Themadcow wrote: ↑
July 17th, 2018, 2:26 am
I appreciate that working in game development isn't easy, and not exactly the most financially rewarding profession for a tech guy - so it must be difficult to read all the negative reaction. Thing is, it just didn't need to be this way if the team had paid any attention to the forums over the last couple of years.
There are a lot of 35-60yr old gamers out there - the biggest spending demographic, and they wanted a proper Western turn based blobber. Probably the first big one since Wizardry 8 (or 7 if you're not a fan of that one). Clearly inXile wanted to go in a different direction, but the lack of engagement with the hardcore BT people (probably most of the big money backers) isn't really acceptable.
Agreed... Taking on a task like creating a game in this manner is bound to stir up controversy, so devs need thick skins. On other forums (not even video gaming), developers are explicitly kept away and leave the interacting and 'parsing' of feedback to community liasons for precisely this reason. I know here I can be quite critical quite often, but I do my best to be reasonable and cordial; and hopefully do my part as a mod to try to keep emotions and personal or destructive criticism to a minimum. But I can't stop someone from being insulted if something they make is reasonably criticized though (and I've been there too) - it's just a very tough pill to swallow.
Bah, and here I go again...
That said, I can't help but wonder how much of the (constructively) critical is in fact parsed and taken back to devs. Speaking honestly, it seems
quite often like there is a form of echo chamber happening. Especially when it comes to media. I often see comments, reviews and quotes shared that seem to expicitly reference things some of us repeatedly raise with concern, but instead showing praise, as if to say "Hey someone likes it so this direction is the way to go" as a way to excuse the otherwise critical. As if showing others' praise for a decision that another group crticizes therefore negates the criticism.
As mentioned earlier, it would be nice to have some direct response to many
of the critiques of design decisions made, so it doesn't feel
like all criticism is being sidelined for the praise and admiration of the mainstream gaming media, and only soaking in the praise of people who adore the current state of the project. (especially when that praise criticizes the very criticism also coming from other diehard - that is, adoring - fans).
It's hard not to feel like many of us, who ARE Bard's Tale diehards, are being criticized for desiring what we adore in Bard's Tale, especially when the vast majority of our input has been for the success of Bard's Tale 4
, not merely a selfish "I want to enjoy it even if it means the game flops" (which is how many of the comments come across regarding things like hand mapping, resource-based stats and combat, memorizing spell books, etc)
We're all fans of Bard's Tale of olde here (hopefully), so let's not be tearing each other apart.
Everyone recognizes that this is inXile's baby to make decisions as they please. And there are a vide variety of concepts and elements to Bard's Tale that people think make the "core" experience what it is. No one can point to the game and say "this is a perfect sequel!" (which I have seen) without sidelining anyone who can name numerous significant aspects they
prefer from the prior games which have not been included. Rather, we all need to recognize that a "true" sequel will never incorporate everyone's desires of what should be included. That necessarily means that no matter what the result, there will be some who won't see it as a true sequel. It's inevitable.
It's a minefield to navigate. I don't envy inXile.
But please, really, I hope the (constructive) criticism over these past 3 years is being heard, and it really isn't just a big echo chamber of praise for the 'new', and praise for the 'new' that leaves out the 'old', and just ignores the 'old'.
It's hard to read someone exclaim "this is exactly what I was hoping for in a Bard's Tale sequel!"
knowing that the admiration is being quoted and repeated by the studio, even while the desires of many who vehemently pine some other element essentially remain unheard or simply ignored. Especially when the above quoted can be found to refer to elements of BT2004 as their understanding of Bard's Tale (and even more especially when they think that's the 'original'). And that's what I tend to see most often when reading any review that praises the current BT4 - some level of enjoyment of Bard's Tale coming from the perspective of BT2004. (of course, not everyone - I know there are some trilogy diehards who love BT4 and not BT2004 or don't consider BT2004; but from what I'm seeing that's a very small minority). The vast majority
of glowing praise I've read are either oblivious to the trilogy, loved 2004, love a different kind of RPG, or don't realize that this is billed as a sequel.
I don't think I've ever
seen someone refer to the trilogy as having witty humour, or not taking itself seriously, or being a light hearted rpg, etc. When I see descriptors like that, I immediately think "oh, another BT2004 fan, not a trilogy fan" or different demographic of RPG fan who wouldn't like the trilogy; and that colours the review as, to me, irrelevant when it comes to the Bard's Tale brand
. And it hurts when these are the reviews that the studio pays most attention to. Seemingly.
But, thanks for reducing the childish humour a bit and providing an option to turn off party banter.
(I'm being facetious; I know a lot has been adjusted based on feedback and a lot of content has been added for nostalgia's sake, which I am thankful for
, but really it's surfacy stuff in the grand scheme - I point back to the list of primary concerns posted in another thread which seem
to have been shrugged off)