The "Don't listen to the comunity" comments?

[stormgear]

The thing is...all ideas substantiated or not should be pigeon-holed by those that don't like it for whatever reason. This is required because many ideas are simply not thought-through beyond "hey, this would be cool if..." stage, and that does no one any good.

This is where my "bad idea" on things that won't be so viable in the game mechanic itself is pinning at, inputs are welcome. But you gotta raise the feasibility of that idea, otherwise expect people to disagree with your idea.

it means actually thinking like a game-designer.

+1

[CNCGeek101]

Ideas and suggestions is always a balancing act regardless of the situation. Developers also have to make sure our ideas translate well into the game or it just won't work.

[Borreh]

This is where my "bad idea" on things that won't be so viable in the game mechanic itself is pinning at, inputs are welcome. But you gotta raise the feasibility of that idea, otherwise expect people to disagree with your idea.

+1

Of course it does, but many times an idea if constroversial and has few supporters / few enemies. If both will call eachother "amateurs not thinking as a game designer" then we will get nowhere.

The devs are here the people who decide what is worth thinking about and what is not, while we should get into critical discussion, it is far too easy to call for an esoteric "no" and try to end discussion about something that is debatable. If more than one person is liking an idea, then for me it is enough for it to be thought about.

We will get nowhere if, for example, we have two supporters, and two enemies in a discussion, and one pair will just say "you are unprofessional amateur" and shot down the discussion - And the forums are for discussion.

Besides, thinking that devs are blind and will implement every and single random flick someone will post here is just offensive to the devs. They know better what can be done from a "crazy unprofessional" idea as much as from a well-thought out one.

Come to think of it, proposing a detailed well-thought idea may be a worse thing to do than posting something "esoteric". Why? Because a well thought idea may be all to specific for implementation in a game we know almost literally nothing about. People sometimes go as far as to propose specific numbers and other details regarding very specific units or other things. The thing is, we do not know if they will be adequate at all because the game may have a completely different gameplay/unit/stuff altogether.

[toti]

i havent read the thread but this is about what i think on the matter.
click me
have a nice day

[Golan2781]

I think the article is going a bit too far. Games being an interactive medium, the audience is certainly part of the gamepaly experience, a so has to be taken into account. Simply taking a stance of "it's art, don't challenge it, shut up and appreciate it" is just as mindlessly limiting as camping out near a market research institute. Ultimately, a game is both a product and a work of art and ideally matches both criteria - focusing only on a single aspect should be left to indie games that are targeted at a tighter audience.

[Klandri]

i havent read the thread but this is about what i think on the matter.
click me
have a nice day

I must agree with Dolan Golan here. This guy really needs to relax a bit. Why not change the ending? If something is bad and the fans point it out, and it gets fixed there is no reason to fret. It's art, sure but, art is meant to be enjoyed. Art is not valuable just because it's art. [Warning, the link points to a very disturbing video].

[Lauren]

I must agree with Dolan Golan here. This guy really needs to relax a bit. Why not change the ending? If something is bad and the fans point it out, and it gets fixed there is no reason to fret. It's art, sure but, art is meant to be enjoyed.

The problem is at least half of the customers think the ME3 ending and its implications are very well crafted. Though one thing that is overlooked is BioWare over and over states the endings are not changed, and I am glad they don't. The ending is the ultimate mind screw, and the people who don't like it go in 95% of the cases for the "BioWare is lazy" excuse without thinking one second what the entire series was about and why there is so much purposely placed weird stuff in ME3.

[ConKid66]

While all community members deserve to have their ideas heard (though not all applied), I see the reasoning behind the "don't listen to the community" statements. Since Generals 2 was announced many new members have joined the forums, some of who may not even have played a C&C before, and therefore do not know, as well as other members, what is in the best interests for the franchise.

Having said that, good community feedback is vital to the success of any franchise, not just C&C.

[owlstj]

While all community members deserve to have their ideas heard (though not all applied), I see the reasoning behind the "don't listen to the community" statements. Since Generals 2 was announced many new members have joined the forums, some of who may not even have played a C&C before, and therefore do not know, as well as other members, what is in the best interests for the franchise.

Having said that, good community feedback is vital to the success of any franchise, not just C&C.

Everyone has to admit that C&C 4 is a "very bad" game compared to C&C 3. 3 was fun, it was interesting, compelling to play because the AI was very well adapted to the game. 4 is just,,,well,,,$hit. I hate it, I'm unimpressed, and whoever designed it should be given the boot. Such a shame that such a good franchise be destroyed by someone who said "maybe we should do something different this time" when they have an obvious winner of a game.

[owlstj]

C&C 4 reminds me of the debacle of Dynasty Warriors 5 to 6. 5 was such a fun hack and slash with structured mission obectives and 6 was just a tedious button pressing frenzy to kill a bunch of easy to beat bosses. Absolutely pointless and indicative of today's more incompetent game designers.