I agree that games as a medium are iterative in the sense that games build upon all of the games that came before them. Empyrion can be both a unique game and a game that is informed by mechanics that have been proven to work well in other great games. That being said, getting upset at people for disagreeing with you and/or for not paying your idea the attention you feel it deserves does not help your case.
There are Constructive Disagreements such as Counter Views, Amendments, Compromises, Improvement, Alterations, and Flaws Proven Then There are Trolls, The problem is the troll tend to be Loud and change the topic until the original suggestion is lost in noise. Its best to ignore them and redirect the conversation. Any one who post in a thread can help with that.
Noone here is actually doing anything though. Talking about things you'd like to see in a game you're playing isn't a stand of principle, and you should be able to defend suggestions against criticism. Development resources are limited after all; be ready to articulate how you think something will actually improve a game on balance, and recognize what downsides it may introduce. For example, crouching and going prone make the players hitbox smaller from the perspective of something shooting at you. If the bots have perfect aim, this is irrelevant and adds nothing. If they don't have perfect aim, then you need to account for how it changes the game balance and design; for example, it makes the player very strong at long range fights. Is this desirable? There are also art issues; going prone and crouching lowers the players viewpoint, potentially leading to an inability to see anything coupled with relatively low-rez plant and surface textures filling the entire screen. Also, crouching/going prone lead players to naturally attempt to hide, and atm stealth mechanics in empyrion are nearly nonexistent. Players may become frustrated after getting shot when they 'shouldn't' because they're concealed. These are not unsolvable issues, but the issues do exist, and they all take dev time to solve. It is not simply a matter of adding the thing and the game being better.
If you post a suggestion there are a few things you should keep in mind: - Whether or not something is a good idea is a matter of opinion. Trying to argue that it's a fact based on things like, "realism is better" (which is also an opinion) doesn't make it true. - Resorting to personal attacks against people because they don't share your opinion doesn't improve your suggestion. - A suggestion that would force other people to play the game the way you want to play it, or narrow gameplay options, is likely going to be met with resistance. LOLYoda. But sometimes it should not be done.
You may insist on anything you like, it won't make it fact. Flat-Earthers suffer from this delusion. If you are championing open-mindedness and you encounter an opinion contrary to your own, you cannot simply insist *harder that your opinion is right.
No I can use facts like for example exploring the world to prove that it is round much like I am providing examples that AAA titles often use brainstorming and compromise to create great titles. Most singular idea titles flop or never get recognized (as you keep stating about those specific 3 games) great titles more often come from compromise and using features of other games while brainstorming on how to make them better.
When statistics of Steam Ratings, Profit, and Success are more in favor of one style of development by large margins. Logical reasoning would lead you to conclude that 2+1 = 3. Just like most successful largely recognized games come from brainstorming and comprising game developers.
Keep your logical inconsistancies to yourself! You previously stated that your opinion was that ALL great games come from compromise, I offered an alternative, you shot it down. You INSIST that your brand of open-mindedness is better than anyone else's but fail to see the moronic hypocrisy in that statement. Further more, your sig betrays your age and arrogance. I will no longer respond to this topic although I will continue to read any replies you might add and will continue to update my assessment of this situation.
Oh dear... I've been attacking your argument all the time, but I guess you missed it in favour of your straw-man. We can go around in circles forever you know...
*sigh* I give in! I bow to your superior rhetoric. Let us never cross paths again. Not really hypocrisy when your troll-bait previous comment was specifically aimed at dragging me back into your tawdry argument. Thanks for that.
Should not be done. Perhaps. But quite often they can't articulate why not. Sometimes ideas are blindly shot down with no logical explanation given. It reminds me a child simply yelling "NO" to everything and if that's the only argument they have I'm going to ignore it. I post my suggestions and often leave it at that. Either the developers like the idea or they don't. Sometimes I'll change my mind on something if someone brings up a cogent argument. Agreed sometimes suggestions are made without considering all the ramifications.
"My ideas are objectively great and if someone doesn't like them it's because they haven't thought it through, they are closed-minded, they don't understand how [some basic principle] works, they are mean, trolls, haters, jealous, etc." AKA rationalization.
Let it be noted that the same premise of compromise and design-by-committee also results in a slew of watered-down samey mediocre titles, or forces games to include features they were not intended to support. AAA-titles regularly suffer from marketing and a case of "all style, no substance." And let's not even get started on the features that get pared down and stripped away to be repackaged as DLC later on. While I accept your point, I find it critically flawed in the idea that you would hold AAA-studios up as an exemplar of the medium when those same practices yield a success rate little better than one-man studios of singular design. The difference is, the expectation level is much lower for indie titles so when a crowd-pleaser comes out, everyone is pleasantly surprised. (Good examples on the indie scene include Dust: An Elysian Tail*, Banished, Papers Please, Undertale, and many others. Obviously, what you consider to be a "great" game is highly subjective and not a sound basis for rational arguments.) *That's right. It's Tail, not Tale.
Does someone need a logical explanation for why they do not like tomatoes, or a cogent argument behind their favorite color? It's just taste. You don't need a reason to like or not like something. Almost all suggestions are simply a matter of personal preference. The biggest problem IMO is when people try to justify their tastes, as if this makes their preference better or more meaningful than someone else's. This is where suggestion threads break down into arguments. And I'll agree that there are also often situations where someone makes a suggestion without realizing other side-effects it would have. IMO it's valid to bring up those side-effects and discuss whether they could happen and whether or not this would make the game (in your opinion) better or worse.
You honestly went there. Next to Godwin's Law, invoking politics is about the surest way to destroy any semblance of discussion. Especially considering the fracas we've all had to put up with this year.
