You have utterly failed to understand what he was saying.
How do you know I didn't intentionally mischaracterize what he was saying for a quick laugh? (Thanks Aranna.) You really shouldn't be so biased, sir.
If someone brings up ghosting in a gaming context, the typical assumption is that they're referring to key ghosting.
'Ghosting' in a gaming context (keyboard ghosting is an out-of-game term, and usually referred to as 'keyboard ghosting') refers to one of two different things:
1. In multiplayer shooters, dead characters still able to observe the action unfairly feeding intelligence to their still-active team-mates through various means.
2. Proceeding through a game level without alerting any NPC/AI characters to their presence at all.
Context usually makes it clear which is being referred to.
The latter was possible (for the most part) in the original THIEF games and the original DEUS EX (I never played INVISIBLE WAR, so I don't know if you could do it in that game), and to some extent in HITMAN and SPLINTER CELL. The term was well-known by 2008 (which is when it appeared on Urban Dictionary) and was crucial in DEUS EX: HUMAN REVOLUTION and DISHONORED, which both have achievements linked to completing missions (or the entire game) via ghosting.
Given that THIEF 4 was created by the same company - though not the same team - as DE:HR, their inability to know what 'ghosting' means is quite strange.
I think it's abundantly clear that Far Cry and Crysis are two very different franchises. Ubisoft continued the tradition of Far Cry through Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3, and did not dumb anything down along the way. The gameplay in Far Cry 3 is a great deal richer than the gameplay in the original Far Cry.
You're basing too much on the names. FAR CRY 1 and the CRYSIS series are made by the exact same people, and CRYSIS clearly draws upon FC1's structure and gameplay. FC2 and 3 are made by completely different people and have a completely different approach to FC1. FC1 wasn't an open-world game but a linear series of (albeit very large) maps. FC2 takes place on two extremely large open-world maps. FC3 takes place on one massive one.
The FAR CRY series is also a series in name only. There are no characters, storyline elements, locations or even references between the three of them (or four, if you count BLOOD DRAGON). They take place in completely isolated realities from one another. The FAR CRY brand really means nothing more than 'outdoors-focused FPS with wildlife and an open path to targets'.
I think it's abundantly clear that Far Cry and Crysis are two very different franchises. Ubisoft continued the tradition of Far Cry through Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3, and did not dumb anything down along the way. The gameplay in Far Cry 3 is a great deal richer than the gameplay in the original Far Cry.You're basing too much on the names. FAR CRY 1 and the CRYSIS series are made by the exact same people, and CRYSIS clearly draws upon FC1's structure and gameplay. FC2 and 3 are made by completely different people and have a completely different approach to FC1. FC1 wasn't an open-world game but a linear series of (albeit very large) maps. FC2 takes place on two extremely large open-world maps. FC3 takes place on one massive one.
The FAR CRY series is also a series...
I'll just chime in to say that FC3 actually is two maps as well. You have two islands which you can only travel between via fast travel (if you try to take a boat to go from one island to the other, it will kill you for leaving the game area)
|
Look on the bright side folks, if Mr. Betts didn't post half these threads wouldn't have a discussion.
Lol, I do get amused over arguments like this.
I am a person who really enjoyed both Dishonored and Mirror's Edge. If Thief contains enough elements that I think that I will enjoy, I will pick the game up. I like having the option for stealth or combat with different results for each. I can understand those that wanted a certain type of gameplay and are disappointed thou.
On the other hand, bugs really, really irrate me. So if Thief is reviewed to be "buggy", I will pass this does include Bethesda games.
I thought of one major downside to context sensitive controls while playing Dark Souls today...snags in the map terrain are a pain in the dick.
In games where you can jump at will, you hit a bit of terrain you can't jump over, and you're like "Huh. That's weird." hop over it, and you're done. Mildly inconvenienced at worst.
That is not an option in games that you can't jump in (or jump particularly reliably, in the case of Dark Souls, where you need to take a running start to get about 3 inches off the ground).
I have yet to play a game without at least ONE of these spots and they're super frustrating when you can't just hop over them.
In today's dev blog the Thief team announced (among other things) that they have removed the handful of QTE sequences from the game, and that customization options will include an ironman mode (if you die, you have to start the game over) and a ghosting mode (you die if you alert guards).
It's almost like the sky isn't falling!
In today's dev blog the Thief team announced (among other things) that they have removed the handful of QTE sequences from the game, and that customization options will include an ironman mode (if you die, you have to start the game over) and a ghosting mode (you die if you alert guards).
It's almost like the sky isn't falling!
If people were not complaining about this, do you think they would have made the changes still?
If people were not complaining about this, do you think they would have made the changes still?In today's dev blog the Thief team announced (among other things) that they have removed the handful of QTE sequences from the game, and that customization options will include an ironman mode (if you die, you have to start the game over) and a ghosting mode (you die if you alert guards).
It's almost like the sky isn't falling!
The customization options (referred to as Hardcore Mode back at E3) were planned from early on. Only the removal of QTEs was a recent change, and, as noted, they were rare to begin with.
No, if people had not complained, the changes to QTEs would not have been made. That doesn't mean that it was okay for the community to go bananas over a handful of QTEs in their precious Thief. All it means is that Thief is being developed by a company with moderately intelligent ability to respond to consumer base complaints. Part of me wishes Eidos Montreal hadn't changed the system to accommodate those complaints, if only because it sends a message (however small) to the community that vocal minorities can singlehandedly steer development if they complain loudly enough. It's not a big deal in this instance, but I think developers need to be very cautious about which vocal minorities they allow creative control over their franchise.
Next time we should tell them all their decisions are perfect and they know better than us maybe?
Next time we should tell them all their decisions are perfect and they know better than us maybe?
Would it be shocking to you to discover that professional game developers with collective centuries of shipped products under their belt know better than you what makes a game enjoyable?
Or do you, instead, subscribe to the belief that, despite all that experience, your amateur, outside-looking-in view of their unreleased game being developed entitles you to have your opinion valued over what they understand their audience to respond favorably to?
This thread is a pretty fantastic example of the gaming community assuming the worst in a partial vacuum of information. I'm of the opinion that we probably should do a lot less of that, because it makes this community look pretty ugly.
You may not like QTEs as a concept (ignoring, for the moment, that unqualified dislike of QTEs is not really a defensible position), but that doesn't mean that the game will turn out poorly, or that it Won't Be Thief, or the the gaming industry is going downhill and oh! for the glory days of old!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively, I don't think developers are infallible and I think its okay for people to express dissatisfaction. I don't know where you get the idea I'm saying I'm personally better than them.
Alternatively, I don't think developers are infallible and I think its okay for people to express dissatisfaction. I don't know where you get the idea I'm saying I'm personally better than them.
It's okay to express dissatisfaction, if the product does not satisfy you. That is not what we saw here, though, because no one has actually used the product yet. What we saw here was people with too little information and too much self-importance acting like their beloved franchise is falling apart because a developer had the gall to propose including a handful of QTE events in a reboot of a game series that hasn't been touched in nearly a decade - and all of this before the game was even close to being released.
It's okay to express dissatisfaction, if the product does not satisfy you.
That might be your rule, but I don't think that's everyone else's. Which is fine, really, but it causes a bit of trouble when you tell people its objectively wrong to express concern over something they care about.
That might be your rule,
That's literally what "dissatisfaction" means.
but I don't think that's everyone else's.
Yeah, and that's the problem. There are people who think it's okay to get angry or upset (or spread misinformation) about something they know next to nothing about.
Stop defending those people. It needs to stop.
That might be your rule,That's literally what "dissatisfaction" means.
Sort of, you added to the definition by stating it has to be a completed product. I can be quit displeased by a non existant product. I can definitely have someone fail to satisfy me with a preview of something, and express concern based on my perceptions of what I've been able to witness. I can also be quit displeased, which is synonymous.
Best not to split hairs over grammar though. Avoids the issue.
Stop defending those people. It needs to stop.
I could tell you the same thing, not a good thing to get into though.
I really haven't defending misinformation though. I haven't said anything about it even.
I prefer that creative types get to exercise their talents w/o being excessively 'steered' by those who would exert 'prior censorship' out of fear that the final product won't appeal to their sensibilities. Creative enterprises might not always yield great results, but letting them go in new directions is more likely to create a fascinating innovation.
Sort of, you added to the definition by stating it has to be a completed product.
Anything else is premature. Don't pretend that the people criticizing the development process have anywhere near the familiarity with the project necessary to know how it's going to turn out.
Sort of, you added to the definition by stating it has to be a completed product.Anything else is premature. Don't pretend that the people criticizing the development process have anywhere near the familiarity with the project necessary to know how it's going to turn out.
What's your excuse then?
I prefer that creative types get to exercise their talents w/o being excessively 'steered' by those who would exert 'prior censorship' out of fear that the final product won't appeal to their sensibilities. Creative enterprises might not always yield great results, but letting them go in new directions is more likely to create a fascinating innovation.
but this is Thief, not an innovation...
The possibility always exists that a product can be improved upon...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happend here is that EM listened to its customer base, many of which expressed concern over dumbing down the game franchise they love. So they removed the parts that bothered people. That's good business in my books. They will get more purchases.
Developers aren't infallible, all knowing and sometimes something that they think is a neat idea puts a lot of everyone else off. Like the Mass Effect endings did for Bioware.
We are paying money for a product. We have a right to be concerned and critical over something that bothers us about a thing we will invest our time and money in.
Just imagine what PF would look like if the folks at Paizo haven't listened to their playtesters and the player base.
To be honest, there is a part of the player base that Paizo keeps overlooking...
What's your excuse then?
What excuse? I don't know how it'll turn out. I express cautious optimism by default, because Eidos Montreal has a solid track record and the Thief franchise is marketable. There are hallmarks of a software project in jeopardy, but I see none of them in Thief.
What happend here is that EM listened to its customer base, many of which expressed concern over dumbing down the game franchise they love. So they removed the parts that bothered people. That's good business in my books. They will get more purchases.
They don't know that. They will get more people who whined about it to buy their product (though, one might argue, the people whining most vocally about the game having a handful of QTE sequences are probably those who are unlikely to purchase the game out of misguided principle, rather than a rational assessment of whether they will enjoy it). This says nothing about their overall market.
Also, how in the world does replacing what would have normally been cutscenes with interactivity equate to dumbing down the game? Have you really thought about this, or are you just parroting it because it makes you feel like you have more gamer cred?
Developers aren't infallible, all knowing and sometimes something that they think is a neat idea puts a lot of everyone else off. Like the Mass Effect endings did for Bioware.
Creative vision is still a legitimate driver of design, and the fact that some gamers didn't understand the ending of Mass Effect 3 doesn't mean that the designers committed some kind of sin.
We are paying money for a product.
You haven't paid for anything yet.
We have a right to be concerned and critical over something that bothers us about a thing we will invest our time and money in.
How about not getting bothered over something you have way, way too little information about? After all, you were the one who began this thread by spreading misinformation about the product because you a) repeated something someone else posted without critically examining it, and b) wanted to believe those things because it meshed nicely with your view of how the industry is being "dumbed down".
Just imagine what PF would look like if the folks at Paizo haven't listened to their playtesters and the player base.
Actually, I daresay Paizo is too beholden to a particular subset of its fanbase.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Honestly, Scott, you're grasping at straws here.
The people who designed Thief this time around had miscalculated. They wanted to add major elements of action game procedures to a game that was always focused on something else. In doing so, they had misunderstood the brand of the game. The old Thief games were characterized by sneaking, brutal death if you slipped on that, and a certain amount of freedom in finding the proper way to deal with a situation. They were also fantasy games, not historical pieces. I can only speculate as to why they did this, but most likely: "Hey, can't you guys add more action stuff to get us into that market, you know, both Drake and Tomb Raider did good on that? That's a good employee." As much of a shock as it may come to you, Scott, the game designers don't make most of the decisions in a computer game development process. Bean counters and board members do. These people know nothing about game design, having oh, thirty minutes of collective game design experience, and see only what has recently sold well in the market. When they make a decision, so mote it be, whatever your doughty game designers think. Now, they do get to set up the nitty gritty details, but the major lines of the game are out of their control.
So... whoever made the decision to make Thief an action-game instead of a stealth game made a MISTAKE. Fans of the franchise pointed this out. Someone actually managed to reverse that decision, which is something to be grateful for. Nor is it a question of "the community likes X better than Y, so do X", but rather "these guys (with a collective several millennia of gaming experience) think we're doing a mistake here... there might be something to that". Changing a decision means that you agree something was wrong before. Left on the field is Scott, and those who agree with him, that since a decision has been made, it's automatically the best choice, regardless of evidence or anything else.
Next up is the brilligant idea that you should only ever criticize a finished product. Seriously... do you understand what you're saying here, Scott? They give info to hype sales. They want feedback on it. They use feedback to change or tune the product. The fact that they change the game means, literally, "we're going to make more money this way". Complaining when a process is OVER is the #1 best way to NOT influence it. Honestly, Scott, get even the tiniest beginning of a clue before writing, okay?
As much of a shock as it may come to you, Scott, the game designers don't make most of the decisions in a computer game development process. Bean counters and board members do.
Source, please?
Because, honestly, this does shock me. I'm not aware of any game development houses that have the majority of their design decisions dictated to them by "bean counters" or board members (except those board members who have experience in design, but even then this would be pretty remarkable). There are precisely a gazillion design decisions that go into any given title, and it's completely infeasible for "bean counters" to have a level of controlling input that approaches accounting for half of those.
This, frankly, sounds like the sort of thing a person who is utterly unfamiliar with the process - but who is possessed of an overly-developed sense of fashionable cynicism - might say, hoping they'd get away with it.
I'll address the rest of your post, later, if you feel like you want to stay the course.
I am saying that stuff like "should we make an action-heavy game?" and "what market demographic do we want to aim for?" are not in the hands of game designers. After that, the exact procedures of the game will be handed over to game designers. That is where the gazillion decisions come in, true, but all of them are strongly influenced by the major decisions already made. The days of the auteur game designer are over, Scott.
And honestly, Scott, if what I say marks me as "a person who is utterly unfamiliar the process", then nothing you say does differently. We are discussing it, and we have the experiences we have, okay?
I am saying that stuff like "should we make an action-heavy game?" and "what market demographic do we want to aim for?" are not in the hands of game designers.
This is an oversimplification of the design process. As illustrated by Thief, it is perfectly possible for the high-level direction to include an action-oriented gameplay path while still addressing the desires of the hardcore fanbase through solid stealth gameplay and hardcore modes (that, mind you, were by all accounts planned from the get-go).
Again, your view of this is heavily clouded by cynicism and a desire to simplify an incredibly intricate process into easily-criticized chunks. In all likelihood, Thief was always going to be a solid stealth game, and providing players with the ability to approach gameplay from a different direction (if they so desired) wasn't going to change that.
Oversimplification? Considering that it's not meant to be a blow-by-blow of the design process, merely a statement that those issues are decided before game designers get to do their thing, I sincerely hope it's an "oversimplification of the design process".
It is a cynic's world today, Scott. It always has been. The bottom line is the bottom line. While I admire idealists, fact remains they are typically wrong in their ideas on what makes things happen. And I am not criticizing the design process. I am criticizing decisions this process lead to and pointing out why your defense of those decisions isn't based on said process but your own fantasy.
I notice you're not talking about QTEs. Which is understandable, but I am not going to let you off the hook there. They had decided to use QTEs, an element that has found its way into many games ("hey, the other games this season are doing it"), and often stick out like a sore thumb. With feedback, they decided that it would, in all likelihood, hurt their bottom line because the enthusiasts wouldn't like the QTEs and the action fans wouldn't like the sneaking. They removed them. Yet you still think they should have kept them - making you one of the few, the brave who still think so.
Ahahaha, first Fisher, then Hitman, now Thief. They all just chose to make game for kindergarden. Casual players nowdays just want story railroaded to them with big glowing outline showing when to press X button (or A for xbox). And its more profitable to sell game to casual players. I dont know where this world is going but the reason why i switched to tabletop from pc games is because of POSSIBILITIES.
Dont see how you can achieve any immersion if you do not responsible for anything as there no choices you make.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Source, please?
Because, honestly, this does shock me. I'm not aware of any game development houses that have the majority of their design decisions dictated to them by "bean counters" or board members (except those board members who have experience in design, but even then this would be pretty remarkable). There are precisely a gazillion design decisions that go into any given title, and it's completely infeasible for "bean counters" to have a level of controlling input that approaches accounting for half of those.
This, frankly, sounds like the sort of thing a person who is utterly unfamiliar with the process - but who is possessed of an overly-developed sense of fashionable cynicism - might say, hoping they'd get away with it.
I'll address the rest of your post, later, if you feel like you want to stay the course.
While I currently have no experience in the industry, I do currently have 2 1/2 years of schooling under my belt and I can say she's not far off if my teachers are to be believed (and many of them DO have direct experience working on games).
There's a lot of executive meddling in all entertainment, and games are no exception. Unless you're a small, independently owned studio, you're probably going to have to deal with it.
Hell, end of last year I had a group assignment where we needed to make a board game given certain parameters. 2 weeks in (of the 4 week deadline), the parameters were changed significantly (though not completely). "To get us used to the idea."
The publisher has a very big say in what goes on, even though the people working for the publishing often have no real experience designing games. They see something popular, and want any game that could conceivably conform to that hit to try and capture that success.
Ahahaha, first Fisher, then Hitman, now Thief. They all just chose to make game for kindergarden. Casual players nowdays just want story railroaded to them with big glowing outline showing when to press X button (or A for xbox). And its more profitable to sell game to casual players. I dont know where this world is going but the reason why i switched to tabletop from pc games is because of POSSIBILITIES.
Dont see how you can achieve any immersion if you do not responsible for anything as there no choices you make.
The fact that you mentioned Prototype in this post as being similar to Assassin's Creed (or hell, saying DISHONORED is very similar to Assassin's Creed, but at least it's a lot CLOSER) tells me you have no earthly clue what you're blabbing on about.
Also this is ridiculous. Assassins Creed, Dishonored, Prototype and now Thief is just the SAME THING. Its about "hooded man fighting with several other people in slow motion" this is what game all about.
The fact that you mentioned Prototype in this post as being similar to Assassin's Creed (or hell, saying DISHONORED is very similar to Assassin's Creed, but at least it's a lot CLOSER) tells me you have no earthly clue what you're blabbing on about.
Yes, first prototype is same as assassin's creed - you run on top of buildings and fight people, sometimes using stealth. More stealth in AC, less in prototype but its still about hooded man fighting bunch of ppl in the end.
Yes, first prototype is same as assassin's creed - you run on top of buildings and fight people, sometimes using stealth. More stealth in AC, less in prototype but its still about hooded man fighting bunch of ppl in the end.
This is one of the most deliberately obtuse things I've seen on this board.
You can do this with almost ANYTHING and have it be "true".
Pathfinder and WoW are the same. You get a group of people together and fight monsters. More classes in PF and less in WoW but it's still about a group of fantasy characters fighting things in the end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh... I should just modify an earlier statement. The gamers don't have millennia of collective gaming experience. They have a collective experience of gaming that runs into many, many millions of years. Just thought I'd admit an error of mine.
|
|
They don't know that. They will get more people who whined about it to buy their product (though, one might argue, the people whining most vocally about the game having a handful of QTE sequences are probably those who are unlikely to purchase the game out of misguided principle, rather than a rational assessment of whether they will enjoy it). This says nothing about their overall market.
Also, how in the world does replacing what would have normally been cutscenes with interactivity equate to dumbing down the game? Have you really thought about this, or are you just parroting it because it makes you feel like you have more gamer cred?
People didn't whine, they complained.
Also, cutscenes with interactivity, i can swallow, although they can be annoying when missing a button means going through the entire process again and again. Having major combats decolve into a series of QTEs is annoying and i consider it a dumbed down part of the game. The only people I've seen pull it off with some success are the folks from rocksteady, in Arkham games.Creative vision is still a legitimate driver of design, and the fact that some gamers didn't understand the ending of Mass Effect 3 doesn't mean that the designers committed some kind of sin.
It can be. But something was done wrong, when an overwhelmingly large part of the gamer base was angry at the ending. I get artistic licence and people wanting to do stuff their way. But if a guy made me a chair and then screwed one leg on backwards, I'd be pissed and legitimately so, since I've paid for the chair and used it before i got to notice the flaw.
Maybe devs should start getting people to playtest the story of the game, not just the gameplay.You haven't paid for anything yet.
No, but I'd want to. Plus they want me to. That is their motivation.
How about not getting bothered over something you have way, way too little information about? After all, you were the one who began this thread by spreading misinformation about the product because you a) repeated something someone else posted without critically examining it, and b) wanted to believe those things because it meshed nicely with your view of how the industry is being "dumbed down".
I get passionate about stuff important to me. Thief games were a big part of my childhood and i still remember them very fondly and take them out on a spin from time to time.
It wasn't misinformation, which anyone with half a brain and a search engine could confirm. It was repeatedly stated and quoted on interviews. The picture i posted just conveniently placed it all in one place. I did read a few articles before i posted the picture.I didn't want to believe those things, because they sounded really stupid. And industry is being dumbed down. Choices get less and less, games get easier and easier.
And i must say, that, sometimes, rarely, context-sensitive controls can be ok.
Actually, I daresay Paizo is too beholden to a particular subset of its fanbase.
Pray tell.
QTES are out of THIEF. The developers acknowledged they were a bad idea, so removed them. Encouraging.
As for the publisher/developer relationship, it varies. In some cases the publisher and developer are the same thing, and thus have total control over the process (modern Bethesda, Blizzard, Valve etc). In others the publisher is so dependent on what a studio is doing, they cannot risk jeopardising their relationship with creative interference (2K and Rockstar, for example).
In the overwhelming majority the publisher has total control and authority over a project and the developers have to do exactly what they say. The ultimate example of that was Activision throwing the heads of Infinity Ward - who had made them multiple billions of dollars for several games running - under the bus when they tentatively suggested that they could make a slightly different type of game instead. If Activision were willing to take that risk with CALL OF DUTY, then it makes clear how publishers see the relationship: they're in charge and no-one is expendable.
My favourite one, for its sheer mind-boggling stupidity, is when a new team takes over at a publisher and isn't interested in the games the previous team commissioned, even if they've invested millions in them, and sets out to deliberately make them fail, as Sega did with ALPHA PROTOCOL.
Except for hacking...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much of this thread seems to be about defending a prerogative to complain about something that isn't even available for sale...
Aplha Protocol was still a darn good game.
Indeed (though I couldn't even get it to work on my PC, but I think I've found a way around it). However, the game that we got was end-of-alpha code. Obsidian sent it to Sega, expecting voluminous lists of things to improve, fix and change and Sega instead kept hold of it and released it as-was. When Obsidian asked to proceed with the internal beta and bug-fixing phase themselves, Sega curtly told them no and witheld all funding for the beta part of the game. That left Obsidian with no choice but to simply walk away from the project.
Of course, when Sega released the game in a barely-usable state Obsidian got all the blame for the bugs and other problems with the game they were well aware of, but Sega had refused to let them fix. It remains one of the most bizarre stories in the industry, but not unprecedented: apparently Sega did something very similar to EMPIRE: TOTAL WAR, to the point where Creative Assembly didn't send any alpha code to Sega for NAPOLEON and SHOGUN II and handled all the revisions themselves. This not being possible for ROME II (they overran the deadlines and had no choice but to send what they had to Sega) is why that game was also released in a dodgy state.
Amusingly, on top of all of this, ALPHA PROTOCOL actually sold reasonably on release and has continued selling well ever since, and has now made Sega a tidy profit.
As much of a shock as it may come to you, Scott, the game designers don't make most of the decisions in a computer game development process. Bean counters and board members do.Source, please?
Don't suppose you've ever read The Trenches or anything about Executive Meddling?
Scott's an idealist?
This explains so many things...
But, you gotta have one or two, or there's no one to get annoyed with at work on a Monday.
EDIT: A lot of people posted between me and the post I was responding to, so... I cast at the Threadness!
Much of this thread seems to be about defending a prerogative to complain about something that isn't even available for sale...
One of the interesting things about that is... it's actually a valid thing.
For example, when WotC started to create 4E, they received lots of complaints, even though the product wasn't finished. They ignored them.
This created the interesting situation that once their product was pushed out the door, many who had previously been strong supporters of the brand actively dropped it. Did 4E gain its share of fans? Absolutely, and it was right to do so. But the previous set of fans were so turned off by the new game that they actively sought a replacement - any replacement - and thus Paizo came along and, at least for a time*, took the top place in table top RPGs - something that was by and large considered impossible.
This created a situation known as a "split fan-base"**. Paizo? Didn't create the split***. It was already there, created by WotC's refusal to heed the complaints of their current fan-base, and the current fan-base's complete disinterest in the direction 4E was headed.
This all resulted in the shortest-lived version of D&D to date, by a substantial margin. Next (5E) is a clear attempt (at everything I've seen) to win back previous fan-bases.
This means, for better or worse, it's likely WotC would have had more financial success if they had actively listened to the complaints of said fan-base in advance.****
Complaints are a form of communication. They arise from a current group of people who are actively interested in the product going, "We don't like the way this looks; this is not something we want to spend money on." If a developer responds to that... good for them. If they don't... well... they can't exactly be surprised by negative results.
All that said, sometimes the developer really does know what's best. It's true: sometimes fans just don't know what they want. It's a valid argument.
Sometimes, however, the developers are wrong. Sometimes they're too close to a project, or too invested. Sometimes they just don't see the flaws because they, personally, are so deeply into it. This happens a lot in other things, as well, not just in game-development. Authors too attached to an idea in a book that needs to be cut; movie writers too sold on a particular scene that should just go; table-top producers so excited about one really nifty idea (that is, in fact, really nifty) that they can't see that it inhibits gameplay rather than enhances it.
George Lucas is a man who has my undying respect. He created both Indiana Jones and Star Wars. HE CREATED BOTH INDIANA JONES AND STAR WARS. That's insanely awesome. On the other hand, the prequels just weren't good movies. They weren't terrible*****, but they just weren't great. Nice special effects, though. Similarly, Legend of the Crystal Skull - not a bad movie, but not up to either Raiders or Crusade standards****** - was mistake-laden and frustrating to many fans. Doesn't make me respect George any less. He still created two of the most amazing franchises extant. But he made some frustrating mistakes.
And that, ultimately, could have been dealt with if someone was there to tell George "no" when he got too attached to something (like how the first three were developed).
In authors' cases, that's why they have editors.
In game-developers' cases, that role, the role of saying "no" or "yes" is often (comprehensibly) handled by their public - the people they're trying to sell it to. It can be done poorly. It can be done very poorly. To say anything else is misleading at best. But it can also be of value, and, in many cases, make both the developers and the public happier.
Saying "no" - in this case, complaining - is an important function. And sometimes the public can catch things that those too close to the project simply miss.
I'm sure QTEs sounded great in all the meetings. Positive of it. I can see how they sounded good. But if the Thief fans don't like them (as a majority, or even substantial minority)? They're bad for the game.
I'm sure an emphasis on combat sounded great, too. I mean, how many times has someone, frustrated at dying, thought, "MAN, if I could only snap that stupid guard's neck, that'd teach 'im!" It would be great!
But often enough, that same frustration or limitation can drive creativity and generate an entirely new and different sense of reward, that of doing something more difficult.
At least that's my (way overly-wordy) take on it.
* And possibly currently, I don't know, though I'm sure if not Scott will jump all over me like a tick on a deer. He likes to do that to defend 4E, even when I'm not bashing it.
** This is not the first time this has occurred, and is likely not the last. I suspect that many disenfranchised 4E fans will be hard-pressed to enjoy 5E, based on what I've seen so far.
*** They capitalized on it, sure, but they didn't create it. That's an important difference.
**** Though they arguably increased the total number of active and purchasing players in the table-top industry, and thus increased the profitability of the industry as a whole at the expense of their slot as "number one" and their own personal profitability, so there's that.
***** If they were anything other than "Star Wars", they likely would have gone over quite well. Similarly, I'd suggest D&D 4E would have done very well had it not tried to push itself as D&D, silly as that is.
****** Which, in my opinion, is the worst thing that it did: it was a mediocre movie to end the franchise as opposed to a great movie (Crusade). Similarly, it's more the edited-in nonsensical decisions that bother me with Star Wars more than the prequels. I get why, but it doesn't make it any less of a bad decision.
Note: I use the hyphenated version of "fan-base" because that's what auto-correct keeps wanting it to be. I always thought it was one word.
For example, when WotC started to create 4E, they received lots of complaints, even though the product wasn't finished. They ignored them.
This created the interesting situation that once their product was pushed out the door, many who had previously been strong supporters of the brand actively dropped it. Did 4E gain its share of fans? Absolutely, and it was right to do so. But the previous set of fans were so turned off by the new game that they actively sought a replacement - any replacement - and thus Paizo came along and, at least for a time*, took the top place in table top RPGs - something that was by and large considered impossible.
This created a situation known as a "split fan-base"**. Paizo? Didn't create the split***. It was already there, created by WotC's refusal to heed the complaints of their current fan-base, and the current fan-base's complete disinterest in the direction 4E was headed.
Hilarious considering a lot of the design decisions behind 4E were a direct result of valid complaints about 3.5.
Hilarious considering a lot of the design decisions behind 4E were a direct result of valid complaints about 3.5.For example, when WotC started to create 4E, they received lots of complaints, even though the product wasn't finished. They ignored them.
This created the interesting situation that once their product was pushed out the door, many who had previously been strong supporters of the brand actively dropped it. Did 4E gain its share of fans? Absolutely, and it was right to do so. But the previous set of fans were so turned off by the new game that they actively sought a replacement - any replacement - and thus Paizo came along and, at least for a time*, took the top place in table top RPGs - something that was by and large considered impossible.
This created a situation known as a "split fan-base"**. Paizo? Didn't create the split***. It was already there, created by WotC's refusal to heed the complaints of their current fan-base, and the current fan-base's complete disinterest in the direction 4E was headed.
It's true! There were lots of issues with 3.5; the major problem (for the fan-base that left) was that the method of dealing with those issues was a departure in entirely the "wrong direction" from what the fans desired.
It is due to the latter thing, not the former, that it was a poor decision to ignore feedback (and complaints) when it came in from a financial standpoint.
And, think on this. WotC had "Dungeons & Dragons", which, until then, was THE Pencil and Paper RPG. The fact that an upstart company could come along and, however briefly*, due entirely to old-fan-dissatisfaction, surpass them was entirely mind-blowing. No one really thought of that as a consequence before.
Thief, on the other hand, likely doesn't have the kind of "Authority" in gaming that D&D had. That, to me, means it makes a lot of sense to them to listen when their fans are saying something.
Regardless of anything else, the "feel" of something is important.
4E didn't "feel" like D&D (even though it literally was) to many, and thus those many tended to abandon it, meaning it made less profit than was hoped for, and ended fairly early. That's sad for those fans.
I, personally, hope that they do well with 5E and that it has staying power. I'm concerned about eh 4E fans, though.
In any event, that's an off-topic discussion that should be held at length in other threads.
* Again, I don't know the time frame here.