Advice you don't agree with?

[Philosophus Vagus]

oh boy - yeah this one makes the top 5 for sure. In a broader sense even as I would also tag inclusivity to it. I mean I am all for inclusivity (Im gay myself for crying out loud) but no not every game under the sun needs the full rainbow cast just to be inclusive! if it fits the story and setting then yes, please but if you got to force it in then by Jove...don't.

Yeah I was thinking about inclusion too when I was talking about accessibility because the two ideas do kind of come out of the same ethos. I don't have the energy to open and rebut that particular can of worms personally though, so good on you for taking it on for me

But I do agree with you, I'm up for anything that develops organically, but when you try to force a checklist it becomes painfully noticeable really fast. I don't understand why, for instance, you get controversies like games set in the middle ages Poland and people will be like "but where are all the poc". I honestly don't get it, why would you want to insert people into settings where they don't belong, just for the sake of them being there? Why not make your own historical game set in Africa if that is something you want to see (and honestly, African history and folklore is a ripe field of inspiration that is far to underutilized in modern media. For gods sakes you could make a game about the Zulu and have people with spears and knives fighting people with guns and have it make sense, then add all kinds of folklore to boot to gamify it, folklore that we rarely actually see rather than the standard dragons and goblins or what have you!)

I don't understand it, everyone is obsessed with more black voices or more gay voices or whatever but few seem willing to actually tell authentic stories involving them, instead too often it seems we just whitewash (blackwash, rainbowwash?) traditional western stories and end up with all the same voices just played by different types of people instead which just seems incredibly fake and disingenuous to me, or when people play outside of that paradigm we get told we're appropriating culture even though taking interest in, learning about and incorporating other cultures into your ethos is literally how culture survives and thrives in the first place.

 

[Bernkastelwitch]

I think all I can say about the inclusivity comment is that it's really easy to know which character with those traits were naturally added in and which were forced into it for the sake of having that representation. I approve of inclusive representation but it's really obvious when one was forced in and it kind of hurts the character as a result.

 

[Cythera]

I just want to say, this thread on bad advice has turned into a thread of good advice, because everyone is saying why the bad advice is bad

Also, a few I've encountered, sorry for any repeats:

• Don't put complex puzzles in your game. You absolutely can; just know your target audience
• 'Customize this tileset/sprite/music/menu/etc. Kind of half on this one; yes, custom work makes your game stand out more. But! Sometimes this advice is given without noting the situation. If it's someone's first game, and they're just learning the engine and looking for general feedback on how they handle basic things, customization will hurt more than help them. They'll spend a lot of time getting custom resources, and then learning how to best use them, or even how to implement then, instead of focusing on just...learning how to dev? Additionally, if something is badly customized (say, badly-drawn tilesets for example) then it hurts more than non-custom resources
• Don't make your game too difficult for players. Okay, this one is probably personal to me and my desire for soul-destroying levels of difficulty. Again though, know your target audience
• Any advice that states 'you should add...' or 'you need to change...' simply because it's your game. Make what you want to play, learn to filter through advice and find what's useful to you. Even if advice is meant to be helpful, sometimes it just isn't right for what you're trying to make, and that's okay

 

[HexMozart88]

Don't even get me started with the inclusivity garbage. I've heard some pretty ridiculous hoops people have to jump through in order to be considered "inclusive".
- "Can you add this transgirl character in your game that's set in Japan? Oh, but why not? You have an (incredibly closeted) enby (who hasn't even transitioned)."
- The character from the group you're representing has to be a main character or they're just there to check a box.
Among other things. But that's enough of my ranting.

 

[ericv00]

Okay. this forum doesn't have the compliment of tools I expected, but that is okay. I'll edit my OP...

So. As many have commented on, there is a certain sentiment that inclusivity is a big pressure that many feel is unnecessary for a project. Well... +1.

I should never tell someone that their focus on a specific audience is wrong. As such, I don't think anyone has merit to tell me what communities to make a game for. If someone has a story to tell, they should tell THAT story. The characters for that story are for THAT story. If anyone tries to inject THEIR sensibilities into MY project, or anyone else's, that is actually the problem. That is narcissism of the highest order. If someone wants to make a game where every character is gay, and the story itself revolves around "gayness", that is fine. I will play or not play the game based on whether or not it interests me. If a person makes a game where there is no reference to homosexuality, I will play or not play the game based on whether or not it interests me. For someone to feel like they have the power to make you make what THEY want, they have to be not very good people to begin with, and they can be easily ignored. (I would say they SHOULD be.)

I'm going to try not to rant, mind you. Here is my thought: If someone argues that people should make media with the intent to present the perspective of one group of interest to those not in that group, that applies to groups with typical representation. A gay person should be made to see the perspective of straight people.... See the problem? To treat everyone with equal consideration, we either have to force everyone to see stories they may not be interested in, or deny the stories of everyone. OR... we could let people make whatever they wish to make. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on letting people make what they want to make because it will probably produce better stories.

Seriously, I'm trying not to rant... So... An adjacent issue here is the effort to INTERPRET a work in the way a specific person wants, either to cast suspicion on someone for being bigoted or to elevate a work for inclusivity. This only serves to diminish art. This is not seeing the art for what it is and/or not pulling the obvious intended messages from it. It's actually bastardizing the work for one's very specific interests/identity.

I have been criticized for creating characters of a typical female form. What does this do but try to prevent me from representing an average female form? Do these people hate typical women? I have been criticized for creating novel female forms. What does this do but encouage me to stick to typical female forms? Do these people hate unconventional women? Can I just make what I WANT? Can it stand simply with the people who appreciate the intent of the piece? For many, the answer is "no". And if I don't wish to deal with these people, the obvious option is to not create in the first place. Well... as a creative, I don't think the answer is to stop creating. I think the answer is to ignore the screeching from the narcissists. Make what ideas compel you to create. So long as you aren't blatently insulting people in your work, it should stand, even edgy parody.

TL;DR Make what you want.

If there is any advice that is actually advice it is this: Know our audience and market to that audience.

 

[Ragpuppy87]

Might be beating a dead horse at this point but yeah. "Avoid tropes" That's one I took far too seriously at one point. Tropes exist for a reason. They work. The majority of us won't be able to come up with something entirely new and creative. So we borrow from what has been done. And you shouldn't have to feel guilty about that as long as it isn't downright plagiarism. The more games that are released the harder it is to do something completely new. If stories didn't borrow from others the artform as a whole would die out eventually.

 

[Finnuval]

Might be beating a dead horse at this point but yeah. "Avoid tropes" That's one I took far too seriously at one point. Tropes exist for a reason. They work. The majority of us won't be able to come up with something entirely new and creative. So we borrow from what has been done. And you shouldn't have to feel guilty about that as long as it isn't downright plagiarism. The more games that are released the harder it is to do something completely new. If stories didn't borrow from others the artform as a whole would die out eventually.

Not only that but they serve a purpose. Stereotypes, clichés and tropes don't exist for no reason. Now they can be used badly and for the wrong reasons sure but they can also be used for the exact opposite and work perfectly.

In the end tho, the main concern should be to write/tell whatever story you want and make the game you want to make. With or without tropes.
Besides ppl will complain regardless xD

 

[Cythera]

As a friend of mine always used to say, "cliché is cliché for a reason." It works. There's really no original ideas anymore; you can argue almost everything is a rehash of something that came before it. The point is how you execute the idea; how you make a tired trope unique again.

 

[Shaz]

Um... Am I blind? How do I delete an obviously unintentional post?

You can't. If you want a post removed, you need to report it and ask the mods to remove it. Otherwise, just edit it and say it was posted in error, which is pretty much what you've done.

 

[Tai_MT]

"Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, painting over the ugly bits, and recycling it for more than it's worth."

Game Advice I don't really follow.

Extra Credits
Anything these guys promote or ever have promoted. They're not game devs, they're mouthpieces for companies like EA. If they have dispensed it as advice, I have quickly thrown it into the garbage.

I have no desire to learn from people who tell you not to do something, but that something they tell you not to do has been done in almost a dozen games to great effect and made best-selling games. It is often effectively, "Hey, don't do that thing that a popular best-selling game did, because it's bad design".

You Need Game Features!
Gotta add in content that "breaks up the game". Need some mini-games. Some puzzles. Need some side activity. Need random content to "break up the game". Because, when a person gets bored with your game, you should try to keep them in your game by not doing more of your game and doing another game!

Yeah, no. If I'm bored of your game... make a better game. Fix the boring bits. Don't suddenly design Poker and put it into your game in the hopes I'll forget your game is boring. Don't suddenly throw puzzles at me in an RPG in the hopes I'll forget your game is boring. If I'm disengaged from your game and want to put it down... fix your game.

It's silly advice to tell people to stop making a good game and to instead design Game Features that distract from the game.

Likewise, I don't accept advice for adding in a ton of different things. Skill Systems, Crafting, Action Points, etcetera. Especially not for the sake of "engagement". Listen, your "Break" gauge is boring. Your "weapon durability" is onerous. Why can't you just make a game that's fun to play rather than one filled with all the features from other games you thought were cool?

Design a Game You Want To Play!
Listen... I understand the sentiment. I really do. But, it's not realistic. As artists, we want recognition from our peers that we've "made a good game". If you're just designing a game for yourself, you don't need to be on these forums. You don't even need to talk about your game. So long as you find it fun, that's all that matters.

The problem is... none of us are designing games for ourselves. We're designing games for others. As such, we need to adhere to what our audiences want. Our audiences want a fun game. We are not adequate judges of fun for our own games due to inherent bias. Listen to what game players tell you about your game, or games in general, and design for that. Don't listen to what devs/amateur devs think is fun in a game and design that.

Do not design a game you want to play. Design a game your audience wants to play.

Fun is subjective!
I immediately tune out when someone gives me advice with this in there somewhere. Fun isn't subjective. It's demonstrably provable. There's a nearly scientific method in crafting "fun". It's typically called "Game Theory", but it runs pretty heavily into Player Psychology.

Fun isn't measurable in "Skinner Box" terms either.

Fun, by and large, is measured in "emotional response". Something a player doesn't connect with on an emotional level is never going to be fun. What and how a player connects to something will be subjective. But, fun, itself, isn't. You need to establish that emotional connection in order for players to be having fun.

Think about that a second. Most devs don't. Think about every game you've ever played and enjoyed. All your favorite games. You got emotionally invested in them somehow, right? It wasn't because you were tied to a Skinner Box. It wasn't because you were logging in every single day to do a few things and log out. No, you had some sort of emotional investment in the game. The story. The characters. The Adrenaline Rush. The sense of accomplishment. Etcetera. An emotional attachment.

If you try to state "Fun is subjective!" then you've already failed as a game dev because you don't know what you're talking about. As such, I refuse to listen a thing you have to say about game design. Your job as a game dev is to know the audience you're trying to reach and to design a game that is fun for that audience. If you don't know the method you need to craft that fun for that audience, then you know nothing.

Tutorials are important!
Yes and no on this one. More often than not, games include tutorials when they're just really not necessary. I don't find the "skip tutorial" option much better as a player.

I don't need someone to tell me what every button does. The first thing most people who play a game do is test every single button to see what it does. You don't have to tell me which joystick does what. You don't have to tell me to press A to jump.

Likewise, you don't need a tutorial for anything your player can figure out by just clicking on it and experimenting a little. A great many games I've played don't need a tutorial for much of anything.

You know what you need a tutorial for? Things that aren't easy to intuit. If I can't figure out a system in the span of a minute... then design a tutorial for it.

You need stuff on your map!
Yes and no. Most often, I see the "overcluttered" maps as the "pinnacle" of design on these forums. I just... no. I can't. Many of these maps are just "over-designed". There's too much on them. Too much going on. You don't need to fill in all the negative space. You don't need to fill in absolutely everything with something interesting going on. My eyes don't need to be overstimulated with every square inch of your map.

Likewise, I have no desire to design this way.

As the saying goes, "If everyone is special, nobody is". This applies to your map space as well. If every single screen of your map is so busy with so much going on and so much clutter... your players tune it out after a while and you've effectively wasted your time over-designing your play spaces.

Sometimes, less is more.

Just finish a game!
Not always very good advice. If you want to design a game, design one. However, most people on these forums aren't actually "game designers". They've chosen "game design" as the thing they do in order to do the thing they enjoy about game design. The artists who create new game projects just to create new artwork for them. The musicians who create new game projects just to create new music for them. The system designers who create new games just to implement new systems. The writers who create new games just to craft new stories.

None of these people are game designers. They never will be. It is utterly pointless to try to push these people into "completing a game". They don't want to. They never will. They're here to do the one thing they enjoy about game design... and they'll start new projects to continue to do that one thing they enjoy doing in game design.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. But, rather than telling people to finish their games, we should be asking them if they even want to finish a game or if they just really enjoy doing that one thing enough that they keep making new projects to keep doing it. A person with a passion for game development will complete a game. They will finish making one. A person without this passion will never get around to it.

Advice should be dispensed on this subject to help people realize whether or not they actually want to design games or if they just want to be on a game design team.

Tropes are impossible to avoid! Don't bother avoiding them!
Yes and no. The advice on this is often wrong. It isn't about whether or not you use a trope. It's about knowing how and why a trope is used. If you don't know how and why they are used or subverted, you probably shouldn't be the one doing the writing for your game.

Tropes in the wrong hands is nearly equivalent to letting a rank amateur stand in as conductor for an orchestra.

You need good graphics!
No. You don't. I love to quote Ross Scott on this. "See, here's the thing about graphics snobs: They're kind of hypocrites and they don't even know it. Think of the most realistic game you know of today. It looks amazing, right? Well, guess what, graphics snobs? That game you think looks so great now? I guarantee you it's going to look lame in 20 years compared to what you can play on your holodeck." And... "Evolving graphics are just a treadmill. If you can't even appreciate them in different flavors, then what are you doing with your life?"

Your graphics need to be Aesthetically pleasing and nothing more. They need to communicate to the player what is going on and mesh well with the rest of the game.

It doesn't matter if you have like super Ray-Tracing graphics or what-have-you. It's a novelty. Players stop noticing it after about an hour of gameplay. Lots of wasted time and processing power on something the players quit noticing after an hour, isn't it? That water that looks so amazing? Yeah, your players get desensitized to it after an hour and then ignore how "pretty" it is.

I refuse to take advice from people who don't even realize these things are a "novelty". Yep, the trailer looked amazing. I won't care 30 hours from now how it looks, but I'll definitely be caring that the gameplay is garbage... or the multiplayer is unbalanced... or it's glitchy and doesn't work properly...

Games are about an experience. If the vast majority of your time and effort into making something LOOK GOOD while it doesn't do anything else well... Congrats, you have done it wrong.

A gold plated turd sure does look shiny, but it still smells like crap.
---
Okay, that's what I've got for now. I just honestly tend to ignore any advice from "the accepted majority". Mostly for the reason of, "It's always been done this way, so we'll always do it this way".

I prefer "innovation" over "conformity". If 99 people tell me to do something one way, I will be the 100th person who does it differently just for the sake of doing so. I want to know why things are done that way and whether it's even necessary to be so formulaic in game design anymore.

I've run my entire life on this premise. I want to go down the roads people don't travel so that I have stories about why you do or don't travel those roads. I don't just want to "accept conventional wisdom".

My response to, "Don't do X because of Y" is to give people the finger and set about trying to make X work despite Y. Out of spite. Because I want to innovate.

 

[ericv00]

Design a Game You Want To Play!
Listen... I understand the sentiment. I really do. But, it's not realistic. As artists, we want recognition from our peers that we've "made a good game". If you're just designing a game for yourself, you don't need to be on these forums. You don't even need to talk about your game. So long as you find it fun, that's all that matters.

The problem is... none of us are designing games for ourselves. We're designing games for others. As such, we need to adhere to what our audiences want. Our audiences want a fun game. We are not adequate judges of fun for our own games due to inherent bias. Listen to what game players tell you about your game, or games in general, and design for that. Don't listen to what devs/amateur devs think is fun in a game and design that.

Do not design a game you want to play. Design a game your audience wants to play.

You have a good post in most respects. But here I don't agree. Sort of...

If one isn't working on a project they are personally invested in, it's not going to go super well. Lets turn your advice on its head:

Design a game you DON'T want to play!

Does this make sense? Probably not.

The idea here is that we KNOW what we like, and we presume to know other people will like it too. That's not a bad assumption. Certainly better than 'people won't like what I like , so why bother'.

Paying attention to the tastes of other people is wise, but not at the expense of our own vision. We DO want to design a game we want to play. We just don't want that to exclude everyone else on the planet in the process.

 

[The Stranger]

Paying attention to the tastes of other people is wise, but not at the expense of our own vision. We DO want to design a game we want to play. We just don't want that to exclude everyone else on the planet in the process.

Paying too much attention to the wishes of an audience, and catering exactly to their tastes, leads to nothing but redoing the same thing again, and again, and again for years to come. People rag on Call of Duty, but people clearly want it. It's not innovative or even really creative, but it sure as sh*t makes money.

I do want to create a game I'd like to play. Well not just me, but my friends, too. Since I'm not so unique that my taste in games and stories is something totally alien to the rest of the world, I'm sure others out there would also enjoy playing what I create, if I pull it off well.

 

[Tayruu]

To put it simply for non-tech people, the practice allows you to avoid a potential plugin conflict because someone else uses the same name (which really has an abysmal chance, except you're building a website with a massive JS library). However, the drawback is you can not apply a separate patch to the plugin (to fix or alter the behavior by adding a separate plugin. You have to explicitly edit the said plugin. This is, for me, extremely inconvenient.

Woah, this is a strange design choice? It seems incredibly unfriendly for those used to the ruby-based RMs, where one might want to create a separate script with the specific aliased methods or edits they want, so they can update the scripts they've downloaded without losing their changes.

This kinda leads onto something I feel myself, and that you should use the latest versions of the engines. Tthere's so much about MV-onwards that just doesn't strike me as beneficial. Yeah, XP is lacking in a lot of respects, but I can cover those in scripts. What I can't cover in later RMs, like VXA and MZ, is the map editor. I don't want to use a separate editor for 50% of my game!

I had someone recently go on at length at me about how many ~plugins~ are available for MV, and nothing seemed any more convenient than what I'd been using in XP and VXAce. I want to be able to use the engine I'm used to without being disparaged about its age or whatever.

... really, the only thing that significantly bothers me is being unable to use a multi-platform runtime, or any other technical shortcomings with it.

 

[TheGentlemanLoser]

having just skimmed this thread, I think I'm just gonna play it safe and not give anyone any advice of any kind in the future

 

[Storyteller-Hero]

I've found that a lot of advice about making one's first game seems to assume that the person receiving advice is a complete newbie in all aspects of game-making, but that's not going to be true for everyone. Some people might already be programmers, artists, musicians, sound designers, writers, playwrights, etc. and are starting from a very different place. A person who has written a novel or full-length play for example has the experience of writing a big story from beginning to end, which will put them in a very different starting area for a potentially ambitious RPG story from a person who has never written more than a few pages of material for a writing project.

 

[ATT_Turan]

Telling people not to make their dream game. If someone really wants to attempt something, let them...Because who wants to waste weeks or months (most likely of your spare time) doing something you don't care about?

I don't know what context you've seen this in, so we might be talking about different things. The only way I've seen this advice (and given it myself) is to not make their dream game first - learn the basic functionality of the engine by doing the tutorials.

There's no way that takes weeks or months...like, one evening. Two, if you do extra stuff from YouTube tutorials. And then you know how to do the basic things in RPG Maker and you're not posting in a forum asking how to add a new monster to your game

 

[Tai_MT]

You have a good post in most respects. But here I don't agree. Sort of...

If one isn't working on a project they are personally invested in, it's not going to go super well. Lets turn your advice on its head:

Design a game you DON'T want to play!

Does this make sense? Probably not.

If you can only be invested in a project because you would like it, you're not cut out to be a creative in the first place.

The world is full of finished books, games, songs, and paintings that nobody wants, nobody likes, and with dozens of flaws, because of this silly advice.

As a creative you need to accept that maybe what you like is garbage. Or, maybe what you like isn't what anyone else likes.

I mean, do YOU want to read "Empress Theresa"? I don't. Do YOU want to read Oniison's books? I don't.

The idea here is that we KNOW what we like, and we presume to know other people will like it too. That's not a bad assumption. Certainly better than 'people won't like what I like , so why bother'.

Presuming others like we like is how you become arrogant. It is also how you delude yourself into not accepting criticism of our projects.

Not every idea is a winning one. Part of being mature as well as being a good artist is accepting this fact.

Paying attention to the tastes of other people is wise, but not at the expense of our own vision. We DO want to design a game we want to play. We just don't want that to exclude everyone else on the planet in the process.

This doesn't tend to be true. This tends to be the excuse people use in order to keep from having to change their finished product.

If your vision is a game nobody wants to play, do you forge ahead? Just shove your fingers in your ears and shout, "I made a game I wanted to play!"? No, you don't. Most people, upon creating something nobody except them enjoys shouts, "Why are you all so rude and mean and stupid to not like what I like!?"

If you're creating a game you want to play, then you don't need to make it. You don't need to have others like it. You don't need to advertise it. After all, it's a game you want to play. It isn't a game others want to play.

Sorry to say, but the reality is that artists need to compromise their visions. Writers have Editors for a reason. Almost every job in a creative field has some job similar to an Editor. Someone to tell the artist "no". Someone to tell them, "That won't sell, so don't waste your time on it."

If you just want to engage in "the act of creation", then by all means, create something you want to play. But, Video Games are meant to be consumed by others. That is, it has next to no value unless it brings fun to other people. The same as a book. It doesn't have much value unless someone else wants to read it and get immersed in it.

Heck, much of my own creative work is based upon compromising my "artistic vision". There's a stark contrast between what my game started out as and what it currently is. There's a vast difference between what my stories started out as and what they currently are. It's a lot of "cutting the fat" and removing things that just don't work. Removing things that don't resonate with my players or my readers. There's a lot of "playing to the audience" to give them an experience THEY want.

My work is better for it.

If you "make a game you want to play", then you do nothing more than ensure you can't/won't listen to any criticism and can't/won't improve your product. Taking criticism is the most important thing any artist needs to be able to do.

There really isn't a third option in such a case. Every artist needs to decide which side they land on. Do they want people to enjoy what they create or do they just want to create for the sake of creation?

Some artists are happy to create just for the sake of creation. Those artists, when they're making games, don't need advice on how to build a game. They don't need to distribute their game to others to have them play it and provide feedback.

On these forums, pretty much everyone is here because we've already decided that we're creating for the sake of the enjoyment of others. Since that is the goal, then "creating a game you want to play" is counter-productive.

If you want to create a game that people will enjoy, you create a game that encompasses the things they enjoy. You tailor your vision to achieve that end.

 

[Kyuukon]

While I agree Extra Credits is mostly click-bait and recycled content for views (especially as of the last years) and most of your other points made...

Do not design a game you want to play. Design a game your audience wants to play.

I'm sorry but I can't possibly agree with that. If you don't know what YOU want to play, how can you know what your audience wants? What you are proposing is turning an art into a chore to satisfy others...
I guess this advice can work if you do some extensive market research and are in solely for profits but let's be real... there are probably better options for that rather than game making.

 

[ericv00]

If you can only be invested in a project because you would like it, you're not cut out to be a creative in the first place.

I didn't say it can't be done, but projects people forward on their own should absolutely be something they find rewarding. ...Unless you prefer hating your job. There are a multitude of jobs I can perform (and have) that I will hate just as much as working on a loathsome idea. And most often, those pay out much better than making an RPGMaker game.

Passion shows in a project. ...So does obsession and mental instability. Referencing a couple of works that were received very badly does not invalidate this advice.

Presuming others like we like is how you become arrogant. It is also how you delude yourself into not accepting criticism of our projects.

Making something you don't like is how you become out-of-touch with your project. All of the best ideas come from a place of passion. Along the way, others collaborate with their own thoughts and ideas. All should be considered to find the best expression of the creators intention. But the masses do not control the project. If they do, it becomes boring middle-of-the-road milquetoast that no one really likes. It's just tolerated.

Many games were made to break into a market that wasn't being serviced. The creators understood this because THEY WERE HUNGRY FOR THESE GAMES.

And a VERY good measure of a failing mechanic is when the creator is not enjoying it.

Again, design a game you WANT to play.

Not every idea is a winning one. Part of being mature as well as being a good artist is accepting this fact.

This comes across like you are not respecting the position counter to yours. You are implying that people who work on the ideas they like aren't "mature".

Just the same, not every liked idea is a failure. Not every suggestion from the public is a winner.

ericv00 said:


Paying attention to the tastes of other people is wise, but not at the expense of our own vision. We DO want to design a game we want to play. We just don't want that to exclude everyone else on the planet in the process.

This doesn't tend to be true. This tends to be the excuse people use in order to keep from having to change their finished product.

Wait... What? You quoted me, so I have to assume you read what I wrote. You just seem to be pretending it means something other than what I obviously said. I don't mean to disrespect you, but let me dumb this down to avoid confusion: Make the game you want to play and make it something others want to play, too.

If you're creating a game you want to play, then you don't need to make it.

Uh... WHAT? This is actually nonsense. You mention editors and whatnot. You might want to consider editing your post.

The rest of your post is basically a giant false dichotomy. There is no reason to think that a project you like will not be liked by others. There is every reason to think that a project you don't like will be something you have a hard time motivating yourself to finish, will fall flat to the audience you are trying to reach because you aren't part of that audience, and will be something that brings you irritation and frustration with little to no reward.

I feel like you fundamentally misunderstand what is meant by "Make the game you want to play."

 

[Milennin]

Design a Game You Want To Play!
Listen... I understand the sentiment. I really do. But, it's not realistic. As artists, we want recognition from our peers that we've "made a good game". If you're just designing a game for yourself, you don't need to be on these forums. You don't even need to talk about your game. So long as you find it fun, that's all that matters.

Making a game you want to play and making it fun for others to play aren't mutually exclusive, though. Plus, there are many other reasons to be on these forums than showing off our works for recognition (asking for help about the program comes to mind as one).

The problem is... none of us are designing games for ourselves. We're designing games for others. As such, we need to adhere to what our audiences want. Our audiences want a fun game. We are not adequate judges of fun for our own games due to inherent bias. Listen to what game players tell you about your game, or games in general, and design for that. Don't listen to what devs/amateur devs think is fun in a game and design that.

You're telling people not to listen to developers about what is fun in a game, but we should be listening to the players? Lol, no. Players don't know what they want until they play something they like. That's what differentiates players from developers, even if they may be just amateurs. Developers put thought in the games they make because they have to. A player just mindlessly consumes.
You're also assuming every RPG Maker developer actually has an audience. People making their first game have got literally nothing to work with, so what are they supposed to do? What about people posting their game demo and get no useful criticism to work with? Because let's be honest, unless your project has unique graphics and plugins so it doesn't look like the default RPG Maker, chances you're getting a lot of people to comment on your game aren't all that great.

If you can only be invested in a project because you would like it, you're not cut out to be a creative in the first place.

The world is full of finished books, games, songs, and paintings that nobody wants, nobody likes, and with dozens of flaws, because of this silly advice.

As a creative you need to accept that maybe what you like is garbage. Or, maybe what you like isn't what anyone else likes.

This is as simple as that saying going along the lines of "if you can't love yourself, how do you expect others to love you?" If you can't even enjoy the game you made yourself, how can you expect others to enjoy it? The only times you can ignore the advice of not making the game you want and get away with it is if you already have an established audience and you're just milking them for cash/attention.

Presuming others like we like is how you become arrogant. It is also how you delude yourself into not accepting criticism of our projects.

Not every idea is a winning one. Part of being mature as well as being a good artist is accepting this fact.

It's not arrogance, that's just how it is. Whatever you like isn't unique to you, and you only. Your likes aren't a special, unique snowflake, the only one found in the universe.
As for accepting criticism, that can come in many forms. Maybe someone made the game they like, had someone else play it and give criticisms that helped polish it into something the developer ended up liking even more. You can listen to criticism and still make the game you want to play. You're acting as if it's purely a black and white thing, where if some developer makes the game they want is absolutely blind to anything else, refuses to listen to anyone else who might have something to say about their game. As if making the game you want to play means you seal yourself off into your own pocket dimension, oblivious of what's going on in the rest of the world. You do realise there's in betweens, right? ... Right?

If you're creating a game you want to play, then you don't need to make it. You don't need to have others like it. You don't need to advertise it. After all, it's a game you want to play. It isn't a game others want to play.

What if my main objective is to make the game I want to play, with my secondary objective being for at least one other person to find enjoyment in it? Because that's how I operate, and so far I've succeeded with all of my games. Even going far beyond those two objectives.