The player is one of the most valued parts of game design. Many developers forget the necessity of their audience because they are either focused on one aspect or their own wants. This concept is iterated by Fullerton where he says,“It’s far too easy to get caught up in a game’s graphics, story line, or new features (Fullerton, 3).” A game has no utilization without its players. It’s similar to a car without its driver. A car company shouldn’t develop a car with only cosmetics in mind because most likely that car will crash and burn. The player is the end goal and the developer should always be asking themselves about what the player would do and keeping a fresh and open mind when planning their game. The developer can also have the player try the game for themselves instead of being the only ones playing the game. This function is known as playtesting.
Playtesting is one of the key solutions in preventing a game failure. During playtesting, players are able to give feedback on the game and how every aspect affected them during their run. With every new person who tries the game, they add another beneficial addition. This extra puzzle piece to the testing is the complex differences and backgrounds that create the separating experiences between players. However, every person will have their own opinion and therefore a developer will not be able to accommodate all of them. As mentioned in Lorde’s article, it’s essential to acknowledge everyone’s differences. Although when planning, the creator can’t always guarantee every player will love the game and should focus on a certain niche. A game that attempts to please everyone will fail. This idea is similar to the common phrase, you can’t always please everyone. It’s true.
Overall, there are two things that can’t be done. First, one cannot only focus on a specific game feature. Good gameplay should be the objective, but it should have the audience in mind. Secondly, there is no possible way to please everyone. There is no game that every person in the world likes equally. So, when planning, everything should be considered, but within limits and kept moderated.
By: Samantha Reeb
Works Cited
Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: a Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. CRC Press, 2019.
Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press, 2007.
I agree entirely with your post, specifically when you wrote, “A game has no utilization without its player”. This reminded me a lot of the games I play, and how many of them have so much potential but don’t go anywhere because the developers don’t care enough to learn more about their player base’s opinions. It is very detrimental for developers to ignore their users, because in the end, the players is what makes a game popular. I have seen too many people lose interests in games because of this.
LikeLike
I also agree with the sentiment that ultimately the audience is what makes a game great and is the primary driving force. There are plenty examples of games too heavy handed in the incorporation of their own features without any regards for the player base (Fallout 76, Anthem, the recent Warcraft 3) only to severely cripple their success and longevity. However, I feel there should also be an extent to how many features can be implemented before it becomes less about consumer and player friendly and more akin to coddling. While I cannot think of many examples, I feel Warframe could be a possible example. In many rpgs, farming, grinding, and coveted items are a part of the core end game. However, Warframe lacks this as due to protesting from the community, many “rare” drops are boosted to become more common. There gets to be a point where it’s catering instead of bettering when it comes to designing and listening to communities.
LikeLike