If we're going to use taxonomy metaphors and developers are monkeys then how would we classify armchair quarterbacks?
+1
If games were easy to make, all games would be good. If games were cheap and easy to make, you could make one and put your own money where you mouth is (directed at the OP)
Also OP...hindsight is 20/20. Easy to say after the fact that a past decision was stupid...at the time it might have seemed a realistic and good idea.
However, how do you explain the general feeling that games offer less now than what they used to offer when devs can use better technology now and have more experience?
If we're going to use taxonomy metaphors and developers are monkeys then how would we classify armchair quarterbacks?
+1
If games were easy to make, all games would be good. If games were cheap and easy to make, you could make one and put your own money where you mouth is (directed at the OP)
Also OP...hindsight is 20/20. Easy to say after the fact that a past decision was stupid...at the time it might have seemed a realistic and good idea.
However, how do you explain the general feeling that games offer less now than what they used to offer when devs can use better technology now and have more experience?
Simple, we are spoiled ****ing brats. We compare what games had after years of ongoing updates, and expansions and then demand that a new game has everything at launch.
If we're going to use taxonomy metaphors and developers are monkeys then how would we classify armchair quarterbacks?
+1
If games were easy to make, all games would be good. If games were cheap and easy to make, you could make one and put your own money where you mouth is (directed at the OP)
Also OP...hindsight is 20/20. Easy to say after the fact that a past decision was stupid...at the time it might have seemed a realistic and good idea.
However, how do you explain the general feeling that games offer less now than what they used to offer when devs can use better technology now and have more experience?
Simple, we are spoiled ****ing brats. We compare what games had after years of ongoing updates, and expansions and then demand that a new game has everything at launch.
You have a point, but I can not agree 100%.
No when setting your house anywhere was done over a decade ago and hardly any recent release incorporates that feature. No when worlds are smaller and smaller on each new game. No when we have gone from open worlds to instance-fests, or when crafting has gone from a complex art to master that could get you a decent reputation on your server to "click here 1000 times, given you have gathered the resources, and welcome to tier x+1". Etc.
It does feel like, while it is true that newer games are incoporating new features (slowly IMO), some features that we used to take for granted are now a rarity. And since companies have better hardware, better software, better engines and better procedures nowadays, one would expect MMOs to offer way more than what they do nowadays, not to mention actually offering less in certain areas than what other MMOs were a decade ago.
Edit: sorry, I know my grammar is a mess. I do what I can, English is not my fist language.
If we're going to use taxonomy metaphors and developers are monkeys then how would we classify armchair quarterbacks?
+1
If games were easy to make, all games would be good. If games were cheap and easy to make, you could make one and put your own money where you mouth is (directed at the OP)
Also OP...hindsight is 20/20. Easy to say after the fact that a past decision was stupid...at the time it might have seemed a realistic and good idea.
However, how do you explain the general feeling that games offer less now than what they used to offer when devs can use better technology now and have more experience?
That's the result of the copy-and-paste development; products are more or less streamlined in the same fashion as the previous one. Creativity and innovation have been replaced by PR-stunts and new payment models.
If we're going to use taxonomy metaphors and developers are monkeys then how would we classify armchair quarterbacks?
+1
If games were easy to make, all games would be good. If games were cheap and easy to make, you could make one and put your own money where you mouth is (directed at the OP)
Also OP...hindsight is 20/20. Easy to say after the fact that a past decision was stupid...at the time it might have seemed a realistic and good idea.
However, how do you explain the general feeling that games offer less now than what they used to offer when devs can use better technology now and have more experience?
Simple, we are spoiled ****ing brats. We compare what games had after years of ongoing updates, and expansions and then demand that a new game has everything at launch.
You have a point, but I can not agree 100%.
No when setting your house anywhere was done over a decade ago and hardly any recent release incorporates that feature. No when worlds are smaller and smaller on each new game. No when we have gone from open worlds to instance-fests, or when crafting has gone from a complex art to master that could get you a decent reputation on your server to "click here 1000 times, given you have gathered the resources, and welcome to tier x+1". Etc.
It does feel like, while it is true that newer games are incoporating new features (slowly IMO), some features that we used to take for granted are now a rarity. And since companies have better hardware, better software, better engines and better procedures nowadays, one would expect MMOs to offer way more than what they do nowadays, not to mention actually offering less in certain areas than what other MMOs were a decade ago.
Edit: sorry, I know my grammar is a mess. I do what I can, English is not my fist language.
Games do feel emptier than the older games, but I'm thinking thats more the fault of the "single player" experience people are demanding(a direct effect of themepark gameplay unfortunately). Instancing is pretty bad as well, SWTOR's planets are much bigger than WoW zones, and somehow they feel empty and stagnant. Hell, I went to Coruscant when I was max level to give my brother some credits and garbage and noticed a capital ship in the sky for the first time. I realized the bread crumbing had me watching the arrow on my radar as opposed to looking at the surrounding. Kills exploration for me, and I didn't even realize it.
The problem to me(in my opinion) is it seems for every one person that wants to be a part of a community that works together or competes against each other theres two that want to be alone and want to be able to accomplish everything by themselves.
Not sure how to fix everything with this, as developers keep going for the quick cash and try to stick with the completely solid motto "if we rebuild WoW, they will come, and quit playing WoW, and instead play our version of WoW"
If we're going to use taxonomy metaphors and developers are monkeys then how would we classify armchair quarterbacks?
+1
If games were easy to make, all games would be good. If games were cheap and easy to make, you could make one and put your own money where you mouth is (directed at the OP)
Also OP...hindsight is 20/20. Easy to say after the fact that a past decision was stupid...at the time it might have seemed a realistic and good idea.
However, how do you explain the general feeling that games offer less now than what they used to offer when devs can use better technology now and have more experience?
That's the feeling among many of the posters here. Apparently that isn't the opinion of players overall. They keep hopping onto the next bandwagon (see GW2).
Companies will cut as many corners and charge as much money as the market will bear. Players keep paying.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
I have great respect for the men and women that do the hard work in the gaming industry.. That means everyone from coders to designers to directors and even voice talent..
What I don't like? I don't like the old school investor who uses his money as some kind of "tool" to control all those hardworking people to basically be his monkeys in his money making scheme.. The greedy guy in the background who probably secretly hates or does not even care for gaming in general being able to control the decisions these people make and decide ultimately what we get to play..
Then the developers are the ones that catch the flak when things go wrong, yet they were pressured the whole time and threatened with no money from investors if they did not comply...
I think the only people that need to be responsible for games, should be the guys designing it.. Not the big rich old guys in the background pulling strings to make money...
The guys at the top of the developer chain deserve a lot of the blame for these sorts of problems. Believe me, the guys working lower down on various 'broken at release' projects (AoC, Vanguard, SWG, Warhammer, etc) knew that these games needed more work. But long term mismanagement of money, time frame, release dates, etc led to essentially unfinished games being put out. It is a business issue.
Had a friend who worked for a major hardware company that suppllied electronics for the military and medical field. The higher level managers would intentional ship unsuitable electronics to make monthly and quarterly bonuses. When the stuff got sent back to be reworked, they didn't get any flack for it either. There's a reason the company's CEO went from the cover of Forbes to felony indictments.
Also, these games take so long to develop and release, that what seemed like a great idea 4 years ago ends up coming out 2 years too late.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
My guess, especially from what I've seen of developers I've worked with, is that there are business concerns as well as these developers are not just "gamers" but "developers".
Why do I point out that difference.
Because they are trained and eductated to "develop". They might be interested in exploring ideas or they might have stipulatoins placed upon them by those who are paying for the project.
So what do you get? MMO's that are developed by committee and where if they want to add ideas that they are interested in, they have to fit it within an expected framework.
Everyone of us can sit here and say "oh, if I was head developer, this is way it would be" but I suspect the truth is a lot different.
I suspect, unless you are the one funding the project, you have to deal with what you have and try to put out as good a product as you are able.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I can't speak to the MMO industry but speaking for my own industry, I can tell you that ALOT of the bone-headed decisions are NOT actualy made at the Application Developer level...even Lead Developer. They are made higher up the food chain at the Executive Level...sometimes not even at the CEO of the particular organization you are working at but by someone at a parent organization. I can't tell you how many times I can't tell you how many times I've personaly witnessed Engineers, Developers, Technical Managers, Lead Developers, VP's of Technology even CIO's explain in detail how some decisions would result in horrible failures and huge problems within the application simply to be ignored and told to do it anyway because it was MANDATED from above by someone who had the political power to enforce thier will. Usualy those people have absolutely no training or experience in Development or any other technical discipline, even though thier mandates often do involve fairly technical aspects of the application. I can't imagine it's much different in the MMO industry then in mine.
So strictly speaking alot of the bad decisions you might see actualy AREN'T being made by the Developers. In many cases the Developers KNEW just how badly that decision would flop, had explained in detail the exact same problems that you (as players/users/customers) had noted to the powers that be and were overruled and were powerless to do anything but watch the train wreck unfold as they updated thier resumes because even though some Executive had been responsible for the wreck it was the tech folks and not them who would be held accountable. Sorry to say, but that's the reality of how things work in MANY organizations. You just have to hope that eventualy you end up finding a good one where the paradigm is different.
Comments
However, how do you explain the general feeling that games offer less now than what they used to offer when devs can use better technology now and have more experience?
Simple, we are spoiled ****ing brats. We compare what games had after years of ongoing updates, and expansions and then demand that a new game has everything at launch.
You have a point, but I can not agree 100%.
No when setting your house anywhere was done over a decade ago and hardly any recent release incorporates that feature. No when worlds are smaller and smaller on each new game. No when we have gone from open worlds to instance-fests, or when crafting has gone from a complex art to master that could get you a decent reputation on your server to "click here 1000 times, given you have gathered the resources, and welcome to tier x+1". Etc.
It does feel like, while it is true that newer games are incoporating new features (slowly IMO), some features that we used to take for granted are now a rarity. And since companies have better hardware, better software, better engines and better procedures nowadays, one would expect MMOs to offer way more than what they do nowadays, not to mention actually offering less in certain areas than what other MMOs were a decade ago.
Edit: sorry, I know my grammar is a mess. I do what I can, English is not my fist language.
That's the result of the copy-and-paste development; products are more or less streamlined in the same fashion as the previous one. Creativity and innovation have been replaced by PR-stunts and new payment models.
No worries, I actually rather hate people that pick a part grammar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
Games do feel emptier than the older games, but I'm thinking thats more the fault of the "single player" experience people are demanding(a direct effect of themepark gameplay unfortunately). Instancing is pretty bad as well, SWTOR's planets are much bigger than WoW zones, and somehow they feel empty and stagnant. Hell, I went to Coruscant when I was max level to give my brother some credits and garbage and noticed a capital ship in the sky for the first time. I realized the bread crumbing had me watching the arrow on my radar as opposed to looking at the surrounding. Kills exploration for me, and I didn't even realize it.
The problem to me(in my opinion) is it seems for every one person that wants to be a part of a community that works together or competes against each other theres two that want to be alone and want to be able to accomplish everything by themselves.
Not sure how to fix everything with this, as developers keep going for the quick cash and try to stick with the completely solid motto "if we rebuild WoW, they will come, and quit playing WoW, and instead play our version of WoW"
That's the feeling among many of the posters here. Apparently that isn't the opinion of players overall. They keep hopping onto the next bandwagon (see GW2).
Companies will cut as many corners and charge as much money as the market will bear. Players keep paying.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
I self identify as a monkey.
I have great respect for the men and women that do the hard work in the gaming industry.. That means everyone from coders to designers to directors and even voice talent..
What I don't like? I don't like the old school investor who uses his money as some kind of "tool" to control all those hardworking people to basically be his monkeys in his money making scheme.. The greedy guy in the background who probably secretly hates or does not even care for gaming in general being able to control the decisions these people make and decide ultimately what we get to play..
Then the developers are the ones that catch the flak when things go wrong, yet they were pressured the whole time and threatened with no money from investors if they did not comply...
I think the only people that need to be responsible for games, should be the guys designing it.. Not the big rich old guys in the background pulling strings to make money...
The guys at the top of the developer chain deserve a lot of the blame for these sorts of problems. Believe me, the guys working lower down on various 'broken at release' projects (AoC, Vanguard, SWG, Warhammer, etc) knew that these games needed more work. But long term mismanagement of money, time frame, release dates, etc led to essentially unfinished games being put out. It is a business issue.
Had a friend who worked for a major hardware company that suppllied electronics for the military and medical field. The higher level managers would intentional ship unsuitable electronics to make monthly and quarterly bonuses. When the stuff got sent back to be reworked, they didn't get any flack for it either. There's a reason the company's CEO went from the cover of Forbes to felony indictments.
Also, these games take so long to develop and release, that what seemed like a great idea 4 years ago ends up coming out 2 years too late.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
My guess, especially from what I've seen of developers I've worked with, is that there are business concerns as well as these developers are not just "gamers" but "developers".
Why do I point out that difference.
Because they are trained and eductated to "develop". They might be interested in exploring ideas or they might have stipulatoins placed upon them by those who are paying for the project.
So what do you get? MMO's that are developed by committee and where if they want to add ideas that they are interested in, they have to fit it within an expected framework.
Everyone of us can sit here and say "oh, if I was head developer, this is way it would be" but I suspect the truth is a lot different.
I suspect, unless you are the one funding the project, you have to deal with what you have and try to put out as good a product as you are able.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I can't speak to the MMO industry but speaking for my own industry, I can tell you that ALOT of the bone-headed decisions are NOT actualy made at the Application Developer level...even Lead Developer. They are made higher up the food chain at the Executive Level...sometimes not even at the CEO of the particular organization you are working at but by someone at a parent organization. I can't tell you how many times I can't tell you how many times I've personaly witnessed Engineers, Developers, Technical Managers, Lead Developers, VP's of Technology even CIO's explain in detail how some decisions would result in horrible failures and huge problems within the application simply to be ignored and told to do it anyway because it was MANDATED from above by someone who had the political power to enforce thier will. Usualy those people have absolutely no training or experience in Development or any other technical discipline, even though thier mandates often do involve fairly technical aspects of the application. I can't imagine it's much different in the MMO industry then in mine.
So strictly speaking alot of the bad decisions you might see actualy AREN'T being made by the Developers. In many cases the Developers KNEW just how badly that decision would flop, had explained in detail the exact same problems that you (as players/users/customers) had noted to the powers that be and were overruled and were powerless to do anything but watch the train wreck unfold as they updated thier resumes because even though some Executive had been responsible for the wreck it was the tech folks and not them who would be held accountable. Sorry to say, but that's the reality of how things work in MANY organizations. You just have to hope that eventualy you end up finding a good one where the paradigm is different.
Who is the more retarded?
The monkeys jumping or the monkey who jumps after them.......
- Ben Kenobi (paraphrase)