Jump to content


Negative Threads exist for a Reason.


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

CecilPaladin #21 Posted 27 July 2016 - 04:42 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 193
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016

View PostRuNeZz, on 27 July 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

 

Do not forget, i never said i hated Moo/CTS, i just said several changes and modifications need be done before even implying this game is almost complete. I hope devs understand this and changes are still being done to Moo/CTS kind of like EA4 to EA5.

 

You might not have said personally that you hated Moo,CTS, but you did remind people of all the negative threads out there that other people have started.  You also said that you would cross off the company forever from the list of game developers you would purchase from again if they don't implement your suggestions.  

 

View PostRuNeZz, on 25 July 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

 

I very much doubt this game is done, and if devs consider this game complete and release it as it is, like many other clients of Moo/CTS feel... I will be extremely disappointed and WGN/NGD studios will end up in my list of crossed off companies  to buy games from until proved otherwise. Sadly failure of satisfying clients with Moo/CTS may bring this company down to the swirling hole of oblivion, since Moo Franchise IMO seems like a cursed franchise so far. There is a lot of negativism coming from the experienced players of this game type, and most of  the time devs who try to revive Moo never seem to follow older Moo versions examples.

 

 

I would personally try to take a different approach.  I try make suggestions on things they can improve or add, and try to keep my feedback constructive.  Maybe it's from my Blizzard forum days where any kind of ranting usually gets ignored or trolled by most of the posters.  Threats of boycotting the company if they don't add your magic popcorn holder really just falls on deaf ears.  

 

There were numerous threads about starlanes, one of the core game features.  A lot of people were almost demanding a change to this core feature, that it often got really ugly at times.  To me, that's just a lot of yelling and screaming and whining that the devs didn't add your magic popcorn holder into the game.  Or complaining that you ended up with a Minivan when you were hoping to get an SUV.  It's something that you should have found out about in the test drive.



Lemonymous #22 Posted 27 July 2016 - 05:21 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 122
  • Member since:
    06-05-2016

I really don't get this car analogy. How many people buys early access cars anyways? It's like those that says copying software is the same as stealing a car. No it's not... Software and hardware cannot be compared directly.

 

I can very much understand that they cannot change the major game concepts like star lanes, real time combat, tech tree, colony building, etc. I still think there are improvements to be made in those areas though, and many more. If we are not expected to discuss what's wrong with the game, why even have an early access?



Arent11 #23 Posted 27 July 2016 - 05:27 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 185
  • Member since:
    11-30-2015

View PostGeneralDirection, on 26 July 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

 

Yes this is similar to the approach we are planning to take. Anything that we feel may not be doable by release, we are scheduling into post-release plans. We're planning to be transparent with this once we're closer to a real release date and know for sure what wouldn't make it into the release version, so you won't be blindsided by it on release day. It is very likely we will release DLC or expansions down the road, but we also have plans for free updates.

 

Well simply say so. People usually sympathize with smaller development teams. I think what people want to see is some kind of roadmap:

 

(1) The core game: Empire building, tactical combat, core races, diplomacy, victory conditions

 

(2) Expansion 1: Additional races, multiplayer tactical combat, multiplayer custom races

 

(3) Expansion 2: Heroes, Quests, Governments

 

 



Lemonymous #24 Posted 27 July 2016 - 05:34 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 122
  • Member since:
    06-05-2016

View PostArent11, on 27 July 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:

 

Well simply say so. People usually sympathize with smaller development teams. I think what people want to see is some kind of roadmap:

 

(1) The core game: Empire building, tactical combat, core races, diplomacy, victory conditions

 

(2) Expansion 1: Additional races, multiplayer tactical combat, multiplayer custom races

 

(3) Expansion 2: Heroes, Quests, Governments

 

 

I'd actually much rather see the results when they're done than being told 'hush now, it's all going to be alright'. Roadmaps could just as well make them paint themselves into a corner while trying to keep promises.



Mikko_M #25 Posted 28 July 2016 - 03:01 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

https://twitter.com/keelingc

 

There is the man`s Twitter profile whose lack of vision, laziness, ignorance and most likely made up researches carry a great deal of responsibility on why this game is still failing to live up-to its name and potential. He is by far the worst project leader that I have ever seen on any game.

 

A director of Product Vision whose vision for a MOO game is a simple children`s tablet game? :hiding:

 


Edited by Mikko_M, 28 July 2016 - 03:11 PM.

Moreover, I advise that the tactical combat must be made more player controllable and informative for this to become a proper MOO game.

 

​The long lost formula for space 4X game success = Good tactical combat + good empire management > than just good tactical combat or good empire management alone.


Arent11 #26 Posted 28 July 2016 - 05:59 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 185
  • Member since:
    11-30-2015

View PostMikko_M, on 28 July 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

He is by far the worst project leader that I have ever seen on any game.

 

 

Oh, come on.

 

 



RuNeZz #27 Posted 28 July 2016 - 07:15 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 140
  • Member since:
    06-21-2016

View PostCecilPaladin, on 27 July 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

 

You might not have said personally that you hated Moo,CTS, but you did remind people of all the negative threads out there that other people have started.  You also said that you would cross off the company forever from the list of game developers you would purchase from again if they don't implement your suggestions.  

 

--Yes i did because, i am fed up with all these companies using names of classics like Moo franchise to market their product mostly if they do not  expect to live up to the expectations of such games.

--The suggestions i do are not only my suggestions f.y.i they are the popular ones. 

 

I would personally try to take a different approach.  I try make suggestions on things they can improve or add, and try to keep my feedback constructive.  Maybe it's from my Blizzard forum days where any kind of ranting usually gets ignored or trolled by most of the posters.  Threats of boycotting the company if they don't add your magic popcorn holder really just falls on deaf ears.  

 

--I have done a lot of constructive feedback that i have not seen changed since EA4-5 and 6 and that is why i brought out this thread, read the title its more then enough to convince people of the worries most of us have.

 

There were numerous threads about starlanes, one of the core game features.  A lot of people were almost demanding a change to this core feature, that it often got really ugly at times.  To me, that's just a lot of yelling and screaming and whining that the devs didn't add your magic popcorn holder into the game.  Or complaining that you ended up with a Minivan when you were hoping to get an SUV.  It's something that you should have found out about in the test drive.

 

-Oh and EA is about listening to client feedback and responding. Unless EA was a sham for getting money i feel you are deviating at the fact this is a complete product.

-I actually do not mind the whole Starlane part of the game i do not have any thing bad to say about them because i like the fact i can protect my borders much better and be strategic about where i can colonize its awesome. Unless you like the game as it is I sincerely think posters like you do not encourage the success of a product.  How can you create something good if you can't handle critics. It like asking a kid to draw a house but getting scrapped paper with lines.

 

CONSTRUCTIVE feedback is exactly what i have been doing since EA4-EA5-EA6. Do you not see all the feedback i have been part of. This thread isn't about bringing back negative stuff, its about sounding an alert at the present situation.

 

I'm sorry to say i'm hardly a negative asset of this developing game. Sadly i have seen no changes based on feedback and it worries me. Oh and ceci please indulge me and send me threads you actually were part of or you created. Unless you have a lot of feedback please do not patronize this thread. 

 

Yeah its true the car thing isn't really a comparable element to digital programming. 

 

All i'm saying about the copy paste thing is something people that aren't in programming can't really understand. When you code objects sometimes copy pasting some code to an other code is an alternative to an end when time at hand is short or when you aren't motivated enough to create a totally new code, kind of like race traits with multiple effects. Honestly when i look at the race trait menu i feel a lot of copy pasting has been done, meaning some programmers aren't really heart fully programming this game as they should for certain assets of it, but i can understand since player demand and time is hard to endure. Plus all the work linked to programming a game such as this one can be very long, since it isn't just about shooting stuff, building a strong fleet and striking at enemies. Its about much deeper stuff, like diplomacy, making lasting friends and alliances, survival, spying, being feared, technology, customizing, expansion and using advanced tactics in combat.  But...None of this is an excuse for messing up a game like this one.

 

And we can't ignore the fact this game has taken a turn to Civ style interfaces and code. I do not enjoy this. I thought they were reproducing a MOo game not anything else. Maybe because of polish the best idea is Civ style but it takes away the Moo feel although the whole "just a next turn" part is satisfied. Also Moo isn't Civ. if you want ranting there you go.

 

I encourage devs to accomplish this game not to complete it, and if you can only complete it presently at least do not leave it broken or failed like Moo3. As i say Hopefully they will use there time well, because their work is important and there is still work to do with accomplishing this game. They have to keep up the good work. And the whole childish phone app stuff should be toned down. 

 

I may not continu on this thread, but at least i hope it will serve as a wake up call for development. 

 

I already feel i want to meet the devs and congratulate them for there work, but please take these negative threads professionally and understand all these threads are posted because people want this game to work, need to know about upcoming changes and hope for this game to be a positive leap toward the success of this company.

Just please do not take this personally.

 

All in all thank you CeciPaladin for pointing out the negativism of this thread. It is true i would much rather give positive views and reviews of this game and encourage the devs to work well and hard.

 

To the others thank you for keeping this thread alive and to make sure the feedback threads make expected changes obvious for devs to see.

 

 

 


Edited by RuNeZz, 29 July 2016 - 02:52 AM.


RuNeZz #28 Posted 28 July 2016 - 07:21 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 140
  • Member since:
    06-21-2016

View PostMikko_M, on 28 July 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

https://twitter.com/keelingc

 

There is the man`s Twitter profile whose lack of vision, laziness, ignorance and most likely made up researches carry a great deal of responsibility on why this game is still failing to live up-to its name and potential. He is by far the worst project leader that I have ever seen on any game.

 

A director of Product Vision whose vision for a MOO game is a simple children`s tablet game? :hiding:

 

 

Be easy on the guy. That's being ruff but yes Moo isn't and shouldn't be a phone or pad app.



CecilPaladin #29 Posted 29 July 2016 - 12:34 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 193
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016

I can understand your frustration, but your delivery could use some work :(.  Not sure what your age is, but there's definitely a professionalism that allows suggestions to go a longer way.  Suggesting A, B, C and D and waiting to see if they get implemented is one thing.  Saying the company will fail is they don't take your suggestions is another.  It's easy to rant and whine and say why things suck, its harder to actually provide useful feedback.  They aren't obligated in anyway to actually implement your demands, so keep that in mind.

 

I've been around since early EA2, and I've seen the game transform a great deal since then.  Each new patch brings more goodies that I like to try out, and I don't stop making my recommendations.  Here's my latest suggestive post:

Please allow Terraforming Volcanic planets

 

If you provide an understandable reason for why it makes sense to add something, you might convince them to put it in.  Also if they stated that they will probably put it into the game in the future, and it's not in the game yet, there's no point in complaining about it's absence.  It'll get added in there eventually, some of these things just takes time.  I think only the folks actually working on the development has the right to b*@#* and moan about the current progress.

 

Have faith and patience, and keep providing feedback like you said you did early on.  That's a lot more constructive than saying everything sucks.  Good luck.



Mikko_M #30 Posted 30 July 2016 - 12:53 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View PostRuNeZz, on 28 July 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

 

Be easy on the guy. That's being ruff but yes Moo isn't and shouldn't be a phone or pad app.

 

View PostArent11, on 28 July 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

 

Oh, come on.

 

 

​No point in being easy on the guy who has single handledly tried to ruin one of the best game series in history. (Just check his very first interview and the 10% tactical combat bs for example.) My opinion of him comes straight from the heart as mr. Keeling hasn`t managed to say anything during this project that hasn`t been ignorant, idiotic or simply just untrue.

 

In my opinion they could have hired a dart throwing monkey from a local zoo, and he/she probably would have accidently done a better job than Chris Keeling with this MOO. The man simply lacks any sort of talent when it comes to space 4X games any more complex than what you would most likely expect on a tablet or mobile phone.

 

I realize that comments like this can easily get me banned, but unfortunately that above is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth the way I see it.

 

And yes I am prepared to give NGD credit for actually trying to improve this game from the boring mess it was when it came out in EA, but if this Project would have had a leader who would have understood both the MOO franchise and space 4X games in general instead of a hack like mr. Keeling the game might have actually been great already and Wargaming could have saved a lot of money in the process.


Edited by Mikko_M, 30 July 2016 - 01:28 PM.

Moreover, I advise that the tactical combat must be made more player controllable and informative for this to become a proper MOO game.

 

​The long lost formula for space 4X game success = Good tactical combat + good empire management > than just good tactical combat or good empire management alone.


CecilPaladin #31 Posted 30 July 2016 - 01:30 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 193
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016
Sigh, case in point Mikko.  Someone explain to me this, for what does Mikko_M's "negative thread" exists for what reason?  (Entire topic of this thread)

Mikko_M #32 Posted 30 July 2016 - 01:38 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View PostCecilPaladin, on 30 July 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

Sigh, case in point Mikko.  Someone explain to me this, for what does Mikko_M's "negative thread" exists for what reason?  (Entire topic of this thread)

 

​A lot of these negative threads exist for the simple reason that instead of doing what they said they were going to do (which was recreate the MOO franchise with modern technology, as it was supposed to be a passion for them) anyone with eyes can see that the developers have taken the easiest road there is, and just basically tried to get a few bucks with a MOO tablet game and a few old sci-fi names doing the sounds. Then when the game hit early Access and it came apparent that mr. Keeling`s vision for a simplified tablet game made for children (suprise suprise) wasn`t doing so well among players they have been in complete damage control mode trying to save this MOOtanic from sinking.


Moreover, I advise that the tactical combat must be made more player controllable and informative for this to become a proper MOO game.

 

​The long lost formula for space 4X game success = Good tactical combat + good empire management > than just good tactical combat or good empire management alone.


Omega_Weapon #33 Posted 30 July 2016 - 06:19 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 596
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostCecilPaladin, on 30 July 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

Sigh, case in point Mikko.  Someone explain to me this, for what does Mikko_M's "negative thread" exists for what reason?  (Entire topic of this thread)

 

People are frustrated at how the game is turning out. People are frustrated especially that poor design decisions from the beginning are being stubbornly adhered to by the higher ups like Mr Keeling. We went down a similar road with MOO 3. Once bitten, twice shy. Since "normal" constructive feedback has not seemed to help much so far, people are getting louder and more negative in the small hope that it gives the developers pause that maybe, just maybe they need to reconsider. Its a slim hope but that is better than none. I understand where Mikko_M is coming from. That being said, I don't think personal attacks and insults are necessary or particularly helpful. Better to criticize ideas rather than people.

drewklar #34 Posted 30 July 2016 - 09:12 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 103
  • Member since:
    08-20-2015

View PostCecilPaladin, on 30 July 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

Sigh, case in point Mikko.  Someone explain to me this, for what does Mikko_M's "negative thread" exists for what reason?  (Entire topic of this thread)

 

A negative thread like this and the harsh criticism in general should be no surprise, at least to Mr. Keeling. As of this past February Mr. Keeling was _counting_ on many fans "screaming" about the game's design choices.   The complaints were his benchmark to indicate whether this new MOO would be a sell-able product or not.

 

Here's proof from a podcast interview Mr. Keeling had about the game this past February, 2016.  Start at the 16 minute and 28 second mark. 

https://explorminate...g-of-wargaming/

 

To paraphrase using Mr. Keeling's Star Wars analogy to  the movie,"The Force Awakens", he was expecting between 20% to 40% of the 4X people complaining the new MOO was either too similar to the old MOOs or too different.  If those people were not complaining, that means the new MOO was not "perfectly balanced" with it's it's new design features.   To break that down, he expected 10% to 20% of people complaining the game was too similar, and at the other extreme, and 10% to 20% of the customers thinking the game was too different, which explains the wide range.

 

So rather than being critical of these negative threads and others, you have to understand that these open complaints were Mr. Keeling's expected results.  Though Keeling was hoping 90% of the players in the middle would be happy, it appears so far to be more in the range of 70%.  Since 70% of the reviews are positive so far on the Steam store you could argue Mr. Keeling was successful in his plan, at least in the range he first implied between 60% and 90% of the customers being satisfied. 

 

I think that's a bizarre way to sell a product, to piss off up to 40% of your customers, based on Mr. Keeling's dissatisfaction range he mentioned in his The Force Awakens analogy.  But perhaps keeping only 60% of the customers satisfied is enough to make a profit in the gaming software industry these days, since software profit margins are usually pretty high (30% or more).

 

So based on Mr. Keeling's plans I don't have any sympathy about harsh feedback on the game.   If anyone complains further about people being negative about the game, just point them to this post and the Explorimate podcast as a response.

 

(edited to correct one wrong stat (bolded section)).



Mikko_M #35 Posted 30 July 2016 - 09:21 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View PostEmP64213, on 30 July 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

Add to that the speed at which development is going. It takes them months to do superficial changes with occasional major one, as if it the project is in beta (feature complete but still being tested) or released. Either they got overcomplicated code or salvaging what they can.

 

Yes this too. We have been presenting the same ideas for who knows how long in here, but what we get mostly is just minor fixes and the developers taking desparate attempts at trying to fix their systems (like spying for example) on their own, which usually don`t even go that well.

 

View Postdrewklar, on 30 July 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

 

A negative thread like this and the harsh criticism in general should be no surprise, at least to Mr. Keeling. As of this past February Mr. Keeling was _counting_ on many fans "screaming" about the game's design choices.   The complaints were his benchmark to indicate whether this new MOO would be a sell-able product or not.

 

Here's proof from a podcast interview Mr. Keeling had about the game this past February:

 

https://explorminate...g-of-wargaming/

 

Start at the 16 minute and 28 second mark.  To paraphrase using Keeling's Star Wars analogy to  the movie,"The Force Awakens", he was expecting between 20% to 40% of the 4X people complaining the new MOO was either too similar to the old MOOs or too different.  If those people were not complaining, that means the new MOO was not "perfectly balanced" with it's it's new design features.   To break that down, he expected 10% to 20% of people complaining the game was too similar, and at the other extreme, and 10% to 20% of the customers thinking the game was too different, which explains the wide range.

 

So rather than being critical of these negative threads and others, you have to understand that these open complaints were Mr. Keeling's expected results.  Though Keeling was hoping 90% of the players in the middle would be happy, it appears so far to be more in the range of 70%.  Since 70% of the reviews are positive so far on the Steam store you could argue Mr. Keeling was successful in his plan, at least in the range he first quoted.  Hard to say how many of those reviews are faked or padded to bring up the score.

 

I think that's a bizarre way to sell a product, to piss off up to 60% of your customers, based on Keeling's range he quoted in his The Force Awakens analogy..  But perhaps keeping only 60% of the customers satisfied is enough to make a profit in the gaming software industry these days, since software profit margins are usually pretty high (30% or more).

 

 

 

Or it just further proofs that the guy has no idea what he is doing. Personally I wouldn`t compare this game to The Force Awakens, but rather to Phantom Menace as the look and feel of what this game is doing to MOO are rather the same to what Phantom Menace did to Star Wars.

 

During the whole time this game has been in development I can`t remember a single thing that our leader of product vision mr. Keeling has said that has made me comfortable that this game might actually be a success.

 

The only things I am willing to give the leaders of this project credit for are this Early Access period as without it I believe this game would have been a total catasrophe, the signing of some of the artists who worked on the original MOOs and for advertising purposes the legendary sci-fi voice actors (although I still wonder how much of the budget and overall resources they ended up chewing).


Edited by Mikko_M, 30 July 2016 - 09:44 PM.

Moreover, I advise that the tactical combat must be made more player controllable and informative for this to become a proper MOO game.

 

​The long lost formula for space 4X game success = Good tactical combat + good empire management > than just good tactical combat or good empire management alone.


Anguille_1 #36 Posted 30 July 2016 - 10:20 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 288
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

I am fairly critical and think that different mistakes have been made and that the game is far from the MOO1 reboot that i expected/wanted (Starlanes, Espionnage, Diplomacy, ground combat etc). I don't think that Keeling and NGD Studios were good choices as they clearly have no idea of the original games and that it's their first 4x. They also just copied some bad ideas from current 4x games because they didn't study the original games properly.

 

However, i do think the game is now fun and is fairly well made. The dedication to the game cannot be ignored. It is a good game and they continue to improve it. It's maybe not the one i wanted but it's still a good game i've spent many hours with and i expect to continue playing it. I hope they manage to sell enough copies so they continue to work on the franchise. 


Playing MOO since 1993

 

Playing MOO Conquer the Stars on GOG Galaxy

 

4x space game CV: Master of Orion, Master of Orion II, Master of Orion III, Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain, Reach for the Stars, Imperium Galactica, Imperium Galactica II, Armada 2526, Distant Worlds, Star Ruler I and II, Endless Space, Horizon, Stardrive, Stradrive II, Sword of the Stars, Sword of the Stars II, Galactic Civilization I - III, LotBS, Lost Empires: Immortals, Space Empires IV and V, Starships Unlimited, Star Wars: Empire at War, Star Wars: Rebellio, Birth of the Federation and Stellaris.


Mikko_M #37 Posted 30 July 2016 - 10:26 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Banned
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View PostAnguille_1, on 30 July 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

I am fairly critical and think that different mistakes have been made and that the game is far from the MOO1 reboot that i expected/wanted (Starlanes, Espionnage, Diplomacy, ground combat etc). I don't think that Keeling and NGD Studios were good choices as they clearly have no idea of the original games and that it's their first 4x. They also just copied some bad ideas from current 4x games because they didn't study the original games properly.

 

However, i do think the game is now fun and is fairly well made. The dedication to the game cannot be ignored. It is a good game and they continue to improve it. It's maybe not the one i wanted but it's still a good game i've spent many hours with and i expect to continue playing it. I hope they manage to sell enough copies so they continue to work on the franchise. 

 

So you hope that mr. Keeling still continues to work on the MOO franchise after all the bad design decisions and his ignorant comments about MOO? Personally I hope that mr. Keeling will be kept as far from the MOO franchise as possible in the future, if we really want to see this franchise become great again one day.


Edited by Mikko_M, 30 July 2016 - 10:27 PM.

Moreover, I advise that the tactical combat must be made more player controllable and informative for this to become a proper MOO game.

 

​The long lost formula for space 4X game success = Good tactical combat + good empire management > than just good tactical combat or good empire management alone.


Anguille_1 #38 Posted 30 July 2016 - 10:28 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 288
  • Member since:
    06-18-2015

View PostMikko_M, on 30 July 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

 

So you hope that mr. Keeling still continues to work on the MOO franchise after all the bad design decisions and his ignorant comments about MOO? Personally I hope that mr. Keeling will be kept as far from the MOO franchise as possible in the future, if we really want to see this franchise become great again one day.

 

Agreed...

Playing MOO since 1993

 

Playing MOO Conquer the Stars on GOG Galaxy

 

4x space game CV: Master of Orion, Master of Orion II, Master of Orion III, Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain, Reach for the Stars, Imperium Galactica, Imperium Galactica II, Armada 2526, Distant Worlds, Star Ruler I and II, Endless Space, Horizon, Stardrive, Stradrive II, Sword of the Stars, Sword of the Stars II, Galactic Civilization I - III, LotBS, Lost Empires: Immortals, Space Empires IV and V, Starships Unlimited, Star Wars: Empire at War, Star Wars: Rebellio, Birth of the Federation and Stellaris.


Prrsha #39 Posted 30 July 2016 - 11:14 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 242
  • Member since:
    05-02-2016
Case in point the problems the coders are having with the "visionary leaders":  I asked if racial traits would be altered to be in line with their previous counterparts.  The answer?  They can't do anything until they speak to the "visionary leader".  So there you have it.  The buck stops there unfortunately...  Poor NGD can't address issues fast enough to fix them because they are road blocked by the project's director.  I don't envy the forum admin either.  He has a very hard job to do.  He has to walk the line of keeping the forum morale happy while dealing with the mess in the studio.  I am sure her or she would love to tell us the current state of affairs but sadly their lips are sealed or they lose their job.

drewklar #40 Posted 30 July 2016 - 11:18 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 103
  • Member since:
    08-20-2015

Mikko_M, on 30 July 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

 

During the whole time this game has been in development I can`t remember a single thing that our leader of product vision mr. Keeling has said that has made me comfortable that this game might actually be a success.

 

 

I agree.  There were a lot of red flags from the interviews and presentations from Mr. Keeling and Chris King before the Early Access started.   But for those of us not satisfied our hope for a great game clouded our judgement and made us ignore those red flags, especially since WG Labs and NGD claimed they would make this game live up to the quality of the original games.

 

I plan to walk away from this entire EA discussion soon, as I'm part of Mr. Keeling's 30% that won't be satisfied, and I realize I'm never going to get the MOO game I hoped they would make.   I'm just using these forums and on Steam to help clear my thoughts and understand better what we all experienced through this EA period.  I hope to learn from the experience and in the future read more under the marketing hype before flushing money into an experimental project like this one.

 

View PostMikko_M, on 30 July 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

 

The only things I am willing to give the leaders of this project credit for are this Early Access period as without it I believe this game would have been a total catasrophe, the signing of some of the artists who worked on the original MOOs and for advertising purposes the legendary sci-fi voice actors (although I still wonder how much of the budget and overall resources they ended up chewing).

 

The hiring of legendary actors for the voice-overs was also a red-flag.  They were putting the finishing touches on the game before it was complete.  The goal of that was to help with the marketing hype for the game.    And you can see from the results that the voice-actor implementation was awkward, as people requested a feature to turn off the advisors' voices.  And people probably skip over all of Dorn's race introductions.

 

They probably should have used the money to hire more QA testers.  I'm guessing they would have caught all the issues with Pirates and Minor Races if they had better testing resources, and also designed the game so it would lend itself to setting up testing scenarios.  With better QA it's possible the EA phases could have been reduced, and then with the money brought in from the successful EA phases they could have hired the voice actors to do some voice-overs as part of the finishing touches.

 

But what do I know, as I'm not a game producer.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users