THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT - PERCEPTION OF DESIGNER & PLAYER "RESPONSIBILITIES" IN AMATEUR & COMMERCIAL VIDEO GAMES

Usually I play a game because I like the look of it, I've heard that it was fun or there's some sort of controversy over it (I admit it!). I try to experience as much of the game as I possibly can - I'm one of those people who like to try out everything and will spend time running through a maze for that last treasure chest. That said, there are certain things that will turn me off a game, such as overly large (and bland) dungeons, slow walk speed, slow dialogue speed and too many random encounters. This doesn't mean I won't enjoy the game. As long as I'm kept from thinking about these things I usually will.

That said, I've played a variety of games, both good and bad, and I'm pretty forgiving to even the worst ones I've played (barring one or two... -_-; )
I think this is because of the number of games I've played. I've played games where all the dialogue was text-talk (oi, brian, lts go2 lake tmz!) and games where the script is amazingly polished and/or overly complicated (Phylomortis, anyone?). I've played games where floors are used as walls, doors are houses and a forest contained three trees. On the flip, I've played a few german games, a couple of french ones and others like Eyes Without a Face. I've played games where the plot is to collect four crystals, and enjoyed them. Played ones where the story is focussed on time travel and paradoxes. Games that used the RTP sounds and music, games with original sountracks, games that were buggy, but enjoyable, games that were solid but boring, games with incredible systems that were too complex or weren't fun, games with only the default systems that were a lot of fun and always will be.

I think what's missing in a lot of peoples' critiques is well-rounded experiences. I know it's not going to happen but I do wish that people who were intent on giving critiques would go out and play more games, both good and bad (and remembered the honey/stick approach when giving critique, dammit!)

Most of the time when I LT a game I try to be fair. The times I am not fair are when there's things blatantly wrong with the game - whether that be the script, bugs that kill the gaming experience or a lack of fun. Even then, I will try to point out the good things I see, the things that are interesting or that I liked, because those things I want them to keep doing, want to see more of in their next game. If we don't reward with praise when we see something we like, why would the game designer keep doing it?

If we didn't give praise as well as critique, why should they listen to us? Why would they want to listen to us, if all we do is decry their efforts? As players with opinions we should try to encourage the creators to listen to our opinions otherwise, why give them? There's no reason to give an opinion if it's not going to be listened to, but what reason have they to listen to someone if they're only going to expound on the bad things they experience whilst playing? Think of it as training - encourage the good, discourage the bad.

And for fucks sake, just enjoy the game instead of questioning every other turn. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make that map, that dialogue, that plot. The least you could do when giving your opinion is to say at least one thing you liked about it.

I've gone through quite a journey to get to where I am as a game designer (and I laugh because that makes me sound like a professional!) and I've made a lot of mistakes along the way. I've been guilty of the slow text speed sin, the slow walk speed, random encounters, bland mapping, terrible music, some grammatical errors, never finishing games and hyping. Some of these I still do, but the difference now is that I do them deliberately, choose to do them for reasons, where as it was just because I could when I began (and didn't know better/hadn't realised how annoying they were.)

I've learned by playing others' games, listening to my game audience and taking what I can from others opinions. Does that mean I've changed every little thing to suit others' ideas? No. But I do listen to what they have to say and think about whether it's worth changing.

A quick example is an LT of one of my games where the LTer never bothered to grab the chests that were easy to see and get to, then complained about dying in the first battle because they hadn't bought anything at all (items or armour), bothered collecting treasure, listening to any NPCs or using skills. This kind of playing is, in my opinion, lazy and irritates me. As such, I listened to a few things that were said (tweaked the stats a tiny bit for the fights as watching that battle I'd noticed that some of the enemy skills were a little tougher than I'd meant them to be), but kept everything else the same.

Should I have changed things? No, I don't believe I needed to change everything that person said. They didn't invest time into playing correctly so I couldn't use what they said as proper critique. Does that mean they had nothing to say that could be relevant? No. I took a few ideas from the LT - some of them were mentioned by the LTer, some I noticed when watching them play. I chose to ignore a lot of what they said because they did not play correctly.

In a different game, where it's part of the plot that battles are challenging, I received a few comments that the battles were too hard and tweaked the battles a lot more. This I didn't mind doing as the players actually tried to do what they could to get past the battles.

As a creator of games I try to make them challenging and try to make the player use the things they're given to finish the game. (The way people ignore items really gets my goat, especially as they are usually ignored in battle strategy. A lot of people don't think of using them, hence die a lot. Okay, partly my fault for expecting people to just know that they need to use items, but partly their fault for not using what they were given (and I like to have a lot of treasure lying around to find... if players would just look). ;>.> )

Should I change a part of my game that is part of the design to make the game more challenging and interesting?

Maybe, maybe not. That is something I have to think hard about. Perhaps change the whole system, perhaps ignore completely, or maybe do a bit of both.

Take what you need from critiques. The more people mention something, the more it needs looking at, I guess. Just remember, in the end it's your choice.

I make game I would want to play - games with lots of treasures, side-quests and good stories/characters. To me, battle mechanics aren't high on the list, but I know a lot of people look at them as a major component of a game so I am pressured to create a battle system that others want to use. I could create a game that doesn't have battles but really, I want others to play my games and enjoy them. If, to do that, I need to have a working battle system that's interesting, I'll do it.
I'm making the core of the game for myself but other parts are for the benefit of the players so those parts I will listen to critique on a lot more than others.

I've had a lot of people ask me why I don't make games with better graphical style - saying that if I can do so well with the RTP, maybe I should try something else instead. I like the RTP and I enjoy making games with it, so I don't listen to those who say that except to tell them thanks for the compliment.