Have we be come part of the development

So have we become part of gaming companies development teams?
If so why don't we have more say in the games?

There is kickstarter were we flock to give money to them in hope that we get the game they are promising. How many of these game live up to what they have promised. Because before, during and after giving our money we don't really have any say in the game.

There is early access, come play our game!!! Be the first if you have pre-ordered it or backed it on Kick Starter. Yet again they have your or mine money now instead of paying a group of people to test we are doing the testing for a game we have already paid for.

Then there is the big release date, oh I am so excited I get to play the game today.
Crap I can get out of the first town until there is a patch to fix that bug. So now everyone has bought the game that didn't back or pre-order it.
The company has received full payment and waiting for all the feed back to rush out patches. So times there is even a patch ready the next day because they know it is not going to work like a finish product should.

I do understand that if they don't release the game on time or within a few months of the deadline they have promised in the past games got cancelled. If we didn't back games with things like kick starter they may never get made.

Though take a look at POF it is in worst shape now then it was when I played it on its release date.

I use to say years and years ago before everyone was on the internet and hard drives were massive in size. Programs had to keep their code tight, that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

On the whole, I look on the bright side. It wasn't long ago that games like POE, D:OS and Torment were nowhere to be found. I agree that release dates seem to have been moved to the middle of the development process, and many projects are mediocre and should be allowed to fail. But, I think if we're patient and wait for the truly completed versions of the quality projects, we're a lot better off for RPGs than we were.

CelticFrost said:

Have we be come part of the development

Click to expand...

Some did.
Some did not.

If we all were, there wouldn't be any more phonegame garbage design, gambling falsely advertised as not being it, season pass scamware nor grinding avoidware in games.

The answer is yes

Wow, kinda goin' through a few topics there...

We've always been a big part of development. These companies are selling to us, after all, and they are always trying to do what we want their target audience wants them to do. Whether or not they can figure out what that actually is and whether they can actually make it happen is another matter. Early access gives them a bit better clue what we want - but that doesn't mean they can do what we want in the time remaining.

CelticFrost said:

I use to say years and years ago before everyone was on the internet and hard drives were massive in size. Programs had to keep their code tight, that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

Click to expand...

You're right, it isn't the case anymore. Saving 50k on a computer with 8GB of memory and 2TB of hard drive space is a complete waste of time. Putting a bunch of flags into a single integer by looking at individual bits hasn't been worth the bother for at least a decade now.

Well I think we gamers still have a choise in the matter. Nobody is forcing you to donate to kickstarter or pre-order games. There are just more options nowdays. One can still wait for the next steam sale and grab the relatively bug free goty edition. However because of this new era of crowdfunding the variety of games is just better than ever. Many genres that were claimed to be dead have been revived. This has also allowed developers to experiment and try new ideas.

Ofcourse not everything is good. Many developers are clearly taking advantage of this trend and release crappy products, but there have always been crappy products. This is nothing new under the sun. Before internet became popular it was even easier to sell crappy games, because most gamers were at the mercy of game magazine reviews and patching games was quite difficult with slow connections. Nowdays atleast anyone can look at the metascore, watch youtube or read steam / forum comments before making a decision.

Not saying it is a good or a bad thing. Just a topic to see what everyone thought.

I believe it is a good thing. Forever we complained that games were always released too buggy. Fact is, except for AAA titles, most companies can't afford to have 100 testers testing their game in all the different configurations of PCs, video cards, 32 and 64 bit, 4GB or 16GB RAM, with resolutions going from 1024x768 to 4K. Nowadays with Early Access, access to beta, etc. Games are being tested a lot more than before (even if we are doing the testing), and developers get money earlier in the process, which lets them increase dev. time a bit instead of trying to survive until release day.

I would never support a Kickstarter game if the developers allowed the backers to have a serious say in development. I want to support games when I agree with their vision, and I'd rather not decide what they should or shouldn't be doing - or I'd be designing my own game.

Frankly, I have just about zero confidence in the average gamer when it comes to game design - and the VAST majority of gamers who think they know what would make a great game, don't have the faintest clue about the intricacies of game design.

I prefer to trust in developers to deliver a game that I want to play, but I also rarely support crowd-funded titles because they're often derivative and too safe.

All of it is optional, so I don't see a problem at all. Beyond that, I think - in most cases - we're talking peanuts for early access or the lower pledge tiers.

Game development is extremely unpredictable - and especially so if you're trying to innovate. The games that get released on time are games that don't risk anything and don't try something genuinely new.

We already have the AAA segment for that kind of design - and I'd hate for it to infest the crowd-funded market to the same extent.

In my opinion, there are already too many safe KS/EA games out there - and I want them to take MORE risks, not fewer.

Of course, that's not likely to happen when the audience keeps fretting about their minimal investment and tries to speak out against missed release dates - as if they knew anything about what it takes to deliver on time when you're dealing with something as unpredictable as game design and code.

There's a reason all the biggest and best games keep missing their deadlines - even when there's a huge publisher involved. That's because it's never, ever, easy to plan for what happens when you're treading new ground.

If you want games to come out on time, then you'll be killing innovation and vision.

Complex games were never stable and polished upon release - we just weren't exposed to the amount of bugs and issues, because we hadn't personally experienced them all.

Games are also, generally, much much more complex today than they ever were - especially in terms of code and content - so to expect a game to be polished and finished upon release, if it - in any way - does something extraordinary - is indicative of lacking the technical knowledge required to qualify as an informed person.

Dez said:

Well I think we gamers still have a choise in the matter. Nobody is forcing you to donate to kickstarter or pre-order games.

Click to expand...

In every case, people must give money to start and move the project on.

In the case of crowdfunded projects, people must step in and assume the role of donators.

Somebody must do it or the project does not happen.

There are just more options nowdays. One can still wait for the next steam sale and grab the relatively bug free goty edition.

Click to expand...

This might work for people who keep increasing their backlop despite it being overloaded, that is for people who want to own games, not to play games.

For players who want to play games, for gamers, that is a totally different story.
In the crowdfunded model, skipping releases before the completion does not work.
There is no final, engraved vision. Each new release might not aim to bring the product toward a goal.
In this model, the product goes through multiple releases, those releases might be so different in terms of the funding principles that you could tell it is a different product.

Actually, when this kind of stuff happened, usually, it meant that producers released several different products under different names like any series.

Zelda was released and then Zelda 2, then zelda three etc

In crowdfunded projects, the same happens except they would never finalize zelda, zelda 2 etc to move to work on zelda 3.

Gamers cant skip releases.

However because of this new era of crowdfunding the variety of games is just better than ever.

Click to expand...

How so? Examples.

Many genres that were claimed to be dead have been revived.

Click to expand...

Cases of that happening?

This has also allowed developers to experiment and try new ideas.

Click to expand...

Titles and those new ideas?

This is nothing new under the sun. Before internet became popular it was even easier to sell crappy games, because most gamers were at the mercy of game magazine reviews and patching games was quite difficult with slow connections. Nowdays atleast anyone can look at the metascore, watch youtube or read steam / forum comments before making a decision.

Click to expand...

That is the best.
Bad games were released. Maybe some so bad, so failed, so broken that could not earn the game label. I dont remember one though.
Crowdfunded projects? That is the norm. One legacy of crowdfunding is that it destroyed the notion of game.
Anything is labeled a game these days as long as it is marketed as a game.
It was predicted that people would call with no issue mere game engines games.
What was not predicted is they would call even prototypes to game engines games.

Reviewers in the past were deeply more critical than people on the internet.

The internet is a playground to measure up to where people are ready to go to cover the massive flaws of crowdfunded projects.
People usually go far beyond that the press ever went in the past.

ChienAboyeur said:

Somebody must do it or the project does not happen.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that someone doesn't have to be you personally. And besides I do not really know what you're expecting me to answer to a sentence like that. Many projects have failed because of lack of funding. I'm well aware of it. However are you suggesting here that crowdfunding is the only option to gather funding nowdays? I don't belive that the traditional publisher-developer model is going anywhere nor do bank loans or private investors or other similar funding models.

This might work for people who keep increasing their backlop despite it being overloaded, that is for people who want to own games, not to play games.
For players who want to play games, for gamers, that is a totally different story.
In the crowdfunded model, skipping releases before the completion does not work.
There is no final, engraved vision. Each new release might not aim to bring the product toward a goal.

In this model, the product goes through multiple releases, those releases might be so different in terms of the funding principles that you could tell it is a different product.
Actually, when this kind of stuff happened, usually, it meant that producers released several different products under different names like any series.
Zelda was released and then Zelda 2, then zelda three etc
In crowdfunded projects, the same happens except they would never finalize zelda, zelda 2 etc to move to work on zelda 3.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. People who wait for the game of the year edition and / or buy games from sales don't want to play games ? Now that is a weird assertion. Perhaps there are people who just collect games instead of playing them, but I think most people still play the games they buy. Sorry, but I'm not buying that statement.

As for your argument about lack of engraved vision… Well thats true to some extent. Some kickstarted games are indeed updated and changed constantly due to player feedback before and after launch. I would however point out that kickstarter can't be exclusively blamed for this trend. There are other factors as well, like videogames being more complex and expensive products than in the early days. Not to mention things like digital distribution model and fast internet connections which have made it possible for developers to keep honing their games to perfection after launch (or release unfinished products if you want to look it that way ).

And I don't think your example of Zelda, zelda 2 and zelda 3 fits very well to this context. Wasteland 2 director's cut is still basicly the same game as Wasteland 2. It didn't suddenly become wasteland 3 when Brian Fargo decided to update visuals, add perks and voice acting.

How so? Examples.

Click to expand...

In general i think crowdfunding has allowed many developers to remain more independent. And we have seen few of those "dream projects" which would have not otherwise seen the light of day. I'm not trying to say here that crowfunding would make everything better or that it would be the certain path to success, but atleast it has offered developers a new way to get their game into market.

Examples? Well Orginal sin was definitely one of the more ambitious games i've played in recent years. Wasteland 2 was a fun old fashioned rpg game which wouldn't have been made without kickstarter. Pillars of eternity was also a good reminder of how fun infinity engine type games were. Was it better than orginals can be argued ofcourse. Or what about some ex-bioware guys who started a new studio and released a viking rpg called Banner Saga.

Cases of that happening?

Click to expand...

Well the most obvious examples would be isometric rpgs and traditional adventure games.

Titles and those new ideas?

Click to expand...

I think games like Orginal sin (cooperative campaign, interactive gameworld, fun magic system), Kingdom Come: Deliverance (non fantasy setting, combat system), Banner Saga (the way game's story was told and how gameplay was linked to it was just brilliant), Republique (the way you controlled the game's main character felt pretty orginal to me), Darkest dungeon (stress and resource gameplay stuff), Star citizen (space exploration) would qualify here.

That is the best.
Crowdfunded projects? That is the norm. One legacy of crowdfunding is that it destroyed the notion of game.
Anything is labeled a game these days as long as it is marketed as a game.
It was predicted that people would call with no issue mere game engines games.
What was not predicted is they would call even prototypes to game engines games.

Click to expand...

Times change and people's expectations change. For instance downloaded content (DLC) was heavily opposed first, but now majority of gamers seem to have accepted dlcs as norm. Digital distribution was also opposed at first, but now steam is a leading platform and only small percent of players order physical copies nowdays. Or what about free to play payment model in mmos? Everyone kept saying how this will destroy mmos. Well I'm not myself a mmo player, so I can't say much about that, but judging by mmo news here, it seems to be working as intended.

It is intresting to see where this road will take us. We are only at the begining of this crowdfunding era. There is quite much untapped potential left. Then again it is equally possible be that potential lawsuits will destroy this beautifull idea.

Reviewers in the past were deeply more critical than people on the internet.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is fair to generalise that way. First of all the sheer number of videogame reviews has increased a lot in recent two decades. So ofcourse we're seeing more trash than before. But then again quality reviews are still writen just like before.

And those game magazines you seem to be cherishing here had also uncritical reviews. Publications reviewing a game after all usually receive some kind of advertising revenue from the game's publishers which sometimes has influence on how game is reviewed. Game maganizes in the early years weren't immune to it. Maybe people who wrote on those magazines were more hobbyists than many game journalists nowdays, but just like there were crappy games, there were also crappy reviews.

The internet is a playground to measure up to where people are ready to go to cover the massive flaws of crowdfunded projects.
People usually go far beyond that the press ever went in the past.

Click to expand...

Fanboyism has never gone out of style.

Dez said:

Yes, but that someone doesn't have to be you personally. And besides I do not really know what you're expecting me to answer to a sentence like that.

Click to expand...

It must be someone though. Potential backers are no different from each other.

So let me get this straight. People who wait for the game of the year edition and / or buy games from sales don't want to play games ? Now that is a weird assertion. Perhaps there are people who just collect games instead of playing them, but I think most people still play the games they buy. Sorry, but I'm not buying that statement.

Click to expand...

Waiting for goty edition does not work for players who want to play games. It might work for players who want to own games and not play it.

Some kickstarted games are indeed updated and changed constantly due to player feedback before and after launch.

Click to expand...

The player feedback is not the only cause. For example, developpers might want to try their hands to this or that technology, then they change their product to give them the opportunity to try the technology.

And I don't think your example of Zelda, zelda 2 and zelda 3 fits very well to this context. Wasteland 2 director's cut is still basicly the same game as Wasteland 2. It didn't suddenly become wasteland 3 when Brian Fargo decided to update visuals, add perks and voice acting.

Click to expand...

It fits. Wasteland 2 director's cut is a different product from Wasteland 2 as told by the handle.
People expect changes in this case.

It is very different from the various releases (alpha and beta) that are the trademark of the crowdfunded scene. None are supposed to be different products, just the same product in the making.

Well the most obvious examples would be isometric rpgs and traditional adventure games.

Click to expand...

They've never disappeared.

I think games like Orginal sin (cooperative campaign, interactive gameworld, fun magic system)

Click to expand...

Just stopping at that. How are they new ideas when Arcus Odyssey (and that is a console game) had the same combo more than one decade ago?

It is intresting to see where this road will take us. We are only at the begining of this crowdfunding era. There is quite much untapped potential left. Then again it is equally possible be that potential lawsuits will destroy this beautifull idea.

Click to expand...

There will be no lawsuits and so far, the potential looks untapped as a depleted oil field.

I don't think it is fair to generalise that way. First of all the sheer number of videogame reviews has increased a lot in recent two decades. So ofcourse we're seeing more trash than before. But then again quality reviews are still writen just like before.

Click to expand...

Reviews in the past were misleading or were they not?

And those game magazines you seem to be cherishing here had also uncritical reviews. Publications reviewing a game after all usually receive some kind of advertising revenue from the game's publishers which sometimes has influence on how game is reviewed. Game maganizes in the early years weren't immune to it. Maybe people who wrote on those magazines were more hobbyists than many game journalists nowdays, but just like there were crappy games, there were also crappy reviews.

Click to expand...

Money was not an issue. As shown by the crowdfunded products, it takes no money to write biased pieces.

Fanboyism has never gone out of style.

Click to expand...

The internet has made the expression harder.