Current Events > ''Why don't game developers listen to their fans and give us what we demand!''

(+) Yeah! (+)

Thoughts on people saying this or similar?

I have seen so many threads here over the years on what changes should be made to games from the fan perspective and I'm so glad most of the time fans are ignored.

I usually just think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqk_fN0NRgg

Sometimes I agree, other times I don't.

There are times when developers decide to pivot and the community rightfully asks "hey what the fuck?"

But the vast majority of the time, it's some armchair dev who doesn't care about making the game generally fun and just wants something catered very specifically to them.

googs19 posted...

I usually just think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqk_fN0NRgg

And then shows like Avatar, Adventure Time, and Steven Universe showed this clip was completely correct. Kids (and adults) really do want a realistic down to earth show, that's completely off the wall, and swarming with magic robots.

Anyway, I think the topic is complicated and really depends on the issue. Sometimes devs are trying to make a game that's challenging and feels rewarding to overcome, and there's a portion of people who just want to be invincible. Sometimes the bigwigs want 300 hours of engagement and force the devs to make the best equipment completely random (Destiny 2) - and sometimes that's roughly what players want (Diablo 2). Look at modern ARPGs and you can see the push and pull of players who all want different experiences from the same game (D4 beta vs modern D4 vs PoE2...). Sometimes the players say, "We want Classic WoW" and they're just completely correct.

The XBOX 1 launch is a good example of giving what we will give you and you will like it. Guess what people didnt like it and took their money elsewhere. A mistake they are still paying for.

Baphometa posted...

and sometimes that's roughly what players want (Diablo 2).

Eh, considering that D4 was forced to move away from the shitty drop rates of D2 (just like D3 was forced to do too), I'd say that only the D2 diehards want that.

like most things, there's a middle ground between the two extremes that's really the best position.

On the one hand, some of the best games ever were absolutely not what players expected wanted or asked for, and players frequently demand the most generic, boring stuff imaginable.

On the other hand, a lot of the biggest turds happened the same way, lol.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that statement. The issue is that the fans that are the most vocal might not be indicative of the majority of fans.

Tanthalas posted...

Eh, considering that D4 was forced to move away from the shitty drop rates of D2 (just like D3 was forced to do too), I'd say that only the D2 diehards want that.

I think D2 players want that and PoE2 does a good job of bridging the gap between old-style and modern.
D4 was never in the ballpark of getting it right. You never had a chance of finding that GG ring at level 25, all it had were OP uniques with absurd rates. It had D3-style progression with D2 rates on uniques, not much else.
I think the skill trees are a great job of showing where D4 missed the mark. Players wanted D2-style skill trees and D4 gave "skill trees" where you just pick one of two paths. There's zero flexibility, there's always a correct choice (despite promises otherwise), and they admitted they didn't understand what players wanted in some cases (Druids using pets, imagine that!).

Like I said, I think D4 is a good example of devs trying to listen to competing voices and not really understanding what they wanted or why things worked.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

players frequently demand the most generic, boring stuff imaginable.

My go to example for this is when Mighty No 9 still looked like it might turn out well and they put a vote to the design of Call.

Here was the concept art they gave us to vote on:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9fabea4c.jpg

I'll give you one guess which one fans voted for.

HINT: Here's a Mega Man character:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a5eec87c.jpg

Veilguard failed because it was the opposite of what we wanted

'Game developers should give the fans what they want'.

Also:

'Game developers should have the freedom to pursue their own creative vision'.

Pick the one that suits whatever argument you are making, but neither ideal survives first contact with the world of commercial game development.

How many developers have actually done this?

It's about knowing when to listen to fans, and when to ignore them. Nintendo gets this right often.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

My go to example for this is when Mighty No 9 still looked like it might turn out well and they put a vote to the design of Call.

Here was the concept art they gave us to vote on:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9fabea4c.jpg

I'll give you one guess which one fans voted for.

HINT: Here's a Mega Man character:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a5eec87c.jpg

Sounds fun. I vote F or G, leaning F. My guess they voted for C?

There are times where its reasonable. There are times when its actually just one person assuming everyone wants what they do. (Of course, even in the former case devs arent obliged to listen, but its probably smart to at least give some thought to it even if you decide in the end to not change anything.)

fans, in aggregate, don't know what they want.

That being said, it shouldn't be as difficult as it apparently is to look at previous successes and go "alright, here's some bits we could've done better, let's do those better this time"