|
***
why does everything have to be hush hush,
***
Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
What always happens when SDE or ONF says something? We hold it as a frickin' promise. When
that "promise" is changed or dropped? We have our forum's version of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. We complain, we cry, we whine, we bitch, we piss, we moan, and we blame, rant,
rave, and damn everyone who "lied" to us.
A person can be smart. People, however, are stupid, unreasonable beasts. And you know it.
Edit:
What happens when their plans change? What happens when they find a better but different
way to achieve a certain goal or effect? What happens when what we were initially
"promised" is changed, dropped, or dialed down?
At this point ONF is acting like a team of developers. That is, they are both helping to
develop this game for us and applying very shrewd practices.
http://forum.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?t=11509
****
Under promise, over deliver
Developers will always want to promise as little as possible, and when the time comes,
deliver far more than what was promised. This is good, GOOD PR. People think:
"Wow, look at all the extra and great stuff we got".
Even if you release the best patch in the world, if it is less than what was promised, you
instantly are back at "why did x get canned?". People get annoyed that x was canned. They
cannot see the wood for the trees as it were, and focus on that one negative thing that
they did not get.
Developers can't be wrong either
In the eyes of the public, a developer can never be wrong. He isn't human, he can't make a
mistake. If a developer admitted:
"Hey guys, yeah that sonar, what an error that was... I had too many just after Q&A"
Would you be happy about it? Of course not. You'd moan, and thats exactly what developers
try to avoid by telling you nothing. Also, you don't always have all the facts, which
leads to this:
People have conceptions that are often false, yet, they will argue for them endlessly.
In a thread recently, the T3 sonar was discussed. This is an excellent example of people
who can argue strongly for something they know nothing about.
People couldn't believe that a sonar station could out class a sub everywhere you'd use
one, for less cost and be faster. In their minds, it was a sonar station, nothing more.
they argued and argued that it was useless without even trying it.
And thats the problem. People are biased towards their own understandings of what things
are like. The "correct" way to play, what things can and cannot do.
Classic examples of this are Elitists who feel ranked is the only way to play. It isn't.
Games developers have to cater to the tastes of as many players as possible. You can
never, however, please everyone.
Adding "no rush" to the game was a bonus for a lot of players. Yet, people whined "why was
no rush done when x, y and z could have been done". You have to understand that while x, y
and z is important to you. It might not be important to anyone else.
Additionally, development teams often have mixed skills. If "No rush" only took skill x to
make. And a developer with spare time has skill x, he might just decide to get it done.
Maybe something more complex task requires skill x, y and z and at least 3 people. Do you
expect developer with skill x to just sit there and do nothing instead? Why waste time
when you can get something done? Even if it's trival.
****
-Hiru
|