Richard Garriot's Future... More Swords and Dragons Online

[Slyfeind]

No.  No Diablo clones.  In fact I don't even want Diablo Fucking Three to play like Diablo.
TURN BASED OR FUCK OFF FOR ULTIMA PLEASE.

Come to think of it, has anybody made a turn-based RPG lately?

[schild]

If he wants to design again, I'd love to hear him working as "just" a designer on a project; contribute what he knows, and learn about what he doesn't know.

That said, I would kill for a Diablo clone set in Britannia, oh damn yes. He shoulda bought back Ultima from EA, instead of spending his money on a space ticket.

No.  No Diablo clones.  In fact I don't even want Diablo Fucking Three to play like Diablo.
TURN BASED OR FUCK OFF FOR ULTIMA PLEASE.

And especially given Ultima's track record when it comes to making an Ultima that plays like another game.

Ultima 8?  Shitty Landstalker clone.

Ultima 9?  Shitty Zelda Ocarina of Time clone.

Just give me games like Ultima 5 but with better graphics and an improved interface with automapping and quest notes.

Have I told you you're a freak today?

[Rasix]

No.  No Diablo clones.  In fact I don't even want Diablo Fucking Three to play like Diablo.
TURN BASED OR FUCK OFF FOR ULTIMA PLEASE.

Come to think of it, has anybody made a turn-based RPG lately?

Japan.

[Rasix]

Good luck to him, I don't understand all the hate for the crazy guy.

Me neither, dude make Ultima 6 and 7 for fuck sake.  Could spend the rest of his career churning out Puzzle Quest knock offs and still be a legend.

Goodwill wears off eventually.  Mike Shanahan got fired in Denver. Garriot hasn't put out anything good since Bill Clinton's first term.

[sidereal]

Good luck to him, I don't understand all the hate for the crazy guy.

Jealousy.  I'm crazy, but people don't throw boatloads of money at me and I don't get to live in a castle.

There may be a little disdain for resting on one's laurels and people elevating him to god-like status.  Pretty sure it's mostly jealousy though.

If I wanted to spend quality time being jealous of wealth I'd skip the small fish and go straight to Buffett.  I'm pissed at the Garriott situation because he symbolizes everything wrong with the Big Name phenomenon.  It's just celebrity worship.  People don't understand what makes games good, and in their ignorance they cling to recognizable names, like Garriott has some secret special sauce that makes games good.  He doesn't.  He's made many shitty games and 8,000 great games have been made since the last time he made a good one, but he's a Big Name so people give a fuck what he does, when in fact they should not.

[Jain Zar]

If he wants to design again, I'd love to hear him working as "just" a designer on a project; contribute what he knows, and learn about what he doesn't know.

That said, I would kill for a Diablo clone set in Britannia, oh damn yes. He shoulda bought back Ultima from EA, instead of spending his money on a space ticket.

No.  No Diablo clones.  In fact I don't even want Diablo Fucking Three to play like Diablo.
TURN BASED OR FUCK OFF FOR ULTIMA PLEASE.

And especially given Ultima's track record when it comes to making an Ultima that plays like another game.

Ultima 8?  Shitty Landstalker clone.

Ultima 9?  Shitty Zelda Ocarina of Time clone.

Just give me games like Ultima 5 but with better graphics and an improved interface with automapping and quest notes.

Have I told you you're a freak today?

You have been quoted as saying NES RPGs of the period were better than computer ones.  Your opinion?  Not so valid.  Except in that its mildly amusing to argue with you.
(Beats arguing with the customers at work, which could like be bad for job security and all...)

[schild]

I can also be found quoting that Dragon Warrior sucked. In fact, I don't and didn't like either. What's your point? Is there a problem I'm not pining for old archaic bullshit?

[Venkman]

I'd like to see him get one more shot. Even all we got was a well-funded freedom of choice skills-based game that devolved into a false belief of roving bands of PKs, we'd at least get a modern home for the few nuts who think that was Panacea so we can get back to evolving in a way more actual people want.

[UnSub]

The wiki entry on turn-based MMOs really isn't that positive. But there are some places to start.

To ask the newb question: wasn't Garriott more of a figurehead on UO too? Raph has always been the one I've associated with the top-level design.

What makes me smack my forehead over Garriott's comments is that fantasy is overdone, especially in MMOs. For him to somehow associate the failure of TR to its setting (which is the association I'm drawing - love to see RG's comments on TR at this point) is completely missing the point. Which I don't put past RG, but I'm always optimistic that people learn from their mistakes (the first time, of course - everyone gets a chance to show they've learned; making the same mistake twice shows they haven't).

[Sophismata]

Eh, I find the whole MMO business awfully depressing. The gaming industry needs to shape up.

[Soln]

What a cast of cutting edge, in the trenches, detailed, managers they interviewed.


Let's recap quickly.

PETER MOLYNEUX: I haven't played Fable 2, but I know it was buggy.  And frankly, what else has he done in the new millenium?
PAUL BARNETT: epic fail as a human being
RICHARD GARRIOTT: epic fail as a designer -- I mean, go follow the Grateful Dead already.
WILL WRIGHT: epic fail as a gamer -- he could've fought to not have dumbed down Spore as much as people complain, and frankly, he's burnout.
JOHNATHAN 'Fatal1ty' WENDEL: epic fail for contraception

[Aez]

JOHNATHAN 'Fatal1ty' WENDEL: epic fail for contraception

 

[schild]

I'd like to see him get one more shot.

No, he does not deserve a dime. Sorry. He should take his place in the annals of history and be content with that. All he's done for nearly the last decade is shit on his legacy. Thinking he can change is dumb. Thinking he DESERVES a chance to Right Things in the current economic climate is goddamn clownshoes. I'd rather see the $80M he'd need to produce another game to go 80 independent studios making iphone games.

[Venkman]

Well heck, with COMPLETE choice, I'd rather see almost anyone else BUT those entrenched or associated with current MMOs get the $80mil to make a new game. We need the sort of quality departure that only an outsider has a shot to bring. Wish I could win the lottery of something so we could run a contest here on who should get it. Really fun would be forcing a good developer not interested in MMOs to try anyway

[Goreschach]

Wish I could win the lottery of something so we could run a contest here on who should get it. Really fun would be forcing a good developer not interested in MMOs to try anyway

I think this is one of the main problems holding MMO's back. All the good developers that are interested in making good games don't want to touch an MMO, since the current design all the publishers want to see is basically the opposite of fun.

[UnSub]

Sorry, but no.

MMOs are hard. Very hard. 99% of all games out there are closed narratives (i.e. have a definite beginning, middle and end) even if they allow for some flexibility in how the player gets there.

MMOs are (for the most part) expected to be open narratives (i.e. the player chooses indefinitely what happens to their character among multiple pathways) or closed narratives with nigh-infinite content (get to the end of one story, move on to a new beginning).

If I were a publisher with $80 million to spend, apart from WoW I wouldn't see much on the PC that really interested me. So I'd be looking at a single player title on multiple platforms as a better bet for a decent ROI. MMOs aren't yet multi-platform, so that makes them less attractive.

If I was doing a MMO, I'd be looking at the successful ones thus far and conclude that the basic diku mechanic is essential to a successful title. Then I wouldn't want that diku pace to be too fast to allow more content to be developed before a critical mass of players got to the max lvl. Then I'd think that good loot and raids also seem pretty popular... 

A good single player developer in no way, shape or form is likely to be a good MMO developer. I think this is what Bioware is going to find out the hard way. They've already said it is like developing several games in one and their most complex title to date: just wait til they actually let the players in.

[Sophismata]

Hmmm, if I were an $80M publisher, I'd be prepared to try something more risky (WoW seems to have captured the DIKU audience, other DIKU alternatives have crashed), but not prepared to actually trust anyone with the project (startup has no experience, and so far, (almost) all the experienced MMO developers seem to be retarded). So, no MMO from me.

[Venkman]

This is why it'll take an outsider to change things. Or for the market expectations or demographics to change. Or more likely, all three.

The basic problem is not that these are written as open endless narratives. It's that they're very light quasi-RPGs with an ending the player determine, and the most successful ones have forced co-op multiplayer after a certain amount of time in the game.

UO and Eve are not so strictly linear. They are the essence of "massively multiplayer" in that they are diverse worlds with multiple ways of having a virtual life within. THAT is a hard game to make because it's so far outside the usual development thinking. You don't bang out a system like that.

WoW by comparison is a few million people across a few thousand servers playing small multiplayer experiences in a crapload of well managed content. This is why I disagree that Bioware is going to have a problem. Based on what they've said so far it seems they're making a game they've already made but just with a lot more content and eventually some co-op.

So that's why I say an outside.

[Jain Zar]

Shit, if I had 80 mil to make games I would use 10 million to get old computer and videogame rights, then the other 70 to revamp and rerelease the games on XBLA, Wiiware, and iPod Touch/iPhone.

Probably make 50-70 revamps and more damned money that way. 

[DLRiley]

This is why it'll take an outsider to change things. Or for the market expectations or demographics to change. Or more likely, all three.

The basic problem is not that these are written as open endless narratives. It's that they're very light quasi-RPGs with an ending the player determine, and the most successful ones have forced co-op multiplayer after a certain amount of time in the game.

UO and Eve are not so strictly linear. They are the essence of "massively multiplayer" in that they are diverse worlds with multiple ways of having a virtual life within. THAT is a hard game to make because it's so far outside the usual development thinking. You don't bang out a system like that.

WoW by comparison is a few million people across a few thousand servers playing small multiplayer experiences in a crapload of well managed content. This is why I disagree that Bioware is going to have a problem. Based on what they've said so far it seems they're making a game they've already made but just with a lot more content and eventually some co-op.

So that's why I say an outside.

Massive multiplayer is not the loaded statement you seem to think it is. Having more then 10 players in any given area of the game is "massive" enough really. Also there is really no such thing as a linear mmorpg, since (with current popular design) there is no way for a developer to guarantee that players will follow A to B to C type gameplay. Developers can and often do provide incentives for players to do particular content in certain ways or order. But by and large, if I chose to ignore all the quest and missions a game may provide, my ability to progress doesn't literally stop and neither most important my ability to play the game suddenly stop.

EvE and UO are "open" in the sense that Linx is open source. You can add to the game things that previously wasn't in the game and interactions with other players are not strictly regulated to co-op and pk only in certain areas/instances. Beyond that as games UO and EvE was never really more "free" then any other mmorpg. Though the ruleset allows you to do things you normally don't do in most mmo's.

I have to disagree with UnSub. BioWare problem will be forgetting that people actually have to play their game. I don't think BioWare will simply have a problem because by the nature of designing an mmo they will have a problem. Yes there are bad single player games, but by and large the game industry expects good games to come out of developers. At least the gamers do. Mmo players by and large don't demand the mmo developers to make better games, and thus mmo developers don't make good games. All BioWare or any future developer has to do is spend 99% of their time making replay able content and 1% of their time developing repetitive content. That easily 200-300k subs, not WoW busting but turns a profit and can grow if the replay able content fun.

[schild]

1. Replayable and Replayability are traditionally 1 word.
2. I can count on 1 hand the number of North American MMOs with 200-300k people. It's apparently NOT easy, >_<, (talking about 3D worldspaces that are actual games, not Second Life, etc. OR things like club penguin).

[DLRiley]

1. Replayable and Replayability are traditionally 1 word.
2. I can count on 1 hand the number of North American MMOs with 200-300k people. It's apparently NOT easy, >_<, (talking about 3D worldspaces that are actual games, not Second Life, etc. OR things like club penguin).

Making bad games attract 200-300k players is not easy. Out of all the mmo's in North America how many are actually good games? Even WoW, the undisputed king of mmo land is hardly a great game by gaming standards. Designing an mmo is hard but I don't think you blame bad game design because of that.

[schild]

Designing an mmo is hard but I don't think you blame bad game design because of that.

Why the hell wouldn't I? A bad MMOG is the result of bad game design.

[Venkman]

Making bad games attract 200-300k players is not easy. Out of all the mmo's in North America how many are actually good games? Even WoW, the undisputed king of mmo land is hardly a great game by gaming standards.

True, but that's more because of the genre they entered.

Having more then 10 players in any given area of the game is "massive" enough really. Also there is really no such thing as a linear mmorpg

When 64v64 FPS matches become commonplace, then the line will have blurred. In the meantime, "massive" to me is the old SB banes, any given Eve war, and old Planetside fights (unless they're still big?). It's not just the amount of people (100+), it's the contribution to permanence, whether the razing of a city, turnover of a system, or even the relatively temporary locking of an island. Every other genre has battles that end by some pre-condition and followed by an instance reset. MMO battles in "massive" games do not.

But again, this is why aside from WoW's sheer world size and amount of players, I don't consider it as "massive" as Eve or SB. Lots of people, sure, but all going about their own business by themselves or in small groups. Because that's how the game was designed to be enjoyed, and that's how the playerbase seems to want it.

On linearity: yes, developers can only only compel and then design gates around emergent behavior. But this is not so different from traditional RPGs. The extra layer of complexity is that ANY player in an area can interact with the same mob you are. But even there, that is why the more successful games of devolved the massiveness into compartmentalized game encounters.

UO and Eve (and pre-NGE SWG) are so very different from WoW and the other diku-inspired games. Mostly it is because the player interactions were/are much more important than the player/mob interactions. This transcends everything from character abilities to encounters to equipment to resources and all rolled up into very different types of player economies.

Mmo players by and large don't demand the mmo developers to make better games, and thus mmo developers don't make good games.

Incorrect. You see that with any game that launches and tank, or outright closes. You can have 300k players and it not be enough to keep the game going. That means you failed, and that only happened because players came, and then left. Most other genres need not worry about that.

[UnSub]

All BioWare or any future developer has to do is spend 99% of their time making replay able content and 1% of their time developing repetitive content. That easily 200-300k subs, not WoW busting but turns a profit and can grow if the replay able content fun.

Please define your terms. Replayable vs repetitive content? What's the difference?

Bioware is going to run into the "MMO players skip the story, want the phat loot, where's the next mish?" problem. In short: MMO players are the problem. Single player games have a different emphasis. So I think we agree on the issue, even if we've phrased it differently.

[DLRiley]

All BioWare or any future developer has to do is spend 99% of their time making replay able content and 1% of their time developing repetitive content. That easily 200-300k subs, not WoW busting but turns a profit and can grow if the replay able content fun.

Please define your terms. Replayable vs repetitive content? What's the difference?

Bioware is going to run into the "MMO players skip the story, want the phat loot, where's the next mish?" problem. In short: MMO players are the problem. Single player games have a different emphasis. So I think we agree on the issue, even if we've phrased it differently.

Repetitive content is any content you have to grind. A mob is an example of repetitive content because you have to fight said group of monsters multiple times in order to advance, get money, or items. Most of the activities players do to get from low level to max level is repetitive content besides quest (though the same quest type can appear over and over).

Then there is Replayable content which is parts of the game you can simple play again. This is usually associated with end game content and missions. In Guild Wars all missions were replayable except the very early mission. A mob can be considered replayable content if the mob presents a challenge to you and there is no hidden need to advance your character by killing this mob multiple times. There isn't a hard line between replayable content vs repetitive, some task you know your doing over and over again for loot/items and some task you simple do because it is offered. PvP is the prime example, one hand in some games PvP is just apart of the grind for levels or items, on another hand is PVP once advancement is over is replayable content that can keep a good segment of the player base happy indefinitely.

You are right, current mmo players desire to see advancement, but that is because most games save the replayable content till the end game while making you go through repetitive content. Once players play a game where advancement is completely a none factor (not just advertised to be) gamers will focus on the actual content of the game and see if it is fun or not. If BioWare is smart vertical advancement will end very quickly and 70% of the game will be "end game" by mmo standards. If BioWare does what WAR and AoC tried to do and say "well levels and shit don't matter cause my game is fun every level", people will burn through the 1-** content fast and find that there is significantly less things to do once the vertical advancement stops. If you focus on a story in mmo-land it'll be an very good idea to end the vertical advancement as soon as possible. Otherwise players will ignore the story.

schild I think we miss understood each other, bad game design of course = bad mmo. I was saying mmo design being hard != an excuse for bad game design.

Darn I think your simple describing player involvement not how big it is. I find that the larger the game scales the less the individual player has to contribute and the less massive the game feels since your actions have very little consequence. However that is not entirely true most of the time. I don't find EvE or UO pushing the limits on how I interact with the game. It just forces me to deal with other players instead of the environment in a non-co op way. Beyond that if the basic reason you play an mmo is to be online with a couple of buddies and see how much crap you can do in 2-3 hours? I haven't played an mmo that truly felt different to me in that regard. Which is sad because that's the fundamental level a game has to tap into in order to truly separate itself from the crowd.

I think by and large the mmo player base is too willing to play any old bullshit and thats pretty why Mythic and Funcom thought they could get away with making such crappy products. Same with Hellgate london and Tabula Rasa, even if there good games hidden under that mess, the mistakes they made were just too obvious.

[Venkman]

I agree with you on Mythic and Funcom, but you need to remember these were old-school MMO developers. The genre went and changed under them while they were so deep into the of their swan songs that they didn't have time to pay attention to what else was going on (a common occurrence unfortunately).

I find that the larger the game scales the less the individual player has to contribute and the less massive the game feels since your actions have very little consequence. However that is not entirely true most of the time. I don't find EvE or UO pushing the limits on how I interact with the game

I agree with the first part but not the second. But before I go into why: did you play either and if so what roles did you play in them?

[DLRiley]

I agree with you on Mythic and Funcom, but you need to remember these were old-school MMO developers. The genre went and changed under them while they were so deep into the of their swan songs that they didn't have time to pay attention to what else was going on (a common occurrence unfortunately).

I find that the larger the game scales the less the individual player has to contribute and the less massive the game feels since your actions have very little consequence. However that is not entirely true most of the time. I don't find EvE or UO pushing the limits on how I interact with the game

I agree with the first part but not the second. But before I go into why: did you play either and if so what roles did you play in them?

been too long for me to remember UO with detail, the game never left that big of an impression on me and I didn't stick around for the first expansion. EvE I tried to get into but got bored after a while which is said since on paper it looked like my game.

[Venkman]

Ok. The reason I ask is because I was suspecting either that answer or some variant of trying to play UO or Eve like one would EQ1 through WoW. As PvE experiences, both games are weak; however, because you can play that way, the impression is that these experiences are like the multitude of others.

The biggest difference in both is the element of actual choice among an array of options that span far beyond just variants on four different ways of fighting pre-programmed AI within pre-scripted guaranteed-outcome encounters. Each different path offered it's own unique game play, method of advancement and contribution to a larger server society and economy. You could be a Blacksmith in UO and just be a Blacksmith, from "level 0" to "level 100". You can spend all of your time making a huge business just hauling shit around space in Eve, as the skills necessary and the expertise you gain are very different from someone who flies tackling frigates. This also existed in early SWG to a degree, but that wasn't the game the players expected so didn't maintain enough of a business to prevent SOE from changing it outright.

Meanwhile, in WoW, like most other diku games, you can be a crafter as long as you bolt that onto some type of adventuring/hunting class. And for the most part you are going to be limited in your crafting until you achieve certain levels on your class.

That is the difference: mob genocide along a path of gear advancement (which merely contributes to your efficiency in doing so) vs a virtual society where that particular path is weak but complemented with completely different roles.

[DLRiley]

Ok. The reason I ask is because I was suspecting either that answer or some variant of trying to play UO or Eve like one would EQ1 through WoW. As PvE experiences, both games are weak; however, because you can play that way, the impression is that these experiences are like the multitude of others.

The biggest difference in both is the element of actual choice among an array of options that span far beyond just variants on four different ways of fighting pre-programmed AI within pre-scripted guaranteed-outcome encounters. Each different path offered it's own unique game play, method of advancement and contribution to a larger server society and economy. You could be a Blacksmith in UO and just be a Blacksmith, from "level 0" to "level 100". You can spend all of your time making a huge business just hauling shit around space in Eve, as the skills necessary and the expertise you gain are very different from someone who flies tackling frigates. This also existed in early SWG to a degree, but that wasn't the game the players expected so didn't maintain enough of a business to prevent SOE from changing it outright.

Meanwhile, in WoW, like most other diku games, you can be a crafter as long as you bolt that onto some type of adventuring/hunting class. And for the most part you are going to be limited in your crafting until you achieve certain levels on your class.

That is the difference: mob genocide along a path of gear advancement (which merely contributes to your efficiency in doing so) vs a virtual society where that particular path is weak but complemented with completely different roles.

Well pretty much described a simulator, doesn't really excite my lust for general destruction and mayhem the way a game would. Not saying a EVE or UO were bad, they just weren't something I'm willing to pay for. Don't get me wrong I think WoW is trash, but the notion of a virtual society doesn't strike me as special. I think most mmo players prefer their society to be a small circle of RL friends you play with in game, friends you met in game, and guild/clan. Beyond that I generally prefer beating the crap out of something as intelligently as possible.

Sadly my sneaking suspension is that EVE and games like EVE can only truly attract a large market share if they are f2p. If you give the average gamer a choice between paying 15$ a month on a space sim vs 15$ a month on a mob genocide, people will pick mob genocide 200:1. But if said space sim was free then those 200 people who would rather do mob genocide would probably mess around with the space sim. Unfortunately I don't think a game like EVE can be supported by cash shop, unlike low quality mob genocide games, so the day when virtual society games take over the world isn't coming any time soon.

[Venkman]

UO and Eve are only examples of what exists. To really do this type of game for the mass market, you'd need to bolt WoW's level of well-crafted PvE onto these types of systems.

And that's the underlying business problem. There's really just no reason for a big company to bother. If a buggy-but-beautiful trainwreck like AoC can have almost four times as many accounts as UO had at its peak, what possible reason is there to add a sim to it? Adding UO or Eve subscribers to WoW would barely eke out a 5% increase in playerbase against the MUCH greater (and different) degree of complexity required.

This doesn't mean it can't nor won't be done. I just don't see it coming from anyone working with the sort of budget needed to do it right. The last team that tried was SWG.

[WindupAtheist]

Ultima 9 was an Ocarina of Time clone? Schild, you need to Just Stop Talking when it comes to any RPG that isn't from Japan.

[schild]

Ultima 9 was an Ocarina of Time clone?

What?! Where did I say that? Did someone edit one of my posts!?

That was Jain Zar and I responded asking if I told him he was a freak that day.

[WindupAtheist]

Woops, you're right. I apologize.

Bad Jain Zar. I thought you were my kind of nerd when you ran into the mech thread and started humping it, but now I shall have to think again.

[Jain Zar]

Well isn't it though?  Its a 3d action adventure with limited RPG elements.  Cept while OoT is a pretty damned good game, U9... isn't.

And I am sadly nobody's kind of nerd, or anything else.  I exist on my own little wierd, lonely plateau with the odd strand that connects me to whatever reality every one else seems to inhabit.  :(