- Apr 12, 2012
- Reaction score
- First Language
- Primarily Uses
It's not so much that I thought you weren't including that point in what you said, I was just adding it explicitly.Sorry, I was kind of vague in what I meant, maybe?
I didn't mean you SHOULD change everything a player wants. What I mean is simply that as a dev, you don't want to treat your audience as "wanting to change your vision" just because they want something removed or changed. A complaint where a player says "remove this" or "change that" shouldn't be dismissed as a dev as the player "wanting to make a completely different game than I want to make, so I don't have to listen to the complaint".
I think it's better to be open to changing than not be. You don't have to change a thing. But, it's important to not go into any criticism under the assumption that your players want you to compromise your vision of the game, or even, want something entirely different than what you want.
I think the minute we start treating the players "as the enemy" and dismissing anything they have to say as "they don't know what they're talking about" or, worse, "they just want me to make a game that caters to just specifically them, rather than what I want to do", we get into really bad territory.
If you make a grilled cheese sammich and 1 out of 100 people say the sammich tasted bad or they didn't like it, you just parse the criticism. You take a look at it. Maybe you decide it's a "non issue" since the other 99 people didn't care. So, you change nothing. Perfectly acceptable response. But, the dev should always treat the criticism as valid, even if they don't agree with it.
Does that maybe make a little more sense? I didn't mean to be so vague.