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.

Gath Immortal

Senior Member

01-30-2013

I actually thought New Vegas and Skyrim were phenomenal, of course that doesn't mean the developers couldn't have gone a LOT deeper with gameplay AND story alike.

I'd say my main complaint with any game was that something wasn't deep enough/fleshed out enough. I'm a casual gamer, I like easy games most of the time, but hardcore gamers deserve a piece of a game they can call their own.

As to what games have failed me: Every resident evil after the gamecube REmake and RE Zero, those games were perfect, REmake creeped the **** out of me, better than Dead Space ever did. Assassin's Creed 3, lacked the depth and replayability of AC2, especially depth, considering it was based in revolutionary times.

the new DmC reboot actually impressed me, I feel like it's better than any of the previous titles, they all bored the **** out of me.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ryios

Senior Member

02-04-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galgus View Post
You say you don't like games that aren't original, but you seem to not like GW2 because it broke the WoW mold.

Personally, I hate the Heal/Tank/DPS mold and found it incredibly boring.
What I hated about GW2 was more along the lines of it's an MMO that I still feel like im in a leveling/crafting grind. It's still an MMO Grind. Now if they had dragon events all over the place and I could engage in epic battles every second I'm playing it would be fun, for a week, then I'd burn out on that too.

The problem I have with mmo's is that I think I'm just burnt out on them. There are things I like in all of them, and if someone could take all those things in one game I'd be happy. I don't like grinding mobs unless doing it is an effective way to level and make money, not the case in GW2, you need to do events. I find it difficult to effectively multi task in GW2, e.g. I can run way over here and log this tree, but the event I want to be in is Way over there. Or I'm here just for X event, but it's been an hour now and it still hasn't spawned.

If they took all the content, story, and combat of FFXI and made something like it with a user interface on par with wow (customizable with user addon's), that would rock. Assuming they also instanced appropriate content so 20 linkshells aren't sitting in the same area trying to claim the same world boss on a 24 hour spawn timer.... Or in SKY fighting over pop trash.

FFXI had the best community I've ever seen. Party combat was awesome, and skill chains was a combat mechanic I loved. Being able to chain extra damage by having your team mates use all their abilities in specific orders for different elements.

Really, MMO's today depress me, because they are all capable of being masterpieces hendered by specific flaws causing them to fail in my book, so I just quit playing them.

Secondly, crafting.... I'd like that to be more about discovery. Let me get 10 things and smash them together to see if I can make something, let the community figure it out, don't give us a book of recipes where we que something and walk away, so borring. Theres just no incentive to explore anymore. Everything points you in a direction on a grind path and is handed to you. What's the point? I'd rather just go fire up minecraft and go spelunking... Which is why I can't wait for Patterns and Cubeworld to come out.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MforWW

Senior Member

02-04-2013

Final Fantasy XIII makes me want to cry.

I have played and enjoyed every single other Final Fantasy game (excluding XI) and, well, I simply wasn't prepared for this atrocity. You can play the entire game by mashing the X button and occasionally rotating paradigms with R. That's it. That's the ****ing game.

Mash x until bar fills up. Hit R. Mash x until bar goes down. Hit R. Mash x again... etc. etc. etc.

Probably the worst game I've ever sunk 40 hours into. Thank god it was shorter than all the other FF's, or I might not have actually finished that steaming pile of ****. I have no idea where Square Enix went wrong.

I'm not even going to begin criticizing the storyline or characters, because honestly none of that matters when the "gameplay" consists of hitting a single button over and over. I mean I really, really don't get how someone could even pretend to enjoy that game. It boggles my mind.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

800eloPubtrash

Senior Member

02-04-2013

They do know though, there's more new players than old players lol.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Redmagejake

Member

02-04-2013

Capcom is kind of letting me down lately with resident evil 6... 5 was ok... but its starting to feel like it's less about zombies /random mansion madness / puzzles and more into a third person shooter

square-enix is starting to slap the title of "final fantasy" on anything nowdays


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SirTimbo

Senior Member

02-04-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsheIsElite View Post
Left 4 Dead 2. GG Valve.
Really? While it did come out a year after the first, there was more than enough new content and mechanics changes to justify a sequel. Compare it to any call of duty sequel.

Biggest let down for me was warhammer online. The devs never listened to the community. There was complaints about how OP aoe was, didn't get fixed until the devs actually tried playing with the players and the dev team got stomped by a bad aoe group (one of the worst ones) 400 kills to 10. Then they nerfed all AoE abilities even though only 2 classes were the offenders.

Best part was they get the game to a nice stable point then release an expansion that broke the game all over again.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

poochiepoo

Senior Member

02-04-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirTimbo View Post
Really? While it did come out a year after the first, there was more than enough new content and mechanics changes to justify a sequel. Compare it to any call of duty sequel.

Biggest let down for me was warhammer online. The devs never listened to the community. There was complaints about how OP aoe was, didn't get fixed until the devs actually tried playing with the players and the dev team got stomped by a bad aoe group (one of the worst ones) 400 kills to 10. Then they nerfed all AoE abilities even though only 2 classes were the offenders.

Best part was they get the game to a nice stable point then release an expansion that broke the game all over again.
It wasn't enough for a sequel. There were 3 new levels, 3 new enemies, and melee weapons. That was it. Not to mention that Valve Released this game when the first one in the series technically wasn't even finished yet. This was more of a cash grab that pissed people off because Valve cheated people with this game.

The biggest disappointment was guild wars 2 and The Secret world. Guild wars 2 felt really awesome in the beggining, but you ended up finding out that the only viable build is glass cannon. There are damage checks in pve (certain monsters with healing and regeneration) that prevented any kind of tank build. In pvp offensive stats outclassed defensive stats heavily, so putting ANY points or stats into defenses is useless.

Secret World was annoying beyond reason. Even though you are powerful enough to one shot every mob in a area, all of them will still aggro you and keep chasing you for way too long. This lead to the player pretty much not being able to explore areas in a reasonable amount of time. Also Investigative quests were stupid as hell. I got to the point where I didn't even want to do them and just looked up the answers online.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Morello

Lead Designer

02-04-2013
1 of 91 Riot Posts

It's a tricky topic, because our job is to make decisions based on what players not only want, but need. Let me explain that a bit.

Determining what players want is actually pretty simple - your most invested users tend to be very vocal and will put effort into making sure they're heard (ie; most forumers!) This is a good metric of understanding what players want, at least for high-engagement folks.

What players need is where players don't proclaim a desire for something, but it helps provide something they say they want. Many times, this is more than a single solution - it requires several steps of implementation to reach a result, or takes time to bake in many cases. Let me provide two example of want vs need, and why want cannot be the only driver for developers;

At Riot, we nerf champions. Nerfs are rarely wanted (and many times, unwanted). But, players want to have a fair experience with a variety of options. Additionally, a game without power caps and heavy power creep (something still happening faster than I'd like...) can disrupt the core game design focused around choices, decision-making, and strategy. To accomplish this, we need to nerf champions, even if players don't explicitly want us to.

To use your example, in the pattern of Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King, the changes to easier raid content and more accessibility is actually informed by a want that a lot of players expressed - IE, raids were content that was exclusive from them and they wanted a piece. I respect the guys who make WoW (and its success is a testament), but this is a good example of where the developers should have recognized the core need of exclusivity and the right tuning of that, and steered away from players said they wanted. Personally, I think Burning Crusade is a sweet spot.

The above is a fantastic example of why we have to make tough choices and not always just do what players ask us to do - it's not always the right course of action.

The problem you're speaking to, in my opinion, is when developers think they always have that answer and that being a developer gives you divination into what that is. In my mind, game development isn't about having answers - it's the ways in which you find them.

Our interaction on here isn't just lip-service, it's so we can better optimize decisions around player wants - and explain what players need when they don't want it. This informs us a lot, but we make decisions based on a number of factors - player desires and feedback being one of them.

I hope this helps explain how I feel about this, and how the developer/player interaction looks to me.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Captain Youl

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

02-04-2013

question for you morello, do you think with the flow of constent nerfs, the champs are losing whats make them unique/good?

If a part of a champion's kit is too good you nerf it, by doing so you kill a part of the champion, just look at urgot, he had too much range on ult and E+Q, you nerfed it, now he just feels meh, what if you could nerf things people care less about like the slow % on his shield, or best just buff the others champs so they could all be unique enough to be counter to your balance problem, kinda like dota 2 but with less OPness.
Right now you focus on making all abilities balanced instead of having 1-2 great spells and 1-2 average ones that compliment the champion

example: blitzcrank grab is the best part of his kit, but its ok since his passive consumme his mana and his W slows him after the overdrive hes OP and UP at the same time making him unique and balanced

example #2: heimer can zone too easily with his 3 turrets, but its ok since hes squishy and cant rely on his others spells to protect himself.

example #3: malzahar have too much burst with his ult (back when it had 1.6 ap ratio) but it was ok because his ult range puts him at risk + QSS, now you nerfed it and hes subpar to aoe burst mages who can deal around the same ult damage as him but AOE


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sheogorath

Member

02-04-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
It's a tricky topic, because our job is to make decisions based on what players not only want, but need. Let me explain that a bit.

Determining what players want is actually pretty simple - your most invested users tend to be very vocal and will put effort into making sure they're heard (ie; most forumers!) This is a good metric of understanding what players want, at least for high-engagement folks.

What players need is where players don't proclaim a desire for something, but it helps provide something they say they want. Many times, this is more than a single solution - it requires several steps of implementation to reach a result, or takes time to bake in many cases. Let me provide two example of want vs need, and why want cannot be the only driver for developers;

At Riot, we nerf champions. Nerfs are rarely wanted (and many times, unwanted). But, players want to have a fair experience with a variety of options. Additionally, a game without power caps and heavy power creep (something still happening faster than I'd like...) can disrupt the core game design focused around choices, decision-making, and strategy. To accomplish this, we need to nerf champions, even if players don't explicitly want us to.

To use your example, the pattern of Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King, the changes to easier raid content and more accessibility is actually informed by a want that a lot of players expressed - IE, raids were content that was exclusive from them and they wanted a piece. I respect the guys who make WoW (and its success is a testament), but this is a good example of where the developers should have recognized the core need of exclusivity and the right tuning of that, and steered away from players said they wanted. Personally, I think Burning Crusade is a sweet spot.

The above is a fantastic example of why we have to make tough choices and not always just do what players ask us to do - it's not always the right course of action.

The problem you're speaking to, in my opinion, is when developers think they always have that answer and that being a developer gives you divination into what that is. In my mind, game development isn't about having answers - it's the ways in which you find them.

Our interaction on here isn't just lip-service, it's so we can better optimize decisions around player wants - and explain what players need when they don't want it. This informs us a lot, but we make decisions based on a number of factors - player desires and feedback being one of them.

I hope this helps explain how I feel about this, and how the developer/player interaction looks to me.
What we want and need (maybe?): http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=3068031 can a rioter give us at least some feedback?