MARCH 24th
The Role of User Feedback in Game Improvement
The ability to provide instant opinions on anything is both a blessing and a curse of the internet. Nowhere is this more evident than in the gaming industry, where developers can receive immediate player insights on their projects—game testing at an unprecedented scale.
On one hand, user feedback allows studios to track audience reactions almost in real time and plan future patches and updates accordingly. Supergiant Games, for example, effectively used player feedback while game testing the roguelike Hades, refining mechanics based on community input. On the other hand, criticism can sometimes escalate into toxic behavior, as seen when Santa Monica Studio employees were harassed over the release date of God of War: Ragnarok, prompting the company to issue a formal statement condemning personal attacks.
Between these two extremes lies a spectrum of player reactions, some of which contain valuable insights that can make or break a game. One of the most striking examples was the backlash surrounding the ending of Mass Effect 3—a case study in how game testing and user feedback can dramatically influence development.
On one hand, user feedback allows studios to track audience reactions almost in real time and plan future patches and updates accordingly. Supergiant Games, for example, effectively used player feedback while game testing the roguelike Hades, refining mechanics based on community input. On the other hand, criticism can sometimes escalate into toxic behavior, as seen when Santa Monica Studio employees were harassed over the release date of God of War: Ragnarok, prompting the company to issue a formal statement condemning personal attacks.
Between these two extremes lies a spectrum of player reactions, some of which contain valuable insights that can make or break a game. One of the most striking examples was the backlash surrounding the ending of Mass Effect 3—a case study in how game testing and user feedback can dramatically influence development.
Mass Effect Decision Tree by Mike Fahmie, Jerermy Vinar
Why Handling User Feedback is Challenging
In March 2012, BioWare released Mass Effect 3, the conclusion to the epic sci-fi saga about Commander Shepard’s mission to save the galaxy from the Reapers. While critics praised the game, many fans were disappointed—not with the game itself but with its final hour.
The ending presented players with three choices, each leading to nearly identical cutscenes, with only slight differences in color. It also left many character fates unexplained, leading to a sense of dissatisfaction. Fans launched the "Retake Mass Effect" campaign, raising over $80,000 for charity to demonstrate their frustration.
What began as a passionate plea soon escalated. BioWare received deliveries of cupcakes in red, blue, and green—symbolizing the game’s endings—though they all tasted the same. While initially humorous, the backlash turned aggressive, with threats and harassment targeting developers. Similar incidents have plagued the industry, such as the severe backlash against No Man’s Sky in 2016, which led to bomb threats against Hello Games.
These cases highlight an important truth: while user feedback is invaluable in game testing, it can be overwhelming and, at times, difficult to filter into constructive insights. Even universally acclaimed games, like Doom Eternal and Darkest Dungeon, have faced criticism over gameplay mechanics that clashed with player expectations.
In March 2012, BioWare released Mass Effect 3, the conclusion to the epic sci-fi saga about Commander Shepard’s mission to save the galaxy from the Reapers. While critics praised the game, many fans were disappointed—not with the game itself but with its final hour.
The ending presented players with three choices, each leading to nearly identical cutscenes, with only slight differences in color. It also left many character fates unexplained, leading to a sense of dissatisfaction. Fans launched the "Retake Mass Effect" campaign, raising over $80,000 for charity to demonstrate their frustration.
What began as a passionate plea soon escalated. BioWare received deliveries of cupcakes in red, blue, and green—symbolizing the game’s endings—though they all tasted the same. While initially humorous, the backlash turned aggressive, with threats and harassment targeting developers. Similar incidents have plagued the industry, such as the severe backlash against No Man’s Sky in 2016, which led to bomb threats against Hello Games.
These cases highlight an important truth: while user feedback is invaluable in game testing, it can be overwhelming and, at times, difficult to filter into constructive insights. Even universally acclaimed games, like Doom Eternal and Darkest Dungeon, have faced criticism over gameplay mechanics that clashed with player expectations.
How Developers Can Extract Meaningful Player Insights
Initially, BioWare resisted the backlash against Mass Effect 3, dismissing complaints as entitled demands. However, they soon acknowledged the legitimate concerns behind the criticism—many of which echoed issues identified during game testing but were overlooked. Just months after launch, the studio released the Extended Cut DLC, which expanded the endings to provide more closure and address player concerns.
This case exemplifies a crucial lesson for developers: constructive player insights—and rigorous game testing—can lead to better game experiences. However, separating useful feedback from noise requires a structured approach. Here are some best practices for handling user feedback in game testing and development:
1. Identify the Core Issues Behind Complaints
In post on BioWare’s forum addressing the issues with the Mass Effect 3 ending, Casey Hudson noted that while developers actively monitor user feedback, he requested that players wait until a broader audience has experienced the game.
His request stemmed not only from a desire to avoid premature spoilers but also from the need to collect a more comprehensive set of feedback—and to ensure that the most vehement critics of the ending do not represent just a vocal minority.
Sean Murray faced a similar challenge following the release of No Man’s Sky. To shield his team from community harassment, the designer rerouted all feedback emails to his personal inbox and categorized the senders into three groups:
It turned out that the majority of negative reviews came from the last group, making up as much as 90% of the overall criticism. The next largest group was composed of players who, in the very first week, had spent around a hundred hours on the game testing—feedback from these dedicated players was both actionable and necessary.
“For example, 37% of players were abandoning the game or facing issues with the inventory system,” the designer explained. “And that was something we could, and needed to, address.”
Nevertheless, caution is essential—blindly following every player request can be dangerous. Another guiding principle is needed to ensure that changes do not inadvertently worsen the situation.
Initially, BioWare resisted the backlash against Mass Effect 3, dismissing complaints as entitled demands. However, they soon acknowledged the legitimate concerns behind the criticism—many of which echoed issues identified during game testing but were overlooked. Just months after launch, the studio released the Extended Cut DLC, which expanded the endings to provide more closure and address player concerns.
This case exemplifies a crucial lesson for developers: constructive player insights—and rigorous game testing—can lead to better game experiences. However, separating useful feedback from noise requires a structured approach. Here are some best practices for handling user feedback in game testing and development:
1. Identify the Core Issues Behind Complaints
In post on BioWare’s forum addressing the issues with the Mass Effect 3 ending, Casey Hudson noted that while developers actively monitor user feedback, he requested that players wait until a broader audience has experienced the game.
"We will be delighted to engage in a constructive discussion once more people have had the chance to play," he assured fans.
His request stemmed not only from a desire to avoid premature spoilers but also from the need to collect a more comprehensive set of feedback—and to ensure that the most vehement critics of the ending do not represent just a vocal minority.
Sean Murray faced a similar challenge following the release of No Man’s Sky. To shield his team from community harassment, the designer rerouted all feedback emails to his personal inbox and categorized the senders into three groups:
- Those who had invested dozens of hours in the game,
- Those who tried it and returned it, and
- Those who had never played it at all.
It turned out that the majority of negative reviews came from the last group, making up as much as 90% of the overall criticism. The next largest group was composed of players who, in the very first week, had spent around a hundred hours on the game testing—feedback from these dedicated players was both actionable and necessary.
“For example, 37% of players were abandoning the game or facing issues with the inventory system,” the designer explained. “And that was something we could, and needed to, address.”
Nevertheless, caution is essential—blindly following every player request can be dangerous. Another guiding principle is needed to ensure that changes do not inadvertently worsen the situation.
Spaceship Before & After. A screenshot from No Man's Sky by Hello Game from video IGN
2. Analyze Feedback Volume and Consistency
In one of his videos on handling feedback, Mark Brown from Game Maker’s Toolkit pointed out that players love making suggestions for game adjustments. It's common to hear requests to nerf an overpowered weapon or remove a feature that some find unnecessary.
However, solving these issues is often more complex than it appears. Changing one aspect of a game can trigger a domino effect—fixing a single issue may unintentionally disrupt multiple interconnected mechanics. This is where game testing becomes crucial, as thorough QA helps identify unintended consequences before updates go live.
For example, in one update for Hades, Supergiant Games decided to speed up the return of Zagreus’ shield-boomerang. However, this change inadvertently caused the shield to deal damage to Zagreus upon returning. Combined with in-game perks, this bug—which could have been caught in playtesting—led to a scenario where Zagreus could kill himself in the first encounter. While the issue was fixed within 12 hours, it highlighted the importance of regression testing and how deeply interwoven game mechanics are.
This is why player complaints should not be seen as direct-action items, but rather as valuable data for diagnosing the root cause of an issue. Beta testing, user feedback analysis, and iterative testing are essential in refining gameplay without introducing new problems.
This mindset allows developers to make well-informed decisions. Take Loop Hero as an example—just before its release, the Four Quarters team participated in the Steam Winter Festival with an almost final version of the game. Based on player feedback and game testing, they discovered that the attack speed stat was disproportionately powerful compared to other character attributes. Instead of simply reducing attack speed, they introduced a stamina and fatigue system to balance it.
In one of his videos on handling feedback, Mark Brown from Game Maker’s Toolkit pointed out that players love making suggestions for game adjustments. It's common to hear requests to nerf an overpowered weapon or remove a feature that some find unnecessary.
However, solving these issues is often more complex than it appears. Changing one aspect of a game can trigger a domino effect—fixing a single issue may unintentionally disrupt multiple interconnected mechanics. This is where game testing becomes crucial, as thorough QA helps identify unintended consequences before updates go live.
For example, in one update for Hades, Supergiant Games decided to speed up the return of Zagreus’ shield-boomerang. However, this change inadvertently caused the shield to deal damage to Zagreus upon returning. Combined with in-game perks, this bug—which could have been caught in playtesting—led to a scenario where Zagreus could kill himself in the first encounter. While the issue was fixed within 12 hours, it highlighted the importance of regression testing and how deeply interwoven game mechanics are.
This is why player complaints should not be seen as direct-action items, but rather as valuable data for diagnosing the root cause of an issue. Beta testing, user feedback analysis, and iterative testing are essential in refining gameplay without introducing new problems.
This mindset allows developers to make well-informed decisions. Take Loop Hero as an example—just before its release, the Four Quarters team participated in the Steam Winter Festival with an almost final version of the game. Based on player feedback and game testing, they discovered that the attack speed stat was disproportionately powerful compared to other character attributes. Instead of simply reducing attack speed, they introduced a stamina and fatigue system to balance it.
A similar approach was taken by Lucas Pope, the creator of Papers, please. In the game, players can use a sniper rifle to eliminate a terrorist or a refugee attempting to breach the checkpoint. However, this ability felt out of place in a game centered around bureaucracy and survival under a totalitarian regime. Some players suggested removing the rifle altogether, but instead of following their request outright, Pope identified the real issues: shooting was too simple and didn’t fit well with the game's mechanics.
Rather than removing the feature, Pope redesigned how the sniper rifle was accessed. He introduced a locked drawer, which required a key buried under a pile of paperwork on the player’s desk. In critical moments, players had to locate the key, unlock the drawer, choose between a sniper rifle or a tranquilizer gun, and then take the shot. This small but meaningful change kept the feature intact while introducing a challenge that aligned with the game’s core mechanics—managing and organizing documents.
Hugo Martin, the game director of Doom Eternal, applied the same principle when dealing with player complaints about the Marauder enemy. Instead of nerfing or removing him, Martin improved the enemy’s stagger animation, making it clearer when the Marauder was vulnerable.
In the end, blindly implementing player requests can be risky. Instead, developers should use feedback as a tool to uncover underlying issues. By focusing on the root cause rather than surface-level suggestions, studios can make meaningful improvements while preserving the integrity of their game design vision.
Rather than removing the feature, Pope redesigned how the sniper rifle was accessed. He introduced a locked drawer, which required a key buried under a pile of paperwork on the player’s desk. In critical moments, players had to locate the key, unlock the drawer, choose between a sniper rifle or a tranquilizer gun, and then take the shot. This small but meaningful change kept the feature intact while introducing a challenge that aligned with the game’s core mechanics—managing and organizing documents.
Hugo Martin, the game director of Doom Eternal, applied the same principle when dealing with player complaints about the Marauder enemy. Instead of nerfing or removing him, Martin improved the enemy’s stagger animation, making it clearer when the Marauder was vulnerable.
In the end, blindly implementing player requests can be risky. Instead, developers should use feedback as a tool to uncover underlying issues. By focusing on the root cause rather than surface-level suggestions, studios can make meaningful improvements while preserving the integrity of their game design vision.
Marauder. A screenshot from Doom Eternal by Bethesda
Rule 3: Maintain Open Dialogue With Your Audience
Reflecting on the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy, it’s clear that part of the blame lies with game director Casey Hudson, who had promised significantly more nuanced narrative conclusions.
Take, for example, his January 2012 interview with Game Informer, published just months before the game’s release:
Reflecting on the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy, it’s clear that part of the blame lies with game director Casey Hudson, who had promised significantly more nuanced narrative conclusions.
Take, for example, his January 2012 interview with Game Informer, published just months before the game’s release:
This statement haunted Hudson post-launch, with critics accusing him of overhyping expectations. To avoid such pitfalls, transparency about major design shifts or innovations is critical. As analyst Mark Brown noted, players are far more forgiving of contentious design choices when developers openly explain their reasoning.
This is why Overwatch director Jeff Kaplan became a beloved figure: He actively engaged fans via Blizzard’s forums and detailed updates through personal video blogs, breaking down new features himself.
Of course, not every game developer has the bandwidth for such direct communication. Most rely on community managers to bridge the gap, game testing, using social media updates, patch notes, and developer blogs to represent the studio’s voice.
Consider Darkest Dungeon’s approach: when backlash erupted over its divisive "corpse" mechanic, Red Hook Studios brought on community manager John Lindsey. He reframed their dialogue with players, emphasizing:
This is why Overwatch director Jeff Kaplan became a beloved figure: He actively engaged fans via Blizzard’s forums and detailed updates through personal video blogs, breaking down new features himself.
Of course, not every game developer has the bandwidth for such direct communication. Most rely on community managers to bridge the gap, game testing, using social media updates, patch notes, and developer blogs to represent the studio’s voice.
Consider Darkest Dungeon’s approach: when backlash erupted over its divisive "corpse" mechanic, Red Hook Studios brought on community manager John Lindsey. He reframed their dialogue with players, emphasizing:
Though subtle, this distinction is vital. The former invites players to support a developer’s creative intent; the latter risks conflating feedback with demands for personal Wishlist fulfillment. Recognizing this difference is essential — failure to do so can derail a project entirely.
4. Use Data to Validate Player Insights
The delicate act of balancing player feedback with creative integrity becomes even more critical during post-launch updates and expansions. Once a game is live, developers face immense pressure to respond to community demands, but this phase also tests their commitment to the original vision. Here, game testing shifts from pre-release validation to ongoing evaluation, ensuring that updates enhance—rather than erode—the core experience.
Consider Dark Souls, a series synonymous with unrelenting challenge. When players criticized the punishing difficulty of boss fights like Ornstein and Smough, developer FromSoftware used targeted playtesting to assess whether adjustments would compromise the game’s identity. Testers found that reducing the boss’s aggression or damage output diminished the euphoric “victory against all odds” feeling central to the franchise. Instead, subtle tweaks—like improving telegraphing for attacks—preserved difficulty while making encounters feel fairer. This player testing approach honored the vision of “triumph through perseverance” without alienating newcomers.
Game testing also plays a pivotal role in resolving conflicts between accessibility and artistic intent. For instance, when Celeste introduced its Assist Mode—a suite of options to customize difficulty—the team conducted extensive player behavior analysis (a key part of QA testing) to ensure these tools didn’t undermine the game’s themes. Testers revealed that players who used Assist Mode still engaged deeply with the narrative, as the flexibility mirrored the story’s message of overcoming challenges at one’s own pace. By framing accessibility as part of the game’s philosophy, rather than a compromise, the developers aligned the feature with their vision through iterative testing.
A game’s design pillars—clear, non-negotiable principles—should guide testing priorities. During Hades’ development, Supergiant Games established pillars like “meaningful choices” and “relentless momentum.” When testers suggested adding a pause button during combat, the team ran simulations to measure how interruptions affected flow. Metrics showed that pausing disrupted the roguelike’s rhythm of risk and reward, clashing with the “momentum” pillar. Instead, they introduced mid-combat dialogue that preserved pacing while giving players micro-moments of respite—a solution that reinforced, rather than contradicted, their goals.
4. Use Data to Validate Player Insights
The delicate act of balancing player feedback with creative integrity becomes even more critical during post-launch updates and expansions. Once a game is live, developers face immense pressure to respond to community demands, but this phase also tests their commitment to the original vision. Here, game testing shifts from pre-release validation to ongoing evaluation, ensuring that updates enhance—rather than erode—the core experience.
Consider Dark Souls, a series synonymous with unrelenting challenge. When players criticized the punishing difficulty of boss fights like Ornstein and Smough, developer FromSoftware used targeted playtesting to assess whether adjustments would compromise the game’s identity. Testers found that reducing the boss’s aggression or damage output diminished the euphoric “victory against all odds” feeling central to the franchise. Instead, subtle tweaks—like improving telegraphing for attacks—preserved difficulty while making encounters feel fairer. This player testing approach honored the vision of “triumph through perseverance” without alienating newcomers.
Game testing also plays a pivotal role in resolving conflicts between accessibility and artistic intent. For instance, when Celeste introduced its Assist Mode—a suite of options to customize difficulty—the team conducted extensive player behavior analysis (a key part of QA testing) to ensure these tools didn’t undermine the game’s themes. Testers revealed that players who used Assist Mode still engaged deeply with the narrative, as the flexibility mirrored the story’s message of overcoming challenges at one’s own pace. By framing accessibility as part of the game’s philosophy, rather than a compromise, the developers aligned the feature with their vision through iterative testing.
A game’s design pillars—clear, non-negotiable principles—should guide testing priorities. During Hades’ development, Supergiant Games established pillars like “meaningful choices” and “relentless momentum.” When testers suggested adding a pause button during combat, the team ran simulations to measure how interruptions affected flow. Metrics showed that pausing disrupted the roguelike’s rhythm of risk and reward, clashing with the “momentum” pillar. Instead, they introduced mid-combat dialogue that preserved pacing while giving players micro-moments of respite—a solution that reinforced, rather than contradicted, their goals.
A screenshot from Hades game by Supergiant Games
However, maintaining vision requires more than data; it demands contextual interpretation. When Return of the Obra Dinn received feedback that its monochromatic art style caused eye strain, developer Lucas Pope used playtesting to distinguish between genuine accessibility issues and subjective preferences. Testers with visual impairments highlighted specific contrast problems, which Pope addressed without abandoning the game’s stark, ink-inspired aesthetic. This nuanced approach ensured changes served inclusivity while protecting the game’s unique identity.
The rise of live-service games adds another layer of complexity. Titles like Destiny 2 or Apex Legends must constantly evolve, but overprioritizing player requests can lead to “design drift.” Bungie’s approach to weapon balancing offers a lesson: when fans demanded nerfs to overpowered gear, the team used sandbox testing environments to simulate meta shifts. They discovered that drastic changes destabilized the game’s strategic ecosystem, so instead, they introduced seasonal rotations—refreshing the meta while preserving long-term build diversity. This iterative, vision-first strategy keeps the experience dynamic without sacrificing coherence.
Ultimately, the most successful games treat feedback as a dialogue, not a mandate. Stardew Valley’s Eric Barone famously incorporated thousands of player suggestions, but he filtered every idea through the lens of “Does this deepen the pastoral fantasy?” When fans requested automation tools to minimize farming chores, Barone tested prototypes and realized excessive automation eroded the game’s meditative, hands-on charm. Instead, he added optional late-game shortcuts, ensuring players could tailor their experience without breaking the core loop.
In an industry increasingly driven by metrics and trends, game testing remains the bridge between data and artistry. It empowers developers to discern whether a requested feature is a bandage for a flawed system or a threat to the game’s soul.
By anchoring decisions to a clear vision—and rigorously testing them—developers create games that resonate not because they cater to every whim, but because they offer a cohesive, intentional experience. The result is a title that leaves a lasting legacy, much like Darkest Dungeon’s corpses: initially divisive, but ultimately inseparable from what makes the game unforgettable.
The rise of live-service games adds another layer of complexity. Titles like Destiny 2 or Apex Legends must constantly evolve, but overprioritizing player requests can lead to “design drift.” Bungie’s approach to weapon balancing offers a lesson: when fans demanded nerfs to overpowered gear, the team used sandbox testing environments to simulate meta shifts. They discovered that drastic changes destabilized the game’s strategic ecosystem, so instead, they introduced seasonal rotations—refreshing the meta while preserving long-term build diversity. This iterative, vision-first strategy keeps the experience dynamic without sacrificing coherence.
Ultimately, the most successful games treat feedback as a dialogue, not a mandate. Stardew Valley’s Eric Barone famously incorporated thousands of player suggestions, but he filtered every idea through the lens of “Does this deepen the pastoral fantasy?” When fans requested automation tools to minimize farming chores, Barone tested prototypes and realized excessive automation eroded the game’s meditative, hands-on charm. Instead, he added optional late-game shortcuts, ensuring players could tailor their experience without breaking the core loop.
In an industry increasingly driven by metrics and trends, game testing remains the bridge between data and artistry. It empowers developers to discern whether a requested feature is a bandage for a flawed system or a threat to the game’s soul.
By anchoring decisions to a clear vision—and rigorously testing them—developers create games that resonate not because they cater to every whim, but because they offer a cohesive, intentional experience. The result is a title that leaves a lasting legacy, much like Darkest Dungeon’s corpses: initially divisive, but ultimately inseparable from what makes the game unforgettable.
A screenshot from Darkest Dungeon by Red Hook Studios
When the game launched fully in 2016 after early access, it validated Red Hook’s stance. Critics praised Darkest Dungeon, and it surpassed one million sales within a year.
The Symbiosis Between Developers and Players User feedback is more than just criticism — it’s a vital part of modern game development. Studios that embrace player insights, leverage AI-driven analytics, and engage with their communities can create experiences that resonate deeply with audiences.
The future of gaming lies in a dynamic, evolving relationship between developers and players. By harnessing technology and fostering open communication, the industry can continue to push the boundaries of interactive entertainment, delivering games that are not only innovative but also shaped by those who play them.
At Pyxidis, we leverage AI-driven playtesting to provide game developers with deep insights into player experiences. Our platform automates the process of analyzing gameplay, detecting pain points, and evaluating emotional feedback from users before a game is published. By using AI to track facial expressions, voice tone, and in-game behavior, we help developers understand how players truly feel about their game—whether they are engaged, frustrated, or indifferent.
The future of gaming lies in a dynamic, evolving relationship between developers and players. By harnessing technology and fostering open communication, the industry can continue to push the boundaries of interactive entertainment, delivering games that are not only innovative but also shaped by those who play them.
At Pyxidis, we leverage AI-driven playtesting to provide game developers with deep insights into player experiences. Our platform automates the process of analyzing gameplay, detecting pain points, and evaluating emotional feedback from users before a game is published. By using AI to track facial expressions, voice tone, and in-game behavior, we help developers understand how players truly feel about their game—whether they are engaged, frustrated, or indifferent.