Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Is it content or gameplay that really matters in the end?

    • 1785 posts
    August 26, 2019 10:41 AM PDT

    One of the tenets that Visionary Realms has is:

    An awareness that content is king.

    When I pledged several years ago, I agreed with this wholeheartedly.  And I still do, somewhat.

    However, I've been reading a lot of discussion about WoW Classic lately - and the ridiculous number of people signing up for those servers.  And what are they really signing up for?  It seems that mostly they want to return to a gameplay experience that they believe was better than the current game.  They're willing to sacrifice a LOT of content to do that.

    I've also seen over the years how all of us in this community react to the design information that Visionary Realms shares with us - whether that's in newsletters, streams, or reveals on the forums or the website.  We are very critical about gameplay systems that we think are too shallow, too simple, or too easy.  You can see tons of examples of that, whether we're talking about climates, atmospheres, class abilities, racial passives, progeny, or whatever.

    Bottom line - all of us gamers seem to care a whole lot about gameplay, even though content is supposedly king.

    So which one really matters to us in the end?  Would we be willing to accept less then perfect gameplay in Pantheon if the content is compelling and there's a lot of it?  Or does Pantheon need to have really great gameplay, even at the expense of potentially launching with less content, in order to keep us all interested long-term?

    For me, I think I'm probably something like 60/40 on content/gameplay - which is a much closer ratio than I might have answered with a few years ago.  How about everyone else?

    • 1479 posts
    August 26, 2019 11:14 AM PDT

    Nephele said:

    One of the tenets that Visionary Realms has is:

    An awareness that content is king.

    When I pledged several years ago, I agreed with this wholeheartedly.  And I still do, somewhat.

    However, I've been reading a lot of discussion about WoW Classic lately - and the ridiculous number of people signing up for those servers.  And what are they really signing up for?  It seems that mostly they want to return to a gameplay experience that they believe was better than the current game.  They're willing to sacrifice a LOT of content to do that.

    I've also seen over the years how all of us in this community react to the design information that Visionary Realms shares with us - whether that's in newsletters, streams, or reveals on the forums or the website.  We are very critical about gameplay systems that we think are too shallow, too simple, or too easy.  You can see tons of examples of that, whether we're talking about climates, atmospheres, class abilities, racial passives, progeny, or whatever.

    Bottom line - all of us gamers seem to care a whole lot about gameplay, even though content is supposedly king.

    So which one really matters to us in the end?  Would we be willing to accept less then perfect gameplay in Pantheon if the content is compelling and there's a lot of it?  Or does Pantheon need to have really great gameplay, even at the expense of potentially launching with less content, in order to keep us all interested long-term?

    For me, I think I'm probably something like 60/40 on content/gameplay - which is a much closer ratio than I might have answered with a few years ago.  How about everyone else?

     

    Current wow has no true content. It's only ephemereal and lasts until the next patch's catchup screws what you've done, no long term farm. No hardly obtained durable rewards.

     

    There isn't much interest in keeping 15 years of content if most of it is just "One shottable material".

     

    I'd say content is king, but it's hard to keep it interesting with no gameplay at all, and classic is not so much about gameplay, but interdependancy, social connexions and long term goals.

    • 1921 posts
    August 26, 2019 12:14 PM PDT

    In games that don't require grouping? content is king.

    In games that do require grouping? gameplay is king.

    (imho)

    • 1247 posts
    August 26, 2019 12:28 PM PDT

    Both. Honestly, given that Brad and VR devs made and/or played Classic Everquest (which is the best mmorpg of all time imo), I will be content with the Pantheon that they develop regardless. I am always for: more risk-vs-reward>all (of course), but I am confident that Pantheon is a step in the right direction. All that I have seen thus far - VR is impressive.


    This post was edited by Syrif at August 26, 2019 12:30 PM PDT
    • 945 posts
    August 26, 2019 12:36 PM PDT

    I think you need both, content and gameplay to be a complete game.  If I had to prioritize one over the other, I would say gameplay is king over the "amount" of content since content can be easily expanded upon if there is a strong foundation.  This is where games like WoW excelled.  Quite arguably the best gameplay in an MMORPG designed around group gameplay AND pvp with decent content that continued to expand up until they started to trivialize content in an attempt to broaden their player base.  

     

    To address the O.P. - The players signing up for WoW classic aren't really giving up that much content.  They are releasing patches up to just before the Burning Crusade which was a couple years of content which a LOT of people never got to really enjoy stuff like NAX because as soon as BC came out and the level cap was raised, all of the previous content was instantly trivialized in literally like a week of playing in BC starting area quests you were geared better than someone that hardcore raided for months.  As I said above, classic WoW was probably the best gameplay, and Blizzard has actually made some adjustments to the classic content to modernize it quite a bit, making it VERY appealing to people who want to relive the challenging content before things started to become trivial.  There really is quite a bit of content in Classic WoW (they are "sacrificing" the trivialized content in exchange for a promise of never having weak content).


    This post was edited by Darch at August 26, 2019 12:47 PM PDT
    • 2756 posts
    August 26, 2019 1:03 PM PDT

    The answer is both.  Content is important, but built on bad gameplay is pointless.

    A well built game can grow, but a badly built game may as well not bother.

    WoW and others have become synonymous with growing in content, but the gameplay becoming worse.

    A lot of folks stuck with it, because by then they were very invested or whatever, but a lot of folks, like me, became more and more disenchanted and faded away.

    WoW Classic is a return of the gameplay that was appealing before it was diluted and degraded and I happily take less content (because there is still plenty) in order to have the improved gameplay.

    That said, WoW was never as 'good' gameplay-wise as EQ or EQ2, but I still moved on because EQ and EQ2 were, perhaps, a little *too* rigid, gameplay-wise (or maybe just technology-wise).

    It's complex, but either way, I still maintain that gameplay is more important than content to me, but 60/40.

    • 73 posts
    August 26, 2019 1:11 PM PDT

    I have many questions about your question

    could you define more precisely what is content and what is gameplay

    the phrase that "content is king" everyone would subscribe to it but it really means "content is king"

    in your WoW example it seems that it refers to the amount of content
    I have seen many speeches about people who say that the WoW expnasions a month does not have to do
    and other people reply that if you already have all the mounts or pets (wow pokemons)

    • 416 posts
    August 26, 2019 1:35 PM PDT

    I can not say why VR made "Content is King" one of their tenants but here is my take on what it means. If I don't enjoy the gameplay of a game then the content is meaningless since I won't be playing the game. But once you assert that you do enjoy playing the game then the importance of content being king diversifies where players spend their time. In a PVE focused mmo the more diversity players have of where to spend their time there is less chance of player conflict over content keeping the focus on PVE and less on "PVP" elements. It also speaks to a commitment to provide a vast, interesting world for players to explore and live in.

     

    In a sense I view all the tenants as a roadmap of what type of gameplay they are hoping to create. The idea being that if they hold to the tenants, those drawn to the game because of them will enjoy the gameplay for just those reasons.


    This post was edited by Thorndeep at August 26, 2019 1:41 PM PDT
    • 2419 posts
    August 26, 2019 1:47 PM PDT

    Nephele said:

    One of the tenets that Visionary Realms has is:

    An awareness that content is king.

    So which one really matters to us in the end?  Would we be willing to accept less then perfect gameplay in Pantheon if the content is compelling and there's a lot of it?  Or does Pantheon need to have really great gameplay, even at the expense of potentially launching with less content, in order to keep us all interested long-term?

    Content is the where and the what, the gameplay is the how and the why. 

    If you stop at the where and the what, you have a game with no depth.  It may look pretty, may have a lot of territory to see and experience but it is a hollow experience.  How you face the world and why you want to go there in the first place is what will keep you in the game longer.

    So yes, I will absolutely take a game with lackluster visuals (trees all having the same fronds) but with brilliant gameplay any day of the week. I do worry that VR is spending far too much time and money on visuals and not enough time on gameplay, the mechanics of the how and the why.

    • 388 posts
    August 26, 2019 1:48 PM PDT

    I think you need both as well. What I would like to know is if people would rather lose out of some content to get the game to retail. Let me explain that. 

    Would people be OK with max level being 40 instead of 50 (just at launch) Lev 50 cap would be an expansion. Like Kunark. Kunark came out like 7 months after launch i think. (really fast "expansion") 

    Maybe release with 2 main continents instead of 3.  (still with separate starting areas, maybe just more condensed) 

    Or, because of the starting areas, maybe that 3rd continent would have the starting City and a zone for Level 1-8 and then you would be forced to one of the main 2 continents after that. They could add more later for higher levels in expansions. 

    Good topic / question though. 


    This post was edited by Flapp at August 26, 2019 1:49 PM PDT
    • 520 posts
    August 26, 2019 2:06 PM PDT

    To keep the community for long, the game definitely needs both - there are plenty of games (also MMOs) that do one thing great - but so what if the rest suck.

    • 1428 posts
    August 26, 2019 2:46 PM PDT

    if this discussion is about cars:

    content is how the car looks, feels, and sounds.

    gameplay is what's underneath the hood.

     

    you know where this is going.  the ae86 looks like crap, but boy can i take that derogatory term sideways and it is guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuud.

     

    • 2419 posts
    August 26, 2019 3:19 PM PDT

    Flapp said:

    Would people be OK with max level being 40 instead of 50 (just at launch) Lev 50 cap would be an expansion. Like Kunark. Kunark came out like 7 months after launch i think. (really fast "expansion")

    No, I wouldn't.  But I would be quite OK if more of the visual details were overlooked.  copy/paste more buildings, trees, bushes, rocks, barrels, etc, fewer iterations of various greebles and  tchotchkes.  Less sanding on the underside of the cabinet drawer, basically. Even less fluid and varied animations if you're making every race have different default stances, attack/defend/run/whatever.  Reduce the visual complexity and variety.

    Yea, I know artists and programmers are not stepping on each other toes and one is not preventing the other from accomplishing something, but having fewer artists and more codes/programmers moves the more important parts of the game long much quicker.

    • 3852 posts
    August 26, 2019 4:57 PM PDT

    Without content, gameplay is irrelevant.

    Without gameplay, content is irrelevant. 

    • 542 posts
    August 26, 2019 5:17 PM PDT

    Nephele said:

    Bottom line - all of us gamers seem to care a whole lot about gameplay, even though content is supposedly king.

    So which one really matters to us in the end?  Would we be willing to accept less then perfect gameplay in Pantheon if the content is compelling and there's a lot of it?  Or does Pantheon need to have really great gameplay, even at the expense of potentially launching with less content, in order to keep us all interested long-term?

    For me, I think I'm probably something like 60/40 on content/gameplay - which is a much closer ratio than I might have answered with a few years ago.  How about everyone else?

    I think it could be seen like;
    Content is like the layout and size of the boardgame,
    while gameplay is like the rules & guidelines for the boardgame that connect player with said game/board.
    You could also ask ;water or oxygen -which one really matters to our lives? Also in that case the answer is both.

    imagine a really large board game with awesome spots to go to ,pits,clouds,vortex,jails ,towers,certain characters to visit
    all kinds of awesome spots the player could end on.
    But there would be nothing more to it ,no rules like "go back 5 places" ,or "you gain extra power for 3 turns",nothing.
    Without gameplay to connect these spots on the board to the content & give them purpose,The game would have little soul.no matter how awesome the board itself may be.

    Now imagine the opposite a boardgame with little variety, reappearing copy/paste spots but each spot would have an enormous list of things players need to consider for each
    spot.each spot would have so many rules & would require a multitude of actions by the player.To the point where the game would be unplayable without the manual.

    you might be more or less spot on with 60/40 content/gameplay ratio. or maybe 65/35 or so.
    You ever had these moments in games where you think " its a real shame i can't influence this/perform an action here" When at any point in the game you feel like that,it means the gameplay leaves a lot to be desired.Lke there are loopholes in that area of the game.

    If on the other hand you feel like giving up cause you feel overwhelmed with tasks that need perform for something trivial ,it might be that the game is too overloaded on the gameplay part.

    Content is king,but interaction (gameplay) is just as important so the player can connect with it.


    This post was edited by Fluffy at August 26, 2019 5:30 PM PDT
    • 103 posts
    August 26, 2019 5:24 PM PDT
    Mercy Neph, that's a tough question.
    I guess I'll go 50/50, or rather both are king.
    • 945 posts
    August 26, 2019 6:22 PM PDT

    stellarmind said:

    if this discussion is about cars:

    content is how the car looks, feels, and sounds.

    gameplay is what's underneath the hood.

    I get what you're saying, but to use the car analogy I was thinking more along the lines of "content" being the mechanical features and construction of the vehicle you indirectly experience (what's under the hood making the care run) and the gameplay would be the performance from the direct perspective of the driver/owner (how it feels to operate/play).

    But to have the full package I want both.  :) 

    • 116 posts
    August 26, 2019 7:24 PM PDT

    @ Vandraad,

    Well said, gameplay is far more important than content. Don’t get me wrong, lots of original content can be very engaging, but along with it needs to come the sense of purpose and magic. 


    This post was edited by Grayel at August 26, 2019 7:30 PM PDT
    • 429 posts
    August 26, 2019 7:38 PM PDT

    Agree with with both ! Without he middle start or the end (subjective) one does not have the story (or rather the game ) !

    Feel all are important ! Graphics not so much to those that actually read books :) One needs the the draw , what draws each and everyone one of us in :)

    • 542 posts
    August 27, 2019 6:59 AM PDT

    what draws each and everyone in is a mix of content and gameplay possibilities I think.But still more content.
    Content is very important.Imagine going on a vacation ,but you absolutely hate the place where you end up.
    You'll quickly have the feeling you had it & in case of a game ,drop out/quit playing quickly.
    When you don't want to spend time in that world,no matter how good the gameplay mechanics are;you'll pass.
    So I think content still matters more,as it has to be a place where the player likes to venture;
    The content needs to be intriguing;thats a condition that needs to be met or the gameplay is completely irrelevant if that requirement isn't met.
    So to say "gameplay is far more important than content" can't be true


    This post was edited by Fluffy at August 27, 2019 7:02 AM PDT
    • 124 posts
    August 27, 2019 7:04 AM PDT

    To be honest, i don't think it is as simple as content vs gameplay.

    Because to me, it is both, but most if not all of my playtime is because i am playing with other people what makes me want to stay and keep entertained.

    Essentially, no matter how you twist and turn, it becomes a sequence of pushing buttons as a reaction to a situation. The sequence will be roughly the same from the first time you do it compared to the last time you do it. The thing that changes constantly however is other people, the talks in between, their different playstyles. That is what keeps it interesting to me.

    Do i like playing factorio because of the gameplay? no. Why do i have 1000+ hours in it? because i play it with friends. The exact same goes for ARK, or everquest 1 really with 700+ days of online time. Why did i leave? Because the people left. Why did i return? for nostalgia that i didn't find as the people who created it were not there.

    So no, to me its neither. It is the people who make the experience. The game is just the tool.

    • 542 posts
    August 27, 2019 7:22 AM PDT

    Those that play it because friends play it ,might be more accepting of less than perfect content/gameplay.
    Playing it for friends would be extrinsic motivation,while playing it for intrinsic motivation would mean you play because you enjoy it yourself.
    The ones who play it with intrinsic motivation are less forgiving for mediocre game.
    Still,when the motivation to play arises outside of the individual player. One of the others stopping usually causes a chain reaction.
    The first one with extrinsic motivation might stop for changes in personal life,or because they are at the point they can no longer bring themselves to play it because
    they are so fed up with it. I think players with extrinsic motivation can end up like these couples who married for 50 years and often wonder why they are still together..or more like couples who stay together for the good of the children.


    This post was edited by Fluffy at August 27, 2019 7:27 AM PDT
    • 1315 posts
    August 27, 2019 9:09 AM PDT

    For me replay-ability is king.  Very limited, never changing content is boring.  Simplistic and ridged game play with only one real path to advance on is boring.

    If content is limited then it needs to be designed in such a way that it is flexible and ever changing.  You can get around static content by just adding more content though that becomes very resource intensive and the ever increasing carrot becomes major fuel for mudflation.

    Game play however is fundamental.  If there is no depth of choices then it’s not really engaging, it’s just rolling dice.  Each choice added in parallel (i.e. you can only do one thing at a time) increases your number of options but doesn’t add much depth.  Each choice added in series adds to the depth and multiplies the previous series of choices by its number of options to create a new total number of possible combinations of choice.  A system that can incorporate multiple levels of depth with a compelling number of parallel choices must inherently be broad and complex.

    Each new system added adds another layer of choice.

    Everquest really only had two tiers of choice.  First tier was gear, and the second tier were combat skills.  There was a quasi third tier in the choices of which classes to bring but that was on the guild layer and not the player layer.

    Players could only choose to put on gear to increase or decrease certain offensive or defensive stats but ultimately it was just how high could you push it, this actually makes gearing a very shallow choice tier and all best in slot gearing systems really only earn half a point on the depth scale.

    Combat abilities at least had some strategy based on agro control and endurance as well as a small amount of synergy between debuffs, debuff slots and burn cycles.  Over all though the total number of reasonable combinations per fight per class was very limited and the melees had virtually no choices at all.

    Both gearing and skills could have been multi tier choice systems if the following were implemented.

    For gearing

    1)       If gearing had more of a 0 sum or low net gain where one either focused on a specific subset of stats that in turn drove which abilities the character intended to use then not all gearing would be about finding the highest numbers.  A good example would be the difference between a strength or a dex fighter in D&D if you could only buy one stat item.

    2)      If not all gear was appropriate to all fights.  Wearing full plate while in a horse race is unlikely to net you a win and bushwacking through brambles in silks is going to leave you in tatters.

    For skills:

    1)      If the skills you choose can affect the flow of combat and direct the npc to different combat sequences then that builds in tactical choices.  This could include the mobs changing its offense or defensive tactics, general scripting or even make it surrender (how weird would that be?).

    2)      If the abilities you use have the potential to profoundly affect the abilities of your group members both positively or negatively but there are multiple paths to success then you have achieved greater combat depth where the group power is greater than the sum of its parts.

    3)      Stances could be added in such a way that all of the base abilities of a class are modified in a specific way to add further to the number of options.

     

    To push past the 20 year old Everquest model of combat lets add new systems.

    Damage reductions and penetrations.

    1)      In any given situation the encounter could include multiple different mitigation tools or vulnerabilities.  Knowing (perceiving) the qualities of a target will better inform you of which attacks to use as well as which defenses would be most effective.

    2)      This in turn unlocks the concepts of active or reactive defenses that if incorrect would either waste damage or outright harm the player.

    Now lets add environmental effects:

    1)      If the local environment favored one type of combat over another then that could indicate which choices from above would be optimal.

    2)      Both players and mobs could attempt to use environmental effects to their advantage.  Position that mob in the fire, hop from one stone to another knowing the slow tank is going to need to slog through the water cause it can’t jump, don’t use high stamina abilities or you will breath in the bad air, if you light a fire in this gas filled room you will understand what the moth feels.

    3)      The environment itself can be harnessed actively: Summon a wall of flame or an acid pit trap.  Make it rain. Cast light. Cast darkness.  Blindfold yourself then cast Flood light in a dark room.

    4)      Gear choices can be effected by the environmental effects present or you wish to make present.

    Now lets add battle field perception and tactics.

    1)      On a greater level the game could deliver warnings to the players about incoming major choices.  The types of defenses and positioning they choose can affect both the encounter response and the effectiveness of their future choices.

    2)      Rather than scripted combat that you need to learn stage by stage until combat is a gimicy dance have combat that is never precisely the same and requires adaptability, ingenuity and skill.

     

    Each and every tier listed above makes for greater and greater levels of choices and complexities.  In return though players will need to learn and adapt to greater levels of minutia.  No longer will the game handle all your choices for you.  There will be no clear best so your overall system mastery will need to be much higher in order to achieve optimal results in all conditions.

    From a development standpoint all these systems will be a ***** to program and create but once they are establish they can have an ever increasing number of options added to each tier of choice.  It is hard to add new tiers of choice after the system is designed though.  What looks like pointless game play (climbing) may actually be a critical system to allow for 3d combat including tactical movement during an encounter.  Without the climbing sub system there is no true backbone to use to create z vector dependent combat.

    So in short without good game play mechanics content is just window dressing that gets old if it never changes 80 game play : 20 content.

    • 238 posts
    August 27, 2019 10:03 AM PDT

    dorotea said:

    Without content, gameplay is irrelevant.

    Without gameplay, content is irrelevant. 

    This... I believe that Black Desert Online when it was released (I'm not sure about now) is a perfect example of "Without content, gameplay is irrelevant". Most games don't fall into the "Without gameplay content is irrelevant" trap. However, there are a few such as GW2 and ESO where gameplay between classes feels like playing the exact same thing just with a different skin so unique gameplay doesn't truly exist. 

    For a game to be successful it has to successfully develop both of these aspects and new innovations need to be continually made to keep things current. 


    This post was edited by Baldur at August 27, 2019 10:04 AM PDT
    • 1428 posts
    August 27, 2019 12:40 PM PDT

    Baldur said:

    dorotea said:

    Without content, gameplay is irrelevant.

    Without gameplay, content is irrelevant. 

    This... I believe that Black Desert Online when it was released (I'm not sure about now) is a perfect example of "Without content, gameplay is irrelevant". Most games don't fall into the "Without gameplay content is irrelevant" trap. However, there are a few such as GW2 and ESO where gameplay between classes feels like playing the exact same thing just with a different skin so unique gameplay doesn't truly exist. 

    For a game to be successful it has to successfully develop both of these aspects and new innovations need to be continually made to keep things current. 

    bdo has content.  it's complete garbage though.  the gameplay is fantastic if it weren't for the pay for convienience but lets be real its pay to win +cash shop.

    issues with bdo is when it comes to the end game... you do everything by yourself minus pvp.  no class interdependency.  at the mercy of class matchups.  huge expontial power gaps with small gear score differentials (i'm talking 1 gear point can push you into god mode).  easy to get weak.  hard to get stronger.

    eh it's more along the lines of an mmo/fighting game.  eh.  it's good distraction i suppose until pantheon.  skyrim too.  finally playing it after years of modding and testing.