On the Importance of the Player

Sometimes in life, you just have to take a step back and admire the little things. Things you don't even really think about a lot, that at one point in time you saw and went "oh, cool" and went about your day. There are so many of those little things in gaming, it's incredible to see how far we've come, what we're doing now, and what we plan to do. When video games were nothing more than a bunch of dots moving around on a screen, you can't imagine that there was much input to have on it aside from "oh, cool". But could you imagine if we showed them what it's like now? Back then they couldn't have even DREAMED to imagine what we have. Things like Cel shading, textures, dedicated servers, all aspects of gaming today that are just tiny little fractions of creativity and composition that make what we know today as a video game.

But why do it, you might ask? Yes, making a piece of art like a video game is satisfying to the creator, but it's sharing that creation with an audience that makes it satisfying. It's oftentimes a good way to listen and learn, to see how you could improve on that passion.

This audience, for us, is the player.

No matter what you do, if you play a video game, you're bound to talk about it. You might say that the single player had a good story, but the multiplayer was lacking because of the fact that it's hosted in a peer-to-peer style network for a PC game. As a result, people will read or hear what you say and take that into account when thinking about buying that game, and you yourself might even complain to the developer about it. It's that ripple effect that is so effective at spreading the word about a good or bad game, and the internet massively facilitates that. Things like Steam reviews make it a lot easier to tell whether a game is going to be a buy or a pass, because you're getting the best review that's been selected by other people who've played the game as well. While the developer has the choice to listen to the fans, more often than not, if there's a consensus that there's something wrong with it, it's usually a serious issue. For example, Rome II: Total War is a perfect example of why the player is so important, and most definitely more important than the critic as seen in the video below;



Creative Assembly is an experienced developer with a considerable fanbase, but in dropping the ball with plaguing issues like UI bugs and siege AI that STILL has not been fully resolved, you can't help but think "why the hell would you think I'm going to buy any of the DLC?"

Quickly now! Cavalry, chaaaaarge up the wa-- waaaait a minute...

On the flip side, the player can not only give input to the developer, but can also create for the game themselves! Steam Workshop has been a feature for a few years now, and out of it come some hilariously glorious mods seen here;



And of course at the same time giving another avenue of development that involves the player closer than ever. Other developers are jumping on the bandwagon, as shown in Planetside 2's Player Studio, where players can submit decals and armor models that they've made. These models/decals can become more popular over time, and the person who made the model/decal gets royalties off the model, with one guy making somewhere in the neighborhood of $12,000 total for a single model. Like, crap, sign ME up. In a more design-oriented direction, Riot Games has occasionally had players in-studio to create a new hero for League of Legends, as well as their abilities (all with oversight by the design team, of course). It's a great way to get the community involved into a game, and can even increase the replay value of a game with the sheer amount of new content and overhauls of old content. Even games still in development, such as Star Citizen take fans into consideration with their contest, called "The Next Great Starship" where they allow players to design a ship and vote on which ones they think is the best of the category.
 

In case it wasn't obvious, people like space.

If there's one impression I'd like to leave with you, it's this: It's important to keep your audience close to you. Composers, designers, actors, all of them have gotten to where they are now in history because of their audience. It doesn't matter if it's 3 people or 3 million people, listen to the ones that truly intend to help and build on your experience with that input. If you don't, you run the risk of losing your fans because of your stubbornness. All your momentum can be lost, and it can take a long time to regain the trust of those who initially believed in you. All of this applies to games and game design just as much as any other art style.

What this is NOT, however, is me saying that the developer must solely rely on the fans to develop a game. Developers like Game Freak have been developing the Pokemon series for decades on their own and still retain the same, if not more fans than they had before. Just keeping an ear to the ground, let your fans know you're listening, and it should turn out alright for both of us.

Operative word, should. It ain't art without pissing off a few people.