When developers and players disagree about gameplay derailment.

A problem I've seen in games which are continually updated or that receive multiple sequels is that players will often embrace and popularize unintentionally introduced mechanics or nuances over what was originally designed.

If the developers are unhappy about the new direction(s), what are the pros and cons of simply gritting their teeth and riding the wagon down the path they dislike versus trying to shift the game back on track via changes and such? Is a compromise even possible?

Um. For a concrete example, I'd look at Super Smash Bros., where the majority of the playerbase plays in a particular style that takes as much randomness out of the game as possible, and the developers' response has been to...simply ignore the tournament scene and continue developing SSB as a quirky, intentionally random Mascot Fighter with as many weird stages and items as they can come up with.

And the fans continue to buy it, and probably wouldn't even notice if the developers changed it to pander to them. But by the same token, the developers aren't going to remove the features that allow said Gameplay Derailment (or they really would lose their customer base). So "ignore it and continue on" is a workable compromise in this particular case.

edited 19th Jul '13 9:34:50 PM by Ramidel

Would it not be possible for ignoring it to cause you to inadvertently create a change that turns that derailment off?

Possibly. And I think that turning off said derailment, as I said, would likely cause the existing playerbase to revolt, and possibly jump ship altogether.

But that's not going to happen in any for-profit game design. There's the usual amount of hate and Broken Base in any sizable fandom, but the moment people actually start jumping ship in droves, the people in suits who tell the developers what to do will take note and tell the developers to fix this now.

Yeah, Smash Bros. is a weird example in that regard because every game has given you the option to choose a stage (where at least two have been very neutral in their construction and have no hazards) and turn items off (which is where most of the randomness comes from).

I'm gonna go ahead and drop in here to say that I actually like randomness in games, at least in moderation. It has its place and, when done well, I find it at least as enjoyable as a rigid test of skill. For example, the Halo games. Yeah, yeah, I know, but it's good to use some of the other weapons in the sandbox sometimes. It's fun.

I don't think that developers really intentionally cut things the community embraces out of a sense of "You aren't playing the game we meant to be played!" I think it's more that they make the changes they do because they think, for better or worse, that it'll be more fun the way they're doing it. That's what this random schmoe that's never had experience on the creative side of anything thinks, anyway.

The only time where it's clear they don't want it to be played that way is when they do stuff that screws with the game if it's emulated, or using a Cheat Device.

These don't happen terribly often, but still.

Then why is it that when players of games label certain aspects of a game essential and others garbage, the developers respond with changes in updates or sequels? Why are there so many player-discovered mechanics and methods being labeled as 'exploits' and 'fixed' in short order (in both online and offline games)? That surely indicates a serious discrepancy between the devs' ideal and the players' ideal.

That would be because other players often complain about the exploits, which they listen to at times.

Again, note how I said "it's only clear" with two very specific points.

The other stuff isn't actually clear why they do it whatsoever.

Some developers flat out won't compromise and will do everything in their power to iron out unusual play styles and exploitation of mechanics (i.e., Blizzard with World of Warcraft.) Rather that's a good thing or not I think depends on how badly the derailment impacts the game as a whole. Exploiting glitches to such a degree that it's a game in and of itself like in Marvel vs Capcom 2 is something developers should probably do something about, but creative manipulation of mechanics in ways unintended could lead to all sorts of new possibilities in future games that the devs never would of thought of themselves.

It's how Grand Theft Auto came to be as it is now, and the origin of the combo system that damn near every fighting game today uses.

I think Blizzard does what it does because its running an MMO. That's a lot more sensitive to imbalance issues or overly fast consumption of content than, say, Skyrim.