Has any game done this yet?

[Signe]

My nephew is the biggest Star Wars geek ever and he won't go near SWG.  He can't explain why, either.

Possibly because, as a game, it sucks the very marrow of the earth.

But he didn't know that.  Even before it was released, he had already written off the concept of a Star Wars game.   He just knew it couldn't measure up to his expectations, regardless of how good and popular it might become in the world of gaming.  He's THAT much of a Star Wars nerd. 

Me?  I didn't much like the Star Wars movies, and I didn't like most of the game.  I was never into comics but I play CoH.  I've never even had the slightest urge to play D&D but I'm looking forward to trying the game.  Sheesh... no wonder sometimes I feel like I'm all alone on the intarwebs.

[Cheddar]

Perhaps Signe, but I love that avatar.  Hotter then Betty Rubble.  For real.

[Signe]

I totally stole it.

[Cheddar]

Do you sleep?

[Signe]

Sometimes.  Usually I go to sleep rather early but I've been having a sleeping disorder marathon recently.  I'm very stressy at the moment.

Anyway, Rocky Horror Picture Show is on tonight and I'm still excited from doing the Timewarp.  Again.

[Arnold]

I shall investigate this here Horizons game.

*sighs*

But you know, if UO had kept up the scenario system Calandryll was talking about...  Maybe added that city invasion thing, but included the ability to actually win...  I'd still be riding the UO bandwagon, shitty graphics and ninja elves be damned.  Players being able, by their own actions, to save a city that would otherwise have been destroyed (and WAS destroyed on other shards) was good shit.  Would have kept people on their toes beyond that point, knowing that the "bad guys" could actually win if enough players didn't kill foozles or what have you.

Heh, I take it you never experienced the old, REAL events, when there were Seers in UO.  Some of those were super cool.  Of course, lots of them were just inbred, RP circle jerks.

[Arnold]

People play Horizons?  After they cut like 2/3rds of their playable races I figured the project was pretty much doomed for everyone who wasn't a dragon-nut.

When I heard about the feature list for Horizons, the word "fetuspault" immediately came to mind.  People who bought into that game were dopes.

[Arnold]

For Diku-based, LevelQuest gameplay, virtual ecologies and the related AI systems are not of much use.  So, if that is the game a designer wants to make, and he's got the $100M in funding it will take to enter that market now that WoW is on the scene, have at and enjoy.

ONE HUNDRED MILLION??? That's freaking insanity.  It's time for the niche guys to start spitting out games for a fraction of that price to please their respective audiences, instead of trying to please, and "WOW" everyone.

[schild]

I'm with Arnold on this one - $100Million is a bullshit number.

Why? Because $100M won't buy Blizzards popularity. NO ONE, with ANY amount of money can equal Blizzards success - except Will Wright - fortunately he has no fucking clue what he's doing when it comes to online gaming. Or else we'd all be catassing for more closetspace. Literally.

That said, an efficient developer probably could have made WoW whatwith it's simplistic graphics and simplistic skill system and simplistic everything else - just like all the other Blizzard games - for probably half the cost Blizzard made it. Unfortunately they could put World of *craft on the box but more importantly they couldn't put that little boxed Blizzard logo in the difference.

It's not what's in the box that counts in this case. Money can't buy you that.

[schild]

There are a lot of pieces of the VW concept that can be effectively and profitably explored as games in their own right.  In fact, from a certain point of view, *every* successful game premise is simply a piece of a VW that can make money on its own.  VW is what we *all* really want, games is what we get in the meantime.

Personally - I'm willing to play a lot of games to see what they have to offer. I lasted less than a month in ATiTD. I'm huge on economy - see my 8 months in SW:G for proof (and I *hate* Star Wars and the world it's based in - but I wasn't obsessive compulsive enough to play through ATiTD. Simply put - Animal Crossing and Harvest Moon did the same thing ever. Problem is - there are a RACK of games that would make great parts of a virtual world. Diablo for loot and Windwaker for combat, the standard lego system for building houses w/ each block costing money, animal crossing/harvest moon for crafting/outdoor economics, SW:G for naturally occuring resources, etc etc so on and so forth. Really, what needs to be done is for the MMORPG to leave the PC, get on a control pad with voice chat for groups and guilds, have some adventure like twitch that's more Zelda-y than Dead or Alive-like and become a flat rate addition to XBL or something. Because honestly, it's the only way you'll compete with Blizzard. Use their own method against them.

(Ideas/Systems from Other Games + Engaging combat + Blender + a Couch) - (Tedium + Immersion breaking bullshit¹) = Success. It's simple really, if you don't let your ego get in the way as a lead developer.

Oh and FUCK Narrowband users. They don't deserve the intarweb. They deserve AOL 2.0.

¹ Like the DPS on a weapon or the actual percentage to mitigate damage on armor. Or Loading Screens (Have the zone slowly fade in or something)...Seriously.

[Arnold]

I want to see a game where your character is a HERO from the start.  No advancement at all.  Yes, you can win certain luxuries and titles and whatnot from PLAYING, but no time whatsoever would be needed to make said character effective.

Instead, I'd like to see a system more like, say, Streetfighter.  Your character has all of his abilites from the start, but you will need to develop the skill to activate them.  Just because you can activate those abilities does not mean you will be successful.  You will need to learn how to activate them at the proper time, string combinations together, and learn how to activate defenses to deal with attacks, powers, and combinations being performed by your enemy.

[schild]

I want to see a game where your character is a HERO from the start.  No advancement at all.  Yes, you can win certain luxuries and titles and whatnot from PLAYING, but no time whatsoever would be needed to make said character effective.

Instead, I'd like to see a system more like, say, Streetfighter.  Your character has all of his abilites from the start, but you will need to develop the skill to activate them.  Just because you can activate those abilities does not mean you will be successful.  You will need to learn how to activate them at the proper time, string combinations together, and learn how to activate defenses to deal with attacks, powers, and combinations being performed by your enemy.

Well, then you might as well just be playing a persistant ranked version of Dead or Alive. There isn't much world when everyone starts with the same stuff - basically the only people left after 2 months of people realizing they suck will be the people who are naturally good. While I hate grinds, there's a certain obvious appeal of timesinks. Particularly for developers who want people to pay by the month. The problem is, very few of these games have enough good content to last out a month. Hell, I would say none of them do. Good content is hard.

[Ironwood]

That said, an efficient developer probably could have made WoW whatwith it's simplistic graphics and simplistic skill system and simplistic everything else - just like all the other Blizzard games - for probably half the cost Blizzard made it. Unfortunately they could put World of *craft on the box but more importantly they couldn't put that little boxed Blizzard logo in the difference.

Your thinly disguised hatred of Blizzard is wearing a LOT thin.  They got the reputation for a reason.  That reason is that their games are FUN to a vast majority of people.  The fact that you're not one of them does not make everyone else wrong.

An Efficient developer could make a WoW with simplistic graphics and simplistic skill system and it would suck nuts.  They already have done.

I couldn't stand EQ and I couldn't stand SWG and I couldn't stand AO and I couldn't stand EQ2.  I went through an intense period of playing Wow, which is only slacking off due to the LvL 60 content (which is, by and large, group-driven.)

This is NOT a co-incidence, nor is it blind faith.

It's certainly NOT simply due to the brand name.

[MahrinSkel]

I'm with Arnold on this one - $100Million is a bullshit number.

Why? Because $100M won't buy Blizzards popularity. NO ONE, with ANY amount of money can equal Blizzards success - except Will Wright - fortunately he has no fucking clue what he's doing when it comes to online gaming. Or else we'd all be catassing for more closetspace. Literally.

That said, an efficient developer probably could have made WoW whatwith it's simplistic graphics and simplistic skill system and simplistic everything else - just like all the other Blizzard games - for probably half the cost Blizzard made it. Unfortunately they could put World of *craft on the box but more importantly they couldn't put that little boxed Blizzard logo in the difference.

It's not what's in the box that counts in this case. Money can't buy you that.

So you're claiming that WoW only succeeded because it had the Blizzard logo on the box?  I'll buy that it was a major factor in making it the biggest MMO to date, but that's not relevant to the effect on the market.  Blizzard added roughly 1.5 million US and European subscribers to the market that would not have come in this early without WoW, as near as I can figure it.

And another developer could not have made WoW for significantly less, frankly.  I have to give Blizzard props, they knew what they were doing, and did it right.  Blizzard put 100 people to building content over 2 years before launch.  That's an order of magnitude more manyears than went into any other MMO before that (EQ2 was a bit closer)  They spent $40M, also an order of magnitude more than anyone before.  EQ2 was also in that ballpark.  EQ2 would not have been considered a failure if WoW had not been such a collossal success.  It hit 250K in less than 3 months, it took UO 2 years for that, EQ1 a year, and 6 months for DAoC.  They followed along a very predictable market growth curve: WoW blew the curve out, and nearly doubled the market almost overnight, something that hadn't happened since UO and UO had a lot smaller market to nearly double.

Anyway, WoW and EQ2 are on the scene now.  They have a huge content investment, which both are adding to.  To bring a new game to market using the same core gameplay and design, a developer is going to have to make at least an equal investment in content, and probably more.  And WoW/EQ2 are recapitulating the DAoC/EQ1 faceoff, both games are going to be adding more content at a rate commensurate with the creation of the original game.  To compete with that, to raise the bar on the next iteration, it's going to take $100M+.  DDO might manage to get out the door before WoW/EQ2 get too much of a lead, but any games not going to launch in the next 6 months based on the EQ/Diku formula are going to need 9 figure budgets, or they're going to need novel gameplay and radical design differences.

--Dave

[Sky]

Oh and FUCK Narrowband users. They don't deserve the intarweb. They deserve AOL 2.0.

Wow. As someone who's only had broadband for two years, and who's friends all do not have broadband...that's a pretty assholish thing to say.

Well, then you might as well just be playing a persistant ranked version of Dead or Alive.

I further disagree with what you said.

Something in your coffee, man?

[Soln]

I have to give Blizzard props, they knew what they were doing, and did it right.  Blizzard put 100 people to building content over 2 years before launch.  That's an order of magnitude more manyears than went into any other MMO before that (EQ2 was a bit closer)...

DDO might manage to get out the door before WoW/EQ2 get too much of a lead....

you would think with the enormous amount of Greyhawk/ForgottenRealms content out there plus that of the basic system (e.g. equipment, spells, etc.) they would be able to give WoW an even run content-wise.

Edit:  in terms of detail minus content (e.g. modules) I loved the Rolemaster and MERP systems most.  Was really really disappointed to hear that whomever wasn't going to use or could use MERP in MEO (or whatever it's called now).  They had amazing detail -- I remember the modules had incredible architecture plan-like details of buildings etc.  Beautiful artwork.   /sigh

[Calantus]

Well, then you might as well just be playing a persistant ranked version of Dead or Alive.

I further disagree with what you said.

That's the oe thing I did agree with Schild in his post. I WANT to advance/customise my character, so there better be advancement or why should I bother? It can be shallow, it can be completely broad (as in, you don't get more powerful in absolute terms, but you get different abilities/skills), but it better be there or I might as well play counterstrike.

[HaemishM]

I fucking WANT Niche games, and I want them now. The sooner MMOG developers realize they do not have to try to compete with WoW's numbers (and investors realize the same thing), the better.

I want niche game styles (PVP), niche subject matter (cop dramas, sports, soap operas, sci-fi that isn't licensed or shitty), and niche pricing schemes (pay per scenario, time-based usage, time-limited subscriptions). But it's going to take a lot of investors and developers getting their heads out of their asses, realizing that measuring e-market peen is fucking stupid, and moving on with their lives. It's also going to take more off-the-shelf products like the Complete Characters things I wrote about in another thread to make it happen.

As for why WoW was so successful:

1) FUCKING BLIZZARD - don't deny this didn't have a significant impact on box sales, because it did. If the game is even halfway decent, just getting them in the door is a win, because they will stay once they are there.
2) It's a fun game, for an MMOG.
3) Asstons on asstons of content.
4) A significant focus on content that can be approached solo and casually, so that the real hardcore time commitment that Diku-Mud based MMOG's force on you doesn't really hit you until you are already addicted to the current gameplay. By the time you hit your 50's or 60's, you're already used to playing 2-4 hours a night/play session.
5) PVP that isn't mandatory or forced upon anyone without warning.
6) Low system requirements. Really low.
7) Koreans and Asian gamers in general are apparently batshit insane. Zerg farm keke la ^__^

It's successful despite the fact it's a buggy POS, Blizzard couldn't run a good service if their dicks depended on it, and they had a shortage of boxes for awhile.

[Ironwood]

1) FUCKING BLIZZARD - don't deny this didn't have a significant impact on box sales, because it did. If the game is even halfway decent, just getting them in the door is a win, because they will stay once they are there.

I'm not denying that.  But Box sales have nothing to do with something being a good game.  It's merely an indicator after the fact and NOT a very damn good one.

And WoW is a good game.


I think also, you can't say that popularity of brand is the be-all, because you would then have to explain SWG.  Which, as I may have mentioned, is God-Awful.

[HaemishM]

God-Awful, but still managed to get "second place" in subscribers at the time of its release. And that was despite the face-stabbing bugs, the lack of it really playing to the license at all, lack of Jedi, etc.

I will make a bold statement. Had SWG not been a Star Wars game, it would have had about half as many subscribers.

[Sky]

That's the oe thing I did agree with Schild in his post. I WANT to advance/customise my character, so there better be advancement or why should I bother? It can be shallow, it can be completely broad (as in, you don't get more powerful in absolute terms, but you get different abilities/skills), but it better be there or I might as well play counterstrike.

I don't mind some customization, either. But for a pvp environment, it's can't be a power differential. It's got to be customization akin to Planetside's, where a rank newbler can take out a vet if played well, and make a difference for the team either way, by being support class or whatever.

I discount the small multiplayer stuff, because it doesn't hold up in practice. There is so much to be said for not only the persistant world, but the unified servers. I hate trying to find a server in BF2, the time wasted with that crap is, to me, second only to smacktard behaviour in reasons I don't play BF2. I like just logging in to my character in PS and jumping into a battle.

[Bunk]

God-Awful, but still managed to get "second place" in subscribers at the time of its release. And that was despite the face-stabbing bugs, the lack of it really playing to the license at all, lack of Jedi, etc.

I will make a bold statement. Had SWG not been a Star Wars game, it would have had about half as many subscribers.

On the other hand, if SWG had not been a Star Wars game they would not have been limited by continuity restraints, could have left out Jedi all together, and probably would have been a better game. But you are right, it still would have had less subscribers.

[schild]

So you're claiming that WoW only succeeded because it had the Blizzard logo on the box?

A Blizzard box means a Blizzard games means The Largest Demographic of Fans of any other company besides Maxis - but as we can see, Will Wright doesn't have a big ball to play with in the online arena.

Blizzard added roughly 1.5 million US and European subscribers to the market that would not have come in this early without WoW, as near as I can figure it.

They wouldn't have come early without Blizzard. WoW has nothing to do with it. I mean it's nice to give them props - and I do to - they made a Blizzard game. That's all they had to do. Seriously. Look at every game they've made in house with only one branding on it (Blizzard). Look at the sales. THey could have released Shadowbane and it would have been the best game ever. Why am I firmly convinced of this? Because of what you say below.

And another developer could not have made WoW for significantly less, frankly.  I have to give Blizzard props, they knew what they were doing, and did it right.  Blizzard put 100 people to building content over 2 years before launch.  That's an order of magnitude more manyears than went into any other MMO before that (EQ2 was a bit closer)  They spent $40M, also an order of magnitude more than anyone before.  EQ2 was also in that ballpark.  EQ2 would not have been considered a failure if WoW had not been such a collossal success.  It hit 250K in less than 3 months, it took UO 2 years for that, EQ1 a year, and 6 months for DAoC.  They followed along a very predictable market growth curve: WoW blew the curve out, and nearly doubled the market almost overnight, something that hadn't happened since UO and UO had a lot smaller market to nearly double.

Anyway, WoW and EQ2 are on the scene now.  They have a huge content investment, which both are adding to.  To bring a new game to market using the same core gameplay and design, a developer is going to have to make at least an equal investment in content, and probably more.  And WoW/EQ2 are recapitulating the DAoC/EQ1 faceoff, both games are going to be adding more content at a rate commensurate with the creation of the original game.  To compete with that, to raise the bar on the next iteration, it's going to take $100M+.  DDO might manage to get out the door before WoW/EQ2 get too much of a lead, but any games not going to launch in the next 6 months based on the EQ/Diku formula are going to need 9 figure budgets, or they're going to need novel gameplay and radical design differences.

Having played EQ2, their greatest failure is the plastic models. Short of that, there's an assload going for it - including stability that WoW will never have. Unfortunately SOE can not compete with the name Blizzard. They'll never be able to. The only people Blizzard competes with is themselves.

I'm not knocking WoW here. I'm just saying it had very little to do with it. Even Arena.Net couldn't compete with Blizzard. Even though they were Blizzard 1.5, had no subscription fee, and had PvP in at launch (proving, once and for all that PvP is niche). I mean, WoW is a super zoomed in version of Warcraft III with the players as miscellaneous grunts, complete with item pickup and leveling. THey did what they needed to do to put a box on the shelf with the Blizzard name on it. Good for them.

[schild]

I think one of the important things, that I haven't said yet is this.

WoW is not to the MMORPG industry what:
Warcraft II and Starcraft were to Realtime Strategies.
Diablo 1 & 2 were to hack'n'slash.

Warcraft II and Starcraft created a successful subgenre within an industry. Sure, there are RTS games that are better and worse, and some that sell incredibly well (millions and millions of copies - Age of Mythology for instance). But they made some necessary changes to the genre, and made skirmishes and short games tolerable.

Diablo 1 & 2 changed hack'n'slash forever.

WoW did nothing new. It was what anyone with any knowledge of Blizzard would expect from them. In the areas that matter to me - combat, player housing, economy, and crafting - WoW did nothing better than anyone else. They did a tolerable job on crafting and player housing, but managed to make a cohesive product with no super weak points. No super strong points either - except for one thing: The exp curve. That last thing is uber important. But not as important as being a Blizzard-produced Warcraft game. Oh, it's also very colorful. Had it not been for CoH, I'd say that's pretty new for the green/brown-centric industry.

[HaemishM]

... that's pretty new for the green/brown-centric industry.

Unless you played Horde. /rimshot

[AOFanboi]

you would think with the enormous amount of Greyhawk/ForgottenRealms content out there plus that of the basic system (e.g. equipment, spells, etc.) they would be able to give WoW an even run content-wise.

Except they aren't using any of that - possibly because they've been done to death, and there are rights issues (though not as many as with Dragonlance). Setting is the 3.5E official world of Eberron. Which is possibly even less known than the WoW world.

[Murgos]

... that's pretty new for the green/brown-centric industry.

Unless you played Horde. /rimshot

I can't believe that EQ2's DoF expansion is entirely in the desert.  WTF were they thinking?  Just what I don't want, brown, brown and more brown.

Hello, yes?  Can I have some extra brown with my brown?  Thanks!

[tazelbain]

(proving, once and for all that PvP is niche)

As a GW fanboi, I am surpose to stand up a say something...
but A.net really screwed the pooch.

[Triforcer]

I still maintain, as I always have, that the MMO of the future once we are done with DIKUmuds will be a cross between Battlefield style resetting, Shadowbane-like ability to affect the landscape, and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory leveling model.

Remember how everyone said that SB was teh ROX in beta because everything kept resetting, so no one guild could just crush and own everything permanently?  Picture a twitch Shadowbane (or where everyone started out with the equivalent of "lvl 60" MMO skills) done right, a MMO-size fantasy BF2 map where permanent structures could be erected with incredible speed, that reset everything every two weeks.  Dragonriders, airships, mass 100 person spells that could drop an enemy city into the ocean...but it didn't matter because it would all end in a week and you could try a different strategy.  I'd fucking pay for that.         

[stray]

I like persistency....and worldliness as well. Something like that would be cool and all, but I hope there's something more to offer in the future than just more games...Especially ones that revolve around a single activity. Like fighting (which I like too, but one can only take so much). I want something that can do that well -- along with just about anything else.

[Sky]

The future of MMO doesn't concentrate on a single game. It's a myriad of games connected by a central social hub, cities or countryside or whatever. You can go to the frontlines of the world war, then later on head back to the safer areas and play a round of golf with your buddies. You could race back with your ricers, or maybe steal a helicopter.

The whole idea of combat + crafting making things diverse is very small-minded imo. GTA is the closest I've seen to what I think a persistent world should be like...and it's not even close. Maybe GTA + Madden (sorry) + Links LS + NFS:Hot Pursuit + BF2 + Thief + Deer Hunter....ad nauseum.

[stray]

GTA is the closest I've seen to what I think a persistent world should be like...and it's not even close.

Yes folks, it's true. I was trying to say that when the PS2 version came out...Seems like it's mainly the gangster thing that's holding some people back though.

[Hoax]

"I'm not knocking WoW here. I'm just saying it had very little to do with it. Even Arena.Net couldn't compete with Blizzard. Even though they were Blizzard 1.5, had no subscription fee, and had PvP in at launch (proving, once and for all that PvP is niche). I mean, WoW is a super zoomed in version of Warcraft III with the players as miscellaneous grunts, complete with item pickup and leveling. THey did what they needed to do to put a box on the shelf with the Blizzard name on it. Good for them."

I disagree Arena.net's problems stem from allot of other things, hell look at your list the exp curve in GW sucks balls.  Why you say?  Sure its short as shit but so what, I'm only there to pvp and your telling me I need to get through all these fucking missions that have allot less inteligence for the most part then the ones I remember from the beta.  Oh and I have to group because henchmen are gay, oh and other people are fucking retarded as well.

You dont design the best pvp system in a good while then say, ok now dick around so you can have the skills you need to compete.  But whatever, that is neither here nor there because we all still own the game and when their first xpack comes out many will go back and try it, myself included.  So here's to hoping some of the genius from the other Blizzard games can unfuck the whole xp curve, skill aquire system a little bit, and make henchmen suck less, oh and add even cooler pvp stuff I have never thought of.

[Sky]

You dont design the best pvp system in a good while then say, ok now dick around so you can have the skills you need to compete.

Words of wisdom, Lloyd. Words of wisdom.

I need to get an image for this, I'm using it alot...ok here, we go...

[Soln]

God-Awful, but still managed to get "second place" in subscribers at the time of its release. And that was despite the face-stabbing bugs, the lack of it really playing to the license at all, lack of Jedi, etc.

I will make a bold statement. Had SWG not been a Star Wars game, it would have had about half as many subscribers.

On the other hand, if SWG had not been a Star Wars game they would not have been limited by continuity restraints, could have left out Jedi all together, and probably would have been a better game. But you are right, it still would have had less subscribers.

probably not.  Too much of the first year+ problems were serious data arch. design flaws and connectivity.  Fundamental things like character profiles and quest items/tasks were only being stored intermittently, or disappearing after zoning.  Add to that rampant sloppy shit like warping, LD's, dupes, and prolly some deep hair raising shit we don't know about it, but can smell from release notes and job "opportunities", all would've meant a much less patient player base.  A lot of people stuck around because there was no WoW, and Jedi was a lure, but fixing PvP and the GCW was the real carrot.  If SW wasn't the driving franchise I expect most people would've left.  SWG would've been just the Sims in Space with PvP and hairy humanoids.