Should games change to attract 'more' people, or remain the same to suit the 'fans'
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why can't there be games at both ends? We can have niche games for the people that want it but we can also have the huge mainstream games made for the masses. There's no reason we cant have both.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a wider install base, but there is a certain line a developer can cross with dealing with this sort of thing. I never really played the original FO games (wasn't really into PC gaming at that age), but I am more than certain there were more than enough ways to keep the overhead sRPG feel while still making the game more accessible to a wider audience (although I suspect that FO3 as a FPS was done more on the part of Bethesda's incompetence, and their absolute laziness in wanting to use up their license of the Gamebryo engine).
So I suppose it's a delicate matter... how much more mainstream appeal can you add without alienating the people who helped you build that franchise? The answer certainly isn't none... it depends a lot on the game really, so it's hard to give a more concrete or general answer than that. I think it's something a dev team and publisher should try to sit down and figure out when dealing with sequels and such.
Video games aren't art, so that analogy is sort of out of place.
So I suppose it's a delicate matter... how much more mainstream appeal can you add without alienating the people who helped you build that franchise? The answer certainly isn't none... it depends a lot on the game really, so it's hard to give a more concrete or general answer than that. I think it's something a dev team and publisher should try to sit down and figure out when dealing with sequels and such.
Well, given that almost all artists work on commission... yes, yes they probably would change their art to please more people. Artists kind of have to eat and support themselves, you know.Baneat said:
Video games aren't art, so that analogy is sort of out of place.
Oh look, a fan.Matthew94 said:
Heh.
I've never played an Elder Scrolls game, but I've heard a great many people say Oblivion was significantly better than Morrowind. So your view may not be as absolute as you think.
Also, of those two games, which one sold better?
They should try to make a good game, first and foremost. People like games that work as cohesive wholes, not games that are based on marketing and focus groups.
Considering the total gamer market when Morrowind came out and the total market when Oblivion came out, asking which sold more is pretty much and apples to giraffes comparison.Zhukov said:
Also, if the first game of a series doesn't generate fans, there is no second game. Seems to me "fuck fans" is a pretty narrow-minded and short sighted view. Consider after Super Mario Bros. on the NES...which was the more accepted and better game: 2 which completely changed the game, or 3 which returned to form? Same question for Zelda and Castlevania.
Terribly sorry that your wrong. Maybe you'll have better luck next time
Game studios are free to change their production to churning out rubbish and fans are free not to buy that crap and warn other gamers away.
It's still a waste to see a favourite developer or a game series decline, but there's little else you can do.
I guess that's a no, then. I'd rather not see more game companies cater only to the lowest common denominator.
It's still a waste to see a favourite developer or a game series decline, but there's little else you can do.
I guess that's a no, then. I'd rather not see more game companies cater only to the lowest common denominator.
That is an extremely rare case, no big company apart from Valve funds their own games.trooper6 said:
But with a successful small game they do get picked up by a publisher, and the publisher has some neat guidelines on how money is made and with that come some changes.
And with ME2 / DA2 the goals were clear - quick production and accessibility, which makes them the perfect casual smash hit.
To me that suggests that the addition of a quest marker in Oblivion was a good idea.Matthew94 said:
In other words, that a change improved the game.
Although, granted, I can't speak with any authority in this case since I haven't played either game.
I've started to figure out that gamers really want to have games that suit their level of knowledge of the medium. If you make a game for people who don't play much, they have to have extra hand-holding, etc., and gamers see this as Weaksauce and shun it. But if you throw a game with no helping hands at all at a new player, they'll flee in terror from your elitist club that isn't providing them a way into the group.
I think we could solve this with difficulty levels. Simply turn off the pretty red arrows or whatever when you go to Normal mode, and have Easy have more hand-holding. Or something.
I think we could solve this with difficulty levels. Simply turn off the pretty red arrows or whatever when you go to Normal mode, and have Easy have more hand-holding. Or something.
From a business perspective, getting as much money as you can will shift towards attracting more people.
From an artistic perspective, in order to advance the medium past more than mass-market pleasing, the niche games are needed to experiment.
Making this shift happen from business to art is crucial for games to be respected, but unfortunately business mentalities get in the way
From an artistic perspective, in order to advance the medium past more than mass-market pleasing, the niche games are needed to experiment.
Making this shift happen from business to art is crucial for games to be respected, but unfortunately business mentalities get in the way