Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Former great MMO devs no longer able to make good games?
SpectralHunter
Member UncommonPosts: 455
McQuaid developed Everquest. Vanguard, his second attempt was a flop and is now on life support.
Garriott developed Ultima Online. Tabula Rasa will be shutdown in February.
Jacobs developed DAoC. WAR, while not a failure, is not IMO meeting the hype and expectations.
I'll even throw in Bill Roper who developed Diablo but his Hellgate: London is a disaster.
Why are these guys failing or failing to meet expectations? I'm beginning to think that these original devs have lost touch with the gamers of today. I don't think they understand how much gaming has changed in these last few years. Or, most likely in Garriott's case, they are incredibly arrogant and believe all the hype about themselves.
But let's be honest here. To reach the level of a lead designer of a major MMO, you need to be a bit arrogant and self-confident. But maybe these devs are too cocky? Too arrogant to admit they are good designers but poor managers and therefore too stubborn to delegate management to others?
Why are these old devs failing? Maybe it's time companies started looking past these guys and find some fresh blood.
Comments
Because making a successful MMO is not only a matter of hard work, but a bit of luck and magic that's hard to capture more than once?
Or perhaps they let their vision of what the players want over take practical considerations and financial limitations that they couldn't over look the first time around, which leads to failure.
Almost all of the games you mentioned released either buggy, incomplete, or were just chasing the WOW model to try and care a piece of that player base for themselves.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
True it takes some luck as well. I'll have to go outside the realm of MMOs but there are game companies that produce great games consistently. Valve, Bioware and Blizzard come to mind. They seem to have captured that magic in a bottle. I'm curious how Blizzard's next MMO will fare... Will Rob Pardo also end up on this list?
And that's management. A good manager understands the budget and fits the game to accomodate that budget. So maybe I am right? These past good designers are poor managers?
EQ was buggy. So was UO. DAoC as well. Even WoW was buggy. You are explaining the result. I am asking why they choose to release these types of games.
Because they aren't playing their strengths. They are trying to make games too similar to WoW, instead of like the games that made them famous. With the exception of Brad that is, that was mainly because the game was mismanaged and forced out too early by Sony. (also, its no longer on life support, its doing fine and getting more subs every day)
Darkfall Travelogues!
Well, older games has much simpler code, and less hardware to worry about complying with.
Add to that, more MMO competition makes investors whine about a slow paced development process, so games get rushed.
Whoa, wait a minute. You will have to show me the documentation on that one.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Well, I am unwilling to blame Sony for all or even most of Vanguard's shortcomings. If the rumors and leaks are true, McQuaid wasted a great deal of funds before Sony tried to save them. And really, I don't blame Sony for trying to recoup some of their investment.
As for the life support, I suppose that's relative. But considering the hype and the popularity of the developer, I can safely say that Vanguard has not met expectations. And considering how much time, resources and effort was used to make it, in my view it is on life support. And yes, I'm sure Vanguard is increasing subs a little but nothing substantial.
To add more to this topic, you mentioned their strengths. Maybe their strengths (or what they think constitutes good MMOs) no longer applies to this generation of gamers?
How long did it take for EQ to be developed? Or UO? I really don't know so I'm asking.
My guess is, they took less or roughly the same amount of time as today's major MMOs to make. So are investors really at fault here? Especially since they compensate the more complex MMO world with a much higher budget.
I do agree that games are harder to code and make now. So really, you need an exceptionally smart dev who is creative and organized (very rare).
I think it is also harder now than it used to be to make a game.....Games like UO and EQ kinda came out of nowhere......Nowadays we know about some MMOs years in advance.......While player input is nice some of them are too vocal and put too many demands on the devs......Also there are what now over 300 MMOs out there to choose from?? And how many of those are free?? Also with all the money involved from investors and publishers the devs are under pressure to make something that will probably sell...... This is why you see so many WoW clones.......Even games that start out different like EQ2 often end up changing their game in hopes of attracting a larger customer base......The players may not like the changes but the bottom line is the dollar, not us.
Well, I am unwilling to blame Sony for all or even most of Vanguard's shortcomings. If the rumors and leaks are true, McQuaid wasted a great deal of funds before Sony tried to save them. And really, I don't blame Sony for trying to recoup some of their investment.
As for the life support, I suppose that's relative. But considering the hype and the popularity of the developer, I can safely say that Vanguard has not met expectations. And considering how much time, resources and effort was used to make it, in my view it is on life support. And yes, I'm sure Vanguard is increasing subs a little but nothing substantial.
To add more to this topic, you mentioned their strengths. Maybe their strengths (or what they think constitutes good MMOs) no longer applies to this generation of gamers?
Like I said, the game was mismanaged AND forced out early by Sony. Key word being mismanaged. Though I suppose that's an understatement.
Also, if their strengths don't apply anymore, then their new games would have been great successes, because they DIDN'T go with their strengths. They went with making WoW clones instead of clones of their better, older games. The "current generation" is satisfied with WoW, but us actuall MMO gamers are waiting for games that style themselves after those old and great pioneer games, Dark Age of Camelot, Ultima Online...
Darkfall Travelogues!
Ah yes, that's a good point. I should have thought out my response more carefully. The only one who tried to hold onto his strength was McQuaid.
I suppose we can go deeper in this conversation. I'm hearing a lot of complaints that WoW is somehow very different from the older games. But is it really? At its core, they all seem to be similar and WoW is just an evolution of the same standard of questing and grinding.
What makes EQ so different from WoW?
Whoa, wait a minute. You will have to show me the documentation on that one.
Yeah the way I understood it was the Sigil ran out of funds and had to release to try and survive (they didnt)......Also if it wasnt for Sony Vanguard may not have ever have been released period.....Dont forget that Microsoft left a few months before SOny ever came on board......Im surprised Brad didnt just sell it to Sony before release but maybe in the back of his mind he still thought it might be a huge success despite all the signs pointing to failure........
I think there is probably less tolerance for an unfinished game now, then even 2 years ago.
There are enough MMO's in a more finished state now that work as good alternatives when someone is looking for a new MMO to play, instead of sticking it out with a new unfinished game.
Vireche
Also keep in mind the change in technology.
Over the last two years look at the processors, dual to quad core processors. Also the graphics cards.
If you are a developer you are going to take a certain amount of time to develope your game, however the technology is changing faster than you can develope. You are always playing "catch up" to take advantage of the latest and greatest hardware technology changes, yet you still have to release.
Do you release a game that will be obsolete in two years, or program to include the latest technology changes? How long do you delay to program? What if you run short of money, and have not yet completed delay to program?
Vanguard was a hog to run on the technolgy most people had at the time of launch. However, take the same game, keep it in developement, and optimize it for the DirectX 10 graphics and quad core processors, which would have been available within the next two years. Would the outcome have been different?
Same with AoC, when they started developement DirectX 10 was only theoretical. Funcom promised it, but hadn't programmed for it. Delay, or launch?
See, I can't accept technology as an excuse because every video game has to deal with it. Every company has to decide what level of graphics/technology they will use for their game. Some single-player games take just as long to develop as MMOs. The challenge isn't restricted only to MMOs.
All I have to say about this is that even those old mmo's, that were once good, got messed up, because there was no vision and they wanted to cater to the masses.
Talking about UO, SWG, and DAoC here.
The only 2 mmorpg's that are worth something in my eyes atm are EVE online and Ryzom, because they are the only ones that stayed true to their vision and in the case of EVE, they keep investing in their game and building upon what works, even if that means that they have to put new projects on hold ( their new mmo based on World of Darkness ), expanding more horizontally then vertically, giving it seemingly eternal life.
Compare this to UO, DAoC, SWG, they all got killed because they wanted to follow the next best thing. In case of UO and DAoC it was EQ, in case of SWG it was WoW.
Greetings
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
See, I can't accept technology as an excuse because every video game has to deal with it. Every company has to decide what level of graphics/technology they will use for their game. Some single-player games take just as long to develop as MMOs. The challenge isn't restricted only to MMOs.
Every COMPUTER video game. However consoles don't, the technology is fixed. That is why many developers move to consoles, they have a fixed parameter to hit. The performance guidelines don't vary. The developers migrate to consoles because it is easier to concentrate on the game, knowing that the technolgy will not change.
A MMORPG is not fixed like a single player computer game. A MMORPG will be altered innumerable times over it's career length, a single player RPG has a limited career run. So, for example, Baldur's Gate can be programmed based on the techmology at the time. When technology changes they create Baldur's Gate 2. They don't have to program for numerous hardware configures, both current, and with an eye toward future configs.
See, I can't accept technology as an excuse because every video game has to deal with it. Every company has to decide what level of graphics/technology they will use for their game. Some single-player games take just as long to develop as MMOs. The challenge isn't restricted only to MMOs.
I agree, technology is not an excuse, honestly, it has become easier to develop games, because one can take a premade engine ( unreal comes to mind ) and use tools that existed before, especially for companies that made an mmo before.
Furthermore, the programming languages of these days are so much easier and faster to develop ...
It has nothing to do with technology really, take WAR for example, they had a nice launch, they had all the tools and know how they needed. However they decided that WAR should be more WoW like and less DAoC. And thats was their mistake. They are slowly realising this, and fixing things ( like making keeps and fortresses more important and scenarios and PvE less important in the campaign. ), however the damage is done, and alot of players have moved on. ( especially in Europe, where server transfers took too long to implement and there are still no Realm War pages )
CCP embraces technology and keeps improving their good old game, instead of trying to make a new mmorpg everytime the previous one fails.
And Ryzom for example, they may have a dated graphics engine, but the gameplay and the feeling of a world to play in, makes all up for it. ( now if they can only have some good management, so they can make profit of their wonderfull little mmo )
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I understand your point but I still disagree with you. If what you said were true, every MMO would fail after a year or two because said technology would be out of date. But that's not the case. And it is not unheard of for old MMOs to get makeovers using new tech (ie UO, EQ and EVE).
And it's interesting you bringing up BG. I will provide other single-player RPGs that went well beyond their supposed career length using the same tech: BG2, Elder Scrolls, NWN and NWN2. All of these had expansions, like MMOs that allowed players to continue their adventures. In some regards, single-player RPGs are very similar to MMOs because you can continue their lifespan by creating expansions to the original.
What I am saying is, any computer developer has to look ahead, whether it be for a single-player RPG or MMO. It is the job of the developer to decide how much tech they plan to use. If developers can't understand that extreme tech will restrict their fanbase, they shouldn't be surprised if the game falters (ie Crysis) a bit.
Does Valve have a easier time making Half-Life 3 than some other company making an MMO because only MMOs supposedly have to think about tech of the future?
A good designer and a good company understands the challenge and plans accordingly. I just don't think just because it's a MMO, the process is more difficult.
I would have to agree. The makers of the older hit games can't put out anything worth a darn. While I respect them a lot for getting the mmo genre started, they just aren't able to fit in with the times. It seems like they keep on putting games out that are the same format with newer graphics. And the games seem to be badly coded and run horribly on computers. When I see that a game is made by one of these old kings I steer clear now. Tabula Rasa ran horribly, although the idea was neat. My clicking finger hurt after about 2 hours of play since it was very simple. In addition, Hellgate london was fun, but it wasn't really an mmo. It was more of an arcade classic. I don't think Diablo will be bad tho. Blizzard seems to know what people want and they keep on giving them it. WoW and Blizzard get ragged on a bit, since they are the Yankees fo video games, They always put out a great product and they are unwavering. The only games I feel are legitimate this day in age are WoW and Lotro. Both truly excellent games.
It has a lot to do with the younger generation of gamers, who are frankly disastrous in their near complete dismemberment of this genre of game. Sad, but they can't all be culled --- we'll have to live with their stupidity and dumb preferences, as a market, for some time, regrettably.
Maybe it shows that these people are not immortal after all and not every good idea actually works the way you want it to. These people are still good developers but you can't always catch lightning in a bottle all the time.
Oh, I don't expect them to be completely dominant every time they make a game but I do expect them to be at least competitive. Vanguard and TR were utter failures. They could have at least made MMOs that were doing okay. I suppose Jacobs shouldn't be on this list since WAR is doing adequately, I think.
I think it's mainly because the first time they create an mmo they are working in a independent studio, have full control and have a lot riding on making a good game. Once they are successful the studio is normally bought by a much larger company, probably making them instant millionaires in the process if they own a good proportion of it, and then they lose a lot of their freedom and hunger for success.
As of late we pay for Beta tests of games that are half assed and practically incomplete. Personaly i think it is our fault. It is as if we allow this to happen, but really what can we do? We like to game.
OP - great thread, very good question that you pose.
My 2c is that there isn't a simple reason that explains the dissapointments of these devs second efforts at designing MMOs (although to be fair I think WAR is a quality game, just slightly under achieving compared with hype/expectations).
I think you have to take each case individually and look at the specific forces at work. Personally I see no fundamental reason that a dev could not make a second great MMO, and i completely expect that Blizzards second attempt will be another class act and a runaway success.