Games are like IT: when everything works perfectly, no one notices or complains. But the moment something doesn’t meet expectations, complaints arise. Interestingly, if people always knew exactly what they wanted, they wouldn’t pay others to deliver a new and unique experience.
There's also the issue that sometimes people just don't have the knowledge for why something isn't working. I'm a more advanced computer user (which blows my mind because it doesn't feel like I'm advanced), so I'm able to give more details to my IT department when I'm running into issues but I know other people at my office who need a lot of what feel like the basics explained to them. Then again, there's a reason the first step, usually, is the old turn it off and on again (although funnily I had an issue where I kept getting a slow down over time and I just solved it by restarting but the issue would return. I mentioned the issue to IT and it was one of those rare "Don't restart so we can try and find the problem" situations).
I work in a Graphic Design Agency, one thing that kills me the most is how things are handled with the clients by my upper management. First off, you don't get a chance a chance to talk to the client. If there is anything, the client handler has to supervise and give you what you think the client will want. Now, one thing i realized is that, some clients (ends up being MOST) end up coming to you where they don't know what they want "just surprise us", this takes us through a series of rejections, and guess what, this would have been faster if I could show the clients references, but the client handler usually says that "showing references to the clients is unprofessional"...what? So then I am left standing in a dark room playing darts with a design that I might like but they won't.
I work as a concept artist in video games. I can tell you, it's exactly the same except for the fact that they sometimes do want reference beforehand but we end up on a winding path, completely steering away from what was liked about the ref in the first place, leaving you looking for a needle in a hay stack
Be sure to add an elbow in the shot, even if middle management is up your backside.. For those not in the know, since pretty much forever, if you're working in a creative and artistic field for specific clients that are commissioning the work, the best artists add an intentional and easy to remove defects to their work - defects that are almost impossible to both miss and ignore, and if you're masterful at it, it will seem like something believably missed by the artist that made it. It could be 'leaving' a thumb in the corner of a touched up photograph, or maybe a boom or elbow in the shot, or could be 'accidentally' adding a distracting skin color or the wrong eye color (red-eye being my go-to) to the main focus of the picture... or for logos, something as little as 'wanted to try something bold and different' with disgusting and clashing background is enough to do it... they need to be bad enough to require the need to be removed, but not bad enough as to hide completely the well made creation you made (or they are going to pivot to something else) --- it needs to actually be good, just with one little near fatal flaw. The trick is: All the defects are intentional defects added in post, and easily removed (like 'unhide 1 layer' amounts of effort).... limit it to just one or two major things. The trick is, people that pay for art will 100% ALWAYS COMPLAIN about AT MINIMUM ONE THING about what should be the final result... and even if the final submitted art is by all standards perfect and wonderous, people that pay for art just can't help themselves but to put their own little thumbprint on it somewhere to appease their bruised ego that they can't do it themselves so they can vicariously pretend to actually be skilled at a craft you've spent your life mastering, if only THEY could make ooooone little change - and if left up to them, usually it's something that sounds small but takes both a massive amount of rework (sometimes from scratch) and worse erodes what actually is good about the creation (something you spent years to know what to do and how to do it in a masterful way, and something that they had like a week at most thinking about in the most abstract and diminished way possible - knowing almost nothing about the process nor what actually is good or not) "I don't know art, but I know what I like" type thing. So, you add the defect, and when they immediate catch it, you say to them "Oh, wow, what an eye you have! Have you ever considered becoming a creator as well? Thank god you were here to catch such a mistake, I would have missed that. I'll go and make that change now." - that's all it takes to have happy customers... give it no more than a few hours, and excitedly show them the results of THEIR creation. (obviously don't turn around in 2 minutes with the fixed version, that diminishes THEIR contribution, but also, if you milk it for a week, paradoxically it doesn't work because, then they don't see THEIR contribution anymore, they see it as just a fix YOU did --- magic number is a couple hours, ideally SAME DAY). SCRUM is very much like this as well, except they add a bunch of stupid cards and a bunch of useless meetings to it and the projects take years to complete... same principle though... make the money people feel like they are helping, even though in reality it's all just for show and they are just in the way in the worst kind of ways. But yeah... if you're not, you should be adding an elbow in the shot (and you're welcome :D), and if you are, I write this for anyone else that stumbles across it (you're welcome too). That wont fix being unable to show concepts... if they have a vivid idea that they want X and you give them Y, then they will just tell you that they want X... But, whose kidding who, most people don't know what they are looking for... they just know what "they don't like" TLDR If you make something great, with an almost fatal flaw but otherwise really amazing... might cut down on the amount of work you got to do, get them a product that they actually need, and make it so you don't have to live the hellish life of constant revision after revision after revision ...
Browse through any relatively popular game's steam reviews and you'll see some people applauding a game for the same reason someone else gave it a 1/10. One side says "thank you game devs!" while the other says "why don't game devs realize that gamers don't want this?" The positive reviews will say "don't listen to the haters, the silent majority loves it!" And the negative reviews will say "the people who claim to like this are just fanboys" or "these are clearly bot reviews". I think saying gamers collectively don't know what they want is accurate, at least if you think of them as a whole.
This reminds me of that classic advice when you are looking for feedback through playtesting: the gamer absolutely knows if they are having a good time or not, but usually they have no idea why, that's the reason you need to watch them play the game and not take their word for granted. I guess this is essentially the same problem, so no, I don't think most gamers know exactly what they want.
@@zavi3rz it requires self-control and attention. It is very difficult to understand what causes the release of dopamine in you, unless it is, of course, something banal - like a Skinner box
@@zavi3rz yes, that's it, as a regular player you lack the formation needed to dissect the different systems and mechanics of the game and make an informed analysis. It's the same with movies, you know if you liked the movie of not and you can even say which scene was your favorite, but if you don't have some knowledge about filmmaking it's very difficult to explain why.
Game designer Mark Rosewater makes an analogy of this out of a doctor and patient. A patient (player) is best at identifying if they have a problem, but the doctor (designer) is the best at deciding on the solution.
Yes. And a negative voice is usually louder than a positive voice. We pay more attention to threats than to positivity. Plus, social media algorithms amplify negative voices--sometimes literally! I remember that, at least at some point, the "angry" reaction on Facebook was hard-coded by the devs to be several times more impactful than the "like" reaction.
I personally blame both our tech overlords for tweaking the algo to prioritize ragebait content and the content creators themselves who get incentive to write the most heinous, outrageous things to get attention. It takes a lot to get thoughtful analysis to the top.
I've found in my own experience that it's FAR too easy to get influenced by other people's opinions before you can form your own. If I'm playing a game, I don't want to talk to ANYONE about the game until I've formed my thoughts on it, because I've noticed in the past that talking to people makes me enjoy the game less. I can trudge through a mediocre story and point out what works, but when all anyone else says is "The story sucks" then it's a lot harder to find things to appreciate because my brain keeps examining things under the lens of either trying to see what they didn't like or trying to form an argument about why it's good, and EITHER WAY it turns my opinion from something genuine into something prematurely crafted to form an argument. Can I explain why this is the case? Not fully. But I find this has happened multiple times, so I tried to solve it by shutting outside opinions out and it has made my game playing more fulfilling, albeit at the cost of the sense of community during play.
Yeah, I had the exact same problem with stuff like Bayonetta 3 and Borderlands 3 ironically enough. Like in BL3, the main story is too "fellow kids" and Bayo 3 story is a bit predictable and had an undercooked villain. While I think the ideas behind them could've been interesting (like how BL3's antagonist is based off of streamers having a cult following and Bayo 3 having a science based enemy rather than a supernatural one), the people who played it would just cry out bad story. It is a shame too, because both of the games have pretty good game play.
@@Nunya5470-q1qBG3 was done dirty. It made some bad story decisions but nowhere the level people were misled to beljeve by content creators coraling emotions with hyperbole.
@@SenkaZver I personally have not played BG3 yet, but yeah, people love to act like the writers put down their dog in front of them because a story had some bad parts
What's interesting to me is I'm somewhat the same way. My absolute favorite games of the past 10-20 years have all been single player experiences that can be modded - think Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Bloodlines, GTA, etc. I didn't think I was ever gonna give BG3 a chance because I'd kinda gotten over the whole isometric gamestyle from back in the day, but I saw so many people absolutely love it that when asked if I'd play it if it was a gift, I said sure. I wound up putting nearly 1,000 hours into BG3, a game I never would have given a chance if I hadn't seen people talk about how much (and why) they love it.
@@grumpyoldnord that's pretty good. I think it is just hearing good things make you appreciate it. People will complain over the smallest things and not really give acknowledgement to anything good a game does, so a game having a lot of good things from people is pretty refreshing
03:40 the idea that restricted access to beauty and the presence of gated content has no effect on the enjoyability of a game is just untrue. People aren't robots. The notion began somewhere around 2013 that "well y'know, it's just cosmetic!" But I've gone to extraordinary lengths for a few colored pixels. Pretending additional art somehow shouldn't affect your experience and then charging money for it is oxymoronic, it also devalues every game that made rewards earnable through play the came prior to the trend in the industry. If they had no effect on the experience, why include them at all?
Because companies need income to pay developer salaries. And developers are needed to make games that you can play. Once you release a game, you only get money for each copy sold. It’s not like a theatre play where you have to pay for a ticket each time you want to see it.
The whole "skin economy" thing is difficult to discuss because it is often tied to otherwise free games. They function almost exactly the same way casinos do: You get to enjoy a lot of what the venue has to offer for free, because they only need to hook a small number of whales to pay off everyone else. The role the freeloaders serve is to populate the venue to make the whales feel better about spending a fortune there. In games, this mostly translates to multiplayer games where high player numbers are mandatory for the game to be functional at all. The delicate balance here is to try to make the purchases as invisible as possible to the players who just want to play for free, while making them just obnoxious enough to pray on people who are prone to addiction. So the grift is to convince everyone that "it's just cosmetics, don't worry about it" while at the same exact time spending a fortune on developing a user experience that tries to convince players to make purchases at every turn... ...And then there are games like the Crash Team racing remake and LEGO 2k Drive, where it is a paid game WITH a fortnite style cycling item shop. This made me realize a lot of the people saying "well the devs need to make money somehow" must be kids who grew up in this era where every game directed at them is trying to rip them off, so they normalized it, instead of the normal system of just paying for what you want, when you want it. One more thing to add is that skins have extremely high profit margins. It only takes a handful of people to make them, yet you can charge anywhere from 2 to 200 dollars for it, while an entire video game is expected to sell at 60$ maximum, which takes teams of people and years of time. So we are in this weird situation where the actual games are free while the skins that took 1/1000 of the resources to make pay for the game. The most infamous example is probably that Star Craft 2 made less money in it's lifetime than a single World of Warcraft store mount within the short time of it's release...
there's a running joke in the automotive community that every car pervert wants a brown diesel stickshift wagon. because it would do everything! and it'd be great to drive! and it'd fit all your stuff! and it would still get decent range and mileage! when someone makes that car, no one buys it. absolutely no one. they're loved in the second hand market and folks "discover" them ten years hence, but basically no one wants them when they're released. which means that's the last time a car company makes that genre of car. the people that *talk about* a subject are a *very* small subset of the folks that participate in it. and revealed preference is a thing, too! so.. if you're feeling left out, buy what you love and support people making what you *say* you care about.
Well said! The same principle can be applied to complaints in many areas(work, home, relationships, gov, etc.!) I've often been left asking for this same thing after reading a rant or listening to one. Glad someone put it out there with a large reach. Been enjoying your creations since I was a bored, lonely middle/high schooler lol. Lil did I know that finding Fallout 1 at Babbages at the Mall was going to be life changing! Reading the description I knew I had to have it and spent my lawnmowing savings for this treasure haha Thanks and Cheers sir 🤙🏾
You're absolutely right to conclude some people just have a hobby of being negative on the Internet. Also, unfortunately, constructive criticism is somewhat of a skill to be learned while just being negative and saying "I dislike thing" is a lot more natural and easy to reach for.
Most human beings are not original thinkers. They repeat what they hear other people say around them. If they surround themselves with negativity on social media they will repeat that negativity on forums, comment sections and Discords.
It's gotten to the point where, sometimes (not always), I actively avoid detailed reviews or previews of games I'm interested in. On one hand that could be unwise of me since I might've learned something important before I spent my money on the game. But on the other hand I feel like I'm being robbed of my own opinion if I consume too much information about something before I experience it for myself. I don't want to have all these pre-concieved notions in the back of my head. I want to actually experience that thing first-hand and then form my opinion on it. I've always found that to be a far more enjoyable way of engaging with art. At least for me.
@@TheRan-DomOne 'the average person is dumb - half of people are dumber than that' is a pretty widely-believed factoid, y'know. Not even a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of lack of investment in topics.
It *sorta* does though with Fragile’s umbrella But yeah it’s only to places you’ve been before and if you do it too much Fragile gets pissed off at you XD
Cosmetics are part of the game. It's still dlc, especially in a multiplayer environment. It's such a weird argument coming from devs. You know how important art is in a game.
Especially since most of those outfits are in from launch. And historically you unlocked additional outfits from completing in game challenges. So to people who have been gaming since even the 2000's, it looks like gamers are having content they used to get for free now have an additional paywall.
The point is that cosmetics are additional art which does not affect any other aspect of the game. Is it really so bad to use that as additional financing? I know several games like Space Engineers and Stationeers which specifically market cosmetics as a way to support their small game studio.
Non content DLC is like a firearm. Is it inherently dangerous? Yes. Is it always bad? No. The slippery slope conclusion of paywalled art is that new media from large corpos will be bland as fuck until you spend the money to unlock the pretty edition.
@@romanshatalin7077 If the dlc is just a code to unlock files that are already in the base game, absolutely it's a bad thing to charge the customer more for them to use skins they should already be able to access.
3:34 Tim..... micro transactions are viewed as basically cancer. Doesnt matter their damage people know and have seen this "feature" abused to ridiculous levels to the point that there is only negativity to be associated with them
Correction: general audiences love micro transactions and they make billions of dollars a year. Only people who talk about games the way we do and understand how cash shops compromise the game's design. This includes making the cosmetic items look better than anything you get by playing the game.
They're not really viewed as cancer anymore. The biggest games in both the west (fortnite, roblox, fifa, cod) and east (gacha slop) all heavily rely on them.
False. You and I hate them. Pretty much everyone like us hates them. But there's plenty of people who don't give a shit and those people are the majority.
That depends on implementation, which is my big problem with "Is X feature good question"? Purely visual microtransactions can be good. No one complains about DRGs cosmetic microtransaction. But they are paid to developers and one-time purchase. They don't affect the game much, and don't give in game advantage. Problems start when you combine cosmetic microtransactions with overall game, you make grindable resource that rarely drops (causes bot farms and AFK gaming), you make them exchangeable for real money with other players (causes illegal gambling rings), or you make them part of loot box drops (causes addiction to loot boxes).
This video helped me realize that I've started asking people "What are you playing?" as opposed to "What kinds of games do you play?". Folks have tended to share more specific things they enjoy as opposed to steering into general complaints about different video game genres and mechanics.
That's an excellent idea actually. So many people are complaining that "gaming isn't fun anymore" while they only like 2 or 3 games which they probably don't even like all that much.
@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation "gaming is dead" screams the 22 year old playing his yearly COD and sole AAA title that year. 😭 There's been alot of great games but if you focus on the nagatives it'll warp your viewpoint, I think people just like to be disingenuous on the internet.
@@dr_diddyExactly. I have played so many great games made in the 2020's. Some AAA, some AA and some indie. I have even more in my backlog. There are plenty of games for everyone to enjoy. You just have to look for them.
13:48 Personally, it's because some game franchises I've loved have been disrespected by their owners and it pisses me off that all the potential of their setting is wasted on mediocrity. But I agree, not buying their games is far more effective than anything else I could say.
Not only the potential of the setting, the potential of the development! So much labor from (in many cases) genuinely talented people, working in high production value studios able to do things indies can't, ending up on games like Immortals of Aveum that innovate nothing and die quietly.
The problem is that people naturally react strongly to negative emotions, and imagining an alternative outcome that is more desirable takes effort and some skill. Even telling people what you want is often not useful since that often familiar solution may not actually address the job to be done by the feature. This is a common problem in software development in general. The better answer is to use clean language and ask users questions like "what would you like to have happen?", "what happens before/after", etc. It is also important to capture motivation and context alongside outcomes.
Not sure if that's fair. You may have tried to make it work, discovered more and more about it over time, but it didn't work out in the later stages of that game. Or something negative came up from the developers.
I tried Witcher 3 three times before it clicked. I got bored and turned it off for months. Then I randomly booted it back up, killed the griffin, and then spent 200 hours in the world.
Never happened to me. Good for you. In my case it is pretty clear immediately if a game clicks with me or not. If it doesn't, it won't. I tried multiple times to return to some respected titles like ESO f.e. , and for me it was just a terrible experience, wasted $, no matter how many times I try. So yeah, I know immediately if I like I game, by playing it and discovering its systems. I immediately knew I liked fallout, and played it to the end in one big breath. I immediately knew I despised ESO, or darkest dungeon, or ... even though I liked other games in the same genre, and I know exactly which parts of the experience I hated.
I think the big problem with constructive feedback, providing something you want instead is, if a developer follows a specific vision, and the person giving the feedback knows, what they want does not align with that vision, they will fear that the feedback will be thrown out, outright. So in that sense it is better to provide, as you said, specific feedback on what you don't like, with context. Then it's the job of the dev to find a solution that also aligns with their vision. I think there's also a distrust towards devs being able to convert suggested solutions instead of just throwing them out. For example if a player says they don't like that a boss only drops their valuable item every 100 or so kills. Then implicitly the dev should know they probably want some way to get that item faster, most likely by dropping it more often. If they player states, they want instead for the boss to drop the item more often, is the dev that does not want this solution able to make adjustments and think of another solution, like giving players incremental steps towards getting that drop instead which would also satisfy the player even though they did not specifically state this? Some Devs can but some can't. This might be a reason why players tend to not give a solution, in fear of the dev throwing it out and ignoring the feedback because of it.
I would say the desire to purchase microtransactions is something I would prefer didn't exist in my brain. It costs me money to satisfy my brain's desire for trinkets, but when I do buy them, I feel bad because they were never worth it. Because of that, when games provide microtransactions, it feels as though they're monetizing an unhealthy aspect of my personality, even if they're completely optional. It makes me think the developers are a little sleezy(or sometimes a lot), because they're manipulating me in a way I don't appreciate.
I get that. Fortnite had me feeling this way for awhile, but I realized how Epic’s predatory monetization tactics were making me feel, finally ripped the bandaid off, and deleted the game because I wasn’t enjoying it anymore
It took me years of anger and stress from training and playing almost elusively skill-based games before I finally realized that MAYBE I would benefit from throwing in some relaxing and/or "comfy" games into my catalogue. Turns out that I actually enjoy certain games I would never even THINK of buying before. So I guess I'm another example of a gamer that doesn't fully know what they want.
I commented on your Fast Travel video about pretty much the same thing, on why it could make sense to criticize disliked aspects rather than providing liked aspects.. and yeah, I still feel that way, I know what I dislike better than what I specifically want. And also, listening to player wants will cut out originality and surprises. For example, how many people do you think asked for a poker hand roguelike? Probably incredibly few, because nearly nobody knew/imagined it could be a thing, yet here we are. Or even going to your "gift for Tim" example, let's say everyone knows you love dark chocolate; does that mean you want all your gifts every year to be dark chocolate? Maybe one friend might think "I could make a handcrafted and handpainted figurine of my favourite of Tim's Fallout characters" but then decides to listen to the general "we know Tim loves dark chocolate", and you could in turn be missing out on a treasure you could've cherished.
well, there's a difference between saying what you like and what you want, right? You say you like something, that means a lot of things to a game designer. It's easier to discern why things work that way as opposed to hearing 'I do not like X'. It feels like saying what you dislike would be the more helpful thing, but as someone who engages in art for years now, 'dislike' often becomes a matter of 'this isn't AS GOOD as this other thing I know'. At that point, the 'dislike' bias becomes incredibly unhelpful as every single aspect of your game could be comparatively worse than another one, y'know? And that's often, REALLY OFTEN, what happens. I can't think of any modern successful game that doesn't have a deluge of negative feedback about every aspect of that game, not on a sense of not having enjoyed it, but on a comparative view to something else that does something better. good example that came to mind is something like Elden Ring, where they did a lot of things in a very specific way, for the first time in gaming, which makes it really easy to compare every part of that game and find something better. That doesn't stop the game from being superbly executed, but if trying to find out what people dislike, you'll just end up with a big list of 'everything sucks'. Not really helpful at all.
Gamers absolutely don't know what they like. But it's not just gamers. Most people who consume art of any medium don't know what they like until someone makes it and they interact with. Asking a bunch consumers, as laypeople, what they like about art they can't make is of dubious merit, but I know it -can- be useful in the ways outlined here. With democratic platforms, everyone has a voice, but not every voice is qualified. If we can't meaningfully address the signal to noise ratio, we might be better off learning where to tune our antennas. The Orville had an interesting episode on a pure democracy planet. I wonder how well it's aged.
Poison swamps that poison the player and prevent him from moving at normal speed are not necessary for the game. But Mizayaki still continues to add them to his games: Dark Souls 123, Sekiro, Elden Ring As he said "I love swamps - I will add them to all my games!" And this makes his games different from Ubisoft games where there are no poison swamps. And the players will scream as they die in these swamps - but these swamps will bring them emotions that they won't get in "safe" games.
It's just great when someone starts a thread (Reddit, Discord, etc) just to hate on a widely-loved and acclaimed game. What do you even get out of that?
Short answer is no I don’t think many people can express what they like in a game. Long answer is I think it takes a level of introspection and skill to communicate what you like about a game that most people don’t go to but part of the studios job is to apply their skill and understanding to try to parse that feedback. I get this feeling when working with artists a lot where I know when I like something or don’t like it but I can’t really diagnose why that is the case without more expertise
The cosmetics are mainly showing the greed of the company or find it insulting that the company would put something like that in the game for such an egregious price (like street fighter 6 or fallout 76) For example, one of my favorite games is Assassin’s Creed Unity, which has a micro transaction of useless boosts to the player like a speed boost or health boost for like, 5 minutes and is $5 a pop. It’s completely useless and not needed but it ultimately is bad because it tries to have people pay for useless things like this and definitely fooled kids or even adults in buying something this stupid It feels like a small cash grab added to the game just to add it and it’s embarrassing in my eyes
I'm one of those people who often play open world games without using fast travel. The reason is that I like map reading and navigational challenges. I approach these games as orienteering simulators where I try to navigate by using only landmarks and without the GPS showing my position. I have no idea how many like this kind of gameplay, but sometimes travel is it's own reward.
I've had friends get really annoyed at the idea that playing games doesn't mean they know how to design one. I've had people hit me with the "I've played way more games than you", and it's just so misguided but telling them that will get you nowhere because it's not something that you find out until you've started designing games yourself.
I go to BG3 on this one, long early access period where Larian got to ask specific questions and got specific answers as a result of controlling the space where the questions existed.
Side story : years ago, I was having a session with a group to learn what to do or not do to get a job. We were asked to write some resume. Showed mine... "this is bad, shouldn't do that". Tried again... "no, never do that, why would you do that ?" Tried again... same kind of result. I got mad, told the guy to keep his advices for himself and left. I never learned what is right or wrong, on the contrary, I learned how different those "rules" could be when changing the one who talks.
At the end of the day gamers are just people, and most people don't know what they're doing. Yes, a certain portion of a group of people might act logically, but another will not, and thus when you are exposed to the group as a whole you will constantly experience people who have no clue what they want and do things that makes no sense. It's just a function of large-scale social exposure (aka the internet).
Perhaps there is a growing disconnect between those who make games in large companies and the gamers. Meanwhile, in the indie space, it still feels quite similar to how games were made 20 years ago.
@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation If you play a lot of games you are a gamer. You don´t like the term because a lot of news outlet are using this as derogatory.
@@PhantomHarlock78 It's not really news outlets using it as derogatory. It's mostly losers calling themselves 'gamers' has made the term unappealing to a lot of people.
About the microtransactions: I don't think most gamers have a problem with cosmetic microtransactions if they are confined into a store; but a lot of people have an issue with microtransaction ads inside of the game, especially if they are unavoidable, because they are just ads at the end of they day. Unwanted advertising on things we already paid for can be seen as invasive and even greedy sometimes.
@IfYouSeekCaveman that's a different issue. If they have no effect on gameplay and you can ignore their existence they are not actually a problem, it's just a long-term monetization strategy you disagree with Edit: I dislike them too but it will not prevent me from buying the game, a thing I cannot assure if they are bombarding me from the moment I open the main menu
I'd personally rather pay for the game and get the cosmetics as unlockables. In multiplayer games this is a layer to combat cheaters as well. So win win.
I think you're giving gamers too much credit in their willingness to make a distinction. People will be upset at the very presence of monetization beyond the price tag. I think it's good, though, you're engaging with an idea while being as charitable as possible! Standup commenter right here.
3:40 You have to understand that features that exist 1. took time away from developing other areas that were of higher importance, and 2. often games are designed around certain features being (potentially) used. And "micro-transactions" (often the price of entire games or more btw) mean there is content locked behind money, not progression in the game. So yes, it's only "skins", but guess what - these skins can no longer be acquired in the game.
I think there's also something to say for not wanting to play games inundated with advertisements, especially with how pushy or frequent even cosmetic microtransaction ads can be. Fortnite is a great example of a game built on this model. While it is successful, many people will not play it because they know the system is designed to extract more and more money from them for limited edition character skins and dances that all their friends are doing instead of rewarding play itself. Basically, your value as the player is unambiguously judged by how much money you generate for the game, which reverses the feeling that some players really love where it feels like this amazing experience was made just for you by people you never met. It's the Tony Hawk Pro Skater experience where the people making the game just seem like cool dudes because they gave you the chance to play as Spider-Man for 100% completing the game that you were already playing for fun.
1. He's talking about cosmetic only. The only thing that takes away from are artists. Not coders, so no feature is impacted. Even then, what is most DLC today were expansion packs in the past. Few MTX sold actually impacted features of games, today. The thing that impacts features, most, is multiplayer and live service related functionality 2. So why does no one call out Grinding Gear Games?
Gothic 1 had fast travel implemented in a smart way: you unlock it only after the story progresses and you gain a reward to reach each fast travel point (using a magic rune item to travel to that location). The first part of the game had no fast travel, but later when the story progressed - and players already walked everywhere - the game allowed to cut down travel time. Noone ever complained about that system.
The problem is that players aren't game designers. They think they know what they want, but they only think about it at a very surface level; they don't think about the many, many repercussions of their request. As an example, I loved the procedural game world of Daggerfall back in the day so when Starfield was announced I was really keen to depart from the designed worlds of Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim... but once I had the procedural world in my hands, I found myself thinking "Oh wow, I actually do prefer the designed worlds now... this is kinda repetitive which was fine in Daggerfall days but not so much today" (and I realize there's a whooole lot more requirements I actually wanted behind that "procedural world" one that just weren't realistic). In my industry it's similar. Sometimes a company will get advice from certain "expert users" and the feedback is almost always something that can't even mathematically work.
Thank you for this video! I've been thinking a lot about video games and "woke" controversy in them. Usually a female lead isn't to a segment of gamers' liking... and then they usually dogpile the game design/graphics as well. I like to test random forum posters to see if I can eke out specifics of what THEY WANT to see, and usually I get vague answers at best. I appreciate your saying this. I think this fits in to a broader field of media literacy. There are a lot of loud people who seem to be lacking in it and I REALLY appreciate your work in promoting media literacy. Thank you!
Translators do this as well, and journos, and youtubers... Literally it's just, "Whatever I don't like, get rid of it." You can't blame people for being spiteful, I don't really mind it, as nobody really cared about translators, localizers were sabotaging visual novels for no other reason than, "I don't like it."
@@Wolfe2ev0 I know, that's why I think it's good to have the convo. I think you raise a lot of different points, but I do think a big issue is the consumer/product relationship. I agree, we don't want to blame the consumers for spite. But rather encourage basic, fundamental understanding of it. I do have some ideas of how that manifests and I'm working on it currently (to put my money where my mouth is) but definitely trying to drill down further where I can.
One of the biggest plagues in IRL/internet communications is that too many people speak about HUGE groups of people like they are some kind of monolith, a united clan where they all think alike, and then are confused when they offer conflicting information. There's so many players of varying ages, likes and dislikes, varying expectations and varying needs to shout out their preferred styles/genres in the internet. "Players" being just one of many. Ability seeing some nuance in the world helps you immensely to avoid avoidable pitfalls. Just (mostly) off topic, sorry about that.. :p Other than that, yea, good points. Speaking about the good things gets you more good things.
I think a large aspect of this is a lot of people aren’t actually taught what good criticism is. At least from my own experience growing up as gen Z. So we looked to “critics” online and just copied their styles of criticism. I didn’t learn good critique until I got into college.
Even beyond the process of critique, most critics...suck. Their level of insight into game design is extremely poor. One of the few I really, truly like is The Electric Underground; that guy knows what he's talking about.
@@lamegamertimemost modern critics are regular people who spout their opinion. But with the popularity, and money, from doing so, get a weird ego that their unnuanced and ignorant opinion has some objectivity to it, reinforced by parasocial fans.
As a younger millenial, I was taught how important constructive criticism was and we regularily graded each other's reports and were graded on our criticism to learn this.
@@jextra1313 Its treated differently with media vs classmate work. You don't actually have to see the person who's game or film you criticize so its easier to be less constructive. Especially if its a big title
Here's the thing. Players are not game designers. Assessing a game is a completely different skill than designing a game. It is not reasonable to expect players to be able to articulate what they like or why they like it. It's like being able to tell whether you like a piece of music or not, but don't know how to compose.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like enjoying something means understanding why you like it, at least to some extent. I'm struggling to think of something I like that I'm not capable of conjuring a perspective about, and if that's not the case then where is the enjoyment coming from? If I like something I have to at least have some reason in my brain for why I like it, right? All I need to do is think about it for a little while. I think that's the problem Tim is getting at. People are raging without thinking first and that's not helpful to developers.
@@disky01 I agree. When I like something I generally figure out why. Even if there are irrational reasons for me liking some things, be it "sentimentality" or "it has a charm to it".
I just made this same comment! Yes, you're exactly right. There's a spectrum of skill involved in understanding art, and even professional game reviewers sometimes reveal that they don't understand the medium well enough to talk about it, let alone actually create anything.
@@disky01 I very much disagree with you. Anyone can enjoy something, even if they don't understand why. Children do it all the time; when you ask them what did they like, they respond the most surface level things one can observe, even tho something else they don't like share those same things. I've even met people that dislike the idea of understanding why they like something, because then they might not enjoy it as much.
The big problem is that people focus on features/mechanics not dynamics. Encumberance is a great example - roguelikes with a harsh inventory limit tend to make inventory management an EXTREMELY meaningful task that will determine whether you'll win the run or die. Bethesda klepto-core games just throw the mechanic in for no good reason. But understanding dynamics requires players to think more holistically, like game designers, so I'm not too hopeful about feedback ever improving.
3:42 - "Cosmetic microtransactions" - Completely disagree. The issue with it is this is 1: the same as day 1 DLC, we (the customer/consumer) can only speculate at wether or not this was cut content from the game, originally intended to be a part of it, but now charged to us instead. 2: The MTX generally look 'better' than the non-MTX stuff, thus feeling like our efforts to get cosmetics (in-game) is worthless, 3: Either the game has less cosmetic options (for the intents of selling more), or the cosmetics aleviate/remove the need to aquire it in-game, which also defeats the purpose of the game. 4:06 - "Fast travel" - The issue here is, even if you don't partake in it, the games are designed with it in-mind / that you will use it, and do not give you alternatives. For example; Bethesda game's quest-markers. If you turn them all off, you can't do/finish quests, because there are no indicators (beyond the markers) where to go, or what to do, because they assume you WILL use it. Same with fast-travel, in Oblivion, there are no means of getting around quickly, without fast-traveling (they fixed this in Skyrim by giving you carriages again like you had in Morrowind). And that's the crux of the issues, it's not that the feature exist or not, but that developers tend to ignore the "alternative (traditional)" play-style in favor OF these systems. If devs put effort into making games work like they used to (carriages instead of fast-travel, NPCs giving detailed quest instructions and where to go, rather than just giving a vague intro to a quest), I think there'd be a lot less complaint about it.
I'd like to add that MTX for cosmetics can also affect gameplay balance in multiplayer. League of Legends has become a completely unreadable mess of particle effects and skins that feature different characters looking too similar, leading to critical mistakes in teamfights. There should be a way to turn off skins for gameplay clarity in multiplayer games. And for god's sake, stop putting Nikki Minaj in things.
Turning of quest markers in BGS games won’t block you from finishing quests. On the contrary, turning them off makes completing the quests more enjoyable as you need to find your own way to do it. You need to listen to the npc’s instruction. IIRC in Starfield there is at least one quest that does not use quest markers at all and you have figure out multiple locations where you need to an action to complete the quest. Similarly, gamers complain about fast travel saying they hate it and yet on the other hand they complain they can’t fast travel because of being over encumbered. That’s a bit contradictory and defeats at least one of the skills in the game as these are designed as part of the role playing aspect of the game. While you could role play in Minecraft or NMS (by limiting yourself), these games are not designed as rpgs. As for cosmetics, to play those games you pretty much need better gear, sturdier, more damage inflicting, with extra effects and not fancier gear that provides no real value to your character. although cosmetics provides an emotional value to you as the player. It is funny that people complain about this in rpg games (BGS-made most notably) but very rarely in other genres like racing games (Forza comes to mind).
@@BribedSeeker904 You're not 'literally' blocked from finnishing the quests, but there's quite a few quests in both Oblivion AND Skyrim that you won't fesibly be able to do without quest markers. The dialogue goes like this: "I lost my sword when I was adventuring, can you get it back for me?" - cool. Which dungeon? Not mentioned, because the dungeon is marked on your map with a quest marker (but not actually shown as a dungeon until you go there). If you do NOT have quest markers however, then it is not marked, and you now get the joy of hunting down every dungeon you have not explored. That's the issue. There are mods that aleviate this issue (by providing the details into the journal entries, thus you can read the journal to get the full picture), but it's a band-aid for poor design, poor design that's intentionally done because quest markers are forced on (unless you mod them out). Same issue with Kingdom Come: Deliverence actually (though to a MUCH lesser degree than Oblivion/Skyrim), playing without the compass is not realistic because the quests were designed with it (even in hardcore, you have the quest markers on the compass when within quest area, because the devs know it isn't fesible to complete a lot of the quests without it). Then you have Fable 2 and 3, which have the exact same issue. "Please go do that thing for me" without any explenation or details of what, where, or how, because the breadcrumb system they developed will point you to it anyway, so there's no point in writing and voicing it. -- I doubt it's the same people complaining. It's the same as the people saying they wanted an TES MMO. A vocal minority. Daggerfall > Morrowind, are the best Bethesda games, every game after is just different measures of dissapointment and removal of the systems that made their games good. But I'm digressing. -- I was not thinking of Bethesda games when I mentioned MTX. Games like Dead or Alive, Tekken, Assassins Creed (Syndicate+), are what I am talking about, where you pay $60 for a game, only to recieve an incomplete version, that then get drowned in Mtx that put the ones you unlock to shame. I disagree with "it's just cosmetic", because cosmetic/paperdolling is a big drive for many people. If it werent', then why the fuck is character creation so popular? Maybe we should make Character Creation an optional DLC where you pay $5 pr haircut, after all, not like it matters since it's "just cosmetic". It's a ridiculous stance. -- If a game costs money, and has microtransactions. I do not buy it. That is my stance, it doesn't matter if the Mtx is cosmetic, or P2W, or whatever. Only exception is DLC/Expansions, I am willing to purchase that. Secondary exception is if the base game is free (and has always been free), but with paid additional content (mtx, Expansions, whatever). Example: Tales of Maj'Eyal. I'm perfectly fine with it having Mtx. I'd be fine with Dwarf Fortress having it too for the same reason (Base game is free). Instead of strawmanning based on your experience on [insert internet forum here], read what people are saying and focus on that instead. -- edit: -- Anyway, my point is; the issue with certain "(gameplay) features", is that they come at the expense of NOT using it, sometimes NOT using it, is not fesible due to the game being completely designed around using said features, so you don't get to choose, and the reason for it is the same as all things; Money, it's cheaper to implement breadcrumbing and breadcrumbing quests, than it is to write engaging dialogue that guide the player, which is why this is becoming less and less common (that, and people generally don't/didn't care and just want the dopamine hit of numbers go up).
@@fearingalma1550 Good point, though in 'most' cases I feel, Mtx skins are a detriment to you in PVP based MP (based on what I see on Steam's store front). For ex, most skins in Call of Duty make you stand out, ensuring you can't easily camp, or otherwise stay hidden. But yeah, cosmetics can most definitely affect gameplay balance (in either direction) in a competitive scene with other people.
I can understand if company have fans, they make good job but are really short on money, they can offer some digital goods for them. Something like where customer voluntarily pays more of game so they are produced in future. That can be way how players are connected to game developers. Or physical good, get T-shirt or something. Game can be ruined if it altered that player need to pay some feature to complete game or something. Edit: Actually some stuff for fans can be great if that can be used as tool to categorize players. When fans are giving feedback, people who buy every game from game company, it is likely more valuable than some random whining on forums. I've actually like to buy games from certain companies/developers and there are companies that I've collected everything what they have made. So if I give feedback company from which I've already bought five games and if I say something is going wrong direction, that should be valuable.
The problem I have with regards to giving good criticism is that sometimes _I don't know why I like or don't like something._ Because of that I tend to write my opinion/review of the game based on whether I feel I'm the equivalent of an alpha or beta reader for a work. For context, when writing, you usually seek two types of readers. Alpha readers tend to be other writers who understand the craft and can point out the larger flaws of a work and point where the origins of those flaws might come from. They might not provide good or workable answers on how to fix it but they can usually diagnose the problem or provide possible diagnoses. Beta readers are the equivalent of your audience for comedians. They understand how they reacted to something but not necessarily why they reacted that way. If I have a greater understanding of why something didn't work for me, usually that's story and writing based sections because I have a much better understanding of those, I can explain why they didn't work _for me._ When it comes to mechanics, I can usually explain some simple things like desiring more basic quality of life features (was just thinking about a review of a game I did where I just had to stop playing because the game had bulk crafting and it started to irritate my carpal tunnel because there was no click and hold/click and type, you had to click for each additional item when I needed 50 plus clicks for some items) but my responses trend more towards beta reader territory when it gets to the nitty gritty of why combat isn't working for me or why something just _feels_ good.
Tim this is true with addons in MMOs Players make the game trivial and say it's boring This is very true with classic wow where it's designed to be played with markers and go have an adventure type of mindset
@@dragongoddragneel7106 there was that video by Andrew Chambers Design channel, about over polishing your game. There he mentions how influential was Mankirk's wife quest. It was such a difficult quest that it brought community together, you have to find unmarked battlefield and find an unmarked corpse. After quest markers were added it completely trivialized the quest, and community no longer had a thing to talk about.
- I want good games! - Okay, what's a good game? - I don't know, like... good games. Fun games. - What makes a game fun? -You know like, good story, good gameplay, good characters, good graphics... -...And what's the difference between a good story, gameplay, characters and graphics and bad ones? - Idk man, I just want something new. All games are the same these days. - Have you tried playing an indie game, from smaller studios? Indie devs usually try to be more innovative than AAA games. - Nah, they're too different.
This video resonates with me so much. The nature of a lot of online discourse around games is one of the reasons I named my channel what I did. It's a constant reminder to myself not to end up consumed by what I dislike about games. It's really easy to complain and it's also really easy act like your way is THE right way instead of recognizing that a feature, or in fact an entire game, may just not be for you. I fully believe, and I was actually thinking about this the other day, gamers have no idea what they want. That is, as a group gamers have no idea. As individuals they of course know what they like and what they want. But as a group they have no idea because they all have contradictory opinions, yet many act as if the whole group is in agreement. Often, when someone says, "Gamers want X," what they really mean is "I want X so everyone else must want X too."
Replying to your comment partly because I really dig the name - yeah dude, this should be fun! We should be able to find the things we like and express that with each other, but I am finding it's getting more and more difficult to keep things positive. Like Robert Plant calling out in the middle of singing "Stairway to Heaven" - does anybody remember laughter? But to the general point, at my age I do think I've gained a pretty thorough understanding of what I like (though I do enjoy being surprised now and then with something I didn't think I would like but did) and I'm just less interested in going around and around about things I don't like. But that seems to be where most stuff on the internet is focused, like Tim says. Increasingly it seems like when I post an opinion about a game I do like, I'll just attract a bunch of people telling me why they hate the thing I like and I lose interest in my own discussion. I don't know whose fault that is, or how to keep things positive. If someone figures it out, let me know!
I will push back when Tim equates microtransactions to fast travel. To me, this is at least somewhat of a stretch and not fully fitting. While I understand the point (how much do you want game devs to hand hold your is a very valid point), taking advantage of people's addictions is different. This is especially topical with the rise of sports betting online but even in video games, microtransactions, progress gates, etc. have been/are used to turn more people into addicts and to take advantage of these behaviors with serious health and monetary consequences. I am not saying Tim supports companies doing this (the topic is a concern of mine!), and I am curious about his thoughts on the rise of gambling in the video game industry overtime (ex. How it impacts development of a game).
Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. You said it around the 8 minute mark; Constructive criticism. When I bring it up when discussing gaming or politics or whatever I tend to get this look like as if I'm acting like a child whining about how unfair the world is. Where in my mind this is similar to the "golden rule", something we should have learned how to do long before we became adults. I learned a lot of life lessons the hard way and I used to think it held me back. I'm much more appreciative these days. Anywho, thanks for another great video!
Great video! Many funny things you said such as the chocolate analogy. “I got you a boat but hey, it’s not white chocolate.” I think this question has multiple answers. Things I dislike might weigh more in the mind than things I like. It’s also the case from what I can tell that a number of people are bored and it’s easier to argue or complain about games than it is to just sit down and play them. Thing is, most of the feedback devs see probably doesn’t represent most of the playerbase. I have time to make a comment on a video like this but my older brother doesn’t. He has 30 minutes to an hour to play a game each day, let alone time to leave feedback. So devs just aren’t seeing a player like him represented in the comment section.
There are two ways of looking at this: 1) People cannot know what they like until they've tried something, and it is from previous experience that we figure out things we are more consistently likely to enjoy as individuals. 2) But that which we are willing to try is usually influenced by already existing interests and preferences, which means to get people to buy into things you need to somehow meet them where they are, while equally offering something new that piques their interest. It's Steve Jobs talking about convincing people that they want / need the iPad. You won't convince everyone that they want / need something, but if you design a product with a vision of who you see engaging with it, and are honest, you can generally figure out whether it will sell and to whom.
Tim, quick question following the train of thought. When planning sequels, do you check mods for mechanics tuning, to see what they wanted afterwards based on download history?
Oh yeah, mods, reviews, forum posts…they are all good sources for what people want. For mods, looking at download count is important because many mods are made that very few people use.
@@CainOnGames But what if some of game most popular mods are borderline ( or sometimes even stright on ) cheat mods ? I've seen this happen a few times ( Payday 2 for example ). What would game devs do with this kind of feedback ?
Players obviously do not know what they want, but they know what they dislike. If they say X is bad, it is not their job to figure out a solution. It is that of game designers to figure out what the problem is and come up with (creative) solutions. And generally there are often elaborate comments about things like that, so it's not like starting from zero.
And you are missing the context, just like Tim pointed out. Yes, gamers “know’ what they dislike. But most of the time they don’t know why, they don’t provide context and they also don’t provide constructive feedback. Watching quite a lot of raging videos and reading through comments over the past years, I am convinced that these gamers don’t understand how their game works and how different aspects of the game play together. They most often project seemingly similar features from other games onto the game in question without giving it at least a few seconds to think about what each game is about. Hence the context. For example, seamless travel between planets in NMS is a great feature but it would not really work in Starfield. The planets in these games are of very different sizes. Starfield ships are space ships, designed for space travel not atmospheric flight. If they were able to fly as in NMS, could you crash? Could you use weapons to clear out enemies? If not, then why should you spend credits on ship upgrades if they are useless on the surface? But you can modify and upgrade your ship and that requires ranking up your character skills. A feature not existing in NMS. And that is okay as the game is not an rpg. You can’t just cherry pick a thing without context. Well, you can but it won’t help the developers to understand your issue.
@@brianviktor8212 you’re right and I apologize. I’ve misunderstood most parts of your comment. Sorry. You are right and I agree with your statement. However majority of the comments are not elaborate and even many of those elaborate tend to miss the context. So you are almost right in your assessment :)
@@BribedSeeker904 I swear, video games are the only type of media where you can just blame the consumer and walk away from any argument. Even when players do say exactly what they want, it gets ignored. Let's use Starfield as an example: The game is full of loading screens and Bethesda knows players hate them, the countless "Open Cities" mods for their games is pretty solid feedback indicating that people don't like to go through loading screens when visiting cities/settlements. Years later, Starfield comes out and the game is filled to the brim with loading screens, not to mention bugs and glitches. Oh, the reason why Starfield doesn't have seamless travel between planets? Loading screens.
@ first of all a game, a movie, a book, a painting, a piece of music, probably any piece of art is a product. it is a product of one or more people who happen to have an idea what their product should be. it is their idea, not some consumer/customer idea. just to clear things up. as for the loading screens, if you have a better idea on separating various game world areas like exteriors and interiors then let’s hear it. So BGS games use an engine with loading screens to make happen. Well, 2d platformers don’t have 3d camera view. Real time strategies don’t have turn based combat. Most race cars games don’t have motorbikes. In gta v you can’t have more than 10 garages. In nms you can’t carry more items than available slots. you can’t have more population than 250 in age of empires. different games have different rules or limitations to follow. having the same cap on ship and outpost max crew size in Starfield is much more disappointing than loading screens. if you are still unsure on loading screens, check out f76 solo and team play with private instances, that might provide a few hints. also, the number of loading screen you encounter also depends on how you play the game. I can spend a few hours without a single loading screen and still do fun and meaningful stuff not just base building.
Weirdly needed to hear this today, a lot of my friends are being overly negative about comic books with no alternatives offered, not the exact same thing, but I feel like the lesson applies.
I just finished my first Supernova playthrough of Outer Worlds a few months ago and the lack of fast travel (except to your ship) was actually pretty fun. Really made you think and plan about how to go about doing quests/gearing up before leaving towns and such. Currently on a New Vegas playthrough with a self-imposed no fast travel rule, we'll see how far that goes.
My favourite fast travel implementation is to have a world that is designed for repeated exploration that I want to walk around in, and can navigate in by landmarks, and then after a few hours allowing me to travel back to certain big hubs, but not to every tiny point on the map. That needs a lot of care and work though and of course works less well if your world is enormous... Gothic, Risen, that sorta game works well with it. A Skyrim? Maybe, I still played it that way.
Sometimes it's about who you're asking. The example I like to use in this context was World of Warcraft and Everquest 2. Both were mmorpgs from major studios that were originally scheduled to launch the same week (in the end EQ 2 pushed their release two week early while WoW launched two week later for a 4 week gap). Both had been asking players but EQ2 designers had been asking current players of EQ and other games and they had all said they wanted more complexity and interaction with other players. WoW devs on the other hand asked people that 'weren't' playing any of the other mmorpgs and more importantly they asked 'why' they weren't and made a game that still had the core elements of Everquest but were you could also drop in for short sessions to solo and didn't demand tightly coordinated group play. So maybe not as social but more accessible to new players.
I really liked the initial comparison of "difficult to know what to do with" feedback from stand-up comedians with that of video game players… great talk, Tim.
I really think all feedback is useful for different reasons. I feel that the way in which someone conveys their thoughts and opinions significantly impacts how well the opinions are received. A reason why people may lean towards more critical and negative feedback is that they may feel like they are not being listened to. When people are more invested in game series they may be more sensitive to any design deviations in future titles.
Tim, the practice of communicating your wants is key throughout all aspects of life, isn’t it? It’s easy to react to stimulus, no creativity involved with that. Being creative, imagining what you’d prefer, most players are incapable. All they can do, like an infant, is squall at their wet diaper, not verbalize a desire for a better garment.
1. People love to join band wagons. I remember the Ratchet & Clank devs were listening to the popular band wagon of "30 FPS bad, 60 FPS good" and were forced to choose between better visuals or 60 FPS [console game, so no graphic options for the player]. They looked at sales data and it showed 60 FPS games did not sell more but games which looked better did. 2. People can identify when they are feeling unhappy or happy but figuring what causes it is difficult and they often get it wrong. 3. Gamers face no consequence for being wrong. If they say something and it doesnt translate into improved sales even if they said "we all will buy games that do this" its not like they lose their job. There is no incentive for them to learn to get better, no punishment for failure, or even feedback. It's not like they get a performance review. They can even outright deny they took a certain stance and beleive their own words that they never said what they did indeed say.
Hi, Tim. I want to say two things about your video: 1. You conflate two different things - what players want and what players like. Those aren't necessarily the same. Players may want something only to find out that they don't like when it's implemented (or how it's implemented). And the opposite, they may think they don't want something only to find out that they like it when it's done right. 2. And that brings me to my second point. It's YOUR job to figure out what players would like in their games. If players would know what they actually like and don't like and were able to explain it in all the clear details, they would be gamedesigners themselves.
I'm a gamer who likes a lot of variety and can tell you exactly what I like about the games I enjoy. However, it's difficult to talk about things i enjoy because the internet loves to dogpile and talk negative all the time. I think New Vegas and Elden Ring are really great games with a lot of flaws, but I know if I made a video about the flaws that would get way more rage clicks than if I just gave it praise. I know if I talked about how much I love some Ubisoft games like assassin's Creed Odyssey or Tom Clancy's breakpoint people will dogpile about how scummy Ubisoft are and not even talk about the games or the great parts of them. I think you bring up some great points here Tim, I think as a society We just need to be better at formulating our own opinions and giving honest feedback. Have a great day! 😄
Thanks for the video, Tim. If people started appreciating games for what they are rather than what they want them to be, thing may be different. Most people don't practice appreciation and acceptance. These skills are lost with many people today, which leaves us with a very negatively biased outlook, leading to a lot of 'I want', 'you should', and 'I hate'. Regarding feedback, this is also a skill that isn't developed well as a society. Receiving constructive, usable feedback that highlights issues with examples and also touches on what was done well seems to be a rare occurrence. But, at least we can appreciate that kind of feedback when we receive it and we can accept that the world is what it is, and that's okay. It's not ideal, but I'm sure things will change over time, as is the case with all things. Change for the better or worse, though? Well, that's all perspective 🙃
My personal wish for fast travel, is that it was disabled, but also that there are meaningful decisions planning the journey to the destination. For example say I'm in Town A, and I have a quest in Town B. Town B is a few in-game days travel away. The quest has a time limit of 1 in-game week. Some things I'll do to plan this journey: - Ask townspeople for info on the geography towards Town B (Personality/Speech check). Maybe they say the path has giant spiders. - Look for potion seller for a potion of anti-poison, in case I'm attacked by spiders - Decide between cheaper perishable rations, or expensive durable rations.. If there are settlements along the way I might choose the perishable rations, coz I can easily restock. (Rations are consumed automatically, I just need to make sure their in my inventory) - Decide if I should get my warm cloak repaired before I leave. It's battered and may not survive the journey. But the tailor will take a day to complete, which risks the quest time limit. - Decide if I should pack heavy or light (encumbrance). If I pack light then my fatigue drains more slowly (less need to rest), and also I can carry more loot I might find. Along the journey there should be encounters and challenges. But hopefully there should be a way to anticipate each one. Such as speaking with townspeople who warned about the spiders. (I think this might be a good way to systemize personality skills, as the responses can be generated from game-world data). The journey between any two towns should have different encounters that affect your plan: what to take, how often to rest, where to stop along the way. Hopefully there's no big quests that pop up during the journey. So I can stay focused on the quest I already have. Although short local quests would be fun. Like if I'm stopping at a tavern on the way to the destination, and there's a conflict between two patrons the player can help with. As long as these small quests only take a couple of in-game hours. I just don't want my quest log to fill up with tons of quests such as in Skyrim. I've been playing a lot of Daggerfall with mods lately, and I feel like it hints at a really interesting and engaging system for travelling.
The company I work for has a popular game, but with a lot of criticism and feedback. Before I worked for them, they listened to everything and made a sequel based on what the community apparently wanted. The sequel died pretty quickly, but the original is still very popular.
Hi Tim! I think the majority of people complaining, save for certain exceptions, are part of a vocal and loud minority and that's why sales don't reflect the apparent taste of that loud minority. The same usually happens with other media like cinema, TV and music!
Players are definitely really good at telling you what they _don't_ like, which can be hard to work with. Doubly so on those extra toxic comments... What has worked for me while evaluating player feedback is ignoring the specifics of their feedback - like direct implementation requests, or specific "I don't like how {X} does {Y}" - and boiling it down to, "What is the end (mechanical/tactile/aesthetic) result the player is trying to achieve?" Then deciding how it fits within our goals for the game. I love the anecdote about the Thompson and MP40 weapons in Wolfenstein - how players thought one was weaker when they were literally the same under the hood, and the deciding factor was audio feedback. In that case, players complained that the gun _was_ weaker, when what it boiled down to was, "I _feel_ weaker while using this" For a personal example: on one project players complained about menus being "laggy", but we could not reproduce any kind of update or frame rate drops. Ultimately, they meant it felt unresponsive because some of the interactions' visual feedbacks had slow-entry fade-ins - which we chopped off. Some feedback can be taken as-is, but even reasonable feature requests have to go through a round of, "How well does this feature fit in _this_ game?" with alternate designs considered alongside the suggestion, or the suggestion having to be molded into a different form to account for the game's needs (Cross platform support, etc). (And of course to head off misunderstandings: feedback that directly says exactly what's wrong and can be reproduced are listened to 100%. Like game and crash bugs) So... Do players know what they like / want? Some, maybe, but all players have an idea of when something doesn't work _for them_ and will be sure to let us know. Personally, I prefer when players don't make direct suggestions because they can become distracting to the overall problem they're trying to indicate. It's easy to get sidetracked by the specifics of "add a minimap" (a minimap doesn't work for our design goals, or we don't have screen real-estate, or there's a performance concern) - when, the real problem is "The level designs are confusing and I need help navigating" (which can be solved with level adjustments, better map menu, a compass + markers, etc)
I think this is probably how most gamers are. A lot of people know when they like something or don’t like something, but a lot of people can’t really explain why without really taking the time to understand it, which most people don’t have time to do or simply don’t care to. I think negative feedback is good and necessary just as much as positive feedback so long as they convey it properly and thoroughly 👍
I helped contract for a multiplayer game that was supposed to be heavily community driven, so essentially are lead would do polls on discord and other social media on what features the player base wanted to be developed first. Its cool in concept but the polls often showed the stupidest features winning every time and when we implemented the desired feature it lead to immediate backlash from the entire community. What I took away from this is that players aren't constantly deconstructing the game they're playing, they aren't dissecting it to see what they find fun. They just "play" and the unconscious mind will direct them towards fun. So often the things that stick out to them are pain points in the design or features that are missing from games in the same genre. Which started to make sense once we went through about the polls. Constantly players would prioritize a feature that was missing but requested from another finished game in the same genre, even if the game is still missing a feature fundamental to its basic game loop; because they cant imagine a game in that genre without that feature if its always been a part of the game loop for games in that genre. They need to feel the pain of it missing before they understand its importance.
Regarding purely cosmetic microtransactions in multiplayer games, some players don't want to have to run around in their plain-looking armor while others are in their glowing, sparkling, animated kickass armor (even though stats may be the same). Appearance and character customization are important to these players.
I think a good analogy is the food industry. The most profitable are fast food restaurants, but no food connoisseur will give 5 stars to McDonald's. That industry adjusted so high quality specialized meals are more expensive so can still be feasible catering to a smaller more discriminating customer base. For a variety of reasons most video games cost about the same (at launch) so theres less incentive to making a game that caters to a small section of the customer base.
I'll say what i like about games! I love talking about my favourite games. I tend to gravitate towards open/semi-open worlds, RPGs that give me companions with a lot of personality. Companions that have opinions, feelings, talk and comment about things. I think encumbrance is good, as a weapon/armour/potion hoarder, it's nice to have a mechanic that forces me to keep myself in check. I appreciate that in Outer Worlds, the easiest difficult is called "storymode" instead of "baby mode" as mentioned lots before (currently on my first hard playthrough, just got to Monarch!). I like that fast travel is there, even if I might not use it 90% of the time. Imo, one of the good ways to "cheat" around that is when games have some sort of taxi service to take you somewhere (like Morrowind or SWTOR), I like those. I enjoy being able to possibly romance a companion, or at least have a couple romance options in a game. I enjoy player homes, be it something the game gives you or a place you could buy (and I especially enjoy when I can decorate them!). I appreciate being able to change my appearance during the game, even if it's just hair and makeup -- I'm too indecisive to have it set in stone! Doesn't matter if i never see my character, _I know it's there._ On a personal level, aesthetics do mean a lot to me, so I always look at the sky and the water (like rivers, streams) in a game. Something so peaceful about the beauty of both those things, atoms or pixels.
After your previous video on criticism I really took that too heart and when I have been playing demos on Steam I am much more proactive on giving feedback on what I personally thought of the game both mechanically and emotionally. It's been extremely cathartic for getting me to sit down and critically challenge myself and my own views when presented with a Demo of a game I am interested in. I have also found the indie devs who released the Demo seem to really appreciate the feedback and suggestions even if it's something they weren't originally considering for their game. Doing this lead me to discover that I actually really hate the jointed paper puppets style animation/art of games that is like early Flash games, I gave them a pass back in the day because I understood the limited resources but whenever I see it in games released today it instantly turns me off buying the game. Even if the game is well voiced, interesting premise, incredible writing the art and motion of paper puppets is something I just wont ever willingly buy. I never would have noticed that about myself if it wasn't for your videos explaining things like this. Lastly on Fast Travel I have recently had to sit down and think about fast travel and found that I do like exploring and discovering but once I have explored a place to a certain point I get bored if I have to keep exploring and discovering if it's just for quests. If it's not quest related I am happy as to spend hours trying to figure out how to get to something that looks like it might be a cave hidden away somewhere, but if it's required to spend hours looking for a quest related thing I get really angry and feel like the game is wasting my time. So things like quest markers and fast travel are great for when I just want to get through the story, but when I just feel some wanderlust I am happy to spend ages just exploring a map and all it has hidden away by level designers. I have recently gotten back into playing The Outer Worlds a game I never finished and found that when I want to focus on the story I want as little distractions as possible and when I just want to scrounge around I am fine with any sort of distraction. That said for my TOW playthrough I am trying my best to only focus on the main storyline mission because last time I played I just got bored with loot and not really following the story because I would explore and then forget what I was doing and lose track of the story. One suggestion I would have is modern RPG's should borrow from Japanese Visual Novels and keep a transcript of conversations for each mission you have so if you come back to the game a week later and you're trying to remember what you were doing you can just read the log, I mean most games have subtitles anyways so I wonder if it's not possible to just when you track the quest in the game you just put the subtitles and your responses into the Quest tracker screen so you can reference it anytime. Thanks for another great video Tim.
I'm a fan of set difficulty options, designed by designers and tested to make sure they deliver a particular experience, and then a Custom option if Devs want players to be able to fiddle with small settings that may make a game harder or easier.
While I mostly agree on the fact that people rarely give constructive criticism, but at the same time. It seems to be connected to the fact, that people on the receiving end "forgot" how to receive any criticism at all. A good example is Emil Pagliarulo who has been repeatedly called out on his - to put mildly - not stellar writing skills, to which he replied (in length): "Funny how disconnected some players are from the realities of game development, and yet they speak with complete authority. I mean, I can guess what it takes to make a Hostess Twinkie, but I don't work in the factory, so what the hell do I really know? Not a lot." Which while true, I would like to say = "I do not have to have the title of Master Chef to know that the soup was too salty" Noel Gallagher during his interview on First we feast said - paraphrasing - "Fans have no clue what they want until you give it to them". Again, true, but that doesn't meant everyone is going to celebrate your attempt at delivery, especially when what you deliver is crap..
I'm not even sure if Emil has bad writing skills, but he has bad storytelling skills. He seems the type of dude which wants to be a book author, which is alright, but a Fallout game requires a dude which enjoys the bats**t stuff tabletop players come up with while he is dungeonmastering for them. My impression is that Emil would be the type of DM which would railroad the players when they figured a solution for something he hadn't predicted.
I'm gonna be honest, I feel like lambasting Bethesda games for writing is pretty silly. Like, who cares, it's not even remotely the main attraction. Writing in their games _always_ was subpar, even in Morrowind, for every Sermon of Vivec there's a dozen of nonsensical quests. And, ultimately, he is right: you don't know what constraints does the dev operate under. Was [X] a result of stupid writing or did they have to cut [Y] that provided more context?
@@AliceLoverdrive yes.. who cares about writing in RPG games... "Was [X] a result of stupid writing or did they have to cut [Y] that provided more context?" As an end user, that is absolutely not my problem. For me, the important part is that the product is of poor quality. Do I really need to know if it happened due to writer having a bad day or because his brilliant idea was scrapped for money/time constraints ?
@@Forestmarko why would you care about writing in a game where the main gameplay is wandering around wilderness and delving into dungeons you see along the way? Expecting stellar writing from a Bethesda RPG is like expecting good romance subplot in a Souls game. You can, sure, but like... Why? That's not even remotely the reason to play it.
Hi Tim, thanks for posting this. It really made me think. Just this morning I was going to comment on a feature for a mobile game that was made easier and I was going to complain that while it might be a good change, it might not be good enough in my mind. I realize from your video that I need to be more precise in what I say. It reminds me of when I tested software that I needed to write detailed steps for the developer to replicate a bug I found. So thanks for this challenge to do better.
I think the trend towards negativity in fan bases is a direct response to the toxic positivity prevalent in alot of online communities on reddit and message boards and whatever else. Just look at the rise in popularity of "circlejerk" sub-reddits and jokes online, thats all a response to people who blindly love everything about a game or film or series.
On the bit about players hating micro-transactions, it may be about losing the ability to communicate their achievements visually. It must feel good to look at a player and be able to know she also did a certain quest that one did, or to determine their skill-level and such.
Players are like water, they flow down the path of least resistance. Our job as game designers is to make sure the water flows where it flows, and errodes where it erodes...
Most people don't know how to say what they mean or translate what is said into what is meant. When people complain about a game they are often trying to say that it conflicts with their perception of what its trying to be. A game promising exploration of a detailed world undercuts its self with the introduction of easy fast travel. Now there is less insentive to explore the seemingly more mundane spaces between, places not deemed important enough for fast travel. This in turn often causes developers to get lazy with these spaces because the majority of players will naturally play the game in the most "efficient" manner and not see that the original promise is not being fufilled. That is why people complain about something that seems to provide to a games success, the people who complain are a vocal minority who are there for the promise and not the game. Obviously there are plenty of things that people complain about and every complaint has a different reason but this is my take on the majority of them.
This also applies to games with cosmetic micro-transactions. In something like a multiplayer shooter, which often ooze with such, players are promised a competition based on skill with others. The introduction of cosmetics often leads to a form of social competition built on top. The perception of you as a player in this public environment is no longer entirely based on dedication to skill but a flaunting of wealth or taste. Let alone any more technical reasons like art direction, visibility, and storage size.
I think players want two things primarily: depth and some degree of a curated “intended experience.” Greg Glintstone in his video about Elden Ring critiques presents two perspectives on the latter. Having a clear correct way to play is important to a degree while having unlimited ways to play that are all equally valid can be another perspective as well. Specifically in response to the points made about fast travel it is the lack of depth presented by games such as Skyrim that can be disheartening as a player. Optimizing the fun out of a game seems to be a pitfall that both developers and players can fall into. Efficiency is an intrinsic motivation that is largly universal and can lead to play styles that are un-fun if not accounted for in the design. The Arkham games combat relies on this. You can do the bare minimum of strike and block but if you want to have fun you must be motivated by efficiency. The best way to play is the most fun way to play. Fast travel is a tool used for efficiency and thus those who are not self restricting will never get to see the game from an exclusively seamless perspective (yes dungeons have loading screens but you get the point.) Players want the best way to play to be the most fun way to play and if universal intrinsic motivations are not accounted for in the design players will use them to satisfy these desires 99% of the time.
Sometimes people say they don't like fast travel, but what they actually mean is that they don't like some downside that comes with fast travel, like diminishing the feeling of exploration, always looking for icons in a the map compass, etc. It's the job of the designer to hear the feedback and think about what it means to hopefully address the issue within fast travel, instead of simply taking the feedback at face value and outright remove fast travel or add it as an opt-int setting.
When it comes to microtransactions, the only reason games started having tons of microtransactions in them is because gamers tolerate them. In the beginning, gamers made the same kind of excuses like "it's only cosmetics". Well maybe in Fortnite it's only cosmetics, but it most games it isn't. And that's BECAUSE people defend microtransactions. If people didn't defend them, microtransactions wouldn't exist. Plus it's unfair to say 'just don't buy them'. If you shouldn't buy them, why are they in the game then? Also a lot of people play with their friends, so if they have such cosmetics, they want to buy them too. When I played Call of Duty back in the day and saw a gun with a certain skin that I didn't have, I was thinking "wow that player probably plays a lot" because you had to earn them. Now I just think "wow they must have rich parents". When it comes to the other stuff, yes I think a lot of gamers don't know what they want. But there's also a big increase of game companies putting in features that players don't like on purpose. I'm a gamer for over 20 years now, and I just realize that as a more '"hardcore" gamer, I'm not really the target demographic anymore and game companies want to prioritize the "wider audience" like they say.
I like inventory systems that have some visual/physical representation in the game. Like a backpack getting bigger or, in my ideal world, games all have a system like Death Stranding except their game isn’t literally just about carrying inventory.. more like, they have a solid RPG but they adopt Death Stranding approach to inventory to make everything you pick up feel like a real choice - more like a choice you might make in real life if you were in that situation. I don’t love encumbrance ONLY BECAUSE it comes out of nowhere to me. Like, it just feel crazy arbitrary, I’m already carrying so much why suddenly is this book make it impossible for me to run.. but if I could feel the weight and see the things I picked up constantly weighing and slowing me down, then I’m all for it.
I think that a lot of the issue is that people may not have the language to communicate what they like in a way that translates to the designer. Where I work, I interface with clients, and they'll say "I want X, Y, Z." If I tell that to my engineers, that won't tell them how to give them what the client wants. I have to use my minimal engineer speak to help them implement the solution. I think that buying games with features I don't necessarily want or like is a tradeoff. If there are more features that I like than those I don't, I may buy it for what I like. If the negatives to me outweigh the positives, I'll spend my money elsewhere. I also think that marketing plays a big role. If marketing highlights the things I like, but minimizes those I don't, I may not be aware that the negative exists. Within the AAA space, I feel that publishers aren't listening to the feedback from the players, while they chase the trends. When you see developers losing hundreds of millions of dollars on live service, for example, but continue to make them, that is a supply side problem. Just my thoughts.
I much liked how Starfield went with voiceless protagonist and less streamlined dialogue mechanic, in which the structure and options can be customized for each quest. Also, I enjoyed how they addressed ship construction and base building, by employing the architect mode. Big like, they did listen to positive criticism and did address the issues with markable improvements. Now they should try to do something about the facial animations. Witcher 3 did them great. Starfield…
When it comes to things that people 'don't like', I think that there are certain mechanics in RPGs (and more importantly, other games) that a lot of people generally dislike, but could be implemented in a way that people would actually enjoy it. The ones that come to mind right now is Durability and Status Effects. For Status Effects, I think it is mostly due to the mechanic in most games being overly simplistic; most of the time it is an RNG-based implementation of the status effect being added onto or not, as well as once the status effect is afflicted on a target, the usage of such status effect-based weapons/spells/whatever are somewhat nerfed because the Status Effect has now been added onto, and thus the effect of said tool no longer has that affect on a target. Typically, I do enjoy the souls game's use of status effect build-up, mostly because I have been tired of the dice mechanics of many different games. At the same time however, I also think the addition of a status effect 'level-stacking system' would be a good idea... the level-stacking system in question for example being able to add the same poison on a target multiple times, which increases the length and potency of the damage of said poison (like the difference between a single bee sting and a thousand). That way, if someone wanted to play a poison-based character, they could focus on a form of DPS with, say a fast but weak weapon that can be coated or is already coated with a poison ailment that never becomes 'nerfed' from being useful after afflicting a person once... instead, they can repeatedly increase the potency/length of the poison on the target by attacking them over and over. This wouldn't also just work with poison, but having different status effects that are both positive and negative buffs and debuffs as well, depending on your creativity. As for Durability, I think most people like it is due to Durability often acting as a liability more than an asset. For Oblivion for example, a lot of people hated that game because they played a Fighter; a lot of people had a sluggish time due to how the game was made, and making use of a pure fighter for most players as not fun. Instead, the Stealth and more importantly the Magic system, where the durability system is in the most part is next to non-existent (and also magic and stealth just did more damage overall). For fixes of Durability, that varies. For a survival horror setting, I think it works as a form of alternative to ammunition, although the issue with most Durability systems such as the Resident Evil Outbreak series, where almost all of the melee weapons have the general durability of a handgun (around 15 hits max, but most are less) before breaking, whilst handguns both can be reloaded with ammo that is more plentiful than said melee weapons, and there are weapons with a higher ammo capacity that exist. I'm sure that if can be properly be placed in a survival horror setting if they take into account varying weapons that might have more durability points than most, such as an Iron Pipe with around 30-45 durability with moderate damage output in contrast to a heavier weapon that deals more damage with less durability, for example. As for other implementations of Durability, there are a few ideas that have already existed in other games, and others that could be added to with new ones. Vagrant Story has a Durability System and also a Shadow System, which both pretty much work off of each other; whilst Durability decreases on a weapon when used, the player also gains Shadow points on said weapon; whilst the Durability being lowered decreases the damage output, the Shadow causes the weapon to deal more damage. Certain 'special melee' actions made use of consuming said Shadow Points and thus lowering it back to 0 in order to usually do more damage, but a number of systems could be done with such a system. Said game also had a special action that allowed you to restore a certain amount of durability for the weapon whilst dealing less damage to a target when you do a chain attack correctly. Other forms of durability actions such as making use of casting magic out of a magic weapon such as the Drake Sword or Havel's Greatshield in Dark Souls also exists. Having a variety of 'fighter spells' that exists that consumes the durability of your weapons or armour when used in order to do a special action would probably be enticing to most, especially if you added a way to restore said durability in a way that is 'fruitful' the other problem with Oblivion as mentioned was since so many weapons and armour broke so easily people carried a Repair Hammer, but since you had to reach max level in Armorer in order to only require one hammer, people were often bogged down by having multiple hammers at once to often repair the rather weak weapons and armour that always broke after a few swings or a few hits. I think for people to like Durability, it just requires a bit of more additions and interest to actually make it worthwhile. As it stands, most people don't like Durability in most RPGS and other games due to how 'overexaggerated' it is. The new Zelda games are a good example, with a lot of weapons that exist in the game being so unreliable that they often broke within 10-20 swings, which often left a sour feeling to many. Something that can be worked around for sure, but it is something that 'most' people don't often praise the game for. As it stands, a lot of people have a general dislike for Durability, from the number I hear talk about it either in real life or online, and honestly could go with a bit of creativity and additions to actually make it more appealing/interesting to most.
I think part of the reason alternate options aren't usually included with anti-requests is that seeing possibility spaces which belong to a topic is an earlier stage than actually understanding the nuances of those possibilities. i.e. someone with just enough of an intuition for design will be able to suss out that they don't think a feature's opportunity cost was worth it but won't actually have the knowhow to decide on a better way to spend those 'design credits' and will end up glossing over it since they still feel the need to express the initial feeling. Games do seem to kinda cultivate that base level of practice more than other media (possibly due to their nature as an interactive medium) but still have similarly steep climbs to mastery as other disciplines so that level of incomplete commentary becomes more ubiquitous than it might have otherwise been.
3:30 The deal with microtransactions is that I feel the game skews away from being the best possible to just starting to drip feed the player with things they want for their money. Microtransactions just by them existing change how the game is designed and played.
Generally speaking it's hard to know what novel things one would enjoy until it's no longer novel. Or it's easier to grow as a writer by getting experience as an editor and reader in between the writing activity. And yes, humans tend to be loss averse which makes it far easier to understand and identify issues is something in front of them than to understand and be able to reproduce and recontextualize what they like. And now with the ease for everyone to share their opinions online, first-order intuitive "easy" opinions are being amplified orders of magnitudes louder than more informed, nuanced, or quirky takes. But also I suspect a lot of people who have a keen concept of what they want in games tend to end up becoming designers and developers.
Games are like IT: when everything works perfectly, no one notices or complains. But the moment something doesn’t meet expectations, complaints arise. Interestingly, if people always knew exactly what they wanted, they wouldn’t pay others to deliver a new and unique experience.
There's also the issue that sometimes people just don't have the knowledge for why something isn't working. I'm a more advanced computer user (which blows my mind because it doesn't feel like I'm advanced), so I'm able to give more details to my IT department when I'm running into issues but I know other people at my office who need a lot of what feel like the basics explained to them. Then again, there's a reason the first step, usually, is the old turn it off and on again (although funnily I had an issue where I kept getting a slow down over time and I just solved it by restarting but the issue would return. I mentioned the issue to IT and it was one of those rare "Don't restart so we can try and find the problem" situations).
I work in a Graphic Design Agency, one thing that kills me the most is how things are handled with the clients by my upper management. First off, you don't get a chance a chance to talk to the client. If there is anything, the client handler has to supervise and give you what you think the client will want. Now, one thing i realized is that, some clients (ends up being MOST) end up coming to you where they don't know what they want "just surprise us", this takes us through a series of rejections, and guess what, this would have been faster if I could show the clients references, but the client handler usually says that "showing references to the clients is unprofessional"...what? So then I am left standing in a dark room playing darts with a design that I might like but they won't.
I work as a concept artist in video games. I can tell you, it's exactly the same except for the fact that they sometimes do want reference beforehand but we end up on a winding path, completely steering away from what was liked about the ref in the first place, leaving you looking for a needle in a hay stack
And here we see why so much money gets flushed and time gets wasted. Absolute comedy.
They have to make their job seem necessary somehow. lol
"Client Handlers"...
Be sure to add an elbow in the shot, even if middle management is up your backside..
For those not in the know, since pretty much forever, if you're working in a creative and artistic field for specific clients that are commissioning the work, the best artists add an intentional and easy to remove defects to their work - defects that are almost impossible to both miss and ignore, and if you're masterful at it, it will seem like something believably missed by the artist that made it. It could be 'leaving' a thumb in the corner of a touched up photograph, or maybe a boom or elbow in the shot, or could be 'accidentally' adding a distracting skin color or the wrong eye color (red-eye being my go-to) to the main focus of the picture... or for logos, something as little as 'wanted to try something bold and different' with disgusting and clashing background is enough to do it... they need to be bad enough to require the need to be removed, but not bad enough as to hide completely the well made creation you made (or they are going to pivot to something else) --- it needs to actually be good, just with one little near fatal flaw. The trick is: All the defects are intentional defects added in post, and easily removed (like 'unhide 1 layer' amounts of effort).... limit it to just one or two major things. The trick is, people that pay for art will 100% ALWAYS COMPLAIN about AT MINIMUM ONE THING about what should be the final result... and even if the final submitted art is by all standards perfect and wonderous, people that pay for art just can't help themselves but to put their own little thumbprint on it somewhere to appease their bruised ego that they can't do it themselves so they can vicariously pretend to actually be skilled at a craft you've spent your life mastering, if only THEY could make ooooone little change - and if left up to them, usually it's something that sounds small but takes both a massive amount of rework (sometimes from scratch) and worse erodes what actually is good about the creation (something you spent years to know what to do and how to do it in a masterful way, and something that they had like a week at most thinking about in the most abstract and diminished way possible - knowing almost nothing about the process nor what actually is good or not) "I don't know art, but I know what I like" type thing. So, you add the defect, and when they immediate catch it, you say to them "Oh, wow, what an eye you have! Have you ever considered becoming a creator as well? Thank god you were here to catch such a mistake, I would have missed that. I'll go and make that change now." - that's all it takes to have happy customers... give it no more than a few hours, and excitedly show them the results of THEIR creation. (obviously don't turn around in 2 minutes with the fixed version, that diminishes THEIR contribution, but also, if you milk it for a week, paradoxically it doesn't work because, then they don't see THEIR contribution anymore, they see it as just a fix YOU did --- magic number is a couple hours, ideally SAME DAY).
SCRUM is very much like this as well, except they add a bunch of stupid cards and a bunch of useless meetings to it and the projects take years to complete... same principle though... make the money people feel like they are helping, even though in reality it's all just for show and they are just in the way in the worst kind of ways.
But yeah... if you're not, you should be adding an elbow in the shot (and you're welcome :D), and if you are, I write this for anyone else that stumbles across it (you're welcome too).
That wont fix being unable to show concepts... if they have a vivid idea that they want X and you give them Y, then they will just tell you that they want X...
But, whose kidding who, most people don't know what they are looking for... they just know what "they don't like"
TLDR If you make something great, with an almost fatal flaw but otherwise really amazing... might cut down on the amount of work you got to do, get them a product that they actually need, and make it so you don't have to live the hellish life of constant revision after revision after revision ...
Browse through any relatively popular game's steam reviews and you'll see some people applauding a game for the same reason someone else gave it a 1/10. One side says "thank you game devs!" while the other says "why don't game devs realize that gamers don't want this?" The positive reviews will say "don't listen to the haters, the silent majority loves it!" And the negative reviews will say "the people who claim to like this are just fanboys" or "these are clearly bot reviews". I think saying gamers collectively don't know what they want is accurate, at least if you think of them as a whole.
This reminds me of that classic advice when you are looking for feedback through playtesting: the gamer absolutely knows if they are having a good time or not, but usually they have no idea why, that's the reason you need to watch them play the game and not take their word for granted. I guess this is essentially the same problem, so no, I don't think most gamers know exactly what they want.
Exactly. This is precisely correct.
And at no fault of the players as well. They do not have the experience nor expertise on game design to pinpoint which system they liked exactly.
@@zavi3rz it requires self-control and attention. It is very difficult to understand what causes the release of dopamine in you, unless it is, of course, something banal - like a Skinner box
@@zavi3rz yes, that's it, as a regular player you lack the formation needed to dissect the different systems and mechanics of the game and make an informed analysis. It's the same with movies, you know if you liked the movie of not and you can even say which scene was your favorite, but if you don't have some knowledge about filmmaking it's very difficult to explain why.
Game designer Mark Rosewater makes an analogy of this out of a doctor and patient. A patient (player) is best at identifying if they have a problem, but the doctor (designer) is the best at deciding on the solution.
You know what i like? Tim Cain!
Me too!
❤
9/10 could use more doggo.
Easily in the Top 3 Tim category.
" you're wrong! "
I think being loud and negative on the internet is an outlet for a lot of people who are very unhappy in their lives.
You have now angered every bethedsa fan on TH-cam
So true, couldn't agree more. And sadly game devs get too much of it. Good thing is that you know what kind of comments to skip immediately. :)
Yes. And a negative voice is usually louder than a positive voice. We pay more attention to threats than to positivity.
Plus, social media algorithms amplify negative voices--sometimes literally! I remember that, at least at some point, the "angry" reaction on Facebook was hard-coded by the devs to be several times more impactful than the "like" reaction.
I personally blame both our tech overlords for tweaking the algo to prioritize ragebait content and the content creators themselves who get incentive to write the most heinous, outrageous things to get attention. It takes a lot to get thoughtful analysis to the top.
People were always negative and complaining, it is now just easier to do it globaly
I've found in my own experience that it's FAR too easy to get influenced by other people's opinions before you can form your own. If I'm playing a game, I don't want to talk to ANYONE about the game until I've formed my thoughts on it, because I've noticed in the past that talking to people makes me enjoy the game less.
I can trudge through a mediocre story and point out what works, but when all anyone else says is "The story sucks" then it's a lot harder to find things to appreciate because my brain keeps examining things under the lens of either trying to see what they didn't like or trying to form an argument about why it's good, and EITHER WAY it turns my opinion from something genuine into something prematurely crafted to form an argument.
Can I explain why this is the case? Not fully. But I find this has happened multiple times, so I tried to solve it by shutting outside opinions out and it has made my game playing more fulfilling, albeit at the cost of the sense of community during play.
Yeah, I had the exact same problem with stuff like Bayonetta 3 and Borderlands 3 ironically enough. Like in BL3, the main story is too "fellow kids" and Bayo 3 story is a bit predictable and had an undercooked villain. While I think the ideas behind them could've been interesting (like how BL3's antagonist is based off of streamers having a cult following and Bayo 3 having a science based enemy rather than a supernatural one), the people who played it would just cry out bad story. It is a shame too, because both of the games have pretty good game play.
@@Nunya5470-q1qBG3 was done dirty. It made some bad story decisions but nowhere the level people were misled to beljeve by content creators coraling emotions with hyperbole.
@@SenkaZver I personally have not played BG3 yet, but yeah, people love to act like the writers put down their dog in front of them because a story had some bad parts
What's interesting to me is I'm somewhat the same way. My absolute favorite games of the past 10-20 years have all been single player experiences that can be modded - think Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Bloodlines, GTA, etc. I didn't think I was ever gonna give BG3 a chance because I'd kinda gotten over the whole isometric gamestyle from back in the day, but I saw so many people absolutely love it that when asked if I'd play it if it was a gift, I said sure. I wound up putting nearly 1,000 hours into BG3, a game I never would have given a chance if I hadn't seen people talk about how much (and why) they love it.
@@grumpyoldnord that's pretty good. I think it is just hearing good things make you appreciate it. People will complain over the smallest things and not really give acknowledgement to anything good a game does, so a game having a lot of good things from people is pretty refreshing
03:40 the idea that restricted access to beauty and the presence of gated content has no effect on the enjoyability of a game is just untrue. People aren't robots. The notion began somewhere around 2013 that "well y'know, it's just cosmetic!" But I've gone to extraordinary lengths for a few colored pixels. Pretending additional art somehow shouldn't affect your experience and then charging money for it is oxymoronic, it also devalues every game that made rewards earnable through play the came prior to the trend in the industry. If they had no effect on the experience, why include them at all?
Bro touch grass
Cosmetics with micro transactions suck in games where you grain for gear for aesthetics. Monster Hunter or any MMO comes to mind.
Because companies need income to pay developer salaries. And developers are needed to make games that you can play. Once you release a game, you only get money for each copy sold. It’s not like a theatre play where you have to pay for a ticket each time you want to see it.
@@geordiejones5618 How constructive.
The whole "skin economy" thing is difficult to discuss because it is often tied to otherwise free games. They function almost exactly the same way casinos do: You get to enjoy a lot of what the venue has to offer for free, because they only need to hook a small number of whales to pay off everyone else. The role the freeloaders serve is to populate the venue to make the whales feel better about spending a fortune there. In games, this mostly translates to multiplayer games where high player numbers are mandatory for the game to be functional at all.
The delicate balance here is to try to make the purchases as invisible as possible to the players who just want to play for free, while making them just obnoxious enough to pray on people who are prone to addiction. So the grift is to convince everyone that "it's just cosmetics, don't worry about it" while at the same exact time spending a fortune on developing a user experience that tries to convince players to make purchases at every turn...
...And then there are games like the Crash Team racing remake and LEGO 2k Drive, where it is a paid game WITH a fortnite style cycling item shop. This made me realize a lot of the people saying "well the devs need to make money somehow" must be kids who grew up in this era where every game directed at them is trying to rip them off, so they normalized it, instead of the normal system of just paying for what you want, when you want it.
One more thing to add is that skins have extremely high profit margins. It only takes a handful of people to make them, yet you can charge anywhere from 2 to 200 dollars for it, while an entire video game is expected to sell at 60$ maximum, which takes teams of people and years of time. So we are in this weird situation where the actual games are free while the skins that took 1/1000 of the resources to make pay for the game. The most infamous example is probably that Star Craft 2 made less money in it's lifetime than a single World of Warcraft store mount within the short time of it's release...
there's a running joke in the automotive community that every car pervert wants a brown diesel stickshift wagon. because it would do everything! and it'd be great to drive! and it'd fit all your stuff! and it would still get decent range and mileage!
when someone makes that car, no one buys it. absolutely no one. they're loved in the second hand market and folks "discover" them ten years hence, but basically no one wants them when they're released. which means that's the last time a car company makes that genre of car.
the people that *talk about* a subject are a *very* small subset of the folks that participate in it. and revealed preference is a thing, too! so.. if you're feeling left out, buy what you love and support people making what you *say* you care about.
Well said! The same principle can be applied to complaints in many areas(work, home, relationships, gov, etc.!)
I've often been left asking for this same thing after reading a rant or listening to one. Glad someone put it out there with a large reach.
Been enjoying your creations since I was a bored, lonely middle/high schooler lol. Lil did I know that finding Fallout 1 at Babbages at the Mall was going to be life changing! Reading the description I knew I had to have it and spent my lawnmowing savings for this treasure haha Thanks and Cheers sir 🤙🏾
You're absolutely right to conclude some people just have a hobby of being negative on the Internet. Also, unfortunately, constructive criticism is somewhat of a skill to be learned while just being negative and saying "I dislike thing" is a lot more natural and easy to reach for.
Most human beings are not original thinkers. They repeat what they hear other people say around them. If they surround themselves with negativity on social media they will repeat that negativity on forums, comment sections and Discords.
You have hit the nail on the head there.
It's gotten to the point where, sometimes (not always), I actively avoid detailed reviews or previews of games I'm interested in.
On one hand that could be unwise of me since I might've learned something important before I spent my money on the game. But on the other hand I feel like I'm being robbed of my own opinion if I consume too much information about something before I experience it for myself.
I don't want to have all these pre-concieved notions in the back of my head. I want to actually experience that thing first-hand and then form my opinion on it. I've always found that to be a far more enjoyable way of engaging with art. At least for me.
Most ? No just a very specific type of human being. Here you are repeating what Cain says for example
@@TheRan-DomOne 'the average person is dumb - half of people are dumber than that' is a pretty widely-believed factoid, y'know. Not even a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of lack of investment in topics.
Imagine if Death Stranding had Fast Travel.
What's the point of the game then?
It *sorta* does though with Fragile’s umbrella
But yeah it’s only to places you’ve been before and if you do it too much Fragile gets pissed off at you XD
It does, it's called Fragile Jump.
the fun of the game IS the travel so why would you do that
Imagine is Daggerfall didn't have fast travel.
Cosmetics are part of the game. It's still dlc, especially in a multiplayer environment. It's such a weird argument coming from devs. You know how important art is in a game.
Especially since most of those outfits are in from launch. And historically you unlocked additional outfits from completing in game challenges.
So to people who have been gaming since even the 2000's, it looks like gamers are having content they used to get for free now have an additional paywall.
The point is that cosmetics are additional art which does not affect any other aspect of the game. Is it really so bad to use that as additional financing? I know several games like Space Engineers and Stationeers which specifically market cosmetics as a way to support their small game studio.
@@romanshatalin7077 Yes.
Non content DLC is like a firearm. Is it inherently dangerous? Yes. Is it always bad? No. The slippery slope conclusion of paywalled art is that new media from large corpos will be bland as fuck until you spend the money to unlock the pretty edition.
@@romanshatalin7077 If the dlc is just a code to unlock files that are already in the base game, absolutely it's a bad thing to charge the customer more for them to use skins they should already be able to access.
Boats can be exchanged for chocolate bars with >= 65% cocoa
"explain how?" haha
maybe it's a really old boat with holes in it that would require a lot of work to be sea worthy again and basically has no sale value
@@justanobody0 Can still dismantle it, the firewood and metal might not get you much money, but it's enough for a few blocks of chocolate.
3:34
Tim..... micro transactions are viewed as basically cancer. Doesnt matter their damage people know and have seen this "feature" abused to ridiculous levels to the point that there is only negativity to be associated with them
Correction: general audiences love micro transactions and they make billions of dollars a year. Only people who talk about games the way we do and understand how cash shops compromise the game's design. This includes making the cosmetic items look better than anything you get by playing the game.
They're not really viewed as cancer anymore. The biggest games in both the west (fortnite, roblox, fifa, cod) and east (gacha slop) all heavily rely on them.
False. You and I hate them. Pretty much everyone like us hates them. But there's plenty of people who don't give a shit and those people are the majority.
That depends on implementation, which is my big problem with "Is X feature good question"? Purely visual microtransactions can be good. No one complains about DRGs cosmetic microtransaction. But they are paid to developers and one-time purchase. They don't affect the game much, and don't give in game advantage.
Problems start when you combine cosmetic microtransactions with overall game, you make grindable resource that rarely drops (causes bot farms and AFK gaming), you make them exchangeable for real money with other players (causes illegal gambling rings), or you make them part of loot box drops (causes addiction to loot boxes).
This video helped me realize that I've started asking people "What are you playing?" as opposed to "What kinds of games do you play?". Folks have tended to share more specific things they enjoy as opposed to steering into general complaints about different video game genres and mechanics.
That's an excellent idea actually. So many people are complaining that "gaming isn't fun anymore" while they only like 2 or 3 games which they probably don't even like all that much.
@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation "gaming is dead" screams the 22 year old playing his yearly COD and sole AAA title that year. 😭
There's been alot of great games but if you focus on the nagatives it'll warp your viewpoint, I think people just like to be disingenuous on the internet.
@@dr_diddyExactly. I have played so many great games made in the 2020's. Some AAA, some AA and some indie. I have even more in my backlog. There are plenty of games for everyone to enjoy. You just have to look for them.
13:48 Personally, it's because some game franchises I've loved have been disrespected by their owners and it pisses me off that all the potential of their setting is wasted on mediocrity. But I agree, not buying their games is far more effective than anything else I could say.
Not only the potential of the setting, the potential of the development! So much labor from (in many cases) genuinely talented people, working in high production value studios able to do things indies can't, ending up on games like Immortals of Aveum that innovate nothing and die quietly.
refunding starfield probably gave them a pretty clear message
The problem is that people naturally react strongly to negative emotions, and imagining an alternative outcome that is more desirable takes effort and some skill. Even telling people what you want is often not useful since that often familiar solution may not actually address the job to be done by the feature. This is a common problem in software development in general. The better answer is to use clean language and ask users questions like "what would you like to have happen?", "what happens before/after", etc. It is also important to capture motivation and context alongside outcomes.
Great video. The majority of people communicating online are suffering from the effects of spending too much time online.
The fact that I've played a game I didn't like months later and did a complete 180 on my opinion taught me to question my own empirical experience.
Same. Happened to me as well, with several games even.
Not sure if that's fair. You may have tried to make it work, discovered more and more about it over time, but it didn't work out in the later stages of that game. Or something negative came up from the developers.
@@brianviktor8212 Well, yes that makes it subjective
I tried Witcher 3 three times before it clicked. I got bored and turned it off for months. Then I randomly booted it back up, killed the griffin, and then spent 200 hours in the world.
Never happened to me. Good for you. In my case it is pretty clear immediately if a game clicks with me or not. If it doesn't, it won't. I tried multiple times to return to some respected titles like ESO f.e. , and for me it was just a terrible experience, wasted $, no matter how many times I try.
So yeah, I know immediately if I like I game, by playing it and discovering its systems. I immediately knew I liked fallout, and played it to the end in one big breath.
I immediately knew I despised ESO, or darkest dungeon, or ... even though I liked other games in the same genre, and I know exactly which parts of the experience I hated.
I think the big problem with constructive feedback, providing something you want instead is, if a developer follows a specific vision, and the person giving the feedback knows, what they want does not align with that vision, they will fear that the feedback will be thrown out, outright.
So in that sense it is better to provide, as you said, specific feedback on what you don't like, with context.
Then it's the job of the dev to find a solution that also aligns with their vision.
I think there's also a distrust towards devs being able to convert suggested solutions instead of just throwing them out.
For example if a player says they don't like that a boss only drops their valuable item every 100 or so kills.
Then implicitly the dev should know they probably want some way to get that item faster, most likely by dropping it more often.
If they player states, they want instead for the boss to drop the item more often, is the dev that does not want this solution able to make adjustments and think of another solution, like giving players incremental steps towards getting that drop instead which would also satisfy the player even though they did not specifically state this?
Some Devs can but some can't.
This might be a reason why players tend to not give a solution, in fear of the dev throwing it out and ignoring the feedback because of it.
I would say the desire to purchase microtransactions is something I would prefer didn't exist in my brain. It costs me money to satisfy my brain's desire for trinkets, but when I do buy them, I feel bad because they were never worth it.
Because of that, when games provide microtransactions, it feels as though they're monetizing an unhealthy aspect of my personality, even if they're completely optional. It makes me think the developers are a little sleezy(or sometimes a lot), because they're manipulating me in a way I don't appreciate.
I get that. Fortnite had me feeling this way for awhile, but I realized how Epic’s predatory monetization tactics were making me feel, finally ripped the bandaid off, and deleted the game because I wasn’t enjoying it anymore
It took me years of anger and stress from training and playing almost elusively skill-based games before I finally realized that MAYBE I would benefit from throwing in some relaxing and/or "comfy" games into my catalogue. Turns out that I actually enjoy certain games I would never even THINK of buying before. So I guess I'm another example of a gamer that doesn't fully know what they want.
I commented on your Fast Travel video about pretty much the same thing, on why it could make sense to criticize disliked aspects rather than providing liked aspects.. and yeah, I still feel that way, I know what I dislike better than what I specifically want. And also, listening to player wants will cut out originality and surprises. For example, how many people do you think asked for a poker hand roguelike? Probably incredibly few, because nearly nobody knew/imagined it could be a thing, yet here we are.
Or even going to your "gift for Tim" example, let's say everyone knows you love dark chocolate; does that mean you want all your gifts every year to be dark chocolate? Maybe one friend might think "I could make a handcrafted and handpainted figurine of my favourite of Tim's Fallout characters" but then decides to listen to the general "we know Tim loves dark chocolate", and you could in turn be missing out on a treasure you could've cherished.
well, there's a difference between saying what you like and what you want, right? You say you like something, that means a lot of things to a game designer. It's easier to discern why things work that way as opposed to hearing 'I do not like X'.
It feels like saying what you dislike would be the more helpful thing, but as someone who engages in art for years now, 'dislike' often becomes a matter of 'this isn't AS GOOD as this other thing I know'. At that point, the 'dislike' bias becomes incredibly unhelpful as every single aspect of your game could be comparatively worse than another one, y'know? And that's often, REALLY OFTEN, what happens. I can't think of any modern successful game that doesn't have a deluge of negative feedback about every aspect of that game, not on a sense of not having enjoyed it, but on a comparative view to something else that does something better.
good example that came to mind is something like Elden Ring, where they did a lot of things in a very specific way, for the first time in gaming, which makes it really easy to compare every part of that game and find something better. That doesn't stop the game from being superbly executed, but if trying to find out what people dislike, you'll just end up with a big list of 'everything sucks'. Not really helpful at all.
Gamers absolutely don't know what they like. But it's not just gamers. Most people who consume art of any medium don't know what they like until someone makes it and they interact with. Asking a bunch consumers, as laypeople, what they like about art they can't make is of dubious merit, but I know it -can- be useful in the ways outlined here.
With democratic platforms, everyone has a voice, but not every voice is qualified. If we can't meaningfully address the signal to noise ratio, we might be better off learning where to tune our antennas.
The Orville had an interesting episode on a pure democracy planet. I wonder how well it's aged.
Poison swamps that poison the player and prevent him from moving at normal speed are not necessary for the game. But Mizayaki still continues to add them to his games: Dark Souls 123, Sekiro, Elden Ring
As he said "I love swamps - I will add them to all my games!"
And this makes his games different from Ubisoft games where there are no poison swamps.
And the players will scream as they die in these swamps - but these swamps will bring them emotions that they won't get in "safe" games.
It's just great when someone starts a thread (Reddit, Discord, etc) just to hate on a widely-loved and acclaimed game. What do you even get out of that?
"People in the comments have no stake in how many people read their comment"
You underestimate the power of validation that getting an upvote gives.
Have an upvote from me, sir.😈
This. And Kojima proved it on Death Stranding.
Short answer is no I don’t think many people can express what they like in a game. Long answer is I think it takes a level of introspection and skill to communicate what you like about a game that most people don’t go to but part of the studios job is to apply their skill and understanding to try to parse that feedback. I get this feeling when working with artists a lot where I know when I like something or don’t like it but I can’t really diagnose why that is the case without more expertise
The cosmetics are mainly showing the greed of the company or find it insulting that the company would put something like that in the game for such an egregious price (like street fighter 6 or fallout 76)
For example, one of my favorite games is Assassin’s Creed Unity, which has a micro transaction of useless boosts to the player like a speed boost or health boost for like, 5 minutes and is $5 a pop.
It’s completely useless and not needed but it ultimately is bad because it tries to have people pay for useless things like this and definitely fooled kids or even adults in buying something this stupid
It feels like a small cash grab added to the game just to add it and it’s embarrassing in my eyes
I'm one of those people who often play open world games without using fast travel. The reason is that I like map reading and navigational challenges. I approach these games as orienteering simulators where I try to navigate by using only landmarks and without the GPS showing my position. I have no idea how many like this kind of gameplay, but sometimes travel is it's own reward.
Know your target audience, a game for everyone can become a game just for a few or no one
Yup! Concord's a good example. No one wants to play a 2nd rate version of a 1st rate game.
I've had friends get really annoyed at the idea that playing games doesn't mean they know how to design one. I've had people hit me with the "I've played way more games than you", and it's just so misguided but telling them that will get you nowhere because it's not something that you find out until you've started designing games yourself.
I go to BG3 on this one, long early access period where Larian got to ask specific questions and got specific answers as a result of controlling the space where the questions existed.
Side story : years ago, I was having a session with a group to learn what to do or not do to get a job. We were asked to write some resume. Showed mine... "this is bad, shouldn't do that". Tried again... "no, never do that, why would you do that ?" Tried again... same kind of result.
I got mad, told the guy to keep his advices for himself and left. I never learned what is right or wrong, on the contrary, I learned how different those "rules" could be when changing the one who talks.
At the end of the day gamers are just people, and most people don't know what they're doing. Yes, a certain portion of a group of people might act logically, but another will not, and thus when you are exposed to the group as a whole you will constantly experience people who have no clue what they want and do things that makes no sense. It's just a function of large-scale social exposure (aka the internet).
This is such an important insight; so much complaining without reflecting on why they have complaints
Or we know exactly what we like & dont like ? What is a failure & a success speaks for themselves
Perhaps there is a growing disconnect between those who make games in large companies and the gamers. Meanwhile, in the indie space, it still feels quite similar to how games were made 20 years ago.
I don't think most people who play video games are the same group as Gamers™.
I don't call myself a Gamer™ because I actually like video games.
@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporationtoxic gamers are dumb as hell
@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation If you play a lot of games you are a gamer. You don´t like the term because a lot of news outlet are using this as derogatory.
@@PhantomHarlock78 It's not really news outlets using it as derogatory. It's mostly losers calling themselves 'gamers' has made the term unappealing to a lot of people.
@@PhantomHarlock78 It's not the new agencies. It's people who insist they represent all gamers while spewing their bullshit
About the microtransactions: I don't think most gamers have a problem with cosmetic microtransactions if they are confined into a store; but a lot of people have an issue with microtransaction ads inside of the game, especially if they are unavoidable, because they are just ads at the end of they day. Unwanted advertising on things we already paid for can be seen as invasive and even greedy sometimes.
The cosmetics being in a store IS a problem. Those cosmetics should be in-game rewards/unlockables.
@IfYouSeekCaveman that's a different issue. If they have no effect on gameplay and you can ignore their existence they are not actually a problem, it's just a long-term monetization strategy you disagree with
Edit: I dislike them too but it will not prevent me from buying the game, a thing I cannot assure if they are bombarding me from the moment I open the main menu
@@IfYouSeekCaveman its obvious most people never played warframe. Because its only the problem when you can't trade for the premium currency as F2P.
I'd personally rather pay for the game and get the cosmetics as unlockables.
In multiplayer games this is a layer to combat cheaters as well. So win win.
I think you're giving gamers too much credit in their willingness to make a distinction. People will be upset at the very presence of monetization beyond the price tag. I think it's good, though, you're engaging with an idea while being as charitable as possible! Standup commenter right here.
3:40 You have to understand that features that exist 1. took time away from developing other areas that were of higher importance, and 2. often games are designed around certain features being (potentially) used. And "micro-transactions" (often the price of entire games or more btw) mean there is content locked behind money, not progression in the game. So yes, it's only "skins", but guess what - these skins can no longer be acquired in the game.
I think there's also something to say for not wanting to play games inundated with advertisements, especially with how pushy or frequent even cosmetic microtransaction ads can be. Fortnite is a great example of a game built on this model. While it is successful, many people will not play it because they know the system is designed to extract more and more money from them for limited edition character skins and dances that all their friends are doing instead of rewarding play itself. Basically, your value as the player is unambiguously judged by how much money you generate for the game, which reverses the feeling that some players really love where it feels like this amazing experience was made just for you by people you never met. It's the Tony Hawk Pro Skater experience where the people making the game just seem like cool dudes because they gave you the chance to play as Spider-Man for 100% completing the game that you were already playing for fun.
In a lot of cases the game wouldn't be finished without those.
I vote with my wallet. I never buy those games.
1. He's talking about cosmetic only. The only thing that takes away from are artists. Not coders, so no feature is impacted. Even then, what is most DLC today were expansion packs in the past. Few MTX sold actually impacted features of games, today. The thing that impacts features, most, is multiplayer and live service related functionality
2. So why does no one call out Grinding Gear Games?
@@SenkaZver No one calls out Grinding Gear Games? I've met many a Path of Exile hater.
Gothic 1 had fast travel implemented in a smart way: you unlock it only after the story progresses and you gain a reward to reach each fast travel point (using a magic rune item to travel to that location). The first part of the game had no fast travel, but later when the story progressed - and players already walked everywhere - the game allowed to cut down travel time. Noone ever complained about that system.
The problem is that players aren't game designers. They think they know what they want, but they only think about it at a very surface level; they don't think about the many, many repercussions of their request. As an example, I loved the procedural game world of Daggerfall back in the day so when Starfield was announced I was really keen to depart from the designed worlds of Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim... but once I had the procedural world in my hands, I found myself thinking "Oh wow, I actually do prefer the designed worlds now... this is kinda repetitive which was fine in Daggerfall days but not so much today" (and I realize there's a whooole lot more requirements I actually wanted behind that "procedural world" one that just weren't realistic).
In my industry it's similar. Sometimes a company will get advice from certain "expert users" and the feedback is almost always something that can't even mathematically work.
Vast majority of Oblivion's wilderness is procedurally generated, though. No idea about Skyrim, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was too.
Thank you for this video! I've been thinking a lot about video games and "woke" controversy in them. Usually a female lead isn't to a segment of gamers' liking... and then they usually dogpile the game design/graphics as well. I like to test random forum posters to see if I can eke out specifics of what THEY WANT to see, and usually I get vague answers at best. I appreciate your saying this. I think this fits in to a broader field of media literacy. There are a lot of loud people who seem to be lacking in it and I REALLY appreciate your work in promoting media literacy. Thank you!
Translators do this as well, and journos, and youtubers... Literally it's just, "Whatever I don't like, get rid of it." You can't blame people for being spiteful, I don't really mind it, as nobody really cared about translators, localizers were sabotaging visual novels for no other reason than, "I don't like it."
@@Wolfe2ev0 I know, that's why I think it's good to have the convo. I think you raise a lot of different points, but I do think a big issue is the consumer/product relationship. I agree, we don't want to blame the consumers for spite. But rather encourage basic, fundamental understanding of it. I do have some ideas of how that manifests and I'm working on it currently (to put my money where my mouth is) but definitely trying to drill down further where I can.
One of the biggest plagues in IRL/internet communications is that too many people speak about HUGE groups of people like they are some kind of monolith, a united clan where they all think alike, and then are confused when they offer conflicting information. There's so many players of varying ages, likes and dislikes, varying expectations and varying needs to shout out their preferred styles/genres in the internet. "Players" being just one of many. Ability seeing some nuance in the world helps you immensely to avoid avoidable pitfalls.
Just (mostly) off topic, sorry about that.. :p Other than that, yea, good points. Speaking about the good things gets you more good things.
I think a large aspect of this is a lot of people aren’t actually taught what good criticism is. At least from my own experience growing up as gen Z. So we looked to “critics” online and just copied their styles of criticism. I didn’t learn good critique until I got into college.
Even beyond the process of critique, most critics...suck. Their level of insight into game design is extremely poor. One of the few I really, truly like is The Electric Underground; that guy knows what he's talking about.
@@lamegamertime Laura Fryer definitely knows what she is talking about.
@@lamegamertimemost modern critics are regular people who spout their opinion. But with the popularity, and money, from doing so, get a weird ego that their unnuanced and ignorant opinion has some objectivity to it, reinforced by parasocial fans.
As a younger millenial, I was taught how important constructive criticism was and we regularily graded each other's reports and were graded on our criticism to learn this.
@@jextra1313 Its treated differently with media vs classmate work. You don't actually have to see the person who's game or film you criticize so its easier to be less constructive. Especially if its a big title
Here's the thing. Players are not game designers. Assessing a game is a completely different skill than designing a game. It is not reasonable to expect players to be able to articulate what they like or why they like it. It's like being able to tell whether you like a piece of music or not, but don't know how to compose.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like enjoying something means understanding why you like it, at least to some extent. I'm struggling to think of something I like that I'm not capable of conjuring a perspective about, and if that's not the case then where is the enjoyment coming from? If I like something I have to at least have some reason in my brain for why I like it, right? All I need to do is think about it for a little while.
I think that's the problem Tim is getting at. People are raging without thinking first and that's not helpful to developers.
@@disky01 I agree. When I like something I generally figure out why. Even if there are irrational reasons for me liking some things, be it "sentimentality" or "it has a charm to it".
This guy's on to somethin'!
I just made this same comment! Yes, you're exactly right. There's a spectrum of skill involved in understanding art, and even professional game reviewers sometimes reveal that they don't understand the medium well enough to talk about it, let alone actually create anything.
@@disky01 I very much disagree with you.
Anyone can enjoy something, even if they don't understand why. Children do it all the time; when you ask them what did they like, they respond the most surface level things one can observe, even tho something else they don't like share those same things.
I've even met people that dislike the idea of understanding why they like something, because then they might not enjoy it as much.
The big problem is that people focus on features/mechanics not dynamics. Encumberance is a great example - roguelikes with a harsh inventory limit tend to make inventory management an EXTREMELY meaningful task that will determine whether you'll win the run or die. Bethesda klepto-core games just throw the mechanic in for no good reason. But understanding dynamics requires players to think more holistically, like game designers, so I'm not too hopeful about feedback ever improving.
3:42 - "Cosmetic microtransactions" - Completely disagree.
The issue with it is this is 1: the same as day 1 DLC, we (the customer/consumer) can only speculate at wether or not this was cut content from the game, originally intended to be a part of it, but now charged to us instead. 2: The MTX generally look 'better' than the non-MTX stuff, thus feeling like our efforts to get cosmetics (in-game) is worthless, 3: Either the game has less cosmetic options (for the intents of selling more), or the cosmetics aleviate/remove the need to aquire it in-game, which also defeats the purpose of the game.
4:06 - "Fast travel" - The issue here is, even if you don't partake in it, the games are designed with it in-mind / that you will use it, and do not give you alternatives. For example; Bethesda game's quest-markers. If you turn them all off, you can't do/finish quests, because there are no indicators (beyond the markers) where to go, or what to do, because they assume you WILL use it. Same with fast-travel, in Oblivion, there are no means of getting around quickly, without fast-traveling (they fixed this in Skyrim by giving you carriages again like you had in Morrowind).
And that's the crux of the issues, it's not that the feature exist or not, but that developers tend to ignore the "alternative (traditional)" play-style in favor OF these systems. If devs put effort into making games work like they used to (carriages instead of fast-travel, NPCs giving detailed quest instructions and where to go, rather than just giving a vague intro to a quest), I think there'd be a lot less complaint about it.
I'd like to add that MTX for cosmetics can also affect gameplay balance in multiplayer. League of Legends has become a completely unreadable mess of particle effects and skins that feature different characters looking too similar, leading to critical mistakes in teamfights. There should be a way to turn off skins for gameplay clarity in multiplayer games. And for god's sake, stop putting Nikki Minaj in things.
Turning of quest markers in BGS games won’t block you from finishing quests. On the contrary, turning them off makes completing the quests more enjoyable as you need to find your own way to do it. You need to listen to the npc’s instruction. IIRC in Starfield there is at least one quest that does not use quest markers at all and you have figure out multiple locations where you need to an action to complete the quest. Similarly, gamers complain about fast travel saying they hate it and yet on the other hand they complain they can’t fast travel because of being over encumbered. That’s a bit contradictory and defeats at least one of the skills in the game as these are designed as part of the role playing aspect of the game. While you could role play in Minecraft or NMS (by limiting yourself), these games are not designed as rpgs.
As for cosmetics, to play those games you pretty much need better gear, sturdier, more damage inflicting, with extra effects and not fancier gear that provides no real value to your character. although cosmetics provides an emotional value to you as the player. It is funny that people complain about this in rpg games (BGS-made most notably) but very rarely in other genres like racing games (Forza comes to mind).
@@BribedSeeker904 You're not 'literally' blocked from finnishing the quests, but there's quite a few quests in both Oblivion AND Skyrim that you won't fesibly be able to do without quest markers. The dialogue goes like this:
"I lost my sword when I was adventuring, can you get it back for me?" - cool. Which dungeon? Not mentioned, because the dungeon is marked on your map with a quest marker (but not actually shown as a dungeon until you go there). If you do NOT have quest markers however, then it is not marked, and you now get the joy of hunting down every dungeon you have not explored.
That's the issue. There are mods that aleviate this issue (by providing the details into the journal entries, thus you can read the journal to get the full picture), but it's a band-aid for poor design, poor design that's intentionally done because quest markers are forced on (unless you mod them out).
Same issue with Kingdom Come: Deliverence actually (though to a MUCH lesser degree than Oblivion/Skyrim), playing without the compass is not realistic because the quests were designed with it (even in hardcore, you have the quest markers on the compass when within quest area, because the devs know it isn't fesible to complete a lot of the quests without it).
Then you have Fable 2 and 3, which have the exact same issue. "Please go do that thing for me" without any explenation or details of what, where, or how, because the breadcrumb system they developed will point you to it anyway, so there's no point in writing and voicing it.
--
I doubt it's the same people complaining. It's the same as the people saying they wanted an TES MMO. A vocal minority. Daggerfall > Morrowind, are the best Bethesda games, every game after is just different measures of dissapointment and removal of the systems that made their games good. But I'm digressing.
--
I was not thinking of Bethesda games when I mentioned MTX. Games like Dead or Alive, Tekken, Assassins Creed (Syndicate+), are what I am talking about, where you pay $60 for a game, only to recieve an incomplete version, that then get drowned in Mtx that put the ones you unlock to shame. I disagree with "it's just cosmetic", because cosmetic/paperdolling is a big drive for many people. If it werent', then why the fuck is character creation so popular? Maybe we should make Character Creation an optional DLC where you pay $5 pr haircut, after all, not like it matters since it's "just cosmetic". It's a ridiculous stance.
--
If a game costs money, and has microtransactions. I do not buy it. That is my stance, it doesn't matter if the Mtx is cosmetic, or P2W, or whatever. Only exception is DLC/Expansions, I am willing to purchase that. Secondary exception is if the base game is free (and has always been free), but with paid additional content (mtx, Expansions, whatever). Example: Tales of Maj'Eyal. I'm perfectly fine with it having Mtx. I'd be fine with Dwarf Fortress having it too for the same reason (Base game is free).
Instead of strawmanning based on your experience on [insert internet forum here], read what people are saying and focus on that instead.
-- edit: --
Anyway, my point is; the issue with certain "(gameplay) features", is that they come at the expense of NOT using it, sometimes NOT using it, is not fesible due to the game being completely designed around using said features, so you don't get to choose, and the reason for it is the same as all things; Money, it's cheaper to implement breadcrumbing and breadcrumbing quests, than it is to write engaging dialogue that guide the player, which is why this is becoming less and less common (that, and people generally don't/didn't care and just want the dopamine hit of numbers go up).
@@fearingalma1550 Good point, though in 'most' cases I feel, Mtx skins are a detriment to you in PVP based MP (based on what I see on Steam's store front). For ex, most skins in Call of Duty make you stand out, ensuring you can't easily camp, or otherwise stay hidden.
But yeah, cosmetics can most definitely affect gameplay balance (in either direction) in a competitive scene with other people.
I can understand if company have fans, they make good job but are really short on money, they can offer some digital goods for them. Something like where customer voluntarily pays more of game so they are produced in future. That can be way how players are connected to game developers. Or physical good, get T-shirt or something.
Game can be ruined if it altered that player need to pay some feature to complete game or something.
Edit:
Actually some stuff for fans can be great if that can be used as tool to categorize players. When fans are giving feedback, people who buy every game from game company, it is likely more valuable than some random whining on forums.
I've actually like to buy games from certain companies/developers and there are companies that I've collected everything what they have made. So if I give feedback company from which I've already bought five games and if I say something is going wrong direction, that should be valuable.
The problem I have with regards to giving good criticism is that sometimes _I don't know why I like or don't like something._ Because of that I tend to write my opinion/review of the game based on whether I feel I'm the equivalent of an alpha or beta reader for a work. For context, when writing, you usually seek two types of readers. Alpha readers tend to be other writers who understand the craft and can point out the larger flaws of a work and point where the origins of those flaws might come from. They might not provide good or workable answers on how to fix it but they can usually diagnose the problem or provide possible diagnoses. Beta readers are the equivalent of your audience for comedians. They understand how they reacted to something but not necessarily why they reacted that way. If I have a greater understanding of why something didn't work for me, usually that's story and writing based sections because I have a much better understanding of those, I can explain why they didn't work _for me._ When it comes to mechanics, I can usually explain some simple things like desiring more basic quality of life features (was just thinking about a review of a game I did where I just had to stop playing because the game had bulk crafting and it started to irritate my carpal tunnel because there was no click and hold/click and type, you had to click for each additional item when I needed 50 plus clicks for some items) but my responses trend more towards beta reader territory when it gets to the nitty gritty of why combat isn't working for me or why something just _feels_ good.
Tim this is true with addons in MMOs
Players make the game trivial and say it's boring
This is very true with classic wow where it's designed to be played with markers and go have an adventure type of mindset
Without*
@@dragongoddragneel7106 you can edit comments
@@dragongoddragneel7106 there was that video by Andrew Chambers Design channel, about over polishing your game. There he mentions how influential was Mankirk's wife quest. It was such a difficult quest that it brought community together, you have to find unmarked battlefield and find an unmarked corpse. After quest markers were added it completely trivialized the quest, and community no longer had a thing to talk about.
I am still convinced addins do defeath the purpose of the game and then when you learn the dot pattern it just became really boring.
- I want good games!
- Okay, what's a good game?
- I don't know, like... good games. Fun games.
- What makes a game fun?
-You know like, good story, good gameplay, good characters, good graphics...
-...And what's the difference between a good story, gameplay, characters and graphics and bad ones?
- Idk man, I just want something new. All games are the same these days.
- Have you tried playing an indie game, from smaller studios? Indie devs usually try to be more innovative than AAA games.
- Nah, they're too different.
This video resonates with me so much. The nature of a lot of online discourse around games is one of the reasons I named my channel what I did. It's a constant reminder to myself not to end up consumed by what I dislike about games. It's really easy to complain and it's also really easy act like your way is THE right way instead of recognizing that a feature, or in fact an entire game, may just not be for you.
I fully believe, and I was actually thinking about this the other day, gamers have no idea what they want. That is, as a group gamers have no idea. As individuals they of course know what they like and what they want. But as a group they have no idea because they all have contradictory opinions, yet many act as if the whole group is in agreement. Often, when someone says, "Gamers want X," what they really mean is "I want X so everyone else must want X too."
Replying to your comment partly because I really dig the name - yeah dude, this should be fun! We should be able to find the things we like and express that with each other, but I am finding it's getting more and more difficult to keep things positive. Like Robert Plant calling out in the middle of singing "Stairway to Heaven" - does anybody remember laughter?
But to the general point, at my age I do think I've gained a pretty thorough understanding of what I like (though I do enjoy being surprised now and then with something I didn't think I would like but did) and I'm just less interested in going around and around about things I don't like. But that seems to be where most stuff on the internet is focused, like Tim says. Increasingly it seems like when I post an opinion about a game I do like, I'll just attract a bunch of people telling me why they hate the thing I like and I lose interest in my own discussion. I don't know whose fault that is, or how to keep things positive. If someone figures it out, let me know!
I will push back when Tim equates microtransactions to fast travel. To me, this is at least somewhat of a stretch and not fully fitting. While I understand the point (how much do you want game devs to hand hold your is a very valid point), taking advantage of people's addictions is different. This is especially topical with the rise of sports betting online but even in video games, microtransactions, progress gates, etc. have been/are used to turn more people into addicts and to take advantage of these behaviors with serious health and monetary consequences. I am not saying Tim supports companies doing this (the topic is a concern of mine!), and I am curious about his thoughts on the rise of gambling in the video game industry overtime (ex. How it impacts development of a game).
Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. You said it around the 8 minute mark; Constructive criticism. When I bring it up when discussing gaming or politics or whatever I tend to get this look like as if I'm acting like a child whining about how unfair the world is. Where in my mind this is similar to the "golden rule", something we should have learned how to do long before we became adults. I learned a lot of life lessons the hard way and I used to think it held me back. I'm much more appreciative these days. Anywho, thanks for another great video!
Great video! Many funny things you said such as the chocolate analogy. “I got you a boat but hey, it’s not white chocolate.” I think this question has multiple answers. Things I dislike might weigh more in the mind than things I like. It’s also the case from what I can tell that a number of people are bored and it’s easier to argue or complain about games than it is to just sit down and play them. Thing is, most of the feedback devs see probably doesn’t represent most of the playerbase. I have time to make a comment on a video like this but my older brother doesn’t. He has 30 minutes to an hour to play a game each day, let alone time to leave feedback. So devs just aren’t seeing a player like him represented in the comment section.
There are two ways of looking at this:
1) People cannot know what they like until they've tried something, and it is from previous experience that we figure out things we are more consistently likely to enjoy as individuals.
2) But that which we are willing to try is usually influenced by already existing interests and preferences, which means to get people to buy into things you need to somehow meet them where they are, while equally offering something new that piques their interest.
It's Steve Jobs talking about convincing people that they want / need the iPad. You won't convince everyone that they want / need something, but if you design a product with a vision of who you see engaging with it, and are honest, you can generally figure out whether it will sell and to whom.
Tim, quick question following the train of thought. When planning sequels, do you check mods for mechanics tuning, to see what they wanted afterwards based on download history?
Oh yeah, mods, reviews, forum posts…they are all good sources for what people want. For mods, looking at download count is important because many mods are made that very few people use.
@@CainOnGames But what if some of game most popular mods are borderline ( or sometimes even stright on ) cheat mods ? I've seen this happen a few times ( Payday 2 for example ). What would game devs do with this kind of feedback ?
@@ComissarYarrick Cheat mods, porn mods, meme mods…devs don’t have to slavishly replicate all of the popular mods. But many have great ideas in them.
Players obviously do not know what they want, but they know what they dislike. If they say X is bad, it is not their job to figure out a solution. It is that of game designers to figure out what the problem is and come up with (creative) solutions. And generally there are often elaborate comments about things like that, so it's not like starting from zero.
And you are missing the context, just like Tim pointed out. Yes, gamers “know’ what they dislike. But most of the time they don’t know why, they don’t provide context and they also don’t provide constructive feedback. Watching quite a lot of raging videos and reading through comments over the past years, I am convinced that these gamers don’t understand how their game works and how different aspects of the game play together. They most often project seemingly similar features from other games onto the game in question without giving it at least a few seconds to think about what each game is about. Hence the context. For example, seamless travel between planets in NMS is a great feature but it would not really work in Starfield. The planets in these games are of very different sizes. Starfield ships are space ships, designed for space travel not atmospheric flight. If they were able to fly as in NMS, could you crash? Could you use weapons to clear out enemies? If not, then why should you spend credits on ship upgrades if they are useless on the surface? But you can modify and upgrade your ship and that requires ranking up your character skills. A feature not existing in NMS. And that is okay as the game is not an rpg. You can’t just cherry pick a thing without context. Well, you can but it won’t help the developers to understand your issue.
@@BribedSeeker904 I am not sure how it relates to what I said. What am I wrong about, or what do you disagree with?
@@brianviktor8212 you’re right and I apologize. I’ve misunderstood most parts of your comment. Sorry. You are right and I agree with your statement. However majority of the comments are not elaborate and even many of those elaborate tend to miss the context. So you are almost right in your assessment :)
@@BribedSeeker904 I swear, video games are the only type of media where you can just blame the consumer and walk away from any argument. Even when players do say exactly what they want, it gets ignored.
Let's use Starfield as an example: The game is full of loading screens and Bethesda knows players hate them, the countless "Open Cities" mods for their games is pretty solid feedback indicating that people don't like to go through loading screens when visiting cities/settlements. Years later, Starfield comes out and the game is filled to the brim with loading screens, not to mention bugs and glitches.
Oh, the reason why Starfield doesn't have seamless travel between planets? Loading screens.
@ first of all a game, a movie, a book, a painting, a piece of music, probably any piece of art is a product. it is a product of one or more people who happen to have an idea what their product should be. it is their idea, not some consumer/customer idea. just to clear things up. as for the loading screens, if you have a better idea on separating various game world areas like exteriors and interiors then let’s hear it. So BGS games use an engine with loading screens to make happen. Well, 2d platformers don’t have 3d camera view. Real time strategies don’t have turn based combat. Most race cars games don’t have motorbikes. In gta v you can’t have more than 10 garages. In nms you can’t carry more items than available slots. you can’t have more population than 250 in age of empires. different games have different rules or limitations to follow. having the same cap on ship and outpost max crew size in Starfield is much more disappointing than loading screens. if you are still unsure on loading screens, check out f76 solo and team play with private instances, that might provide a few hints. also, the number of loading screen you encounter also depends on how you play the game. I can spend a few hours without a single loading screen and still do fun and meaningful stuff not just base building.
Weirdly needed to hear this today, a lot of my friends are being overly negative about comic books with no alternatives offered, not the exact same thing, but I feel like the lesson applies.
I just finished my first Supernova playthrough of Outer Worlds a few months ago and the lack of fast travel (except to your ship) was actually pretty fun. Really made you think and plan about how to go about doing quests/gearing up before leaving towns and such. Currently on a New Vegas playthrough with a self-imposed no fast travel rule, we'll see how far that goes.
My favourite fast travel implementation is to have a world that is designed for repeated exploration that I want to walk around in, and can navigate in by landmarks, and then after a few hours allowing me to travel back to certain big hubs, but not to every tiny point on the map. That needs a lot of care and work though and of course works less well if your world is enormous... Gothic, Risen, that sorta game works well with it. A Skyrim? Maybe, I still played it that way.
Skyrim has that. The carriages only transport you to the cities. You don't even have to use the map that way.
Sometimes it's about who you're asking. The example I like to use in this context was World of Warcraft and Everquest 2. Both were mmorpgs from major studios that were originally scheduled to launch the same week (in the end EQ 2 pushed their release two week early while WoW launched two week later for a 4 week gap). Both had been asking players but EQ2 designers had been asking current players of EQ and other games and they had all said they wanted more complexity and interaction with other players. WoW devs on the other hand asked people that 'weren't' playing any of the other mmorpgs and more importantly they asked 'why' they weren't and made a game that still had the core elements of Everquest but were you could also drop in for short sessions to solo and didn't demand tightly coordinated group play. So maybe not as social but more accessible to new players.
I really liked the initial comparison of "difficult to know what to do with" feedback from stand-up comedians with that of video game players… great talk, Tim.
I really think all feedback is useful for different reasons. I feel that the way in which someone conveys their thoughts and opinions significantly impacts how well the opinions are received. A reason why people may lean towards more critical and negative feedback is that they may feel like they are not being listened to. When people are more invested in game series they may be more sensitive to any design deviations in future titles.
Tim, the practice of communicating your wants is key throughout all aspects of life, isn’t it? It’s easy to react to stimulus, no creativity involved with that. Being creative, imagining what you’d prefer, most players are incapable. All they can do, like an infant, is squall at their wet diaper, not verbalize a desire for a better garment.
1. People love to join band wagons. I remember the Ratchet & Clank devs were listening to the popular band wagon of "30 FPS bad, 60 FPS good" and were forced to choose between better visuals or 60 FPS [console game, so no graphic options for the player]. They looked at sales data and it showed 60 FPS games did not sell more but games which looked better did.
2. People can identify when they are feeling unhappy or happy but figuring what causes it is difficult and they often get it wrong.
3. Gamers face no consequence for being wrong. If they say something and it doesnt translate into improved sales even if they said "we all will buy games that do this" its not like they lose their job. There is no incentive for them to learn to get better, no punishment for failure, or even feedback. It's not like they get a performance review. They can even outright deny they took a certain stance and beleive their own words that they never said what they did indeed say.
Hi, Tim. I want to say two things about your video:
1. You conflate two different things - what players want and what players like. Those aren't necessarily the same. Players may want something only to find out that they don't like when it's implemented (or how it's implemented). And the opposite, they may think they don't want something only to find out that they like it when it's done right.
2. And that brings me to my second point. It's YOUR job to figure out what players would like in their games. If players would know what they actually like and don't like and were able to explain it in all the clear details, they would be gamedesigners themselves.
So glad you mentioned no HUD options, that’s legit my favorite way to play games and soooo many don’t let you customize it at all
I'm a gamer who likes a lot of variety and can tell you exactly what I like about the games I enjoy.
However, it's difficult to talk about things i enjoy because the internet loves to dogpile and talk negative all the time. I think New Vegas and Elden Ring are really great games with a lot of flaws, but I know if I made a video about the flaws that would get way more rage clicks than if I just gave it praise.
I know if I talked about how much I love some Ubisoft games like assassin's Creed Odyssey or Tom Clancy's breakpoint people will dogpile about how scummy Ubisoft are and not even talk about the games or the great parts of them.
I think you bring up some great points here Tim, I think as a society We just need to be better at formulating our own opinions and giving honest feedback. Have a great day! 😄
Thanks for the video, Tim.
If people started appreciating games for what they are rather than what they want them to be, thing may be different. Most people don't practice appreciation and acceptance. These skills are lost with many people today, which leaves us with a very negatively biased outlook, leading to a lot of 'I want', 'you should', and 'I hate'. Regarding feedback, this is also a skill that isn't developed well as a society. Receiving constructive, usable feedback that highlights issues with examples and also touches on what was done well seems to be a rare occurrence. But, at least we can appreciate that kind of feedback when we receive it and we can accept that the world is what it is, and that's okay. It's not ideal, but I'm sure things will change over time, as is the case with all things. Change for the better or worse, though? Well, that's all perspective 🙃
My personal wish for fast travel, is that it was disabled, but also that there are meaningful decisions planning the journey to the destination.
For example say I'm in Town A, and I have a quest in Town B. Town B is a few in-game days travel away. The quest has a time limit of 1 in-game week.
Some things I'll do to plan this journey:
- Ask townspeople for info on the geography towards Town B (Personality/Speech check). Maybe they say the path has giant spiders.
- Look for potion seller for a potion of anti-poison, in case I'm attacked by spiders
- Decide between cheaper perishable rations, or expensive durable rations.. If there are settlements along the way I might choose the perishable rations, coz I can easily restock. (Rations are consumed automatically, I just need to make sure their in my inventory)
- Decide if I should get my warm cloak repaired before I leave. It's battered and may not survive the journey. But the tailor will take a day to complete, which risks the quest time limit.
- Decide if I should pack heavy or light (encumbrance). If I pack light then my fatigue drains more slowly (less need to rest), and also I can carry more loot I might find.
Along the journey there should be encounters and challenges. But hopefully there should be a way to anticipate each one. Such as speaking with townspeople who warned about the spiders. (I think this might be a good way to systemize personality skills, as the responses can be generated from game-world data). The journey between any two towns should have different encounters that affect your plan: what to take, how often to rest, where to stop along the way.
Hopefully there's no big quests that pop up during the journey. So I can stay focused on the quest I already have. Although short local quests would be fun. Like if I'm stopping at a tavern on the way to the destination, and there's a conflict between two patrons the player can help with. As long as these small quests only take a couple of in-game hours. I just don't want my quest log to fill up with tons of quests such as in Skyrim.
I've been playing a lot of Daggerfall with mods lately, and I feel like it hints at a really interesting and engaging system for travelling.
The company I work for has a popular game, but with a lot of criticism and feedback. Before I worked for them, they listened to everything and made a sequel based on what the community apparently wanted. The sequel died pretty quickly, but the original is still very popular.
Intresting. Wich games are you talking about ?
@@ComissarYarrick Sorry, I am too private to say.
Hi Tim! I think the majority of people complaining, save for certain exceptions, are part of a vocal and loud minority and that's why sales don't reflect the apparent taste of that loud minority. The same usually happens with other media like cinema, TV and music!
Players are definitely really good at telling you what they _don't_ like, which can be hard to work with. Doubly so on those extra toxic comments...
What has worked for me while evaluating player feedback is ignoring the specifics of their feedback - like direct implementation requests, or specific "I don't like how {X} does {Y}" - and boiling it down to, "What is the end (mechanical/tactile/aesthetic) result the player is trying to achieve?" Then deciding how it fits within our goals for the game.
I love the anecdote about the Thompson and MP40 weapons in Wolfenstein - how players thought one was weaker when they were literally the same under the hood, and the deciding factor was audio feedback. In that case, players complained that the gun _was_ weaker, when what it boiled down to was, "I _feel_ weaker while using this"
For a personal example: on one project players complained about menus being "laggy", but we could not reproduce any kind of update or frame rate drops. Ultimately, they meant it felt unresponsive because some of the interactions' visual feedbacks had slow-entry fade-ins - which we chopped off.
Some feedback can be taken as-is, but even reasonable feature requests have to go through a round of, "How well does this feature fit in _this_ game?" with alternate designs considered alongside the suggestion, or the suggestion having to be molded into a different form to account for the game's needs (Cross platform support, etc).
(And of course to head off misunderstandings: feedback that directly says exactly what's wrong and can be reproduced are listened to 100%. Like game and crash bugs)
So... Do players know what they like / want? Some, maybe, but all players have an idea of when something doesn't work _for them_ and will be sure to let us know.
Personally, I prefer when players don't make direct suggestions because they can become distracting to the overall problem they're trying to indicate. It's easy to get sidetracked by the specifics of "add a minimap" (a minimap doesn't work for our design goals, or we don't have screen real-estate, or there's a performance concern) - when, the real problem is "The level designs are confusing and I need help navigating" (which can be solved with level adjustments, better map menu, a compass + markers, etc)
gamers know what they like but very often they don't convey it the right way
I think this is probably how most gamers are. A lot of people know when they like something or don’t like something, but a lot of people can’t really explain why without really taking the time to understand it, which most people don’t have time to do or simply don’t care to.
I think negative feedback is good and necessary just as much as positive feedback so long as they convey it properly and thoroughly 👍
I helped contract for a multiplayer game that was supposed to be heavily community driven, so essentially are lead would do polls on discord and other social media on what features the player base wanted to be developed first. Its cool in concept but the polls often showed the stupidest features winning every time and when we implemented the desired feature it lead to immediate backlash from the entire community.
What I took away from this is that players aren't constantly deconstructing the game they're playing, they aren't dissecting it to see what they find fun. They just "play" and the unconscious mind will direct them towards fun. So often the things that stick out to them are pain points in the design or features that are missing from games in the same genre. Which started to make sense once we went through about the polls. Constantly players would prioritize a feature that was missing but requested from another finished game in the same genre, even if the game is still missing a feature fundamental to its basic game loop; because they cant imagine a game in that genre without that feature if its always been a part of the game loop for games in that genre. They need to feel the pain of it missing before they understand its importance.
Regarding purely cosmetic microtransactions in multiplayer games, some players don't want to have to run around in their plain-looking armor while others are in their glowing, sparkling, animated kickass armor (even though stats may be the same). Appearance and character customization are important to these players.
I do my best to remind myself that some people are just a fight looking for a cause
I think a good analogy is the food industry. The most profitable are fast food restaurants, but no food connoisseur will give 5 stars to McDonald's. That industry adjusted so high quality specialized meals are more expensive so can still be feasible catering to a smaller more discriminating customer base.
For a variety of reasons most video games cost about the same (at launch) so theres less incentive to making a game that caters to a small section of the customer base.
I'll say what i like about games! I love talking about my favourite games. I tend to gravitate towards open/semi-open worlds, RPGs that give me companions with a lot of personality. Companions that have opinions, feelings, talk and comment about things. I think encumbrance is good, as a weapon/armour/potion hoarder, it's nice to have a mechanic that forces me to keep myself in check. I appreciate that in Outer Worlds, the easiest difficult is called "storymode" instead of "baby mode" as mentioned lots before (currently on my first hard playthrough, just got to Monarch!). I like that fast travel is there, even if I might not use it 90% of the time. Imo, one of the good ways to "cheat" around that is when games have some sort of taxi service to take you somewhere (like Morrowind or SWTOR), I like those. I enjoy being able to possibly romance a companion, or at least have a couple romance options in a game. I enjoy player homes, be it something the game gives you or a place you could buy (and I especially enjoy when I can decorate them!). I appreciate being able to change my appearance during the game, even if it's just hair and makeup -- I'm too indecisive to have it set in stone! Doesn't matter if i never see my character, _I know it's there._ On a personal level, aesthetics do mean a lot to me, so I always look at the sky and the water (like rivers, streams) in a game. Something so peaceful about the beauty of both those things, atoms or pixels.
After your previous video on criticism I really took that too heart and when I have been playing demos on Steam I am much more proactive on giving feedback on what I personally thought of the game both mechanically and emotionally. It's been extremely cathartic for getting me to sit down and critically challenge myself and my own views when presented with a Demo of a game I am interested in. I have also found the indie devs who released the Demo seem to really appreciate the feedback and suggestions even if it's something they weren't originally considering for their game.
Doing this lead me to discover that I actually really hate the jointed paper puppets style animation/art of games that is like early Flash games, I gave them a pass back in the day because I understood the limited resources but whenever I see it in games released today it instantly turns me off buying the game. Even if the game is well voiced, interesting premise, incredible writing the art and motion of paper puppets is something I just wont ever willingly buy. I never would have noticed that about myself if it wasn't for your videos explaining things like this.
Lastly on Fast Travel I have recently had to sit down and think about fast travel and found that I do like exploring and discovering but once I have explored a place to a certain point I get bored if I have to keep exploring and discovering if it's just for quests. If it's not quest related I am happy as to spend hours trying to figure out how to get to something that looks like it might be a cave hidden away somewhere, but if it's required to spend hours looking for a quest related thing I get really angry and feel like the game is wasting my time. So things like quest markers and fast travel are great for when I just want to get through the story, but when I just feel some wanderlust I am happy to spend ages just exploring a map and all it has hidden away by level designers.
I have recently gotten back into playing The Outer Worlds a game I never finished and found that when I want to focus on the story I want as little distractions as possible and when I just want to scrounge around I am fine with any sort of distraction. That said for my TOW playthrough I am trying my best to only focus on the main storyline mission because last time I played I just got bored with loot and not really following the story because I would explore and then forget what I was doing and lose track of the story.
One suggestion I would have is modern RPG's should borrow from Japanese Visual Novels and keep a transcript of conversations for each mission you have so if you come back to the game a week later and you're trying to remember what you were doing you can just read the log, I mean most games have subtitles anyways so I wonder if it's not possible to just when you track the quest in the game you just put the subtitles and your responses into the Quest tracker screen so you can reference it anytime.
Thanks for another great video Tim.
I'm a fan of set difficulty options, designed by designers and tested to make sure they deliver a particular experience, and then a Custom option if Devs want players to be able to fiddle with small settings that may make a game harder or easier.
While I mostly agree on the fact that people rarely give constructive criticism, but at the same time. It seems to be connected to the fact, that people on the receiving end "forgot" how to receive any criticism at all. A good example is Emil Pagliarulo who has been repeatedly called out on his - to put mildly - not stellar writing skills, to which he replied (in length):
"Funny how disconnected some players are from the realities of game development, and yet they speak with complete authority. I mean, I can guess what it takes to make a Hostess Twinkie, but I don't work in the factory, so what the hell do I really know? Not a lot."
Which while true, I would like to say = "I do not have to have the title of Master Chef to know that the soup was too salty"
Noel Gallagher during his interview on First we feast said - paraphrasing - "Fans have no clue what they want until you give it to them".
Again, true, but that doesn't meant everyone is going to celebrate your attempt at delivery, especially when what you deliver is crap..
I'm not even sure if Emil has bad writing skills, but he has bad storytelling skills. He seems the type of dude which wants to be a book author, which is alright, but a Fallout game requires a dude which enjoys the bats**t stuff tabletop players come up with while he is dungeonmastering for them. My impression is that Emil would be the type of DM which would railroad the players when they figured a solution for something he hadn't predicted.
I'm gonna be honest, I feel like lambasting Bethesda games for writing is pretty silly. Like, who cares, it's not even remotely the main attraction.
Writing in their games _always_ was subpar, even in Morrowind, for every Sermon of Vivec there's a dozen of nonsensical quests.
And, ultimately, he is right: you don't know what constraints does the dev operate under. Was [X] a result of stupid writing or did they have to cut [Y] that provided more context?
@@AliceLoverdrive yes.. who cares about writing in RPG games...
"Was [X] a result of stupid writing or did they have to cut [Y] that provided more context?"
As an end user, that is absolutely not my problem. For me, the important part is that the product is of poor quality. Do I really need to know if it happened due to writer having a bad day or because his brilliant idea was scrapped for money/time constraints ?
@@Forestmarko why would you care about writing in a game where the main gameplay is wandering around wilderness and delving into dungeons you see along the way? Expecting stellar writing from a Bethesda RPG is like expecting good romance subplot in a Souls game. You can, sure, but like... Why? That's not even remotely the reason to play it.
Hi Tim, thanks for posting this. It really made me think. Just this morning I was going to comment on a feature for a mobile game that was made easier and I was going to complain that while it might be a good change, it might not be good enough in my mind. I realize from your video that I need to be more precise in what I say. It reminds me of when I tested software that I needed to write detailed steps for the developer to replicate a bug I found. So thanks for this challenge to do better.
I think the trend towards negativity in fan bases is a direct response to the toxic positivity prevalent in alot of online communities on reddit and message boards and whatever else. Just look at the rise in popularity of "circlejerk" sub-reddits and jokes online, thats all a response to people who blindly love everything about a game or film or series.
On the bit about players hating micro-transactions, it may be about losing the ability to communicate their achievements visually. It must feel good to look at a player and be able to know she also did a certain quest that one did, or to determine their skill-level and such.
Players are like water, they flow down the path of least resistance. Our job as game designers is to make sure the water flows where it flows, and errodes where it erodes...
Most people don't know how to say what they mean or translate what is said into what is meant. When people complain about a game they are often trying to say that it conflicts with their perception of what its trying to be.
A game promising exploration of a detailed world undercuts its self with the introduction of easy fast travel. Now there is less insentive to explore the seemingly more mundane spaces between, places not deemed important enough for fast travel. This in turn often causes developers to get lazy with these spaces because the majority of players will naturally play the game in the most "efficient" manner and not see that the original promise is not being fufilled.
That is why people complain about something that seems to provide to a games success, the people who complain are a vocal minority who are there for the promise and not the game. Obviously there are plenty of things that people complain about and every complaint has a different reason but this is my take on the majority of them.
This also applies to games with cosmetic micro-transactions. In something like a multiplayer shooter, which often ooze with such, players are promised a competition based on skill with others.
The introduction of cosmetics often leads to a form of social competition built on top. The perception of you as a player in this public environment is no longer entirely based on dedication to skill but a flaunting of wealth or taste. Let alone any more technical reasons like art direction, visibility, and storage size.
I think players want two things primarily: depth and some degree of a curated “intended experience.” Greg Glintstone in his video about Elden Ring critiques presents two perspectives on the latter. Having a clear correct way to play is important to a degree while having unlimited ways to play that are all equally valid can be another perspective as well.
Specifically in response to the points made about fast travel it is the lack of depth presented by games such as Skyrim that can be disheartening as a player. Optimizing the fun out of a game seems to be a pitfall that both developers and players can fall into. Efficiency is an intrinsic motivation that is largly universal and can lead to play styles that are un-fun if not accounted for in the design.
The Arkham games combat relies on this. You can do the bare minimum of strike and block but if you want to have fun you must be motivated by efficiency. The best way to play is the most fun way to play.
Fast travel is a tool used for efficiency and thus those who are not self restricting will never get to see the game from an exclusively seamless perspective (yes dungeons have loading screens but you get the point.)
Players want the best way to play to be the most fun way to play and if universal intrinsic motivations are not accounted for in the design players will use them to satisfy these desires 99% of the time.
Sometimes people say they don't like fast travel, but what they actually mean is that they don't like some downside that comes with fast travel, like diminishing the feeling of exploration, always looking for icons in a the map compass, etc. It's the job of the designer to hear the feedback and think about what it means to hopefully address the issue within fast travel, instead of simply taking the feedback at face value and outright remove fast travel or add it as an opt-int setting.
When it comes to microtransactions, the only reason games started having tons of microtransactions in them is because gamers tolerate them. In the beginning, gamers made the same kind of excuses like "it's only cosmetics". Well maybe in Fortnite it's only cosmetics, but it most games it isn't. And that's BECAUSE people defend microtransactions. If people didn't defend them, microtransactions wouldn't exist. Plus it's unfair to say 'just don't buy them'. If you shouldn't buy them, why are they in the game then? Also a lot of people play with their friends, so if they have such cosmetics, they want to buy them too.
When I played Call of Duty back in the day and saw a gun with a certain skin that I didn't have, I was thinking "wow that player probably plays a lot" because you had to earn them. Now I just think "wow they must have rich parents".
When it comes to the other stuff, yes I think a lot of gamers don't know what they want. But there's also a big increase of game companies putting in features that players don't like on purpose.
I'm a gamer for over 20 years now, and I just realize that as a more '"hardcore" gamer, I'm not really the target demographic anymore and game companies want to prioritize the "wider audience" like they say.
I like inventory systems that have some visual/physical representation in the game. Like a backpack getting bigger or, in my ideal world, games all have a system like Death Stranding except their game isn’t literally just about carrying inventory.. more like, they have a solid RPG but they adopt Death Stranding approach to inventory to make everything you pick up feel like a real choice - more like a choice you might make in real life if you were in that situation. I don’t love encumbrance ONLY BECAUSE it comes out of nowhere to me. Like, it just feel crazy arbitrary, I’m already carrying so much why suddenly is this book make it impossible for me to run.. but if I could feel the weight and see the things I picked up constantly weighing and slowing me down, then I’m all for it.
I think that a lot of the issue is that people may not have the language to communicate what they like in a way that translates to the designer. Where I work, I interface with clients, and they'll say "I want X, Y, Z." If I tell that to my engineers, that won't tell them how to give them what the client wants. I have to use my minimal engineer speak to help them implement the solution.
I think that buying games with features I don't necessarily want or like is a tradeoff. If there are more features that I like than those I don't, I may buy it for what I like. If the negatives to me outweigh the positives, I'll spend my money elsewhere. I also think that marketing plays a big role. If marketing highlights the things I like, but minimizes those I don't, I may not be aware that the negative exists.
Within the AAA space, I feel that publishers aren't listening to the feedback from the players, while they chase the trends. When you see developers losing hundreds of millions of dollars on live service, for example, but continue to make them, that is a supply side problem.
Just my thoughts.
I much liked how Starfield went with voiceless protagonist and less streamlined dialogue mechanic, in which the structure and options can be customized for each quest.
Also, I enjoyed how they addressed ship construction and base building, by employing the architect mode. Big like, they did listen to positive criticism and did address the issues with markable improvements.
Now they should try to do something about the facial animations. Witcher 3 did them great. Starfield…
When it comes to things that people 'don't like', I think that there are certain mechanics in RPGs (and more importantly, other games) that a lot of people generally dislike, but could be implemented in a way that people would actually enjoy it. The ones that come to mind right now is Durability and Status Effects.
For Status Effects, I think it is mostly due to the mechanic in most games being overly simplistic; most of the time it is an RNG-based implementation of the status effect being added onto or not, as well as once the status effect is afflicted on a target, the usage of such status effect-based weapons/spells/whatever are somewhat nerfed because the Status Effect has now been added onto, and thus the effect of said tool no longer has that affect on a target.
Typically, I do enjoy the souls game's use of status effect build-up, mostly because I have been tired of the dice mechanics of many different games. At the same time however, I also think the addition of a status effect 'level-stacking system' would be a good idea... the level-stacking system in question for example being able to add the same poison on a target multiple times, which increases the length and potency of the damage of said poison (like the difference between a single bee sting and a thousand). That way, if someone wanted to play a poison-based character, they could focus on a form of DPS with, say a fast but weak weapon that can be coated or is already coated with a poison ailment that never becomes 'nerfed' from being useful after afflicting a person once... instead, they can repeatedly increase the potency/length of the poison on the target by attacking them over and over. This wouldn't also just work with poison, but having different status effects that are both positive and negative buffs and debuffs as well, depending on your creativity.
As for Durability, I think most people like it is due to Durability often acting as a liability more than an asset. For Oblivion for example, a lot of people hated that game because they played a Fighter; a lot of people had a sluggish time due to how the game was made, and making use of a pure fighter for most players as not fun. Instead, the Stealth and more importantly the Magic system, where the durability system is in the most part is next to non-existent (and also magic and stealth just did more damage overall).
For fixes of Durability, that varies. For a survival horror setting, I think it works as a form of alternative to ammunition, although the issue with most Durability systems such as the Resident Evil Outbreak series, where almost all of the melee weapons have the general durability of a handgun (around 15 hits max, but most are less) before breaking, whilst handguns both can be reloaded with ammo that is more plentiful than said melee weapons, and there are weapons with a higher ammo capacity that exist. I'm sure that if can be properly be placed in a survival horror setting if they take into account varying weapons that might have more durability points than most, such as an Iron Pipe with around 30-45 durability with moderate damage output in contrast to a heavier weapon that deals more damage with less durability, for example.
As for other implementations of Durability, there are a few ideas that have already existed in other games, and others that could be added to with new ones. Vagrant Story has a Durability System and also a Shadow System, which both pretty much work off of each other; whilst Durability decreases on a weapon when used, the player also gains Shadow points on said weapon; whilst the Durability being lowered decreases the damage output, the Shadow causes the weapon to deal more damage. Certain 'special melee' actions made use of consuming said Shadow Points and thus lowering it back to 0 in order to usually do more damage, but a number of systems could be done with such a system. Said game also had a special action that allowed you to restore a certain amount of durability for the weapon whilst dealing less damage to a target when you do a chain attack correctly.
Other forms of durability actions such as making use of casting magic out of a magic weapon such as the Drake Sword or Havel's Greatshield in Dark Souls also exists. Having a variety of 'fighter spells' that exists that consumes the durability of your weapons or armour when used in order to do a special action would probably be enticing to most, especially if you added a way to restore said durability in a way that is 'fruitful' the other problem with Oblivion as mentioned was since so many weapons and armour broke so easily people carried a Repair Hammer, but since you had to reach max level in Armorer in order to only require one hammer, people were often bogged down by having multiple hammers at once to often repair the rather weak weapons and armour that always broke after a few swings or a few hits.
I think for people to like Durability, it just requires a bit of more additions and interest to actually make it worthwhile. As it stands, most people don't like Durability in most RPGS and other games due to how 'overexaggerated' it is. The new Zelda games are a good example, with a lot of weapons that exist in the game being so unreliable that they often broke within 10-20 swings, which often left a sour feeling to many. Something that can be worked around for sure, but it is something that 'most' people don't often praise the game for. As it stands, a lot of people have a general dislike for Durability, from the number I hear talk about it either in real life or online, and honestly could go with a bit of creativity and additions to actually make it more appealing/interesting to most.
I think part of the reason alternate options aren't usually included with anti-requests is that seeing possibility spaces which belong to a topic is an earlier stage than actually understanding the nuances of those possibilities.
i.e. someone with just enough of an intuition for design will be able to suss out that they don't think a feature's opportunity cost was worth it but won't actually have the knowhow to decide on a better way to spend those 'design credits' and will end up glossing over it since they still feel the need to express the initial feeling. Games do seem to kinda cultivate that base level of practice more than other media (possibly due to their nature as an interactive medium) but still have similarly steep climbs to mastery as other disciplines so that level of incomplete commentary becomes more ubiquitous than it might have otherwise been.
3:30 The deal with microtransactions is that I feel the game skews away from being the best possible to just starting to drip feed the player with things they want for their money. Microtransactions just by them existing change how the game is designed and played.
Generally speaking it's hard to know what novel things one would enjoy until it's no longer novel. Or it's easier to grow as a writer by getting experience as an editor and reader in between the writing activity.
And yes, humans tend to be loss averse which makes it far easier to understand and identify issues is something in front of them than to understand and be able to reproduce and recontextualize what they like.
And now with the ease for everyone to share their opinions online, first-order intuitive "easy" opinions are being amplified orders of magnitudes louder than more informed, nuanced, or quirky takes.
But also I suspect a lot of people who have a keen concept of what they want in games tend to end up becoming designers and developers.
[13:54] This one fits on so many things than just games. Speaking about the good things gets you more good things.