Page 3 of 4

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 5:15 am
by anonymous6059
kilobug wrote:I remember reading somewhere that you would start the game with a limited number of foci, but be able to unlock more of them as you progress in the game. So would explain why the beta (which has only 1/3 of the content) has few of them.

Sure an official answer would be better than speculations, but it's not yet time to panic ;)
With all the other detail that were only released because of some leaked PS4 trophies and datamined assets I think we are way beyond panic. They need to start answering some questions before it turns into a stampede. They've already claimed to be sorry that they withheld information of that severity. So ignoring these questions now would be nothing short of a slap in the face.

If they truly are sorry it is time for them to come clean and stop making fans worry. Panic was last month.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 6:08 am
by Serjo
Reposting for new page:
sear wrote:Hi everyone,

Today we have an update from creative lead Colin McComb discussing the development process, things that changed along the way, and where we take things from here upon release and beyond.
Will the stretch goals and base goals that were not mentioned in the last update be fulfilled in the release version? That includes the live orchestral soundtrack, the 16 Legacies, getting more than 3 Foci (and having your selection of Foci be dependant on your Legacy), and the Stronghold, among others.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 8:29 am
by RadonGOG
Lord of Riva wrote:you cant really bump a sticky :P
Of course you can. After one posted, they become the one and only that is mentioned on the board index.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 11:34 am
by Avestus
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/in ... ts/1399451

This update felt weird for me back at thr time. and it seems like it was for a reason :\ I wonder what was the real story behind this shift of positions... *sigh*. It's not like i care about the features excluded from the game (since, everything core still remains) , but the lack openess is indeed the problem

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 4:20 pm
by Serjo
Monara wrote:I would have easily forgiven all the removed core features, fake stretch goals and so on if there had just been some honesty and openness about not being able to realize them from the developers. I would even have accepted this if they had only explained after the leaks.
The strange thing is that inXile has tried very hard to cultivate an image of "honesty and openness" as part of their brand in the Kickstarter era. And now they're battening down the hatches and refusing* to answer questions about cut stretch goals. Something must have gone terribly wrong behind the scenes.

*I say "refusing" because nine days are more than enough time to answer a question like "Will all the other stretch goals still be in the game?", even if you're very very busy.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 4:27 pm
by Gizmo
Serjo wrote:The strange thing is that inXile has tried very hard to cultivate an image of "honesty and openness" as part of their brand in the Kickstarter era.
That's not strange; no company would willing do the opposite.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 5:05 pm
by Monara
Avestus wrote:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/in ... ts/1399451

This update felt weird for me back at thr time. and it seems like it was for a reason :\ I wonder what was the real story behind this shift of positions...
This makes me wonder if maybe he didn't agree with the shady business practice of keeping the massive cuts a secret to their backers and he was fired for that?
There is definitely something not right with the way the change was worded/"explained" back then.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 6:49 pm
by Serjo
From the file "a2201_jernaugh.conversation":
06904: <Comments>SHOULD NOT PLAY due to factions being cut, this previously led to joining the Jagged Dream faction</Comments>
The quote is a bit ambiguous - how many of the joinable factions have been cut? I'll go make a thread :!:

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 7:06 pm
by Gizmo
So this means that are reduced to mild acquaintances that exploit the PC for favors, rather than building allegiance... So, nothing like the Godsmen in Torment? (Or it is just one or a couple factions removed?)

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 7:59 pm
by Serjo
Gizmo wrote:So this means that are reduced to mild acquaintances that exploit the PC for favors, rather than building allegiance... So, nothing like the Godsmen in Torment? (Or it is just one or a couple factions removed?)
There is one faction you can join in the beta, but the impact of joining them is minimal; 95% of the extra content is just environmental barks from the other faction members. Of course you can chalk that up to it being a beta.

More worrisome is the lack of any UI element telling you which factions you're a member of. PST showed the faction logo on your character sheet, informed you about rules and alignment restrictions, etc. etc. TToN shows you nothing, not even a text line like "Member of faction X". Maybe the release version will handle that differently... but wasn't the UI supposed to be final?

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 8:56 pm
by Firkraag
Use spoilers!

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 8:58 pm
by Serjo
Firkraag wrote:Use spoilers!
This forum doesn't say "No spoilers allowed," so they should be fine. But I will oblige you.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 9th, 2017, 9:49 pm
by Firkraag
Thank you.

But I (also) meant the stuff you pulled out of game files.

The devs comment freely about the stuff, that is or isn't in a game, a comments I prefer to have a choice, whether to know or not before I play the game. I won't say about others, though.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 10th, 2017, 2:30 am
by Woolfe
Serjo wrote:
Firkraag wrote:Use spoilers!
This forum doesn't say "No spoilers allowed," so they should be fine. But I will oblige you.
True, but it also doesn't say that spoilers are allowed.

So be careful and thank you for putting spoiler tags on.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 10th, 2017, 8:32 am
by Serjo
sear wrote:Today we have an update from creative lead Colin McComb discussing the development process, things that changed along the way, and where we take things from here upon release and beyond.
Hey sear, will it be possible to answer our questions about the other stretch goals before the game's release?

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 10th, 2017, 9:42 am
by Zombra
As a note, thread bumping and replying to yourself is against the forum rules. It's a form of spam, please don't do it. Thanks.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 10th, 2017, 9:56 am
by Serjo
Zombra wrote:As a note, thread bumping and replying to yourself is against the forum rules. It's a form of spam, please don't do it. Thanks.
As a mod, do you have any means of communicating with the developers to make sure that they are aware of these questions? Thank you.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 10th, 2017, 11:30 am
by Lord of Riva
Serjo wrote:
Zombra wrote:As a note, thread bumping and replying to yourself is against the forum rules. It's a form of spam, please don't do it. Thanks.
As a mod, do you have any means of communicating with the developers to make sure that they are aware of these questions? Thank you.
The mods arent "directly" associated with InXile, so no.

I understand your frustration Serjo but lets listen to the mods this isnt a unreasonable rule and i would assume that Sear has seen this thread and its questions by now and may not be able/willing/allowed to answer the questions :)

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 10th, 2017, 11:32 am
by Zombra
Serjo wrote:
Zombra wrote:As a note, thread bumping and replying to yourself is against the forum rules. It's a form of spam, please don't do it. Thanks.
As a mod, do you have any means of communicating with the developers to make sure that they are aware of these questions? Thank you.
I don't have a special hotline, but they do read the forums.* They just don't reply to everything because a) they don't always have time and b) they don't have a slick PR system, so when there's a controversy they tend to stay quiet until they can put together good, informative, diplomatic answers. Example, it took a while for Colin McComb's official apology about the err reprioritized (cut) stretch goal content, but they got there eventually when they saw a lot of people cared about it.

inXile is in an unhappy middle ground for public relations - if they were smaller, it might be like calling up some guy you know and he would just answer off the cuff and nothing would be a big deal; if they were bigger, they could staff full-time PR people. As it is, they have a couple guys who mostly do other stuff but work the forums part-time, and any time a red name posts, the forum users take it as gospel and, when applicable, tear it apart like starving wolves ... so it's understandable that they only post stuff they know the entire company can stand behind.

My best advice for getting an answer to a particular question:
• Make a forum thread with a to-the-point subject line;
• State the question briefly and professionally, but emphatically;
• [IMPORTANT] Get other people to post in the same thread agreeing that this is an important question.
--- Don't bump yourself or you look like a lone crank, and lone cranks don't get a response.
--- It's OK to mention the issue in other threads, and even link to your main thread, but only when it's substantially relevant to whatever conversation is already happening.
--- It's also fine to put a link in your signature to attract attention, but don't make it obnoxious. I put one in my sig just now as an example.
• If no one else posts in the thread, be ready to let it go. It's possible that you really are a lone crank.
(Note: I don't mean you particularly Serjo, just general advice here.)

Good luck :)

*Check out this link. Note the "Last Active" listing - sear was reading the forums just yesterday [EDIT: and again right now!]. Brother None is less active but still around frequently - his profile is here.

Re: Updated Our Journal #63: A Look Back on Development

Posted: February 10th, 2017, 12:13 pm
by Serjo
Zombra wrote:
Serjo wrote:
Zombra wrote:As a note, thread bumping and replying to yourself is against the forum rules. It's a form of spam, please don't do it. Thanks.
As a mod, do you have any means of communicating with the developers to make sure that they are aware of these questions? Thank you.
I don't have a special hotline, but they do read the forums.* They just don't reply to everything because a) they don't always have time and b) they don't have a slick PR system, so when there's a controversy they tend to stay quiet until they can put together good, informative, diplomatic answers. Example, it took a while for Colin McComb's official apology about the err reprioritized (cut) stretch goal content, but they got there eventually when they saw a lot of people cared about it.

inXile is in an unhappy middle ground for public relations - if they were smaller, it might be like calling up some guy you know and he would just answer off the cuff and nothing would be a big deal; if they were bigger, they could staff full-time PR people. As it is, they have a couple guys who mostly do other stuff but work the forums part-time, and any time a red name posts, the forum users take it as gospel and, when applicable, tear it apart like starving wolves ... so it's understandable that they only post stuff they know the entire company can stand behind.
I supposed I'm still stuck in a "personal" mode of communication where it seems rude to read a question addressed to you and then completely ignore it for over a week. But you are right, inXile are who they are. I won't repost the question about the cut content anymore; I'll just dig deeper into the beta files and try to contact other people about this.