Adventure Gamers - Forums

Lambonius - 18 October 2014 01:06 PM

after a brisk nap - 18 October 2014 07:24 AM

In the second, they might draw the conclusion “They shouldn’t have made the game like this because they weren’t able to execute it well enough, so doing it differently might have led to a better game,” which is in fact constructive.

There is absolutely nothing constructive about that statement.  You’re still saying, “You shouldn’t have done this because I don’t like it.”  The only difference is that the IT that you don’t like is the graphics.  If you can’t point out specifics and suggest realistic alternatives (refusing to do the project is not a realistic alternative when you’re a business that makes adventure games and an industry veteran like Jane Jensen asks you to work on a project with her—that’s just silly,) then it’s no more constructive than your other example.

I’m saying that “I don’t like it because in my view it is badly executed, and if this was the best they could do they should have done it a different way or something else entirely,” is a very different argument from “I don’t like it because it’s the kind of thing I don’t like, and people shouldn’t make games in styles I don’t like.”

And saying that such criticism is not constructive is nonsense. Cesar already mentioned the criticism of the dynamic camera angles during conversations: if a lot of people agree that with the quality of 3D models, environments and animations POS can currently offer, the result is worse than simply static conversations, that is useful feedback (which the studio may decide whether to take on board).

Similarly, saying stealth and combat sequences ruined Dreamfall because you don’t like games with combat or stealth is a bad argument. Saying they ruined the game by sucking ass as combat/stealth gameplay (see more detailed breakdown), and that including something of such low quality was a mistake, is a valid argument. The facts and the conclusion can be debated, but it is constructive criticism (which RTG have acknowledged and reportedly incorporated into DF:C).

And yes, even saying “if your excuse for all these flaws we’ve discussed is budget and lack of experience, you should probably have done something less ambitious” is constructive. Maybe it’s feedback for Jane Jensen (and perhaps indeed a great deal of the criticism POS have received should be directed at her), but that’s for the team to determine.

Look, I’m not criticizing the game here: I haven’t played it, or indeed any POS title since The Silver Lining, because from everything I’ve seen and read about them they are very much Not My Thing (and in this case because I was never a huge fan of GK in the first place). I can even understand lashing back at critics who pretty openly hate your company and hope for its failure. But the response is not well-reasoned, and the attitude it expresses is downright unhealthy. The queue of other indie devs lining up to support the argument is profoundly disturbing to me. I hope it’s down to nothing more than misguided solidarity.

We support each other because we love games - in particular, we love adventure games. There’s nothing disturbing about that; every developer sets out to try to make good games, and supporting each other and offering advice, help or sometimes just a friendly ear is more constructive than being an ass all the time.  As theo said, we’re advocating constructive criticism free of rancor.  It’s just that old adage: treat people as you wish they’d treat you.  You know, it really works when you try it.

All games have flaws; anything creative is never going to satisfy everyone.  Some things can come close, but one man’s treasure is another man’s trash.  The thing you can have in common is being civil and perhaps legitimately encouraging others to be and do their best.

Bt

DaveyB - 18 October 2014 11:03 AM

Much as it is a clear cock-up, which gives POS & JJs critics a stick to beat them with, but by the time the Beta testing was done, I’d imagine it was too late to change the script/dialogue at all. The voice acting would have been all done and getting actors back would have been, if possible at all, expensive. Now the issue is certainly one that should have been picked up earlier, but I don’t think it’s fair to criticise them for not altering it after the Beta testing.

It may well be true they couldnt get a hold of actors to record a few more lines of dialogue (though i read that they did do that late in the process). It may not be feasible, true. But then why not leave the napoleon house how it was in the original, accessible from the beginning. The bartender gives a lot of good introductory dialogue. The bar is a natural place for gabe to be checking in with and hanging out looking for leads. Doing nothing in this case wouldv been a better change, if the only way they could think to introduce this un-needed change was with complete nonsense.

Iznogood - 18 October 2014 08:49 AM

Frogacuda - 18 October 2014 08:31 AM

Never, ever turn AA over 4x. It’s literally indistinguishable after that, and you’ll make your video card sweat for no reason. If you think you can tell the difference, you’re wrong.

I’m running the game at 8x AA and it doesn’t make my video card sweat a single drop, and I don’t even have the newest high-end equipment, in fact it is getting quite old. Whether or not I can actually tell the difference is of course a different matter.

That’s not the point. If it drops even a single frame then you’re making things worse with literally no benefit. Doing that is just fundamentally failing to understand what AA is and how it works.

Gabe - 18 October 2014 02:14 PM

My o my,they did really released the game with horrible close-up character models, kind of disrespectful treat to fans only could’ve been overlooked if it was a 10th anniversary edition by (semi-pro) fan developers.

I really wonder this kinda sloppiness how gonna help to create new fanbase,of course one believe there are so many players out there doesnt mind visuals etc.so where’s the appeal of hd remake again,why look at the details if they gonna look worsen ?

There is nothing horrible about the close-up character models.  Everyone is just hung up on the Gabriel one because it’s so different from the original game.  The Gabriel closeup is not my favorite—I do think it could have been better from a drawing standpoint, but it is absolutely the exception in a game where the animated character closeups are a clear standout high-point.  It’s a shame the main character didn’t look as good, but almost every other character looks fantastic in the dialog close-ups.  This game is generally very polished in presentation.  It has none of the problems that Moebius had.  Seriously.

Blackthorne - 18 October 2014 03:44 PM

We support each other because we love games - in particular, we love adventure games. There’s nothing disturbing about that; every developer sets out to try to make good games, and supporting each other and offering advice, help or sometimes just a friendly ear is more constructive than being an ass all the time.  As theo said, we’re advocating constructive criticism free of rancor.  It’s just that old adage: treat people as you wish they’d treat you.  You know, it really works when you try it.

All games have flaws; anything creative is never going to satisfy everyone.  Some things can come close, but one man’s treasure is another man’s trash.  The thing you can have in common is being civil and perhaps legitimately encouraging others to be and do their best.

Bt

This.

I’m also personally out to combat the extreme pedantry of a lot of the criticisms that suggest that the change of one or two inconsequential story details or a not-so-great character model is enough justification to claim that the game should never have been made at all.  That’s just ridiculous. 

I also have to wonder whether or not allowing backers to have such direct access to this project all through development was really a wise idea.  I suspect that at least some of the ire stems from the mistaken assumption that backers were going to have an actual voice in the production of the game, and people being pissed off that changes that they suggested (regardless of whether or not they were possible to implement) didn’t get implemented.  Pinkterton Road allowed people just enough access to think they had a voice in the process, but not enough for people to fully grasp what actually goes into game development.  So basically you end up with a mixture of backer entitlement combined with ignorance of the process, which resulted in pissed off backers.

Lambonius - 18 October 2014 04:23 PM

There is nothing horrible about the close-up character models.  Everyone is just hung up on the Gabriel one because it’s so different from the original game.  The Gabriel closeup is not my favorite—I do think it could have been better from a drawing standpoint, but it is absolutely the exception in a game where the animated character closeups are a clear standout high-point.  It’s a shame the main character didn’t look as good, but almost every other character looks fantastic in the dialog close-ups.

Gabriel is the main character, and you have that horrid close-up thrown in your face with every conversation he has. It is not some inconsequential character you see only once or twice. Gabriel’s is the most important character closeup in the game. Surely POS should have had better sense than to leave Gabriel’s closeup looking like “generic Sims blond man.” There’s nothing “James Deanish” about this model. And not only is it disgustingly bland, the proportions are uncanny valley material.

I am not saying they shouldn’t have made the game.
I think the backgrounds are very good, as are most of the other character models.
The voice actors are mostly good, though I miss the original actors in some cases.
But whatever else he might be, Gabriel is not generic-Sims-blond-man or looks-more-like-a-middle-aged-woman-than-a-man.

And I suppose they were trying to make some sort of progression in hairdo,
but this is supposed to be a remake of GK1, not GK2, 3, or 4.

I don’t disagree with your general assessment of the closeup.  Like I said, it’s a little awkward from a drawing standpoint; the structure of the face, and particularly the eyes, is just not quite anatomically correct.  He still looks generally like the character—you can see where they were trying to take features of Dean Erickson and blend them with the look of the character from GK3; the decision fits with some other choices they made to try and make the series feel more visually cohesive (like the Schloss Ritter redesign.)  The portrait certainly lacks the moody lighting that made the original so evocative and memorable. 

So yeah.  It’s not great. 

BUT…it’s not the end of the world either.  The game still looks pretty great, and the other portraits are all very generally excellent.  I do wonder how many revisions this one went through before being finalized.  Something about it makes me suspect that it may be the product of OVER-working as opposed to the opposite.  But who knows.  It’s what’s in the game now, and it’s one small part of the larger package.  If it’s a deal-breaker for some, their loss.  Most people aren’t going to notice or care.

its not the end of the world. And its not good. And how about the bobble head motions? Its worse in some places than others. Just does not work for me.

zane - 18 October 2014 06:14 PM

And how about the bobble head motions? Its worse in some places than others. Just does not work for me.

Those didn’t bother me, though some were a bit less subtle than they probably should have been.  It really depends on the character though.  I found myself really taken with the facial animations for a lot of the characters, particularly the drug-store owner and Dr. John.  I thought it was a cool effect that looked really good when it worked.

As for “altered puzzles” there was exactly one that i liked, and thought seamlessly wouldv fit with the original and thats:
the way priest collar is obtained. I wouldnt be surprised if that was supposed to be in the original. Thats just an improvement on the way the collar was found before, and its completely believable.

every other puzzle change feels out of place or trivial, like
entering mosely’s window.. its an interesting thought, but i can see why it wasnt in the original game for something so brief and simple. And they removed the vendor puzzle for it, which really i thought was more interesting than just prying open a window

Blackthorne - 18 October 2014 03:44 PM

We support each other because we love games - in particular, we love adventure games. There’s nothing disturbing about that; every developer sets out to try to make good games, and supporting each other and offering advice, help or sometimes just a friendly ear is more constructive than being an ass all the time.

Sure, but you can sympathize without necessarily agreeing; what bothered me was the number of people willing to sign up to Cesar’s IMO immensely wrong-headed argument.

As theo said, we’re advocating constructive criticism free of rancor.  It’s just that old adage: treat people as you wish they’d treat you.  You know, it really works when you try it.

All games have flaws; anything creative is never going to satisfy everyone.  Some things can come close, but one man’s treasure is another man’s trash.  The thing you can have in common is being civil and perhaps legitimately encouraging others to be and do their best.

theo - 18 October 2014 03:37 PM

I’m pretty sure that most people asspatting cesar here are simply advocating constructive feedback free of spite/rancor/etc. No more, no less. At least that’s what I’m doing. (I shouldn’t be putting words in other people’s mouths.)

(Perhaps us developers have a better understanding of the truly damaging and demoralizing effects of harsh negative feedback. ?) (however true it may be that honest feedback is the most important thing of all)

I could argue over this, saying that yes, the complainers often go too far, but that’s also an expression of passion for adventure games (and in particular very strong feelings about GK), etc. etc., but you know what: I won’t. When all is said and done, I agree that the tone on this forum in particular is pretty relentlessly toxic. If we could fix that, I’d be all for it. I’m sure it sucks as a developer, it also sucks as a regular reader. (Personally I’ve more or less stopped posting because of that, except when something annoys me sufficiently to provoke me into response, which isn’t the best starting point to make a positive difference.)

Blackthorne - 18 October 2014 03:44 PM

We support each other because we love games - in particular, we love adventure games. There’s nothing disturbing about that; every developer sets out to try to make good games, and supporting each other and offering advice, help or sometimes just a friendly ear is more constructive than being an ass all the time.  As theo said, we’re advocating constructive criticism free of rancor.  It’s just that old adage: treat people as you wish they’d treat you.  You know, it really works when you try it.

Hear, hear! From Saul to Paul. You changed your tune considerably and forgive me if I suspect your new ties to POS have more to do with that than any true reformation.
And same goes for Lambonius, though he is as impertinent as always. People here seem to have very short memories.

I don’t completely agree with the tone of some of the critique here, but neither with all the different tactics from passive aggressive threats of walking away after calling other posters trolls over simple noise pollution to trying to define what kind of critique is “real” critique, or what conditions have to be met before you are allowed to open your mouth. Simply put, trying to discard the critique and best the critics in any way possible. So forgive me if I feel inclined to shoot back, because so far most of the attacks on users and name calling has happened from the white knight side.

The main difference to some years ago is not that negative opinions are suddenly a lot harsher. The main difference is that we are more aware of the fact that more and more developers read these forums and fans and developers are more intertwined than ever. But if one wants to permanently tread on eggshells because of this should be everyone’s own decision.