Entertain the majority
polycounter lvl 18
I've been playing with an analogy, that describes how to view the developer / gamer relationship. It goes like this:
Imagine, you are set on giving a really good gift to someone. What are the steps you take? It would make sense to first know who the person is, their relation, their likes, dislikes, etc. You consider your budget or things you can create or already have. After brainstorming possibilities, you narrow it down. You'll most likely shop for the best deal for a purchase. Buy some wrapping paper, give it a tag, "with love: You". Then, you'll hand it to the lucky person, with a smile. Hopefully, they like your gift.
What kind of gift would you most likely had decided on? Would it be personalized? Maybe you kept it simple, and gave a gift card or cash? Something hand-made? Something expensive? Maybe something you'd be interested in. Maybe so far as hoping they'd just give it to you, or let you borrow it. Maybe something you feel would improve their lives?
So, imagine, you have to buy the same gift for a hundred people. A thousand? A million.
And finally, imagine you have to decide what gift to buy them, with 30 others.
I've been having fun lately making comparisons to creating a form of entertainment with giving a friend or loved one a gift, it's quirky I know, I just love apple juice.
I'm wondering what you, the professional or aspiring game developer, felt it was that people looked for from video games; from their entertainment. What factors matter to determine a conclusion?
At times, I will feel as if my personal taste, is far from the mainstream audience. And I ponder how this should effect certain decisions I'd make with my artwork. It's a strange to again realize that you are in your very own bubble, that you are completely unique, and yet there are common threads you share with others. I think about the sensation you get when making artwork you agree with and moving to a place where you understand what another would like.
I'd appreciate any foresight you might have to offer, as I only have questions, no answers. At this point, I feel like something worth saying is there, but I haven't said it.
Anyway,
peace
Imagine, you are set on giving a really good gift to someone. What are the steps you take? It would make sense to first know who the person is, their relation, their likes, dislikes, etc. You consider your budget or things you can create or already have. After brainstorming possibilities, you narrow it down. You'll most likely shop for the best deal for a purchase. Buy some wrapping paper, give it a tag, "with love: You". Then, you'll hand it to the lucky person, with a smile. Hopefully, they like your gift.
What kind of gift would you most likely had decided on? Would it be personalized? Maybe you kept it simple, and gave a gift card or cash? Something hand-made? Something expensive? Maybe something you'd be interested in. Maybe so far as hoping they'd just give it to you, or let you borrow it. Maybe something you feel would improve their lives?
So, imagine, you have to buy the same gift for a hundred people. A thousand? A million.
And finally, imagine you have to decide what gift to buy them, with 30 others.
I've been having fun lately making comparisons to creating a form of entertainment with giving a friend or loved one a gift, it's quirky I know, I just love apple juice.
I'm wondering what you, the professional or aspiring game developer, felt it was that people looked for from video games; from their entertainment. What factors matter to determine a conclusion?
At times, I will feel as if my personal taste, is far from the mainstream audience. And I ponder how this should effect certain decisions I'd make with my artwork. It's a strange to again realize that you are in your very own bubble, that you are completely unique, and yet there are common threads you share with others. I think about the sensation you get when making artwork you agree with and moving to a place where you understand what another would like.
I'd appreciate any foresight you might have to offer, as I only have questions, no answers. At this point, I feel like something worth saying is there, but I haven't said it.
Anyway,
peace
Replies
So in that sense, you can't make a game to make X person happy, because they want to play it with Y person. We've seen this unfold over decades, the first generation of games catered to hardcore males, only they got to enhoy the game, the games were hard and they assumed they were a young male teen (this was generally the only player who could complete the game in the first place). I remember as a child playing these games wondering if i was borderline retarded, i never finished 90% of my nintendo games, let alone how far my sister would get. Games were very isolated by the views of the developers target audience.
Fast forward to present day. Farmville is the big deal now, it's about time, a game everyone can play and share with their friends, no winning or losing, but still competitoin and accomplishment.
I don't know exactly where i'm going with this, but as you presented this thread, games as a personable gift that you give to people, you need to alow people breathing room to build social bonds with others. If a game is too hard, which has been the norm for decades as stated, then you alienate the vast majority. Competitoin is at the core of humanity, moreso for adolescent boys, hence the stigma, but so is friendship and compasion, only now finding itself in gamelplay. It's about darned time that you can play a game with friends and significant others and reap benefits for not stabbing each other in the back and trying to win at every turn.
It's a double edged sword though, to us gamers and developers we've lived with the competiton for so long that we're far ahead of the curve. Games that cater to our level of skill will decimate those who'd we like to indoctrinate into the gaming community. I can't help but think there are 2 realms of games right now, those made for gamers, and those made for everyone else. So if you're giving a game to a non gamer, give 'em something easy, give 'em something that will ease them into this gaming culture that for too long has been cut throat and demeaning to the gamer. Both realms of games have a lot to offer to each other. To us veterans, there's a lot of room for cooperation and just general good times. It doesn't have to be player vs player winner and loser all the time. But to all the noobs out there, i can't wait till they get their first rocket jump and head shot
edit: I think games focus too much on winners and losers. There can be win conditions for people to focus on if they choose to, but there's a lot of room for people to just goof around in. Too often games rub people's noses in the dirt, every time you announce a winner, a large majority of people or losers. Games need a better scoring system, a system that allows for more winners, winners at skill, winners at socializing, winers at giving. People need to know that they're good at what they want to do. For too long games have told players what they should be good at. Games should reward players for who they are.
BUT
My point of view: (as aspiring game developer and self learner of game programming)
First off, the idea that you compared of BUYING the gift for millions is well understood and it is right, but buying a gift would be compared to the game shops (as in, they buy the game products from companies and than sell them). However, CRAFTING the gift to distributing them in to millions, is what you might have imagined.
Now the prospective:
Yes you are correct. With the combination of what the customer wants and what you want to give to the customer is what creates the idea of crafting and distributing.
For Example: If you figure out that people dearly love playing peer-to-peer and you are a game developer. It gives you a thought to combine both togather and create a multiplayer game online (massive in most cases) with the storyline you want people to understand and enjoy it. But you also come to realize that they like FPS style of games and you want to create RPG games for them.
Professional point of view:
You know that people dearly love peer to peer game play and love shooting games. You make a shooting game for them.
Than you know there are people who like playing strategy games.
You create strategy games for them.
This is how the professional market and professionalism works.
So gifting someone what they want, kind of kills the memory over time. But gifting someone something you created for them, lasts for a long time.
IMO.
You had the arcade games which were designed to entertain and to get people to put in their quarters or pennies as often as possible, then you get the home consoles which just copy that design wholesale. They have the lives and the forced starting over again, without any thought whatsoever to what is the point of it. They also sometimes couldnt be completed or just artificially extended because thats what you were supposed to do.
A large proportion of games now are lacking an thought in design, they are busy mimicking the mechanics of their neighbours, just to get the product all that quicker out the door.
Hence the Wii hardware being underutilised and I think many audiences, of the DS are and PC are not being catered for. The sims audience and the older gamers.
I think its true what you say though if you make a game that way, although you cant just do it in secret of what you think they like and then hand it to them expecting them to like it.
You have to get their feedback, all along the way, and ignore certain things of what they say, or be mindfull that what they say may not be what they really want or that they may lie(learn the most you can from watching them play).
So basically proper QA which is involved and will be taken on board throughout, but above and aboard that, your not just looking for bugs.
Not sure if that is really relevant to anything you were saying, got confused along the way.
There are plenty of good games that are based primarily on trying to please the largest number of people possible; but in some ways I think it's actually harder to design a really great game that way. Going with a "tried and true" design based on play architecture or audio-visual themes that players are already familiar and comfortable with is a decent approach to ensure that most people will probably enjoy the game provided that it's made well and does everything it's supposed to.
But the most memorable game-playing experiences tend to come from games that are bolder than that. The most special games are the ones that aren't intended to please everyone, or even anyone necessarily. They're games that seem to have been made because someone thought it would be fun, so they went for it, and had the wisdom, confidence, and leadership to possibly eschew "safe" or popular elements in favor of whatever decisions would most benefit the game as they envisioned it.
It's riskier, of course, because not every pet idea like that turns out to be much fun, and it's a rarity for anyone to have all the resources to produce something well that hasn't already been proven. And proper and thorough QA can make or break it. So it's really kind of overly idealistic. But my point is that the greatest games seem to be based on the designers running with ideas they like in hopes that a lot of players will like them too.
In terms of the gifting simile, it's like the difference between just giving them all cash because it's the surest way to please them all, and making them something special that isn't what they asked for and might not be what they wanted, but you put a lot of effort into it and it's something kind of unique to you, so even though it's not something chosen to fit their tastes, it's personal in the sense that they couldn't have gotten it from just anyone or anywhere, so they're getting something kind of neat even if it's not something they're totally into.
In a word, distraction. Whatever medium, people look to entertainment to 'get away' from their daily routine. I think this is pretty universal, but obviously begs the much harder to answer question of 'how do people like to be distracted'. Some people like immersion..those might be the people that gravitate towards RPGs, games with novel-like plots and larger time investments with feedback that makes you feel like you're there. The other end of the spectrum are people that enjoy a lighter involvement. Wii games and Facebook stuff would probably be more their speed. The kind of thing you can put down when it's time to make dinner. In the middle is the whole spectrum of FPS, RTS, driving, sports, etc.
There's a lot of talk in games press about casual vs hardcore gamers, but I think it's necessary to make finer distinctions. For example, I have lots of friends in a particular demographic: 30 something, mostly married w/ kids, professional, educated. Most own at least a PC and one gaming system. Most own at least one sports game and a couple FPS type games. They're not hobbyists/enthusiasts, they just grew up playing Atari and Nintendo and still like the distraction that games provide. These aren't people that read reviews of games, they head to the store and pick up whatever strikes their interest. What makes them tick, gamewise? They like the slick graphics, the sometimes intense gameplay, and the simplicity. They're probably not going to spend an extra 20 hours unlocking everything and getting every achievement. They're just looking to zone out for a couple hours after the kids go to bed. At the same time, they're not looking for something as whimsical as Farmville/Mafia Wars or Wii Boxing.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there's probably a shitton of things that play into what people enjoy as entertainment, and specifically games. There are so many options, so many genres out now that it's a bit of an x factor as to why one person would choose a game over another. I'm sure the data would show trends towards different types of games with regards to age, education, family, economic status, etc. Even then, you can take two people who have the same job, same age, same everything and one will enjoy drama over comedy at the movies, rock over country and FPS over RTS. I really believe that gone are the days that you can truly cater to the masses. The best you can do is try and hit your target demographic really well.
And @Bounchfx and Lamont: On the serious note. If may have not known how world of warcraft or warcraft in general came to realization and became a populer game. Before that, there was warhammer table top game . And that product gives people a point of view of "present someone with the gift you want them to accept not what they want."
Would like to see more games accessible to non-gamers that inspire actual thought and creativity, with a passionate strand of beauty woven in beyond the visuals. Surely some cooperative system can be devised that isn't a generative sandbox simulation, or otherwise toothbrushy in any way? Has the human race been dumbed down so much?
It is troublesome, I think, that the majority is not actually willing to engage in thought. Trash novels, mindless A-mashing, positive reinforcement for tasks that require zero effort, only time, and mindlessness... I can see the zen appeal of a game like The Sims, and the cooperative aspect of FarmVille is great, but wherein lies the interest...? The intrigue? The beauty?
With every one question answered, it spawns dozens of others.
I think really in the end, the very high level answer is ultimately its being able to 'entertain' your audiance. Connect and tell them a story, give them an experience. Doesnt need to be art, doesnt need to be thr best game design ever either. as long as theres a decent healthy dose of both and people are entertained = win.
But the business side of things is where it gets skewed. Its NOT a gift. People are paying for something - do they feel ripped off ? is the experience given equal to the coin they paid?
Are we as developers being shaped to make a product that entertains as many people as possible in order to make as much $$$ in order to keep the ball rolling ? lets be honest there are people / developers out there who can afford to go... hey you know we can do whatever the fuck we like with this 20 million over here... even if its a complete disaster LETS EXPLORE SOME FUNKY SHIT!
Of the mlilions of people who saw avatar how many felt completely ripped off ? Did anyone feel completely jibbed by any games that came out recently ?
Tough questions man, though again, I think again its about being able to entertain someone with your product to a point where they feel their investment was equivalent at minimum to the experience, anything more than that is even better.
I bet i could talk to you for hours about this haha!
Think back to Sim City for though, it hasn't survived the test of time because behind the pretty visuals, the interesting interface, deep down there really wasn't much gameplay and unlike the sims no personality to endear casual gamers. Pull in more taxes than costs, that was it. Why then was it fun for so long? Because at the time, not many gamers were able to navigate a simple interface very well. The interface was the game, figuring out where important city structures were in the interface was like finding a new item. To the veteran gamer, a transparent interface is preferable, we've done it thousands of times before. There's no sense of discovery involved in searching various buttons and what not. To us, we're not even playing the game until we've mastered its function and execute it on as masterful level as we can. This is one of the key differences between a casual game made for everyone and games made for gamers. Casual games don't expect mastery of an involved interface for success, hardcore gamers expect games with complex on-the-fly interactions.
I'm in the planning phases of a mod and i've been thinking a lot about how to bridge the hardcore gamer and the more casual gamer into a single multiplayer experience. My personal take on how to fix this is a combination of random events favoring poor players, rewarding veteran players in ways that wont make them suprior to the noobs and disguising the main victory conditions from the "noobs", everyone needs to be a winner. Players playing to win may gain access to skills and abilities that help them win the match, but not necessarily to dominate less skilled players. There may be continous gameplay after the true victory condition is over that even a poor player can complete and get a victory sceen of some type. A score board sorting by healing done rather than kills if the player was a healer, not even showing kills by default. They may only place 5th in healers, making them dead last, but in their mind, they outhealed 3/4 of the players in the game. Little things like that go a long way to bringing more casual players to the game and quite frankly, as a hardcore gamer, i enjoy playing against a wide range of skill levels in a single game. Playing against pros only gets old and almost predictable. When a game has been out for just a bit of time, and you have players of all levels of skill, to me, this is when the game is most dynamic and enjoyable, before the sea of cookie cutter builds and strategies takes over and the game becomes stale. So again, i think the best games to give are ones that make everyone happy. Hope that wasn't too off topic...
An idea and the game being fun are two entirely different things.
The thing that gets me is that you can't just ask people what they want, because half the time they don't know, or are just wrong. If you took a survey of people before hl2 came out and asked what they'd like to be in it, how many people would have said 'gravity gun!'? Not many is my bet. This applies to so many different successful innovations in gaming..
The other thing which is very hard is the 'I just make games that I like' angle. It is a very real risk to create something which only you can play or enjoy.. Once you've made that gravity gun you better playtest the shit out of it, and then make it about 10 times easier to use than you think it needs to be.
So on that note, whats important is being in tune with other gamers (and potential gamers), having a sense of empathy and putting yourself in their shoes. Imagine you are a punter from your target market, try to forgot all the details of your game, and imagine someone plonked it infront of you for the first time.. what things do you notice, like or dislike? What would that person change?
Well, experience is always required, it is just that, you as a gamer and designer will be a part of a specific type of target audience, it's going to be a hundred times messier if you're trying to design a game that as many people would enjoy, and you're not even enjoying it yourself.
plan a target audience, and make a game you can enjoy playing.
Most people dont want that, they want to sit down with a movie for an hour and half and watch it for fun. They want to play a game for fun for half an hour or some time, which isnt dependant on the time they played before, except perhaps in an uncounscious learned skill manner.
Was it on this forum that someone posted that video of that guy telling why certain games like that facebook farm are popular and what things, will be like in the future?
I think most gamers, want immersion, escapism they want a world to play they want complex narratives they want the current but better.
The people whom play the farm and like facebook they dont want that, they just want to play a game for fun, immediate fun or perceptual gain.
What he was saying about, about it being in the real world and thats why, he's sort of right. Its like the game is incidental it gives people a reason to be on facebook, facebook a reason to being.
Its not that they want the real, they only play that game because they can do other things whilst playing it and their friends play, and it gives them talking points and social connections. Actually I think thats a reason why some people get into a lot of things. There might be no inherent entertainment in the thing, but they do it because of the environment, what it brings, and the external gains they get from it(mainly social).
Strapping a virtual xp to everything isnt going to work at all.
the game idea itself had been done quite a long time back:
I mean, if we try to go by popularity, then the best game ever for iphone must be iFart.
Aside from "teasers" and "introductory shots" of the game..Mind elaborating on this... gift = surprise party? :poly142:
lol @ MYST.
But seriously, in my honest opinion what people (including myself) usually look for in games are: is it fun? is it entertaining? does it have an intriguing plot? is the gameplay challenging but not too difficult to learn or get used to? is it creative? has it been done before? and then you want to find out why the answers to those questions are so, whether they be yes or no.