I understand what you're saying and I really don't want to get into a protracted argument on the internet, but...
Players have different expectations. Specific designs part of successful games have been established as part of the genre. That doesn't mean they are necessary, but it does mean that the reception to those ideas from players, the designers, and the people with the money will be different. Not to mention, there's a helluva lot more on the line when it comes to developing a AAA MMO these days.
I'm not arguing that players don't have "different expectations" or that certain elements of mmos haven't become "established" and I agree that the "reception to those ideas...will be different." These are kind of nebulous statements and none of those things are difficult to agree with. Of course players have different expectations now than they did back in 1999. What I am suggesting is that mmo developers don't need to pander to those expectations to be successful. No, I'll go one step farther and say they
can'tpander to those same expectations and be successful (on a comparable level). Those games that were previously successful didn't follow the trend of expectations, they blew us away by producing a product that
changedwhat our expectations were.
Are you sure you think that the landscape hasn't changed?
You misunderstood me when I said in my previous post "It's not that the landscape has changed." What I meant is that a changed landscape isn't the reason game designers can't separate themselves from "modern conveniences". The landscape
hasindeed changed, but it has changed
becauseof things like modern conveniences- not the other way around. Players can expect whatever they want, but the landscape doesn't actually change until game designers pander to those expectations.
There's a good reason why people don't just sack up and say 'fuck you, I'll do what I want' to everyone when the company's future is on the line. It's just irresponsible... Also, let's not pretend that "clear visions" and "balls" have not destroyed playerbases, too. It's a risky thing.
Obviously, it's just my opinion here, but I completely disagree with you. I
wanta game company that says "fuck you, I'll do what I want" regarding 95% of the game's decisions and panders to maybe 5% of the
best, most informed player feedback for changes. It's YOUR job to make the game, and it's MY job to decide if it's good enough to play. Crowd sourcing game development is part of what has ruined the mmo genre (and a few others as well). In my experience, the best games are those where the player base has had the least influence on design.
RE: Risky things- Lots and lots of things sink games and destroy player bases, including "vision" and "balls". Making a game with production costs these days is ALWAYS a risky thing. But you have to be willing to fail in order to succeed. You don't break ground or press the envelope by refusing to take meaningful risks. Yes, you can create an iteration of an iteration of an iteration by taking only superficial risks, but players will see that for exactly what it is- a boring counterfeit. That's what
mostmodern mmos have been- counterfeit copies of rehashed ideas, repackaged with voxels and parkouring.
Again, I understand what you are saying, and if we were talking about long-term investment banking, I would probably be IMing you now for advice, because you sound like you would be a good person to talk to. But let's face it, creating a game shouldn't be approached in the same manner as investing in the S&P 500. Status quo and safe decisions don't cut it. Look at the
halfbilliondollar mmo graveyard for evidence of that. Companies are so afraid to fail that they end up failing. As much as we players tend to forget it and as much as game companies tend to ignore it, making video games is an art- and the essence of making good art is sticking to your vision and taking risks.
