Credit where credit is due

I don't start threads often, but this time, I think it's deserved.

In case anyone still wonders why we're blessed with a seriously awesome dev team, here's what @DarkStarr just published as announcement, warning, and thread post in that toxic pit that are Steam forums:

http://steamcommunity.com/games/326160/announcements/detail/800862693296487227

I urge you all to consider the amount of Truth, Courage (from a business point of view) and Love (toward gamers) this move implies.

In my 35+ years of gaming, I met all sorts of companies. This one carries on a legacy that can't be explained by commercial success alone.

My hat is tipped to you, Starr.

 

It is unfortunate. I was always under the impression that Steam was filled with a bunch of prepubescent ankle biters and I still believe so. This just reinforces that view. I think the devs are doing a wonderful job not only in the development but with the ongoing communication of the state of the game. The community continues to be awesome and the improvements made from release to release continue to anchor my love for this idea. The game is working better all the time. There is no doubt. Thanks to everyone that is making this a success. Credit where credit is due, indeed!

 

Sounds like more of us that love the game should go on Steam and write good reviews ...

 

Yes, we should.

 

The warning will probably still be ignored by some people, but at least it's there now to sort of point to "I told you so", to those that want to leave a bad review. I understand why they put the game on steam, it makes sense from a business standpoint to get more money, I guess, but at the same time, it's releasing a very unfinished game to the open public, susceptible to extreme criticism, and in a time for gaming that first impressions can make or break a game, I don't feel it's a good idea. Once the game is ready for release hopefully it's in superb condition and will stand on it's own merit, and we can help bring in more people with word of mouth and forum postings.

The dev team of SotA have always shown integrity and honesty, with both positive and negative feedback. Aside from Mark Jacobs and his team from Camelot Unchained (Also a man of integrity and honesty), I haven't seen another Dev team that even comes close. I applaud them for putting the warning up. I hope it will get people to read it before they choose to dive in, so to speak.

 

Lots of unfinished games on steam have good reviews, being unfinished isn't really a valid excuse for a bad review. Just saying. Lego Worlds, Bierzerkers, Interstellar Rift, Stonehearth, ARK, Rocket League, Secrets of Grindea, Tree of Life, all highly reviewed early access games.

Like Starr mentioned if you want it to have a good review, and you like it, review it accordingly.

 

Well a lot of peaple that give bad feedback on steam have maby played 1H or somthing so in never understood how you can make a review about somthing that you didnt have realy played

 

Let's get some more positive Steam reviews.

 

The developers actually requested this very thing.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/steam-review-request.21397/

 

Funny thing is: a good portion of them isn't negative.
They just complain it's an alpha.
So Portalarium did best they could do with the warning.

Yeah, complicated topic.
A lot of people outside of the community recvied this one negative.

 

And some even within the community.

Me, for example.

 

I can understand that.
The request is uncommon and got a special taste to it.
I feel uncomfortable with it as well.
I did write a positive review though. But not because of the request, just because i think the game is good and has loads of potential to become perfect.

 

Well i never had a problem with the request, the only the devs did was saying he you guys tell us all the time how you love it so pls go on steam and tell them. Nothing wrong with it.

 

True. But actually, isn't really a valid excuse for good reviews either. It's the whole concept of reviewing an unfinished product that's failed at its root. It depends wildily on how much unfinished the product is, what the expectations, what the "time horizon" for the title is, etc.

I hate with passion when negative reviews are used as bash tool by bitter UO fanboys that they are not getting Ultima Online 2 right here and right now.

But if I'd base my consumer choice on positive reviews only to discover that they were somehow rigged (mind you, just perception, not necessarily rigged for real!), the disappointment would be far, far worse.

 

Nothing wrong with the request per se'. It's an honest, under-the-sunlight nudge: "if you like it, let everyone know you like it". And nothing wrong with a positive review for something you like.

It's the very concept of reviewing a product at this stage that's wrong.

Let's be honest: this game can be fantastically wonderful (as I think and hope), and all the negative reviews will appear as sour ex's post-breakup-hangover babbling.

Or it can tank and the bubble burst (there's a slim, awful possibility that it takes too long to be refined for release before the coffers are empty and the dev guys payday arrives), and the positive reviews will appear as rose-tinted glasses worshipping fanboys sermons.

 

At the same time there alot of games that have reviews that were negative in ALPHA changed to positive in release. For good or bad the reviews should stand. There is no one out there maliciously trying to hurt the game. We have three camps. The vocal supporters who love it, the quiet majority who I think are waiting to see how things pan out and the vocal negative crowd. Each is as important as each other, it does not reflect poorly on anyone - they are just opinions. This game will release regardless.

I have issues with the game development, professional conduct and "the illuminati". I make no apologies for that. I am vocal. Not in wide reaching circles however. I do so because I am an invested backer who does care about the game. It is the one thing everyone here has in common. Even Freeman with all his dissecting of the combat system is undertaking a labor of love.

I have not written a review, simply I still see potential in this game but I do not feel a review on Steam will serve any purpose good or bad. I think EA was a terrible idea and should not of been pursued until the game was closer to release. If anything negative reviews becoming positive screams alot more progress and development then no reviews. It shows progress. To blame gamers as the problem for the reviews is short sighted and alienates potential customers and rustles the jimmies of some who have already invested in the game. For someone to take the time to write a review positive or not reflects on the persons interest in the game. If the same bad points keep coming up then maybe it might be worth looking into. At least you know you have reached out to someone and made them care enough to post either way.

 

It seems you agree with me. A review - any review, good or bad - at this stage is irrelevant at best (as you say, things can and probably will change at release), and damaging at worst, either unnecessarily dismissive or unnecessarily "cultist".

I totally agree with you.

It's a long, thorny subject, however. The disclaimer pinned in Steam SotA forum is a testament to its complexity.

I don't blame gamers, I blame Steam and its choice to enable reviews for products that will be necessarily different during drawing board/development/refinement phases and release.

That's ultimately short sighted. The review is not a feedback. Bug reports are feedback. Discussions are feedback. A review is a review. Being able to change or edit it defeats the whole purpose, intent and concept of "review". Call them "my feelings at this stage of the development effort", not "review". Eventually, we could talk about a PREview, but a review is the final word on something, not a work-in-progress blog rant.

Sorry if I seem so nitpicking about the very meaning of a review. I've been an editor in an online MMO magazine. Our director repeated it to us every other day that we must not confuse our readers mixing and matching previews, demo, alpha, beta, and reviews, and that the review article was reserved exclusively for finished, complete, finalized, out-in-shops games.

 

Wasnt trying to dissect your post, sorry if it came that way.

/agree with what you said

I guess its a limitation on Steam that has to be worked around. What I take away from the Steam reviews, and I have read alot, is you have some people saying exactly that "In the current state...", "...has potential..." and either its positive or negative going on how their interpretation is. Generally alot of the word pictures are positive. There is also alot to be taken from it. However there has been deleting of posts in forums and deleting of reviews. I think this is why we are seeing these reviews crop up. When you read them the author's frustration is with the development, with the funding, prealpha/alpha beta etc whatever.

What cannot be denied is SOTA has a perception problem to the wider gaming audience. That IS something that can be fixed and needs to be ASAP. Deleting threads, alienating negative discussion, calling people out or saying Oh alpha just isnt for you is not how to address this. If I was a dev I would be looking at what the dev team has achieved, what they did well, what they did poorly, what they can do better and make that a starting point.

Ultimately gamers dont know what they want but they know what they dont want...if that makes sense. Engagement with community, not just the loyalists, is what is needed,

Perfect example is the Combat System. Instead of coming out hey these are the changes this is what we are going to go with and this is going to be the finished product. Not hey we got some exciting changes on the way. I seen one thread where people are trying to nut out what stats do what and relation to Attack Skill. Just release the algorithm. People will dissect it work it out and be able to test balance a thousand fold better. Players backed this game to be involved and because they are passionate about this title. Its really a special thing and it should be used. Anyway thats just one example I can fire off the top of my head.

 

Aye, I know some people that left negative reviews as well, and will change it when the game is more complete. I don't usually give a thumbs up or down for a game until it's complete though myself. I just don't feel I can leave anything but a neutral for an unfinished product, with a list of pros and cons, so I couldn't give it a positive or negative review atm, so I didn't leave a review. In my mind though, I certainly couldn't give it a thumbs up to buy at the moment, heh.

The only thing I will do when asked, is answer questions about the current game, and it's state, and when someone asks me if they should buy the game, I say it's up to you to decide based on what I've told you, and the reviews and info you have read about the game. Honestly though, I couldn't recommend the game to anyone I know yet, because it's not complete, there's still yet too much that needs to be put in the game to make it fun to play, and major gameplay mechanics of the game aren't even fleshed out and completed yet, it's missing so much still.

I also know that many people I know, really aren't people that like to play an incomplete game so they'd have a bad impression in its current state. I did however buy the game for a few people to try out and that was a mistake because it did leave a bad impression for them and now they have moved on and probably won't give it another look , so I won't do that again until it's released, lol.

 

Another hideous shortcoming of Steam "reviews": there's no neutral feedback. Only positive or negative. You cannot express correctly a "wait and see" stance.

That's why I didn't leave a review, either.