Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
Правила і настанови обговорень
Поскаржитися на цей допис
Here it is - https://explorminate.net/2017/06/05/all-that-glitters-is-not-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-7731
1. EA
I don't think EA has much to do with this. For every game you point to released under EA that proved disappointing/buggy I can point to one that was wildly successfull and solid as a rock (relatively) and visa versa. This is strong evidence other factors at work here IMO.
I think EA is a red herring in this context. If it's done right it works well, if it's done badly or abused it doesn't.
However I do think thereare a couple of aspects of EA that do need scrutiny:
Firslty it may be that devs are not locking down EA programs early enough to schedule a sufficient post lockdown test period before release for QA to churn through the changes brought in during the EA program properly.
Secondly EA programs may be seriously affecting AI development in 4X games particualry. The practice seems to be to teach the AI how to play only when the features and ruleset of the game have been finalized. It is self-evident how EA can throw a spanner in the works with that.
2. Unrealistic deadlines and DLC
I think both these issues arise becasue of the much more fragmented multi-disciplined nature of a typical modern game development team.
I would guess that the devs who made the original MOO games coded pretty much the whole shebang themsleves from soup to nuts, savel/load routines to UI widgets, in C++ using a few pretty standard C++ libraries.
Today you have a plethora of different roles, particularly artists and 3D designers, UX specialists, level designers, writers, script writers. community managers etc, as well as programmers. These roles are not interchangeable.
As a result I suspect there is enourmous pressure to keep these different people busy and productive all the time and I think this leads to release dates being determined by lack of anything for a particular bunch of people to do after a certain point rather than the "readiness" of the game itself and also DLC packages being brought forward early and often as another means to give them something gainfull to do.
3. Game design
Oliver brings up two interesting comparisons, GC2-GC3 and MOO2-NuMoO, and points out the latter iterations were considered inferior to the former. I think questions need to be asked about this:
1. Is this becasue the latter versions were insufficiently similar or too similar to the originals?
2. Is there a negative feeedback loop between general dissatisfaction/disappointement with a new 4X game and intollerance of bugs and inbalances?
As fans I think we need to be clear about what we actually want. IMO if we want more of the same then we can't complain "Yeah man, seen that, done that, nothing new to see here". If we want something different we can't start whining about feature creep and demand a "back to basics" agenda.
And of course if we as fans disagree with each other on this then we have a ready made explantion for many of the design issues Oliver is talking about.
Regarding EA:
Yes, I know there have been success stories with EA. But have any 4X games gone through EA as a resounding success at the end (Maybe just Endless Legend)?
I think the issue, as you mention, is that there isn't enough time for QA and polish built into the EA process often. ES2 process was rediculous IMHO. The EA process so driven by major internal development milestones, at such a fast pace, that it left very little wiggle room for responding to more thoughtful feedback.
Yes - they revamped the tech tree during EA and reworked many aspects of the combat system. But the latter in particular is still very lackluster and needs much more refinement IMHO. But they just didn't have any time built in to the process to accommodate those iterative refinements. It makes me wonder why they had an EA process when the schedule and abalikity to respond to community feedback was so tight.
Regarding game design:
I can't speak to the GalCiv series very well - but with MoO2 --> MoO: CTS I can. The issue I don't think is about being too similar or not too similar from a mechanic standpoint.
The issue is about creating a similar decision space and experience in the players mind. MoO2 was a combat centric game with a lot of fidelity in how players designed ships and how that translated into combat performance. Likewise - the game had some hard choices designed in - like the tech tree - that created a lot of options and distinct ways of progressing through the game. These things made MoO2 a good game from both a design and an experience standpoint.
NuMoO doesn't hit these similar marks. The way combat works is so watered down and lacks the level of control MoO players wanted. It isn't about it being turn-based or real-time combat either. Because StarDrive2 has realtime combat but is FAR more engaging and reliant on player input than nuMoO is.
Speaking of StarDrive 2, if it were not for the bugs and a few lingering quality of life issues, it would be the best spiritual successor of MoO2 available IMHO. It creates very similar tensions and decision points as MoO2 did, has a similar focus on combat, and mechanically is more similar too. Total tragedy that developed of it stopped.
And the same for Stardrive 1. If he just completed it, finished the quests and fixed the bugs then that would have been the best 4x for that time.
I still prefer SD way above SD2, lol.
Just my opinion on SD and SD2.
I’ve stated before that 4x gaming has been following a post launch content design similar to one made by a developer/publisher creating a MMO.
Paradox is closer in comparison than other studios in this regard.
I have absolutely no issue with this model of the following conditions are met by the studio.
1. It’s clear to the consumer that the game will see continued support and changes for the next few years in terms of free and paid DLC.
2. The game remains in a stable , mechanically sound state throughout this process. Where I have no problem playing a game relatively bug free while you continue to add content.
If you faulter on any of those 2 values it no longer makes the endeavour worth while to the consumer who supports the game.
I will not wait a month for mechanics added via DLC to be properly implemented and balanced and neither should anyone else.
I need to give SD1 a play through again with the black box mod. I never did that previously. I'd be curious to see how it works out.
With the black box mod, are there remaining big issues / concerns with SD1?
Thanks Mark!
I can understand that we're shifting towards an era of games as a service. Hell, I just spent $10 buying loot boxes for Overwatch last night (and got nothing of consequence I might add). In a certain way, many of these games - even when broken or buggy - still provide a heck of a lot of entertainment for the dollar. I spend more on coffee in a week than I do buying DLC in a month.
But I think part of it is also about where the developers priorities lie - and that's what frustrates me. Some of the things people have gripped about with Stellaris since day 1 still remain issues. Leaders being underwhelming, the handling of federations (during wartime especially), factions (which are still oddly handled), no interesting conclusion to an overall narrative (code words for compelling victory condition) etc. I don't doubt that they'll get around to improving these things over time - but it's going to take YEARS at the current pace of things, especially when a considerable portion of their effort is funneled into DLC's with new features. Anyway - enough ripping on Stellaris for me for now - ya'll know where I stand with that one.
Unfortunately late game - Yes.
I still had the lag that got worse and worse and then basically cannot play if on bigger than normal maps.
Freigters still forget what they were doing and then you have to give orders again.
Its a pity Crunchy stopped on this mod, they made the game way better.
I loved the Blackbox mod.
On a personal note, I would be more willing to put up with the issues that seem to plague early adoption of these games if devs/publishers did more to reward their dedicated fans as they support them throughout the life-cycle of the game. While I understand that devs will want to fund further development via DLC, I equally understand the cynicism the DLC treadmill breeds among fans.
There's got to be a balance here, somewhere. For example, Crusade is about the most ambitious expansion pack I have seen for pretty much any game ever in my time as a gamer, and certainly reminiscient of the style of expansions we used to have before the big digital revolution of distribution/micro-transaction/monetisation-galores. It does a tonne of things right, moves the game away from the shadow of its predecessor, and pushed the game into genuinly 'great' territory. It's responsive, snappy, has fun AI, far better paced, lets me build my own ships like lego. However, I will never shut down someone frustrated by the bugs it had at launch, even if they did not effect me as much. For better or worse, it earned the flak it got for those polish issues.
Stellaris is another favourite of mine, but it's weirdly a title I have basically played after each major update, where I would run into tonnes of polish issues and spindly bugs. As the routine goes, I would then put it away and wait for the next update. I have simultaneously enjoyed it and been frustrated more times than I like to admit. It has been embarrassing to wax lyrical about these absurd stories you build when you write the story of a species of slave owning peacocks, but then mention how the latest update broke something and missed another long-standing issue (precursors *cough*). Stellaris is both a grand adventure and a rickety shack at times. It also didn't work for me at launch.
ES2 has been another game that I've fallen in love with. The handcrafted feel of its lore, and the obvious care and attention that has gone into creating a cast of civs and a universe for them to populate is enthralling. It doesn't have to have the best AI, or the grandest scope because it delivers on flavour like no other currently. But hitting upon all the little bugs it has, the performance issues and that show-stopping bug (that seems to be largely fixed) brought the whole thing down like a Jenga tower when combined.
To their credit, the developers behind all three of these games, which form a big core of my personal gaming, have been pretty great with their support. Crusade recieved some pretty quick and solid bug-fixes, same with ES2 so far. Stellaris... Well, Martin Anward is steering that big ship in the right direction. It just seems to be a ponderous ship, at least from where I stand.
These games are an important aspect of my personal life, as the world I live in is increasingly uncertain, vague and depressing. It's a place where money is getting tighter every year, and just maintaining a roof of independence seems to becoming an increasingly difficult task. I'm relatively young, and I worry about the world younger people are being 'gifted'. I like to crawl into these games because they give me a sense of a world beyond, injecting a sense of wonder back into life; they help me through the times where my personal health has taken another dive into the dark pool of chronic illness, and they give me something much more fulfilling than alcohol. But sometimes, it's hard to maintain this connection when you rudely bump into the spinning rat wheel that the games industry is becoming as it devours its way into the mainstream consciousness of modern capitalism and consumerism, driven by bland-as-fuck execs who in many cases, have no passion for the craft, save for when it makes them more money.
There's got to be a balance here, but I don't know what it looks like. I want to support the labour of talented devs who create these worlds for me to play in, by purchasing, and spending my time with them, and by sharing the stories. My hand isn't out with a sense of entitlement, yet, I don't want to be treated like a rat on a money wheel.
Anyway, these are just some thoughts and hopefully they make sense. These games are one of my favourite hobbies, and I am hugely appreciative of this community.
Edited* spelling. Sorry guys, I bashed this out on the fly :)
Great post and thoughts - thank you for that.
And I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't write the article to be negative - I wrote it because I love the genre, am passionate about it, and want developer and gamer alike to succeed and enjoy their time with 4X games.
One challenge, I'm sure, with 4X game development is that games take so long to play. Think about the QA implications for a moment. Say they have a patch ready to test. Even having a paid developer simple "play" the patch candidate through to completion could easily 2-3 working days. And some titles could take an entire working weak!
I think one improvement would be to open up more of the development cycle to opt-in and/or application-based beta testers that can be engaged more meaningfully. Give people that consistently provide constructive feedback free DLC's or whatever as a show of support and good faith. Given how long games take to play and test, I imagine developers have to rely on willing gamers to be involved with QA.
For what its worth, Triumph did an outstanding job with this and fostering constructive discussion and that's reflected in the final produce I feel.
I agree with the points in the article 100% (especially the part about AoW3 being awesome). But I would add that what we are seeing in the 4X genre of late is only a part of what it happening in the video game industry as a whole. The entire industry is plauged by many of the problems that Oliver outlined.
One of the factors that doesn't get discussed much in the PC gaming community is the fact that art assets cost a lot - and that cost has skyrocket as screen resolution has gone up. As I understand it, graphics development costs have had a big impact on overall development budgets. A lot of gamers in both the console and PC gaming communities are excited about the prospects of 4K gaming. But budgets are soaring because of it.
And we should consider that this is already an industry where we have seen a lot of "mid-tier" development studios close their doors during the 1080p era. This is especially true in the world of console gaming, where every game is either "AAA" or an indie game - there is nothing inbetween like there was in the PS2 generation. Since the latter half of the PS3/360 generation of consoles, it has been common for a title to sell a couple of million copies but still be considered a financial failure by their developers/publishers. Why? Because AAA games frequently have budgets in the range of major Hollywood blockbuster movies. Meanwhile, we've had a near extinction-level event for development studios since 2007 when it comes to names that were staples in the console gaming world for decades.
PC gaming has been always been more diverse in that respect, but things have been moving in the same direction. Those mid-level studios have been thinning out. We are seeing more of that AAA vs indie divide in the PC world while the middle either grows to AAA size, gets bought out, or vanishes completely.
That's a big factor in the rise of DLC and microtransactions in recent years - developers are struggling to continue to make games that cost $40-60 USD and keep the studio going. Meanwhile, customers have repeatedly shown that they are not willing to pay more than that (at one time) for a new game.
Video games are big business and generate tons of revenue, but I think the industry's financial situation is a tenous one and I don't see how the current system is sustainable in the medium to long term.
I was thinking that maybe they have difficulty detatching from the EA community in order to focus on QA and polishing what they have - find themselves on a roller-coaster of discussion and ideas and debate that never stops. Perhaps they need to shut down coomunication with the community and get on with finalizing the product but find it really hard to do that.
BTW re-readoing my post it sounds a lot less supportive of your piece than I feel. What you are saying is important and devs should take note. I guess I'm just interested in the why as much as the what, but if you were to say "that just complicates things and confuses the important message" I think you would probably be right. Devs need to respond to the problem. Probably in several differnt ways.
That's bascially what I was banging on about regarding fixing release dates based on keeping people occupied gainfully. The upshot of all this is studios employ a *lot* or artists today and if the engine programmers, level designers, AI programmers and I guess in 4X games whoever does the game balancing and pacing stuff, tweaks the ruleset bascially, are polishing away for weeks on end what are all these artists doing?
If you check out this PDXCOM presentation from the EU4 pit boss it becomes clear that even for a late DLC for a strategy game there is more art than code.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKpmTs2Tf7k&t=1463s
I think the problem is more the opposite actually.
A lot of topics were discussed around and around for months in the ES2 EA and the devs barely responded or acknowledged the issue. Influence was one of them that people were screaming about for 5 months.
For all the ra-ra about Games2Gether, there was really very little attempt at organizing feedback and following up on it with developer responses. The vast majority of the threads in the design forum on G2G had zero dev responses during the EA period. If you look at the idea tracker, there were hundred of ideas submitted, ~60 greenlighted, and even now only SEVEN flagged as implemented.
Look at this from Triumph in comparison:
http://aow.triumph.net/forums/topic/gameplay-suggestion-compiled-topics-index-2/
This was after the game's release, but it was a central repository for tracking issues on the forums - and most importantly tracking what the developer's response was.
Plenty of issues/ideas were simply off the table - and in those cases the devs would say "we can't do X because of Y" or "we could do A, but it doesn't really fit our design goal because of B." This was great for focusing the conversation. They made excellent use of opt-in beta patches to engage the community.
Anyway - I don't intend to make this a contest of developers - but I think if a developer is going to use a EA process they need to be very thoughtful in how they manage that program, set expectations, and coordinate with the testers.
Yeesh, that really is bad. Either the community and design team were not on the same page on what ES2 was supposed to be about, or the developers just had no intention of deviating from their original ideas.