My Problem With Ashes of Creation - 2018 Pax East

Mikeha

Fevir gives his thoughts on Ashes Of Creation showing at Pax East. 

Talemire

Excellent point, actually. In contrast, with Pantheon, you see more and more of VR's vision with each showing of the game. The bottom line: Experience at the helm plays a huge part in seeing a vision through.

Albatroes

Yeah, this whole "players influencing the environment" is definitely people are more interested in vs the types of dungeons they'll get to run. Race choice is definitely a nice touch too in terms of aesthetic with town architecture being constructed around the race that influences the area the most. So many good things on paper, yet they show a dungeon run.....

acidblood

Definitely agree, and while I have every hope that Ashes succeeds on it's goals (or I've wasted my $100), they really need to start showing some significant progress on those goals.

My current guess is that 'Alpha 1' towards the end of the year will show something, as that would be about 1.5 years since KS (funded June 2, 2017), which for a project of this size and complexity (if decently managed) is about the time frame I would expect to start seeing some more fully realised game systems (as opposed to just a bunch of default assets and systems bolted together).

For comparison Pantheon is now about 2-3 years into full development (KS attempted Feb 2014, early 'stuff' shown end 2015, first Alpha streams end 2016, something that looks like a more fully realised game, only recently).

MadFrenchie

His point about the developers spouting off grand ideas with vague details isn't an issue with Ashes of Creation per se, but an issue with crowdfunding MMORPG development in general.

danwest58

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

Kajidourden

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

They have shown nothing of substance.  If you're whole shtick is about revolutionizing the way people play mmos you need more than combat tech demos.

Just like GW2 this will disappoint in a big way.

Draemos

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

A yes, the “old it’s a placeholder” excuse.  I’ve been seeing that excuse used for the last 15 years and I don’t think it’s been true even once. 

Sovrath

Draemos said:

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

A yes, the “old it’s a placeholder” excuse.  I’ve been seeing that excuse used for the last 15 years and I don’t think it’s been true even once. 

But usually that "excuse" is said about games in "beta" and more often than not that beta is not a real beta but just a marketing scheme/stress test.

If that is the case then not a lot changes from the start of that "beta" to launch.

In the case of Ashes of Creation, it's not even in Alpha. Clearly they felt they had enough to show at PAX (and from what I saw it was much further along than any Alpha I ever saw).

So using that reason when a game is not even in Alpha does make sense.

Also, he might not care if those systems are shown to him really rough "gray box" as he put it, but most gamerz can't handle that at all.

I would go so far as to say that most gamerz can't handle what was shown at PAX as they think it's a completed game. They just can't be trusted to take away anything in the proper context.

And for a developer it seems like damned if theye do/damned if they don't. If they don't show anything they drop a great moment when they can connect to players/fans and help build community. If they do show something gamerz are going to expect a finished game even though you tattoo "it's in pre-alpha" on their faces.

I kind of wish games would go back to the beginning and not let players see anything until it's done.

Raquis

all games will suck till they force you to put a VR headset(sensory deprivation chamber does the same things it makes you hallucinate, easier for demons to enter you) on your head then it will become a little bit better and games will blow your mind the day you let them implant a chip in your head to play games.

cochs

Sovrath said:

Draemos said:

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

A yes, the “old it’s a placeholder” excuse.  I’ve been seeing that excuse used for the last 15 years and I don’t think it’s been true even once. 

And for a developer it seems like damned if theye do/damned if they don't. If they don't show anything they drop a great moment when they can connect to players/fans and help build community. If they do show something gamerz are going to expect a finished game even though you tattoo "it's in pre-alpha" on their faces.

I kind of wish games would go back to the beginning and not let players see anything until it's done.

I wish that wasn't true but it so is.  

Players can only judge the value of a game by what they understand.  And game development is a complex domain.  You can't expect anyone who hasn't made games to know much.  Even veteran software developers from other industries that get into games have all sorts of misconceptions.  

The thing is the most productive way to make this kind of game is to postpone final visuals as long as possible.  Because we go through so many pivots making games.  The design you start with is hardly ever the one you release with.  

So people making games tend to develop the ability to see through the placeholders to the real value.  We pretty much have to.

Personally I think it's still better to show stuff early.  Because player feedback is actually really important.  For the same reasons we postpone things like final visuals, we shouldn't be waiting until release to see if players actually like what we have created.  if they don't, we just wasted a lot of time we didn't need to by not showing early and often.

But it's definitely a fine line that needs the right balance.  You need to bridge the gap between what players are able to see in terms of value, and the actual value produced.  And early on a lot of the value is not really that visible.

Slapshot1188

As long as they let people refund their money... it's hard to get on their case very much.

Sovrath

cochs said:

Sovrath said:

Draemos said:

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

A yes, the “old it’s a placeholder” excuse.  I’ve been seeing that excuse used for the last 15 years and I don’t think it’s been true even once. 

And for a developer it seems like damned if theye do/damned if they don't. If they don't show anything they drop a great moment when they can connect to players/fans and help build community. If they do show something gamerz are going to expect a finished game even though you tattoo "it's in pre-alpha" on their faces.

I kind of wish games would go back to the beginning and not let players see anything until it's done.

I wish that wasn't true but it so is.  

Players can only judge the value of a game by what they understand.  And game development is a complex domain.  You can't expect anyone who hasn't made games to know much.  Even veteran software developers from other industries that get into games have all sorts of misconceptions.  

The thing is the most productive way to make this kind of game is to postpone final visuals as long as possible.  Because we go through so many pivots making games.  The design you start with is hardly ever the one you release with.  

So people making games tend to develop the ability to see through the placeholders to the real value.  We pretty much have to.

Personally I think it's still better to show stuff early.  Because player feedback is actually really important.  For the same reasons we postpone things like final visuals, we shouldn't be waiting until release to see if players actually like what we have created.  if they don't, we just wasted a lot of time we didn't need to by not showing early and often.

But it's definitely a fine line that needs the right balance.  You need to bridge the gap between what players are able to see in terms of value, and the actual value produced.  And early on a lot of the value is not really that visible.

This is well said but I think developers need to be very clear on what they are showing, be very responsive to the deluge of "animations suck/the models are bad/they are only using 3 skills/etc" complaints that will eventually be posted.

And, as Slapshot pointed out, they need to be very clear on when refunds can be given and when there are cutoffs.

This is of course if money changes hands.

This should be the community manager's job but I sometimes wonder why community managers are so quiet.

They should be there every step of the way and talk customers through what is being shown, what players should expect, what will change, what won't change and basically give concierge service.

Rukushin

Raquis said:

all games will suck till they force you to put a VR headset(sensory deprivation chamber does the same things it makes you hallucinate, easier for demons to enter you) on your head then it will become a little bit better and games will blow your mind the day you let them implant a chip in your head to play games.

My thought is that all games will disappoint until VR headsets are commonplace because we won't get that same amount of hype and feeling that we did in 1999 and 2003 when people were like "OMG I'm walking in a 3D world with a chat room....OMG that's another real person at a computer somewhere on the other side of the world!" 

So, pretty much the next two renaissances for MMOs in general will be VRMMO with headsets .HACK style and VRMMOs with chips in our brains matrix style.

Kyleran

Rukushin said:

Raquis said:

all games will suck till they force you to put a VR headset(sensory deprivation chamber does the same things it makes you hallucinate, easier for demons to enter you) on your head then it will become a little bit better and games will blow your mind the day you let them implant a chip in your head to play games.

My thought is that all games will disappoint until VR headsets are commonplace because we won't get that same amount of hype and feeling that we did in 1999 and 2003 when people were like "OMG I'm walking in a 3D world with a chat room....OMG that's another real person at a computer somewhere on the other side of the world!" 

So, pretty much the next two renaissances for MMOs in general will be VRMMO with headsets .HACK style and VRMMOs with chips in our brains matrix style.

Yeah, but you still won't be able to get a decent meal...

GregorMcgregor

As someone pointed out... Star Citizen 2?

delete5230

I simply see a game that's a long way off. 

It's too early to bash or give it credit... This topic can be re-hashed in maybe two years !!

Mendel

Sovrath said:

cochs said:

Sovrath said:

Draemos said:

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

A yes, the “old it’s a placeholder” excuse.  I’ve been seeing that excuse used for the last 15 years and I don’t think it’s been true even once. 

And for a developer it seems like damned if theye do/damned if they don't. If they don't show anything they drop a great moment when they can connect to players/fans and help build community. If they do show something gamerz are going to expect a finished game even though you tattoo "it's in pre-alpha" on their faces.

I kind of wish games would go back to the beginning and not let players see anything until it's done.

I wish that wasn't true but it so is.  

Players can only judge the value of a game by what they understand.  And game development is a complex domain.  You can't expect anyone who hasn't made games to know much.  Even veteran software developers from other industries that get into games have all sorts of misconceptions.  

The thing is the most productive way to make this kind of game is to postpone final visuals as long as possible.  Because we go through so many pivots making games.  The design you start with is hardly ever the one you release with.  

So people making games tend to develop the ability to see through the placeholders to the real value.  We pretty much have to.

Personally I think it's still better to show stuff early.  Because player feedback is actually really important.  For the same reasons we postpone things like final visuals, we shouldn't be waiting until release to see if players actually like what we have created.  if they don't, we just wasted a lot of time we didn't need to by not showing early and often.

But it's definitely a fine line that needs the right balance.  You need to bridge the gap between what players are able to see in terms of value, and the actual value produced.  And early on a lot of the value is not really that visible.

This is well said but I think developers need to be very clear on what they are showing, be very responsive to the deluge of "animations suck/the models are bad/they are only using 3 skills/etc" complaints that will eventually be posted.

And, as Slapshot pointed out, they need to be very clear on when refunds can be given and when there are cutoffs.

This is of course if money changes hands.

This should be the community manager's job but I sometimes wonder why community managers are so quiet.

They should be there every step of the way and talk customers through what is being shown, what players should expect, what will change, what won't change and basically give concierge service.

I think this is partially a symptom of the games industry seemingly confusing the need to show progress and the value of first impressions.  There aren't enough community managers and people asking 'should we show this yet'.  It's a case of unguided expectations almost run rampant.

The ideas of crowdfunding compounds the problems, as both the givers and receivers of money are in a state that the crowdfunding process *needs* to show progress to those that contributed.  To me, this is what is opening the door to many of problems that new game projects face.  Show it too early, drive away future customers; don't show it enough, future customers aren't aware of the product.  It's a very fine line, often confused by the 'who is an investor' question.

Showing in a boardroom is a very different thing from putting up a video or stream.  The two have drastically different audiences.  We are in an era where games are targeting smaller and smaller demographics.  Who hasn't heard 'niche game' thrown around to explain any number of issues?  Putting that video or stream out there opens the development process beyond those that have an actual financial stake in a game.  The filthy, ignorant public can then see the company's dirty laundry and form unguided first impressions of a game far earlier than needed.  Like it or not, those first impressions go a very long way to influencing purchasing decisions.

Negative associations with a product that drive away potential customers hurts the business of gaming.  Subsequent generations of games will be aimed at even smaller markets, putting the company at much more risk to lose money.  These 'negative associations' include both 'seeing' images of a product, and talking about that product, like on a forum.

Every one of us that have commented on a thread on any forum has contributed to this, both positively and negatively.  The complaint of "I don't like the way that looks" cannot be negated with a simple "it's alpha".  That is the first impression of the product.  They were shown something in an incomplete state, and they judged it to be subjectively substandard.  That early assessment, sometimes years before the product is finalized, is likely to govern that person's purchase decision on that product.

Gaming, especially those using crowdfunding, really needs to come up with a better solution on how to present incremental progress reports to a diverse and far-flung 'investment' base.  They need something where they can control the message they send, and control the audience that sees this message.  There are those that *need to know*, and those who *want to know*.  Putting out a blanket statement addressing the *want to know* crowd isn't a progress report, it's marketing.  Placeholder elements simply don't have a place in a marketing campaign.

Mendel

Kyleran said:

Rukushin said:

Raquis said:

all games will suck till they force you to put a VR headset(sensory deprivation chamber does the same things it makes you hallucinate, easier for demons to enter you) on your head then it will become a little bit better and games will blow your mind the day you let them implant a chip in your head to play games.

My thought is that all games will disappoint until VR headsets are commonplace because we won't get that same amount of hype and feeling that we did in 1999 and 2003 when people were like "OMG I'm walking in a 3D world with a chat room....OMG that's another real person at a computer somewhere on the other side of the world!" 

So, pretty much the next two renaissances for MMOs in general will be VRMMO with headsets .HACK style and VRMMOs with chips in our brains matrix style.

Yeah, but you still won't be able to get a decent meal...

e-Edible Goo?

Theocritus

We've had so much hype in this genre then so much fail, I just can't get excited about any of them until I play them....EQ2 was not very good really so I am not going to get thrilled that the makers of it are making a new game.

laserit

Rukushin said:

Raquis said:

all games will suck till they force you to put a VR headset(sensory deprivation chamber does the same things it makes you hallucinate, easier for demons to enter you) on your head then it will become a little bit better and games will blow your mind the day you let them implant a chip in your head to play games.

My thought is that all games will disappoint until VR headsets are commonplace because we won't get that same amount of hype and feeling that we did in 1999 and 2003 when people were like "OMG I'm walking in a 3D world with a chat room....OMG that's another real person at a computer somewhere on the other side of the world!" 

So, pretty much the next two renaissances for MMOs in general will be VRMMO with headsets .HACK style and VRMMOs with chips in our brains matrix style.

From my experience all your going to get with VR and long play sessions like you will find in an MMORPG is a head ache

Mendel

laserit said:

Rukushin said:

Raquis said:

all games will suck till they force you to put a VR headset(sensory deprivation chamber does the same things it makes you hallucinate, easier for demons to enter you) on your head then it will become a little bit better and games will blow your mind the day you let them implant a chip in your head to play games.

My thought is that all games will disappoint until VR headsets are commonplace because we won't get that same amount of hype and feeling that we did in 1999 and 2003 when people were like "OMG I'm walking in a 3D world with a chat room....OMG that's another real person at a computer somewhere on the other side of the world!" 

So, pretty much the next two renaissances for MMOs in general will be VRMMO with headsets .HACK style and VRMMOs with chips in our brains matrix style.

From my experience all your going to get with VR and long play sessions like you will find in an MMORPG is a head ache

Head ache.  Ergonomic side-effects.  Same difference.  That is a big problem that the VR technology will need to smooth out before it can become commonplace.

danwest58

Kajidourden said:

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

They have shown nothing of substance.  If you're whole shtick is about revolutionizing the way people play mmos you need more than combat tech demos.

Just like GW2 this will disappoint in a big way.

I disagree.  I watched over 100 hours of videos around ashes of creation from their QA stuff to their game play.   I also am an IT guy and work day in and day out with Developers.   Do you know how many times we have developers that used canned builds for UI for applications during development?   During your early phases as a developer you work on all your back end systems FIRST because if you dont its near impossible to fix them later.  For example I have a Royalties application that runs like crap because this vendor spent more time developing its UI than the functionality of the back end database.   Its so bad that You cannot puge data from the database because it keeps every calculation from the start of the system and if ANY of these calculations are removed that one record is completely gone.    Add to the fact you have 6 billion rows in 1 table and running any query against that table is useless.   Why?  Because they build the database with partitioning on tables like this.  Now to go back and add partitioning which would increase performance is not an option.  Yet the interface is beautiful but the application is useless.

Draemos said:

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

A yes, the “old it’s a placeholder” excuse.  I’ve been seeing that excuse used for the last 15 years and I don’t think it’s been true even once. 

@Draemos and @Kajidourden ; I have a much deeper understanding of the game and what they are doing than some average gamers.  Making all their systems run flawless while everything else looks bad is a smart way to go about things.   Just look at Pantheon, the game looks like crap but behind the scene they are doing a great job working on their systems.   

 

danwest58

cochs said:

Sovrath said:

Draemos said:

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

A yes, the “old it’s a placeholder” excuse.  I’ve been seeing that excuse used for the last 15 years and I don’t think it’s been true even once. 

And for a developer it seems like damned if theye do/damned if they don't. If they don't show anything they drop a great moment when they can connect to players/fans and help build community. If they do show something gamerz are going to expect a finished game even though you tattoo "it's in pre-alpha" on their faces.

I kind of wish games would go back to the beginning and not let players see anything until it's done.

I wish that wasn't true but it so is.  

Players can only judge the value of a game by what they understand.  And game development is a complex domain.  You can't expect anyone who hasn't made games to know much.  Even veteran software developers from other industries that get into games have all sorts of misconceptions.  

The thing is the most productive way to make this kind of game is to postpone final visuals as long as possible.  Because we go through so many pivots making games.  The design you start with is hardly ever the one you release with.  

So people making games tend to develop the ability to see through the placeholders to the real value.  We pretty much have to.

Personally I think it's still better to show stuff early.  Because player feedback is actually really important.  For the same reasons we postpone things like final visuals, we shouldn't be waiting until release to see if players actually like what we have created.  if they don't, we just wasted a lot of time we didn't need to by not showing early and often.

But it's definitely a fine line that needs the right balance.  You need to bridge the gap between what players are able to see in terms of value, and the actual value produced.  And early on a lot of the value is not really that visible.

The Average player judges on what they can see and play right now.   They do not belong judging games that are not even in Alpha because they are incapable of doing so when their only way of judging is by playing the product.    Since I work with developers daily on many different types of applications and I spent 100 or more hours watching Ashes of Creation videos I have a very good idea what the team is going for and doing.   Since I am a person who works on back end IT Systems, web servers, database servers, application servers, and so on.  I have a greater understanding what they are going through.  Plus I have 4 off shore teams I work with and manage workloads for.   

If the only way you can judge is by playing a game which a large portion of the gaming population can only do, then you cannot judge a game until they are in the final stages of Beta when they are nearing production release.   When you only have 1 or 2 months between end of Beta to release you cannot make sweeping changes to game systems.    But you can do that when you are not even in Alpha.   

Slapshot1188

danwest58 said:

cochs said:

Sovrath said:

Draemos said:

danwest58 said:

What people dont get about Ashes of Creation is they are focusing nearly all of their effort right now on getting their game design and game systems into the game.   Combat is a place holder, the art work is a place holder, and there are other place holders for other systems that need work.  However the developers focusing on the core of the game making that solid and bug free gives me hope for this game.   Too many times over the last decade I have seen games worry more about everything else and not their core game play.  Then when the game comes out people burn through the core game play and are bored in weeks or the game is so buggy that no one wants to play it.

Ashes of Creation I feel could become a good game.   I am not over hyped, I am going to give credit where credit is due.  I also think that the final product is 2 to 4 years away.   With that said, the game development and how they are executing that development is top end.  I am an IT guy, Windows Engineer and I work with several developer teams.  The ones that have a clear cut goal and focus on core systems working end up always performing well, the ones that mesh things together always end up with problems.   This is why I am giving Ashes of Creation my attention.  

A yes, the “old it’s a placeholder” excuse.  I’ve been seeing that excuse used for the last 15 years and I don’t think it’s been true even once. 

And for a developer it seems like damned if theye do/damned if they don't. If they don't show anything they drop a great moment when they can connect to players/fans and help build community. If they do show something gamerz are going to expect a finished game even though you tattoo "it's in pre-alpha" on their faces.

I kind of wish games would go back to the beginning and not let players see anything until it's done.

I wish that wasn't true but it so is.  

Players can only judge the value of a game by what they understand.  And game development is a complex domain.  You can't expect anyone who hasn't made games to know much.  Even veteran software developers from other industries that get into games have all sorts of misconceptions.  

The thing is the most productive way to make this kind of game is to postpone final visuals as long as possible.  Because we go through so many pivots making games.  The design you start with is hardly ever the one you release with.  

So people making games tend to develop the ability to see through the placeholders to the real value.  We pretty much have to.

Personally I think it's still better to show stuff early.  Because player feedback is actually really important.  For the same reasons we postpone things like final visuals, we shouldn't be waiting until release to see if players actually like what we have created.  if they don't, we just wasted a lot of time we didn't need to by not showing early and often.

But it's definitely a fine line that needs the right balance.  You need to bridge the gap between what players are able to see in terms of value, and the actual value produced.  And early on a lot of the value is not really that visible.

The Average player judges on what they can see and play right now.   They do not belong judging games that are not even in Alpha because they are incapable of doing so when their only way of judging is by playing the product.    Since I work with developers daily on many different types of applications and I spent 100 or more hours watching Ashes of Creation videos I have a very good idea what the team is going for and doing.   Since I am a person who works on back end IT Systems, web servers, database servers, application servers, and so on.  I have a greater understanding what they are going through.  Plus I have 4 off shore teams I work with and manage workloads for.   

If the only way you can judge is by playing a game which a large portion of the gaming population can only do, then you cannot judge a game until they are in the final stages of Beta when they are nearing production release.   When you only have 1 or 2 months between end of Beta to release you cannot make sweeping changes to game systems.    But you can do that when you are not even in Alpha.   

Personally I think they are making fine progress.  But what I think you are missing is that these videos are shown by the company to the general audience.   Saying you cannot judge them because you are not an IT expert is kind of silly.  If they put this stuff out it is going to be judged.  Folks need to stop being so defensive.   If the game is good when it releases people will come.  If it's not fun then people will not come, or if they do they will quickly leave.

If a company is going to post a video it's going to be judged.