Meeting expectations

Now, here's an interesting question - do you think video game developers should strive to meet fan expectations, or should they be allowed complete creative freedom?

You might think the answer to be an obvious one, but there is a huge sense of fan entitlement in the industry today and, as many long-running series are driven by nostalgia of past success, there is a certain expectation that games will be a certain way, and if they're not...cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war. The backlash over even the possibility of an easy mode in Dark Souls was frightening, and if a game neglects to include certain functions that fans expect to see - such as trainer customisation being removed in ORAS, and no towns in FFXIII - there is a huge amount of negativity.

So, how much do you share this sentiment? Do you think you should be able to expect things from certain titles, that developers should put them in there? Or do you generally take a more relaxed attitude to this? How far should expectations be taken when designing a video game?

Man. Gamers today. Seriously guys. I remember the time we were quite less demanding on things when we just accepted a video game for what it is. Then again, most of us were MUCH younger, and the gaming media other than magazines like EDGE or PSN or Gamepro was very very young.

In my more humble opinion, i think Game developers need to have a complete understanding of their product, their abilities, their skills, and their proof of concepts. I could cite Idsoftware as the studio who i feel that has a very good track record in simply delivering what they want while still keeping up with the love and respect of their fans and players. But we will get to that later. Idsoftware is not without fault really, despite my almost completely biased love for that studio.

I'll cite Blizzard as one company who i feel has gotten a mixed track record yet somehow they kept up with things in keeping their fanbase and sales damn high. I mean, Blizzard was pretty much getting shanked with how they treated Diablo 3 compared to the games before it. Removing everything that made Diablo 1 and 2 great such as the intricate skill tree system in exchange for basically just gaining skills as the character levels up, and it giving the option to respect at any time. So no skill trees, just gain skills as you go. Blizzard pretty much alienated the Diablo 1 and 2 crowd but somehow kept a good number of faithfuls as well as newer Diablo players who simply wanted to experience Diablo without ever playing the previous games due to the lack of copies or having more modern computers that have difficulty in running the old Diablo games. Diablo 3 was meant to be a sequel but the game was so overhauled to the point that if Diablo 3 players were to play any of the Diablo 1 and 2 games, they would immediately feel alienated to the classic and more intricate games. Now despite Diablo 3 being rather alienating to the older fans such as myself, I still found it to be quite fun. The combat in Diablo 3 is still quite fast paced. The game makes you feel like a badass demon hunting and slaying maniac. Blizzard has done several things to redefnine the Diablo experience from its old roots, especially in the D3: Reaper of Souls expansion where instead of players having to play the in-game campaign several times (Normal, Nightmare, Hell, Inferno), the game world just grows with the character.. meaning that if the character levels up, the game world scales up as well, which means that the monsters get stronger, but the weapons and armor that you will loot will also be stronger. That pretty much solved the whole issue of having to play the game's story several times.

Now the problem with Diablo 3.. is that its just too f**kin boring when played for a very long time. Unlike Diablo 2 where the skill tree system meant that you can basically create the same character class but with different builds thus playing the in-game campaign AGAIN (Normal, Nightmare, Hell) several times is still heavily rewarded to the decidated player, Diablo 3 doesn't have any of that. OH NO SKILL TREE SYSTEM!? none of that OMG I MESSED UP MY BUILD scenarios crap right? Yeah sure.. the more casual crowd may like it, but the more hardcore fans that truly loved the skill tree system of the older games felt that with its just too pointless to play the game. You can't create a truly unique Barbarian from another person's Barbarian. Back in Diablo 2's days, even though a lot of people played a Barbarian, there were several ways where you could talent-spec your Barb so that he is a different one from the other person. None of that crud in Diablo 3. If you're a Barbarian, you are no different from the other Barbarian other than a different set of skills, and probably a different set of loot. Simply put. Intricacy with Diablo 3 does not exist, but its what Blizzard wanted, and some players have stuck around the game for quite a long time, even though most of its playerbase have probably stopped playing considering how boring the game has become. Heck, many Diablo 3 players switched to Path of Exile because many of them may have played Diablo 2, and Path of Exile => an action RPG made by some of Blizzard's former Diablo devs, felt that PoE was the true spiritual successor of Diablo. Heck Path of Exile EXCEEDS Diablo in so many different ways that a separate thread is needed for me to talk about it.

For a more relevant thing, lets take a look at Overwatch. We all take a good look at the game's very colorful cast of characters and we can see almost every character that the playerbase can find appeal and attachment to. Every character feels unique, with each having their signature weapon and skill set which is something that resembled those "Hero based" games like in League of Legends and Dota. We got manly men (and husbandos for the ladies), we got waifus, heck Overwatch's ladies have come in different shapes, body types, enthicities, and personalities because of both player base demand, and Blizzard's own agenda. Also, do we remember the Tracer's ass pose controversy? Oh yeah, ONE SJW-TRIGGERD asshat thought that Tracer's original pose was too sexualized and did not represent the kind of empowered female characters that Overwatch should have represented. What did Blizzard do? They removed the butt pose IN EXCHANGE FOR AN EVEN BETTER and more alluring pose! That's Blizzard trolling both the SJW retard and keeping up with the fanbase that thought that there was nothing wrong with Tracer's ass. This pretty much shows that Blizzard and their Overwatch team has great knowledge of their own creative freedom while still keeping the playerbase happy. Of course, Overwatch being overpriced according to the more critical playerbase has been a talk of debate, but that's something I would reserve for the mean time. Then again, I'm about to purchase the game anyway so that's no problem for me ^___^

So that's the thing. A huge company like Blizzard, with different teams for each of their respective games or IP have some things to deal with. But as of now, I would consider Blizzard and their Overwatch team as a great outlier for this thread. I may sound like I'm overphrasing them, and I am aware that some of you may consider Battleborn to be the better game, but this is more inclined with how Blizzard has handled in delivering Overwatch.

Okay readers? Still feel like reading? LET ME GIVE YOU SOME MOAR!

IdSoftware and DOOM 2016:

Yes I know, its like my most favorite game that's been released this year, I would have already considered DOOM 2016 as like GAME OF THE YEAR, especially since its getting a sweet update soon. But let's talk about DOOM 2016, my theory on its origins, and its troubled development cycle.

As for DOOM 2016's origins. I can simply tell this. Despite people liking Doom 3, obviously the most hardcore of fans did not like Doom 3 at all because of it being such a huge departure from the series' signature run and gun style, and instead was this deconstruction of the game that put Idsoftware in the map. I can talk about Doom 3 all day and all night on why i did not enjoy it, and was almost the game that made me lose hope for Doom's ever glorious return to the modern world, but what i can say is that many people did not enjoy Doom 3 at all. It was not simply everything that Doom stood for. So obviously Doom 3's presence greatly divided the playerbase, with the camp that overwhelmingly hates it, a camp that somehow liked it, and the camp that somehow ADAMANTLY DEFENDS it. Sure, critics LOVED Doom 3, but its us players and users who matter more. We knew that Idsoftware had to do something. As I credit Arsenic for this, we entered the age of every FPS game needing to play and feel like Call of Duty. CoD was the winning popular. While there were already some games that were already being great callbacks to the 90's shooters of glorious destiny, Idsoftware needed to do something about it. Also, Idsoftware needed Doom since most of other Idsoftware's works have been only decent, but not great. (RAGE, I'm looking at you)

So where did our BAMF (Badass Mother frucker) of a game came from? Development Hell and a complete rehash of the game in its first development cycle? Most of Idsoftware's legendary members and older members leaving for other business ventures? Those were already signs of a hell on earth for Doom. But then, we did get that sweet preview of what the game will be like during that E3 and Quakecon presentation, complete with the thunderous roars of the crowd. But wait! What's this? Oh yeah! The Doom multiplayer being one of the most hated things on pre-release! I can pretty much get the heat of how Doom's open beta through its multiplayer got so much hate and overwhelming negativity because people immediately had suspicions that the game that will be released will not live up to what made Doom great in the first place. Oh yeah because Certain Affinity, the 3rd party in charge of DOOM's multiplayer was quite at fault, as well as other of those focus group testing shenanigans that often happen in today's game production cycles. Heck, I even had doubts whether DOOM will be that great. But May 13, 2016 came. It was Friday the mother crocking 13th, it came, and IT LIVED UP TO ITS NAME!

So yeah, in short, DOOM 2016 was something. Not only did it somehow live up to the player WISHES (I use the term Wishes instead of Demands) for a proper DOOM game and experience, it gave EVEN MORE surprises that even the likes of myself would never expect. Of course the Multiplayer was still quite shoddy, though it is admittedly fun, but quite forgettable, it was definitely the Single player experience that carried the game to its success. Its what the fans wanted and wished for, its what Idsoft designed, despite the departures of idsoft's gods, the new guys of their studio made DOOM 2016 with the skill and understanding of what made DOOM great, and gave some really great surprises.

And to further reinforce what I may be trying to say, what matters more to game devs is the understanding of the game they want to make. its the skill, execution, discipline, and talent needed. Yes, reading about player demands and wishes is still going to be an integral part of the development process, but really what matters more is how THEY UNDERSTAND the means of executing the game they want to deliver. DOOM 2016 and Overwatch are my prime examples of games being successful at being what they are, and it tells a lot about the future of these game devs, A VERY GOOD ONE. GIT GUUD as they say.

Besides, there's a big difference between reading and understanding player demands and wishes from kneeling down and just simply giving what they want.

Okay, so this post was so long and i was so fired up. Next post, I'll talk about the really bad side of a playerbase that I think we are all aware off, and how its repercussions will greatly butt smash some companies and studios. want clues ladies and dudes? -> Infinite Warfare being double penetrated by its own playerbase AND the Anti-fans

The problem with taking fan expectations in to account too often is that it may lessen the quality of the game, especially if it's known that they had done so. For one, it is safe to say that not all fan expectations are the same. Besides, usually when they take away a feature that the fans had valued, they replace with others, possibly better ones. Unfortunately, fans seem to always see what had changed for the worse ever-quicker and swiftly cover up the better adjustments with sheer and pointless anger.

If the game developers don't have complete creative freedom, you might say that they're "slaves to the players". I admit, it may raise sales if fans are more content with the game, but I think they should just SUCK IT UP AND ACCEPT THAT BLOODY GAME. If they really thought they could to do better, then- Well, they couldn't. That's why the game developers of Pokemon don't deviate from the classic Pokemon typing, or alter the main plot.

Personally, I'm pretty relaxed with the set game, however it turns out.

Well, Xin?

and no towns in FFXIII - there is a huge amount of negativity.

Click to expand...

Funny that you should mention this, actually. I believe, in an interview, the creators said they got rid of towns because the fans didn't like them. That's the reason the game was a hallway, because they were seen as distractions and didn't really engage the player. You'd honestly never believe that some of these guys worked on Final Fantasy titles before Sakaguchi moved on to other things, because...wow. Please look up the interview if any of you have the time. You wanna talk about "out of touch", oooooh boy.

But about meeting expectations, I actually discussed this with someone in one of E3s many threads last year. Because Federation Force. Basically, I argued that a company should be able to try out a new idea regardless of whether it meets demand, thus allowing for broader, newer ideas to be tested and experimented with. He argued that one should consider supply and demand as far as a game is concerned, and as a result, should cater to the fans' desires because these are the people buying your games. Spreading yourself thin or neglecting a long-lived, popular, established franchise will generally fragment your fans or make those that are very inconsistent customers.

As for now...my viewpoint really depends on what that company aims to be or do. Personally, if Infinity Ward decided to make a Japanese-styled Action RPG called Call of Duty: Dawn of Warfare, I'd be totally down. Would it be a good idea? In all likelihood, no. After all, their fanbase is mostly made up of people who really, just want to play games with friends (which includes both gamers and otherwise), and second to them is FPS/Multiplayer gamers. If this game was single player and not particularly like anything else produced by the company, I think the branding really gives it that sense of betrayal to most. And I think "betrayal" is an interesting concept, here, because I think it lies at the heart of a lot of this, and why these expectations are such a big deal.

When Final Fantasy XIII came out, I played it, and despite its flaws and writing, I had a pretty good time. Blame the orchestration (Hamauzu gets no love). And, all things considered, if it wasn't called something other than Final Fantasy and they changed literally nothing else, the game not only would have been better received, but it could have become its own series without damaging FF's reputation and without its successors being ridiculed. And it certainly would've been held up to a lower standard. And looking at it that way, I'd say that generally people feel this way because they hold that series in a certain regard, not (just) the company. Taking a look back at that Call of Duty example I described, if it was called Call of Duty: Dawn of Warfare, then yeah, I think people would be miffed because it at least seems to be a new CoD in the mainline, looking at the naming convention. But if they called it Call of Duty - End Times: Dawn of Warfare, or just Dawn of Warfare, the backlash would be far less savage and the potential for getting different fans into the franchise would be higher.

Going back to Federation Force, since this basically did just that but was, as mentioned, a "long-lived, popular, established franchise" that was a part of a series that, for several years now, has been neglected and never really closed or ended. There's no reason not to expect more Metroid/Prime, so its announcement was...well

This was a mistake among mistakes for Nintendo, and I do absolutely believe that they should be able to make any type of game they want. But making it a Metroid Prime title- well, that was their first mistake. Their second was dwelling on it for so long. And their third mistake was making it a Metroid Prime title. I mean, I love 'em, but after their incredibly consumer-savvy E3 2014 (with a lovely Mother 3 reference, of all things), the lack of consumer awareness in E3 2015 was just baffling. Not only did this not hit with the same fans that their series was marketed towards, but it the pure lack of acknowledgement as far as the main series was concerned is incredibly headscratching. You know, we're talking about expectations here. Nintendo, you can make Metroid Prime: Federation Force all you want. You can make that Super Mario RPG. You can your Donkey Konga. But when know that there are certain expectations. Your fans have desires, too. Make the type of games you want, but don't slap your fans in the face when you do it, please. Look at what you're doing, see if it's worth it, and then present the idea in a way that won't cause the apocalypse. And if you do incur fan wrath, reassess, and if it was really worth it then at least acknowledge the people who buy your game's concerns. You're a company for God's sake.

I'd say the same for Squenix, but for them...saying less is more.

I'm going to play devil's advocate (for a change) to get the discussion going. Let's have some reasons for why creativity should be secondary to player expectations:

With the exception of a very small number of video games – which are commonly found on Kickstarter looking for their niche market, or buried in crap on the Steam store – games are always made to cater to a specific audience. You don't make a violent first-person shooter to cater to 6 year-olds, so you don't need an invincibility mode. You don't make a cutesy platformer for hormone-crazed hyperactive teenagers who play nothing but online multiplayer, so you don't need a hardcore mode. It's unnecessary and counter-productive to include people for the sake of including people. Getting in touch with your fandom is a fantastic way to generate sales, too. I mean, Square Enix...Square Enix thought Bravely Default was a bad idea. They thought it would do terribly in the West. Look at how that turned out. Like it or not, video games exist to make money. Making money is all corporations like Square Enix or Nintendo care about.

Meeting fan expectations = more sales. They're the ones who will be interested in buying the games; they're the safe bet, so it makes sense from a business standpoint to cater to them and only to them. Yes, this leads to nostalgia-fuelled stagnation in creativity, but in this case I'm going to refute this point in advance: video gaming is not a small-time thing anymore. There are plenty of developers out there trying to reinvent the wheel with their video games, and none of them have the clout of long-running series. None of them have a reputation to maintain. They've set a standard, now it is up for them to maintain that standard and leave it to others to push forward, because others can do it without the fandom backlash. It's all about the naming, the marketing, and the reputation. If you have a series with a reputation, it doesn't make sense to do anything BUT cater to the fandom of that series.

Also, this is what spin-offs are for. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this in another thread, but spinoff titles are a perfect way for developers to exercise their creativity whilst keeping their mothership series intact. This is something (the only thing in this post, in fact) I actually genuinely believe, because it has worked so well for so many series. Hell, KT Warriors games are practically built off spinoffs these days, and so is Final Fantasy, considering the chaos with XV...which was originally a spinoff itself.

With spinoffs, the gloves come off, and it doesn't matter if the game is good or bad; it's a spinoff, so it's typically give a lot of leeway or outright dismissed by both the media and the fans alike. Spinoffs allow you to experience your favourites in different scenarios AND in similar ones. You can have your cake and eat it too. There is no reason larger developers cannot do this – they do not lack the money or the manpower, to get this done. If they want to push their franchises in different directions; test the waters of alternate styles of gameplay, this is how it should be done. I mean, it worked fantastically for Metroid Prime, which is technically classified as a spinoff series from the main games, of which there are currently five.

I don't think I need to go into how many spinoff titles Mario has in addition to his traditional platformers, either. Mario is in EVERYTHING. You preserve the reputation of your mothership franchise, and you get to branch out into other franchises, exercise your creativity, and generate more sales.

There is also arguably a strong case for lack of consistency leading to the early and unnecessary death of franchises. This feeds into my first point a little about games existing primarily to make money, but let's look at Sonic the Hedgehog for a minute. Because yes, we have to. Sega are reinventing the wheel with Sonic with almost every game. They're trying for a little consistency now with Sonic Boom, but considering the overwhelmingly negative reception to Sonic's redesigning for this, and his 25th Anniversary this year, I would not be at all surprised if he was reinvented again soon. See my earlier points about the importance of keeping in touch with your player base. Now, you can attribute this particular case to Sonic not adjusting to 3D quite as well as Mario, but the earlier 3D Sonic titles were generally very well received, and Sonic Generations was met very positively for blending the two elements of 2D and 3D together. Sega CAN do it if they try. If they had consistently stuck with the earlier 3D Sonic, or even just kept Sonic as a 2D side-scrolling series, with these other titles being spinoffs, I doubt the blue blur would be in such dire straits. Just food for thought.

Here comes the obvious point, too – change for change's sake, creativity for creativity's sake, is banal and utterly futile. Nintendo are my go-to example here for the absolute mess they made of Skyward Sword's motion controls and, more recently, Star Fox Zero's infuriating control scheme. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nintendo specifically are overlooking something very obvious: buttons work best. They're simple, intuitive, and anyone can use them; the playing field is equal. Their methods of dreaming up new ways to play are admirable in some respects, but they're alienating their player base and they aren't attracting new players, either. It's a waste. This same mentality can also applying to game design: if you have a working system, is changing it for the sake of creativity really justified?


Now if you'll excuse me I need to go and wash my mouth out with soap

I guess I come into this with a different perspective. Most here seem to be either on the side of creativity vs player expectation. What about when a game has neither? My first example? Everything Ubisoft has put out in the past what, 10 years? Ironic since it's a French company. Another cite would be wonderful EA, which, while it has way less flops, it has it's fair share (Ala BFH, Sims 4, etc...)

These companies seem to put out content that poorly tries to do the same things as others and still disappoints fans. I see these companies as a problem and have no clue how they are still in business...