[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN} Who to design for?

[John Buehler]

Damion Schubert writes:

> 1) Your game design should have a central theme or activity that
> everyone
> gets and understands.  (In most games, this is fantasy-based combat,
> but
> by no means is this the only possible alternative)
> 2) Your game design should have appeal to the hardcore, which is
> usually
> done by taking the central theme as far as it can go (raids and sieges
> in
> most
> classical MMOs), with higher time requirements, etc.
> 3) Your game design should have casual appeal, which is usually about
> ensuring that the central theme or activity is not alienating to the
> casual
> player
> the first time he logs in, and is actually easy and fun without
> unnecessary
> roadblocks.
> 4) Your game design should result in a culture where hardcore players
> are
> evangelizing the game to casual players.  WoW's success comes largely
> from classic EQ players finally being willing to recommend an MMO to
> their
> wives and girlfriends.
> 5) Your game design should have subtle ways and means for players to
> increase their investment, so that casual players become more hardcore
> as time passes.

What I'm reading is that a game has a theme, establishes itself by appealing
to the zealots of that theme, triggering a kind of word-of-mouth
evangelization of the appeal of that theme, drawing in ever more players who
produce a snowball effect.  The zealots (the hardcore) are the seed of the
snowball.

That's an interesting pattern.  I can see the key component of that being
the need for grassroots marketing.  If enthusiasts are interested in getting
other people to experience The Something, it is their enthusiasm about it
that gives them the drive to market it (e.g. word of mouth, mention in a
blog, etc).  Without at least one coherent theme to rally around, they can't
communicate a clear message.

Once the invitation has gone out to those less-inclined to make a major
effort to experience the The Something, it must be very gentle with their
first experience.  That means low investment and high return.  The ones that
develop an enthusiasm for the return will be willing to invest more of
themselves and seek more of the same.  Eventually, some portion of the
hesitant become enthusiasts themselves.

The part that concerns me is this: how hardcore do the enthusiasts need to
be?  I can think of the AOL customers who were putting in lots of time and
energy in order to help run chat rooms (if I remember the situation
correctly).  I have my own experience of having a flight simulator back in
the 80s that had its enthusiast corps that spent a lot of time and energy to
create aircraft and environments for it.

Does a successful game need crazy hardcore people, or just enthusiastic
enough to talk favorably about their experience?  Is high end content a
mandatory part of the pattern?  Was The Sims successful because of a
hardcore element that brought friends in?  Did The Sims have high end
content for that hardcore element?

JB