Should Publishers Have Demographic Advocates?
At his Game Tycoon blog, Xbox Live Arcade portfolio planner David Edery has been discussing the idea of 'demographic advocates', asking if "...video game publishers might be well served by having an internal advocate for different demographic groups."
Edery explains: "The idea came to mind when I was thinking about Marble Blast Ultra, one of our XBLA games. I have heard it said on more than one occasion that “if Marble Blast Ultra included a sandbox mode in which there were no penalties, no timers, etc, it would be a perfect kid’s game.” Conversely, when playing Pokemon Diamond, I’ve often thought 'if only there were a way to speed up the rather slow and repetitive feeling of battles (among other related issues), this game might have some chance of appealing to more adults.'"
He also makes suggestions on how other ethnic and gender groups can be better served, explaining: "Theoretically, the marketing arm of a publisher would be responsible for these observations. But it seems to me that, while this kind of thinking does take place in the industry, it does so sporadically. I think we’re a mature enough industry to justify a more consistent approach. When relatively minor changes or additions to a game could result in a significantly larger target market, to be anything less than vigilant seems wasteful." Thoughts?
Comments
Will what this is advocating turn more games down this route: http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/379/crime_of_a_mch_nation_the_.php
?
Lets hope not? :)
Posted by: Josh Szepietowski | June 17, 2007 10:21 AM
Interesting. I'm still on the hunt for an Xbox 360 party game that DOESN'T require bots to fill the remaining 4th player slot.
Then my wife and I could go to town on each other and know that our 3 year old isn't being destroyed by even the easiest of AI.
Posted by: xamount | June 17, 2007 10:36 AM
My vote: no.
Anything that lobbies developers to follow some demographic is just going to take even more autonomy away from the designers. We've already seen (in Game Developer, no less) that focus groups nearly killed the Sims before release. I get the feeling that such advisors would just be used as another excuse for the producers to take control of the project out of the designer's hands.
Posted by: John H. | June 17, 2007 1:20 PM
I like modern games that are easier to play and have less frustration. I also like weird hard to play stuff too. I figure there will always be both. There will just be less money behind the weird stuff.
Playtesting is importent for balance. It shouldn't been seen as something that is going to destroy vision. Sims had pretty ground breaking gameplay. Most games aren't anything like that.
Posted by: Corey Holcomb-Hockin | June 17, 2007 2:20 PM
Making changes to a game in the middle of development to appeal to a broader audience doesn't work. These types of changes fundamentally change the nature of the game and could dilute the fun factor.
Games have to be designed for a broad audience from the very start in order to reach a larger demographic. In this way, the original vision for the game isn't lost.
Posted by: Velops | June 17, 2007 4:19 PM
Wasn't Halo going to be RTS game for computers?
Thats the only positive example I can think of.
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/425/425116p1.html
Posted by: Corey Holcomb-Hockin | June 17, 2007 10:18 PM