Personnally I made a review that state I don’t recommend it.
However I said that the core game is great and explained why I don’t recommend it.
In simple words, I said that you can wait several months if you want a complete game or you can buy it as what it is… An early access not advertised as this.
If it was an early access, I would have recommended it. But, when you advertise a full game, you have to deliver a full game. Since november we’ve got the “coming soon” in the crafting screen.
Define me “soon”…
Remember, on steam you answer a simple question. Do you recommend this game? Simple.
The question is not “is this game is or will be good?”.
You can post a review that don’t recommend a game and later change it to recommend it (and vice versa).
When we will get crafting, i would recommend the game… Even if it needs fixes for rtx, crash, lost connections etc.
But what is there to address, apart from the fact that you want details that they should/can not give you and an apology phrased in the way you want to hear? Your entire message is about your expectations from the letter.
That in and of itself is a sign that FS has deeper problems than just not meeting deadlines. This isn’t their first, second, or even third game, they shouldn’t still be incapable of creating a manageable roadmap. Their internal communications and management must be an absolute mess if they can’t communicate their goals and short term plans in anything but the most vague possible terms.
The gameplay issues are not the cause of frustrations that lead to all this, despite being present (let’s remember VT2s vertically pouncing assassins, through the wall casting blight stormers, enemies spawning and hitting you as soon as you turn your back to a huge plain). But as you said, there is a wide spread of issues. Let’s neglect the reaction of people caring about issues 1, 4 and 9 when they see the details on the issues 2 and 6, but do you honestly think that with major design issues that are to be addressed there is a place to provide details on any particular element that may be dropped during the process? We are not working on this game and we have no clue on the actual work going on. If we followed it on the level sufficient for understanding, we would do little else with our lives and it would take several FS people just to keep us informed on that. It’s a difference between “let’s feed the hungry” and managing the project, from the concept and financing to working with people in the field.
Huge cop out tbh. This doesn’t excuse FS’s consistent problems with communication and setting/meeting expectations.
It could have been as little as putting “We are still processing the results of our community survey, but will have a more clear picture for the future in next week’s community update. Stay tuned!” at the end of the open letter and that would have gone a long way. If they can’t even promise that much then I completely understand why people doubt the company . There is clearly a gap in what the company wants to do with the game and what the players wanted with the game. Setting reasonable expectations is not some insurmountable task and is actually a pretty important part of managing the playerbase and preventing the kind of building resentment you see here.
You are deliberately missing the point. This is the level of detail that is fine. It is not the level that can be provided that is required by some people here who find the open letter lacking and want explanations for everything.
In addition, that announcement was made when the situation was much clearer from the FS internal perspective, with a clear roadmap and fixed plans. So they can announce it. And yet, they failed to deliver it completely - how many posts here refer to the broken promise that the crafting will be delivered in December? And now you want such announcements during what is certainly a major overhaul? With the deadlines?
No, my message is about the broken promises (Crafting in December?), the content that was supposed to be in the game by now, the poor state of the game overall, the fact that the reviews aren’t solely due to the letter which was my original point before we got off track, etc, etc.
There is a world of difference between “In particular, we will focus on delivering a complete crafting system” and “We’re prioritizing reworking the crafting system from the ground up. Unfortunately that means we’re having to put the current system development on halt for now.” Right now we have no idea what they’re actually doing. In terms of concrete aspects in the letter, the only thing they told us is what they’re not doing, in that they’re stopping seasonal content and the Xbox launch. Talk about an oof.
Is there still going to be a class release, was that part of the ‘seasonal’ (ugh.) content? Are the servers being looked into? What’s going on with crafting (A rework, adjustments, what)? Etc, etc, etc. I don’t expect an answer to all of those, or even most, but they gave us nothing. Wanting a little more than “Oopsies, we’re delaying stuff!” isn’t ‘insanely unreasonable.’ They don’t have to provide exact deadlines on anything, but knowing literally any of their priorities would be nice. Their statements are broad to the point of uselessness.
We don’t. Because it’s their internal decision. And everything that comes later will depend on the changes that they decide to do.
Just an example:
While I, for one, feel bad about the loss of the weapon attachments and consider it unfair (although definitively not uncommon in the game development), how much flak the FS received for dropping it (the unfortunate poor communication with the ‘not COD’ quote definitively did not help) since it did announce it?
You summarized very well. They don’t even know what and when they will deliver missing features in the game.
In such situations, you cannot recommend a game when even the developers cannot say where they go.
You ask people to be confident about a company that can’t fullfil its promises and that has announced nothing.
As you said it, there is nothing in the open letter.
The point there is that you cannot have such announcements when you are doing the major overhaul. And that breaking promies is bad, so it’s better not to promise until you are sure.
And that that announcement is a very minor thing compared to the level of info expected by some.
My point is that the game should be recommended or not based upon its merits. My recommendation has been negative, for instance, despite me liking a lot parts of the game.
However, if you had issues and waited to hear what the FS would say and then decided it was “not recommended” based on the fact that the FS actually admitted that there were issues serious enough to change their plans, I will interpret this as a “take that in your face, FS” review.
No, I ask people not to expect miracles, but to acknowledge that FS got the message that there are major issues and that they require acting upon.
No. I did not say that. I actually praised the letter on a few occasions. And the reaction to it and comparing it with the announcement you posted shows your expectations.
My point is that the game should be recommended or not based upon its merits. My recommendation has been negative, for instance, despite me liking a lot parts of the game.
However, if you had issues and waited to hear what the FS would say and then decided it was “not recommended” based on the fact that the FS actually admitted that there were issues serious enough to change their plans, I will interpret this as a “take that in your face, FS” review.
tl;dr: Exactly like Ras you’re applying your same thought process to everybody else making a review.
Not everybody else is you and will recommend or not recommend on the same basis. Reviews done because of disappointment in the lack of a clear direction or more immediate development isn’t a “Take that” when even in the letter they used a general timeline of months when things like the crafting were already supposed to be out a month prior. (Let alone the fact that it wasn’t even in at release which is just lol) To flip the script: The fact that people were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and see what they had to say in spite of its lack of merits should be something appreciable, though you’ve instead chosen to view it in the most negative light possible.
There’s not really much else to say here. This whole conversation essentially amounts to you not accepting that other people will recommend (or not recommend) based on different criteria.
So what you are saying is that people were recommending the game despite thinking it was not good enough to be recommended and then the letter changed their mind? Fooling other people? That’s morally OK?
No, not at all. It’s all about your personal expectations.
The only place where I recently discussed recommendations is as a reaction to the open letter - and my opinion on basing a negative recommendation on that letter.
…What? I was saying that people were withholding posting a negative review and giving Fatshark the benefit of the doubt by not posting it yet only for the letter to be useless as hell and basically say the current state of the game is going to continue for months at a bare minimum. Going “Whelp, guess it’s not changing any time soon” posts negative review That is an entirely reasonable reaction to the letter.
Why is everything so binary to you? You act like your opinion is the only one that can potentially be nuanced.
No, not at all. It’s all about your personal expectations.
The only place where I recently discussed recommendations is as a reaction to the open letter - and my opinion on basing a negative recommendation on that letter.
See above. If they were otherwise going to post a negative review but withheld it to give them a chance to change their minds, only for the letter to not do so, doesn’t suddenly make every single review as a reaction to the letter a “In your face Fatshark!”
Sorry, considering several “I changed my recommendation to not recommended” after the letter, it was a lot on my mind.
See at the bottom for the rest.
You are constantly rehashing the same thing again and again, not considering anything apart from what could have been done and what you would want to hear. You may feel there is a nuance to it, but there isn’t since you are failing to take into account the basic premise that the FS has not yet fixed anything into stone. If someone tells you ‘I’m getting a vehicle, I have to think about which one’, your questions would be ‘Is it going to have leather seats, is it going to be blue, will it have a transparent roof’ while the person is deciding between a moped and a boat.
But here we go back to the expectations. My expectations of the letter were not met - despite them being unrealistic in most case - so we will punish it now.
Just to add: there are several people who are disappointed that there would not be releases as initially planned - and who don’t consider my or your issues as important or important enough. If they decided on the “not recommended” after the open letter, I would find their grounds reasonable.