Richard Bartle on MMO design (IMGDC 09)

[Draegan]

What's the difference between an MMO and an indie MMO?

[SnakeCharmer]

Having stockholders.

[Matt]

he birthed both MMOs and indie MMOs

Christ. Not this again.

I think you're missing the point. This was IMGDC. Keynoting a minor conference is not a big deal. It's not GDC. It's not E3. It's not PAX. With all due respect to IMGDC and Dr. Bartle (whom I respect, apparently unlike some of you), it's not as if it's the kind of conference where you expect to see Rob Pardo keynoting. You seem to hear "keynote" and think, "Omygod he's being blessed as the expert of all experts by the entire games industry! We can't have that! Let's slam him for being too uppity!"

Whether the comparison is apt or not is beside the point, but if Thomas Edison were alive I'm sure having him keynote a conference on the energy challenges we face in the 21st century would still be very interesting regardless of whether he's done anything since way back when.


--matt

[Khaldun]

[
Easily, but who gives a shit about who I am?

So if you have an ambition to be given a shit over, get out there and start writing and talking. Unless you think conference organizers troll nerd boards and say, "Hey, that guy there, I like some of his two-sentence posts and his forum name is cool, let's invite him to give a talk even though none of us know who is or whether he's a drooling retard in person". If you don't have any interest in writing or talking about games outside of work you've done and boards you post to, then why bitch about somebody else doing so? Because they said something you'd say and you're irritated that you didn't get to say it instead? Or because you've got something else to say and a burning ambition to do it? If it's the ambition thing, then get out there and get heard--there's places to publish that will get you some reputation capital.

[Matt]

What's the difference between an MMO and an indie MMO?

Not a discussion I find very interesting insofar as I don't care whether something is "corporate" or "indie" only whether it's "good". It's why I don't go to IMGDC (and turned down an invitation to speak at it. Well that and I get conference burn-out very easily. They put IMGDC too soon after GDC.)

However, I'm sure MUD 1 would be considered indie by absolutely anyone's standards.

--matt

[Hutch]

And I don't really understand what Lum was trying to say.

He was saying "Richard Bartle is rubber, and F13 is glue. You called him a neckbeard, I'm going to do the same to you! Boing fwip!"

Also, "There's no way Richard Bartle will notice this discussion in a forum thread, so please read about it on my blog".

[Draegan]

What's the difference between an MMO and an indie MMO?

Not a discussion I find very interesting insofar as I don't care whether something is "corporate" or "indie" only whether it's "good". It's why I don't go to IMGDC (and turned down an invitation to speak at it. Well that and I get conference burn-out very easily. They put IMGDC too soon after GDC.)

However, I'm sure MUD 1 would be considered indie by absolutely anyone's standards.

--matt

 

I know the difference between corporate and indie.  You said he birthed both, I'm not sure what the distinction would be in that regard.  An MMOG is an MMOG regardless of it's funding.

[schild]

Matt, we know (or at least I know) that you are completely incapable of not defending Bartle. He's your forefather. He created your livelihood. Fact of the matter is that your comparison to Edison is just pure madness. First of all, Edison never stopped progressing. He didn't dick off to an ivory tower where he could repeat the same shit for 30+ years. A more apt comparison would be comparing Bartle to an 80s band. 30 years later, they're still performing the same shit for the same people at the same venues because they have no marketable skill in today's economy. I'm SO SORRY for discounting your predecessor to that.

Not really.

Get over it.

I'm glad you keep making money off MUDs. But please, don't pop up whenever MUDs come up with completely predictable tripe. Though, this time, I didn't expect anything as ridiculous as the Edison comparison.

Also, he didn't birth either. All he did was birth and INFLICT THE DISEASE that is diku. We'd have virtual worlds and such today without him. The internet GUARANTEED IT.

[patience]

4) That if you're going to bitch that Richard Bartle needs to be making games rather than analyzing them, why doesn't this apply to literally everyone?

I'll make a deal with you, in 23 years, if we're still here bitching about the same stuff, I'll nuke the mmog forum from orbit. That's how long Bartle has been in his ivory tower.

Simply put, there's a statute of limitations on wankery.

You've built up an excellent straw man there though.

Meh. I've always taken the position that academics are like reporters and editors rolled into one. They aren't interested in making things happen but telling you how and why it unfolds. It ruffles my feathers they don't do as much about something they talk so passionately about but it doesn't hurt that someone is putting the time to research the material and condensing into something proactive people can follow as useful advice.

Even though Bartle repeats himself everytime he does manage to say something new and interesting when I read his work and it helps shapes my ideas on what I probably should be doing.

[Matt]

Matt, we know (or at least I know) that you are completely incapable of not defending Bartle. He's your forefather. He created your livelihood.

It'd be cool to see you have a conversation in which you don't resort to just insulting or belittling people.

You also don't have much of an idea of what you're talking about. I disagree with Bartle more than I agree with him. I think the "Bartle Types" are kind of nonsense and he and I somewhat violently disagree about the importance of "the magic circle." What that has to do with recognizing that he's a valid keynote speaker (not that anyone needs my or your blessing to make someone a keynote speaker), I don't know. I'm capable of disagreeing with someone on many issues and still respecting what they've done.


My livelihood is mainly making 3d MMOs these days, btw. I'm still the chairman of Iron Realms but it's been awhile since I was actively running it.

Fact of the matter is that your comparison to Edison is just pure madness. First of all, Edison never stopped progressing.

Sure he stopped progressing. He died. What has Edison done lately? Nothing. He's dead. Thus my point: If you brought Edison back today he'd still make for an interesting keynote despite the fact that he hasn't done anything for many decades.

I'm glad you keep making money off MUDs. But please, don't pop up whenever MUDs come up with completely predictable tripe. Though, this time, I didn't expect anything as ridiculous as the Edison comparison.

I don't compare Bartle to Edison in the sense of their level of accomplishment. Clearly, Edison did bigger and more impressive things than anyone in the games industry ever has.

I was merely pointing out that not having done something for awhile doesn't disqualify you from being able to entertain an audience at a keynote.

Also, he didn't birth either. All he did was birth and INFLICT THE DISEASE that is diku. We'd have virtual worlds and such today without him. The internet GUARANTEED IT.

Dr. Bartle didn't make DIKU any more than he made WoW.

And yeah, we'd have virtual worlds and such today without him, but that's the case for most firsts that rely on evolving prior work, which is to say almost all inventions/firsts. We'd have airplanes without the Wright Brothers, but I bet any aviation conference would be thrilled to be able to raise them from the dead and keynote.

--matt

[patience]

Are you all finished? Well, allow me to retort.

And that is a coherent summary of why World of Warcraft is a raging success years later, and why many developers who presumably know better are afraid to veer from that paradigm. Many - probably most, in fact - players *want* to be content consumers, not content generators. They want to log in, be entertained, and log out.

The problem here is that this means they aren’t the target market for a virtual world. They want a game. So: how do you craft a virtual world that *also* is enough of a game to keep that person and his millions of cohorts entertained?

Had a good laugh reading that but instead of trying to roll the rock up I'll let "teh funn E" slide.

Personally I think the most relevent thought of the poster you quoted but editted out was the idea that MMO devs don't specialize and as a result try to go after both the people who want to be served content and those who want emergent behavior content at the same time and failing with both.

This is why I actually disagree with Bartle. Making an MMO like the first MUDs is dumb because it requires a huge investment in resources in both manpower and funding.

I've had an idea of what to do for an MMO of this type and I'm sure many others have thought so as well but I would suggest for practical matters you make two or four MMOs that are smaller, more focused on certain needs of players and then you make your one MMO to rule them all.

Above all else you should acknowledge that MMOs have a lifespan, based on not players getting bored but because it is software based on techniques and technologies that will make them less manageable to code with later on.

[schild]

snip

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, the Wright Brothers and Edison would make great keynote speakers at any given conference. I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't parrot back what forums have been saying (both right, and wrong) for nearly a decade. You say you aren't comparing them like that, but you are. Also, Bartle isn't dead like the rest of your examples, he's simply not in the game and yet still feels comfortable telling people how to make the game.

Honestly, go re-read my 80s comparison. It's pretty much note for note what Bartle has been doing since MUD2.

My livelihood is mainly making 3d MMOs these days, btw.

Yea, I know, Earth Eternal, right? Bravo to you for actually throwing your hat in the ring, which is all I'm asking Bartle do. Even if he fails, at least MAYBE he'll grok why he failed, unlike the bulk of the industry these days.

On a totally separate note - and don't take this the wrong way, it's not an insult, I'm just calling it as I see it - whoever is doing the concept art, it needs less Furry. You're approaching 3D Furtopia levels here (admittedly, I know nothing baout the gameplay, but I'm not really referring to that).

Fake: Oh, right, yea, I know Bartle doesn't need our blessing. I'm just incredibly tired of hearing the same bland crap every day and it's even worse when someone makes a presentation out of it, misses the whole point, and then proceeds to come off as authoritative on the subject. Hence my whole "put up or shut up" deal with him. Maybe in person the keynote was so "THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE" but the slides sure are, and the internet functions on a level of around 99% on the perception is reality scale.

[Ratman_tf]

Are you all finished?

Never.

Well, allow me to retort.

Allow me to cherry pick a point out of your blog entry there.

Yes, most of what he said was painfully obvious. Guess what: people are still funding WoW clones. Guess it wasn’t painfully obvious enough.

You could write it in letters of fire on the insides of people's eyelids and WoW clones would still get funding. That too, is an old discussion. It doesn't matter how often or how loudly people bitch about game design. The entire history of video gaming is there for everyone to peruse and see that. People love to set money on fire. Not only in the video game industry, but this is the topic nearest to our hearts.

[tazelbain]

I prefer the Koster brand of Sacred Cows.

[Matt]

snip

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, the Wright Brothers and Edison would make great keynote speakers at any given conference. I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't parrot back what forums have been saying (both right, and wrong) for nearly a decade. You say you aren't comparing them like that, but you are. Also, Bartle isn't dead like the rest of your examples, he's simply not in the game and yet still feels comfortable telling people how to make the game.

I'm really not comparing them like that! I'd pick more obscure examples of inventors but then nobody would know who they are.

You and most of the posters here seem to feel pretty comfortable telling people how to make a game too. Most of the posters have no experience making any sort of MUD/MMO, etc that I can tell. Does that invalidate all your opinions? I don't think so. It does mean you're writing/offering opinions without the benefit of experience but shit, Blizzard had never made an MMO before either. Experience isn't everything.

It's something though, and even if Bartle's hands-on experience is generally limited to very old games he's got a unique perspective insofar as he's the only guy whose perspective spans the entire history of MUDs/MMOs/virtual worlds. I agree that there's a lot of room for interpretation as to how valuable that is but I don't think it's fair to just dismiss it out of hand. Nobody's saying that because he spoke at a small conference (or even a big conference) he's gospel. But it's a point of view and it's from someone who has been watching the industry develop longer than anyone else. Worth at least not just dismissing, even if you disagree with most of what he says, no?

Yea, I know, Earth Eternal, right? Bravo to you for actually throwing your hat in the ring, which is all I'm asking Bartle do. Even if he fails, at least MAYBE he'll grok why he failed, unlike the bulk of the industry these days.

Thanks, though I threw my hat in the ring 13 years ago and it's not left the ring since.

You know, you say things like the bulk of the industry doesn't understand why it failed, which implies that you know that their understanding of why they've failed is flawed....which implies that you know why they failed.

Why do you think you (who, with all due respect, haven't thrown your hat in the ring) know why games fail but Bartle can't, yet has more experience than you do? I'm not trying to turn that into a pissing match. It's a genuine question.

Beyond whether he does or doesn't, I guess I don't buy that it's not legitimate to offer advice and criticism when you haven't done it. It's the same jab that people lob at film, book, theatre, game, music, etc reviewers, and much like the same (largely illegitimate) jab that professional critics throw at do-it-for-no-pay bloggers. Heck, in Bartle's case at least he has done it albeit on a small scale, a couple of decades ago.

On a totally separate note - and don't take this the wrong way, it's not an insult, I'm just calling it as I see it - whoever is doing the concept art, it needs less Furry. You're approaching 3D Furtopia levels here (admittedly, I know nothing baout the gameplay, but I'm not really referring to that).

No worries, not insulted by that. We've gotten very good reactions to our concept art among our target market (younger than you) though, which is the important thing.

We're not going after the mainstream retail MMO crowd. We're not hubristic enough to try to compete against the big boys at our size (25 people) on a sub $5m budget.

[Lantyssa]

I prefer the Koster brand of Sacred Cows.

Ah, but love, hate, or indifferent to him, Raph is out there trying his best and refining his ideas.

Being in academia, I'm quite fine with researchers and such.  Experience does matter, however.  The longer one goes without that experience the more theoretical the research becomes.  It might be really good research, really interesting research, but putting it into practice lets one refine it in important ways that merely discussing it ad nauseum does not.  At this point Bartle is more of a theoretician.

I guess what I'm saying is that Schild has a valid point, even if I don't agree as vehemently.  Some people don't like theoreticians telling them how things should be since it often lacks the experience of how things are. <shrug>

[patience]

The longer one goes without that experience the more theoretical the research becomes.  It might be really good research, really interesting research, but putting it into practice lets one refine it in important ways that merely discussing it ad nauseum does not.  At this point Bartle is more of a theoretician.

John Madden and Madeleine Albright are theoreticians too...
Instead of hypothesizing and passing judgment on the man's character how about you, Schild or anyone else who feels tired of rehashing old news just link back to the days you actually did discuss the merits of his arguments and not the merits of the person speaking them?

I understand guys like yourself have been in the Mud/MMO scene for a long time and aren't as interested in regurgitating old ideas but I think you are over shooting your goal of trying to bring up some practical issues of listening to Bartle (in addition to any other source we use) by unintentionally making every statement he makes sound irrelevant because he's "too theoretical." It doesn't help advance discussion for the younger generation like myself and slows down our ability to get up to speed with where you are.

[Megrim]

The longer one goes without that experience the more theoretical the research becomes.  It might be really good research, really interesting research, but putting it into practice lets one refine it in important ways that merely discussing it ad nauseum does not.  At this point Bartle is more of a theoretician.

John Madden and Madeleine Albright are theoreticians too...
Instead of hypothesizing and passing judgment on the man's character how about you, Schild or anyone else who feels tired of rehashing old news just link back to the days you actually did discuss the merits of his arguments and not the merits of the person speaking them?

I understand guys like yourself have been in the Mud/MMO scene for a long time and aren't as interested in regurgitating old ideas but I think you are over shooting your goal of trying to bring up some practical issues of listening to Bartle (in addition to any other source we use) by unintentionally making every statement he makes sound irrelevant because he's "too theoretical." It doesn't help advance discussion for the younger generation like myself and slows down our ability to get up to speed with where you are.

Go look at the WAR forum. You'll find all you ever need to know about mmos.

[SnakeCharmer]

You and most of the posters here seem to feel pretty comfortable telling people how to make a game too.

I'm not quite sure you're getting it.

We know what fun is, and feel pretty comfortable telling them / you / whomever that what they're making is not fun.

[Khaldun]

I prefer the Koster brand of Sacred Cows.

Ah, but love, hate, or indifferent to him, Raph is out there trying his best and refining his ideas.

Being in academia, I'm quite fine with researchers and such.  Experience does matter, however.  The longer one goes without that experience the more theoretical the research becomes.  It might be really good research, really interesting research, but putting it into practice lets one refine it in important ways that merely discussing it ad nauseum does not.  At this point Bartle is more of a theoretician.

I guess what I'm saying is that Schild has a valid point, even if I don't agree as vehemently.  Some people don't like theoreticians telling them how things should be since it often lacks the experience of how things are. <shrug>

I agree, it's just a modest point. Since people who have an experience of how things are also seem rather short on ideas about how things could be.

Unlike some posters around here, who are very free with ideas about who things are and how tihngs could be without the benefit of experience, knowledge or modesty, but love to bitch about how everyone else gets things wrong. Which is cool as long as it's just forum shit but maybe less cool the more entitled and chest-thumping it gets.

[DLRiley]

Simply hearing the same old bullshit you hear from  every arm chair game designer who has playing WoW for x amount of years and/or has spent most of their early mmo experience playing some type of sandbox game and can recall every "grand adventure" with dewy eyes.

[Draegan]

Fuck you DLRiley, I agree with you.

[Lantyssa]

John Madden and Madeleine Albright are theoreticians too...
Instead of hypothesizing and passing judgment on the man's character how about you, Schild or anyone else who feels tired of rehashing old news just link back to the days you actually did discuss the merits of his arguments and not the merits of the person speaking them?

Um, I've said one thing in this thread, and that it's Schild has a point but it's being missed because he's being overly aggressive about it.  I said nothing about the quality of Bartle's work, his character, nor my feelings on the rehasing of ideas.

For us to discuss about the merits of the talk, we'd have to hear it.  All we have are the slides, which if representative of the talk don't say much of note, and if not representative of the talk aren't worth discussing.  So I didn't bother trying.

[schild]

Unlike some posters around here, who are very free with ideas about who things are and how tihngs could be without the benefit of experience, knowledge or modesty, but love to bitch about how everyone else gets things wrong. Which is cool as long as it's just forum shit but maybe less cool the more entitled and chest-thumping it gets.

A couple things.

1. We're a bunch of folks that like theorizing about games. I don't think ANYONE HERE thinks they have all the answers or even some of the answers - except in very, very specific and obvious cases, like WAR or CoH or AoC. And ironically, All of those games, except WAR have gotten around to making the exact changes we bitched about before anyone else. Our anger at certain design issues is pretty laser-focused. Particularly my own. Mostly because I'm willing to sacrifice and forgive other transgressions for certain key elements of fun to be resolved (for example, yea, WAR had lag, but the EXP curve and grind associated with it were a far greater issue than 'some lag at a keep siege.')
2. Some of us will go on and try our hand and see if we have some of the answers. Some won't.
3. This really isn't a case of chest-thumping, if it came across that way - well, whoops.

Edit: To add an example.

[Kageru]

Actually I was just thinking that maybe the central problem is that Bartles talk focuses on wow-likes being a result of a failure of game design. Judging by the beta I'm in its more a game production issue with those financing (or selling the game) pointing at WoW and saying "get me a piece of that". Combine that as a design goal with a very agressive production schedule and there's little time to implement and experiment with alternative gameplay models. If you have the time to only implement one attempt you're forced to play it safe, let alone let it bake and see if you have emergent gameplay.

[Ratman_tf]

Actually I was just thinking that maybe the central problem is that Bartles talk focuses on wow-likes being a result of a failure of game design. Judging by the beta I'm in its more a game production issue with those financing (or selling the game) pointing at WoW and saying "get me a piece of that". Combine that as a design goal with a very agressive production schedule and there's little time to implement and experiment with alternative gameplay models. If you have the time to only implement one attempt you're forced to play it safe, let alone let it bake and see if you have emergent gameplay.

Pretty much. We can whine and cry about Fun, but if a certain game company has management or investor issues, it's not going to put out anything but a DIKU clone. If we're lucky, maybe with a side order of RVR or some neat feature that survives the process.

[UnSub]

I think we all missed the point of Bartle's talk. By comparing it to Lost Girls, he's saying that modern MMOs need more pornography erotica.

What has Edison done lately? Nothing. He's dead. Thus my point: If you brought Edison back today he'd still make for an interesting keynote despite the fact that he hasn't done anything for many decades.

This horrible analogy made me laugh a lot. Good work. Zombie Edison would have nothing to say that's relevant because in the near 80 years since his death the world has completely changed. He wouldn't recognise it. "Hey Edison, let's hear your opinions on modern movies, modern electricity and music distribution methods. What's that? You don't like talky movies, you're from a time when electricity wasn't as widely available as it is today and you're only familiar with record players? Plus you are sickened by the moral decay you see in our society? Oh, you wily scamp!"

He'd probably make a grab for all the cash earned on his old patents and dance a jig on Tesla's grave though.

I don't disagree with the ideas Bartle puts forward, but all that stuff is high level. Let's see some actual tactical discussion about how to implement it and then I'll be impressed. He doesn't have to even make the thing, just discuss the systems he'd put in place to do what he says needs to be done. Which is exactly the same point Lum ends up on - how do you do that?

If it were me, the answer is not to aim for millions of players, but try to do things small, cheap and fast. Develop a business plan where 20 000 players would be enough to make money off, create a MMO that allowed for rapid development of system iterations and beta the hell out of it - feature and content ready for launch - for a good 3 months at least prior to launch to iron out the rough edges / polish polish polish. The modern MMO industry seems to be aiming at getting 1m players by developing titles that take years to get out the door, crush beta into a short period of time (or don't pay attention to live beta feedback), try to appeal to everyeon and launch before a full coat of polish has been applied.

[Margalis]

The linked presentation amounts to "let's give them cake and also eat it!" An entire WOW plus an entire Eve - brilliant!

It was also full of errors and poorly thought-out ideas. If raids get old after the first time you do them then why do people run them dozens of times? If the elder game in WOW is boring and nobody likes it then why does WOW have a billion subscribers, many of which have been subbed for a half-decade?

Much of what was presented as being a problem was really just "I don't like this stuff" masquerading as analysis. But the goal of game makers is not to appeal to Bartle, it's to appeal to players. In his catty retort Lum makes the same mistake:

There’s a vast difference between user-created content (such as City of Heroes’ architect system) and user-generated ‘content’ (such as the Eve Great War) - the latter is compelling and why people come back to MMOs

Yes, except that WOW has neither of those and is a hundred times more popular. The first three points of Lum's retort are this sort of wishful thinking.

Cloning WoW is expensive, you will probably fail, and the result isn’t very good from a design standpoint anyway

Translation: I don't like WOW.

Elder games to date kind of suck thanks to the adherence to theme park-style game design as opposed to free-from social world design

Translation: I don't like WOW.

So apparently WOW sucks, it's poorly designed, it's not the kind of game people come back to and it needs to take a lesson from Eve and a BBS from 1975 where high school students who couldn't get laid could pretend to be wizards. Because those are widly successful whereas WOW is a failure...

I'm not a fan of WOW but this sort of "analysis" is just daft ego-driven nonsense. If I was going to make an MMO I'd be studying WOW like hell to figure out why people like it so much, not dismissing it for not copying my awesome MUD.

Lum really gives himself away at the end of his post:

And that is a coherent summary of why World of Warcraft is a raging success years later, and why many developers who presumably know better are afraid to veer from that paradigm.

If players want to play games where they consume content isn't that what devs should be delivering? The subtext of Lum's post is "how do we force feed players games they don't want?" How can we trick them into playing virtual worlds - games we want to make regardless if anyone wants to play them.

[Fordel]

The only people who have done that, are other WoW devs.

[Ratman_tf]

The modern MMO industry seems to be aiming at getting 1m players by developing titles that take years to get out the door, crush beta into a short period of time (or don't pay attention to live beta feedback), try to appeal to everyeon and launch before a full coat of polish has been applied.

I agree, but I don't think years of polish would have saved, for example, WAR. The problems with WAR were the client code itself, everyone bitches about how it feels "sluggish" after playing WoW, and the design decisions around pve versus pvp. You say "Listen to the beta feedback" but that supposes a willingness to sift through all the crap to find the few gems of feedback, and then interpret player desires into real code.

Polish is vastly overrated. I think Sly's got it in his sig "Polish begins on day one." You have to begin a project paying attention to little details that the player is going to have to deal with, like UI and font size and client responsiveness. You can't just tweak that shit later, because people in your beta are going to tell their freinds now and sink you before you get out of dock.

[Margalis]

The only people who have done that, are other WoW devs.

Sorry, I edited out what you responded to. 

What I had written was that I don't see a lot of MMO vets seriously examining WOW to try to figure out why it's so successful beyond ego-preserving fluff like "It's called Warcraft" or "they had tons of money." In particular I don't see anyone honestly stating "here are literally 50 things my game had that WOW vastly improved upon." Even simple stuff like not having to talk to everyone in town over and over again to get quests, the kind of thing that can really annoy players but was accepted as the status quo until WOW looked on the genre with fresh eyes.

[Lum]

Yes, except that WOW has neither of those and is a hundred times more popular. The first three points of Lum's retort are this sort of wishful thinking.

Translation: I don't like WOW.

Translation: I don't like WOW.

Considering my Xfire profile says I've sunk over 800 hours into WoW, you sure nailed my personal likes and dislikes to a T! Hey, next tell me what movie I like. I'm kinda curious. Then again, the parts you quoted as proof that I hated WoW and should pray for death was where I was summarizing Bartle's presentation points, not making my own. Maybe Bartle doesn't like WoW, and you should tell him what movie he likes instead.

So apparently WOW sucks, it's poorly designed, it's not the kind of game people come back to and it needs to take a lesson from Eve and a BBS from 1975 where high school students who couldn't get laid could pretend to be wizards. Because those are widly successful whereas WOW is a failure...

Whereas high school students in 2009 who couldn't get laid pretend to be wizards in WoW instead. This is clearly an improvement. By god, we have PARTICLE EFFECTS now.

I didn't say WoW was a failure. I said attempting to clone WoW would likely fail. Given recent history that is not really a daring prediction.

What I had written was that I don't see a lot of MMO vets seriously examining WOW to try to figure out why it's so successful beyond ego-preserving fluff like "It's called Warcraft" or "they had tons of money." In particular I don't see anyone honestly stating "here are literally 50 things my game had that WOW vastly improved upon." Even simple stuff like not having to talk to everyone in town over and over again to get quests, the kind of thing that can really annoy players but was accepted as the status quo until WOW looked on the genre with fresh eyes.

Considering that most of those innovations have essentially become user interface guidelines for MMOs (clear visible distinction for quest givers being the most obvious example) it's pretty obvious that question is being asked and answered repeatedly. Not all the answers are correct; not everything in WoW is holy writ and just aping a user interface won't create a particularly compelling game.

If I had to list the one innovation WoW made over every game that came before, it would be in embracing the solo player. Almost every MMO to that point "incentivized" grouping by punishing the solo player because it was believed that truly compelling MMO gameplay was through grouped experiences. WoW disproved that theory handily.

I do like virtual worlds, and I'm certainly not going to apologize for that, both from a personal standpoint (because last I checked, we were actually allowed to like different things) and from a production standpoint (because virtual worlds tend towards systemic design, which is far less expensive in manpower and time to craft than content design). And there absolutely is a place in the market for a well-executed VW. Whether that VW can also deliver WoW-class content design is an open question (and which sam an eggplant's post referred to). Not really sure where you got "omgth wow sucks because I couldn't get laid in 1975" from. (I was 9 years old, so I don't feel too slighted about it.)

[Margalis]

Then again, the parts you quoted as proof that I hated WoW and should pray for death was where I was summarizing Bartle's presentation points, not making my own.

You really want to try to misrepresent a blog post that everyone can read? The points you summarized were bracketed by:

Still, it’s fairly good, and he makes some good points.

(POINTS THAT LUM ANGRILY DISAGREES WITH GO HERE)

All seems very obvious (note: the best presentations point out obvious truths that everyone seems hellbent on ignoring for some reason in an amusing fashion). F13 didn’t get it.

So they are good points, obvious truths, F13 "didn't get it" and...you don't in any way endorse those points. Right.

Considering that most of those innovations have essentially become user interface guidelines for...

If I had to list the one innovation WoW made over...

The fact that your reponse to my request for an evaluation of WOW's success is a non-sequitor about innovation says it all.

Craft matters.

Dueling edits! :

I do like virtual worlds, and I'm certainly not going to apologize for that, both from a personal standpoint (because last I checked, we were actually allowed to like different things) and from a production standpoint (because virtual worlds tend towards systemic design, which is far less expensive in manpower and time to craft than content design). And there absolutely is a place in the market for a well-executed VW. Whether that VW can also deliver WoW-class content design is an open question (and which sam an eggplant's post referred to).

At the end of your blog post you raise the question of how to entice people to VWs who aren't interested in a VW experience. Isn't that the wrong question? Creating a game that can compete with WOW on its terms is already nearly impossible, creating a game that competes with WOW on iits own turf *and* has all these awesome gameplay systems and open-worldy things? Good luck.

There's nothing wrong with creating a VW as long as you realistically budget it and aim it at players who want that sort of game. Trying to cast a wide net and entice WOW players seems doomed to very expensive failure. The biggest problem with Bartle's presentation is that it amounted to "let's smush Eve and WOW together!" Which is a fine design if you have unlimited time and buidget. Otherwise not so much.

[patience]

The modern MMO industry seems to be aiming at getting 1m players by developing titles that take years to get out the door, crush beta into a short period of time (or don't pay attention to live beta feedback), try to appeal to everyeon and launch before a full coat of polish has been applied.

Isn't a fair thing to say at this point MMO devs are forgetting they are building large systems and when calculating the debugging process it should take up atleast half of your development time? As a result they should consider beta as part of the debugging process where they are debugging the 'unfun' as well as the critical system errors?

The linked presentation amounts to "let's give them cake and also eat it!" An entire WOW plus an entire Eve - brilliant!

This assumes the two variations of MMO design are mutually exclusive in terms of existence. It's a big investment sink making it an impractical goal not an impossible one.

[DLRiley]

Every time I hear a dev say their not competing with WoW I roll my eyes. Simply by being an mmo your competing with WoW. There is no real depth in the mmo industry to really say your not competing with a 8 million pound gorilla. Your either WoW side of the spectrum or Eve side, and EvE is pure simulator so its a pretty crowded room already. Lets see your either coexisting with WoW or your a WoW alternative. If your game can't hold up as its own as a WoW alternative, LotR, EQ2, FF11, CoH/V than your budget should allow you to coexist with WoW like the dozens of f2p games supported by RMT. Being a WoW clone isn't a flaw, people are playing the fuck out of games that have very little not in common in WoW by the virtue of being a diku, being unable to either coexist or be an alternative to WoW is. If you want to move closer to the EvE side of the spectrum, you might want to understand that EvE is not a game in the sense that it has very different accessibility issues, YES YOUR NICHE GAME MUST BE ACCESSIBLE, you encounter with your standard diku. Since you ARE playing a simulator and people enjoy it much differently than an actual game. And just a minor hint, just because EvE has world PvP, doesn't mean you have to participate in it at all.