IO Refuses To Be "Dictated To" by Fans

[The Wooster]

IO Refuses To Be "Dictated To" by Fans

Hitman: Absolution developer IO Interactive wants to make it clear that while they appreciate fan input, they won't be "dictated to."

Fans can be a demanding bunch. Some fans - generally the most vocal ones - vastly overestimate their own importance to the creative process, and maintain that they, and only they, have a handle on what direction their beloved series should take. Of course, for each game there are dozens of groups of fans, each with different ideas, yet each group claims to speak for the whole. Ignoring one's fans can have disastrous results, but following their instructions to the letter can be equally as damaging. That's the point IO's Tore Blystad was making during an interview with VG247 [http://www.vg247.com/2011/08/18/47-is-back-ios-blystad-on-bringing-back-hitman-with-absolution/].

"We'll listen to them," he said,"But we won't be dictated to by the fans because we also have so many segments of fans that we could listen to." He went on to add, "one group [might] say, the game has to be more difficult than any other Hitman. Well, that's going to be hard for us to pull off [in a] game of this magnitude."

Blystad seems to be specifically referring to Hitman: Absolution's new navigation system, which highlights possible in-game routes with colored lines, a feature some fans argue, may make the game too easy. Blystad claims that the feature is necessary, and that the degree of player freedom in the original Hitman games wasn't readily apparent because of the game's breadth of options and unforgiving difficulty. "That kind of freedom is not very interesting, because it's not really a choice, but you just try it and then you see if you fail and then you try something else," he said.

While some fans argue that the trial-and-error approach is vital to Hitman's atmosphere, Blystad believes a small niche of gamers are overestimating their own importance. "We're catering for a large spectrum of players from the most-ultra hardcore to the people who play third-person games," he said, "They enjoy that and they just want a good experience."

Devil May Cry developers Ninja Theory offered a similar opinion [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112373-Ninja-Theory-Devil-May-Cry-Skeptics-Secretly-Want-to-Like-It] earlier in the week, it was met with harsh criticism from fans. While I can understand fans reacting badly to what they perceive as radical changes to a beloved franchise, I do think that a small number of fans simply don't understand the boundaries of the creator-audience relationship. I can say from personal experience that while fan input is vital, it shouldn't be binding. The most vocal fans are not always the most important.

Source: VG247 [http://www.vg247.com/2011/08/18/47-is-back-ios-blystad-on-bringing-back-hitman-with-absolution/]


Permalink

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Could they not just do an Assassin's Creed (first game that sprang to mind) and put in an option in the option menu to turn off the extra HUD help? That way everybody wins.

On the broader issue: I'm actually agreeing with them. I've played a lot of the games people have accused developers of "dumb-ing down" and preferred them to the originals due the ease of access (is that the phrase I'm after there?) features making them more fun to pick up and play.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

The difference between IO and Ninja Theory/Capcom is that IO isn't giving everyone the middle finger when they complain. Just the most hardcore.

 

[Woodsey]

"Blystad seems to be specifically referring to Hitman: Absolution's new navigation system, which highlights possible in-game routes with colored lines, a feature some fans argue, may make the game too easy. Blystad claims that the feature is necessary, and that the degree of player freedom in the original Hitman games wasn't readily apparent because of the game's breadth of options and unforgiving difficulty.

I would disagree - freedom is not necessarily about standing on a hill and being able to point out all your options straight away. There's a lot to be said for exploration, as well as plans that are completely improvised.

Crysis 2 practically destroyed the sense of freedom present in the first game by not only making levels much smaller, but by literally pointing out your set-piece options. OK, I'm aware of my options, but I don't feel as if I have freedom because I'm just choosing from 3 pre-fabricated options.

Yes, the other Hitman games had paths that were technically mapped out, but they were spread in such a way that you felt as if you were still simply being clever and combining all these elements together.

A similar concern is what happened with Splinter Cell: Conviction's mark & execute system. Alright, you can technically choose to not use it, but virtually every level and every enemy is set up in such a way that the entire game is really based around it. If these new abilities dictate the game's design even just a fraction too much then it completely loses what made people play the previous games.

There is a reason why Chaos Theory is widely considered one of the best stealth games ever made, and why Conviction is primarily viewed as a bit-better-than-average stealth-action game.

The game will be rated 18, make the most of that fact and build a game that's intelligent. Gamers have managed the past 30 years just fine without having to have lines drawn on the floor for them.

If that's considered "hardcore" now then its because developers have let gamers get lazy.

 

[Jumplion]

That's a good point about that faux-freedom that Hitman had, I'm playing through Blood Money right now, and while it is a ton of fun (it really is, pick it up now), I often find myself playing and replaying the level just to find out which route leads to what. The first time on a level can be overwhelming to those not familiar with the layout or the position of guards.

A bit more on topic, I respect a developer that sticks to their guns for good or ill. Fans of certain games tend to feel entitled to the franchise, as if every decision on the game must cater to them at every moment. While for certain aspects of some games are important to have fan feedback (multiplayer comes to mind, with betas n' all), a development team should not be reliant on the "fans". It reminds me of how some fans vehemently complained about Cole's remodel in InFamous 2, and Sucker Punch caved in on that (though to be fair, it was never final to begin with). It's like the fans don't trust the actual developers to handle the game, and that's kind of sad I think.

 

[UnravThreads]

I think developers do need a bit of dictation, though. Unlike a movie where you give up maybe two hours of your life for £10, or a novel (Which is often an effort directly involving very few people) for £8 that takes up six or seven hours, a game is a big investment. It costs you, new and at release, £30+ and they can easily take up 10, 20, 30+ hours of your life. When we're looking at games at the scale of, say, Fallout: New Vegas, you're easily looking at 60hrs+ of time invested into a single playthrough.

Developers can, like all artists or creative forces, lose track of their original vision or go off on a tangent every so often. Two big examples would be Duke Nukem Forever and Half-Life 2: Episode 3. With the former, we had a developer that wasn't focusing and they were just tacking on bits of other games to their own. Putting aside the problems with the publisher, it became clear with DNF's release that it was a game that suffered from too many ideas, too little focus and too much time in a development hell. With HL2:E3 (Or Half-Life 3 as people are probably calling it at this point), Valve made an earlier decision to go episodic to speed up product release, but they managed to screw that up almost instantly. Their fans are getting beyond impatient now, and they're not helping by releasing new products left, right and center, such as Portal 2 and DotA, as well as this new Counter-Strike release.

If you don't listen to your fans, like Ubisoft, then you may end up alienating them and creating problematic situations such as their DRM and its implementation and reactions. If you listen to your fans too much, as some would say has happened to World of Warcraft, you go in the opposite direction but end up at the same situation. You may alienate some of your fans and potentially show yourself as weak-willed.

I would say that, funnily enough, one of the few situations where fan feedback was used and taken on board to success was the previous Call of Duty game, Black Ops. From what I've heard, it's one of the best in the series so far, and I am absolutely certain that it's due to the developer(s) listening to fan feedback and tweaking the game in various aspects to remove the problems they see.

 

[Treblaine]

"Fans don't know best"

Lucas has been shovelling that shit since 1999 and we and buying it.

"That kind of freedom is not very interesting, because it's not really a choice, but you just try it and then you see if you fail and then you try something else," he said

OK, just because we may not find it yourselves, just GIVING US THE ANSWER is no solution!!! That is cheap and defeats the purpose of why these games were actually fun, this is like integrating a walkthrough guide in the game! yes the Trial and error WAS all the fun and greatly enhanced by the limited saves or even no-saves, but critical was how WE controlled the saves and used them tactically.

My problem is we want a Hitman game, only we don't seem to be getting a hitman game but rather a rip-off of batman Arkham Asylum only you can kill people.

NOOOOO!

Hitman is not about "stealth" in the sense of hiding in the shadows, it is ALL about hiding in plain sight, in disguises or just mingling with the public. Something so good about stealing a disguise and infiltrating a place just walking around like you are just another guard.

And to the list of bullshit:
-Bateson completely blown off: the voice AND face of Agent 47
-no overmap
-over-emphasis on combat and shooting
-Jesper Kyd not rehired (that god damn amazing music...)
-no mention of more novel assassination modes like "accidental deaths" in Blood Money


I personally will be playing Blood Money and enjoying the good old days. As it seems IO Interactive is suffering from George Lucas Syndrome.

 

[zehydra]

good. Make what you think is good, IO, and we'll see if we agree.

 

[Woodsey]

It's like the fans don't trust the actual developers to handle the game, and that's kind of sad I think.

Why would they? So many developers are so concerned with making their games "appeal to a wider audience" that the games simply devolve into something that the original fans don't want to play, and the supposed "new audience" still has no interest in because what the game has now become is something they've seen done better, elsewhere.

 

[GeorgW]

This seems like something that should be pretty obvious, but I guess their fans were persistant and they needed to say something. I'll continue to be sceptical about this game until I see some gameplay, as usual. That said, trial and error is what made the originals great.

 

[Treblaine]

The game will be rated 18, make the most of that fact and build a game that's intelligent. We've all managed the past 30 years without bloody lines being drawn on the floor for us.

This is the face of the modern games industry:

-draw lines for you to follow to your objective
-call this "freedom"

No, freedom was doing something completely unexpected, pushing my target down the stairs and breaking his neck. An "unfortunate accident" by all appearances, but then again they always say it's very unlucky to snitch on the mob...

Blood money didn't need lines to tell you how to get shit done. When you were given a loaded gun of vintage design, see stage play using a vintage gun with blanks fired at your target. Duuuh, switch the guns?

 

[Keava]

I like that approach. Fans usually means minority of your player base. Sure fans build community and all, but this is AAA business, not indie for fun and shit and giggles production. Money needs to flow, and flow of money comes from number of people enjoying the game. Vocal minorities already ruin the out of game experience for many titles out there (just read random MMO forums, hell read gaming forums like this), always feeling that their PoV is the most important one in the whole world.

Simple fact is devs actually have experience in making games - fans usually don't. What some guy thinks might be good idea, the market may just as well deem as worst game play element ever and that's not a risk big titles can afford to take.
That's why we have indie scene. They are free to come up with all kinds of wicked mechanics, and if their game sells well the bigger fishes might pick up on it. It's a wonderful system.. now we just need even more exposure to indie games ^^

 

[samwise970]

I like that approach. Fans usually means minority of your player base. Sure fans build community and all, but this is AAA business, not indie for fun and shit and giggles production. Money needs to flow, and flow of money comes from number of people enjoying the game. Vocal minorities already ruin the out of game experience for many titles out there (just read random MMO forums, hell read gaming forums like this), always feeling that their PoV is the most important one in the whole world.

Simple fact is devs actually have experience in making games - fans usually don't. What some guy thinks might be good idea, the market may just as well deem as worst game play element ever and that's not a risk big titles can afford to take.
That's why we have indie scene. They are free to come up with all kinds of wicked mechanics, and if their game sells well the bigger fishes might pick up on it. It's a wonderful system.. now we just need even more exposure to indie games ^^

Why does every game have to be either AAA or indie? None of the Hitman games in the past have ever been true AAA titles. Is there really no room anymore for anything that doesn't appeal to everyone?

And you say that fans may not know what they are talking about, that's just silly in a lot of cases. Fans have been playing the Hitman games for years, and we know exactly what we want, which is very simple, and has worked in the past.

 

[Jumplion]

"Fans don't know best"

Lucas has been shovelling that shit since 1999 and we and buying it.

Weren't the Star Wars prequel a jerkoff for fans who were going on about wanting to know more about Vader? I really wouldn't know, I never really bothered to get that into the Star Wars franchise.

But whatever, doesn't really matter. What matters is that IO, Ninja Theory, Lucas, whoever you want to go on about, have absolutely no obligation to please the "fans". The only obligation they have is to make a good game/movie/whatever. If IO wanted to make Hitman a racing game, or a puzzle game, so be it, that's their decision and theirs alone.

Personally, when playing through Blood Money for the first time, it was a bit overwhelming for me with a ton of things to do. Freedom isn't just plopping you down having a bunch of options, that was the flaw with Scribblenauts. Sure, you could put in a bunch of different words, but when the clear best answer is "God" and "Cthulu" it becomes mundane. They way they're going about this, I think it's more "here's this one path, now branch off and see the different ways you can approach that". For good or ill, IO is sticking to their guns, and I respect that with a developer.

It's like the fans don't trust the actual developers to handle the game, and that's kind of sad I think.

Why would they? So many developers are so concerned with making their games "appeal to a wider audience" that the games simply devolve into something that the original fans don't want to play, and the supposed "new audience" still has no interest in because what the game has now become is something they've seen done better, elsewhere.

Sucker Punch hasn't really been known for drastically changing their games that cause a rift in the fanbase. The whole Cole design in InFamous 2 just sort of felt like fans were going "NO! You don't know SHIT about the game franchise you've been slaving away for the past couple of years! I AM DISPLEASED!!" I don't think people realize just how much thought goes into games on every little mechanic (at least the good ones). Sucker Punch had to drop their own vision for the game, and instead had to cater to the fans just so they wouldn't be pissy about Cole looking a bit different. The fans don't trust them to make a game that they would enjoy anyway.

To some extent, sure, fans of

But, to loosly paraphrase Yahtzee on a similar subject "If you just stick to the franchise's core fans will complain it's not innovating. If you change too much, fans will ***** about how it doesn't stay true to the game."

 

[Hashbrick]

Anyone else feel like they are making this whole game into a Fidelity commercial? You're path to success is this way! Great, thx for ruining what made the franchise so great, complete freedom within a level.

 

[Woodsey]

"Fans don't know best"

Lucas has been shovelling that shit since 1999 and we and buying it.

Weren't the Star Wars prequel a jerkoff for fans who were going on about wanting to know more about Vader? I really wouldn't know, I never really bothered to get that into the Star Wars franchise.

But whatever, doesn't really matter. What matters is that IO, Ninja Theory, Lucas, whoever you want to go on about, have absolutely no obligation to please the "fans". The only obligation they have is to make a good game/movie/whatever. If IO wanted to make Hitman a racing game, or a puzzle game, so be it, that's their decision and theirs alone.

Personally, when playing through Blood Money for the first time, it was a bit overwhelming for me with a ton of things to do. Freedom isn't just plopping you down having a bunch of options, that was the flaw with Scribblenauts. Sure, you could put in a bunch of different words, but when the clear best answer is "God" and "Cthulu" it becomes mundane. They way they're going about this, I think it's more "here's this one path, now branch off and see the different ways you can approach that". For good or ill, IO is sticking to their guns, and I respect that with a developer.

It's like the fans don't trust the actual developers to handle the game, and that's kind of sad I think.

Why would they? So many developers are so concerned with making their games "appeal to a wider audience" that the games simply devolve into something that the original fans don't want to play, and the supposed "new audience" still has no interest in because what the game has now become is something they've seen done better, elsewhere.

Sucker Punch hasn't really been known for drastically changing their games that cause a rift in the fanbase. The whole Cole design in InFamous 2 just sort of felt like fans were going "NO! You don't know SHIT about the game franchise you've been slaving away for the past couple of years! I AM DISPLEASED!!" I don't think people realize just how much thought goes into games on every little mechanic (at least the good ones). Sucker Punch had to drop their own vision for the game, and instead had to cater to the fans just so they wouldn't be pissy about Cole looking a bit different. The fans don't trust them to make a game that they would enjoy anyway.

To some extent, sure, fans of

But, to loosly paraphrase Yahtzee on a similar subject "If you just stick to the franchise's core fans will complain it's not innovating. If you change too much, fans will ***** about how it doesn't stay true to the game."

There's usually a pretty clear distinction between evolution of gameplay, and this new approach everyone's taken up.

Evolution of gameplay: Splinter Cell --> Chaos Theory
Regressive side-step-thingy-majig: Chaos Theory --> Conviction

The thing with Cole is a different matter. It was a character design, people didn't like it, they said so, the developers decided to change it. They wouldn't have had to, and at the end of the day you'd probably end up with about 3 fans actually feeling alienated and not buying the game (if that).

 

[Smooth Operator]

Could they not just do an Assassin's Creed (first game that sprang to mind) and put in an option in the option menu to turn off the extra HUD help? That way everybody wins.

Exactly, how about treating the only interactive medium as a fucking interactive medium.
Game solutions done by accountants, such a great idea.

But they are right on fans dictating the games direction, they cannot, that should also include steering games into casual waters to appease a greater crowd, but hey we all love money.

 

[Jumplion]

There's usually a pretty clear distinction between evolution of gameplay, and this new approach everyone's taken up.

Evolution of gameplay: Splinter Cell --> Chaos Theory
Regressive side-step-thingy-majig: Chaos Theory --> Conviction

I dunno. Do you think IO is smart enough to not fall into that trap?

 

[Woodsey]

There's usually a pretty clear distinction between evolution of gameplay, and this new approach everyone's taken up.

Evolution of gameplay: Splinter Cell --> Chaos Theory
Regressive side-step-thingy-majig: Chaos Theory --> Conviction

I dunno. Do you think IO is smart enough to not fall into that trap?

Well so far they've removed the in-game map, put focus on light-based stealth for the first time, added a scripted helicopter chase sequence (?!), drawn lines on the ground to show people where to go (and equated this to giving people more freedom), and given the ability to see through walls.

Plus, they made two bloody Kane & Lynch games. So no, not really.

I'd love to be proven wrong but I can see where this could easily head already, because its already happened several times over to different developers.