Weekend Confirmed Episode 38

I just want to continue on from a response TylerAshcraft made with regards to a gamer's expectations from a developer.

I believe the examples given were essentially the fallacy of comparing Alpha Protocol with Mass Effect, and that the expectations were not realistic in that comparison, but pointed out going a different route where games like Minecraft that doesn't compete in the same way as COD:BLOPS and Mass Effect 2 in terms of emergent gameplay, and that they won't compete on that front unless the developer really knows what they're getting in to.

Essentially the point seemed to be to embrace the differences rather than fixate on short comings (and give credit where it is due).

Firstly, I understand the point given, but I felt the examples given with minecraft isn't so apt here since the games used as examples are of differing genres, thus difficult to compare in this regard.

However within the same genre type (like Alpha Protocol and Mass Effect), its not all that bad to 'copy', so long as the developer puts their own flavor and spin on it. For instance, Shadow Complex and Metroid. Shadow Complex basically flaunted its tributes to the genre and essentially was competing within that same genre. No excuses were made, yet that turned out to be an excellent game. Dante's Inferno and God of War is another comparison. While God of War to many is the superior one, Dante's Inferno (despite the 'interesting' art direction) is itself another solid title too.

It is entirely possible to create something that doesn't innovate or evolve from its forebears, but still become good-solid titles that is able to hold it's own. Like the artist Banksy. I don't feel that his art is innovative in the technical sense, but the way he pieces things together to create the art. That's what's special. You can be as equally creative by working within confines.

Speaking of changes however, there is a saying that is apt here: "Change is good, when change is good.". Sometimes its a pitfall to be different for the sake of being different. For instance, everyone in the industry knows of the vast creativity, ideas, and of course humor, coming out of Tim Schafer and crew. However as shown with Brutal Legend, sometimes you can do too much for change. Having read his recent interview with EGM, it seems that he was adamant about the RTS element for the game, yet it can also be argued that that was decidedly the worst element of the game. The game could've done away with that in my opinion, but it seemed that Tim really wanted to add whatever came to mind.

Then you have the good changes from subtle innovations like AI (Halo:Reach, L4D), to quite drastic ones (Gears of War combat/cover system). For those games, the changes were there from the foundation up, and was thought of very carefully before proceeding, versus some others where the idea for appearing different comes out mid-development, and thus ends up either feeling forced, or jarring.

Either way, is the developer's responsibility to get the quality up to top notch, and while its easy to complain about gamers becoming too spoiled for quality, I think its worth noting the extra appreciation the gamers have towards the developers in creating the satisfying game. It usually shows when a sequel sells better than the original title ;-).

But seriously, I generally feel that "the customers are always right", and the good-great developers listen, and thus work hard to come out with something that improves their last. I feel that allowing a pass on creative quality generally provides less incentive for developers to work hard to improve... like Dynasty Warriors.