Feedback, feedback as far as the inbox goes
I’ve been getting feedback for Steam Marines for over a year now and I’ve gotten fairly good at reading between the lines. This post is part deduction, part reduction. Do remember that my game is intended to be challenging so I have a design bias toward that goal.
Get fat on the feedback
Gamers generally don’t lie in their feedback. Even if they send you long, rambling emails that contradict themselves a few times it usually just means they didn’t play that much or weren’t quite as observant as they might have been.
Very few people will go out of their way to mislead you via feedback. They can be factually incorrect, ignore the big picture, or generally misunderstand, but they’re rarely malicious.
The effort required to leave any feedback automatically puts them in the top 10% of your active player base. It would behoove you to engage at least on a basic level rather than ignore them entirely – in my opinion.
“It’s too repetitive.”
For them it really is too repetitive. But that’s not the problem. Games by nature are repetitive. That’s why we have rules and mechanics and systems. When people pull out the repetitive criticism it means they mean they don’t like the core gameplay.
What they want is usually 1) fluff that gives them a reason to play the game, or 2) different systems that are also repetitive but of the variety they like.
Take your favorite game, one you might at first blush not label repetitive, and write down the top three most frequent actions you perform. It’ll probably constitute 99% of the game.
“Not enough replay value.”
This is code for “I want more content.” More levels, more classes, more characters, more items, more enemies, more music, more eye candy, et cetera. This is similar to the repetitive feedback except…
… it’s a +8 Red Herring.
My game is fortunate in this aspect because it features procedurally generated levels and the difficulty likes to kick players in the teeth. So the expectation of the game is that you’ll be replaying a lot of the first few levels, and my level generator delivers. Mostly.
What makes media, interactive or otherwise, inherently rewatchable? It pretty much boils down to engagement. I like watching Batman: The Dark Knight Returns a lot. It’s a great two part animated film. But there’s nothing inherently new in it. It’s the same film. I don’t catch new details I missed on previous viewings or get any new thought-provoking scenes.
There’s a reason people can play the Mass Effect installments repeatedly, with the same kind of build, same gender, same alignment, and the same choices – engagement. They love the characters, they love the interaction, and they want to experience it and re-experience it again.
So don’t necessarily read “not enough replay value” as “add more crap”. Making your tiny pile of crap (and I say that with affection) more engaging is probably the better route.
“Oh, I didn’t notice that.”
I’ve raged a lot in private that people don’t read tooltips, ability descriptions, don’t read anything. Ultimately I feel the majority of the burden still lies on the developer, particularly if no new/unique mechanics or systems are being brought into play.
In Steam Marines when a marine takes a shot at any unit at max weapon range the chance to hit is 100%. This is really cool because good positioning gives you an amazing edge. This is really uncool because it’s unintuitive.
Generally you expect hit chance to scale up as a unit gets closer to its target. Having the 100% chance to hit be at max range means adjusting the max range of a unit’s weapon is a tradeoff decision as opposed to something like higher damage being strictly better.
I’ve had players swear by shotgun-toting marines with deliberately short ranges of 1-2 tiles. A lot of people ask me why the hell I would implement a mod that reduces weapon range – that’s why.
Aside: Some players, upon discovering this, have told me they will be fans forever. I don’t know how true that will be over time, but it feels nice.
There are a few ways a player can learn or be reminded of this. It tells you in the tutorial. A little panel pops up telling you your hit chance when a marine targets an enemy. The tile/unit animation moves faster and turns purple when you have a max range shot. Short of an announcer, giant flashing animation, and screen shake, I make it pretty clear.
But I still get people unaware of the existence of this mechanic. Whose fault is this? Mine, mostly. I could always shrug my shoulders and say, “I made it really obvious; ball’s in their court now.” But I feel that’s sloppy design. So I’ll work on it. I’ll make more visual/audio cues for it. Maybe I’ll pop visual messages of when you take advantage or can take advantage of it.
Aside: Feedback on what could be clearer is always golden, especially since you and your long-time players will have a blind spot toward concepts and mechanics you already know and understand.
“It has potential.”
This is a throwaway comment meaning, “I could like this if you do what I like.” By itself, which it usually is, this can’t help you. Just mentally replace with, “I’m not engaged with the game in its current state.”
It’s essentially the king of noncommittal comments.
“It’d be cool if you added/removed/changed this!”
Even if the suggestions are insanely imbalanced or difficult to implement it gives you insight into what they want. This is a good thing even though you should beware kitchen sink mentality. Too many people believe that just throwing features into a game makes it better when the reverse is typically true.
It’s like when you get an awesome idea and prototype it – and it sucks. They probably don’t have the benefit of realizing their ideas might suck within the context of your game. Remember it’s not their job to achieve game balance; it’s yours as the game designer.
Aside: It’s great when people suggest options already in the game. Fist Pump Quota +1. But you should have made it more clear it was available. Head Desk Quota +2.
“It’s really fun/cool/good!”
That’s awesome and what you should take away from that is you’re on the right track! But you should still polish your core gameplay till it shines.
Aside: If you’re making a commercial game and someone tells you it’s really good, ask if he/she would pay for it. If you get anything other than a resounding YES it’s not good enough.
There’s a game called Arnthak and I harp on the jumping to the developer all the time. It feels stilted and unnatural to me – generally not fun. Given it’s the most performed action I will continue to harp on it (sorry, Kale!)
“It’s too expensive!”
It’s difficult to say anything meaningful on the subject since it varies so much from game to game, geographical location, and economic situation. The best answer I can give regarding this is to read my blog post about Commercial Indie Games & Risk.
Beyond that I’d like to mention that I’ve become disillusioned with the idea of “niche games” – in the sense that I don’t think niche games are as niche as people like to believe. Even games in “popular genres” can fail all over themselves. I believe that, in the long run, production and design values far outweigh genre, at least for indies.
Tag this and laugh in my face if I ever make a visual novel/point-and-click game that fails all over itself.
People will generally give you feedback in terms of pre-existing stuff. Do this but 10% better. Do this like in this other game. This applies to both gamers and developers.
Don’t get into a feature list arms race.
I’ve never once received feedback of the form “change the mechanic to this and that one to this to compensate so your system works like this which is better because X, Y, Z.” That would be fantastic even if it’s insanely, objectively wrong.
I don’t mean to say the suggestions are always bad, just that there is a lot of “Oh, I didn’t think of that” during the back and forth. And that’s okay, I’m just saying don’t be too easily swayed. If you make changes based on feedback do it because of solid reasons, not just because many people said so.
Thanks for reading,