Should people who suck influence game design?

[khazmodan]

The most financially successful games? ok google. Time to call you out on clearly making stuff up.

#1 Tetris
#2 Minecraft
#3 Grand Theft Auto V
#4 Wii Sports
#5 PlayerUnknown Battlegrounds
#6 Super Mario Brothers
#7 Mario Kart Wii
#8 Wii Sports Resort
#9 Pokémon Red & Blue

... and on and on

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ng_video_games

^The best selling/most successful games above appeal to extremely broad audiences... not some niche of .5% elite players.


You sir, are failing this thread.

This list is NOT the most financially successful games, it is of the games with the most total sales. Tetris sold for anywhere from .99 cents to 9.99, so probably average it out at 3-5 dollars each which would still be less than a billion at the top end. Grand theft auto 5 on the other hand is one of a series of games which almost matches WoW total income with over 6 billion dollars on ONE GAME RELEASE. Grand theft auto 5 shows the value of trust built up over many high quality games from rockstar and the highest quality being from there latest release. On the other hand World of Warcraft has lost trust from there customers to the point that the only thing they can brag about is beating the worst expansion they have ever released (WoD). The final conclusion is that the game must have broad appeal, and justify itself to the customer to pay a premium price in order to get maximum profit.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Considering how hard they are forcing esports I would have to respectfully disagree.

- - - Updated - - -



Mario changes drastically from titles in the form of power ups and levels. It changes game by game though.

Tetras changes game by game because the blocks are random... Wow pve changes very little between encounters. Mario party has more variables than wow pve.

[Semistatic]

It depends who you're designing your game for. If your game is intended to be very accessible to a broad audience, it's bad design to include lots of difficulty hurdles. If it's aimed at a specific hardcore niche, it's bad design to make a lot of accessibility concessions.

Since WoW is aimed at an incredibly broad and diverse audience, it should lean more toward the former than the latter. Remember that "get good" is not a thing for everyone. It only applies to players with the time, inclination, and physical capabilities to improve up to the required level. As the average age of gamers increases accessibility is going to become an even more relevant aspect of game design, even for those of us who are willing to rise to the challenge right now. As our reaction times deteriorate and our joints start to hurt our skill cap will decrease, at which point we will lose the ability to play through certain games. Always keep that in mind for the future.

Pretty much this.

[Osmeric]

Isn't that the design feature of every single massively popular game even minecraft?

It's a characteristic sign of the narcissism of that sliver that they think their tiny aspect of the game is what determines its success.

[Deleted]

It depends man.

We cant generalize and say "No" or "Yes" to your question.

It depends on the thing "being changed" to accomodate the bad player.

In gameplay of your class/spec i dont believe in making the gameplay brain dead to accomodate the bad players.
When it comes to playing your character i believe the Design should favor the more skilled players.
Mainly because of PvP.

When it comes to "game mechanics" i believe we should help the bad player.
Give him LFR
Give him catch up mechanics
Give him instant queues
Give him a good suck.
Give them easier to get transmogs
etc

What i DONT agree with is making the entire game brain dead for everyone because of bad players.
Gladly this doesnt happen in WoW.
Maybe only in "leveling low level dungeons". That shit is brain dead for everyone and maybe it should be more of a challenge.

I just want "depht" in PvP.
Thats all i want.
Make the skill gab between bad players and good players BIG when it comes for PvP.
PvP is supposed to be like that.

[Logwyn]

Wanted to imply they choose not go get better and advance. Sorry if it came across differently.

Or you could look at it as they hit the max they wanted to achieve. If you've never taken a game and set your own goals different that the developers then you should try it.

But hey its ok. I guess you haven't reach that stage yet.

[Super Kami Dende]

No, they shouldn't.

If anything the "The Mage Tower was a FLOP" thread is all you really need to point to. A bunch of bads saying the content was bad because they couldn't complete it themselves.

Anytime I hear/read someone say that a certain content is stupid because only a certain amount of people can complete it, all I actually read is "I don't want to put time into getting better"

[Jaewalk]

You don't know much about video games almost everything on that list supports my claim...

Removing the single player games like tetris Wii sports and Mario let's look at this for a second.

Minecrafts entire red stone system isn't designed for the average player and gained massive popularity with what could be made from it spawning thousands of guides ...

Grand theft auto I never played I cant comment.

Playerunknown rewards poor players with death.

Mariocart is a grey area... on one hand it rewards play beyond the basics with things like e break boosts, short cuts, and speed boosts at the start. On the other hand last place can span blue shells.

The God damn tournament scene in pokemon is a God damn eldritch nightmare of min maxing...

If I'm failing this thread your showing is embarrassing...

That’s like, your opinion, man.

There is no coherent counterpoint made here or supporting details/facts.

[Sunnydruid]

Whether you chose not to experience the content or you weren't skilled enough, if you didn't take part in the content, you shouldn't comment on it's quality or impact.

At the end of the day the forums are such a TINY TINY percentage of WoW subscribers that it really doesn't matter much. Blizzard understands this. If you listened to the forums 100% of the time this game would be screwed.

[klaps_05]

How can you provide feedback on something you havent done? Its just like the ML topic - people who do mostly LFR provide feedback on something they dont even use, or someone doing +5 saying there should be no gearswaps. And if you might notice - both of these example issues are addressed in the game: ML is available only in organized groups and all m+ until +15 and even higher dont require gearswaps.

Yet in BOTH cases blizzard decides to punish the players. With a month or so left of beta, I do expect them to reverse either the ML or the gearswapping changes as they do affect more or less the same groups of people.

[Deleted]

This society bends the rules for its shittiest members. Its only natural game design does the same.

[Alkizon]

I don't want to comment anyone separately. I'll just hmm... well.

I am a believer that Wow should have a game that has types of content for everyone but doesn't design all content for all types of players

About how make some content relevant more fair, without rules violation.

About fun. I understand that there are people for whom this is fun, but if this fun goes against basic game design, against rules of its world, then it's better for them to look for another game (for their own satisfaction), instead of coming into play with already being in opposition of content design and demand developers to change it, which, in turn, leads "satisfied part" of current audience to the state of opposition, and sometimes anger and confrontation.

I think, that there is nothing wrong with targeting different players together, BUT:
1) they must define basic design rules of the world and game as a whole from its beginning (these rules should never change, this is face of the game, this is its "Bible")
2) it's necessary to decide who forms each specific part of game audience (where is ceiling (= content boundary) that "divides" them according to 1 and where one part of audience smoothly flows into another)
3) in connection with 2 - determine conditions and rewards, which are worthy of this or that audience (easier/hard and better/worse indicators should be controlled by 1; ex. this is where new multi-level system of complexity fails (M+), it doesn't provide either content or motivation, it simply parasitizes on human greed and laziness - encouraging person bad qualities, but now imagine that dungeons are much larger and consists of much more parts and cunning mechanisms, which are exactly justified (by original design) "dividing ceiling" of skills and complexity)
4) if size of audience and finances allows, then add content to everyone in equal proportions constantly monitoring fulfillment of 1 conditions.

Let me outline boundaries again:
1) some people don't want to constantly be on path of progress, they like to reach their ceiling (knowing that they can't make it further), and then have fun in content available to them, with interruptions for twinks;
2) other people like to be constantly in duty of progress (and it doesn't matter if they don't have necessary skills, even trivial content should bring them "tangible benefits"), they don't need breaks, and they almost don't get any pleasure from content itself if one isn't related to the first;
3) game can't be made for both of these representatives, parameters aren't compatible
- if there is easy almost endless path - there is no ceiling, no time to stop, if there are stops - "workers" sooner or later become nothing to do and they aren't capable to "entertain" somehow themselves without virtual whip; here'd be to chide current content and gameplay for inferiority/insolvency/deficiency, it's very likely that this'd even be correct, but I'm not playing and will try to refrain from such comments, in the end, attracted target audience also changes along with change in ideology of these, which means... which means that whatever one may say, but fault is anyway lies with devs themself.

For reference, I rank myself in first category. For most of them, it's desirable that gap in forces be within acceptable percentages. They don't need current inflation's level of ilvl/characteristics/power (amount and amplitude of difficulty lvls/tiers; class tiers can have almost same ilvl as dungeons's gear and differ only in small bonuses that smooth out shortcomings of particular class within selected content, will be mechanically more useful within raid and are quite insignificant outside of it, so they don't need any special category, this is still same PvE content, but dungeons themselves should only be as passing stage in progress hierarchy), min/max mentality concerns them very little (current class vs talents vs else $hitty design/hierarchy; they're rather be good with - this), which means that collecting gear for all "situations" will be rather perversion/whim of bored elit to them, BUT the very availability of opportunity to do this doesn't hinder them in any way. Is this understandable?

I assume, that someone will say now that Blizzard doing exactly this. Maybe, in part, but as I see - they have big problems with 1 for a long time already (which led to problems in 2 and, as a consequence, in 3, result of all this was wrong decisions in design of 4; everything is interconnected). And such strong that game's genre became abnormally floating. As a result: audience composition changed (in intellectual and ideological sense, albeit in quantitative way too), content's character changed, arose сoncepts "was" and "became", opposition polarity and etc. That's why we'are talking about current game as a completely different thing in comparison to previous one.

What follows from this +:
- game rules (design) are more important than desires and capabilities of subscribers AND! developers together.
Ie it's necessary to listen to everyone whenever possible, but make decisions according to rules for not disturbing game world harmony and not spoil relations with/within community. There is no reason to blame community for what happened, decisions weren't ultimately taken by them. Something like this.

ps. There is no reason for try to jump over your heads. Follow the rules, provide qualitative content and the rest will be done by your customers themselves. "Good plan is simple, short and easy to remember" (c).

Also:

Any choice, imaginary or real, "right" or "wrong" must be controlled by player itself, all that can be done by automatic system is to say "OK!" and check spreadsheet ("set in stone") what system's rules are for this case, but not to artificially limit player's choice. Modern system is very restrictive for players, every step is trying to swallow all outcomes "undesirable" in its opinion, but doesn't try to "be correct"/work for every random case right/wrong, good/bad, desired/undesirable (it tries to "fix" (=change) and(or) impose "its own" possible full or partial solution (tries to replace player by self), rules become flexible (as they try to please multiple mutually exclusive systems), and result with each iteration is less certain even for devs themselves). Someone will say that this is impossible, in a sense it's, you can only get as close as possible to, while system should be as simple as possible (as literal as possible), and not provoke multiple dependencies that are controlled by automation systems *looking at all forms of scaling, structure of servers/world/content* you get the idea.

and tl;dr about toxity.

[Kuntantee]

Having poor hand-eye coordination doesn't mean your feedback is useless. Being a bad player has very little to do with design.

[vashe9]

switching gears in MM+ was a stupid idea and an unintended bug. Some players abused it.
You cant switch gear in a Rift in Diablo3 and thats the same philosophy as a Mythic + (timed + kill a certain number of mobs).
I tend to think that players complaining its too hard are just bad players, end of story.

- - - Updated - - -

LFR is not a problem, the stuff there sucks, the bosses suck, most of players suck... if you're a decent player (and sane person) you just don't do any LFR raid.

[Restors]

it will be the last I'll be willing to pay for

You still pay for this game? hell i havent even payed BFA with money, just gold.

[truulte]

Should people that aren't successful in life, lose their right to vote?

[Nutrition]

Having poor hand-eye coordination doesn't mean your feedback is useless. Being a bad player has very little to do with design.

It kinda does.... it's like taking a blinds man opinion on a art gallery. I feel sorry for the blind man but he can't actually experience anything beyond the smells on old parchment.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a characteristic sign of the narcissism of that sliver that they think their tiny aspect of the game is what determines its success.

Yet it's a underlying feature in almost every game... depth is good not something to be avoided.

[Sencha]

That's why we have braindead gameplay for most specs now.

[ManiaCCC]

That's why we have braindead gameplay for most specs now.

I don't think anyone really asked for this. It is on shoulders of Blizzard. However OP is touching very different issue and in his case I would say "yes, if people who suck are majority of playerbase, devs need take their feedback seriously"

[Osmeric]

Whether you chose not to experience the content or you weren't skilled enough, if you didn't take part in the content, you shouldn't comment on it's quality or impact.

Your sentiment there is utter bullshit and shall be ignored. You have cloaked your own personal preference on how others should act in a cloud of vacuous morality.