World Maps: The Minimum Expectations of 21st Century RPGS

You just roll over and play dead then if you want to Cantebury, because if you want to put up with an unwelcome change and get on-board with every decision a dev makes whether you like it or not, then why are you even on this thread as it really is of no consequence to you. And the car example was a correct analogy because the map even though it is just pixels on a screen, clearly was used for marketing purposes in the 3 month demo, and has been changed beyond all recognition from what it was, as in the same difference between a car of two separate colours when you might have paid for a metallic blue car but the seller decides you really should have a yellow one instead, because he, not you decides it is better for you without any consultation on what is not a minor change. And finally if the devs didn't really want to listen to anyone, why would they have the Dev+ forums for people who backed with a larger pledge to have their say? Assuming by what you say if indeed the devs really have to listen at all. On this thread it has never been asked that the devs submit every change to us they make in the game. The overhead map was not a slight change its as obvious as day is from night, and we just really want to know why? and ask for some transparency on it. If its cost cutting then tell us, if its because the devs don't have the talent or know how to pull of the original idea then tell us, if its just that they hated the original idea, give us our say before such a major change. If what we say in the forums is of no consequence then close it down, and just get on with the game, but i very much doubt that public opinion doesn't have consequence, because we both know that is does.

 

Wow. Passive aggressive much? Anyway, you're incorrect to say the thread is "of no consequence" to me. Maybe you'd like the thread to be just wall to wall hate on the new map, but that's not how the forum works. If someone's happy with the paper map (and I am, for starters; FWIW I think it has the potential to grow into something quite interesting), they've got just as much right to say so, here in the thread, as people have to hate on something that's not even complete yet.

You're mixing up two different things. The first is having a forum, and letting people give ideas, and the devs keeping an eye what gets said. The second, however, is this concept that I see in multiple crowdfunding forums. Namely, people thinking their pledge has somehow bought them the ability to shape the game. And the thing is... it hasn't. The devs might look at people's thoughts and sometimes use even them, but they're not obligated to at all. Not in any way.

It's the same in this game, as it is in Star Citizen, as it is in all the other crowdfunded games. And I start to worry when I see people express that what they want to happen MUST happen because, dammit, they gave money! And, again, it just doesn't work like that. People are free to say what they'd like to happen, but this idea that the devs are somehow beholden to what is said on the forum and it MUST happen is just... well, it's not reality. It's not how crowdfunded games work.

I get the distinct feeling more people are going to blow-up in fury and leave before we get to the finished game because they're holding onto this idea that the devs MUST listen to them, when they're under absolutely no obligation to do so at all.

Don't get me wrong, it's lovely when the devs listen, or the path the devs are on is in sync with what some users want. But they can't always listen, and they won't always be in sync with all users; the latter is an impossibility, to begin with.

 

That is just making trouble where there is none Cantebury, did you miss the part where i asked for transparency on the change of direction, of such a MAJOR change? I hope that people are happy with the paper map, that is their right, we know that it is impossible for the Devs to be singing from the same page all the time, again i will say again that we have never asked to be informed of every design change decision that is made in the game, nor do we expect it, however this was not a slight change to the game as i keep stating.

How can i be if like you stated that you are happy to get on board with whatever the developers decide, If the devs put a giant stick man in place of your character ( extreme example ) would you be happy to get on board with that decision with out a reasonable explanation. I doubt it. I get your happy with the map, some of us are not, is it unreasonable to ask for a reasonable explanation as to why they did it?

 

How so? You'd just made it clear that a post that complimented the paper map wasn't welcome in the thread. If that's the case, what kind of posts would that leave in here? I thought it was a pretty safe observation, myself.

Obviously I wouldn't... but that hasn't happened, has it? My comment clearly relates to the two versions seen thus far. I'm quite happy to go along with whichever of those is chosen. I don't see why that's so strange, or why you have to invent some stick-man scenario that hasn't actually happened, or indeed why you had to make the passive aggressive, "You just roll over and play dead then if you want to Canterbury..." comment which was totally and utterly unnecessary.

 

Where have i said or anyone else who is opposed to the new map, made it clear that posts complimenting the new map where not welcome? We do have the right to say we do not like the new map, we do have the right to ask for answers even if they come our way or not, the same as anyone has the right to like the map and say why. And if you think that by saying " You just roll over and play dead then " was an aggressive statement, then i feel sorry you think so, because all i was doing was saying that if you are willing to get on-board with what ever the developers decide, then you may as well just roll over, but you know what i meant and it was clearly stated as to why i said it. Again you calling it passive aggressive is just making trouble where there is none. Did you also miss the part where i said i hope people are happy with the map? Did you also see Where i put ( Extreme example ) regarding the stick man as i was making an example of what if ? In which case i had to invent a scenario to make said point. Now i hate the new map along with some other people, and you obviously like the new map. Is it too much to ask for an honest explanation as to why they changed it ?
And on a last note if you took offence at me suggesting you roll over and play dead, then i apologise for offence caused, wasn't my intention.

 

It's all good, there's no need for us to be at each other over it. Even as someone who likes the storybook pop-up direction of the new map (because at the end of the day, I feel that we're playing an interactive storybook so it's thematically appropriate for it to be like a storybook, to my mind), I'd still be happy to see why they made the change, too. There's been some explanation, but not a full one. I enjoy understanding why changes are made in games under development.

 

Agreed

 

I think perhaps we should ask the devs and RG to respond directly whether they plan to keep this map so investors can adjust their pledges accordingly.

 

They have said this is not the final map just the 1st pass to get it in. People tend to forgot this is an alpha and many things are just frameworks for functionality, and not built for aesthetics or play-ability.

And BTW, there are no investors: we are donors. Gift-giving is different than investing.

 

1. Even if they enhance the map, it is still a totally different style and is no 3d living world anymore.

2. Were are not donors. We BOUGHT this game up front by giving them our money.

 

My understanding was that the paper map was only a fog of war and it would be a 3d overlooking map when you explored areas. At least this is what was discussed early on when they talked about the map. In either case, as with crafting and combat these are really placeholder frameworks and I would not expect them to be final at all.

And we are donors. Just like the coffee mugs you get when you donate to NPR, anything you get is a reward for your pledge. Crowdfunding is neither investing nor purchasing, which is where most people get upset when they expect more. Portalarium never actually has to release a product. Due to Kickstarter rules you are allowed to sue them if they don't deliver, but they could just go bankrupt and we would still get nothing in return.

 

Darkstarr said that the 3d map wasn't working the way they wanted and that the paper map is a replacement for it, not part of the 3d map. The paper map is far from done. They want zoom and rotate. They want to create living paper cutouts, but this is the direction they decided to take the map, not simply a placeholder.

 

Here is the quote:

The original 3d map, as of this post, was nixed and replaced. While this is far from the final product, it IS the direction they wanted to take the map as of a few days ago.

 

Thanks, I was not aware of that. Personally, I like the paper map, but it does feel like a rough draft, which I think it is.

 

Just to add to DarkStarr's post, when I asked Chris about two different versions of it in the chat, he had this to say on March 27th:


[10:05] <+LoneStranger> Chris: What about a mix of map style for unexplored, and real for places you've been to? Obviously, with a toggle so someone can pick the default or their fav?
[10:06] <+Chris> @Lonestranger, we have to pick one or the other. We can't keep supporting multiple versions of large systems long term. We can do the discovery option. It has been discussed by not scheduled

 

It seems impossible to argue with something that is so logical and reasonable. I cannot help but to agree this would be a plausible solution that may please everyone. I would by no means be against this. I like the map as it is currently implemented (the paper version) and I expect it to expand in functionality. But, Kaisa is correct IMO, there are other ways it could be done and even both could be implemented if time and resources allowed for it.

 

I agree. It is definitely a rough draft version. It will get prettier and more functional.

But for those of us who are arguing against it, that is not the issue (well for some of us anyway). We don't like the style or the direction. We feel that this art direction is more immersion breaking and relegates map travel to something more akin to fast travel and not as a means of exploration.

 

@Umbrae

Just to point out to you, we didn't get upset because we expected more regarding this map, we got upset because we expected better than they gave based on the 3month demo, and without a reasonable explanation. At this point I am not even sure we will even have a map for the hex we are in based on what Chris said to LoneStranger. Concerning the overhead map, I will just have to keep my fingers crossed and see if the devs can gain any more inspiration from the Game of Thrones.

 

To be clear, the discussion with Chris was regarding the overhead world map, not maps inside hexes. I am sure we will get some kind of map for the villages/towns/cities. It may not be a dynamic map and is probably just an image, but we will get them in some form. Stephen had worked on a few of them and showed one to us during a PotA.

 

That will be great, i hope so Thanks for that update LoneStranger.