Why do Game Developers think they know what the players want? What games failed you?

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fck SoloQSupport

Senior Member

02-05-2013

this one


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Linna Excel

Senior Member

02-05-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
getting rid of archaic mechanics that just bog things down (looking at you, denying) and things like letting you cast more than 2 or 3 spells before going OOM means you engage with opponents in ways that human beings tend to find psychologically engaging and meaningful.
D:


Ahri has a few teemo mushrooms she wants to charm you into walking over. She is entirely dependant on blue buff to not go OOM. Nami has pretty limited supporting abilities because of her mana problems. I could go on, but I won't.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Linna Excel

Senior Member

02-05-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
I love the Smash example - it also really applied during TF2's launch (I used to be a TFC player for a long time). I have a pretty hardline stance on this that's not going to win me any awards

I think sequels or new takes on old games need to have some departure from the original to have a need to exist at all. The first thing that will happen when you do this is that your current hardcore players will shout doomsday of how removing X (wavedashing/Conc jumping/denying/door hacking/AWP price/etc etc etc) will ABSOLUTELY DESTROY your game and you fail as a company and are out of touch.

I want to go on record to tell these players to knock them ****s off. Time for some real talk

Hardcore players, this feedback is not valuable. We know what happens if developers are too swayed here - you get new versions of an old game that has just enough difference to not pull you over (CS:GO, really the AWP cost being the same was important? No.), but not actually advance the series or genre in a meaningful way. Doing this disallows you to actually give the game any meaning - why does it exist, who is it for?

Now, developers have a responsibility here too; deconstruct why they're saying what they're saying. Many times, your hardcore fans want to ensure the new game has depth and skill. If you're changing how that's done, explain this process to your hardcore dudes. Don't pander or cave, just be upfront. If you're removing burden of knowledge/etc (things that most extremely hardcore gamers will latch on to as meaningful skill), be honest with it and try to evaluate that you're adding real skill mastery to your new game as well.

Your hardcore guys are valuable, but be careful to not let them rail your new game into total conservatism.
There's a fine line that you can cross though. You drop too much core stuff and you'll lose appeal to your core audience. Take GW2, it's overall a well made game and deserves for the most part the accolades it got.

That said, at times I can interact with other players in a 30 minute lol match more than I can in a few hours in GW2. It's also very ADD compared to the original and it's hard to build a relationship with other players because after one event is over, the scatter into the wind. For its popularity, it's also very lonely at times. People might have hated the old THK or some of the desert missions, but they were memorable and caused you to plan and interact with your party in order to win.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Hercules Morse

Senior Member

02-05-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoshi guy View Post
Well considering you have never played Dota I think you shouldn't talk so much. Reading through all that made me want to claw my eyes out, you've no idea on how Dota actually plays.
True. But I'm pretty sure I understand that you can kill your own minions (sub 50% health, of course) and even champions on your team, I understand why you'd want to do it, and I understand why its not possible in LoL and why thats a good thing.

On topic:
The CoD series past MW1 - because why? Theyre the same damn game with the same damn plot and the same damn multiplayer. I just havent bothered to play BO2, it seemed like they were maybe gonna iterate or change up things, but I havent heard anything interesting since launch so meh. Meh to the series.

Skyrim - after Oblivion, I wanted more depth. There was potential for a balance between the accessibility of Oblivion and the depth of Morrowind. But no, we get Oblivion 2.0 - another incredibly gorgeous, well constructed world with tons of meaningless stuff to do with some pretty boring, shallow gameplay. I enjoyed exploring Tamriel and Skyrim. It was less fun when the game got in the way.

Crysis 2 - people didnt buy Crysis 1 because they just could not run the game, not because it was a bad game. Crysis 2 is CoD-ified and while the suit does make it more interesting than your standard CoD clone, I'd rather play Crysis 1... if I could run it well even now. So at least they got that right with 2. Pity though, since the multiplayer in 1 was less intensive, and incredibly fun for lans.

Warhammer 40k Dawn of War 2 - instead of bigger armies, they went smaller. But see, you can do small battles easily on the table-top game. DoW had potential to allow the kind of scope you only saw in the lore, or set up by insane fans with ridiculous collections. Really disappointed this hasnt happened yet.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Davidt1234

Senior Member

02-05-2013

Nexon maplestory was a fun game before i loved it, now every thing is messed up and its not fun to play anymore. And they make so many new things it gets annoying a confusing, theres like 50 jobs >_>


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mdeadline

Junior Member

02-05-2013

Only one game comes to mind when I think of disappointment and it's Resident Evil 6. I disliked 5 for so many reasons but I was excited when I heard you would get to play as Leon again because RE4 is one of the best games ever made. But I'm not sure how anyone can start playing that game and the first thing you think of is WTF am I playing.

Also I'm starting to think something is wrong with me because most people are saying games like Skyrim/Hitman Absolution/New FF/ and Fallout New Vegas.

Now I have played Oblivion/Morrowind, FF10/FFVII, Fallout 3, and all Hitman games But have never beaten or had the desire to finish them but I have finished their newer games in the series. Except Hitman because I'm really not that good at that series. Although I played them years after their release except for Fallout 3 which I got on launch date. But I found them fun for awhile but not as engaging as their newer entries all of which I love more.

I just find it hard for people to hate those games because I love them a lot. Especially New Vegas which I found more fun than fallout 3 even though they are basically almost the same. I found Vegas more fun to be in than Washington.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

XxSionnachxX

Senior Member

02-05-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galgus View Post
I love Dominion, so meh.

But if Riot can make another balanced map, more power to them: but balancing a new map is quite an endeavor.

(On the flipside, I never play Treeline because it seems to be a pit full of the unwashed Bruiser masses- a champion type I despise as a fan of glass cannons.)
I agree with that. Balancing out an already popular map would be epic, or making another 5v5 map like Summoners Rift would be fun. On a side note glass cannons FTW! Annie, LeBlanc etc....you know the drill


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

VaeVicit

Senior Member

02-05-2013

Games that failed me:

Dragon Age 2: The original DA:O was a solid rpg with good story telling, multiple choices, dialogue options, and generally varied methods of playing, what the devs thought I wanted was a fixed character, limited dialogue choices, and simplified combat. I felt it was a complete 180 turn from any sort of RPG that DA:O was and that was majorly disappointing

DmC: having played but by no means mastered most of the DMC's, I can say I was a fan of the series. What I wanted from a new DMC game was the same level of cuhrazy with the same level of difficulty while looking like a badass. This was more of a case where the devs ignored what their potential customer base wanted and generally did what they wanted to do with the series. What I got was an easy as hell game with pretty neat visuals but 0 depth to a lot of other things

Mass Effect 2+3:

The original ME was neat-o because it scratched my space explorer and loot-hoe itch. I won't bore you with the other details but my main gripe with the other 2 games was the lack of choices, more focus on turning the series into a TPS, and having an ending so wonky and almost complete disregard for the multitude of major choices that I honestly believe that the devs were either rushed for time, or just were lazy and didn't want to make 9 or so endings like a RPG should have


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

tskorahk

Senior Member

02-05-2013

Sometimes denying feels good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fqVkeOUTKs


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kijitow

Senior Member

02-05-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
I love the Smash example - it also really applied during TF2's launch (I used to be a TFC player for a long time). I have a pretty hardline stance on this that's not going to win me any awards

I think sequels or new takes on old games need to have some departure from the original to have a need to exist at all. The first thing that will happen when you do this is that your current hardcore players will shout doomsday of how removing X (wavedashing/Conc jumping/denying/door hacking/AWP price/etc etc etc) will ABSOLUTELY DESTROY your game and you fail as a company and are out of touch.

I want to go on record to tell these players to knock them ****s off. Time for some real talk

Hardcore players, this feedback is not valuable. We know what happens if developers are too swayed here - you get new versions of an old game that has just enough difference to not pull you over (CS:GO, really the AWP cost being the same was important? No.), but not actually advance the series or genre in a meaningful way. Doing this disallows you to actually give the game any meaning - why does it exist, who is it for?

Now, developers have a responsibility here too; deconstruct why they're saying what they're saying. Many times, your hardcore fans want to ensure the new game has depth and skill. If you're changing how that's done, explain this process to your hardcore dudes. Don't pander or cave, just be upfront. If you're removing burden of knowledge/etc (things that most extremely hardcore gamers will latch on to as meaningful skill), be honest with it and try to evaluate that you're adding real skill mastery to your new game as well.

Your hardcore guys are valuable, but be careful to not let them rail your new game into total conservatism.
Just gonna put it out here that Melee now has a larger competitive following than Brawl.

It's gonna be at EVO this year.