are not the same groups) that the team listened and not so much the Codex. People on the Codex had disagreed with pretty much every single desision the PE team made, and if it was in their power we would have a Fallout/Arcanum/Pool of Radiance spiritual successor instead of an IE one.

 

 

Who in their right mind listens to the posters on the Codex in the first place?

[Malekith]

Who in their right mind listens to the posters on the Codex in the first place?

 

 

Well, nutcases aside, some of them know what they are talking about. While my tastes don't align with the most "hurdcure" of them, even when i disagree i can see where they come from.

Also, reasons aside, they have excelend taste in games judging from their top 10 list...

[decado]

Most people who are responsible for relating to the public (in whatever capacity) understand the difference between a vocal minority and a majority.  If it is obvious to forum posters, it must be obvious to game developers who have been doing this for a while.  Consequently, I can't believe that Sawyer or anyone else would get bamboozled by a few negative comments and suddenly change course.  It could very well be that it was not the volume of the complaints but their consistency, accuracy or eloquence that made someone change their minds.

 

Also I'm pretty sure most adults who work in the business know how seriously they should take the fellas over at the Codex -- this poster included.

[centurionofprix]

 

Who in their right mind listens to the posters on the Codex in the first place?

 

 

Well, nutcases aside, some of them know what they are talking about. While my tastes don't align with the most "hurdcure" of them, even when i disagree i can see where they come from.

Also, reasons aside, they have excelend taste in games judging from their top 10 list...

 

Codex sucks

[LadyCrimson]

It's quite possible they were never exactly sure of how good an idea their implementation of the crafting skill and durability were. Nothing wrong with abandoning it in this case.

That's how I'm interpreting it, based on Sawyer's wanting opinions and various other things. I'm still a bit sad I won't get to see how it would've worked ... unless they put it in as a hardcore/expert/whatever mode option or something ... but seems to be a case of wanting input, input given/mulled over, decision made.

 

I'm fine with that happening here and there and for ideas they're bandying about and are curious what the players might think. Sometimes the players have awesome ideas and input. I just don't want to see it happen constantly to the point where I start to feel like their own vision might get lost a bit too much. I'm pretty sure that won't happen, but it does cross my mind once in a while.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't know if they changed the mechanic because of people bitching on the internet or not, but I'm disappointed and satisfied at the same time. I'm happy that there isn't a skill that makes items more durable, but I would have liked to see item durability implemented. IMO, a better system would have had a set amount of max durability points for a base item(unenchanted weapon or armor) that increased in durability points and durability damage resistance by being enchanted(or improved with smithing) or made with better materials, and that you could perform basic field repairs on the item to prevent it from totally breaking down.

Edited July 6, 2013 by KaineParker

[Ffordesoon]

There are games in which item durability makes sense. PE does not strike me as one of them. It seemed to me a bit of tedious busywork with no real experiential benefit. It wouldn't have necessarily made the game worse (implementation is everything), but I don't see how it would be better, either. It's just another thing to spend resources/money on, and not a particularly interesting one at that.

[Elerond]

As we have seen from past updates that obsidian often puts mechanics in updates only when they are divined about them and want to hear what backers think.

 

So newest update told us four major things about game

 

Item durability

Crafting 

Crafting skill have impact on item durability

And that crafting skill has impact on item durability because they want all skills to be valid choices to every member of your party.

 

After feed back they changed things, which raised at least some valid concerns. 

 

Item durability was dropped, which is not big deal to me, even that I think that it had potential to add strategic depth in the game.

Crafting skill was dropped, which is only good thing if it didn't have valid role in the game, after deciding to drop item durability.

 

But game will still have crafting and they still plan to make every skill valid choice for every character. Which were in my opinion most important features in the update.

 

So I didn't see Obsidian bent under complaints, but deciding to go other route that they had already thought but didn't present us, because didn't include those mechanics that some people were concerned about (mainly people feared that durability would become a chore and not be fun mechanic to play with).  

[rjshae]

I saw four camps, basically.

 

* Hate crafting

....

 

On this point, note that it is possible not to care about a particular game feature without actually feeling "hate". I recognize that there are features in the game that appeal to only part of the gaming community and I appreciate the design effort that went into it. Likewise I'm know there are elements of the game that I will love but other may not.

 

My point is that we can discuss this without resorting to reducio ab absurdum arguments.