[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Snarky

It's also not true that something that's universally loathed by your players is necessarily a bad thing for your game. Frustrations are a fact of life if you want your game to provide challenge. It's frustrating to be stuck on a puzzle, or be killed by monsters, or to have to wait in order to level up, or not be able to make a jump across the chasm, or whatever the challenge is in your game. But if you take them out, you don't have much of a game left.

Well if you want to appease the "hard core", but not everyone who wants to play the game wants to nessarily be "challenged". Some people just want to play the game and have a good time. Take God of war for example. If you die "X" times in a row, the game nicely asks you if you want to play it on an easier setting. If you are hard core enough, you stick to the current setting, but for players who just want to have a good time, it is a great addition. Bioware is experimenting with that feature "making fighting adapt to a player's skills" as part of their gameplay. On the other hand, a game like Ninja Gaiden (although critically acclaimed) is obviously not for me. It has one difficulty setting, and there is no way in the world I could beat the first boss. How is that for flexibility?

[mszv]

Me again!

What I read, and what I was told, it that it's not so straightforward - the developer makes the online game and the player plays it. I was told that players will find ways to play a game that the developer did not imagine. They will find things that work and that don't work, something the developer never took into consideration. From what I've read, paying attention to that sort of thing makes a better game.

[squarejawhero]

@Gilly - I feel Cyan fell into that trap with Uru. By promoting into the company and listening mainly to fan based views, and entrapping themselves into a constructed world limited by their own written rules, they restricted themselves. They're very much entwined with their fanbase - if you've ever been to Uru Obsession, you'd see that, and I think that by not distancing themselves enough they've overplayed it and became victims because of it.

Looks like they learnt from that mistake though.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by mszv

Me again!

What I read, and what I was told, it that it's not so straightforward - the developer makes the online game and the player plays it. I was told that players will find ways to play a game that the developer did not imagine. They will find things that work and that don't work, something the developer never took into consideration. From what I've read, paying attention to that sort of thing makes a better game.

Uru tried that, but eventually thats what the game became as more time seemed invested in creating a world than offering the player an enriching experience. There's a difference between listening to fans and making something accessible. Uru, other than technical problems, was an incredible failiure because it played to the fanbase by using dense material that could only pander to their requirements - and alienated others because of it.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Well if you want to appease the "hard core", but not everyone who wants to play the game wants to nessarily be "challenged". Some people just want to play the game and have a good time. Take God of war for example. If you die "X" times in a row, the game nicely asks you if you want to play it on an easier setting. If you are hard core enough, you stick to the current setting, but for players who just want to have a good time, it is a great addition. Bioware is experimenting with that feature "making fighting adapt to a player's skills" as part of their gameplay. On the other hand, a game like Ninja Gaiden (although critically acclaimed) is obviously not for me. It has one difficulty setting, and there is no way in the world I could beat the first boss. How is that for flexibility?

Ubisofts Brothers In Arms also did that, and offered gameplay for the hardcore tactician using their own wits and also easier icon-based play for casual players. If you died to much at a savepoint, your health could be topped up.

[mszv]

Actually, SJH - I think, though it seems you and I are saying different things with regards to Uru - I think we might not be far off. I don't think that there was as much intelligent listening to the beta testers and pilot players - what was working, not working, comparing comments based on demographics, whether or not people were playing (and if not, why not?) that sort of thing. If you were to ask me, I don't think they got enough comments from their target demographics, which would have included people who aren't fans! Well, there was some of that, but not as much as there could have been, in my opinion. Of course I don't know for sure. I also don't ever remember getting surveys.

It still amazes me that people could be admitted to a closed beta and not be asked to communicate. I've read about betas where everyone in the beta had to submit periodic written reports. Well, maybe that wasn't in a game beta, but other computer product betas - can't remember.

Aside from negative comments, there's another thing that goes on when people beta test something. This is the "I'm so happy to be included - I love it" scenario. This happens in regular IT (Information Technology) projects. They do a pilot program, and people love it. Then it's released to the rest of your users and people hate it. The thing is - the pilot people felt that they were special. They got a lot of attention, it was different from their regular job, it was fun, and they felt that they were contributing to the success of the organization. You have to take all that sort of stuff into consideration when you look at beta/pilot comments.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Ubisofts Brothers In Arms also did that, and offered gameplay for the hardcore tactician using their own wits and also easier icon-based play for casual players. If you died to much at a savepoint, your health could be topped up.

Max Payne also had this feature of adjusting difficulty levels automatically according to player performance. The better you are in a certain amount of time, the more challenging the A.I. makes the game for you.

[After a brisk nap]

That may work for the casual player, but the problem is that it destroys the sense of accomplishment for the serious player. If anyone can beat the game, where's the sense of accomplishment in completing it?

The solution of allowing players to change the difficulty setting does a much better job of catering to the needs of both casual players and hardcore gamers, in my opinion.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

You do have a point, Trep. The creative visions that the designers/developers have are very important. However, it's also true that designers/developers can also fall into the trap of elitism. They can easily develop an attitude that makes them think that they are superior to their customers and what they think is always right and since customers don't know any better, they should keep their mouth shut and enjoy what their betters are creating. That doesn't help anyone. Believing that your fans feedback becomes noise, for example, I believe is a unproductive sentiment.

Falling into that elitism trap was not an option for me and my bosses as designers. We worked closely with our clients and our retail customers, and they greatly appreciated that, made them feel like they were actively contributing to making better clothes that they could eventually wear.

But contrary to what you think, yes we as designers ARE 'superior' to our customers in given ways. We have the experience, the years of training, the creativity, the vision. Why do you think our customers look to us to dress them and dress them well? Because we're good at what we do. That's what needs to be understood, and too many times customers forget that. We respect them as customers with legitimate input, and we try our best to give them as good a product as we can, but you also need to remember that they should respect us as experts and professionals in our field. Often times we cannot necessarily use their suggestions, for whatever valid reasons - it's too expensive (which would mean they have to pay $100 or more), it will take too long and screw up the production schedule, it forces late deliveries of materials, etc. The customers can't always possibly understand, much less be aware of, all these intricate factors.

So it's a matter of educating each other. The customers let us know what is or is not working on their end, and we enlighten them on whether we can accomodate their suggestions given our own limitations.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Snarky

That may work for the casual player, but the problem is that it destroys the sense of accomplishment for the serious player. If anyone can beat the game, where's the sense of accomplishment in completing it?

The solution of allowing players to change the difficulty setting does a much better job of catering to the needs of both casual players and hardcore gamers, in my opinion.

I don't know if you've played Max Payne, but after the initial playthrough, more dificult versions of the game are unlocked. If you're hardcore you may want to challenge yourself beyond what casual players are used to.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by mszv

Actually, SJH - I think, though it seems you and I are saying different things with regards to Uru - I think we might not be far off. I don't think that there was as much intelligent listening to the beta testers and pilot players - what was working, not working, comparing comments based on demographics, whether or not people were playing (and if not, why not?) that sort of thing. If you were to ask me, I don't think they got enough comments from their target demographics, which would have included people who aren't fans! Well, there was some of that, but not as much as there could have been, in my opinion. Of course I don't know for sure. I also don't ever remember getting surveys.

It still amazes me that people could be admitted to a closed beta and not be asked to communicate. I've read about betas where everyone in the beta had to submit periodic written reports. Well, maybe that wasn't in a game beta, but other computer product betas - can't remember.

Aside from negative comments, there's another thing that goes on when people beta test something. This is the "I'm so happy to be included - I love it" scenario. This happens in regular IT (Information Technology) projects. They do a pilot program, and people love it. Then it's released to the rest of your users and people hate it. The thing is - the pilot people felt that they were special. They got a lot of attention, it was different from their regular job, it was fun, and they felt that they were contributing to the success of the organization. You have to take all that sort of stuff into consideration when you look at beta/pilot comments.

I've taken part in a few betas. EQ2 had a lot of good, thorough critical dissection of the product, which is incredibly important. People were there to assist rather than anything else. True, there were some threads which were overly fanbased or critical of other products (WoW), but in general it was quite an intelligent forum for thousands of testers.

In fact, it didn't have the special feel probably because of the amount of people involved.

Uru's beta had the feeling of a club. Uru itself was basically an game that only the people truly understanding of the world ethic beyond the games could truly understand, if not appreciate. So I agree with you - Uru's creators made every attempt to pander to their hardcore fanbase, and the forum and end product reflected that in the story (?!) and concept. And as such, alienated people and would've done so regardless of the technical problems that inhibited its online launch.

Cyan rewarded their fans through community positions, or even positions within the company to those talented enough, but Uru's beta felt very closed off and a little self-congratulatory. I know I might sound bitter towards it, but really, it's more disappointment that Cyan created a community so closed-off through their use of an extremely dense and complicated backstory which is looked on religiously by a rather large hardcore fanbase. Visiting Uru Obsession, you'd think the entire thing was real - and then Cyan have actively exploited that fandom by communicating the same way.

Uru's a great example of getting too close.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I've taken part in a few betas. EQ2 had a lot of good, thorough critical dissection of the product, which is incredibly important. People were there to assist rather than anything else. True, there were some threads which were overly fanbased or critical of other products (WoW), but in general it was quite an intelligent forum for thousands of testers.

In fact, it didn't have the special feel probably because of the amount of people involved.

Uru's beta had the feeling of a club. Uru itself was basically an game that only the people truly understanding of the world ethic beyond the games could truly understand, if not appreciate. So I agree with you - Uru's creators made every attempt to pander to their hardcore fanbase, and the forum and end product reflected that in the story (?!) and concept. And as such, alienated people and would've done so regardless of the technical problems that inhibited its online launch.

Cyan rewarded their fans through community positions, or even positions within the company to those talented enough, but Uru's beta felt very closed off and a little self-congratulatory. I know I might sound bitter towards it, but really, it's more disappointment that Cyan created a community so closed-off through their use of an extremely dense and complicated backstory which is looked on religiously by a rather large hardcore fanbase. Visiting Uru Obsession, you'd think the entire thing was real - and then Cyan have actively exploited that fandom by communicating the same way.

Uru's a great example of getting too close.

Hmm, I always thought that Uru was largely shunned by hard core fans of Myst for being too different. Maybe I'm mistaken. Didn't Cyan try to incorporate new features to try to get it to appeal to a larger audience? Or maybe I'm just going . I wish FGM and Fienpien were here. I'm sure they have a thing or two to add to the discussion.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

Hmm, I always thought that Uru was largely shunned by hard core fans of Myst for being too different. Maybe I'm mistaken. Didn't Cyan try to incorporate new features to try to get it to appeal to a larger audience? Or maybe I'm just going . I wish FGM and Fienpien were here. I'm sure they have a thing or two to add to the discussion.

No, it was ultimately embraced by the fans - who upgraded their computers and rolled with the changes. There's still ongoing guilds and discussion about Uru within the community.

[fov]

I am going to transfer this into General Gaming. Should have posted it there in the first place.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Aw, that's too bad, fov. It would been interesting discussion continued in the AG room, precisely because it taps into the atmosphere of customer/fan/developer relations specifically in adventure games.

[squarejawhero]

Why is this here? We were discussing Uru.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yeah, I know.

[squarejawhero]

I say we start critiquing Fov until she moves us back. You gots an itchy moderator finger there, gal. Do you want Trep and I to start deconstructing you?

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I say we start critiquing Fov until she moves us back. You gots an itchy moderator finger there, gal. Do you want Trep and I to start deconstructing you?

Although that would make a great spectacle, it would be a terrible nightmare for the victim. Getting deconstructed by SJH and Trep is a nightmare I wouldn't want to happen on my worst enemy.



Since fovily is one of the nicest people I have met on or offline, I'd say we cut her a break. What say you?

[gillyruless]

I have a feeling that I'm stirring a hornet's nest by saying this but I'm having a fit of courage so I will say it anyway. I think that mainly due to the fact that AG now is largely a niche genre, on the average, AG fans tend to be more informed about the games that they play than an average fan of other genre. One can probably say the same thing about the fans of simulation games. Fans of AGs and simulation games tend to be more familiar with the various aspects of the genre, including the history of the genre, so wouldn't it be possible to say that fans of these genre can offer more constructive criticism that fans of other genre? Fans of AGs on the average have played more number of games within the genre and know what has worked and what hasn't.

Please don't hurt me. It's just a thought.