ETA: Now caught up on comments. I agree this line of discussion about development practice is an offshoot from the OP subject. This is my last comment on it.
Gizmo wrote: ↑
April 19th, 2017, 3:25 pm
> Of course you do. But it's a HUGE risk if you have zero
input about what will and won't be successful. Any marketing dept that says it's ok to develop without any market research would not be a marketing dept. No market research, no feedback, no focus groups? ... Good luck with your game!
It's only a risk if it matters to you.
Well I hope it matters to them, because it matters to us. So.
it occurred to me to ask [as an aside], whether you knew the concept of begrudged respect; and I included an example of it. You could have said 'yes' or 'no'.
And I explained more than merely yes/no, because I found the question irrelevant, or at least inaccurate. I could have just ignored it. Probably should have.
I'll say this: [Also as an aside] I've had more fun playing 'Super Monkey Poop Fight' and 'Magic Sand', than many games I've bought from companies that did market research to try to make them palatable.
And I responded by saying that I find it highly highly
improbable that the team did zero market research and testing to determine what would be good development practice in order to be successful in the direction that they wanted to go. Even if their target was not mass acceptance. If the game is cheap to make, they likely don't care much at all for research, and the chance of not finding any
audience is slim to none for cheap niche games. So they made a choice and found their balance point. If they wanted mass market success, I'm confident they would have had to make some very, very different decisions. But I'm guessing that 'mass market success' isn't your point. And I agree - that's where the creators defining "success" is key. SMPF and MS had a very different goal in their game development than inXile (presumably) has in BTIV.
*UI playtesting to ensure it's understood, and potentially improved by it, is a good use of research IMO. Survey research about user interests are useful to make the gaming equivalent of mall food-court fare; and you'd never get the fully spiced experience of the local flavor —the way they'd prepare it themselves.
A chef making food they like, their own way, will eventually find a market for it unless it's shut down for health/safety; but hopefully big enough to sustain the business. But if a chef wants to be very successful they'll do research to find a great location to drop their restaurant to maximize that market.
Look, we're arguing about business practices vs artistic expression. Game development isn't and cannot be either/or. For community, there has to be interaction and understanding of your target market - even if that market is a reflection of your own gaming preferences; for the business, there has to be research about what is popular, what is current, what is acceptable, and the contrary to each. And above all that, the creators decide how much of that research will influence their design decisions. It may be none at all, it may be through and through. There is no universal "right" or "wrong" in this decision.
As fans, we have a "right": what we enjoy; and if we don't enjoy it we don't buy it. As devs, they have a "right": satisfaction at the product they created, a self-defined goal for "success" whether that's purely artistic expression with no return or purely profit or somewhere in the middle.
All this to, again, say - you have gaming preferences which are different than ours. You prefer
more simulatory mechanics in various aspects, whereas we enjoy more abstract mechanics in some areas because some specific mechanics we
have found tedious and unnecessary. The devs may not, and if we disagree, then for myself at least I hope that what ever they do create instead is something I will
find enjoyable. But I would not
like it if they simply created their
game with no consideration of input from us whatsoever, because this is Bard's Tale
- it's a pre-existing brand with a dedicated fan-base. Now they have to make a decision about where on the spectrum their design decisions will fall, and hope their end product is enjoyed. That's it.
I'm pretty sure the tangent was achieved because one or more people expressed their opinions as a "should" instead of "I prefer".
A) I like this.
B) I like that.
A) But that doesn't make sense to me because it should be like this.
B) Why should it be like that? I don't like that.
A) But this makes sense, that doesn't.
B) But it makes sense to me so I like it, yours isn't good.
Let's all (including myself) try to keep it to "why I like and would like to see..." rather than "why you are wrong..."