• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Is Vex right?

  • Yes. Vex is right.

    Votes: 381 36.4%
  • No. Vex is wrong.

    Votes: 505 48.2%
  • I'm 50/50 on this.

    Votes: 161 15.4%

  • Total voters
    1,047

Imperfected

Member
Nov 9, 2017
11,737
Can you elaborate on this part a bit more? Why would giving less information about what you didn't like be better than giving more? This is interesting to me.

A lot of reasons.

First and foremost, players are often bad at identifying what they actually have a problem with. A player might tell you "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" when the actual problem they're having is that the boss's attack isn't telegraphed well enough to give them the advance warning they need to use it. They might tell you "there isn't enough content" when the actual problem is that you set the leveling curve too shallow and they're outleveling 90% of the content in the game before they ever see it. They might tell you an enemy "has too much health" when all they really want is a better visual indicator for how close the boss is to dying, or that a gun "sucks" when mechanically it's fine and all it needs is more satisfying visual and audible feedback.

They're even worse at identifying how to fix problems, which is an issue considering most players want to do so without even having stopped to identify the problem properly first. To take the example above, a lot of players will skip the entire "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" part and go straight to "you should replace the dodge with a block"; basically they'll give you (potentially bad) advice about how to fix something that isn't even the actual problem.

They're also prone to being forgetful/having a recency bias/etc. If you actually run biometrics moment-to-moment--eye-tracking linked to heat maps on menus, heart rate during specific moments, etc.--you'll find that they often neglect to mention the important points and instead project the feelings from those onto the broader experience or later parts of it. A player who gets really frustrated with a bad menu might neglect to mention that entirely, and instead tell you they didn't enjoy the entire sequence where they were struggling with the UI, even though it had nothing to do with the rest of that sequence.

Think of it like going to the doctor: tell the doctor your symptoms in the simplest terms, don't try and self-diagnose and offer possible prescriptions.
 

Uzume

Member
Oct 30, 2017
120
Majority of times I see argument like this brought up it's people defending their mediocre/bad game design.
 
OP
OP
Vex

Vex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,213
A lot of reasons.

First and foremost, players are often bad at identifying what they actually have a problem with. A player might tell you "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" when the actual problem they're having is that the boss's attack isn't telegraphed well enough to give them the advance warning they need to use it. They might tell you "there isn't enough content" when the actual problem is that you set the leveling curve too shallow and they're outleveling 90% of the content in the game before they ever see it. They might tell you an enemy "has too much health" when all they really want is a better visual indicator for how close the boss is to dying, or that a gun "sucks" when mechanically it's fine and all it needs is more satisfying visual and audible feedback.

They're even worse at identifying how to fix problems, which is an issue considering most players want to do so without even having stopped to identify the problem properly first. To take the example above, a lot of players will skip the entire "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" part and go straight to "you should replace the dodge with a block"; basically they'll give you (potentially bad) advice about how to fix something that isn't even the actual problem.

They're also prone to being forgetful/having a recency bias/etc. If you actually run biometrics moment-to-moment--eye-tracking linked to heat maps on menus, heart rate during specific moments, etc.--you'll find that they often neglect to mention the important points and instead project the feelings from those onto the broader experience or later parts of it. A player who gets really frustrated with a bad menu might neglect to mention that entirely, and instead tell you they didn't enjoy the entire sequence where they were struggling with the UI, even though it had nothing to do with the rest of that sequence.

Think of it like going to the doctor: tell the doctor your symptoms in the simplest terms, don't try and self-diagnose and offer possible prescriptions.
Oh wow. This is an awesome post. I wish more devs would speak up like this. I think I understand now. Thanks!

looks like I know what i'm voting, then!
:'c
 

Cyborg

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,955
If it not clicks with me it doenst mean the game design is bad. Its just that the devs vision/dream isnt mine and Im allowed not to like it.
 

Firmament1

Member
Aug 15, 2019
1,287
"Bad Game Design" is not a criticism that should be thrown around lightly. At all. It's really not that simple. Some people have certain preferences, or tolerances in video games that others don't have. So while you might not like the boss that you think is too spongy and tedious, the developer almost certainly thought that this was the perfect amount of health to give it. I suppose I can say that sure, it's fine to not like a certain aspect of a game, but don't act like you know how to fix it.

I find that people just throw around "Bad Game Design" as a criticism whenever they run into something that they just happen to not like. Games are so much more complex than something like food, so I don't think analogies to those are fully valid.

Let's get real here; Game designers know more about what they're doing when making a game than like, 90% of gamers. They often have extremely justified reasons behind certain choices, and have almost certainly considered the other choices. The gamer is likely just figuring out the other choices just when they run into the choice they don't like, but was implemented into the game. What the gamer hasn't figured out yet, is why said possible choices were not implemented in the game in the first place, because it might be more appealing to them on the surface whereas, like I said, the developer has already ruled out that option, and likely for good reason.

Some examples from the thread I linked:

Lazy hitboxes.

1: perfect hitboxes are glitchier.

2: perfect hitboxes require more polygons and are invisible, making the game slower.

3: perfect hitboxes are 500x more likely to pass through another object without giving a fuck.

4: I can literally use the model of whatever I wanted to give a hitbox to give it a perfect hit box. It's more work to give it an imperfect hitbox. Except 1 2 and 3.

Do you want it to work? Or be perfect shaped and glitchy?

"Why can't I go through this busted door/knee-high hedge/hole in the wall?" I should realistically fit through it so let me through!

Well that would require either:

A. Restructuring the environment entirely to make a ruined building have untouched solid walls, potentially preventing you from knowing there's even something beyond for you to try to get. The level was already designed before the environment artists had at it. To change something like that may mean going back to the level design phase.

B. Coding complex hitbox mechanics to allow the player to traverse things that they "realistically could" likely also requiring additional animations. At the least. It's nearly impossible to predict every "well the player should fit through there" so you can't go through and code/animate each occurrence.

Making a game fun or adding game modes. Never have I ever heard worse game design ideas, than when we took community game mode suggestions for our steam game. Some of these suggestions were so insanely ridiculous and more importantly, NOT FUN. There is a reason game devs are paid, if it were easy, anyone could do it.

Secondly, if you thought of it and it is a decent idea, chances are, so did the devs and for one reason or another, it can't be done.

We refused to give in to our community asking for bad game features and we kept the game's integrity. Unfortunately, our publisher cut us out and obliged the community. The game turned into an awful muddled mess of a game with no clear identity.

TLDR; Game devs have already thought of your game ideas and they aren't fun to play.

My personal favourite:

"It would be so easy for them to implement A!"

Probably not, no. Implementing A would probably cause X, Y and Z to break and fixing those would probably break 5 other things, so on and so forth.

So yeah, 50/50 for me. Or more like, 75/25 agreement with the title of the thread; Yes, it's possible that a game can have bad game design, but the other, and more likely possibility is that you didn't understand the reason as to why a certain choice was implemented. At the very least, people should stop throwing it around so liberally.
 
Last edited:

GameDev

Member
Aug 29, 2018
555
...absolutely no developer worth a damn thinks you need to be a developer to have a valid opinion on game design for two reasons:

1) One of the key things they teach you in design school (assuming your school's curriculum went beyond tightening up the graphics) is dealing with play testers. When you're creating something, you lose the ability to evaluate it because you become immersed it in much in the same way that your house smells like nothing but other people's houses smell distinct. Having people outside the creative process help you whiff out the smellier parts of your design even if (or even especially because) they don't think like designers. A key principle of industrial design (and game design is applied industrial design) is that the user is never wrong. While I think "never" is too strong a word when dealing with game design, you can't tell someone that the aesthetic response they had wasn't the response they had.

2) So much of getting into the industry has to do fuck all with ability and more with being buddies with a guy is spending his inheritance on starting up a game studio. It's less true with hard skills like programming (where it's much more objectively defined what makes a bad programmer) but game design is an incredibly soft skill. You'd be surprised how many people managed to fail upward pretty far into the gaming industry.

That being said, there are a lot of people who are bad at game criticism in that they are bad at conveying their opinions and there are a lot of people with straight up bad taste.
 

John Caboose

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,199
Sweden
Having the poll asking the opposite question as the thread title is bad thread design.

On-topic:
You need zero game dev experience to know whether you like or dislike (parts of) a game. However if you do have that experience, it helps you understand why a certain piece of design works the way it does.
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Nov 3, 2017
28,026
Wasn't there a quote?

"Players are great at identifying problems but terrible at identifying solutions."
 

Eeyore

User requested ban
Banned
Dec 13, 2019
9,029
They're video games, it isn't that deep. We should listen to experts on things that matter, like medical professionals on COVID-19, but every time I hear this type of argument on media I just have to laugh. Media isn't going to land for everyone and it's interesting to see how it doesn't land for some people. These types of appeals to authorities are more than likely just lazy arguments.
 

packy17

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,901
This kind of logic is used to deflect criticism of pretty much everything. You don't have to directly work in a field to be a critic.

I'm not a professional chef, but I know when my food tastes bad.
 

merzpup

Member
Oct 11, 2019
37
definitely wrong with this one; you don't need industry experience to have an informed opinion

sure, there are a lot of people talking nonsense but you can have a set of good points by just being interested in something

I think your issue is mostly about constructive feedback
 

finalflame

Product Management
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,538
People know less about what they do and don't like/want than they think, and very few people who think they have an informed opinion actually do. Just how it rolls. Every once in a while someone gives good feedback on a single dimension of a design choice, but more often than not forget to consider a dozen other factors. At the end of the day it's a mixture of the aggregate feedback and telemetry that tells the full story.
 

Deleted member 49535

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 10, 2018
2,825
That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. Do you need to be a professional singer to know if a person sings well? No.

That is a shit poll btw, I thought Vex was the person that said that phrase, not the OP talking about himself in third person.
 
Last edited:

PepsimanVsJoe

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,122
This thread looks interesting, and I wish I had some valuable insight to share. I can't claim to be a game dev, but I've been a play tester (both beta and alpha) on several games. Unfortunately, spending the past decade reviewing games and having nothing to show for it left me in a horrendous state of burnout. Still, I feel like I have to say something.

Game dev is IMO one of the least enviable jobs in the world. The hours are complete shit. You can have thousands of ideas, but no way to implement them, unless of course you want to start over from scratch. Even something as simple as a Pac-Man clone can run into an innumerable amount of issues. Then there are the horrendous working conditions, as well as the physical/mental toll the job has on game devs. Then when your product is finally finished, you're at the mercy of one of the most overprivileged and hostile audiences out there. I have zero problems with the "You aren't a dev so..." argument. If nothing else, it helps dissuade a few bad critics from making devs feel more miserable then they already are.

I think it comes down to respect. A player might not feel like their time was respected, but their 1 to 10 hours of play-time simply doesn't compare to the hundreds of thousands of hours of dev-time. Devs are very receptive to criticism. This is especially true in the indies, where a lot of games don't get reviewed at all. However, if the critic isn't willing to get a sense of the dev's vision and intention, then they should keep their comments to themselves. Nothing is gained from the "Why'd you do this when you could've done this?" nonsense.
 

Feep

Lead Designer, Iridium Studios
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
4,596
I'm a dev and anecdotally, I haven't seen this much. There's a reason game devs playtest with normal people and not with only other game devs: even "untrained" people have valuable insight and very closely represent how our final target audience is likely to react. Something that I'll think is obvious won't be picked up by eight out of ten players? That's not their fault; it's mine.

What I *will* call people out on is inaccuracies regarding the business of the industry or the processes by which games get made. Some people have no idea, whew.
 

Jakisthe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,560
Much like how one doesn't need to be an artist to critique art, doesn't need to be a director to critique movies, doesn't need to be an architect to critique buildings, and doesn't need to be a chef to critique art, one doesn't have to be a dev to critique a game. All arguments otherwise are either about the quality of the critique, which is to say, yes, you can critique something, or absolutely moronic.
 

Rendering...

Member
Oct 30, 2017
19,089
As a game designer: that actually is poor poll design. (Knowing how to create proper polls that don't attempt to bias the respondent toward specific answers is an important part of game design playtesting.)

The Golden Rule of Playtesting is that you note and consider all feedback--including non-verbal cues and biometrics if you have the capacity to collect them--but you also treat all feedback as being fundamentally questionable data. If a player tells you (or visibly displays) that they aren't enjoying something or find something frustrating, that's gold. If a player tells you they aren't enjoying something because [insert reason here], the reason they give is pyrite; they will often fail to identify the thing they actually have problems with or offer suggestions that are unrelated as "fixes".

So, yeah, absolutely everyone has valid opinions about games. Just try to bear in mind that the most useful opinion is often the least nuanced: "I didn't enjoy that boss fight" is actually more useful than "that boss's overhead attack is bullshit" or "that boss fight would be better without the adds".
Good insight here.
 

eso76

Prophet of Truth
Member
Dec 8, 2017
8,107
50/50
A lot of game design criticisms are from people who didn't stop and think about the reasons behind those choices and suggest changes which would have consequences they didn't think through.
Doesn't mean one has to actually work as a game designer to understand game design, though
 

modiz

Member
Oct 8, 2018
17,831
In the end of the day, a game is a transaction between the player and the developer/publisher.
you buy a game to enjoy it, if you have an issue with it for whatever reason that is fine. your opinion about how well done some aspect of it is shouldnt be invalidated because you dont have experience in game development. Its in the interest of developers to listen to player feedback to improve the satsifaction of players and thus sales.
 

Camisado

Member
Nov 3, 2017
1,385
A lot of reasons.

First and foremost, players are often bad at identifying what they actually have a problem with. A player might tell you "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" when the actual problem they're having is that the boss's attack isn't telegraphed well enough to give them the advance warning they need to use it. They might tell you "there isn't enough content" when the actual problem is that you set the leveling curve too shallow and they're outleveling 90% of the content in the game before they ever see it. They might tell you an enemy "has too much health" when all they really want is a better visual indicator for how close the boss is to dying, or that a gun "sucks" when mechanically it's fine and all it needs is more satisfying visual and audible feedback.

They're even worse at identifying how to fix problems, which is an issue considering most players want to do so without even having stopped to identify the problem properly first. To take the example above, a lot of players will skip the entire "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" part and go straight to "you should replace the dodge with a block"; basically they'll give you (potentially bad) advice about how to fix something that isn't even the actual problem.

They're also prone to being forgetful/having a recency bias/etc. If you actually run biometrics moment-to-moment--eye-tracking linked to heat maps on menus, heart rate during specific moments, etc.--you'll find that they often neglect to mention the important points and instead project the feelings from those onto the broader experience or later parts of it. A player who gets really frustrated with a bad menu might neglect to mention that entirely, and instead tell you they didn't enjoy the entire sequence where they were struggling with the UI, even though it had nothing to do with the rest of that sequence.

Think of it like going to the doctor: tell the doctor your symptoms in the simplest terms, don't try and self-diagnose and offer possible prescriptions.

This, this post in it's entirety. 100% nailed it.
 

ProfessorLobo

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
1,523
I'm a game dev so I can safely say that's a stupid ass opinion.

And by and large I'd agree with most of the criticism about games that's put forth on this forum.
 

RiamuFG

Director at Chuhai Labs
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
81
Kyoto, Japan
Oh you can definitely tell me what you like and not like, just don't act like you know how to fix it.

I think this is along the lines of how most devs feel.

You can absolutely give opinions on games, what you like and what you don't like. Bearing in mind though, what you don't like might not necessarily speak for the majority of people who play a game.

Calling out, downright bad game design is fine.

But, it's when players act like or say they could either; 1. fix it. 2. Do a better job.

Game development is a job and the people hired to do it (usually) are the best qualified to do so. Same as most professions around the world.

At the end of the day, not everyone is going to like a game you made and that can be tough! But, to criticize players for having an opinion is not the right way to go about things. We've seen devs get way too defensive in the past and it almost never ends well. On the same token though, players acting like armchair devs also, most of the time is laughable and doesn't end well either.
 

aevanhoe

Slayer of the Eternal Voidslurper
Member
Aug 28, 2018
7,325
50/50 on this

A player can definitely tell what works and what doesn't once in the drivers chair. However, said player also can think fixing things or changing things iis far easier than it is "Just change the value to X" isn't exactly how things work.

I agree. You can criticize how the game makes you feel (it's not fun, it's not clear, it doesn't perform well) but people often have "solutions" to go with their critique, which is problematic.
 

Nida

Member
Aug 31, 2019
11,161
Everett, Washington
This is like the argument some wrestlers like to make.

It's dumb.

Edit: Not saying players can tell devs how to dev. Just that they can criticize.
 

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,038
A lot of reasons.

First and foremost, players are often bad at identifying what they actually have a problem with. A player might tell you "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" when the actual problem they're having is that the boss's attack isn't telegraphed well enough to give them the advance warning they need to use it. They might tell you "there isn't enough content" when the actual problem is that you set the leveling curve too shallow and they're outleveling 90% of the content in the game before they ever see it. They might tell you an enemy "has too much health" when all they really want is a better visual indicator for how close the boss is to dying, or that a gun "sucks" when mechanically it's fine and all it needs is more satisfying visual and audible feedback.

They're even worse at identifying how to fix problems, which is an issue considering most players want to do so without even having stopped to identify the problem properly first. To take the example above, a lot of players will skip the entire "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" part and go straight to "you should replace the dodge with a block"; basically they'll give you (potentially bad) advice about how to fix something that isn't even the actual problem.

They're also prone to being forgetful/having a recency bias/etc. If you actually run biometrics moment-to-moment--eye-tracking linked to heat maps on menus, heart rate during specific moments, etc.--you'll find that they often neglect to mention the important points and instead project the feelings from those onto the broader experience or later parts of it. A player who gets really frustrated with a bad menu might neglect to mention that entirely, and instead tell you they didn't enjoy the entire sequence where they were struggling with the UI, even though it had nothing to do with the rest of that sequence.

Think of it like going to the doctor: tell the doctor your symptoms in the simplest terms, don't try and self-diagnose and offer possible prescriptions.

This is a great post. Also applies to lots of areas where you're workign with developers. Eg I don't work on games anymore, but those kinds of examples are exactly the kinds of things you get from clients when they're raising requirements. Just give us your business requirements, or what you want the end user to achieve, and we'll help with how to do that - don't bring us the how when you don't really know how the systems work because you may be highlighting something that isn't the actual cause of the problem
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,141
You don't need to be a game developer, because even developers are capable of designed some god awful shit without realising, but you should probably have some fundamental idea of what "good" design is - and means - not just in videogames but in products, objects, and art in general so you have the language to properly articulate what you mean and think about said "bad" design objectively.

Instead of using it as a crutch to put down things you don't like in a way that it sounds like you have some superior taste or knowledge.
 

Alienous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,598
You don't have to be a writer to think "Wow, that story was poor".

On game design specifically I don't think a developer's opinion carries that much more weight. It isn't a science, and for most games it's borrowed design. If you made 'The Witness' then sure but generally it's extrapolating on the design work of others.
 

Poison Jam

Member
Nov 6, 2017
2,984
Why is making cohesion between title, OP and poll so difficult?

#armchairpoller

Of course people should be allowed to have an opinion on game design. Doesn't always mean they're right, but they shouldn't be dismissed based on occupation.
 

Khanimus

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
40,172
Greater Vancouver
You're allowed an opinion that you don't like a thing, or that something isn't working the way you want it to. And hey, you very well might have a constructive and clear idea of what you wish was different.

But as a player and not someone in development, you have to have the self-awareness that you don't know the decision-making process behind those calls, or what hurdles the actual staff ran into in making that thing happen. Things you don't like can be budgetary limitations, can be bad management, or calls that were made way in-advance, and are too ingrained in the project to change after they end up not working out as intended. Any number of things can go wrong, or have great ideas that don't pan out. Or be compounded and buried by other unforeseen problems that aren't seen until the game is mostly assembled in its entirety. Because that's what so much of this shit is - countless people and small teams assembling their own pieces, solving their own problems. But ultimately they won't know how it pans out until they finally assemble it.

Have the decency to atleast separate a misguided or unfruitful final product from the people working their butts off. Some low-level animator doesn't deserve to be shat on because they didn't get the time to spend polishing everything they put out. Someone in a lead position might very well be full of shit about one thing, but they also may have been the one person arguing in favor of another going a different way that they had no power to change.

Go ahead and be critical, but atleast be constructive. That doesn't mean you have to always pull your punches, but also don't be a dick. Let alone one that can't speak to why those calls were made.
 

Aramon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
754
Finland
Constructive criticism is fine.

But when someone shouts "Lazy devs" rhetoric that is not constructive criticism.
 
Feb 13, 2018
3,842
Japan
You need to have an understanding of game design and development itself to have recognize if it's good or bad. That doesn't mean you have to be a developer, but your average fan is just stating their opinion as fact and doesn't know why. It's the same thing as when someone who doesn't like a film (or just watched some "film criticism" YouTube videos about it) says it's poorly written or directed.
 

Alienous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,598
It isn't a science? Maybe do some reading on human reaction times and the design of moves in fighting games. I think there's a pretty good article floating around about the combo breakers in Killer Instinct (the new one) It kinda is a science.

I suppose I'm saying it isn't something rigid. There are best practices but there is a lot of subjectivity.
 

laxu

Member
Nov 26, 2017
2,782
As a non-game developer, you most definitely don't need to be a developer to critique something. While I would not put much stock in someone critiquing my code if they don't know how to program, I would expect them to understand if a feature does not work well or if a UI is hard to understand.

Any software development often has a lot of unseen things that result in less than ideal outcomes. Maybe due to deadline pressure some game feature could not be realized fully or it was changed from its original design so many times that it ended up being a bit of a cludge to get it working. Developers will also easily become blind to their own creation because they will be constantly testing it and might not see an obvious issue until someone else plays the game or might make an enemy a bullet sponge because while testing they got really good at that particular section so they think it is too easy.
 
Feb 24, 2018
5,226
I notice this the most when people are dismissing criticism of a work they like, noticed this most recently in the Resident Evil 3 Review thread where people who were upset about
some areas and sequences being cut
, whether or not their are valid technically reasons for cutting those scenes, ultimately people are still going to be disappointed and quite frankly, acting like an abrasive dick isn't being helpful and just going to cause more arguments then anything.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, most of the time, customers can feel if something isn't right, they may not know the correct terminology, especially less experienced players or more casual players, but they can tell somethings off like say lag, glitches, bad control schemes etc. Of course don't be a arse about it and their are times where people do overboard and act they know better then the devs, but constructive criticism, even that done in frustration, is valid.

Also please, don't do the "This person said/did X therefore your criticism is invalid!" type stuff, it's obnoxious, generalises and just creates toxicity and arguments, especially the one that really rubs me the wrong way, "This person harassed someone, therefore anyone who didn't like/criticised X game should shut up/are pro harassment!". As someone who has been harassed and threats because I didn't like NES Ninja Gaiden of all things, screw you if you say, it makes it clear you don't really give a damn about harassment and are just using it to shut down criticism you don't like, but it's also horribly disrespectful and again, just going to create more toxicity and arguments.

Also:
Neither do reviewers...

And people do pull that, you see it so often in 8.8 controversies all the time, it's frustrating to see.
 

Dewin

Member
Oct 26, 2017
627
lol at the hidden TLoU dig.

Pretty 50/50 on this. If you don't like something, you just don't like something.
 

Carn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,911
The Netherlands
A lot of reasons.

First and foremost, players are often bad at identifying what they actually have a problem with. A player might tell you "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" when the actual problem they're having is that the boss's attack isn't telegraphed well enough to give them the advance warning they need to use it. They might tell you "there isn't enough content" when the actual problem is that you set the leveling curve too shallow and they're outleveling 90% of the content in the game before they ever see it. They might tell you an enemy "has too much health" when all they really want is a better visual indicator for how close the boss is to dying, or that a gun "sucks" when mechanically it's fine and all it needs is more satisfying visual and audible feedback.

They're even worse at identifying how to fix problems, which is an issue considering most players want to do so without even having stopped to identify the problem properly first. To take the example above, a lot of players will skip the entire "the dodge mechanic doesn't work" part and go straight to "you should replace the dodge with a block"; basically they'll give you (potentially bad) advice about how to fix something that isn't even the actual problem.

They're also prone to being forgetful/having a recency bias/etc. If you actually run biometrics moment-to-moment--eye-tracking linked to heat maps on menus, heart rate during specific moments, etc.--you'll find that they often neglect to mention the important points and instead project the feelings from those onto the broader experience or later parts of it. A player who gets really frustrated with a bad menu might neglect to mention that entirely, and instead tell you they didn't enjoy the entire sequence where they were struggling with the UI, even though it had nothing to do with the rest of that sequence.

Think of it like going to the doctor: tell the doctor your symptoms in the simplest terms, don't try and self-diagnose and offer possible prescriptions.

Good post; also adds to the argument why proper playtesting is very important. That said: as soon as your game launches, the time played by the players will probably eclipse the time spend testing n probably just day or so. I think its only normal that players might have observations/opinions that might not have surfaced during testing.
 

Kyuuji

The Favonius Fox
Member
Nov 8, 2017
32,047
You're not a professional forum poster Vex so not sure you really have the right to give criticism to the forum like this.