Executive editor Greg Kasavin is pretty sure that no focus groups were involved in the making of last year's Killer7 and that it was better off for it. Call him crazy at [email protected].

　　In the late '90s, the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Initative tried a new project, called distributed computing. The idea was that people had computers sitting around doing nothing but running flying toasters, when instead, they could be working. All that computing power that had been doing nothing started filling a void. What if there were some way to apply this concept to game players? All those people who've been playing games for years would start contributing to the process of making games. Each generation of new players that gets into game design gets a little crazier, which could be a good thing. The more people who get into making games, the more diverse and original they're going to get. It'd be anarchy at first, but all radical social changes come with at least a little uprising. I stand on what I've said for years, "We'll burn that bridge when we cross it!" Just like Cortez, who scuttled his ships when they reached the new land, so there could be no turning back...

　　Remember when Homer designed his own dream car? Let's hope no one listens to him if he gets into games.

　　Then again, the last time I checked, good old E.T. has continued to elude us, despite all those processors feverishly crunching numbers trying to find him. Did the ExtraTerrestrial Initiative really accomplish anything besides getting a bunch of nerds really excited? In turn, I've often wondered if putting a lot of stock in the opinions of the game-playing public is truly the way to produce better games. Excuse me while I put on my elitist-snob hat for just a sec.

　　OK, all set. So yeah, I think there's a real danger in games becoming too heavily influenced by "the masses," or even just by avid or hardcore game players. The masses want everything, and they want it bad. Look no further than Hollywood's typical vapid blockbuster or American Idol, and I think you'll agree. Of course, since you're reading this, that already means we're on the same page. At any rate, we have the mass market to thank for the proliferation of game sequels. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with sequels, but they shouldn't outnumber original games by nine to one or anything.

　　Somebody I know is grinning like Ryu at the thought of playing this over Xbox Live. Hopefully there are other nut jobs out there willing to play him online.

　　In addition, there's a real danger in games becoming too heavily influenced by the outspoken hardcore. The problem is, it's hard to ignore these people because they really sound like they know what they're talking about and can cite years of game-playing experience, countless "I told you so" moments, and so on. Basically, these people want things their way, think you're an idiot, and typically hate change. They're wait-and-see early adopters. They mocked the Nintendo DS but bought one and play it all the time. They're superexcited about Street Fighter II coming to Xbox Live arcade and are hopeful that SNK Playmore will bring its classic lineup of NeoGeo fighting games to the Xbox 360 before long. These people think it's stupid that 3D graphics have practically replaced 2D graphics, and they think BioWare should go back to making Baldur's Gate. Man, these people, I tell you.

　　They're as progressive as they're nostalgic. They love quirky games that other people don't get. Listening to them too much is probably bad for business.

　　And yet game companies clearly put a tremendous amount of stock in customer feedback. They try to make games that the people ask them for, but then the people bite back, those ungrateful bastards. So I've always felt that game designers should be given license to do their own thing--at least, after they've put out one or two good games.

　　Hey, Mr. Designer, don't listen to me--I'm just the schmuck who plays this stuff, what do I know? You're the guy who came up with the dazzling idea that kept me busy for 200 hours in the first place. I've got nothing to contribute to your cause except $50.

　　I won't have my way in this, of course. Game design by committee is inevitable. Look at the Xbox 360, which, unbeknownst to you, is cataloguing every step you take in all those games. The system knows how many times you got killed by the second boss. The system knows you saved your game 14 times on the fourth level. The system knows you didn't even bother to play on the hardest difficulty. The system knows you hit button A and skipped the end credits. The system knows you played for less than an hour at a time on average, and that your play sessions rapidly dropped off after the first week. The system knows you spent a total of 17 hours and change playing the game and haven't come back to it in three weeks and counting. The publisher of the game heartily appreciates your business, but also appreciates that you've helped make its next game even better.

　　I don't care if most games are designed for the masses, as long as there's always a little room for something like Killer7 that's just for me.

　　OK, granted, I don't have a clear basis for my conspiracy theory apart from an observation that Xbox Live takes note of all my accomplishments in all my 360 games. It's one of my favorite things about the new system, but it's also a little disturbing for the reasons I've just suggested. I think if game companies look too closely at the game-playing habits of people out there, they're liable to become certain of things that aren't necessarily true. We skip the end cutscene not because we don't care about game endings, but because game endings, in general, just suck. We don't play the hardest difficulty not because we don't want a challenge, but because the game wasn't that much fun the first time. We kept dying on the second boss, but deep down, we liked it.

　　Even if people's playing habits become transparent, it won't automatically result in better games, and all the focus groups and customer feedback in the world still don't create innovation. When you get right down to it, the good ideas still come from a select few. Everyone else quickly jumps on the bandwagon, that's all.

　　It doesn't bother me that Microsoft or Blizzard or whoever might have some fancy machine that's carefully taking notes on every action I take in one of their games, because playing games online means relinquishing a certain degree of privacy. But as we enter into an age when market research about games is going to become much more granular and sophisticated, I know I'm still going to appreciate those games that were produced in relative isolation, by visionary people with brilliant or crazy ideas who couldn't be bothered by all the critics and naysayers. My hat's off to the pioneers I know are still out there, those who are confident (or arrogant) enough to be sure that only their own views and opinions matter, and that their work will find its audience, rather than the other way around.

　　Next Up: Get Over It by Conor Egan