Community

No, that would be Max's specific take as well as a few others.



Allow me to add for example and further clarity:  

When creating a game with social play, a predictable minority will want PvP support, in that you can predict that of the people polled who have an interest in a socially played game, a minority will have a strong desire for extensive support within that game for player versus player conflict in some form or fashion, whether direct conflict or more subtle competitive conflict under the guise of nominal cooperation.

When considering the desires of PvP players into game design, a predictable majority will want benefits for winning, in that you can predict that of the people polled who have an interest in a PvP in a socially played game, a majority will have a strong desire for rewards given to victors in PvP conflict.

When further considering the desires of PvP players in game design, a predictable majority will want penalties for losing, in that you can predict that of the people polled who have an interest in a PvP in a socially played game, a majority will have a strong desire for losers to suffer some sort of penalty for their "failure" in the PvP conflict.

Additionally, when considering the desires of PvP players in game design, a predictable majority will be desirous of, attempt to create, and gravitate towards, an unbalanced system, where their ability to exploit the lack of balance will guarantee or at least greatly increase their chances of success.

Note that nothing I have said here equates to "all PvP players are jerks who want to exploit a game and punish other players for playing."

You will also note that when you poll the remaining majority who either have no strong feelings about PvP play or do not wish to engage in PvP play, that a system that is unbalanced, rewards success and punishes failure at something they have no strong interest in or have a strong interest in not participating in contributes to a design that they do not wish to particupate in and certainly not pay for.

These are predictable responses.  Saying that a game of enforced PvP that has rampant imbalance and punishes losing and rewards victory regardless of (mis)use of said imbalance is a bad game would result in a majority of agreement from those polled, as would be evidenced by games that have attempted to follow this design precept.

Balance is not the only contributing factor to this state,  but you do see games with more balance and still maintaining enforced PvP and rewards/losses involved holding a much larger and more stable market share.  This does not mean that balance is the only metric by which one should judge design, and I do not think anyone has claimed it is such (although some have claimed that it has been claimed as such despite protestations to the contrary) but it does lend credence to the idea that for the vast majority of consumers it is considered to be a metric which is pleasing in greater amounts.

The attempt to purposefully capture the sales of a minority of players does not make a game objectively successful if it does so.  F.A.T.A.L. sold copies to its target audience.  It's target audience is (I pray) a stark minority, and while I'm certain many of them would be relcutant to admit purchasing a copy due to the social stigma involved, that doesn't mean that nothing was sold to the target audience.  

Still, I defy you to claim that because F.A.T.A.L. appealed to and sold product to its target audience, that it is an objectively successful or objectively well designed game.

May 25, 2011 -- 11:17AM, DrNick wrote:

Just because you can model something doesn't make it objective. It just means you need to know your audience when determining design goals.

Actually, no it doesn't.

The chocolate chip cookie is not a result of knowing one's audience when determining design goals.

Penicillin (supposedly) was not a result of knowing one's audience when determining design goals.

Saccharine, super glue, potato chips, coke, corn flakes, teflon, velcro, vulcanized rubber, plastic, the first synthetic dye (and the color mauve!), the pacemaker, the slinky, the microwave, x-rays and (likely) cooked food were not the result of knowing one's audience when determining design goals.

The fact that most of the things I mentioned are still in use today in one form or another testifies that despite the designers not having one @#$%ing clue what they were actually doing, the (vast) market acceptance had nothing to do with the original design intent.

And I don't care what Jackson Pollock says, that @#$%*&^(*~?er had no design intent whatsoever, nor any "audience" or "market" in mind when he got famous.

May 25, 2011 -- 11:30AM, DrNick wrote:

How is this relevant at all to the discussion?

Wel,, you made a statement of a proposed absolute, which was (I assume) considered by you to be relevant to the discussion.

"You need to know your audience when determining design goals."

I offered examples that disproved your statement of an absolute by providing examples that countered directly that statement of an absolute, by providing objectively successful and useful designs wherein the designer either had no target consumer base for the design, or the design itself dictated the target consumer base contrary to the original stated design intent of the designer.

I figured you were trying to be relevant, and my reply was relevant to yours.  If you feel that your response is no longer relevant, then I am sorry.

Cooked food doesn't have anything to do with knowing your audience? I think Howard Moskowitz and Malcolm Gladwell would have something to say about that... and, how do we know that the other examples didn't involve some sort of feedback from an audience?