Yes! To be candid, the Facebook reaction has been surprising! I'm confident that you'll get your money's worth even if you never touch multiplayer. Single player is robust and the AI isn't a pushover, so there's plenty of gameplay there. (and thanks for the good words!)
Very few people who buy and play turn-based strategy would have a Facebook account but not want to sign up for a gaming network. You've got your target demographic mixed up. There isn't any reason not to sign up for OF, Plus, Agon, etc. There are plenty to not have a Facebook account. This is coming from someone who uses Facebook: Horrible, horrible, idea. Use a gaming network for gaming.
What you're really saying is: 'I buy and play turn-based strategy and have a Facebook account, therefore I'm qualified to speak to the motivations and mindset of everyone who fits in that broad category (which all happen to think exactly as I do, coincidentally).' I think the developers have made a very good assumption about their target demographic, especially given all of the hugely popular FB games like Farmville. With 400 million FB users and 40 million iPhone users, I'd say the demographic that is out of whack is one that conflates the complaints of several (granted, more than expected) users on this forum with that of the majority of the people likely to purchase the game. Given the huge popularity of games on FB, what makes you think it's NOT a gaming network? My (personal, therefore not extrapolated to whole demographics) concern is that I tend to play games with people I don't know in real life, and on Facebook I'm only friends with people I know in real life. TouchArcade forum followers represent the early adopter demographic. I was just reading something (on Daring Fireball, maybe?) that one should never develop to/for the early adopters; Apple is a great example of a company that has had great success ignoring the needs of that demographic.
I was really keen to play this game, but one questions, Does this mean I can ONLY play vs my friends on facebook??? Or do we have random match making too ???
I guess I forgot about the part where I said everyone has the same opinion as me, but if you want to put that in there that's fine. I understand that a strawman is easier to argue with. What I did say, with fewer words, is that the only possible demographic that would use Facebook but refuse to join OF etc. would be the very casual crowd, which generally doesn't play turn-based strategy games. Facebook isn't designed for games, OF etc. is. Gaming on Facebook is like chess through mail. It works, but when better options are available, why use it?
Okay - let's just assume for a moment that I did use a fallacious straw man argument, and you aren't, in fact, projecting your opinion on others in order to bolster your argument. So what figures/facts/sources are you using to inform your view that: Casual gamers are the only Facebook users that might not want to sign up for a gaming social network Said demographic doesn't play turn-based strategy games You and I are likely very similar in the demographic we fall into, which is most definitely not the one you are trying to speak to. Who would not want to sign up for OF or Plus+? Neither of us know because, presumably, both of us already have signed up. You're creating a false dichotomy of very casual gamers vs. everyone else, and the behaviors and views toward gaming networks. Even if you are correct in your assessment of the demographic, it seems to me that some of the most popular games with the 'casual' crowd are turn-based strategy games: chess, checkers, Risk, etc. Or are you using a narrower definition? Interesting enough, the choice of character graphics in Highborn makes the game feel like pieces in a board game, only furthering such comparisons. So what are Facebook's functional deficiencies that disqualify its use as a social game network? Rather than dismiss it out of hand "it isn't designed for games!" why don't you provide a bit more information on what, exactly, it is lacking. Given that there are more active FarmVille users (> 80 Million) than iPhones sold worldwide, it seems Facebook is a very popular gaming network. How is gaming on Facebook like playing chess in the mail? Are you expecting notification of your opponents' moves to take 2-3 business days? Chess, Scrabble, and more than I'm aware of all work just fine as asynchronous multiplayer games on Facebook. I've already expressed my specific concern about Facebook use, which may or may not be an issue depending on the implementation. What are yours?
I'm not entirely sure why you've taken such offense to my posts, let alone why you keep on misconstruing my statements, but I'll go along with this anyway. And no it isn't a false dichotomy. I said "the only possible", which not only means that other demographics (which might I remind you is a general term, which means not everyone has the same views within it) wouldn't be against using one of the various networks made specifically for this purpose, but that I'm not sure if the casual demographic would even have a problem it. There are plenty of casual games with a gaming network implemented. Casual gaming is the more pick-up-and-play style of game that everyone (that doesn't actually mean everyone, just so you know) can play. You're having problems distinguishing between the terminology for gaming in the electronic sense, and gaming in the traditional sense. Take a look at Archon: Is it a casual game? It's a board game, so it should be considered one but it isn't. Facebook works for gaming, but that isn't it's primary function of it. It works because it's convenient for people to play while they're on Facebook. On their computer. It's fine for that, but using it on the iPhone destroys it's advantages. And the chess by mail thing was an analogy. Sorry for not pointing that out. I tried to be more specific this time. I actually don't have a huge problem with it, at most it's a minor inconvenience, but I still think it's a lousy idea. EDIT: Don't take this too seriously, I'm not actually mad at you or anything.
No offense taken with your posts. Getting caught up arguing points I don't take the time to make sure a moderated tone is coming across in what I write...I'm not mad either! Ultimately, we'll see if using Facebook for their online multiplayer proves to work well or not when the game comes out. If I'm stuck playing against the two Facebook friends that have this game too, that would be very disappointing. If it supports random matches and just happens to use Facebook, I'll be happy. (And if so, I'll look forward to sparring with you in the game )
Submission should happen on Monday (it was delayed a few days for a final round of polish and bug fixes). Btw, fascinating discussion above... we're just as interested in seeing how Facebook works out for all of this. :]
Lol for sure. There is one thing though that I want to know, is it only with friends or is there a match-making where you can play a random person? (Lol I only have like 1-2 facebook friends because I'm not so big in those "social networking" web sites)
The title got updated when it was stated it would be submitted this week, not was submitted... someone is just as excited as me But now it's official! Monday submission... ??? release... can't be too much longer though!
Lol yea and knowing apple they will wait to approve the game for a good week just to make us very mad. *knock on wood* But I am very excited I haven't seen a game I wanted to play this bad since Dawn of War II... (hint hint... cmon someone make a rts like DoWII already!!!! )
Log 327: May 26, 2010-0700 Hours Apple still has yet to approve Highborn, and I am running low on supplies... I feel like my body is fading away in anticipation for this game. Many times have I wondered to myself, "Why would Apple do this to me? Maybe Apple thinks that maybe I be better off without Highborn..." then I promptly snap out of my delerious state of mind and scream "NO! Apple will not win! I won't let Apple win!" Then I slip back into a restless nap, to try to get at least a single hours of rest... [END LOG]
