by Kikki » Sep 04, 2021 3:18 am
Mikodesu wrote:Iirc the recently announced Saints Row reboot is having that same issue. The series hasn't had an entry in some years, fans got older, devs are developing as if they haven't, fans are mad. Game is for babies.
I don't know anything about Saints Row, but the part about devs continuing to develop for the fans they first appealed to most...I'm not sure that's a fault. (Not praising it as a virtue either, mind you.) I mean, SHOULD devs try to follow their original fans' desires as they get older? Let's say that the core market was initially 10-15. If the devs always aim for that market, they have a continually renewing market. If they attempt to evolve with their first market as they turn 20, 25, 30, 40, 50...etc...the market would in theory get smaller each time as people naturally change and move away from the things they used to do as they move toward new things. Dev teams themselves are always renewing, too...the original, aging dev team members move on to other things, or even retire, eventually. At this point I don't know if there is even ONE person who was on the dev team of the first game, for example (I don't know when Matsuyama first joined as a character designer, but he's been with the series a long time, for sure.)
Ideally, I think a skilled and experienced dev who loves their game and wants it to be the best it can be, would both continue with what made the game loved in the first place, AND keep in mind that their original and most ardent customers (because you have to be pretty dedicated to stick with a series for 20 years) are older, now. I think a game that can appeal to a broad age market has to be pretty deep (or just have wildly addictive gameplay, I guess.) and that everyone would appreciate that. Particularly kids, honestly, in cases where the additions don't simply go over their heads.
Of course, this could all just be ratings-board shenanigans, too, rather than issues with the development team. They're not always completely consistent, and overall sometimes the standards for what qualifies as E, E10+, T, etc, changes. And if there was only one or two little things that was pushing a game into a T rating and taking them out was relatively simple (like, for example, removing scenes of people actively drinking, even if reference to alcohol itself remains in the game, since alcohol reference and alcohol consumption are separate ratings issues) I think it makes business sense to remove it, to make sure that you aren't cutting off a whole group of consumers with that one little thing. (This refers to parents who feel reassured to see E or E10+ on a game rather than a T, and would make their purchasing decisions based on that.)
Though for the record, personally I couldn't care less whether they include a bar or scenes of people having wine with their meal or whatever. I don't think it adds anything good to the game, nor to do I think it adds anything bad.
[quote="Mikodesu"]Iirc the recently announced Saints Row reboot is having that same issue. The series hasn't had an entry in some years, fans got older, devs are developing as if they haven't, fans are mad. Game is for babies.[/quote]
I don't know anything about Saints Row, but the part about devs continuing to develop for the fans they first appealed to most...I'm not sure that's a fault. (Not praising it as a virtue either, mind you.) I mean, SHOULD devs try to follow their original fans' desires as they get older? Let's say that the core market was initially 10-15. If the devs always aim for that market, they have a continually renewing market. If they attempt to evolve with their first market as they turn 20, 25, 30, 40, 50...etc...the market would in theory get smaller each time as people naturally change and move away from the things they used to do as they move toward new things. Dev teams themselves are always renewing, too...the original, aging dev team members move on to other things, or even retire, eventually. At this point I don't know if there is even ONE person who was on the dev team of the first game, for example (I don't know when Matsuyama first joined as a character designer, but he's been with the series a long time, for sure.)
[i]Ideally[/i], I think a skilled and experienced dev who loves their game and wants it to be the best it can be, would both continue with what made the game loved in the first place, AND keep in mind that their original and most ardent customers (because you have to be pretty dedicated to stick with a series for 20 years) are older, now. I think a game that can appeal to a broad age market has to be pretty deep (or just have wildly addictive gameplay, I guess.) and that everyone would appreciate that. Particularly kids, honestly, in cases where the additions don't simply go over their heads.
Of course, this could all just be ratings-board shenanigans, too, rather than issues with the development team. They're not always completely consistent, and overall sometimes the standards for what qualifies as E, E10+, T, etc, changes. And if there was only one or two little things that was pushing a game into a T rating and taking them out was relatively simple (like, for example, removing scenes of people actively drinking, even if reference to alcohol itself remains in the game, since alcohol reference and alcohol consumption are separate ratings issues) I think it makes business sense to remove it, to make sure that you aren't cutting off a whole group of consumers with that one little thing. (This refers to parents who feel reassured to see E or E10+ on a game rather than a T, and would make their purchasing decisions based on that.)
Though for the record, personally I couldn't care less whether they include a bar or scenes of people having wine with their meal or whatever. I don't think it adds anything good to the game, nor to do I think it adds anything bad.