NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
hmmm, sounds to me that what frustrates you is that they aren't addicted to what "you" think is the actual game experience.
No I am not going to tollerate that. I am not going to accept that 'what a developer says' is a gaming experience. I am not going to accept that 'the release version of a game be it beta or otherwise in of itself and without regard to actual game play' is a gaming experience.
nope...line has been drawn, I call that bullshit
I think those are different things. Of course you shouldn't accept unfinished games. But I don't really see developers saying that that is "part of the game experience".
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it 2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
one shouldn't have to accept unfinished games if those games, in their unfinished state, don't deliver a good experience.
....
If and ONLY if.
problem is most people dont give two flats fucks about the gaming experience at all whatsoever. They call themselves gamers but all they do is pay attention to version numbers and dont care one tit about gaming experince
and personally it gets old, I dream of the day when I get on a gaming website and people are talking about actual game experiences instead of trying to patch broken promisses from their childhood because daddy didnt take them to the ball game like he promised by projecting those problems on to developers, leave that shit at home.
in my opinion
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1/2 of the top 6 top selling games on Steam are Early Access titles. 3 titles (I think Ark, Rust and 7 Days to Die combined) have more sales then Witcher 3 on ALL platforms (Witcher 3 is considered one of the best selling games ever)
I came here on this topic in a hopeless attempt to help those who are unhappy with their current gaming selection to point out a HUGE list of games that are 1. doing very well. 2. many find a lot of fun. 3. are solid. 4. are well recieved. 5. One has to live in a cave to not know what these game titles are. If you dont want to try them then fine I should just let people be in the depressed state that they insist on being in.
I do feel however, if you are unhappy with your game selection and unwilling to try these very successful games in early access because of business practices you dont agree with then you should just STFU..my opion only
if they are the "Top Selling" the games on steam, and I wager have been there a while now, don't you think it's time to remove the "early access" tag line?
lets get real, if it's being sold openly on Steam right now, the access is not "early" at all, they are expecting people to buy the game as-is, with no promise that it will ever change/improve, if they are selling the game, I don't think it's too much to ask or them to own up that the game is live and ready.
As I see it, if they are gonna hide behind "early access" while selling the game I can't help but think, if they are willing to play that kind of stuff now.. what other kinds of things will they try to play upon us later along.
I don't need to play a game bad enough to deal with someone that seems dishonest in their advertising.
I have no idea nor inclination to care if they are tagged early access or big birth bomb.
I am just saying they are good games. It seems your more interested in business model and proper taging then you are finding a game to enjoy
It's more about Trust, Transparency and Respect, then it is about the actual game to be honest.
...
NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
Gaming experience comes through being so well-crafted you forget you're playing a game, akin to reading a book, which has become rare. MMO's seem reflective of society's state.
Terrific analogy, while there is a huge number of short stories, novellas etc I literally (pun intended) only read large, thick novels, preferably already delivered in a completed set.(trilogy or whatever)
In fact the criteria for chosing most of my books is:
1) Is it Sci Fi. (I generally won't read fantasy) 2) How thick is it? Anything under 500 pages won't be considered in most cases. 3) Does it look interesting from the title, inside jacket, recommendations in the front. 4) Quick internet search to see if available as an e-book and see how the reviews are.
Bonus points if part of a series of novels, double points if series is completed.
I read only one novel at a time, until its finished. If it bores me I set it aside never to read it again.
My gaming practices are pretty much a parallel of this.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
1/2 of the top 6 top selling games on Steam are Early Access titles. 3 titles (I think Ark, Rust and 7 Days to Die combined) have more sales then Witcher 3 on ALL platforms (Witcher 3 is considered one of the best selling games ever)
I came here on this topic in a hopeless attempt to help those who are unhappy with their current gaming selection to point out a HUGE list of games that are 1. doing very well. 2. many find a lot of fun. 3. are solid. 4. are well recieved. 5. One has to live in a cave to not know what these game titles are. If you dont want to try them then fine I should just let people be in the depressed state that they insist on being in.
I do feel however, if you are unhappy with your game selection and unwilling to try these very successful games in early access because of business practices you dont agree with then you should just STFU..my opion only
if they are the "Top Selling" the games on steam, and I wager have been there a while now, don't you think it's time to remove the "early access" tag line?
lets get real, if it's being sold openly on Steam right now, the access is not "early" at all, they are expecting people to buy the game as-is, with no promise that it will ever change/improve, if they are selling the game, I don't think it's too much to ask or them to own up that the game is live and ready.
As I see it, if they are gonna hide behind "early access" while selling the game I can't help but think, if they are willing to play that kind of stuff now.. what other kinds of things will they try to play upon us later along.
I don't need to play a game bad enough to deal with someone that seems dishonest in their advertising.
I have no idea nor inclination to care if they are tagged early access or big birth bomb.
I am just saying they are good games. It seems your more interested in business model and proper taging then you are finding a game to enjoy
It's more about Trust, Transparency and Respect, then it is about the actual game to be honest.
...
NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
Gaming experience comes through being so well-crafted you forget you're playing a game, akin to reading a book, which has become rare. MMO's seem reflective of society's state.
Terrific analogy, while there is a huge number of short stories, novellas etc I literally (pun intended) only read large, thick novels, preferably already delivered in a completed set.(trilogy or whatever)
In fact the criteria for chosing most of my books is:
1) Is it Sci Fi. (I generally won't read fantasy) 2) How thick is it? Anything under 500 pages won't be considered in most cases. 3) Does it look interesting from the title, inside jacket, recommendations in the front. 4) Quick internet search to see if available as an e-book and see how the reviews are.
Bonus points if part of a series of novels, double points if series is completed.
I read only one novel at a time, until its finished. If it bores me I set it aside never to read it again.
My gaming practices are pretty much a parallel of this.
and too that point just this Saturday I played a new game for what I thought was just a few hours..It was 10 hours, straight and the game is a buggy, unfinished mess, horrible controls, and asset tearing all over the place.
But very engaging game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
So basically just study Star Citizen for what to watch out for in terms of crowdfunding scams.
As for SOTA, anyone who knows the space cadet Richard Garriott from the Tabula Rasa days knew to stay far away from this guy and anything he is running. He may have been a great idea guy back in his Origin days, but he is garbage at running a company and managing a project. NCsoft lost something on the order of 100mil on his failed project last time around. This time he needed crowdfunding because who would ever fund anything he was involved with?
Next up will be Pantheon. You might want to do a bit of research as to what happened to Vanguard and Sigil games before you go rushing in with your Visa card on that one. Hell just look at what McQuaid did with the first round of financing for Pantheon. Do a little homework on these people before you go start putting on those fanboy goggles based on some concept art and some clever wording.
As for Ensuring my purchase? Buhahahahahahah sorry.. you may have a giant button on your head that reads 'sucker'.. I do not.
Here comes a test.
Name me 1 game that is out today that you like
Wow, I have a list.
Top List:
Trove. This is an amazing game, smooth as glass mechanics, on point graphics for a voxel game, full open world sandbox design, mounts, wings, dragons, custom gear, player made content, and best of all.. no bloomer wearing anime sprites. I encourage you to give this game a try if you like "making your own fun" kind of games. This game sucks you in like a vortex. it was my own fault to fall into the trap of grinding for power and burned myself out on it, but that was on me.. not the game itself.
GW2: This is in every way, a great game. They don't try to re-invent the MMO, they just make an enjoyable game to be played, you can solo, you can group, map explore, story line, all in all, a well rounded casual friendly game, that also has very smooth mechanics, and everything is quality work. it is not without its faults, but all in all, it's just an enjoyable game, and while I hated the HoT expansion to the point that I quit the game over it, GW2 is no less a high quality product, and a great all around MMO.
currently playing:
War Hammer 40K Eternal Crusade. This is my first and only MOBA that I have ever played, and I like the IP, (Always been a WH40K fan, Also playing DoW III) but the game itself.. well, i's ratd around a 5.4 on this site.. and I am not included to disagree with that number...
As for Ensuring my purchase? Buhahahahahahah sorry.. you may have a giant button on your head that reads 'sucker'.. I do not.
Here comes a test.
Name me 1 game that is out today that you like
Wow, I have a list.
Top List:
Trove. This is an amazing game, smooth as glass mechanics, on point graphics for a voxel game, full open world sandbox design, mounts, wings, dragons, custom gear, player made content, and best of all.. no bloomer wearing anime sprites. I encourage you to give this game a try if you like "making your own fun" kind of games. This game sucks you in like a vortex. it was my own fault to fall into the trap of grinding for power and burned myself out on it, but that was on me.. not the game itself.
GW2: This is in every way, a great game. They don't try to re-invent the MMO, they just make an enjoyable game to be played, you can solo, you can group, map explore, story line, all in all, a well rounded casual friendly game, that also has very smooth mechanics, and everything is quality work. it is not without its faults, but all in all, it's just an enjoyable game, and while I hated the HoT expansion to the point that I quit the game over it, GW2 is no less a high quality product, and a great all around MMO.
currently playing:
War Hammer 40K Eternal Crusade. This is my first and only MOBA that I have ever played, and I like the IP, (Always been a WH40K fan, Also playing DoW III) but the game itself.. well, i's ratd around a 5.4 on this site.. and I am not included to disagree with that number...
ok test past.
lets make a deal. I will not call Trove and piece of trash and you not call the games I love a piece of trash because they are uncomplete.
can we do that much?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1) Is the ask reasonable for the scope of the game? Passion projects are great, but there's only so long people can work for little/no pay. If you have 20 people on a team and can only pay these supposed expert devs $25k (or less) a year for the next three years . . . then that's a red flag. They'd really have to love this idea to pass up working at a game studio for a lot more money.
2) Does the pitch include multiple things that are either known to be difficult or have never been pulled off in any meaningful degree? Sometimes an indie dev does innovate in some key way that makes people take notice. But we regularly see laundry lists of features that would make any AAA studio blush, and then they claim that not only will they have one amazing innovation, but a collection of them. If you're going to claim that you can pull off something that industry titans have yet to accomplish, you need to provide proof. "Your actions change the world permanently! And the AI will learn how you changed the world and then adapt to it and have offspring that learn your trade routes and there's politics and and and" Wow, sounds amazing. How do?
As for Ensuring my purchase? Buhahahahahahah sorry.. you may have a giant button on your head that reads 'sucker'.. I do not.
Here comes a test.
Name me 1 game that is out today that you like
Wow, I have a list.
Top List:
Trove. This is an amazing game, smooth as glass mechanics, on point graphics for a voxel game, full open world sandbox design, mounts, wings, dragons, custom gear, player made content, and best of all.. no bloomer wearing anime sprites. I encourage you to give this game a try if you like "making your own fun" kind of games. This game sucks you in like a vortex. it was my own fault to fall into the trap of grinding for power and burned myself out on it, but that was on me.. not the game itself.
GW2: This is in every way, a great game. They don't try to re-invent the MMO, they just make an enjoyable game to be played, you can solo, you can group, map explore, story line, all in all, a well rounded casual friendly game, that also has very smooth mechanics, and everything is quality work. it is not without its faults, but all in all, it's just an enjoyable game, and while I hated the HoT expansion to the point that I quit the game over it, GW2 is no less a high quality product, and a great all around MMO.
currently playing:
War Hammer 40K Eternal Crusade. This is my first and only MOBA that I have ever played, and I like the IP, (Always been a WH40K fan, Also playing DoW III) but the game itself.. well, i's ratd around a 5.4 on this site.. and I am not included to disagree with that number...
ok test past.
lets make a deal. I will not call Trove and piece of trash and you not call the games I love a piece of trash because they are uncomplete.
can we do that much?
I never called the game a "piece of trash" I said I don't trust developers who hide behind claims like 'Open beta" and "early access" if the game is ready for the open market, then they should own up to that, and make it clear 'This is it folks", as for me, until they own their own game, I am not going to buy it.
As for ARK, it simply does not appeal to me at all, not trying to diss a game you love.
I never called the game a "piece of trash" I said I don't trust developers who hide behind claims like 'Open beta" and "early access" if the game is ready for the open market, then they should own up to that, and make it clear 'This is it folks", as for me, until they own their own game, I am not going to buy it.
As for ARK, it simply does not appeal to me at all, not trying to diss a game you love.
you dont trust them to not do what? wash your clothes right?
i mean at the end of the day the only thing you have to 'trust a developer' to do is create a compelling gaming experience....thats it...full stop...dont move beyond that one requirement...done
so think about it from my side, you are suggesting my game is not any good, that it doesnt deliever good gaming experiences because you dont trust the developer.
how exactly would you expect me to react to that?
and as a side note, I dont own or play Ark specially I am using that as an example because people tend to get ridiculously hyper sensitive about how many people play. I play a lot of early access titles, just not that one specifically
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I never called the game a "piece of trash" I said I don't trust developers who hide behind claims like 'Open beta" and "early access" if the game is ready for the open market, then they should own up to that, and make it clear 'This is it folks", as for me, until they own their own game, I am not going to buy it.
As for ARK, it simply does not appeal to me at all, not trying to diss a game you love.
you dont trust them to not do what? wash your clothes right?
i mean at the end of the day the only thing you have to 'trust a developer' to do is create a compelling gaming experience....thats it...full stop...dont move beyond that one requirement...done
so think about it from my side, you are suggesting my game is not any good, that it doesnt deliever good gaming experiences because you dont trust the developer.
how exactly would you expect me to react to that?
and as a side note, I dont own or play Ark specially I am using that as an example because people tend to get ridiculously hyper sensitive about how many people play. I play a lot of early access titles, just not that one specifically
No, I am saying I don't trust the developer... think of it like this.. Imagine if I said "I don't trust your partner" that does not mean "they don't give you great sex".. it means "I don't trust them"
I never called the game a "piece of trash" I said I don't trust developers who hide behind claims like 'Open beta" and "early access" if the game is ready for the open market, then they should own up to that, and make it clear 'This is it folks", as for me, until they own their own game, I am not going to buy it.
As for ARK, it simply does not appeal to me at all, not trying to diss a game you love.
you dont trust them to not do what? wash your clothes right?
i mean at the end of the day the only thing you have to 'trust a developer' to do is create a compelling gaming experience....thats it...full stop...dont move beyond that one requirement...done
so think about it from my side, you are suggesting my game is not any good, that it doesnt deliever good gaming experiences because you dont trust the developer.
how exactly would you expect me to react to that?
and as a side note, I dont own or play Ark specially I am using that as an example because people tend to get ridiculously hyper sensitive about how many people play. I play a lot of early access titles, just not that one specifically
No, I am saying I don't trust the developer... think of it like this.. Imagine if I said "I don't trust your partner" that does not mean "they don't give you great sex".. it means "I don't trust them"
See the difference?
trust them to do or not do what...specially??????
trust them to not wash your clothes? or trust them to not make a compelling gaming experience?
again.....it being completed or it not has NO REALTIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to it being compelling gaming experience...zero zip..nada nothing.
So we have done a full circle here without my core point STILL not being understood
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1/2 of the top 6 top selling games on Steam are Early Access titles. 3 titles (I think Ark, Rust and 7 Days to Die combined) have more sales then Witcher 3 on ALL platforms (Witcher 3 is considered one of the best selling games ever)
I came here on this topic in a hopeless attempt to help those who are unhappy with their current gaming selection to point out a HUGE list of games that are 1. doing very well. 2. many find a lot of fun. 3. are solid. 4. are well recieved. 5. One has to live in a cave to not know what these game titles are. If you dont want to try them then fine I should just let people be in the depressed state that they insist on being in.
I do feel however, if you are unhappy with your game selection and unwilling to try these very successful games in early access because of business practices you dont agree with then you should just STFU..my opion only
if they are the "Top Selling" the games on steam, and I wager have been there a while now, don't you think it's time to remove the "early access" tag line?
lets get real, if it's being sold openly on Steam right now, the access is not "early" at all, they are expecting people to buy the game as-is, with no promise that it will ever change/improve, if they are selling the game, I don't think it's too much to ask or them to own up that the game is live and ready.
As I see it, if they are gonna hide behind "early access" while selling the game I can't help but think, if they are willing to play that kind of stuff now.. what other kinds of things will they try to play upon us later along.
I don't need to play a game bad enough to deal with someone that seems dishonest in their advertising.
I have no idea nor inclination to care if they are tagged early access or big birth bomb.
I am just saying they are good games. It seems your more interested in business model and proper taging then you are finding a game to enjoy
It's more about Trust, Transparency and Respect, then it is about the actual game to be honest.
...
NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
Gaming experience comes through being so well-crafted you forget you're playing a game, akin to reading a book, which has become rare. MMO's seem reflective of society's state.
Terrific analogy, while there is a huge number of short stories, novellas etc I literally (pun intended) only read large, thick novels, preferably already delivered in a completed set.(trilogy or whatever)
In fact the criteria for chosing most of my books is:
1) Is it Sci Fi. (I generally won't read fantasy) 2) How thick is it? Anything under 500 pages won't be considered in most cases. 3) Does it look interesting from the title, inside jacket, recommendations in the front. 4) Quick internet search to see if available as an e-book and see how the reviews are.
Bonus points if part of a series of novels, double points if series is completed.
I read only one novel at a time, until its finished. If it bores me I set it aside never to read it again.
My gaming practices are pretty much a parallel of this.
and too that point just this Saturday I played a new game for what I thought was just a few hours..It was 10 hours, straight and the game is a buggy, unfinished mess, horrible controls, and asset tearing all over the place.
But very engaging game
Which was called ... ?
You can't keep us hanging!
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
My Summer Car, but to be clear there are likely hunderns examples out there for all different forms of taste. I hope we dont have to analyze all of them
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
hmmm, sounds to me that what frustrates you is that they aren't addicted to what "you" think is the actual game experience.
No I am not going to tollerate that. I am not going to accept that 'what a developer says' is a gaming experience. I am not going to accept that 'the release version of a game be it beta or otherwise in of itself and without regard to actual game play' is a gaming experience.
nope...line has been drawn, I call that bullshit
I think those are different things. Of course you shouldn't accept unfinished games. But I don't really see developers saying that that is "part of the game experience".
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it 2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
If you keep saying the same things over and over but no one seems to get it, you may want to entertain the possibility that YOU don't get it.
NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
hmmm, sounds to me that what frustrates you is that they aren't addicted to what "you" think is the actual game experience.
No I am not going to tollerate that. I am not going to accept that 'what a developer says' is a gaming experience. I am not going to accept that 'the release version of a game be it beta or otherwise in of itself and without regard to actual game play' is a gaming experience.
nope...line has been drawn, I call that bullshit
I think those are different things. Of course you shouldn't accept unfinished games. But I don't really see developers saying that that is "part of the game experience".
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it 2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
If you keep saying the same things over and over but no one seems to get it, you may want to entertain the possibility that YOU don't get it.
and what would that be exactly? that a developer promise is more important than game experience?
In fact, from what I see in the evidence of actual games and looking at the actual qualiyt of those games it appears the evidence is suggesting the exact opposite of what people here are suggesting.
Looking at the evidence is appears the way to creating a good game is to NOT complete it. why would I say that? because for me and millions of other people these games are flat out better
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
hmmm, sounds to me that what frustrates you is that they aren't addicted to what "you" think is the actual game experience.
No I am not going to tollerate that. I am not going to accept that 'what a developer says' is a gaming experience. I am not going to accept that 'the release version of a game be it beta or otherwise in of itself and without regard to actual game play' is a gaming experience.
nope...line has been drawn, I call that bullshit
I think those are different things. Of course you shouldn't accept unfinished games. But I don't really see developers saying that that is "part of the game experience".
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it 2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
If you keep saying the same things over and over but no one seems to get it, you may want to entertain the possibility that YOU don't get it.
and what would that be exactly? that a developer promise is more important than game experience?
Maybe it takes a little bit of both? Showing a little trust sometimes motivates developers to try harder to meet backer expectations.
Look at SotA. They could deliver a shitstorm of no fun gameplay (they already do) and their backers would tell them it's the best game ever. All trust, no expectation because they think Garriott is a god and he and his team can do no wrong.
In contrast look at 7DTD. All fun but no trust. The game has been in development for a long time, but hasn't really moved forward in development much. At some point the fun factor is clouded by the fact that what you see it all you're ever going to get.
NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
hmmm, sounds to me that what frustrates you is that they aren't addicted to what "you" think is the actual game experience.
No I am not going to tollerate that. I am not going to accept that 'what a developer says' is a gaming experience. I am not going to accept that 'the release version of a game be it beta or otherwise in of itself and without regard to actual game play' is a gaming experience.
nope...line has been drawn, I call that bullshit
I think those are different things. Of course you shouldn't accept unfinished games. But I don't really see developers saying that that is "part of the game experience".
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it 2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
If you keep saying the same things over and over but no one seems to get it, you may want to entertain the possibility that YOU don't get it.
and what would that be exactly? that a developer promise is more important than game experience?
Maybe it takes a little bit of both? Showing a little trust sometimes motivates developers to try harder to meet backer expectations.
...
I would suggest that although that makes logical sense the evidence appears to be nearly the opposite. When we stop thinking about the logic of it and start looking at the evidence of it, there appears to be a phenomenon happening.
By and larger for millions of people (such as myself) the quality of games before early access where by a majority.... crappy games. These are examples of games that fit all the rules discussed here today, released only when complete, no lies and no bugs. Yet those games are LESS compelling for millions of people then many of the games that are incomplete, buggy mess, filled with distrustful (whatever) developers.
So one has to step back and rethink what is important and start with the basic and most important thing. game play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
hmmm, sounds to me that what frustrates you is that they aren't addicted to what "you" think is the actual game experience.
No I am not going to tollerate that. I am not going to accept that 'what a developer says' is a gaming experience. I am not going to accept that 'the release version of a game be it beta or otherwise in of itself and without regard to actual game play' is a gaming experience.
nope...line has been drawn, I call that bullshit
I think those are different things. Of course you shouldn't accept unfinished games. But I don't really see developers saying that that is "part of the game experience".
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it 2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
If you keep saying the same things over and over but no one seems to get it, you may want to entertain the possibility that YOU don't get it.
and what would that be exactly? that a developer promise is more important than game experience?
Maybe it takes a little bit of both? Showing a little trust sometimes motivates developers to try harder to meet backer expectations.
...
I would suggest that although that makes logical sense the evidence appears to be nearly the opposite. When we stop thinking about the logic of it and start looking at the evidence of it, there appears to be a phenomenon happening.
By and larger for millions of people (such as myself) the quality of games before early access where by a majority.... crappy games. These are examples of games that fit all the rules discussed here today, released only when complete, no lies and no bugs. Yet those games are LESS compelling for millions of people then many of the games that are incomplete, buggy mess, filled with distrustful (whatever) developers.
So one has to step back and rethink what is important and start with the basic and most important thing. game play
Millions of people? I would counter your statement as wishful thinking rather than fact. Not saying you're wrong, just that you have no data.
Why don't you start by adding a poll and see what players on this site think. That's a start.
NONE of which has anything to do with game quality or a compelling gaming experience.
And that is what frustrates me about game posters, they are addicted to everything OTHER than the actual game experience
hmmm, sounds to me that what frustrates you is that they aren't addicted to what "you" think is the actual game experience.
No I am not going to tollerate that. I am not going to accept that 'what a developer says' is a gaming experience. I am not going to accept that 'the release version of a game be it beta or otherwise in of itself and without regard to actual game play' is a gaming experience.
nope...line has been drawn, I call that bullshit
I think those are different things. Of course you shouldn't accept unfinished games. But I don't really see developers saying that that is "part of the game experience".
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it 2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
If you keep saying the same things over and over but no one seems to get it, you may want to entertain the possibility that YOU don't get it.
and what would that be exactly? that a developer promise is more important than game experience?
Maybe it takes a little bit of both? Showing a little trust sometimes motivates developers to try harder to meet backer expectations.
...
I would suggest that although that makes logical sense the evidence appears to be nearly the opposite. When we stop thinking about the logic of it and start looking at the evidence of it, there appears to be a phenomenon happening.
By and larger for millions of people (such as myself) the quality of games before early access where by a majority.... crappy games. These are examples of games that fit all the rules discussed here today, released only when complete, no lies and no bugs. Yet those games are LESS compelling for millions of people then many of the games that are incomplete, buggy mess, filled with distrustful (whatever) developers.
So one has to step back and rethink what is important and start with the basic and most important thing. game play
Millions of people? I would counter your statement as wishful thinking rather than fact. Not saying you're wrong, just that you have no data.
Why don't you start by adding a poll and see what players on this site think. That's a start.
yes millions of people, Ark ALONE has almost 5 million owners.
Ark + Rust + 7 days to die I think = more sales than Witcher 3 on ALL platforms.
The top 3 of the top 6 selling games on Steam are early access games.
and on top of that there are a TON of games of these quality and caliber. Ton compared to how many have been coming out in non-early access
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I never called the game a "piece of trash" I said I don't trust developers who hide behind claims like 'Open beta" and "early access" if the game is ready for the open market, then they should own up to that, and make it clear 'This is it folks", as for me, until they own their own game, I am not going to buy it.
As for ARK, it simply does not appeal to me at all, not trying to diss a game you love.
you dont trust them to not do what? wash your clothes right?
i mean at the end of the day the only thing you have to 'trust a developer' to do is create a compelling gaming experience....thats it...full stop...dont move beyond that one requirement...done
so think about it from my side, you are suggesting my game is not any good, that it doesnt deliever good gaming experiences because you dont trust the developer.
how exactly would you expect me to react to that?
and as a side note, I dont own or play Ark specially I am using that as an example because people tend to get ridiculously hyper sensitive about how many people play. I play a lot of early access titles, just not that one specifically
No, I am saying I don't trust the developer... think of it like this.. Imagine if I said "I don't trust your partner" that does not mean "they don't give you great sex".. it means "I don't trust them"
See the difference?
trust them to do or not do what...specially??????
trust them to not wash your clothes? or trust them to not make a compelling gaming experience?
again.....it being completed or it not has NO REALTIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to it being compelling gaming experience...zero zip..nada nothing.
So we have done a full circle here without my core point STILL not being understood
Ok, lets say they are saying "Live Beta" at any time, they can declare the game live, and any and all monetary and time investment I have put into the game can be wiped clean.
Now, you may say "But they won't do that". .so.. "How can I trust them?"
yes millions of people, Ark ALONE has almost 5 million owners.
Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again".
I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well.
I don't think we need to go back down the road called "owner vs. player" that's been covered so many times before on this site, do we?
I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive.
I think one except to that 'mass purchase of a game nobody likes' would be games that hype the hyper hype before the game is even downloadable. Which is something in my view is more offensive then anything Early Access developers do and yet are done by non-early access developers...imagine that!
I think I have wasted a lot of my time. Some people are just absolutly hell bent on these primary tenats.
1. They refuse to be anything other than miserable and unhappy. Despite being given the best variety in gaming in the history of the universe they will still complain and wish it was 1994. 2. They will never under any condition look at an early access game for its game play. As far as they are concerned the game play is not important at all whatsoever, the only thing that is important is: A. what a developer says B. The version number of the game C. how many bugs are in it.
and there is nothing I can do to help these people
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
yes millions of people, Ark ALONE has almost 5 million owners.
Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again".
I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well.
I don't think we need to go back down the road called "owner vs. player" that's been covered so many times before on this site, do we?
I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive.
I think one except to that 'mass purchase of a game nobody likes' would be games that hype the hyper hype before the game is even downloadable. Which is something in my view is more offensive then anything Early Access developers do and yet are done by non-early access developers...imagine that!
I think I have wasted a lot of my time. Some people are just absolutly hell bent on these primary tenats.
1. They refuse to be anything other than miserable and unhappy. Despite being given the best variety in gaming in the history of the universe they will still complain and wish it was 1994. 2. They will never under any condition look at an early access game for its game play. As far as they are concerned the game play is not important at all whatsoever, the only thing that is important is: A. what a developer says B. The version number of the game C. how many bugs are in it.
and there is nothing I can do to help these people
It's more a question of "if you know the game is not ready, why the hell are selling it?"
yes millions of people, Ark ALONE has almost 5 million owners.
Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again".
I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well.
I don't think we need to go back down the road called "owner vs. player" that's been covered so many times before on this site, do we?
I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive.
I think one except to that 'mass purchase of a game nobody likes' would be games that hype the hyper hype before the game is even downloadable. Which is something in my view is more offensive then anything Early Access developers do and yet are done by non-early access developers...imagine that!
I think I have wasted a lot of my time. Some people are just absolutly hell bent on these primary tenats.
1. They refuse to be anything other than miserable and unhappy. Despite being given the best variety in gaming in the history of the universe they will still complain and wish it was 1994. 2. They will never under any condition look at an early access game for its game play. As far as they are concerned the game play is not important at all whatsoever, the only thing that is important is: A. what a developer says B. The version number of the game C. how many bugs are in it.
and there is nothing I can do to help these people
You're wasting your time posting assumptions without any data or empirical thinking involved whatsoever, preferring to use your personal feelings as "data" for your assumptions.
yes millions of people, Ark ALONE has almost 5 million owners.
Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again".
I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well.
I don't think we need to go back down the road called "owner vs. player" that's been covered so many times before on this site, do we?
I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive.
I think one except to that 'mass purchase of a game nobody likes' would be games that hype the hyper hype before the game is even downloadable. Which is something in my view is more offensive then anything Early Access developers do and yet are done by non-early access developers...imagine that!
I think I have wasted a lot of my time. Some people are just absolutly hell bent on these primary tenats.
1. They refuse to be anything other than miserable and unhappy. Despite being given the best variety in gaming in the history of the universe they will still complain and wish it was 1994. 2. They will never under any condition look at an early access game for its game play. As far as they are concerned the game play is not important at all whatsoever, the only thing that is important is: A. what a developer says B. The version number of the game C. how many bugs are in it.
and there is nothing I can do to help these people
You're wasting your time posting assumptions without any data or empirical thinking involved whatsoever, preferring to use your personal feelings as "data" for your assumptions.
so are you
I fairly regularly deal with forum posters who provide zero evidence to their claim and then when I provide some for my claim they accuse me of providing none.
nice place to be aint ?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
If and ONLY if.
problem is most people dont give two flats fucks about the gaming experience at all whatsoever. They call themselves gamers but all they do is pay attention to version numbers and dont care one tit about gaming experince
and personally it gets old, I dream of the day when I get on a gaming website and people are talking about actual game experiences instead of trying to patch broken promisses from their childhood because daddy didnt take them to the ball game like he promised by projecting those problems on to developers, leave that shit at home. in my opinion
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In fact the criteria for chosing most of my books is:
1) Is it Sci Fi. (I generally won't read fantasy)
2) How thick is it? Anything under 500 pages won't be considered in most cases.
3) Does it look interesting from the title, inside jacket, recommendations in the front.
4) Quick internet search to see if available as an e-book and see how the reviews are.
Bonus points if part of a series of novels, double points if series is completed.
I read only one novel at a time, until its finished. If it bores me I set it aside never to read it again.
My gaming practices are pretty much a parallel of this.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But very engaging game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As for SOTA, anyone who knows the space cadet Richard Garriott from the Tabula Rasa days knew to stay far away from this guy and anything he is running. He may have been a great idea guy back in his Origin days, but he is garbage at running a company and managing a project. NCsoft lost something on the order of 100mil on his failed project last time around. This time he needed crowdfunding because who would ever fund anything he was involved with?
Next up will be Pantheon. You might want to do a bit of research as to what happened to Vanguard and Sigil games before you go rushing in with your Visa card on that one. Hell just look at what McQuaid did with the first round of financing for Pantheon. Do a little homework on these people before you go start putting on those fanboy goggles based on some concept art and some clever wording.
Top List:
Trove. This is an amazing game, smooth as glass mechanics, on point graphics for a voxel game, full open world sandbox design, mounts, wings, dragons, custom gear, player made content, and best of all.. no bloomer wearing anime sprites. I encourage you to give this game a try if you like "making your own fun" kind of games. This game sucks you in like a vortex. it was my own fault to fall into the trap of grinding for power and burned myself out on it, but that was on me.. not the game itself.
GW2: This is in every way, a great game. They don't try to re-invent the MMO, they just make an enjoyable game to be played, you can solo, you can group, map explore, story line, all in all, a well rounded casual friendly game, that also has very smooth mechanics, and everything is quality work. it is not without its faults, but all in all, it's just an enjoyable game, and while I hated the HoT expansion to the point that I quit the game over it, GW2 is no less a high quality product, and a great all around MMO.
currently playing:
War Hammer 40K Eternal Crusade. This is my first and only MOBA that I have ever played, and I like the IP, (Always been a WH40K fan, Also playing DoW III) but the game itself.. well, i's ratd around a 5.4 on this site.. and I am not included to disagree with that number...
lets make a deal. I will not call Trove and piece of trash and you not call the games I love a piece of trash because they are uncomplete.
can we do that much?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1) Is the ask reasonable for the scope of the game? Passion projects are great, but there's only so long people can work for little/no pay. If you have 20 people on a team and can only pay these supposed expert devs $25k (or less) a year for the next three years . . . then that's a red flag. They'd really have to love this idea to pass up working at a game studio for a lot more money.
2) Does the pitch include multiple things that are either known to be difficult or have never been pulled off in any meaningful degree? Sometimes an indie dev does innovate in some key way that makes people take notice. But we regularly see laundry lists of features that would make any AAA studio blush, and then they claim that not only will they have one amazing innovation, but a collection of them. If you're going to claim that you can pull off something that industry titans have yet to accomplish, you need to provide proof. "Your actions change the world permanently! And the AI will learn how you changed the world and then adapt to it and have offspring that learn your trade routes and there's politics and and and" Wow, sounds amazing. How do?
As for ARK, it simply does not appeal to me at all, not trying to diss a game you love.
i mean at the end of the day the only thing you have to 'trust a developer' to do is create a compelling gaming experience....thats it...full stop...dont move beyond that one requirement...done
so think about it from my side, you are suggesting my game is not any good, that it doesnt deliever good gaming experiences because you dont trust the developer.
how exactly would you expect me to react to that?
and as a side note, I dont own or play Ark specially I am using that as an example because people tend to get ridiculously hyper sensitive about how many people play. I play a lot of early access titles, just not that one specifically
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
See the difference?
trust them to not wash your clothes? or trust them to not make a compelling gaming experience?
again.....it being completed or it not has NO REALTIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to it being compelling gaming experience...zero zip..nada nothing.
So we have done a full circle here without my core point STILL not being understood
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You can't keep us hanging!
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
~~ postlarval ~~
In fact, from what I see in the evidence of actual games and looking at the actual qualiyt of those games it appears the evidence is suggesting the exact opposite of what people here are suggesting.
Looking at the evidence is appears the way to creating a good game is to NOT complete it.
why would I say that? because for me and millions of other people these games are flat out better
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Look at SotA. They could deliver a shitstorm of no fun gameplay (they already do) and their backers would tell them it's the best game ever. All trust, no expectation because they think Garriott is a god and he and his team can do no wrong.
In contrast look at 7DTD. All fun but no trust. The game has been in development for a long time, but hasn't really moved forward in development much. At some point the fun factor is clouded by the fact that what you see it all you're ever going to get.
~~ postlarval ~~
When we stop thinking about the logic of it and start looking at the evidence of it, there appears to be a phenomenon happening.
By and larger for millions of people (such as myself) the quality of games before early access where by a majority.... crappy games. These are examples of games that fit all the rules discussed here today, released only when complete, no lies and no bugs. Yet those games are LESS compelling for millions of people then many of the games that are incomplete, buggy mess, filled with distrustful (whatever) developers.
So one has to step back and rethink what is important and start with the basic and most important thing. game play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Why don't you start by adding a poll and see what players on this site think. That's a start.
~~ postlarval ~~
Ark + Rust + 7 days to die I think = more sales than Witcher 3 on ALL platforms.
The top 3 of the top 6 selling games on Steam are early access games.
and on top of that there are a TON of games of these quality and caliber. Ton compared to how many have been coming out in non-early access
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Now, you may say "But they won't do that". .so.. "How can I trust them?"
I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well.
I don't think we need to go back down the road called "owner vs. player" that's been covered so many times before on this site, do we?
~~ postlarval ~~
I think one except to that 'mass purchase of a game nobody likes' would be games that hype the hyper hype before the game is even downloadable. Which is something in my view is more offensive then anything Early Access developers do and yet are done by non-early access developers...imagine that!
I think I have wasted a lot of my time. Some people are just absolutly hell bent on these primary tenats.
1. They refuse to be anything other than miserable and unhappy. Despite being given the best variety in gaming in the history of the universe they will still complain and wish it was 1994.
2. They will never under any condition look at an early access game for its game play. As far as they are concerned the game play is not important at all whatsoever, the only thing that is important is:
A. what a developer says
B. The version number of the game
C. how many bugs are in it.
and there is nothing I can do to help these people
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
~~ postlarval ~~
I fairly regularly deal with forum posters who provide zero evidence to their claim and then when I provide some for my claim they accuse me of providing none.
nice place to be aint ?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me