@Drool & Son of Max
i vaguely recall one of the game review sites making a point of stating that the demo'ed area was actually a playable level from the game rather than just a demo built solely for the demo events. can't recall which article, but here's basically the same gist straight from the horse's mouth:
Kickstarter Update #34 wrote:[...]This area was not built purely for demoing purposes and it is a straight video capture. While the level will be further polished and improved (we’re missing a bunch of sounds among other things), it gives you a sense of the final game flow.[...]
now, even if the linearity is not representative of all the levels/the final game, getting unambiguous feedback on it (albeit in the form of rainbow-coloured rants of blindly irate geek mayhem) before
it is too late to do anything about it is probably not a bad idea. i don't think inxile will tune their level design towards more linearity
as a result...
(i could be wrong, of course - maybe they just go "Aw fuckit.." and decide to make another android bard's tale?
for the record, i would like for all my posts to be read in the voice of Frank Zappa imitating Bob Dylan. Thanks.
Purpose built as a demo or not, it's still a demo and I refuse to view it as anything else.
It's a pre-beta shot of what gameplay looks like, not the finished product. Even with what they said in the previous update in mind, I was pretty sure what we were being shown was a demo and not what to expect as the finished product.
If I thought for a minute that the minds working on this game would throw something that pabulum on a disk and call it a game, I'd go apeshit myself.
But I've played way too many games produced by Brian Fargo to think that anything that straight forward or linear or anything like that would be something he'd put his name on. Especially considering how long the guy's been waiting to make this specific game. 20 plus years is a long time, and nobody who's been waiting that long to make something is going to do any less than their best.
I could see where a twenty year old property could get scooped up by a big publisher, tossed to a bunch of kids who never played the original and then throw together a pile of garbage, but I simply cannot see the people who created a property doing that. It means something to them. It'd be like George Lucas taking Star Wars, twenty years after the original was released and...okay, bad example, but you get what I mean.
Nah, I think Hiver just really wants the game to be terrible so he can be proven right. He's declared it a failure of some sort at least four distinct times. My favorite was when he wrote reams of screeching prose about the inventory system based on a couple of screenshots and the way it was described to him by others, and then reluctantly admitted it wasn't that
bad when he actually watched the thing.
Just read everything he writes in a William Alexander
voice. You'll never stop giggling.
I don't get that mindset. It seems counterproductive, especially on a feedback forum.
I see the update demo and I think 'Okay then. They've got X, Y and Z working, now they just need to put some polish on X and Y, tweak Z a little and then do the finishes on A, B and C.'
I can't for the life of me understand people who see the same stuff I saw and immediately think 'IT'S CRAP! BUILT OF FAIL! WHAAAAAA! THIS IS A CATASTROPHE! YOU SUCK, INXILE!!!!eleventy.'
Demo, as in demo
nstration. NOT the final product.
How hard is that to understand? (Unless you're a terminal pessimist who believes everything sucks just by existing.)
There's a distinction between constructive criticism, criticism and flat out senseless ranting.