Carbine Studios' "Wildstar"

[HaemishM]

You're not really designing for the client though.

Here's the secret about design. No matter who your client is, you are always designing for AN AUDIENCE. Whether that audience is someone that interacts with your endproduct, or passively experiences it or whatever, you are designing for that audience. You will be compensated for that design based on the size of the audience. If that audience is an audience of one (i.e. you design merely to please yourself), you can usually expect compensation of a commiserate level unless you have acquired a reputation or following based on previous designed and released products.

[Fordel]

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.

That house with the pool and the grill is actually pretty darn nice!

[Maven]

How many posts before we're snipped and placed into a new topic? 

[luckton]

How many posts before we're snipped and placed into a new topic? 

Seriously. I keep clicking the New button hoping for something actually new about Wildstar. Keeping walking away disappointed.

[Threash]

The game died when that attunement graphic came out, whatever else we can talk about is more interesting.

[luckton]

The game died when that attunement graphic came out, whatever else we can talk about is more interesting.

That's fair..I'll give you that one 

[Typhon]

The game died when that attunement graphic came out, whatever else we can talk about is more interesting.

I think the past page, page and half, is proof that you're wrong.

[Kageru]

I almost feel for Elder Scrolls Online which obviously couldn't even manage to fail in an interesting way and thus provoke discussion.

[Paelos]

I almost feel for Elder Scrolls Online which obviously couldn't even manage to fail in an interesting way and thus provoke discussion.

The only interest I have in that one is the $20 in steam dollars I bet Ingmar it would shut down before 2016.

[angry.bob]

The game died when that attunement graphic came out, whatever else we can talk about is more interesting.

I think the past page, page and half, is proof that you're wrong.

Nope, I'm pretty interested in the housing industry's belief that people are going to buy into the microhome bullshit. Seriously, they're dorm rooms that aren't in a dorm. I'm sure they're cheap to operate, but who do they think is going to buy them? No one who's not a rich, dickbag hipster. I wouldn't want to spend a day in a 200 square foot room with two little kids, let alone a 200 sqft house, including bathroom. It's almost as bad as those people who want to make underground bunker houses with shipping containers.

No my friends, the future of housing is hobbit holes.

[Venkman]

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.

No. In self-funding a game, your client is yourself. Your audience is your product, the means by which you sustain yourself.

Think of it like Facebook. Their users are not the clients. The clients are the people who place the ads. The users are the product, the cost of doing business, the means for them to secure the ad buyers.

This gets fuzzy in the KS/Chris Robert's world where your funding comes from people you feel are the clients because they bought a "share" in your venture.

[Maven]

Let's briefly tie this conversation into the conflict between Films as Art and Films as Commercial Products. The discussion makes me think of this same issue in games, but "Games as Art" is a lot more fuzzy a concept, not as clearly defined. Games HAVE Art, but I'm beginning to seriously question HOW they are artful. Is there an Art of the System of Game Mechanic? The Art of Manufacturing Emotions?

OK, now that you're done laughing. My point is: all this talk about clients and customers obfuscates some important aspect of games we aren't considering that motivates the non-business types to make them in the first place.

[Fordel]

What the hell are you talking about?

[Venkman]

No no, it's ok. According to the pattern, it's about time for the "what is a game" discussion again. So it is written  

Let's briefly tie this conversation into the conflict between Films as Art and Films as Commercial Products. The discussion makes me think of this same issue in games, but "Games as Art" is a lot more fuzzy a concept, not as clearly defined. Games HAVE Art, but I'm beginning to seriously question HOW they are artful. Is there an Art of the System of Game Mechanic? The Art of Manufacturing Emotions?

OK, now that you're done laughing. My point is: all this talk about clients and customers obfuscates some important aspect of games we aren't considering that motivates the non-business types to make them in the first place.

Client/customer conversations are important because they get to the very heart of motivation. Companies and individuals do things for the same reason: it's rewarding. What the reward is and who its for are different. But in the end, you embark on an enterprise to do a thing for a purpose. Really recognizing who you're doing it for (yourself, someone else, etc) is a step towards personal awareness.

Further, I don't think there's value to a conversation about whether games are empirically art or just include art. To me that's navel gazing of the highest order. What something is and how it's classified is only recognized after the fact. Trends are retrospectives. And unlike how some try to force things into clean boundaries, nothing is actually separate.

Everything we do is based on something that was already done. key difference between invention and innovation technically. I'd argue there's no such thing as raw invention. We're all tweaking what's already there to some degree, it's mostly a question of for whom we're doing so, what we hope to get from it, and whether others will recognize the connections or assume it's all some brand new never seen before thing.

Heh, and yea, I just navel gazed in a post where I implied that was a bad thing 

[Paelos]

My point is: all this talk about clients and customers obfuscates some important aspect of games we aren't considering that motivates the non-business types to make them in the first place.

What seems to motivate them is inability or unwillingness to get a real fucking job.

Now that you're done laughing, here's my point: I don't give a shit what motivated most of these chucklefucks to go into the industry, because they are terrible at it. These companies lose money left and right or just fold up shop because the average developer doesn't know his customer base from his own ass. Even the ones that have "figured it out" and produce tons of money like Blizzard managed to shit the bed and ran off almost a third of their recurring customers in one swoop. Why? Because deep down these guys hate their customers and know better. Do I want those people in charge? No. I want a designer in charge that has a plan, and then adapts the plan to the people. That's not some odd compromise of artistic integrity.

[Draegan]

I thought I was in the Overwatch thread. Oops.

[Malakili]

The Art of Manufacturing Emotions?

Well, given that art is in a large part about creating aesthetic experiences, then yes this seems like a thing.

[Venkman]

Because deep down these guys hate their customers and know better.

I don't think that's the case. I'm sure there are marketing/business types who do. And I give credit to any community manager with more than a year of experience who doesn't come out hating all people everywhere. But the designer/creative types are doing it more for love than money (by evidence of workstyle and compensation), and seem mostly motivated by the belief there are a lot of people just like them who want to play games just like the ones they want to make and play.

One of the most telling signs of a game's looming failure is when the staff itself won't play it on their off time. Enthusiasm is important in this industry, because again, it's not like they're in it for the money

This is just about core games though.

[Maven]

As a point of comparison, Board Game & Card Game designers are far happier with their work. Especially if it encourages get-togethers, live tournaments, etc. Doubly so if it targets families and children to pre-teens.

BlizzCon and its ilk as an exception, designers of physical games can really see people enjoying their game and have a better communication system between customer and developer. It seems that type of work engenders less conflict of consciousness.

Edit: Video games are emotionally isolating as a medium. For most, I believe they give a false sense of connection between people, not even getting into the nature of online communication. Live games are a completely different context that promotes positive, genuine social connection through a constructive medium of interaction.

Live games are merely a pretext for getting together with people. In video games, the games ARE the focus, not the social part. Social is just some buzzword to describe a list of features.

This gets into unsound theories of the effect games have on human beings, but they do something when played over an extended period of time.

[Goreschach]

stahp 

[Maven]

I truly don't understand why I get the responses I do, and that pains me.

[Draegan]

This board is full of cynical people who think they know everything and anything about any subject. What do you expect?

[Maven]

Expecting just about what I generally expect. Those kind of responses aren't something you'd say to someone's face; pretty safe to do from behind a screen. Which reemphasizes my point about the differences between a computer and interpersonal means of communication in gaming.

[Paelos]

Because deep down these guys hate their customers and know better.

But the designer/creative types are doing it more for love than money (by evidence of workstyle and compensation), and seem mostly motivated by the belief there are a lot of people just like them who want to play games just like the ones they want to make and play.

That's just the positive/dangerous side of the same coin. Designing because you totally believe there are people out there that like what you do (despite evidence to the contrary) is closely followed by ignoring people that don't like what you do.

[Margalis]

Personally I don't even like the term "game designer." That's probably the programmer in me talking.

You realize not all games are computer/video games right?

I meant with regard to video games.

I don't see video game and board game design as being particularly related. In fact I think a big problem with game design studies is that they conflate the two way too much and model video games as just digital board games.

Video games are very different from board games. Board games are usually turn-based, discrete, with a small number of well-defined rules. Video games are real-time, continuous and have a huge number of non-explicit rules. Video games also have control, visual, audio and story elements. In many video games the core design in the narrow rules-based sense is the least important part of the product.

These days it's fashionable to consider games and "play" one large umbrella but that feels off to me. There is some overlap, especially if you are making what is basically a digital board game, but video games are very much their own thing. I don't see them as any closer to board games than movies are to novels.

[Margalis]

That's just the positive/dangerous side of the same coin. Designing because you totally believe there are people out there that like what you do (despite evidence to the contrary) is closely followed by ignoring people that don't like what you do.

It's important to distinguish between two related but very different concepts.

The first is saying "well this game isn't for this person." To me that's valid. Now if your game is for a small audience you have to accept that, and you can't complain if you don't make a lot of money, but it's fine to aim for a specific audience of whatever size and ignore the rest. Hopefully you know going in that your audience is limited.

The second is saying "this game is for this type of person, but this person is doing it wrong." For example "this puzzle isn't too hard, it's just that this guy is too dumb." Or "this platforming section isn't too hard, it's just that this guy is uncoordinated."

These often look very similar. You can make a game that is challenging and is supposed to be for high-skill players. In that case "this guy is just uncoordinated" is fine - he isn't your audience. But if the game isn't supposed to be for high-skill players (or even high skill players have problems with it) you can no longer dismiss them.

A great example of the latter was basically everything the SWG devs ever said in response to criticism. The players think a class is too strong or too weak? "You're not playing them right." "According to our spreadsheet they're balanced." The players think a system like HAM is dumb? "It's not dumb, you're dumb!" "You just don't understand the tasty HAM."

Some designers get very defensive when their stuff doesn't pan out and pin it on the players.

[Fordel]

The ability to kill your own babies is key to any creative or constructive endeavor.

[Merusk]

I truly don't understand why I get the responses I do, and that pains me.

Because you're going uber-artsy and faux-philosophical with everyting.  You think you're discussing things when you aren't doing much more than throwing words together that aren't forming ideas, asking questions or making a point deeper than a fishook.

It's important to distinguish between two related but very different concepts.

The first is saying "well this game isn't for this person." To me that's valid. Now if your game is for a small audience you have to accept that, and you can't complain if you don't make a lot of money, but it's fine to aim for a specific audience of whatever size and ignore the rest. Hopefully you know going in that your audience is limited.

The second is saying "this game is for this type of person, but this person is doing it wrong." For example "this puzzle isn't too hard, it's just that this guy is too dumb." Or "this platforming section isn't too hard, it's just that this guy is uncoordinated."

Good point. I, and I believe Paelos, were talking about designers taking the 2nd stance which appeared to be what Maven was pushing. It's a crap stance.

The first is fine, so long as you're not going to have a tantrum when your market is smaller than you might suspect.  Great if it's bigger, but so's lightning in a bottle.

[lamaros]

As a point of comparison, Board Game & Card Game designers are far happier with their work. Especially if it encourages get-togethers, live tournaments, etc. Doubly so if it targets families and children to pre-teens.

Oh are they? I'd love to see your evidence. You declare so much, but I don't see much support for such statements.

[Falconeer]

I truly don't understand why I get the responses I do, and that pains me.

Some people here simplify everything to their own views and style, and expect posts to be written according to their own personal cultural guidelines. Otherwise "it's stupid".

With all that said, it's f13 and while I don't like that attitude (which again, is not everyone's attitude) it's pretty much written on the box and it's part of its unique qualities, so if you can't deal with it you should really refrain from posting here as it is always going to pain you. f13 is an open PvP server with full loot. Enter at your own risk. 

[Paelos]

f13 is an open PvP server with full loot. Enter at your own risk. 

Heh, we're so much more cuddly than we used to be 10 years ago. Even Rasix! 

Good point. I, and I believe Paelos, were talking about designers taking the 2nd stance which appeared to be what Maven was pushing. It's a crap stance.

Yes my issue is not developers saying that this game isn't for those people. My problem is that they designed the game for those people, then got mad when they didn't like it, and they retconned who the game was for. They dismissed them after that fact. That's the dangerous design point I was making about WoW. They designed a game specifically for the non-catass player who was turned off by EQ and wanted a more questing/casual experience. Then, after their asshole raiding buddies complained as the game was at it's zenith, they flipped the difficulty switch and literally came out with a post telling players how they were doing it wrong.

[luckton]

Ugh, fine, I'll post something actually related to Wildstar.

Drop 3 finally on PTR.

http://www.wildstar-online.com/en/drops/3/genesis-prime/

Note here: https://forums.wildstar-online.com/forums/index.php?/topic/116924-mystery-of-the-genesis-prime-ptr-update-notes-10242014/

You're welcome.  

Edit: Grammar xD

[pants]

ARG!  My eyes!

Haven't these people heard of small, regular releases of software?

[luckton]

ARG!  My eyes!

Haven't these people heard of small, regular releases of software?

They were doing monthly updates at the start, and people complained about that, so now they're doing them quarterly or something.

[Sir T]

Its almost like gamers don't know what they want or something...