JTR7…I agree with the first paragraph (I did wonder for a split second if you were parodying me, it’s that closely aligned in places). The second too…but it’s not clear-cut. OE had plenty of choices, not just on the legally hand-bound front.
Flatfingers…actually I’d say much of the ‘defence’, if you can call it that, is emotionally driven…of course, you can’t be in someone’s ‘house’ so to speak, and want to speak well of the owners, and think well, and you naturally develop a bit of a rapport, you hope. And then when poo-flinging really starts, you want to shield them from it. But, and it’s a big ‘but’ ()…none of that actually changes the facts of what is being developed, the nuts and bolts, the features… and as you say, the comms ontop …
The Kickstarter stuff - not to trivialise it - often becomes a red-herring. of course, as Chris said I think, early design docs are all flavours of pie-in-the-sky. But some more than others. One major point has been over-looked:
Design docs should be editable - they should survive drastic changes and cuts, and funding, because good design docs account for tiers and layers and a financial onion approach. Not just that but time-scales, personnel, and the rest…to some extent. And you have back-up designs.
Btw, disagree on ‘standing’. OE riffed a lot both on UA and team pedigree.
Scope isn’t the only issue. The nuts and bolts are so hit-and-miss, and the imaginative story-arc (what) so lacking, that you wonder where the enthusiasm was, the ability to implement based on a quality of ideas, not just technicals.
No choice to cut cloth, yes, but plenty of choice to forego all the kiddie-influence and other-game mirroring. You can cut plenty and still produce an imaginative triumph, even with limited features. You need QA for ideas, story, and a direct focus on the core elements. And boy, what core elements they had to work on. It’s UA. What more do you want?
Encouragement is great once you honestly review your performance - not just for the public - but so that you get a useful dossier out of it. I still don’t think optimism by itself does a whole lot more than offer a short-lived glow and a slightly more pleasant (insulated?) working environment.
Whenever I raise this, I get the impression people think I mean grovelling hari-kiri from the devs. I don’t. I don’t expect them to ‘prove’ anything to me, or any other critics, I just think commonsense says they ought to at least make some efforts to publically show that not everything is a waste of time as far as feedback goes. And they can best do this by reigning-in the copycat SS3 hype (which mirrors that of UA in many ways) and choosing their words carefully, not shrugging this or justifying that.
Surely they must wonder exactly why they have earned so much ire, not just in the game itself, but following it and surrounding it? It’s not only because ‘people are terrible’ and ‘don’t understand’.
And yeah, I’m a bit peeved because I see SS3 following certain UA traits, so far. Hopefully I’m wrong on this.
Anyway, I’ll join you in the hole…not much to add. Even I’m running out of ideas about how to say the same thing 86 different ways
…Sandro, put yourself out of your misery and buy it (I can’t talk, I very, very rarely buy new games. Most are old games re-purchased).