I was going to just archive the reply I wrote over there as I usually do. But then, on a second read, I gave this passage some more weight and started to think about it:

Developers fear change too. They can be beaten down just as hard; the hammers are just called different names. Message board posts. Emails. Subscription numbers. Publisher pressure. Going home and getting yelled at because your significant other can’t understand why you people just don’t fix X, Y, and Z. After a certain amount of time, inertia kicks in out of self defense. If you don’t change anything, you don’t make any mistakes, after all.

I think I can understand what he is trying to say here. That position is understandable and it’s normal that, given those conditions, the reaction is a defensive one. I wouldn’t blame or accuse anyone. I wouldn’t point my finger. It’s simply legitimate and normal. But still… It isn’t a type of value you can share or build things upon. It’s not something you can expect people agree with. Understand, probably. But not agree with.

The current situation is understandable, but this isn’t a justification on its own. It doesn’t mean that things cannot change. Or that shouldn’t change. It doesn’t mean that nothing can be done to make things better. It doesn’t mean that we have to suffer this (I shouldn’t use “we” here since it’s way too easy to preach without being directly involved, but I wouldn’t know how to phrase it). So I don’t think that this position is defendable. There is no fault in the position itself, but at the same time not enough to make a valid point. The fact that this is what currently happens is the very first reason why we should desire it to change. Work better, offer better products, and not suffocating the potential on our own.

“Shit happens”. So we do nothing and feel jaded or even sage. This isn’t enough of a justification. I’m simplifying, but that’s the tone. It sounds like a type of anxiety-inducing reaction that I actually know rather well. But I’m not so stupid to justify this position as valid. Even if I choose it. I know it’s short-legged. If there’s too much pressure (and I’m sure of this) there’s the need to transform it in a positive drive, or things just won’t work. It’s just frustrating. We need to get educated and educate so things can change. Not work *despite* the negative conditions or the pressure. But transform the situation so that it becomes a positive one. Lead the context instead of suffer it.

But then I write this because Lum brought it up. He says he reads me because he has different opinions. What a liar :) I know perfectly that he agrees with everything I write. He is too intelligent to disagree with me. And I’m a genius. Besides, if he wrote about this it’s because there’s a controversy where he felt involved, somehow. It is evident. He tries to defend a position but it’s obvious that he is siding the other… He wishes he could disagree.

See, it’s like a little kid crying “…my mom spanked me!” Of course he doesn’t want to hear his mum is a bad mum because he loves his mum after all, but at the same time he doesn’t want to keep getting spanked, either.

And this is where Colin Powell arrives (stolen from Eve-Online dev blog):

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is the slogan of the complacent, the arrogant or the scared. It’s an excuse for inaction. It’s a mindset that assumes (or hopes) that today’s realities will continue tomorrow in a tidy, linear and predictable fashion. Pure fantasy. In this sort of culture, you won’t find people who proactively take steps to solve problems as they emerge.”

Here’s the rest:

—
I’ll just say this.

Why the hell new games are allowed to get marketed over the mistakes of previous ones?

http://www.corpnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2674

“- The combat itself is much longer than what I experienced in DAOC or SB where fights were over inn 1, 2, 3, gone….spend 30 mins regrouping.

– there is NO /target, /group target, or /sticky command.”

This is a very simple example. The *whole* World of Warcraft was built on top of the mistakes, failures and bad habits of previous games. In general I could safely state that these successful games are more the result of the observation than the rabid creativity. Which is also what drives this whole industry, not just the mmorpgs: reiterations over previous models. Who “gets it” is successful. In the mmorpgs this is even more emphasized because who gets it *first* is successful. So what is fundamental is the aptitude to anticipate trends and possible developments. The market itself requires this availability to evolve and rewards it.

My belief is simply that this is what this genre could do at best considering the “ongoing development” and the nature of “game worlds”. The ideal world and inspiration remain, the implementation can improve and grow, along with the possibilities and the technology. You can express new ideas and open new potential from here. Working on top of what you already built. The game can become richer and you can finally explore those ideas that just weren’t possible till that moment. It’s a journey and you are required to learn from what happens along the way so you can continue on that path.

The point is, the games who decide to fear change are consequently predated by other projects. The competition is going to use your weaknesses and by being conservative you just hand them on a silver plate the opportunity to eat your slice of the pie:

“this game is broken and I’m gonna see you in Dark City of Shadowquest 3: Electric Boogaloo.”

That said, I specifically wrote that I don’t fully support what is going on to SWG (as LoH also writes here above). I like change and I like when a company dares, but this should be the result of reiterations, even radical but never to discard months and years of work to steer the game in a completely different way. As I said the ideal should be about working on top of what you built. Sometimes this means to step back and rebuild something following the new rules you learnt, but it shouldn’t mean that the game should restart in a brand new direction that requires to replan and repackage everything from the ground up every six months. Choices, even here, must be made. Once you choose a path you have to stick to it. To commit to it. This is alse why I often criticized devs jumping from project to project. And, if you notice, SWG had a strong churn rate of developers that obviously affected negatively the game. I want authorship and commitment instead.

I don’t support “change” just for the sake of it, in the same way I do not support fancy ideas with no foundation. What I’d like to see is working actively to deliver what was planned and adjust what you are creating with what you learnt along the way.

Then the final point is even more simple. “Change” is good only when well executed. SWG will get many, many more subscribers and will get revitalized for the years to come if it will deliver on the premises. But this is a risk. It could go well as it could just not work. I’m the first to feel sceptical. Six months down the road we will remember this as a huge success, or as a big, predictable (like we are doing here) failure, or something gone so so. The truth is far from *all* these three possbilities. The truth simply depends on how “change” is executed and not “whether change or not”. I hate this generalization about “change”. If *this* change is well executed the players will finally reward it, if it sucks the game will pay an harsh price. The same would apply if we were talking about a brand new product.

And to really conclude, the very first quality of a designer is about learning. In the same way “learning” is what these games are about. As Raph says: “the best personal qualification is intellectual curiosity and a dedication to self-education”. Learning is about change. If a designer “fears change” he is just done. He hasn’t anymore anything to say.

Maybe a more interesting point could be about how we could educate ourselves to not fear change and use it as a positive motivation instead of a negative, stressful pressure. I know that “we aren’t there yet” in the same way I know that SWG’s changes “aren’t there yet”. In fact most of what I saw sucks and is the result of awful compromises. The point is to move in a direction when you decided that the direction is worth the effort.

I want these games to be vital and not just drown in stagnation to finally get predated by better products. I know “we aren’t there yet” but I also know that this is the right direction where to go. And enjoy the ride.