Support NeoGAF

[Kazza]

An interesting and well balanced video, looking at many different examples (too many to list) of how developers react to criticisms of their games. It seems that the Marauder enemy in Doom is one of the most recent examples, with some people asking it to be nerfed/removed etc. I haven't payed attention to that particular "controversy", but I did notice some people complaining about some of the SoR4 bosses being too hard (on hard mode!) and asking the developers to make changes. There have also been a vocal group complaining about the lack of SoR3-style rolling/running mechanics (it seems SoR3 was more popular and sold better than many assume, judging by the number of people missing its special moves). I think someone summed up the situation quite well when they wrote (paraphrasing here, as I can't find the original comment:

1992: This bit is quite difficult, I need to take a new approach and try to get better.
2020: This bit is quite difficult, the devs need to patch and fix this.

The video gives examples of how devs take players views into account during development, as well as after. It also explains a few things devs should consider before making changes to their game, such as:
- making sure that the complaints reflect the views of your players as a whole, and not just a very vocal minority
- not necessarily implementing the solutions proffered by your players, but instead to delve into the source of their complaints and maybe thinking of a better solution
- there are some things that some players may hate but that others love, and listening to every comlaint could result in a very mediocre game without any special characteristics


There's much more packed into the video, so I would recommend that you watch it.

 

[Kazza]

Can anyone think of the best and worst case examples of developers changing games after complaints from their players? (i.e. ones which resulted in a much better or worse game)

 

[Woggleman]

Can anyone think of the best and worst case examples of developers changing games after complaints from their players? (i.e. ones which resulted in a much better or worse game)

This is going to be controversial but GTA V. I am one of the people who loved GTA IV and V just seemed to be one big apology for it. I know I am in the minority opinion on that though. I hope they don't do the same with RDR3.

 

[Kazza]

This is going to be controversial but GTA V. I am one of the people who loved GTA IV and V just seemed to be one big apology for it. I know I am in the minority opinion on that though. I hope they don't do the same with RDR3.

Which parts did they change to please fans who didn't like certain aspects of GTA4?

 

[Ixiah]

Wow, starting 2008.
What a joke it has become since, oh wonder, activision took over.
"Let´s change the game after complains from Dad´s and Mom´s that its too hard!"
And just like that, the Game is on a downward spiral.....

 

[Nigel]

Which parts did they change to please fans who didn't like certain aspects of GTA4?

GTA V was more faster-paced and less serious than GTA IV. Some people complained about the early parts of GTA IV being too slow and a huge departure from San Andreas' tone. I personally think GTA IV is better, and even funnier at times.

 

[Nankatsu]

Can anyone think of the best and worst case examples of developers changing games after complaints from their players? (i.e. ones which resulted in a much better or worse game)

I can think of one that's currently going on, with the developer doing barely nothing to improve the game: The Division 2.

Shit even worse, when they launched the game it started better and completely derailed from there. Everytime they try to tweak something, a huge amount of things go wrong in the game.

It's as if the game is in a beta state once again, after the turbulent journey they had with Division 1.

Fans give feedback but they don't learn...at all.

 

[Fuz]

Negative feedback are the only feedback worth listening to.

 

[Wandering Leopard]

Constructive feedback and negative feedback are 2 different things.

I think constructive feedback is way more valuable, whereas negative feedback can consist of a lot of shallow/generic complaints.

 

[Radical_3d]

Can anyone think of the best and worst case examples of developers changing games after complaints from their players? (i.e. ones which resulted in a much better or worse game)

Killzone 2. It was nothing like the first one and was focused on deliver the graphics the fans wanted from the infamous trailer rather than keep its spirit. CoD with ultra graphics. What a let down.

 

[Clear]

Devs should follow their instincts. Frankly 99% of feedback is worthless because it comes from people with no understanding of how and why things work.

Architects and engineers don't need to be hassled by the peanut gallery, and neither do game-makers.

Most of all, you cannot please everybody all the time. Its impossible, so you need to make peace with the realization that some people are always going to think your choices are wrong and will disdain and/or hate you for it.

Fuck 'em, and fuck the internet that indulges and encourages them when they should know their role and keep their dumb dick-lickers shut.

 

[Woggleman]

GTA V was more faster-paced and less serious than GTA IV. Some people complained about the early parts of GTA IV being too slow and a huge departure from San Andreas' tone. I personally think GTA IV is better, and even funnier at times.

Exactly. It was like GTA V had some corny joke around every corner and everything was over the top. Trevor also got on my nerves and the driving was too arcadey. GTA IV had that dark and gritty urban jungle feel which to me is the perfect setting for a crime game but I guess many people did see it that way. I don't blame them for it since the backlash against IV was severe but you can tell that it was a game made because they felt they had to. The whole Jewelry store robbery was a great GTA moment though.

I just hope that RDR3 isn't some dumbed down and arcadey game. Everything doesn't have to feel and play like Saints Row.

 

[D.Final]

An interesting and well balanced video, looking at many different examples (too many to list) of how developers react to criticisms of their games. It seems that the Marauder enemy in Doom is one of the most recent examples, with some people asking it to be nerfed/removed etc. I haven't payed attention to that particular "controversy", but I did notice some people complaining about some of the SoR4 bosses being too hard (on hard mode!) and asking the developers to make changes. There have also been a vocal group complaining about the lack of SoR3-style rolling/running mechanics (it seems SoR3 was more popular and sold better than many assume, judging by the number of people missing its special moves). I think someone summed up the situation quite well when they wrote (paraphrasing here, as I can't find the original comment:



The video gives examples of how devs take players views into account during development, as well as after. It also explains a few things devs should consider before making changes to their game, such as:
- making sure that the complaints reflect the views of your players as a whole, and not just a very vocal minority
- not necessarily implementing the solutions proffered by your players, but instead to delve into the source of their complaints and maybe thinking of a better solution
- there are some things that some players may hate but that others love, and listening to every comlaint could result in a very mediocre game without any special characteristics


There's much more packed into the video, so I would recommend that you watch it.

The constructive complain, maybe.
The others nope

 

[The Alien]

Not liking the feedback doesnt necessarily mean it's negative. Time have also changed.

20 years ago games weren't released in a broken, incomplete state and patched for 2 years.

20 years ago microtransactions didnt drive gameplay.

 

[cormack12]

Not liking the feedback doesnt necessarily mean it's negative. Time have also changed.

20 years ago games weren't released in a broken, incomplete state and patched for 2 years.

20 years ago microtransactions didnt drive gameplay.

Yeah pretty much. Games are more complex, but you could argue the difference between Diablo III and diablo IV will be feedback based.

 

[yurinka]

I worked as a gamedev for 15 years in different roles, from programmer to community manager to designer in both top companies or even as a solo dev.

In game companies there is the role of Community Manager/Community Developer/Social Media Specialist/etc. It's someone who tracks the player sentiment, opinions in social media, forums, reviews, comments from gaming websites, etc. They filter all these thousands of messages of feedback and suggestions from the players.

They obviously known if it's a minor vocal minority, or if it's a common opinion, if they were complaining about something but they were really complaining about something else, if people is really angry or if they are a few fans too passionate drama queens who complain too loud to see if the company listen them, etc.

Then this report is combined with the one from customer support, that adds another bugs or issues mentioned in tickets from players reported through that channel.

Player feedback is a source of information. Another are gaming media reviews. Another are the in-game metrics that collect progress and different statistics. And another are the opinions and ideas from the dev team. All these things are combined to decide how they will improve the game in upcoming patches, or sequels. The goal is always to improve the game in a way that appeals their players/fans so increases their revenue.

 

[Moogle11]

It's a mixed bag for me. Sometimes it can be good when it's quality of life type things that could make a game or its sequel less of a hassle to play.

But otherwise I generally prefer for game designers, film makers etc to stick with whatever their vision is. I'm not going to like everything and everything isn't going to appeal to the largest possible audience.

And that's a good thing! Some of the best things are more niche from a gameplay and/or content/story standpoint and we wouldn't get nearly as much of that if they just played it safe and catered to the mainstream voices. Or it would be too much cringeworthy fan service in already niche stuff if they catered to the diehards begging for things online.

 

[D.Final]

Not liking the feedback doesnt necessarily mean it's negative. Time have also changed.

20 years ago games weren't released in a broken, incomplete state and patched for 2 years.

20 years ago microtransactions didnt drive gameplay.

I agree