Hacker News Reader

Comment by greggman2 | Hacker News Reader

And on the opposite side you have Nintendo, known for some of the most beloved games in the world. They have the "Mario Club" and playtest extensively. They test often and continuously. They can test every day if they want. Adjust the jump height 10%, ask the Mario Club if the game got better. In this way they iterate on game play far more than just about any other game company I know of. The biggest benefit is they get feedback early. Most game devs wait until their game is "presentable" which basically means they've already spent too much time making what they've made that they can't change anything except minor tweaks. Nintendo gets feedback early and often.

View on HN

"Maximizing your audience" != "strengthening your game"

Audience maximization is almost literally regression towards the mean to maximize profit. It implies cutting corners ; but some of these corners are actually making your game stronger, they're giving it its personality.

Think of "Dwarf Fortress", "brogue", or even "Minecraft". What kind of feedback do you expect to get from most players? Better graphics? Real-time play? Would it make the game stronger?

Minecraft was basically driven by user feedback from the very start, when it was originally released it was a tech demo.

For Dwarf Fortress, I believe most players would want a more understandable user interface and a tutorial, and I honestly believe that would make it a better game.

One general result from designing games is that players tend to be good at knowing what needs improving, but very bad at knowing how to improve it, so it's a good idea to see where they get stuck or frustrated, but then ignore their advice on how to fix it.

Are you sure that pressuring the designer/dev to build what players ask for but not what inspires him will make a better game? Just because players want it doesn't mean the dev can deliver it. Let modders make the skins and tutorials.

This is a misunderstanding of what Mario Club is - QA company spun off from the old Seal of Approval. It's on the side of technical testing than design.[0]

The idea you're exploring might be more akin to the Mario Cram School[1] which involved getting staff across all of Nintendo, not just designers, creatively exploring Mario development. But straight up assuming that Nintendo's approach towards design makes it a thumbs-up dismisses notions people have that newer Nintendo games overuse tutorials to the point of infantilising the audience.

[0] https://www.destructoid.com/nintendo-seal-of-quality-becomes... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBXZ5lqdZQ8

I wonder about that. Do you have any additional reading on Nintendo's playtesting?

Although their games are mass mass market, they still feel opinionated. Their designs have a certain Nintendo-ness to them that's persisted for decades in almost all their games. Even when they partner up with a third party their design shows through.

If they had extensive playtesting early on I would think their uniqueness would be eroded. It obviously hasn't. Most recently Nintendo set the bar for what an open world game should be like with their take. Not just in quality but by applying their method they elevated the genre.

Not Nintendo, but Valve has some very interesting playtesting commentary in Portal 2, if you play with commentary on.

> If they had extensive playtesting early on I would think their uniqueness would be eroded.

Authors also have editors and 'test readers' for their novels. That doesn't erode uniqueness. Why should this happen for games?

Nintendo's games are intentionally meant to address as large as audience as possible though. While I'm sure Jonathan wants to sell a lot of games, I think he cares more about making it great for a smaller subset than making it palatable to a larger subset. To put it another way, Nintendo's games are incredibly bland compared to something like The Witness. I think Nintendo makes great games, but they're not nearly as unique an experience as you'll find from some indie developers.

Me thinks maybe you haven't actually played Nintendo games if you believe they are bland compared to a game with 650 repetitive puzzles that would have been just as interesting (or non-interesting) as a 2D game on a phone. Yes, I get there is a context in the game and a big reveal (and I enjoyed the game) but I don't agree that 650 puzzles is less bland than my time spent in Breath of the Wild.

I also don't agree that "Indie" = "better" or "unique". AAA companies, especially Sony and Nintendo have released amazingly creative games. Just a few from Nintendo include Pikman, Animal Crossing, 1-2 Switch (cow milking), Cubivore, and there are several others. Meanwhile 99% of "indie" games are skinned versions of old games who's best examples are often Nintendo's. How many "Metroid"vanias are there? How many Smash Bros clones?

As one more final point, the games made at big companies are made by actual people who poor their creativity into the games they make. Indies don't have a monopoly on creativity. Being AAA != can't be creative nor does it mean can't take risks on new ideas. There are plenty of examples of new ideas from these companies.

It’s unfair to say that The Witness can be reduced to a stack of simple 2D puzzles.

No spoilers, but almost every set of 523 main puzzles in The Witness has a twist that requires a full 3D environment in really interesting ways.

The +135 +6 bonus puzzles require a 3D to 2D transition, but only ironically.

How many sets of 523 puzzles are there?

Aren't almost all the puzzles 2D graph paper mazes?

Each different area on the island requires some part of the surrounding environment to solve the puzzles. The ones that are just 2D maze drawing really are just warm ups for when the mechanics get twisted by the 3D world around you. Good luck!

I didn't say indie games were better, nor did I imply that most indie games are better than most AAA games.

But I strongly disagree that the most creative or the best game will ever be mainstream. When is the last time a AAA game came out like Baba Is You? Celeste? Hollow Knight? Those are games I play and replay because they're so enjoyable and memorable. Nintendo makes great games but I don't feel any of them are quite the same experience as the best indie games I've played.

Celeste is a Mario-like, Mario was mainstream. Hollow Knight is a metroidvania, Super Metroid and Castlevania were mainstream. The Witness is a Myst-like, Myst was mainstream. I like the indie scene as much as the next guy, but it's 90% based in nostalgia.

I chose Celeste and Hollow Knight for being the best in the genre, not for creating a genre. The creative game I mentioned is Baba Is You.

>especially Sony and Nintendo have released amazingly creative games

I mean, what does that even mean? If we use the analogy of movies, where the medium as an art form is more established: Pixar movies are creative, but they can still be bland (most of them are anyway). Yes, some Nintendo games pushed games as a medium forward, but I don't remember any Nintendo or Sony game that pushed in the direction Braid or The Witness did. Very few games do actually. "Games" games are more like toys. I enjoy playing with them, but I don't step away from them and think deeply about the experience I had. And I wish more games would strive for that kind of experience.

>Meanwhile 99% of "indie" games are skinned versions of old games who's best examples are often Nintendo's. How many "Metroid"vanias are there? How many Smash Bros clones?

Compare that to what the parent comment said

>but they're not nearly as unique an experience as you'll find from some indie developers.

> Pixar movies are creative, but they can still be bland (most of them are anyway).

By a matter of definition, I would expect any creative media to not be bland. Even if every other part of it is boring the exploration of the creative ideas in it should be stimulating.

> I don't remember any Nintendo or Sony game that pushed in the direction Braid or The Witness did

I'm not sure what direction you are referring to. I don't think that either has really influenced gaming as a medium. The closest game I can think of as a comparison for Braid would be Portal and I think it also didn't really push any boundaries for games.

The Witness is still a little young, but I don't think its likely to lead the way for other games either.

On the other hand, I think the original Metroid and Legend of Zelda radically pushed forward what games can do. I think both of them would make you think deeply about the experience of playing them if you played them in their time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com