We know what we want. So why do they never ask?

[Conn1496]

As a whole it's pretty obvious that, as gamers, we know what we want in a game. So why do they never ask us? Maybe it's our turn to come up with some games. So, what do you think would be a good idea for a game?

My idea?
Criminals from all over the universe are captured, and put into battle with each-other, fighting for survival. Each criminal is given basic equipment, a knife, grenades, a pistol, a rifle, and a rocket launcher, and is set on their 1st fight against another rookie. The faster and gorier the win, the more credits they earn. Credits buy food, and upgrades for their weapons, maybe even changing the weapons completely, for example, your rifle can be upgraded to have a multi-shot function, to turn it into a shotgun, or, your pistol may now fire razor-discs, or plasma bolts. Everything would be customisable, but, for your rank, you would be allowed a price limit on your armor. Eventually, you win your "freedom", and you are then placed on a remote planet, only to find out: A) Everyone is a murdering psycho. B) There's no way out. C) There is a war raging. Worst of all, your character is surrounded by troops, and is about to be burned alive by a flamethrower, when suddenly, BAM! You get saved by a member of the opposite gender using some seriously tricked out gear, only to fall in love with him/her, then only to find out he/she is completely bat-shit insane, and that they have not picked a side in the war, making them everyone's target. They eventually take you to a secret base where a group of 8 individuals, including her, called the war-rebels, have stolen as much as they can from the other forces, giving you the means to upgrade your equipment. While a small force, they seem to be a force to be reckoned with. They nickname you "9", and you are sent on basic missions to infiltrate an enemy stronghold, which gets heated when all 3 forces of the war attack you, at this point you can choose to join one of the forces, or run for your life back to the small force of war-rebels, from this point, everything becomes oblivion sandbox-esque, and you are allowed to free-roam, doing quests whenever you please. You now earn credits by taking the tags from dead opponents, and selling them to your respected force.

I know it's complex, but the main purpose I was trying to get across would be, engaging story, customisable EVERYTHING, and fun, yet challenging, battle. However the above would be my dream game, and if anyone steals the idea, shame on them, but at-least I won't have to make it.

 

[SwimmingRock]

We know what we want? Really? Because every game seems to have detractors, no matter how widely loved. Sure, you could point to consistently praised features, but that's not how companies make decisions. You know how they do? Market research. You know what that means? Yep, more Call of Duty.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

We don't know what we want.

That's why there are some people who love and hate every game.

NOTHING is universally loved.

And nothing is universally hated.

There are fans and anti-fans for everything.

I should know. It's starting to annoy me when people forget the difference between favorite and best.

In that, there is no best.

 

[Akihiko]

It would be even harder if they did ask the audience what they want. Take Final Fantasy for example. It's no wonder they were saying that they didn't know where to take the series considering everyone wants something different. Some people want it to go back to what it was originally, some people want it to go back to the PS days warts and all, some people just want them to make new and interesting experiences, some people want them like XII with vast open plains, others want them more linear so it doesn't eff up the narrative, and so on. It's impossible to please everyone. Plus, it's harder to work on something you aren't passionate about yourself. It's why most developers just opt for re-releasing the same game over and over with just minor changes/improvements, like Call of Duty, because it's easy to do, and most people will still be happy with it if they liked the first one, course even then some people will still be unhappy.

 

[Zantos]

Individually we know what we want. As a gigantic group of talking wallets, we are split in far too many ways for them to try and ask what we like. The closest it can was when Bethesda took the most popular fallout 3 mods and incorporated them into New Vegas.

 

[Nargleblarg]

This sounds strangely similar to the movie "Gamer" which I thankfully never saw but got the synopsis from a friend.

 

[Taxadox]

If companies were open to suggestions they would be flooded with them. The reason Call of Duty keeps doing the same thing over and over is because it works, people like it and buy it.

 

[Katana314]

You seem to think they don't hire obsessive gamers in the game industry.

Also, this is the trouble that Sonic Team runs into. You cannot just take all random suggestions; many of them are simply not as fun as the gamer thinks they would be.

 

[kortin]

Because, majority of the time, the person's idea sucks. Its either a terrible idea to begin with or the difficulty and systems to implement it would either a. take too much money or b. be too far ahead of the technology available.

 

[Bobbity]

NOTHING is universally loved.

Look up a film called "Witness for the Prosecution" on Rotten Tomatoes

Seriously though, I agree with your point. You can't get everyone to like everything, no matter how hard you try. There will always be detractors, so companies will tend to go with what will sell - or what's popular - instead. Bearing in mind that popular doesn't necessarily equate to good, you understand the monotonous shooter trend these days.

We can talk all we want about wanting games that are good, but I could name fifty games that are universally thought to be better than CoD, yet haven't sold as well. Companies are interested in making popular games, hence their reliance on market research over customer surveys and such.

 

[cardinalwiggles]

my idea thats been sitting around in my head for a looooonnng time now is a game i like to call "secticus" no idea why thats the name of the space ship it's set on. its based in 5 billion years time when the sun has started to collapse in on itself and expand. so they have built themself a ship a spaceship of gigantic proportians of 30 billion people strong. housing huge hydroponic plants and sunlight generated from tiny controlled explosions. the space station was their nomadic horse. the ship would be huge and the cultures and subcultures would have huge sections dedicated to themselves. due to intergalactic travel have met one other race on a planet called titan which reached a stage of neanderthal before the sun started expanding and was taken on board and due to different evolution look nothing like them. based on a political war with the elite rich district of the ship, a small coffee waitress girl gets embroiled in political turmoil as the richest people seperate from the entire human colony and so begins their downward spiral into savagery gradually breaking off into gangs controlling substances, shes a spider caught beneath a boot eventually leading to doom.


thought about it abit. but hey we all have dreams right?

 

[Phlakes]

New things are risky and expensive. Big publishers want money, so they pick up developers that make games guaranteed to sell well (see: every military shooter since CoD 4), that's why indie games are always innovative.

They're not innovative because they're independent, they're independent because they're innovative.

 

[WolfEdge]

As a whole it's pretty obvious that, as gamers, we know what we want in a game. So why do they never ask us?

Because the one sure-fire way to make absolutely certain a creative venture tanks is to initiate Design by Committee.

 

[Russano_Greenstripe]

The reason for this is because we all don't want the same things. For instance, in World of Warcraft, there are people who rail against homogenization, which is when different classes have similar abilities to the point that there's very little to no mechanical difference between the two given abilities. I, however, have no problem with homogenization, since I often play a class whose toolbox isn't as fleshed out as others (Druid); having my range of spells and powers on par with other healing and damaging classes is something that I want.

So, if the devs were to ask, "How can we make druids better?" half of the fanbase would say something along the lines of "Give us X Priest / Paladin / Shaman spell, but with a different name," while the other half would go "Give us a cool awesome new ability that nobody else has and is totally radical!"

In short, while we may know what we want, what we all want are completely separate things.

 

[mireko]

There's a reason we don't have a direct democracy. If you listen to what everyone wants and put together their requests, you'll get an average. The things a lot of people agree on ("WE WANT EXPLOSIONS AND MANLY MANLY WHITE GUYS WITH CREW CUTS") will make it in, and the interesting things won't. This is how we get five million CoD clones.

Also, it's very easy to come up with a good game idea, whether that idea can lead to a good game depends on what the developers do with it. You know, the people who spend their time and money actually working on it.