kael013 said:
No, they're definitely going through a checklist too. That's why I had a parenthesis calling out publishers for executive meddling. Sure, on some level the devs think it's cool, but there were limits put in from the beginning. I hate that.
There will always be limits. Budgetary limits, time limits, content limits. These will always be there, they can never be removed, and when you try to remove them, it often makes the result worse. Duke Nukem Forever was a game born of no limits, because the developers had all the time and money in the world, and as a result it was never properly finished because there was always more that they wanted to do with it, until one day it finally just collapsed under its own weight.
Thing is, while limits certainly can stifle creativity, they can also encourage it, as properly set limits will breed creative solutions to get around them. Silent Hill 2's dense fog made the game a better horror game, but that fog wasn't initially put there to make the game scarier, it was a means to get around the PS2's meager power and rendering capabilities.
1. Implying that only the safe, formulaic approach makes money. It doesn't. Otherwise we'd never innovate and would still be committing genocide a la Doom.
You're absolutely right. The thing is, adding diversity isn't the safe, formulaic approach. It's the opposite really. If games with more diverse casts made a more regular appearance, people wouldn't be demanding to see more of them so fervently. In essence, they have self-imposed the limit of not taking the safe, formulaic approach.
2. Game design for large studios is, by definition, design by committee. It's impossible to get everyone's ideas into a game. The idea is to get the ones that the majority likes, that the majority thinks are interesting and cool. No, not everyone will like the end result or be interested in it, but that will always happen, so why not try to get something good that (most of) the studio is genuinely interested and proud of out of it?
Because doing things this way gives the samey/safe/formulaic result. It's called 'safe' for a reason, because it's what little the majority can agree on. Thing is, not every developer/designer/artist is going to work on every part of the project, and by assigning different people to different tasks which suit their skillsets and interests, it's possible to find the room to get more people's ideas into the game. More things end up in there that appeal to a smaller subset of the population, but the larger variety means that an overall larger portion of the population can find something in there worth liking. In the end, it all comes down to there being multiple different valid approaches to creative works, but people often like to act or assume that there's only one right way to do things.
And that's good. That's what I want, game devs to create varied things [i/]because[/i] they want to create varied things. But their statement read like they were trying to vary things up solely to please the crowd. To some extent that's fine, but letting the consumer base tell you what should be at the core of a character's design is just as bad as letting the publishers tell you.
Did you notice that there was no name attached to the quote in the initial article? It was just attributed to Blizzard in general. Which means it was marketing speak. So of course it's going to come across as doing something just to please a crowd. That's the marketing department's entire job. To spin any and everything the company does as being in the consumer's best interest and solely for the consumer. You can't read one comment and immediately write everything off as being a crime against artistic integrity.
[quote/]But then there's also this to take into account. Any one who's focused on creating, anyone who makes art of any kind, whether it be visual, or audio, or writing, if all you ever do is make the same thing you like non-stop, your work will eventually stagnate. Good artists force themselves out of their own comfort zone and force themselves to create things that maybe they normally wouldn't think to, and maybe might not even normally enjoy, because it forces them to utilize and improve different skills than they normally would. Not everything they make will be a hit out of the park, but in the long run it leads to improvement.[/quote]
Since I draw as a hobby, I know this. What you seem to misunderstand though is that while they may not like the things they create outside of their comfort zone, the end result is usually something they're proud of and would like utilized, so the end result is the same.[/quote]
I'm not misunderstanding anything, no part of this conflicts with what I've said.
What I'm saying is that devs should listen to the consumers, but keep it secondary in their design decisions. If they come up with a lithe character that they like, they should add it. If they come up with a heavy-set design that works better and they like it as well, they should scrap the lithe one - remembering the consumers' demands - and add the heavy-set one instead. The consumers' opinions are heard, but don't influence the design decisions any more than just trimming down the potential designs - something that the devs have to do anyways.
And here comes the most wrong thing you've said thus far. Because when they come up with two varying designs like that, unless it would cause them to otherwise go over-budget or miss their release, they should use both. That's the entire point of diversity. In the very example you've given, they like both the lithe and the heavy designs, so instead of being a zero-sum game where only one gets used, there's room to use both and satisfy more people. This is especially true in a game like Overwatch where the game will feature a wide variety of different characters to play as anyways so it becomes even easier to find extra space in the cast to utilize both designs.
