Poll: How much should Developers listen to their audience?

[Altar]

Personally, I don't think developers should listen to the audience all that much, if at all. Mainly because, well the fans have no damn clue what they actually want. I mean one moment they are asking for one thing and the next they're whining about how that's not what they wanted at all even if it's exactly like what the requested, and don't get me started on little tiny details that mean absolutely nothing and the 'fans' still whine and act like it completely ruins the game even though it has no effect... or is affect?! Er... whichever...

I'm looking at you small group of Sonic 'fans' with your whole green eyes and new sprite hatred... Seriously what the hell?!

Oh and again don't get me started on when the fanbase becomes fragmented...

 

[irequirefood]

Developer should take in a bit of feedback from the audience. It's how they know what we want in our games. But they shouldn't take everything we say to heart, because this can cause bad features in games to crop up. Maybe it was a thing we thought we wanted until we got it, or it ruins the whole flow of the game, or it simply just can't be implemented well. I like to think developers take these into consideration when they make our games, and looking at a lot of the great DLC/sequels to games we have, I'd say they do to some degree.

Fighting games are usually one of the best examples to use for improvements with an adequate level of fan input.

 

[Keepitclean]

I think they should listen to us as much as possible before it gets in the way of their creativity. Developers should be the ones to develop games, not gamers. Not directly at least anyway.

 

[MisterM2402]

Nintendo had money. In fact, the question should have been can they afford to tarnish a name like Zelda by releasing games that disappoint many people.

How about this as a plot device. It's revealed that to beat Gannon you need the Triforce of courage but the pieces are in sunken Hyrule. The completed triforce of Wisdom allows Zelda to complete a ritual that creates a pocket of air there but the ritual would take years to complete. Link can explore the islands and explore before, I don't know, finding someone to train him for the final fight. He returns to the sunken land then ritual completes and the barrier opens to Hyrule and closes to the surface, like an air lock or something.

But I think they new that people would like the game when they got a chance to play it; I don't think they were risking anything. They new the Zelda series had lots of fans, and they knew that the game would be good, so I doubt they saw it as a major risk.

In the time it takes to complete the ritual, Ganon would seek out Link/Zelda and slaughter them before it completes. The only way Link was able to wait 7 years and be OK in OoT was because he was in the temple of Light - unless there was some such place as this, I don't think he would be safe to wait that long. Unless you mean it takes several years to get the items/spells needed for the ritual... But no matter how many aspects of the ritual there was, it wouldn't take that long for Link to get them all from various dungeons.

How about he actually goes *back* in time, to before Hyrule was flooded - maybe he could embody one of the old-timey Links (one of his predecessors that was a teen/adult). He could still search Hyrule for the Triforce shards but it would be on normal ground, not the sea, in dungeons and the like. But then that would just be another game altogether...

I don't know, really. I see where you are coming from when you say it could have been improved, but I have no idea how - that's why I am a player and *they* are the developers

 

[More Fun To Compute]

But I think they new that people would like the game when they got a chance to play it; I don't think they were risking anything. They new the Zelda series had lots of fans, and they knew that the game would be good, so I doubt they saw it as a major risk.

In the time it takes to complete the ritual, Ganon would seek out Link/Zelda and slaughter them before it completes. The only way Link was able to wait 7 years and be OK in OoT was because he was in the temple of Light - unless there was some such place as this, I don't think he would be safe to wait that long. Unless you mean it takes several years to get the items/spells needed for the ritual... But no matter how many aspects of the ritual there was, it wouldn't take that long for Link to get them all from various dungeons.

How about he actually goes *back* in time, to before Hyrule was flooded - maybe he could embody one of the old-timey Links (one of his predecessors that was a teen/adult). He could still search Hyrule for the Triforce shards but it would be on normal ground, not the sea, in dungeons and the like. But then that would just be another game altogether...

I don't know, really. I see where you are coming from when you say it could have been improved, but I have no idea how - that's why I am a player and *they* are the developers

Wind Waker didn't win over everyone who played it. If it did then I'm sure that Nintendo would have used the same style for the next game. Would of saved them money and time.

I like the idea of exploring sunken Hyrule since I hoped that the barrier would be removed when playing it the first time. I think that the room in the castle is supposed to be safe from Ganon since Zelda hides out in there. At any rate, if Nintendo wanted to they could have changed it so that Ganon is banished for a period of time due to crazy Triforce magic and Link has time to prepare for the next and final encounter.

They could of done something like send you into the far distant future of Link to the Past but that is more of an idea that is appealing to the sort of people who hang around on message boards arguing about the timeline than regular gamers. Could also backfire by people complaining about how not only have Nintendo ruined the series with cell shading and easy gameplay but they are also trying to ruin the memories of the old games.

It is really up to them how they make the games and we play them because they are not really things we can make ourselves in a lazy afternoon. That's not really an excuse for sticking to rigidly to things that people do not want.

 

[MisterM2402]

Wind Waker didn't win over everyone who played it. If it did then I'm sure that Nintendo would have used the same style for the next game. Would of saved them money and time.

I like the idea of exploring sunken Hyrule since I hoped that the barrier would be removed when playing it the first time. I think that the room in the castle is supposed to be safe from Ganon since Zelda hides out in there. At any rate, if Nintendo wanted to they could have changed it so that Ganon is banished for a period of time due to crazy Triforce magic and Link has time to prepare for the next and final encounter.

They could of done something like send you into the far distant future of Link to the Past but that is more of an idea that is appealing to the sort of people who hang around on message boards arguing about the timeline than regular gamers. Could also backfire by people complaining about how not only have Nintendo ruined the series with cell shading and easy gameplay but they are also trying to ruin the memories of the old games.

It is really up to them how they make the games and we play them because they are not really things we can make ourselves in a lazy afternoon. That's not really an excuse for sticking to rigidly to things that people do not want.

But if they kept the style for the next game, people would still complain - some saw it as a bit of a letdown that Majora's Mask used the same engine as Ocarina of Time, even though it was a hell of a game. But then I suppose they *have* reverted back to Wind Waker-esque graphics for Skyward Sword. They still have a slightly cartoony look about them, and the plumes of smoke are still there. I think they are on the money their WW/TP hybrid haha. It's not too cartoony or too realistic. Now I'm not really sure what my point was going to be for that paragraph :S

Yeah, when I played it first time I hoped you'd be able to actually go around sunken Hyrule rather than just Ganon's castle. But does Ganon not break into the secret room after the place has it's colour restored? If I remember correctly, when you come back, the statue is broken into pieces? Or am I thinking of something entirely different? o.0 Though that's just a small detail that I'm sure Nintendo could solve if they chose to go with that storyline.

As much as I love my Zelda games, neverending arguments over the timeline is just pointless and not even that interesting. Fair enough arguing about the gameplay and story - at least that's interesting haha

 

[silasbufu]

If we were all such gaming geniuses maybe we would've had our own gaming company right now. I think we should let the people do their jobs, same way you should let a doctor do his job. Of course what we say is important, but it should only be used to polish the games at best.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

They should listen with regards to gameplay ideas or problems with previous games, and character design. No one likes seeing a character they know and love reduced to a stereotypical gruff male lead John "manly name" Jacks or the usual female lead - Tits "fan-service" McGee.

But fans also need to realise that much of what they want may not be possible due to budget, feasibility, logistics, or publisher-restrictions.

 

[jowo96]

Yes they should completely listen to their audience, that doesn't mean that they should do everything the audience suggests because many people don't understand the nature and restrictions of game design. But for example Mortal Kombat is returning to basics and that is largely due to audience reaction.

 

[Dexiro]

Developers should ALWAYS listen to their audience, but they shouldn't stop using their own knowledge either.

Feedback can he helpful but sometimes fans don't know what they want. Like someone could complain about a tutorial being 2 hours long, but you know damn well without it they'd be complaining about your game being too confusing instead, or changing something for one group of people might ruin it for others.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I think a lot. Criticism is the best way to improve in almost any profession. However, not completely, as they still know the ins and outs of game design, so they know what's possible, and what will and won't work.

The problem is that 90% of criticism is junk. It comes from a vocal minority. It comes from people with no understanding of game balance. It comes from people who just like complaining.

I forget where it came from, but I remember reading one developer talk about how monitoring player behavior was far more useful than listening to what they said.