[MUD-Dev] When will new MMORPGs that are coming out get original with the gameplay?

[hart.s at comcast.net]

[Matt Mihaly]
> [Daniel James]
>> [Sasha Hart]

>>> To someone who is deciding whether or not to risk their
>>> financial livelihood, do you think it is 'practical' to put all
>>> of your eggs into a basket which is only not decisively
>>> demonstrated inferior?

>> Well, yes, I do. I have (bet the farm, Moo) -- I believe that I
>> mentioned this in a recent de-lurking. For a small company it is
>> much more practical to avoid competing in the same expensive race
>> as everyone else. I don't know if we can be labelled as
>> 'financially conservative', although we sure are cheap.

> I think Dan has a point here. We've always tried to take a
> different tact towards game design specifically to be
> different. Difference can create a niche. It's not going to power
> a mass market game barring the rare huge hit, but it can work for
> smaller games. There's a huge audience out there and its got some
> pretty diverse tastes even if huge portions of it gravitate to the
> same type of game.

I don't know what I've been taken to say, but I will try to make it
super clear in this post.

Here is the setup.

  1. In a high-risk situation in which the conditions of success are
  poorly understood, there are few moves which are as heuristically
  safe as something which worked before.

  2. The argument "You never know, maybe it could work" is rational
  and defensible. However, taking it as advice is at least mildly
  braindead, and being skeptical short of any evidence is rational
  and defensible given that things are as described in (1). I
  believe that Dave Kennerly et al. (to once again unfairly pick out
  Dave) claimed this and that the claim is credible.

Here is the point, in a nutshell:

  3. If the genre is in a stagnant and incestuous state, developers
  are nonetheless not responsible for failing to accept advice that
  looks bad on a rational and defensible basis.

    -- AND --

  4. Neither are players especially responsible for not changing
  this, minimally because of a lot of boring stuff I argued could
  make players' tastes ineffective in stirring things up even if
  that is precisely what they would like. The same rational,
  defensible skepticism is a force which makes it more difficult for
  the market to break out of local optima, and so the process can
  get stuck even if everyone has the best intentions as long as
  these conditions obtain, and assuming my reasoning is not out of
  whack, etc.

I haven't myself been shy to argue that lower costs and lower risks
encourage exploration. I always thought this, and have always been
most interested in new and unusual ideas. It is a lot of why I keep
up on the list.

Here is my best shot at giving possible responses to what I was
arguing, which may also clarify further what I thought I was arguing
(provided nothing else has.)

  1. The situation isn't high risk, success conditions are well
  enough understood (at least enough to do some thing in
  particular), or some other move is (whether intuitively or not)
  just as safe as, or more safe than, cloning. All possible, but to
  be argued in detail.

  2. People should take heavy risks on the basis that it might
  work. Of course, I will never argue that you are not entitled to
  take any risks for yourself that you like, but if you are taking
  such risks don't expect me to accept that as an argument for why
  it is rational. I don't see this going anywhere, if someone claims
  this then it will just be a parting of ways.

  3. The genre discussed, whichever it is, isn't (too) clone-ridden,
  so there's no problem. I've left this open, though I almost always
  imply that more original stuff is going on in genres which get
  less airtime (like text or free.) Dave has said that he thinks
  there is plenty of originality, even if it's not in his view
  really being 'voted for" (presumably, promoted to the league of EQ
  DAOC or whatever list you think is being talked about, since I
  have completely lost track of what kind of game, how many players,
  how many servers, how many employees, how much buzz or name
  recognition, how much money earned or spent is 'in' to talk
  about.) I have taken up the topic and talked as if this were the
  case, when the reality is specific to what kinds of games you are
  talking about and probably only moderately stuck in the worst
  cases, with lots of people happy to try their ideas even at
  moderate risk. So I think the very original post asking when it
  was going to get original is probably the most extreme position on
  this, and most positions have been canvassed one way or another.

  4. You think that players are responsible for stagnation for some
  reason - either invoking some other kind of responsibility (e.g.,
  it is really their fault since they shouldn't buy anything until
  it is exactly what they want, no confusing satisficing; or,
  implied, quit complaining about how unoriginal it all is) or
  questioning that any interference is taking place/is relevant and
  asserting that players have a clear choice of originality unbiased
  by other variables like freedom from the various kinds of awful
  problems that attend so many of these giant commercial projects,
  even the very successful ones.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev