Why do so many shit games confuse quantity for quality?

Why do so many shit games confuse quantity for quality?

Like, you'd think that all the time spent not designing rules that fundamentally don't work by design (look at 3.PF) would've been spent actually designing a decent system where every part works in tandem with one another.

And before anyone jumps down my throat for shitting on 3.PF, rules-lite systems suffer from the same shit as well if the mechanics of the game fundamentally oppose one another because the devs don't know what they're fucking doing (look at Dungeon World) and even tabletop games as a whole can suffer from overly complex bullshit that takes a paragraph to explain what can be said in a sentence (look at Yu-Gi-Oh).

I guess what I'm asking is, why do so many devs just not get it?

>I guess what I'm asking is, why do so many devs just not get it?

I get the feeling that it's you who doesn't get game design. You have to be very clear with your rules, and you have to cater to anyone and everyone who might play your game. Which is a major pain in the ass.

You hate things that are popular and allow that to alter your entire world view. You're basically just a contrarian cynic, which is why it's hard to take anything you say as anything except exaggerated hyperbole.

I hope that answers many of the questions you have. I just wish you'd ask those questions, instead of the loaded ones you choose.

It's easier to make quantity rather than quality.

Oh boy, it's you again...

Why does the word "cater" generally mean "make a huge clusterfuck that appeals to nobody?"

Because I've never seen a game that catered to a specific audience that didn't end up becoming dogshit.

Because designing good games is hard, but designing a lot of stuff people like draws them into supporting your game regardless of its actual quality. Just look at the D&D defence for rearing its ugly head in this thread.

I also wonder more and more whether bad games actually do better than good ones, at least above a certain threshold of complete non-playability. With a good game, you'll talk about rules you like and fun games but that's basically it.

With a bad game, though? Oh, you can have argument after argument on whether x and y are problems and the way to fix them, debating whether you can really blame the devs for it and on and on and on.

Having those flaws might actually be a good thing for your game, since it gets people talking and gets more people hearing about it, despite the fact that it means you're creating a worse product overall.

>"Mommy, why are there good things and bad things in the world?"

Maybe it doesn't mean that at all and you're just being grumpy about things you don't like. Have a juice box and take a nap, then come back with a clear head.

The story behind 3e, as I understand it, is that they thought they were making a great system that people would love for decades (to be fair, it's looking like some people might do just that).

And PF just copy+pasted 3.5 with a few minor changes. They explicitly did not take enough time to really fix the big problems.

Basically, sometimes people think the system they're making is way better than it actually is, and sometimes people are rushed or just lazy.

I assume there are other reasons that can cause this, but those seem like the main two.

>would've been spent actually designing a decent system where every part works in tandem with one another.
They did: it's called 4e. It was received poorly because it lacked flaws that people had become accustomed to and convinced themselves were part of the "authentic gaming experience."
>Why does the word "cater" generally mean "make a huge clusterfuck that appeals to nobody?"
No, it means "make a huge clusterfuck that the market loves beause they have stockholm syndrome from the era of OGL."

The sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug

I think if the game has a good enough presentation though then it'll give people more stuff to talk about without necessarily having the discussion be on what the game did wrong.

Like people still generally talk about Megaman X and part of the reason why it's still being discussed today (aside from Egorapter's sequelitis episode) is that it fundamentally changed everything about how the Megaman formula works while also adding subtle additions to the way the levels are designed and how you confront enemies.

Also (just to keep things Veeky Forums related), Chess is a game that has been discussed for centuries, civilizations have literally been born and died in the time that Chess has been a thing and part of the reason why that is, is because even though it's a fairly simple game, the meta for it is very complex, yet you can't just plug in variables to win every single match either.

...

>They did: it's called 4e. It was received poorly because it lacked flaws that people had become accustomed to and convinced themselves were part of the "authentic gaming experience."

Actually as a person who doesn't like 4e despite it being my first and favorite RPG for a time.
It's because 4e is bland. Its bland and encourages very bland combat.

You can do anything with any system, but what 4e encouraged was bland and just kinda boring.

Can you expand on that? I always found 4e's combat to be incredibly exciting and interesting, with a lot of depth and tactical nuance to it. What about it felt dull to you?

It's weird what mental gymnastics you guys have to go through to convince yourselves that your opinions are better than the opinions of the overwhelming majority.

It's like you are actually putting in effort to not actually understand what makes things good, which is why you hate good things.

He's probably one of those types that confuses flavor text with actual mechanical relevance.

So going "I attack with my sword by shoving it through his windpipe" is adequate show of creativity and roleplay even though the sword's only doing 1d8+STR and the enemy is still functioning at peak condition even though they technically have a long piece of metal sticking out the back of their neck.

Don't you have a martial vs. caster thread to make?

Majority of their players are braindead fucks that can't distinguish between quality so they are instead kept busy with a high quantity

Quantity allows you to offload the responsibility of putting together a good game onto the GMs/players.
You give them everything they might want and they'll remove all the shit that doesn't work on their own.

Its the same story with all products: nobody gives a shit, and people will just make due. Nobody's paying for this shit anyway anymore.

Most tabletop game designers aren't professionals, and most tabletop games don't go through rigorous playtesting, or indeed, any playtesting. Playtesting is really goddamn hard when you've only got a small number of people to work with, especially in games that primarily function off of imagination, and it wasn't expected for games to do it until very recently.

I would much prefer a dozen interesting setting books to a single book of solid mechanics.