Is a game that pleases the majority still a good game?

my god it's full of stars...

that's a monolithic post.

 

looks like the black gate

 

Come on guys. The Kickstarter ended.. The fund raiser for an investment in an idea. the fund raiser, not the development.

How many game companies provide what you would consider adequate FAQ's for an ALPHA product? Not even Beta... ALPHA.....Really, I think it's deep breath time. Let's see some RTX footage, get some more direction and move onto the next set of issues posed by the developers.


After we some of the things in action, I believe they will be able to reveal their intended direction on how things are to be handled, at least currently, and we will see the FAQ represented better.

Let's not press the Big red flashing Panic Button yet

Cheers.

 

That's true. Actually it isn't even in alpha yet.

 

I agree Brenton, and I am willing to wait. However, I have seen fans sing the "It's still/just/only... " song right up until the point where all the customers leave. I've even taken up the chorus myself, a time or two, over the past 15 years.

It starts out with "It's still pre-alpha"
then it goes "It's still just alpha"
and then "It's only beta"
followed by "It's still launch day"
and finally "It's only been a month since launch"
(and then silence, because they're gone.)

each one of those is the preface to an excuse for rationalizing or justifying pretty much anything done by "the company", whichever one it may be. I've seen this too many times to not recognize the pattern. Every time a new persistent multi-player online game goes through this process, similar things happen. All of those "It's still ____ " are followed by "give them a break" or "what do you expect" or "stop complaining" or "be patient" or "this is unique" or "they'll do better soon" or "performance will be better next phase" or "placeholder this" or "debug code" that.

In my experience? Everything after the "It's still ____" ? It doesn't help "the company" meet their goals. Fans just tend to have selective memories. (myself included)

As far as the "It's still pre-alpha" comments, it's clear many core/fundamental design decisions have been made already. They would have to be made to produce the RTX demo. Every one of those decisions should be in the FAQ, with the caveat that they are subject to change after the demo, if applicable. That way, the fan community can focus on what decisions remain.

I hope so.

 

You're right vjek! I'm a supporter of this game. I understand they are really busy, but I also want to see us get everything we were promised in our Dev+ tiers etc. We can be patient, but we can be honest with them and tell them how we feel.

The worst thing to do is say OH YES I WORSHIP THE DEV TEAM EVERYTHING IS WONDERFUL HERE ... while inside we are saying "nah wait hold on what about this or that..."
We gotta stay honest especially since they are listening to us. They need the feedback.

However I do admit that I am liking the feel of this developer team, and process. I'm excited to see what they have in store for us. I do believe this will be a successful project. Lord British appears to be the type to hire quality people who truly meet the role they are hired for (even if that is multiple roles). He has proven numerous times that he has the vision to run a successful project team, and provide motivation to reach the goals. I believe they are doing a great job. One thing I do see here is creativity, and people who enjoy their jobs. So something is being done RIGHT.

Yet we should keep speaking from the heart, but I hope if we do criticize anything that the dev team still knows they are still doing a great job. I hope they stay excited because SotA has the opportunity to be extraordinary. To have such a small team and show up the big companies is cool too!

 

My concern from the start was always them overreaching and failing. Perhaps for the first year we're stuck in one town as apprentices / farm boys / squires running around doing chores while they work on the rest of the game. After a year, we get to run out into the forest to gather wood. 5 years in, dragons and PvP.

 

There are a few things that popped into my head while reading through all the posts here I wanted to touch on...

A "good game" is completely subjective. People enjoy and look for different things in a game and even developers will have mixed opinions on what makes a "good game" (though at times the majority of people will agree on some things). There are very few absolutes in life. I think knoxiTV means to ask "Are there any games that please the majority of gamers and that people with tastes similar to my own would call a good game?"

Having said that, I think what knoxiTV is really trying to get at is several other points. From what I gather the general points are-

• Whether or not Kickstarter will cause the game to suffer- will too much of the game be crowdsourced, will the game be generic and uninspired because it draws from too many of the same old ideas
• How do games break the cycle of similarity and mediocrity, why don't more games strive to further themselves and break free of the constraints of their predecessors?
• A game should strive to craft a world for people to be immersed in, not focus on what other games are doing. The developer's focus should be what would work best inside of their world and how moment to moment interactions will play out
• Dumbing down game systems to reach a broader market weakens the overall game and causes it to become a short spectacle rather than a memorable experience that people will return to

I'd disagree on a few of these points. First off, a good game developer will look at other games to figure out what pitfalls and traps to avoid, not just how they can copy over systems and ideas from other games. One should try and distill all the working parts of games to figure out what makes things tick- to improve and hone their skills, to try figure out what works and what generally won't. Putting on blinders and trying to just cram things into a game till something sticks will take a lot of time and effort that could be better spent, well, making a game. Not to say there shouldn't be a good deal of brainstorming, by all means there should be, but if you have a large pool of knowledge to draw from you can help guide yourself into making good decisions much faster and steering clear of the bad ones.

Second, dumbing down systems or simplifying things a bit isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some people have already discussed this and pointed it out using the U7 key example, too much complexity where complexity isn't necessary only complicates things and adds tedium and frustration. Portal, for example, is a game with an amazingly simple premise and concept- you shoot portals, can pick up/move objects, and can move/jump- yet the game still manages to contain incredible depth. The actual actions performed in portal are very simplistic, not very complex at all, and yet there is still a good amount of challenge and fun to be had in the game. The real problem is whether or not dumbing things down is interfering with the game play and immersion, which it isn't always.

I'd like to post more, but I have to go catch a show with some friends. I'll try and stop by later tonight or tomorrow to finish getting some thoughts out. Man this is a wordy thread, haha.

 

"Good" is always subjective to the audience; there's almost always going to be factors outside the control of the developers that are going to change random people's opinions on any particular topic at any time.
To me a 'good game' is just a game with all the right moving parts to immerse me in gameplay, and over time I've come to value the ones with better stories and more time commitment for completion. The game itself has to 'work' in the sense that the gameplay is fun and gets progressively more challenging as you learn to utilize your environment.

'Gamers' are pulling in skillsets from all over here, which I hope should be helpful for the Alpha and Beta periods, so please by all means throw us some innovative ways to play if possible, and we'll test everything we get. We all want this to be a successful and fun 5 episode journey that a lot of us are going to be committing a lot of time to.

 

ehh you want the money to keep rollin' in? speak to the masses and make a game for the majority. Its common sense. pluss most games out there have what it takes as a good game and are only missing a few things and that prolly only boils down to money and hard work to keep them maintained. So don't go all willy nilly and rock the boat till it tips over hehe . let the money role in and put the money backinto making a great game. mehh or just have open world housing

 

This discussion sounds like it is talking about games made by committee. I've no doubt that Portalarium plans to make money, but they will do it because RG has a vision that has yielded great things in the past. Great games, great architecture, great movies; they were all the vision of an individual or small group that did not compromise for the sake of popularity. Popularity arrived because the vision and its execution were great. All the me-toos that followed - not so great.

 

Community and actively communication are what make an online game good, especially if it is a role playing game. And you can't expect a player role-play himself alone, because there are many single player games for it. Therefore in-game mechanics, in my humble opinion, should consist of role-play encouraging social activities, possibilities. Men in suits were the people who broke the best MMORPG ever, UO, because of money-hunger and they made people wealth-hunger, farmbots because the mechanics they implemented for only and only money. If you want to please the people, just stick with the type of the game which RG knows very well to make. If you know that players are not item slaves who farm item no-lifer all day, you are doing it right. Items and gold should not be an indicator of being "good" otherwise people will just stick with it which turns an online game into a pseudo single player game where people just farm and stock stuff. And greedy people will use that opportunity by selling items for real money. If this game will be an Ultima (not online) successor, it should have some important mechanics from it, for example as you know in Ultima, items are just tools which you don't need to farm all day to win, you just do your quest with your party

 

Okay, I'm back. I think the only other thing I wanted to say regarding the "good game" discussion was that the process of determining a "good game" isn't an exact science, again, it's subjective and dependent on the player. There are some characteristics that generally acclaimed or popular games share, but to one person a game may be awful and to another it may be awesome. To someone out there a game may be good, to someone else it may not be. You could argue that because a game is popular it is a good game, but this isn't necessarily true- just because most people like it doesn't mean you will. A number score from a review site doesn't necessarily mean a "good game" or not either- it just means the reviewer's opinion on the quality of the game happened to be x. That's why you should find a reviewer who seems to have similar tastes to your own and follow them and read what they are saying to get a more accurate preview of whether or not you'll likely enjoy a game... and also coincidentally part of why number scores are kind of silly, but whatever let's not start that debate here.

I think the real question here is: Does the game know its target audience and how well does it hit the mark in delivering on what the target audience wants from the game? There are several problems though- whether or not that target audience is too broad for the type of game being made, whether or not the game can deliver on a quality experience, if the game can match or exceed the expectations of its audience, can the game hold the attention of its audience - all very valid concerns! This is where the developer has to buckle down and figure out what it needs to deliver on and what it can do to hit the mark or get as close as possible. I think what knoxTV is getting at is just who is the target audience and whether or not the aim will stay true throughout the course of the project.

Anyway, going back to the original question- Yes, a game that can please the majority can be a good game to many people, even though that may not include you.

Regarding confusion on the intent of the game and the varying splinters of what people expect the game to be... having a clear vision statement or more comprehensive FAQ... yeah, this is definitely something I think we could do better. To be completely honest, we're still figuring some things out ourselves but we really should start reigning in a bit on what the public expectations are versus what is actually being made and worked on. We're still in early development so not all things are finalized yet- even though we've made many decisions they aren't all necessarily final until actually proven. Even internally we've gone back and forth on a few issues several times over the past month or so, game development isn't a finite thing where once something has been started it will always be that way until the game ships.

I'll have to get with Chris and RG to see what they think about maybe getting out a more clear vision statement or comprehensive FAQ. I believe RG actually had something like this in mind when he started his SotA "What is a Lord British “Ultimate” Role Playing Game?" blog posts (though I don't think he ever finished the series).

 

Actually I more meant, from the perspective of a game like SotA in it's current state, is pleasing the majority a good thing, when there are many examples of games that do this through appealing to the generic MMORPG and gamer "I want" sterotypes that then suffer after release from player backlash. Guildwars 2, a game that SotA models some of itself on, being an example of one that pleased players in theory through out it's development and then suffered backlash on release - though luckily, it was too big to fail. Reading tastes and trends is fickle and ball park, making what a team or individual thinks is a good game is artistic and defined - and as has been discussed, clarity of that defined idea rather than everyone drawing from many different often conflicting comparisons based on taste, is important to avoid disappointment and dissatisfaction.

It's not really a my taste thing at all, though at times people want to make it one. As described, a game that chooses it's direction based on appeal, doesn't necessarily become a good game. It's actually quite the opposite, a good game becomes appealing, and an appealing game doesn't necessarily become good. It's simply the order of things, but for many people they read the question and think... "A game that is pleasing me? How can that not be a good thing!" - but the obvious context is General Discussion related to SotA, and just because people like the ingredients they're clamoring for doesn't mean they'll like the cake.

The intended point of being so open ended with the question, is so that this would be a debate, where voices could be heard and conclusions reached and not simply my original successive statement to be contested. Though I guess it's always inevitable to a degree. Which is why it's epic when people take the time to read and inject a perspective that helps overtime clarify everyone else's thoughts and expand the general pool of knowledge.

Which is part of what led to the more understood realisation that we all see a different game, as we tend to fill in the gaps in our knowledge with what we like and what we hope for. Good for building hype, near impossible to deliver on, especially when your game is fairly unique in both situation and approach.

I think at heart everyone knows the reality that, even the Dev Team don't have all the answers; but that, what would be useful is a presentable skeleton pieced together bone by bone overtime that would correctly contain the vision for the game and or limit and define the direction of new growth, with the meat to come later as things are fleshed out and the beast is inevitably brought to life.

Thanks for taking the time CB.

 

If you want to please the majority. Make your target audience people who have fits when they don't get their way.

 

A person enjoying a game, or choosing to think a game is good is subjective. A game as a entity in it's own right having or not having the trait of being good, is part of definable practices that we use as part of our own assessment process and together in a collective. Though whereas on a personal level we may choose to like a game for aspects of it's design to appeal to us and overlook flaws because they're not important, a consensus opinion without bias has to look at all factors surrounding the design of the game and reach as accurate an answer as possible.

A game that pleases the majority, because it appeals to the bias of that majority for certain features or traits, doesn't necessarily become a better game because of it - the cause is a design decision, the effect is a more appealing game, the manifestation is a higher number of people who enjoy the game.

Inversely a game may make a design decision that brings it closer to it's original vision, a better version of the game it intended to be. The cause is a design decision, the effect is a better game, the manifestation is a mixed bag of like and dislike. However these design decisions are parts of a greater whole, intended to test, panic, emote, confuse, mislead, punish, reward, enlighten, etc the player, which come together to make a good game. If all decisions are made based on appeal it stands to reason that you limit the game experience. Subjectively good? Yes. Better? Likely not. As others have stated, these decisions are made with much greater insight than whether they're liked, therefore relying on it as the defacto reason for why something should be included in SotA, is not a good thing.

 

But see, this is the problem- games are a form of entertainment and as unbiased as people may try to be- what entertains one person may not entertain another. As much as one may try to step back and look at everything within a game and be fair to it, I believe personal bias will still be a major factor. A reviewer or developer should try to be as professional as possible and not let their personal feelings get involved to try and determine what makes a game good, I agree- but I think this boils back down to knowing the intended audience and trying to be objective in determining if the game would appeal to its audience since the reviewer/dev may not necessarily be the intended audience itself. If a person isn't the intended audience they may or may not like the game, but certainly whoever the intended audience of the game was should find the game appealing else the developer has likely lost something in the development process or possibly even had the wrong audience in mind.

This is why I believe Indie games are usually pretty good, because they are a labor of love and the developer is also the intended audience- they usually know their genre quite well and typically make something that would really appeal to themselves. There may be other factors that hold an Indie game back though, things like budget and time and whether or not the developer has the skills necessary to make their dream come to life. Once you start getting into a company developing a game people may or not be part of the target audience of the game, which is why I think RG and the team has done a really good job hiring experienced people who genuinely love/know the genre.

It isn't necessarily about making or implementing features because they will be liked by someone, on that point we agree. It's about implementing features that will be good for the whole of the game and assist in the overall experience.

Developers are crafting a world, but in order to make that world truly stand out and be memorable it needs an audience, no? Wouldn't crafting this world for the intended audience make it a better experience overall? I believe it would. You can make something as close to a simulation as you want, but if one doesn't step back to root out things that are too far simulation they'll run into several problems- time to develop will increase, cost will increase, tedium/frustration factor of the game can go way up if things are too sim-like, and choosing sim over what will help facilitate gameplay and flow can be detrimental to the experience (though sometimes they can coincide with each other). Creating a very thorough simulation doesn't necessarily mean you are creating a good game, it can certainly help with immersion and the experience, but it doesn't mean the game will be enjoyed by those that play it. It's about striking a balance between the two- making a game and making a simulation.

Edit: Some clarification at the end, grammar junk.

 

So to sum up the long winded yammering.
Is entertainment subjective? Yes.
Can you design a game on whats treading on Yahoo and have it be a good game? See previous Answer.
Can adding things to the game based solely on what people say they like make a good game? Possible. But do you think the designers of this game are dumb enough to hand the keys to whats trending?
This is a game in active development made by veterans of the industry. They know when to be safe and when to be risky.

 

The right questions would be:

Is SotA a special interest game or a not?

I do not think Richard Garriot and his team are intending to make a game to please as many as possible.

They use of "crowdfunding" in my view already points much more into the direction of a "special interest" game.
This means we have someone and his team who do not want to many involved telling them what do to.


The said they won´t make a game that will take you by the hand. That is not a behaviour of a team that has the goal: please the mass.

Richard is to much of a veteran and a person who has proven to go his way in history and willing to take risks.
Not adding dwarfs for example hehe....or elves.... what later on some other team did.