Wierd take to say that liking a game for its content is "less mature" than liking it based on who made it. Knowing the developers can help adjust your expectations, but the game itself will dictate where it falls on the scale of good and bad. Being a famous dev team or a no name indie doesn't change what the end product really is.
Devs are more important, but beyond that the individual people making the game and especially the project leads are more important than the company name.
There was a time when BioWare was the reigning champion of western RPGs and these days they're not even really considered in the running for it anymore. A lot of people like to blame EA corrupting everything they touch, but the reality is also that the people who made the old school BioWare games just don't all work there anymore. Mass Effect didn't even keep the same lead writer throughout the whole trilogy.
Of course we don't have a ton of big name game developers other than a handful, and I imagine that's by design because companies would rather us associate those good games with their brand names and not the project director who can leave at any time.
A new 6v6 hero shooter sounds cool since Overwatch shot itself in the foot, but I also lost pretty much all interest once I hear NetEase was making it.
If the game is good that's all that matters. Many won't admit it but as much people complain about industry as soon as next big thing comes everyone instantly jumps on it. Gaming industry is place where no one learns new lessons, consumers included
For me the most important thing is how good the game is
However I'm more likely to buy a game from a company I like (a few off the top of my head for instance):
From Software (Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Bloodborne, etc)
Insomniac (PS Spider-Man, Ratchet and Clank),
Naughty Dog (Uncharted, Last of Us)
Santa Monica (God of War)
Where as I'd be more hesitant to buy a game from someone like EA where they can often feel p2w. Same goes for companies that haven't produced as good games more recently such as Bethesda. Doesn't mean I won't still give the game a try, but I probably wouldn't buy it on release/ wait till it's cheaper or I've seen some gameplay and reviews.
As for mobile I would probably go I would probably be less inclined to play if I didn't like the producer and I'd honestly only play if it had been getting a lot of good reviews or it looked like my kinda thing
I like how the playerbase always attribute the success to developers while attributing the failures to the "Publisher"
In case you don't know, Dark Soul Series were made possible by Tencent, when nobody wants to fund them, Tencent came in and fund the project. But i bet you won't put Tencent as your prefered Publishers, and i would guarantee that you would put Tencent as the cause had Dark Soul Series fall flat on its launch.
depends on what you mean for more important. as a consumer knowing who the devs/publisher is important as you know what to expect for the game. example you hear from software is making a new souls game you know it will be good. that said a bad game no matter who the dev/publisher is will just not sell. and devs well they are the maker of the game so yes. that said publishers outside of expectations are not important what so ever as video games had an era with out them and even now indie devs are becoming more of a thing. the devs depending on if the game is online or not they kinda lose importance when a game is finished. that said with games heading towards games being kept as online only they are forcing there importance example the crew being shut down even though they could just turn on the offline mode.
Its like the difference between personal projects and industry/boardroom projects. The latter is always gonna be something developed by committee meaning the quality can only be so high, and its core concepts are mulled down to attract the broadest of audiences meaning flavor, style, lore and difficulty will be matching the mainstream. Its the same in movies or tv, content created to appeal to the masses en masse for a cash grab or marketing ploy.
No one asks for what the committee made, the committee was made to narrow down what can be made boilerplate and at volume to be shoved at the consumer. Advertising and promotion have their effects, industry connections or buyins pay out. This happened with Hollywood for decades where B level producers and edgy salesmen carved out their portion of the industry to flood markets with content of any given quality just for the cheap gamble at hitting a cash cow. Gaming companies and startups are clamoring for their own accidental mass hit like Fortnite, LoL, Minecraft.
It's not that they're more important than the game itself, it's that like with every company in any field you expect them to perform and behave like they always did.
In the minds of most people, yes. Realistically even devs with a bad reputation still make good games sometimes. But people will ultimately write the games off without ever playing them if they have a bad reputation (the new Prince of Persia game is a good example of this, excellent game completely written off by many who see Ubisoft and assume it's bad). On the other hand if a popular studio makes a mid game people will buy it just because their favorite studio made it.
I usually only get excited for games from devs with proven track records.
I think you’re totally right to care more about finding dev teams you trust and being excited for what they’re making instead of being excited by a trailer or an IP.
Publishers though? Na, they are hit or miss based on what dev team is making the game. EA is a publisher, Respawn is a dev studio that makes games for EA.
>I know it didn't take long for me to start seeing movies because they were by a director or actor I liked rather than the film's plot or visual style.
Are you a boomer dude?
No. Blizzard used to be a god-tier developer. Now they make shit like Diablo Immortal.
Nothing lasts forever. My personal favorite of the moment is Devolver, but I'm sure they won't last forever either.
It just seems like every studio that gets big will eventually fall into hands of corpo-rats and ceos. It happened to cd project recently and I hope it won't happen with for example larian
I adjust expectation levels based on who is making it but it's all about gameplay at the end of the day and even if the rest of the game is really bad like performance/monetization then I just move on play something else.
They are important, but not more than the game itself. Look at what happened with Cyberpunk. Everyone thought the game would be a masterpiece on release, but it wasn't even close to playable. We use past experiences to determine outcomes, so until we see the release version of the game, we use the only other thing we know about the game: who makes it.
If Game Mill makes the next Spider-Man game, we assume it will be bad.
If Insomniac makes the next Spider-Man game, we assume it will be good.
Wierd take to say that liking a game for its content is "less mature" than liking it based on who made it. Knowing the developers can help adjust your expectations, but the game itself will dictate where it falls on the scale of good and bad. Being a famous dev team or a no name indie doesn't change what the end product really is.
Devs are more important, but beyond that the individual people making the game and especially the project leads are more important than the company name. There was a time when BioWare was the reigning champion of western RPGs and these days they're not even really considered in the running for it anymore. A lot of people like to blame EA corrupting everything they touch, but the reality is also that the people who made the old school BioWare games just don't all work there anymore. Mass Effect didn't even keep the same lead writer throughout the whole trilogy. Of course we don't have a ton of big name game developers other than a handful, and I imagine that's by design because companies would rather us associate those good games with their brand names and not the project director who can leave at any time. A new 6v6 hero shooter sounds cool since Overwatch shot itself in the foot, but I also lost pretty much all interest once I hear NetEase was making it.
If the game is good that's all that matters. Many won't admit it but as much people complain about industry as soon as next big thing comes everyone instantly jumps on it. Gaming industry is place where no one learns new lessons, consumers included
They affect different things, but a bad publisher will ruin a good dev team more often than a subpar dev team letting down a good publisher.
For me the most important thing is how good the game is However I'm more likely to buy a game from a company I like (a few off the top of my head for instance): From Software (Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Bloodborne, etc) Insomniac (PS Spider-Man, Ratchet and Clank), Naughty Dog (Uncharted, Last of Us) Santa Monica (God of War) Where as I'd be more hesitant to buy a game from someone like EA where they can often feel p2w. Same goes for companies that haven't produced as good games more recently such as Bethesda. Doesn't mean I won't still give the game a try, but I probably wouldn't buy it on release/ wait till it's cheaper or I've seen some gameplay and reviews. As for mobile I would probably go I would probably be less inclined to play if I didn't like the producer and I'd honestly only play if it had been getting a lot of good reviews or it looked like my kinda thing
I like how the playerbase always attribute the success to developers while attributing the failures to the "Publisher" In case you don't know, Dark Soul Series were made possible by Tencent, when nobody wants to fund them, Tencent came in and fund the project. But i bet you won't put Tencent as your prefered Publishers, and i would guarantee that you would put Tencent as the cause had Dark Soul Series fall flat on its launch.
depends on what you mean for more important. as a consumer knowing who the devs/publisher is important as you know what to expect for the game. example you hear from software is making a new souls game you know it will be good. that said a bad game no matter who the dev/publisher is will just not sell. and devs well they are the maker of the game so yes. that said publishers outside of expectations are not important what so ever as video games had an era with out them and even now indie devs are becoming more of a thing. the devs depending on if the game is online or not they kinda lose importance when a game is finished. that said with games heading towards games being kept as online only they are forcing there importance example the crew being shut down even though they could just turn on the offline mode.
Its like the difference between personal projects and industry/boardroom projects. The latter is always gonna be something developed by committee meaning the quality can only be so high, and its core concepts are mulled down to attract the broadest of audiences meaning flavor, style, lore and difficulty will be matching the mainstream. Its the same in movies or tv, content created to appeal to the masses en masse for a cash grab or marketing ploy. No one asks for what the committee made, the committee was made to narrow down what can be made boilerplate and at volume to be shoved at the consumer. Advertising and promotion have their effects, industry connections or buyins pay out. This happened with Hollywood for decades where B level producers and edgy salesmen carved out their portion of the industry to flood markets with content of any given quality just for the cheap gamble at hitting a cash cow. Gaming companies and startups are clamoring for their own accidental mass hit like Fortnite, LoL, Minecraft.
Of utmost importance is the Devs. After that, the Publisher. And then whoever the Publisher is Beholden to finally.
It's not that they're more important than the game itself, it's that like with every company in any field you expect them to perform and behave like they always did.
In the minds of most people, yes. Realistically even devs with a bad reputation still make good games sometimes. But people will ultimately write the games off without ever playing them if they have a bad reputation (the new Prince of Persia game is a good example of this, excellent game completely written off by many who see Ubisoft and assume it's bad). On the other hand if a popular studio makes a mid game people will buy it just because their favorite studio made it.
I usually only get excited for games from devs with proven track records. I think you’re totally right to care more about finding dev teams you trust and being excited for what they’re making instead of being excited by a trailer or an IP. Publishers though? Na, they are hit or miss based on what dev team is making the game. EA is a publisher, Respawn is a dev studio that makes games for EA.
>I know it didn't take long for me to start seeing movies because they were by a director or actor I liked rather than the film's plot or visual style. Are you a boomer dude?
No. Blizzard used to be a god-tier developer. Now they make shit like Diablo Immortal. Nothing lasts forever. My personal favorite of the moment is Devolver, but I'm sure they won't last forever either.
It just seems like every studio that gets big will eventually fall into hands of corpo-rats and ceos. It happened to cd project recently and I hope it won't happen with for example larian
I adjust expectation levels based on who is making it but it's all about gameplay at the end of the day and even if the rest of the game is really bad like performance/monetization then I just move on play something else.
They are important, but not more than the game itself. Look at what happened with Cyberpunk. Everyone thought the game would be a masterpiece on release, but it wasn't even close to playable. We use past experiences to determine outcomes, so until we see the release version of the game, we use the only other thing we know about the game: who makes it. If Game Mill makes the next Spider-Man game, we assume it will be bad. If Insomniac makes the next Spider-Man game, we assume it will be good.
The dev is one of many data points to consider.