|
|
Post by notoverpromise on Jul 17, 2015 23:12:05 GMT
|
|
reallynotoverpromise
Guest
|
Post by reallynotoverpromise on Jul 17, 2015 23:23:53 GMT
Kind of amazing watching him throw Molyneux under the bus, regardless of the reasoning behind it.
|
|
extremelynotopverpromise
Guest
|
Post by extremelynotopverpromise on Jul 17, 2015 23:40:24 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 23:56:49 GMT
“We’ve gone past that point of no return. We are going to finish it,”
Then what is a "finished Godus" and how does 22cans plan to get there, or are they going to continue with aimless disconnects with actual feedback about the game by wanking around with Combat until absolutely nobody cares, then go for something even more irrelevant to repairing the game's core design?
Next up - hats!
"Intensive study" has shown that in the F2P model hats are popular, it fits within 22cans' development capability with their maintenance crew that appear to have no ambition towards offering an actual PC game, so therefore hats for your followers is the perfect idea!
|
|
|
|
Post by Confused...again on Jul 18, 2015 8:59:57 GMT
I like how they now have zero idea how the 'god of gods' thing might work, when Peter has 'explained' it all way, way back when the whole thing was only ' a week' or so away ('we just need to flip a switch'). ( Paraphrasing from memory, but I seem to remember a video with Jack and Peter walking in a street, when Peter said that, around spring 2014 I think)
Remember that whole four gods get together and do (fight?/trade?/vote?) something to chose one of the four to go 'one level up', where again there will be four gods that choose one to 'go up' until only a god of gods is left?
And we all scratched our heads 'cause we couldn't really see how that was supposed to work in practice, but listening to Peter it sounded as if they had more or less finished implementing it? (And I seem to remember George saying that they played that stuff internally already and it was rough but fun?)
|
|
|
|
Post by simon22cans on Jul 18, 2015 10:55:03 GMT
I like how they now have zero idea how the 'god of gods' thing might work, when Peter has 'explained' it all way, way back when the whole thing was only ' a week' or so away ('we just need to flip a switch'). ( Paraphrasing from memory, but I seem to remember a video with Jack and Peter walking in a street, when Peter said that, around spring 2014 I think) Remember that whole four gods get together and do (fight?/trade?/vote?) something to chose one of the four to go 'one level up', where again there will be four gods that choose one to 'go up' until only a god of gods is left? And we all scratched our heads 'cause we couldn't really see how that was supposed to work in practice, but listening to Peter it sounded as if they had more or less finished implementing it? (And I seem to remember George saying that they played that stuff internally already and it was rough but fun?) Hi, the point on the GOG feature is that we technically don't know how it works as opposed to not know how it should work from a design pov. The development of combat is tricky enough to turn into something really cool in its own right and whilst multiplayer considerations are taken into account, we do know that getting them to work together will be really difficult and take a lot of time and to fully understand it, we'd need to be deep into multiplayer. |
|
|
|
Post by flabsters on Jul 18, 2015 12:07:23 GMT
I like how they now have zero idea how the 'god of gods' thing might work, when Peter has 'explained' it all way, way back when the whole thing was only ' a week' or so away ('we just need to flip a switch'). ( Paraphrasing from memory, but I seem to remember a video with Jack and Peter walking in a street, when Peter said that, around spring 2014 I think) Remember that whole four gods get together and do (fight?/trade?/vote?) something to chose one of the four to go 'one level up', where again there will be four gods that choose one to 'go up' until only a god of gods is left? And we all scratched our heads 'cause we couldn't really see how that was supposed to work in practice, but listening to Peter it sounded as if they had more or less finished implementing it? (And I seem to remember George saying that they played that stuff internally already and it was rough but fun?) Hi, the point on the GOG feature is that we technically don't know how it works as opposed to not know how it should work from a design pov. The development of combat is tricky enough to turn into something really cool in its own right and whilst multiplayer considerations are taken into account, we do know that getting them to work together will be really difficult and take a lot of time and to fully understand it, we'd need to be deep into multiplayer. Didn't you guys also say that moving the majority of the team on the new Trial project wouldn't affect the development of Godus since the people being moved on were pretty much done with their work on Godus in the first place? So if we believe that (and you said this yourself) then why do you now tell us that technically you have no idea what you're doing on multiplayer. And if we don't believe that, then I'm afraid we can't believe a single thing you or 22cans say or have said. |
|
World Stroking Simulator 2014™
Master
Oh hey, Godus, that was a thing. Yeah. *shakes head*
Posts: 143 
Pledge level: Peter Molyneux's retirement fund
I like: Indy games. Also decent studio games.
I don't like: Guess...
|
Post by World Stroking Simulator 2014™ on Jul 26, 2015 23:05:37 GMT
I do think it's hilarious for Peter to be cast as the guy in the Skittles ad  But that's it, really. Here's the thing with 22scams: putting lipstick on a pig results in a pig with lipstick, which isn't a much better outcome (unless you like that kind of thing). I'm not sure that it is actually possible to fix Godus or 22scams. I am inclined to mistrust anyone who'd put their hand up to try. To actually fix Godus, you'd have to unwind things right back to the so-claimed alpha - when it became extraordinarily apparent that 22scams had no intention of listening to us - and fix it from there. That is not going to happen; it makes no economic sense to the company. Furthermore, I know it wouldn't be economic to refund all the Godus purchases and backer pledges .. so what is this? An attempt to salvage the company reputation, bringing it up to to merely miserable? Enough to sell the company IP off at a more bearable price? I normally prefer to make jokes, rather than get deeply involved and betray the depth of my feelings about this whole affair .. I backed for quite a lot of money to see this thing become a reality, and I do deeply regret it. It's the major reason that I left the 22scams forums. It's not some misguided thought of having any ownership in the product; it's the fact that 22scams don't listen, never listened, and will never listen. No, I don't believe Simon, or anyone else who claims that 22scams or Godus can be fixed. But then, I wrote that money off as a complete waste quite some time ago now. It's Godus that turned me off backing Kickstarter projects altogether. It's a shame, because I've had many Kickstarter projects that I've felt great pleasure at seeing take shape into a finished product. But one bad apple spoils the barrel. Thanks, 22scams. |
|
Aug 21, 2024 19:32:37 GMT
