Topic

simplify, randomize, iterate?

i appreciate the craft and attention to detail going into all aspects of the game right now, but i wonder if things shouldn't be sloppier, more fluid, easier to change and discard - more experimental.

make it easier to change game mechanics, concepts etc. in a more agile way.

push a whole bunch of stuff out there and see what sticks, what people find most fun, and ruthlessly discard the unfun stuff - then repeat the process all over again. maybe in a sketchier, improvised, more wireframe like environment. make more significant changes more rapidly by simplifying production processes.

tho this could be what you are already doing/trying to do, and i should really shut up because i don't know anything and things are progressing as rapidly as possible.

Posted 14 years ago by striatic | Permalink

Replies

• I think they're working in both fronts, to make the game evolve as quick as possible
  
  but IMHO (and this is the first time i'm using this acronym) most players enjoy the eye candy and would rather be upset beta-testing in a dull wireframe environment. I think GNE was awsome, and represents everything you said, pheraps the wireframe version (objects were pretty much finished, just the map) that evolved into what we today call glitch
  
  But, I think the Staff can answer more accurately :)
  
  * I unconsciously wrote GNE in caps and glitch in lowercase lol
  Posted 14 years ago by .gatto | Permalink
• "most players enjoy the eye candy and would rather be upset beta-testing in a dull wireframe environment."
  
  tho this is, at least technically, an alpha test. also, i don't think wireframe environments are necessarily boring, and things don't have to be an actual wireframe - just sketchy or not beholden to finished art.
  
  at any rate, i'm not sure that the primary focus of an alpha test should be impressing the players so much as testing and vetting a range of ideas and viewing failures as relevant feedback.
  
  people have also asked for more frequent tests, and such an approach to testing might allow for more frequent tests while still making substantive changes between each test.
  Posted 14 years ago by striatic | Permalink
• Maybe there are just some do or die issues that are getting worked out right now, that require getting resolved before anything else can really get going. If all the hiring has been completed, the company just doubled or trebled in size--that's not a little thing to deal with either.
  Posted 14 years ago by Nanookie | Permalink
• even if glitch will soon have a full team going great guns, doesn't really alter the suggestion of faster, rougher, more experimental testing.
  
  indeed having more staff can actually slow down certain aspects of development, rather than increase the speed.
  Posted 14 years ago by striatic | Permalink
• I'll be in my bunk.
  Posted 14 years ago by Nanookie | Permalink
• hahahaha
  Posted 14 years ago by striatic | Permalink
• Faster! Rougher!
  Posted 14 years ago by Peter Verona | Permalink