Despite the things that I’d like to think about the video game industry, there is one realization we all have to make: we have to compromise on some issues, for cost or time, whichever, and so not all games are going to be as imagined.

But with this idea comes a dilemma. How do you decide what you cut, or what is the least important aspect? How can you, as a developer, make a conscious decision about your product and what should or should not be a part of it?

It’s had to answer, but is something that every developer will and do face at one point in their project. And without the very best decision here, a game could be made or broken to some degree.

For me, personally, I’ve played a few dozen games, and I think that at points it becomes rather obvious when a developer has made compromises. Whether it is some little graphic glitches in Mass Effect, an invisible wall here or there in any game, or the severe lack of ending in Halo 2, these trade-offs are made, and are usually apparent. In many cases, these developers could probably have made a different trade-off that would have made things a little better for the user in the long run.

Instead of having loads, games these days are having pop-in textures. This tends to look bad, and can at many points lessen a player’s respect for otherwise pristine visuals. A load screen, no matter how short could have been put in for the sake of preserving the visuals, and have had the same kind of impact for the player.  In the case of invisible walls, a developer could have sacrificed a visual aspect and traded it for another in the interest of preserving a clear cut border between gameplay area and beyond. When story ideas are cut, extensions are usually hashed together to make previously unconnected areas connect.

These trade-offs are not always good, but in the long run are what the developer felt was valuable. To keep a player in the experience for as long as possible, a developer was willing to have pop-in textures. To keep the level looking natural, the developer was willing to keep their invisible wall. To ensure that things would remain coherent despite the cut, the writers slapped on a quick fix.

But as we progress to a new future of games, where do we place our values when it comes to making games?  I’ve pondered on this idea for awhile, and eventually made a hierarchy of importance in these aspects. This is my personal list, so it may not be yours, and that’s fine. The differences show the very same thing that is true about any market. Tastes will be the same, you have to find your niche.

1.  Gameplay – Self explanatory. The game better play as good as it can. If you don’t nail gameplay, you won’t and don’t have a good game.
2. Story -  This aspect doesn’t simply mean the progression of the in-game story. How well does the player get immersed? Canonical things like setting and in-game realism factor into this aspect, which will be the key to drawing a player in and keeping them there.
3. Graphics – A game must look pretty. But if it doesn’t have a good story/immersion it isn’t going to be worthy of selling. The aesthetics of art/music influence the immersive qualities of games to a great degree, so it is not easy to say that these are entirely separate.
4. Release Time – The time that a game releases is not entirely important. A good game will sell no matter when it is released. A quality I have taken from Nintendo, you should feel free to delay a game until it is ready. However, under no circumstances should these delays add anymore than half a year to a release date. Duke Nukem Forever is a good example of how NOT to take this principle being last.

So there you go. If you have any comments, suggestions, or complaints, I’m more than willing to receive them. Just make a post below.