One of the fundamental moments in the design of a video game occurs when you have first contact with the playersthat is, when the work is finally enjoyed by someone outside the development team or the publisher. This has always been a fundamental phase of the development process, which allows us to verify the goodness or otherwise of certain game systems and to make changes where deemed necessary to better satisfy the public.
Many believe that this is a novelty of recent years, that is, that the public has been included in the development process for a relatively short time with the various early accesses and focus tests, but in reality this is not the case. The idea of having a game judged before it hits the market comes from afar.
How things work
Already of the first Atari, Howard Scott Warshaw author of Yar’s Revenge, Riders of the Lost Ark and the infamous ET, says that In-house developers brought games still in development to the cafeteria to let anyone who wanted to play them try them, and then make changes based on the reactions and comments (today we would call them feedback). Too negative comments could even lead to the complete cancellation of an almost ready game.
Observing the relationship between games and the public has led to important innovationssuch as the introduction of a morality system in Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar, with author Richard Garriott having conceived it as a way to push players into certain behaviors, after having observed in previous Ultima games a tendency to not respect the heroic role that had been assigned to them (at the time it was nearly impossible to patch games, so it was easier for the experience of one title to reverberate through to subsequent ones).
To give another example, Republic: The Revolution came to market in a completely altered form compared to what Demis Hassabis’s team (today an AI guru) had initially created, because during focus tests the game was deemed too boring and the publisher demanded that many features already implemented be cut to streamline it. The game promised by Hassabis therefore existed, but never arrived in stores.
There are many other feasible examples, but the point should be clear by now. Hence the question: Why in 2024 are there still those who are surprised that a game like Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree can be modified following the needs expressed by its target audience? Where the latter refers to a subset of Elden Ring buyers, particularly capable given the requirements to access the expansion’s content (having killed an advanced boss).
Why does someone consider the modification of some parameters through patches, aimed at altering some game balances making it more accessible (not necessarily easier, mind you), a sort of offense to the authorship? On the other hand, What game today isn’t patched based on public feedback? Are these all changes made in contempt of their authors? In short, why don’t we stop talking nonsense based on non-existent myths created only by some fanatics and start reasoning starting from how things really work? Always, in fact.
This is an editorial written by a member of the editorial staff and is not necessarily representative of the editorial line of Multiplayer.it.
#Modifying #Elden #Ring #Shadow #Erdtree #doesnt #altering #authorial #vision