So, first comments on player analysis and resulting game design as applicable to SoR;
Amongst current MMORPG designers an equivalent theory is one of "Bartle types". Players, under that theory, are categorised as Achiever, Explorer, Killer and/or Socialiser. SoR designers use this division of subscribers in the same way you use GNS. Just because categories are arbitrary they are none the less useful for that. (I'm sure there'll be literature of varying quality on the subject of Bartle types all over the interweb if you want more depth.)grimjim wrote:Amongst RPG writers there is a much talked about theory of game analysis/design called the GNS theory.
One thing a designer should consider is that the more categories you use the smaller the proportion of the whole each individual is likely to represent. Obvious, I know. If you cut a cake into four then each piece is smaller than if you had cut it into three. This only matters when you have the (in our case, impossible) goal of icing the whole cake. The more slices you made, the more pieces you have to ice before the whole thing is covered. In practice, different bits of content appeal more to different demographics.
Each piece of content can be classified before being bundled into a release. Under one analysis content C might be said to appeal to 2 out of 4 of your types (50% doesn't seem that great, we'll probably need more content for the others). Under another, C might appeal to 2 out of 3 of your types (a seemingly much more acceptable majority).
This is a very useful question. The Nevrax guys do ask themselves this with all new content and implement, ditch or modify their plans accordingly. Their aim is to appeal to each demographic division. If there is no way to cover all 4 Bartle types (or, equivalently, all 3 GNS types) in a single addition then they attempt to redress the balance in content which follows.grimjim wrote:So then, how to approach creating content or a game that appeals to every sector of a potential (or existing) audience?
My question would be whether this is wise.
As you put it;
(I would maybe quibble with "deep and broad". Maybe we are contrasting broad against deep with those two options?)grimjim wrote:...some people think you should try and make a game with as broad an appeal to all modes of play as possible to ensure a deep and broad audience. Others think you should concentrate on one particular aspect as compromise often weakens vision, making sure you appeal to and service one particular type of audience.
There are many contenders in the MMORPG market which can call on huge financial backing; SOE, Blizzard, Microsoft, EA etc. These game companies are either part of existing large businesses or have established reputations with which to draw investment. These big guys are putting out games that fight for market share across the whole demographic; EQ, SWG, WoW, UO, EnB, AC and so on.
Which of these are 'good games' depends on the standards you use to judge. The companies themselves, at the end of the day, use profitability. The worlds they create will live or die on that basis. We, the players, obviously use different criteria. (eg I would be financially better off playing Guild Wars or AO which are free, rather than paying to play Ryzom. I judge games by different standards.) Obviously, no one, player or dev, wants to be in the situation of EnB or AC2 where the world has to end.
I have my doubts as to whether SoR should choose to be in the same marketplace as the giants. If SoR is designed to appeal to the exact same people as WoW (random example) then I think Nevrax will end up with the subscription of a miniscule fraction (approaching zero) of those players. If we could draw on the same finances then we could put up a fair fight, but I'm pretty convinced that there is no comparison on the end of year balance sheet.
Are we forced to be in the same market place? If not, is it wise to enter it anyway? (I'll leave that to the economists out there.)
If you decide to try and appeal to only some of the potential players (say, 2 of the 4 Bartle types or 1 of the 3 GNS types) then there is a large proportion of possible subscribers that you're almost guaranteeing you won't get. In return, there is a small group that you're directly targetting and, done correctly, you should have a better chance with each member of this group.
[As an example, next time you're in a supermarket check out the shampoo section (random example again). If you look closely you'll see that almost all of the 40 different brands there are made by only 2 or 3 companies. The range of prices and packaging is incredible. Almost certainly, the shop's own brand cheapo shampoo is licensed from one of the big 2 or 3 too, and relabelled. In some cases, some of the different brand bottles will contain identical shampoo! This is a marketing tactic to aim a product at a specific demographic within all shampoo consumers.
I've never worked in marketing so I'll just leave this as an observation.]
Maybe SoR would be better off differentiating itself in this way and targetting a subset of all possible subscribers?
