Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9043227" data-attributes="member: 6801845">And?&nbsp; I don't see the point, the designer needs to know they failed at their goal, that's the starting point.&nbsp; More important though is that we are talking about games and individuals don't matter, the aggregate of your target market matters.&nbsp; If I'm publishing a Cthulhu game, I don't expect it to appeal to a particularly broad audience, but I do want it to be fun for people that enjoy eldritch horror.&nbsp; Even if some individuals that enjoy eldritch horror don't enjoy your game, that doesn't necessarily matter.&nbsp; You can't please everyone.The game being fun for the target audience is still the primary measurement.&nbsp; How to fix it is a different issue.The biggest issue I see is that when people say &quot;designing for fun leads to worse results&quot; what they really mean is that it is not fun for them.&nbsp; Because they are not in the target audience that the designers were targeting, it doesn't matter how many people find the game fun.&nbsp; It doesn't matter how much I say &quot;I really enjoy this, it's a lot of fun. My group and I have a blast playing the game and ___ is part of what makes it work.&quot; The response is always &quot;But that doesn't matter because the game isn't supposed to be designed for fun&quot;.&nbsp; In other words &quot;I'm not having fun with it and they should have done it the way the I would have more fun.&quot;Saying &quot;designing for fun leads to terrible results&quot; is just code for &quot;I don't like it, therefore it's bad design&quot;.&nbsp; I'm perfectly fine with discussing design features and what I think they add to the game.&nbsp; Just keep in mind that what any individual will find a worthwhile design element (because it makes the game more fun for them) will not be a worthwhile element for every individual (because it does not make the game more fun for them).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9043227, member: 6801845"] And? I don't see the point, the designer needs to know they failed at their goal, that's the starting point. More important though is that we are talking about games and individuals don't matter, the aggregate of your target market matters. If I'm publishing a Cthulhu game, I don't expect it to appeal to a particularly broad audience, but I do want it to be fun for people that enjoy eldritch horror. Even if some individuals that enjoy eldritch horror don't enjoy your game, that doesn't necessarily matter. You can't please everyone. The game being fun for the target audience is still the primary measurement. How to fix it is a different issue. The biggest issue I see is that when people say "designing for fun leads to worse results" what they [I]really[/I] mean is that it is not fun for them. Because they are not in the target audience that the designers were targeting, it doesn't matter how many people find the game fun. It doesn't matter how much I say "I really enjoy this, it's a lot of fun. My group and I have a blast playing the game and ___ is part of what makes it work." The response is [I]always[/I] "But that doesn't matter because the game isn't supposed to be designed for fun". In other words "I'm not having fun with it and they should have done it the way the [I]I[/I] would have more fun." Saying "designing for fun leads to terrible results" is just code for "I don't like it, therefore it's bad design". I'm perfectly fine with discussing design features and what I think they add to the game. Just keep in mind that what any individual will find a worthwhile design element (because it makes the game more fun for them) will not be a worthwhile element for every individual (because it does not make the game more fun for them). [/QUOTE]

Verification