Open Development

countbasiecountbasie Join Date: 2008-12-27 Member: 65884Members
edited May 2011 in NS2 General Discussion
<div class="IPBDescription">Should it be done?</div><!--quoteo(post=1842359:date=Apr 25 2011, 10:29 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Apr 25 2011, 10:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1842359"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would we do the open development style again? Speaking for me, personally, I would probably say probably not. However, I have enjoyed the ability to stay in touch with our community and share all the behind the scenes of what we are working on with you all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Maybe you guys want to discuss the strategy UWE is using with NS2; please try not to discuss content or performance....only the pros and cons of the style of community-open-development. I will say some about content; but only as an example; I do not want to discuss wether it will/should be in or not.

Personally, I think this style of development is unique. I have never been able to watch a game growing like I am now.

Negative is, that the internet-community in general is crap. You can see it at youtube-comments; right now the devs get the full load of that phenomenon in their own forums. There is not much constructive critisism; it's much more destructive and whining (of course many of you guys are really trying to use arguments - but the whiners just hit harder, they are easier to see).

But there's a lot of positive aspects, especially for us. Comparing it to, let's say, the open beta of Battlefield play4free, I like UWE's style much more. In BF play4free no one talks ever to the community and they don't listen to the community. Example: 80% of BF players want to fly and drive vehicles. So what's the 4th map they release after 1 year? Of course, a map without vehicles. Players want a simple server-browser, they want to see their latency, they want to switch teams and an in-game menu (THE BASICS of any game). So what do they get? Nothing of that. And don't tell me it's free, there are enough equipment-buyers.
No one here can really say, that UWE does anything against the will of the most players here. You guys just don't trust them. We want a better lerk flight model, a better blink, better performance (btw BF p4f still lags like hell - and look at the number of the devs compared to UWE), summit as an official map, performance, performance and so on. And you know what? We will get that. I know it, because they are not stupid. They are just a small team. ALWAYS REMEMBER. THOSE GUYS MADE NS1. How can you not think that the game will be great.

Edit: what I wanted to say here: they do not only pretend to develop openstyle; they are really listening to us. It just takes time; but Cory really answers a lot of threads; sometimes multiple times.

I really understand Cory, when he says stuff like he said above - and I couldn't decide either, if it's a good strategy or not. Maybe not from the dev's perspective, I don't know. I'm sure it is really frustrating sometimes. Maybe it's the last game we can watch growing and make suggestions the devs actually read and sometimes even use. I appreciate the strategy; but maybe it's doomed to fail. Maybe it just robs the "mystic", "artistic" feeling of a game for the players, when they see the roots of the engine. Maybe that's because a lot of people whine; they are disappointed, that a perfect game, a work of art that lets you escape from reality, starts in reality itself - and reality sucks sometimes. There's work and time and much time needed for getting work done. Yes, maybe the illusion, the poetry, does not work this way. There's maths behind the cool dynamic lightning; maybe some people don't want to know that.
So what do you think? Is it good for marketing, for the community, for the devs, for the game; or is it not; or whatever?

(bad english. sorry.)
«1

Comments

  • SquidgetSquidget Join Date: 2003-06-13 Member: 17334Members
    The answer is the same as it always is: it depends. But the majority of the time, the answer is no.

    Open development, in theory, can be good and useful. It's the ultimate expression of the Agile mindset: constant, instant feedback from the customer. In short, it's good if you don't know what you are doing. That may sound derogatory, but I really mean that it's useful when experimenting with unusual game designs.

    In practice, there are so many downsides. You are more vulnerable to IP ligitation (one reason big companies don't take suggestions), you can't make a splash (impact is diffused over years), you show all the mistakes to the public. And as everyone knows, people remember the negatives more than the positives. It's also an unpleasant experience to expose yourself to the abuse of course.

    Ideally, you've already got the vision, and gameplay experiments can be hammered out via internal testing. Take Valve for example: they make tons of mistakes (just listen to the commentary), but correct them via excessive focus testing.

    For a company with no resources, trying to make something with experimental gameplay, and trying to make a profit, open development can be considered a poor man's focus testing. For everyone else, there are better ways to develop a project.

    UWE seems to fit that mode, so the question is: has UWE gained enough guidance from the feedback to justify the costs? Only they can know the answer, I don't have a clue.

    Note that this isn't a game-specific debate: I've been in similar debates for software products I worked on. Should we give early builds of the product to customers for free, to guide the design? Etc. In every case, the answer was no. We used other methods, including surveys and market analysis.
  • countbasiecountbasie Join Date: 2008-12-27 Member: 65884Members
    "Customers"...you are a cold, rational being, mister.
  • _Thresh__Thresh_ Join Date: 2008-01-11 Member: 63385Members
    The 'extra' pain, in what was already a painful process, is from the re-concepting of the game.

    If a Starcraft II approach was taken (i.e. bells and whistles) UW would have gotten more out of an open development process.

    Add to that; alot of people put money down to pay for their NS1 time , and, you don't change a sequel with a hard-core supporter base = pain x 2.

    That said they're already through the hardest bit and they haven't yet lost their fan base (based on current ext forum comments).

    The game is moving back toward NS1 type models. They've also got a chance to do a feature complete release with some press to re-engerize the game leading up to a full launch (where they will get a huge leg up from steam and the HL mod roots).

    Still in good shape and position, particularly if they keep taking these conservative design steps.
  • devicenulldevicenull Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15967Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
    What exactly do you mean by "open development"? Do you mean they should be releasing builds of the game very frequently, or that they should be listening to what people have to say?
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    edited May 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1849255:date=May 31 2011, 09:31 AM:name=countbasie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (countbasie @ May 31 2011, 09:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Customers"...you are a cold, rational being, mister.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The best kind of human being.

    I think that Cory's a legend for actually answering threads which, imo, he shouldn't have to bother with.

    It's difficult to discuss this issue <b>without</b> mentioning the content - as you ask us to do; but since you in fact did mention the content of BFPlay4Free with regard to its developer-community relations, I'm going to apply the same thing to this.
    I think it (open development) has, overall, been detrimental to development. It's been great for squashing bugs and everything, but they've made so many changes to the gameplay in response to critical community response (they deny this all the time, but it doesn't take a genius to put two and two together). There are other developers that still have good community involvement, but take a more hands-off approach when it comes to dealing with criticism. But in NS2's case, plans have been scrapped during and before implementation, without even being tried. The result of this open style of development has so far led to the original vision of NS2 being unfortunately (imo) scrapped and the game rapidly devolving into a superficial update to NS1. The cynical part of me thinks that maybe they're running out of funds and simply need to put out something marketable in as little time as possible. And the cold, rational, part of my being approves of that.
  • kababkabab Join Date: 2003-12-15 Member: 24384Members, Constellation
    Biggest problem I think is that UWE is trying to build an engine and game at the same time..

    I think the open development style is excellent but I wouldn't do it unless I was developing on a "finished" engine.
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    edited May 2011
    Well, Wolfire for example are also building their engine (framework, technology) and game (rules, mechanics, content) at the same time. So the problem can't be that. I would say it's a more traditional approach, with the engine-first approach being a more recent development because of these modern big-budget engines. But hey, don't quote me on that.

    But I think you're wise, the open development style would work great if you 'revealed' once you had a much better-functioning engine. At least in terms of lag and performance complaints. The other issue I talked about in the previous post, not so much (but there'd be less pressure so it would be easier stick to your guns and see how it turns out).
  • SilverAxSilverAx Join Date: 2003-10-26 Member: 21976Members
    The theory is good, as the developers are getting the feedback straight from their customers. A happy customer will tell their friends to buy the game and UWE will generate more profit etc.

    The reality of it is that it's the Internet. People aren't always constructive. There is no backround check on the person providing feedback either, who is to say what's being said on these forums is correct.

    The worst thing that could happen is if the developers take away feedback that doesn't reflect their vision of NS2.0 and try to change the game to make it so or the feedback is from a vocal minority. The majority of the playerbase is silent and the Developers need to pretty much hope that the feedback received on here reflects the silent majority's tastes.

    I think at the moment having an open development at the very least gives the team a way to 'test the water' so to speak before committing to something and jumping right in and hoping for the best.
  • SquidgetSquidget Join Date: 2003-06-13 Member: 17334Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1849255:date=May 30 2011, 08:31 PM:name=countbasie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (countbasie @ May 30 2011, 08:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Customers"...you are a cold, rational being, mister.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I'm a veteran software engineer, it's a defense mechanism.

    You better know who your customer is, how many there are, and how much they'll pay, and then budget your feature set accordingly. You better have a cold, rational business model somewhere, or you are on a one-way trip to failure town. Been there, done that.
  • ScardyBobScardyBob ScardyBob Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    <!--quoteo(post=1849255:date=May 30 2011, 06:31 PM:name=countbasie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (countbasie @ May 30 2011, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Customers"...you are a cold, rational being, mister.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Thats better than meatbags with money :)
  • Evil_bOb1Evil_bOb1 Join Date: 2002-07-13 Member: 938Members, Squad Five Blue
    We must be in dark times for people working in the light to be seen as marginals.

    Something to think about.
  • ShiloriusShilorius Join Date: 2011-01-14 Member: 77445Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--quoteo(post=1849267:date=May 30 2011, 06:14 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ May 30 2011, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849267"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(...)
    The result of this open style of development has so far led to the original vision of NS2 being unfortunately (imo) scrapped and the game rapidly devolving into a superficial update to NS1.
    (...)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    This.

    And it is a pity. I liked the fact that marines had to relocate, I liked the fact that there are no welders and the mac has to to all the repairing stuff...(but welders will most likeley get implemented again.. and the mac will probably be avaiable in the lategame only) because part of the comunity whines endlessly that they want ther precious NS1 back with better graphics.

    That is why I think it is a bad Idea to do a full open development style.
    In my opinion it is better just to do a halfway open development style... and deny the access to charlies scratchpad for the general public again.

    And as we know:
    A well-pleased customer tells maybe 5 friends about the product (or tells just one time in forum that he is happy with sb.).
    A discontented customer says more then 1000 words. He just won't stop yapping (or spams the forums) and telling everyone who wants to know or not, what he doesn't like.

    PS: If the cap fits, wear it. ;)
  • countbasiecountbasie Join Date: 2008-12-27 Member: 65884Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1849266:date=May 31 2011, 03:13 AM:name=devicenull)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (devicenull @ May 31 2011, 03:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What exactly do you mean by "open development"? Do you mean they should be releasing builds of the game very frequently, or that they should be listening to what people have to say?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Both of that and an accessable-for-everyone to-do-list and the design descision log they use etc. I don't know what you mean by saing "should" - they are doing so. I think...



    <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats better than meatbags with money<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I'd love to see marketing-people using that; it would make them seem more honest.

    Squidget: No offense. I know, that we all have to try to get comfortable in the capitalism somehow.


    <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (harimau)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The cynical part of me thinks that maybe they're running out of funds and simply need to put out something marketable in as little time as possible. And the cold, rational, part of my being approves of that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best kind of human being.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Sometimes being social competent is the better version. Because I think rumors like that lead to statements from Cory as quoted in the beginning. And rumors like that don't help a company at all.
  • YuukiYuuki Join Date: 2010-11-20 Member: 75079Members
    <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And it is a pity. I liked the fact that marines had to relocate, I liked the fact that there are no welders and the mac has to to all the repairing stuff...(but welders will most likeley get implemented again.. and the mac will probably be avaiable in the lategame only) because part of the comunity whines endlessly that they want ther precious NS1 back with better graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    This argument is a bit weird:

    1. Due to open development UWE followed criticism or ideas from the community.
    2. I don't like criticism/ideas from the community.

    Therefor open development is bad.
  • assbdaassbda Join Date: 2011-05-02 Member: 96737Members
    edited May 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1849269:date=May 31 2011, 02:31 PM:name=kabab)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kabab @ May 31 2011, 02:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849269"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Biggest problem I think is that UWE is trying to build an engine and game at the same time..

    I think the open development style is excellent but I wouldn't do it unless I was developing on a "finished" engine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    If you're talking about the current engine they are using now and comparing it to the half-life 1 engine they used with ns1.

    I believe they did ns2 on their own engine cause it allows them things the other one didn't.
    Such as editing/building maps can be actively done while they're in it, rather than Half-life where they had to save what was changed, then load it to test it, then repeat if anything had to be done.

    Also the engine allows for players to make modifications to the game anyway they want, which is ok i guess, cause once the game is finished and booming with people, not every game is going to be the same as the last game.
    So 8 years after this game is released and slowing fading out there will still be people customizing sh*t to keep it interesting for people.+

    If theres one thing cant stand about games it the constant repeat of routine.
    Ive quit World of warcraft but im just gonna mention- One of the things that keep people playing this game is its always changing, theyre always adding new stuff, and always getting nerf/d buffed/ whatever you want to call it, for better or worse.
    Compare this to diablo2. We can argue that the game just got out of date compared to later games with the new technology. But when you think about it, it was just a game that was made, edited a couple times and then left alone for people to play out- It could have lived alot longer than it did.
  • Soylent_greenSoylent_green Join Date: 2002-12-20 Member: 11220Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    NS1 took a very long time to develop and polish. There's just no way they're going to get the same level of depth and slick polish on NS2 version 1.0 without porting over the gameplay from NS1 and carefully extending it with new features rather taking a wild stab in the dark.

    It was a bad idea and I'm glad they seem to be realizing it. To whatever extend being open about their development process has facilitated that it is a good thing.
  • kababkabab Join Date: 2003-12-15 Member: 24384Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1849318:date=May 31 2011, 10:24 PM:name=assbda)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (assbda @ May 31 2011, 10:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're talking about the current engine they are using now and comparing it to the half-life 1 engine they used with ns1.

    I believe they did ns2 on their own engine cause it allows them things the other one didn't.
    Such as editing/building maps can be actively done while they're in it, rather than Half-life where they had to save what was changed, then load it to test it, then repeat if anything had to be done.

    Also the engine allows for players to make modifications to the game anyway they want, which is ok i guess, cause once the game is finished and booming with people, not every game is going to be the same as the last game.
    So 8 years after this game is released and slowing fading out there will still be people customizing sh*t to keep it interesting for people.+<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I'm not questioning the choice of ditching the HL engine/source and writing their own that was a good decision imho..

    What i think is a problem is trying sharing with people software which is really alpha/beta on a engine that is being developed for such a complex game..

    Its going to have issues which most people that are not familiar with game development will ###### and cry about...

    I think the open development process is great but you really want to do it on stable and optimised technology so the earlier adopters are really just testing gameplay mechanic and finding those hard to find corner case bugs.
  • assbdaassbda Join Date: 2011-05-02 Member: 96737Members
    edited May 2011
    If you put yourself in their shoes, You would more or less be thinking "once this engine is developed and completed- Think of where it could take us, how much we could do" Such as developing more games or whatever with such ease on the perfect engine.

    As to people who arent familiar with the technology i think is the last thing theyre worried about. To me this is just a bonus for people, something to learn and enjoy, they can cry and b*tch all they want if they cant seem to work it out.

    I think once its completed UWE will totally soar and kick ass.
  • Soylent_greenSoylent_green Join Date: 2002-12-20 Member: 11220Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited May 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1849322:date=May 31 2011, 07:43 AM:name=kabab)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kabab @ May 31 2011, 07:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849322"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What i think is a problem is trying sharing with people software which is really alpha/beta on a engine that is being developed for such a complex game..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    A problem compared to what? The only alternatives to pre-orders was to get a second job(e.g. making lots of little casual games like zen of Sudoku) or attracting a publisher who will take a big share of the upside and downside potential and will want to have a say in how the game is developed(some plausible demands: Don't make your own engine, too risky; you seem to have a decent consumer base from NS1, stick with the proven concept and don't touch the gameplay. This is your budget, this is your dead line, we expect accurate presentations on the current state and schedule of the game every quarter etc.)

    Words have meaning, and when you invent a new meaning for existing words without telling anybody it is impossible to avoid misunderstandings. More specifically, the standard definition of beta software is unoptimized, bug-ridden, un-balanced, <b>feature-complete</b> software. The game is nowhere near feature-complete; it appears to have been a necessary evil from a business stand-point to declare the game an open beta, but that is necessarily going to cause a mess.

    ETA: Argh. No that's not the only alternative, but the only alternative that preserves independence from a publisher.
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    edited May 2011
    I don't agree Soylent. That's like saying that we can't build new buildings, but only modify existing designs or add on to existing buildings, because otherwise it would be a complete stab in the dark. No, there are architects and there are floor plans. Maybe NS2's original vision faltered because there was no floor plan, the client was getting impatient, so at this late stage they're just going to re-build the old building, and paint on a new facade.

    But I do agree with your second post. Maybe it was beneficial in the short-term for them to (mis-?)label the game a beta, but I don't think it was a good idea for the long-term.
  • Soylent_greenSoylent_green Join Date: 2002-12-20 Member: 11220Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    Making an entirely new engine and so many new art assets with so few people is unbelievably ambitious in itself. Making an entirely new game ontop of it in a tight timeframe is just ridiculously ambitious.

    <!--quoteo(post=1849334:date=May 31 2011, 08:22 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ May 31 2011, 08:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849334"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't agree Soylent. That's like saying that we can't build new buildings, but only modify existing designs or add on to existing buildings, because otherwise it would be a complete stab in the dark. No, there are architects and there are floor plans.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    This is not the example you want to use. Buildings are generally very evolutionary and conservative; the only major exception are prestige projects like skyscrapers which are somewhat evolutionary designs and they still perform laughably bad.

    Many buildings have <b>terrible</b> designs; skyscrapers are particularly bad. They're too hot, they're too cold, they're expensive to maintain, the floor plans are not designed to accomodate the clients, they're not designed to have their interior spaces modified, they're not energy efficient. What drives this bad design is that the architect is too full of himself to compromise his artistic vision for the facade with petty details like fitness for any particular purpose. The engineers twist their arm to make sure they design a building that can be made safe; but other than that it very often ends up a disaster.
  • assbdaassbda Join Date: 2011-05-02 Member: 96737Members
    edited May 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1849338:date=Jun 1 2011, 01:57 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Jun 1 2011, 01:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849338"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Making an entirely new engine and so many new art assets with so few people is unbelievably ambitious in itself. Making an entirely new game ontop of it in a tight timeframe is just ridiculously ambitious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    You have to admit for such a small team theyre doing unbelievably well.
    Hiring more people would mean paying more wages. As for their economical situation i have no idea how they are.
    According to video interviews they all seem to be enjoying it and do admit that they reckon it can be done.

    And theyre not far off, but the way i see it is if things looked like it was never going to be done in time to make profits or even just a little under- They would have never bothered to get this far.
  • kababkabab Join Date: 2003-12-15 Member: 24384Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1849339:date=Jun 1 2011, 12:06 AM:name=assbda)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (assbda @ Jun 1 2011, 12:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You have to admit for such a small team theyre doing unbelievably well.
    Hiring more people would mean paying more wages. As for their economical situation i have no idea how they are.
    According to video interviews they all seem to be enjoying it and do admit that they reckon it can be done.

    And theyre not far off, but the way i see it is if things looked like it was never going to be done in time to make profits or even just a little under- They would have never bothered to get this far.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no doubt the UNW team is doing exceedingly well NS2 is shaping up very nicely...

    But the question the thread is asking is if the "Open Development" process is a good concept or not..
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    Depends if it's useful, I imagine it gets in the way of work rather a lot, but on the other hand it has created helpful funding for the project.

    In an ideal situation I'd prefer closed development but that's just me.
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    edited June 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1849338:date=May 31 2011, 09:57 PM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ May 31 2011, 09:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849338"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Making an entirely new engine and so many new art assets with so few people is unbelievably ambitious in itself. Making an entirely new game ontop of it in a tight timeframe is just ridiculously ambitious.


    This is not the example you want to use. Buildings are generally very evolutionary and conservative; the only major exception are prestige projects like skyscrapers which are somewhat evolutionary designs and they still perform laughably bad.

    Many buildings have <b>terrible</b> designs; skyscrapers are particularly bad. They're too hot, they're too cold, they're expensive to maintain, the floor plans are not designed to accomodate the clients, they're not designed to have their interior spaces modified, they're not energy efficient. What drives this bad design is that the architect is too full of himself to compromise his artistic vision for the facade with petty details like fitness for any particular purpose. The engineers twist their arm to make sure they design a building that can be made safe; but other than that it very often ends up a disaster.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Fair enough. What analogy should I have used, then?

    I seem to be talking about these guys a lot lately, but the guys over at Wolfire are also building an engine and game from scratch for Overgrowth with, what, 4 people? As I understand it, the mechanics will be significantly different from their previous, smaller, project Lugaru.

    Sorry to the OP for getting side-tracked with this.
    I think I'd agree with Chris on open development in general, and it's rare that I agree with Chris.
  • countbasiecountbasie Join Date: 2008-12-27 Member: 65884Members
    edited June 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1849421:date=Jun 1 2011, 08:28 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 1 2011, 08:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849421"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry to the OP for getting side-tracked with this.
    I think I'd agree with Chris on open development in general, and it's rare that I agree with Chris.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


    No problem, that reminded me of looking how far wolfire went. Looks pretty cool now; great physics implementation, cool shadows. The speed of development is about the same as NS2 I think; the difference is, that UWE opened the game to try out yet.
    It's a good comparison. Me for example, I would like to jump around with a bunny a bit and try out the engine, no matter if it lags; because engines lag at the beginning...many people seem to not get that. Maybe it was no stated enough before, that the engine is really not ready for competitive playing. Maybe if they would have said that much clearer, there would be less negative comments. The problem is, that the game looks so great now, almost finished visualy, you think the engine is almost done. You would never think that running through a desert in a wolfire beta...

    EDIT: I think that may be the difference to the "customers" of other software, that Squidget talked about. As admin I know how intolerant users are; every mailfunction in office-programs and windows are only made to rile them; and the programmers are idiots and monsters, because they call the settings different than the user would have done it. Give them an alpha software and your company is done ^^
    When you tell a gamer, the game would not work great now, but he could have a look; his reaction at bugs would be completely different. The only problem then is the...........patience.
  • KuBaNKuBaN Join Date: 2002-11-16 Member: 8979Members, Constellation
    edited June 2011
    People will still generate unreasonable expectations. Some people are just unreasonable.
  • kingmobkingmob Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 3650Members, Constellation
    I think what Unknown Worlds wanted to accomplish with 'open development' is to save money on the testing side of things.
    and in that regard they succeeded ...they saved money.

    At the same time it has to have been emotionally draining to have your fan base kick you when you are down.
    When they were aware of certain problems and actively working on them ... and the forums were on fire with insults.

    I would guess that from the ups and downs of this experience they probably will be less open for their next project.
    But I would be surprised if they abandoned it completely.
    I think they like the feedback loop.
  • KoruyoKoruyo AUT Join Date: 2009-06-06 Member: 67724Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited June 2011
    <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, Wolfire for example are also building their engine (framework, technology) and game (rules, mechanics, content) at the same time. So the problem can't be that. I would say it's a more traditional approach, with the engine-first approach being a more recent development because of these modern big-budget engines. But hey, don't quote me on that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    The thing is, Wolfire only made a sandbox expirience. There is no real gameplay yet... You can jump, hit, throw weapons around, run - even with a few bots - but its not really gameplay - its messing around in a sandbox => not worth flaming around as if the game was finished and released the next day. (ppl understand this better in a sandbox form)


    PS: i get 60-100+ fps and everytime i make an attack it drops down to 2-5 fps(for weeks), didnt see a single QQ/flame thread in their forums because of that - sandbox.

    PPS: the downside of the sandbox, its not really fun*... i mean i watch their youtube videos from time to time and download a version if i see a cool new addition... but there is not really something to do with their game yet. So there were also times i compleatly forgot about this game. (i would even say, their humble indi bundles are something im looking forward more than for overgrowth)


    *with all its faults, i already had a LOT fun with ns2.
  • Soylent_greenSoylent_green Join Date: 2002-12-20 Member: 11220Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--quoteo(post=1849421:date=Jun 1 2011, 03:28 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 1 2011, 03:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849421"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fair enough. What analogy should I have used, then?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    My contention is that successful things tend to be evolutionary with relatively minor, successive improvements between "generations". Your contention appears to be that a giant leap into unchartered territory isn't imprudent. If you find a good counter-example I'd be happy to hear it; but architecture isn't one.

    <!--quoteo(post=1849421:date=Jun 1 2011, 03:28 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 1 2011, 03:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849421"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I seem to be talking about these guys a lot lately, but the guys over at Wolfire are also building an engine and game from scratch for Overgrowth with, what, 4 people? As I understand it, the mechanics will be significantly different from their previous, smaller, project Lugaru.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    They've been releasing an alpha every week since late 2008 and the end is nowhere in sight.

    Single player games don't have the nightmarish problems of team balance and netcode. Most single player games are story based, movie-like experiences. Most multiplayer games are more comparable to arcade games. where you play the same content a million times and it must absolutely be super-slick and polished to a mirror shine to keep people playing.
Sign In or Register to comment.