Why is it harder to revamp a zone than to make a new one?

I always do either some of Striga or Croatoa and occasionally both.

Those zones feel the most coherent contentwise (even if I loath Redcaps). Seriously, I wish the other zones had similar content.

The new zones have at least some meaning for made areas, but the old zones feel like they were made big for the sake of big. I can imagine Jack Emmert sitting on his chair, head tilting by the force of his "vision" that the players would wow at the "vast explorable areas" that just consist of copy-paste work with some bumps for "variation". Exploration is meaningless because you already know that behind that lowres rock there is nothing but same dull empty areas, and maybe a CoT spawn. Whoo, immersive.

We discussed this on the EU in this thread, back when Positron made the comment. Here's my initial argument from that thread:


Commenting on the following comment by Positron:

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, we'd rather add zones, since a revamp takes almost as much time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That it takes as much effort to revamp an existing zone as it takes to make a brand new one is no doubt true. It is also irrelevant and misses the point: a zone revamp gives a better result than a new zone does.

There are several reasons why this is so.

First of all, the game -- and particularly hero-side -- has too many zones as it is. The more zones there are, the more you spread the players out among them and the emptier the game appears.

Next, revamping an old zone will get rid of an eyesore. The old hazard zones are ugly, and they're also bland, boring and dull. Players are still sent into Boomtown and Dark Astoria by the mission system, and they still spend a lot of time in King's Row, the Hollows, Perez and Skyway. More importantly, people will judge the game's graphics as much on its ugliest zone as on its prettiest one.

Then, there is the fact that the existing zones have a presence and, for lack of a better term, "cultural baggage." People care about them; there's a sense of "here" to them: they're tied into the game world in a way that a new zone just can not match. And people like that. It makes the game feel more real. Ask a player which of Perez Park and Blood Bay feels more connected to the rest of the game, and I'll bet you dollars to dimes that 80% will answer Perez.

Further, revamping an existing zone brings with it a feeling of change and evolution that adding new zones lego-like to the rest of the game can't match. When zones change and develope it makes the city feel alive. It makes us feel that things are happening, that there is history. It help build the game's character. It strengthens the feel of Paragon City and the Rogue Isles. It is good storytelling.

Finally, just ask yourself which were best received and turned out to be the more popular: the revamped Faultline and Rikti War Site, or new zones like Cimeroia, Recluse's Victory and Croatoa?

What if one developer put in a few hours a week to Boomtown? Maybe every patch release one or two buildings change, maybe some construction sites move, etc. Something to show progress rather than this big bombed-out landscape with buildings that have been on fire for 6 years?

I have a funny Feel in the future they might revamp all the old Zones, Remember Atlas City is going be attack by the Shivans, which the Ourobos Story Arc is the warning to what will come. IF this coming Storm going to Attack or Destroy the world, it might just Destory or Change the Zones once and for all.

Also To note That WOW is Revamping all there Zones, just to and change events of the game play. So if Coh want to Update the zones or Graphic to the zones, they will in Time.

Why would you REPLACE already made zones and content just because some are tired of it and used it, with brand new content?

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to add and expand on content than replace?

Because it is easier to draw a picture on a blank canvas than it is a muddy one.