Capcom Implements Lost Planet Beta Feedback
Chris Kohler has the news, over at Game|Life, that Capcom is actually implementing changes to the upcoming title Lost Planet based on feedback from online component Beta testers. The multiplayer version of the game has been available via Xbox Live for some time now, and the outcry against certain game elements has resulted in fundamental changes to the game's design. From the article: "First of all, due to user feedback, next to the name of each host hosting a match will be a readout of the number of players already in the room compared to the maximum number of players allowed, so players will know how full a room is before they enter. The second update will be that if the player tries to enter a room that has been closed or where the match has already begun, the player will not be forced back out to the first player match menu to then re-search for games.. Rather, the player will be able to immediately browse and select a different session to join There will also be a button set to allow the player to Refresh the match list without having to perform a Quick Match search again."
Honestly, there is as much damage done by implementing requested changes from a beta-test as there is from leaving the game it was. Most beta-tests are filled with hardcore fans of the genre (or the series) and are likely going to want features which the majority of users will not care about (or might see as negatives). There is a reason why there are so many games which are loved by the hardcore group that are ignored by the masses; and reasons why hardcore gamers complain that a highly successful game (WoW) is not hardcore enough for them.
"Capcom Discovers Basic Server Browser Principles."
Seriously, how bone-headed do you have to be to NOT show your users how many people are in a server? Oh well. At least they have--unlike some companies--learned that people hate having to refresh server lists every time they fail to join a game, and really hate having to scroll through menus over and over for no reason at all. They're still doing better than some developers out there as far as server browser design.
Perhaps fundamentally more important, why can't they implement dynamic joining of games in progress, like what most PC FPSes have done for years now? I hope that kind of crap doesn't start to become popular on PC, if that's what this console "matchmaking" nonsense is about. Let me find my own servers.
I think this is Capcom's first big multi-player game, no? Let's cut them some freaking slack for testing and responding to the test, instead of bagging on them for what was (or wasn't) in a non-final product. (Who knows, those fixes may have been on the change list before the beta, or they may have been in a "wishlist, but let's see if they bitch about it because it's a pain to implement" category. I think Capcom's incredibly open development process with Lost Planet has been an awesome experiment, and I hope it's really successful for them -- it's a freaking great looking game.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
While your point is definitly true in the vase majority of situations, it sounds like most of the changes made here were really stuff that was so obvious it makes you wonder what they were doing over there that they didn't think of it in the first place. It's all stuff an internal beta should have caught.
If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
I completely misunderstood that title. Here's what I thought it meant:
A company named "Capcom Implements" has accidentally "Lost" their entire database of "Beta Feedback" for their upcoming game, "Planet".
Daniel
On the 360, I know that Prey, Saints Row, and a few others have these stupid issues. PGR3 must have been listening to feedback, as they issued a patch about 4 months after it came out that:
Since MS has strict development guidelines now, such as all games must be at least 720p- one would think they'd set minimum standards of some of the aforementioned features in all live matches.
--falz
Actually, the problem is that Capcom doesn't seem to know what the hell they are doing. Most of the changes they are making are FUNDAMENTAL things US game makers figured out years ago. It is more evident however if you look at PC games (console developers can be pretty damn lazy). Almost everything they have stated thats changing is pretty simple stuff that should have been worked out in a few hours by a decent online dev-team.
I dunno what fantasy world you live in, but almost every successful game on the Xbox received patches. Hell Live itself was a patch for the Xbox a year or two after it was released. Not exactly a good precedent. They often included an extra thing for the game too with the patch, but a patch, is a patch. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory required a patch due to a bad matchmaking bug, and Halo 2 has received multiple patches for issues all over the board. I remeber there were a ton more, but it's been so long I can't remeber specifics. MS had the same no patches allowed mentality then too they are supposed to have now. I laughed it then, and I still do. Before consoles had the finality of, "thats it" now more work can be done! Not anymore unfortunately. Were now buying beta versions of games on disk with final patches that get patches made for them.