1 Like you're right that it is we, the people, but I still maintain that should the suits or staff wish to affect our decision, they can. Glad you shared this!
- poochythegenius
- Rank: Rescue Ranger
- Member since: Feb 1, 2008
- Last online: 08/21/12 10:35 pm PT
My Achievements:
see more »
My Friends
-
Crushmaster online
-
starduke online
-
jediknight52501 online
-
Sundberg_man online
-
Kevin-V online
-
OmegaAxl online
-
00-Riddick-00 online
-
brian376 online
-
pokecharm online
-
76850392 online
4Jun 12
Before I begin, I'd like to shamelessly plug @Pokecharm's blog post about solutions for some of the problems the community seems to have at Gamespot. While the problems don't affect me nearly as much as it affects others, the potential loss of what makes Gamespot what it is--its community--has prompted me to speak up and share my own wisdom regarding exactly what online communities are and how they work. However, to do this, I have to frame this advice within the types of communities I have experience with, so bear with me as I try to explain things as best as possible.
So, onto the topic of Role-Playing Games (RPGs for short). When you hear the term "RPG," what do you think of? Neverwinter Nights? Baldur's Gate? Knights of the Old Republic? Some aspects of the Mass Effect series? Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga? The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim? These are the RPGs that I would expect GameSpotters to be familiar with; digital stories told through branched interaction and turn-based battles. But, as I'm sure some of you know, there's a flip side to the RPG genre. A side that is truly freeform, with a truly open world, limited only by your budget, your art skills, and your storytelling imagination. I'm referring, of course, to the ancestor of digital RPGs, the dice-based tabletop RPG systems like GURPS, Dungeons and Dragons, and the Star Wars roleplaying game. Some well-known video game RPGs are pulled directly from these RPG systems, simply adding story to an existing rules system; of these, the original Knights of the Old Republic games is probably the best known. These tabletop RPGs are oft-ignored by mainstream media, but they posess a thriving culture that's only grown through internet communities. However, there is a third, less-remembered form of RPG that, in the modern era, is somewhat of a hybrid between the two: the text-based RPG.
GameSpot used to be host of one such RPG; some of you may recall the Jedi Council Union and its ill-fated Star Wars-based text-based RPG (or TB-RPG). For those of you who do not, recall classic text-based adventure games like Adventure, the Zork series, Trinity, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (yes, THAT Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). In these games, you input your commands through text, and the program told you the results; it's the same basic formula as modern-day video game RPGs, but with few to no graphics and other fancy features. TB-RPGs take this basic input form and put another person--a GM (Game Master) on the other end, just as in a tabletop RPG. These RPGs have the advantage of needing no physical notes, dice, or figures (which are vital for tabletop play) while at the same time remaining flexible and free-form (something that no video game RPG to date has ever truly done, though some are coming close). As an added bonus, the internet is a haven for artists of all kinds, so if there is a graphic artist within your role-playing group, you can have beautiful art as a part of your game as well, depriving video game RPGs of one of their greatest advantages over the other two types; likewise, in a text-based game there's no need for complex sourcebooks and backstory information, since the GM can create whatever world they'd like and all the relevant info will be right there, online. But TB-RPGs' greatest strength comes from something neither of the other two RPG types have: community.
MMOs like City of Heroes, Star Trek Online, The Old Republic, and of course the venerable World of Warcraft thrive on huge worlds filled with many, MANY players who can interact to expand the gameplay experience. While some do claim to be MMORPGs, few truly focus on role-playing and story; even The Old Republic's stories, though branching, are fixed; two players a month apart can make the same choices and see the same content, minus the odd loot drop. TB-RPGs keep the positive player-interaction benefeits (even though they tend to exist on a smaller scale), while adding their own style and truly open world. If a Rogue walks into a fancy banquet at King Zodion's royal hall and then kidnaps the princess to extort money from her father, he may successfully complete the deed; if another Rogue tries the same thing a month later, the princess will likely turn the tables on the Rogue and beat him up for his foolishness--the world is persistent and constantly changing. The LEGO Heroica RPG on AFOL (Adult Fan of LEGO) fan forum Eurobricks is an excellent example of such an RPG.
As you can see, I am a huge fan of TB-RPGs; they satisfy many of the same creative urges that their kin do, without the hassle of setting up meetings and reading sourcebooks to learn backstory. However, there IS one major issue regarding TB-RPGs, and it applies to all communities, no matter their interest matter.
In the beginning of a TB-RPG, the world is an empty canvas. There's no designated tone, so crazy antics and zany misadventures often blend freely with the heavy drama favored by "serious" roleplayers and the Mary Sue-esque feats of skill exhibited by the min-maxers (also known as "munchkins" among the RPG community). But sooner or later, the style solidifies, and becomes uniform. That feel, that tone of community starts to draw in new players, who subconsciously expect that tone to continue. But here's the thing: it doesn't, it won't, and it never will.
TB-RPGs, and indeed all communities (internet-based or not) change over time; people change, it's in our nature. As our lives lead us in new directions, we develop new traits, interests, and ways of thinking to adapt to the changes around us. Whether our changes lead us away from a community or just change how we interact within it, it fundamentally changes the tone of that community. Some people (mostly those who take the community itself too seriously) will deride those people who have changed for being "inconsistent" or for "not conforming" to the old community tone, failing to realize that the tone is always changing, and that their own responses further change it in their own favored direction. The real issues start when the Game Master's tone changes. Perhaps they saw a movie that greatly inspired them, or a life circumstance caused them to rethink their outlook on life (which WILL change how they run their game, no matter how much they try to avoid it). Usually this manifests itself as a just-for-fun RPG being reinterpreted as "Serious Business", though the reverse can happen. Ultimately, the initial response is "They Changed It, Now It Sucks" (as TVTropes wiki so tactfully puts it), but the long-term response is what's telling.
We are in the middle of a series of changes to GameSpot. The "Game Master" saw new things in the world, and made their decision to change how GameSpot works, for better or for worse; these changes aren't good or bad, they're different. For those of us who have poured our time, energy, and creativity into this site, the natural reaction is indeed "They Changed It, Now It Sucks." The question that remains for us is, what will break, the community, or the resistance to the change?
When a community changes, sometimes the change is just too great, and it breaks; users leave and disappear into the murky depths of the Internet, never to be seen again. An attempt at "migrating" to another home may be made, but unless a new home has already spread its net to catch the refugees, there will be little progress. Even if the net is already there, only a few stragglers will make it to the new home, and the community will be greatly downsized. For members used to a large community, this may be a fatal loss, and after a short time they will vanish into the Internet like so many others among their bretheren. This is what happened to the players of LEGO Universe; though a few made it to existing fan sites (especially larger ones like Eurobricks), the bulk of the game community, AND all the sub-communities attached to it, disappeared into the ether with the game itself.
There is another way: for those strong enough, bold enough, and determined enough to stick out the turmoil, even if they don't like the community's new direction. Though the nay-sayers may disappear, these people will stick it out, and form a new community amid the ruins of the old. This is an important thing about community: it changes in its own way, regardless of the desires of any one participant. If we choose to stay, if we remain determined to further our existence here in the face of the changes that some of us may not like, then our community will thrive. Our community depends not on forum software or features or whether or not the site staff appear to be listening to our complaints. A community depends on the people who are a part of it, and we are no different. If we choose to stay, then we can stay. If we choose to go, then let us remember our time with fond memories.
I do not know what the GameSpot community will decide. I do not claim to know which is the right solution. What I DO know is that the choice is in our hands. The vast majority of the arguments I've seen, in favor of disbanding or against it, seem to think that the fate of the community is out of our hands, vested in the decisions of "the suits" as I've heard them called. This is not true. The staff may have control over the site itself, but they cannot force us to stay or to go. They play their role in influencing the decision, but that decision is ultimately ours. Fighting about it (especially fighting with the staff) is pointless; we can only make our choice. Will we continue to try to sustain our community, continuint to try to work with the staff to find a middle ground? Or will we see our fortunes elsewhere, our departures changing the remaining GameSpot community forever? Remember: there is no "enemy;" there are only different directions of change, neither good nor bad. I know what I'm doing; what will YOU decide?
So, onto the topic of Role-Playing Games (RPGs for short). When you hear the term "RPG," what do you think of? Neverwinter Nights? Baldur's Gate? Knights of the Old Republic? Some aspects of the Mass Effect series? Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga? The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim? These are the RPGs that I would expect GameSpotters to be familiar with; digital stories told through branched interaction and turn-based battles. But, as I'm sure some of you know, there's a flip side to the RPG genre. A side that is truly freeform, with a truly open world, limited only by your budget, your art skills, and your storytelling imagination. I'm referring, of course, to the ancestor of digital RPGs, the dice-based tabletop RPG systems like GURPS, Dungeons and Dragons, and the Star Wars roleplaying game. Some well-known video game RPGs are pulled directly from these RPG systems, simply adding story to an existing rules system; of these, the original Knights of the Old Republic games is probably the best known. These tabletop RPGs are oft-ignored by mainstream media, but they posess a thriving culture that's only grown through internet communities. However, there is a third, less-remembered form of RPG that, in the modern era, is somewhat of a hybrid between the two: the text-based RPG.
GameSpot used to be host of one such RPG; some of you may recall the Jedi Council Union and its ill-fated Star Wars-based text-based RPG (or TB-RPG). For those of you who do not, recall classic text-based adventure games like Adventure, the Zork series, Trinity, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (yes, THAT Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). In these games, you input your commands through text, and the program told you the results; it's the same basic formula as modern-day video game RPGs, but with few to no graphics and other fancy features. TB-RPGs take this basic input form and put another person--a GM (Game Master) on the other end, just as in a tabletop RPG. These RPGs have the advantage of needing no physical notes, dice, or figures (which are vital for tabletop play) while at the same time remaining flexible and free-form (something that no video game RPG to date has ever truly done, though some are coming close). As an added bonus, the internet is a haven for artists of all kinds, so if there is a graphic artist within your role-playing group, you can have beautiful art as a part of your game as well, depriving video game RPGs of one of their greatest advantages over the other two types; likewise, in a text-based game there's no need for complex sourcebooks and backstory information, since the GM can create whatever world they'd like and all the relevant info will be right there, online. But TB-RPGs' greatest strength comes from something neither of the other two RPG types have: community.
MMOs like City of Heroes, Star Trek Online, The Old Republic, and of course the venerable World of Warcraft thrive on huge worlds filled with many, MANY players who can interact to expand the gameplay experience. While some do claim to be MMORPGs, few truly focus on role-playing and story; even The Old Republic's stories, though branching, are fixed; two players a month apart can make the same choices and see the same content, minus the odd loot drop. TB-RPGs keep the positive player-interaction benefeits (even though they tend to exist on a smaller scale), while adding their own style and truly open world. If a Rogue walks into a fancy banquet at King Zodion's royal hall and then kidnaps the princess to extort money from her father, he may successfully complete the deed; if another Rogue tries the same thing a month later, the princess will likely turn the tables on the Rogue and beat him up for his foolishness--the world is persistent and constantly changing. The LEGO Heroica RPG on AFOL (Adult Fan of LEGO) fan forum Eurobricks is an excellent example of such an RPG.
As you can see, I am a huge fan of TB-RPGs; they satisfy many of the same creative urges that their kin do, without the hassle of setting up meetings and reading sourcebooks to learn backstory. However, there IS one major issue regarding TB-RPGs, and it applies to all communities, no matter their interest matter.
In the beginning of a TB-RPG, the world is an empty canvas. There's no designated tone, so crazy antics and zany misadventures often blend freely with the heavy drama favored by "serious" roleplayers and the Mary Sue-esque feats of skill exhibited by the min-maxers (also known as "munchkins" among the RPG community). But sooner or later, the style solidifies, and becomes uniform. That feel, that tone of community starts to draw in new players, who subconsciously expect that tone to continue. But here's the thing: it doesn't, it won't, and it never will.
TB-RPGs, and indeed all communities (internet-based or not) change over time; people change, it's in our nature. As our lives lead us in new directions, we develop new traits, interests, and ways of thinking to adapt to the changes around us. Whether our changes lead us away from a community or just change how we interact within it, it fundamentally changes the tone of that community. Some people (mostly those who take the community itself too seriously) will deride those people who have changed for being "inconsistent" or for "not conforming" to the old community tone, failing to realize that the tone is always changing, and that their own responses further change it in their own favored direction. The real issues start when the Game Master's tone changes. Perhaps they saw a movie that greatly inspired them, or a life circumstance caused them to rethink their outlook on life (which WILL change how they run their game, no matter how much they try to avoid it). Usually this manifests itself as a just-for-fun RPG being reinterpreted as "Serious Business", though the reverse can happen. Ultimately, the initial response is "They Changed It, Now It Sucks" (as TVTropes wiki so tactfully puts it), but the long-term response is what's telling.
We are in the middle of a series of changes to GameSpot. The "Game Master" saw new things in the world, and made their decision to change how GameSpot works, for better or for worse; these changes aren't good or bad, they're different. For those of us who have poured our time, energy, and creativity into this site, the natural reaction is indeed "They Changed It, Now It Sucks." The question that remains for us is, what will break, the community, or the resistance to the change?
When a community changes, sometimes the change is just too great, and it breaks; users leave and disappear into the murky depths of the Internet, never to be seen again. An attempt at "migrating" to another home may be made, but unless a new home has already spread its net to catch the refugees, there will be little progress. Even if the net is already there, only a few stragglers will make it to the new home, and the community will be greatly downsized. For members used to a large community, this may be a fatal loss, and after a short time they will vanish into the Internet like so many others among their bretheren. This is what happened to the players of LEGO Universe; though a few made it to existing fan sites (especially larger ones like Eurobricks), the bulk of the game community, AND all the sub-communities attached to it, disappeared into the ether with the game itself.
There is another way: for those strong enough, bold enough, and determined enough to stick out the turmoil, even if they don't like the community's new direction. Though the nay-sayers may disappear, these people will stick it out, and form a new community amid the ruins of the old. This is an important thing about community: it changes in its own way, regardless of the desires of any one participant. If we choose to stay, if we remain determined to further our existence here in the face of the changes that some of us may not like, then our community will thrive. Our community depends not on forum software or features or whether or not the site staff appear to be listening to our complaints. A community depends on the people who are a part of it, and we are no different. If we choose to stay, then we can stay. If we choose to go, then let us remember our time with fond memories.
I do not know what the GameSpot community will decide. I do not claim to know which is the right solution. What I DO know is that the choice is in our hands. The vast majority of the arguments I've seen, in favor of disbanding or against it, seem to think that the fate of the community is out of our hands, vested in the decisions of "the suits" as I've heard them called. This is not true. The staff may have control over the site itself, but they cannot force us to stay or to go. They play their role in influencing the decision, but that decision is ultimately ours. Fighting about it (especially fighting with the staff) is pointless; we can only make our choice. Will we continue to try to sustain our community, continuint to try to work with the staff to find a middle ground? Or will we see our fortunes elsewhere, our departures changing the remaining GameSpot community forever? Remember: there is no "enemy;" there are only different directions of change, neither good nor bad. I know what I'm doing; what will YOU decide?
Conversation powered by Livefyre
