Gragt said:
I don't see why knowing the process of creation would influence the review of the final product. It might be interesting in some cases to know how it was done, and it might help to understand how and why some parts succeeded or failed, but that's about it.
If you don't know how things are done (as opposed to how they
were done in the specific case of the game your talking about), you can't have any realistic expectation of what they could or should be.
Given that, of course, it doesn't take much to understand the basis of game development. Still, most people don't, and that's my point. How can you convince someone that Dungeon Siege is a badly designed game when they don't know anything about game design and stil like it? I mean, it's like going up to a person who uses Windows 95 and is completely satisfied with it and expect to convince him that his OS is bad (let alone convince him to chance, lol).
Maybe it's more the knowledge of how good a game can be rather than how it is actually done, but in practical terms, it amounts for the same exact thing.
Gragt said:
If you review a game, you can appreciate directly if the mecanics work or not, if the gameplay gets stale or introduce elements over time to keep the formula fresh and challenging, if the different elements work well together, etc.
Exactly. If you don't know the importance of those things, you can't be on the lookout for them.
Let's take a history lesson. I think. Fifteen years ago, game design (general game design) was very undeveloped compared to now. And people didn't expect much out of most games. Most hits were hits without accomplishing much in the field. Sega Rally is an extremely boring game, and still it sold like hell (and I loved it myself). Or whatever.
Today, Sega Rally Revo is a much more complex and evolved game, and it tanked. Because game design developed to the point where (in most fields, maybe not so much in RPG, as awkward as it may seem), if you don't design your game consistently, you won't be successful. Not because people are aware of it, but because other games will get good desings, and they'll crush yours. That's the reason why people stopped disliking games. They don't know anything about them, and objectively looking, they're all very good, at least compared to 10 or 15 years ago (maybe not RPG, ok).
It's the difference between quality and percieved quality. Take WoW as an example. It's design is very complex, as some of you may be able to see, but it doesn't transpire DIRECTLY into gameplay. A people who likes WoW may or may not be able to identify what makes the game a good game. Even if it is a good game. They know it's addictive, they know is preetaah, they know it's fun. But that's NOTHING, that's so subjective you can't build any criticism on that.
Having said that, it's that percieved quality that matters in terms of sales, of course. Marketing, hype, graphics, all come into account. And those things don't matter (at least marketing and hype) when looking at the actual quality of a title. And you think a person that doesn't know how games are done, or how they appear in the minds of their creators can objectively look past those blinds of marketing and graphics?
Seriously, why do you think game journalism is so bad these days? Generally speaking, that is.
Volourn said:
Mor elike I'm not good enough for any woman. m i rite or m i rite!?!
Genius
Volourn said:
The fact you felt desperate enough to comapre liking a video game to thing called loving a woman (or man depending on YOUR preference) is ridiculous.
The fact that you can't establish a relationship between the feelings of liking and loving is, in itself, a demonstration of how close minded you are.
Not that I blame you, of course. You are a character, and like most characters, they can't change, otherwise they'll seem too much complicated and convoluted to the common reader.
