Sadrik
First Post
As a hobbyist, designer and gamer, I like to think I have a pretty vested interest in how this game turns out. I feel like things that I have worked through discussion on these boards do not make the dense information barrier between end user and designer. Granted this is a traditional design scope problem.
Sometimes, things are worked out and there is a communal agreement and sometimes disagreement abounds. After all we each have our own perceived notions of where the game should go. After each iteration, it feels readily apparent to me that this game is an untamable beast. It will become the game it has always been, a Frankenstein's monster. Pieces and ideas not fully realized, some design scope fulfilled and some stunted. Some great ideas and some obtuse sacred cows and some decisions left simply unanswered (which is a design answer in it self though). In many cases, it appears that a deep understanding of the issues is tenuous at best. It brings me back to it will be a hodgepodge, basic bits are lacking and all the glued on bells and whistles are sometimes not sticking or not looked at in a holistic sense.
The design staff have a huge responsibility, it won't be too much to handle, but I think it will not be as spectacular as I have in my mind the potential could be. My expectations need to be drastically lowered. There are figuratively thousands of moving parts and each one has effects on countless others. Then there is the notion of playstyle options which further complicate and compound. Not to just hammer and give no compliments, there have been some incredibly smart decision making too and lots of excellent changes, deletions, and additions.
I am not sure the open playtest was a good strategy too. It asks people to buy in and make determinations, however those determinations cannot possibly all be looked at. The end result is a lot of people who bought in offered their feedback on their own pet peeves and then see their suggestions shirked, not by anything more than the avalanche of data, the weakness of their idea, the complexity of the system itself, or perhaps the clarity of the design staff.
I need to get over the hump and submit to the fact that my version of the game will never get made, unless I make it myself. Also, any tempest in a teapot that resolves in real clarity for all sides in a messageboard on EnWorld will not pierce the end-user/designer barrier.
My post is not high on specifics and I am sure someone will ask for them. Perhaps it is a Mearlsian post. I am not sure I will spend the time in this thread to detail any specifics and would rather leave details to other specific issue threads.
Bottom line is they should hire me.
Sometimes, things are worked out and there is a communal agreement and sometimes disagreement abounds. After all we each have our own perceived notions of where the game should go. After each iteration, it feels readily apparent to me that this game is an untamable beast. It will become the game it has always been, a Frankenstein's monster. Pieces and ideas not fully realized, some design scope fulfilled and some stunted. Some great ideas and some obtuse sacred cows and some decisions left simply unanswered (which is a design answer in it self though). In many cases, it appears that a deep understanding of the issues is tenuous at best. It brings me back to it will be a hodgepodge, basic bits are lacking and all the glued on bells and whistles are sometimes not sticking or not looked at in a holistic sense.
The design staff have a huge responsibility, it won't be too much to handle, but I think it will not be as spectacular as I have in my mind the potential could be. My expectations need to be drastically lowered. There are figuratively thousands of moving parts and each one has effects on countless others. Then there is the notion of playstyle options which further complicate and compound. Not to just hammer and give no compliments, there have been some incredibly smart decision making too and lots of excellent changes, deletions, and additions.
I am not sure the open playtest was a good strategy too. It asks people to buy in and make determinations, however those determinations cannot possibly all be looked at. The end result is a lot of people who bought in offered their feedback on their own pet peeves and then see their suggestions shirked, not by anything more than the avalanche of data, the weakness of their idea, the complexity of the system itself, or perhaps the clarity of the design staff.
I need to get over the hump and submit to the fact that my version of the game will never get made, unless I make it myself. Also, any tempest in a teapot that resolves in real clarity for all sides in a messageboard on EnWorld will not pierce the end-user/designer barrier.
My post is not high on specifics and I am sure someone will ask for them. Perhaps it is a Mearlsian post. I am not sure I will spend the time in this thread to detail any specifics and would rather leave details to other specific issue threads.
Bottom line is they should hire me.
