[uncircle]

> Game companies already collect heaps of data about players, which mechanics they interact with, which mechanics they don't, retention, play time, etc.

Yes, that's how games like Concord get made. Very successful approach to create art based on data about what's popular and focus groups.

[georgeecollins]

I think you are saying data is no substitute for vision in design. Completely agree! At Playdom (Disney) they tried to build a game once from the ground up based on A/B testing. Do you know what that game was? No you don't because it was never released and terrible.

I think what the previous comment meant was that there is data on how player play, and that tends to be varied but more predictable.

[mlyle]

Yah. I think an AI playtester that could go "hey... this itch that lots of players seem to have doesn't get scratched often in your main gameplay loop" or "there's a valley 1/3rd of the way into the game where progression slows way down" or "that third boss is way too hard".

AI/fuzzers can't get far enough in games, yet, without a lot of help. But I think that's because we don't have models really well suited for them.

[theshrike79]

Data is the lifeblood of mobile gaming, everything is data-driven.

Everything is measured and analysed and optimised for engagement and monetisation.

When you have 200 people making a game, "luck" or "art" doesn't factor in at all. You test, get data, and make decisions based on the data, not feelings.

Solo devs can still make artsy games and stumble upon success.

[MangoToupe]

Isn't Concord massively unpopular? I'd think that's a terrible example

Edit: yup, it shut down nearly a year ago

[SpecialistK]

I think it was a sarcastic example - in other words, all the data and metrics and trend-chasing in the world is not a replacement for human vision, creativity, and risk-taking.

[fluoridation]

Was Concord made the way it was because of data? I got the impression that the designers were chasing misguided trends with the art direction, and on top of that the game part was just mediocre.

[SpecialistK]

I can't say for sure (never played it or followed it much, because it's not my type of game) but the impression I had is that it was a cookie-cutter attempt to be just another live service online shooter in the vein of Valorant, Overwatch, Apex Legends, etc etc. And people saw no need to play this new one when those games already exist.

Compare that to Helldivers 2 (online-only live service game, same platforms and publisher) which had a lot of personality (the heavy Starship Troopers movie vibe) and some unique gameplay elements like the strategems.

[Cthulhu_]

To add, Concord had been in development for eight years at that point, had multiple leadership and direction changes, and then the studio was aquired by Sony because they wanted more big live service games and this game ticked all the boxes and was nearly done. So more money was pumped into it.

And sometimes it works; Apex Legends came out of nowhere and became one of the big live service titles. Fortnite did a battle royale mode out of nowhere and became huge.