Anyone else feel Dan is overdoing it a little here due to his inexperience with Harvest Moon/Rune Factory? Admittedly I haven't played this myself yet, but from what I've seen, everything here has been done before, and the things that Dan seems to think were taken from Animal Crossing were already present in the first Harvest Moon back in 1996.
Can't really fault the game or the review:
The review isn't necessarily for fans of Harvest Moon / Rune Factory.
The game is reaching a large, unserved (and different) market in the west on a different platform.
It looks better / more appealing than anything that's been done with that franchise for the past 18 years (including the original).
It's not like Harvest Moon and Rune Factory are megahits that everyone's out to clone.
It's adding new elements like modding and multiplayer support.
@aistan:I don't believe that, I'm just saying that if you're talking about sales, it's important to consider who buys games. Indie games go bottom-up from hardcore indie developers, to hardcore players, to steam users, to console gamers, and so forth. In other words, what I'm saying is that the creativity and ethical issues could be compounded in the process. On the one hand, the cream will always rises to the top. On the other hand, a lot of the games coming out do tend to reflect what hardcore gamers like.
That said... clearly there's a market for a Harvest Moon-style game on PC, and this looks better than any of the alternatives... but I guess my original comment was meant to emphasize design. It would just be nice to think that if you asked a developer why they did something a particular way, that they would have an opinion and answer beyond it just being what the other games did.
Just the fact that it immediately rocketed to the top of the Steam sales chart when it released shows that it is appealing to a wide audience.
Don't kid yourself. Computer games do not appeal to a wide audience. The games that sell are the addictive games that hardcore gamers like. There's little diversity in gaming, so people tend to like a lot of the same things. Indies are searching for the holy grail, connecting with other gamers, standing on the shoulders of their predecessors, and struggling for legitmacy. Lone developers and games with good retro graphics tend to get a lot of attention from the indie scene. Q.E.D.
@ravey: It is paced so well that you never feel like you're not getting things done while pushing you toward meeting your goals. Is that manipulative? If the goal is to manipulate the player to enjoy their time with the game then the answer would probably be yes. But what else are we asking for when we play a game then for it to manipulate us in some way. The thing is, we all want to be manipulated in a particular way. We generally gravitate toward those games that scratch a particular manipulation itch.
I'd be interested to hear what you consider ethical game design. If it is in regards to how a game will affect people per your post, I'd be interested in hearing why this game is transgressive.
I don't think manipulating and gratification are inherently evil, but they're a means, not an end. A necessary evil. Clearly this is a much bigger problem in social games, so I don't mean to single anyone out... I just think it's important to think about the ethical and creative issues and how they affect us, as well as the games industry as a whole.
@williamflattener: I think if you judge it by the standards of the industry: manipulative, tried-and-true designs with high production values... then it's a great game.
The second point I want to make is that creativity in game design lies in the interaction, not the presentation / features... so if your design is basically A+B (Harvest Moon, Minecraft) wrapped up in great production values - graphics, sound, writing - what exactly does that mean? If you know all the things you're doing have already been massively popular, successful and addictive... and each part is fairly independent, so you're not really combining them into something different... at that point, aren't you just mashing things together?
I commend the developer for putting this game together, but I also think we shouldn't cut developers any slack when it comes to ethics and innovation. They know what they're doing, so it's up to them to decide if they care how their games will affect people, and whether they want to be truly creative in this medium.
Looking at the game objectively, it doesn't seem to do anything new or innovative. It doesn't break the mold. It doesn't take something niche and make it better or more appealing to a wider audience. And this ties back to zaldar's line of questioning: should a game be judged any differently if it's made by a team or by one person? And should games be judged by the standards of the industry, or by what we think is right?
Design should be taken as seriously as programming and art... especially the creative and ethical considerations of design. Showing off how talented you are or how much you love X, Y and Z isn't creative or thoughtful game design.
Something to keep in mind...Stardew Valley was created by one person, indie developer Eric Barone, also known as ConcernedApe on the Twitter.
Curious - do people really think this should change how games are looked at/reviewed (I know a quick look isn't really a review). I've always thought that a game is either good or it is not good. How many people worked on it or who they were is irrelevant.
I think it's really tough to be critical without coming across as negative or jealous. On the one hand, lone developers deserve to be rewarded for their work, and admired for their effort. On the other hand, the design is what's important. A talented artist / programmer can make a fun game with great production values that a lot of people want to play, but if it's a homage / clone of existing products, and the game is addictive... is that good or noble? Is that good design?
And if you're making a game on your own - are you even focused on design? Or is most of your time being spent on the graphics, sound and writing? How much of the design is just built around pre-existing systems and trends?
Players should be more critical of this kind of thing. Lone developers are often biased towards production, which I feel can detract from design, interactivity, and thinking about how their work will affect the end-user. We know how these things can affect people. We shouldn't assume that gamers have played all of these addictive games, so developers should just give them what they want.
We don't care enough about whether a game is potentially harmful or whether it's innovative, we just pat the developer on the back for being talented and doing a wonderful craftsman job and playing into the core audience. Yes... a lot of players like deep retro games, platformers, roguelikes, immersive environments and addictive games. No... that doesn't necessarily deserve a pat on the back.
@mikelemmer: Yeah. I just think games that rely heavily on story, characters, writing, graphics, animation and music aren't especially interesting.
Phoenix Wright is better, but it's mostly the same thing: cute stories, characters, writing, graphics, animation and music, and all the player gets to do is vacuum for clues and play read the mind of the designer (and talk about how cute the stories, characters, writing, graphics, animation and music is).
Ravey's comments