Ok correct on all accounts, now we can move on a bit.
My points is that by making a game should always involve going after the largest possible demographic even outside of what is proven possible within that genre, I mean that last statement is the trigger for innovation in a succesful way otherwise it would just be a game that was "ahead of it's time" (This happens way too often.) Though we probably both know that statement is only half true. By gunning for the largest demographic and actually acquiring this group chances are you've made a good game.
(To sum up what a good game is would take a while but I'll make this as short as I can.)
Usually these games do something that hasn't been seen before without breaking the rules of that genre completely, this usually has a deep metagame that replaces any end game design requirements on the development end, is very intuitive for the player and doesn't have a penalty for not playing the game. Within all of that they designer must remember they are making a virtual toy.
In doing this they allow for the player to flourish generating hardcore type players who constantly jam in the hours and casual players who are fine with 30 minutes a day or 2 hours a week. The point is that a game like that is what makes the hardcore type player, the hardcore type player can not make this type of game, their egos or whatever drives that kind of person can convince them otherwise though.
My point is that these "most developers" that your reffering to shouldn't exist as developers; but the world isn't perfect and we can't always have games everyone and gradma's Martian can enjoy however they want to enjoy it.
I'm Unamerica and you can too.
The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread:
