Well...true, it had been mentioned. My bad. What I should have said is that this thread itself was not a DRM lovefest nor a DRM hatefest...but rather a discussion of the role (or lack thereof) that the Devs actually played in the current state of the game, and if it was fair to pin the blame squarely on them, or on other sources.

The reason I considered tonschk to be trolling is that he added nothing to that discussion, and essentially just had a one-man verbal circle-jerk over his somewhat odd attraction to the DRM.

In retrospect, I have added nothing more substantial to the original conversation either, and so should probably just crawl back to my corner, put on my raincoat, and avoid getting soiled by the flying debris from tronschk's inevitable self-gratification.


Carry on!


:salute:

Ahh Fawlty Towers... When daydreaming I replay entire episodes in my head and still chuckle aloud at them!

Absolutely. It's much better than it was - a few weeks ago every thread devolved to be about DRM, even if it was nothing to do with it. I think though it's fairly inevitable that if we discuss the state of the game or the quality of it, the DRM will be discussed too. Although it isn't a part of the game and again the devs had no part in its inclusion, for the player its still a part of their experience and people will talk about it when they are posting. It's calmed down now so that people can post positive and neutral views on DRM, without being lynched.

I also think tonschk's post was OTT and it could certainly be seen as a troll post. I wasn't really sure if he was being serious or not. It's quite an extreme stance to take :DL.

OK, I'm sorry for hijacking the thread. My stance on the devs is in my sig.

And you are a STUPID IDIOT and also MORON TROLL

,

For what it is worth, I blame the collective management team - Studio & Ubi decision makers.

Enough Placoderm and tonschk with the personal attacks... :timeout:

Keep it clean and back on topic :shucks:

:o

Excuse me?!? What the bleep are you talking about?

You highlight MY name and not the other persons, when all I did was try to keep the thread ON topic by calling out someone who appeard to be obviusly trolling.

Contraty to what your post indicated, it was not I who called someone a "STUPID IDIOT" and a "MORON", and in fact I followed up my 'troll alert' with a post to try to re-focus this thread back to the discussion of the witch hunt. I also indicated in my last post that I was refraining from further comment in this thread specifically because I realized that I was adding nothing to the thread topic and was best to sit this one out and crawl back in my corner.

Now you come on here, accuse me of making personal attacks, and call me out specifically in bold....less than three posts after someone else very personally attacked ME in a post which I had chosen to ignore specifically to avoid further conflict? :stare:

Priceless.


(/defensive rant off)


Back ON topic...I personally DO blame the Devs just as much as I do Ubisoft for the state the game is in. Although Ubisoft imposed a likely draconian timeline for the products' development, it was the designers and the developers who, by definition, had to decide what could be done within those constraints. Much of what is broken with the current game (DRM aside) are things that were changed/added to the previous series that were completely unnecessary to further the immersion. Those things include a (frankly stupid) "role playing" aspect that was both unnecessary and surely required a lot of time to develop, a completely new interface that although it appears a simple change...most assuredly took many weeks of conferences and studys to come up with a workable design (and even more weeks to implement), and numerous smaller changes that appear to have been changed just for the sake of changing.

Ubisoft gets the blame for the timeline and perhaps for a limited budget...but it is the Developers duty to manage that time and budget to focus on what is realistic and what is possible. The design/development team failed in that primary goal just as much as Ubisoft failed to provide them the funding/time needed for a proper makeover.




:hmmm:

In the real world it doesn't work like that. Generals can have all the strategic view they want but its the men on the ground that have to implement your strategy.
If your men are poor fighters, nothing is going to reverse your defeat on the battlefield even if you have excellent Generals in your staff.
The 2 go hand in hand. And sometimes victory on the field has been achieved notwithstanding poor strategic and tactical view. Maybe because the adversary was even in worse conditions than your army etc...

The bugs in SH 5 weren't programmed by Ubisoft suits.
It was the dev team that programmed the game. It was the dev team that recycled more or less some parts of SH 3 and 4 for SH 5. It was the dev team that choose to implement features in certain specific ways.
The features and bugs that are present in SH 5 are the dev teams fault and nobody else's if you want to cross every t and dot every i.

And as the lead dev said on this forum, there is no difference between us (dev team) and Ubisoft.
The failure of one is the failure of the other.

;)

I understand your anger at an attempted thread hijack, especially in such a silly manner. Still, technically, you threw the first punch with that 'Troll' comment. In the future, know that this kind of stuff is best left ignored. Never take the bait.

The Management

Fully and respectfully understood. I should know better, and let such things pass.

Hopefully the second half of my latest post brings more to the conversation and the topic at hand, and helps to dislodge the hook from my gills.


As someone who worked both as a grahic designer and on the executive sales staff with a major publisher, I have a perspective from both sides of the management/development team issue...and am more than aware of the failings, limitations, and frustrations of both sides. In the case of SH5, I think the blame can be properly attributed to everyone involved...and that is in line with what Dan on the development team indicated in his post several weeks back. Any finger-pointing should be circular, if at all, in regards to who was at fault with the games shortcomings, failings, bugs, or questionable design approaches.


:salute:

:sign_yeah:



:rock:

I'd still shift the blame toward the generals for employing poorly trained fighters before I'd blame the fighters for being poorly trained.

All good. We've all done something similar at some point. I'll stop derailing and let you guys get back to your topic.

Creepy avatar is creepy. :o

Ok I've seen a few of these "I've met Dan in person..." comments from different members. I'm assuming you guys talked in depth about game development. You're not saying the devs can do no wrong just because you've had a beer with the guy, right? :lol: