- Nov 5, 2013
- 923
- 1.136
It has been mentioned here in the thread but I can put my "unbiased" thoughts on this.
I can guarantee that we aren't, when developing a game, going through a "dumbing" down phase of anything.
It all is more or less based on creative vision, development time and budget. Many times things are getting cut as they simply are not fun, and yes, some of those things have been brought up by the community afterwards.. "Why did you not do x or y?", so it isn't something new to us, as we've already gone down that route and confirmed that it's does not fit the game (are we always correct in the end? Who knows?
.
Other times ( a lot), while developing we go "Damn, this would be so freaking cool", but we don't have the time to do that, which ends up in a backlog of possible things to do.
Another thing boils down to the topic of accessibility. Just because the game is more accessible, doesn't make it less "complex".
I like to take up an example using Victoria II:
A community member was arguing with @Groogy about how certain things are working in the game, and even though Groogy said that he was literally looking at the code while writing his responses, said member of this outstanding community did not budge, as that is how he/she perceived how things was working. That in my opinion is bad design. Making the games more accessible is awesome, but of course that is a fine balance as we want to continue doing mechanically complex games (which we are constantly getting better at).
And finally, NO, we never "cut" out content from the base game in order to sell it later as a DLC.
Either way, we just want you folks to enjoy our games as much as we do here at the office.
//Mr.Nibbles
I can guarantee that we aren't, when developing a game, going through a "dumbing" down phase of anything.
It all is more or less based on creative vision, development time and budget. Many times things are getting cut as they simply are not fun, and yes, some of those things have been brought up by the community afterwards.. "Why did you not do x or y?", so it isn't something new to us, as we've already gone down that route and confirmed that it's does not fit the game (are we always correct in the end? Who knows?
. Other times ( a lot), while developing we go "Damn, this would be so freaking cool", but we don't have the time to do that, which ends up in a backlog of possible things to do.
Another thing boils down to the topic of accessibility. Just because the game is more accessible, doesn't make it less "complex".
I like to take up an example using Victoria II:
A community member was arguing with @Groogy about how certain things are working in the game, and even though Groogy said that he was literally looking at the code while writing his responses, said member of this outstanding community did not budge, as that is how he/she perceived how things was working. That in my opinion is bad design. Making the games more accessible is awesome, but of course that is a fine balance as we want to continue doing mechanically complex games (which we are constantly getting better at).
And finally, NO, we never "cut" out content from the base game in order to sell it later as a DLC.
Either way, we just want you folks to enjoy our games as much as we do here at the office.
//Mr.Nibbles
