hapro wrote:For instance, it is bad UI design to not allow players to remove a skill point from a skill before clicking some kind of "confirm" button. <...> Criticism can be objective.
Your criticism is objective save for that highlighted word.
Objective criticism is "this game don't have feature X". Non-objective criticism includes sneaking the word "bad" into it somewhere.
Actually, it is bad UI design, as it is best practice to provide some manner of undo or confirmation to any user option that can have permanent or irreversible effects. A common example is how most email programs send deleted items to a deleted items folder rather than just flat out deleting them. A rather humorous example of the opposite is here:
The_ShadoW wrote:Things can also be objectively good or bad.
No, they can't. There's no "good" or "bad" without the subject, the person appraising the object.
Well, let's suppose that it's not objective then. If something is considered subjectively good by all people, is that thing not objectively better than something considered subjectively worse by all people?
Dandy wrote:I demand that Almost Human, rename cryocore to crymore.
Seeing as I have no serious issues with the game. I am not being emotional, or dismissive but am actually trying to have an adult and constructive debate about gamer entitlement I would suggest you think a bit harder before posting something as asinine as you just did. I am not insulting or trying to demean anyone so why are attempting to do that to me?
Actual issues aside, (and I actually happen to agree with the main point I think you're trying to make) your tone is by far the most arrogant of any posters in this thread. (Yes, I'm familiar with the dictionary definition.) And tone, is what folks will most readily react to.
I write like I speak. Peoples interpretation of my tone is not my concern. I have never been accused of being arrogant irl. I intend no offence and I am certainly not condescending to anyone. Anyone who takes the stance that I am is the one with the issue.
jar wrote:I have reached a point that I can't play anymore. I encountered several spiders and I just can't play that fast with a mouse. I need keyboard controls otherwise I misclick everything because of my tremors, try playing with your hands shaking and clicking at random. You say we are arrogant, well screw you. They are arrogant for making a game without thinking about how their different customers' abilities affect gameplay.
I am sorry that your disability mean you cant enjoy the game. I'm almost completely deaf and soon will be 100% deaf. Does that mean I can complain about the lack of subtitles for every film playing at a cinema? It makes its virtually impossible for me to enjoy the movie. Am I entitled to take issue with it? No.
Do you think every game should cater to your disability? Should FPS's be changed so you can compete? Should RTS's focusing on micros be altered because you cant hotkey? Should fighting games be changed as well? Having a disability doesnt make you more entitled. It's a shame and I really do feel for you, but catering to everyone especially those with special needs is asking for too many compromises. I know how that sounds and I really mean no disrespect, but harsh realities are harsh.
What I don't understand is how one non Almost HUman person is speaking for them here. If a dev was saying 'look we've read all your points and although we appreciate some people are finding <insert issue here> difficult the game is intended that way' I'd be quite happy.
How does the OP know with such certainty that the brilliant guys at Almost Human intended aspects of this game to only be accessible/playable to a proportion of players? That they intended ( for example) that the timed puzzles to be so tight and the experience so variable regardless of PC spec?
The rest of this post is just my opinion:
A large part of the audience would reasonably be expected to be those who have been playing these style games for donkeys years, like me (I'm 40 - grew up with an Amiga playing DM, CSB, EOBs, Abandoned Places, Black Crypt, Knightmare, Captive etc - couldn't get enough of them and still can't). I honestly don't believe that AH intended the game to be so infuriating in places that even these experienced gamers and veterans of this type of game are giving up in frustration after 200 tries on a timed puzzle. (I'll guess I'll trigger more inane responses saying we're crap, the game isn't for us and other meaningless insults here). I would personally assume that they want as many people as possible to play it, enjoy it and spread the word. I don't think they are the type of people to care only about sales and be damned if people ultimately like it. They've made it clear on their blog that this was a labour of love as fans of this type of game themselves. Their blog also makes it clear that not all design decisions were easy and they've been tweaking a lot of things. Who knows if they actually intended that so many people are struggling or cannot even complete it.
I don't want them to change the balance of puzzles - the selection and style is perfect. My issue is largely just with timed puzzles that for some of us (and not just on slower machines) where the time is too tight, you have to time things too perfectly and string together far, far too many perfect movements in order to make it any fun at all, and in some case near impossible. A safe spot half way through some would be nice I think. Or a slider so we can customise the timer to suit - it can still be tight, just not AS tight perhaps. (See my separate thread discussing what may be causing this issue for many - it seems it may be a bug).
Unless a DEV says this, the OP is merely expressing an opinion (albeit arrogantly by presenting opinion as fact), and those of us who disagree have an equally valid opinion. I actually can't believe I'm bothering to reply, especially as this board seems to have more trolls that I expected for a game like this, but there we go.
As someone has rightly pointed out in another thread, many/most games from large and small studios often need tweaking/patching/rebalancing once a decent sized sample of people are playing (beta is naturally limited in scope - stuff always gets missed/biased opinion in a sample which will always be small compared to the ultimate hoped-for number of players). Those finding it perfect may yet find that it wasn't what the devs intended after all.
Constructive feedback does not automatically mean we hate the game or are disrespectful to AH. It means we love the game, care about it and want to make sure the devs hear our thoughts, just as those going 'its perfect' want to.
I kinda secretly hope that a dev comes on and says 'Well done those managing to play, but we really didn't intend some of the puzzles to be so hard so we're changing it'. They probably won't but it would be very funny.
Hey ho.
Last edited by Pipsissiwa on Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"I'd let you live but I can't, I'm a willing servant of Evil"
hapro wrote:Well, let's suppose that it's not objective then. If something is considered subjectively good by all people, is that thing not objectively better than something considered subjectively worse by all people?
However, there's another problem here: you indefinitely expand your very limited personal experience (your own experience and experience of some few other forum posters) until it somehow turns into "all people". Expanding your claim from "I think this is good" to "All people think this is good" is nothing more than a rhetoric fallacy.
To OP: i have enough. i was silent for quite a long time, but now i have to say: every thread you are posting the same and now you need your own thread to further boost your inflated ego? Your constant bashing of people who demand nothing, but only want some options that are perhaps implemented or not sometime in near or far future or never at all, is disgusting. You are 35 and behave like a 10 year old? I would like to meet you in person, jsut to see i you are the same in real life as you are here at the boards. I never thought that I would personally take offense with someone i even do not know, but here are my hearty congratulations: you are my winner! and your price is first place on my ignore list. Not that you would bother...I know.
To all others: sorry i had to went my anger but i could's keep my mouth shut any longer.
Loktofeit wrote:
Actually, it is bad UI design, as it is best practice to provide some manner of undo or confirmation to any user option that can have permanent or irreversible effects. A common example is how most email programs send deleted items to a deleted items folder rather than just flat out deleting them. A rather humorous example of the opposite is here:
Its only "bad" if the execution is contrary to the intent.
If AH made the decision that all choices are final then it succeeds. I am not saying that is what they think, but I also think that any mistake and/or choice needs a consequence. For me the inability to remove skill points seems logical. The assertion that it is flawed/bad/wrong/broken is therefore incorrect because for it to be objectively wrong means that everyone would find the same fault.
