Which take is the correct one?

>popular and widespread
fuck off

How the fuck can an unpopular game be considered successful? How can the devs call it a success if they just wasted time and can't pay the fucking rent?
Success =/= Quality.

go back

Rigjt, easily. People don't know what they want until they have it. Look at the greatest games of all times, especially the ones that are sequels. None of them were made by listening to fan feedback, they were made by devs executing their ideas regardless of what the gamers thought they wanted.

What people are interested in is the impostor game concept that's been popular for decades, in games like Mafia, but the "one of the crew members is a deadly beast" idea has also been popular for a long time in stuff like the Doctor Who library episode or the movie The Thing, or pop art like pic related.

Attached: 215326.jpg (728x455, 63.52K)

right place
right time

ultimately all that matters

You first.

or puss
just start simple and farm goodwill from the subsequent scaling up

go back

you just proved my point

Popularity isn't success either. Is that the usual case for the company/publisher? Sure.

No, I did the opposite in fact

What about the space marine era, or the space marine era before that, or no man's sky, or Mass Effect?

wrong

A little of both but mostly the one on the right.
Only issue with the one on the right is that they will likely see a return on imvestment years doen the line as people flock to a "hudden gem".

based market analyzer
/thread

Attached: Asura_Asura's_Wrath.png (1280x610, 1.06M)

damn pacman game based upon this image WHEN

the left if you're doing a groundbreaking game, the right if you're taking inspiration from other games

they were spacemen, but not funny spacemen

Amazing how you didn't tackle any of my questions and still stated your dumb opinion.

user I think you don't know what left and right means.

fuck popularity, just make good games

A game's success is determined by marketing hype more than anything.
A game that the most people are astroturfed, gaslit, and/or bandwagoned into liking will succeed.
Of course, ideas that are "easy sells" help with this more than good execution, so the group on the left is closer to correct.

Attached: 1616777323934.jpg (750x750, 59.47K)

If we broke down a game into "idea" and "execution", the execution would be the second to second gameplay, the level design, the mechanics, etc, whereas the idea would be the basis that inspired it, and the skin that goes on top.

If we took for example Ocarina of Time, and made it a game in which instead of controlling a young elf boy on an adventure in a fantasy world to save the princess, we made it a game about a sentient microwave on an adventure in a run down alley to kill a mangy dog, but left everything else intact, would it have been as successful?

Were people attracted to the gameplay in a vacuum that is the combat and the level design, or the idea of playing a young boy on an adventure?

The left id you yes but then on the righr

NAMCO HIRE THIS MAN

explain Nier Automata's success

does this count?

Attached: kerbal-space-program-free-download.jpg (650x366, 56.83K)

left makes a game popular
right makes a game good

store.steampowered.com/app/945360/Among_Us/

Tons of BioWare games had tons of hype and flopped anyway

not funny in the same way as amogus

Porn addiction was becoming rampant in the West. It's success was inevitable.

Right obviously
All "existing appealing ideas" were once niche concepts.
No one thought fighting games would work until Street Fighter II, or FPS until Wolfenstein.

>wasted time
Subjective.
>pay the rent
Pretty important, but not the only reason to develop games or work on anything in general.

right is correct. see Katamari and niche sim games. in rights case, even if commercial success eludes the game it can often create lifelong fans and profit in the long game, like deadly premonition and shit. regular homogenized stuff either prints money or is stillborn, and isn't remembered fondly either way except in truly outstanding cases like Oblivion.

This. For example Soulsborne games are great in theory, but absolutely dog shit in execution. Monster Hunter is great in execution but the ideas become repetitive in many ways. Love monster hunter regardless.

Popularity = more money. Unless you're the kind of person that would put your blood, sweat and tears into making a game, and consider all your efforts a success because the like two guys that bothered to play it thought it was cool.

So you're saying that if he enjoyed the experience, it was a success? Would you call Fallout 76 a success, you little faggot? That is also not what the OP image has in mind so you're still a little bitch boy.

Attached: Metacritic.png (588x378, 229.37K)

an idea without execution is nothing

Soulsborne games are popular because normies LOVE the idea of "whaoo game hard as stale bread!!", if they didn't have artificial difficulty they would've never gotten big because they tackle themes people usually don't give a fuck about.

>take
They're called opinions, you stupid zoomer.

I can't really stand Monster Hunter. I love everything surrounding the actual combat, but the combat itself is atrocious.

A game's success is determined by the extent of its markering and whether or not it is fun to play and physically accessible to most gamers

for some people, even 12 fans understanding and appreciating their vision is worth more than money or the passing fancy of 12000 people.

What does this even mean?

Marketing sells games.

Left is a game to make money
Right is to make a good game.

How you execute your idea is important. Not all games about being an elf on an adventure are going to be the same. I can see the point you're trying to make here but "3D Zelda" is the extent of what people thought they wanted. They didnt know they wanted Z targeting. Or the time travel mechanics and plot points. Or all the different items and dungeons etc. Those were pure Nintendo, fans had nothing to do with those but then of course things like z targeting became expected staples.

>game is good
>it will be successful
it's just that simple

>interesting ideas done poorly vs same old shit polished to a blinding sheen
is this a ds2 vs ds3 thread

a niche or obscure game executed well implies that the idea was good, just unpopular

sounds like the left take is the correct one

curious to hear some examples of shit ideas executed really well

I like getting to know monsters and tracking them by their behaviors and habits.
I like being able to "read" monsters and know what they're going to do, doubly so when they're pissed.
I like intricate, sometimes even grindy, crafting systems.
I like comfy, relatively low-tech worlds that feel like they're genuinely advancing.
I fucking despise the combat. Every enemy feels like it's designed (in terms of telegraphing and attack design) for a traditional dodge roll with a few invincibility frames and some intangibility, then NOPE, your roll is basically just a positioning tool with a couple token I-frames that don't make you intangible. So the monster limb you're trying to dodge could drag you along until you take the hit anyway. The game is about sitting around outside of the monster's range until it finally makes a move that "overextends" and you get the chance for a couple meaty hits.

I don't care, i literally don't give a shit, why does this argument even matter? I just want good games.

correct in regards to what? these aren't even opposing views. shit thread