Is "A game for everyone is a game for no one" the dumbest new phrase in gaming?
- Thread starter Men_in_Boxes
- Start date
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Guilty_AI
Member
That's the fun part, neither of these games did that. Neither Larian nor Fromsoftware designed nor expected BG3 and Elden Ring to be nearly as big or succesful as they ended up being.
They never cast any larger nets, they simply crafted nets so shiny and attractive many of the more distant fish willingly decided to get caught.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
There has never been a game designed with the target audience of "everyone".
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Wrong.
Budgets for those games grew considerably because designers attempted, and succeeded, at grabbing more players.
Heck, even I bought Elden Ring lol
Last edited:
Majukun
Member
It means that to make a game for everyone does not mean to make a game that everyone likes, because it's literally impossible, but that the fewer possible people hate.
And the only way to do that is to go for the mid way in everything, meaning that the result would be a mid game that in the attempt to please a bit everyone, never fully pleased anyone.
And the only way to do that is to go for the mid way in everything, meaning that the result would be a mid game that in the attempt to please a bit everyone, never fully pleased anyone.
Last edited:
Jigsaah
Gold Member
People's taste vary greatly. If you try to satisfy everyone you'll end up satisfying no one. So the statement is very true. You gotta have more focus I think. Even GTA V...a game that seems like its for everyone based on the numbers...really isn't. It does have something for a large chunk of the gaming community.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
No. They focus on fun.I'd argue that Nintendo is pretty good at making games for "everybody".
Their art style in a lot of their games has definitely turned people away. And like Nintendo, I tell those people to go fuck themselves and enjoy their Aloy.
Guilty_AI
Member
You said it correctly, they already had the playerbase and merely matched the budget to it. BG3 was designed not for everyone, but with the Divinity OS2 playerbase in mind. Similarly, Elden Ring was made to follow on Dark Souls 3.
They weren't trying to massively expand their audiences, they were building up on a formula whose audience they already had.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
We agree. The word "massively" here shows we're on the same page.
Sooner
Member
No dude.
Giallo Corsa
Gold Member
"Know thy audience"
...Words to live by if you're trying to sell...anything really
...Words to live by if you're trying to sell...anything really
CentralScrutinizer
Member
Its a good statement. You need to know who your target audience is and design your game for them. If you make a game for everyone, you have no target audience and people will just ignore it.
Punished Miku
Gaslighter Pro: 16.7 Fireflops
It makes sense. It's very similar to people who want to be everyone's friend and are pathologically averse to confrontation. If you stand for anything, virtually any opinion, then you will inevitably find yourself against someone. Standing for literally anything, means someone will potentially not agree with you. Only way to be friends with everyone is to not stand for anything but agreeableness.
Mainstream games can be a bit similar. They polish any potentially rough and interesting edge away so as not to alienate anyone. They end up committing the artistic version of not standing for anything except agreeableness. It often leads to less interesting, less experimental art. Something like NieR that speaks to me deeply would never exist under a design philosophy trying to not alienate anyone. Most complex games wouldn't exist. Anything niche at all wouldn't exist. Anything new would likely not exist.
Guilty_AI
Member
No we do not. They didn't design, much less redesigned their game to appeal to more people, all they did was build on and improve on their formula. That by itself will naturally attract more players, but it will never attract players who fundamentally, irrevocably despise that formula to begin with. And there sure as hell are tons of people who dislike BG3 and Elden Ring formulas.
GymWolf
Member
Not remotely as bad as comparing an extraction shooter to the impact of mario 64, no 
When you make a game trying to accomodate literally everyone, your game is probably gonna be generic as fuck or with zero challenge or with other major flaws, so yeah they are spot on.
Too bad hd2 devs have other kind of problems on their hands.
When you make a game trying to accomodate literally everyone, your game is probably gonna be generic as fuck or with zero challenge or with other major flaws, so yeah they are spot on.
Too bad hd2 devs have other kind of problems on their hands.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
This is my primary issue with the phrase. It places too much emphasis on one side of the coin. It ignores the other side.
There are people that fail at being everyone's friend because the majority of people are put off by their personality.
Then there are people who are widely liked because their personality appeals to so many.
Punished Miku
Gaslighter Pro: 16.7 Fireflops
You can make things popular. But it will still never be for everyone. It's just a basic philosophical saying.
The best of the best manage to walk that tight rope and make things popular but also lead the audience to things they didn't know they wanted which contains a kernel of true art. People like James Cameron, Steven Spielberg manage this. Nintendo manages this a lot of the time. Even then, it's clearly still not for literally everyone.
Catering to everyone is often seen in excessive playtesting where interesting things can get removed or dumbed down. Marvel movies are an example of a cater to everyone style. They started with a product aimed at comic fans and boys. They then figured they had them on lock and tried to make it expand to women so it fits everyone. Now no one likes it (women included) and its largely devoid of genuine art or meaning.
Last edited:
Dr Bass
Member
It is a dumb phrase. I understand the point but on the other hand things can be described as having "universal appeal" which is also a real thing. So you can basically say whatever you want and it could have meaning.
Other current dumb game phrases/terms I see people using way too often.
"The gameplay loop."
"Dopamine."
Oddly enough, I often see those used hand in hand.
Other current dumb game phrases/terms I see people using way too often.
"The gameplay loop."
"Dopamine."
Oddly enough, I often see those used hand in hand.
Loomy
Thinks Microaggressions are Real
No, it means if you make compromises to try and please everyone, you're going to end up compromising so much that it won't please anyone.
Boneless
Member
Last edited:
Nydius
Member
Saints Row Reboot, Concord, and Dragon Age Veilguard are examples of games their respective developers tried to make "for everyone".
How'd they turn out?
There's your answer.
Devs should focus on one thing only: Making the quality game they want to make. Not worry about what audience they're seeking, or if it ticks off some "current thing" diversity checkbox. Make a good game, and the players will come. Make a game worrying about "the audience" or "the message" and it will almost certainly be a complete mess.
How'd they turn out?
There's your answer.
Devs should focus on one thing only: Making the quality game they want to make. Not worry about what audience they're seeking, or if it ticks off some "current thing" diversity checkbox. Make a good game, and the players will come. Make a game worrying about "the audience" or "the message" and it will almost certainly be a complete mess.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked