I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this topic, it’s definitely a tough one.
First off, I think there’s one thing we disagree on, that needs to be said; not everyone makes games they would love to play themselves. If this were true, I would 100% agree with everything you said, but unfortunately (and it’s kind of sick), a lot of developers make games strictly for cash, and strictly for a target audience, whether they like the game or not. I definitely think that indie developers who makes games they enjoy playing themselves is the majority, but it’s certainly not everyone.
I love how you touch on making a game you love to play, but then adding features that make the game more accessible. I believe there are two reasons one would do this. The first, they want to make their game profitable, and know that an accessible game is a more valuable game. The second, the develop truly loves what they’ve created, and wants to share it with as many people as possible, and knows that making the game more accessible will accomplish this. I personally make games I love to play, then do both of the above, because I want to both continue being able to do so financially, and because I truly do receiving feedback on something I created.
I guess the developers making money strictly for cash aren’t saying “I’m just making games for myself!” so they wouldn’t really apply to this discussion, but point taken. :)
I agree with your rant. Got stung by the accessibility thing with my recent Ludum Dare game. I thought one of the best things about the game was discovering the mechanics by experimentation. Unfortunately the game’s lack of explicit instructions just confused a lot of people judging by the comments and the game would have been more fun for more people if I had added more detailed instructions. Adding the instructions would not have damaged the gameplay at all.
I think that phrase would only bother me if it is followed by “why is nobody buying my game.” Without that, it is fine in my book, I always liked Robert Graves “Crowning Privilege” approach, if he was the poet he wrote what ever he wanted but he did not care if his poems sells. But when he was trying to make a living on selling historical novels, he always tried to put his readers first.
Though sometimes I do believe “I’m making games for myself” is probably already an improvement over games which nobody like. But of course if it is a commercial game the customer should be on top of the priority list.
Yeah, I tried to mention in the cast that it’s totally valid if you really do want to make a game just for yourself and don’t really care, like Graves’ poetry (but not his novels). :)
follow:
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this topic, it’s definitely a tough one.
First off, I think there’s one thing we disagree on, that needs to be said; not everyone makes games they would love to play themselves. If this were true, I would 100% agree with everything you said, but unfortunately (and it’s kind of sick), a lot of developers make games strictly for cash, and strictly for a target audience, whether they like the game or not. I definitely think that indie developers who makes games they enjoy playing themselves is the majority, but it’s certainly not everyone.
I love how you touch on making a game you love to play, but then adding features that make the game more accessible. I believe there are two reasons one would do this. The first, they want to make their game profitable, and know that an accessible game is a more valuable game. The second, the develop truly loves what they’ve created, and wants to share it with as many people as possible, and knows that making the game more accessible will accomplish this. I personally make games I love to play, then do both of the above, because I want to both continue being able to do so financially, and because I truly do receiving feedback on something I created.
I guess the developers making money strictly for cash aren’t saying “I’m just making games for myself!” so they wouldn’t really apply to this discussion, but point taken. :)
I agree with your rant. Got stung by the accessibility thing with my recent Ludum Dare game. I thought one of the best things about the game was discovering the mechanics by experimentation. Unfortunately the game’s lack of explicit instructions just confused a lot of people judging by the comments and the game would have been more fun for more people if I had added more detailed instructions. Adding the instructions would not have damaged the gameplay at all.
Especially if the stuff you add is optional – like instructions! Makes it so much more paletable.
I think that phrase would only bother me if it is followed by “why is nobody buying my game.” Without that, it is fine in my book, I always liked Robert Graves “Crowning Privilege” approach, if he was the poet he wrote what ever he wanted but he did not care if his poems sells. But when he was trying to make a living on selling historical novels, he always tried to put his readers first.
Though sometimes I do believe “I’m making games for myself” is probably already an improvement over games which nobody like. But of course if it is a commercial game the customer should be on top of the priority list.
Yeah, I tried to mention in the cast that it’s totally valid if you really do want to make a game just for yourself and don’t really care, like Graves’ poetry (but not his novels). :)