This kind of makes me sad. I feel like this is a terrible trend that is/has basically ruined gaming.

The way I see it, making a game is art. I want to make games to express my ideas, and my feelings, and I want to do the best I can to convey those feelings and ideas in my games. The moment you start seeking player feedback for your game you are no longer making art, you making a product. I suppose that is all well and good if your goal is only to make money (although I highly suspect that this often has unintended and sometimes opposite affect).

Seeking player feedback is like Michelangelo asking random people on the street how he should have carved the statute of David.

This is my art, this isn't a collaboration, I don't have any desire at all to sink, time, effort, and talent into someone else's ideas, especially when they aren't willing to sink any time or effort to do it themselves, they just want to sit back and call the shots without having any skin in the game at all.

This seems like a loose/loose situation to me, the game often ends being worse in the end, and the artist becomes a cog/slave to the masses (who often don't have the foggiest clue of what they really want, or what makes a good game, because they aren't putting real time and thought into how the mechanics will interact, what is technically easy or hard, they just trow out "It would better if it did x, y,z").

Not every artist is Michelangelo.

Collaboration and feedback can be extremely helpful for creative endeavors. Successful writers have editors, successful musicians have producers, successful directors have EPs, etc. Sometimes the one-man-army approach works, but especially early on, it's best to get feedback.

> Collaboration and feedback can be extremely helpful for creative endeavors. Successful writers have editors, successful musicians have producers, successful directors have EPs

Fair enough, sometimes art is collaborative, but even in your example it's collaborative with a very small group of experts, who also have skin the game. It isn't collaborative with 80 different arm-chair musicians, or 100's of arm-chair writers. Seth McFarlane doesn't give a rats ass what YOU think would be funny in family guy, nor should he. Taylor Swift isn't soliciting her fans if they think a key change in a song is a good idea.

So why in video game dev is it expected that the devs have public discords where anyone can jump and and spout off anything, and that they pay attention to, and incorporate, every suggestion from some random steam comment?

Most game devs like to interact with their audience and contrary to your opinion don’t pay attention to or incorporate every suggestion that comes along. Most player feedback is terrible! Even good feedback has to go through a process of picking it apart and trying to understand the root of what the player is saying or suggesting.

From an artistic point of view feedback from players is essential because games are based around an interactive dialog with the player. As a sculptor you can see the end result. As a game dev you can’t see how other people will play your game and it’s incredibly eye opening when you do.

Quite often people do not listen or seek to hear from their play-testers. They watch how they attempt to solve the puzzles and otherwise play the game. The devs ask specific questions about how the player approached the situation.

The idea that the 'untrained eye' of the random playtester gets to make creative decisions about the game overall.. simply because they showed up to playtest the game, is a bit much.

Often programmers and artists don't even get full creative control over the work they do at game studios, random playtesters are far from ruining Michelangelo's David. Michelangelo is not even in full control, the techniques he learnt, skills he obtained and decisions he made earlier in the work, limit his sculpture too.

There is a way to integrate playtesters without demoting Michelangelo from control over the work.

Games and art can be quite different, but both are mediums that can have an audience. I volunteer at an arts organization and I do play games (board and some video). Both have vision. Feedback can be helpful.

But a game has a time component to it. Its asking a lot more of the player. It needs to be fun, or the player will stop playing and your vision will stay stuck in the game. Some feedback is helpful to make it fun and let them experience/ see your vision.

For Art, Open Studio events are really rewarding for artists to get their art out there and also talk to visitors. I did it for a few years. Putting your art out there for public consumption was hard. Some loved it (some enough to buy a few things), some did not. But I could talk to some of them and I grew and got better.

For games one of the fun things I do during the year is go to "Figg Fest" https://www.bostonfig.com/fest-homepage/ Its been virtual, but I liked it better in person. Game makers display their games, and most have a version to play (some simplify as 2+ hour board games at a 5 hour convention...). I like talking to the board game makers, their inspiration and how they develop. They teach us visitors and watch us play.

But if Solo development is your thing, thats cool too. I get not having things "wateredown by committee" but feedback can be helpful.

Maybe you are right. I'm not an artistic kind of person. I'm more of the technical implementor kind. My goal with the current game, is to learn stuff and implement all the systems that go into making it great. And then finally publish it. I'm currently on track to achieving all my goals. I have certain ideas w.r.t. to the game that I won't deviate from.

But I don't know everything. I'm not even a pro player at my own game. This is where the player feedback comes into the picture. I'm not trying to make my game from a very unique idea. But it's a mish mash of ideas I got from other games. I take feedback to know that I'm not doing something offensive/player denigrating accidentally.

I got few good ideas from my players which I included. Many ideas I have straight away denied to be included, because it didn't fit into my vision for the game/or I lacked the skills/efforts to give it justice.

I'm making a game, to scratch my itch of building something. Something that makes me happy, when people play the game and really like it. People keep coming back to give it a try. Sometimes even after weeks. Its nice to hear their feedback. It's nice to discover that people have been talking about your game in your absence, where you are not the first one to introduce the game.

I don't get actual users appreciation/feedback at my day job. No one says there they liked the attention to detail that was given there. This is why I'm making the game.

What you describe is making a game for yourself.

What the GP describes is making a game for others.

Both have their places.