-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
VG247: "Game developers, it’s time to stop listening to the fans"
- Thread starter zombiejames
- Start date
MGS4 might have been the worst game in the series, but it was still pretty goddamn amazing. Talking like decimal point deviations in quality compared to the others. And there's certainly an argument for MGSV being the worst Metal Gear package overall despite it easily having the most entertaining gameplay.
half of the feedback on this board is "stop having a job, give it to (insert dev reddit likes here)"
Spider-Man fans voiced their feedback on the various gameplay demos shown off prior to launch and Insomniac did a good job of using said feedback to improve the final game and make it one of the best games of this generation. IIRC the air tricks mechanic is something that fans wanted which Insomniac added (although I'm not sure if Insomniac had actually planned on adding this in the first place or not). Another one is the charge jump.
I do think it goes both ways, though. I get the feeling that more people are interested in trashing a game instead of providing any sort of constructive feedback that can go towards improving said game. In an age with dozens of different live games, I feel this is more important than ever.
The onus is on the developers at the end of the day if they choose to take fan feedback to heart.
I do think it goes both ways, though. I get the feeling that more people are interested in trashing a game instead of providing any sort of constructive feedback that can go towards improving said game. In an age with dozens of different live games, I feel this is more important than ever.
The onus is on the developers at the end of the day if they choose to take fan feedback to heart.
"Back in the day, it was a given that RPGs didn't look as nice as other games because of the scope."
I wonder when this was exactly. ME1 had great facial animation and it was released in 2007. Non-cinematic RPGs are still a thing today and receive great love.
I wonder when this was exactly. ME1 had great facial animation and it was released in 2007. Non-cinematic RPGs are still a thing today and receive great love.
This makes no sense because the garrison was not player housing. Players wanted housing based of course on what they had seen or experienced in other games like FF11 for instance. They chose to give us something that didn't even slightly resemble housing at all. It's like asking for a steak and getting turkey jerky.
There's always a good middle ground. You want to listen to feedback from fans to see how you could make aspects of your game better, but you also have your own ideas you want to implement.
Fans can be good to listen on improving specific systems and what not. All you have to do is find a nice middle ground where you take fan feedback and use your own creative ideas.
Fans can be good to listen on improving specific systems and what not. All you have to do is find a nice middle ground where you take fan feedback and use your own creative ideas.
There are dungeons.
They're just 4 bad dungeons surrounded by ~120 pretty okay but short, thematically identical dungeons.
i think its time more people started actually playing games for fun and stop letting small or minor issues in games put them off the whole thing, or thinking they neeed to fully do every single quest or platinum achievement/trophy a game for them to be happy etc,
i see far too many people accross forums discord servers and reddit worrying too much about achievements or getting full completions in games that i generally think thats what is stopping alot of people from enjoying games and then complain about said game online and put others off.
i see far too many people accross forums discord servers and reddit worrying too much about achievements or getting full completions in games that i generally think thats what is stopping alot of people from enjoying games and then complain about said game online and put others off.
It's almost like the author hasn't read Kotaku's article on Anthem. They had no direction for the game at all for almost the entire time it was in development.
Can you imagine if Capcom didn't listen to fans and instead of 7 and REmake 2, they continued to make over the top action RE games? ewwwww.
That wouldn't be true even in this forum. Having a better gameplay is true, but it loses in every other point. Fans like the whole package and not just the gameplay.
That wouldn't be true even in this forum. Having a better gameplay is true, but it loses in every other point. Fans like the whole package and not just the gameplay.
I mean, thinking about it- it's still up to the devs to implement the right solution, the right way.
Also there's a big difference between "we had to sacrifice visual fidelity for the scope of the game" and "garbage animations". One doesn't have all that much to do with the other.
Even terrible feedback can often have use if devs read it right.
People screaming about how X sucks and should be Y instead could read as "We didn't do a good enough job of explaining X" or "X is good, but the parts in the game where you do it aren't great for other reasons" or "Players want Y because it gives them this feeling. Let's try and get X to do the same."
Although using EA's output to prop up the author's point is erroneous when you consider EA's behavior and relationship with consumers historically, I mainly agree with the thesis that gaming fanbases have a tendency to amplify toxicity and vitriol to ludicrous levels. Look at how every new Crowbcat video gets revered, nitpicking every small quote or glitch from a game to support a collective takedown that will often target developers themselves (No Man's Sky, Lawbreakers, Bethesda games.) There is merit in pointing out false advertising or blatant lying, but I've always noticed an excessive giddiness when people online lambast these games, as if they were deliberately made to be shitty and the team working on them wanted to trick the people buying them.
I think everyone who says that though paints that statement with a big asterix though.
MGS5 is a great game, it is a TERRIBLE Metal Gear.
I think there's a balance here. Design by committee or people who don't really make games themselves will not come together well, and often fans will not know exactly what they actually want. Many people are really bad at differentiating between personal preference and critique, and many people will use logic to fix issues such as, "This game does X, why don't you also do X?" without realizing what they're actually asking for because they don't have an accurate perception of the work needed to make X happen.
I don't think the creator is always right either specifically, but I do think because they're trained professionals and have a more unified creative vision, it is much better than design by committee almost every time. This said, fans will know how they feel, what they had issue with, and can report their feelings legitimately. Their feelings are important, and are the player experience. Part of being a game designer is thinking about the user end experience, so getting feedback from a collection of players does allow you to identify and consider further certain aspects of the game which can be invaluable. This said, if you asked each person a "fix" for the problems, or things they'd change, you're more likely to get a large number of uneducated guesses or people inserting their own personal preference.
I do think listening to user backlash isn't always the best thing to do. It is important sometimes, but it's a case-by-case basis. A few examples that come to mind for me was the huge negative reaction to Left 4 Dead 2 and Resident Evil 7, the first because people thought it was needless, while for RE7 it was because it was so different. There's various other examples, and I know some people will have the personal preference that these games shouldn't exist, but the truth is both are really good and they're good because the studios knew what they wanted to do, and went for it. I'm not saying they're flawless of course, RE7 has a weaker last third for example, but there's some amazing things from the team's own creative vision even though they knew fans would be initially upset, but fans don't always know what they want actually (many think they want things they already know they love, and until they try the thing they don't know they want, they won't know they want it).
I also think there's various internalized issues of the development team not listening for example to what is valuable QA feedback, due to their "creative vision". I know developers can't fix everything QA reports, but some will dismiss certain feedback that they should pay attention to for being dismissive of their views and believing a little too strongly in their own vision. These are less reported on because a lot of this is often under NDA's, but there's definitely examples of people in charge not taking the feedback or criticism they should be taking.
There's more to all of this, but just some of my loose thoughts.
I don't think the creator is always right either specifically, but I do think because they're trained professionals and have a more unified creative vision, it is much better than design by committee almost every time. This said, fans will know how they feel, what they had issue with, and can report their feelings legitimately. Their feelings are important, and are the player experience. Part of being a game designer is thinking about the user end experience, so getting feedback from a collection of players does allow you to identify and consider further certain aspects of the game which can be invaluable. This said, if you asked each person a "fix" for the problems, or things they'd change, you're more likely to get a large number of uneducated guesses or people inserting their own personal preference.
I do think listening to user backlash isn't always the best thing to do. It is important sometimes, but it's a case-by-case basis. A few examples that come to mind for me was the huge negative reaction to Left 4 Dead 2 and Resident Evil 7, the first because people thought it was needless, while for RE7 it was because it was so different. There's various other examples, and I know some people will have the personal preference that these games shouldn't exist, but the truth is both are really good and they're good because the studios knew what they wanted to do, and went for it. I'm not saying they're flawless of course, RE7 has a weaker last third for example, but there's some amazing things from the team's own creative vision even though they knew fans would be initially upset, but fans don't always know what they want actually (many think they want things they already know they love, and until they try the thing they don't know they want, they won't know they want it).
I also think there's various internalized issues of the development team not listening for example to what is valuable QA feedback, due to their "creative vision". I know developers can't fix everything QA reports, but some will dismiss certain feedback that they should pay attention to for being dismissive of their views and believing a little too strongly in their own vision. These are less reported on because a lot of this is often under NDA's, but there's definitely examples of people in charge not taking the feedback or criticism they should be taking.
There's more to all of this, but just some of my loose thoughts.
Totally correct. The gaming world would be a much better place if echo chambers like GAF, Reddit and this site were set on "ignore" by developers and console manufactures.
Disclaimer: I loved Microsoft's orginal vision of the Xbox One and wave goodnight to my Kinect 2.0, hoping it will respond to my gestures again, like it used to... *sniff*
Disclaimer: I loved Microsoft's orginal vision of the Xbox One and wave goodnight to my Kinect 2.0, hoping it will respond to my gestures again, like it used to... *sniff*
I've said this for a lot, in particular for Nintendo as a whole, and for the Zelda series. It is a little hyperbolic, though. I guess a better way of expressing my thoughts on the matter are more like:
"Consider listening to the fans, but don't do what the fans tell you".
In other words, if fans are complaining about something, consider addressing the complaints. From everything, like "I hate weapon durability" to "I don't like the cel-shaded graphics" to even "I want to be able to not have inverted camera controls". But don't listen to the people saying "You should remove weapon durability". If you choose to address a complaint, find a way to make things work on your own.
"Consider listening to the fans, but don't do what the fans tell you".
In other words, if fans are complaining about something, consider addressing the complaints. From everything, like "I hate weapon durability" to "I don't like the cel-shaded graphics" to even "I want to be able to not have inverted camera controls". But don't listen to the people saying "You should remove weapon durability". If you choose to address a complaint, find a way to make things work on your own.
Last edited:
I'm not sure about what follows in the rest of the article, but THIS is 100% accurate.
No, not at all. Every Metal Gear game was pretty different from the game that preceded it; always trying to innovate. There is no magic formula that makes a Metal Gear game "Metal Gear".
MGS4 was a game that Kojima clearly didn't want to make, and that fact shows itself at almost every opportunity in the story. MGSV, while lighter on story segments, oozes love and care everywhere else.
Yeah the amplified toxicity is awful and it warps reality
Staying on Crowbcat his Switch painful launch video is one of his most popular with 18m views and I saw someone refer to that video as proof the console had a 'disastrous' launch. I was like wat.gif
So even Crowbcat pile on videos sometimes misrepresent public reaction by amplifying the bad parts.
Last edited:
I'm guessing the morrowind era. I thought baldur's gate looked great 20 years ago.
Classic Zelda dungeon design is the antithesis of everything great about BotW.
I can criticize that that they all looked the same and could've used more enemies inside, but they were fun to me.
Yeah, no. Hardly anyone was against digital downloads, they were against having to check in once every 24 hours to prove you actually owned game discs, and having to trade them into Redbox-like kiosks at stores in order to get any money for them, effectively killing the used game market. Why do so many of these writers ignore the most obvious reasons people are against something and just broadly paint them all as being irrational fanatics?
It definitely wasn't during the PS1 and 2 because I remember everyone being blown away by pretty much all of the Final Fantasy games, even if they didn't age well.
Yeah, these are great points. The hype from Casey up to the release specifically argued against the very type of ending the game ended up having, and while the Citadel DLC was obviously 'fan service', it received lauded reviews from fans and gaming press alike. It's pretty well established now that one, if not the most significant reason for ME3's botched ending were the writers locking themselves in a room and ignoring any feedback from the rest of the team - it was an insular culture within a portion of the development team that resulted in the worst part of ME3, while listening to fans produced the best.
Like others I get the sentiment of 'don't worship fan opinions', but boy this is just a really poorly argued piece for that. Pretty much every example given as a go-to argues for the opposite when reality is taken into account.
I'm in a similar boat.
In short, there is a difference between listening to the fans and doing what the fans want. I believe the former is essential, but it's up the developers to understand and decide how to tackle those perceived shortcomings of the game.
Except for the ending narrative, which every game before it has in spades, sometimes to their detriment.
And it's doesn't really matter why it's not there, but the fact that it's missing and the climax of that game is a bunch of clumsy open ended questions and suggestions that rub up against the history of the series while offering NOTHING new at all is a crime.
Mechanically, MGS5 is the best the series has ever been.
Thematically, it's the worst. The absolute worst.
And that makes it a bad Metal Gear game.
Developers need to know their target audience and design games accordingly. That doesn't mean you take every forum rant and shitpost as legitimate feedback, but outright ignoring your consumer sentiment sounds like an express route to failure or PR disasters (for example, the Diablo mobile cash-in incident at Blizzcon). Take the feedback, filter and process it from your developer standpoint, and act appropriately. The developer's job is to create a compelling product that we want to purchase, and the consumer has no obligation to give the time of day to a developer that doesn't care about its audience.
Fans aren't the people that are doing focus groups majority of the time. I would blame Resistance 2's issues on chasing trends rather than making the type of game Insomniac and their fans would have wanted.
Fans have every right to criticise and voice their opinions of course, but generally I agree that they should never really be listened to by developers to such a large extent. Most of them aren't developers themselves, and no one fan group no matter how numerous or knowledgeable could ever hope to fully represent the fan base as a whole and so it's best to not act as if they are omniscient and/or the sole target audience like they often like to believe, and instead just make what you believe works.
And that's not even getting into the obvious hyperbole, vitriol and just general negativity that dedicated groups often foster. It's just not worth it IMO to go through that just to get genuine feedback from a smaller group.
And that's not even getting into the obvious hyperbole, vitriol and just general negativity that dedicated groups often foster. It's just not worth it IMO to go through that just to get genuine feedback from a smaller group.
What is bad about the dungeons in BotW? I dislike them too but I want to see if we are on the same page.
But I don't want the devs to listen to any fanbase. I want them to listen to me.
Lack of clarity =/= bad, so I don't agree. Almost every plot thread or "answer" to MGS2's questions given in MGS4 is straight-up terrible.
"Vamp is immortal because nanomachines." Okay, whatever. How was he able to walk on water though? "Uh... nanomachines?" ...... Cool.
"You know that big mystery about the members of the Wiseman's Committee? Yeah, that's not a thing. It's just a big AI network now and the founding members are characters that didn't even exist when MGS2 was written." Yeah, not very satisfying.
Snake being old and wanting to die, Naomi being sick and wanting to die, Vamp wanting to die, Raiden wanting to give up but being forced to press on - these are all extremely non-subtle nods from Kojima that he wanted nothing to do with another game that takes place after MGS2.
Your statement is fickle and short sighted.
The relationship between artist and consumer is complicated. And a as a black dude, I would really like if people listened to me and put more not white dudes in things. But that's fickle and short sighted
Fans don't know what they really want anyway. Just what they liked before.
Check out the top Mario Maker levels and ask yourself if any of those would be shipped in an actual Mario game ever.
It's like that "they would have had me build a faster horse" thing.
Folks dont want to buy games, they can not buy them.
We'd all be fine.
It seems to me often that the "fans" are just the most vocal customers, and by no means a majority.
If they want to send out a survey, thats cool. But none of that harassment stuff I see too often.
Yeah, I've done a 180 here and realized this as well. Raiden is a genius idea in 2, and 4 is a mess. At the time of 4's release, it was my favorite game, and I thought 2 was a sophmore slump.
Check out the top Mario Maker levels and ask yourself if any of those would be shipped in an actual Mario game ever.
It's like that "they would have had me build a faster horse" thing.
Folks dont want to buy games, they can not buy them.
We'd all be fine.
It seems to me often that the "fans" are just the most vocal customers, and by no means a majority.
If they want to send out a survey, thats cool. But none of that harassment stuff I see too often.
Yeah, I've done a 180 here and realized this as well. Raiden is a genius idea in 2, and 4 is a mess. At the time of 4's release, it was my favorite game, and I thought 2 was a sophmore slump.
Last edited:
This statement confuses me everytime I see it.
Often times fans do know what they want, its just different from the next fan. The idea that for fans to be good is that they need to be some monolith of opinion is fucking naive. Its not how people work , its why data on potential demographics exist.