Is it time for game developers to stop listening to their fans?
There was a dispute over the article and I decided to post its translation for everyone to see. On the one hand, the author says that developers should not indulge the players in matters of the script. If you look at games as an art, then I agree - no one will ask the community what ending to choose for their book. On the other hand, a person justifies some critics (he prudently doesn’t give specific examples, but a recent story comes up with a poster in Cyberpunk 2077 ). In general, the situation is twofold.
Then only the translation, and the opinion of the author may not coincide with mine on a number of issues.
')
Do not worry, I slightly exaggerated in the title - on the Internet (among other things) comes across a useful feedback. The problem is that it turns out to be on the surface and floats on everyone in sight.
For example, BioWare has a lot of questions. Mass Effect 3 - as the center of gravity of toxic fans of the series. I am sure that the developers just wanted to do everything right, but after the scandal, they added the ending, exchanging their creative vision to please the masses. This rarely happens in any other field. Yes, Sonic will change his appearance in the film after criticism, but the crowd of gamers is again to blame. For example, thousands of people signed a petition to retake the last season of Game of Thrones, but HBO would never have gone for it. Because it is absurd.
Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of gamers simply do not understand the design. If the game does not work well, then this is simply “bad optimization”. Not enough features? It is not a matter of limitations and timing, but of "lazy developers." But video games are a complex chain of publisher, developer, and reality goals with ever-changing visions. It's like making a clay vase on a roller coaster. Games are a mess right up to the very beginning. When the roller coaster finally stops, developers usually already know about all the major problems of the game at launch.
Features are often trimmed or reworked. Some things don't work at all. Some perform better than expected, and they develop further. No one wants to release a bad game. No one wants the finale of their beloved sci-fi trilogy to be poorly received by the audience.
But often you can see how fans stand up for developers, if a certain point in the game is criticized. But criticism is just an indication of what could be better. She does not ask to change something. This is the subject of dialogue - a deeper (I hope) vision of the game, which can help to look at it from a different angle. However, when the critic points out problems with certain topics, a part of the audience shouts censorship. Then they leave and create their own petitions to change the finished games.
Part of the problem is how the industry defends this right. Whether it's a PlayStation with a For the players slogan or Xbox head Phil Spencer, who says something like “games and gamers together can become a significant force uniting the world,” whatever that means. The industry finds all sorts of ways to say that the customer is always right.
Metal Gear Solid 4 - the worst game in the series - was a game made for fans. People hated MGS2 at the start, because she was forcing to play for Raiden, not Solid Snake. The fourth part brought them back to Snake’s place, but, in fact, this game was a fan service.
In another case, gamers even asked Obama to remove DmCs from the shelves, because they wanted the traditional continuation from Capcom, rather than rethinking from Ninja Theory: “ Dear Mr. Obama! As a consumer of the video game industry, I would like to report on one game that has caused quite a stir in the past few months. The name of this game is Devil May Cry, created by Ninja Theory and Capcom , ”says the petition with grammatical errors and that’s all.
“ Most players are upset that the game has changed so much in comparison with its predecessors and in fact insults consumers. We did not want and did not need this restart, and we believe that this game violates our rights, denying the choice between the original and the restart. And we believe that it should be removed from the shelves of stores. Please, Mr. Obama, listen to your heart and make the right choice for us Gamers . ”
Then there was Mass Effect: Andromeda - a game destroyed by gifs. The main focus of the development was the creation of worlds and the study of how to use a completely new engine, not intended for RPGs. As a result, facial animation suffered, and people played at gifs.
It was once considered the norm that RPGs do not look as good as games of other genres, precisely because of the scale. Now developers are more concerned that all their games look good, and do not think how to make them special. BioWare's next game, Anthem, looked incredible visually, but lost everything else. Perhaps it was a direct result of all these viral gifs with silly facial expressions from ME3.
Look at any community of online games - always someone complains that his character is not strong enough or the enemy is too pumped. Dozens of posts about how their favorite weapon does not deal enough damage, or how any other weapon is imba. At the same time, in the next thread there is another player who says the exact opposite.
These people are not professional developers, they just want their personal experience to be better for them, not for everyone at once. The balance in online shooters is much more complicated than twisting parameters. Look at how Fortnite constantly introduces and removes new weapons, because it breaks down the mechanics - you can't just take everything up and set it up so that it works. Especially if you have a serious competitive game. And how then to filter out from this noise of commentators something really useful that the real experts of the studio have not yet taken into account?
My point of view: you can not please everyone. Whatever you do, there will always be people who are dissatisfied with something on the Internet. For an example, look in the comments section.
There is a quote attributed to Henry Ford at the dawn of the emergence of commercial vehicles: "If I asked people what they wanted, they would choose faster horses." Usually people are afraid of change. New ideas always meet with resistance - I'm worried, does such negative feedback from AAA projects keep them from their true potential?
I was one of the first to make fun of the original Xbox One. Only figure? Online only? Cloud? What the hell are they even thinking about? But now, in 2019, almost all my games are bought in digital, and I am always connected to the Internet. Of course, Kinect failed, but everything else was really far-sighted.
The growth of crowdfunding games has made this community-driven development even more visible. What do you want in the future? How should we make our game so you like it, gamers? I think the time has come for the industry to move away from this thinking and started thinking about how to replace our horses.
Then only the translation, and the opinion of the author may not coincide with mine on a number of issues.
')
Do not worry, I slightly exaggerated in the title - on the Internet (among other things) comes across a useful feedback. The problem is that it turns out to be on the surface and floats on everyone in sight.
For example, BioWare has a lot of questions. Mass Effect 3 - as the center of gravity of toxic fans of the series. I am sure that the developers just wanted to do everything right, but after the scandal, they added the ending, exchanging their creative vision to please the masses. This rarely happens in any other field. Yes, Sonic will change his appearance in the film after criticism, but the crowd of gamers is again to blame. For example, thousands of people signed a petition to retake the last season of Game of Thrones, but HBO would never have gone for it. Because it is absurd.
Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of gamers simply do not understand the design. If the game does not work well, then this is simply “bad optimization”. Not enough features? It is not a matter of limitations and timing, but of "lazy developers." But video games are a complex chain of publisher, developer, and reality goals with ever-changing visions. It's like making a clay vase on a roller coaster. Games are a mess right up to the very beginning. When the roller coaster finally stops, developers usually already know about all the major problems of the game at launch.
Features are often trimmed or reworked. Some things don't work at all. Some perform better than expected, and they develop further. No one wants to release a bad game. No one wants the finale of their beloved sci-fi trilogy to be poorly received by the audience.
But often you can see how fans stand up for developers, if a certain point in the game is criticized. But criticism is just an indication of what could be better. She does not ask to change something. This is the subject of dialogue - a deeper (I hope) vision of the game, which can help to look at it from a different angle. However, when the critic points out problems with certain topics, a part of the audience shouts censorship. Then they leave and create their own petitions to change the finished games.
Part of the problem is how the industry defends this right. Whether it's a PlayStation with a For the players slogan or Xbox head Phil Spencer, who says something like “games and gamers together can become a significant force uniting the world,” whatever that means. The industry finds all sorts of ways to say that the customer is always right.
Metal Gear Solid 4 - the worst game in the series - was a game made for fans. People hated MGS2 at the start, because she was forcing to play for Raiden, not Solid Snake. The fourth part brought them back to Snake’s place, but, in fact, this game was a fan service.
In another case, gamers even asked Obama to remove DmCs from the shelves, because they wanted the traditional continuation from Capcom, rather than rethinking from Ninja Theory: “ Dear Mr. Obama! As a consumer of the video game industry, I would like to report on one game that has caused quite a stir in the past few months. The name of this game is Devil May Cry, created by Ninja Theory and Capcom , ”says the petition with grammatical errors and that’s all.
“ Most players are upset that the game has changed so much in comparison with its predecessors and in fact insults consumers. We did not want and did not need this restart, and we believe that this game violates our rights, denying the choice between the original and the restart. And we believe that it should be removed from the shelves of stores. Please, Mr. Obama, listen to your heart and make the right choice for us Gamers . ”
Then there was Mass Effect: Andromeda - a game destroyed by gifs. The main focus of the development was the creation of worlds and the study of how to use a completely new engine, not intended for RPGs. As a result, facial animation suffered, and people played at gifs.
It was once considered the norm that RPGs do not look as good as games of other genres, precisely because of the scale. Now developers are more concerned that all their games look good, and do not think how to make them special. BioWare's next game, Anthem, looked incredible visually, but lost everything else. Perhaps it was a direct result of all these viral gifs with silly facial expressions from ME3.
Look at any community of online games - always someone complains that his character is not strong enough or the enemy is too pumped. Dozens of posts about how their favorite weapon does not deal enough damage, or how any other weapon is imba. At the same time, in the next thread there is another player who says the exact opposite.
These people are not professional developers, they just want their personal experience to be better for them, not for everyone at once. The balance in online shooters is much more complicated than twisting parameters. Look at how Fortnite constantly introduces and removes new weapons, because it breaks down the mechanics - you can't just take everything up and set it up so that it works. Especially if you have a serious competitive game. And how then to filter out from this noise of commentators something really useful that the real experts of the studio have not yet taken into account?
My point of view: you can not please everyone. Whatever you do, there will always be people who are dissatisfied with something on the Internet. For an example, look in the comments section.
There is a quote attributed to Henry Ford at the dawn of the emergence of commercial vehicles: "If I asked people what they wanted, they would choose faster horses." Usually people are afraid of change. New ideas always meet with resistance - I'm worried, does such negative feedback from AAA projects keep them from their true potential?
I was one of the first to make fun of the original Xbox One. Only figure? Online only? Cloud? What the hell are they even thinking about? But now, in 2019, almost all my games are bought in digital, and I am always connected to the Internet. Of course, Kinect failed, but everything else was really far-sighted.
The growth of crowdfunding games has made this community-driven development even more visible. What do you want in the future? How should we make our game so you like it, gamers? I think the time has come for the industry to move away from this thinking and started thinking about how to replace our horses.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/460707/
All Articles