The commenter seems to think that only a game designer working for EA or one of the other giants has any relevance when it comes to discussing design. I don't think I'm interested in getting into the gaming industry per se, though I have worked on games in the past. Formally my qualifications are in Usability, Design, UX, HCI, IA, PM and a few others. But formal qualifications aside, let's examine what a completely ridiculous assertion the commenter really made.
I thought of many examples of why, logically, their argument is laughable, which basically boils down to the following scenario.
Only the chef can determine whether your food tastes good.
I don't agree. In fact gamers should (and do) have a huge say in what is acceptable or not in a game, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say as the game player, my opinion of gameplay trumps what the developer thinks gameplay should be. End of story.
There are a lot of great game developers out there to be sure. Over a career (with a three year dev cycle on average) you are probably only going to be really involved with 10 games. If you are at a higher level maybe there will be 20 or even 30 that you can -really- make a huge impact with. If 5 of those are really good games, you'll be lucky.
Now as a player, I can polish of 10 games in a month. In fact, I've played more games in my life than is probably healthy. So in terms of experience, the player knows more about gaming in general, than someone who makes games for a living. It's extremely hard to be critical of your own work in the same way that you can be critical of others.
Most importantly, as a gamer, you know what you like.
I'm often surprised by the tenacity with which people defend bad gaming decisions. You can still like a game and find aspects of it annoying. Mass Effect was a good game in my opinion, but it was far from perfect. Almost anyone would agree that the UI in the inventory was bullocks.
You can criticize a game and still like it. But each game that is made, should by all rights be better than the last. All things being equal, playability/gameplay should not be an issue in most modern games yet we continue to see camera locking, context shifting, and lousy control or UI schemes ruin what might have been an otherwise enjoyable experience.
The fact of the matter is you could have an otherwise good game ruined by poor controls and a bad camera.
Look at jumping in Ultimate Ghosts & Goblins (UG&G). Jumping sucked in the very first original, but keeping the jumping scheme for the sake of "tradition" doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially considering just how much jumping there is to be done in the game. Switch the jumping scheme into Super Mario Brothers and think if it would have been as great a success as it was. Purists will argue that it it takes more skill, so it is better in UG&G, and is therefore superior to easier to use schemes.
But I can't stress this enough, difficulty in a game should not come from the control scheme (most gamers would agree Ace Combat is more fun than Flight Simulator for example) .
*For those who haven't played it, in Ghosts and Goblins you can only jump on an angle if you are
running in that direction, in fact when you first start playing it can be really hard to jump in any direction other than straight up.
There are a lot of great game developers out there to be sure. Over a career (with a three year dev cycle on average) you are probably only going to be really involved with 10 games. If you are at a higher level maybe there will be 20 or even 30 that you can -really- make a huge impact with. If 5 of those are really good games, you'll be lucky.
Now as a player, I can polish of 10 games in a month. In fact, I've played more games in my life than is probably healthy. So in terms of experience, the player knows more about gaming in general, than someone who makes games for a living. It's extremely hard to be critical of your own work in the same way that you can be critical of others.
Most importantly, as a gamer, you know what you like.
I'm often surprised by the tenacity with which people defend bad gaming decisions. You can still like a game and find aspects of it annoying. Mass Effect was a good game in my opinion, but it was far from perfect. Almost anyone would agree that the UI in the inventory was bullocks.
You can criticize a game and still like it. But each game that is made, should by all rights be better than the last. All things being equal, playability/gameplay should not be an issue in most modern games yet we continue to see camera locking, context shifting, and lousy control or UI schemes ruin what might have been an otherwise enjoyable experience.
The fact of the matter is you could have an otherwise good game ruined by poor controls and a bad camera.
Look at jumping in Ultimate Ghosts & Goblins (UG&G). Jumping sucked in the very first original, but keeping the jumping scheme for the sake of "tradition" doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially considering just how much jumping there is to be done in the game. Switch the jumping scheme into Super Mario Brothers and think if it would have been as great a success as it was. Purists will argue that it it takes more skill, so it is better in UG&G, and is therefore superior to easier to use schemes.
But I can't stress this enough, difficulty in a game should not come from the control scheme (most gamers would agree Ace Combat is more fun than Flight Simulator for example) .
*For those who haven't played it, in Ghosts and Goblins you can only jump on an angle if you are
running in that direction, in fact when you first start playing it can be really hard to jump in any direction other than straight up.
1 comment:
The idea one can discuss issues of game design only if they hold some sort of professional qualification in the industry is moronic at best. The person who left that comment is a complete idiot.
The video game companies aren't making video games for themselves and their peers so what "professionally unqualified" gamers have to say is very important and should be given due consideration when there is merit in the criticism and discussion.
We buy their games and play them and that gives us the "qualifications" to discuss and criticize their work--- nevermind the basic truth that regardless of your credentials, you're entitled to an opinion.
Game development studios make their biggest mistake when they don't listen to what "unqualified" gamers have to say.
Post a Comment