Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i sort of disagree. Being an investor has some legal status that goes with it, none of which we have. This is explicitly stated on kickstarter (the company not the one ran by pathfinder).
Now as kickstarters and helping them quicken development we are invested in the game and i think that if GW would blow up that group of people it would be a very poor showing. If they were to take this group and totally treat them like crap...well i would have serious doubts about the long term life of the game.
On the other hand, we have no experiance in developing an MMO, and GW does. They cannot just do whatever we want them to, that can lead to bad game design. NOW i do think they need to do what they have been doing, which is listening to what people are thinking and take that into consideration, then making the choice, regardless of if they change anything or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are NOT investors in the classic term. We are contributors. We are also stake holders, but we are not going to see one cent of return on the money we paid to the kickstarter. We will receive the goods we were promised, but that is it. We are stakeholders in the sense that we want the game to succeed, but we are not entitled to anything beyond the reward tiers we were promised.
That said, Goblinworks is allowing us an unprecedented amount of input into the design process and we should be grateful for the opportunity they have given us to share our vision of the world with what they are producing. If the finial decision on any game system doesn't match what you would like, after going though community input and testing, then so what? You still have all of the rewards you were promised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Alexander
Yes but we invested in a work in progress, that also changes the equation a bit. When we invest in something that is not built yet and is deppendent on many other people oppinions and expectations we are assuming the risk that the final product can be (a bit or even a lot) different from our expectations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right now we are very much in a 'rough draft' stage where changes are going to be made.
This is turning out to be a very different game than what I first thought but instead of demanding that they change everything to fit my own personal vision of what it should be I am gathering the info they have given to reshape what I want and am going to be able to do in their vision of the game. It is their game after all, we are just lucky enough to have an inside scoop and dialog on what's going on. Though they want our opinions they are in no way obligated to follow them.
Just be happy that you are participating in this grand experiment and make the most of it!
If it's like any loan I know of, you as a dissenter need to know something:
Just because you provided a small amount of funds (and I'm being generous here, in the face of one, or even a few people's kickstarter donations amount to the three mill that goblinworks has tried to accrue doesn't mean squat) does not give you official right to dictate how the game will be made. You provided the funds in return for a stated service upon completion of stated objective. end of story.
It does not give you some appointed status that your opinion means squat. the involvement that goblinworks allows you is exactly as far as that....allowed. If goblinworks were to scramble to meet ever person who had their own view into PFO, then not one single line of code would ever get typed.
I'm not saying stop voicing your opinion, because I trust that goblinworks does attend to majority effort, but don't expect your opinion to mean any more or less than anyone else's.
By all means, pull your funding. I'm sure that new backers will jump all over your deficit, and you can sit and stew over what you don't have when PFO makes its debut.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right now we are very much in a 'rough draft' stage where changes are going to be made.
This is turning out to be a very different game than what I first thought but instead of demanding that they change everything to fit my own personal vision of what it should be I am gathering the info they have given to reshape what I want and am going to be able to do in their vision of the game. It is their game after all, we are just lucky enough to have an inside scoop and dialog on what's going on. Though they want our opinions they are in no way obligated to follow them.
Just be happy that you are participating in this grand experiment and make the most of it!
I think so. It has tremendous potential. The devs do seem interested in our ideas. What turns out possible is really a practical thing they have the tools to determine.
I've got money riding on them ;) and it was my pleasure to try and help them build a game that has been needed for several years now.
A sandbox fantasy rpg done right.
Has a nice ring to it, Frodo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I haven't seen the discussions in question either, but if it relates to the game being 'biased' towards lawful, good, and famous over chaotic, evil, and infamous... yep that's the developer's attempt to limit griefing. Sometimes I think it may go too far and potentially make anything other than Lawful Good a 'developmental dead end', but in that case I have no doubt such will become apparent in play-testing and be balanced back.
That's the thing people need to understand... the purpose here is to develop a good game. The design decisions the developers are making are their ideas for achieving that goal. If they find that it isn't working out the way they thought... they will change things. Because the goal always remains 'good game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I haven't seen the discussions in question either, but if it relates to the game being 'biased' towards lawful, good, and famous over chaotic, evil, and infamous... yep that's the developer's attempt to limit griefing. Sometimes I think it may go too far and potentially make anything other than Lawful Good a 'developmental dead end', but in that case I have no doubt such will become apparent in play-testing and be balanced back.
That's the thing people need to understand... the purpose here is to develop a good game. The design decisions the developers are making are their ideas for achieving that goal. If they find that it isn't working out the way they thought... they will change things. Because the goal always remains 'good game.
Alpha and Beta- test periods are just to allow any change to be made before the official release, actually.
Someone threatened to pull out their money?
I guess I'll have to go wade through that thread. I'm afraid of what I will find... then again maybe I shouldn't. It was such a peaceful evening in Skyrim...
Stick to skyrim instead of reading the threat. Can we even pull funding now that the ks is over? But seirously slaying dragons and vampires in skyrim is much more entertaining. Especaly if you have maxed out sneak and completed the dark brotherhood. Killing ancient dragons with one hit to the tail from a dagger while sneaking is so funny.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Normally, I agree with how silly a "agree with me or I'll cancel my sub!" threat is. However, in this case, we are investors. We gave them money to create a product. That alters the equation a bit.
I think your apprehension is sincere and shared by all. What we have to look at:
1. Kickstarter: What is it?
2. Pre-alpha Development: What does it mean?
3. How does our role as Crowdforgers work?
4. A good number of concerns that players suggest, likely will have been considered by the devs, already (their collective experience): So which are the ones that they have not?
5. Iteration/refinement of game systems from large numbers of players interacting 'live' seems a safe bet with mmorpgs, even after all the above?
=
The sword of Damocles hangs above us ;): On one side we have a greater chance to influence, creatively, PFO's future and on the other side we will see the technological limitations and reductions that will cut into the uncarved block of the game design document for PFO and the resource limitations of the development team of Goblin Works.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Normally, I agree with how silly a "agree with me or I'll cancel my sub!" threat is. However, in this case, we are investors. We gave them money to create a product. That alters the equation a bit.
I am something of an alarmist when it comes to things I evaluate as 'bad' certain changes in our shared cultural values. It doesn't strike me as 'silly' when tantrums happen. My kids turned out great, so maybe I have reason to think my values are well placed.
But I'm not the parent of my peers. I don't have that authority.
Nevertheless I can speak out. When people allow themselves to become enraged to where their emotions overrule their reason, and selfishness overrules their constructive contribution, there is a basic personal failure involved.
This type of social phenomenon is growing more prevalent with time, it seems to me, and that indicates that there is something about our culture that is unhealthy at a socially elementary level.
Tolerance is a virtue until it allows illness.
But of the things we can do, we can control our own reactions and how we think of things. I would argue that if we diminish the importance we place on such symptoms then we are giving it room to grow and spread. My initial impulse is that it should be considered a serious malfunction that should be addressed.
It is probably good that I am not in a position of power, as I am more judgemental than I probably should be.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't seen the discussions in question either, but if it relates to the game being 'biased' towards lawful, good, and famous over chaotic, evil, and infamous... yep that's the developer's attempt to limit griefing. Sometimes I think it may go too far and potentially make anything other than Lawful Good a 'developmental dead end', but in that case I have no doubt such will become apparent in play-testing and be balanced back.
I personally think this is to be vastly preferred over the CCP \ EVE Online developers (and long-time players) 'bias' towards a HTFU (Harden The F*** Up) attitude in their game management, where grieving is an accepted (and even expected) part of the game.
There are quite a number of things in EVE I do appreciate, depth and available options in the game design and gameplay are some of them. That attitude ... not so much.
And once it's an accepted part of the game, it's hard to turn back the dials. Should CCP try and switch their attitude around (at least, should they do so too fast), their current player base would quit in anger (at least, the vocal part would). Better to start with this games (PFO) bias turned the other way around.
I haven't seen the discussions in question either, but if it relates to the game being 'biased' towards lawful, good, and famous over chaotic, evil, and infamous... yep that's the developer's attempt to limit griefing. Sometimes I think it may go too far and potentially make anything other than Lawful Good a 'developmental dead end', but in that case I have no doubt such will become apparent in play-testing and be balanced back.I personally think this is to be vastly preferred over the CCP \ EVE Online developers (and long-time players) 'bias' towards a HTFU (Harden The F*** Up) attitude in their game management, where grieving is an accepted (and even expected) part of the game.
There are quite a number of things in EVE I do appreciate, depth and available options in the game design and gameplay are some of them. That attitude ... not so much.
And once it's an accepted part of the game, it's hard to turn back the dials. Should CCP try and switch their attitude around (at least, should they do so too fast), their current player base would quit in anger (at least, the vocal part would). Better to start with this games (PFO) bias turned the other way around.
That's true. Nobody likes to see their favorite game "sell out" or even give the appearance of doing so. SWG's CU is a prime example. Many of us have seen games "give in" to pressure and change basic game mechanics to make things easier, or to accommodate a vocal group, even if that group is in the minority.
I find CCP's HTFU attitude overly harsh and I'm usually one of the one's pushing for companies to stick to their guns and not give in to those saying that X is too difficult or Y takes too long.