The KGB Oracle Forums KGB National Announcements, News, and Help The KGB Sentinel Are we doomed to mediocrity?

I agree with those statements if your looking at it as a structured business venture and from the perspective of a designer. While I am very certain that many of those in game development have their roots as game players something gets lost in the translation between "It's my job" and "It's my hobby". Design from my perspective is not perfect and I am not so blind as to see that my opinions are more often then not in the wrong. I realize my knowledge in such areas is tenuous at best, but more likely nonexistent. Though I would be remiss if I didn't mention the social, psychological, and creative impacts felt by players as a whole with in the games design.

I agree that much of what I spoke of was as I said overly dramatic and carried little substance, however the the truth is still never the less prevalent, that games follow a tend and that trend is in question. Why else would your guild as well as all the other guilds I've come to admire and respect be waiting? Would not the perfect game have already been created if all that you say is true?

Is not the definition of the word creativity stem from being innovative, and does that not also mean doing something that has not been done? So given that, wouldn't a game company or development house seek to improve something, or invent and create something that has never been seen instead of reach out and live off the work that has been previously done?

By following a trend, you have not been creative, you have not invented or improved the current industry standard, there by all your really accomplishing is pirating past achievements and resting on your laurels for the pursuit of money.

I realize it takes money to make money, though I believe there are as I initially stated other aspects to gaming that current design does not address very well, it is the social and psychological dynamics at play in a community. Something everyone here in KGB seems to all agree on. You want pvp, you want good guy verse bad guy, player justice, community, recognition, and player fame, a story driven by you or your guild, a dynamic living breathing world not a static re-spawn world tightly monitored for bad behavior or slightly off center from pc comments, you want guild verse guild, and epic explorable areas, combined with less grind and itemcentricity, you want player kingdoms. None of which can be accomplished without some risk great or small.

Will every attempt to innovate yield positive results? Probably not. Will it cost money? Undoubtedly so. Without such though, the world and games in general would be a very boring place. Just think of all the things in games or otherwise we wouldn't have if people just followed the ebb and flow of design, if people concerned themselves more with the cost then the results, or if companies looked at the untold millions of revenue instead of making something unique.

I have heard that no MMO makes money in their first 1-5 years or better and some never fully recover invested interest, I understand that they are costly endeavors with many employees, and that no game is created in a vacuum or that no game can function without huge logistical support structures outside of the game itself.

I am merely commenting on game ideologies concerning the things players want and that design in general either completely ignores this point or doesn't understand it. I am looking at the community aspects as well showing the fact that as a social game, with humanistic mentalities you can't compartmentalize it using flawed industry standards that have been handed down since the beginning of time.

That creativity requires sacrifice, and the players know this apparently more than the game companies. By default players are a community and communities are often times linked directly with the game in a symbiotic relationship which reflects how well it's received and by what success it generates. WE are paying the bill regardless of how minor or insignificant it may be, and if we had a game that wasn't cloned or refurbished with a dynamic tool set success could all but be guaranteed and a game company could make a strong case for taking risks.

There are many companies out there with capital to spare, and they voraciously hold onto this to cover projects that in the past they never even participated in. They get this huge chunk of money and diversify, why? If I started a company making MMOs for PC, why would I diversify making say Xbox 360 games if I previously had no experience in it? When I could use the money I made from my MMO experience to enhance our understanding of the concept and become the best at it, there by continuing to produce MMOs far more superior then others who branch their efforts.

Not meaning to sound callous or rude, but on the one hand you state companies have no venture capital and cannot take risks then you state that companies can make a lot of money in a MMO if done right, proceeding on to say if I had 10-20 Million would I risk it on a questionable project.

Well to this I say, if done right means following a industry standard, proven concept, or trend just so I can make money for future endorsements on a project unrelated to my current field of work, or so that I can enhance my business posture with stockholders, and strengthen my portfolio so I can be bought out. I think I'd opt to be a leader in the field instead, I realize that's easy to say sitting from the cheap seats but how else can one make a game that can compete? You don't get to be the best by following the pack, you can't be Alpha Dog by being a Omega.

I'm not disagreeing with you completely, I'm just seeing a different picture on the other side. A community and a game are linked and most games fail because the community fails due to lack of social enhancing mechanics or restrictive play which limits interaction to grind scenarios based off of item-centric quest based play or care bear for those familiar with the term.

Lastly, before I get called on it, since game designers I've spoke with in the past always do, quest based game play is by my definition a game designed from the ground up which promotes questing at it's heart. Quest based game play doesn't mean a game can't have quests it means the game design is based totally on it to the exclusion of general exploration and adventuring due to the lesser returns on such activities. It usually required people to meet many demands as far as character design and group composition.

A player may need to be a certain level, a certain class, have certain gear, be at a certain location, on a certain part of the quest, or to have the quest before he can enjoy the benefits of completion, and there can be many other such hoops players are expected to jump through depending on the quest system in general. This form of compartmentalization and isolationist game play means you only see or meet people before or after a quest in centralized staging areas. Pardon me, but that's LAME, if I wanted to have such an experience I could go stand in line in Kmart.

Anyhow If you've gotten this far, and not completely destroyed your keyboard in a fit of rage at my comments, shaken your head in utter disgust or just plain given up on my idiocy I invite a response if your eyes are not bleeding. I hope you've taken no offense, and if you have I do apologize.