The exact opposite is true to what some said that "gamers are guiding the direction of MMORPGs."
We already got what they keep delivering for us, and many of us dislike (it is not that are neutral, but we actually dislike) PvP-focused and raid-focused games.
We want
World Immersion: Exploration; Travel; Cultures; Incredible Audio;
Character Customization: Not just appearance; a truly unique story that is shaped, and developed, by the gamer - not linear quests, but overall story is great as well;
Innovation:
Player empowerment: let gamers develop their own house - and dungeon. Let them, literally, design totally unique armor. Let them own an entire section of the world. Not just a guild, but player controlled NPCs. Give players more tools.
Changing, and evolving, world that results from player-decisions and actions.
Community
Real community;
Not raid guilds.
Gameplay
Options
Group-cooperative;
Variety of dungeons;
Exploration;
Community-raids;
Public quests (but done different from WAR; they have to be spontaneous, and few and far between at times, occuring at different parts of the world... let's get an NPC raid on the town, with players, mix it in with GMs; let's think outside of the box. I hate the phrase outside of the box, but let's do it. Let's let our minds free);
FREEDOM.
We get
Artificial, limited world;
Characters that are the same - class and slightly different appearance with forced-talent trees is not, and never will be, customization;
No innovation except for EXPANDED PvP; PvP needs to be retracted;
Community that is raid-focused.
Gameplay that is cheat questing/tasking to, ultimately, raid or PvP.
(1) World Immersion + (2) Sophisticated/Deep Customization + (3) Innovation = The Next Big Thing.
Your premise is flawed as far as im concerned. You work from the stance that the games they made in the past were great.They were not.They were simply among the first .
Never said they were great. I was only comparing and measuring success of the games. McQuaid and Garriott made very successful MMOs but their second attempts were disasters. That's a fact and that's what I am exploring. Why do these guys, who seem to know what they are doing, fail to continue their success or at least come up with an okay success?
And being the first doesn't necessarily mean automatic success. For every EQ and UO, there's a Meridian 54 (not sure on the number which just proves my point) and Asheron's Call (which compared to other MMOs at the time didn't do as well). Being first only gives you a headstart. What you do with the headstart is what separates you from the pack.
As for the question whether or not those first few MMOs were truly great...well, that's another discussion. Although I will add, I think many people see those games filled with nostalgia and rose-colored glasses which makes them appear to be better than they really are. I suppose 10 years from now, the players who started out with WoW will claim that it was the best MMO ever even if there's a better one they are playing. But also at the same time, I can say, WoW is a pretty good game and I'm willing to say EQ and UO are decent games too.
i am a firm believer in devs earning their respect. i dont give a damn if you released some kick a** game back in 95 this is 08 and you cant rely on that rep to get you through, its your skills alone that will help. Personally i hate these old devs as they seem quite up themselves (though i am an Aussie and we tend to hate anyone even remotely up themself). Why should Vanguard or TR be great just because 1 (out of a team of hundreds) guy made some decent games years ago?
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
The exact opposite is true to what some said that "gamers are guiding the direction of MMORPGs." We already got what they keep delivering for us, and many of us dislike (it is not that are neutral, but we actually dislike) PvP-focused and raid-focused games. We want
World Immersion: Exploration; Travel; Cultures; Incredible Audio; Character Customization: Not just appearance; a truly unique story that is shaped, and developed, by the gamer - not linear quests, but overall story is great as well; Innovation:
Player empowerment: let gamers develop their own house - and dungeon. Let them, literally, design totally unique armor. Let them own an entire section of the world. Not just a guild, but player controlled NPCs. Give players more tools. Changing, and evolving, world that results from player-decisions and actions.
Community
Real community; Not raid guilds.
Gameplay
Options
Group-cooperative; Variety of dungeons; Exploration; Community-raids; Public quests (but done different from WAR; they have to be spontaneous, and few and far between at times, occuring at different parts of the world... let's get an NPC raid on the town, with players, mix it in with GMs; let's think outside of the box. I hate the phrase outside of the box, but let's do it. Let's let our minds free); FREEDOM.
We get
Artificial, limited world; Characters that are the same - class and slightly different appearance with forced-talent trees is not, and never will be, customization; No innovation except for EXPANDED PvP; PvP needs to be retracted; Community that is raid-focused. Gameplay that is cheat questing/tasking to, ultimately, raid or PvP.
(1) World Immersion + (2) Sophisticated/Deep Customization + (3) Innovation = The Next Big Thing. MMORPGs need to change direction from
FORCED to FREEDOM
DUMBED DOWN to SOPHISTICATED
LINEAR to OPTIONS
NO PLAYER TOOLS to PLAYER EMPOWERMENT
STATIC WORLD to DYNAMIC WORLD
Honestly, I think you are expecting too much. Also, you posted using "we" as if everyone would agree with you. I don't think every MMO player wants what you want.
The point is though, what you want requires I think, technology which is beyond what is available today (some of the stuff looks like you'd need some advanced AI work within the game system) and almost unlimited resources. Not even Blizzard with their funding would be able to make the game you are describing within a reasonable amount of time (if ever).
Maybe as players, we expect and demand too much? I don't know. I'd rather have devs try to make a MMO that's truly exceptional at a few things instead of trying to include everything at a mediocre level. I wonder if devs right now are trying to do too much in order to beat WoW and then realize that they are way over-budget and they don't have the time to fix/include everything.
Your premise is flawed as far as im concerned. You work from the stance that the games they made in the past were great.They were not.They were simply among the first .
Never said they were great. I was only comparing and measuring success of the games. McQuaid and Garriott made very successful MMOs but their second attempts were disasters. That's a fact and that's what I am exploring. Why do these guys, who seem to know what they are doing, fail to continue their success or at least come up with an okay success?
And being the first doesn't necessarily mean automatic success. For every EQ and UO, there's a Meridian 54 (not sure on the number which just proves my point) and Asheron's Call (which compared to other MMOs at the time didn't do as well). Being first only gives you a headstart. What you do with the headstart is what separates you from the pack.
As for the question whether or not those first few MMOs were truly great...well, that's another discussion. Although I will add, I think many people see those games filled with nostalgia and rose-colored glasses which makes them appear to be better than they really are. I suppose 10 years from now, the players who started out with WoW will claim that it was the best MMO ever even if there's a better one they are playing. But also at the same time, I can say, WoW is a pretty good game and I'm willing to say EQ and UO are decent games too.
You didn't say they were great. But I will. Two of the best games I've ever played were UO and DAOC. I didn't like EQ.
If UO and DAOC had not been changed to almost entirely different games than what they started as I would still be playing them today.
I was hoping for DAOC 2.0 in WAR, but instead I got WoW 1.5.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
Originally posted by SpectralHunt The point is though, what you want requires I think, technology which is beyond what is available today (some of the stuff looks like you'd need some advanced AI work within the game system) and almost unlimited resources. Not even Blizzard with their funding would be able to make the game you are describing within a reasonable amount of time (if ever).
Maybe you should look at 2nd Life. It's actually MORE open and player driven than declaredemer's desciption. In my opinion, too open. There's no structure to the chaos really. There's no world inside the game. It's really the truest form of a sandbox game.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
The exact opposite is true to what some said that "gamers are guiding the direction of MMORPGs." We already got what they keep delivering for us, and many of us dislike (it is not that are neutral, but we actually dislike) PvP-focused and raid-focused games. We want
World Immersion: Exploration; Travel; Cultures; Incredible Audio; Character Customization: Not just appearance; a truly unique story that is shaped, and developed, by the gamer - not linear quests, but overall story is great as well; Innovation:
Player empowerment: let gamers develop their own house - and dungeon. Let them, literally, design totally unique armor. Let them own an entire section of the world. Not just a guild, but player controlled NPCs. Give players more tools. Changing, and evolving, world that results from player-decisions and actions.
Community
Real community; Not raid guilds.
Gameplay
Options
Group-cooperative; Variety of dungeons; Exploration; Community-raids; Public quests (but done different from WAR; they have to be spontaneous, and few and far between at times, occuring at different parts of the world... let's get an NPC raid on the town, with players, mix it in with GMs; let's think outside of the box. I hate the phrase outside of the box, but let's do it. Let's let our minds free); FREEDOM.
We get
Artificial, limited world; Characters that are the same - class and slightly different appearance with forced-talent trees is not, and never will be, customization; No innovation except for EXPANDED PvP; PvP needs to be retracted; Community that is raid-focused. Gameplay that is cheat questing/tasking to, ultimately, raid or PvP.
(1) World Immersion + (2) Sophisticated/Deep Customization + (3) Innovation = The Next Big Thing. MMORPGs need to change direction from
FORCED to FREEDOM
DUMBED DOWN to SOPHISTICATED
LINEAR to OPTIONS
NO PLAYER TOOLS to PLAYER EMPOWERMENT
STATIC WORLD to DYNAMIC WORLD
I don't think every MMO player wants what you want.
I am completely open to the possibilty that gamers do not want what I want.
It is not about me, or any individual, but what the market wants.
The market, my theory goes, wants (1) world immersion (that MMORPG "feel" again) + (2) Character Customization that is far beyond talent trees but involves in-depth character development involving story that developers and players create + (3) Innovative features, including player empowerment and world's that change and evolve not just physically but politically, resource-wise, and with "events," inter alia.
EQ Changed This Industry By Going 3D
WoW Changed This Industry Via Accessibility
The Next Thing Will Change This Industry Through Innovation - Technology is One Small Part of It
good question from the OP. i been wondering this as well. I think its frankly very simple you can only reinvent the wheel so many times. before you end up doing the same thing technically despite being slightly different, or adding some superficial element or feature. its true i guess lightning doesnt strike in the same place twice. in the end every MMO as of right now is some deriviative descendent of every other MMO that has come out. we can only hope some new type of MMO can come out whether its Scifi FPS, cyberpunk, steampunk or similar. it does in fact takes a certain someone with that special talent and skill to come out with a killer hit. im afraid we wont be seeing it anytime soon.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
what IS wrong with WAR exactly? Surely, it is a replicate of DAoC with its RvR just with a complete different style. (DAoC medievil or something, and WAR obviously WAR)
what IS wrong with WAR exactly? Surely, it is a replicate of DAoC with its RvR just with a complete different style. (DAoC medievil or something, and WAR obviously WAR)
The main difference, I think, is that DAoC's battlegrounds were more like mini open RvR, whereas WAR's scenarios are like WoW's battlegrounds. DAoC was designed when MMOs were more niche and hardcore, while WAR was designed to get the easy-mode WoW crew to play it.
The exact opposite is true to what some said that "gamers are guiding the direction of MMORPGs." We already got what they keep delivering for us, and many of us dislike (it is not that are neutral, but we actually dislike) PvP-focused and raid-focused games. We want
World Immersion: Exploration; Travel; Cultures; Incredible Audio; Character Customization: Not just appearance; a truly unique story that is shaped, and developed, by the gamer - not linear quests, but overall story is great as well; Innovation:
Player empowerment: let gamers develop their own house - and dungeon. Let them, literally, design totally unique armor. Let them own an entire section of the world. Not just a guild, but player controlled NPCs. Give players more tools. Changing, and evolving, world that results from player-decisions and actions.
Community
Real community; Not raid guilds.
Gameplay
Options
Group-cooperative; Variety of dungeons; Exploration; Community-raids; Public quests (but done different from WAR; they have to be spontaneous, and few and far between at times, occuring at different parts of the world... let's get an NPC raid on the town, with players, mix it in with GMs; let's think outside of the box. I hate the phrase outside of the box, but let's do it. Let's let our minds free); FREEDOM.
We get
Artificial, limited world; Characters that are the same - class and slightly different appearance with forced-talent trees is not, and never will be, customization; No innovation except for EXPANDED PvP; PvP needs to be retracted; Community that is raid-focused. Gameplay that is cheat questing/tasking to, ultimately, raid or PvP.
(1) World Immersion + (2) Sophisticated/Deep Customization + (3) Innovation = The Next Big Thing. MMORPGs need to change direction from
FORCED to FREEDOM
DUMBED DOWN to SOPHISTICATED
LINEAR to OPTIONS
NO PLAYER TOOLS to PLAYER EMPOWERMENT
STATIC WORLD to DYNAMIC WORLD
I don't think every MMO player wants what you want.
It is not about me, or any individual, but what the market wants.
The market, my theory goes, wants (1) world immersion (that MMORPG "feel" again) + (2) Character Customization that is far beyond talent trees but involves in-depth character development involving story that developers and players create + (3) Innovative features, including player empowerment and world's that change and evolve not just physically but politically, resource-wise, and with "events," inter alia.
EQ Changed This Industry By Going 3D
WoW Changed This Industry Via Accessibility
The Next Thing Will Change This Industry Through Innovation - Technology is One Small Part of It
That's the thing. If what you say is true, then the trends suggest that gamers want a "theme park" suited for casual gamers. The market is asking for WoW. Sure people may say they want something different but the market is dictated by one thing and one thing only: money. So where is all the money going to? If you love sandbox types of games, you should be worried.
Course it is very possible (as you suggest) that no company has been able to produce a valid sandbox therefore the gamers are just taking what they are getting. What I am saying is, it is almost impossible to create a sandbox with all that you are suggesting due to limitations in technology, resources and time.
Originally posted by SpectralHunt The point is though, what you want requires I think, technology which is beyond what is available today (some of the stuff looks like you'd need some advanced AI work within the game system) and almost unlimited resources. Not even Blizzard with their funding would be able to make the game you are describing within a reasonable amount of time (if ever).
Maybe you should look at 2nd Life. It's actually MORE open and player driven than declaredemer's desciption. In my opinion, too open. There's no structure to the chaos really. There's no world inside the game. It's really the truest form of a sandbox game.
Everything in Second Life is built by players. The designers only provide the space and tools. It's an interesting thought though. MMOs are a bit different though since the devs actually sculpt the world, structuring it around a lore or story. I think it takes a great deal of effort and resources to make a virtual world that is coherent and unified at the same time as large in volume as some of the MMOs we see today.
I've never touched Second Life so I have no idea what it's like. But I have heard from second parties that most of it is pretty downright useless and there are only a few places worth visiting. It's one thing to set up districts of random styles and themes. It's a whole new monster to take all that space and making a unified world with an all encompassing storyline.
what IS wrong with WAR exactly? Surely, it is a replicate of DAoC with its RvR just with a complete different style. (DAoC medievil or something, and WAR obviously WAR)
In my opinion, WAR just seems shallow. I mean even more simple and shallow than WoW (although I don't think WoW is THAT shallow as some would suggest). It lacks a certain immersion factor. It just feels like a game and not a virtual world. That's my beef with the game.
Oh and the reward system and how ORvR is setup is borked which is kinda sad since that's the very core of the game.
If Vanguard and Tabula Rasa was developed by a completely new designer who had the resources of Sigil/Sony and NCSoft, do you think they would have done better?
My answer is yes. I am leaning towards the belief that these older, so called legendary designers no longer have the ability and skills to design a great successful MMO. Now a new designer might not have made a WoW killer but I do think they would have made a couple of good MMOs with a decent fanbase, like say LotRO.
Originally posted by nomadian what IS wrong with WAR exactly? Surely, it is a replicate of DAoC with its RvR just with a complete different style. (DAoC medievil or something, and WAR obviously WAR)
They put in Scenarios, that was wrong from the very start of the game wich is praised to be RvR.
Don't get me wrong i have nothing against instanced PvP but i am pretty sure the Developers flagship was called RvR. The instanced version of it dosn't really feel anywhere like "RvR".
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.
Ok this will be my shot at it..
I think in the case of McQuaid beyond the rumors of some personal issues.. It was the fact perhaps the other people who worked on EQ were more responsible for its success than we know or knew. Maybe Steve Clover or some of the others were the actual "spark" that kindled that fire.
When Brad went on to Sigil with Jeff Butler.. Most of Butler's experience was actually in customer service. When he was promoted to producer of the EQLive team.. he was promoted from Lead GM. I'm not sure how much development experience he had.
Garriott.. I was a big fan of his during the single player Ultima days. Personally I was always under the impression that he wasn't that hand's on with Ultima Online. I played the game from 1997 until 2002 but I always thought Raph Koster was more involved with it than Richard.
With TR probably the big problem was he was distracted.. obviously wanting to go into space. The game had to suffer when the guy with his name on the box.. takes off for space training etc I think he could have put resources (his own) into the game and done something... instead he obviously wanted to pursue other interest.
Jacobs...
My perspective of playing DAoC was always that Mark Jacobs was just a PR kinda guy. That isn't to say he isn't involved.. but I just never thought of him being responsible for what DAoC was.
Over the years most of the people who created all those things we loved.. left Mythic.
I'm probably wrong about a lot of my perceptions..
I think in the end maybe the issue is the team of people that created these past games.. wasn't around the next time. MMO's are a team effort and even an executive producer really can't control everything. So once you lose the talent in a certain area you can't always replace that.
I expected or hoped for a LOT more from all of those games.
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.
Well, both game designers and music artists do get burnt out. Sometimes you have one great idea and that is it. Think of all the bands with one big hit and nothin more... Remember Babylon zoos Spaceman? Or Village peoples YMCA? All creative bussiness have them, they have one great idea and nothing else.
A MMO needs a good idea around it and not all devs can make more than one. That is also the reason that so many companies makes sequels instead of new games, EA and Blizzard lives on that. Same things with movies, if the first one sold well then make another one and people will see it even if the sequel isn't as good. And you don't have to make new characters either then.
It might off course also be that the devs are too cocky. I don't think you have to be arrogant to become a lead game designer, some do but there are others that are a lot better and work as a team.
And in Ropers case; he made Diablo together with Jeff Strain from Arenanet. If you played Hellgate and Guildwars you can see who made what there and you know why GW sold a lot while HGL failed badly. Roper was the practical guy while Strain did the creative work, together that works great but Roper just couldn't do the creative work by himself.
The problem with the other three was that they looked on Wow and thought they could do the same thing but better. To qoute Strain (yes, I am probably a fan boi there): "If people love Wow they will continue to play Wow, we do our own thing and don't look on them. We neither can or will compete with Wow".
Also, didn't SOE buy Vanguard from a small company called sigil and then changed it so it could "Compete" with Wow before releasing it?
I'm probably wrong about a lot of my perceptions..
Eh, pretty much all the responses are speculation and perceptions. No reason yours isn't as valid as anyone elses, especially since you do make good points.
I do agree MMOs are a collabrative effort. But like most other markets, people like to see a face that represents the game. That's why we know who McQuaid, Garriott and Jacobs are because whether or not they were integral to the making of the game, they are the promoters. I do think they must have been integral or the company would have chosen someone else to represent their game.
Why they weren't around the second time around? If I had to guess? Egos. Instead of depending upon the sweat and hardwork that got them to where they are, they assumed their popularity would carry the game. Once they found out that didn't work, they disappeared...
Also, didn't SOE buy Vanguard from a small company called sigil and then changed it so it could "Compete" with Wow before releasing it?
SOE did buy Vanguard from Sigil but it was already a disaster by then. I know there are a lot of SOE haters here (SWG debacle) but I don't blame them for Vanguard. Vanguard's failure rests solely upon Sigil when they were independent. They wasted time and resources and basically went to Microsoft (who said no) and Sony to bail them out.
All Sony did and is still doing, is trying to keep Vanguard afloat and profitable like most of their MMOs. Now if that means making it more like WoW, then that's what they will do. In reality, Vanguard isn't becoming like WoW. Sony has EQ2 for that. They are trying to keep Vanguard more hardcore but it's just hard to come back from a failed launch.
The market, my theory goes, wants (1) world immersion (that MMORPG "feel" again) + (2) Character Customization that is far beyond talent trees but involves in-depth character development involving story that developers and players create + (3) Innovative features, including player empowerment and world's that change and evolve not just physically but politically, resource-wise, and with "events," inter alia.
That you are obviously wrong. The market wants polished entertainment with lots of content. WOW has proven that.
WoW is vulnerable, similarly to how EQ was vulnerable with WoW's release. WoW's vulnerability is its lack of world immersion, customization, and innovative features. EQ's vulnerability was this raid-guild focus, excessive downtimes, zerg/raid guilds, etc.
When you are at the top of the hill, you're always looking down to make sure no one else takes your place. Yes, WoW is vulnerable. Every MMO at the top is vulnerable. There will never be a perfect MMO that will stay on top forever.
But so far, going five years, WoW has reaped ridiculous success to the point where they shouldn't even be compared to other MMOs when measuring success. They are an absolute anomally right now.
WoWs features that you consider vulnerabilities seem to be doing well for them. They just keep trucking along, crushing other AAA MMOs in their wake.
I sense you are very frustrated at the current MMO landscape. And you are hoping to see a future MMO that will be completely different from WoW that will crush it, thus proving your point. Hey, I hope that happens. I'd enjoy a more immersive world too. But I do think you are thinking with your heart right now. The truth is, from what I gather, is players want a WoW like experience, that's easy to participate, incredibly polished and refined in their gameplay and most of all, very casual.
The MMO landscape has changed. If devs think they can go back to the old ways of the first MMOs, I think they will fail. Lessons have to be learned and the old devs seem like they didn't learn anything.
WoW's accessibility should be implemented. If you want, add a fourth factor to the mix.
WoW's Accessibility + World Immersion + Customization + Innovation = Next Big Thing
If the market wants a WoW-like game, they will go play WoW, if they are not already.
The same game, with different lore, is not going to be successful. I already Coca Cola, and Pepsi, and I do not need another soft drink.
Nevertheless, what you were alluding to, I want MMORPGs to become more of a work of art again of creativity and genius and less of a product.
Intellectually, most MMORPGs are shallow.
Creatively, they are lacking.
Innovation, if there is any, is not in the area of concepts of world immersion and customization.
A WoW-competitor will not be a WoW-clone. A WoW comeptitor will take the things from WoW that work but expand on world immersion, customization, and totally innovated features such as player empowerment tools/opportunities and a game that changes, and evolves, with and without player actions.
Comments
Your premise is flawed as far as im concerned.
You work from the stance that the games they made in the past were great.They were not.They were simply among the first .
The exact opposite is true to what some said that "gamers are guiding the direction of MMORPGs."
We already got what they keep delivering for us, and many of us dislike (it is not that are neutral, but we actually dislike) PvP-focused and raid-focused games.
We want
We get
(1) World Immersion + (2) Sophisticated/Deep Customization + (3) Innovation = The Next Big Thing.
MMORPGs need to change direction from
FORCED to FREEDOM
DUMBED DOWN to SOPHISTICATED
LINEAR to OPTIONS
NO PLAYER TOOLS to PLAYER EMPOWERMENT
STATIC WORLD to DYNAMIC WORLD
Never said they were great. I was only comparing and measuring success of the games. McQuaid and Garriott made very successful MMOs but their second attempts were disasters. That's a fact and that's what I am exploring. Why do these guys, who seem to know what they are doing, fail to continue their success or at least come up with an okay success?
And being the first doesn't necessarily mean automatic success. For every EQ and UO, there's a Meridian 54 (not sure on the number which just proves my point) and Asheron's Call (which compared to other MMOs at the time didn't do as well). Being first only gives you a headstart. What you do with the headstart is what separates you from the pack.
As for the question whether or not those first few MMOs were truly great...well, that's another discussion. Although I will add, I think many people see those games filled with nostalgia and rose-colored glasses which makes them appear to be better than they really are. I suppose 10 years from now, the players who started out with WoW will claim that it was the best MMO ever even if there's a better one they are playing. But also at the same time, I can say, WoW is a pretty good game and I'm willing to say EQ and UO are decent games too.
i am a firm believer in devs earning their respect. i dont give a damn if you released some kick a** game back in 95 this is 08 and you cant rely on that rep to get you through, its your skills alone that will help. Personally i hate these old devs as they seem quite up themselves (though i am an Aussie and we tend to hate anyone even remotely up themself). Why should Vanguard or TR be great just because 1 (out of a team of hundreds) guy made some decent games years ago?
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Honestly, I think you are expecting too much. Also, you posted using "we" as if everyone would agree with you. I don't think every MMO player wants what you want.
The point is though, what you want requires I think, technology which is beyond what is available today (some of the stuff looks like you'd need some advanced AI work within the game system) and almost unlimited resources. Not even Blizzard with their funding would be able to make the game you are describing within a reasonable amount of time (if ever).
Maybe as players, we expect and demand too much? I don't know. I'd rather have devs try to make a MMO that's truly exceptional at a few things instead of trying to include everything at a mediocre level. I wonder if devs right now are trying to do too much in order to beat WoW and then realize that they are way over-budget and they don't have the time to fix/include everything.
Never said they were great. I was only comparing and measuring success of the games. McQuaid and Garriott made very successful MMOs but their second attempts were disasters. That's a fact and that's what I am exploring. Why do these guys, who seem to know what they are doing, fail to continue their success or at least come up with an okay success?
And being the first doesn't necessarily mean automatic success. For every EQ and UO, there's a Meridian 54 (not sure on the number which just proves my point) and Asheron's Call (which compared to other MMOs at the time didn't do as well). Being first only gives you a headstart. What you do with the headstart is what separates you from the pack.
As for the question whether or not those first few MMOs were truly great...well, that's another discussion. Although I will add, I think many people see those games filled with nostalgia and rose-colored glasses which makes them appear to be better than they really are. I suppose 10 years from now, the players who started out with WoW will claim that it was the best MMO ever even if there's a better one they are playing. But also at the same time, I can say, WoW is a pretty good game and I'm willing to say EQ and UO are decent games too.
You didn't say they were great. But I will. Two of the best games I've ever played were UO and DAOC. I didn't like EQ.
If UO and DAOC had not been changed to almost entirely different games than what they started as I would still be playing them today.
I was hoping for DAOC 2.0 in WAR, but instead I got WoW 1.5.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
Maybe you should look at 2nd Life. It's actually MORE open and player driven than declaredemer's desciption. In my opinion, too open. There's no structure to the chaos really. There's no world inside the game. It's really the truest form of a sandbox game.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
I don't think every MMO player wants what you want.
I am completely open to the possibilty that gamers do not want what I want.
It is not about me, or any individual, but what the market wants.
The market, my theory goes, wants (1) world immersion (that MMORPG "feel" again) + (2) Character Customization that is far beyond talent trees but involves in-depth character development involving story that developers and players create + (3) Innovative features, including player empowerment and world's that change and evolve not just physically but politically, resource-wise, and with "events," inter alia.
EQ Changed This Industry By Going 3D
WoW Changed This Industry Via Accessibility
The Next Thing Will Change This Industry Through Innovation - Technology is One Small Part of It
good question from the OP. i been wondering this as well. I think its frankly very simple you can only reinvent the wheel so many times. before you end up doing the same thing technically despite being slightly different, or adding some superficial element or feature. its true i guess lightning doesnt strike in the same place twice. in the end every MMO as of right now is some deriviative descendent of every other MMO that has come out. we can only hope some new type of MMO can come out whether its Scifi FPS, cyberpunk, steampunk or similar. it does in fact takes a certain someone with that special talent and skill to come out with a killer hit. im afraid we wont be seeing it anytime soon.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
what IS wrong with WAR exactly? Surely, it is a replicate of DAoC with its RvR just with a complete different style. (DAoC medievil or something, and WAR obviously WAR)
The main difference, I think, is that DAoC's battlegrounds were more like mini open RvR, whereas WAR's scenarios are like WoW's battlegrounds. DAoC was designed when MMOs were more niche and hardcore, while WAR was designed to get the easy-mode WoW crew to play it.
I don't think every MMO player wants what you want.
It is not about me, or any individual, but what the market wants.
The market, my theory goes, wants (1) world immersion (that MMORPG "feel" again) + (2) Character Customization that is far beyond talent trees but involves in-depth character development involving story that developers and players create + (3) Innovative features, including player empowerment and world's that change and evolve not just physically but politically, resource-wise, and with "events," inter alia.
EQ Changed This Industry By Going 3D
WoW Changed This Industry Via Accessibility
The Next Thing Will Change This Industry Through Innovation - Technology is One Small Part of It
That's the thing. If what you say is true, then the trends suggest that gamers want a "theme park" suited for casual gamers. The market is asking for WoW. Sure people may say they want something different but the market is dictated by one thing and one thing only: money. So where is all the money going to? If you love sandbox types of games, you should be worried.
Course it is very possible (as you suggest) that no company has been able to produce a valid sandbox therefore the gamers are just taking what they are getting. What I am saying is, it is almost impossible to create a sandbox with all that you are suggesting due to limitations in technology, resources and time.
Maybe you should look at 2nd Life. It's actually MORE open and player driven than declaredemer's desciption. In my opinion, too open. There's no structure to the chaos really. There's no world inside the game. It's really the truest form of a sandbox game.
Everything in Second Life is built by players. The designers only provide the space and tools. It's an interesting thought though. MMOs are a bit different though since the devs actually sculpt the world, structuring it around a lore or story. I think it takes a great deal of effort and resources to make a virtual world that is coherent and unified at the same time as large in volume as some of the MMOs we see today.
I've never touched Second Life so I have no idea what it's like. But I have heard from second parties that most of it is pretty downright useless and there are only a few places worth visiting. It's one thing to set up districts of random styles and themes. It's a whole new monster to take all that space and making a unified world with an all encompassing storyline.
In my opinion, WAR just seems shallow. I mean even more simple and shallow than WoW (although I don't think WoW is THAT shallow as some would suggest). It lacks a certain immersion factor. It just feels like a game and not a virtual world. That's my beef with the game.
Oh and the reward system and how ORvR is setup is borked which is kinda sad since that's the very core of the game.
Just wondering...
If Vanguard and Tabula Rasa was developed by a completely new designer who had the resources of Sigil/Sony and NCSoft, do you think they would have done better?
My answer is yes. I am leaning towards the belief that these older, so called legendary designers no longer have the ability and skills to design a great successful MMO. Now a new designer might not have made a WoW killer but I do think they would have made a couple of good MMOs with a decent fanbase, like say LotRO.
They put in Scenarios, that was wrong from the very start of the game wich is praised to be RvR.
Don't get me wrong i have nothing against instanced PvP but i am pretty sure the Developers flagship was called RvR. The instanced version of it dosn't really feel anywhere like "RvR".
Ok this will be my shot at it..
I think in the case of McQuaid beyond the rumors of some personal issues.. It was the fact perhaps the other people who worked on EQ were more responsible for its success than we know or knew. Maybe Steve Clover or some of the others were the actual "spark" that kindled that fire.
When Brad went on to Sigil with Jeff Butler.. Most of Butler's experience was actually in customer service. When he was promoted to producer of the EQLive team.. he was promoted from Lead GM. I'm not sure how much development experience he had.
Garriott.. I was a big fan of his during the single player Ultima days. Personally I was always under the impression that he wasn't that hand's on with Ultima Online. I played the game from 1997 until 2002 but I always thought Raph Koster was more involved with it than Richard.
With TR probably the big problem was he was distracted.. obviously wanting to go into space. The game had to suffer when the guy with his name on the box.. takes off for space training etc I think he could have put resources (his own) into the game and done something... instead he obviously wanted to pursue other interest.
Jacobs...
My perspective of playing DAoC was always that Mark Jacobs was just a PR kinda guy. That isn't to say he isn't involved.. but I just never thought of him being responsible for what DAoC was.
Over the years most of the people who created all those things we loved.. left Mythic.
I'm probably wrong about a lot of my perceptions..
I think in the end maybe the issue is the team of people that created these past games.. wasn't around the next time. MMO's are a team effort and even an executive producer really can't control everything. So once you lose the talent in a certain area you can't always replace that.
I expected or hoped for a LOT more from all of those games.
Well, both game designers and music artists do get burnt out. Sometimes you have one great idea and that is it. Think of all the bands with one big hit and nothin more... Remember Babylon zoos Spaceman? Or Village peoples YMCA? All creative bussiness have them, they have one great idea and nothing else.
A MMO needs a good idea around it and not all devs can make more than one. That is also the reason that so many companies makes sequels instead of new games, EA and Blizzard lives on that. Same things with movies, if the first one sold well then make another one and people will see it even if the sequel isn't as good. And you don't have to make new characters either then.
It might off course also be that the devs are too cocky. I don't think you have to be arrogant to become a lead game designer, some do but there are others that are a lot better and work as a team.
And in Ropers case; he made Diablo together with Jeff Strain from Arenanet. If you played Hellgate and Guildwars you can see who made what there and you know why GW sold a lot while HGL failed badly. Roper was the practical guy while Strain did the creative work, together that works great but Roper just couldn't do the creative work by himself.
The problem with the other three was that they looked on Wow and thought they could do the same thing but better. To qoute Strain (yes, I am probably a fan boi there): "If people love Wow they will continue to play Wow, we do our own thing and don't look on them. We neither can or will compete with Wow".
Also, didn't SOE buy Vanguard from a small company called sigil and then changed it so it could "Compete" with Wow before releasing it?
ah I see, thanks for replies. Surely this does you make wonder whether EA had an influence with that and seeing how popular BGs were with WoW..
Eh, pretty much all the responses are speculation and perceptions. No reason yours isn't as valid as anyone elses, especially since you do make good points.
I do agree MMOs are a collabrative effort. But like most other markets, people like to see a face that represents the game. That's why we know who McQuaid, Garriott and Jacobs are because whether or not they were integral to the making of the game, they are the promoters. I do think they must have been integral or the company would have chosen someone else to represent their game.
Why they weren't around the second time around? If I had to guess? Egos. Instead of depending upon the sweat and hardwork that got them to where they are, they assumed their popularity would carry the game. Once they found out that didn't work, they disappeared...
SOE did buy Vanguard from Sigil but it was already a disaster by then. I know there are a lot of SOE haters here (SWG debacle) but I don't blame them for Vanguard. Vanguard's failure rests solely upon Sigil when they were independent. They wasted time and resources and basically went to Microsoft (who said no) and Sony to bail them out.
All Sony did and is still doing, is trying to keep Vanguard afloat and profitable like most of their MMOs. Now if that means making it more like WoW, then that's what they will do. In reality, Vanguard isn't becoming like WoW. Sony has EQ2 for that. They are trying to keep Vanguard more hardcore but it's just hard to come back from a failed launch.
That you are obviously wrong. The market wants polished entertainment with lots of content. WOW has proven that.
WoW is vulnerable, similarly to how EQ was vulnerable with WoW's release.
WoW's vulnerability is its lack of world immersion, customization, and innovative features.
EQ's vulnerability was this raid-guild focus, excessive downtimes, zerg/raid guilds, etc.
When you are at the top of the hill, you're always looking down to make sure no one else takes your place. Yes, WoW is vulnerable. Every MMO at the top is vulnerable. There will never be a perfect MMO that will stay on top forever.
But so far, going five years, WoW has reaped ridiculous success to the point where they shouldn't even be compared to other MMOs when measuring success. They are an absolute anomally right now.
WoWs features that you consider vulnerabilities seem to be doing well for them. They just keep trucking along, crushing other AAA MMOs in their wake.
I sense you are very frustrated at the current MMO landscape. And you are hoping to see a future MMO that will be completely different from WoW that will crush it, thus proving your point. Hey, I hope that happens. I'd enjoy a more immersive world too. But I do think you are thinking with your heart right now. The truth is, from what I gather, is players want a WoW like experience, that's easy to participate, incredibly polished and refined in their gameplay and most of all, very casual.
The MMO landscape has changed. If devs think they can go back to the old ways of the first MMOs, I think they will fail. Lessons have to be learned and the old devs seem like they didn't learn anything.
WoW's accessibility should be implemented. If you want, add a fourth factor to the mix.
WoW's Accessibility + World Immersion + Customization + Innovation = Next Big Thing
If the market wants a WoW-like game, they will go play WoW, if they are not already.
The same game, with different lore, is not going to be successful. I already Coca Cola, and Pepsi, and I do not need another soft drink.
Nevertheless, what you were alluding to, I want MMORPGs to become more of a work of art again of creativity and genius and less of a product.
Intellectually, most MMORPGs are shallow.
Creatively, they are lacking.
Innovation, if there is any, is not in the area of concepts of world immersion and customization.
A WoW-competitor will not be a WoW-clone. A WoW comeptitor will take the things from WoW that work but expand on world immersion, customization, and totally innovated features such as player empowerment tools/opportunities and a game that changes, and evolves, with and without player actions.