Support NeoGAF

[cormack12]

This was something raised few years ago although I can't find the article. It was about review bombing on steam. And the theory was, that in response to feedback from the industry that didn't represent the truth, the only outlet to show that frustration or invalidate what they thought was false, was to review bomb. Basically review bombing filled a gap. And that gap was honest community feedback and acknowledgement of that feedback by developers.

Obviously we now have review bombing happening again. Yes there are the arseholes and trolls but there is also tangible reasons and discussion points as to why certain elements fall flat or do not resonate with fans. And these never really get addressed (talking about honest, genuine, thoughtful points here) by the creatives. What is missing is that accountability to the fans and audience I guess.

Official forums are a dumpster fire (check Ubi for an example), subreddits are hit and miss depending on the IP, popularity and fanbase. So how can those exchange of ideas take place? I guess you would hope influencers/patreons would fill that gap but most seem to start out like this then over time, the freebies and access to review code/beta/alphas seems to jade them into being afraid to go overboard with heavy criticism as they like the lfiestyle and access. I'm not going to talk about the major gaming outlets because they are a fucking disaster

 

[Birdo]

I don't know if this is a real thing, but I always assumed that developers could access analytics of how people played.

For example, which difficulty was most used, where people typically stopped playing, what part they died at most, which character people chose. And so on.

I assume that, if true, this is the best way to guage players.

 

[mejin]

Their only legitimate feedback are the sales and betas (when is possible). Everything else is a waste of time IMHO.

 

[nush]

You would need to build a small trusted personally known network of people who are not attention seeking or fanboys. You'd have to take the internet out of the equation and build that locally at least to start with.

 

[Business]

Data they collect from people actually playing the game has to be the best feedback they can get. Time spent, do they complete the game, how many times they fail at a certain point, do they replay it, etc

Edit: Birdo beat me to it

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Depends on the genre.

Sourcing feedback from competitive fanbases (fighting games, for instance) is easy. Fans will argue passiondately among themselves, even, whether or not the devs are listening.

When story and graphics enter the mix, things get dicey.

If I want a "review" for a title, I try to find people who loved the game and invested a lot of time to master it i.e. I trust yoshesque's opinion (youtuber) on character action games ahead of any website or journo. I also try to find super-fans of the series/genre who hated the game, because they often explain their gripes in great detail.

Not sure if devs could do it quite the same way but sourcing from your loyal fans seems like the way to go. As the old proverb goes: Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.

 

[UnNamed]

Did you notice the most influential and loved video game company is still Nintendo who didn't give a shit to listen the worries by its community, so many times on every decision, like online, in game chat, friend code, region free, cardridge instead of cd, censorships (SNES age), sequels, console specs, and so on?

Maybe this is the right way to listen the followers: don't listen and go on.

 

[GreenAlien]

They should just take a random selection (you don't want to annoy everyone with every game) of players and ask them to fill out a survey early-game, mid-game and endgame (or per chapter/mission/whatever). (easily skip-able and only one of those per selected player.. you don't want to annoy one person 3 times in a single game)

The way it should work is...you play the game. The player presses pause or enters the inventory and before the game resumes gets asked to fill out the survey. The survey itself should be very short, like 4 or 5 specific game related questions and a write what you want field.

The advantage to doing it like this.. you possibly get a wider range of feedback, since people who go online to complain or seek out the developer by themselves to give feedback are a special sort of people and are not representative for the average player..

 

[Ar¢tos]

They can use gaming communities that focus on their games to gather info.
FromSoftware uses Fextralife and Reddit (and possibly others) to gather info for post launch balancing and user bug reports.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Really depends on the kind of game you're making.

Working closely with your fanbase is a really great way to refine/improve the mechanics of your game. A lot of independent developers with early access titles work like this, and we usually see great results like Factorio and Deep Rock Galactic.
On the other hand, this approach doesn't work for heavily story based games. You can't ask your community for feedback on something you're supposed to hide. And even if you could, due to the largely subjective nature of this kind of thing, i doubt you could get proper results.

I suppose one good approach would be to make early demos showing the basic mechanics/approach of the game and use feedback to improve the product on those areas. As for the story/artistic perspective, there's really no choice but do whatever you want.

 

[Stilton Disco]

They already have a massive amount of information and feedback, far beyond anything that could be gathered purely from individual engagement with them directly.

Sales data, play time, patterns in at what point in games players stop playing, searching player reviews for the most common phrases and keywords, random sampling of negative, positive and neutral reviews, looking at what social media about the game gets the most views, likes and shares, the most popular reviews and critiques, and of course review aggregate sites like rotten tomatoes and open/metacritic, especially when there's a large disparity between critic and audience reviews.

Ultimately though, the biggest indicator of how well you're doing is waiting to see if you're expanding your audience and sales with each new game, or putting people off.

 

[B-universe]

This was something raised few years ago although I can't find the article. It was about review bombing on steam. And the theory was, that in response to feedback from the industry that didn't represent the truth, the only outlet to show that frustration or invalidate what they thought was false, was to review bomb. Basically review bombing filled a gap. And that gap was honest community feedback and acknowledgement of that feedback by developers.

Obviously we now have review bombing happening again. Yes there are the arseholes and trolls but there is also tangible reasons and discussion points as to why certain elements fall flat or do not resonate with fans. And these never really get addressed (talking about honest, genuine, thoughtful points here) by the creatives. What is missing is that accountability to the fans and audience I guess.

Official forums are a dumpster fire (check Ubi for an example), subreddits are hit and miss depending on the IP, popularity and fanbase. So how can those exchange of ideas take place? I guess you would hope influencers/patreons would fill that gap but most seem to start out like this then over time, the freebies and access to review code/beta/alphas seems to jade them into being afraid to go overboard with heavy criticism as they like the lfiestyle and access. I'm not going to talk about the major gaming outlets because they are a fucking disaster

1. Be specific

If you truly want to help developers, be specific. It's not helpful to boil it down to "Game's terrible" or "Masterpiece". It is entirely possible to praise the graphics, the sound design, the gameplay but point specific flaws in the storyline. It's entirely helpful to say animations are not on par with what was shown in trailers but fully endorse the kind of politics this game is promoting.

2. Be honest

Even if a game had what I'd consider perfect gameplay but poor art direction, I'd never buy it or play it. It's a deal-breaker for me. There's an argument to be made that taste is subjective. So state clearly and honestly the reasons for your praise or criticism. If it's perceived politics, just say so. If you can't stand the game because of a pet peeve of yours, don't try to embellish it. Come clean.

3. Be humble

I once heard a developer sum it up like this:
- Gamers are great at spotting the problems, but terrible at offering solutions.

The rationale is straightforward: because players at looking a it afresh, because they haven't worked on it for years and their careers stand nothing to gain or loose, they can more readily identify problems developers could otherwise be overlooking. Indeed, sometimes gamers are in a better position to identify the glaring shortcomings. But, likewise, precisely because they haven't worked on it for years. they likely have no idea of the complexity and interdependence of the underlying systems. They'll suggest changes that might sound obvious, but have dire consequences elsewhere. Developers have finite resources and the hardware they work with is also limited. So It seems easy for gamers to miss the big picture with which developers are obliged to confront themselves.

When suggesting well-meaning solutions, acknowledge there's an awful lot you probably don't know about the game, the engine or the platform that could potentially render said solutions moot.

 

[Soodanim]

This exact issue is why I think players fucked up the criticism of The Last of Us 2. Whether or not there were legitimate criticisms was drowned out by the massive collective voice shouting "CUCKMANN I HATE YOUR AGENDA".

Leaving a metacritic score of 6 and presenting a balanced view of the game is going to make you look a lot more sane than your score of 1 followed by an emotional outburst that tells the world you have the mental age of a 12 year old. Which adult, professional game developer is going to pay any attention to that?

 

[Saber]

Making fixed feedback pages. Like the one Sega do. Althought I'm not sure they even take it seriously.

Just ask about your games and genres in general and depending on the answers, more questions pop ups.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

Lets put it this way, back in the mid 90s to 2000s there was no twitter, FB, IG, a lot of people didnt use forums yet, no Reddit etc. What you got was the golden age of gaming left and right both controversial and non controversial. If the game was good, it got great scores everywhere and you knew it was worth a purchase. There was no witch hunt on Soldier of Fortune saying how dismembering bodies is terrible for society, there was no mob insulted because Romero told em "will make you his bitch" or why Elexis Sinclaire from SiN is a villain dressed like a pornstar. You just got good and fun games and people played them.

Now everyone has a voice and most of those people are uneducated losers with shitty real life experience so online media lets them be voiced. Now developers are either asking for too many opinions to try and please everyone or are afraid of doing something so they become woke just in case to secure that 9+ score and make sure everyone is happy. Did John Carmack ask fans what they wanted Quake 1 sequel to be like? No, he said fuck it, heres another game but ill still call it Quake. Oh you want a third one, sure, fuck you, heres a multiplayer only game called Quake 3. AND THEY ALL SOLD AMAZINGLY WELL.

Developers shouldnt listen to anyone, make your games based on the team you hired. You come up with cool ideas in a meeting room, not searching for comments on Twitter and then second guessing your decision should you include it in the game.

 

[Rikoi]

Leaving a metacritic score of 6 and presenting a balanced view of the game is going to make you look a lot more sane than your score of 1 followed by an emotional outburst that tells the world you have the mental age of a 12 year old. Which adult, professional game developer is going to pay any attention to that?

The only way to give 6 a game when people are voting 10s before the game even releases is by giving 2s though.
If you want to give a 5 you have to give 0s.
If you give 6 while people are leaving 10s out of nowhere you are actually giving an 8 score. 10s are not more valid than 0s, the fact that it surpassed a lot of masterpieces is what triggers people.
The "be better than them, don't put yourself on the same level as them" card doesn't work.

Anyway I think that steam/amazon/etc. reviews can be taken seriously since everyone that paid for the game as the right to express their anger, even if you don't agree with them.
They are not much different from surveys, with the difference that they are public. Are there any games that still care about surveys and ask you what's wrong and good about the game?

Did John Carmack ask fans what they wanted Quake 1 sequel to be like? No, he said fuck it, heres another game but ill still call it Quake. Oh you want a third one, sure, fuck you, heres a multiplayer only game called Quake 3. AND THEY ALL SOLD AMAZINGLY WELL.

Developers shouldnt listen to anyone, make your games based on the team you hired. You come up with cool ideas in a meeting room, not searching for comments on Twitter and then second guessing your decision should you include it in the game.

And this here is the best solution.

 

[Soodanim]

The only way to give 6 a game when people are voting 10s before the game even releases is by giving 2s though.
If you want to give a 5 you have to give 0s.
If you give 6 while people are leaving 10s out of nowhere you are actually giving an 8 score. 10s are not more valid than 0s, the fact that it surpassed a lot of masterpieces is what triggers people.
The "be better than them, don't put yourself on the same level as them" card doesn't work.

Fundamentally it comes down to a broken system that allows nonsense like pre-scoring a game and allows both early and extreme views to stick around when neither have any place in honest discourse.

We've ended up with a system where you're either aiming to bend the score to your will and an honest write up of a review will likely be lost if you actually give one, or you review honestly and hope that anyone who is looking past the score counts or overall average and actually wants feedback goes to the middle scores.

It's a shame that metacritic is so broken in that regard, it has the potential to provide so much honest information to people. That's what user scores should be - something not influenced by wanting to keep good standing with big publishers, not being allowed to review big chunks of a game, or being given review copies so late that you don't get time to give a full critique.

Anyway I think that steam/amazon/etc. reviews can be taken seriously since everyone that paid for the game as the right to express their anger, even if you don't agree with them.
They are not much different from surveys, with the difference that they are public. Are there any games that still care about surveys and ask you what's wrong and good about the game?

Confirmed purchase reviews hold a bit more weight, or at least I'd like to think so. They do for me. But that system should be improved by tagging unconfirmed purchases.

 

[ThatOneGrunt]

This exact issue is why I think players fucked up the criticism of The Last of Us 2. Whether or not there were legitimate criticisms was drowned out by the massive collective voice shouting "CUCKMANN I HATE YOUR AGENDA".

Leaving a metacritic score of 6 and presenting a balanced view of the game is going to make you look a lot more sane than your score of 1 followed by an emotional outburst that tells the world you have the mental age of a 12 year old. Which adult, professional game developer is going to pay any attention to that?

Developers or media creators can be a problem too. I remember when the 2016 Ghostbusters movie came out. A lot of people panned it but the studio turned it into a "if you don't like it you're sexist" argument. A similar thing kind of happened with the new Star Wars movies. Criticism for the Last Jedi got drowned out when the actress who played Rose left twitter because of abuse. And then that became the face of the negative criticism of movie egged on by the director calling the haters "Man-babies", even when the criticism had nothing to do with gender or race. And with TLOU2, where people can't seem to have a negative opinion without being perceived as secretly being anti-LGBTQ. It's very easy to mire the perception of negativity as having an agenda, and creators often feed that. I don't think it's possible to get a genuine opinion of something anymore like movies or videogames. At least not through shared, internet comments.

 

[kiphalfton]

Even with Call of Duty, one person says it's the best thing since sliced bread and then the next person says it complete and utter garbage... and that's just one installment in the series. There's so many conflicting views, it's not even worth looking into it. Let devs make the games devs want, and ignore gamer's opinions. If somebody doesn't like the changes made, don't buy the game.

 

[Soodanim]

Developers or media creators can be a problem too. I remember when the 2016 Ghostbusters movie came out. A lot of people panned it but the studio turned it into a "if you don't like it you're sexist" argument. A similar thing kind of happened with the new Star Wars movies. Criticism for the Last Jedi got drowned out when the actress who played Rose left twitter because of abuse. And then that became the face of the negative criticism of movie egged on by the director calling the haters "Man-babies", even when the criticism had nothing to do with gender or race. And with TLOU2, where people can't seem to have a negative opinion without being perceived as secretly being anti-LGBTQ. It's very easy to mire the perception of negativity as having an agenda, and creators often feed that. I don't think it's possible to get a genuine opinion of something anymore like movies or videogames. At least not through shared, internet comments.

It's so easy to manipulate the masses of people who live on a form of social media (especially Twitter) or review sites. All it takes is one person to spin it one way, and because the emotionally frenzied lot are so vocal they become the face of the other side and the entire argument gets discredited. What are people going to focus on: the honest reviews that say exactly what they don't like about TLJedi, or the ridiculous abuse of an innocent actress just doing her job? By the time the dust has settled on the latter, it doesn't matter anymore. The PR rep/director/whoever has done their job. Fans haven't achieved anything and studios carry on doing what they're doing.

Druckmann doesn't need to talk about missteps he may have made in TLoU2, now or ever, because you've got idiots tweeting the fucking voice actors to tell them the game is shit and throwing out accusations like Neil self inserted into the game so he could do sex mocap with Laura Bailey. It's children playing against adults and the children aren't going to win any time soon.

People fuck it up for themselves/everybody then wonder why they aren't listened to.

 

[Enjay]

They can't. Today's developers are unequipped to handle even the most banal of criticism.

 

[Belmonte]

There is an art, a nuance for it.

 

[Evil Calvin]

What are these slugs going to do if they 'quit' like Ben, or the others who just don't care? They don't leave the house and are afraid of the world. They would have to get dressed, shower, get a real job. Juggle fatherhood with a full time job and actually drive to work. I don't think they could adjust.

 

[Dthomp]

Official forums should be the easiest way to get a broad picture of what is wrong or right with their game, the issues is that most companies don't even bother to have people on their own forums moderating and passing ideas to the right people. They exist in hopes that they will be the echo chamber praising them, however due to the nature of unmoderated forums they turn into the opposite. The Bungie forums for Destiny 2 are a great example, almost zero moderation there, no replies from anyone when threads pop up with legit concerns, just the usual "Defense Force" that makes sure to downvote and harass others til they bail.