Carbine Studios' "Wildstar"

[KallDrexx]

I agree with Maven 100%, especially with my experience on Fury when I found out all the leads were having conversations on how they couldn't wait for me to not be a junior designer anymore so they could take my suggestions seriously.  And what do you know, half the shit I brought up to them were exact same complaints players did (because on beta weekends I was actually playing the game unlike the leads who were playing WoW).

Being a good game designer requires you to have played, analyzed, and tinkered with a lot of games to realize what's fun, what's not, and why[/b] is something fun.  That's not something you can just learn in classes, and in my experience the industry pretty much considers those classes to be worthless at well (though they still suck most of the time at promoting the right people to designers).

[Paelos]

I've never been in a gaming company (thank god), but the impression I get from most designers/developers is that they disdain their own customers. Bringing up complaints that the players would have puts you on the same level as those unwashed assholes they're trying to avoid. After all, they're desigers. They've "made it" and know what's best and want to make sure players have "meaningful choices."

I would think the goal would be for players to have fun. Yet instead all I hear from developers is them talking about options, choices, meaning, challenge, etc. Fun? Why the fuck would we worry about that?

In every other service industry I've been in, and let's be honest entertainment and gaming is very much a service, the biggest rules are that your customer comes first, and that cash is king. So, if I'm running a company where developers are blowing costs on ancillary shit that isn't designed around the game being more fun, but is instead involved around some fucked up version of challenge and meaning, I'm firing them.

Luckily I've never been forced to work in a gaming company, where I'd likely want to burn the place down for its business incompetence.

[Merusk]

It's not just gaming, it's technology as a field in general.  Techs always think of themselves as the smartest guys in the room who know everything, while the complaints and issues pointed out are just people being obstructionist or not having enough vision to realize how cool/ useful the proposed solution is.

Generalizing quite a bit, but it's the sentiment I've seen in nearly every tech-non-tech interaction on both sides in multiple companies.

[Paelos]

It's not just gaming, it's technology as a field in general.  Techs always think of themselves as the smartest guys in the room who know everything, while the complaints and issues pointed out are just people being obstructionist or not having enough vision to realize how cool/ useful the proposed solution is.

Generalizing quite a bit, but it's the sentiment I've seen in nearly every tech-non-tech interaction on both sides in multiple companies.

I encounter some of that in every business I work with, but not to the degree I see in tech as you've said. I've always hated intelligentsia elitism, because truly intelligent people realize you never stop learning and adapting. I like Einstein's quote about character, "Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character." These developers have the wrong attitude towards the rest of their users.

[Malakili]

I would think the goal would be for players to have fun. Yet instead all I hear from developers is them talking about options, choices, meaning, challenge, etc. Fun? Why the fuck would we worry about that?

Fun is important, but in this day and age where every game wants you to choose it to be THE game you play it isn't really enough.  Fun things get boring fast.  If there's no line at the amusement park I'll still only go on an awesome roller coaster like 3 times before it stops being fun.  I can't think of a game I've ever played for a long time that has survived on "fun" alone.  Team Fortress 2 maybe? But even that got worn out eventually.  Of course it has to be fun but it's like the bare minimum to get me in the door.  

[Paelos]

Sorry but you're dead wrong. Fun is fun for a long time, especially when people have the ability to create it themselves. The problem is that designers are so focused now on telling a fucking story instead of making a game, that they railroad the process into an interaction fiction rather than a fun experience to play again and again.

[Malakili]

Sorry but you're dead wrong. Fun is fun for a long time, especially when people have the ability to create it themselves.

When I think of the pure "fun" games I've bought recently Mario Kart 8 immediately comes to mind.  Great little party game, my wife and I played it a ton when we first got it. Had fun... but then like 3 days in just stopped playing it and never felt compelled to fire it up again except when we have a group of 4 people together.  That's where fun by itself gets me.

[01101010]

Sorry but you're dead wrong. Fun is fun for a long time, especially when people have the ability to create it themselves. The problem is that designers are so focused now on telling a fucking story instead of making a game, that they railroad the process into an interaction fiction rather than a fun experience to play again and again.

IMHO, fun has a termination point. After every avenue has been explored and I run out of new paths and ideas to pursue is when it dies for me... and that length has been shortening with each year I grow older.

Your point about the story is a good one, but that also allows designers to control the path of their game which leads to selling the next chapter.

[Maven]

The game stops being fun if, for example, the economy crashes, and I doubt the majority of the user base understands all the complexities behind the scene. Isn't it the same with politics? If they complain or make suggestions, typically it is for their one pet issue, isolated from the interdependent network of mechanics and other considerations. "Fix this!"

Raph had a lot to say about Fun, didn't he? Wrote a whole book on it. Mastering a game is the fun; once that's done, it's on to the next thing to master. Unless you want to compete... and the only fun part there is winning by any means necessary. Completely different paradigm.

Elitism? Sorry, elites only looks that way from the inexperienced. Once you've been through a lifetime of focused, dedicated training, the struggles to achieve recognition (a job) from others who know in a higher position -- then they might understand. A first-year Political Science Major critiquing the President wouldn't be taken seriously, why should someone who only plays video games, chowing down Mountain Dew, Doritos, and smoking pot (They always seem to leave that out of the stereotypical Gamer Trifecta) but never critically deconstructs them be?

Condescending? Sure. Keep the attitude to yourself? Absolutely. That's people skills -- you're supposed to appear humble.

But I completely understand the disdain for customers in the gaming industry. As harshly as I can put this, most companies are chiefly in the business of creating smoothly-running products and flattering the ego of their user base by giving them a false sense of power and importance for profit. They are not about creating pure, skills-based multiplayer experiences for fun. Think about that.

On the business side, community teams are intended to act as PR and the sieve of player feedback to protect the developers and the company. One wrong comment from a developer can cost the good will of the customers or their job.

I could go on, but I've written enough. Too much, maybe. I'm a bit passionate here.

[Merusk]

Sorry but you're dead wrong. Fun is fun for a long time, especially when people have the ability to create it themselves.

When I think of the pure "fun" games I've bought recently Mario Kart 8 immediately comes to mind.  Great little party game, my wife and I played it a ton when we first got it. Had fun... but then like 3 days in just stopped playing it and never felt compelled to fire it up again except when we have a group of 4 people together.  That's where fun by itself gets me.

This is only a problem if you're trying to sell games as a revenue stream rather than a one-off product.  I have fun playing board games, play one for a few hours and go away for a few weeks/ months. This isn't a problem there but in video games it means that it's a failure? That's what you're implying at least.

Your point about the story is a good one, but that also allows designers to control the path of their game which leads to selling the next chapter.

Exactly. Game as revenue stream, not game as product.  Fuck that, it's as much crap as "Freemium" games and why I haven't bothered with any of the episodic bullshit movies pushed as games from the last few years.

Elitism? Sorry, elites only looks that way from the inexperienced. Once you've been through a lifetime of focused, dedicated training, the struggles to achieve recognition (a job) from others who know in a higher position -- then they might understand. A first-year Political Science Major critiquing the President wouldn't be taken seriously, why should someone who only plays video games, chowing down Mountain Dew, Doritos, and smoking pot (They always seem to leave that out of the stereotypical Gamer Trifecta) but never critically deconstructs them be?

Condescending? Sure. Keep the attitude to yourself? Absolutely. That's people skills -- you're supposed to appear humble.

But I completely understand the disdain for customers in the gaming industry. As harshly as I can put this, most companies are chiefly in the business of creating smoothly-running products and flattering the ego of their user base by giving them a false sense of power and importance for profit. They are not about creating pure, skills-based multiplayer experiences for fun. Think about that.

On the business side, community teams are intended to act as PR and the sieve of player feedback to protect the developers and the company. One wrong comment from a developer can cost the good will of the customers or their job.

I could go on, but I've written enough. Too much, maybe. I'm a bit passionate here.

Hey look, game designers who act like every other effete designer in traditional design fields.  Guess how many of them are successful long-term vs. those who actually deign to take the jobs to design a Toyota Dealership, a strip mall or a logo for a law firm and provide what the customer asks for vs. what their "better" sensibilities say it should be.

You can get away with dictating design if you're given that scope of authority. 99.9% of the time you aren't going to be and games  as an industry is just beginning to realize this as the folks providing product customers want vs. dictating tastes are eating them for lunch.

As a designer your job is to provide what your client wants, influenced by your expertise. You can make the argument, point out the flaws and give rational reasons for any decision. However, in the end it's their money you're asking for. They are the client.

Want to do something else, you spend your money.  Your politician analogy says that we should shut-up and just blindly follow politicians, or better yet not have elections, because their experience trumps that of their electorate's.

[Maven]

My screed aside, are we talking about games as entertaining systems or entertainment products in the form of games? They are not one in the same.

Giving customers what they want -- see "giving a false sense of importance and power".

Politician analogy -- I can see that and agree that wouldn't be acceptable in the strictest interpretation. But some people do need to shut the hell up.

[Falconeer]

As a designer, what do you do if you have more than one client and they want different things? Which one of them will you design for, and why?

[angry.bob]

My screed aside, are we talking about games as entertaining systems or entertainment products in the form of games? They are not one in the same.

Yes they are. Some shitty pseudo-zen statement doesn't change the fact that any combination of those words is supposed to be enjoyable.

As a designer, what do you do if you have more than one client and they want different things? Which one of them will you design for, and why?

Whichever one my boss tells me too. And he should be telling me to design for the common interests of largest number of players. What people seem to not realize is no one gives a shit about what designers think or believe. I can count on half a hand the number of game designers of paper and electronic games who weren't fucking idiots who just happened to get lucky. Players want to kill goblins and take their money, We don't need or even want designers to envision innovative systems for doing that, develop elaborate stories for why we do it, or a realistic, functioning goblin society that operates in game like a sim city. We need them to make the goblins and loot look cool and make it so when we stab goblins they die. Designing games is not some high art requiring finesse where the decisions are part of some sublime statement that players are not qualified to question or critique. And they are never going to be. So designers, quit bitching about your paying customers being tasteless barbarians and work on the next iteration of cool looking goblins.

[Maven]

Yes they are. Some shitty pseudo-zen statement doesn't change the fact that any combination of those words is supposed to be enjoyable.

Each is held to a different standard and expectation of design. If you want lump both of them together as "these should be enjoyable", then I agree that they should, but what makes them enjoyable is different. That's what the conversation appears to be about.

[Typhon]

Sorry but you're dead wrong. Fun is fun for a long time, especially when people have the ability to create it themselves.

When I think of the pure "fun" games I've bought recently Mario Kart 8 immediately comes to mind.  Great little party game, my wife and I played it a ton when we first got it. Had fun... but then like 3 days in just stopped playing it and never felt compelled to fire it up again except when we have a group of 4 people together.  That's where fun by itself gets me.

And when you fire it up with a group of four people do you have fun?  Sounds like you had fun.

I think what you are saying is that you want something deeper that you can sink your teeth into (that takes longer to master), but I read all your posts on this page as saying, "I don't like fun" ... and then I laugh.

[Fordel]

Malakili has had a long history of hating fun, this is not news.

[Ingmar]

There's some odd definitions of fun going on here, at a minimum.

[lamaros]

There's some odd definitions of fun going on here, at a minimum.

There are many odd things going on here.

But I completely understand the disdain for customers in the gaming industry. As harshly as I can put this, most companies are chiefly in the business of creating smoothly-running products and flattering the ego of their user base by giving them a false sense of power and importance for profit. They are not about creating pure, skills-based multiplayer experiences for fun. Think about that.

 

[Hoax]

Seems pretty simple really.

It must suck if your job is to create elaborate participation trophies. Every gamer will "win" the game because its not designed to do anything other than let them win while hiding the fact that they were always guaranteed to win no matter what.

Any time you make people think or learn they throw a shit fit and your boss tells you to take that part out.

Hence disdain.

[lamaros]

I still don't get it.

It's game designer, 'whatever-I-misguidedly-think-is-objectively-good-and-if-people-dont-like-it-they-are-at-fault designer'. You're not some sage on a mountaintop.

It's a weak crutch to go 'oh but I'm/they're not able to do what I want/should because people'.

If you don't want to make products for people then being a game designer seems to be a really stupid career choice to make.

[tmp]

There's some odd definitions of fun going on here, at a minimum.

obligatory

[Hoax]

I still don't get it.

It's game designer, 'whatever-I-misguidedly-think-is-objectively-good-and-if-people-dont-like-it-they-are-at-fault designer'. You're not some sage on a mountaintop.

It's a weak crutch to go 'oh but I'm/they're not able to do what I want/should because people'.

If you don't want to make products for people then being a game designer seems to be a really stupid career choice to make.

Well imagine if you were a musician and you intended to be a "real" artist, a singer songwriter type that plays his own instrument and instead you find out your only option if you want to eat is to be a popstar and sing shit other people wrote that your team won the bidding war for while your voice is autotuned past recognition with FOTW no talent rappers guest star on every track because that's what sells.

Sounds like it would suck. Sounds like you might blame customers for having such shit taste if you were that self aware.

[Ginaz]

The game stops being fun if, for example, the economy crashes, and I doubt the majority of the user base understands all the complexities behind the scene. Isn't it the same with politics? If they complain or make suggestions, typically it is for their one pet issue, isolated from the interdependent network of mechanics and other considerations. "Fix this!"

Raph had a lot to say about Fun, didn't he? Wrote a whole book on it. Mastering a game is the fun; once that's done, it's on to the next thing to master. Unless you want to compete... and the only fun part there is winning by any means necessary. Completely different paradigm.

Elitism? Sorry, elites only looks that way from the inexperienced. Once you've been through a lifetime of focused, dedicated training, the struggles to achieve recognition (a job) from others who know in a higher position -- then they might understand. A first-year Political Science Major critiquing the President wouldn't be taken seriously, why should someone who only plays video games, chowing down Mountain Dew, Doritos, and smoking pot (They always seem to leave that out of the stereotypical Gamer Trifecta) but never critically deconstructs them be?

Condescending? Sure. Keep the attitude to yourself? Absolutely. That's people skills -- you're supposed to appear humble.

But I completely understand the disdain for customers in the gaming industry. As harshly as I can put this, most companies are chiefly in the business of creating smoothly-running products and flattering the ego of their user base by giving them a false sense of power and importance for profit. They are not about creating pure, skills-based multiplayer experiences for fun. Think about that.

On the business side, community teams are intended to act as PR and the sieve of player feedback to protect the developers and the company. One wrong comment from a developer can cost the good will of the customers or their job.

I could go on, but I've written enough. Too much, maybe. I'm a bit passionate here.

Condensed TLDR version...

Game developers to their customers: You'll take what we give you, and you'll like it.

[lamaros]

Well imagine if you were a musician and you intended to be a "real" artist, a singer songwriter type that plays his own instrument and instead you find out your only option if you want to eat is to be a popstar and sing shit other people wrote that your team won the bidding war for while your voice is autotuned past recognition with FOTW no talent rappers guest star on every track because that's what sells.

Sounds like it would suck. Sounds like you might blame customers for having such shit taste if you were that self aware.

I couldn't give a fuck. There are heaps of shitty artists the world over. If they're not happy playing for themselves they either need to be more brilliant, embrace the zeitgeist, be content in themselves, or do something else with their lives.

The idea that everyone is entitled to have their whims validated by a crowd, even if they are crap, completely socially out of step, or whatever, is absurd snowflake individualism.

Also, Maven you might like this: http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/09/04/werner-herzog-advice-to-filmmakers/ (there are better articles but google popped this one up first for me).

Werner shares some of your ideas (I disagree with a lot, but not all, of them), though I think he articulates them more coherently. Maybe you might enjoy the book.

[Ginaz]

I still don't get it.

It's game designer, 'whatever-I-misguidedly-think-is-objectively-good-and-if-people-dont-like-it-they-are-at-fault designer'. You're not some sage on a mountaintop.

It's a weak crutch to go 'oh but I'm/they're not able to do what I want/should because people'.

If you don't want to make products for people then being a game designer seems to be a really stupid career choice to make.

Well imagine if you were a musician and you intended to be a "real" artist, a singer songwriter type that plays his own instrument and instead you find out your only option if you want to eat is to be a popstar and sing shit other people wrote that your team won the bidding war for while your voice is autotuned past recognition with FOTW no talent rappers guest star on every track because that's what sells.

Sounds like it would suck. Sounds like you might blame customers for having such shit taste if you were that self aware.

Just because someone considers themselves an "artist" doesn't mean they're any good at what they're doing.  Remember when Garth Brooks decided he was going to be an "artist" and strayed away from his pop country style and did the whole Chris Gains alter ego music shit?  Yeah.  An artist.

[angry.bob]

Also, Maven you might like this: http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/09/04/werner-herzog-advice-to-filmmakers/ (there are better articles but google popped this one up first for me).

Werner shares some of your ideas (I disagree with a lot, but not all, of them), though I think he articulates them more coherently. Maybe you might enjoy the book.

I thought the first quote in that article was great advice for any creative field. Not only would you earn money doing those sorts of jobs, you would experience things that most of society doesn't suspect exists or happens.   And it's all material that can be used, be engaging, and be realistic. Hell, you could make a great book or movie with just a couple weeks worth of job experience.

As far as Artist Game Designers, they are without exception puds as near as I can tell. On the high end you have Brad McQuaid, and on the low end you have the zillions of trust fund tumblerite "independent" developers. The only exceptions I can think of are Chet Faliszek and Erik Wolpaw, and they don't seem like the sort to call themselves artists even though they are.

[lamaros]

Yes I agree with that bit. Experience is a wonderful thing.

[Venkman]

Yea, particularly "Filmmaking — like great literature — must have experience of life at its foundation". Replace "Filmmaking" with anything. We don't credit that though as an American culture. Experience is stodgy, old, a byproduct of the system. Instead we want young, stupid and niave because most of them with fail and make us feel better about ourselves while the few that succeed will make buckets of cash for investors.

As a designer, what do you do if you have more than one client and they want different things? Which one of them will you design for, and why?

Games have one client: publishers (whether self- or other-). They have users, of which they need many, but don't confuse "client" with "user".

You're not really designing for the client though. Your designing with them. They have a need, you have a skill, and you'll both make compromises to the goal. Sometimes their needs will have far more defined requirements. Sometimes it's a vacuous elevator pitch where the designer fills in all of the gaps. But client/designer relationships are partnerships. Otherwise the designer would self publish or the client would design themselves.

Gross generalizations here. But I use "client" loosely. Client can be a third party, your boss, your executive producer.

Further, design is not in a vacuum (that's art  ). You need to know how shit works to effectively design. Not realizing this is where design can result in production issues that make people realize the design itself was flawed.

[Merusk]

It's easier to sit back and whine, "people just don't get me," than it is to actually be motivated, creative, and produce.

When you produce the question is always who are you producing for. If it's for yourself, really, truly and fully, then why do you care about the opinion of others? If you care about that validation you're not creating for yourself in the first place. You're creating to try and capture a market and shouldn't be pissed at anyone but yourself that you missed the mark.

You'll fail a lot at capturing any audience as a designer and creator of anything. In fact, I'm certain you'll fail more than you'll ever succeed and there's millenia worth of numbers to back that up. Not everything has an audience, but you keep at it because you hope eventually you'll strike your mark and find your creative voice. Not everyone does, not everyone finds it more than a handful of times.

We all believe the lie that we're the next Mozart, Spielberg, Meier or even Moffatt. Run the numbers and you'll find your chances are somewhat less than the powerball of hitting the low end of that bar.

Games have one client: publishers (whether self- or other-). They have users, of which they need many, but don't confuse "client" with "user".

You're not really designing for the client though. Your designing with them. They have a need, you have a skill, and you'll both make compromises to the goal. Sometimes their needs will have far more defined requirements. Sometimes it's a vacuous elevator pitch where the designer fills in all of the gaps. But client/designer relationships are partnerships. Otherwise the designer would self publish or the client would design themselves.

Gross generalizations here. But I use "client" loosely. Client can be a third party, your boss, your executive producer.

Further, design is not in a vacuum (that's art  ). You need to know how shit works to effectively design. Not realizing this is where design can result in production issues that make people realize the design itself was flawed.

Yep, unless you're self-funding. Then your client is your audience. See above for the difficulty there. The decisions you make need to be guided by information more than intuition unless you're only creating for yourself.  If you don't know what Eddie down the block wants, much less Susie across the country, you'd better be paying or researching to find out what's hot, what's trendy, what works and what sells.

Research is rarely talked about when discussing design but it's the foundation of good Architecture, Graphics, Fashion and Industrial design. It should be there in game design, too.

[Paelos]

Game designers who try to pull the artist card should be kicked in the balls. Merusk is correct, if you want to create for yourself, make your game on your own time and play it. Don't try to do that in a mass-market scenario when you have gads of customers who couldn't give two shits about your world view.

First thing you should know in a service industry is what your customer wants. Yet I get the sense that most game designers have no clue. They design for what THEY want. Sometimes you have to listen to what your customer responds to rather than what they say they want, but that's not often. Unfortunately for game developers they seem to think this way all the fucking time.

"The poor dears have no idea what they REALLY want in a game, so I took it upon myself to show them my grand plan." Fuck right off with that line of thinking. That's pure hubris and ego rather than design.

There's a rare time when a person's pet design and what the audience actually wanted line up. Very rare. The rest of the time, game designers would be better off listening to their customers rather than indirectly telling them they are fucking stupid, and wondering why their game went tits up because nobody found it fun.

If gamers don't want a challenge and they want to win, guess what? It's your job to deliver a game with a lower bar. It's NOT your job to get butthurt over the small minority of troglodytes that bitch about difficulty. That's often the worst thing in MMO development as the idiot developers start listening to the small minority of bitching because it just so happens they latently agree with them. Then, they can delude themselves into saying they were building a product that the players really wanted. WoW Cataclysm is a perfect example of how that line of thinking will poison your game.

[Merusk]

Let me put it in my terms.  Think of a house you love. A place you really, really want to buy and live in.

Chances are it's shit. It's the worst fucking thing in the world, filled with backwards-thinking traditionalism and waste. You don't know what you want. What you really want is this:

http://freshome.com/2014/03/07/10-hottest-fresh-architecture-trends-2014/prefabricated-house-2/

An awesome prefab home in sharp, modern finishes and still oversized so we'll do it as a microhome as that's the new trend.   You don't get a choice, you don't get to make changes. This is what Architects say you want and you'll like it. Shut up with your bitching.

[Falconeer]

First thing you should know in a service industry is what your customer wants.

Again, what if two (or two hundred thousand) of your customers want two slightly but significantly different things?

I've read the previous answers to a similar question but I don't find them satisfying. I find them very simplistic. You make it sound like it's always pretty obvious what people/customers/audience (all of them) want, or you can just research and get that magic answer. I don't mean to defend bad designers, but I definitely think that intuition and luck play a bigger part in some of this people's career than market research. That's also why some good designers don't always design succesful games and why bad designers sometimes get rich overnight.

Accidentally, that stays true for Hoax's music example.

[Maven]

If this was film, we'd be discussing the difference between Christopher Nolan and Michael Bay.

[Paelos]

Again, what if two (or two hundred thousand) of your customers want two slightly but significantly different things?

If your customer base is divided by something will cause them not to purchase your product, then you don't really have a 200,000 customer base. You have 100,000 and you build/budget for that. Too many times people overestimate their audience. That's far more dangerous than the reverse.

In reality, those kind of conditions usually don't exist. There's not something slight that would cause such a dramatic swing, and the slighted side would adapt. It's the fundamentally different things that get you when it comes to entertainment.

[Merusk]

First thing you should know in a service industry is what your customer wants.

Again, what if two (or two hundred thousand) of your customers want two slightly but significantly different things?

Then you've inherently misunderstood everything about your market, or you need to realize an opportunity for a different but similar product.  Church's Chicken vs KFC. Taco Bell vs. Burrito Hut.  Gillette vs. Schick.

Game designers are fool and arrogant enough to believe their market is EVERYONE. Only man-children reach adulthood and still believe their tastes are universal.

If this was film, we'd be discussing the difference between Christopher Nolan and Michael Bay.

Both are populist Directors, so if you think there's enogh of a difference you're mistaken. You really were thinking Bay vs. early Kubrick but are trying to argue Bay vs. Sergei Eisenstein and saying Einstein should have made as much as Bay.  Nope, because people's tastes vary and art is subjective.

We think of Mozart as artsy but he was the Beatles of his day. Technically fantastic, but populist.