I'm seeing a lot of good suggestions being shot down simply because it's been implemented elsewhere in another game. When we start limiting the progression of a game simply to be "Different" from another game that may add an incredible feature to this game, you are literally destroying the fabric of Creativity. To those making your suggestions of features that you liked in other games. Keep doing so, good ideas aren't perishable. There is no shame in admitting that another community/dev team had a great idea and finding a way to implement it in the game we love. End the responses of "well if you like EVE so much go play EVE" It is intellectual suicide and you are not allowing good ideas to flourish or be brainstormed by our community.
Well I see people shooting down suggestions because it would "slow the game down" for mp. That really annoys me. As an SP player (finished with mp, i'm not going back) every time I see some limitation or issue caused by the MP facet of the game it makes me annoyed. I'm not willing to accept that we have to go without cool features because it might lag the goddamn griefers.
I think all ideas should be brainstormed to compromise. "How can we implement this idea to work on both facets?" Not "I play SP or MP your idea will make it hard on us" I'm more pragmatic in that there is always a solution for everyone.
Unless the Developer make two Distinctive Games and double the development and debug time. We need to think of both the MP(co-op/PvP) and SP scenarios . What may be good for one may be terrible for the other. This doesn't mean you can't have a compromise or a configuration option to change the rules in MP. Example Remote Drone Armada in SP Great in MP Terrible but the server could limit to one per person. Personal I don't see the need for an SP mode its just a 1 player MP the game could Spin up a dedicated local server in the background with SP configure settings
Don't be lazy, generalized statements are fun, but show what you're talking about I've been somewhat active in my reading and I have not seen what you're saying here. I was fairly skeptical early on of the Dev's but they have shown they play with ideas implement, and what not. The more active folks certainly have a stronger hold of their ear, but I find that fair and to be expected. The forums are like many others, ideas tossed around, passions high, and I think for the most part the 'shot down' is just one opinion over the other.
Yeah, I'm not seeing those sorts of shoot-down comments either... unless they are coming from individuals who I've had on my ignore list lol.
I'm sure from my suggestions list post you cantell Im far from lazy. Asking for immediate recall of an incident that occurred outside the forums or in the forums is not plausible when making a blanket statement. An example would be as I stated above regarding the attitudes of fellow players not the developers. When someone in our server mentioned a very plausible idea about jump networks on HWS it was met with hostility from players saying this wasn't EVE/Mass Effect that copying jump gates would make Empyrion a cheap knock off. Furthermore when I mentioned adding better animations, crouch and prone. It was met with Empyrion is its own game, not a tactical shooter. So why cant empyrion become a tactical shooter where invading POIs and Bases take skill. Giving you that adrenaline rush and jump scare as you round the corner to 3 Brutes shooting at you? Simply because Star Citizen implemented such a thing and a player doesn't like it I'm being told to go back to playing Star Citizen? That is the closed mindness I'm referring to. We should be discussing how to make good ideas work in Empyrion not telling players to leave to other games simply because they want to add depth. I'm not here to type word walls I only want to point out the the greatest games are those built off compromise and brainstorming. Not closing off the idea because it changes your perception of the game or resembles another game too closely.
Oh so you are talking about some MP chat drama basically? See that's why we need a single player game. So that people can enjoy the game without having to listen to that kind of bunk. Or listen to anybody for that matter.
Simply not true. Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and (hopefully) the Last Guardian, are all singular visions. Wether you like them or not, Ueda-san's "games" are both Art & Uncompromising. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of pig-headed developers/ creators being responsible for genre defining games.
(just to re-iterate btw) OP you are letting yourself get trolled by bored kids on HWS chat. No one sensible on the forum here is going to argue against crouch/prone/lean stance. Sounds like you just need to stop listening to trolls on HWS global chat. You can objectively have the best ideas and they will still stay they suck, just to push your buttons, that's what trolls do.
Moot. This proves only that Gamesprout (feel free to correct me, but, not a real developer) sits around a table using buzzwords. I referenced the Last Guardian specifically because it missed an entire hardware generation because of Ueda-san's stubborn and often intransigent nature, he says of himself that he is "difficult to work with". Compromise is not the silver bullet you think it is. Sometimes a singular vision is all that is needed. Forgive me if I reference certain things (like these three games) in a way that might infer I think everyone should know about them, I *wish everyone knew about them, do your homework people!
And just incase thats not big or good enough, bethesda. 1:20 Greatest Games are literally built off compromise and Brainstorming. Unwillingness to compromise is what leads to dev death
*sigh* In your over-zealous defense of your opinion you forgot the one thing you are supposedly championing.
Rejecting a developer based on merit from products as a valid point is not keeping an open mind like I am currently championing. You're saying some games work better off one developers ideas. I'm insisting that the greatest works come from teamwork not single ideas. So I'm confused on how I've forgotten my point.
You know really this is all a lot simpler than you think. Make your suggestions to the developer and let them deal with it. Forget about what other players think. In the end the responsibility for making the game and making it great is on the developers and not the community. We can try and help out but in the end the people with the responsibility make the decisions. And that is as it should be. Even though somebody made the wrong decision to make this an mp game...
OK, there's two points of view here, which are both valid in my opinion as a software developer of 25 years. 1) people with a singular vision create singular games. the aforementioned ICO series, MGS, Elite (the original not the newer pap), Gran Turismo, No Man's Sky*, Doom, Dwarf Fortress, and many other iconic games were the vision, and usually architecture of one man (with the possible exception of Doom, although Carmack did pretty much the entire engine). These games are or were the leaders in their field, some are iconic for design reasons, some for architectural achievements, some love them, some hate them, but that singular vision DEFINED them. 2) development through committee does work, and it tends to give good games. Games designed this way are usually big sellers, because the design by community process renders everything down to base bullet points and then asks the committee.. "do we want this, and this, or this and this?" so we get the lowest common denominator that everyone can agree on. Which is usually "not bad". triple A's are usually the second sort, with fewer of the first kind, which tend to be more indy or alternative. In software development, choosing the development process is as big a design decision as choosing the content of the game, because it drives the entire development in different ways depending which process you use. apples and oranges anyone? *Note - please don't get into bashing the NMS release, yes, it was released before it was finished properly, but what they've achieved in terms of technology and software design is brilliant.
This. I don't think the devs have ever blatantly shot down any idea. Most of the opinions on ideas here are just that. The devs might take some ideas and run with them. maybe not, but either way, put your suggestions in the appropriate forum and be done with it. OR debate it with those that oppose it, doesn't much matter.
