How do developers determine which parts of the game they polish and which parts they leave in a less than ideal way?
For example someone might post a comment online saying "I love this game but I wish the walking animation wasn't so awkward, why didn't they have time to fix it?"
And there's like a million different types of comments like that for any given game, so how do you decide what needs to be worked on in a patch/sequel and what you leave as it is?
In other words, which are the absolute essential aspects of a game that determines if a person will view the game from a positive side?
What I mean is, someone might say "this game is perfect except for aspects x y z which ruined the game for me" those people are on the negative side, but the ones on the positive side of a flawed game would say "yes, x y z aren't perfect, but I still love the game"
I ask since publishers want to maximize profits, so there must be some things they know are more important than others. Whereas an indie dev with an essentially infinite budget would be able to focus on the aspects they themselves consider important and at delivering an intended artistic expression, but a publisher thinks in terms of maximizing gains. There has to be a pattern of human behavior publishers have figured out since AAA games tend to be undercooked in the same categories and contain similar features. Do they just copy each other and hope for the best or have they 'cracked the code' ?
Patch and sequel are different things, but this question is circling around something I've wanted to talk about so let me take a swing at answering a few things. Context: I'm speaking as a AAA game dev from the US.
Patch: fix game breaking things and prioritize post launch content that was already in production. In this case, it might be an opportunity to fix certain issues with game features, but it's going to differ wildly between games. A well recieved game is just going to get lots of love and polish, while a critical flop might necessitate a lot more crunch to get right and even then it might simply be abandoned because there's no time/money to fix it.
Sequel: Oh boy. Ok, so, before I get into this, I think it's important I actually talk about feedback and the psychology behind it. I'll get to publisher feedback in a a minute.
So much of what makes or breaks a game comes down to just how 'open' a community of players is when the game drops. Some games might be poorly optimized, full of jank, or have a middling storyline yet somehow come out on top as blockbusters that garner tons of praise. Part of it is quality, absolutely, but a very, very large part of it is social coercion (my friends are playing and I want to as well, FOMO, my favorite streamer plays) and the openness of the community you are catering to. I can't get into the nitty gritty on this, but developing successful games isn't a science, and some times you can do everything right and still be despised due to social/political pressures or completely fabricated misinfo. Why do I bring this up? Because as a dev, you have to navigate this wishy washy world of 'feelings' and balancing optics with your own personal preferences. Ultimately, our goal is always to provide our target audience with a product they're not only happy with, but are ambassadors for. That way, we can continue to work on the game post launch and support them to the best of our ability. I don't want to send a game out to die, I want to give it to people who appreciate it and want more. Anything less is a waste of time (in my opinion).
So after finishing a project, theres a long debriefing, where people take vacations, read feedback, and fix outstanding issues. But all the while the next game is being planned. We gather expectations, feedback both positive and negative, and internal feelings about what direction we should head. However, what if you made a game that you know is good, but was subject to unreasonably scrutiny for things you didn't consider or underestimated. Then things get difficult. A massive feature that data suggested should be popular isn't, because a specific group of the hard core crowd disliked it regardless of how popular it was with the general public. Think of heroes in shooters, for instance, over customizable avatars. Think of skill-based matchmaking. Think of specific narratives or characters. Now you're having to defend core features to a group of people who have been subjected to undue criticism and are potentially hostile to repeating the same experience. I know this isn't a specific example, but I hope you see where this is going.
Suddenly, due to a small group of fans being rabidly against a feature, you need to reconsider its inclusion and massive amounts of supporting features for the sequel. The original hook is ruined, if players even catch a whiff of 'running on walls' or 'no base building' they're going to freak the fuck out, despite us banking a lot on that feature during development and it being well recieved in playtesting. Now you've got to go back to the drawing board to make a new game. You do so, and you leave out that feature, rethink systems, remove unpopular systems, and finally release the game... To more negativity. Because now the people who never complained about the first game are pissed that the thing they liked most is gone and for everyone on the outside they've now seen two straight releases with negative sentiment.
We talk about things like 'publishers are greedy, they push devs to hard, they don't give us enough time, etc,' but sometimes it really does just come down to devs believing in something and it just being met with a hostile audience. It's been especially rough the past few years as the entire world is a ball of negativity, but yeah, to answer the question it is extremely difficult to thread the needly of making everyone happy or making nobody happy. And even then, you can try to right the ship in a patch but some times people aren't open to giving you another chance. So that's when the publishers step in and go 'ok, fuck this, lets just make something else' and we move on. We playtest the shit out of our games, get tons of feedback, and ultimately have to make decisions based on a limited data set and the falible words of players (edit: and our own falible opinions.) We all like to think of ourselves as rational and in touch with 'what we want' but the data often says the opposite. At the end of the day, it's on us to stand by our decisions and hope the audience reacts well, but if player sentiment is exceptionally negative its not always down to quality. Sometimes you just can't force someone to be in a good mood, and if they're trash talking the game/movie/book to everyone they meet then those are going to be potential players lost.
As for publisher feedback, which is going to focus HEAVILY on what they see as negative sentiment in the community and they're going to be dead serious on righting the ship, because, as you stated, they want to make money. Good games should make money, but the amount of complications beyond your control as a dev are vast and sometimes it just comes down to 'this should have done well, data said it should have done well, but nobody was interested.'
I know I just rambled, but I want to illustrate how complex reacting to feedback is and why change is often so slow. There are a lot of moving parts and a lot of money involved, and far more things that are completely out of your control. To reiterate, social pressure is probably the number one thing that gets players into a game, especially a multiplayer one (ever wonder why so many multiplayer games have a walk-around lobby?) and if a community turns against you it might not even be worth trying to get them back on board.
Edit: also, because it isn't obvious in what I wrote, I should also mention that negative feedback can be absolutely valid and we can make mistakes and make bad products. We run out of time, or things get borked in development- whatever the case, obviously I'm not speaking about that. If a game is busted then the devs are probably aware and ashamed of it already. I'm talking specifically about how difficult it is to react to nebulous feedback and trying to make players happy from a design side.
