Every time I begin typing an intro for this series, I always re-realize how amazingly prophetic TGTSNBN really was. As a perfect example of what NOT to do of course. The game’s first year was just before the cataclysmic tsunami of many releases of early access titles that would soon follow, a release method that has nowadays become more the rule than the exception. And yet TGTSNBN did not only manage to present concepts that were (arguably) quite innovative and ahead of its time, but managed to become the staple example of things to avoid on so many levels, that I almost feel bad seemingly bashing it while presenting its aspects.
With a “re-imagined” version of the game releasing “soon™” it dawned on me of how interesting the developer choices were concerning releases (aka “books”) of the game. The development state and cycle of the game were more than an urban myth. Ask any player that ever played the game whether they were playing an alpha version, a beta version or a finished product at any given time. The different answers will be just as many as the number of players asked.
This was the first and biggest mistake. While undoubtedly the game released as – at the very best – an early access experience (proven by the recent announcement of a new, almost from-scratch, release), not once, not twice but three times over four years no player knew that with certainty at the time. The lack of developer updates on the matter combined with player-originated rumors made matters worse. It was only the game’s shortcomings that made it clearly obvious that it was not a finished product. Even then, the developers had put themselves into a great disadvantage.
Allowing people early access to one’s game certainly has some benefits. Having a large enough pool of testers that can identify issues with it, inform the people responsible and have those issues fixed before the final product is released is the most ridiculously obvious and basic one. That is assuming that players know that they are actually testing an unfinished game still under heavy development. I still remember Mr. A complaining to me at the end of the first book that out of the something less than 100 players, only 4 (including me) properly filled the feedback questionnaire sent to them. And by “properly filled” I mean wrote something meaningfully critical in all 36 questions instead of just “nerf Vampires” (yeah that was actually filled in on about a dozen feedback reports).
How can a developer expect constructive feedback if the players do not know they are supposed to test the mechanics and the overall experience from the very beginning? Informing the players on the state of the game can only benefit both parties. It was surprising enough that most of the players stayed for a second release next year, considering what was being done, which brings me to my next point.
It was those first players that were the most dedicated and excited about the game. They might not have filled the long feedback questionnaire and they might have metagamed a little (or a lot) but in the end of the day it was them that supported the whole effort. They were the enthusiasts that really wanted this thing to succeed and they did anything in their abilities to contribute. They not only promoted the game to others, but they also financially supported the game in an effort to allow it to be completed as soon as possible so they could enjoy the final result. They were the fanatics that rushed to play as soon as possible and stayed where others would have instantly left after confronting this incomplete mess of a game.
But the troubling thing is, that if there is a very long time period between granting early access to and finalizing your product even those hardcore enthusiasts might be lost as a potential player-base. It is normal for people to be exposed to other interesting ideas or occupations during that time and eventually be won over by those instead. There is only so much patience and hype can overcome when other more complete and polished temptations are easily accessible. And I have only been referring to the most hardcore of fans, the people that even created their own content for the game, extra unofficial groups, joked about it, promoted it, did their own art for it, all kinds of stuff. Imagine how much more difficult it would be for a “lesser fan” of the whole project to put/keep up with all that over the course of four years before – assuming this next iteration is indeed the last – being presented the final product.
The last nail in the coffin was the way the developers chose to handle this overflowing number of early players. Instead of trying to regulate the number of players or reconsider their development cycle and testing plans they opted instead to push out even more features in order to please as many people as possible in order to not lose a large portion of the playerbase. The active players (especially during on book I) were much more than any aspect of the game could handle. Even ignoring the extra required work (like manually doing daily crafts for each player, handing out more daily scenario stories, spending more time communicating and responding to inquiries and player actions) the absence of a closed testing environment made it impossible to control the pace and quality of development and testing.
So the developers opted to set testing aside instead of taking a step back and looking at the basics of their design and prioritize accordingly. I cannot deny that sometime during book II the large number of players managed to test the limits of a game aspect that would have probably been overlooked within a smaller community of testers as I have previously described here. But even that situation was a result of basing massively competitive content on previously untested rule systems. Moreover it certainly is not an excuse for ignoring very apparent combat mechanic failures – one of the other few “finalized” core features of the game – in favor of poorly pushed content, scenarios, tournaments and play sessions. Taking all events under consideration, the importance of having well-planned tiered testing throughout development, is only made clearer.
As aspiring and well-intended giving players a chance to play a game through early access sounds, there is no point in doing so if that effectively cripples its future. Thinking over the work hours spent on manually giving players daily craft results in order to temporarily satisfy them, instead of prioritizing on finishing and properly testing the online crafting system that would result in a faster, enjoyable and more solid experience overall, leaves me wondering of what could have been, even though no one will ever know. What we do know was that players lost interest, features took longer to get through iterations, maybe even the new target goals of the “re-imagined game” might have changed just because the game needed to be tailored to the people that somehow stayed.
While both developers and players were really enjoying the few – yet captivating – things the game offered for a short period, they eventually became very displeased with the stagnant and sketchy state of the game. But that would be a late realization, by the time of which little could have been done in order to not lose momentum. An early access project needs to have core elements tested in a controlled environment first, in addition to having enough content, features and polish before being released to the general public in order to be a meaningfully enjoyable experience for the players and solid enough for the developers to keep building on. It is because of the respect towards the game and the players that this procedure must be followed and adapted to the needs of each title.
Early access is not a winning ticket to success. It is a procedure that needs careful planning, clear focus and commitment. Because like most other things in life, there is only one chance at getting things right the first time.
Leave a Reply