Do you think that "games appealing to the masses" were a mistake by game developers?

[Deleted]

Players ruin games. In so many different ways.

[Super Kami Dende]

I find plenty of games still appeal to certain crowds over "the masses" and games that appeal to "the masses" that make lots of Money help fund games that aren't for "the masses"

- - - Updated - - -

Games for the masses is a huge mistake, while they might get people to play them in the short run, their long-term audiences are dying. Most older hit games had populations that last 3+ years, now we see games dying out in a time frame of 6 months to a year, that's not coincidence, that's causation. When you dont cater a game to your more hardcore crowds, grinds, unique rewards, competitive game play, your game ends up with no one playing it because casual game crowds just move on to the next game, its a stupid design.

I find it's also a lot to do with the sheer amount of games released these days. Older games held populations longer because their competition was scarcer. These days every Genre has 10+ games of the same type dropping every year, it's easier to move on once you are bored of 1 game.

Attention spans of teens these days also seems much smaller.

[Dezerte]

Can't really call it a mistake just because I'm not in the targeted demographic for a game.

[dope_danny]

It is the most accurate use of 'no shit' you could ever give. Mid 2007 shit changed. In gaming it gets jokingly reffered as the 'year of darkness' by consumers but devs like square enix call it the 'post golden era' where games overtook movies when "Im such a nerd xD" cringe culture began with things like the big bang theory. Games overtook movies, brought new big media/old media shareholders in which lead to a change in direction for the largest catchment net possible for "wider market appeal". It dilutes a core idea for the audience and for the producer often means decreasing sales with each release. Profit now 'maybe' for less sales later.

It took a few flops but pretty much everyone but Ubisoft and EA have learnt diluting your shit into generic action shooters with online multiplayer, pvp and microtransactions doesnt work. But its also a little more sinister and corproate behind that. In a few books on the subject like 'the unwritten history of japanese videogames' theres fascinating stuff about how Microsoft partnered with EA to pull a 'fuck you sony' strategy as the PS3 was finally starting to catch up. This involved paying a lot of western journalists off to push a "japanese games are not as creative as the west and are dying" narrative that actually worked to panic japanese higher ups in many large companies that lead to a lot of restructuring and changes of direction. Most infamously Keiji Inafune and shinji Mikami fell so much for the "japan is dead" narrative payload they told capcom to go full action shooter on everything then when games like RE5/6 were less than well received and things like Lost Planet 3 being a dead space clone kill the series' overnight they jumped ship to the west where they made The Evil Within and Mighty No.9. It was after they both came out capcom decided to have a very wise change in focussing on core audiences again.

since 2007 its kind of died down for most companies, EA and Ubi are still sending ip's to the grave with forced multiplayer and microtransactions in series known for single player and its still screwing them over. Everyone else seems to be changing little by little away. The "you arent getting more customers just diluting what appealed to your core audience that arent interested in the same numbers anymore" message is starting to get through.
I'll always remember the tide changing back when Square Enix seemed shocked that Bravely Default sold more than another FFXIII game design "for western appeal" and they said "we didnt get it, bravely was made for japanese audiences with niche appeal but it was more profitable and more popular than the 13 title made for western appeal, maybe our original japanese focus made our games stand out?" and since then we got shit like Nier that NEVER would have gotten a sequel in the 08-12 period.

Shits still fucked in a lot of respects but even blizzards suffered from 'wider market appeal through content/core concet dilution' the last ten years. games like RE7 show devs are willing to aim for a niche again and with more indies than ever thats a sign that pandering to "IM SUCH A NERD, WILL WHEATON, FELICIA DAY, MEMES!" crowd of meme queens is starting to die down.

Only took ten years.

[dope_danny]

Simple design is not just in games. It's also for every other software or design. I completely agree that's how should be because average user should not spent time figuring out how to play the game but instead to just play it. Point is to have fun, not to be smart. If you want to be "smart" in games, I think that's wrong place to be. Well ok, it's not if you have some IRL psychology complex issues.

Right? why invent chess when you have ball in a cup!

[stellvia]

the issue mostly I think is related to production costs.
Technology evolved and so did games, and gamers themselves, even the old timey ones got more and more esigent.

this: https://lh4.ggpht.com/d0NOhmnAp_vIWI...Ivzf8N8gk=h310
transformed into this: http://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/..._38_41_492.jpg

They changed it into that, but did they need to? Just because they invite huge extra development costs onto themselves doesn't mean it needed to be done. But hey, gotta chase the frat bros. (Reminds me of the FPS-style Megaman games. Whyyyy?)

[arandomuser]

Really isnt up to the game developers they have limited power to a ceo, and alot of ceos today would look at how probably the majority of people are brainless mobile phone pay to win gamers would see $$$ on that market, eventually all old school paying for fun original creative content will die because of the casual culture and greedy game companies willing to sell there soul for marketability and profit margins, sad sad days for gaming.

[unbound]

This doesn't mean that older games are more complex - but you can all agree that nowadays, most games aren't designed just for gamers.

rofl

What is your definition of a gamer? They played FPS and RPGs before 2012? Some other arbitrary measure?

I can claim that the vast majority of people playing games today are not gamers. Just set my measure to something stupid like, "Have you ever had to draw out a dungeon map on paper because the game didn't do it for you?", or perhaps "Have you ever spent a week's allowance at an arcade in a mall?", or perhaps "Have you ever played AD&D (original or rev 2)?", or perhaps "Have you ever played a game with either no graphics (i.e. text based only) or line art graphics only?". Now I'm a gamer, and odds are that you aren't by those arbitrary definitions.

Sorry, but 'who is a gamer' has been evolving since pretty much forever. Games have always been designed to attract more and more of the masses. And you should be thankful for those masses is why WoW was even ever developed, even if you don't think WoW is as good now as it used to be. Without the masses, Blizz would never have achieved the size to make WoW happen at the very beginning.

This means those snotty kids playing mobile games are just as much of a gamer as you are. This means the stay at home mom playing Facebook games is just as much of a gamer as you are. Sorry, but people need to get over themselves. You had great times back then...you'll just have to continue on with the fun memories of those times. Just like every other "true gamer".

[I Push Buttons]

Yes. Everything made for the masses gets worse

Appealing to a niche doesn't imply a game is better.

For example: Wildstar

[Mahourai]

So, many of you are video-game veterans, that played Atari, NES, SNES, PS1 and so on. You all remember that, 20 years ago, games weren't always designed for the average dummy that didn't knew how to play a video-game. Either you conquered the game, or you didn't.

Video games are a mass entertainment medium and have been so for virtually their entire history, ever since Bushnell adapted Spacewar into an arcade machine. Unless you were playing games on college mainframes in the 60s there was really no era where games weren't designed as pop culture.

[Deleted]

They changed it into that, but did they need to? Just because they invite huge extra development costs onto themselves doesn't mean it needed to be done. But hey, gotta chase the frat bros. (Reminds me of the FPS-style Megaman games. Whyyyy?)

maybe it wasn't necessary, but you get new technology you use it.
Is like saying that you build a house, but refuse to use a nail gun, and instead you keep using a regular hammer.
can you do it, sure. is the nail gun "necessary"? no you sure can still use the hammer. Will you? not really cause the nail gun is *so* much better than the hammer but sure it cost 400% more.

I mean your post looks like it's pointing at something in particular (maybe at the screenshots?), while mine was a more generic take on the industry and those were examples. So not sure we're being relevant to each other.

And sure they could simply not have gone there, but over the year I see *no one* complaining that graphics got better and more advanced.
Sure they complain about the gameplay, but sure even if gamplay and story are good, as soon as the graphic do not reach a certain standard the game is considered "Mediocre" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Baelic]

Don't know if mass appeal was really a mistake.

But ALL games focusing on a small but dedicated demographic? That's not sustainable for growth, either.

So, what if we had more focused games, but allowed them to have their focus on different demographics for diversity?

[Morae]

Trying to please everyone only causes you to fail to please anyone.

[Schattenlied]

Yes, trying to please everyone is a mistake.

Don't try to only please one group of people, because then you won't sell enough copies... Try to please a few groups that are close'ish together in what they want, but NEVER should you try to please people on opposite ends of the spectrum at the same time, because then neither one will be happy, and the people in the middle probly won't be either.

[Adoxe]

For sure. It's one of the worst things that have ever happened in the gaming industry.

[Deleted]

So, what if we had more focused games, but allowed them to have their focus on different demographics for diversity?

I'm not really answering to you, but using your post to make a point

I think we kinda are already there. I honestly think this is a good time for the industry to shine; with crowdfunding.
We had tons of marvelous niche games that had plenty of success

Darkest Dungeon
Sunless sea
pillars of eternity
Divinity Original Sin

Are they all *incredibly* successful? no
Are they all very good? no

But most importantly, are they for *everyone*?
Hell fucking no, there are tons of people that don't like DD, or Pillars, because they either don't like the art, or the mechanics, but others thrive with those. so they do not appeal or try to appeal to everyone, but they *do exist*

They are all pretty niche, with interesting mechanics or take on the genre, they tend to break the rules or bring back some nostalgia flavor

AAA can keep doing what they want, if you want to check on other possibilities that are more narrow in scope, but focused or with unusual and "risky" designs, check anything on KS, Fig or IndieGoGo. You don't even have to fund them, if you don't want to, but you can surely keep an eye on those.

If you want devs unshackled from the publisher/devs relationship, then look no further than there. And yes I'm aware that some of the KS project have not been 100% honest, or some have been disappointing (I'm looking at you Mighty No.9) but hell so it happens when you preorder or day-one buy something and then the game turns out less than you expected.

[Wondercrab]

Not at all, because indie devs and smaller studios (even the occasional AAA one here and there) still make tons of games that cater to niche audiences. Modern gaming is a medium that truly has something for everyone, from the most casual player to the most dedicated enthusiast. There's more out there, of a higher quality, appealing to more people, than ever before.

[Baelic]

I'm not really answering to you, but using your post to make a point

I think we kinda are already there. I honestly think this is a good time for the industry to shine; with crowdfunding.
We had tons of marvelous niche games that had plenty of success

Darkest Dungeon
Sunless sea
pillars of eternity
Divinity Original Sin

Are they all *incredibly* successful? no
Are they all very good? no

But most importantly, are they for *everyone*?
Hell fucking no, there are tons of people that don't like DD, or Pillars, because they either don't like the art, or the mechanics, but others thrive with those. so they do not appeal or try to appeal to everyone, but they *do exist*

They are all pretty niche, with interesting mechanics or take on the genre, they tend to break the rules or bring back some nostalgia flavor

AAA can keep doing what they want, if you want to check on other possibilities that are more narrow in scope, but focused or with unusual and "risky" designs, check anything on KS, Fig or IndieGoGo. You don't even have to fund them, if you don't want to, but you can surely keep an eye on those.

If you want devs unshackled from the publisher/devs relationship, then look no further than there. And yes I'm aware that some of the KS project have not been 100% honest, or some have been disappointing (I'm looking at you Mighty No.9) but hell so it happens when you preorder or day-one buy something and then the game turns out less than you expected.

That's actually a really good point, and for every Might No.9 there's going to be at least one Shovel Knight.

[GennGreymane]

Explain to me how Pacman or Mario appealed to hard core gamers.

[Stormspellz]

financially? nope. For the quaility of games? specifically the AAA titles oh yes