[Poll]Should Existential Crisis be optional?

[rc1149]

In my eyes the option to choose the start of a crysis is contradictive to it's meaning. Like in real life a crysis hits you weather you like it or not. It's the way how it is managed that counts.
In it's actual state we don't have any options to manage the crysis but beeing everywhere at any time. So I guess a rework of the existential crysis should be taken into higher consideration in my opinion.

Even if I don't really mind, making it optional just makes it another plot.

[geldonyetich]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments ... _feedback/
Multiple players talking about Devs make some mistakes by listening to some players and later fix these mistakes by listening to the new feedback.

In far more cases than not, the commenters are reporting permanent damage, the mistake was believing the end users knew what they wanted. There was no "later fix these mistakes by listening to the new feedback."

I suppose using end user feedback to correct mistakes made by listening to other end user feedback would work in the same way that you can put out a forest fire with a controlled burn. Eventually there's nowhere harmful left for it to go.

in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_g ... _criticism
The whole topic is about how to avoid data collection influenced by the limitation of focus group.

Taking end user feedback is a form of focus group.

in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
The main point is avoiding "a single, corresponding interpretation to it".

Not quite, it probably helps I was taught it in university, but it's the observation that once a work leaves the hands of the author and is enjoyed by the end users, the author's original interpretation will be lost because of their interpretation of it.

That is the death of the author - the end users interpretation of their work render them moot. I gave you that one for a contrasting piece.

The thing is, "Death of the Author" is a philosophical point. Not everyone agrees it's for the best. But many do. You should be in favor of it if you want Egosoft do things your way. But personally I am more interested in the original authors.

[flywlyx]

In far more cases than not, the commenters are reporting permanent damage, the mistake was believing the end users knew what they wanted. There was no "later fix these mistakes by listening to the new feedback."

I suppose using end user feedback to correct mistakes made by listening to other end user feedback would work in the same way that you can put out a forest fire with a controlled burn. Eventually there's nowhere harmful left for it to go.

You didn't read them carefully, did you?
1, The Sims Online.

a perfect case of the devs hearing 100% from the minority, but not realising it.

2, Paper Mario Sticker Star

How absurd, not only is that a completely different type of game to take feedback from, but those suvery answers likely were referring to how they thought the narrative was lacking compared to the previous paper mario games.

3, Eve Online

However overall the players are really knowledgeable about how the game works and have helped the devs immeasurably over the years, to the point that you can say confidently it would have died a long time ago without their feedback and suggestions.

4, Rainbow Six: Siege

People wanted a map based in the University - It wasn't even the same as the single player map, it was just bad. I'm partially convinced they put very little effort into making it an actual multiplayer map just because they wanted people to stop asking about it.

5, the Culling

I thought it was the other way around the devs killed the game with changes no one wanted, they kept ruining the combat.

Taking end user feedback is a form of focus group.

So?

The thing is, "Death of the Author" is a philosophical point. Not everyone agrees it's for the best. But many do. You should be in favor of it if you want Egosoft do things your way. But personally I am more interested in the original authors.

Your preference aside, the reality is that games aligning with the tastes of the majority tend to achieve higher sales.

[geldonyetich]

You didn't read them carefully, did you?

It would appear to be worse than that: you don't understand what you are reading.

1, The Sims Online.

a perfect case of the devs hearing 100% from the minority, but not realising it.

In other words, the "vocal minority" is being blamed. These are the end users who the developers listened to.

"Oh, but if the developers listened to the majority, surely they wouldn't have made that mistake!". Alas, that is impossible, the developers can only ever listen to a minority because a minority is the only one who takes the time to leave feedback.

2, Paper Mario Sticker Star

How absurd, not only is that a completely different type of game to take feedback from, but those suvery answers likely were referring to how they thought the narrative was lacking compared to the previous paper mario games.

I'll tell you what's absurd: you asked for examples about how listening to end user feedback made the game worse. Why do you think you now get to decide which type of game and in what way it makes it worse so you can ignore it?

3, Eve Online

However overall the players are really knowledgeable about how the game works and have helped the devs immeasurably over the years, to the point that you can say confidently it would have died a long time ago without their feedback and suggestions.

Nice nit-pick of the one supporting paragraph out of a far larger comment that starts with, "Not going to say ruined but there are examples of things players thought they wanted but now they hate." and includes the very pointed passage, "Some of it is just players minmaxing the fun right out of the game." Yes, even the very way players play games ruin the experience for themselves if you let them.

4, Rainbow Six: Siege

People wanted a map based in the University - It wasn't even the same as the single player map, it was just bad. I'm partially convinced they put very little effort into making it an actual multiplayer map just because they wanted people to stop asking about it.

And why did they want players to stop asking about it? Probably because they didn't want it in the game to begin with. Compromise the creators with incessent feedback about features they they have zero artistic interest in adding get lousy results, obviously.

5, the Culling

I thought it was the other way around the devs killed the game with changes no one wanted, they kept ruining the combat.

It's a reply to the original post that posted a video demonstrating why it was ruined by player feedback. It got more updates than this other reply, "This is probably the best answer here [: The Culling was definitely ruined by players]". But, as I said, being told that the players are right will always be the most popular choice.

Taking end user feedback is a form of focus group.

So?

So the Wikipedia article about the faults of focus groups is fully applicable. But I am glad you agreed. The correct response would have been to refute the well known trope that focus groups suck. [Or perhaps the way it might vary from a focus group.]

The thing is, "Death of the Author" is a philosophical point. Not everyone agrees it's for the best. But many do. You should be in favor of it if you want Egosoft do things your way. But personally I am more interested in the original authors.

Your preference aside, the reality is that games aligning with the tastes of the majority tend to achieve higher sales.

This belief might be true if game design was something that the majority could do without training. It's not, so your reality preference isn't particularly likely to be true. [At least under the interpretation that, "the tastes of the majority" reflect their capabilities to communicate a superior understanding to the developers.]

[alt3rn1ty]

Taxi for the keyboard warriors going off topic .. again.

[geldonyetich]

I was told that the main forum was the place for disagreements. Was I mislead?

Anyway, it's very much on topic, isn't it? The OP is the one who started this conversation with me, after all. Which does betray a certain bias the poll creator holds.

[CBJ]

It's the place for discussions, yes, and people are allowed to disagree with one another. But the forum rules are quite clear about personal insults. If a discussion turns unpleasant, with people making personal remarks about one another instead of discussing the topic in hand, then moderators will step in. This thread is getting pretty close to that point already.

[flywlyx]

a minority is the only one who takes the time to leave feedback.

Your standpoint seems entirely biased, from what I can discern.
Essentially, your assertion equates to saying democracy is undesirable.

I'll tell you what's absurd: you asked for examples about how listening to end user feedback made the game worse. Why do you think you now get to decide which type of game and in what way it makes it worse so you can ignore it?

So making better survey questions, and I don't think this is the players' job.

Nice nit-pick of the one supporting paragraph out of a far larger comment that starts with, "Not going to say ruined but there are examples of things players thought they wanted but now they hate." and includes the very pointed passage, "Some of it is just players minmaxing the fun right out of the game." Yes, even the very way players play games ruin the experience for themselves if you let them.

You just claimed

a minority is the only one who takes the time to leave feedback.

now you start fighting against your claims?

And why did they want players to stop asking about it? Probably because they didn't want it in the game to begin with. Compromise the creators with incessent feedback about features they they have zero artistic interest in adding get lousy results, obviously.

That is still Devs' fault in delivering a bad job.
Even the finest recipe in existence could be spoiled by the hands of an irresponsible cook.

It's a reply to the original post that posted a video demonstrating why it was ruined by player feedback. It got more updates than this other reply, "This is probably the best answer here [as to why The Culling was ruined by players.". But, as I said, being told that the players are right will always be the most popular choice.

Is this your first encounter with the notion that customers are always right?

focus groups suck.

Again, your preference, no data support.
You aren't the individual Egosoft hired to conduct interviews, nor are you the one being interviewed; thus, you cannot justify any accusations made in that context.

Your preference aside, the reality is that games aligning with the tastes of the majority tend to achieve higher sales.

This belief might be true if game design was something that the majority could do without training.

Totally non-logic conclusion, explain yourself.

[geldonyetich]

CBJ's right, this is getting a tad too Ad Hominem. Fact of the matter is that it's far better to attack the issue than the people. If we're left trying to find fault in the other guy, we don't have grounds for a polite and productive conversation.

explain yourself

Fine. But we're steering it away from being about the individual.

a minority is the only one who takes the time to leave feedback.

Your standpoint seems entirely biased, from what I can discern.

Off to a bad start.

I apologize. I called you biased. But we're all biased, aren't we? To hold opinions and beliefs makes us so.

My point had to do with survey bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias

It suggests that if a pollster writes a survey with bias, it will bias responses in that manner even if was unintentional.

This was in the greater context of it having been brought up this conversation was off topic.

So making better survey questions, and I don't think this is the players' job.

Sorry, I don't understand how you arrived at this statement replying to a statement about why you are trying to disqualify someone elses comments as irrelevant to the conversation, so I cannot meaningfully respond.

Nice nit-pick of the one supporting paragraph out of a far larger comment that starts with, "Not going to say ruined but there are examples of things players thought they wanted but now they hate." and includes the very pointed passage, "Some of it is just players minmaxing the fun right out of the game." Yes, even the very way players play games ruin the experience for themselves if you let them.

You just claimed

a minority is the only one who takes the time to leave feedback.

now you start fighting against your claims?

I apologize again, can you explain how cherry picking a post is related to how a game developer will only ever get a minority feedback because those are the only ones who bother?

And why did they want players to stop asking about it? Probably because they didn't want it in the game to begin with. Compromise the creators with incessent feedback about features they they have zero artistic interest in adding get lousy results, obviously.

That is still Devs' fault in delivering a bad job.
Even the finest recipe in existence could be spoiled by the hands of an irresponsible cook.

I find these words to be unfair for developers everywhere. Game development is a passion and an artistic medium as well as a technical medium. I will not criticize them and call them a bad artist if they hate what they are making. I would encourage them to make something else and let their creativity guide them.

It's a reply to the original post that posted a video demonstrating why it was ruined by player feedback. It got more updates than this other reply, "This is probably the best answer here [as to why The Culling was ruined by players.". But, as I said, being told that the players are right will always be the most popular choice.

Is this your first encounter with the notion that customers are always right?

It's not, but now that you mention it: Are customers always right? Truth of the matter is it's sort if an urban legend of a quote that came about from general practices. .Let's check the original quote, as explained by Frank Farrington in 1914 in his letter to Mill Supplies, shall we?

"If we adopt the policy of admitting whatever claims the customer makes to be proper, and if we always settle them at face value, we shall be subjected to inevitable losses [...] If the customer is made perfectly to understand what it means for him to be right, what right on his part is, then he can be depended on to be right if he is honest, and if he is dishonest, a little effort should result in catching him at it."

That's the long explanation of the original quote we rarely get to hear. And speaking as a person who has worked in service jobs for decades, everyone knows that the customer is always right except when they're wrong is the real truth.

focus groups suck.

Again, your preference, no data support.

Except for that great big wikipedia thing I sent you about focus groups the first time that included a lot of citations to support it.

But truthfully, I don't want to argue focus groups suck. It's a matter of debate even among those who conduct them. My goal was only to establish precedent that parsing user feedback is very difficult. It's so difficult that even if the users were right, and the developers do everything correctly to collect it, there's a significant margin of error.

Therefore, as applicable to the greater context of conversation about how well the developers should listen to majority sentiment: they can't, and not from lack of trying.

This belief might be true if game design was something that the majority could do without training.

Totally non-logic conclusion, explain yourself.

To clarify, based on what you're quoting here, you would seem to be asking me why game design isn't as easy as falling off a log so everyone can do it?

[Nanook]

The poll is incomplete. It's missing the option to toggle the crisis on/off in the settings. That's the one I'd vote for. That way, if a player really wants their universe trashed by the Xenon/Kha'ak alliance, they can toggle it on and wait for it to begin at some later time. I personally won't even upgrade to 7.0 if the crisis is mandatory. And that'll be a first for me in 25 years of playing in the X-Universe.

[Koizuki]

The poll is incomplete. It's missing the option to toggle the crisis on/off in the settings. That's the one I'd vote for. That way, if a player really wants their universe trashed by the Xenon/Kha'ak alliance, they can toggle it on and wait for it to begin at some later time. I personally won't even upgrade to 7.0 if the crisis is mandatory. And that'll be a first for me in 25 years of playing in the X-Universe.

Wouldn't option #1 basically be that? As with other plotlines in the game, if you never initiate the crisis, then it's effectively "off," just not in a settings menu, no?

[LameFox]

I'd much rather instigate it myself than have it just turn up demanding credits. This game assumes way too often that every player is or wants to be running a trade empire. You can't just figure that if someone has x value of military assets they also necessarily have an economy to support fighting waves of things spawning on them.

But also—if we assume they make a crisis I actually like—I may want to turn it on before I have a bunch of fleets lying around, too.

Now, admittedly I'm not always a fan of activating things by plots, because that in itself narrows down my options. The HQ for instance is not really optional if you want to influence basically anything or even just upgrade your personal ship, nor are Dal Busta and Boso Ta. As someone who played X3 in the custom mode with no campaign, I kind of wish I could be free of all this and still have the universe the way I want it. But it's weird that after insisting on plot activation for all this time, they chose this one particular thing to just come up on its own.

[Alan Phipps]

The game mechanic is called Existential Crisis - let's see what existential means:

"Relating to a philosophy (= system of ideas) according to which the world has no meaning and each person is alone and completely responsible for his or her own actions."

I would contend that, by definition, this crisis should purely be down to the player's previous actions and decisions in-game. Maybe the crisis should be triggered (or not) by the player's history of reputations and choices and hence the extent to which they have previously supported/robbed/eliminated others (especially Xenon/Kha'ak ).

[GCU Grey Area]

The game mechanic is called Existential Crisis - let's see what existential means:

"Relating to a philosophy (= system of ideas) according to which the world has no meaning and each person is alone and completely responsible for his or her own actions."

That's Existentialism. Existential is defined as 'of or relating to existence'.

[Alan Phipps]

Spliting hairs a bit, but it somewhat depends upon which dictionary you consult for that adjective: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... xistential Extentialism might indeed be the philosophy (noun) that the adjective is relating back to.

Either way, I stand by the crisis trigger suggestion.

[Techedge]

The poll is incomplete. It's missing the option to toggle the crisis on/off in the settings. That's the one I'd vote for. That way, if a player really wants their universe trashed by the Xenon/Kha'ak alliance, they can toggle it on and wait for it to begin at some later time. I personally won't even upgrade to 7.0 if the crisis is mandatory. And that'll be a first for me in 25 years of playing in the X-Universe.

Hey Nanook, yours is a good idea, but what if a player later changes his mind or simply wants to try the crisis once? A similar option would force the player to start again?

Obviously this would not be a problem if turning it on would activate the crisis, but seeing as developers treat the game, I think that turning it into a menu option could involve many problems (e.g. what if the option is turned on and then off mid-crisis?).

Edit: btw, I voted yes.

[Zloth2]

I certainly want it to be optional in some way, but I would also rather have Egosoft figure out how that should be done.

It *is* optional right now, but not in a way where you just talk to Dal and ask him to invite the Xenon and Kha'ak to come out and play. You make it happen by having over 50% of your assets in the military. If you have stations designed to make money, you're going to need quite a military to balance that - or quite a few defense modules around those stations. From what I've read in the forums, you have to keep that military percentage up for an hour or so, too, so hopefully you won't get burned if you get to half a billion, then spend most of that to buy a carrier fleet for the Terrans, only to have the crises hit just as you hand the fleet over to the Terrans.

I still wish we could see that % somewhere.

[TheDeliveryMan]

The poll is incomplete. It's missing the option to toggle the crisis on/off in the settings. That's the one I'd vote for. That way, if a player really wants their universe trashed by the Xenon/Kha'ak alliance, they can toggle it on and wait for it to begin at some later time. I personally won't even upgrade to 7.0 if the crisis is mandatory. And that'll be a first for me in 25 years of playing in the X-Universe.

Hey Nanook, yours is a good idea, but what if a player later changes his mind or simply wants to try the crisis once? A similar option would force the player to start again?

Obviously this would not be a problem if turning it on would activate the crisis, but seeing as developers treat the game, I think that turning it into a menu option could involve many problems (e.g. what if the option is turned on and then off mid-crisis?).

Edit: btw, I voted yes.

It could be implemented as an extension. The menu to enable/disable it is already there. The author of the extension can also decide if it can be disabled mid playthrough.

[geldonyetich]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_crisis

The game mechanic is called Existential Crisis - let's see what existential means:

"Relating to a philosophy (= system of ideas) according to which the world has no meaning and each person is alone and completely responsible for his or her own actions."

That's Existentialism. Existential is defined as 'of or relating to existence'.

I would not look at it as a one word definition: it is a well-known phrase related to a psychological phenomenon.

I think Egosoft was going for an X-series pun (eXplore, eXterminate, eXistentialism, etcetera) but may have inadvertently led some people (such as me) to believe that this predominantly fight-focused feature would try to solve the ennui of the endgame in an open sandbox.

I find that to be a huge issue in any open world sandbox. You jump through enough hoops, gather enough junk, garner enough power, and you're left danging at the end. Why did I do this? The players are supposed to bring their own purpose? Well, how convenient for the creators as that involves doing no work and expecting the players to define the meaning for them! (Perhaps this is lasting trauma from having played too many MMORPGs in my time.)

The reason why I often recommend starting the crisis earlier is that I think the solution to this issue would directly attack the roots of the problem. It's stemming from a lack of player identity or significantly meaningful consequences in X4: Foundations. That's something you need to get to work on from the very start, not something you can introduce 500M military ship value late into the game.

Yes, such a change might torpedo your existing game of 2,000,000 hours of play. Considering I find that game meaningless in it's current state, that's no great loss in my mind. However, I could see it as economically advantageous for Egosoft to give you a less meaningful mode so you can keep playing like you did for the past half-decade. Even wiser would be to make this a spinoff.

Actually, let me backpedal a bit there: considering the whole universe simulation capabilities of X universe games, X4: Foundations is much more meaningful than most alternatives short of detailed examples in the 4X genre or rare management simulations such as Kenshi, Mount & Blade, Dwarf Fortress or its more accessible offshoot, Rimworld. That's why I am so attracted to X4: Foundations. In terms of being what I want, it leads the pack. We run up against our human limitations that better examples are so hard to find. But it still fizzles out in the endgame and it could be so much more meaningful. Indeed, as the name suggests, this is a mere foundation of its potential.

When I think about what a solution might look like, I think it might look more like a full fledged 4X game, where the outer meta game looks more like Stellaris. The NPC factions would have motivations and long term goals, they aren't just going through the motions while waiting for the player to exploit them. Meanwhile, the inner game loops look more like Last Federation or Drox Operative: the players' power is severely curtailed, and the NPC factions take notice and react when the players start throwing their weight around. It undermines the identity of the player character how much they are allowed to run roughshod over the NPC factions in this game. But this is purely theoretical, game development is much more difficult than an elevator pitch.

So I want the problem solved pretty badly, but I don't have the one true solution, no one does, and I welcome any creator’s exploration into finding one. But personally I have yet to confirm “invite your rowdy neighbors over to wreck your stuff” is likely to do it for me. So I was confused, why did they think that would work?

However, with my recent request for clarification, it’s been explained to me that this is not actually the problem they were looking to solve. They just wanted to give people a use for huge battle fleets. It's to the "fight" component what terraforming is to the "economic" component.

That's fine. Little bit of a tease that's not how I look at an "Existential Crisis" at all. But it's their game, and they're free to build what they want to build. I'll keep looking or try to solve this problem myself.

[flywlyx]

CBJ's right, this is getting a tad too Ad Hominem. Fact of the matter is that it's far better to attack the issue than the people. If we're left trying to find fault in the other guy, we don't have grounds for a polite and productive conversation.

explain yourself

Fine. But we're steering it away from being about the individual.

a minority is the only one who takes the time to leave feedback.

Your standpoint seems entirely biased, from what I can discern.

Off to a bad start.

I apologize. I called you biased. But we're all biased, aren't we? To hold opinions and beliefs makes us so.

My point had to do with survey bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias

It suggests that if a pollster writes a survey with bias, it will bias responses in that manner even if was unintentional.

This was in the greater context of it having been brought up this conversation was off topic.

So making better survey questions, and I don't think this is the players' job.

Sorry, I don't understand how you arrived at this statement replying to a statement about why you are trying to disqualify someone elses comments as irrelevant to the conversation, so I cannot meaningfully respond.

Nice nit-pick of the one supporting paragraph out of a far larger comment that starts with, "Not going to say ruined but there are examples of things players thought they wanted but now they hate." and includes the very pointed passage, "Some of it is just players minmaxing the fun right out of the game." Yes, even the very way players play games ruin the experience for themselves if you let them.

You just claimed

a minority is the only one who takes the time to leave feedback.

now you start fighting against your claims?

I apologize again, can you explain how cherry picking a post is related to how a game developer will only ever get a minority feedback because those are the only ones who bother?

And why did they want players to stop asking about it? Probably because they didn't want it in the game to begin with. Compromise the creators with incessent feedback about features they they have zero artistic interest in adding get lousy results, obviously.

That is still Devs' fault in delivering a bad job.
Even the finest recipe in existence could be spoiled by the hands of an irresponsible cook.

I find these words to be unfair for developers everywhere. Game development is a passion and an artistic medium as well as a technical medium. I will not criticize them and call them a bad artist if they hate what they are making. I would encourage them to make something else and let their creativity guide them.

It seems you can't understand that making a proper survey is the game developers' job? Who you are expecting to create them?

It's not, but now that you mention it: Are customers always right? Truth of the matter is it's sort if an urban legend of a quote that came about from general practices. .Let's check the original quote, as explained by Frank Farrington in 1914 in his letter to Mill Supplies, shall we?

"If we adopt the policy of admitting whatever claims the customer makes to be proper, and if we always settle them at face value, we shall be subjected to inevitable losses [...] If the customer is made perfectly to understand what it means for him to be right, what right on his part is, then he can be depended on to be right if he is honest, and if he is dishonest, a little effort should result in catching him at it."

That's the long explanation of the original quote we rarely get to hear. And speaking as a person who has worked in service jobs for decades, everyone knows that the customer is always right except when they're wrong is the real truth.

As Wikipedia mentioned:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_custo ... ways_right

Frank Farrington wrote to Mill Supplies in 1914 that this view ignores that customers can be dishonest, have unrealistic expectations or try to misuse a product in ways that void the guarantee: "If we adopt the policy of admitting whatever claims the customer makes to be proper, and if we always settle them at face value, we shall be subjected to inevitable losses."

What qualifies this as an explanation?

Except for that great big wikipedia thing I sent you about focus groups the first time that included a lot of citations to support it.

The wiki outlined numerous conditions regarding those criticisms. Where is your evidence to substantiate them?
Just because drugs might have side-effects, you are calling them sucks?

This belief might be true if game design was something that the majority could do without training.

Totally non-logic conclusion, explain yourself.

To clarify, based on what you're quoting here, you would seem to be asking me why game design isn't as easy as falling off a log so everyone can do it?

91.7% of households of US had at least one vehicle in 2022, how many of them are able to build a car? The fact that someone likes or buys something doesn't necessarily mean they can make it themselves.