Road Map Envy

[stevepine]

I was so impressed by this tiny little indie game's road map:

Imagine if TaleWorlds had produced something like this for Bannerlord ..... and (more or less) stuck to it within a reasonable timeframe:

Road Map for Arch Mage Rises

So what's the difference? : The developer is grateful to his community and followers. He takes them seriously. He understands the value of communication.

Another way to put it : He's humble and competent

 

[Mad Vader]

So, young Armagan before the yachts and the interns.
The dev blogs are a very good read there, thanks.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I disagree, I think roadmaps have been a disaster for the game industry, or are at least a sign of bad practices overall. No longer do you have to release a game properly, you can just push out a broken base of a game and publish a wishlist of stuff you might include if you feel like it.

Shockingly this is enough for some people, and there are dozens of games I can think of that still suck after a mediocre launch, but people salivate over the "roadmap" and the perception that things are constantly being patched.

For a lot of gamurrrs in the post-kickstarter world, half the enjoyment comes from imagining what it will be like when it's "finished" rather than the game itself as it currently is. I've played so many downright bad strategy and citybuilder games that the core community defends to the death because of a stupid roadmap. Evrry review for these games is like "it's going to be great when it's finished!! (The developer abandons it 2 years later)"

I actually appreciate that bannerlord doesnt have a roadmap. It's severely hampered the hype prophecies of the fanbase, and nobody can point at a PDF of cool-sounding ideas to act like that's where the game is now. People actually have realistic expectations!

 

[Mad Vader]

I actually appreciate that bannerlord doesnt have a roadmap. It's severely hampered the hype prophecies of the fanbase, and nobody can point at a PDF of cool-sounding ideas to act like that's where the game is now. People actually have realistic expectations!

there's a graveyard of pre-EA devblogs that hyped the game beyond what those crazy fans would imagine on their own.
but the gist of your cynical observation is right, fans tend to live off fantasies about the future game, daydreaming about "potential". a sucker is born every minute! and we all suffer from it.

 

[mujadaddy]

roadmaps

100% agree with your post

But the picture was pretty!!!!~

 

[black_bulldog]

That's a lot of stuff to add. I wouldn't hold my breath that they can get even half of that done. Looking on their website the game has been in development for 9 years. I wonder if they're trying to beat out Bannerlord as the longest game in development?

 

[Dodgy]

I couldn't care less about roadmaps or not, so long as I get the finished product I paid for in good time.
It clearly hasn't been the case here, since the early access lasted more than twice the expected time and the final product in my eyes is a lesser product than what was shown and promised earlier during the multiple development stages (and it keeps being fixed and broken while attempting to fix it almost a year past release).

The good times for videogames were before the advent of DLCs and mainstream consoles, when you would get a game that would actually work really well off the shelf bar a few occasional glitches, had all the promised features and if successful it would eventually get a proper expansion pack, full of features and content for the price of a single small DLC and a half.

 

[Mad Vader]

The good times for videogames were before the advent of DLCs and mainstream consoles, when you would get a game that would actually work really well off the shelf bar a few occasional glitches, had all the promised features and if successful it would eventually get a proper expansion pack, full of features and content for the price of a single small DLC and a half.

But one thing that was missing was that the player base didn't feel "involved" in developing the game and chatting up the devs. It turns out they want this even more than playing a good game.

 

[Totalgarbage]

I disagree, I think roadmaps have been a disaster for the game industry, or are at least a sign of bad practices overall. No longer do you have to release a game properly, you can just push out a broken base of a game and publish a wishlist of stuff you might include if you feel like it.

Shockingly this is enough for some people, and there are dozens of games I can think of that still suck after a mediocre launch, but people salivate over the "roadmap" and the perception that things are constantly being patched.

For a lot of gamurrrs in the post-kickstarter world, half the enjoyment comes from imagining what it will be like when it's "finished" rather than the game itself as it currently is. I've played so many downright bad strategy and citybuilder games that the core community defends to the death because of a stupid roadmap. Evrry review for these games is like "it's going to be great when it's finished!! (The developer abandons it 2 years later)"

I actually appreciate that bannerlord doesnt have a roadmap. It's severely hampered the hype prophecies of the fanbase, and nobody can point at a PDF of cool-sounding ideas to act like that's where the game is now. People actually have realistic expectations!

This is a great point. I actually am content with Bannerlord's "roadmaps" because in general, they have shared with us what they are going to broadly add in a short-mid term (except claimants and observer mode for some reason, they haven't added those despite announcing them like 2 years ago). They have been very vague about them (especially on the question of "when"), sure, and it's something that both annoys me and something that I understand. Though they reeeally need to be more articulate on what exactly they are talking about the features they have confirmed to add. Hell, I've been following the development of this game for like 6 years now, and really paying attention to its development for 1,5 years or so by looking at the posts & comments of devs, and I wasn't sure what they meant with "the mission atmosphere and weather system" in the post-release section of their release plans post. Granted, I was pleasantly surprised by them also adding weather to the overworld, but still.

 

[JunKeteer]

The good times for videogames were before the advent of DLCs and mainstream consoles, when you would get a game that would actually work really well off the shelf bar a few occasional glitches, had all the promised features and if successful it would eventually get a proper expansion pack, full of features and content for the price of a single small DLC and a half.

Probably around when it became normal as just a digital copy vs physical. They could dismiss even 'basic' things like crashes and bugs as TBD fixed later; the player can just download the patch/incomplete things the next day.
Before, that CD/disk/cartridge better be good, final, and complete; because that's it - the next patch is maybe the expansion disk in 2 years.

 

[Apocal]

I was so impressed by this tiny little indie game's road map:

Imagine if TaleWorlds had produced something like this for Bannerlord ..... and (more or less) stuck to it within a reasonable timeframe:

Road Map for Arch Mage Rises

So what's the difference? : The developer is grateful to his community and followers. He takes them seriously. He understands the value of communication.

Another way to put it : He's humble and competent

We've had this thread before.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/bannerlord-just-accept-what-we-give-you-and-stop-crying-vs-valheim-roadmap.442681/

They could dismiss even 'basic' things like crashes and bugs as TBD fixed later; the player can just download the patch/incomplete things the next day.
Before, that CD/disk/cartridge better be good, final, and complete; because that's it - the next patch is maybe the expansion disk in 2 years.

Man, there were way more literally broken games released before digital distribution became a thing. Like, it was completely and utterly normal to get a game that wouldn't run on your system, the only support being a per-by-minute BBS where the developers proceed to tell you, "Oh that? Yeah, we know about it. Sucks to be you."

(The good outcome was they'd tell you go buy Computer Gaming World or something and they would carry the patch on their demo disk.)

 

[stevepine]

I disagree, I think roadmaps have been a disaster for the game industry, or are at least a sign of bad practices overall. No longer do you have to release a game properly, you can just push out a broken base of a game and publish a wishlist of stuff you might include if you feel like it.

Shockingly this is enough for some people, and there are dozens of games I can think of that still suck after a mediocre launch, but people salivate over the "roadmap" and the perception that things are constantly being patched.

For a lot of gamurrrs in the post-kickstarter world, half the enjoyment comes from imagining what it will be like when it's "finished" rather than the game itself as it currently is. I've played so many downright bad strategy and citybuilder games that the core community defends to the death because of a stupid roadmap. Evrry review for these games is like "it's going to be great when it's finished!! (The developer abandons it 2 years later)"

I actually appreciate that bannerlord doesnt have a roadmap. It's severely hampered the hype prophecies of the fanbase, and nobody can point at a PDF of cool-sounding ideas to act like that's where the game is now. People actually have realistic expectations!

Road maps are not just a hopeful wish list.

They are a plan. With real intention.

Early Access is here to stay .... and we all know that (like it or not).... so, I would much rather have a detailed map of what is to come.
(Even if it doesn't ALL get implemented perfectly)

And I think the great majority of gamers would agree.

No disrespect, but I suspect your opinion on this...... well, it's definitely a minority view.

 

[stevepine]

That's a lot of stuff to add. I wouldn't hold my breath that they can get even half of that done. Looking on their website the game has been in development for 9 years. I wonder if they're trying to beat out Bannerlord as the longest game in development?

It's a great little game that is coming along very nicely at the moment.

It has active developers who listen and reply. Also.... this game's development has actually accelerated quite a lot recently - regular patches.

 

[stevepine]

So, young Armagan before the yachts and the interns.
The dev blogs are a very good read there, thanks.

indeed

and you're welcome.

 

[black_bulldog]

It's a great little game that is coming along very nicely at the moment.

It has active developers who listen and reply. Also.... this game's development has actually accelerated quite a lot recently - regular patches.

That maybe so and that's great, but what they promise seems sky high to me. If they accomplish what they set out to do I'll be interested but I'll never get involved with a game in ea again.

 

[swally0ne]

I disagree, I think roadmaps have been a disaster for the game industry, or are at least a sign of bad practices overall. No longer do you have to release a game properly, you can just push out a broken base of a game and publish a wishlist of stuff you might include if you feel like it.

Shockingly this is enough for some people, and there are dozens of games I can think of that still suck after a mediocre launch, but people salivate over the "roadmap" and the perception that things are constantly being patched.

For a lot of gamurrrs in the post-kickstarter world, half the enjoyment comes from imagining what it will be like when it's "finished" rather than the game itself as it currently is. I've played so many downright bad strategy and citybuilder games that the core community defends to the death because of a stupid roadmap. Evrry review for these games is like "it's going to be great when it's finished!! (The developer abandons it 2 years later)"

I actually appreciate that bannerlord doesnt have a roadmap. It's severely hampered the hype prophecies of the fanbase, and nobody can point at a PDF of cool-sounding ideas to act like that's where the game is now. People actually have realistic expectations!

+1

roadmaps are of very limited use for the audience, as they are always subject of change. it's more for internal usage. they are meant for employees which are actually involved in the development/design progress.
for me it seems like roadmaps only get shared to silence toddlers. it became a regular with early access games to gain trust through creating a fake transparency which is basically worth nothing until the job is not finished. iam sorry, but a roadmap isn't involving any customer in the game development progress. it's nothing but a teaser.

It turns out they want this even more than playing a good game.

exactly this.

 

[Apocal]

Road maps are not just a hopeful wish list.

They are a plan. With real intention.

How would you know?

They could just miss every deadline or decide to cut 90% of the content on it or realize the entire dev team needs a multi-month vacation off to the Bahamas. Or they could just be lying; there isn't actually any transparency with most of them (how many studios let players put names to day-to-day decisions?) and there isn't a damned thing players can do to hold them to their roadmaps.

 

[Count Delinard]

Man, I miss the days before early access

I went into them back in like 2012 with Under the ocean (!!!) and got burnt so bad I never played an early access game (outside of BL alpha) since then. I’ve bought some but I always wait until full release before actually playing them. I do the same with full releases that are broken too, I’ve had cyberpunk in my steam library since 2020 and I’ll only install it and play it for the first time now after the new DLC is released.

 

[Mad Vader]

Man, I miss the days before early access

I went into them back in like 2012 with Under the ocean (!!!) and got burnt so bad I never played an early access game (outside of BL alpha) since then. I’ve bought some but I always wait until full release before actually playing them. I do the same with full releases that are broken too, I’ve had cyberpunk in my steam library since 2020 and I’ll only install it and play it for the first time now after the new DLC is released.

Cyberpunk has been good since last year at least! And arguably will be even better after the patch/DLC that changes basic game mechanics.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Early Access is here to stay .... and we all know that (like it or not).... so, I would much rather have a detailed map of what is to come.
(Even if it doesn't ALL get implemented perfectly)

I understand that you want to see what the developers are doing, but I dont think that has anything to do with the game itself, just the feeling of anticipation when looking at promotional material. But I find that stuff has very tenuous connection to the final product in the vast majority of cases. It feels like I'm looking at a scam.

A really egregious example is the Ancient Cities game which was on Kickstarter for ages. They had a roadmap and a dozen stretch goals, but the final game was total trash. But there are still people defending it because the roadmap put an idea in their head of what the game would eventually be like. Its detrimental when you can just out one of these out and hypnotise a bunch of people into excusing a bad game with the idea of a good game that doesnt exist.