WAR to be released...

[Lum]

This, which is what I was responding to, is not a statement of interest in the industry, it is a claim that it is reaonsable to talk about games as an industry and only as industry.

No. It is an acknowledgement of the reality that when an MMO costs upwards of $50 million to produce, it no longer is purely an artistic endeavor. At that point, you have to justify the investment made with something other than "dude, it's ART" or you are being criminally irresponsible with someone else's money.

You can say LOTRO or WoW or whatever is devoid of good gameplay or is boring or has poor art or whatever. All of these may or may not be valid. But when you start flinging around terms like "LOTRO was a failure", then you are in the realm of business, not art. You may REALLY REALLY HATE the latest Katy Perry album, but it is incontestably a commercial success.

[lamaros]

This, which is what I was responding to, is not a statement of interest in the industry, it is a claim that it is reaonsable to talk about games as an industry and only as industry.

No. It is an acknowledgement of the reality that when an MMO costs upwards of $50 million to produce, it no longer is purely an artistic endeavor. At that point, you have to justify the investment made with something other than "dude, it's ART" or you are being criminally irresponsible with someone else's money.

You confusing things.

Something can be a financial success or not. Reasonably objective if we agree on expectations.

Someting can be an artistic success or not. Subjective.

At no point am I saying that we should only consider the latter. I'm just saying that trying to argue the latter based on the former is stupid.

Is WoW a good game? On the first criteria I think we would all have to agree it is, but that doesn't mean schild is necessarily wrong when he says it's not; because he's judging it on a different criteria. The former is only a necessary part of the latter if we include "financially stable, long running, large playerbase" as part of our criteria, and many of us do not. Even if we do include that in our criteria, that does not mean it becomes more important than any other criteria we might have, such as "runs on my pc", "combat mechanics are smooth, simple and responsive", or whatever else we desire to include. If it fails these other aspects we are justified in saying it is not a good game.

[squirrel]

This, which is what I was responding to, is not a statement of interest in the industry, it is a claim that it is reaonsable to talk about games as an industry and only as industry.

LOTRO is not necessarily a good game if it is a sucessful product. It might be a good game to some, it is not to many others. There is no objective position to take here; when we talk about whether or not we think games are good we talk about our feeling for the game. To say "nah, you're wrong, it's a good game because it made money" is bullshit. You want to talk about the industry and success and whatever then fine, it's interesting, but don't try and use it to make claims about how subjectivly 'good' a game may have been.

(Also this thread was stupid and I like to get in on the stupid stuff, so I had to say something).

Which nobody actually said by the way. If you read the argument, all anyone said is that LoTRO was not a "failure/bomb" as premised by Cevik. Not a single person said it was a good game because it made money. Some said it was a good game because they enjoyed it. Others said it was a good investment because it made money. These things are not equal. So, yeah. Keep on keeping on though, with the retards thing.

[lamaros]

MMOs are not artistic creations. They are businesses.

But when you start flinging around terms like "LOTRO was a failure", then you are in the realm of business, not art.

The Da Vinci Code is full of fai.. hmm.

The Da Vinci Code, as a well researched, fun to read, intelligent thriller is a failu.. wait, I can't say that either.

Umm.

This thread, despite the recent flurry of posts, is a failure.

ITS NOT FUN ANYMORE MOMMY MAKE THE RIDE STOP

Oh look, it's my stop.

[MahrinSkel]

So you're just winding us up for fun.  I'm tempted to break out the flamethrower, but I'll try this instead: What would make a game "Artistically Successful"?  Given that a persistant online game doesn't exist when nobody pays the server bill, how could an online game be "Artistically successful" (regardless of how you define that) without commercial success?

--Dave

[lamaros]

So you're just winding us up for fun.  I'm tempted to break out the flamethrower, but I'll try this instead: What would make a game "Artistically Successful"?  Given that a persistant online game doesn't exist when nobody pays the server bill, how could an online game be "Artistically successful" (regardless of how you define that) without commercial success?

At no point am I saying that we should only consider the latter

At no point am I saying that we should only consider the latter

At no point am I saying that we should only consider the latter

At no point am I saying that we should only consider the latter

Is reading really that hard?

Because I really don't want to say more in this thread (I was afterall just being stupid and drawing out a point) I will add some more to simplify this:

A - finacial success
B - shiny
C - artistic success
D - a good game

1. If A and B then C.
2. If C then D.

If A, then D is false.
If B, then D is false.
If A and B, then D is true.

(What terrible notation).

[MahrinSkel]

To the extent that isn't gibberish, it's bullshit.  If your standards for "artistically successful" is only that something be both financially successful and "shiny", your standards are considerably lower than mine.  Not to mention that "shiny" is an undefined term that seems to stand in for "artistic merit" in your formulation, making the whole thing a recursive pile of crap.

I gave you a chance to redeem your stupidity, you didn't take it.  Fuck off.

--Dave

[Lakov_Sanite]

To the extent that isn't gibberish, it's bullshit.  If your standards for "artistically successful" is only that something be both financially successful and "shiny", your standards are considerably lower than mine.  Not to mention that "shiny" is an undefined term that seems to stand in for "artistic merit" in your formulation, making the whole thing a recursive pile of crap.

I gave you a chance to redeem your stupidity, you didn't take it.  Fuck off.

--Dave

Scary movie 2 made enough money to be successful and pump out sequels. It may not have been flop but would anyone put it in even their top twenty list?

[lamaros]

To the extent that isn't gibberish, it's bullshit.  If your standards for "artistically successful" is only that something be both financially successful and "shiny", your standards are considerably lower than mine.  Not to mention that "shiny" is an undefined term that seems to stand in for "artistic merit" in your formulation, making the whole thing a recursive pile of crap.

I gave you a chance to redeem your stupidity, you didn't take it.  Fuck off.

--Dave

I knew I should have left them as just letters, but I thought that would confuse you even more. How wrong I was. Logic is even harder than reading.

[Trippy]

Alright guys, find something else to argue about.

[Oban]

Alright guys, find something else to argue about.

I hear Mythic is releasing an online game based on the Warhammer universe, how do you think they will handle all of the potential classes available?

[Megrim]

oh u

[Trippy]

I hear Mythic is releasing an online game based on the Warhammer universe, how do you think they will handle all of the potential classes available?

I think I heard somewhere that they had to cut some classes to make their release date

[JWIV]

I hear Mythic is releasing an online game based on the Warhammer universe, how do you think they will handle all of the potential classes available?

I think I heard somewhere that they had to cut some classes to make their release date

Don't be cynical.  It could be as Marc says and that they just weren't fun and never would have been.   

[tmp]

A - finacial success
B - shiny
C - artistic success
D - a good game

What defines B?

[Oban]

Shiny:
   
Something that is great, neat, very cool, peachy keen.
From the short lived Joss Whedon television series "Firefly."
"Have a shiny day."

[cevik]

You can say LOTRO or WoW or whatever is devoid of good gameplay or is boring or has poor art or whatever. All of these may or may not be valid. But when you start flinging around terms like "LOTRO was a failure", then you are in the realm of business, not art. You may REALLY REALLY HATE the latest Katy Perry album, but it is incontestably a commercial success.

To be fair, and to risk sparking this debate again, I said "artistic failure" but it was because I was in a hurry to get home from work.  I think in a pure business sense, if I were investing money and expecting a return on said money, that the result we've seen out of LotRO is extremely poor compared to the result I would have expected before launch.  Perhaps I'm a crazed nut that just wants America to LoseTurbine to fail or something, but 200k peak and then a slowly dwindling subscription base afterward just doesn't seem worth the initial investment into the game.

I may be wrong, the numbers I have to go by may be wrong (but I notice Turbine isn't rushing out to give us real numbers to work with), and it may be a smashing success, but if I were an investor I'd be more than just a bit disappointed in the results.

[Montague]

Idle curiosity question:

Why are people so wrapped up in whether an MMO is or was considered a success or not? Nobody gives a shit about single player games, at least I don't remember any threads discussing the finer points of whether S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was a financial or artistic success. Is it because people get butthurt that games they don't like continue to draw in millions of dollars of revenue a month?

[cevik]

Is it because people get butthurt that games they don't like continue to draw in millions of dollars of revenue a month?

Or is it because they are so in love with their little precious snowflake that when someone with a penchant for hyperbole and a lack of seriousness makes a flippant and offhanded remark that they fly into a fit of nerd rage and create three pages of posts saying "NUH UH!"?

[Soln]

all trolling aside it's an interesting question -- if kept objective -- of why some MMO's succeed and some don't.  And by success I think it's fair to use sub count.  Box sales translate to nice license sales, but it's recurring revenue plus the cool allure of a healthy community that keeps some games in the spotlight.

For instance, I can't succinctly say why DDO and LotRO and Eve and others didn't work for me without bringing up a lot of subjective, anecdotal design issues.  But isn't that enough?  If a player can't feel they are succeeding/learning/whatever-fun-criteria then can't a player then claim those games didn't succeed for them?

Again, I'm not trolling but it seems fair for players to wonder about the criteria of playability of certain games and then pass that on to other players.

[amiable]

Is it because people get butthurt that games they don't like continue to draw in millions of dollars of revenue a month?

Or is it because they are so in love with their little precious snowflake that when someone with a penchant for hyperbole and a lack of seriousness makes a flippant and offhanded remark that they fly into a fit of nerd rage and create three pages of posts saying "NUH UH!"?

Not really.  We were trying to make a point about game completeness and restricted leveling in open Beta.  You turned it into a 3 page flame war over the success/failure of LOTRO.

[cevik]

Is it because people get butthurt that games they don't like continue to draw in millions of dollars of revenue a month?

Or is it because they are so in love with their little precious snowflake that when someone with a penchant for hyperbole and a lack of seriousness makes a flippant and offhanded remark that they fly into a fit of nerd rage and create three pages of posts saying "NUH UH!"?

Not really.  We were trying to make a point about game completeness and restricted leveling in open Beta.  You turned it into a 3 page flame war over the success/failure of LOTRO.

It takes two to tango.

[amiable]

It takes two to tango.
[/quote]

Res ipsa loquitur.

[cevik]

It takes two to tango.

Res ipsa loquitur.

So, show me again on the doll where AoC touched you.

[Mrbloodworth]

all trolling aside it's an interesting question -- if kept objective -- of why some MMO's succeed and some don't.  And by success I think it's fair to use sub count.  Box sales translate to nice license sales, but it's recurring revenue plus the cool allure of a healthy community that keeps some games in the spotlight.

For instance, I can't succinctly say why DDO and LotRO and Eve and others didn't work for me without bringing up a lot of subjective, anecdotal design issues.  But isn't that enough?  If a player can't feel they are succeeding/learning/whatever-fun-criteria then can't a player then claim those games didn't succeed for them?

Again, I'm not trolling but it seems fair for players to wonder about the criteria of playability of certain games and then pass that on to other players.

Depends on what we are talking about, like i said before. Are we talking technical: bug's, stability, design, art direction.

Or are we talking "Is it fun".  They are to diffrent things, one can happen without the other.

I had original said that "LOTRO was one of the best CRAFTED games to come out in a while".  That had nothing to do with "Is it fun".  But someone needed to make sure everyone knew they hated that game and that they were canceling the preorders on hearsay..

To answer your question directly. Yes, its just fine, sadly thats not what the conversation was about, thats when it went downhill.

There was also a very valid counter point/consideration made that seems to cause anger.

No, the NDA is a separate bundle of fail.

Level-restricting an open beta just makes me think that the restricted parts aren't done. It also reminds me of DAoC where entire level bands of content just were not finished.

I'm hoping the game isn't a sack of fail. I want it to succeed, I like Mark Jacobs and Mythic because of their middleware approach to the creation of DAoC. But the less transparency there is this close to release and in open beta, the less faith I have in the product.

LOTRO level-restricted its Beta and it had all (or most) of its content done.  I think you are just looking for something to be annoyed about.

With respect to war... 

LOTRO was a flook in a sea of Non-NDA dropping, leading to exactly where HaemishM's well founded fears come from. Its the exception to the rule, amiable was trying to point out. It also still had nothing to do with "Is it fun" or "How many subscribers does it have", its completely about ...well, completeness.

We now return you to your regularly schedule trolling.

[Montague]

Is it because people get butthurt that games they don't like continue to draw in millions of dollars of revenue a month?

Or is it because they are so in love with their little precious snowflake that when someone with a penchant for hyperbole and a lack of seriousness makes a flippant and offhanded remark that they fly into a fit of nerd rage and create three pages of posts saying "NUH UH!"?

Or both. I'm just curious why MMO's evoke such a strong reaction one way or the other from people who (I assume) don't play the game? Those who are still playing the game I can understand.

[Nebu]

I'm just curious why MMO's evoke such a strong reaction one way or the other from people who (I assume) don't play the game? Those who are still playing the game I can understand.

I think it's because those that aren't playing could be playing if they found a game worth playing. 

[cevik]

There was also a very valid counter point/consideration made that seems to cause anger.

I'm assuming you are aiming this at me, but honestly I think you are projecting your anger on to me.

As I repeatedly said above, I think LotRO was a failure when compared to the expectations that I, and I assume most, people had about the possibilities for the property at launch.  While I realize the flame war immediately preceeding this flame war involved changing the word "think" to "absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is fact", I'm still using the more colloquial and quaint form of the language where think means think.

Not once was I ever angry.  Sure I felt sorry for you, and I think much less of your opinion now than I did before yesterday, but to be honest I didn't think much of your opinion before yesterday anyway, so it's pretty much a wash.  But no, no anger.  Unless we're using a new form of English where the word anger now means mild amusement.

The skin around here used to be much thicker, but I like the new thin skinned f13, it's pleasing to the soul to watch people get so easily offended by a self confessed drug abusing alcoholic that admittedly has never had anything important to say.

[amiable]

While I realize the flame war immediately preceeding this flame war involved changing the word "think" to "absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is fact", I'm still using the more colloquial and quaint form of the language where think means think.

Actually I think it was over changing "think" to "defacto."  Do we need to bust out the dictionary defintion of defacto again?  (Hint:  It is not "absolutely know beyond the shadow of a doubt" it is closer to "actually").  And when I figured out what the beef was I apologized for the poor word choice. 

Of course it is irrelevant to the point.  Haemish was concerned that there was limited access in the Beta.  He said it made him think the game was not complete.  I was trying to provide an example of where that wasn't the case.  Hilarity ensued.    

[cevik]

While I realize the flame war immediately preceeding this flame war involved changing the word "think" to "absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is fact", I'm still using the more colloquial and quaint form of the language where think means think.

Actually I think it was over changing "think" to "defacto."  Do we need to bust out the dictionary defintion of defacto again?  (Hint:  It is not "absolutely know beyond the shadow of a doubt" it is closer to "actually").  And when I figured out what the beef was I apologized for the poor word choice. 

Hyperbole, amiable, hyperbole.

[amiable]

While I realize the flame war immediately preceeding this flame war involved changing the word "think" to "absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is fact", I'm still using the more colloquial and quaint form of the language where think means think.

Actually I think it was over changing "think" to "defacto."  Do we need to bust out the dictionary defintion of defacto again?  (Hint:  It is not "absolutely know beyond the shadow of a doubt" it is closer to "actually").  And when I figured out what the beef was I apologized for the poor word choice. 

Hyperbole, amiable, hyperbole.

Didn't you just spend 3 pages flogging me over hyperbole? 

[cevik]

While I realize the flame war immediately preceeding this flame war involved changing the word "think" to "absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is fact", I'm still using the more colloquial and quaint form of the language where think means think.

Actually I think it was over changing "think" to "defacto."  Do we need to bust out the dictionary defintion of defacto again?  (Hint:  It is not "absolutely know beyond the shadow of a doubt" it is closer to "actually").  And when I figured out what the beef was I apologized for the poor word choice. 

Hyperbole, amiable, hyperbole.

Didn't you just spend 3 pages flogging me over hyperbole? 

And fun times were had by all.

[Fordel]

MMO's more then other games, let you feel like you're contributing to the design/creation process. Usually that feeling (true or false) is reserved for the folks in a alpha/beta. But as we all know, a MMO never stops developing, so there is always time to 'effect change'.

As in any environment, idea's often conflict and etc. 

[Ingmar]

Anyway, if we really want to know why WAR is going to suck, we need look no further:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19660

#11 is probably the most egregious thing in the interview, but crapping all over the Civ games other than Civ 1 and Revolutions is pretty ridiculous too.

EDIT 1: Seriously though - let's fire the talented people who have the gall to criticize decisions we're making, while keeping the untalented ones who blindy say "yay team"? That's no way to run *any* business.

EDIT 2: Man I can't stop coming back to this. A friend of mine just said, essentially, its like he admitted, publically, that he can't manage people, so he just hires lackeys. That is pretty much how that reads. Astounding.

[Triforcer]

I'd be more worried if it was Mark Jacobs saying that.  Barnett's just a crazy p.r. frontman type, all MMOs have that type.