[mszv]

Oh Uru and the Myst series game fans - it's still a bit mixed, thought the fans who played Uru in the beta liked it. Some people didn't like the online part and some other stuff, including the action parts. And no, SJC, I don't think you are "bitter" - I think you raise good points.

On "listening to the fans" - I think there is a difference between "listening to the fans" and doing what they recommend. This happens in other technical projects I've worked on. You try to learn what the issue is. It doesn't mean that you have to implement the solution that is proposed.

I wouldn't use the term "superior" in terms of designers making a game. I'd say more in the venue of "expert". I think that's more of what you mean.

[squarejawhero]

I say -

No-one would have believed in the early years of the twenty-first century that this forum was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than fans and yet as avid as their own: that as developers busied themselves about their various concerns they were being scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a Trekky with a computer might scrutinise every word that swarms and multiplies in the typical episode of Voyager. With infinite complacency certain AG developers went to and fro over this globe trying to pawn their copious wares, serene in their assurance of their empire over the genre. It is possible that euphoria in the fanbase might do the same. No one gave a thought to the other genres as sources of new ideas, or thought of them only to dismiss their elements upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of some departed fans. At most some homosexual men fancied there some of the other male fans from afar, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of the net, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those genres that perish, publishers vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this genre with envious eyes, and slowly and surely stole its plans from under us.

[fov]

It's fine to discuss URU in General Gaming. It's not fine (in theory) to discuss Everquest and Max Payne in Adventure. That's why I moved it. I should have just put it here in the first place.

Carry on with the URU discussion, by all means! I just didn't want people to think the conversation had to be about adventures, since there are clearly many other types of games that it applies to as well. (I may have been hoping, self-consciously, that by starting the thread in Adventure it would stay on the topic of how adventure fans tend to dissect adventure games ad nauseum, but this really is an equal opportunity topic. )

Where the thread is shouldn't really make a difference. I was just feeling hypocritical for putting this one in the wrong forum when I'm so quick to chastise others who do the same.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by 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.

I've heard this argument before, and it's not one that rings true. It favours the niche. There's absolutely no reason why this genre must remain as niche as it has become in recent years and is only now breaking away from. I've seen too many arguments and debates in other forums advocating stagnancy away from the games that push the envelop and too much acceptence of games, which might be appreciated by some, in the main haven't been up to a standard which previously used to be the average.

The reasons for this are varied, naturally, from publisher naivety to budgets, but at the moment, developers are doing their own things and not listening to the fans on a fundamental level despite appreciating their views, and that's great. More interest = more money, and the "traditional" adventures could do with an injection of that.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by fov

It's fine to discuss URU in General Gaming. It's not fine (in theory) to discuss Everquest and Max Payne in Adventure. That's why I moved it. I should have just put it here in the first place.

Carry on with the URU discussion, by all means! I just didn't want people to think the conversation had to be about adventures, since there are clearly many other types of games that it applies to as well. (I may have been hoping, self-consciously, that by starting the thread in Adventure it would stay on the topic of how adventure fans tend to dissect adventure games ad nauseum, but this really is an equal opportunity topic. )

Where the thread is shouldn't really make a difference. I was just feeling hypocritical for putting this one in the wrong forum when I'm so quick to chastise others who do the same.

I'm not going to argue with you. I'll let this post devoid of agreeance do the talking.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by 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.

But on the other side of the coin, adventure games are much nicer to new players than other genres, overall. The mechanics are about as complex as Internet Explorer, and a certain subsection relies extremely heavily on prerendered images to move copies (yes, I'm talking about Myst clones). Thus, new gamers, or people who might otherwise not care about gaming, can be drawn to them.

Additionally, it's harder to figure out what exactly makes an adventure game tick just by playing it. Strategy games, first person shooters, role playing games... completing one of these requires at least some knowledge of how the game works. You can't stumble through blindly to the end, having no idea how you managed to end up there. You learn how to properly move your units, and understand what tactics work best. You learn which guns work best where, and why. You figure out what stats do what, and how to optimize things.

This doesn't really happen with adventures. It's fully possible to get through an entire game and still be clueless about what seperates a good puzzle from a bad one, even if you know which ones are bad and which ones are good. The mechanics are streamlined from the beginning, and the core of the gameplay is almost entirely abstract. When you combine this with the number of casual, first-time gamers who get into adventures (Crystal Key sold amazingly well, but not because of hardcore fans), it could be argued that this genre might benefit less than just about any other regarding game design.

[squarejawhero]

Wow, this thread died on its arse.

[Marek]

Well, I just noticed this thread, so I'm going to take it back to its pre-URU days for a few clarifications...

Firstly, I wrote this editorial very much as an account of my personal experiences, hoping it would be interesting to some of the readers. It may or may not apply to other games. It may or may not apply to future projects I'll be involved in. (This was an MMO. People are VERY picky in an MMO, because they've invested so much time in building/ranking their characters.) Mostly it was a story about me coming into this game's development aiming to personally reply to everything the players said and expecting this would naturally lead to a reasonable relationship with them, but instead gradually turning more and more cynical about the usefulness of their input.

Inside the game I have never said I'd ignore anyone, or called any of them whiners. Since I'm known only by alias inside the game, it gave me an opportunity to not have to be diplomatic in the article, and write what I really thought. Remember that I put myself in a vulnerable position by publishing an article that is honest about what I felt during the project. I knew some people would blame me of arrogance, and to that I say you're entirely missing the point. This isn't a clean "how to" article.

In the end I decided not to turn a blind eye towards the entire player community, in case there was any confusion about that. I just learned to pay less attention to those players who go on the forums screaming "you should listen to me! LISTEN!!!". Occasionally I do get well-reasoned letters with requests or suggestions, and I reply to those letters. I have a text file on my desktop in which I collect all useful ideas or concerns that I get. We also use a private beta group composed of people who didn't ask to be in it, but accepted the invitation when we asked them. I know very well how to process feedback, but when you're facing such an enormous volume of it from a community that is on the Steam forums end of the spectrum as opposed to something like CivFanatics.com, you will basically go insane.

[pinkgothic]

@Marek:

Regarding such thoughts, I have to think of Ravenblack Vampires. Raven is constantly bugged and jabbed by people who want him to expand on his game (website clicking game I've been playing since early 2003). Everybody I see tends to feel personally insulted if he doesn't reply or does reply and says "no thank you". I find that stance of the "fans" to take to be pretty ridiculous. It really looks like there's no day when Raven isn't called a money-greedy bastard, and no day when he's left in peace with (very often) inane suggestions.

He doesn't ignore the community as a whole, either, FYI. There's a Yahoo!Group for the game called High Council. It pitches player suggestions through a democratic polling system, and those that survive are forwarded to Raven. Not ideal (a lot of very well worked-out ideas failed passing through because people were too afraid of the change), but good enough, and Raven sets aside a lot of time for these folk, for good reason.

So given this background, I can totally understand (and support!) the viewpoint.

[Ninth]

Somthing at the beginning of the article caught my eyes. Marek says sometihng like "if developpers don't listen to the fans, that's probably because they know what they're doing." But then, why are 90% of the games out there far from perfect, full of bugs, with weird and unpractical gameplay, boring moment, etc...? I don't think I can think of one game that couldn't have been not only a little better, but much better.

...and my uninformed conclusion is : the beta testing is not considered seriously enough, and games are rushed to production.
What do you guys think?

EDIT: Also, I find it strange that you (Marek) are saying that you though you ought to be grateful to developpers who brought you fun entertainment. I mean, we're the customers here. We pay, so we're supposed to get something good... (Note that I'm exagerating my views on this on purpose)

[Fairygdmther]

Marek brought up a point I was going to make - the quality of the posts. If the fan posts consists of, "why did you change xyz, this new one sucks" and then do not go on to explain why it is harder to use, or doesn't include some piece that they are used to having, then it is solely a rant, and useless to a developer. If, as he says, the comments are well-thought out, reasonable and offer input that could reasonably be used in a game, then he is receptive to them.

In a forum, knowing the developers are reading it brings out the best and the worst in people. Some want to share their feelings about the game but don't want to be as blunt as they might otherwise, because they don't want to hurt anyone else's feelings. Others, feeling that they will have the developer's attention, will blast them, making them feel superior to the developers - a rather immature approach if you ask me.

Another thought on changes - we are creatures of habit, and most of us, deep down, hate change. We need to approach change by giving fair warning of it to our fans. If they know in advance that change will be coming and it will make this and that work better, then when the changes come, at least some of them will be looking forward to the new version. Some changes require that several parts be changed at once, making a change look huge. The bigger the change, the more advanced warning you need to give your fans, to get them to accept it. Sell it big to them, with screenprints, and even a demo if it might need that. It may reduce the "whining" complaints. They may even be able to contribute something before the changes are final which will be helpful.

You will never please everyone, and trying to, is an exercise in frustration. What you can do is be as open as you can, and whatever you do, don't lie to your fanbase. Don't tell them that their ideas will be used - tell them they will be considered. Don't tell them that this will fix all the bugs - list the ones being fixed. And most of all - listen to what they are saying - even if they don't say it very well. If you aren't sure what they mean, ask them to clarify - they may just have thought of something you overlooked.

Lynsie

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Somthing at the beginning of the article caught my eyes. Marek says sometihng like "if developpers don't listen to the fans, that's probably because they know what they're doing." But then, why are 90% of the games out there far from perfect, full of bugs, with weird and unpractical gameplay, boring moment, etc...? I don't think I can think of one game that couldn't have been not only a little better, but much better.

...and my uninformed conclusion is : the beta testing is not considered seriously enough, and games are rushed to production.
What do you guys think?

EDIT: Also, I find it strange that you (Marek) are saying that you though you ought to be grateful to developpers who brought you fun entertainment. I mean, we're the customers here. We pay, so we're supposed to get something good... (Note that I'm exagerating my views on this on purpose)

Beta testing is a different thing than gaining fan reaction or listening to their opinions. I think the subject might have gotten confused somewhere along the line.

@FGM - The public in general doesn't know how to give valid critical opinion the same way as people who have been trained to. If anyone opens up a beta upon the public rather than using trained testers, they have to adknowledge that fact.

Being able to use your critical faculties and express yourself clearly with proper reasoning is a skill. Public beta testing has its place but it is a minefield, and if used by a developer to get some work done for free they should accept the consequences prevalent in letting the unwashed masses get their grubby mitts on early code. One thing that gets me is when beta testers start using the word "privileged" when they're testing a product - they're not, they're (for want of a nicer term) guinea pigs and have accepted a task, not been given a game to play for free or bestowed an honour.

I developed my own critical abilities over the course of learning to give and take it in my theatre/film production degree, and have built on that doing my current job. It's not fair to expect everyone to have the same level of training.

Anyhow - addressing something else here, a lot of multiplayer betas, such as Tribes and Joint Ops, have had good communities through releasing early demo's and code and through selective testing of maps. Through this method of give and take away in sections, the communities seemed more willing to ignite proper critical dialogue without resorting to childish retorts. Perhaps there needs to be more study in how the public react to different beta methods? Or perhaps to draw back open betas and keep them closed - as often, the inablitiy to comprehend the problems inherent on letting loose early code means games get junked early and publically for bugs and glitches that are exactly the things the developer is trying to iron out.

Speaking of Uru again, I've noticed a turnabout in Cyans approach to Myst IV, going back to slow-release material and showcase Quicktime movies. This is a far better way of doing things and getting people used to the idea of any change. In fact, within the community it's being looked on extremely positively.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Beta testing is a different thing than gaining fan reaction or listening to their opinions. I think the subject might have gotten confused somewhere along the line.

@FGM - The public in general doesn't know how to give valid critical opinion the same way as people who have been trained to. If anyone opens up a beta upon the public rather than using trained testers, they have to adknowledge that fact.

Being able to use your critical faculties and express yourself clearly with proper reasoning is a skill. Public beta testing has its place but it is a minefield, and if used by a developer to get some work done for free they should accept the consequences prevalent in letting the unwashed masses get their grubby mitts on early code. One thing that gets me is when beta testers start using the word "privileged" when they're testing a product - they're not, they're (for want of a nicer term) guinea pigs and have accepted a task, not been given a game to play for free or bestowed an honour.

I developed my own critical abilities over the course of learning to give and take it in my theatre/film production degree, and have built on that doing my current job. It's not fair to expect everyone to have the same level of training.

Anyhow - addressing something else here, a lot of multiplayer betas, such as Tribes and Joint Ops, have had good communities through releasing early demo's and code and through selective testing of maps. Through this method of give and take away in sections, the communities seemed more willing to ignite proper critical dialogue without resorting to childish retorts. Perhaps there needs to be more study in how the public react to different beta methods? Or perhaps to draw back open betas and keep them closed - as often, the inablitiy to comprehend the problems inherent on letting loose early code means games get junked early and publically for bugs and glitches that are exactly the things the developer is trying to iron out.

Speaking of Uru again, I've noticed a turnabout in Cyans approach to Myst IV, going back to slow-release material and showcase Quicktime movies. This is a far better way of doing things and getting people used to the idea of any change. In fact, within the community it's being looked on extremely positively.

We are not asking the general public to grade art for realism vs naturalism, where they might not have the expertise. We are asking game players - people who will ultimately buy and play these games to test and rate them. Your "unwashed masses" seems excessively condescending to those who will test your games. No, they may not personally have the expertise to code them or animate them, but they DO know how to play them. And if they are experienced in that genre of games, then they know what to expect of them, even if they don't necessarily have the writing skills to properly assay their critiques into pre-code for the programmers, simple English should suffice to explain where, when and how bugs occur. Having been a programmer for a few years, even if not in the gaming field, I do know about testing before releasing a product into general use. Specifics of time, place and situation are much more important than the correct terminology. We need to stop making this a "them vs. us" situation - beta testers are part of the team, and a necessary part.

Lynsie

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

We are not asking the general public to grade art for realism vs naturalism, where they might not have the expertise. We are asking game players - people who will ultimately buy and play these games to test and rate them. Your "unwashed masses" seems excessively condescending to those who will test your games. No, they may not personally have the expertise to code them or animate them, but they DO know how to play them. And if they are experienced in that genre of games, then they know what to expect of them, even if they don't necessarily have the writing skills to properly assay their critiques into pre-code for the programmers, simple English should suffice to explain where, when and how bugs occur. Having been a programmer for a few years, even if not in the gaming field, I do know about testing before releasing a product into general use. Specifics of time, place and situation are much more important than the correct terminology. We need to stop making this a "them vs. us" situation - beta testers are part of the team, and a necessary part.

Lynsie

I think you're reading too hard into what I'm saying.

I'm just making sure that people understand the difference between fans guiding a process, being part of a process and beta testing. I do, however, think you're giving people too much credit, particularly when talking about fandom where critical thinking often falls by the wayside - and I've seen it happen many times. When dealing with a predominantly fan-based community, you probably have to scrutinise far more to read between the lines and stand further back than you would in a general public forum. That's not to say there won't be excellent critical discussion, and you'll find more crap on a public forum, but there will be a bias in the information from some quarters.

Part of beta testing is that the public DON'T do what you want them to. I'm not saying that they all can't play games or know them - they DO, and that's what so great about a beta. But again, we're blurring the conversation between opinion given by fans and the use of a public forum to test a product. Then there's also the difference between trained bug testers and the public themselves.

The point I'm making is you have to be able to scrutinise and disseminate important information through a beta, but you don't have to listen to unnecessary commentary from bias or useless negatives. I'm not downplaying anything at all. It's just worth remembering that there's a very distinct line that shouldn't be crossed, as Cyan did with Uru, which is something that's developed through the different media for a purpose.

btw "unwashed masses" is just a term of phrase, don't read too much into it.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

We are not asking the general public to grade art for realism vs naturalism, where they might not have the expertise. We are asking game players - people who will ultimately buy and play these games to test and rate them. Your "unwashed masses" seems excessively condescending to those who will test your games. No, they may not personally have the expertise to code them or animate them, but they DO know how to play them. And if they are experienced in that genre of games, then they know what to expect of them, even if they don't necessarily have the writing skills to properly assay their critiques into pre-code for the programmers, simple English should suffice to explain where, when and how bugs occur. Having been a programmer for a few years, even if not in the gaming field, I do know about testing before releasing a product into general use. Specifics of time, place and situation are much more important than the correct terminology. We need to stop making this a "them vs. us" situation - beta testers are part of the team, and a necessary part.

Lynsie

The issue is that a professional beta tester is much more likely to know how to be objective, and to give suggestions to improve the game, rather than make it more enjoyable for him.

Let's say a "traditional" (I hate the term, but let's go with it) adventure game is released for public beta. You'll get a huge number of people complaining that it's too boring, it needs more action, it needs direct control, the backgrounds shouldn't be prerendered, and so on. How much of this is actually helpful? What suggestions are there to make the game better, and which ones are there just to make a game that would better suit their own personal tastes?

Hell, let's say it's released just for adventure fans. You'll get some people saying there's too much character interaction, some saying there's not enough, some saying it should be first person, some saying there's not nearly enough Egypt in it, and oh my, is that an action sequence? Well, it will have to go. Once again, you have people who aren't trying to improve the game at hand, they're trying to mold it into a game custom-made for them.

People are definitely capable of understanding what they like and what they don't like, but they're less willing to see how that differs from what's good and what's bad. That's why it's much more advantageous to go with beta testers who can tell the difference. There is most definitely a place for public beta testing, but I also think you're giving them a bit too much credit.

[Fairygdmther]

You both seem to feel I'm giving public beta testers too much credit. What strikes me is that whoever is responsible for assigning them the game sections to test isn't giving them the proper instructions. If you don't tell them specifically what you want from them, how ever can you expect them to come back with good info? Don't blame the workers if the boss isn't giving them what they need to know. You don't just throw them a game and say "Play it, and tell me if you find any problems." You give them section or chapter one, and say, "This has many dialogue options - I need you to try each and every one of them. Save before going into the dialogue, and try each branch, and label your saves so you know which one corresponds to each branch. You will need to play through the game from each of those saves to be sure all the options have been tried. You may need to keep a chart to keep track of all the options, and how they branch off." This is just an example, but it gives the tester an idea of what you will expect of them.

Testing is a real pain in the butt - I know, I've done it. You have to be really thorough, and you can get very sick of looking at the same things and hearing the same dialogue. It is, however, very necessary if you want a bug-free or near bug-free game to release. I don't feel that the experienced gamers would have any trouble accomplishing this if they know what is expected of them.

Lynsie

[squarejawhero]

I gather you don't play many large betas, or subscribe to them. Unlike the underground betas that go on here (where dedicated people like Len Green can help a small game benefit for a grassroots audience) it's entirely different. That's exactly what happens in MMO's and recent multiplayer shooter testers. There's benefits to it, as players can explore and uncover unseen problems in level design or ingame objectives, but as seen when WOW introduced a new feature or first reset the servers, people LEFT the game purposely and a huge fuss kicked off.

Uru basically set you down and said - play. And we did, and we reported, and the game on the shelf was pretty much the same one I played six months previously as if nothing had happened.

Unfortunately, a lot of the time, PARTICULARLY when dealing with a prior fanbase, they don't see it as work. They see it as a privilege, or an honour, or an opportunity to converse with the developers or continually engage in the fantasy rather than the reality of the work at hand. I keep bringing up Uru, but this was a huge problem in that beta, coupled with whenever you brought up a negative, but appropriate or critical point, you'd be drowned out by fans and the point would get lost or someone would try to undermine its importance.

That's what I'm saying - public testing has its place, but it should never replace proper, professional testing, nor effect a development process already in gear. As for fans being listened to, well, when dealing with a prior license, to an extent they should but not to the point where they inihibit the developers own ideas. That's why they're developers and in the creative position they are, and why up until recently I exhausted of roundabout arguments as to how things should be done, not could be done.

Naturally, it depends on your target and goals. But then we move into a new ballgame that's already been played before.