Thrax Panda said:
We've had a variety of hot-points thru development, including our stance on team play. I just ran across a great crystalization of this idea in one of our design documents:
Team play is a natural byproduct of pitting one group of skilled individuals against another.
Discuss.
(note: I didn't write that. I'll give credit to the person who did after the 24th)
Thraxle,
I know that I will shock you here, but I am going to take a contrary position. The statement quoted only makes sense in a sentimental, not practical application, if it isn't completely ambiguous, out of context, and illogical. Yes, skill is important, but as a developer, you have precarious control over the skill of those playing your game. Pitting skilled groups against one another in such a simple, mathematical way is a resource you do not have; therefore you cannot incarnate the "natural byproduct" thereof.
The greatest control a developer has upon teamwork is an approximation at best. Perhaps it is by establishing the particular rules of your game that you do most to define teamwork as an element of your game. But, that alone is not sufficient. A game that is most teamwork oriented might also sit upon the shelf if it does not find an audience. In other words, not only are the rules of the game a huge factor in defining teamwork in your game, but also particularizing those rules in innovative ways that tutor your audience into teamwork.
A few terms I'm sure you are most familiar with in the game industry are "skill ceiling" and "learning curve." Theoretically, a skill ceiling is a limit imputed upon an audience by the developer, a valve that the developer uses, deliberately or not, to define the potential room for improvement in skill according to the rules of the game. One of the knocks against Tribes 2, a game which allegedly required more teamwork than Tribes 1, is that the skill ceiling was made too low, ostensibly in an effort to create an enourmous but somewhat level playing field. It is almost as if Sierra subjugated the rules of the game that define teamwork to Vivendi's battle on Wall Street.
One of the knocks against Tribes 1, on the other hand, was that the learning curve was too high. Theoretically, a learning curve is defined by the rate at which the average player can reach the skill ceiling. If William the Weekend Warrior spawns in his base and dies and spawns and dies and spawns 6 times in a row before he even experiences the confusing splendor that is Snowblind, William the Weekend Warrior will not be playing your game, and it won't be because he has no potential skill or teamplay ability. So, while I think it's irresponsible on the developer's part to factor Wall Street into the teamwork defining rules of the game, I recognize wholeheartedly the importance of finding reciprocity on Market Street.
At the risk of making something that appears simple, more complex, I would revise the statement in your design documents as such: the developer must do their part to foster an environment of team play, using the tools at their disposal, which are: the rules of their game, the skill ceiling defined by those rules, and the learning curve defined by those rules. By finding an attractive and enjoyable combination of these things, the developer can establish reciprocity on Market Street, and in turn, satisfy Wall Street.
Good Luck.