Original post by chronos
I suppose what I'm saying is that market demands should not determine design, but rather the designer should. That a designer considers the player as part of his design does not necessarily mean he's trying to satisfy some kind of perceived demand ("what players want").
Maybe we don't disagree so much. Perhaps it's a matter of degrees. Here's a litmus test: If you make something and show it to a bunch of friends, and get lots of negative feedback, do you change it?
For me, there are only a few cases where I will not. In fact, the only case really is if something is so core to the design that it can't be changed. For instance, there are some aspects to my current RPG that I think the user will appreciate once he gets used to them (the time limit, for instance, which is usually EVIL). But if they turn out to be unappealing, I'll rip them out without remorse.
For me games are primarily and art form and only secondarily a business. I'm sure many people feel otherwise. Burger king appeals to the masses, a chef's culinary art might not. Hollywood special effects appeal to the masses, Woody Allen might not.
... and Boston Markets or your local burrito joint is somewhere in between. Nothing wrong with this. I WILL NOT make a Deer Hunter, to save my life (in fact, it was one of the reasons I left my last job-- we started making hunting games! )
I think what's important here is to be realistic. I have what I consider to be complicated, artsy ideas, too, but I want to make games for a living, so I have to be honest about the viability of my projects. My E.T.Civilization game that traces an alien culture's rise from the stone era to transcendence is going to have a MUCH smaller audience than the action games I'm dreaming up.
Like Andy Worhol once said, sometimes ya make make art, sometimes ya make soup...
Just waiting for the mothership...
Edited by - Wavinator on August 15, 2000 10:54:38 PM