 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by dasfette |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed on the feel/idea of this. But I*do question #2. I feel like this is the "easy out" for not providing constructive criticism. I'm not a game designer, coder, or software engineer. Thus, I can't speak, in detail, to why "too many curveballs are becoming passed balls".
To be honest, I feel like the video game industry*is one of the very few industries that can get away with this. If I buy a car from my local Ford dealership and, 2,000 miles down the road it stops shifting into 3rd, am I expected to explain to the dealer/Ford why my car won't shift into 3rd and how to fix it? My answer, if I was asked, would very simply be "the proposed (and only)*solution is that*my brand new $24K*car shifts correctly".
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
There are always solutions to things we play...we don't know about cars but we DO know how a game ought to be played when we're complaining/upset about it. When we identify a problem, we should also be offering a solution with some support as to why it's a good solution. In your example of passed balls, we can provide the video support...maybe some sample data...and real life data to show how the current state of the game does not mirror real life. That is irrefutable evidence something needs to be fixed, as Steve mentioned. In some way or another though, we need to provide more situational data wherein the devs can replicate an issue (if a bug) or if something doesn't work with the flow of a game (i.e. more franchise content), ideas of what could be implemented.