On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 13:55 +0200, Josselin Perrus wrote: > Xavier, my following remarks might sound pretty critical, but don't > take me wrong I'm emphasizing only on what I think could be improved : > the time has not yet come to praise... And if it sounds like I'm > lecturing, be sure it is not my intention...
Don't worry - good constructive criticism is what the project needs the most, especially right now. I'm glad you took the time to write it down, thanks a lot for this Josselin. > First a quick remark on the gameplay: I very much agree with what > Anton has brought up. I very strongly feel against the "tree" thing : > even for someone who gave it time to understand, it still does not > make any sense... Hmmm... I think Anton and you are right, it doesn't make much sense, and even if it did, the concept would probably be too tricky for a majority of players. I think I've spent so much time having the concept in mind that I couldn't see it anymore. Let's try to see if we can come up with something else. > Now the real thing : I think the overall effort is not focused enough. > Your website examplifies what I think is wrong : it is difficult to > understand and to browse because there are lots of contents that reach > in many directions. I totally understand that you want to make the > project as open as possible : not only the code but also the process. > I value that a lot. However I think the website could be brought down > to a few pages and a mailing list without losing any of the signal. > But you would get rid of the noise... I agree - the wiki is a mess. : ) That's why I've started reorganizing it, especially the home page, to progressively move to a more streamlined experience for the newcomers. A lot of the pages are only needed occasionally, for reference - defining a smaller set of pages where we direct newcomers can definitely help. Which pages would you keep? > The target > Till now it looks to me like you are trying to meet all possible > gamers expectations. I think you cannot target people who want to > fight over control, people who want to nurture, people who want to use > the game as political medium, etc... at the same time. I think you > should focus on one market segment and define from there what is the > smallest set of features you need to develop in order satisfy your > target. Not exactly - the goal is not to target everyone, I don't think anyone thinks we can do that. It's more about trying several approaches, to try to see which one would take off, and then go for it. But you are right about one (big) thing here: the approach needs to be more methodical and focused. Trying to define one target for now could help to speed up things, instead of trying everything at once - we would just try one approach, see what we learn, and eventually redefine it and start over if we need to. > The framing > The framing is about the context, the role of the player in the game, > etc... Typically the framing is defined by the metaphore you use. > Anton has recently brought forward some ideas that tend to reinforce > the Hacking frame, meaning : you are a hacker and you fight over > websites to make money. You buy stuff that help you get better,etc... > However, and that brings us back to the target issue, you have to > acknowledge that if you frame the game as a pure hacking game you are > de facto ruling out some segments and focusing on a rather savvy, more > or less hardcore gamers target. Maybe it has been clear to you for > quite some time but it does not seem that way from the outside. I have to thank you again for this email Josselin - you're completely right about this. The hardcore gamer shouldn't be the first target we should try to reach - the one we have been talking about is more the casual gamer, a bit geek but not too much, who played facebook games and is ready for more. We could accomodate more hardcore audiences, especially if we fail with a more casual audience, but that shouldn't be our first try. What are you thoughts on this? Does the target I just described makes sense for you? > I hope I did not come down too hard, but, well, now you know where I > stand. I believe focus and iteration to be key in order to achieve > what some call a Minimum Viable > Product http://venturehacks.com/articles/minimum-viable-product > My english is a bit rusty, so I hope what I wrote makes sense. Not at all - you gave lots of insights, and fair and constructive critics. Thanks for the link - I'll listen to the presentation. Xavier. _______________________________________________ Hackit Bar mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://community.hackit.cx/ List: http://community.hackit.cx/ml/ Forum: http://community.hackit.cx/forum/ Ideas: http://community.hackit.cx/ideas/ IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#politis
