130 replies to this topic

[StandingCow]

KharnZor, on 14 October 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

I'll be happy when all the BS 0 and 10 scores are all weeded out so i can see the actual score.

I don't know why you give it any thought to be honest. The BS 0 and 10 scores even each other out.... the game has a pretty fair user score at 5.4. Remember, this is an unfinished game.

[MechFrog1]

StandingCow, on 16 October 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

I don't know why you give it any thought to be honest. The BS 0 and 10 scores even each other out.... the game has a pretty fair user score at 5.4. Remember, this is an unfinished game.

Quoted for truth.

Artgathan, on 15 October 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

I find it funny that most of the extremely negative reviews from the "users" are directed towards the behavior of PGI / IGP instead of the merits of the actual game. I think that any score that has comments that have nothing to do with the merits of the actual game (and not the behaviour of the people producing said game) should be removed.

If the actual game is impacted by the behavior of a developer, it's perfectly reasonable to include that in a review.

Edited by mint frog, 16 October 2013 - 07:56 AM.

[RandomLurker]

I don't have high hopes for this game. It is what it is- a brief and pleasant distraction with some great pew pew. But that is all it is. It's probably all it will be.

With all the things they are promising for for UI 2.0 (chat rooms, map selection, new game modes, CW, arranged team matches, and more), they are basically committing to building an entire game up from scratch. Plain as day, they will not be able to deliver all of that in a timely manner.

My theory is that their development pipeline is severely messed up. Different departments don't seem to talk to each other. For example, the artists seem completely clueless to the effect their work has on gameplay balance. None of them seem to have any idea how their product is perceived by others (aka, customers), what drives gamers to one game over another, what convinces them to stay and what convinces them to invest. Very telling is the final part of this post:

Quote

A note on development phases.

• In design 1 – A twinkle in our eyes, we are still brain storming.
  
• In design 2 – Feature brief has been presented to stake holders for vetting.
  
• In design 3 – Design has been approved and is being broken down into user stories.
  
• Ready for development – Design complete, waiting for resources to be assigned.
  
• In development – Resources assigned and actively working on feature.
  
• Ready for internal test – Feature is complete and ready to be tested by QA.
  
• Ready for public test – Feature has past basic internal testing parameters and is ready for public testing.

Design stages 1-3 are very worrying. It looks like an idea has to go through multiple committees before it even gets to the stage of designing how it works. Also, there's the mysterious 'stakeholders' that every idea apparently has to be run past. I'll assume that these stakeholders don't actually game and only ask one question: can we sell it? Like most {Dezgra} investors, it never occurs to them to wonder why people will want to buy it. People that become invested into a dynamic, community driven game environment are willing to pay more, pay longer, and spend it on more trivial things simply to support their game. In other words, developing customer loyalty. Neglecting that results in a business failure, or at least a lost opportunity, for any business. In an online game, customer retention means catering to the community.

Because of this, I suspect that CW will be nothing more then another grind that you can spend money on to skip. Probably with something shiny (Like clan mechs or something) at the end but no real content. I suspect that 'community' will be taken to mean 'different scorecards to choose from' and 'warfare' will translate to 'points to grind.'

So, in the end, I'll just go blow some things up. I'm glad to have supported a game I enjoy and appreciate the options that money has given me, but I don't expect to keep spending as if it was a subscription title. It just doesn't offer enough to be worth that.

[Alpha087]

Silent, on 15 October 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Mechwarrior and Battletech fans may have been what kept this game alive for the last couple of years, but it's not what is going to keep this game afloat.

[Roll in the dead, rotting corpse that is the new player experience]

It's funny that you think that all Mechwarrior and Battletech fans hate the game when they clearly don't.

[Heffay]

Alpha087, on 16 October 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

It's funny that you think that all Mechwarrior and Battletech fans hate the game when they clearly don't.

Yup. Confirmation bias at it's worst. "I love Battletech and Mechwarrior, but hate MWO. Therefore ALL people who like Mechwarrior and Battletech hate MWO."

The derp is strong in people like that.

[Silent]

Alpha087, on 16 October 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

It's funny that you think that all Mechwarrior and Battletech fans hate the game when they clearly don't.

When did I think that?

[Heffay]

RandomLurker, on 16 October 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Design stages 1-3 are very worrying. It looks like an idea has to go through multiple committees before it even gets to the stage of designing how it works. Also, there's the mysterious 'stakeholders' that every idea apparently has to be run past. I'll assume that these stakeholders don't actually game and only ask one question: can we sell it? Like most {Dezgra} investors, it never occurs to them to wonder why people will want to buy it. People that become invested into a dynamic, community driven game environment are willing to pay more, pay longer, and spend it on more trivial things simply to support their game. In other words, developing customer loyalty. Neglecting that results in a business failure, or at least a lost opportunity, for any business. In an online game, customer retention means catering to the community.

This is exactly how things are supposed to work. You first want to explore a concept and see if it would make sense for the game. You write up a concept, flesh it out a little bit, and get something you can present to other people who would be affected by the change. Animation would be one stakeholder. "Sure, we can make it look that way, but it would destroy performance. What if we use these features instead to animate your idea?" Balance gets a look, and yes, so does finance, and other areas as well. If you propose an idea that would cause half the customer base to walk away from the game, it's probably not a good idea to implement.

Your assumption that the stakeholders don't game is wrong. A stakeholder is simply a person/group who has control over a functional area, and may or may not game. But if they don't game, they know enough about the game business to be able to make decisions about their functional area.

I laugh whenever I see someone say "just make this change, how hard could it be, it's like 5 lines of code! I could do it in 2 minutes!" Which build do you inject that into? What is the testing plan? Who is in charge of documenting that feature? Do you need to update the website? Are your investors going to flip out when they hear about it? Does it screw up anything else you have in earlier development stages that is relying on that feature?

Change control is serious business. There is no such thing as an easy update. The only time you even consider doing some rush job is when you have to hot-fix in a game-breaking bug, and the consequences for doing that are severe. It screws up all the other builds you have in the pipeline, and EVERYTHING else needs to be updated before people can get back to work. If you decide to hotfix something, you are basically saying "no progress for 2 days".

Sorry, I'll take my manager hat off now. Just remember though, this is business and whenever someone talks about how easy it is to do things, you have to understand that the three hours it took them to write a 12 line "Hello World" script in visual basic doesn't scale.

[MechFrog1]

Alpha087, on 16 October 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

It's funny that you think that all Mechwarrior and Battletech fans hate the game when they clearly don't.

Attacking hyperbole with hyperbole. Clever...

[Odins Fist]

The Meta-Crotic score was 64 out of a hundred.. On a standard grading scale 64 is a D. -----> " D "
D as in a barely passing grade... WOW.

[Heffay]

Odins Fist, on 17 October 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

The Meta-Crotic score was 64 out of a hundred.. On a standard grading scale 64 is a D. -----> " D "
D as in a barely passing grade... WOW.

Not ideal. Hopefully they will redo the reviews after CW is fully implemented.

[Ihasa]

Heffay, on 17 October 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Not ideal. Hopefully they will redo the reviews after CW is fully implemented.

So like, in another year or more? Somehow, I think not.

[von Pilsner]

Heffay, on 17 October 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Not ideal. Hopefully they will redo the reviews after CW is fully implemented.

Why would they do that? Not anyone's fault but PGI/IGP for releasing early without having core features implemented. They earned those scores!!!

[Heffay]

von Pilsner, on 17 October 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Why would they do that? Not anyone's fault but PGI/IGP for releasing early without having core features implemented. They earned those scores!!!

When games get updated, reviews are too. Or should someone looking at getting into World of Warcraft read the reviews from 8 years ago when the game was released in order to determine if the game is what they are looking for?

[RandomLurker]

Heffay, on 17 October 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

[/size]
If you propose an idea that would cause half the customer base to walk away from the game, it's probably not a good idea to implement.

How did 3rd person get approved then? My point is that obviously these people have no idea what their audience actually wants.

You mention things like animation, etc, as stakeholders. To me those are departments, groups of employees. A stakeholder is someone with a financial interest in the company (and not in the vague sense of 'company signs my paycheck', but someone with direct investment). Are we dealing with some kind of vocabulary fail here?

[Silent]

Heffay, on 17 October 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

When games get updated, reviews are too. Or should someone looking at getting into World of Warcraft read the reviews from 8 years ago when the game was released in order to determine if the game is what they are looking for?

Nope. The vast majority of critic reviews for World of Warcraft are from eight years ago and haven't changed or been updated. The vast majority of critic reviews for ANY game on Metacritic are from in or around the time they launched and haven't been updated.

As an example, look at Elemental: War on Magic. The game was a pile of **** when it was released and the reviews reflect that. Unsurprisingly, none of those ratings giving it a 20 or 30 (from big name websites) changed their reviews or their score as the game was updated to make it playable and at least somewhat entertaining.

Same is going to happen here. If the game suddenly becomes a 10/10, it's still going to have to live with all of the mixed scores that it got from release.

Edited by Silent, 17 October 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[Heffay]

RandomLurker, on 17 October 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

How did 3rd person get approved then? My point is that obviously these people have no idea what their audience actually wants.

Because 3PV isn't the scourge that a few people seem to think it is? Instead, it will help increase the number of people playing the game and raise revenue, all while making sure the competitive scene isn't affected by perceived benefits, no matter how sleight and fraught with drawbacks they may have.

RandomLurker, on 17 October 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

You mention things like animation, etc, as stakeholders. To me those are departments, groups of employees. A stakeholder is someone with a financial interest in the company (and not in the vague sense of 'company signs my paycheck', but someone with direct investment). Are we dealing with some kind of vocabulary fail here?

Yes. It's a vocabulary issue. They aren't using it improperly though. Stakeholders can mean internal departments as well. A stakeholder is anyone who is affected by a potential change.

Edited by Heffay, 17 October 2013 - 11:39 AM.

[Navy Sixes]

Toydolls, on 28 September 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

Well at least the score isn't falsely bloated to ten.

Or falsely troll-grieved to zero.

Toydolls, on 28 September 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

However scores are scores and a 6.6 is something I wouldn't buy, or waste my time on.

...and yet here you are.

[Appogee]

Ironically, it's the very demographic which PGI has turned its back on - the founders, and other hard core old school MechWarriors - who who could have potentially helped MWO weather the upcoming onslaught of other games.

Edited by Appogee, 17 October 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Heffay]

Appogee, on 17 October 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Ironically, it's the very demographic which PGI has turned its back on - the founders, and other hard core old school MechWarriors - who who could have potentially helped MWO weather the upcoming onslaught of other games.

They didn't turn their backs on the founders or the old school hard core Mech warriors. Most of us are still here and satisfied with the game.

You don't get to be an old school MW without copious amounts of patience.

[Appogee]

Heffay, on 17 October 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

They didn't turn their backs on the founders or the old school hard core Mech warriors.

You don't think so...? What with 3PV introduced despite almost everyone not wanting it, the ongoing lack of prioritisation of the creation of lobbies for the organised clans to utilise, and so on...?

Heffay, on 17 October 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Most of us are still here and satisfied with the game.

I honestly don't know about ''most''. The stats that PGI quoted on Founder retention cast a VERY wide net around what they considered ''active'' players. (''Logged in once in the last month'', or somesuch?)

In any case, I'm glad you - and I, and others like us - are still hanging in here and playing the game. I hope there's a critical mass of us throughout the upcoming big game release season, which keeps MWO afloat.