This has been a running theme in the later half of the 10's, developers will actively seek out input directly from streamers and some may even change the course of the game directly based on what active and popular streamers have to say about it, there are some notable cases like PUBG, Rust and GTA V, and for the most part it's relatively harmless, there's just a big problem, gaming like everything is subjective and it can lead to some pretty stupid and weird game play changes, likewise it has the opposite effect sometimes where developers will actively ignore streamers complaints simply because they're streamers, How you doing Brenden Greene, so today we're going to look at some of the pros and cons of developers listening to streamers for input.
Gaming is Subjective
Like any form of free form art, gaming is subjective and as such it should be treated like that, unfortunately a lot of streamers take their own opinions as facts and sadly a lot of developers will do this as well, the best instance I have of this is Rust, during it's transition from Legacy to New, there was a lot of downtime and things that needed to be fixed, thankfully Garry and FacePunch are amazing developers but they fell into this trap when streamers and a very very vocal minority started what is essentially a crusade with the gun play of the game.
Anyone who remembers Legacy Rust remembers the gun play was amazing, it was HitScan and didn't really have the shoehorned "realism" that most games suffer from, however a few streamers, not naming names, and a small part of the community decided this was bad and it needed to be changed to the "realism" that most games where getting involved in, it was a fucking shit show for months when they decided to do this, first of all it didn't work properly because it wasn't how the game was set up, secondly it let people basically exploit the shooting mechanics of the game since the way it was set up, nothing short of a headshot to the back of the head would down someone and it just didn't work.
The Aim cones of the game were woefully destroyed when they attempted this and Garry and Co spent months trying to fix this before they finally scrapped it and went back to the tried and tested gun play of Rust and everything went back to be awesome, this is only a small part but it was pushed on the majority because Garry listened to a small playerbase they felt was more valuable and finally realized were just complaining about the game because it wasn't their personal vision of the game, anyone who knows video game development knows that it's literally impossible to cater to every individual person.
Streamers aren't important to developers.
This sentiment might piss some people off but it's true, streamers are great for 2 things, entertainment and getting your game recognized, most streamers only have a very basic understanding of video game development and tech limitations, they aren't exactly in the best position to make choices on gaming, again, How you doing Brenden Greene, i'm not saying they can't help with development or aren't great for bug catching but playing video games and designing them are two incredibly different things, for example iv'e been a gamer for over 20 years now, I play every day and play a lot of games, but it's not that that gives me the ability to criticize or praise.
Iv'e been pretty high up in a lot of games over the years, Counter-Strike, C&C, Warcraft, Dota, World of Warcraft, the list goes on, but for all my experience that isn't what gives me a unique perspective, it's because iv'e been following game design and technology development in tandem to playing games, most streamers don't, they load up a game, put on their cams and let their personalities do the rest, like I said, great for exposure of your product, not exactly great for design choices, probably the only well known streamer i'd say is in that position to give this advice, as much as I'm loathe to say it, is DrDisrespect since he understands game development at a fundamental level.
Now like I said, I have no problem with streamers, I enjoy the eyes they put on video games, but they aren't more important than the average gamer, they're celebrities and should largely be treated as such, the problem is with fame, comes following and with following comes blind obeisance that streamers know what they're talking about when in actuality they really don't, ask an active streamer what tessellation does and what it needs to work properly and you'll soon find out they know about as much as the rest of us do when it comes to gaming design, thankfully most triple A titles don't fall into this trap, but with the rise of the indie market, we're seeing what are essentially celebrities dictate gameplay for the rest of us.
Not as bad as i'm making it out to be.
I know I have a flair for being dramatic and often times a lot of the things i've brought up aren't rampant problems, but this is sort of the slippery slope mentality, is that enough streamers are dictating multiplayer game play now that it's been caught by my radar and many others, but thankfully this has largely stayed in the indie scene with triple A titles largely ignoring this a part from very big "campaigns" of people like the Battlefront 2 fiasco, but as someone who does play a lot of...lets say double A titles, it's annoying when a big streamer can complain about something, then suddenly it's a problem that needs to be fixed.
The gaming industry has changed over the past few years, bug testing, alpha and beta testing are all now a marketing campaign in the form of Early Access, and they rely on word of mouth to get their product spread, unfortunately this also means whoever has the biggest word of mouth can usually influence the direction of the game for better or worse, in Rust' case it was for the worse and for games like PUBG, it became about placating the streamers with stupid "invitationals" when the game wasn't even ready to be called a beta.
But I did say it wasn't as bad as it seems and it's not, its just getting there, sort of like loot boxes in the early 10's, everyone said it wouldn't be a problem, now it's the scourge of the industry, and for better or worse I don't like people having influence of the market, top streamers like Shroud or acculite can heavily sway opinion on games, I know i have a modest following now, but I actively seek to make sure people know that this is just my opinion, it's not gospel and it shouldn't be treated as more important than your own opinion, but sadly it's getting to become a cult of personality with some of these streamers.
Like every thing that is just popping up in the gaming industry, only time will tell, and I wanted to make it clear that there are some great streamers out there pushing games in the right direction, but ideally i'd rather companies stick to their guns and create their own vision, instead of pandering to an artificial market where whoever is the loudest in the most right.
Extremely interesting topic. You just inadvertently talked about Democracy, and the difference between Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy.
At some point in history, players became involved in a game's creation process. Before that point it was substantially easier - the developer developed the game, released it, got feedback through market and media, got back to developing with more experience and more feedback. The developers could impress upon the game their style, their brand, their views and ideas. For some reason, this process was not good enough, and it was decided that both minor and some of the major developers had to receive direct feedback from their users directly, at all time, at every phase of the creative process. That's where things get messy, because you either decide to listen to everyone - and I mean read every comment on every platform - or you decide to listen to the closest thing to a representative - streamers, curators, famous gamers. So it became sort of a democracy. Streamers are not really elected, but are chosen according to their following. Their followers choose them not because of their competence and experience, but because of their charisma and entertainment capacity - much like in real politics. And so it starts.
I agree with you in the end. I think games should get back to reflecting the ideas of the developers. If I think about the games that have changed history, I think "what would have happened if they had changed this crucial element, this innovative action, this plot turning point mid-way just because some players didn't like them?"
Could you imagine games like Metal Gear Solid, Banjo Kazooie, Legend of Zelda, Counter Strike and the like being a community based project? they'd be a fucking nightmare and wouldn't be the legends that they are today, they'd be colossal cluster fucks, the problem is as we enter the post information era, everyone feels their opinion should be taken seriously when in actuality, most peoples opinions are fucking stupid and doesn't work.
I'd love to see a return to closed development of games where we get the finished product, then we can critique it instead of constant early access interference.
Thanks for the massive response my dude though!
That's my point exactly.
Fuck politically correctness, am I right? ahahah
Don't get me started on people and opinions, we'd need a separate post for that one...anyway that's the short version I guess.
Thank you buddy, you can only have a good response if your post was good for discussion in the first place :D
Nintendo are quite famous for seeking out attributes outside of gaming when it comes to hiring designers. Being a gamer, a lover of video games, it simply isnt an important criteria. This translates to their continually fresh design.
I find the same in music, it is the outsiders that bring the most creativity.
Tried to tell this to so many people, Video game creation is so much different to video game experience, people just can't separate the two anymore.