Goblin Squad Member
|
One problem I see with trying to redefine a genre of games is that the general public will call any game like this a MMO. Whether it is a sandbox or themepark. The term MMO is really ingrained into the brain of the gaming public. And it refers to any game that has a subscription (or free to play), is online, has updates, and can handle thousands of people at once.
So, trying to redefine a game will not gain traction with the vast majority of players out there. This is, of course, my opinion.
But, if you are looking for another term to describe what PFO will be like you could call it:
Live Development Gaming
And it doesn't capture the essential difference, which is that development shifts from us telling you how the game plays, to a community directed development effort.
I still like Rokolith's idea of "Crowdlaunching" for this.
It's catchy, and the phenomenon that it references describes the developmental shift that Ryan is talking about. A crowd-sourced launch. Crowdlaunching.
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly every MMO out there that is worth your time is a constant work in progress. Even LotRO is drastically different game now than it was when I first played it and, Wurm, Mortal, Darkfall, EVE, all have changed a lot over the years. Especially EVE. I don't think continual development is going to set Pathfinder Online apart from other MMOs. Nor is considering the feedback of the community when deciding how to move forward. Not unless GW is claiming to go a step above and beyond other MMOs.
Every MMO company makes those promises so when GW makes that promise why should the general MMO audience listen? I'm not talking about the members of the PFO community that already believe in this project, I'm asking an honest question to Ryan, Lisa, or anyone else in the team. If I am talking to a friend about Pathfinder Online who may know nothing about it, what should I tell them to convince them that the GW team is more dedicated to continual development and listening to community input than any other MMO claiming that?
Is GW actually making the claim that you will be putting in just as much effort to advance PFO's system two, five, or ten years down the road as you are right now if this game is still profitable? If so I think you guys should create a pledge or mission statement tight across the front page of the GW site saying so.
Right now what I'm telling my friends about PFO is they are going to release a very unpolished game and develop it around us as we play. But in a year or two, when the game was pretty polished that we wouldn't be seeing the game developing much faster than any other post-release MMO. That was also what I thought we were naming. Should I be telling them that that level of dedication or development won't slack off as long as funds permit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're saying that this will be a unique process. We will actively solicit player input, and will be factoring that input directly into the prioritization of feature implementation.
We will also be asking and listening to player commentary on balance issues and we'll be using that input to adjust the game systems to make them work better.
The first 12 months or so of the live game will be a feedback-driven period when we intend to move player participation into the development of the game in a way more intimate than any other developer has done with a successful MMO to date.
Everyone who is playing during those 12 months will have the opportunity to see their ideas made into reality if enough other players agree with those ideas and if they're feasible to develop and they stay within the boundaries of the game design we've outlined.
There will be formal processes to solicit this feedback. There will be many avenues of indicating agreement or disagreement with plans and priorities. And of course there will be a tremendous informal give and take between the developers and the community via every venue we can organize effectively.
A lot of projects promise that there will be a lot of interactivity between their community and their developers but the very nature of the games they build make that really impossible. This is another advantage of making a sandbox not a theme park. Because we're focused on the idea of giving the players tools to enable them to maximize their own interaction, we don't have a huge list of mandatory content that has to be developed and tested then shipped.
We have instead a service-based plan that says once we get the game into a very basic playable state our vision for the game gets replaced by a vision that combines our ideas with your ideas.
This is in my opinion a unique process. It is not something that any successful MMO has ever announced, attempted, or implemented. It is, to steal a phrase from the VP, a big f-ing deal.
Unfortunately so far none of the ideas for a way to name this concept have really encapsulated the importance of this idea nor have they really be usable from a branding and communication standpoint - being either too obscure, too close to Pathfinder or too non-descriptive to be useful. But we're still listening to see if anyone can find the right nomenclature.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Democratic Development? (Maybe that choice of words is too lop-sided in US atm/Nov?)
Design by Devolution?
Genetic Design?
There will be formal processes to solicit this feedback. There will be many avenues of indicating agreement or disagreement with plans and priorities. And of course there will be a tremendous informal give and take between the developers and the community via every venue we can organize effectively.
This sounds like where the difference is most identifiable. I'll try to focus on thinking along these lines for next suggestions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting. Both from a perspective of finding a name and from revealing this game's intentions. For me at least, the vision of what GW is trying to achieve here is much more clear. I think Avena cut the right quote out of that post to get right down to the heart of how what Ryan is promising is different than any other major MMO on the market.
For me the problem is this. Any good name should be 2-5 words long... and 4-5 is pretty excessive. But it's hard to appropriately encapsulate both the idea of a bare bones launch, and that they players will have a high degree of input on what features are added after that launch, into a short easily digested phrase that sounds even somewhat catchy.
I'm coming up with things like Player Driven Development that don't really fully encapsulate the ideas.
If this helps anyone else come up with a better name, I'm picturing this game like a car that has all the bare basics to run but is missing all the non-essentials. Basically a frame with all the parts to make it run and a seat for the driver. And the owners(players) are telling the mechanics(developers) what to put on, or maybe to replace some of the existing parts with something better, with the mechanics doing the best they can to give them what they want while still making this a good car that will actually run.
Maybe that will bring some phrases to mind for someone who knows more about cars than me.
PS. Calling the players the car owners really got me thinking. WoW and the other theme parks out there are like a roller coaster. You pay to get on but you have no say in anything. You just enjoy the ride and pay again, or you don't and you leave. The car analogy fits in more ways than one. It sounds as if the idea behind Pathfinder Online is that it really is intended to be owned by the community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately so far none of the ideas for a way to name this concept have really encapsulated the importance of this idea nor have they really be usable from a branding and communication standpoint - being either too obscure, too close to Pathfinder or too non-descriptive to be useful. But we're still listening to see if anyone can find the right nomenclature.
How about "The Community Development Initiative"? Or some spin-off from that: "Player Development Initiative", "Development by Players Initiative", "Communal Game Design Initiative".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder if the Basque Mondragon Corp. model could be a useful reference (in a way)?:
BBC: Basque co-operative Mondragon defies Spain slump
Here lies the headquarters of Mondragon, reckoned to be the world's largest worker co-operative.
Pathfinder / "mmorpg co-operative"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...once we get the game into a very basic playable state our vision for the game gets replaced by a vision that combines our ideas with your ideas.
Coalition Event
I feel that it invokes the idea of the players and the developers coming together in a meeting of the minds, and to celebrate our combined effort in bringing this new experience to the world.
Thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You could always go highbrow and try Greek.
DISCLAIMER: I do not speak Classical Greek, so I am probably doing this sloppily. Here goes.
If the concept of the 'Noosphere' is the evolving sphere of gestalt human intellectual thought, then perhaps a 'Nooskainos' would be a ' gestalt evolving thought creation', denoting a cooperative intellectual virtual building effort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Synermorphic
Portmanteau of synergize and morphic. Synergized actions of devs and players conststantly changing the world to create a greater experience.
Pluses:
1. Sounds good.
2. One word.
3. Works in a sentence. Examples:
-- PFO was the first synermorphic MMORPG, as well as being the first true fantasy sandbox.
-- PFO is the iconic example of synermorphic world development.
4. Didn't see anything after (15 entire seconds) of Google searches that resembles the term.
5. Synermorphic applies on day 1, day 180, and year 5.
Minus.
1. Getting closer, but not instantly grokked, as it is a made up term, and it is not instantly clear who is synergizing.
Playermorphic/usermorphic is slighty more grokable, but less alliterative. Also, I like the idea of the devs and players working together for a greater whole; while playermorphic emphasizes players more.
Synerevolved doesn't ring/look quite right. Anything with terraformed (fantastic word by itself)I can't get to quite fit in.
PS - Props to AvenaOats, as I think "co-op" is moving in the right direction.
PPS - Props to DeciusBrutus, as I think we're at the point of making up words. I would assume the contributors of this thread have a combined knowledge of a significant portion of Webster's, if not of the OED.
|
Active Community Design
Active Feedback Design
Community Feedback Design
Feedback Driven Design
Community Driven Design
Just some of my ideas, if you have a specific idea of why these don't work, would like to know to shape the next set of ideas.
Edit I like the last two best.
"This is a feedback driven game."
"This is a community designed game."
"This is a community driven and designed MMOSBG"
(SBG - SandBox Game)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A sandbox game that supports a "Sandbox (style of) Developement". Players do what they want in a sandbox game so the idea could be used to describe the games ongoing developement. The idea being that future developement is now a part of the sandbox, the players being able to 'do our own thing' with developement.
Sandbox Developement , or add 'Style' or 'Type' in the middle or at the end.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really not sure about using sandbox as a term to refer to development. While I kind of see where you guys are going with it, it still makes me think. "So they are developing a sandbox..." when I read your suggestions. Not that the development process itself is sandboxesque.
Mind you I don't have any better suggestions yet. :P
I like Feedback Driven Design though it doesn't make any reference to the launch process. But honestly I think the better direction to go would be to name the gradual start with players coming in a bit at a time, and the high degree of player involvement in design choices as two different things working together. One name may just not be able to fit them both.
Unless you want a name like Gradual Admission Feedback Driven Design.
Actually... not horrible. Reminds me of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. No cute phrase, no cute acronym, but it does spell out in a few words the basics of what it is.
Combining the two best ideas (IMO) for each concept creates:
Incrementally Launched Feedback Driven Design
Though I think this may be better:
Incrementally Launched Feedback Driven Development
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't need an acronym or a string of capitalized words built of insider-speak. Those just et sent to /dev/null in people's brains.
Think about what Apple or Starbucks would call this process. "Retina display" is what I want - something descriptive enough that you know what I'm talking about, free of gibberish, memorable, and once I explain it, you are likely to remember why it matters
"Pumpkin spice latte".
Trust me, I know this is hard. I do marketing for a living and if it were easy I couldn't feed my family. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is this a name that will be used instead of sandbox mmo and theme park mmo? Or what is being used now that this will be a replacement for? If you did not have a new name ,what would it be called now? It sounds like you want a name for a third type of mmo. It will have to be similar to the sandbox mmo and theme park mmo naming convention then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Organic MMO? "Grow your own, free of pesticides or additives."
Jazz MMO? "the chords are there, but everything else is freestyle!"
DIY MMO? "order the parts, mess it up, and then pay an expert to make it properly for you?"
PfO, part of the "Maker Movement: MMO"? ref: Makers: The New Industrial Revolution By Chris Anderson