Does 'content' make the game?
Posted September 3, 2003 - 4:22 PM PDT by Adam Ant
…I think not.
One of our posters is pretty fed up with UO and has decided to pack-it-in for a while. The discussion quickly turned to 'content' and how the game has evolved.
Some of the posters thought 'content' has a large and positive impact on the game, but a few of us would trade it all away just to have 'game play' back.
I think Krystine Rose said it best:
Content *does* add to the game obviously, but how much it adds is in question. I won't even go back to pre-UO:R, let's say 3 years ago. Three years ago I could've been happy running around the same area every day, because every day I'd see different faces (as well as many of the same), fight different battles, and find new tactics. That isn't content, I don't know what word can describe that. Content would be more in terms of having an in-game quest, adding a new landform, adding a new skill or system, etc. But no, if I only could run around the Skara Brae/Destard/Trinsic/Britain area, same area, no special events, nothing changing, I can almost guarantee you if it was still like that I'd still be playing. Because although the content may not be changing, what I did every day did change, it changed by the hands of the players.
Now days, change is in the hands of OSI and the dev team. They try to control the world by adding new systems (changes to weapon/armor that came with AOS, addition of necromancy/chivalry, opening new lands, etc.) I'm not saying it's all bad, nor am I saying it's all good. For example I think the ability to customize your house is great, all things considered. Sure, you can make it look uber-gimpy like the moongate houses, but I've run into some that I just stood there thinking "Damn..." and I'm far from being one who's into these types of things. But then we come upon the creation of Trammel (which is in question, good for some, bad for others). However, the "Trammel mindset" that came along which is what I believe was and will be the biggest downfall for this game. That doesn't mean every Trammel player has it, nor does it mean that every Felucca player is safe from it. But whether you "got it" or not, it's all affected how we think and play no matter how much we've fought it.
Content can boost a game, but it won't make the game. In single-player games, let's just say Diablo II (and yes, let's consider it single-player, since it basically is). The game for the most part is laid out in front of you. You have 6 quests to do, then you move on to the next world. Every several months, a new patch will be released that might fix bugs, add slight tweaks or addons, etc. Every year or two an expansion will come out that'll add major new features and character classes. You, as a player, follow the storyline and don't have a whole lot of control over how you do the quest, so long as you do it.
Now UO/MMORPGs don't fall in the same category as single-player, and even some non-massive online games. OSI doesn't make money off us buying the actual game, it's off the service they provide. If their service slacks, they supposedly lose customers (unlike other companies that make their profit off the sale of the game). However, in the ideal role, OSI actually does less for the game, allowing their playerbase to do more. Player-run guilds, player-run quests (seers/EMs), player-run help systems (counselors, companions, and any other player that would like to), etc. GMs shouldn't interfere with most activities in-game, showing themself when only necessary. Necessary doesn't mean "Oh, someone said the 'R' word, ban them!" either. Nor does "Help Mr. GM, I just got scammed and PK'd, ban both of them!" Necessary might fall under something that cannot be fixed by an ordinary player, such as dealings with housing or house addons, etc.
Now over time, this has changed where OSI is taking more control over the game. Why? Because their playerbase has gone out of control so-to speak, that they've felt the need to step in. Is this the players' fault? At first thought you might say yes, and that's not entirely wrong. But the Trammel mindset has become the norm in UO nowadays, it's birthed into new players causing each new generation of players to think "Trammel is good, Felucca is scary" without personal experience. Now where did this originate? With Trammel. Why go to Felucca when you can get the same task done in Trammel with little to no risk (it is no risk if you actually prepare, and this was before insurance). Really, why? So people stay in Trammel and get lazy, they get used to having things easy, and they want more. Again, Trammel mindset, but it can affect people of both facets, and it has. But that's another discussion.
So what am I getting at? OSI has a responsibility to "upkeep" the game. This is the foundation of everything. They originally had to design the game, period. When that came out, thety had to begin fixing bugs. But upon this foundation, the players built, and the PLAYERS made the game. If you have a strong foundation, a good playerbase, then adding content will only help the game and please the players. But trying to work on the fancy stuff when there's still necessary things lacking like major bugs, not to mention that your player base is at ends with each other, it's okay...but after awhile it'll get boring.
Care to comment?