How to please gamers: A developer's dilemma

[Deleted]

Simple answer: You don't.

Less simple answer: Don't create a game with the outlook of "let's take what people like and make a game out of it". Start out with an idea, preferably new or interesting but it must be something that you have a passion for. If I make a game it will probably be an rpg because I like rpgs. I won't work on an FPS. Don't try to please gamers because you can't please all of them anyway. Work on something you like and hope that others do as well.

[Wilian]

Your assumption has no validity unfortunately. First of all the founders of Bioware willingly SOLD the company to EA, so this isn't a direction that they didn't already have in mind. Second of all it's the nature of any franchise that enjoys any sufficient degree of popularity. They make a bit of money and gain a bit of success. They like to make more money and more success, realise the only way to do this is to broaden the potential group of people who will play the game and then go ahead and do this. It doesn't matter if your name is EA/Bioware or Acti/Blizzard. That's to say nothing of how terrible the controls and gameplay overall was in the first mass effect game... No it's an improvement aimed to garner a wider base of players and it was going to happen anyway EA or not.

This is more or less the crux of the grief that many games get. How valid those complaints are depends where you stand on the issue. I happened to enjoy ME2/3, not as much as 1 mind you but for entirely different reasons than it became gears of war in space.

I didn't say I didn't enjoy ME2 for example. I said it did what it did quite well and was enjoyable game but the point was that you can quite clearly see that it has gotten more into that "broaden the focus of the game for larger audiences" and it "coincidentally" happened after the whole marketing department of EA moved in, in a figure of speech.

In any case, point of it was not trash Bioware but give an example of how it affects the game when you start the whole broadening aspect.

[Leonard McCoy]

I didn't say I didn't enjoy ME2 for example. I said it did what it did quite well and was enjoyable game but the point was that you can quite clearly see that it has gotten more into that "broaden the focus of the game for larger audiences" and it "coincidentally" happened after the whole marketing department of EA moved in, in a figure of speech.

In any case, point of it was not trash Bioware but give an example of how it affects the game when you start the whole broadening aspect.

Corellation != causation. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that. It is much more likely (and this happens in almost all art forms and the entertainment industry as a whole) when BW managed to garner success and popularity they simply wanted more and it had nothing to do with EA buying them out. Their was no coincidence about it. I mean if Activision had bought them out? Or valve? do you think it would be different? I know everybody loves Valve but the simple truth is the Bioware wanted to make more money and gain more popularity so they could keep making bigger and bigger games. It just so happened that EA came along with the money to help them do this. At the end of the day like any thing in entertainment it simply got to big for it's own good. That can be said about the gaming industry as a whole actually. It is far to bloated and far to popular. I call it "The Big Bang Theory" of geekdom. When they make being a nerd so popular and sexy that you can make a wildly successful prime time sit com about it then it's no longer a very niche thing is it. Once it's stops being a niche thing well then you can argue that the quality of it suffers. In many cases this is true but it still honestly boils down to wither or not you like it.

[Wilian]

Corellation != causation. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that. It is much more likely (and this happens in almost all art forms and the entertainment industry as a whole) when BW managed to garner success and popularity they simply wanted more and it had nothing to do with EA buying them out. Their was no coincidence about it. I mean if Activision had bought them out? Or valve? do you think it would be different? I know everybody loves Valve but the simple truth is the Bioware wanted to make more money and gain more popularity so they could keep making bigger and bigger games. It just so happened that EA came along with the money to help them do this. At the end of the day like any thing in entertainment it simply got to big for it's own good.

Well, the reason why the main force behind Dragon Age: Origins left Bioware (Whom had been there since beginning), Brent Knowles along with few others left was because the direction the game (DA2) took, and the company had changed to something he could not work for anymore because they were making the game into something he didn't envision as his type of game.

And again, since DA:O was the last Bioware game before EA (and sold far more than anyone had ever expected) I don't see how EA could not have hand in it, expesially with their reputation.

[Remilia]

What you do... is you don't. =\

I'd rather have a developer please a minority / niche and excel at it, than a developer that tries to appease the majority and become mediocre / fail at it.
If the developer doesn't like the game but are doing it to sell it to a lot of people, well... don't expect much from it.
Think it goes as, you can please the majority, but you can't please everyone. If you try to please everyone you please nobody.
Also known as if you try to make everyone happy, everyone becomes unhappy, obviously sweeping generalization but you get the idea.

Though one thing does annoy me. When some people blame the consumer for the fault of a company. Companies has their mishaps, bugs, oversights, etc, but it isn't the player to blame for these. Also, one person's experience isn't the same as another, so stop saying "it doesn't happen to me, therefore it doesn't happen to you", it's not helpful at all.

All it takes is two people to have the bug occur to them to count as a bug.

[Leonard McCoy]

Well, the reason why the main force behind Dragon Age: Origins left Bioware (Whom had been there since beginning), Brent Knowles along with few others left was because the direction the game (DA2) took, and the company had changed to something he could not work for anymore because they were making the game into something he didn't envision as his type of game.

And again, since DA:O was the last Bioware game before EA (and sold far more than anyone had ever expected) I don't see how EA could not have hand in it, expesially with their reputation.

It's not that EA doesn't have a hand in it, they may very well have but it's irrelevant to the larger point. Your missing the forest for the trees. I mean if Activision had bought Bioware would that suddenly make a huge difference? How bout if 2k bought them? Or any large publisher for that matter. It wouldn't make a damn fucking difference. The point is that in like any other entertainment industry they guys at the heart of this wanted to make money, even when other members of the group (like Knowles) disagreed with the direction it went in. Getting on the publisher is all well and good, yay bash EA until you realize some other big publisher would come up and do the exact same thing anyway. The question isn't why does EA do these things the question is why does EA exist? Or acti/blizz? or 2k? or any mega publisher. Because theirs a demand for what they produce and because the people who make what they publish like to get money and popularity and alot of other things that companies like EA provide them.

Your beef in other words isn't with EA as much as they've become a figure head for what you people say you despise. Your beef isn't with Acti/Blizz either. Your beef is with the fact that gaming has gone from being a niche thing into this huge mega thing that everyone jumps into. The big bang theory in other words.

[Wilian]

It's not that EA doesn't have a hand in it, they may very well have but it's irrelevant to the larger point. Your missing the forest for the trees. I mean if Activision had bought Bioware would that suddenly make a huge difference? How bout if 2k bought them? Or any large publisher for that matter. It wouldn't make a damn fucking difference. The point is that in like any other entertainment industry they guys at the heart of this wanted to make money, even when other members of the group (like Knowles) disagreed with the direction it went in. Getting on the publisher is all well and good, yay bash EA until you realize some other big publisher would come up and do the exact same thing anyway. The question isn't why does EA do these things the question is why does EA exist? Or acti/blizz? or 2k? or any mega publisher. Because theirs a demand for what they produce and because the people who make what they publish like to get money and popularity and alot of other things that companies like EA provide them.

Your beef in other words isn't with EA as much as they've become a figure head for what you people say you despise. Your beef isn't with Acti/Blizz either. Your beef is with the fact that gaming has gone from being a niche thing into this huge mega thing that everyone jumps into. The big bang theory in other words.

Right. Take the EA away from my post (mentioned only once as a side note) and I wonder if you'd see my point after that.

[Leonard McCoy]

Right. Take the EA away from my post (mentioned only once as a side note) and I wonder if you'd see my point after that.

I see your point but it's still not getting the whole picture. Ultimately the ones responsible for the content being produced are the people who defacto okay it by paying for it. You and Me and the gaming population as a whole. Your beef isn't with publishers or with the developers, unless you think making money is a bad thing. Your beef is with the gaming population. In music this problem was solved by having an underground. The problem is lots of the gaming "underground" is simply terrible. I mean theirs bad underground music as well but most of it (for the metal scene at any rate) is really good. I have yet to play that many gaming gems that were indie titles. A few but not anywhere like the underground music scene where things are actually really good for the most part.

[Wilian]

I see your point but it's still not getting the whole picture. Ultimately the ones responsible for the content being produced are the people who defacto okay it by paying for it. You and Me and the gaming population as a whole.

I know that. I guess I should've emphasied the main point around DA2 instead of ME serie because it actually sold poorly enough for retailers not wanting to sell Ultimate Edition of it and was poorly received by old school fans while not gaining all that much new ones (even though that was the aim), never reaching sales numbers of DA:O.

[Leonard McCoy]

I know that. I guess I should've emphasied the main point around DA2 instead of ME serie because it actually sold poorly enough for retailers not wanting to sell Ultimate Edition of it and was poorly received by old school fans while not gaining all that much new ones (even though that was the aim), never reaching sales numbers of DA:O.

I'm not sure you can actually say that it didn't draw in more new players. In fact if that's the case I would blame the first one for that. It's far less "user friendly" then the second one is, and I know plenty of people who couldn't get around it's gameplay or control scheme. To the point they quit the game. They weren't willing to give the second on a chance. It still sold fairly well despite the week 2 drop in sales (which isn't that surprising) and the developers have numbers that indicate they won't change much of what they did in the second game (with regards to the combat and the controls) because it did garner new fans and draw new attention. Their was an interview with Muzyka somewhere which said as much, I can't find it right now.

The changes they made to garner a new crowd where actually overall good IMHO it's just with those changes they made some other poor decisions they didn't need to. Ultimately I blame the writing in Da2. The story is okay, much better than your average game but not up to their usual standards. Especially the characters. Give me engaging Da:O characters and da2 controls and gameplay and were set.

[Wilian]

I'm not sure you can actually say that it didn't draw in more new players. In fact if that's the case I would blame the first one for that. It's far less "user friendly" then the second one is, and I know plenty of people who couldn't get around it's gameplay or control scheme. To the point they quit the game. They weren't willing to give the second on a chance. It still sold fairly well despite the week 2 drop in sales (which isn't that surprising) and the developers have numbers that indicate they won't change much of what they did in the second game (with regards to the combat and the controls) because it did garner new fans and draw new attention. Their was an interview with Muzyka somewhere which said as much, I can't find it right now.

The changes they made to garner a new crowd where actually overall good IMHO it's just with those changes they made some other poor decisions they didn't need to. Ultimately I blame the writing in Da2. The story is okay, much better than your average game but not up to their usual standards. Especially the characters. Give me engaging Da:O characters and da2 controls and gameplay and were set.

I don't agree on the changes really being "good", just streamlined. Good example is going away from the few non-combat solutions pretty much totally (Removal of persuasion) and reducing the stats down to "main one + health".

Same with itemization which was heavily cut in transition among with removal of party customization. I also happened to enjoy the slower paced combat with free moving camera (instead of active character locked) which allowed better overview and better tactical perception of the field.

If you go back to their original notes about the series, ME was intended to be the more consoleish RPG while Dragon Age serie was meant for the "PC crowd" henche marketed as spiritual successor of BG.

And as for sales, while you say that the first one "turned" people you know away, this 10 week retail sales figure speaks quite well for itself I think.



It quite clearly shows that DA:O kept selling more and more the more people knew about it instead of the other way around. This of course doesn't include digital sales for either of games as for example Steam does not publish them. But it sets the tone quite well.

[Leonard McCoy]

I don't agree on the changes really being "good", just streamlined. Good example is going away from the few non-combat solutions pretty much totally (Removal of persuasion) and reducing the stats down to "main one + health".

Actually that's not what that chart shows. It shows several declines actually with only a few steady increases, likely because the ps3 version was released after I believe. Never the less that isn't the point. The chart doesn't tell us how many people tried DA:O and were turned off it. It doesn't tell us anything about the broad appeal of either game, just the sales numbers. Especially on a controller the type of gameplay that Da:O has isn't very intuitive or user friendly and that's why it was changed. To give more appeal to the gameplay.

For the most part the changes were really good. Much like the change in mass effect, it was designed to be more "Actiony" and less tactical and cerebal. I didn't like the lack of customization, and that's something they want to address in the 3rd one. In fact much of the things people didn't like they either did address in dlc or look to address in the 3rd one but the overall changes to combat and gameplay were good and they have feedback that recognizes this. Hence it won't change. Now unlike the changes to mass effect, Da2 didn't have really good characters and suffered from to many other little flaws so it got dragged down. However they weren't wrong with many of the gameplay changes they made. If the rest of the product didn't suffer from being rushed out or having poor design decisions it would have had the broad appeal they were after. This is reflected in muzykas statement that they won't be changing the way combat works.

[Wilian]

Actually that's not what that chart shows. It shows several declines actually with only a few steady increases, likely because the ps3 version was released after I believe. Never the less that isn't the point. The chart doesn't tell us how many people tried DA:O and were turned off it. It doesn't tell us anything about the broad appeal of either game, just the sales numbers. Especially on a controller the type of gameplay that Da:O has isn't very intuitive or user friendly and that's why it was changed. To give more appeal to the gameplay.

Well, Dragon Age Origins is in general said to be the game that's huge sales are credited to a large community driven positive buzz that was going on for very, very long and I doubt it would've happened if many of the people found it "clumsy" or hard to manage and it appealed to the Baldur's Gate crowd very well (A game that by DA:O's standards is from another planet in terms of clumsiness). Something that DA2 really didn't.

For the most part the changes were really good. Much like the change in mass effect, it was designed to be more "Actiony" and less tactical and cerebal. I didn't like the lack of customization, and that's something they want to address in the 3rd one. In fact much of the things people didn't like they either did address in dlc or look to address in the 3rd one but the overall changes to combat and gameplay were good and they have feedback that recognizes this. Hence it won't change.

Well, opinions are opinions but that's exactly the type of "broadening the audience at the cost of integrity" what I'm getting at. "Broadening" the game more and more very potentially alienates a lot of old players in favour of gaining new ones which I dislike as end result is usually not something I want to play. I want to see my games expanded on the foundations that they had been built on, not filled with sweeping changes left and right while trying to figure which iteration would sell most.

The reason for 3rd one's changes and their devs heavy "we regonice the mistakes and now all changes are discussed with community kickstarter style" is the backlash of this "streamlining" when they really didn't hit any of the target groups they aimed at. And I don't see it necessarily as positive turn because fan service can be just as bad as "widening the appeal."

[Leonard McCoy]

I want to see my games expanded on the foundations that they had been built on, not filled with sweeping changes left and right while trying to figure which iteration would sell most.

See that's a tough spot then. Look if they do as you say not only are they less likely to get more players but their also less likely to retain older players because by that point the formula is stale and old. People cry about lack of innovation. If they change to much then they at least have a chance of getting new players even if the lose some of the old ones. The changes were for the most part good they just needed more QA.

[Wilian]

See that's a tough spot then. Look if they do as you say not only are they less likely to get more players but their also less likely to retain older players because by that point the formula is stale and old.

I really wouldn't say that for sure. Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't all that different from BA (Of course the D&D ruleset changed but gameplay not much so) yet it sold bucketloads more and is considered overall being better game. Same with Warcraft 2 and that to third. Same with Crysis versus Far Cry and hell, Saints Row 2 vs Saints Row the Third. Starcraft to SC2. These examples keep piling up and they were being bought because the games were good and built around the original people liked.

Then there's whole history when entire game franchises has fallen because they were changed to "sell more and appeal to wider audiences", lot of them from companies EA bought and then killed off when quality didn't meet expectations or demands (The reason why they were the origina "evil" of the market). Lots of non-EA games too. Doom 3 moved away from Doom concept. It sold well but wasn't received so. While HL2 was basically another HL1 with expanded things like driving and physics and it's critically acclaimed.

Total War serie has stayed pretty much the same all the years and it keeps selling more and more. And the only version that moved away from the "traditional" was Empire/Napoleon and it's not all that liked compared to the rest of the serie.

Sole reason for why Rome 2 is so hyped is because of the original which many deem to be the best of the serie and they want more.

[Valeron]

The main thing is that you cannot make a game that will appeal to everyone. If you try then you generally will end up making a game that no one will like.

[Leonard McCoy]

. Doom 3 moved away from Doom concept. It sold well but wasn't received so.

Your kidding right? Doom 3 was received extremely well. Where do you get these things? Honestly it seems like such arbitrary disctinctions. Everyone loved half life 2 but doom 3 was recieved poorly. According to whom? The game was a hit. I mean lots of people on forums don't like sc2, but so what? sc2 has been received extremely well...

[Deleted]

Make game that you will find fun to play and not fun to play for mouthbreathing tards (unless you are one).

[Wilian]

Your kidding right? Doom 3 was received extremely well. Where do you get these things?

No it was not when it initially arrived. It was criticized heavily for going away from original Doom level styles to these crammed linear all that looks same tunnels filled with darkness everywhere and few jump scares harkening back to originals. It was awed for it's outstanding graphics which were far ahead of the time if you had the power in your machine and the amazing on screen "computers".

It has been later approved more because it's still an "old school" shooter without the "stupid health regen" and "real weapon loadout" instead of 2 weapons and a pistol by people who hate change and are probably young.

[Leonard McCoy]

No it was not when it initially arrived. It was criticized heavily for going away from original Doom level styles to these crammed linear all that looks same tunnels filled with darkness everywhere and few jump scares harkening back to originals. It was awed for it's outstanding graphics which were far ahead of the time if you had the power in your machine.

It has been later approved more because it's still an "old school" shooter without the "stupid health regen" and "real weapon loadout" instead of 2 weapons and a pistol by people who hate change and are probably young.

Criticized by whom? Again your kidding me right. Sc2 has been heavily criticized as well, go ahead to the forums and read up on it. Why is sc2 well received but doom 3 not? Your kidding me with this right? Do you honestly presume that the opinions of the internet actually qualify as anything important?

Again this is in large part the problem. Listening to the internet criticism is the worst thing a developer can do in many aspects. Doom 3 was extremely well received by anybody that mattered and an extremely good game to because the developers took a chance and didn't just remake doom 2 which wouldn't have worked anyway to be honest. Doom 2 had the appeal it did because it was 1992. It is no longer 1992 and things change.

The internet is really the worst and best thing that's happened to game development (and arguably humanity) in years. It has extremely good potential as a tool to develop games based on what players like and didn't like. It also has extremely bad potential to warp and skew the developers views and positions on things based on "reception" that the internet community circle jerk has decided to agree on.