Can fans really ever be pleased?

[Pink Gregory]

Sure they can. The problem is that creators, game creators especially, are not interested in pleasing fans, they're interested in drawing new customers. They attempt to pander to fans but they don't develop for them usually. Whenever a series is rebooted they're hoping on repeat business from older customers but they design the game for the current market, not for the fans. Just like Fallout 3.

If you look at games like Master of Orion and Master of Orion 2 what you see is that Simtex is trying to develop a better game not a widely diverse game. The only thing most developers develop for now is a more diverse market. The reason Bethesda made Fallout 3 a shooter is because they were interested in diversifying the property, if they were trying to make a better version of Fallout 2 they would have left it third person isometric. I can say the same for the new X-com game. It's a good game but not necessarily a good sequel. You can see this most clearly in the Mass Effect series over a shorter time frame.

Thing is, fans are almost always fickle, there's got to be some degree of independent control over the project from its creators, otherwise a lot of focus is lost; of course I think the problem you're getting at is trying to appeal to other people's fans, which is different.

That and ultimately it's just not good business sense to appeal purely to a market that would be shrinking at worst and static at best; of course that's a shame, and it seems strange that you'd attract more people to a sequel than the first game, unless they're standalone, like Civilization or CoD.

So, from what I'm picking up from what you're saying, would it be fair to say that you believe that, in a sequel, it's necessary for the majority of features to be at least very similar to the preceding game to please the fans?

Being nitpicky for a second, I wouldn't call the new XCOM a sequel by any stretch (I have a kneejerk tendency to defend the new XCOM because I love it I love it I love it), but that's just semantics.

 

[axil56]

No. Fans are disgusting, awful people. You can please some of them but the thing about fans is they all have a different take on where a franchise should go and, although you can have an idea or make a decision that appeals to some of them, there will always be at least a handful of people who will be pissed off no matter what direction you go in.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Here's a question.

CoD - disliked for its constant sequels and virtually unchanged gameplay in each instalment.

XCOM - disliked by some (a somewhat vocal some) for a single reboot with quite substantially changed gameplay.

I know it's ultimately folly to try and look at them this broadly, but their individual merits and problems isn't the point right here.

Now, I imagine that some of what 'fans' want from a sequel/continuation can be summarised in the credo, "Like the original, but better". But how does that apply when some 'fans' seem to believe that the original is utterly perfect?

I 'unno, maybe I have a problem when people seem to put faith in a name or franchise rather than each game on their own merits and deficiencies, but I suppose narrative-heavy series are the exception here (Mass Effect)

 

[Lur-King]

"True Fans"

Well we can go hours on this, can't we. Let's just keep it simple~
A true fan of any genre should not be classified as one who enjoys the perfections of the game, but rather enjoys the franchise as a whole. Take Need for Speed for example. If we apply the True Fan definition that everyone (at least on the earlier side of the thread) was using, that is a fan who believes the genuine concepts and game mechanics they originally saw and used are the best of the best, Star Wars would never have grown as a universe. It would have been the first three movies... and that is it. Phantom Menace, as critically bashed as it is, did in fact expand on the Star Wars universe; whether people like it or not is up to them. A True Fan in the sense that every new thing is terrible means that the series should be stagnant and not change.

Now, let us apply the true fan definition that should be; someone who enjoys the series and just wants to see the universe expand, to see more people come on board with the game, if not to even just want to see more games within the same realm. Star Wars is getting a 7th movie and people cannot wait to pounce out of their chairs and say the original three were the best. Again. And again. However, I believe that, as well as a few others I would hope, regardless of how the movie does financially, critically, or even visually, the movie will expand on the universe and potentially bring new ideas and concepts to the table. Which is exiting. Not "ruining" anything, new ideas are great for franchises as long as they fit. Suddenly saying "Oh and by the way, Star wars is in the same universe as Star trek," is not a logical move, but -it could probably be done successfully.- (Likely with the same rage and hatred as anything else that changes star wars in anyway.

 

[Vrach]

I felt touched by madness earlier, and decided to read metacritic out of curiosity and catharsis.

I started with an obvious prickly item: Civilization V.

For the record, I love Civ V, a lot of people don't (understatement).

The reason people don't like Civilization V is because it's a buggy piece of shit. The game itself is nothing short of amazingly awesome, but it's so unplayable, it's not even funny. I've played several games (well spaced apart, using different versions) and always loved it all the way through until the game started falling apart so much that you could barely get in and play a turn or two without the damn thing crashing (that's not to say there aren't problems even before reaching that point).

And that's not even mentioning the fact that even with the ridiculously and needlessly high system requirements, the game still lags like hell when simply panning across large maps. It always gets worse with time and hell, I've only played Normal speed games (albeit I do like to play them for a long while). Imagine how anyone wanting to play on Maraton setting would feel. Civ V should be used in programming classrooms as a "here's what happens when you don't know shit about optimization".

The version at release was worse than what any half baked developer would release as a beta and even after all the patches, the main problems like memory leaks are still there. Despite all that, they felt it perfectly fine to paddle out a ton of DLC and a few expansions, none of which solve the game's problems.

And that's all just what's wrong with the technical aspects of the game. There are also a ton of other failures, like the severely crippled Civilopedia, multiplayer limits, taking some 6 months to work the Hotseat in and so on.

Again, I repeat, the game itself is brilliant as a concept. It's just that it's very glaringly unfinished. Personally, that pisses me off worse than making a bad game, taking an amazing concept and just executing it as half-arsedly as you can.

 

[Legion]

No True Scotsman Fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman]

Replace "Scotsman" with "fan" and you have the same situation.

People try to apply their views to other people who may not share their views. It's impossible to please everyone, even if you please 99.9% of the population, you'll still get one guy going "All true fans should hate it".

Indeed.

No, you cannot please everybody, but you can still please some fans. The difference is that for some bizarre reason people always associate all fans with each other. Even when it doesn't make sense to.

For example people often say things like "People want faster paced combat in game X, but when they get it they complain that the combat is too fast".

The fans who complain it's too slow are not the same ones as those who say the opposite, but people always say "The fans" as if they are some kind of linked hive mind who all share the same opinions.

Therefore it seems like you "cannot please the fans."

It's actually why I get quite frustrated with Bioware. They make a game like Origins, make a sequel that is drastically different, then complain that they have such divided opinions on how the third game should be. It's mostly their fault for trying to please one kind of audience with the first game, and then trying to appeal to a different audience with the second. They are bound to create divides amongst the fanbase, more so than there would be already.

 

[Pink Gregory]

snipped for efficiency

Huh, didn't know that; haven't encountered any problems so far, but then again I didn't buy it on release and have only played 20-30 hours so far.

Interesting that I've heard more fan rage about design choices and less about these technical issues (also interesting that I'm not surprised that there are problems)

Maybe that says something about 'fans'

(also, I do keep using the word 'fans' in quotes, that's not really meant to be derogatory, just that it's not exactly a static group)

 

[Pink Gregory]

For example people often say things like "People want faster paced combat in game X, but when they get it they complain that the combat is too fast".

Of course the disadvantage of appealing to a broad audience is that the Three Bears style perfect equilibrium becomes harder and harder to pin down, and near impossible to get right without the feedback of both 'too fast' in one game and 'too slow' in the other.

Posting this many times in my own thread is comparable to masturbation.

 

[Do4600]

Sure they can. The problem is that creators, game creators especially, are not interested in pleasing fans, they're interested in drawing new customers. They attempt to pander to fans but they don't develop for them usually. Whenever a series is rebooted they're hoping on repeat business from older customers but they design the game for the current market, not for the fans. Just like Fallout 3.

If you look at games like Master of Orion and Master of Orion 2 what you see is that Simtex is trying to develop a better game not a widely diverse game. The only thing most developers develop for now is a more diverse market. The reason Bethesda made Fallout 3 a shooter is because they were interested in diversifying the property, if they were trying to make a better version of Fallout 2 they would have left it third person isometric. I can say the same for the new X-com game. It's a good game but not necessarily a good sequel. You can see this most clearly in the Mass Effect series over a shorter time frame.

So, from what I'm picking up from what you're saying, would it be fair to say that you believe that, in a sequel, it's necessary for the majority of features to be at least very similar to the preceding game to please the fans?

I'm saying that people buy sequels to get something that's very similar to the original; if the developers don't deliver an experience that's consistent it fails to recapture what made the original an attractive experience to begin with. The developer needs to be aware of what draws people to their game.

 

[Vrach]

snipped for efficiency

Huh, didn't know that; haven't encountered any problems so far, but then again I didn't buy it on release and have only played 20-30 hours so far.

Interesting that I've heard more fan rage about design choices and less about these technical issues (also interesting that I'm not surprised that there are problems)

Maybe that says something about 'fans'

(also, I do keep using the word 'fans' in quotes, that's not really meant to be derogatory, just that it's not exactly a static group)

If you play short, quick games on small maps it's not as, if at all noticeable. The memory leak is tied to save games afaik, so when you go on playing for a long time and got the autosave on, it's murder. Also, as you reveal a lot of the map, playing on huge maps and getting on in late turns, the game just becomes unplayable, as I said, crashing every few minutes.

Outside that, there's no real fault with the game. As far as fan pleasing goes, I've heard a ton of long-time Civ fans (myself included) say they love it, to most it's their favourite game in the series if you ignore the technical issues. It's just sad you can't really play it if you like long games on big maps, which is really the only way I've ever enjoyed playing Civilization, taking my time to eradicate or assimilate all other civilizations once I'm in the modern age.

 

[Frontastic]

I think there is an interesting irony in that whenever anything touchy happens (lets say ME3), the fans who like a thing despite it not being the general opinion are suddenly called 'not true fans' while the people who say that will continue to slate the very thing they're claiming they are the true fans of.

I think the danger comes from fans constructing a view of the property in their head and then when the actual makers do something which doesn't conform to that view, suddenly the makers themselves are the ones that are wrong.

I personally try to avoid falling into that trap; I liked ME3's original ending, I like AC III's ending (not sure, is that being called bad/wrong yet? I just sense it will), I enjoyed the first two Craig films for trying to change and modernise Bond. So personally, as a hardcore fan of many things; yes fans can be happy. But you need a certain fluidity toward the thing you love and be aware that it will change in ways you might not expect.

That's not to say fans can't and indeed shouldn't be disappointed when a property takes a very wrong turn but the current trend on nit-picking is generally nonsense.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

In short, no.
I think Yahtzee said it best when he said "Fans are clinging complaining dipshits who'll never ever be grateful for any concessions you make. The moment you shut out their shrill tremulous voices the happier you'll be for it."

There will always always be those among a franchise's fanbase who'll ***** and whine if the franchise deviates from their idealized vision of how it should progress, which in most cases would lead down a steep plummet to stagnationville, disregarding the fact that a franchise has to grow and evolve if it is to survive.

As for Civ V, I enjoyed it. There are many features it it that I like. I thought the City States offered an interesting dynamic. I liked the hexagonal grid system. And I f*ing LOVED the Giant Death Robot, esp sending it against rival civs who're still in the Renaissance and yet have the gall to declare war on me. I liked to imagine their guys freaking out as if being attacked by Godzilla. However at the same time there are a great many features I miss from Civ IV. I miss having multiple leaders per civilization each with their own character traits and characteristics. I miss how each civ started off with different techs already researched so that every game didn't feel interchangeable.

 

[Rose and Thorn]

You only think most fans aren't pleased because the one who aren't are often the most out spoken.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

It probably depends on whether or not said fans are... obsessive about a subject.

 

[Murmillos]

No fan can ever be satisfied. As every person will find different likes and dislikes.

Assassins Creed for example. A lot of people like Desmond, a lot of people don't care, and a lot of people hate Desmond with a passion. So regardless what they do, they are going to make people unhappy.

ME3 ending; some hated it, some didn't care, some loved it.

You can have two equally pledged fans who want to see the series go in differently opposite directions based on their own experiences and likes of game.

But ignoring individualism; developers should may attention to the majority feeling towards a game; like milking the fuck out of sonic in shittier and shitter games.

 

[Mr Binary]

I've never come across a fan which is 'completely happy.' There's also the argument that you don't truly love something if you don't criticize it.. so it can be at its full potential and what not. Obviously people would argue against this, but whatever.

I know that a lot of the games I love have flaws, but I can still enjoy the game without letting those flaws ruin the game for me. Personally I think that's what being a 'true fan' is about.

Captcha: "treat yo self" To what, captcha? TO WHAT?!

 

[BoogityBoogityMan]

Sure fans can be pleased. The problem arises when sequels of games change core gameplay mechanics. Some examples include splinter cell and the upcoming hitman games, as well as thief 3. Dragon Age II is also another one.

If someone actually loves a game and finds out that the sequel they've been looking forward to for years has been made streamline/accesible/consolized/whattever, they are going to be mad. Does that mean that hte new game is bad? no, of course not. But it does mean that the new game is aiming for a different audience than the one the fan belongs to and that the original game targeted.

That wouldn't matter if there were lots and lots of games like theif2 or blood money or X-com, and the niche gamers were being served. But those games are dead. So when those games spawn sequels that have to have mainstream appeal to be successful, well...anger ensues. I wouldnt worry about it too much. Gamers that cannot find games that they really like cease to be gamers before too long. So the whinging over the next Hitman or Theif game will be a lot less than the current whinging.

Having said that, I dont get the anger over civ5.

 

[Entitled]

There are two types of fan. A fan, and a named fan.

The "Named Fan" is the fan who takes a franchise specific name as a badge of honor. Usually by extension, they become the most vocal, and most annoying, of fans.

Gamer, Brony, Furry, Trekkie, Jedi, Christian, it's all the same. Now, a lot of people take those titles as well, but I'm talking about fans who wear them with such excruciating pride that it becomes annoying to look upon them.

I'm not so sure, I think whether or not fandoms choose names, it's mostly coincidential, based on whether or not there was a good-sounding buzzword around the fandom's formation.

And after that, this negative association has more to do with how labels attract stereotypes more quickly. The "- fan" suffix is often used synonymously with "someone who liked the thing", so identification as a "skyrim fan", or a "Total War fan", doesn't automatically imply anything more than that, but if their history would have had one, it would be easier for others to mock them as if they would be a cult-like "fandom" that group together on special fansites to do fannish things every night, like eating babies, and poisoning wells.

It's easier to hate something that has a name, than an bstract direction.

Like how some people have always commented on how they are avoiding things that are too mainstream, but since we call them "hipsters", it's easier to hate them collectively, and add implied associations to such a statement based on what the "other hipsters" usually imply by it.

It's the same with fandoms: When an X-com fan says something, he is just seen as an individual who liked X-Com, but if "a brony" says something, it's easier to imagine him as representing "bronydom" in general, so negative associations pile up more quickly.