Against and in Defence of Open Development
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 1879
While fan feedback has always existed in some form, the rise of Kickstarter and Early Access has made it much more prominent than before, with early builds of upcoming titles and even developer diaries being carefully analyzed by fans anxious to offer their opinions and ideas. Given I'm one of those anxious and probably slightly mentally unhinged fans, I have to admit I'm a bit biased against this Rock, Paper, Shotgun op-ed piece, in which John Walker argues that open development is "just about the worst idea for games":
The wisdom of crowds, as first observed by eugenicist Francis Galton, argues that (the many are smarter than the few). And the argument is well made. Because it's based on averages. The larger the number of people guessing at something, the closer they get to the truth when their answers are averaged out. And that's the key. Averaging. And we don't want that from creativity! It's the death of creativity. When it comes to the creativity, crowds are about the least wise mass imaginable. Crowds should be avoided at all costs. In all senses.
One of the most stark examples of this I've seen was The Old Republic. I played the game a few times during its years of development, and saw its erosion to mediocrity at the hands of crowds. The first time it was talked about and shown, it was so promising. That mantra, that line they repeated far past its being true, that this was to be (KotORs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) was meaningful at one point. They were hoping to take the magnificent Old Republic universe online, and create a story-driven MMO. Each time I revisited it that goal was being further abandoned, the game becoming increasingly generic and unoriginal, and each time the developers explained, (When we've beta tested, these are the features players have been demanding.) What was once going to be the continuation of Knights Of The Old Republic online, through the ignorance of crowds, became World Of Warcraft with Twi'leks.
People wanted raids! People wanted guilds! People wanted customisable pets! People wanted more of the MMOs they were already playing because they knew they already liked those! People are idiots! We shouldn't ever listen to people!
Directly in response to this piece, game developer Simon Roth wrote a Gamasutra blog defending open development which, needless to say, I find much more reasonable. The crux of his argument is that a designer worth his salt will know what to take and what to leave:
The foundation of Johns complaint is that a democratic development process cannot work, because the input from ill-informed people will lead the developer astray. Here's the thing: Open development is not democratic, only the developer is holding the wheel.
Open development is about providing the users with the information they need and communication channels required to allow them to critique your work. It is not about compromising the design process in an effort to pander and please.
By talking openly about features I am forced to defend my ideas. I have to provide a reason as to why I feel an idea works and justify my thought processes. I have to work hard to build the trust of my community so they will accept my final judgements. It is a review process that strengthens my vision and challenges my arrogance as an artist. It is healthy.
For a developer, ideas are never in short supply. If a designer is not able to quickly filter bad ideas, then they are a bad designer, it doesn't matter if they come from within or without.
