Pewdiepie: Community Castles Over Comment Hassles

[Retarded Username]

Creating a game is like sculpting - you start with a huge piece of hard stuff without proper form,

Like your penis

*Canned laughter*

Goddamnit, Phoenix.

[Endoperez]

1: Yes. And if they play the games he plays (And become part of the community) they can easily become nuisances in the community.

You say this as if it's a bad thing?

Except what the results of Pewdiepie's business is. Like condemning some games to be harassed by kids and trolls for time.

Condemning games to have customers?!

You are wrong. Game companies having customers is not a bad thing.

No it isn't. Quite a few kids play CoD. It has never aimed to include them.

Pewds can do similar things.

Pewdiepie can help games reach audiences they couldn't otherwise reach? Awesome. Free money for everyone!

The ONLY problem that I have with it is that it's annoying and that it's getting shit changed because they are the most vocal ones in the community. Especially if it's against the dev's original vision.

4) Sometimes, people listen to what is said in a forum
5) If a developer listens to someone whose opinion you disagree with, and changes something, it's a change you disagree with and it was caused by the people you disagree with talking on forums

4: Then it's generally accepted by the community. And in my experience the community will disagree (Like in Project Zomboid, about respawning loot in Single Player) with anything that either wouldn't make sense in the game or would go against the dev's vision.
5: And it only happens when the person requesting the change is more vocal than those against it. The people requesting that the broken Running with Rifles damage system stay the same for example.

Again, if the devs' original vision changes it's because they can't do it or decide to do something else. Community suggestions are only a collection of data that the developers might use to get information about their customer base.

Any way, I'd like to focus more on this "the most vocal ones in the community" - who exactly are these? Is it one group pushing one idea, or is it all the people you disagree with who are more common in the community than people you agree with?

If a game developer can finish a game, he has learned to judge the worth of ideas. They are probably better at it than you. They might judge them by things you find inconsequential, such as if the changes will help the game sell more, but it's their judgement and it's also their livelihood, so tough luck.

So those little special snowflakes can stay around because "Well meh"?

Hahahahahaha.

Hahahahahahaha.

No.

So special snowflakes shouldn't stay around? Even when they do not harm game development in any way, you want them to go away? And you don't think that's censoring?

That is basic logic. Not that I'm saying that they need to go, but I'm saying that the devs need to stick to what THEY want to do

And I'm saying any developer who finishes sticked to what they believed would be best out of all the things they can reasonably create.

That is, an imaginary 2-person team can't make an MMO, but they could do a really good multiplayer platformer, for example. They want to do both an MMO and a multiplayer platformer, but one is a future goal that's not relevant at the time, one is a current goal. If they can't keep the two separate, problems arise.

I can argue against what they (The idiots suggesting the stupid shit) wanted to change. That's okay in my book.

Yes, of course.

Again, don't worry about it - the game developers already get more suggestion than they can ever implement just from within the development team.

What about one member dev teams? Or teams that have a set idea of what they want to do (Like Subset Games)?

They also have more ideas than they can ever implement. This guy I made a game jam game with has been making a game a month for about three years now (that's as long as he's known how), and he's not running out of ideas. His backlog of ideas is growing all the time. He asks for his friends for help all the time, because most ideas are too complex for him to finish on his own.

I mean, Dwarf Fortress is made by Tarn Adams. That's a one member dev team. He's famous for having countless crazy ideas, and accepting more from his community.

Creating a game is like sculpting - you start with a huge piece of hard stuff without proper form,

Like your penis

*Canned laughter*

*Har har har, biology is such a funny thing, har har har*

What about those idiots who just pull an idea out of their ass and decide it should be in the game and if it isn't the game sucks?

These people have an opinion. They might be wrong. I have argued that their ideas don't get into the game unless the ideas are worthwhile. If you think the ideas do get into the game, please explain to me why you think my peni^b^b^b^b metaphor isn't a thing of perfection.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Goddamnit, Phoenix.

Just like your-

Fuck.

You say this as if it's a bad thing?

For small indie devs who don't like having a community full of kids? It is and can be.

Condemning games to have customers?!

You are wrong. Game companies having customers is not a bad thing.

For the communities and player-bases of those companies (Mind you, we're talking about indie devs here) it can be. Especially if they are (In the examples of FTL and Dark Souls) casuls or elitists (In the case of Scribblenauts and the original Payday) where they don't belong.

Pewdiepie can help games reach audiences they couldn't otherwise reach? Awesome. Free money for everyone!

See above. Some communities don't want random player-bases (Like casuals in the FTL community, for example) in their community where they don't belong.

No one from FTL wants to see a KSP player ranting on the FTL forums. That's stupid.

Again, if the devs' original vision changes it's because they can't do it or decide to do something else. Community suggestions are only a collection of data that the developers might use to get information about their customer base.

Any way, I'd like to focus more on this "the most vocal ones in the community" - who exactly are these? Is it one group pushing one idea, or is it all the people you disagree with who are more common in the community than people you agree with?

The ones who rant the most (Like those saying pretty much every rogue-like is luck based.) compared to those who argue them.

Those who say a game is too hard could easily be the loudest voice (Though they don't represent the majority) in the community.

So special snowflakes shouldn't stay around? Even when they do not harm game development in any way, you want them to go away? And you don't think that's censoring?

It isn't. That is equated to two people on the forest forums going:

1: I want to see cannibals with axes!

2: If you don't remove all blood and gore and nudity and violence I'LL SUE YOU SO FUCKIN HARD RIGHT NAO (x 20)

One is suggesting. Another is suggesting puritanical boschitt.

And I'm saying any developer who finishes sticked to what they believed would be best out of all the things they can reasonably create.

That is, an imaginary 2-person team can't make an MMO, but they could do a really good multiplayer platformer, for example. They want to do both an MMO and a multiplayer platformer, but one is a future goal that's not relevant at the time, one is a current goal. If they can't keep the two separate, problems arise.

This is entirely irrelevant.

Let's imagine a different team who made a game with blood, violence and gore (Essentially GWBW).

The team gets bombarded with cries of "VIOLENCE DEAR GAWD".

They shouldn't censor it.

They shouldn't remove it.

They should keep it like it is.

Yes, of course.

Don't know how to respond to that.

They also have more ideas than they can ever implement. This guy I made a game jam game with has been making a game a month for about three years now (that's as long as he's known how), and he's not running out of ideas. His backlog of ideas is growing all the time. He asks for his friends for help all the time, because most ideas are too complex for him to finish on his own.

I mean, Dwarf Fortress is made by Tarn Adams. That's a one member dev team. He's famous for having countless crazy ideas, and accepting more from his community.

Again, see my post about the imaginary dev team who made the violent game.

*Har har har, biology is such a funny thing, har har har*

...

These people have an opinion. They might be wrong. I have argued that their ideas don't get into the game unless the ideas are worthwhile. If you think the ideas do get into the game,

What about those who are just loud enough to drown the others out? THEY are the people who get the game censored by the developers.

my penis is a thing of evil and disgust.

Accuracy.

[Endoperez]

An indie developer with a community has already won. They've made profit and made their name & game known. It's good.

You are saying that having wrong people's money is worse than having money. Because the game is worse. Because people talking changes a game.

I'm saying that having money is good, and devs make as good games as they can, and have money for.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

You are saying that having wrong people's money is worse than having money. Because the game is worse. Because people talking changes a game.

As stated before: There's a big difference between a gameplay request and spouting bullshit to fit your own need (Like censoring violence for example)

I'm saying that having money is good, and devs make as good games as they can, and have money for.

I don't disagree. But if the community suffers (I know I've been bringing this up a lot) it can be bad for those within it.

Any money is good money, but some indie devs aren't like that, they don't need/want/care about the money.


No more penis jokes sadly

[Grayswandir]

You are saying that having wrong people's money is worse than having money. Because the game is worse. Because people talking changes a game.

As stated before: There's a big difference between a gameplay request and spouting bullshit to fit your own need (Like censoring violence for example)

A gameplay request and someone "spouting bullshit" can both be the same thing depending on how you look at them. I don't think you have enough trust in the developer to decide what they want for their own game.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

You are saying that having wrong people's money is worse than having money. Because the game is worse. Because people talking changes a game.

As stated before: There's a big difference between a gameplay request and spouting bullshit to fit your own need (Like censoring violence for example)

A gameplay request and someone "spouting bullshit" can both be the same thing depending on how you look at them. I don't think you have enough trust in the developer to decide what they want for their own game.

I do, but I doubt they want to "REMOVE ALL DA TITS" in The Forest's case or "REMOVE THE FUCKIN PERMADEATH" in FTL's case.


Essentially, I am talking about the rare case where the devs care more about the most loud voices compared to the quietest but most numerous voices and their own judgement. Where the devs instead decide to buckle and change the game (New devs are at fear for this. Or just devs who suck at PR, that isn't to say that they always listen to these voices) because people are yelling "NO MORE TITS".

And yes they can be the same thing, they are both requests. But they ask for different things: One asks for a gameplay addition (Technically a change, but addition is more accurate) and another asks for one thing to be removed not because it's broken or doesn't work in the game. But because it's well... Tits.

[Grayswandir]

Essentially, I am talking about the rare case where the devs care more about the most loud voices compared to the quietest but most numerous voices and their own judgement. Where the devs instead decide to buckle and change the game (New devs are at fear for this. Or just devs who suck at PR, that isn't to say that they always listen to these voices) because people are yelling "NO MORE TITS".

That right there is up to the developer if they want to change violence or nudity because people ask for it. Of course you can complain that they're just buckling to people's demands. But in the end, its up to the developer to change what they feel like in their project.

Let's say a developer cows to the demands for a nudity censor and removes gore from their game. You can't really do anything about it to change it back. You can ask for a refund, stop supporting the developer, hell, even complain about it on their forums. But don't blame people for suggesting that they censor nudity or remove violence or nerf this character or buff this item. People suggest things on the internet all the time. People ask that things be changed (or not changed) to fit their view of the world. Be they stupid ideas or good ideas, getting ideas out there is a good thing. Its up to the developer to choose what they feel is and isn't right.

And yes they can be the same thing, they are both requests. But they ask for different things: One asks for a gameplay addition (Technically a change, but addition is more accurate) and another asks for one thing to be removed not because it's broken or doesn't work in the game. But because it's well... Tits.

That is within someone's right to ask for a change to a game they like or don't like. But again, its the developer's decision if they want to ignore or go with someone asking for a balance change or asking for a nudity filter or less violence.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

That right there is up to the developer if they want to change violence or nudity because people ask for it. Of course you can complain that they're just buckling to people's demands. But in the end, its up to the developer to change what they feel like in their project.

Of course, I'm okay if the devs of The Forest said tomorrow "We wanted to change the look of the cannibals. More blood, more clothes. Sorry guys" I'd be okay. It wouldn't be them collapsing to the force of the puritanical bullshit, it would be them making a sudden art change for some reason.

Slight difference.

Let's say a developer cows to the demands for a nudity censor and removes gore from their game. You can't really do anything about it to change it back. You can ask for a refund, stop supporting the developer, hell, even complain about it on their forums. But don't blame people for suggesting that they censor nudity or remove violence or nerf this character or buff this item. People suggest things on the internet all the time. People ask that things be changed (or not changed) to fit their view of the world. Be they stupid ideas or good ideas, getting ideas out there is a good thing. Its up to the developer to choose what they feel is and isn't right.

I won't blame the people for suggesting it (Like if someone were to randomly throw out "This could be a cool cannibal look" I'd be fine with that). I will blame them for pressuring and pressuring the devs until they change it.

That is within someone's right to ask for a change to a game they like or don't like. But again, its the developer's decision if they want to ignore or go with someone asking for a balance change or asking for a nudity filter or less violence.

Of course. If someone doesn't go "CHANGE THIS NAO. TITS R EEEEVEEEEL" and instead goes "This could be a nice new look for the cannibals" I'll be perfectly fine with the judgement of the developers.

[Endoperez]

Any money is good money, but some indie devs aren't like that, they don't need/want/care about the money.

FOOD. ELECTRICITY. INTERNET. HOME.

It's impossible to make a game without money...

I'll go through some community-"forced" changes and analyze them later.

You claim this thread is about rare cases when devs cave in. But one of your examples was 'every other game is Thomas was alone'. If the cases are ready and not becoming more common, it's mountains out of molehills kind of situation

[Phoenixwarrior141]

FOOD. ELECTRICITY. INTERNET. HOME.

It's impossible to make a game without money...

Day Job? There are certainly other ways to earn money as a game developer without developing games (Getting money from other games you already released).

I'll go through some community-"forced" changes and analyze them later.

And this is why niche games exist. They don't have to make any forced changes because they stick with what THEY want to do.

You claim this thread is about rare cases when devs cave in. But one of your examples was 'every other game is Thomas was alone'. If the cases are ready and not becoming more common, it's mountains out of molehills kind of situation

I meant that in the end we will have no characters and every indie dev has to say "Fuck characters" (Not exactly relevant if the game isn't story driven, so I guess this is a bad example) and just give a few random details to avoid getting flak from SJWs.

They don't have to buy the game to go on YouTube and see that the women in game have tits and got batshit about it.

[Endoperez]

FOOD. ELECTRICITY. INTERNET. HOME.

It's impossible to make a game without money...

Day Job? There are certainly other ways to earn money as a game developer without developing games (Getting money from other games you already released).

Making games IS my day job! Getting money from the other games I released was ALSO my day job!

If you're flipping burgers in a burger joint, you don't give freebies to the guys who want free food because they paid yesterday, or because someone else paid yesterday. In fact, you do not give freebies...

If I'm making a game and I'm not doing it to make money, I'm not a professional game developer. I'm a hobbyist. I'm an amateur, would-be, could-have-been, a student. I might be an indie.

For this whole discussion I have been talking about professional game developers. The guys for whom making games is their livelihood, who take this seriously, who sell games they make.

You might have a point with the community side, but you have NO RIGHT to tell me that my JOB includes working for free. I mean, it's game development - the money kinda sucks compared to what else one can do with similar skills. I could be modeling plastic bottles and soaps and chocolate letters for advertising and get more money with less hours. Money is not the only thing, but it is an essential thing.

And this is why niche games exist. They don't have to make any forced changes because they stick with what THEY want to do.

Okay, niche game examples specifically. Will do. I have a perfect one in mind. I don't know when I'll have the time for it, but here's what I'm expecting: developers ignore suggestions they're not interested in, and developers adopt suggestions that work well with the game.

I meant that in the end we will have no characters and every indie dev has to say "Fuck characters" (Not exactly relevant if the game isn't story driven, so I guess this is a bad example) and just give a few random details to avoid getting flak from SJWs.

They don't have to buy the game to go on YouTube and see that the women in game have tits and got batshit about it.

Indie developers don't have to do games without characters to avoid getting flak, because they don't need to avoid getting flak. Getting flak isn't a big thing, unless it's harassment, which I haven't seen feminists do as much as I've seen feminists receive.

Being critiqued isn't a big thing.

I'm a feminist and think it's wrong to have women with big boobs in games without a reason. I don't think "it's sexy" is reason enough. "It makes for a better, more identifiable silhouette" is a reason I heard yesterday, and accepted wholeheartedly. I still disagreed with that guy when he said having boobs isn't a problem because it isn't a problem this time, and I explained my view, and he agreed on some of it.

Being harassed is a bad thing.

Being told by many people that they don't like your work, even HATE your work, is harsh, but not necessarily evil. It already happens for books, for movies, for comics. Sometimes it has a point, sometimes not. Sometimes the detractors are 100% right, or 100% wrong, or partly right and partly wrong.

My most important point is that it doesn't matter whether the critique is deserved or not. What matters is that developers can judge that themselves.

Is there a specific number of examples I have to give to convince you of it?

[Endoperez]

Wait, did you start this because the developers of the game "The Forest" changed naked female cannibals to black-shiny-blood covered female cannibals?


A short search implies that it's a bug.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/242760/di ... 973595103/
The black thing is supposed to be blood. It's supposed to be gruesome. It's not.

The old naked ones are still there, just more rare. The developers probably upped the spawn rate of the new things to test them out, then didn't remember to tone it down again. I've done that myself many times.

Do you have any other examples of this thing you complain about actually happening? I can think of at least 1.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Making games IS my day job! Getting money from the other games I released was ALSO my day job!

If you're flipping burgers in a burger joint, you don't give freebies to the guys who want free food because they paid yesterday, or because someone else paid yesterday. In fact, you do not give freebies...

If I'm making a game and I'm not doing it to make money, I'm not a professional game developer. I'm a hobbyist. I'm an amateur, would-be, could-have-been, a student. I might be an indie.

For this whole discussion I have been talking about professional game developers. The guys for whom making games is their livelihood, who take this seriously, who sell games they make.

You might have a point with the community side, but you have NO RIGHT to tell me that my JOB includes working for free. I mean, it's game development - the money kinda sucks compared to what else one can do with similar skills. I could be modeling plastic bottles and soaps and chocolate letters for advertising and get more money with less hours. Money is not the only thing, but it is an essential thing.

This entire rant is worthless. I was talking about devs who go "I'm going to make a game and release it for gaming's sake. The money will just pay my rent and recoup my losses".

Okay, niche game examples specifically. Will do. I have a perfect one in mind. I don't know when I'll have the time for it, but here's what I'm expecting: developers ignore suggestions they're not interested in, and developers adopt suggestions that work well with the game.

Of course.

My most important point is that it doesn't matter whether the critique is deserved or not. What matters is that developers can judge that themselves.

Yes. We agree on this.

[Endoperez]

This entire rant is worthless. I was talking about devs who go "I'm going to make a game and release it for gaming's sake. The money will just pay my rent and recoup my losses".

Name one.

I mean, putting aside the fact that paying rent is what the day job is for, this is a ridiculous ideal. Can you name any indie who is losing money in game dev but continues to do it for gaming's sake?

What matters is that developers can judge that themselves.

Yes. We agree on this.

If we agree, why do you claim develops misjudge angry rants with good ideas and will stop having characters?