Dr DisRespect’s NFT game is where players choose the developmental features that are better on paper than in practice.

Dr DisRespect is making a video game, but it’s not as amazing as you might think. Prior to doing major streaming, The Two-Time was a stage developer for Call of Duty. Before seeing his doctor without credit, he went by the name of Guy Beahm and was a professional sports player. For his new game, called Project Moon, he’s at a higher level than ever, but he’s not the only streamer who decided to make video games as easy as possible. playing them. However, the design for the game is very different, and we can’t help it.

On paper, the basic ideas of the project are good. Permanent pieces (limited pieces of the game) will be released from time to time, and the game will change according to the player’s intentions. Personally, I don’t like this idea of ​​trying out games: players don’t have to be the best judge of what they want, because the public wants the safety of the game. locals, and people want to surprise. It doesn’t tell the standard game what the studios have to pay. I know the games are fun and Doc is rad, and the development of ‘democratizing’ is public — please, but what he’s doing is using his community for free.


related: Dr DisRespect’s NFT game is a Star Citizen for Gen Z

Finding people to work for free is not your problem. First of all, you need to have a special DisRespect NFT Doctor in the community, it’s just stupid. No gaming console has the best NFT concepts, as the coolest NFT console – the Polium One – proves. While it’s a good idea to let your players do your game, and I continue it’s not a good idea, the NFT one is the one that didn’t start. It is like developing the best political system, fair and just in the world, full of evaluations and balances, to ensure that leaders have the strength to change but not enough to do them harm. , and then say that each time you choose you need to. pee in your pants.

But let’s leave the NFT thing for now. Let’s assume the senate doesn’t stink. Let’s move on to the next flaw of the project. These pieces will be released every six weeks, for a very short time. What happens if a show is not ready after six weeks and the community hates it? Is this mind game play kind of a scene that can be done well with as much time as possible? How long will the remainder of the game be pre -planned so that players can refuse a feature every six weeks? If a model is approved then it is praised, but because it is not wanted, where does the game go from here?

In fact, you can say that I am just looking for problems. Maybe it’s done with a better mindset, and doesn’t have as much unilateral power over players as Doc does. The idea is worrying about these questions.

Forbes columnist Paul Tassi, an expert in live shots. on Twitter to ask if it could be changed in six weeks. The response from game devs was ‘no really’. Doc also said to himself, “Damn forget we run our programs by the ‘Gamedev folks’. They think it’s good,” which is what sounds like a kind of bad luck.

I can understand streams telling their listeners not to trust shill corrupt journalists, even though they take our work and read it on the bulletin board as ‘basic disease’, or They do not trust the news and guidance we give them. I have. We don’t play games and we talk about them as professionals. But I’m not sure I see the danger of asking real game devs whose jobs are to see these things if another game design can be planned. That Doc returns a trivial question that isn’t answered in a way that isn’t good for the whole game.

Would a live shooter have a bunch of NFT bros hanging out with their favorite drunk stream? I mean, does it sound right? There is a wealth of live shooters, but it is a highly expanded market that has been tried by triple-A teams and never entered. Doc may work differently, but I think he will get the same results, and that is gracious.

Next: Why is Ubisoft throwing Assassin’s Creed the best birthday party?

Leave a Comment