How much influence should fans have on game developers

[Mike]

I'm all for elitism. The thing is, it requires an elite to be in charge to work.

[Monad]

I'm all for elitism. The thing is, it requires an elite to be in charge to work.

I'm not following, what are you referring to with elitism?

[Percy]

I haven't read the article but I just want to say a few words, and this by no way is related to Pangaea.

New games that are being developed are generally fu**ed up because they decide to follow the typical guidelines set by previous games of their genre. Example being WoW and Aion, completely the same as each other just different storyline/graphics. I hate idiot developers that don't listen to their fans and go 'hey I can better this game by copying it'. NO just plain freakin NO.

Developers like this shouldn't be in that job, they quite frankly suck. When a game is being made fans decide the game not the developers. This is why UO is so addictive, it was the first of it's type. After UO every developer said 'hey lets copy this game but make it easier with lvls not training skills, lets add buttons to it so some things are easier to do, lets scrap the things that players loved and make it all orientated around fighting because everyone loves fighting'.

Basically what I'm trying to say is a good developer creates a game and gets a good amount of players playing, a great developer knows when not to listen to their fans opinions, the perfect dev lets fans argue it out until there are enough opinions and statements to develop a solution/work on an idea/patch. Lets not forget this, this is a well known fact, no matter how good of a game dev you are, no matter how much you know the script and the secrets behind the gameplay, the fans will always know more than you. The people playing the game will have spent hours and hours on the game testing and trying almost every nook and cranny and then they will complain. If you've created such a good feature that fans are complaining about, especially after x amount of months/years change the freaking thing because chances are you made it too hard to figure it out.

/end rage

[Mike]

I'm all for elitism. The thing is, it requires an elite to be in charge to work.

I'm not following, what are you referring to with elitism?

I'm saying that creating works of culture is the domain of a creative elite and not a matter of democracy. Multiplayer games have a level of complexity that requires some bugfixing and patching with community input, but the aesthetics and conceptual work is the product of an individual and his vision. I agree with the article to that point.

However, when for example the concepts behind a game are sub-par, or the aesthetic is not attractive, it's a failure of the artist. The community at large can't make a game but it can legitimately trash one.

[Percy]

Multiplayer games have a level of complexity that requires some bugfixing and patching with community input, but the aesthetics and conceptual work is the product of an individual and his vision. I agree with the article to that point.

True to a degree but there are only a small % of dev teams that create 'new' concepts and ideas, most of them are stolen from previous big games and just like the creators of Aion and Rift, they don't change a damn thing apart from the way it looks. Unfortunately these unique developers aren't from big companies and cannot get into them because their ideas are too 'risky' and could potentially loose the company lots of money.

Unfortunately gaming now is on a downwards slope and will continue that way until people like Blizzard and Activision and all the other big name companies realize that in order to make money you have to take risks, you cannot re-produce the same game over and over with tiny adjustments. People have already caught onto this with the CoD series, in fact CoD is actually being made worse simply because it began as an amazing game and nobody is willing to change it in the slightest.

Until we stop buying games, the devs will continue to create games based on the old. They're taking us for idiots, I mean once something has been done once, it's easier and cheaper to replicate than it is to come up with something new.

Us common folk are as much to blame as those who create the game because we still buy it and they still think they're producing something good when infact they're just throwing overhauled old games back into the system. "LOL look guys we just threw CoD 1 back into the world by naming it CoD Black Ops 2' or whatever they decided to call it.

We common folk have the power to change the history of gaming by refusing to by sh*tty products from them and giving the little guy with the dream of a superior game, or the fans, to choose whats right and wrong, all the devs have to do is listen and put the ideas into practice and work out the kinks.

[Kerbal]

I'm all for elitism. The thing is, it requires an elite to be in charge to work.

I'm not following, what are you referring to with elitism?

I'm saying that creating works of culture is the domain of a creative elite and not a matter of democracy. Multiplayer games have a level of complexity that requires some bugfixing and patching with community input, but the aesthetics and conceptual work is the product of an individual and his vision. I agree with the article to that point.

However, when for example the concepts behind a game are sub-par, or the aesthetic is not attractive, it's a failure of the artist. The community at large can't make a game but it can legitimately trash one.

+1

I think art should be the representation of the artists ideas, not the general public. Although with this school of thought you need to separate those who create art and those who are in it for the paycheck. If you want to make the best selling game you're better off listening to the fans to some extent. Of course an artsy fartsy game might sell many units.

P.S. Imagine if lets say doctors asked thoughts from the "fans". Defib or not? What say you?!

[volc]

‘Hey developer, this is Rock. Nerf Paper. Scissors is fine.’

Made my day.

[Quintoz]

I found my favorite server host and scripter atleast, when he gets a few bug reports he takes the server down for 30 min and fixes everything but when it comes to balancing the game he goes to the players since they know the game better then him and they are the ones that are going to be playing and they need to enjoy themselves and they enjoy balance.

If it wasen't for the silly idea that Repsak has planted in the staff that x needs to be stronger then y maybe we could have that on pang too.

[Monad]

One thing you don't realize Quintoz is that "players" is not one entity. When the playerbase is bigger than 5, those "players" have as many different opinions for balance as there are players. Boost to someone is always a nerf to someone else and vice versa.

If it wasen't for the silly idea that Repsak has planted in the staff that x needs to be stronger then y maybe we could have that on pang too.

Tbh if Repsak would have given in to all the requests by players, we would of seen the destruction of Pangaea already in 2003-2004 or even earlier. Alteran did pretty much everything what players wanted and I'm sure everyone remembers what happened during those 2+ years. I don't blame anyone, but I'm just referring to a real example. I don't think that's the right way to go as long as Pangaea is alive.

Anyway, I'm happy you found your favorite shard and good luck there.

[Quintoz]

Talking about a diffrent game Monad and what Alteran did was change things that aren't about balance. Piety, looting etc. I am strictly talking about balancing the game so it's roughly the same for everyone who plays it.