Ment
Auto-translated
"And no amount of negative comments will change that," he asserted, a statement that, after his comment, made me even less inclined to play it, and didn't make me like the game any more...
I deliberately don't play the demo so that I can test the full version later, possibly even after the first patches. The logic is simple: I want to form an impression of the game by giving it as much time as possible to be polished; I'm not in a hurry. Maybe by that time, most of the things people are complaining about now will be fixed. The interface can be improved, the usability, and even the contrast can be adjusted/textures slightly retouched, perhaps by 2026. I'm not even talking about the balance, which is never good even at release, but it's generally accepted that it improves over time.
1) If it's still not very good then,
2) But if it does turn out to be good, I'll be pleasantly surprised (although I won't say I'll be amazed; there's still hope), and I'll enjoy playing it.
But all this talk about "you have to try the game" and "this is early access, it will definitely be 100% better at release" is more likely to demotivate. I've heard so much of it, and not once, literally not a single time, have I heard a story where a game was a disappointment in the demo/early access, and then suddenly became amazing. Well, there's something about No Man's Sky, that after a million years after release, it became a good game... But I haven't checked.
All these comments only create a reverse déjà vu effect, and my belief in option 1) strengthens, while my belief in option 2) weakens.
In fact, this is a big problem with the attitude towards the consumer, and it requires a clear distinction, that is, the developers should have long ago figured out the terminology and differentiated it.
First, a demo version should not be early access. A demo version is a full game, reduced in its capabilities just enough so that the player can make an informed decision about purchasing it. If the demo version is released before the game is finished and released, then it either does not fulfill its function (I cannot make a purchase decision if it is clearly raw), or it is incorrectly named.
Secondly, early access is not a beta test. And even the release version, excuse my frankness, is not a beta test! Games that are not finished but are already confident in their high quality should be released in early access. Yes, it will be even better at release, but it's already pretty good now, if you can't wait, play it. Besiege was already a great game in early access, in which I spent a considerable amount of time, and then they just added more levels and mechanisms. BG3 was also praised in early access, although I didn't play it then.
And yes, the release version, I repeat, is not a beta test. Ideally, we should not live in a world where the term "day one patch" exists: if it can be patched on the first day, then it could have been patched yesterday. Before release. Unfortunately, I will still have to close my eyes to this reality; I am demanding the impossible by today's standards.
As for the interface, and the aforementioned "7"... I have the impression that current game developers don't play games, and that's the main problem. At one time, I had quite high hopes for "7," played a few campaign missions, and generally came to the conclusion that it was playable. But then I dropped it, and in my personal ranking of games in the series, the 7th part remained below almost any other (except for 6, which is at the very bottom). Why? Because you can play it for a bit, but the balance and the interface don't encourage replayability – which, even after many patches after release, they still haven't made clear. And if the first thing is really difficult to develop, then the interface... It's just a matter of how many strategy games the designer has played, excuse me. You have examples of 6 (!) parts of Heroes. You know perfectly well that the path on the map should be drawn in such a way that it is visible the next day. You know in which part of the screen certain buttons should be, based on how often the player moves the mouse around the screen looking for them. You know which buttons should be there, what access to what on the strategic map may be needed. You know everything, it's all been chewed over and over. Why isn't it done, why does the player have to stumble over things or why are some things completely missing? Well, because they probably don't know. They've never played, they've never tried. Every time they invent the wheel from scratch, they forget to add spokes to the wheels, and then they wonder why it only drives to the first bump.
Either they don't play games, or they don't draw conclusions... I don't understand how the second is possible, though.
But I repeat, I haven't tried Era yet. I'm waiting and hoping. I'm very impressed by some detailed reviews that reflect the new features for the series that have been implemented in the game; I really want to try them out. The point of my message is that empty praise (as well as empty hate, without a doubt) is not needed by anyone. We'll talk about "there are flaws now, but they'll fix them" when and only when they fix them, because I've been disappointed too many times that they don't even come close to fixing them. I'm not saying they won't fix it. I'm not saying the game won't be good. I'm saying that if it's not very good now (although I haven't tried it, but I'm repeating other people's arguments), then judging "later" based on some strange expectations that 100% they will do everything right and fix everything... Well, you might as well throw money into crypto, I don't know, 100% Bitcoin will go up ))) I repeat that such comments are demotivating, but those that objectively and thoroughly describe the existing advantages now, without completely ignoring the disadvantages, are motivating.
Although, given the abuse of the lore and visuals, which is visible even without launching any demos, it's not exactly very motivating, but it's better than nothing.
