How Can Game Developers Improve Gamer Involvement? 29
TimCrider asks: "TeamXBOX is running an editorial about how console game developers can get the gaming communities more involved in the games themselves. Does anyone have any suggestions on how console developers can help build a gaming community?"
SDK's (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh and FIRST POST
Re:SDK's (Score:1)
Re:SDK's (Score:2)
In a word: Don't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Did Bungie set out to create a community of people that are so dedicated to their games that they are willing to subject themselves to bizzare alternative reality role playing games about a game?
Did Kos say "I want to rally the teeming masses of ignorant college kids and soccer moms against the unjust white male bourgeois pigs!"
My point is really this: Community forms where they will, and trying to get gamers to build a community around your product is a stupid and condescending idea. How about this: If you build it, they will come. That'll work a whole lot better than corporate-sponsored video game fan club #232131.
Re:In a word: Don't. (Score:2)
developing yet another ww2 game or yet another 'space marine fighting aliens' game is not going to endear yourself to the gaming community.
oh, and in repsonse to the 'did bungie try to...' - yes they obviously did - microsoft's massive multi-million dollar marketing budget for the game very much did create this groundswell of following - the fact
Re:In a word: Don't. (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder if this won't have a negative impact. It surged out in wonder and dilivered absolutly nothing. It was like hyping a rock under a blanket.
Sure, when you take off the blanket there is an extremely strange rock under it, but nobody cares because there are exremely strange rocks all over the place. Nobody understands the rock. The rock
Re:In a word: Don't. (Score:2, Interesting)
They can't (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at Ratchet and Clank, you choose your weapon in each situation, no weapon is always great so it's fun, You choose which mission, what problem and so on to tackle. Same with Sly Cooper and to an extent Jak.
The whole idea now is that you need to make the consumer feel like they have a choice in the game, Morrowind really got a lot of leverage because the game developes around the character even before mods are put in, then you factor in mods and each game feels tailor made.
The whole point I'm making is that you need a game where the user feels like he has a say. Notice, NOT A choice such as buying a different version, those piss off people because your forcing a decision. A "say" is "whether I go to Azeroth now or in a couple hours after I check out this other new dungeon."
At least that's what I think will allow you to have a community, making each game a unique experience should go a long way with creating a community.
Build a better gamer (Score:1)
Remember Gamers go to SciFi conventions, look at how they dress. Do I really need to go on??
PLEASE SOMEBODY BUILD A BETTER GAMER!!!!
Build a better GAME (Score:2, Interesting)
Console developers only know how to do two things in games: Objectify women, and ... no wait, that's all.
If you want to get people interested in some sort of community, you need to stop selling soft porn and start selling a game that you play, not one that you watch.
Aside from that, console games are almost always linear, there's no replay value, no depth, it's just another "Super Mario" with T&A. Start making games like Morrowind on consoles and you'll get a community. Add flexibility, require the g
Tecmo: How not to encourage a fan community (Score:5, Interesting)
Conversely Bungee love their community, would we have Red vs Blue if Tecmo had made it I wonder? Bungee is an example of how to do communities right, as they support and encourage what people do. Heck they even offer advice to game modders on how to do things. I just boycott Tecmo games now on the principle that they do not allow modding, I should have the right to do whatever I want with software I've bought.
I tried making that point here [1up.com] but the asshole guy who wrote the article edited and deleted my posts because he only likes feedback that agrees with him... Perhaps I take a leaf from Tecmo's book and sue him for modding my posts?
Re:Tecmo: How not to encourage a fan community (Score:3, Insightful)
You can blame upper management for that.
You give someone a weapon and tell them "you may need this one day".
Some people will put the weapon in the closet, clean it once in a while, and carrying on with their lives. They will use it only when they really have to.
Others will go find something to shoot.
DMCA: The weapon of choice for more entertainment companies.
Give people things to talk about .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Quit thinking of games as if they're anything less than modern literature. Books have their lessons; if you want to develop a game people talk about and form communities around, read a few more books
Re:Give people things to talk about .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Give people things to talk about .. (Score:3, Interesting)
games are a form of literature.
Storiylines and room for expression (Score:1)
Add to that a really good story in the original game / campaign / whatever and you're getting close to a good thing.
Whilst I am not an expert game designer, or even a very talented gamer, I do know which games have kept me coming back time and again. In no particular order: Neverwinter Nights, No-One Lives Forever, Soldier of Fortune II Double Helix.
The storylines in those games were involving. It's a bit like an interactive book or movie.
Re:Storiylines and room for expression (Score:1)
X.M.L. is not the key (Score:2, Interesting)
The first of all and this one is absolutely necessary is, making a good game. No matter how hard you try you can not build a community around a bad game. I'm sure developers never try and make a game that they think will be bad just for the sake of getting that quick buck before the gamers realize that the game sucks. But if you have a bad game you will not
Re:X.M.L. is not the key (Score:1)
Good idea, but there should be limits (Score:3, Insightful)
While none of these are necessarialy bad things, these features would tend to alienate a much larger market segment, casual gamers. Furthermore, there will always be complaints about certain issues from the hardcore segment. For example, I knew many people who were upset that the weapons, especially the rocket launcher, in Quake II were balanced far better than the original Quake; keep in mind that the rocket launcher in Quake I was by far the most powerful weapon in the game and that deathmatches frequently were rocket launcher races. Of course, these players were unhappy because they were forced to deal with something novel; they wanted the same deathmatch gameplay they had always had. Most of them warmed up to Quake II's multiplayer over the course of a month or so, acknowledging that better weapon balance actually made the game more fun, but if Id had asked them their opinions after a few hours with the game they would have loudly complained about the "worthless" rocket launcher.
The lesson here is not that community involvement is always a bad thing. However, when dealing with the hardcore gaming crowd, there will be a lot of people who want exactly the same thing they had before, with prettier graphics. This would lead to an industry devoid of innovation, alienating its games farther from the casual market with each iteration.
Now, this doesn't mean that games shouldn't be easily moddable. In fact, that's an important way to keep people happy - not satisfied with a certain weapon? With a good mod system, you can change it to the way you and your friends like it. Moreover, there are also some incredible user-created mods, too - Counterstrike got its start as a Half-Life mod. A good mod system makes sense, both in appealing to a community and as a business decision; a good mod can certainly prolong the life of a game. It's important to allow a creative outlet for people to modify your game, but it's not a good idea to base the entire thing on the input of a small crowd of hardcore gamers - the people a "community involvement" system would almost certainly attract.
Easy answer. . . (Score:1)
These are just ideas based on our current games, the revolution has the possibility to define completely new genres that can't be thought of based on current dev/market trends.
No, thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
Already working on it... (Score:1)
Well.... (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Testing. Demo disks of new games. Must be fully playable, must be a complete level. If we like it we will tell you. If we don't, we won't tell you unless you ask us. Put a BIG banner in the demo at the end that lets people win a prize if they come up with the best suggestion or whatever.
3) Feedback. After you release a game, go looking for those sites that list "I wish game X had Y" and IMPLEMENT IT in the sequel/next patch. READ THE OFFICIAL FORUMS FOR THE GAME and take people seriously rather than having your own agenda for what goes into the sequel/next game.
4) Movement. Keep changing the game, the stuff that's in it, don't take stuff out that works, ask for opinions, release smaller updates (with things like XBoxLive now, there's no excuse not to have regular, massive patches... think Steam... I buy Half Life 2 on console and when I've just completed it, bang! I get a free upgrade mod like CS:Source or something). Keep showing me what the game can do in new and interesting ways.
5) Modifications. Let me download mods - again with XBox live and similar systems there's nothing to stop "those in the know" from being able to download an SDK that you put out for the game, develop some sort of mod with it and then UPLOAD IT where anyone with the console and a suitable net connection can then DOWNLOAD IT and play it. Yes, you'll be cut completely out of the customer experience by this but they will love your game and you can buy up the best mods later (think Counterstrike). This extends to things like nude patches, new skins, new sounds etc. (don't worry... if you're not creating them yourself, you won't get sued like Rockstar did over the GTA mod)
6) Online play - players will create their own communities without you, but at least it's better than people just never talking about the game because they can't play it with their mates.
Those are just suggestions. Everything else is just minor details, like the technicalities of having a forum where people can rave about your game.
Want us involved? (Score:1)
If you don't have a good story line, and you're not going to (or
Microsoft - Community? (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't rely on them. (Score:3, Insightful)
NEVER rely on the fans, make a great game on your own with fan added content is the max you should do... Never rely on the gamer to make the game.
The important note here, is What Star Wars Galaxies has taught gamers. Basically when Star wars galaxies came out it relied on a name... (star wars) so people bought in, but there was NOTHING to do, all the beta people really didn't help, most people were given a site into it and they yawned.
So when the game came out it did poorly. What did the people who made the game say? That it was the fault of the PLAYERS! Honestly this is the exact reason they sited for the mmorpg's failing. This of course pissed off what fans they had and almost ended the game.
The biggest thing you must do as someone else meantioned? Don't piss off the fans, don't attack them, don't tell them not to do stuff. If you want a fan community, you need to realize you're going to have to give up some "rights" if people hack your game to change minor things, and they enjoy it, congradulate them. As long as they buy your game you should be happy with anyone who takes an interest in your game.
Another example I will give is World of Warcraft, now there's a "plague" apparently going on, sounds like it sucks, but when I saw that I was like "wait a second, SWEET!" they were letting a major glitch go because it acted like something else, and people enjoyed it. The major towns were screwed, but you know just by seeing that it made me interested, because the GMs and programmers were make a positive out of a negative, and giving everyone a good time as it goes. That alone is possibly the best thing you can do. Yes people died (but if you play WoW you know you don't lose much for death) but people probably had fun with it. Made the world a little less friendly but also made people enjoy it, and changed the dynamics of the game accidently. Overall I can't imagine anything they could have done any better when it's a glitch.
Basically three rules
Don't rely on your fans.
Don't take yourself too seriously. It will ruin your company straight out if in the game everything must be Serious. Even if it's a serious game, relax a bit sometimes.
NEVER attack your fans with laws.
How about games that are fun? (Score:2, Insightful)
Platform games should be banded. Jumping from platform to platform should not be part of a game formula or even an obstacle.
How about controls that I can set up myself. I like all my PC FPS games set up the same so why can't I do this with a console? How about not having to unlock every item, just to be able to even see it.
There must be years of work put into games which I will never see.
Here are some more points for corporate people.