![Geeks on Film: Machete [Review]](http://geekadelphia.com/wp-content/themes/magazeen/timthumb.php?src=http://geekadelphia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/danny_trejo_as_machete_poster.jpg&w=69&h=54&zc=1)
![Ugly Betty: Season 4 on DVD [Review]](http://geekadelphia.com/wp-content/themes/magazeen/timthumb.php?src=http://geekadelphia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ugly-betty-cast-season-4.jpg&w=69&h=54&zc=1)
Massively recently reported that EVE Online, CCP’s six-year-strong outer space exploration and combat MMO, is currently holding its 4th Council of Stellar Management (CSM) election race until November 26th. The CSM is essentially an organization of EVE Online players, elected by other players, that represent the miniature society that EVE Online has become. They are in direct tandem with CCP concerning the outcome of the game’s (a loose term in this case) future.
Other developers are currently working at is normally referred to as player driven gameplay and have seriously impressive ideas, but none will perhaps come to the level CCP has with its very own player base council of movers and shakers. Whether this a good thing is your call. With its own thriving in-game economy driven by resource management, trade and piracy, it’s no wonder the virtual world needed some type of governing body (corruption included!). Prepare to put on your thinking caps after the break.
What I was pondering while researching this was, “What if this player driven content shtick really took off?” Imagine if the developers of your favorite shooter (dare I say Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2) held democratic meetings on the placement of spawn points. Would you want to be a part of something this deeply involved?
One worry is this trend becoming overly popular and online games eventually becoming too political. Would you want to have such an impact on the inner workings of your favorite game or perhaps just leave this work to the guys and gals who get paid to? Let your fellow geeks know what you think in the comments.
(Images Via Massively and Wired)
I think that Call of Duty isn’t necessarily a good game for comparison on this topic.
I definitely think it has good possibilities especially in the realm of subscription-based games and MMO’s.
There are a lot of great ideas in these literally massive communities and there is an infinite amount of passionate and very intelligent players.
However, there is something to be said about the motivation to impact a game no matter how big or small it may be.
A developer / game designer is being paid to produce quality sustainable entertainment.
A player is a consumer who’s stake in the game is their own entertainment and whatever it is they have to gain from making changes to it.
I feel that what happens to other players should always be in the hands of game devs and that player-driven changes in-game should be limited to cosmetics that don’t directly affect the way the game is played by the entire community.
I can understand that this type of gameplay should generally be reserved for the MMO or subscription space; using Call of Duty was for the sake of the argument. While seeing this type of interaction take place in other genres would be really interesting, it’s possible that we’re just not there yet.
It’s interesting that you mention cosmetics because it’s already happening with the micro-transaction models in not only MMOs, but online shooters like Battlefield Heroes. So, we’re already there it seems.
While I do agree with you that developers should be more involved in the intricacies of their games than their players, I still want to some day play in my dream game of a totally malleable environment. Within reason, of course.