Unicorn McGriddle is the guy who paraphrased one of my ideas to make it more understandable, while I was just struggling to explain it better.
Yesterday I find a couple of PMs on Q23 where he says he read this whole site and decided to continue with some sort of manifesto distilled from what he read here. Now I really have no clue about why he did this, but I’ll use it as a way to rinse and repeat some core concepts. His manifesto isn’t exactly mirroring my ideas but it’s an occasion to make precisations.
Since it was getting too long I’m going to break this thing in multiple parts. Btw, I haven’t asked his permission to post this, so I’m just answering to him directly here ;p
My comments are in italics.
—
I was originally intending to write a fictionalized account of play (probably with some chatlogs) in one or more hypothetical “dream MMORPGs” developed and administered using concepts you discuss (and a few ideas I’ve had). I may still do that, but for now, since “the reader writes the book,” please allow me to write your manifesto, as I’ve read it from your site. Corrections, of course, are welcome. I’m sure I’ve left some things out, but for now, here are my Eight Key Ideas and Sixteen Sidenotes Derived from an Excursion into the Cesspit:
Key idea: Developers should be more tied to their MMOs
An MMO is an evolving kind of game — it never entirely leaves the design phase. How it grows post-launch is a development issue and the lead developer (and ideally, everybody who makes design decisions) should stick around to deal with that. Lead developers and other people who make design decisions should be held accountable for their performance on their past games. This doesn’t mean that bad developers should never be removed, but depending on the level of influence they’ve had with the game, it may already be too late. (The whole “when is a game irrevocably fucked” issue is a difficult one, and I won’t really address it here.)
I believe in authorship and I’d like the developers to feel more part of the process. The idea of “accountability” is there so that when something wrong happens the developers don’t start dodging their responsibilities and unload them on someone else. Or feel “estranged” from what happened. I’d like them to have more control over what they do, more responsibility, more involvement. They should care about the game, they should feel part of it. When it’s time to discuss the long term plans and current status, everyone should be involved, free of strict work roles. Teamwork should be promoted and there should be an open, unrestrained communication everywhere, without distinctions of merit or prejudices.
If someone makes a mistake, even a huge one, he shouldn’t be fired. People should be fired as a very last measure, when this person is really damaging the project more than adding to it. Having people accountable about the game isn’t a way to put at risk their work. It’s the exact opposite. It’s a way to expose the problems so that the developers can learn from them. It’s a process of education, not a process of exclusion. A problem coming up is always a way to learn something, it’s important that they are exposed and discussed. The desire to do better should never come from a menace (if you mess up, you are fired) but from the desire to contribute to a team in the better way possible. And to achieve this it is important that the discussion is free from “taboos” and that everyone feels involved in the creation instead of just a passive executor. Make people participate, open up the communication, remove ranks and roles in the development.
The keywords are: participation and collaboration. Both between the dev group and outside with the community.
About firing people: Naguib Sawiris is an overly ambitious, emergent Egyptian tycoon who says something I agree with about this topic. “I fire only who is dishonest. If you have someone stupid, you don’t fire him. You just give him a stupid work.”
Sidenote: Raph Koster is better at theory than he is at practice. His games ought to be more consistent with his goals, and he should stay with them as long as he can.
I agree that Raph shouldn’t have left SWG, but this is an universal rule, not something about this precise case. When it comes to Raph, and not his games, I believe that the bigger problem is the lack of “cross examination”. I don’t really believe that he is “better at theory than he is at practice”, I believe that he needs someone at his side that is able to counterbalance and regulate his ideas. A “measure”. Someone who can nail his feet to the ground. Keep the ideas tightly tied to a functional goal with solid premises.
Think to a balance. Raph is a weight all on one side, so you need someone else, with equal value, but at the opposite side, so that an equilibrium is achieved.
The idea I got is that there are too many “yessir” around Raph. Too many taking him in high consideration, with the fear to truly criticize or create an actual debate. I think Raph would do his best when his ideas are truly considered and criticized. I believe he needs “antagonism” and I always had the idea of placing at his side someone with a completely different attitude and mindset, a nemesis. Then force them to work *together* and watch them brawl :) I think the result could be good. More than an abstract mmorpg guru I’d like to see him as someone serviceable for a concrete project.
Sidenote: Brad McQuaid sucks. In the long term, only catasses will enjoy his games. Even they could probably be seduced away by something better. Fuck his “Vision” bullshit. Putting Diku into 3D and requiring massive time investment doesn’t make him Joan of motherfucking Arc. The main “innovation” there is a monthly fee — which previous games already had (for example, the original Neverwinter Nights).
Well, I don’t agree here. I already wrote my overall point of view on the supposed “vision”. I’m skeptical about Vanguard and Brad himself but far from blaming both openly. My biggest worry about the game isn’t even about the design. It’s about the current state of the systems, the technical side. The design only comes later and we always forget the crucial importance of the technology. We’ll see, but my suspect is that we won’t complain about game design at launch, but about the technical issues, the client, controls and so on. Blizzard was extremely successful also because they had a long experience with single-player games and “battle.net”. They had already rock solid technology and experience to build upon. A mmorpg for them wasn’t a beginning, it was a finishing line. Brad “is supposed” to have an experienced team with him but they still had to start from scratch and they’ll have to demonstrate again that they have the competence.
I respect Brad and I’m even ready to bite the leaf when it comes to some of his foolish ideas. But he still has to demonstrate me that he has the resources to pull all that concretely and make a “mainstream” game. I fear that their technology is still rather rough and immature, far from being able to compete with the firsts. Which is again why I’m much less worried about the design.
Key idea: Communities should have meaningful relationships with developers
“Your players will know your game better than you do,” as the saying goes. Players are a design resource. They will test and critique the games they play. Their playing styles will adapt based on the strengths and limitations of the game (and its competitors). Attention must be paid to such phenomena. Furthermore, players want to be treated with respect, and most players behave in a manner deserving of such treatment. Developers should relate to players in as transparent a way as possible, disclosing all the raw data, design documents, and various internal efforts that they can. When something goes wrong, they should tell the players what it is — not “there will be no service for at least a week,” but “a lightning bolt struck our server cluster, so we’re replacing everything, which our site people say will take five days; characters are all backed up, so they’ll be fine, but we may not be able to recover world data, so guildhalls and houses may be lost (and we’ll post our communications with the site people in the forum as things happen, so you’ll know as soon as we do what the deal is; if it turns out data has been lost we will try to compensate everyone as best we can, and while we wait for the replacement to go through, we’re looking into lightning-proofing our building and sending a delegation to Zeus to ask him to hit churches instead.” Developers should frequent the boards and be visible and known there, even if they don’t have time to read everything that gets posted. They should be aware of memes and behaviors within the playerbase. They should be in adequate contact with real players to know how the game is actually played, and if problems are discovered this way, steps should be taken to fix them. No important development figures should be seen as inaccessible, nor should they be seen as bullshitting spinmasters who can’t be trusted to tell the truth. Players want information, not propaganda. We’re in your forum to think and to learn, so don’t read us the back of the box.
No, people aren’t a design resource. I believe that a community should be always interpreted, not just directly seconded. It’s always wrong to make a community set your development schedule and direct the game through polls. Authorship isn’t a democracy and a community should never become a substitute for game designers. What I’d like to see, instead, is about them interacting. An open communication and involvement is something positive, a resource. The community is an occasion to test and elaborate ideas, discuss positives and negatives. But it should never replace the creation process. The line should never be crossed (making people design and lead the game) but it would be a good thing if that line is felt less as a barrier of misunderstading, contraposition and conflict.
I’d like to see more disclosure and less “fear”. Less scruples when it comes to disclose something. The point is to consider the feedback as legitimate and give it a priority. The discussion on those points should be brought back in the community, the plans shared, the design goals pointed out clearly. Let’s discuss about other games, let’s make comparisons, let’s confrontate. Let’s discuss different ideas and solutions, let’s discuss failures and successes. Without filters or articles that need to be “approved” before they can be posted. Without community managers in the middle. Sanya is doing a good work with DAoC but what a community manager does should never replace a direct communication with the devs. So the community managers should work parallel to the other forms of communication, without substituting them. They should be an aid, not a replacement.
The more the communication opens up and is felt as normal, the more these communities will *lose* the overdramatization we see now everywhere. I believe that a more direct and continuous communication would normalize the relationship instead of rising the conflict.
Sidenote: “Players will tend to automate the parts of your game that are fucking stupid.” Ultima Online could have done away with macroing if the developers had felt like bothering.
Yes, I always considered the use of macros as a design problem. And it is where this problem should be solved: in the mechanics, not on the surveillance of players and enforcement of “rules”.
Sidenote: Memory Holing your forums is a piece-of-shit tactic. All this message control bullshit is a substitute for actually fixing problems and providing a place for players to discuss the game. Both of these things pay serious dividends if pursued, leading to a better game, so developers are only hurting themselves with this Orwellian board-pruning.
There are a number of ways to move the discussion in better ways. I think the developers should come to a forum and create discussion instead of answer passively. The moderation is needed but it should focus on the actual content rather than the “tone” and “politeness” of a message. I would erase in a heartbeat all those “first!” posts and everything that is off topic or doesn’t contribute in any way to a discussion, but I would never moderate negative feedback or critics. Not even harsh attacks if they hold a trace of legitimacy. The point is to understand and interpret the feedback coming from a community and let them understand clearly the situation. The goal isn’t to agree and convince everyone. The goal is to avoid misunderstanding and help both sides to understand the reciprocal positions.
The conflict isn’t a bad thing when it is motivated.