 |
Community buildingJuly 19th, 2006 |
Business Week Online just published an article on new media and community that’s an excerpt from Henry Jenkins‘ new book. Edit: Looks like it came originally from Next Generation. It heavily references the work that we did early on in SWG in building community.
These days, it sure seems like there’s a mixed reaction to how the community is handled, but I do think we did a pretty good job back then, and at the time it was widely referenced as a model.
The premises under which we operated were:
- Be open to the players: both in terms of telling them what you are doing, and in terms of listening to what they want
- Communicate daily
- Communicate honestly
- If things change, tell them why — they’re smart people, they will understand
- Have weekly events of info release so that there’s a reason to come back regularly
- Ask questions, and listen to the answers
- Celebrate and highlight the best contributors
Some have since decided that it was listening to the players too much that caused some of the design problems with SWG. I am not sure I agree. If anything, I think that many subsequent problems came from not listening enough, or not asking questions in advance of changes. Walking a mile in the players’ shoes is a difficult trick to pull off even if you have the best of intentions.
The tensest and most difficult moments in SWG’s development — and they came often — were when we had to remove something that players really liked. Usually, it was against our own wishes, because of time constraints or (rarely) orders from on high. But we couldn’t tell the players the real reasons sometimes. That sucked, frankly, because the open relationship really did matter. As often as we could, we laid everything bare.
These days, it’s accepted wisdom that you don’t reveal a feature until it’s done, so as to guarantee that you never let the players down. Of course, even finished features sometimes fall out for one reason or another…
In any case, I think I don’t agree with that philosophy. I’d rather have prospective players on a journey with the team, than have them be a passive group marketed to. Yes, they will suffer the ups and downs, and see the making of the sausage… but these days, that’s getting to be an accepted thing in creative fields. There’s not much to gain, to my mind, in having the creators sitting off on a pedestal somewhere — people fall from pedestals, and pedestals certainly will not survive contact with Live operation of a virtual world.
Instead, I’d rather the customers know the creators as people who make mistakes, so that when one happens, they are more likely to be forgiven or understood.
How did the experiment work out? Well, bottom line in SWG’s case is that we certainly overpromised and underdelivered. But the curve for active community users was an exponential one aiming at the moon, and until the day when I had to go out there and tell them that the game was being released, they were working with us — contentiously, but all pulling in one direction. And the result was that registrants to the game on the first weekend was exactly equal to the number of active community users, and the sales curve simply continued that trend over time.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
But we really were out of time.
Acquiring certain skills will open up what your character is capable of. It could be advanced combat, reconnaissance, crafting, etc. Since skills are such an important part of the game, great care should be put into it. Raph Koster described the skill system in the first version of Star Wars Galaxies as a skill onion. The original plan for the skill trees was not the skill onion. Picture the onions you had, but chop off the bottom novice skills.
[...] memori.us games) No Comments so far Leave a comment [...]
[...] Comments [...]
[...] Interesting new Raph article, he seems to be very SWG talkative lately. http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/07/19/community-building/ [...]
[...] Cited from his blog Raphs BlogHe talks about Community BuildingBusiness Week Online just published an article on new media and community that’s an excerpt from Henry Jenkins‘ new book. Edit: Looks like it came originally from Next Generation. It heavily references the work that we did early on in SWG in building community.These days, it sure seems like there’s a mixed reaction to how the community is handled, but I do think we did a pretty good job back then, and at the time it was widely referenced as a model.The premises under which we operated were: * Be open to the players: both in terms of telling them what you are doing, and in terms of listening to what they want * Communicate daily * Communicate honestly * If things change, tell them why — they’re smart people, they will understand * Have weekly events of info release so that there’s a reason to come back regularly * Ask questions, and listen to the answers * Celebrate and highlight the best contributors Some have since decided that it was listening to the players too much that caused some of the design problems with SWG. I am not sure I agree. If anything, I think that many subsequent problems came from not listening enough, or not asking questions in advance of changes. Walking a mile in the players’ shoes is a difficult trick to pull off even if you have the best of intentions.The tensest and most difficult moments in SWG’s development — and they came often — were when we had to remove something that players really liked. Usually, it was against our own wishes, because of time constraints or (rarely) orders from on high. But we couldn’t tell the players the real reasons sometimes. That sucked, frankly, because the open relationship really did matter. As often as we could, we laid everything bare.These days, it’s accepted wisdom that you don’t reveal a feature until it’s done, so as to guarantee that you never let the players down. Of course, even finished features sometimes fall out for one reason or another…In any case, I think I don’t agree with that philosophy. I’d rather have prospective players on a journey with the team, than have them be a passive group marketed to. Yes, they will suffer the ups and downs, and see the making of the sausage… but these days, that’s getting to be an accepted thing in creative fields. There’s not much to gain, to my mind, in having the creators sitting off on a pedestal somewhere — people fall from pedestals, and pedestals certainly will not survive contact with Live operation of a virtual world.Instead, I’d rather the customers know the creators as people who make mistakes, so that when one happens, they are more likely to be forgiven or understood.How did the experiment work out? Well, bottom line in SWG’s case is that we certainly overpromised and underdelivered. But the curve for active community users was an exponential one aiming at the moon, and until the day when I had to go out there and tell them that the game was being released, they were working with us — contentiously, but all pulling in one direction. And the result was that registrants to the game on the first weekend was exactly equal to the number of active community users, and the sales curve simply continued that trend over time. ——————– [...]
[...] Earlier this week, Next Generation published a short excerpt from my much longer discussion of Star Wars Gallaxies and user-generated content in Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. The publication seems to have prompted game designer and theorist Raph Koster to blog about what he learned by adopting a more collaborationist approach to his fans. Here’s some of what he had to say: Some have since decided that it was listening to the players too much that caused some of the design problems with SWG. I am not sure I agree. If anything, I think that many subsequent problems came from not listening enough, or not asking questions in advance of changes. Walking a mile in the players’ shoes is a difficult trick to pull off even if you have the best of intentions. [...]
[...] Community Building I thought the Dark and Light crew might glean some knowledge from one of the masters of making and managing MMORPG’s Raplh Koster. Below is a link to an article on his website ill also include some of the most vital points you guys need to brush up on if or when u decide to seriously make a MMORPG that will compete with the big boys. http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/07/1…unity-building/ Quote: [...]
[...] Earlier this week, Next Generation published a short excerpt from my much longer discussion of Star Wars Galaxies and user-generated content in Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. The publication seems to have prompted game designer and theorist Raph Koster to blog about what he learned by adopting a more collaborationist approach to his fans. Here’s some of what he had to say: [...]
[...] Read his blog here.Most interesting thing I saw in the comments;Raph said, "In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea, but it was done anyway. I am not sure what else I can say, really. It certainly was a major contributing factor — even a decisive factor — in my decision to move on.The simple fact is that I was barely involved with SWG from around October of 2003. There were some periods where I was pulled back in a little more, but by and large, I was apart from it. Almost none of my “creative consultancy” involved Live games — it was all about new games, many of which did not survive pitch stage. " [...]
[...] QUOTE"In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea, but it was done anyway. I am not sure what else I can say, really. It certainly was a major contributing factor — even a decisive factor — in my decision to move on." – Raph Koster talking about NGE on his blog at raphkoster.com From his Blog(Suprised not Suprosed) [...]
[...] This link was just emailed to me. This is the first very negative anti-NGE sentiment I’ve seen from someone associated with SWG. For anyone who doesn’t know I’ve been told Raph is an MMO genius and was the “main man” behind PreCU. Maybe someone else can elaborate as I’m not too familiar with him. If you scroll down to post number 61 Raphs says:In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea, but it was done anyway. I am not sure what else I can say, really. It certainly was a major contributing factor — even a decisive factor — in my decision to move on.The simple fact is that I was barely involved with SWG from around October of 2003. There were some periods where I was pulled back in a little more, but by and large, I was apart from it. Almost none of my “creative consultancy” involved Live games — it was all about new games, many of which did not survive pitch stage. ClickyIt’s nice to see some of the SOE staff standing up for what they believe in. Every day I get up and look through the Forbes list of the richest people in America. If I’m not there, I go to work. [...]
[...] In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea, but it was done anyway. I am not sure what else I can say, really. It certainly was a major contributing factor — even a decisive factor — in my decision to move on. The simple fact is that I was barely involved with SWG from around October of 2003. There were some periods where I was pulled back in a little more, but by and large, I was apart from it. Almost none of my “creative consultancy” involved Live games — it was all about new games, many of which did not survive pitch stage. More to find here: http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/07/19…#comment-11273 __________________ Pfeiffer Dirk – Rebel, Jedi Knight Krid – Rebel, Master Bountyhunter Kooltec – Rebel, Master Doctor, Master Merchant _______________________________________ Reality is something for noobs who can’t handle Computergames! [...]
[...] Raph opens up… It seems that Raph Koster has been opening up a bit more in regards to what has happened with SWG. Here are a few long but very intersting excerpts. Check out this link if you want to read more: http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/07/19/community-building/ (read the comments section as well) (p.s. Almagill you forgot to say how cool YaMB are in your comment! ) Raph said on July 24th, 2006 at 1:59 pm: In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea, but it was done anyway. I am not sure what else I can say, really. It certainly was a major contributing factor — even a decisive factor — in my decision to move on. The simple fact is that I was barely involved with SWG from around October of 2003. There were some periods where I was pulled back in a little more, but by and large, I was apart from it. Almost none of my “creative consultancy” involved Live games — it was all about new games, many of which did not survive pitch stage. Raph said on July 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pm: As a side note, was the entire profession of people who did hair styles/face changes/etc really only included because of the inital bold statement of “You can do anything from wookie hair grooming to …”? I mean… you didn’t actually think that was a fun idea for a class did you? Heh, thereby hangs a tale. The original plan for the skill trees was not the skill onion. Picture the onions you had, but chop off the bottom novice skills. Imagine that when you came into the game, it worked like UO: you could either pick a “package” that gave you three or four skills that fit that chosen profession, or you could go “advanced” and pick ANY three or four. Now, imagine that trees were simple — hairdressing, a total of four skills in the whole game. Crafting, dozens and dozens of skill lines. Master boxes were not atop onions. Instead, they sat atop a set of skill lines. Two different master boxes might require the same skill lines — for example, you might need to have four skills worth of Engineering for any of the engineering based professions — kind of like the required classes in school. Or you might need to have tumbling, basic self-defense, and so on for any of the weapons skills. Some lines would be deep, and branch — like basic self-defense would turn into something you could keep going in, and eventually learn Teras Kasi. Some Master boxes would be easy to get, others harder because they required a lot of study of different areas. And there’d be TONS of Master boxes, because we’d try to find every interesting combination of skill lines and give it a name. Tumbling + some of the performance effect stuff? Cool, we call you a gymnast. Tumbling + stealth + maybe knives, and you have a start at a commando (who’d need to also pick up skill lines in various more weapons) or a start at a ninja sort, perhaps. As you can see if you try to diagram what this would look like, you need a 3d diagram; on the other hand, if you just list out “required courses” for each cool title you can get, you give a nice easy recipe for players to follow to make what they want. And if players combine some skill lines you never thought of, you can sneak in a new master skill box in there, and maybe add one special ability, and boom, you added a profession. The first designer who tried a whack at this failed to produce diagrams and specs, over the course of weeks. Then he left. The second one tried and also didn’t succeed. Finally, the producer stepped in and said “look, this is simpler,” and pushed onions on us because we were simply out of time. I asked for a third chance and to let me just do it, because it just wasn’t that complicated. But we really were out of time. The upshot was that things that should have been just one skill line, four skill boxes, had to be turned into huge onions and padded out. To standardize data formats, we couldn’t have different size and shape onions. Bleah. Lastly, hairdressing was just plain easy to do, which means that in a failure of prioritization and to show some progress, it got done. Heck, basic hairdressing was actually in the pre-alpha demo to prove the scripting system worked, it was so trivial to do. why couldn’t you tell them the reason why you had to take something out? We did, unless we were not allowed to by corporate masters (such as “we can’t do this system this way because in the next movie which isn’t out yet, it’s revealed that things are actually this other way” — happened with cloning, players playing Stormtroopers, and a few other things). And the reason “because we don’t have time and we are rushing the product” was never deemed acceptable. We want one vote, one 16m2 square of rented server space. Our World, Our Representation. In a purely user-driven world, I’d agree with you. But in the case of a game system design, you wouldn’t want everyone voting on the rules anymore than you’d want an author to take votes on what happens in the next chapter. Part of why you are there is to be taken on the entertainment ride. [...]
[...] Former Star Wars Galaxies Designer blasts Sony’s New Game Enhancements [...]
[...] In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea, but it was done anyway. I am not sure what else I can say, really. It certainly was a major contributing factor — even a decisive factor — in my decision to move on. The simple fact is that I was barely involved with SWG from around October of 2003. There were some periods where I was pulled back in a little more, but by and large, I was apart from it. Almost none of my “creative consultancy” involved Live games — it was all about new games, many of which did not survive pitch stage. http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/07/19/community-building/ [...]
[...] Former Star Wars Galaxies Designer blasts Sony’s New Game Enhancements [...]
[...] LOGON CREATE ACCOUNT Welcome! Sign-up or logon to post comments. news Raph on SWG (Wed, Jul 26, 2006 8:26AM) by Dirk ‘Magikahn’ Wheeler It seems that many fans of Star Wars Galaxies threw up all over the new version of the MMORPG. Raph Koster, the original designer of the game, recently was found over on his website blasting SOE for the changes (source) he basically didn’t approve. In the following blog, you’ll see that the change was one of the reasons why he left the project:In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea, but it was done anyway. I am not sure what else I can say, really. It certainly was a major contributing factor – even a decisive factor – in my decision to move on. The simple fact is that I was barely involved with SWG from around October of 2003. There were some periods where I was pulled back in a little more, but by and large, I was apart from it. Almost none of my "creative consultancy" involved Live games – it was all about new games, many of which did not survive pitch stage.I don’t blame him for hitting the road. If some company went in and utterly changed everything I had, turning it into crap, I’d hit the road too. Screenwriters must really hate Hollywood sometimes. Thanks Christian! [ Headlines ] [ Home ] No comments Want to be heard? Logon or sign-up for a user account! [...]
[...] http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/07/19/community-building/#comment-11273_________________ [...]
[...] 30th July, 2006. 1:47 am. Blame? No. Resolution. ( Read more… )If something is broken, don’t ask who broke it. Fix it. If you can’t fix it, inform those who can and make sure you’re out of their way. If they won’t fix it, find someone else, repeat. If you can’t find anyone else, don’t use it. If you must use it, learn how to fix it yourself.http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/07/19/community-building/#comment-11807 [...]
[...] Raph doesn’t bear all of the responsibility for that – in fact, he condemns what happened on his own blog. His condemnation includes these pearls of wisdom: Some have since decided that it was listening to the players too much that caused some of the design problems with SWG. I am not sure I agree. If anything, I think that many subsequent problems came from not listening enough, or not asking questions in advance of changes. Walking a mile in the players’ shoes is a difficult trick to pull off even if you have the best of intentions. [...]
[...] New Media Collide. The publication seems to have prompted game designer and theorist Raph Koster to blog about what he learned by adopting a more collaborationist approach to his fans. Here's some of [...]