Again, as stated SEVERAL times now, I bring it up because people love to use "but it's alpha" as a reason when things get changed despite the fact that's not typically what Alpha is.
People use the term: "It's Alpha" to answer others, not because it is easy or to troll.
Hell no. I'll still state my opinion if I don't like it.
That's the theory at least. Sadly, in practice, this is often the other way around.
As a modder though, every single change I have seen is welcome and exciting. I know our work is basically trashed and I am 100 percent on board with it. The wheel NEEDED reinvented. Why do you think Ravenhearst was born to begin with? We were growing so very tired of the vanilla way of doing things. We wanted something different, complex.Hell no. I'll still state my opinion if I don't like it.
But that brings up another point. It took me AGES to even consider posting that. A lot of stuff coming out of A17 preview stuff is really starting to bother me with how much the game has changed in an alpha, especially when it was stated in A16 that we were basically at beta point (and has now been stated AGAIN).
It took me ages because of how many people just absolutely pile on someone who says they don't like something posted. I get it. I do. We have a lot of folks who come in here and just female dog/moan/complain. I tried to make sure I didn't do that and stated I did not understand why this decision/choice was made, but still got jumped on.
That really, really, really needs to stop.
It may seem that way to you because you are not an employee of the company and so do not have access to the internal roadmap for the game. They plan like any company plans. Create a roadmap and hold planning meetings where they adjust, refine, and, yes, sometimes cut. I read the proposals for many of these systems back in 2017 but was not at liberty to discuss them with those who are not employees of the company. I don't think there is anything extraordinary about that, honestly.
You are confusing feedback with direction. The Fun Pimps don't want the community to direct their game. They want to direct their game. They already know what they want to do and don't need a committee of 1000s voting in majorities to tell them what designs to put in or how to create their game. They make those decisions and then get feedback from us on what is well received and what is not. But even if the majority of the community hates something the developers want to put in...well...that's what modding is for.
Your perception is your opinion but it doesn't match with reality. They do have deadlines. But their goals are not based upon a particular date, they are based upon a level of quality. Once they reach their goal they will release it. Internally, they do have goals, deadlines, plans, and they run their business very well. faatal just presented something to the team today that blew my mind. There are going to be amazing new experiences in A17.Sorry like any other frustrated fan, I use some hard language. But I totally get the long time it take, I totally get you guys are experimenting and trying good stuffs. But I see your team doesn't have Define focus on task in hand. Fun pimp team is try to make a cake, if it baked well we serve it, else we try again. Team is not planning, not making deadline for themselves to achieve.
For home grown game it is okay, but for professional companies it hurt your long term goals. you guys have skills and amazing skills, but your approach to problem is questionable. I would invest in your game as FAN (and I already did), as I know every year or so I get a new game, but as investor I will never invest in Fun Pimps (provided I got that much money). I love your game, your passion for development. But your team really need a Direction and need to learn to stick to deadline. Don't push developer or designer for unrealistic deadline, if it take 2 yrs so be it, but plan, think, replan and then start coding. Don't code and see if it works then we use it else not.
In end, I will wait for a17 I just have to drive that 4x4 today or tomorrow, I will drive it one day
Certainly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_development#Alpha
I've since done more research to confirm if that's accurate, since wikipedia is not exactly the best source of information due to it's collaborative nature. It seems to be pretty much correct in MOST cases.
Early Access games are the outliers in that regard. So if people just said "Well they can change stuff because it's an Early Access game" I'd respond with "They CAN, but it's still a bad idea when they've been 'close to beta' since the A16 videos last year."
EDIT: Adding this because I love this description from an industry vet as well.
The various studios I've worked at have revised the names a little.
There is pre-production. There are several steps to it as well, but basically it starts with pitches and prototypes, then bigger pitches, more prototypes, proof of concept, and eventually the game idea gets accepted and funded.
Main development, which fits your description of "pre alpha". This is where most of the work gets done, and the pieces are built. There are several key events.
One of the first sought-after milestones is "first playable", where it transitions from being a bunch of non-fun pieces into something that resembles a playable game.
The next is is the "vertical slice", meaning there is something that represents all the key pieces. Usually it looks and feels terrible, but all the components are represented.
There may be some additional milestones as major features are added.
Alpha declaration often matches a milestone "feature complete". All the features that are part of the design are present, or they have been cut from the design. Features are buggy, and content is often sparse, but all the things are there and working more or less correctly.
"Content complete" happens generally at some point late in alpha.
There are many bug fixes, and lots of parts are moving.
Different studios have wildly definitions of beta so it doesn't fit the same place everywhere. Usually it happens somewhere between content complete and one of the asset locks.
Next are "audio lock" and "art lock", when these assets are no longer modified except for major bugs, allowing the other systems to stabilize. Next is usually "animation lock" and "effects lock", similarly frozen except for major bugs.
With most systems locked down, studios rename it to "finaling" the game. Only the most critical bugs and certification-breaking changes are made. Eventually there are a series of final candidate builds that are heavily tested. When one is approved it is sent on to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo for final certification. Usually their certification groups come back with a list of things that didn't pass, although sometimes (maybe 5%) the games go through cert without issue. The changes are debated (sometimes the companies will accept certain violations) and others are fixed, and then there will be another final candidate, sometimes this goes back and forth three, four, or rarely more times, it gets expensive quick.
The one that is accept is "gold", sent to the presses, and distributed wildly. Sometimes there are bug fixes or changes that were made in case the disk wasn't accepted, but those changes aren't incorporated into the game unless there is a patch.
Source:
Well I'm glad you posted something you feel passionate about. You did post it in a public forum and so you should be prepared to get negative responses to your view. I get that all the time, myself.Hell no. I'll still state my opinion if I don't like it.
But that brings up another point. It took me AGES to even consider posting that. A lot of stuff coming out of A17 preview stuff is really starting to bother me with how much the game has changed in an alpha, especially when it was stated in A16 that we were basically at beta point (and has now been stated AGAIN).
It took me ages because of how many people just absolutely pile on someone who says they don't like something posted. I get it. I do. We have a lot of folks who come in here and just female dog/moan/complain. I tried to make sure I didn't do that and stated I did not understand why this decision/choice was made, but still got jumped on.
That really, really, really needs to stop.
I have no problem with negative responses. Life would be boring if everyone agreed with you.
I do have a problem with people being outright rude, sarcastic or making assumptions to cast folks in a negative light (the last one I know I'm bad with and trying to improve... basically adopting a "think before I post" mentality), and that's happening a lot of late.
What is this? Teenage dating? You'll get your present when it's done!
My 'problem' (it's not really), is that 'It's Alpha' is often used to counter-argue the question/demand for optimization. And by forgoing the classic, rigid, definition of Alpha-Beta-Gold, which occurs when adding features post-launch/post-optimization, one forgoes the 'It's Alpha' argument as well. Fine by me that features will be added during Beta/Gold/whatever you want to call it, no problem at all. But the 'It's Alpha and therefore optimization will come probably later'-argument will not hold if the classic structure is not followed.
But moooooom..
Underground farming is getting cut off? I never saw any announcement about that.
