Gamers know not what they want...

[palmer_eldritch]

I don't know how history will judge WoW, but the fact that people in the industry (or at least one) are saying that the future does not have to be all about WoW clones fills me with hope  I speak as someone who currently plays WoW and enjoys it.

[Jayce]

I think this new direction for the thread not only indicates gamers don't know what they want, they also don't seem to know who they are....

[Lantyssa]

I think this new direction for the thread not only indicates gamers don't know what they want, they also don't seem to know who they are....

Also a bit of "we are not the masses".  Most of us would play a niche game if it had what we were looking for.  They would never know about it, much less try it out.

[MahrinSkel]

At some point, you realize that your conversation is going nowhere, because you and the other participants are using a fundamentally different definition of a key term. One side of this discussion is saying "geekiness is mainstream, because things that used to be considered hopelessly geeky are now common."  The other side is saying "geeky is whatever the mainstream considers geeky."

Before MySpace, having your own web-pages that talked about yourself was either geeky (if you were mainstream) or vain (if you were a geek).  Now it's just normal.  Before Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, using the words "spell", "magic", "wizard", etc. in a sentence out loud was geeky, and any form of entertainment involving them was hopelessly geeky.  Now they are just normal.  Before WoW, online fantasy games were geeky, now they are almost mainstream.  After one more iteration, any MMO that *isn't* pretty much like WoW will be what's geeky.  For a while, anyway.

Success implies virtue, something can't be fringe and mainstream at the same time.  If "geeky" and "mainstream" are moving targets, and generally in the direction of geeky things becoming mainstream, then the question is only what currently "geeky" activities will next become mainstream.

--Dave

[El Gallo]

EDIT: What I missed in there was my point: Fast-forward 10, 15, 20 years.  Do you think that the games we play then will just be slightly tweaked versions of Diku/EQ/WoW updated for new technology? 

Pretty much.  At least as far as fantasy games (broadly construed to include any game where the player is represented by an avatar who is supposed to be someone other than the player herself) go.  WoW isn't an abberation, it's the exact same type of game which has dominated that market forever.  WoW is, in the end, just a slightly tweaked version of Akalabeth -- a game over a quarter-century old -- updated for new technology.  I see no reason to expect that to change.

Now, those games will be dwarfed by communications hubs where people are represented by avatars who are supposed to be that person (the souped up AIM/myspace of the future, or the persistent ladder of Madden 201x Online) but that's a quite different kind of beast.

[geldonyetich]

Geeky? Mainstream?  Bah!

How does it play?

Here's one gamer who knows what he wants: quality entertainment.  The tricky part is getting there.  I suspect that MahrinSkel, Raph, Ubiq, and other developers would have an easier time with that if there were less cooks in the kitchen, or at least better synergy between said artists, and no IP expectations skewing their audience in other directions.

[Xanthippe]

There's nothing nerdier than a bunch of nerds arguing about nerdiness.

[stray]

Hey, I'm no nerd. The Geek Test says I'm only 10%. Which is to say, I have Geek tendencies ;)

[edit] If anything, I'm a wannabe. Geeks are such a sweet, innocent people.

[Slyfeind]

There's nothing nerdier than a bunch of nerds arguing about nerdiness.

WINNAR!

[Endie]

WoW is, in the end, just a slightly tweaked version of Akalabeth -- a game over a quarter-century old -- updated for new technology.  I see no reason to expect that to change.

Nyuck, in a few days of loony ramblings and curiously embittered spoutings, that's your best so far.

And the Hagia Sophia is just a slightly-tweaked hut, too.

[Venkman]

Myspace & Widgets. iPods. PVRs. WoW. Cell Phones. Web cams. Blogging. Blackberries. Star Wars. LOTR. YouTube. Comics. Video games. VOIP.

You're missing the point. The world isn't getting nerdier. The tools are getting easier. You think CSS is nerdy? How about the seventeen layers of code and architecture that exists between that and pure binary? Nerds built that shit so the unwashed masses could use them.

You could say the same thing about automobiles from the 1880s compared to those of the 1980s. Or clocks over time. Or shit, computers themselves. The average person never learned Cobol. Meanwhile, the average person has already used two versions of the Windows operating system.

Basically, MahrinSkel said it best:

Success implies virtue, something can't be fringe and mainstream at the same time.

[El Gallo]

Nyuck, in a few days of loony ramblings and curiously embittered spoutings, that's your best so far.

And the Hagia Sophia is just a slightly-tweaked hut, too.

Bah, I can get way loopier.  And this is easily the sanest (and certainly the least bitter) thing I've written here in days!

Seriously though,

Akalabeth--Core Game: kill rat, get sword +1; kill orc, get sword +2; kill dragon, get sword +3.  Frills: none.

Lots of games in the decades between Akalabeth and WoW--Core Game: kill rat, get sword +1; kill orc, get sword +2; kill dragon. Frills: polygon elf boobs, storyline written by angsty 15 year old.

WoW--Core Game: kill rat, get sword +1; kill orc, get sword +2; kill dragon, get sword +3.  Frills: polygon elf boobs, storyline written by angsty 15 year old, lots of other people making Leroy Jenkins jokes.

WoW's gameplay would be instantly understandable to an Akalabeth player: the only real change is from "ding-lewt" to "ding-grats-lewt."  But the revolution is coming any day now, diku is just about to die.  To the streets, my brothers RAWWWWRRRRRR!

[Krakrok]

I'm sticking with the world's getting nerdier.

[Venkman]

I'm sticking with the world's getting nerdier.

Self-validation or stubborness? Either way, you lose 

[Trippy]

I'm sticking with the world's getting nerdier.

Once again technology usage does not equal nerdiness. The younger generations always adopt new technologies more quickly and easily than the older generations and then those technologies become the norm until some other new technology comes along. As I said, being a nerd is a state-of-mind, like prefering to spend your Friday nights hacking on the latest version of Fedora Core instead of going to some Frat party.

[lamaros]

As I said, being a nerd is a state-of-mind, like prefering to spend your Friday nights hacking on the latest version of Fedora Core instead of going to some Frat party.

Actually I think it's more of a state-of-other-peoples-mind's. If I spend thursday night building a pet robot and friday night partying at a club then I'm a normal guy who has an interest in robots. If I spend thursday building my robot and friday sitting on my computer making a mod for some game i'm a geek. If I spend both thursday and friday sitting at home playing games on my xbox then i'm a bit of a loner.. etc

There's no link to what you do, or how smart you are, or how you look or anything, it comes down to how other people view you.

[stray]

Most of my friends got married too early (those bastards!)....Some just do stuff I'd rather not be around anymore (drugs). Others work too damn much for 20 somethings. I'm more alone than I'd like to be. Thank God for 21st century entertainment. Bring on the robots.

[damijin]

labels are bad, i cant believe how stupid you gamers are to still buy into that "nerd" and "geek" crap.

[Strazos]

Before MySpace, having your own web-pages that talked about yourself was either geeky (if you were mainstream) or vain (if you were a geek).  Now it's just normal. 
--Dave

Hell, I think having an active MySpace is incredibly lame and vain. But that's me. I have a completely irrational dislike for the whole "phenomenom." Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it. At all.

[Margalis]

I'm waiting for the day when Skinny QR Factorization is mainstream and people get together on Friday nights and do that instead of go clubbing. That's when geekiness will be truly mainstream.

Seriously though, I agree with the point that 80 years ago car usage might have been geeky. New tech is always adopted but new tech is also always invented. MP3s may be pretty mainstream but podcasting is still pretty geeky, and when podcasting is mainstream there will be some newer geek cutting edge.

New technology is continually adopted while not being understood. The sign of a cultural shift towards geekiness is not in the adoption of new tech but in the understanding. If we reach a point where most people understand how their new gadgets work that will be a real shift towards geek culture, but that will never happen. Lots of people listen to MP3s but talk to them about wavelet based compression and you won't get very far.

[lamaros]

Seriously though, I agree with the point that 80 years ago car usage might have been geeky.

It might have been rich.

Wanting to be a mechanic might have been geeky, though.

It's a bad comparison to make.

[Venkman]

it wasn't about being rich. Like anything, it was about prioritizing to get it.

Think about the dawn of personal computers. You had to be rich to get those too. Or the dawn of MMORPGs in MUDs, when you paid by the minute or hour. Rich there too.

New tech/experiences often are more expensive at first. The car analogy works because who adopted those was both a way niche subset of society and had the means to go get it, whether they compromised something else in life or were just rich enough to not have to worry about compromisiing at all.

I know the year I got my first computer (Apple //e), my parents decided to get that instead of spending that $5k on a newer car.

[Falconeer]

Hey, look! Another one who thinks they can gain 'meaning' (in a video game) by punishment.

Since you're new, I'll share my solution with you: Hook your nuts up to a car battery and light 'er up when you die in a game. That should provide the negative reinforcement you seek.

Have a cookie.

It's all about personal perception. MMO without hasrh death penalties give me the feeling of playing a single game in god mode. Sure, it's not the same, as in a single player game when you die you have to get back to the last saved point, but I could argue that "You just got punished! And lost your precious played time since the last save!", while in god mode you don't actually lose anything. As strange as it may sound, lots of casual gamers don't complete single player videogames cause they die and got pissed at loading back to the last save. For them the challenge simply isn't rewarding (or fun, but I suspect the two things are related) enough to cope with failure. In a MMO, dying without losing anything it's even a milder penalty, especially dying to other players, cause it doesn't even push you back in the storyline or the story mode. It just geographically moves you back some (usually a few) miles away. It is nothing, it's just a little waste of time. Bu isn't that a form of punishment anyway, both in single players where you have to load back and in multi where you get moved elsewhere?
What would you answer to a player saying that he/she hates games where you can die and lose a game cause that's just punishment and they just want to advance, watch the story or get the best items, and are not bothered by the challenge at all?
So, perception: what you consider punishment it's balanced for some by the rewards and the challenge, while what you don't conisder punishment but just fun gameplay it's perceived as boring and punishing because of the lack of risks and rewards by others.

Let's put it differently: MMORPGs where the PvP doesn't cost you anything are to me like Poker without money. You probably think that poker players could "Hook their nuts up to a car battery and light 'er up when they die in a game (when they lose a hand)." ...and get the kind of reinforcement they need, but I think that poker is a nice example of risking to get rewarded, and the reward (money in poker, items or e-peen credits in MMOs) to some people, is more appealing than the fear of losing it all.

I feel PvP is similar to gambling, and as much as you could despise gambling it still appeals to lots that deserve good products too.
Actually, I like EVE more than Poker, but "emotionally" they are in the same family.

Caladein said:

If you can take the nipple electrodes away from EVE, make it accessible, and make it fun within some reasonable time frame, you'll get Money Hats.

That's the point. Do you have an idea of how many people I heard in my life moaning about how fun Poker and Horse Racing would be without the betting?
I respectfully disagree :)
You want to take the "money" out of Poker, Horse Racing, Roulette, Slot Machines and EVE. I don't get that. There are lots of games you can play without the risk of losing money. Why bother about these ones?

Back to the subject: I think there are lots of gamers who don't know too well what they want, and just a handful that do. It's so human. Look at politics...

[Ironwood]

Don't.

[Lantyssa]

Let's put it differently: MMORPGs where the PvP doesn't cost you anything are to me like Poker without money. You probably think that poker players could "Hook their nuts up to a car battery and light 'er up when they die in a game (when they lose a hand)." ...and get the kind of reinforcement they need, but I think that poker is a nice example of risking to get rewarded, and the reward (money in poker, items or e-peen credits in MMOs) to some people, is more appealing than the fear of losing it all.

80% of PvPers are going to lose the majority of the time.  I suppose the take is great for the 20% on the top of the heap, but you will soon find those 80% taking their chips and going home.  The only way to get them involved is to not make it so punitive that they lose everything every time they play.

If you are happy with a small player base great, just be aware it will always be small under that type of system.

[Hoax]

Woohoo made up facts??  (I am disappointed)

There is some area in between "poker without money" and "so punitive that they lose everything every time they play" isn't there?

Let's face it, WoW is poker without chips, the pvp is so stupid that it manages to be a mockery of pvp itself.  How do I know this?  I played WoW with a bunch of people set on pvp'ing a ton.  We were on a pvp server.  Before the first year was out most people had quit or declared.  Its not really worth pvp'ing because winning gets me nothing and I need to keep up with the Joneses in the raiding game.

Shadowbane is the latter statement, loosing cities and being left homeless is tough, gold farming is boring.  Having your items break and no city where u can safely repair them is pretty mean also.

[Falconeer]

In EVE, for example, as in UO, you don't lose *everything* every time you lose.
You just lose the pot. You lose what you brought with you.
You are not supposed to go all-in at every pot.

Diku games and uber rare driven carrot/stick games are a different kind of story, I know. But we are not asking for a good pvp diku. We are asking for a good pvp mmo.

[Venkman]

WoW PvP is stupid only because it has no real point. It's really just a gate to more content. Obviously people are fine with that. It's all linear.

"Real" PvP is enjoyed by far FAR less people, because it's more immersive by virtue of it being more accountable. Eve, old UO, Shadowbane, all fun and stuff, but never big hits. Their nicheness is not because of bugged code or when it was launched. It's because, by and large, the average gamer is not interested in as much immersion as those games require.

This genre only started taking off when the accountability of the average player decreased. That's an important insight into the sociology of this space.

[Lantyssa]

The 80/20 split is rather well referenced...  but whatever.  PvP is great.  Rah.

[Sky]

Why does PvP have to 'mean' something? Can't it just be fun? I know I'm an anomaly, but shit, man. Win, lose, who cares, it's a game. It should be fun. The journey is the thing, not the destination and whatnot.

[Krakrok]

Meaningful = memorable. Most FPSs are fun but not very memorable. Guild Wars was fun but not very memorable. Old UO and EVE are memorable and therefore meaningful.

[Falconeer]

Sky, don't get me wrong. I agree with you, fun is above all.
But sometimes I get fun playing darts over a good laugh, sometimes I get fun playing limit poker over 50 bucks. I won't get rich nor I'll be ruined winning/losing those fifties, but still, it's somewhat thrilling and it can be fun.
Upping the ante is up to me, or you... or anyone else.

[Jayce]

Sky, don't get me wrong. I agree with you, fun is above all.
But sometimes I get fun playing darts over a good laugh, sometimes I get fun playing limit poker over 50 bucks. I won't get rich nor I'll be ruined winning/losing those fifties, but still, it's somewhat thrilling and it can be fun.
Upping the ante is up to me, or you... or anyone else.

I'm not sure your poker comparison is very durable.

In poker you generally get to choose your opponents, and you can walk away at any time.  If you do play someone you don't know, and lose enough that you figure out he/she's a shark, then you can take your chips elsewhere.  Next time you walk by the table, he won't aggro you and force you to sit down and lose again.

Also, everyone has an equal chance (raw material-wise) by design in poker.  No one can ever get ganged or gatecamped in poker.

It's really more like a /pvp switch if you look at it that way.  If you add some way to bet gold on the outcome of a duel in WoW, you have poker.

[Falconeer]

I'm not sure your poker comparison is very durable.

In poker you generally get to choose your opponents, and you can walk away at any time.  If you do play someone you don't know, and lose enough that you figure out he/she's a shark, then you can take your chips elsewhere.  Next time you walk by the table, he won't aggro you and force you to sit down and lose again.

Also, everyone has an equal chance (raw material-wise) by design in poker.  No one can ever get ganged or gatecamped in poker.

It's really more like a /pvp switch if you look at it that way.  If you add some way to bet gold on the outcome of a duel in WoW, you have poker.

You are stretching it, but I guess it's unavoidable.
You can alwas take your chip elsewhere (as in a different zone or betting less chips) in MMOs. Point is carebears (as in players who play in PvP+ games or servers and definitely SHOULD NOT) hate to be forced to do that. When that happens their frustration rises and they blame the game and the devs. It's pretty much like when you are playing poker with friends and lose. First time it's fun, second time it's disappointing. Third time the carebear says he/she doesn't like poker.

Again, on the point that everyone has equal chance, that's eqully true in MMO without RMT where everyone starts with the same chances, money, level. Of course catassery shifts that balance, but the same is true when you are playing Texas Hold'em and a couple of stupid guys go all-in, lose, give all their chips to the bad guy and now you are all alone against the Orc chipleader. He has more money now, he can gank you to death and that happens a lot.

To sum it up, of course my comparison is far from being perfect, but I am just trying to state the obvious: there's lots of players who know what they really want, harsh and riskful PvP, and they give any crappy game that promise to have those features a chance, cause that's what they really like. On the other hand, people who don't like that kind of PvP, instead of being satisfied with the multitude of games already developed for their tastes, feel the urge to keep mocking and bashing those with different needings. I could take that mockery without a sniff if I had a couple of good and lethal pvp mmorpgs to play. The fact that I am minority makes me nervous, as no one has the money or the talent to develop for me.

[Malathor]

  Eve shows us that most of what we thought we had learned about MMO game design was wrong.

Perhaps those who came up with those conclusions should not have been so dismissive of the millions of Asians playing PvP+ MMORPGs, but they were too busy blaming the players for their own crappy design failures. Actually I think WoW is a purer test than Eve. WoW's PvP servers add nothing whatsoever to the game except random griefing, yet a clear majority in every part of the world are choosing the PvP servers. Somehow we didn't turn out so different from those crazy Lineage obsessed Asians after all.

Akalabeth--Core Game: kill rat, get sword +1; kill orc, get sword +2; kill dragon, get sword +3.  Frills: none.

Lots of games in the decades between Akalabeth and WoW--Core Game: kill rat, get sword +1; kill orc, get sword +2; kill dragon. Frills: polygon elf boobs, storyline written by angsty 15 year old.

WoW--Core Game: kill rat, get sword +1; kill orc, get sword +2; kill dragon, get sword +3.  Frills: polygon elf boobs, storyline written by angsty 15 year old, lots of other people making Leroy Jenkins jokes.

WoW's gameplay would be instantly understandable to an Akalabeth player: the only real change is from "ding-lewt" to "ding-grats-lewt."  But the revolution is coming any day now, diku is just about to die.  To the streets, my brothers RAWWWWRRRRRR!

The most succinct analysis of the MMORPG genre ever written. There really is nothing else to it....except different shades of implementing PvP.