I can get great content from a Novel, lets say, "The Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss. Or "Prelude to Foundation" by Isaac Asimov
I can get great gameplay from EQ combat system.
The game-play must be there, but also the Content must matter. What's in it for me? What's my stake in the game. Why should I care? Content has to have answers to those questiions.
If there are books to be discovered and be read, then, there must crumb of tangible information that can be use in the PvE world. "if you write that there are ship wrecks in the ocean, then, I better be able to find those ships. The information in the book can be subtle. Make it worth my time to read the short-story.
Gameplay before content always, but content is also important as you can’t have a minimal amount or you’ll lose/burnout subscribers. It may be satisfactory for a single player RPG though... but that’s another discussion entirely.
And, as Vandraad stated - it would be better to sacrifice the aesthetics of the content versus the amount.
And to those that critique this tenet in this thread, I don’t think its fair to cherry pick just it and ignore the rest - I would at minimum have the additional 3 below to add perspective to it when discussing the tenet:
The tenet says what it says, but I’ve always included challenging gameplay when thinking of the tenet - especially given Brad’s track record (Vision TM), but it probably would read better if it said “Challenging Content” or “Meaningful Content” is King because quantity only obviously doesn’t equate to a good game.
Nephele said:One of the tenets that Visionary Realms has is:
An awareness that content is king.
I think the systems of gameplay is content. And important content too.
How many skills do classes have, how far can we branch our class out. Thats a game play system, but if done right offers TONS of content.
Take a Wizard for example. Having the ability to branch that wizard into Four different subclasses adds a lot of content to the game.
Take Housing. Housing is a system, but it's a huge additive to the content of a game. Especially if it's able to be designed or filled with furniture and decorated the way a player wants. Look at the Sims for goodness sake, an entire game, from something that inside this game is a system.
This is a topic with many colours depending who you're asking the question to and to what extent.
For me, I tend to look at what kind of game I am going for. An MMO RPG. So, that to me means, yes you can give me plenty of stories and create worlds where I can spend hours and hours in.
Graphics do matter to me, since I'm working my way through the bushes or the ocean, I want to enjoy the view and feel really immersed. All this to me is adding to the experience of the travelling story.
I'm looking to really connect with my character (and alts later on). And this means, depth. Give me skills to improve or allow me to experience learning stages. Rolling an alt with different class? Well, you better provide me with something different when it comes to the depth and meaningful characterchoices.
How fluent this all translates to in the game should be alligned to how much technology the industry is able to provide (keeping in mind a broarder then 1 pc audience). And that's fine with me, I'll play just in max quality or something. Don't let me go back to DOS games where cubicles or a simple jump rules the world. Saying this, well knowning that I will need to wait that much longer (as long as is necessary) for the game to get to that stage. I get that.
And like many said, the game play decisions could offer a lot of extra content. But you can't start with game play in a game without content. Any depth would feel out of place without content to place it in. You need the content to experience the game play to it's fullest potential.
Very linear content does not trigger me to roll out alts, if I known that I'll be just doing the same thing all over again without much difference. So again in that aspect, content and variety thereof, is very important. For those that want to roll another alt but with the same class, that too should give them some difference in experience.
This thread has been shared with our official social media for my CM content!
"Hot Topic - Is it Content or Gameplay that really matters in the end? Let us know your thoughts on this topic! https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/11009/is-it-content-or-gameplay-that-really-matters-in-the-end #MMORPG #CommunityMatters"
Content compliments Gameplay and Gameplay compliments Content. you cannot have 1 without the other.
The problem though lies in not whether you have content or gameplay but whether the stuff you have in game is considered one or the other. For instance if all you do in the game is essentially fight mobs day in and day out then can you really consider that "content" since you're doing the same thing, time and time again? Can the combat system in a game be considered the "gameplay" if that isn't what most of the players are interested in? What about walking or fishing, can those be considered gameplay or content? That's the biggest issue here with asking this very question, Visonary Realms. You need to consider the thought that many people consider different things as either "gameplay" or "content" before you can ask what is really important in the end and as shown here, this difference of ideals of what's gameplay or content is already sparking some debates even in these forums. Though while personally I think both are important for a game as i played many MMOs in my many years that lacked in one form or another. At the end of the day they all lacked 1 thing in the end "RPG" which for a MMORPG is important. Just focus on making the game feel like a Massive Online Role Playing Game World (aka MORPGW) and you'll be fine.
If you though consider only "combat" as 'gameplay' while everything else is "content" though, then ones mmo project would always doomed to failure as this line of thinking always ends with a poor product. But that's just my take on your question.
stellarmind said: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.
I'll be honest I've never played BDO because a very trusted friend warned me away from it shortly after it launched.
From what I was told when BDO initially released there was no endgame. Now I don't know if my friend said that because endgame was basically solo content... which he knew that I didn't (and still don't) consider to be endgame, or if there was truly no endgame back then and what they have now was added after the fact. I've also heard that BDO has a lot of paywalls at max level and that is something I cant get behind either.
Either way black desert falls into the "Without content, the gameplay is irrelevant" (at least for me). For me, it doesn't matter how good the combat system is or isn't. If there isn't any endgame content centered around grouping, I don't care if the game has what is considered to be the best combat on the market its not going to do it for me.
Baldur said:stellarmind said: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.
I'll be honest I've never played BDO because a very trusted friend warned me away from it shortly after it launched.
From what I was told when BDO initially released there was no endgame. Now I don't know if my friend said that because endgame was basically solo content... which he knew that I didn't (and still don't) consider to be endgame, or if there was truly no endgame back then and what they have now was added after the fact. I've also heard that BDO has a lot of paywalls at max level and that is something I cant get behind either.
Either way black desert falls into the "Without content, the gameplay is irrelevant" (at least for me). For me, it doesn't matter how good the combat system is or isn't. If there isn't any endgame content centered around grouping, I don't care if the game has what is considered to be the best combat on the market its not going to do it for me.
without content, gameplay is irrelevant is a fair assessment of bdo.
the endgame for bdo is making money so you can blow it up in a vaccum at a very small chance to get stronger. no adventures. no stories. no lore. basically endgame bdo is lootbox with the cost of time shortcutted with irl money. i primarly play so i can test certain models and methods for increasing cash flow income under a heavily regulated system. free open markets are so easy to mess with. as vandraad would say economic pvp. plus the pvp is great if your opponent is in the same power bracket.
now if i were to take skyrim as a comparison, it has great content and very simple gameplay. although it's heavily leaned on the content there's enough balance with the gameplay.
content vs gameplay, ying vs yang, pve vs pvp, positive vs negative.
these things must be balanced.
bdo would be.... 10/100 content to gameplay (it's imbalance) out of 100
the current iteration of wow would be... 60/40
ff14 70/30
eso 40/60
swtor 20/80 80/20 correction
(disclaimer since i speak in absolutes: these are personal general assessments. my thoughts are open for change.) basically gameplay is going favor those that are more "pvp orientated" content more "pve orientated"
the closer you can get to a 50/50 (which is ideal) you'll hit the biggest margin of players mmo wise.
stellarmind said:(disclaimer since i speak in absolutes: these are personal general assessments. my thoughts are open for change.) basically gameplay is going favor those that are more "pvp orientated" content more "pve orientated"
the closer you can get to a 50/50 (which is ideal) you'll hit the biggest margin of players mmo wise.
That's the most sense I have read from you in a long time. Well said. It's an important point you touch there in your final lines.
(Are you alright?)
(just joking ofc, you're providing us with plenty of productive reading material)
Barin999 said:stellarmind said:(disclaimer since i speak in absolutes: these are personal general assessments. my thoughts are open for change.) basically gameplay is going favor those that are more "pvp orientated" content more "pve orientated"
the closer you can get to a 50/50 (which is ideal) you'll hit the biggest margin of players mmo wise.
That's the most sense I have read from you in a long time. Well said. It's an important point you touch there in your final lines.
(Are you alright?)
(just joking ofc, you're providing us with plenty of productive reading material)
Not sure I can agree with that..in the end its still the content/gameplay present ingame to satisfy the needs of each type of player,be it explorer,adventurer,pve,pvp,socializer,...
Both in setting(content) as the mechanics & tools to support & accomodate that specific playstyle needs(gameplay)
Saying gameplay favors those that are more pvp oriented /content favors those that are pve oriented" is like saying gameplay is gonna favor men that are sex oriented ,
while content is gonna favor women that are love oriented. Its false dichotomy ,as they clearly are not exclusive things to one or the other.
Fluffy said:Barin999 said:stellarmind said:(disclaimer since i speak in absolutes: these are personal general assessments. my thoughts are open for change.) basically gameplay is going favor those that are more "pvp orientated" content more "pve orientated"
the closer you can get to a 50/50 (which is ideal) you'll hit the biggest margin of players mmo wise.
That's the most sense I have read from you in a long time. Well said. It's an important point you touch there in your final lines.
(Are you alright?)
(just joking ofc, you're providing us with plenty of productive reading material)
Not sure I can agree with that..in the end its still the content/gameplay present ingame to satisfy the needs of each type of player,be it explorer,adventurer,pve,pvp,socializer,...
Both in setting(content) as the mechanics & tools to support & accomodate that specific playstyle needs(gameplay)
Saying gameplay favors those that are more pvp oriented /content favors those that are pve oriented" is like saying gameplay is gonna favor men that are sex oriented ,
while content is gonna favor women that are love oriented. Its false dichotomy ,as they clearly are not exclusive things to one or the other.
language can be cumbersome at times... there is so much loss in translation. let me see if i can work this out. pvp orientation and pve orientations are broad strokes of opposite sides. maybe competitive vs fun is what i'm aiming for? since you mention male and female energy, it's essentially equvalent to the fibonacci spiral. male(pvp orientated, challenge, order) would be the straight lines and female (pve orientated, fun, chaotic) which is the curve. they are inclusive to each other from the way i'm viewing it. heads and tails, true and false, hot and cold.
maybe the approach i should ask is: what is my definition of pvp orientation and pve orientation????
Barin999 said:stellarmind said:(disclaimer since i speak in absolutes: these are personal general assessments. my thoughts are open for change.) basically gameplay is going favor those that are more "pvp orientated" content more "pve orientated"
the closer you can get to a 50/50 (which is ideal) you'll hit the biggest margin of players mmo wise.
That's the most sense I have read from you in a long time. Well said. It's an important point you touch there in your final lines.
(Are you alright?)
(just joking ofc, you're providing us with plenty of productive reading material)
i appreciate that. you know i was watching a recent jack ma and elon musk discussion. i'm no elon musk XD, but i feel for him. it's difficult to sort what's in your head and translate it into words. jack ma is able to properly transpose(even though english is not his native language). as long as you understand the idea of what i'm saying instead of the words, then that's more than what i can ask for ^.^
stellarmind said:Fluffy said:Barin999 said:stellarmind said:(disclaimer since i speak in absolutes: these are personal general assessments. my thoughts are open for change.) basically gameplay is going favor those that are more "pvp orientated" content more "pve orientated"
the closer you can get to a 50/50 (which is ideal) you'll hit the biggest margin of players mmo wise.
That's the most sense I have read from you in a long time. Well said. It's an important point you touch there in your final lines.
(Are you alright?)
(just joking ofc, you're providing us with plenty of productive reading material)
Not sure I can agree with that..in the end its still the content/gameplay present ingame to satisfy the needs of each type of player,be it explorer,adventurer,pve,pvp,socializer,...
Both in setting(content) as the mechanics & tools to support & accomodate that specific playstyle needs(gameplay)
Saying gameplay favors those that are more pvp oriented /content favors those that are pve oriented" is like saying gameplay is gonna favor men that are sex oriented ,
while content is gonna favor women that are love oriented. Its false dichotomy ,as they clearly are not exclusive things to one or the other.language can be cumbersome at times... there is so much loss in translation. let me see if i can work this out. pvp orientation and pve orientations are broad strokes of opposite sides. maybe competitive vs fun is what i'm aiming for? since you mention male and female energy, it's essentially equvalent to the fibonacci spiral. male(pvp orientated, challenge, order) would be the straight lines and female (pve orientated, fun, chaotic) which is the curve. they are inclusive to each other from the way i'm viewing it. heads and tails, true and false, hot and cold.
maybe the approach i should ask is: what is my definition of pvp orientation and pve orientation????
Not for everyone competitive vs fun would apply.Not sure pvp orientation and pve orientation are such broad strokes of opposite sides either.
One's position in relation to pvp/pve can vary a lot,even amongst pvp/pve players.
Competition is not exclusive to pvp,just like fun is not exclusive to pve (all perspective from individual player)
Aiming for competitive vs fun? maybe competitive vs cooperative?But in wvw for example , pvp can have cooperatives elements where keep attacks are carefully organized in a well-planned coordinated attack.
That is fun to them .Fighting over keep can be both competitive and fun for both parties involved in the keep fight.
Just like how pve and pvp aren't necessarily broad strokes of opposite sides.While many wouldn't want to see them combined in this life time,I do believe they have could have common ground when it comes to content,
like duels can happen in the same area/content where pve takes place. Gameplay-wise however, MMOs have completely disembodied pve/pvp. Sometimes also content is completely separate.
While this satisfies certain wants of each player type.it also induces certain frustrations/annoyances for each player type
Like in eso,when other players kill friendly NPC you like,you are powerless to act and feel complicit in the crime somewhat in a pve area with opposing elements where pvp is blocked.Pve players feel bad they cant do cyrodiil(pvp zone) without pvp enforced.
Pvp players feel bad they cant do open world pvp in the other zones.while at some points I agree they don't go together at all ,I feel somehow that total separation has a few negative sides to it too.
That part you say about inclusive.you could say pvp hot,pve cold or pvp sour and pve sweet.while some players prefer sweet sour.Or just like there are also transgenders next to men/women.
While they can be somewhat inclusive to each other,maybe viewing it like head tails,true false is unfortunate :/
And before some here will raise the alarm that I am championing to mix up pvp & pve ,I'm not.
Just saying that for some players,their orientation might swing from pvp to pve depending on mood of the day.
I'm mostly pve player myself.Yet I sometimes pvp with friends. There even was this game ,wildstar where I constantly used to flag myself open world pvp cause it got me extra juicy faction points to buy cool stuff with :D
Thats the only game that ever got me to do that :D Personally i kind of dig that extra sense of danger. But flagging myself was totally my own doing :D
Maybe you didn't mean "more inclusive" in that way :D
But all i want to say is that these Pve/pvp orientations are relative positions & that position can change depending on situation/day.Still the game needs to be strong in both content/gameplay area-for whatever player type.
Fluffy said:stellarmind said:Fluffy said:Barin999 said:stellarmind said:(disclaimer since i speak in absolutes: these are personal general assessments. my thoughts are open for change.) basically gameplay is going favor those that are more "pvp orientated" content more "pve orientated"
the closer you can get to a 50/50 (which is ideal) you'll hit the biggest margin of players mmo wise.
That's the most sense I have read from you in a long time. Well said. It's an important point you touch there in your final lines.
(Are you alright?)
(just joking ofc, you're providing us with plenty of productive reading material)
Not sure I can agree with that..in the end its still the content/gameplay present ingame to satisfy the needs of each type of player,be it explorer,adventurer,pve,pvp,socializer,...
Both in setting(content) as the mechanics & tools to support & accomodate that specific playstyle needs(gameplay)
Saying gameplay favors those that are more pvp oriented /content favors those that are pve oriented" is like saying gameplay is gonna favor men that are sex oriented ,
while content is gonna favor women that are love oriented. Its false dichotomy ,as they clearly are not exclusive things to one or the other.language can be cumbersome at times... there is so much loss in translation. let me see if i can work this out. pvp orientation and pve orientations are broad strokes of opposite sides. maybe competitive vs fun is what i'm aiming for? since you mention male and female energy, it's essentially equvalent to the fibonacci spiral. male(pvp orientated, challenge, order) would be the straight lines and female (pve orientated, fun, chaotic) which is the curve. they are inclusive to each other from the way i'm viewing it. heads and tails, true and false, hot and cold.
maybe the approach i should ask is: what is my definition of pvp orientation and pve orientation????
Not for everyone competitive vs fun would apply.Not sure pvp orientation and pve orientation are such broad strokes of opposite sides either.
One's position in relation to pvp/pve can vary a lot,even amongst pvp/pve players.
Competition is not exclusive to pvp,just like fun is not exclusive to pve (all perspective from individual player)
Aiming for competitive vs fun? maybe competitive vs cooperative?But in wvw for example , pvp can have cooperatives elements where keep attacks are carefully organized in a well-planned coordinated attack.
That is fun to them .Fighting over keep can be both competitive and fun for both parties involved in the keep fight.
Just like how pve and pvp aren't necessarily broad strokes of opposite sides.While many wouldn't want to see them combined in this life time,I do believe they have could have common ground when it comes to content,
like duels can happen in the same area/content where pve takes place. Gameplay-wise however, MMOs have completely disembodied pve/pvp. Sometimes also content is completely separate.
While this satisfies certain wants of each player type.it also induces certain frustrations/annoyances for each player type
Like in eso,when other players kill friendly NPC you like,you are powerless to act and feel complicit in the crime somewhat in a pve area with opposing elements where pvp is blocked.Pve players feel bad they cant do cyrodiil(pvp zone) without pvp enforced.
Pvp players feel bad they cant do open world pvp in the other zones.while at some points I agree they don't go together at all ,I feel somehow that total separation has a few negative sides to it too.
That part you say about inclusive.you could say pvp hot,pve cold or pvp sour and pve sweet.while some players prefer sweet sour.Or just like there are also transgenders next to men/women.
While they can be somewhat inclusive to each other,maybe viewing it like head tails,true false is unfortunate :/
And before some here will raise the alarm that I am championing to mix up pvp & pve ,I'm not.
Just saying that for some players,their orientation might swing from pvp to pve depending on mood of the day.
I'm mostly pve player myself.Yet I sometimes pvp with friends. There even was this game ,wildstar where I constantly used to flag myself open world pvp cause it got me extra juicy faction points to buy cool stuff with :D
Thats the only game that ever got me to do that :D Personally i kind of dig that extra sense of danger. But flagging myself was totally my own doing :D
Maybe you didn't mean "more inclusive" in that way :D
But all i want to say is that these Pve/pvp orientations are relative positions & that position can change depending on situation/day.Still the game needs to be strong in both content/gameplay area-for whatever player type.
wait something is being lost here... it's not about pve vs pvp, competitive vs fun, uhh its like they are interconnected. hot and cold for example is tempature. extremely hot or extremely cold means you go super niche. what i'm defining as pvp orientated would be players that like a challenge or competitive in nature, gameplay, numbers, optimal damage rotations, builds, theorycrafting. pve orientated would be immersion, story telling, content, cosmetics, features, je nais se quoi, aesthetics. it's more or less making sure your ratios are balanced? like hot and cold you have to find a good median. you can lean 70/30 or 30/70, but don't go 30/90 where the ratios are imbalanced. 50/50 is ideal. very hard to maintain this ratio. no top spins perfectly. if it were tempature we could say 78 degrees farenheit its pretty comfortable for majority of humans. eh if you don't get this i give up XD
but pve oriented players like challenge too & theorycrafting.Pvp oriented likes immersion too with keep fights (example from earlier).
So there is no nich or extreme going by the measures you assign to each, as the things that you mention aren't exclusively suitable to one or the other "orientation".
In eso they even call animation cancelling a feature now,as if its something that needs to be mastered :D
Like"lets take this flaw and instead of fixing it,make it a feature." Its completely insane to act as if it has anything to do with skill.
I hope from bottom of of my heart that doesnt become a trend and level of measurement in other games.
i still think content needs to be higher ,but thats a personal thing.So I still would be more inclined to agree with Neph's ratio of 60 content/40 gameplay.
take a look at this for a moment. being pve orientated doesn't mean i'm going to be all fun with no competiveness. there will be traces of one inside of the other. i can say protf should be 40/60. so where would we compromise if you're at a 60/40? 50/50.
eh i give up trying to explain >.> the idea is lost in translation.
I have always said gameplay is king. Content is not king, if that were true several MMOs would be hugely successful today because they have tons of content and constantly release new content. I've been dabbling in WoW Classic and my view of it is that both the gameplay and the content of that game are vastly superior to what the new MMOs are delivering. But at it's core it is the slower paced leveling and combat, smaller skillset, etc. that people want. Players can actually get killed doing regular quests and everything isn't reduced to a single click for convenience. The main issue I have with MMORPGs is it seems developers move away from what made their original game great in the first place, they screw with the formula. WoW is severely guilty of this with massive class overhauls, level and stat squish, massive gear inflation, streamlining/homogenization, etc. I could go on for quite a while but the same thing happened to EQ to an extent. Expanding on the content is great and all but when you screw up the formula that's when longtime players leave.
The original question is a false dichotomy. It's like asking if it's better to have a race car or have access to a race track. You need both.
The absolutely simplest way to answer this question is: "yes".
Translated to a long answer:
Incorrect format: "Is it content or gameplay that really matters in the end?"
Corrected format: "[It is] content [and] gameplay that really matters in the end[.]"
stellarmind said: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.
Referencing game studios that have vast resources and 100's of bodies is not even fair to bring up in this context.
And especially games that 100% rely on extensive instancing, monetization, P2W, etc. All things that VR said it is NOT doing.
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?
Your WoW classic arguement doesn't really hold that much water. If you think they are giving up just content..then you are miss informed. There are many gameplay features that are gone also, like flying mounts. Many players that want classic hated flying mounts. Another thing that is a little more divided, but more against than for, is the resilience armor that separated the pvpers from the pvers and split the community even more. They also hate LFR( Looking for Raid) and LFG(Looking for group. Also Several QOL features that made the game much easier. They simply want classic because they too believe WoW went the wrong way. So they didn't give up just content, they gave up a ton of gameplay and QOL features because the game is dead and boring. That is why. They gave up both, not just one.
Edit: You should also look at the way WoW is built. They throw away old content and move everyone into new content, making the older ones irrelevant and that no one really goes back too..except the very few for transmog and mount farming. 90% of the population doesn't care. So in a way they have also gained content...the relevancy of the older content.
Gameplay. Period. At one time I too bought into the whole 'content is king' motto, but no longer. But I think the answer is a bit more nuanced than this. The two intertwine and overlap to some degree.
If right now any one of you had been granted alpha access and the gameplay was awesome would it really matter that only one zone was complete? Even if you got bored and stopped playing for a bit would you come back? Probably. More likely you would find excuses to stay. I know in original EQ when I was max level and waiting on the next expansion I passed the time doing long quests, faction grinding for things I wanted, and grinding AA's. Sometimes when I didn't have enough time to realistically find a group and make my way to wherever, I would just logon and chat with friends and not really do much... Putz around on the bazaar. I found stuff to keep me occupied because the game was more than a game. The gameplay made it feel like a real world I could escape into. So in a way you could call gameplay 'content'. There were just a lot of things to do, but I wouldn't call crafting content per sey as an example.
Now think of literally any other game that has loads of content (and by content here I mean, zones with quests, instances, etc.)... why aren't you there right now instead of here?
Content is not king, gameplay is. That said, content is a balancing act. I personally believe this was the downfall of SWTOR. You have to control the pace at which players are 'able' to consume content in a way that doesn't feel like a slog but also isn't so fast that they run out of things to do before you can realistically develop new content. SWTOR was IMHO a really really fun game that had alot of content but the leveling pace was too fast, and since you could solo everything outside of instances similiar to WoW, everyone was max level in a week. With six months to go until an expansion that got boring super quick. I also think that they spent a huge amount of time on class cut scenes and instance cut scenes and not enough on raid cut scenes. They could have really done some epic stuff there but I think they ran out of time and the raids were not as polished as they could have been. SWTOR tried to address this through daily and weekly missions and faction stuff, but it was a total slog. Doing the same quest over and over every day or week was not only dumb but immersion breaking. Give me something like AA's instead so I can choose what content I want to spend my time on. It wasn't that SWTOR didn't have content, it was just the way in which the gameplay delivered or focused you onto specific content that sucked.
I actually think that some of my most fun experiences in EQ were as a low level newb in Blackburrow grinding with friends. That one zone in and of itself isn't a huge amount of content, but I spent long long stretches of time under multiple toons and had tons of fun doing it. It never felt like a slog because I was enjoying myself, but would you call that one zone alot of content? On one hand I wouldn't really say so, but it is if it kept me occupied for that long. So I think it's all relative and gameplay/content are really difficult to separate from each other.