Oh, I didn't mean to claim I had any kind of observable method of determining with any kind of accuracy which side is doing it most. Just my own observations.
I was really just wondering if you had taken into consideration that some of these threads may appears to get "shut down" by people trying to protect the game when in fact it's just facts and hard cold logic being thrown in thus leading to the end of the conversation since it's hard to argue against verifiable facts and logic.
To take myself as an example. I used to believe CDPR had said the whole "thousands of NPCs with their own routine" thing that got thrown around a lot at launch as some proof of CDPR's failure. To be clear, I never believed the claim but I believed they had said it which lol, right? But if they had said it, I couldn't fault people for holding it against them. It's a pretty clear, concise and unambiguous statement on what to expect. It's
@ooodrin that came along and shut that down with undeniable proof that they never said and it's a statement that was mistranslated by some gaming magazine/journalist.
To some it might appear as though Ooodrin came in to protect the game but I saw it as setting the record straight and I much prefer having the correct information even if it shuts down conversation than incorrect information.
I do take these into account and anything that can be factually set straight such as that example is nothing but desirable and relevant.
But I see a lot more examples of false truths or simplified truths when reflecting upon complex matters. Official statements being much more often taken into account as truth as opposed to controlled narratives. For example, to analyze individual statements being made by CDPR and dismissing the context of the whole narrative set in motion by their marketing campaign to set a certain picture is "lawyer think" in my opinion and fans actually adopt these kind of lawyer thought to defend it. "Well they never actually said this this and that", yet you are dismissing a more subjective/abstract and wholesome narrative being created by people who are awesome narrative creators. On the conversation of promises versus reality you can make a case for mal-intent that goes beyond syntax analysis. True, you won't come to a definitive conclusion or something that could be taxed in court but that's not what I want at all. This is very different from the good example you gave from ooodrin exposing a factual error that got spread around. I guess this is a problem of our education system that promotes logic above all else and castrates people from abstract wisdom. Philosofy almost belongs to an esoteric realm now when once the same intellectuals had that status in math, Philosofy and a whole set of holistic reasoning.
And, this is just my view mind you, I see you having a more holistic reasoning behind your mindset but castrating it a bit on this setting. I say we have to practice it, it's another set of mind muscle that provides tools to interpret reality, honestly.
Ok, that's much clearer to me.
Still, I find myself with the same thoughts as before. Would it really have served a purpose to be honest straight away? Other than fueling even more arguments?
In the sense that there were already a ton of debates about what went wrong at release. Still are plenty but it was way worse back then. Had they came forward immediately and outright said "look, we had trouble getting this to work on last-gen. Going forward we might have to leave last-gen out of some stuff" I don't think it would've had the effect you think it would've. Maybe on you but for most if would have fed into the whole "they should not have bothered with last-gen" argument.
Coming out right away with "well, year one will only be bug fixes and minor QoLs" would've fed into the "should've delayed again" argument. Or "they're not doing enough" argument.
And so on, I'm sure you get what I mean. Anything they could've said would've been used against them. Of that, I have absolutely no doubt. Not mentioning how dangerous it could've been with the lawsuits pending too (still could be in fact, depending on what is said).
I do understand wanting a kind of indie studio relationship between them and us but CDPR isn't a quirky little indie studio anymore. It's really important to understand that. They're a publicly traded company with over a thousand employees operating with a few studios with millions of fans across the world. It's not really possible to have this relationship anymore. Well, it is but it's risky business. A single employee saying the wrong thing at the wrong moment or even on the wrong platform can lead to a shit storm of epic proportions because everything coming out of the studio is scrutinized to an absurd degree.
It sucks but as a company grows, it can't have the same level of "personal" relationship it used to have with it's customers. It's unavoidable.
Well I just disagree here. Apart from lawsuits ramifications which I don't desire at all for CDPR, yes I am an idealist and what we're not talking about (because we can't here) can only take a step back from where it's going if people that realize it apply in action in the world. I sometimes try to imagine for example, a board meeting between the CDPR board and their investors, talking about release dates. We have no idea how they happened but wouldn't you say it has very different results if:
. example 1: the investors set a date based on market assessment data (christmas date, peak enthusiasm by the audience about the game studies, bla bla bla), CDPR puts little argument against and goes back to their team and say, this needs to happen
. example 2: CDPR knows best about the reality of game design, know what is possible and what's not and their attitude is non-compromisably one of "let us teach you about what we know is possible or not; we are the creators of Witcher 3 which is why you are putting money on us so you can choose to stay with us or stop financing but this is how it will go".
These are 2 extremes but their power relation and influence over what happens in the end navigates around these 2 poles. I don't believe in the argument - this is the way it is now and there's nothing nobody can do about it. It has been a process and it's ongoing.
I am an artist and creator myself and so many times have I watched creators become famous or bigger in their field and start to adopt this view of their audience as the enemies (this is a bit rare but it happens, and it's because they filter the negative feedback a lot more than the positive and let it go to their ego) and more common, they let go of their ideals, step by step, which in the end just undermines the quality of the work. The quality of the work and who it is intended to must continue to be the most important and even from a marketing standpoint you can get strength in knowing it and telling it to investors. Maybe these actions, in the long run, will drive investors back to their role of being invisible and unconsequencial in the reality of products coming out as they were. If you wanted to bet on a horse that was racing you would put the money and go to the balcony and watch the race. Now they try to influence the diet of the horse and the rider.
