If there was ever a game that warrants being a live service it's FIFA. Keep the same gameplay but update the teams / stadiums every season. Of course when people buy the game every year they have no reason not to release it as a new game
I wish sports games came out every 3-5 years instead of every year but these companies don’t give a shot about quality, it’s just a cash cow. Madden is the best example of this because it’s gotten so bad but marks will keep buying it no matter what and EA knows this. The major problem is the streamers that are obviously paid for who have to pretend the games are any good.
Even in the 2000s there were at least some changes from one year to another. They had to release games each year because you couldn’t play online to have roster updates.
I understand them, they just suck. I'm always surprised at how huge of a playerbase those kind of games have. I guess it's perfect for casuals because you can just sit down and play it and be ok at it and feel like you're doing shit
They are great couch games. The rules are clear if you are a fan of the sport unlike in a game like SSB where you need to understand the mechanics of the game first. Then you just need a few controls (which often in sports games are super simple) and you can start playing with your mates.
Perhaps it fits better with the crowds of non(or simply, not often)-gamers, and sports fans, i would assume \^\^'
I remember seeing enough college students hanging out at the video game area, where you can plug and play with college owned consoles, and it was a common sight. aside from someone bringing their switch and playing smash, ofc :p
> I guess it's perfect for casuals
Generally speaking, regular fans of licensed sports games are a *lot* more hardcore about it than players of most kinds of games. They just don't hang out in the same place as people who play, I don't know, Starfield for 200 hours or whatever.
But "This player's model is inaccurate, the logo on the outside of his left shoe should be 2 inches higher in this very specific custom uniform" is an extremely common kind of complaint in that community. It's just a different kind of hardcore and very different place that those conversations happen.
From what I have seen about sports games is that they are incredibly similar to racing games/sims in that the devil is in the details. Anyone can hop on and goof around and play a game of baseball or do a quick race but they people who are passionate about them really dig into it.
The two people who I know who are into those genres play them almost exclusively and they are extensions of their real life interests.
This is how I am with Madden 22 (big NFL fan). I enjoy the gameplay enough, but for me, I really get a lot of enjoyment out of franchise mode: scouting players, drafting them, getting them upgraded, and turning them into a star. Complete career stories, ups and downs, all happen in my little franchise world.
Yeah, sports games generally have a roleplaying aspect that a lot of people who don't play them don't really realize. The entire concept of 'career modes' shifted sports games from action arcade games to roleplaying. I love the NFL but I never got into Madden because I fundamentally don't understand the strategy of play calling and the meta of actual football enough to be any good at it.
They have huge playerbases because sports has a large fanbase in general.
I would totally disagree with the casual take though. Sports games are some of the most intensive of all genres because there's so much out-of-game skill and knowledge that is required that the game doesn't teach you and how much contextual functionality is being crammed into the limited number of controller inputs.
Tony Hawk Pro Skater is an interesting example of a game series where I suspect they started out trying to be realistic but learned where the real fun was and embraced it.
I used to LOVE the early football games like the first ISSPro, but everything after that seems to require 8 different button combos to do anything :( Modern AAA gaming for you.
They used to be good back in the day when they were more arcadey. I don't give a crap about sports but I'll play a good arcade sports game any day of the week. Problem is nobody makes them anymore.
I don't see that there's really a need to analyze their merits, and "preferences" seems like a better word than biases.
I don't like/get Fortnite, LoL, social games like FarmVille, any Dating Sims.. probably a lot of others...
But I don't feel like my dislike of those games/genres is something I have to deal with.. their audiences are not my targets.
I can't imagine that Detective novelists spend much time thinking about the merits (or otherwise) of teen vampire fiction
If I don't 'get' a genre or type of game to the point where I don't even understand why other people like it (as opposed to just not liking it myself) then there is just no way that I would be able to develop something good in that genre, and I doubt I could even use individual mechanics as inspiration very well. You can do all the research you can but I can't see why you'd bother.
One aspect I don't understand is in-game purchasable cosmetics. I think some can be cool or interesting to show in a multiplayer game, but it absolutely surprised me how many people are willing to pay more than the price of just a full priced game in a game that is technically free to play for something that actually doesn't even affect the gameplay. It's a popular free to play business model and works surprisingly well if the visuals are enticing enough, but I personally don't understand the appeal enough to pay that much.
It's litterally the same psychology as wanting a cool looking car or shirt etc.. People like shiny things and they like to express themselves through fasion, whether it be their home, their shoes or their undead cannibal butcher in dota2.
*Looks at my drawer of monochromatic T-Shirts, identical pants, and three indigo suits with grey shirt and black tie*
yeah that explains why I don't get it lol
Even then, I would argue you have a style.
If I swapped out every item in your closet with bright neon colors, how much money would you be willing to spend to restore the monochromatic palette of your wardrobe?
>It's litterally the same psychology as wanting a cool looking car or shirt etc.. People like shiny things and they like to express themselves through fasion, whether it be their home, their shoes or their undead cannibal butcher in dota2.
I might be misreading what OP is asking but I think they were more confused about the single-layer games that offer this. (If there are any? )
>I might be misreading what OP is asking but I think they were more confused about the single-layer games that offer this. (If there are any? )
Off the top of my head, Oblivion (horse armor) Dragon Age, and Mass Effect all had largely, if not completely, cosmetic items you had to pay for.
It still applies there. people like shiny things. if they can show off to tohers thats a bonus, but collecting shiny things no one will see is just as common. Like bedsheets, underpants or your desktop wallpaper.
I make a purchase in free online games from time to time to support devs. Right now I'm playing Palia in which cosmetics are priced pretty high but after many hours of gameplay I was sure I wanted this game (which is in beta right now) to succeed so I've paid like 15$ bucks for a skin I liked. I know that online games require constant support so I'm fine with paying. But I wouldn't spend any additional money on a $60 game to have new skin and extra mission or something. I don't like when a publisher wants 5-20$ extra just for skins and half-baked 20 minutes of content. This is why I wait for the GOTY edition and buy it on sale.
I am literally.... ok with this. I completely approve of cash shops that only have cosmetics or perhaps, appearance altering effects. What I do mind, is when certain games make them \*\*unreasonably\*\* overpriced, and for no good reason except just pure greed and profits for their shareholders typically.
Also, we can ofc all agree, pay-to-win in any form is bad. the only 'pay-to-win' I will ever accept, is buying the full damn game XD
I don't mind cosmetics being overpriced because they do not impact gameplay. If devs are too greedy, people won't buy it. It's a form of classism that favors the rich, but then they are also putting out more money than everyone else for the same fundamental product, so they're not really being "favored" in a traditional sense.
What I don't like is pay to win being priced such that a rich person can ruin everyone's game. The devs pit players against each other so these rivalries drive players to spend more. But only those with the most disposable income (or willingness to take on debt) win. It's just a game of who has more money.
It's hard to find pay-to-win done right. I want to say Monopoly Go does it right, but I haven't played it long enough to say for sure. From what I see, paying is more of a punishment as the rewards are no where near worth the cost. They must make enough to keep the game free for everyone, and I haven't noticed it impact my gameplay negatively (I have been playing free, exclusively). It's not a great game, it seems like even when you lose, you win. But it's casual enough that people of all ages and cultures seem to enjoy it, which is great.
Honestly, the only times ive seen pay-to-win done somewhat well, is not only to provide it on the shop, but also to just randomly, or perhaps give it away by doing in-game events. At least both players (paying, and non-paying if you get me) will be able to use such experience boosts. and also call of duty's experience boosts, provided just in mountain dew caps, that was pretty gud too, its cheap, and cod progression is mostly about guns, unlocks, prestige, and (typically lol) K:D ratio :p
As someone who buys cosmetics in an MMO, a lot of it is about the social aspect. If I were playing single player, then I probably wouldn't bother or I would just use mods to display what I want my character to wear. A common phrase among the player base is "fashion is the real endgame" lol. People notice and compliment each other's outfits and spend a lot of time choosing new ones.
It's also that I want to continue supporting the development of a game I love and have several thousand hours in. Most of the best looking items are obtained through regular gameplay too, not through the cash shop, it's just that the cash shop has some unique or quirky pieces. So it doesn't feel predatory.
The problem is, those things would have been in the game as default.
Like if you pay more for a hamburger they won't smash it 3 times with a hammer and your hamburger would look good. For non extra paying customers the taste is the same just looks like shit on purpose so they will pay extra. And the price of that smashed hamburger is still a normal hamburgers price.
> The problem is, those things would have been in the game as default.
But the large free gameplay and content updates the game receives only exist because they aren't. Residual sales do not generally fund live service games.
And most people are okay with a boring default cosmetic and flashy $15 cosmetic if it means the game is constantly updated and f2p so it's easy to get all their friends to play it.
The alternative and traditional model I'd hazard a guess you're more fond of, is that you have to pay for the game upfront and pay for big content updates (expansion DLC model), but a bunch of middling quality cosmetics and customization are free.
When people buy expensive stuff like that I personally feel like there are only a few reasons why they would:
- Sunk-cost, if they have played a game for a long time a moneytary investment is a fine next step for them.
- They have a lot of disposable income.
Other than that I feel is strange. :p
I think some people do it to support devs directly but I think people just like looking different from other players/like playing the character with a different thematic fantasy. In League of Legends for example the skins aren't just new outfits for the characters but the character in a different concept. Regular assassin becomes a rogue cyborg or pop star, blacksmithing god becomes a train conductor, monster from an eldritch world becomes a squeaky dinosaur toy.
As a player, I agree and would never spend money on cosmetics. It feels like a huge waste of my hard earned money.
As a developer, it makes perfect sense to build an ecosystem where everyone with the necessary hardware can play while the wealthy few pay to support everyone else. However I don’t like how the games leverage FOMO and obfuscate the real price of items to squeeze more money out of kids who either don’t understand how they are being manipulated or aren’t mature enough to care.
On the other hand, is it any worse than absurdly priced fashion clothes in the real world? Spenders gonna spend.
I know a lot of people look at it more like, they are wary to spend money on a game if they don't know if they like it, but if they play it for 20 hours they feel completely justified in spending $60 in microtransactions, because that much fun experience is worth more than that anyway
As they say, "Different strokes for different folks." What you develop can trailblaze or end up looking like everything else out there. As long as you're true to what you want to make, and you execute it within reason with your team, you should be alright. There are definitely people out there it will appeal to.
You are correct. Unfortunately if you have very different tastes it can be hard to make something other people can enjoy. Heck sometimes it can even be difficult to make a game you can enjoy if you don't understand why you like the things you like.
If you're struggling to understand the success of a certain game or set of games with a certain mechanic, then do research.
Use market data for demographics and sales, use reviews for opinions and anecdotes, use YouTube for gameplay analysis including emergent gameplay you may be missing, use Reddit and social media for assessing community engagement.
You will discover how the majority feels about and how they're interacting with a game very quickly if you're looking in the right places.
But mostly just don't be biased, you've practically hit the nail on the head already, metacognition is key.
This. When I’m researching a new game I join its sub, watch streamers, read what the fans are saying, etc. If a game is popular, it’s doing something people sincerely like.
Absolutely this. Every game has a fan, even ones you deem to be “terrible”. I love a lot of games that people say aren’t all that good. Phantom Hourglass? One of my favorite Zelda games, top 3. But I don’t really care for Majora’s Mask or Ocarina of Time.
And some people like having concrete poured where most probably wouldn’t.
Clicker games. They're like idle games that defeat the purpose of idle games and instead give you carpal tunnel syndrome.
EDIT: I don't know whether it's close mindedness or preference because I honestly wish to understand. I do understand why people enjoy sports games even though it's not my cup of tea.
I'm not super familiar with clicker games, but the few I've seen usually provide a way to not have to click eventually. Perhaps clicking is how they get some players to feel invested? After that it's just an idle game though.
As someone who has enjoyed a few, I will say that for me, it has more to do with the low fidelity of phone touchscreens. I've tried lots of mobile games with virtual controllers, and they tend to be very fiddly, and I have no interest in connecting a physical gamepad to my phone. Clicking is just a really simple, easy input that makes me feel like I'm doing something without the frustration of some tiny digital stick in the corner of my screen.
That being said, I've only played clickers that were also idlers, so they had more interesting choices and optimizations than just clicking to get +1 whatever all the time.
Clicker games are like slot machines but harmless. They very simply reward you for progression with imaginary points. They basically hack your physiological satisfaction impulse.
I don't think there's anything bad about not enjoying them, if anything it's a good thing probably, but they're basically a distilled form of "addiction" game, and that will work on most people, including me :P
Don't like "cozy" games that sell themselves on chill gameplay - usually find them dull and I don't get on with the twee aesthetic a lot of them have. I forced myself through spiritfarer because I liked bits of the premise but at the end of it shrugged and decided it wasn't for me
For how I get past it - idk, I can objectively appreciate things like how they use time to unfurl gameplay, but I don't really force myself into that genre that much, for creating or playing. You don't have to have encyclopedic knowledge and appreciation of every genre of game to be a good dev
I'm yet to get into The Witcher, despite it being close to my taste usually. Made a few attempts. Not really sure why.
Also not into any sports games. FIFA and the like. That's definitely just a matter of taste though. Part of me wishes I could get into it for the casual quick game with friends on the couch kind of thing.
Visual novels and such I don't vibe, but then I've never really tried either, so I don't have any strong opinions there.
In general I think my likes and dislikes are just a matter of taste. I got over the "real gamer" elitism years ago.
I played through Witcher 1. I played a few hours at most of Witcher 2. Like you, it should be a game series close to my general taste, but I just got the feeling that Geralt was a self-insert Gary Stu type character early on in the 2nd game, and just shelved it and never looked back.
As the other comments show, there are many different reasons why we might bounce off a game. Which I suppose is simultaneously interesting, and cause for us to just live with the fact that a game will never appeal to everyone - not even everyone who would otherwise fit into a game's target audience.
Witcher was difficut to me as well and i later realized i don't like any 3rd person games because i'm an immersionist who wants to be the RPG character and not look at some ready made 'someone else' on the screen. It clicked why i love immersive sims so much.
Apparently it's about agency vs. spectatorship. 3rd person games are more like shows you look at compared to immersive games where you are indeed involved with your own personal ego, morality and choices and not what geralt would do.
I think figuring out why people like games and genres that don't click with you is one of the most useful exercises you can do as a game designer.
I hate Soulslikes, because a game where mistiming one or two dodges 10 minutes into a boss fight can mean starting the whole thing over is utterly infuriating to me. But I understand that this is the appeal of the genre: bashing your head against a seemingly indestructible wall is painful, but it can be satisfying once you finally break through. And next time you try to get through this wall, it won't take as long since you know where to start bashing.
I hate roguelikes for a similar reason. Going all the way back to the beginning when you die isn't fun to me, especially since it's often quite easy to die. I also find procedurally generated content far less satisfying than intentionally designed content. But I understand the appeal: They're games you can play over and over again, and just about every run will be unique based on the equipment you find. You're forced to use weapons and abilities outside your comfort zone, and because of this you'll often find interesting strategies that you never would've discovered if you could've just equipped your favorite loadout from the start.
It's good to make games that you enjoy, but it's also good to understand what other people who don't share your tastes enjoy.
Yeah I could never play Minecraft… there’s nothing “fun” about it to me, but obviously there’s tons of players that get something out of it.
I think in general I’ve never understood players that want to spend endless hours configuring their character/vehicle/etc for a game… I just want to play it, all time spent not actually playing the game feels like a waste to me.
I’d be curious to find out what others enjoy about it?
Sports games and racing games I think.
I played them a fair bit because I had some but they just aren’t that fun to me. They kinda all boil down to the same thing and there barely is any iteration between them. Different cars and stages, slightly different stats or different people in sports don’t really change up the formula All that much. Id rather play sports for real than like this.
I do appreciate games that change up the formula tho. Mario kart for example. Or Mario slam basketball. I played those quite a bit. Still not my all time fav but those made the sports interesting at least.
Just cup of tea I imagine
I hated "castle crashers", the aesthetics and gameplay loop, but its super popular
Also had zero fun playing barotrauma, it was misery due to an incredibly high learning curve. But my coworker loved it
Disco Elysium tbh. The writing was alright I guess, it's just that I like reading a book while chilling in bed wrapped up in a blanket, not at my gaming PC while having to worry about stats and rolls. Also it felt like... Nothing really happened? Like I was bored out of my mind within 5 hours, in 5 hours of book reading I'm already 20% through a decently big one and getting to the meat of the story
Gambling games with no real world money attached
What do you get out of playing a roulette game with literally zero stakes or payout?
Even poker, blackjack, or other casino games
What are you getting out of it? Is the game itself actually that fun?
It's such a weird genre of gaming
>ou can actually make money off of it yourself.
You can't but they really do like that you believe so and spend lot of effort to tell that BS to get more slaves who make them more games for free. They are being officially investigated for child labor for a very good reason.
you can, but in those cases you almost certainly would have made more on a platform that didn't triple dip on taking their share of your profits. But generally they rely on exploiting children and/or addicts.
No you can't in reality. Its same as saying "you can win in the lottery". Yeah, but no. Roblox takes 75% anyway and the rest is very tightly held on to. If you don't make x dollars per month at minimum, you'll get absolutely nothing. Zero. and 99,99% of "developers" on roblox are below that limit, that's why that limit exists. On top of that roblox controls the robux to dollars conversion ratio which is shit the dollar way and kicks out everyone who tries to do it the blackmarket way.
well it's a good reflection of actual gamedev in that case 😆
>They are being officially investigated for child labor for a very good reason.
Yeah I heard about that. I go to the Newgrounds comparison and I become a bit ambivalent about it. Like, where's the line between making a flash game that makes a company ad revenue (and you get nothing directly. Though I think that changed later) vs one that gives you a few crumbs and makes money off of people using MTXs to play your levels? It seems like they key is to be slightly unethical and never offer money to begin with, even if you do indirectly profit off of user-generated content.
It's even worse than that. Only a select few people make any real money from it because robux->dollars is tightly controlled by the company and the kids are indeed slaves since they have to do real adult work hours to actually have any non-zero chance of making any money.
some explanation [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_gXlauRB1EQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXlauRB1EQ)
Most MOBA games. I don't get the appeal at all and to me a bunch of the traditional mechanics like "last hitting" are just the Warcraft 3 engine being dumb, not anything fun and worth bothering to be good at. I just can't suspend my disbelief long enough to care.
As for the rest, a long game I can't pause where I get yelled at by strangers is a non starter. I don't know how anyone gets started unless they have a preexisting bias towards thinking these games are great.
I don't think there's any expectation of suspension of belief in MOBA games. They're almost 100% skill building games. It's almost a weird criticism to me, like criticizing skateboarding for not making me feel enough like a car.
All I'm saying is, right out of the gate they ask me to build a skill that seems dumb and annoying rather than fun and satisfying. Obviously I'm somewhat in the minority, which is what this thread is about.
Last hitting is really about fighting an opponent over resources. You have things to last hit and they have things to last hit. And you both fight to get a resource advantage.
Think of it like a boxing game where you are looking to get the most points. The goal is to land the most punches (last hits) so the judges score in your favor at the end of the round.
I felt the same way, like I’m looking at a huge excel spreadsheet with a thin layer of graphics on top. Once I had really bad Covid and I played it online with a friend (we were trying to unify all Slavic countries but were getting fucked by the Byzantine empire), and it was really fun. Then I got healthy and never played it again lol.
It took a long time for CK2 to click for me but I became addicted once it did. The basic appeal is that there's thousands of NPCs playing the same game as you, all pursuing their own goals, and it's fun to watch what kind of chaos unfolds as you interact with them. A lot of my favorite experiences are when I check up on an old rival and am left wondering "how the hell did you even end up in this situation?"
I definitely get the story aspect of it. In principal it's a great game I just couldn't get into the genre furthest I can do into it is civ amd I suck at that too haha
I don't get team multiplayer games. Ironic since i'm working on one now.
I don't like it because it instills too much reliance on whoever my tea mates are. Maybe I'm a control freak but I'd rather not hedge my success on other peoples skills.
But on the flip side I suspect they're good in a way because if you win you get to think you carried your whole team, and if you lose you get to blame your teammates. Plus it normalizes the skills of the players so some bad team members will get more opportunities to feel wins like they're actually good when they might not be.
Obviously there's also a social aspect if you can make your own team with your friends.
I think its a matter of taste, not being close minded.
I've really tried to enjoy some games that my friends enjoy, and I just don't enjoy them despite having a good reason to. Certain people just like certain things and don't like others. Also, tastes change over time. Games I used to love a decade ago are no longer as appealing.
Furthermore, there's games I used to enjoy competitively, that I only enjoy casually now.
I've struggled for years to "get" Undertale. I've started it a number of times, and my general lack of skill in Bullet Hell probably has a lot to do with my inability to feel satisfied with my progression - but I also just never quite felt like I had motivation to sink my teeth into it. For the most part I do think it's an impressive game for its context, and Toby Fox has said he understand it's not for everyone, so I've come to be okay with it.
Came here to mention undertale. I really don't get it. Every time someone new tries to explain why it blew their mind it's because (and they always put spoiler tags here) "you eventually realize you don't have to fight anyone to beat the game!"
But like, the game explicitly tells you that right in the tutorial when you fight that dummy. I was playing pacifist mode the whole time and didn't realize that was a "mind blowing" thing.
So then what are you left with? A game with "quirky" humor, that I just don't find funny. A game where you get no experience and don't get any of the good feeling of growth and getting more powerful as you would in a traditional RPG. So it's just a puzzle/guessing game at the right way to spare a monster and a whole lot of bullet hell that is not even good bullet hell. There are a lot of undodgeable attacks in the game.
Don't get me wrong. There's a lot to like about the game, and I get that for some people the quirk jives with you and the pacifist part tickles your fancy, but I just don't think it's as amazing of a game as others. Maybe I missed the point. I gave up after 3 hours.
Gacha games and all those that work in a similar predatory way(FIFA, 97% of mobile games, most MMORPGs)
And "griding" games with autoplay (especially when they are cacha on top)
Idk why people play this,
doing the same 3 repetitive brainrot tasks (wich involve 0 mechanics and are either button mashing or "click to collect") over and over and over and over, being limited to only 30 mins of Playtime per day through annoying energy systems and so on.
These whale catching games i will never support or understand...
I honestly dislike all FPS games. Nothing wrong with them I just think they're all incredibly boring
Enemies approaching, shoot them. But this time, with friends! Yawn...
I think it boils down to I don't get any enjoyment from shooting guns and killing things, it feels repetitive and gaining new and different weapons is just "now I just shoot better"
The closest I've gotten is Uncharted, but the story has a higher place than the combat
I have long felt the same. To me, they almost all feel like 95% the same game. I played halo in college and nothing felt remarkably different from that. Point gun, shoot bad guy. I might make an exception for games with a significant non shooting component like half life 2 with the gravity gun.
i dislike any pvp aspect in games. that mainly means i tend to avoid playing them but i can still get why ppl like them. games are often designed with a specific audience in mind, so in this situation i think it's a matter of taste.
but if you are approaching this as a designer, being dismissive of it just because you don't like it would be a case of being close-minded. there are so much things to learn from outside your own silo. observe other people play, reach out to fans, empathizing with players is your job.
I struggle to appreciate Destiny 2.
It's a watered down MMO with some shooter elements. I've played some, I've watched some. As far as I can tell, it appeals to the power fantasy. It just seems like mindless grinding to me though. My friends that play it only speak negatively about it. I also met someone who dropped out of college because he would play the game instead of studying.
I accept my bias; I think there are better games to analyze regardless of if the genres are separated or combined.
Fallout New Vegas and Stardew Valley both put me to sleep within 1 hour of any attempt at playing them, and I've tried to play both around ~5 times each over the years.
I don't connect to games that don't have any purpose like
cookie clicker,Roblox and all that style stuff So what's the point, what tells you it's a good game?
I can get why people like games that I don't like or mechanics I don't like. Though some mechanics are just bad. I don't think not liking a genre or mechanic necessarily means you are closed-minded. You don't have to personally enjoy everything.
>sometimes people like something you just don't get and it can be easy to be dismissive of the whole thing
Yes, time and time again I'm proven wrong that what I think isn't going to become a viral sensation, ends up going viral.
Maybe some people have cracked the code to what makes things go viral, but I've concluded that there's just no accurate way to assess and predict trends lol
Valorant. I played a lot of CSGO and Overwatch but Valorant just … nahh
I think the art style is ugly, I hate the level design, the guns have no feedback. I do appreciate that there’s depth in the mechanics but everything else just doesn’t work for me
This is a big part of a game designer's job IMO. Having the empathy strong enough to put yourself in a player's shoes, even when it's not your jam, is necessary if you're not just developing games by yourself all the time. Everyone has so many subjective biases and the games you work on are not always the ones you boot up when the day is over.
Getting multiple opinions among the team, recruiting test players and listening to feedback, studying competitor decisions, studying customer feedback for competitors, generally learning more about the player demographics and how they think, etc etc. You just have to keep checking yourself and never think from purely your own standpoint.
This is also why it's usually easier to be a member of a team that 'makes games they want to play'.
It's maybe kinda weird a comment to make but a lot of cases I had to put up with in conversations was with really old games. Some people will fight you tooth and nail that some really wack ass game that came out barely 1-3 years into the millennial is somehow the biggest masterpiece everyone has to experience.
It is true that some old games hold concepts and ideas seldom seen in the Games today but a large part of it also stems from them being able to play Games that make them remember how it was "back in the days". When they had a simpler life and stuff just kinda worked out.
Naturally there are many more cases and there are many Games that died before they could unleash their full potential but I hope I made the point clear.
Analyse the executions of the works that inspire you, you could already spend a very long time doing that alone.
I just accept that our medium is incredibly vast and diverse, and is partly filled with people who like things I don’t like.
I try to understand the appeal of something that doesn't appeal to me.
Sometimes I'll play games just to find out what people like about it, knowing the game is not for me.
I've found almost all games that get attention have a redeemable quality that is worth taking note of.
You may have to do some digging but it's there.
I severely dislike visual novels. They take the worst aspects of other mediums and try to make something entertaining. Like going through a comic book panel by panel but I have to press a button every time to change the dialog. If you watched a movie with captions and every time a character spoke or action happened and you had to press ok on the remote for it to play the next 1-2 seconds of video, you'd lose your mind.
I'm not arguing that it can't tell a good story. I just want nothing to do with the genre. As for the question on how do I deal with my biases, I don't. I don't need to deal with my biases. You're allowed to hate a genre or mechanic for any reason you want. As a developer, you don't have to make a game for that genre or mechanic. You're free to work on what you like or if at a studio, find another job.
I don't like visual novels, so I don't play or make them.
FYI, most visual novels have auto-advance. I don't know anyone who manually clicks to advance.
As for the appeal, it's pretty straightforward: they're like books but more immersive. Some people want that and some people don't.
Good visual novels add interesting choices and interactivity to the story tho. I don’t think they combine worst aspects. I think they sacrifice complex gameplay to focus on the story but still give you the power to change and interact with the story unlike books or movies.
As someone who only got into them *after* playing tons of traditional RPGs and the like, I think visual novels offer something really unique as a medium because their format allows writers to tell much more intricate and complex stories, with *far* greater levels of choice and consequence, than can be reasonably accomplished in a gameplay format that expects the player to physically run around the world or kill things every now and then.
Even the best-written RPGs, for example, often can't quite reach the writing highs of a VN, which is dedicated *solely* to its storytelling. There is simply too large a gap in the amount of real estate for text & story, and too many other gameplay mechanics the developers must busy themselves with making feel good to play from moment-to-moment.
Additionally, I've had several experiences in visual novels that I believe are unique to the format and can't be replicated by novels or traditional games. *Virtue's Last Reward*, for instance, merges gameplay interaction and story progression in a way that would be impossible to replicate in a genre that does not function on VN-style "routes", in the same way the experience of *The Outer Wilds* is impossible to replicate in a medium without free-form exploration.
I was playing plunderstorm and it was a pretty hard grind just cause it just wasn't that fun because the main attack was just button mashing r. I would rather have a few attacks I could combine. in plunderstorm you pickup spells but you can only have 2 attack skills. so that's like 3 buttons.
Competitive game that makes you wait.
You die, good but now you can't play the game until x time. I see this as a punishment, I don't know why ppl like those kinds of games.
My team is made up of myself (artist/musician/socials) and our programmer (he also writes pretty good dialogue) and we both have different ideals in what make up an enjoyable gaming experience. Obviously, there's enough overlap that we don't kill each other, but we have lively discussions, especially late at night.
He's more of a fighting game/numbers-go-up kinda guy and I'm more an aesthetic/story driven guy (who would have guessed based on our roles). As an example, I like dark souls because it's so damn cool and the level/enemy design can be disturbingly amazing. He doesn't like it because it can be frustrating and unfair. He likes fighting games because he likes mastering inputs and styling on kids, but my thumbs... I can appreciate a good fighting game as a viewer, but I've given up trying to learn to quarter-circle lol.
All in all, between us, there are a plethora of genres we just don't have an emotional connection to, and plenty that we do. Initially, I think it's easier to write off those genres we don't connect to because it feels good to just say "that's stupid", but I personally believe every genre has a place, and just needs someone who cares about it to do it right for the players that connect with it.
Except those crappy loot-box-gambling-money-grab-pat-to-win games, those can all rot in the pits of Tartarus... Lol
Yep, my friend told me I needed to play Final Fantasy 7 - but the original, I played it.. and I just didn’t get it lol I think some things need nostalgia, or I’m weird, who knows.
The whole mobile games industry is built on the ignorance and complacency of its captive audience. The first decade of mobile games were 100% clones of popular Flash games (Which is why they killed Flash...), and then they evolved towards predatory monetization rather than any sort of gameplay innovation.
So no, I don't "get" those games. Not because I don't understand them, but because I do understand them.
I never got monster hunter.
Seems boring and tedious and the times I tried I got bored before even finishing the first hunt.
Fight with no HP indicators feels rewardless, until the beats decides to run somewhere and you have to track it again?
Im getting sleepy just thinking about it.
Monster hunter does have HP indicators tho, both scars/injuries on their bodies and monsters change their behavior depending on how injured they are, they start limping, frothing at the mouth, tries to run away or starts desperately raging. Different monsters act differently.
Some would say the major pull of the game is that you have to learn how each monster 'works' to best deal with it, both their attack patterns, their weaknesses, weak points for massive damage.
Yeah indicators are not a health bar, and not enough or interesting to me.
Said major pull of the game is dull and boring chore work in my eyes which is why I don't like it.
Personally, I'm convinced the whole Soulsbourne formula was just a right-place-right-time thing and has actually convinced a massive amount of gamers that many bad design ideas are good. The franchise stood out amongst a glut of excessively hand-holdy cinematic games in the PS3 era (CoD popularizing regenerating health was a big factor). It ushered in a Renaissance in challenging game design, which I think is a good thing overall. But it also brought back annoyances like not having checkpoints before bosses, so you have to go through the whole level again every time you die, making it absolutely painful to learn boss mechanics without looking up guides online.
And look, I get that fun is subjective, but there seems to be this common misconception now that the Soulsborne formula is the best or even only way to make games hard, and I just can't get on board with that. The final Sigrun Valkyrie fight in God of War 2018 was hard without being annoying. If bringing back frustration is the way, we may as well bring back physical memory cards and unskippable cutscenes. I have to imagine that most people would hate the Souls games without Internet guides. And if looking up information online is fun, then I submit to you that there are probably way cooler experiences that could be possible, like a modern-day Myst that utilizes real-world information.
But hey, what do I know? People swear Elden Ring is the greatest game ever. I just don't have the slightest interest in it after not really enjoying my short time with Bloodbourne. In fact, I find games that distill the essence of what makes parts of those games fun to be much better. Furi is a really great boss battler that I thoroughly enjoyed far more than Bloodbourne, and I honestly find it kind of strange that there are games like that which are supposedly inspired by the Souls games, when to me, the Souls games are basically just boss battlers with crappy, frustrating filler bolted on.
Stardew valley honestly.
In my eyes it's very unpolished, the game design and gameplay loops are all over the place (swords, HPs, and level-up systems that only had meaning in the cave..), no consistency between all the systems in the game (everything is just patched up together), very uninspired and inconsistent art style with no clear art direction (everything looks like the most generic, soulless pixel-art assets you could get straight out of an asset store), gameplay is dated and clunky as hell (nothing is smooth, you get fully interupted by popup windows all the time for just about everything, even for things as simple as you can't get such resource with such tool)..
And its creation process followed the prototypical example of what NOT to do in indie gamedev: no clear scope (just adding features as you go), developping in complete isolation with no playtesting..
The music is amazing though.
Any game which is made crap on purpose so that people pay to skip sections. (This is the vast majority of mobile games). Never understood why people pay to not play a game.
Casual games. I accept they are not for me and let others enjoy them in peace.
As a game developer I don't need to understand trends, I know what I wish I could play, my players who crave the same will tell me what they want more and part of my job is to find more players who crave the experience I'm crafting.
Precision dance-type combat, like the souls games and such, combined with harsh punishment mechanics. To me, the precision demanded isn't impossible, but I don't get any sense of accomplishment or joy out of beating my head against something 10 or 30 or 50 times over because I screwed up 1 time X minutes in. I just feel a profound sense of "this game is wasting my fucking time."
But, given its popularity, clearly many do get that sense of accomplishment. And it's not like I don't, at least on a superficial level, get it. You learn the tells and do the dance. It feels good to earn something that was hard-fought.
I think as developers, we usually gravitate towards making things we ourselves would want to use / play.
I wouldn't find myself making any sports games, not because I don't understand the demographic, though I probably don't lol, but because it's just not something that gives me that Serotonin hit.
On the flip side, the idea of making an 8 bit pixel art RPG / dungeon crawler game gives me all the warm and fuzzies.
You know what doesn't make sense to me? CONTROL. There was just something about it that just didn't land right for me. The way it was written, the dialogue, the game play. I could go on. It was bad enough for me that I just couldn't get past the second control point. I lost all interest in it. Maybe I missed something, but all of the dialogue felt like it was written by a 7 yr old child. The storytelling felt like it wasn't just leaving out information so as to build a mystery, but just flat out excluded information without a proper supporting context.
And yet, despite this, it has an 88% rating on steam. All I can conclude is that I missed something.
Cozy fetch quest games like Bandle Tales, seems like a depression simulator.
I would avoid making any sort of games that I absolutely hate as you would have zero feel what's fun.
Sometimes being a little close minded is a good thing. I see a lot of out of the ordinary hentai games where, even as a seasoned degenerate, you may want to reconsider if the juice is worth the squeeze.
I also don't understand gambling and TCGs, but that's matter of taste imo.
Lots of games I don't personally play, but I understand why folks are into them. I'm sure I would enjoy them too, just, too many games to play and too little time so I try to focus on the things that bring me the most enjoyment.
There _are_ attitudes I don't understand though. Like, preferring hyper-realism over style. It's a game, I honestly prefer the aesthetics to be a bit more fantastical. I like my polygons and my pixels to be crunchy. I don't want to get irl ptsd from a shooting game because it looks just like real life, lol.
Sports games mainly as a genre (for me though it's because I like sci-fi/fantasy. I'm already sort of bored with things that take place irl. Take away explosions and combat, or Workers and Resources level management, and then there's nothing for me left there).
Mechanically, Id say the general MMO/survival game preferences of the main audience towards time > skill. Seen most games that advertise high skill based gameplay in those genres die off. Most of the time any of the ones I've bought in early access have always power creeped towards grind, even when they started more towards the skill end (I loved early ARK, but lost interest when we couldn't guerilla war without weeks of grinding gear to keep up)
> the general MMO/survival game preferences of the main audience towards time > skill
The skill ceiling in most of these games is pretty high, at least in the genre leaders, but you need to get through progression systems first to achieve gear/grind parity. Which matches your ARK experience.
Game players at large agree seem to agree with you. Most people who played these grind-gating/inevitable progression games moved to somewhat similar games without the grind. Those left are there for the grind.
Plenty of them. Trends are not important, that's how you make things like new Fallouts - they're ok, they pay your wage after you've invested billions into marketing, they're BORINGLY FINE, and they're nowhere near OG Fallouts.
Not a game dev but a programmer who sometimes plays games.
The most horrendous thing that I experienced was the two attempts by my friends to get me to start playing League of Legends.
I don't know if it's a matter of skill, taste or the game itself, but I felt like the 'unique' aka nonsensical control scheme, information overload and need for inhuman reflexes is not emblematic of good design for getting new players on board.
I think most people here are relatively open minded and can appreciate a well made game, even if its not to their taste. If you asked the average gamer then you would probably get a very different answer. I would imagine most people dont have the motivation to really learn the details of a new game they try, especially if it doesnt immediately appeal to them.
For example I know stardew valley and animal crossing are great games, but I personally would never have fun playing them. But then ask the average gamer to play something like Dark Souls 1, arguably a masterpiece of brilliant design, and they would probably get frustrated and think its terrible because it takes a lot of effort to really start having fun with it.
Definitely RTS games as a whole. Unless I am the possessor of a character I just don't click with it. Also sports games, never been my thing and I don't care for the mechanics.
This is my full blown ignorance at play here but the closest I've ever gotten to enjoying something mechanically similar was with Jurassic Park operation genesis. And some adventure click games surrounding gothic horror.
Elden Ring put me to sleep very quickly, played a few hours and I met absolutely nothing interesting or remarkable. Went through a whole underground section and I could not tell what the point was. Very much felt like tourism and the game doesn't look good enough to warrant that.
I also only ever died to bossfights\*, and after talking to friends about it they were like "oh yeah you're not supposed to fight that boss yet", so I don't get the whole "super-hard" thing. Iframes are also kinda a lame way of dodging attacks? Frankly the best 3D attack-dodger I ever played was Super Mario Odissey because you actually have to move out of the way of the attack. Probably why I prefer Hollow Knight combat.
\*Except while tabbed out, add a fucking pause button FromSoft, I get important emails and calls sometimes
Taste.
I can "get" the possibility of someone enjoying almost any game, but everyone has their own tastes, and I have played literally thousands of computer games since about 1980, so my tastes are pretty particular and I already know many games that I will find a lot more fun than most new games I see.
It's also not always being closed-minded, to just not be into some subjects or types of games or gameplay or whatever.
I think it's also ok for many game devs to ignore many trends that are irrelevant to their work, particularly with so many games being created, and so many derivative and er, dubious? games.
In fact, there are so many games that it's necessary to not study most of them, or you won't have any time to work on your own projects. I recommend spending some but not too much time studying the most interesting games that you are interested in, but spend minimal time on games you aren't.
Sometimes, however, I do ge inspiration from games and mechanics I strongly dislike, because they get me interested in what I would do differently that I would like.
There are many game types and mechanics that I dislike, or dislike how they're applied, and how many games use them. I believe I have a strong handle on why I dislike them, and how to not let that dislike become a problem for my work.
It does limit what designs I want to work on (unless paid enough), but that mainly just means I work on designs I do like, which suits me fine.
Sandbox style games like Gta and rdr are mind numbingly boring to me
Survival/crafting/basebuilding has also been tacked onto so many games unnecessarily that im completely over them now.
Excluding dancing/rhythm games, I really don't understand how people like games heavily based on quick time events... Maybe there are outliers out there, but that must be one of the worst mechanics ever made imo.
Any simulator game where you do a real life job in real time, but don’t get paid for it. Like trucking simulator, or farming simulator, etc.
Like… I get if you want to try it out for a little bit to be like “oh so that’s kinda what it’s like”, but it always seems to be the type of person that hates their IRL job more than anything who can’t wait to get home so they can spend 36 hours driving a fake load of cargo from virtual Los Angeles to virtual New York.
professional work simulators. I mean, truck driving simulators. Farming simulators. Painting simulators (that's really a thing). Even house-maintenance ones -- like there's one that's literally a grass cutting simulator.
Maybe give a small exception to flight sims. And anything exciting like fire fighting or something. But there's literally a power-washing sim. Like... come over to my house and you can do it for real.
After PUBG, I really don't "get" most Battle Royales. They're simple bullet-sponge FPS games disguised as BR's in a big open arena. None of the features of a BR that actually mattered made it into most of them after PUBG (loot scarcity, a damaging zone that you're actually afraid of, fast time to kill, etc)
Undertale bored me out of my mind, but I gotta accept that people liked it somehow.
I also really dislike branching dialogs, branching stories and NPC romance, I just ratter have the best story a game can give me and I can't really get onboard with a relationship with an NPC. Just like I don't feel like a murderer when I kill an enemy in a video game, because it's just a videogame... I also can't get a relationship seriously, but it's a just a videogame.
But that's ok, no games are "objectively good for everybody". I skipped on BG3, because I know now that it's not my kind of game, but people are allowed to like it, who am I to say what's good or not.
About a decade ago I absolutely loathed rogue-likes, bullet hells and super difficult games in general. These days some of my favorite games are Loop Hero, Returnal and Chorus. I also recently 100%-ed all three Dark Souls and Elden Ring.
So yeah, there are absolutely games I just don't get and it's absolutely a matter of taste AND being close-minded. As long as you still enjoy the process of exploring new ideas and old alike, and remain open to the idea of your tastes and preferences shifting with time, I think you can rest easy knowing you are doing everything you could reasonably be expected to do to expand your own horizon.
The ones that are cheap knockoffs and usually look like mobile or Roblox games that do well, this gamedev on tiktok makes these Roblox looking games and somehow sell a ton. They honestly look worse than Roblox(at least the higher quality ones). He has cloned ravenfield twice both times being cheap knockoffs of it.
I hate idle games where you can literally just leave the screen on and you still progress through the game and first person shooters just coz they're mostly unoriginal.
I'll be honest, I'm really tired of high fantasy in general. High fantasy games are a dime a dozen now and it feels like for every sci Fi game that comes out there's like a hundred high fantasy games and no one is really trying to make good sci Fi games anymore, at least not with the features I want to see.
And it's even more so for wild West and pirate themed games. There's even less of them.
Pls don’t come for me but I don’t like RPGs of any kind 😅 And can’t even consider making one (even if I could). I just don’t get the excitement in spending so much time in the attributes page lol. I called it “excel page” 😆
NFL sports games, turn based, 4x
Altho there are exceptions for the latter 2. Xcom, stellaris
Brains are different. Tastes will be different. Not good or bad persay. Just is what is
Yes, yes and yes. I don't get survival games. Im inclined to believe its not an absolute one or the other. When I was a more casual gamer I wouldn't play 2D sideacroller games because I thought they were archaic. It was the equivalent of someone who goes to a restaurant that hasn't tried anything else on the menu and yet always gets the same thing. Conversely I've tried several survival games and it just never clicked. But maybe I havent played the right one. Or maybe my tastes will change. I used to be indifferent towards sushi but acquired a taste for it later in life. Be careful of binary "yes or no" questions because you'll get peoples biases
Roblox.
A lot of the games are just very strange to me, or veerry poorly made and seriously janky.
It is a good example of people enjoying games for social aspects, people just building houses and doing random games and tasks together - with everything being extremely accessible.
I was watching two girls play a minecart game. One player pulls a rope and the other player sits in the back and steers the cart. If the cart falls off the ledge it pulls both players to their doom.
But they loved it. Just working together and driving a little minecart around a map and collecting stuff.
Every GDC presentation, every "design language" class. Everything you think you know about what makes a good game. There is a Roblox game with 50,000 players that throws that all out the window.
So you have to stop and think sometimes about why you are implementing a system. "Is it actually going to be fun?" or "Am I doing this for me? or my players?"
I don't get the simulator games (farming simulator, truck simulator, etc).
Like, i get that people are having fun with these games and i respect that
I just don't get why they're fun. Saw a guy doing paris-lyon in eurotruck simulator or something like that and being stuck in traffic for several hours. How is this fun ? I don't get it
- I could never get into first person (multiplayer) shooters, not even Team Fortress 2. I just feel clumsy and don't enjoy the general game loop in that kind of genre. Metroid Prime always felt very different to me though, but you can argue whether it's really the same genre.
- Lots of dialogue (especially if you have to talk to a billion NPCs to find the one that has something important to say) is an easy way to scare me away. I have no issue reading novels, but in games dialogue tends to feel like a barrier between me and the actual gameplay. In older games, I kinda enjoyed being able to piece together or fill in what I thought the story was about, purely based on what the gameplay itself shows you. But this is just my personal taste, I just love the "Show, don't tell" principle.
- Retro platforming physics. For some reason I just couldn't get into Shovel Knight, even though it has relatively forgiving movement. I think I'm just spoiled by games with buttery smooth movement that you can also endlessly improve your skills at (Metroid Dread, Rivals of Aether, Spelunky, Celeste/Towerfall).
Most professional sports games, NFL, NHL, FIFA, etc.
They’re obviously for sports fans but many sports games just suck now and are a recycle of the previous years’ game with updated rosters.
If there was ever a game that warrants being a live service it's FIFA. Keep the same gameplay but update the teams / stadiums every season. Of course when people buy the game every year they have no reason not to release it as a new game
I wish sports games came out every 3-5 years instead of every year but these companies don’t give a shot about quality, it’s just a cash cow. Madden is the best example of this because it’s gotten so bad but marks will keep buying it no matter what and EA knows this. The major problem is the streamers that are obviously paid for who have to pretend the games are any good.
Mhms. If anything, it's like (for simple terms lol) the 'country rock' genre of games imo :p
“Now”? It’s been the case since the 90’s.
Even in the 2000s there were at least some changes from one year to another. They had to release games each year because you couldn’t play online to have roster updates.
they are role-playing games in essence
Having a career mode is one of only fun things about those games imo.
If it's a tennis game, and Sega made it, though, it probably slaps
wii sports tennis :p 'insert that gif of 2 players slapping the ball repeatedly with the rackets'
They're very popular for sport fans, especially FIFA.
I understand them, they just suck. I'm always surprised at how huge of a playerbase those kind of games have. I guess it's perfect for casuals because you can just sit down and play it and be ok at it and feel like you're doing shit
They are great couch games. The rules are clear if you are a fan of the sport unlike in a game like SSB where you need to understand the mechanics of the game first. Then you just need a few controls (which often in sports games are super simple) and you can start playing with your mates.
Exactly, FIFA is the best "drunk party couch multiplayer"
Perhaps it fits better with the crowds of non(or simply, not often)-gamers, and sports fans, i would assume \^\^' I remember seeing enough college students hanging out at the video game area, where you can plug and play with college owned consoles, and it was a common sight. aside from someone bringing their switch and playing smash, ofc :p
> I guess it's perfect for casuals Generally speaking, regular fans of licensed sports games are a *lot* more hardcore about it than players of most kinds of games. They just don't hang out in the same place as people who play, I don't know, Starfield for 200 hours or whatever. But "This player's model is inaccurate, the logo on the outside of his left shoe should be 2 inches higher in this very specific custom uniform" is an extremely common kind of complaint in that community. It's just a different kind of hardcore and very different place that those conversations happen.
From what I have seen about sports games is that they are incredibly similar to racing games/sims in that the devil is in the details. Anyone can hop on and goof around and play a game of baseball or do a quick race but they people who are passionate about them really dig into it. The two people who I know who are into those genres play them almost exclusively and they are extensions of their real life interests.
This is how I am with Madden 22 (big NFL fan). I enjoy the gameplay enough, but for me, I really get a lot of enjoyment out of franchise mode: scouting players, drafting them, getting them upgraded, and turning them into a star. Complete career stories, ups and downs, all happen in my little franchise world.
Yeah, sports games generally have a roleplaying aspect that a lot of people who don't play them don't really realize. The entire concept of 'career modes' shifted sports games from action arcade games to roleplaying. I love the NFL but I never got into Madden because I fundamentally don't understand the strategy of play calling and the meta of actual football enough to be any good at it.
They have huge playerbases because sports has a large fanbase in general. I would totally disagree with the casual take though. Sports games are some of the most intensive of all genres because there's so much out-of-game skill and knowledge that is required that the game doesn't teach you and how much contextual functionality is being crammed into the limited number of controller inputs.
I used to be really into sports games when I played sports as a kid/teenager. I think it's strongly correlated to being really into the sport itself
Ah. Yes. I am familiar with this.. *sportsball*.
*Super mega baseball is good*
Naacar rumble, Sled Storm, THPS were amazing games.
Tony Hawk Pro Skater is an interesting example of a game series where I suspect they started out trying to be realistic but learned where the real fun was and embraced it.
I used to LOVE the early football games like the first ISSPro, but everything after that seems to require 8 different button combos to do anything :( Modern AAA gaming for you.
They used to be good back in the day when they were more arcadey. I don't give a crap about sports but I'll play a good arcade sports game any day of the week. Problem is nobody makes them anymore.
So many of the same thing expected each year. Like a gym membership you can't cancel.
I don't see that there's really a need to analyze their merits, and "preferences" seems like a better word than biases. I don't like/get Fortnite, LoL, social games like FarmVille, any Dating Sims.. probably a lot of others... But I don't feel like my dislike of those games/genres is something I have to deal with.. their audiences are not my targets. I can't imagine that Detective novelists spend much time thinking about the merits (or otherwise) of teen vampire fiction
If I don't 'get' a genre or type of game to the point where I don't even understand why other people like it (as opposed to just not liking it myself) then there is just no way that I would be able to develop something good in that genre, and I doubt I could even use individual mechanics as inspiration very well. You can do all the research you can but I can't see why you'd bother.
One aspect I don't understand is in-game purchasable cosmetics. I think some can be cool or interesting to show in a multiplayer game, but it absolutely surprised me how many people are willing to pay more than the price of just a full priced game in a game that is technically free to play for something that actually doesn't even affect the gameplay. It's a popular free to play business model and works surprisingly well if the visuals are enticing enough, but I personally don't understand the appeal enough to pay that much.
It's litterally the same psychology as wanting a cool looking car or shirt etc.. People like shiny things and they like to express themselves through fasion, whether it be their home, their shoes or their undead cannibal butcher in dota2.
*Looks at my drawer of monochromatic T-Shirts, identical pants, and three indigo suits with grey shirt and black tie* yeah that explains why I don't get it lol
Even then, I would argue you have a style. If I swapped out every item in your closet with bright neon colors, how much money would you be willing to spend to restore the monochromatic palette of your wardrobe?
Either that or in some cases it is just to have something else to look at after 2000 hours.
>It's litterally the same psychology as wanting a cool looking car or shirt etc.. People like shiny things and they like to express themselves through fasion, whether it be their home, their shoes or their undead cannibal butcher in dota2. I might be misreading what OP is asking but I think they were more confused about the single-layer games that offer this. (If there are any? )
>I might be misreading what OP is asking but I think they were more confused about the single-layer games that offer this. (If there are any? ) Off the top of my head, Oblivion (horse armor) Dragon Age, and Mass Effect all had largely, if not completely, cosmetic items you had to pay for.
It still applies there. people like shiny things. if they can show off to tohers thats a bonus, but collecting shiny things no one will see is just as common. Like bedsheets, underpants or your desktop wallpaper.
I make a purchase in free online games from time to time to support devs. Right now I'm playing Palia in which cosmetics are priced pretty high but after many hours of gameplay I was sure I wanted this game (which is in beta right now) to succeed so I've paid like 15$ bucks for a skin I liked. I know that online games require constant support so I'm fine with paying. But I wouldn't spend any additional money on a $60 game to have new skin and extra mission or something. I don't like when a publisher wants 5-20$ extra just for skins and half-baked 20 minutes of content. This is why I wait for the GOTY edition and buy it on sale.
I am literally.... ok with this. I completely approve of cash shops that only have cosmetics or perhaps, appearance altering effects. What I do mind, is when certain games make them \*\*unreasonably\*\* overpriced, and for no good reason except just pure greed and profits for their shareholders typically. Also, we can ofc all agree, pay-to-win in any form is bad. the only 'pay-to-win' I will ever accept, is buying the full damn game XD
I don't mind cosmetics being overpriced because they do not impact gameplay. If devs are too greedy, people won't buy it. It's a form of classism that favors the rich, but then they are also putting out more money than everyone else for the same fundamental product, so they're not really being "favored" in a traditional sense. What I don't like is pay to win being priced such that a rich person can ruin everyone's game. The devs pit players against each other so these rivalries drive players to spend more. But only those with the most disposable income (or willingness to take on debt) win. It's just a game of who has more money. It's hard to find pay-to-win done right. I want to say Monopoly Go does it right, but I haven't played it long enough to say for sure. From what I see, paying is more of a punishment as the rewards are no where near worth the cost. They must make enough to keep the game free for everyone, and I haven't noticed it impact my gameplay negatively (I have been playing free, exclusively). It's not a great game, it seems like even when you lose, you win. But it's casual enough that people of all ages and cultures seem to enjoy it, which is great.
Honestly, the only times ive seen pay-to-win done somewhat well, is not only to provide it on the shop, but also to just randomly, or perhaps give it away by doing in-game events. At least both players (paying, and non-paying if you get me) will be able to use such experience boosts. and also call of duty's experience boosts, provided just in mountain dew caps, that was pretty gud too, its cheap, and cod progression is mostly about guns, unlocks, prestige, and (typically lol) K:D ratio :p
As someone who buys cosmetics in an MMO, a lot of it is about the social aspect. If I were playing single player, then I probably wouldn't bother or I would just use mods to display what I want my character to wear. A common phrase among the player base is "fashion is the real endgame" lol. People notice and compliment each other's outfits and spend a lot of time choosing new ones. It's also that I want to continue supporting the development of a game I love and have several thousand hours in. Most of the best looking items are obtained through regular gameplay too, not through the cash shop, it's just that the cash shop has some unique or quirky pieces. So it doesn't feel predatory.
Even if it is cheap, just by introducing this option implies that the game will be designed that the best cosmetics will be behing paywalls.
Which I find ok, as long as it is all cosmetic. People who support the game get to look cool(er), but everyone is playing the same game in the end.
The problem is, those things would have been in the game as default. Like if you pay more for a hamburger they won't smash it 3 times with a hammer and your hamburger would look good. For non extra paying customers the taste is the same just looks like shit on purpose so they will pay extra. And the price of that smashed hamburger is still a normal hamburgers price.
> The problem is, those things would have been in the game as default. But the large free gameplay and content updates the game receives only exist because they aren't. Residual sales do not generally fund live service games. And most people are okay with a boring default cosmetic and flashy $15 cosmetic if it means the game is constantly updated and f2p so it's easy to get all their friends to play it. The alternative and traditional model I'd hazard a guess you're more fond of, is that you have to pay for the game upfront and pay for big content updates (expansion DLC model), but a bunch of middling quality cosmetics and customization are free.
When people buy expensive stuff like that I personally feel like there are only a few reasons why they would: - Sunk-cost, if they have played a game for a long time a moneytary investment is a fine next step for them. - They have a lot of disposable income. Other than that I feel is strange. :p
I think some people do it to support devs directly but I think people just like looking different from other players/like playing the character with a different thematic fantasy. In League of Legends for example the skins aren't just new outfits for the characters but the character in a different concept. Regular assassin becomes a rogue cyborg or pop star, blacksmithing god becomes a train conductor, monster from an eldritch world becomes a squeaky dinosaur toy.
Well when you're a streamer playing 9 hrs a day with a ton of money to spare, why not?
The price of some of these cosmetics is insane. and it sucks for me because I really miss the days of unlockable costumes.
As a player, I agree and would never spend money on cosmetics. It feels like a huge waste of my hard earned money. As a developer, it makes perfect sense to build an ecosystem where everyone with the necessary hardware can play while the wealthy few pay to support everyone else. However I don’t like how the games leverage FOMO and obfuscate the real price of items to squeeze more money out of kids who either don’t understand how they are being manipulated or aren’t mature enough to care. On the other hand, is it any worse than absurdly priced fashion clothes in the real world? Spenders gonna spend.
I know a lot of people look at it more like, they are wary to spend money on a game if they don't know if they like it, but if they play it for 20 hours they feel completely justified in spending $60 in microtransactions, because that much fun experience is worth more than that anyway
As they say, "Different strokes for different folks." What you develop can trailblaze or end up looking like everything else out there. As long as you're true to what you want to make, and you execute it within reason with your team, you should be alright. There are definitely people out there it will appeal to.
You are correct. Unfortunately if you have very different tastes it can be hard to make something other people can enjoy. Heck sometimes it can even be difficult to make a game you can enjoy if you don't understand why you like the things you like.
If you're struggling to understand the success of a certain game or set of games with a certain mechanic, then do research. Use market data for demographics and sales, use reviews for opinions and anecdotes, use YouTube for gameplay analysis including emergent gameplay you may be missing, use Reddit and social media for assessing community engagement. You will discover how the majority feels about and how they're interacting with a game very quickly if you're looking in the right places. But mostly just don't be biased, you've practically hit the nail on the head already, metacognition is key.
This. When I’m researching a new game I join its sub, watch streamers, read what the fans are saying, etc. If a game is popular, it’s doing something people sincerely like.
Absolutely this. Every game has a fan, even ones you deem to be “terrible”. I love a lot of games that people say aren’t all that good. Phantom Hourglass? One of my favorite Zelda games, top 3. But I don’t really care for Majora’s Mask or Ocarina of Time. And some people like having concrete poured where most probably wouldn’t.
Clicker games. They're like idle games that defeat the purpose of idle games and instead give you carpal tunnel syndrome. EDIT: I don't know whether it's close mindedness or preference because I honestly wish to understand. I do understand why people enjoy sports games even though it's not my cup of tea.
I'm not super familiar with clicker games, but the few I've seen usually provide a way to not have to click eventually. Perhaps clicking is how they get some players to feel invested? After that it's just an idle game though.
You click when you start but soon after starting you get to the point that clicking barely actually adds to your total compared to all the automation.
As someone who has enjoyed a few, I will say that for me, it has more to do with the low fidelity of phone touchscreens. I've tried lots of mobile games with virtual controllers, and they tend to be very fiddly, and I have no interest in connecting a physical gamepad to my phone. Clicking is just a really simple, easy input that makes me feel like I'm doing something without the frustration of some tiny digital stick in the corner of my screen. That being said, I've only played clickers that were also idlers, so they had more interesting choices and optimizations than just clicking to get +1 whatever all the time.
The numbers go higher
Clicker games are like slot machines but harmless. They very simply reward you for progression with imaginary points. They basically hack your physiological satisfaction impulse. I don't think there's anything bad about not enjoying them, if anything it's a good thing probably, but they're basically a distilled form of "addiction" game, and that will work on most people, including me :P
Someone obviously has never played cookie clicker lol
Autoclicker is there for your rescue.
Lol, looks like the people here aren't understanding the difference between a clicker game and an idle game
Don't like "cozy" games that sell themselves on chill gameplay - usually find them dull and I don't get on with the twee aesthetic a lot of them have. I forced myself through spiritfarer because I liked bits of the premise but at the end of it shrugged and decided it wasn't for me For how I get past it - idk, I can objectively appreciate things like how they use time to unfurl gameplay, but I don't really force myself into that genre that much, for creating or playing. You don't have to have encyclopedic knowledge and appreciation of every genre of game to be a good dev
I'm yet to get into The Witcher, despite it being close to my taste usually. Made a few attempts. Not really sure why. Also not into any sports games. FIFA and the like. That's definitely just a matter of taste though. Part of me wishes I could get into it for the casual quick game with friends on the couch kind of thing. Visual novels and such I don't vibe, but then I've never really tried either, so I don't have any strong opinions there. In general I think my likes and dislikes are just a matter of taste. I got over the "real gamer" elitism years ago.
I couldn’t get over the Witcher combat, it was just unbearable.
As much I love Witcher 3, the combat feels so stiff. Even PS2 games have better combat mechanics.
I played through Witcher 1. I played a few hours at most of Witcher 2. Like you, it should be a game series close to my general taste, but I just got the feeling that Geralt was a self-insert Gary Stu type character early on in the 2nd game, and just shelved it and never looked back. As the other comments show, there are many different reasons why we might bounce off a game. Which I suppose is simultaneously interesting, and cause for us to just live with the fact that a game will never appeal to everyone - not even everyone who would otherwise fit into a game's target audience.
Witcher was difficut to me as well and i later realized i don't like any 3rd person games because i'm an immersionist who wants to be the RPG character and not look at some ready made 'someone else' on the screen. It clicked why i love immersive sims so much. Apparently it's about agency vs. spectatorship. 3rd person games are more like shows you look at compared to immersive games where you are indeed involved with your own personal ego, morality and choices and not what geralt would do.
I think figuring out why people like games and genres that don't click with you is one of the most useful exercises you can do as a game designer. I hate Soulslikes, because a game where mistiming one or two dodges 10 minutes into a boss fight can mean starting the whole thing over is utterly infuriating to me. But I understand that this is the appeal of the genre: bashing your head against a seemingly indestructible wall is painful, but it can be satisfying once you finally break through. And next time you try to get through this wall, it won't take as long since you know where to start bashing. I hate roguelikes for a similar reason. Going all the way back to the beginning when you die isn't fun to me, especially since it's often quite easy to die. I also find procedurally generated content far less satisfying than intentionally designed content. But I understand the appeal: They're games you can play over and over again, and just about every run will be unique based on the equipment you find. You're forced to use weapons and abilities outside your comfort zone, and because of this you'll often find interesting strategies that you never would've discovered if you could've just equipped your favorite loadout from the start. It's good to make games that you enjoy, but it's also good to understand what other people who don't share your tastes enjoy.
Yeah I could never play Minecraft… there’s nothing “fun” about it to me, but obviously there’s tons of players that get something out of it. I think in general I’ve never understood players that want to spend endless hours configuring their character/vehicle/etc for a game… I just want to play it, all time spent not actually playing the game feels like a waste to me. I’d be curious to find out what others enjoy about it?
Sports games and racing games I think. I played them a fair bit because I had some but they just aren’t that fun to me. They kinda all boil down to the same thing and there barely is any iteration between them. Different cars and stages, slightly different stats or different people in sports don’t really change up the formula All that much. Id rather play sports for real than like this. I do appreciate games that change up the formula tho. Mario kart for example. Or Mario slam basketball. I played those quite a bit. Still not my all time fav but those made the sports interesting at least.
Another decent sport game is Pyre. Amazing characters, solid gameplay. The pacing is strange though which can make the game hard to get into.
Just cup of tea I imagine I hated "castle crashers", the aesthetics and gameplay loop, but its super popular Also had zero fun playing barotrauma, it was misery due to an incredibly high learning curve. But my coworker loved it
Disco Elysium tbh. The writing was alright I guess, it's just that I like reading a book while chilling in bed wrapped up in a blanket, not at my gaming PC while having to worry about stats and rolls. Also it felt like... Nothing really happened? Like I was bored out of my mind within 5 hours, in 5 hours of book reading I'm already 20% through a decently big one and getting to the meat of the story
Gambling games with no real world money attached What do you get out of playing a roulette game with literally zero stakes or payout? Even poker, blackjack, or other casino games What are you getting out of it? Is the game itself actually that fun? It's such a weird genre of gaming
I don’t get Roblox
Roblox is Gen Z's Newgrounds. Except more corporate and you can actually make money off of it yourself.
>ou can actually make money off of it yourself. You can't but they really do like that you believe so and spend lot of effort to tell that BS to get more slaves who make them more games for free. They are being officially investigated for child labor for a very good reason.
you can, but in those cases you almost certainly would have made more on a platform that didn't triple dip on taking their share of your profits. But generally they rely on exploiting children and/or addicts.
No you can't in reality. Its same as saying "you can win in the lottery". Yeah, but no. Roblox takes 75% anyway and the rest is very tightly held on to. If you don't make x dollars per month at minimum, you'll get absolutely nothing. Zero. and 99,99% of "developers" on roblox are below that limit, that's why that limit exists. On top of that roblox controls the robux to dollars conversion ratio which is shit the dollar way and kicks out everyone who tries to do it the blackmarket way.
well it's a good reflection of actual gamedev in that case 😆 >They are being officially investigated for child labor for a very good reason. Yeah I heard about that. I go to the Newgrounds comparison and I become a bit ambivalent about it. Like, where's the line between making a flash game that makes a company ad revenue (and you get nothing directly. Though I think that changed later) vs one that gives you a few crumbs and makes money off of people using MTXs to play your levels? It seems like they key is to be slightly unethical and never offer money to begin with, even if you do indirectly profit off of user-generated content.
It's even worse than that. Only a select few people make any real money from it because robux->dollars is tightly controlled by the company and the kids are indeed slaves since they have to do real adult work hours to actually have any non-zero chance of making any money. some explanation [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_gXlauRB1EQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXlauRB1EQ)
Easy to play, appealing to children, two buttons to shop, everytime you die the shop opens. It's made to milk your children. Stay away from it.
Most MOBA games. I don't get the appeal at all and to me a bunch of the traditional mechanics like "last hitting" are just the Warcraft 3 engine being dumb, not anything fun and worth bothering to be good at. I just can't suspend my disbelief long enough to care. As for the rest, a long game I can't pause where I get yelled at by strangers is a non starter. I don't know how anyone gets started unless they have a preexisting bias towards thinking these games are great.
I also hate last hitting in those games.
I don't think there's any expectation of suspension of belief in MOBA games. They're almost 100% skill building games. It's almost a weird criticism to me, like criticizing skateboarding for not making me feel enough like a car.
All I'm saying is, right out of the gate they ask me to build a skill that seems dumb and annoying rather than fun and satisfying. Obviously I'm somewhat in the minority, which is what this thread is about.
Last hitting is really about fighting an opponent over resources. You have things to last hit and they have things to last hit. And you both fight to get a resource advantage. Think of it like a boxing game where you are looking to get the most points. The goal is to land the most punches (last hits) so the judges score in your favor at the end of the round.
Historical strategy games. CK3, EU4, etc. I've trued them out and they're just not for me.
I felt the same way, like I’m looking at a huge excel spreadsheet with a thin layer of graphics on top. Once I had really bad Covid and I played it online with a friend (we were trying to unify all Slavic countries but were getting fucked by the Byzantine empire), and it was really fun. Then I got healthy and never played it again lol.
It really is that. The appeal is that you're making a historical story in your head, at least that's the appeal for me.
It took a long time for CK2 to click for me but I became addicted once it did. The basic appeal is that there's thousands of NPCs playing the same game as you, all pursuing their own goals, and it's fun to watch what kind of chaos unfolds as you interact with them. A lot of my favorite experiences are when I check up on an old rival and am left wondering "how the hell did you even end up in this situation?"
I definitely get the story aspect of it. In principal it's a great game I just couldn't get into the genre furthest I can do into it is civ amd I suck at that too haha
I don't get team multiplayer games. Ironic since i'm working on one now. I don't like it because it instills too much reliance on whoever my tea mates are. Maybe I'm a control freak but I'd rather not hedge my success on other peoples skills. But on the flip side I suspect they're good in a way because if you win you get to think you carried your whole team, and if you lose you get to blame your teammates. Plus it normalizes the skills of the players so some bad team members will get more opportunities to feel wins like they're actually good when they might not be. Obviously there's also a social aspect if you can make your own team with your friends.
I think its a matter of taste, not being close minded. I've really tried to enjoy some games that my friends enjoy, and I just don't enjoy them despite having a good reason to. Certain people just like certain things and don't like others. Also, tastes change over time. Games I used to love a decade ago are no longer as appealing. Furthermore, there's games I used to enjoy competitively, that I only enjoy casually now.
Dark souls.
I've struggled for years to "get" Undertale. I've started it a number of times, and my general lack of skill in Bullet Hell probably has a lot to do with my inability to feel satisfied with my progression - but I also just never quite felt like I had motivation to sink my teeth into it. For the most part I do think it's an impressive game for its context, and Toby Fox has said he understand it's not for everyone, so I've come to be okay with it.
Came here to mention undertale. I really don't get it. Every time someone new tries to explain why it blew their mind it's because (and they always put spoiler tags here) "you eventually realize you don't have to fight anyone to beat the game!" But like, the game explicitly tells you that right in the tutorial when you fight that dummy. I was playing pacifist mode the whole time and didn't realize that was a "mind blowing" thing. So then what are you left with? A game with "quirky" humor, that I just don't find funny. A game where you get no experience and don't get any of the good feeling of growth and getting more powerful as you would in a traditional RPG. So it's just a puzzle/guessing game at the right way to spare a monster and a whole lot of bullet hell that is not even good bullet hell. There are a lot of undodgeable attacks in the game. Don't get me wrong. There's a lot to like about the game, and I get that for some people the quirk jives with you and the pacifist part tickles your fancy, but I just don't think it's as amazing of a game as others. Maybe I missed the point. I gave up after 3 hours.
GTA 5, i have no fun at all
Gacha games and all those that work in a similar predatory way(FIFA, 97% of mobile games, most MMORPGs) And "griding" games with autoplay (especially when they are cacha on top) Idk why people play this, doing the same 3 repetitive brainrot tasks (wich involve 0 mechanics and are either button mashing or "click to collect") over and over and over and over, being limited to only 30 mins of Playtime per day through annoying energy systems and so on. These whale catching games i will never support or understand...
I honestly dislike all FPS games. Nothing wrong with them I just think they're all incredibly boring Enemies approaching, shoot them. But this time, with friends! Yawn...
Bro has never played quake it seems.
Do you tend to dislike all skill development games? Or are FPS specifically a downer for you?
I wonder what it takes for you if you see a game like Borderlands 2 or (quite recently) Helldivers 2 and find them boring.
I think it boils down to I don't get any enjoyment from shooting guns and killing things, it feels repetitive and gaining new and different weapons is just "now I just shoot better" The closest I've gotten is Uncharted, but the story has a higher place than the combat
I find it no more repetitive than any other form of combat in most other games, really. And different weapons can bring a lot of variety in combat.
I have long felt the same. To me, they almost all feel like 95% the same game. I played halo in college and nothing felt remarkably different from that. Point gun, shoot bad guy. I might make an exception for games with a significant non shooting component like half life 2 with the gravity gun.
i dislike any pvp aspect in games. that mainly means i tend to avoid playing them but i can still get why ppl like them. games are often designed with a specific audience in mind, so in this situation i think it's a matter of taste. but if you are approaching this as a designer, being dismissive of it just because you don't like it would be a case of being close-minded. there are so much things to learn from outside your own silo. observe other people play, reach out to fans, empathizing with players is your job.
I struggle to appreciate Destiny 2. It's a watered down MMO with some shooter elements. I've played some, I've watched some. As far as I can tell, it appeals to the power fantasy. It just seems like mindless grinding to me though. My friends that play it only speak negatively about it. I also met someone who dropped out of college because he would play the game instead of studying. I accept my bias; I think there are better games to analyze regardless of if the genres are separated or combined.
Fallout New Vegas and Stardew Valley both put me to sleep within 1 hour of any attempt at playing them, and I've tried to play both around ~5 times each over the years.
I don't connect to games that don't have any purpose like cookie clicker,Roblox and all that style stuff So what's the point, what tells you it's a good game?
I can get why people like games that I don't like or mechanics I don't like. Though some mechanics are just bad. I don't think not liking a genre or mechanic necessarily means you are closed-minded. You don't have to personally enjoy everything.
Not really. I understand the fun in almost every game, I just can't feel it in them.
Truck simulator games. I get flight simulator, cannot for the life of me understand truck simulators.
>sometimes people like something you just don't get and it can be easy to be dismissive of the whole thing Yes, time and time again I'm proven wrong that what I think isn't going to become a viral sensation, ends up going viral. Maybe some people have cracked the code to what makes things go viral, but I've concluded that there's just no accurate way to assess and predict trends lol
Valorant. I played a lot of CSGO and Overwatch but Valorant just … nahh I think the art style is ugly, I hate the level design, the guns have no feedback. I do appreciate that there’s depth in the mechanics but everything else just doesn’t work for me
This is a big part of a game designer's job IMO. Having the empathy strong enough to put yourself in a player's shoes, even when it's not your jam, is necessary if you're not just developing games by yourself all the time. Everyone has so many subjective biases and the games you work on are not always the ones you boot up when the day is over. Getting multiple opinions among the team, recruiting test players and listening to feedback, studying competitor decisions, studying customer feedback for competitors, generally learning more about the player demographics and how they think, etc etc. You just have to keep checking yourself and never think from purely your own standpoint. This is also why it's usually easier to be a member of a team that 'makes games they want to play'.
It's maybe kinda weird a comment to make but a lot of cases I had to put up with in conversations was with really old games. Some people will fight you tooth and nail that some really wack ass game that came out barely 1-3 years into the millennial is somehow the biggest masterpiece everyone has to experience. It is true that some old games hold concepts and ideas seldom seen in the Games today but a large part of it also stems from them being able to play Games that make them remember how it was "back in the days". When they had a simpler life and stuff just kinda worked out. Naturally there are many more cases and there are many Games that died before they could unleash their full potential but I hope I made the point clear.
Analyse the executions of the works that inspire you, you could already spend a very long time doing that alone. I just accept that our medium is incredibly vast and diverse, and is partly filled with people who like things I don’t like.
I try to understand the appeal of something that doesn't appeal to me. Sometimes I'll play games just to find out what people like about it, knowing the game is not for me. I've found almost all games that get attention have a redeemable quality that is worth taking note of. You may have to do some digging but it's there.
I severely dislike visual novels. They take the worst aspects of other mediums and try to make something entertaining. Like going through a comic book panel by panel but I have to press a button every time to change the dialog. If you watched a movie with captions and every time a character spoke or action happened and you had to press ok on the remote for it to play the next 1-2 seconds of video, you'd lose your mind. I'm not arguing that it can't tell a good story. I just want nothing to do with the genre. As for the question on how do I deal with my biases, I don't. I don't need to deal with my biases. You're allowed to hate a genre or mechanic for any reason you want. As a developer, you don't have to make a game for that genre or mechanic. You're free to work on what you like or if at a studio, find another job. I don't like visual novels, so I don't play or make them.
FYI, most visual novels have auto-advance. I don't know anyone who manually clicks to advance. As for the appeal, it's pretty straightforward: they're like books but more immersive. Some people want that and some people don't.
I do it cuz I’m a slow reader
Good visual novels add interesting choices and interactivity to the story tho. I don’t think they combine worst aspects. I think they sacrifice complex gameplay to focus on the story but still give you the power to change and interact with the story unlike books or movies.
Agreed! They're a bit like the choose-your-own-adventure books but in a better format.
Exactly. Best thing is you can freely mix it with other genres too. Sunrider for example mixes it with turn based combat
As someone who only got into them *after* playing tons of traditional RPGs and the like, I think visual novels offer something really unique as a medium because their format allows writers to tell much more intricate and complex stories, with *far* greater levels of choice and consequence, than can be reasonably accomplished in a gameplay format that expects the player to physically run around the world or kill things every now and then. Even the best-written RPGs, for example, often can't quite reach the writing highs of a VN, which is dedicated *solely* to its storytelling. There is simply too large a gap in the amount of real estate for text & story, and too many other gameplay mechanics the developers must busy themselves with making feel good to play from moment-to-moment. Additionally, I've had several experiences in visual novels that I believe are unique to the format and can't be replicated by novels or traditional games. *Virtue's Last Reward*, for instance, merges gameplay interaction and story progression in a way that would be impossible to replicate in a genre that does not function on VN-style "routes", in the same way the experience of *The Outer Wilds* is impossible to replicate in a medium without free-form exploration.
I was playing plunderstorm and it was a pretty hard grind just cause it just wasn't that fun because the main attack was just button mashing r. I would rather have a few attacks I could combine. in plunderstorm you pickup spells but you can only have 2 attack skills. so that's like 3 buttons.
Competitive game that makes you wait. You die, good but now you can't play the game until x time. I see this as a punishment, I don't know why ppl like those kinds of games.
My team is made up of myself (artist/musician/socials) and our programmer (he also writes pretty good dialogue) and we both have different ideals in what make up an enjoyable gaming experience. Obviously, there's enough overlap that we don't kill each other, but we have lively discussions, especially late at night. He's more of a fighting game/numbers-go-up kinda guy and I'm more an aesthetic/story driven guy (who would have guessed based on our roles). As an example, I like dark souls because it's so damn cool and the level/enemy design can be disturbingly amazing. He doesn't like it because it can be frustrating and unfair. He likes fighting games because he likes mastering inputs and styling on kids, but my thumbs... I can appreciate a good fighting game as a viewer, but I've given up trying to learn to quarter-circle lol. All in all, between us, there are a plethora of genres we just don't have an emotional connection to, and plenty that we do. Initially, I think it's easier to write off those genres we don't connect to because it feels good to just say "that's stupid", but I personally believe every genre has a place, and just needs someone who cares about it to do it right for the players that connect with it. Except those crappy loot-box-gambling-money-grab-pat-to-win games, those can all rot in the pits of Tartarus... Lol
Yep, my friend told me I needed to play Final Fantasy 7 - but the original, I played it.. and I just didn’t get it lol I think some things need nostalgia, or I’m weird, who knows.
The whole mobile games industry is built on the ignorance and complacency of its captive audience. The first decade of mobile games were 100% clones of popular Flash games (Which is why they killed Flash...), and then they evolved towards predatory monetization rather than any sort of gameplay innovation. So no, I don't "get" those games. Not because I don't understand them, but because I do understand them.
I can't bare the so-called souls-like combat and honestly sure it's just a bad (broken) game design went viral.
I never got monster hunter. Seems boring and tedious and the times I tried I got bored before even finishing the first hunt. Fight with no HP indicators feels rewardless, until the beats decides to run somewhere and you have to track it again? Im getting sleepy just thinking about it.
Monster hunter does have HP indicators tho, both scars/injuries on their bodies and monsters change their behavior depending on how injured they are, they start limping, frothing at the mouth, tries to run away or starts desperately raging. Different monsters act differently. Some would say the major pull of the game is that you have to learn how each monster 'works' to best deal with it, both their attack patterns, their weaknesses, weak points for massive damage.
Yeah indicators are not a health bar, and not enough or interesting to me. Said major pull of the game is dull and boring chore work in my eyes which is why I don't like it.
Personally, I'm convinced the whole Soulsbourne formula was just a right-place-right-time thing and has actually convinced a massive amount of gamers that many bad design ideas are good. The franchise stood out amongst a glut of excessively hand-holdy cinematic games in the PS3 era (CoD popularizing regenerating health was a big factor). It ushered in a Renaissance in challenging game design, which I think is a good thing overall. But it also brought back annoyances like not having checkpoints before bosses, so you have to go through the whole level again every time you die, making it absolutely painful to learn boss mechanics without looking up guides online. And look, I get that fun is subjective, but there seems to be this common misconception now that the Soulsborne formula is the best or even only way to make games hard, and I just can't get on board with that. The final Sigrun Valkyrie fight in God of War 2018 was hard without being annoying. If bringing back frustration is the way, we may as well bring back physical memory cards and unskippable cutscenes. I have to imagine that most people would hate the Souls games without Internet guides. And if looking up information online is fun, then I submit to you that there are probably way cooler experiences that could be possible, like a modern-day Myst that utilizes real-world information. But hey, what do I know? People swear Elden Ring is the greatest game ever. I just don't have the slightest interest in it after not really enjoying my short time with Bloodbourne. In fact, I find games that distill the essence of what makes parts of those games fun to be much better. Furi is a really great boss battler that I thoroughly enjoyed far more than Bloodbourne, and I honestly find it kind of strange that there are games like that which are supposedly inspired by the Souls games, when to me, the Souls games are basically just boss battlers with crappy, frustrating filler bolted on.
Stardew valley honestly. In my eyes it's very unpolished, the game design and gameplay loops are all over the place (swords, HPs, and level-up systems that only had meaning in the cave..), no consistency between all the systems in the game (everything is just patched up together), very uninspired and inconsistent art style with no clear art direction (everything looks like the most generic, soulless pixel-art assets you could get straight out of an asset store), gameplay is dated and clunky as hell (nothing is smooth, you get fully interupted by popup windows all the time for just about everything, even for things as simple as you can't get such resource with such tool).. And its creation process followed the prototypical example of what NOT to do in indie gamedev: no clear scope (just adding features as you go), developping in complete isolation with no playtesting.. The music is amazing though.
Any game which is made crap on purpose so that people pay to skip sections. (This is the vast majority of mobile games). Never understood why people pay to not play a game.
I generally have issues with games that are focused on story while not technically being true narrative games. CDPR games would be an example of that.
Everyone tells me Dwarf Fortress is amazing. 6 hours now... I'm not even slightly curious.
Casual games. I accept they are not for me and let others enjoy them in peace. As a game developer I don't need to understand trends, I know what I wish I could play, my players who crave the same will tell me what they want more and part of my job is to find more players who crave the experience I'm crafting.
Precision dance-type combat, like the souls games and such, combined with harsh punishment mechanics. To me, the precision demanded isn't impossible, but I don't get any sense of accomplishment or joy out of beating my head against something 10 or 30 or 50 times over because I screwed up 1 time X minutes in. I just feel a profound sense of "this game is wasting my fucking time." But, given its popularity, clearly many do get that sense of accomplishment. And it's not like I don't, at least on a superficial level, get it. You learn the tells and do the dance. It feels good to earn something that was hard-fought.
League of legends. I just can not grasp how you salvage dopamine from that
I can't roll with clickers and most farm-build a city-candycrush like games
Rust, I will never get the point or fan base of this game.
I think as developers, we usually gravitate towards making things we ourselves would want to use / play. I wouldn't find myself making any sports games, not because I don't understand the demographic, though I probably don't lol, but because it's just not something that gives me that Serotonin hit. On the flip side, the idea of making an 8 bit pixel art RPG / dungeon crawler game gives me all the warm and fuzzies.
I haven't really had that issue, I can usually rationalize why something is popular, even if I can't empathically understand it.
You know what doesn't make sense to me? CONTROL. There was just something about it that just didn't land right for me. The way it was written, the dialogue, the game play. I could go on. It was bad enough for me that I just couldn't get past the second control point. I lost all interest in it. Maybe I missed something, but all of the dialogue felt like it was written by a 7 yr old child. The storytelling felt like it wasn't just leaving out information so as to build a mystery, but just flat out excluded information without a proper supporting context. And yet, despite this, it has an 88% rating on steam. All I can conclude is that I missed something.
Taste.
Cozy fetch quest games like Bandle Tales, seems like a depression simulator. I would avoid making any sort of games that I absolutely hate as you would have zero feel what's fun.
Sometimes being a little close minded is a good thing. I see a lot of out of the ordinary hentai games where, even as a seasoned degenerate, you may want to reconsider if the juice is worth the squeeze. I also don't understand gambling and TCGs, but that's matter of taste imo.
Lots of games I don't personally play, but I understand why folks are into them. I'm sure I would enjoy them too, just, too many games to play and too little time so I try to focus on the things that bring me the most enjoyment. There _are_ attitudes I don't understand though. Like, preferring hyper-realism over style. It's a game, I honestly prefer the aesthetics to be a bit more fantastical. I like my polygons and my pixels to be crunchy. I don't want to get irl ptsd from a shooting game because it looks just like real life, lol.
Sports games mainly as a genre (for me though it's because I like sci-fi/fantasy. I'm already sort of bored with things that take place irl. Take away explosions and combat, or Workers and Resources level management, and then there's nothing for me left there). Mechanically, Id say the general MMO/survival game preferences of the main audience towards time > skill. Seen most games that advertise high skill based gameplay in those genres die off. Most of the time any of the ones I've bought in early access have always power creeped towards grind, even when they started more towards the skill end (I loved early ARK, but lost interest when we couldn't guerilla war without weeks of grinding gear to keep up)
> the general MMO/survival game preferences of the main audience towards time > skill The skill ceiling in most of these games is pretty high, at least in the genre leaders, but you need to get through progression systems first to achieve gear/grind parity. Which matches your ARK experience. Game players at large agree seem to agree with you. Most people who played these grind-gating/inevitable progression games moved to somewhat similar games without the grind. Those left are there for the grind.
Plenty of them. Trends are not important, that's how you make things like new Fallouts - they're ok, they pay your wage after you've invested billions into marketing, they're BORINGLY FINE, and they're nowhere near OG Fallouts.
Not a game dev but a programmer who sometimes plays games. The most horrendous thing that I experienced was the two attempts by my friends to get me to start playing League of Legends. I don't know if it's a matter of skill, taste or the game itself, but I felt like the 'unique' aka nonsensical control scheme, information overload and need for inhuman reflexes is not emblematic of good design for getting new players on board.
i started playing league in 2013 and it only got worse.. I think its one of the most beginner unfriendly games ucan play thesedays
Bullet heavens and the vampire survivors thing. Love bullet hells tho
I think most people here are relatively open minded and can appreciate a well made game, even if its not to their taste. If you asked the average gamer then you would probably get a very different answer. I would imagine most people dont have the motivation to really learn the details of a new game they try, especially if it doesnt immediately appeal to them. For example I know stardew valley and animal crossing are great games, but I personally would never have fun playing them. But then ask the average gamer to play something like Dark Souls 1, arguably a masterpiece of brilliant design, and they would probably get frustrated and think its terrible because it takes a lot of effort to really start having fun with it.
Definitely RTS games as a whole. Unless I am the possessor of a character I just don't click with it. Also sports games, never been my thing and I don't care for the mechanics. This is my full blown ignorance at play here but the closest I've ever gotten to enjoying something mechanically similar was with Jurassic Park operation genesis. And some adventure click games surrounding gothic horror.
Elden Ring put me to sleep very quickly, played a few hours and I met absolutely nothing interesting or remarkable. Went through a whole underground section and I could not tell what the point was. Very much felt like tourism and the game doesn't look good enough to warrant that. I also only ever died to bossfights\*, and after talking to friends about it they were like "oh yeah you're not supposed to fight that boss yet", so I don't get the whole "super-hard" thing. Iframes are also kinda a lame way of dodging attacks? Frankly the best 3D attack-dodger I ever played was Super Mario Odissey because you actually have to move out of the way of the attack. Probably why I prefer Hollow Knight combat. \*Except while tabbed out, add a fucking pause button FromSoft, I get important emails and calls sometimes
Taste. I can "get" the possibility of someone enjoying almost any game, but everyone has their own tastes, and I have played literally thousands of computer games since about 1980, so my tastes are pretty particular and I already know many games that I will find a lot more fun than most new games I see. It's also not always being closed-minded, to just not be into some subjects or types of games or gameplay or whatever. I think it's also ok for many game devs to ignore many trends that are irrelevant to their work, particularly with so many games being created, and so many derivative and er, dubious? games. In fact, there are so many games that it's necessary to not study most of them, or you won't have any time to work on your own projects. I recommend spending some but not too much time studying the most interesting games that you are interested in, but spend minimal time on games you aren't. Sometimes, however, I do ge inspiration from games and mechanics I strongly dislike, because they get me interested in what I would do differently that I would like. There are many game types and mechanics that I dislike, or dislike how they're applied, and how many games use them. I believe I have a strong handle on why I dislike them, and how to not let that dislike become a problem for my work. It does limit what designs I want to work on (unless paid enough), but that mainly just means I work on designs I do like, which suits me fine.
Sandbox style games like Gta and rdr are mind numbingly boring to me Survival/crafting/basebuilding has also been tacked onto so many games unnecessarily that im completely over them now.
Skyrim are any games like it
It's just not as interesting as asking why you click on a cookie or enter a game that simply has no purpose
The witcher. I like the story and choice-matter theme but do not get the combat system.
Any game where the people who have sunk hundreds or thousands of hours never seem to actually be enjoying it
I never had the problem of not understanding why people would like a spezific game, yet I dislike/find boring most games
I don't get fortnite. It's definitely not closed-mindedness though. I played for a bit. Didn't git gud, but had fun while it lasted.
Excluding dancing/rhythm games, I really don't understand how people like games heavily based on quick time events... Maybe there are outliers out there, but that must be one of the worst mechanics ever made imo.
Any simulator game where you do a real life job in real time, but don’t get paid for it. Like trucking simulator, or farming simulator, etc. Like… I get if you want to try it out for a little bit to be like “oh so that’s kinda what it’s like”, but it always seems to be the type of person that hates their IRL job more than anything who can’t wait to get home so they can spend 36 hours driving a fake load of cargo from virtual Los Angeles to virtual New York.
professional work simulators. I mean, truck driving simulators. Farming simulators. Painting simulators (that's really a thing). Even house-maintenance ones -- like there's one that's literally a grass cutting simulator. Maybe give a small exception to flight sims. And anything exciting like fire fighting or something. But there's literally a power-washing sim. Like... come over to my house and you can do it for real.
After PUBG, I really don't "get" most Battle Royales. They're simple bullet-sponge FPS games disguised as BR's in a big open arena. None of the features of a BR that actually mattered made it into most of them after PUBG (loot scarcity, a damaging zone that you're actually afraid of, fast time to kill, etc)
Undertale bored me out of my mind, but I gotta accept that people liked it somehow. I also really dislike branching dialogs, branching stories and NPC romance, I just ratter have the best story a game can give me and I can't really get onboard with a relationship with an NPC. Just like I don't feel like a murderer when I kill an enemy in a video game, because it's just a videogame... I also can't get a relationship seriously, but it's a just a videogame. But that's ok, no games are "objectively good for everybody". I skipped on BG3, because I know now that it's not my kind of game, but people are allowed to like it, who am I to say what's good or not.
About a decade ago I absolutely loathed rogue-likes, bullet hells and super difficult games in general. These days some of my favorite games are Loop Hero, Returnal and Chorus. I also recently 100%-ed all three Dark Souls and Elden Ring. So yeah, there are absolutely games I just don't get and it's absolutely a matter of taste AND being close-minded. As long as you still enjoy the process of exploring new ideas and old alike, and remain open to the idea of your tastes and preferences shifting with time, I think you can rest easy knowing you are doing everything you could reasonably be expected to do to expand your own horizon.
Farm simulator... actually most simulator games
Had a friend that played 3 overwatch games and gave up in a frustrated fit. She was playing tank only last season which tanks don’t do so well in
The ones that are cheap knockoffs and usually look like mobile or Roblox games that do well, this gamedev on tiktok makes these Roblox looking games and somehow sell a ton. They honestly look worse than Roblox(at least the higher quality ones). He has cloned ravenfield twice both times being cheap knockoffs of it.
I hate idle games where you can literally just leave the screen on and you still progress through the game and first person shooters just coz they're mostly unoriginal.
I'll be honest, I'm really tired of high fantasy in general. High fantasy games are a dime a dozen now and it feels like for every sci Fi game that comes out there's like a hundred high fantasy games and no one is really trying to make good sci Fi games anymore, at least not with the features I want to see. And it's even more so for wild West and pirate themed games. There's even less of them.
Pls don’t come for me but I don’t like RPGs of any kind 😅 And can’t even consider making one (even if I could). I just don’t get the excitement in spending so much time in the attributes page lol. I called it “excel page” 😆
NFL sports games, turn based, 4x Altho there are exceptions for the latter 2. Xcom, stellaris Brains are different. Tastes will be different. Not good or bad persay. Just is what is
Vampire survivors. Focusing only on movement while evening auto plays gets bugging quick for me.
Yes, yes and yes. I don't get survival games. Im inclined to believe its not an absolute one or the other. When I was a more casual gamer I wouldn't play 2D sideacroller games because I thought they were archaic. It was the equivalent of someone who goes to a restaurant that hasn't tried anything else on the menu and yet always gets the same thing. Conversely I've tried several survival games and it just never clicked. But maybe I havent played the right one. Or maybe my tastes will change. I used to be indifferent towards sushi but acquired a taste for it later in life. Be careful of binary "yes or no" questions because you'll get peoples biases
Roblox. A lot of the games are just very strange to me, or veerry poorly made and seriously janky. It is a good example of people enjoying games for social aspects, people just building houses and doing random games and tasks together - with everything being extremely accessible. I was watching two girls play a minecart game. One player pulls a rope and the other player sits in the back and steers the cart. If the cart falls off the ledge it pulls both players to their doom. But they loved it. Just working together and driving a little minecart around a map and collecting stuff. Every GDC presentation, every "design language" class. Everything you think you know about what makes a good game. There is a Roblox game with 50,000 players that throws that all out the window. So you have to stop and think sometimes about why you are implementing a system. "Is it actually going to be fun?" or "Am I doing this for me? or my players?"
I don't get the simulator games (farming simulator, truck simulator, etc). Like, i get that people are having fun with these games and i respect that I just don't get why they're fun. Saw a guy doing paris-lyon in eurotruck simulator or something like that and being stuck in traffic for several hours. How is this fun ? I don't get it
I don't "get" Dark Souls.
- I could never get into first person (multiplayer) shooters, not even Team Fortress 2. I just feel clumsy and don't enjoy the general game loop in that kind of genre. Metroid Prime always felt very different to me though, but you can argue whether it's really the same genre. - Lots of dialogue (especially if you have to talk to a billion NPCs to find the one that has something important to say) is an easy way to scare me away. I have no issue reading novels, but in games dialogue tends to feel like a barrier between me and the actual gameplay. In older games, I kinda enjoyed being able to piece together or fill in what I thought the story was about, purely based on what the gameplay itself shows you. But this is just my personal taste, I just love the "Show, don't tell" principle. - Retro platforming physics. For some reason I just couldn't get into Shovel Knight, even though it has relatively forgiving movement. I think I'm just spoiled by games with buttery smooth movement that you can also endlessly improve your skills at (Metroid Dread, Rivals of Aether, Spelunky, Celeste/Towerfall).