12-31-2012, 02:55 PM
Something of a carryover from the GW2 forums, but as a general topic of game design theory:
* A game can be judged by how much chatter it generates between players on forums like this one.
* Lack of chatter means a game, however fun, is becoming routine, which will translate into "boring" eventually.
* What are the secrets to creating a game that's interesting enough to generate a lot of chatter between players 4 months after launch?
SWTOR, for example, died quickly with relatively little chatter generated. There just wasn't a lot to talk about. Early on you talk about your class and class interaction and tips on leveling and zones but after 4 months that's all been hashed over. Nothing more to discuss. You might still be logging in and playing and having fun but there's nothing to talk about. ("Today I logged in and had a great time doing basically the same thing I did yesterday.")
I have a growing suspicion that what you need to keep a game interesting are goals that require a minimum of 24 hours to achieve. For example, no matter how interesting a particular Stonemist Castle battle might be, it's not going to generate much chatter because it's a fleeting thing. It starts and ends one way or another over the course of a couple of hours and unless there's something really new that someone is doing (trebuchet in a spot you hadn't seen before), there's not much to talk about.
Pirates of the Burning Sea was probably the best game for this. Day-to-day strategy could change based on the state of port ownership and which ones were under attack. If my oak production port is being attacked tomorrow, we may have to discuss what to do about oak if we lose it. We may have to discuss which areas we should patrol and which areas we should attack tomorrow because it's not going to be the same as today. What's more (something EVE lacks here), the actual combat mechanics are interesting enough (and get tweaked by the devs frequently enough) that there's usually something to discuss there: dealing with rageboarders or stern campers or what's the new hot ship this month. Battles were also lengthy and costly so it was kind of a big deal -- it was worth discussing if you could pick up a new tip that would save from you losing an expensive ship.
POTBS never really became routine. (The only reason I quit, really, was the need to always have exactly 6 players online... I never got bored with it, it's just that sometimes I'd log in and not be able to play.)
Games like Rift and GW2 will always have their days numbered because ultimately you just run out of things to talk about. (And half of Rift discussion was actually just bitching over raid rules so I'm not sure that should count.) Even if the games are fun and mechanically interesting to PLAY, it's too minute-by-minute to really come to the forums to discuss, which means it's starting to become routine and "fun" + "routine" will become "boring" eventually.
* A game can be judged by how much chatter it generates between players on forums like this one.
* Lack of chatter means a game, however fun, is becoming routine, which will translate into "boring" eventually.
* What are the secrets to creating a game that's interesting enough to generate a lot of chatter between players 4 months after launch?
SWTOR, for example, died quickly with relatively little chatter generated. There just wasn't a lot to talk about. Early on you talk about your class and class interaction and tips on leveling and zones but after 4 months that's all been hashed over. Nothing more to discuss. You might still be logging in and playing and having fun but there's nothing to talk about. ("Today I logged in and had a great time doing basically the same thing I did yesterday.")
I have a growing suspicion that what you need to keep a game interesting are goals that require a minimum of 24 hours to achieve. For example, no matter how interesting a particular Stonemist Castle battle might be, it's not going to generate much chatter because it's a fleeting thing. It starts and ends one way or another over the course of a couple of hours and unless there's something really new that someone is doing (trebuchet in a spot you hadn't seen before), there's not much to talk about.
Pirates of the Burning Sea was probably the best game for this. Day-to-day strategy could change based on the state of port ownership and which ones were under attack. If my oak production port is being attacked tomorrow, we may have to discuss what to do about oak if we lose it. We may have to discuss which areas we should patrol and which areas we should attack tomorrow because it's not going to be the same as today. What's more (something EVE lacks here), the actual combat mechanics are interesting enough (and get tweaked by the devs frequently enough) that there's usually something to discuss there: dealing with rageboarders or stern campers or what's the new hot ship this month. Battles were also lengthy and costly so it was kind of a big deal -- it was worth discussing if you could pick up a new tip that would save from you losing an expensive ship.
POTBS never really became routine. (The only reason I quit, really, was the need to always have exactly 6 players online... I never got bored with it, it's just that sometimes I'd log in and not be able to play.)
Games like Rift and GW2 will always have their days numbered because ultimately you just run out of things to talk about. (And half of Rift discussion was actually just bitching over raid rules so I'm not sure that should count.) Even if the games are fun and mechanically interesting to PLAY, it's too minute-by-minute to really come to the forums to discuss, which means it's starting to become routine and "fun" + "routine" will become "boring" eventually.