|
The traditional view is that virtual worlds are ongoing, and if the possibilities for content created in context runs low, then new content should be created by the administration and thrown in as a patch, whether that be in the form of a new content, a new race or class, etc. They might also throw in a story to explain away the sudden change in the world (though it's still going to destroy immersion for some time, and since players' actions probably had very little real influence on the creation of that story, they aren't likely to care much about the story anyhow),
Obviously that is much easier than replacing all the old content that you worked so hard to create. I wonder if that alone justifies it as the most healthy possible solution, though.
Particularly, I wonder if it might be better to plan for a definite end to the game, with a climax, an appropriate resolution, and possibly even some sort of afterparty.
If you can't use your new content as the basis for a completely new game, then it probably isn't worth adding to the mud anyway. On the other hand, if it really is that good, then why not give it the attention it deserves rather than throwing it in with content that your players will soon find boring?
Many of us see the benefits of permanent death, but it's still a bitter pill to swallow for the player. Killing a mud has many of the same benefits and costs...but in a new game the playing field is level, so having to create a new character doesn't hurt so much. And frankly, playing a new game is more exciting than rehashing old content so you can get to the new content. (This is, of course, assuming that your new game is as well designed for your target market as your last game was.)
As a last note, I don't think already established games would be precluded from adapting to such a strategy, so long as the strategy is communicated to the players long enough in advance and in a sensitive manner.
|