Bioware should listen to Gabe Newell

[Woodsey]

That doesn't mean bending down willy-nilly as soon as they kick up a fuss.

Valve quite famously make use of biometrics during development so they can test player responses to various things, but that's not the same as granting players creative control. They also seem to have struck a balance which the majority of other developers simply can't handle.

So...we need more focus-audience crap, as if there is not enough of it already?

No kidding. The smart money is in releasing a product that appeals to as few people as possible, whilst infuriating most.

Let the publishers worry about money, let us worry about getting games that are creative and comfortable in being what they are.

If you want the very best then sometimes things have to go wrong, or not be to your taste, or fuck up before they're even out of the starting gate. Unless you want 100 games that all start bleeding into one another, that's how things work.

 

[WanderingFool]

Umm, they DO listen to their fans?

ME1:
Mako shit? Mako gone.
Inventory shit? Inventory gone.
Boring characters? Make more character-oriented.
Boring shit combat? Make more action-focused.

ME2:
Planet scanning shit? Gone.
Not enough RPG? More RPG in ME3.
Memes roflol-hilarious? Have memes in sequal.
Want to see more on characters? Add cameos in ME3.

It seems like Bioware listens a lot to their fans. Sure, some people may like the Mako and inventory from ME1, but the general concensus was that it was shit and they should get rid of it, which they did.

In regards to the inventory, I think they took a step in the right direction with ME3, in terms of weapons. I would like to have seen more modifications and such, maybe a tad of customization. But over all, it was much better than ME2. I would like to see a return of the light/medium/heavy armor in any possible future games, while keeping the modular armor customization in ME2 & 3.

Also, as shit as the Mako was, at least it was there. It took the firewalker pack to get another vehical in ME2, and it was only five damn missions (havent gotten Overlord.) I wish they would have had vehical segments with the Hammerhead in ME3. Also, Im glad they added the memes in a kind of *sniker* subtle way, it was a funny bit that really added some fun to ME3.

 

[ResonanceGames]

So...we need more focus-audience crap, as if there is not enough of it already?

You can't have too much of it in my opinion. At the end of the day, customers will or won't buy your product. If you choose not to listen to them then don't be surprised if you start losing money.

You know that a large chunk of why games/movies/music is crap is because of focus-groups and test-audiences? You're basically saying "You can't have too much crap".

But fine, if you want regurgitated, bland pieces of shit, go ahead. You might just crash the motherfucking industry with this "more focus-groups" bullshit.

You're conflating two totally different things. Focus groups who try to cram a product into as many demographics as possible (Michael Bay is a perfect example) are very, very different from gathering feedback and improving your audience's experience.

Do you think a Hollywood focus group would have come up with a comedic puzzle game that stars a British voice actor, contains no love interests, sex appeal, hit songs, or fancy cars?

I rest my case.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Erm... no?

Focus testing has become the bane of modern entertainment.

Remember I Am Legend? Remember how shit the ending was, and how it completely ignored everything that the story had implied thus far about the nature of the infected, in favour of a completely hollow piece of melodramatic crap? Yeah, that was because test audiences didn't like the original ending that was filmed.

Spoiler

In the original cut, Will Smith's character discovers that the infected aren't brainless monsters, but are actually sentient creatures. The whole movie had been implying this throughout the story. His lab is broken into, but the infected are only their to reclaim the captive infected that Will Smith has been using to try and find a cure. They bugger off, and he heads to the military enclosure with the kids to help solidify his work on a cure. The entire idea of the ending is that Will Smith is painted as being a monster to the infected, a boogeyman who steals off individuals while they sleep. It completely inverts the man/monster relationship we normally expect in films.

Test audiences didn't like this morally ambiguous ending. They felt that Will Smith's character should be punished for apparantly being an amoral douchebag (despite the fact that he was simply doing what he felt was necessary to survive all by himself). So they reshot the ending. The infected zerg rush the characters, Will Smith kills himself with a grenade and takes with him the captive infected, her mate/the ringleader of the infected group, and everything else in a 100 foot radius except the kids. The infected are not shown to have any depth, instead being portrayed as mindless zombies. And the entire thing flies in the face of everything the film had been building up to.

Focus testing is the bane of good storytelling. Audiences like predictable, typical, formulaic plots and heroes. Great stories, on the other hand, come about by challenging expectations. If you present an audience with a novel, innovative story that deviates from narrative norms, they may well enjoy it. If, however, you give them executive decision over that story, then they will simply reduce all the non-formulaic points down to narrative cliche, simply because this is more familiar and comforting to them.

As a member of the audience, you sole input comes from looking at the piece of art, and generating your reaction to it. Anything more, and you risk bringing the whole thing down to serve the lowest common denominator.

I remain unconvinced that showing your stuff to focus groups is all that bad. I mean, yes, it is pretty bad, when used the wrong way. But when used the right way (which is not very often, but does happen), it can make a good game into a great game. Getting feedback on gameplay, for instance, is key. There are other examples where it could work. If you show someone a scene from the game and they do not understand what you are going for, you can go back and say "okay, why did they not see/get that, and what can we do to change it so they do?" Of course, focus testing is not the end all-be all and should be used sparingly, but it can be a very useful tool when used properly.

 

[wintercoat]

I miss Mako even if it was horrible to control.

It was kinda like the Halo CE Warthog. Frustrating to drive, but with undeniable charm.

Nothing like launching the Mako off a cliff and watching it somersault it's way down. And the beast could take a pounding. It just handled like a drunk rhino. The Hammerhead from the Firewalker DLC was just terrible though. It handled ok, but was just so much tissue paper. I would rather have a drunk rhino that can take more than a couple shots than an agile gazelle that dies if you look at it funny.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

I'm a musician. I went to college and studied music. Music is an artform, and I don't think anyone here would disagree with it. But music also has a set of rules. Well, perhaps not rules. More like guidelines. Quite an extensive set of guidelines. It's called music theory. And without it, music as we know it wouldn't exist.

On the other hand, there's outsider music. It quite often ignores some/many/all of the rules (largely because the people involved aren't even aware there are any), but it's still music. A lot of it is crap, and it's not necessarily "music as we know it", but some of it is pretty interesting. There's a similar concept of outsider art for other media too.

Of course, I'm just being pedantic/silly. I've been playing music for a few decades now and spent my share of time studying music theory and know exactly what you mean. And really I just can't pass up an excuse to mention My Pal Foot Foot [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9d4ESlpHY]. Heh.

 

[Forgetitnow344]

Umm, they DO listen to their fans?

ME1:
Mako shit? Mako gone.
Inventory shit? Inventory gone.
Boring characters? Make more character-oriented.
Boring shit combat? Make more action-focused.

ME2:
Planet scanning shit? Gone.
Not enough RPG? More RPG in ME3.
Memes roflol-hilarious? Have memes in sequal.
Want to see more on characters? Add cameos in ME3.

It seems like Bioware listens a lot to their fans. Sure, some people may like the Mako and inventory from ME1, but the general concensus was that it was shit and they should get rid of it, which they did.

I don't think the consensus was to "get rid of" the Mako or inventory. I think it was to make them better! Bioware took the "easy" road in that respect. Now, albeit, I have not played ME2 or 3 yet, having not beaten the 1st one, but I've enjoyed the story and characters of the 1st game a lot, and I hear that they changed everything for the sequels, ala Dragon Age 2 (which shat all over the 1st one in their "streamlining mentality and appeasing the general public"). This disappoints me as I would like to get to the end of the "story" of Mass Effect, but I don't want to play through 2 shit games to do it.

2 and 3 don't exactly do what DA2 does. It revamps everything, but it's far from a casualization. It's very jarring to go suddenly from 1 to 2 though. Play the demo if you're unsure. I, personally, think it's much better, but it's an opinion thing. 3 is really just an improvement of 2. If there's anything I miss from the original, it's the planetary exploration. I loved that I could land on a planet that had practically nothing on it and dune buggy around it in my bouncy jalopy.

If there's anything you should be wary of in your venture, it's ME3's ending. It's very unsatisfying no matter what angle from which you look at it. Fortunately, they're expanding on it this summer. Yes, EXPANDING. Not CHANGING. It's a wonderful compromise because it gives us fans closure while keeping their "artistic vision." I just wish it was available from launch...

 

[SajuukKhar]

Yea they did listen, but IDK... sometimes it just seems unfair. I miss the Mako. The ME universe just seemed so much larger when you could drop down onto a sandbox world.

to bad there was not a single one of those worlds that had anything in them.

Just flat nothingness or impassible mountain nothingness.

 

[Lugbzurg]

Erm... no?

Focus testing has become the bane of modern entertainment.

Remember I Am Legend? Remember how shit the ending was, and how it completely ignored everything that the story had implied thus far about the nature of the infected, in favour of a completely hollow piece of melodramatic crap? Yeah, that was because test audiences didn't like the original ending that was filmed.

Spoiler

In the original cut, Will Smith's character discovers that the infected aren't brainless monsters, but are actually sentient creatures. The whole movie had been implying this throughout the story. His lab is broken into, but the infected are only their to reclaim the captive infected that Will Smith has been using to try and find a cure. They bugger off, and he heads to the military enclosure with the kids to help solidify his work on a cure. The entire idea of the ending is that Will Smith is painted as being a monster to the infected, a boogeyman who steals off individuals while they sleep. It completely inverts the man/monster relationship we normally expect in films.

Test audiences didn't like this morally ambiguous ending. They felt that Will Smith's character should be punished for apparantly being an amoral douchebag (despite the fact that he was simply doing what he felt was necessary to survive all by himself). So they reshot the ending. The infected zerg rush the characters, Will Smith kills himself with a grenade and takes with him the captive infected, her mate/the ringleader of the infected group, and everything else in a 100 foot radius except the kids. The infected are not shown to have any depth, instead being portrayed as mindless zombies. And the entire thing flies in the face of everything the film had been building up to.

Focus testing is the bane of good storytelling. Audiences like predictable, typical, formulaic plots and heroes. Great stories, on the other hand, come about by challenging expectations. If you present an audience with a novel, innovative story that deviates from narrative norms, they may well enjoy it. If, however, you give them executive decision over that story, then they will simply reduce all the non-formulaic points down to narrative cliche, simply because this is more familiar and comforting to them.

As a member of the audience, you sole input comes from looking at the piece of art, and generating your reaction to it. Anything more, and you risk bringing the whole thing down to serve the lowest common denominator.

I quite agree. I've brought up the point about I am Legend, myself. I was actually shown the film first, and never gave the movie any thought after I had seen it. But, when I heard about the book being almost worlds apart (and with what I'd heard not even giving spoilers), giving descriptions about how intelligent it was, I was very determined to read it. When I got to the end... My word... One of the greatest endings I have ever come across. This kind of makes me think of Conker's Bad Fur Day. It goes on and on with comedy nonsense action to get your attention and keep your attention, when, suddenly, you've got this very deep, rather depressing ending and completely turns everything over on it's head. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

I admire intelligence... and quality over quantity. "We want a larger audience" really sickens me. When you're going that route, you're sacrificing important aspects of what has been created, just because you want a fatter wallet. But, the fact of the matter is "if you try to please everyone, you'll lose your heiny." Compress it strong, rather than stretch it thin. I'd rather have ten people excited for my work and enjoying it, than 10,000 just looking at it.

 

[Beryl77]

It's good advice for people starting game development. Good feedback can help you a lot in becoming better at games development and other things. Of course it's sometimes hard to distinguish good from bad feedback.
But I don't think that this fully applies to a big and experienced dev like Bioware, well Gabe's advice was for people who want to start making games and not for people already heavily involved in some games company.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

Umm, they DO listen to their fans?

ME1:
Mako shit? Mako gone.
Inventory shit? Inventory gone.
Boring characters? Make more character-oriented.
Boring shit combat? Make more action-focused.

ME2:
Planet scanning shit? Gone.
Not enough RPG? More RPG in ME3.
Memes roflol-hilarious? Have memes in sequal.
Want to see more on characters? Add cameos in ME3.

It seems like Bioware listens a lot to their fans. Sure, some people may like the Mako and inventory from ME1, but the general concensus was that it was shit and they should get rid of it, which they did.

I don't think anyone wanted to get rid of the Mako and inventory. I certainly didn't want the loot system to go, it just needed to be cleaned up. Having good equipment you can salvage from quests is half the fun of being in a roleplay game.
As for more rpg in ME3...Seing as they gutted out the dialogue system by removing extra speech options and you don't get to choose as frequently anymore (conversations are often long and drawn out, leaving you to either drop the controller or tab out from boredom) that's hard to agree on. Having a broken quest system and getting most the quests from overhearing conversations rather than actually talking to people and getting involved firsthand....Yeah, I'd go with the assumption that ME3 was rushed out in order to meet EA's quarterly deadlines.

 

[Gigatoast]

Umm, they DO listen to their fans?

ME1:
Mako shit? Mako gone.
Inventory shit? Inventory gone.
Boring characters? Make more character-oriented.
Boring shit combat? Make more action-focused.

ME2:
Planet scanning shit? Gone.
Not enough RPG? More RPG in ME3.
Memes roflol-hilarious? Have memes in sequal.
Want to see more on characters? Add cameos in ME3.

It seems like Bioware listens a lot to their fans. Sure, some people may like the Mako and inventory from ME1, but the general concensus was that it was shit and they should get rid of it, which they did.

I don't think the consensus was to "get rid of" the Mako or inventory. I think it was to make them better! Bioware took the "easy" road in that respect. Now, albeit, I have not played ME2 or 3 yet, having not beaten the 1st one, but I've enjoyed the story and characters of the 1st game a lot, and I hear that they changed everything for the sequels, ala Dragon Age 2 (which shat all over the 1st one in their "streamlining mentality and appeasing the general public"). This disappoints me as I would like to get to the end of the "story" of Mass Effect, but I don't want to play through 2 shit games to do it.

Anyone who says ME1 was the least flawed of the games is basically swimming in a big pool of nostalgia and possible EA rage. ME2 and ME3 improve on what the series is best at, that being story and characters. The pointlessly obtuse inventory system and broken vehicle sections are not the main focus of the series, getting rid of them led to a much more polished and focused story experience.

So I suggest playing them, they are vast improvements on an already stellar game.

 

[NathLines]

Anyone else who thought the title of the thread was in response to that MLP-thread?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.362914-Valves-Gabe-is-a-brony

 

[endtherapture]

Umm, they DO listen to their fans?

ME1:
Mako shit? Mako gone.
Inventory shit? Inventory gone.
Boring characters? Make more character-oriented.
Boring shit combat? Make more action-focused.

ME2:
Planet scanning shit? Gone.
Not enough RPG? More RPG in ME3.
Memes roflol-hilarious? Have memes in sequal.
Want to see more on characters? Add cameos in ME3.

It seems like Bioware listens a lot to their fans. Sure, some people may like the Mako and inventory from ME1, but the general concensus was that it was shit and they should get rid of it, which they did.

I don't think the consensus was to "get rid of" the Mako or inventory. I think it was to make them better! Bioware took the "easy" road in that respect. Now, albeit, I have not played ME2 or 3 yet, having not beaten the 1st one, but I've enjoyed the story and characters of the 1st game a lot, and I hear that they changed everything for the sequels, ala Dragon Age 2 (which shat all over the 1st one in their "streamlining mentality and appeasing the general public"). This disappoints me as I would like to get to the end of the "story" of Mass Effect, but I don't want to play through 2 shit games to do it.

Anyone who says ME1 was the least flawed of the games is basically swimming in a big pool of nostalgia and possible EA rage. ME2 and ME3 improve on what the series is best at, that being story and characters. The pointlessly obtuse inventory system and broken vehicle sections are not the main focus of the series, getting rid of them led to a much more polished and focused story experience.

So I suggest playing them, they are vast improvements on an already stellar game.

I liked the inventory and old weapons mod system - half the fun for me is finding new stuff, swapping it out, and finding the best layout and stuff. ME2 failed that because you just gave everyone the best gun they could have instead of actually thinking.

 

[Zen Toombs]

OT: Developers should listen to their fans, no matter how massive the criticism is. Which Bioware failed to do for ME3 feedback. Sure, they did well listening for ME1 and ME2.. but when it came down to ME3 the director (Casey Hudson) merely replied, "It's art, you have to accept what it is."

Casey Hudson hasn't been acting as smart as he is, no question. I will point out that Bioware is planning on releasinga bit of ending content [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116661-BioWare-Announces-Post-Ending-DLC-for-Mass-Effect-3-Updated], which could possibly help with the many criticisms.

While I'm not very optimistic about this, this free DLC could take care of some or all of the problems with the Mass Effect ending.

Fans: Hey isn't it about time for, I dunno, Episode 3? Wasn't it about time, like, years ago? Didn't you promise those episodic games would be, like, here really quickly? Wasn't that, correct me if I'm wrong, the point?
Gabe: I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALA By the way, developers should totally listen to their fans.

amused Toombs is amused.

 

[Darkmantle]

Focus testing is good to a point but you dont want to do to much of it if you try and appeal to everybody you will just end up appealing to nobody.

If you make a game exactly as you want without any focus testing (proper focus testing) odds are it will get a very small hardcore audience who will absolutely love it (unless its absolutely atrocious) while everyone else will either ignore it or hate it, focus test it too much and you will end up with a game that dosent know what it is it will likely be consumable by most people but will inevitably be quickly forgotten or forever hated if its a sequel to a game that had a niche audience as they see it as selling out usually.

As for Bioware listening to its fans well yeah they do but so does every developer they are not special here but I would say they are likely to listen to what EA and their own employees say more.

The biggest argument against making a game "exactly as you want" has to be Dai-katana. That's an atrocious game.