BioWare On Tracking Player Feedback

simoniker writes "BioWare's QA director Phillip DeRosa has written a piece called 'Tracking Player Feedback To Improve Game Design' over at Gamasutra, which deals with how game developers can use statistics, even before a game is released, to improve gameplay. DeRosa "...explains how the Mass Effect creator has set up and executed code-based monitoring of key metrics to test, analyze, and refine its projects through playtesting." Is this approach sensible, or could it be more like movie producers 'pandering' to test audiences?"

Comments

No, because games are made FOR players.

[EWAdams]

Unlike movies, in which taking into account the opinions of test audiences is thought of as compromising artistic vision, video games are made for players to play interactively. It's not just their money that matters, it's their ability to play and have a good time. The best game designer in the world doesn't always get it right. Playtesting is not just done for marketing reasons; it's absolutely imperative if you want to make sure the game is as good as it can be.

Re:No, because games are made FOR players.

[clem]

It's worse than you think. Art isn't art.

Re:No, because games are made FOR players.

[blahplusplus]

"Playtesting is not just done for marketing reasons; it's absolutely imperative if you want to make sure the game is as good as it can be."

I would make the argument that actually games are NOT truly targetted FOR *players*, if we are speaking about advancing the art of game design and gameplay. Tonnes of mediocre games rake in a lot of money for many other reasons.

I'd say lots of playtesting now-a-days is geared towards dumbing down and making games easier, less interactive, more passive and more mediocre. One only has to look at modern MMO's and console RPG's to compare the basic battle mechanics in those games with a game like God of War or other RPG's whose battle systems have real-time or more interactive elements.

I've been gaming for a long time and games have been steadily declining towards rigidity (rigid by the books game mechanics with minor tweaks) or mediocrity where game mechanics are thrown out or dumbed down entirely for making it easier to insert eye candy or to make it so easy to "play" all a drooling moron would have to do would be to babysit the robotic avatar.

Screw 'em

[JamesRose]

Sorry, but a little less bioware player tracking, and EA Games corporate restructuring. Take us back to the days when Bullfrog was making kickass games and stuff.

Isn't it weird when something can be so far from its roots even when its so new.

Re:All new media pander

[nuzak]

Music's been around for a little while. You telling me it doesn't pander?

Hell, commercial art sluts like Thomas Kincaid could be called pandering.

Most games are not works of art.

[EWAdams]

Neither are most movies and most novels. They're light entertainment.

Video games are an art FORM, just as painting is an art FORM, but not every painting is a work of art, nor is every game.

You're confusing "easy" with "mediocre."

[EWAdams]

There's nothing wrong with easy games. The market for them is substantially larger than it is for hard games, and that's why the industry is moving in that direction -- and about time, too. It has treated the less-skilled player with contempt and derision for far too long. You're an old-time hardcore gamer, so you think of easy games as bad ones, but the days when the industry would pander to the hardcore gamer's every whim are over. Don't worry, though, I'm sure a few companies will still make games for your little niche.