Games of the Past, Present, and Future
When I put myself in the shoes of a game developer, it is understandable to think of games as having a life span. You make the game and it takes up maybe a few years of your lifetime and once it releases you can't help but stipulate on the immediate response it gets. People have a tendency to hype up the weekend of its release, and in many instances people will judge the success of the game on the reception it gets in that time. This can be beneficial from a game design mindset, and I'll explain that later, but my ultimate goal with this post is to hammer home the point that when you release a game, it will basically exist forever, lest some circumstances take place and it winds up deleted from history.
Even though Mass Effect is well regarded for its immense detail with altering the route your character takes, (1) 92% of players took the same route, known as Paragon (the heroic route) as opposed to the Renegade route (the colossal bastard route). It, no doubt, took a whole lot of time and effort to write, program, animate, etc., for that route, it spans three games after all, and yet such a small percentage of players even took the route. In that case, it's tempting to say they shouldn't have even bothered to develop that route at all if so few players even played it but that would be incredibly detrimental the game's legacy. The fact that you even have such an option is a big part of the series' legacy, to the point that it's one of the qualities fans refer to. It could even enhance the Paragon route, putting into perspective what you chose not to do to get to that point. More importantly, 8% of players choosing the Renegade route is a small amount now, but this is a series that will exist for decades to come, and in that time people will continue to play it in that time. On top of that, video games have only gotten more and more popular over time, and we will see an increase in people going back to play games like this. In that sense, the Renegade route is not only not a waste of time it's one more reason for people to look back on the series.
This Mass Effect example is an important point to consider for anyone worrying about whether an element to a game is worth its addition when it's proven to be largely unpopular to the masses. It's a question I imagine gets asked a lot during games development. Is the work even worth that time if not every player will experience it? It's a lot of work for something most players will miss. In my opinion, if it's a good creative decision and doesn't take up too much development time that they get a bollocking from the publishers, then I'd say it is. Little details and big secret discoveries can only enhance a game, or keep it in a collective conscience for a longer time with subjects like that taking up discussion on games. I would credit this as a great quality of even the original Super Mario Bros. As iconic as that game is, many people will have a first playthrough of it in years to come and it is a game full of little wonders to discover. The infinite 1-up trick, jumping over the flag pole, the warp zones, hidden blocks, vines that lead to bonus stages, and that's setting aside the many speedrunner tricks still being discovered to this day. If all of those elements were taken out because the developers knew only 8% of players discovered them, Super Mario Bros would not be nearly as iconic. Don't get me wrong, the game has perfectly good gameplay and level design but it's that extra labour of love that makes it stand out and more exciting to replay. Some extra replay value does wonders for maintaining a game's longevity and some elements that will most likely be missed on first playthroughs can play a big part of that.
I can certainly sympathise with the Mass Effect developers, though. One aspect of Mario that makes it so replayable is its incredibly short length. It's a very quick run from world 1-1 to world 8-4, and making each run different is not too demanding of a player's time. Granted, you might find yourself spending upwards to a hundred hours worth of replays just trying to nail that perfect run of the game, whereas with Mass Effect you might spend that many hours just on one playthrough that spans three entire games on top of some DLC too. Those players who completed a Paragon route won't want to redo all of that work just for a different ending, but this is where I think Mass Effect differs from other games with a similar focus. I know I found it impressive knowing that the games can even collect data from previous entries back when the games were originally released and that's still an enticing element today. Any discussion about "where to start with this series" has never been more indisputable. That is Mass Effect's own unique trait that no other game series has, and it'll continue to be that series' pull for decades to come.
Now, I mentioned how worrying about the reception of the game's release can be beneficial in the long run. Personally, I don't think developers are forward thinking enough in this case. It's common practice now to release a game in a broken state then release a "day one patch". This severely hurts its longevity because anyone that buys the game physically at a point in time when said patches are unavailable will be stuck with a broken version of it. Eventually servers will be shut down and nobody will even be able to install day one patches. If developers wish to be hung up on immediate reception then this should inspire them to make sure their games are in a working state by the end of development, although I struggle to think of one recent hyped up game that hasn't released in a broken state. Cyberpunk 2077, Fallout 76, No Man's Sky, all three are games with legacies utterly tainted by their releases with nothing to rely on but word-of-mouth to tell people "it's good now, though". Now in years to come these games may be looked back on as classics but given how much that initial reception has been preserved online on top of how we pass on information to following generations, people may not even bother with "that game that was really buggy". After all, Ubisoft still gets shit for releasing Assassin's Creed Unity in such a horrifyingly garbage state (2), or it's at least what everyone thinks about when they think "broken game". Any game company worried about their games like they'll become irrelevant after a week should focus on avoiding putting out a broken product thinking they can just fix it later because a game like Assassin's Creed Unity, in the grander scheme of things, is forever broken with one smidgen of time where it was fixed, lest Ubisoft plans on making some kind of remaster with the fixes already in place (the game's most recent release was on the bloody Stadia).
Ultimately, you can't really blame developers for finding it upsetting when they put a lot of work into an element of a game only for most players to miss out on it. It's worth the risk, I think. Even a very small thing that nobody discovers until decades later can maintain a game's legacy. Finding new discoveries or tweaking the story depending on the player's actions are both things that make repeat playthroughs more interesting. I would like to encourage developers not to fret over people's first playthroughs and instead consider what could make repeat playthroughs more compelling. A great first impression is one thing but down the line you want your art to maintain a strong legacy.
Sources:
(1) https://twitter.com/EbengerJohn/status/1230205582478458880 "Something like 92% of Mass Effect players were Paragon. And we put a lot of work in to the Renegade content too"
