Does anyone have a conflicted response to feedback?

[SpyroFan67]

Not sure why, but despite the norm being no feedback (unless they're linked somewhere), when I do get some... I fear it, and this happens even if prior feedback was positive, although I suppose all of it is kind of not clearcut, which is probably the reason why one would have such a response... but fear is ridiculous, isn't it? I mean, I once got someone recording their reactions for a mere five minutes, and they were mostly uninterested seemingly, and could barely read what I wrote... someone then posted a video over ten minutes long, and instead of thinking "oh, this is likely going to be more feedback than I've ever got" and start watching... I didn't, because, as usual, anxiety is the strange response to the very thing I requested...

Eh, it's normal to not want to face criticism, but I find it is as much a part of the human experience as anything else. Just don't automatically think that if you have feedback from someone, it HAS to be negative, because just as often it's to encourage you and give you tips, so there's no need to fear it.

 

[TheAM-Dol]

One observation I've had is that the RPG Maker games that do get big tend to do so from outside the community. Why is that? Unknown. Whatever it is, it's clear community feedback plays no role because they weren't part of the community to begin with!

This is a weird take...
like what community a person is or isn't part of has no baring on the game's success
Maybe you're mistaking survivorship bias. You're only seeing the successful games because they float to the top because they are...well...successful.
But I mean...what defines a successful game anyways? Is it how well known it is?
In that case, most gamers know Gollum, and also know it's hot garbage.
Is it that the game earned more money than it cost to make?
I am sure there are a number of small little indie games on Itch you have never heard of that have done just that.
And at what "length" are we measuring success?
Sure, Omori was a pretty big hit, Lisa was a pretty big hit...but like, outside of a certain group of people, I bet there are still a lot of people who have never heard of either of those games. What about Symphony of War. Really succesful I'd say, but well known? Hmm, more so than a lot of indie games, but still a bit of a sleeper hit. We can keep scaling down to "Good games that the dev feels proud of but maybe doesn't hit the 100k copies sold".

All that said, feedback can and will benefit folks. Like, let's step outside of just this community and not play pretend like we aren't aware of Early Access & Kickstarter games. These games are built on the community that supports and provides feedback prior to 1.0 release. There's been a lot of great games built on community feedback. (btw, that super successful hit that is Baulder's Gate 3? Oh you bet Larian Studio was listening to their fans, from Divinity: Original Sin to Baulder's Gate 3, Larian's success has been built on community.)
Let's just say that oral feedback is just another tool in the developer's tool belt on perfecting their game's design. And like any tool, it can be used properly, or it can be used poorly. It's up to the developer to know how to use that tool.

 

[Iron_Brew]

So far, I've refused to give out my game to those who will not provide gameplay footage. To those who cried about it, why would they cry? Player observation is far superior than the player's own interpretation. Player feedback is based on the fallacy that players understand why they are doing things and can accurately articulate them. They rarely can. It's not reliable. Hence, I call it bunk.

An audience not grokking a game is an issue of conveyance - and them not understanding why they are doing things and being unable to articulate them is just as much on the developer and it is on the player.

True Story: When Nintendo was doing market tests for the NES in the United States in the mid 1980s, the feedback was all negative. Kids said the games were terrible. NOA President spent all this money on market research, and he got all these terrible results! But he noticed the kids were still going to the arcades. So despite the negative feedback, he launched the console and all was history.

It's become modus operandi at Nintendo since then. They'll stick a controller in your hand and watch what you do (and ignore what you say!). When Zelda: Breath of the Wild was being developed, development staff spent Friday simply observing players play the game.

They don't "ignore what you say", that's lunacy. Usability research (and by extension User Research) always comes with an element of question asking - even if people cannot articulate what they think or why there is nothing lost by asking questions. You might get insight you didn't even know you needed.

Other companies do this as well. Blizzard did it extensively back in the day (Strike Teams and all). The point is that you look at the player's actions as opposed to his or her words.

Strike Teams still utilised form and metric based feedback.

Feedback with gameplay footage is fine. But feedback with no gameplay footage can be misleading. I simply don't trust such feedback. After all, anyone can write anything on the Internet.

People have no reason to lie on the Internet, just as much as they have no reason to tell the truth. I really would suggest looking for feedback from better places if you really believe that everyone from whom you have received feedback without footage has been in some way dishonest. The majority of the feedback I have received has been in long-form essay format, or through metrics-focused qualitative data gathering using forms to generate curves and tweak as required.

You don't need to watch a person play your game to be able to interpret their words.

One observation I've had is that the RPG Maker games that do get big tend to do so from outside the community. Why is that? Unknown. Whatever it is, it's clear community feedback plays no role because they weren't part of the community to begin with!

1. This is - in theory - nothing but a good thing. Your audience aren't other devs - they are people from "outside the community". Other RM devs are often skewed because of their familiarity with the genre and the engine itself, so you can actually get biased feedback through that kind of peer review.

2. While in theory it'd be a good thing, it's also nonsense. There are entire sub-communities of the RM community dedicated to testing one anothers' games and turning the process of development into a more collaboratively-minded space. It's one of my favourite things about the RM community (even if the occasional issue of overfamiliarity with the engine makes people say things like 'it is cool that you pulled X off' when in reality the audience will in fact simply see that you pretzeled some jank into an engine not designed for it).

 

[Gallas]

These games are built on the community that supports and provides feedback prior to 1.0 release. There's been a lot of great games built on community feedback. (btw, that super successful hit that is Baulder's Gate 3? Oh you bet Larian Studio was listening to their fans, from Divinity: Original Sin to Baulder's Gate 3, Larian's success has been built on community.)

So community feedback now means gamers paying for the game and the company mining data from actual player interaction? OK.

I'm amazed that simply stating the superiority of observed player interaction over gamer opinion is having such reaction.

To the OP: don't take feedback personally, but do keep swinging the bat.

 

[SpyroFan67]

Even if you get negative feedback, it will do nothing except help you, because it will allow you to see how to make your game more appealing to whoever your target audience is if people in that audience play it. And anyone who is not that plays it will also help you with their feedback because it can help you to see how appealing your game is overall and how appealing it is to your target audience as well. It's NOT that hard.

 

[Iron_Brew]

So community feedback now means gamers paying for the game and the company mining data from actual player interaction? OK.

Nobody said that. I don't know how you could read what @TheAM-Dol said and get to that reading of his post. It does make me think that maybe the reason you're struggling to get actionable feedback from words alone is a reading comprehension issue, though

I'm amazed that simply stating the superiority of observed player interaction over gamer opinion is having such reaction.

You didn't say this though.

You said feedback is "bunk". If you'd said "relying solely on feedback can be flawed so I prefer to get my feedback with supplemental materials in the form of the specific video of gameplay to which the feedback pertains" that'd have been one thing:

But you didn't say that. You didn't say "this is better". You said "feedback is bunk".

Very different.

 

[Gallas]

People have no reason to lie on the Internet, just as much as they have no reason to tell the truth. I really would suggest looking for feedback from better places if you really believe that everyone from whom you have received feedback without footage has been in some way dishonest. The majority of the feedback I have received has been in long-form essay format, or through metrics-focused qualitative data gathering using forms to generate curves and tweak as required.

You don't need to watch a person play your game to be able to interpret their words.

That's fantastic. I'm sure your product will go out and amaze the world due to such 'metrics-focused qualitative data gathering using forms'. However, I'm more skeptical.

Nobody said that.

No one said they did. Apparently, not everyone knows what 'Early Access' means.

You said feedback is "bunk". If you'd said "relying solely on feedback can be flawed so I prefer to get my feedback with supplemental materials in the form of the specific video of gameplay to which the feedback pertains" that'd have been one thing:

But you didn't say that. You didn't say "this is better". You said "feedback is bunk".

Very different.

You're just being argumentative for the sake of it. How boring.

Back to the subject: Why would anyone rely on myopic volunteer based opinions when superior forms of data, such as observed player interaction, exist? Of course, such player feedback is bunk. It's the blind leading the blind.

Out of courtesy, I am replying to those who are speaking to me. To those who keep thinking they are so smart, I say, "Go right ahead and keep doing whatever you're doing." I wanted to offer a forum member an alternative idea on the concept of player feedback (i.e. 'it's bunk'). If we're all supposed to say the same exact thing, then there isn't much point to having a forum.

Peace. I'm out.

 

[Iron_Brew]

That's fantastic. I'm sure your product will go out and amaze the world due to such 'metrics-focused qualitative data gathering using forms'. However, I'm more skeptical.

I plan on adapting to feedback, yes

No one said they did. Apparently, not everyone knows what 'Early Access' means.

You literally did! In the post I was replying to!

You're just being argumentative for the sake of it. How boring.

No, I'm not. You posted something that is demonstrably and factually wrong and I corrected that statement. You then backpedaled and tried to to change what you'd said after-the-fact. I'm not being argumentative in the least, I'm just baffled as to why you'd do such a thing.

Back to the subject: Why would anyone rely on myopic volunteer based opinions when superior forms of data, such as observed player interaction, exist? Of course, such player feedback is bunk. It's the blind leading the blind.

This one is really easy: Long-form feedback doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can observe people playing your game, and gather feedback. Because it's not bunk.

In addition to this: Reading opinions and observing data trends is also much less time consuming than reviewing player footage. If I get 100 players who play an hour of gameplay, and I work for 40 hours on my game in a week and I want to review all of their footage that's 2.5w of time simply spent collecting primary data. If I enclose a survey and review the footage of people who indicate issues, or who give aberrant or interesting answers I can cut down on that time a lot. If I have data-driven metrics I can identify trends at a glance and drill-in where needed.

Simply put: It's just good practice.

Edit: Also, I gotta say I don't love your clear contempt for your audience. I don't know why you think people's opinions would be necessarily myopic, but c'mon pal. Have a little faith. People know what they like, and the fact you disagree with them doesn't make them thick.

Out of courtesy, I am replying to those who are speaking to me. To those who keep thinking they are so smart, I say, "Go right ahead and keep doing whatever you're doing." I wanted to offer a forum member an alternative idea on the concept of player feedback (i.e. 'it's bunk'). If we're all supposed to say the same exact thing, then there isn't much point to having a forum.

Peace. I'm out.

If a forum member asks what colour the sky is you don't say "zebra striped pink and mauve" simply to provide an "alternative idea". Being so aggressive regarding this kind of discussion helps no-one, much less providing an "alternative idea" which is - again - demonstrably and factually incorrect.

 

[BubblegumPatty]

If you have such a abysmally low opinion of the "Myopic" volunteers that offer you nothing but "Bunk" Garbage, So garbage you can only trust your own eyes reviewing their footage, It makes me wonder why you bother getting playtesters at all and just release the game what you think is best...

 

[werzaque]

One observation I've had is that the RPG Maker games that do get big tend to do so from outside the community. Why is that? Unknown. Whatever it is, it's clear community feedback plays no role because they weren't part of the community to begin with!

I'm seeing negative smileys on this, but as someone who is in software (develops some, resells some, deploys some) I believe this to be true. There's great discrepancy in how a package sells and how a package is perceived by "subject matter experts".

Just to give an example close to home: click-bait. the majority that voices an opinion hates it, yet apparently it works.

 

[Iron_Brew]

I'm seeing negative smileys on this, but as someone who is in software (develops some, resells some, deploys some) I believe this to be true. There's great discrepancy in how a package sells and how a package is perceived by "subject matter experts".

Just to give an example close to home: click-bait. the majority that voices an opinion hates it, yet apparently it works.

This is a good thing though.

At the end of the day, your userbase is the one the matters, not your colleagues. Gamedevs aren't the primary audience of video games, players are - so if it's those players giving feedback it's much more directly actionable, even if they aren't gonna come bearing suggestions on how to fix things (as your colleagues are more likely to do).

 

[TRIDIUM]

Yeah, playtesters are very important to me because I think I have a lot of genius ideas, but I really have a few very dumb ones.

 

[Tai_MT]

@Gallas

Your posts genuinely confuse me.

Let me be clear, here.

Even if I were to accept your premise of "the only useful feedback you will get is video of people playing your game", it comes with a million problems.

The short list:

1. Unless you're taping the expressions of the user on top of the gameplay actions of the user, it's nearly useless.

2. Watching how a player "plays" the game only indicates technical problems most of the time. It doesn't highlight "the game isn't fun" problems in the slightest.

3. Without voice to accompany the video, it's also fairly useless on its own, as you can ascribe your own confirmation biases to whatever the player is doing (which a TON of devs in the AAA industry currently do, and makes gamers think they've lost touch with reality).

4. Video of the person playing really doesn't help "narrow down a problem" all that much. It is entirely possible to watch a player receive the information you provided them as a dev for how a system works, how a skill works, or even how to beat a boss... and then have them not do that thing. Then, you're stuck figuring out why they didn't do what you intended. Did you word it poorly? Does it not make sense in the context of the game? Is it easy to forget? Does the player just not want to be dragged around by the nose and instead wants more freedom? Is the player just looking for ways to break your game, because that's fun for them? On and on.
---
Put simply, you really need to engage in THREE primary forms of feedback.

1. Written/Video Essay reviews of your product. If you can't figure out how to parse a simple sentence like, "I hate this boss fight" and figure out where that boss fight is frustrating without asking a question... That's a "you" problem. It speaks to your ability to parse feedback to begin with or even to understand people in a general sense. This makes it easy for you to tell where the "quit points" of your game are. As in, the usual frustration points.

2. Gameplay footage. This is useful for finding technical issues or even signposting issues. This makes it easy to tell if everything your game is "functional".

3. Being able to see the facial expressions/body language of the player. This is useful for figuring out "if your game is fun".

---

Now, there are also "analytics" in term of feedback. These are useful in other ways. Basically, the ways in which you can track player engagement and retention of the audience that will NEVER leave you feedback for the game.

---

I, personally, engage in those four methods for nearly all my playtesting. It's my job to figure out what all the data means in order to create a better experience for the players. A "functional" game is usless if it isn't fun. It also is useless if it drives off players "out of frustration" or even "boredom".

Basically, you are saying that you have no idea how to actually parse the "quit points" of players and find it useless as a result of your own issues as a dev. Then, you are stating that the only "feedback of value" to you is just the sort that tells you if the game even functions or not.

This stance is confusing. I don't know why anyone would hold it. Same as I'm perpetually confused by people refusing to parse other forms of feedback, or dismiss them outright, because they "don't agree with them" due to their own dev issues.

It's feedback. Learn to take it, examine it, and make a better game. If you can't figure out how to do that, then you ask someone how to do it so they can teach you. If it still doesn't make sense when it's been explained to you how to understand feedback... then maybe GameDev just isn't for you. Maybe you're incapable of learning critical skills to creating a "good game".

But, the one thing you never do with feedback... is make excuses for why you don't listen to it. Or why it's "invalid" to your process. Because that's thirty flavors of arrogance that usually results in those devs going on crazy tirades on Steam and getting review bombed for just being utterly incompetent and terrible people.

 

[Nereid]

So, it turns out the one I was almost phobic to look at due to previous, unrelated conflicts with the person (although only I knew of that) was... ridiculously cheery about what I wrote (some seem to overestimate it, while others)... but, then, a bit later and, despite somehow having no prior fear at looking (as I didn't know the person, and the previous positive feedback might have eased my neurosis a bit)... someone ended up claiming I make no apparent effort (despite writing something novel-length)... and honestly was so close to just insulting them, until that was defused when they somehow apologized... although I still feel annoyed... I just wonder whether I'll ever end up concluding that feedback should, generally, not be looked at... as, it's not like the detailed, constructive type is common, anyway...

 

[Willibab]

I would actually prefer brutal honesty so I can improve, but I never expect it. People generally don't want to make others feel bad and so they tend to lie by omission to be kind. Its weird when you think about it

 

[Tai_MT]

@Willibab Sometimes you get into territory where someone is trying to be nice with their feedback, but it's construed as "being mean" anyway.

I think the main reason people aren't "brutally honest" is because a lot of people start fights over it, and avoiding conflict is easier.

Probably why you're also only looking at like 13% of a userbase who ever leaves feedback on a product at most.