Poll: How much should Developers listen to their audience?

[Durxom]

Now as long as there have been games, there have always been complainers.
"Luigi should jump higher!" ..... "This part needs more puzzles!" .... "We need a higher difficulty!"

But really, how much should the developers listen to their audience?? On the one side, if they listened more, they might be able to incorperate more playstyles or overall improvements, but also that might end up ruining the vision of the series and end up with its overall decay. But also, if they listen too little, then major things like bugs, glitches or overall bad moments might go completely unnoticed.

So, how much exactly do you think they should listen to us?

My opinion on this, is they should listen very little, but just enough. I want them to keep the overall vision and path of the game/series afloat, but still be able to fix major problems if they do so arise. One of my major concerns is if they listen too much to the audience and end up with a poor product in the long run, *WARNING WARNING -This is just my opinion- WARNING WARNING* which I think is what happened with Bioware and Mass Effect 2.

I loved the first one, it was very RPG and choice dependent, and it's mixture of RPG and action felt like a callback to KotOR. People complained about the Mako(which I enjoyed), the combat, inventory system, and many other such things. Come, Mass Effect 2, all of these complaints ended up becoming a heavy overhaul from the original game; becoming more combat oriented and linear, the story taking a heavy blow(in my eyes), and the RPG elements, and choices, somewhat tacked on, replacing smaller choices, with fewer much larger ones.
*WARNING WARNING - My opinion is now over - WARNING WARNING*

 

[WrongSprite]

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.

 

[Eduku]

A lot. While the fans shouldn't be making the games entirely, the games are directed AT the fans, right? So it would be completely counter-productive to ignore their input.

 

[Amnestic]

I think a lot. Criticism is the best way to improve in almost any profession.

I'm a "veteran" of the official WoW forums. Criticism in that respect really isn't the best way to improve.

I think developers should hear everything their consumers have to say. I think they should listen to very little of it.

A lot. While the fans shouldn't be making the games entirely, the games are directed AT the fans, right? So it would be completely counter-productive to ignore their input.

That's a good point except

A) People are stupid. A person can be smart, but people are stupid.
B) People don't know what they want. They might make a suggestion, see it implimented and end up hating it because oh snap, it's not what actually makes the game more fun after all.
C) Conflicting reports. Especially for large consumer bases like the aforementioned WoW example or things such as Halo, you will always get conflicting arguments on which one is better. Which view should the developers listen to?

 

[scnj]

They shouldn't. The audience is not a single entity with a unified opinion, so there's no realistic way to please everyone. What they should do is replay their previous game with the benefit of passed time and evaluate what can be done better, then attempt it.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

People buy games to be entertained so it's probably an idea to understand what the people who are paying actually want. Whether or not they can learn that from listening to fans is another thing. Any developer working for a big company who is worried about ruining their vision probably needs to get over themselves.

 

[WrongSprite]

I think a lot. Criticism is the best way to improve in almost any profession.

I'm a "veteran" of the official WoW forums. Criticism in that respect really isn't the best way to improve.

I think developers should hear everything their consumers have to say. I think they should listen to very little of it.

Well yes, there's where the part of my post that you cut comes in! Haha.

They still know what a ridiculous idea looks like, and they're still good at what they do.

 

[Nimzar]

People are idiots... so listening to their audience completely would result is crap. But they do need to make something that appeals to their audience so I answered "somewhat"

 

[MisterM2402]

If Nintendo took onboard the outcry caused by LoZ: Wind Waker's cel-shaded graphics, no one would have seen that they are actually pretty awesome (I thought they looked too Disney, but once I played I was blown away).

But I'd say Valve are good at listening to their players just the right amount.

 

[Theninja'skatana]

As long as the community agrees on something not one pissed off 13 year old trolling
on a forum about how plasma repeaters (okay gun at best) should be nerfed because one other guy was owning him with it.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

Only somewhat, "listening to the fans" is why MW2 had nukes in it.

 

[Eduku]

A lot. While the fans shouldn't be making the games entirely, the games are directed AT the fans, right? So it would be completely counter-productive to ignore their input.

That's a good point except

A) People are stupid. A person can be smart, but people are stupid.
B) People don't know what they want. They might make a suggestion, see it implimented and end up hating it because oh snap, it's not what actually makes the game more fun after all.
C) Conflicting reports. Especially for large consumer bases like the aforementioned WoW example or things such as Halo, you will always get conflicting arguments on which one is better. Which view should the developers listen to?

A) Uh, what? What does the level of intelligence people have got to do with anything? If they want something, company gives it to them. The fans get what they want, the companies get their money. Win-win.
B) If the fans might not know what they want (a point that I disagree with in itself, but I'll go along with it), how does the company?
C) They listen to the majority. Capcom often does it with selecting characters for Street Fighter games.

 

[Bon_Clay]

I think a lot. Criticism is the best way to improve in almost any profession.

I'm a "veteran" of the official WoW forums. Criticism in that respect really isn't the best way to improve.

I think developers should hear everything their consumers have to say. I think they should listen to very little of it.

A lot. While the fans shouldn't be making the games entirely, the games are directed AT the fans, right? So it would be completely counter-productive to ignore their input.

That's a good point except

A) People are stupid. A person can be smart, but people are stupid.
B) People don't know what they want. They might make a suggestion, see it implimented and end up hating it because oh snap, it's not what actually makes the game more fun after all.
C) Conflicting reports. Especially for large consumer bases like the aforementioned WoW example or things such as Halo, you will always get conflicting arguments on which one is better. Which view should the developers listen to?

Makes some good points. I think they should definitely listen in to get new ideas and inspiration to make things fresh and improve games, but when it comes to having balanced and functional gameplay fans don't necessarily know shit all.

Think about it, if the fans really knew that much about video games, would they keep buying the same Madden and NBA games every year?

 

[LandoCristo]

They need to be able to listen to their fans without letting them take it in any direction they want. The devs need to be able to retain control over the game, but if they really want it to sell, then they need to listen to what their fans are saying.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

Only somewhat, "listening to the fans" is why MW2 had nukes in it.

And not listening to their fans is why OMA noob tubes and commando, lightweight marathoners are still in in the game.

I'm talking about before the game, when Infinity Ward posted the question "What would you like to see in Modern Warfare 2?" on twitter. Nowadays, Robert Bowling simply said that they don't have the ability to create patches anymore; a good majority of their team was either fired or left.

 

[Serenegoose]

It's not an easy question to answer. I don't think the fans should be ignored, but they're largely not professional game designers. When they say that a game has totally come off the rails, you should probably take note - when they start clamouring for stuff to be put in, be a lot more critical. Not a universal rule, but it's at least a rough marker. I mean, just because you pay for the bus doesn't mean you get to decide where it's going.

 

[C95J]

I voted somewhat, because although a lot of good info would be put through and listened to, most people who play online games (mainly MW2 unfortunately) should never be listened to.

 

[TerranReaper]

Coming from competitive point-of-view that has seen a lot of complaining and all that, I say developers should select a certain audience that is optimal for the best and non-biased (or as unbiased as possible).

For example, if a developer were trying to balance an online multiplayer game and incorporate new features into it (really rare these days), they shouldn't really listen that much to any kind of players that have just started playing, since they might not know enough or not know how to play well enough to consider something to be overpowered, at the other side of the equation, they shouldn't listen to the higher skilled players since ego and the infamous "don't want to lose my only way to win" thing may get in the way. However, from what I've seen, higher skilled players are a bit more credible than lower skilled players. Essentially, developers should find some sort of middle ground to listen to.