What makes games successful? The community discusses this and believes that a developer has a good principle in which the truth lies.
The last few months have been quite a blessing for players. Whether you enjoy Palword, are busy in Helldivers 2, or are still trying to stop the mind flayers in Baldur’s Gate 3. There have been some really strong games.
However, other games fell by the wayside and could not meet expectations. “Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League” is just one of many released titles that fell short of expectations.
This sparked lively discussions in the community about what makes a good game and how it differs from an average game that may have a huge budget but ultimately fails to truly reach anyone.
In the gaming subreddit, the user thewalkingdude commented:
A game for everyone is a game for no one.
This is the motto of Arrowhead Studios, the creators of Helldivers 2. I believe this is often true when you look at things like Suicide Squad or Skull and Bones, which want to cast a wide net and try to follow trends, but end up becoming too uninteresting.[…]
With over 2,900 upvotes, many are participating in the discussions and sharing their own points. Many seem to agree that the secret to the success of these games lies in their understanding of what their target audience wants and wants to see. They do not try to cast a wider net than they are.
Superb_Gur1349 observes:
Most successful games of the last 3 years had one thing in common … they made games for their target audience … the target audience likes it, creates hype because it’s great and brings new people who become part of the target audience and the fan base grows.
Many also believe that games like Helldivers or Palworld are particularly successful because they were not created by a huge gaming company with a massive publisher behind them, but by comparatively small development teams that can express themselves more freely.
Tris-megistus states:
I believe it is not far-fetched to say that if Helldivers or Palworld had been made by any of the largest studios currently around, the game would not have performed as well.
I personally would not have touched it if it had loot boxes, content behind paywalls, overpriced or overly difficult-to-earn skins, or generally poorly coded (loading screens every 5 seconds) or if the same content had been used that has been run into the ground over the last 8 years.
The fact that it is becoming increasingly rare for major studios to develop these “hype games” that also meet expectations and can attract and excite millions of players has its reasons. Primarily, the fear that project managers will not have “everyone” as the target audience is seen as a concern by some.
Thus, volatredx says:
As a wise person once said: AAA CEOs would rather not make any money than make a little money if they can’t make all the money.
CEOs of AAA studios will not greenlight anything, no matter how successful it could be, if the target audience is not absolutely everyone who owns a gaming system.
In summary, players seem to agree that a game is better when it clearly knows what it wants to be and for whom. Once that is lost sight of and one tries to make everyone happy, the game is doomed to fail sooner or later.
Or what do you think?
