[MUD-Dev] DGN: Mudflation as antibody of a "stain development"

[cruise]

HRose wrote:

> This another step is about a "direction". The game needs work. As
> I often state the release is just the beginning for a mmorpg, the
> real development and challenge (with yourself, not with the
> competition) start now. But what is the best direction to move to?
> What will damage the game? What will improve it? These are the
> topics of this new step. Peoples everywhere claim for "content"
> but this path isn't that obvious. I believe that one of the worst
> things that may happen to World of Warcraft is a rise of the level
> cap. If everyone reaches level 60 and starts to whine because they
> reached an endgame that sounds like a "game over", the most direct
> solution is to push forward the finishing line. Let's move the cap
> to level 70 or more.

If the only end-game content that an be added is a level extension,
it's obvious that it's the levelling that /is/ the game, or at least
the most enjoyable part of it. If the only reward the game can offer
is another level, then there is something fundemental missing.

> This is a common process that can be assimilated to the concept of
> "mudflation". The keypoint here is that the term defines in
> particular those games that are generally considered
> "content-intensive", EverQuest for example. You aren't supposed to
> complain about the lack of content in a world like EverQuest but
> the fact is that, concretely, the lack of content is its main
> problem. And here I said once again an heresy. The reason comes
> exactly from the meaning of the world "mudflation". Its meaning is
> about an "erosion" of content. The mudflation is an active process
> *on the content*. It means that the elements in a game are
> replaced and made obsolete by something new. It's true that
> *apparently* there's load of content, but this content is actively
> eroded and forgotten.

Agreed. There is a difference between "content" and "entertainment"
- neither one requires or implies the other. Just because the
content exists does not mean players will use or enjoy it.

> So there are two elements to consider here. The first is that the
> mudflation is a direct, positive consequence to fight back a
> process that was started "outside". It's an auto-defence of the
> game. It's "wrong" only because it is reacting to a damage from
> the outside. The players still need a communal ground where to
> meet. Communal goals to achieve. Too much content would actively
> shatter this. Spreading all the players everywhere without them
> joining to reach their objectives. This would produce a
> dispersion, a desert. The mudflation is the consequence of a
> *problem*. This is the second point to consider. The problem is
> elsewhere, in a broken model of development. To excuse this
> development only new goals to achieve are added. These goals, to
> be considered worthy, need to become bigger rewards. The
> development model here is the one of a stain. The original release
> of a game is the center, then the developers keep adding stuff
> (areas, monsters, items) around it, like a stain that is slowly
> enlarging.

It's interesting to consider why it seems necessary to /add/
content, rather than /replace/ content? Surely figures are available
for which zones are most used - instead of adding a new zone, remake
the least popular areas. This also would give the game a more
dynamic feel, with the world ever evolving.

> Soon this heart will die but noone can see this because there are
> still the boys surfing on the borders. Where the game seems still
> full of life. The mudflation is a desperate attempt to
> counterattack this unexcused expansion process. To keep its heart
> alive this growing stain tries to cut away what it can. The less
> important parts are abandoned so that the life sources can still
> be focused elsewhere and sustain the unending, pointless and
> foolish enlargement.

> At the end the moral is that this cannot be an optimal
> process. There must be something better. The games modeled on a
> stain give only the illusion of content because the truth is that
> they are kept alive thanks to the mudflation. The truth is that
> the erosion, so the loss of content, is the reason why they still
> survive. This rings a bell? How it is possible that an old game
> can only survive by a loss of content when that content is
> supposed to be its main strength? How it's possible that this loss
> underlines a quality (and probably the only one they have)?

It may be the designers instinctive reaction to removing their
content - "What? I spent two weeks designing that zone and it's
quests!" Or maybe because bigger is always considered better. A
deeper thought: Are designers still learning what works and doesn't
in a MMORPG? Unconciously the quantity is needed to be assured of a
few areas that prove popular? But the obvious next step, of pruning
those that don't, is forgotten?

> Those are the questions that is useful to answer. If they will
> remain unanswered the unacceptable and inexplicable destiny of
> these games will remain the same: die of age.

I still think that fundementally no game can ever continue to be
always popular - no matter how inventive, fun and interesting,
people will get bored /eventually/. I suppose it may be possible to
have sufficiently slow boredom rates that each new generation of
players covers the inevitable drain. Certainly this is one of the
issues that needs to be dealt with to ever acheive that goal.

--
[ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ]
   "quantam sufficit"
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev