No Rest for the Wicked dev defends early access, says Dark Souls would've benefitted
Moon Studios CEO Thomas Mahler has defended the studio's decision to launch its latest game No Rest for the Wicked in eā¦
www.eurogamer.net
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
No Rest for the Wicked dev defends early access, says Dark Souls would've benefitted
- Thread starter Angie
- Start date
www.eurogamer.net
My guy, just say you wanted to use early access to ship a completed polished 1.0
No need to be tossing out strays š
Edit: also, I feel like gamers are getting less patient with games that are going the EA route and weirdly treating them like they're demos instead of actual alphas/betas. Might be something that studios are going to have to OVER-message on the front end going forwardā¦
No need to be tossing out strays š
Edit: also, I feel like gamers are getting less patient with games that are going the EA route and weirdly treating them like they're demos instead of actual alphas/betas. Might be something that studios are going to have to OVER-message on the front end going forwardā¦
Look, I don't like early access (in fact, I wanted to give this game a chance but had to refund it after just a few minutes, the performance is abysmal and I'm not usually one to notice that) but I can still respect it when done properly.
You should not, however, use one of the biggest and most influential games of all time as an example of "see? we're doing it the right way and they should've done it too if possible!". We all know the last quarter of that game sucks ass, but using it as a selling point for your game is not the best look lmao
You should not, however, use one of the biggest and most influential games of all time as an example of "see? we're doing it the right way and they should've done it too if possible!". We all know the last quarter of that game sucks ass, but using it as a selling point for your game is not the best look lmao
This guy talks a lot on Twitter, I don't even follow him and constantly see his tweets, he has some takes alright.
Uh oh. I'm vaguely remember this, what happened?
EA should be for non-feature complete games.
not games that dont even run properly on most PCs yet.
not games that dont even run properly on most PCs yet.
Went on a personal campaign to shit on hello games and Sean Murray whenever any coverage of them or their games came up out of some petty childish jealousy about the reception of their game. Also engaged in some BS criticism other devs directly as well but hello games was his primary target here. Anyone who so casually and constantly criticizes other developers like that is not someone anyone should listen to.
Early Access for a game like this personally doesn't make a lot of sense to me but i also am not a person who likes to replay things like this.
I would feel very weird about Dark Souls if it just stopped at some point and i was about to wait for like 6 months for a new area to come out or for a boss being totally redesigned or for balance changing every week
I would feel very weird about Dark Souls if it just stopped at some point and i was about to wait for like 6 months for a new area to come out or for a boss being totally redesigned or for balance changing every week
True and it's a bad look. One thing can be true (EA is good for our game) in isolation.
I'm working my way through that thread about "snake oil salesmen" and... yeah... wow...
You can read his posts here. He hasn't posted since allegations about his behaviour at his studio came out.
Well, he's not wrong - but DS1 was still brilliant despite the latter half. It looks like NRFTW still has a bit to go before it reaches those heights.
I don't know why any developer would have to justify or defend releasing their games in early access at this point when there are some great games that benefited immensely from it.
And I don't think what he said about Dark Souls is controversial at all because of course many games would have benefited from extra development time, testing and player feedback in a live environment. BFV and 2042 come to mind immediately, with the latter being an early access game in all but name.
And I don't think what he said about Dark Souls is controversial at all because of course many games would have benefited from extra development time, testing and player feedback in a live environment. BFV and 2042 come to mind immediately, with the latter being an early access game in all but name.
No need to defend releasing in Early Access. It is what it is. Everyone can wait for the final release if they so desire - I do that for many early access games where I don't feel like tasting testing the raw sausage while it is being made.
A lot of people don't really understand early access and complain loudly about performance etc. Yeah... that's why the game is in early access. Kinda weird to cry about it and leave negative reviews because of performance issues mere days after an early access launch. Just... wait?
Many games could have benefited from early access / delays if publishers actually cared about shipping polished/finished products.
We have a great example in EA (It's in the nameā¢) launching their unfinished, Early Access Jedi crap that they have no intention of ever fixing. I respect a proper early access period so much more, when the intent of releasing a better product is there.
A lot of people don't really understand early access and complain loudly about performance etc. Yeah... that's why the game is in early access. Kinda weird to cry about it and leave negative reviews because of performance issues mere days after an early access launch. Just... wait?
Many games could have benefited from early access / delays if publishers actually cared about shipping polished/finished products.
We have a great example in EA (It's in the nameā¢) launching their unfinished, Early Access Jedi crap that they have no intention of ever fixing. I respect a proper early access period so much more, when the intent of releasing a better product is there.
Early access is an awesome idea in theory. It's a beta. You pay to join a beta.
Win-Win.
Unfortunately, that's not how people look at it.
Win-Win.
Unfortunately, that's not how people look at it.
Would probably make a lot more sense to link the twitter thread itself instead of the article reporting on a few quotes from the twitter thread:
Plain text:
Plain text:
We're not even a week into Early Access and it's already pretty clear that going with EA is one of the best decisions we could've made
I see some people are still irked about why games like Wicked, Hades 2, Larian's new game, etc. launch into Early Access even if the studio 'should have the funds to finish the game and release it then'.
But that's looking at a complex problem through a way too simple lens:
I think as games become more and more complex and sophisticated, we'll see some form of Early Access happening more and more often. Speaking from our own experience, there is just no way we could have ever shipped Wicked 1.0 without being able to see all the data we're seeing now and getting all the feedback from users. And I mean actual users, not a Focus Testing Group.
Even if we'd have 2-3 times the staff, it would have been quite simply impossible, the product is just way too complex of a beast to reasonably expect that. 9 women can't make a baby in a month and all that.
And even historically speaking, I think some games would've benefited from Early Access even before EA was a thing. Imagine Dark Souls 1 would've been in Early Access - Instead of From rushing to ship a boxed product in a somewhat unfinished state, they probably would've been able to look at the second half of that game and still fully form and polish the less polished areas like Lost Izalith, etc.
"You could just do that through updates and DLC!" I hear you say - No, often times you couldn't.
Shipping games is always incredibly difficult and stressful and most of the time it means making quite drastic compromises, especially if your product is trying to accomplish something new. And if you don't know that it's okay to bring in certain features and scope after the fact, you'll just end up cutting before you hit the market.
So, even if you dislike the idea of Early Access: It's one way to allow developers to truly perfect a product over time, so please try to understand that there's value in that.
I'm confident that we will see games being created through Early Access programs that would've never been made without EA .
And to that effect, we will need to see
@PlayStation
and
@NintendoAmerica
also embrace Early Access.
The industry is just changing at a rapid pace and holding on to things that were the norm 5-10 years ago is too restrictive.
Ultimately people just want to play great games. It shouldn't matter how the game was developed, just that it was and if players can't play some great experience on your platform, you're doing your audience a disservice.
I see some people are still irked about why games like Wicked, Hades 2, Larian's new game, etc. launch into Early Access even if the studio 'should have the funds to finish the game and release it then'.
But that's looking at a complex problem through a way too simple lens:
I think as games become more and more complex and sophisticated, we'll see some form of Early Access happening more and more often. Speaking from our own experience, there is just no way we could have ever shipped Wicked 1.0 without being able to see all the data we're seeing now and getting all the feedback from users. And I mean actual users, not a Focus Testing Group.
Even if we'd have 2-3 times the staff, it would have been quite simply impossible, the product is just way too complex of a beast to reasonably expect that. 9 women can't make a baby in a month and all that.
And even historically speaking, I think some games would've benefited from Early Access even before EA was a thing. Imagine Dark Souls 1 would've been in Early Access - Instead of From rushing to ship a boxed product in a somewhat unfinished state, they probably would've been able to look at the second half of that game and still fully form and polish the less polished areas like Lost Izalith, etc.
"You could just do that through updates and DLC!" I hear you say - No, often times you couldn't.
Shipping games is always incredibly difficult and stressful and most of the time it means making quite drastic compromises, especially if your product is trying to accomplish something new. And if you don't know that it's okay to bring in certain features and scope after the fact, you'll just end up cutting before you hit the market.
So, even if you dislike the idea of Early Access: It's one way to allow developers to truly perfect a product over time, so please try to understand that there's value in that.
I'm confident that we will see games being created through Early Access programs that would've never been made without EA .
And to that effect, we will need to see
@PlayStation
and
@NintendoAmerica
also embrace Early Access.
The industry is just changing at a rapid pace and holding on to things that were the norm 5-10 years ago is too restrictive.
Ultimately people just want to play great games. It shouldn't matter how the game was developed, just that it was and if players can't play some great experience on your platform, you're doing your audience a disservice.
For real. Tell me you can't take criticism in a few short sentences. Haha.
The stated purpose of Early Access is to let devs gather feedback from players and incorporate it into the game design. It isn't meant to be used for the sake of simply taking players money early while you go off and finish the game on your own, which seems like what he is suggesting in the Dark Souls Lost Izalith example.
An example that would be inline with the actual purpose of EA would be something like "After getting feedback from players, they might have made Capra Demon less likely to stun lock you or put a bonfire closer to the fog door for the Smough & Ornstein fight."
Of course, people might not have responded well to that example. Much of the appeal of Dark Souls is that it is a game that is somewhat obtuse and doesn't feel like it has been extensively playtested to appeal to a mass market consumer.
This is also how I feel. I cannot imagine replaying a game over and over again a hundred times until it comes out and is "done". I think I'd be sick of it by the time actual launch happens.
Yeah, am halfway through the VB article and fuck this absolute asshole.
I'm curious what Dark Souls would end up as if it did release in EA. I'm sure it'd be a more finished product, but I wonder if there would be backlash to the hardcore style of gameplay.
Regardless, EA for No Rest seems to be the right call. Moon has already released four hotfixes, and the overall gameplay is substantially better than it was just a few days ago.
Regardless, EA for No Rest seems to be the right call. Moon has already released four hotfixes, and the overall gameplay is substantially better than it was just a few days ago.
it's true but he shouldn't say it.jpg
but also while EA can excuse lackIng/unfinished late game areas, it does not excuse poor performance IMO
but also while EA can excuse lackIng/unfinished late game areas, it does not excuse poor performance IMO
Mahler not being a complete asshole is something he is incapable of doing. Also hope he's treating his employees better rather than shit talking other devs and games.
As for his point, not everything needs to be focus tested to death and Dark Souls is better for its warts, even if it's among my least favorite Souls games.
As for his point, not everything needs to be focus tested to death and Dark Souls is better for its warts, even if it's among my least favorite Souls games.
Why not? Optimization is literally coming together at the end of development. Not while everything is in flux.
If there is anything I expect from early access, it is rough performance.
Yeah, having not followed this game, him using Dark Souls as an example makes me think Moon is just using early access as a quick money grab. Not implementing player feedback feels like an abuse of the whole thing.
That or he was just looking for an excuse to shit on a random game he doesn't like which, based on how he posted here, is totally a possibility.