This was a really cool read, the crawford method is a excellent way to get people involve on the creative process but there is a problem with the "like" system, actually it is the same problem that some political election have when there is more then one choices.
Most of the votes go to two or three major parties, not because they like it but because if they do not vote on the leaser evil party, the other major party is going to win. So even if they like or identify more with less voted parties, it is rare to vote on them.
I do not know how the like system was implemented but having more then one run with the major ideas is always good method to avoid that and people should never know who has the majority of votes at least till the end but that goes without saying.
Also the "after all 120 people are less likely to be wrong than one." does not always work, that is why there is mainstream media and a more underground media. More does not mean better, it depend of the group of people and how diverse and talented they are but that does not seem to be the problem with CDPR, still that statement is a slippery slope.
Most of the votes go to two or three major parties, not because they like it but because if they do not vote on the leaser evil party, the other major party is going to win. So even if they like or identify more with less voted parties, it is rare to vote on them.
I do not know how the like system was implemented but having more then one run with the major ideas is always good method to avoid that and people should never know who has the majority of votes at least till the end but that goes without saying.
Also the "after all 120 people are less likely to be wrong than one." does not always work, that is why there is mainstream media and a more underground media. More does not mean better, it depend of the group of people and how diverse and talented they are but that does not seem to be the problem with CDPR, still that statement is a slippery slope.
That's exactly why you don't open up the system to at-large voting. You get RPG snobs and purists voting for features because they are against others; you get fanboys from other games and fantasy worlds voting for things that have no place in their project.Mihura said:
But the voting is restricted to the developer staff. If they've done their hiring well, these are all like-minded people with a common goal, the voting will be for the things they really want to build, and your objection does not obtain.
Of course they do! I also make sure to pass fans' feedback right to the appropriate departments so rest assured, your voices are being heardguipit said:
Pretty good stuff. That flow chart basically highlighted what I would have mentioned if asked about the topic. Dual-wielding looks cool, and an additional option for gameplay is typically a good thing, but it probably would have been overly complicated, and more importantly, it goes against the core gameplay and lore regarding a sword for men and a sword for monsters. Keeping dual wielding as a finisher was a good way to have a bit of this without feeling like it goes against the lore or anything. Silver is fine for quickly dispatching one human, but Geralt probably would go hacking at an armored man with that sword. Also, the only time we see Geralt legitimately dual-wielding is in a flashback, and in that case it was purely a matter of desperation.