"Who woke up and decided every MMORPG needs to have a UO-esque character development system" You totally lost me there and threw out any credibility with that sentence. When the hell since a game come out with a UO pre-trammel character development system? Not in 10 years. Not in 10 years has a game had all the elements of UO brought together. I for one am TIRED of the WoW clones out there and could only wish there was at least 1 other UO pre-trammel clone in 3D. We haven't had one and Darkfall and Mortal Online are not there yet. Darkfall was a total disaster and Mortal Online with its continued Free For All Friendly Fire system is going to fail in the same manner. FFA FF is not for everyone. Hell, it did not even work in Quake 3 Arena, all the FF servers were empty. DF and MO both competing for this extremely small niche are just going to destroy each other. Give me a UO clone where there was open PvP and skill-based-character-progression. PLEASE!!!! I'M BEGGING!!!!!!!!
Unless you're referring to a post by someone else that I missed... I wrote "D&D-esque," not "UO-esque." Those are two very different things
Heck, the one time I put my money where my mouth is (Wish) we were making a game intentionally aimed at UO fans.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
The real problem with this is that while most of MMORPG.com's posters aren't happy with the current use of the "Rulebook", if we can that, most casual MMORPG players actually are. WoW still has a gazillion subscribers for a reason. We are a considerable amount of players indeed, but the proportions are incomparable. Also WoW is probably introducing new MMORPG players even today, who are actually quite happy with that game. We might be seeing at least three or four companies trying to "throw out the rulebook" in the near future (hopefully), but I hardly think it is going to be happening very often anytime soon, because MMORPGs are still very profitable in the way that they currently are, and trying to change the roots of the genre is a risky move indeed.
Regarding the use of D&D-esque character advancement.
Originally posted by ironlion 1. Because it's the only reward the game can offer: Accomplishments, dependent on a probabiliistic chance of success. In order to get new, bigger accomplishments, you need to increase the chance of success to counteract the increased chance of failure. Since you cannot do this by training and player-skill increase (that's FPSs) you need character-skill increases, whether they come as improved equipment, improved abilities, or any other kind of improved "luck" with the RNG.
It may depend on what is meant by "D&D-esque". One D&Dism is the use of character levels as opposed to simply allowing skill increases. Apart from D&D, not many tabletop RPG games use levels anymore, but levels remain extremely common in MMORPGs.
As others have said, I would hate to be the small company sticking my neck out on the chopping block of offering something new. Funding could be pulled after years of development, players might not jump on your revolutionary bandwagon. Several companies have promised the great new game and then in the end spent months trying to make it more WOW-like because the investors were probably saying "We don't get it" or the Beta testers were saying "This isn't like Everquest".
Another interesting concept is that gamers are changing. When EQ1 came out, I was 29 and single and and was willing to chase the "golden carrot" six hours a night, five nights a week because it was the only carrot out there and it was new and different. Somewhere my risk and reward view point changed. I now have a child and a wife and have to worry more about keeping my job in a recession and so I am a lot more likely to not stick it out with a game for two or three years. New players are coming along that want something totally different than me. When I look for a game, I look for that challenge and feeling of awe and such that EQ1 offered but my playstyle doesn't exactly allow me to play like that.
Basically I am saying that the investors don't know exactly what they want allthough many think it is a WOW clone and many players don't know what they want. I want that old sandbox challenge of a huge interactive world but I can't guarantee I wouldn't jump ship to something simple and linear if my work schedule became to tough in RL.
I agree with several posters that it will take a Blizzard type company to beat the 800lb Gorilla that they created. You have to be able to fund the game yourself and pick a new style and stick with it a and polish it into a diamond. You have to be able to ignore the posters crying that it has no HPs, or Epics or something and be able to ignore the investors who threaten to pull cash because they don't see any dwarves or gnomes.
I've seen several companies offer new and innovative ideas in the alpha game stage of an MMORPG. Unfortunately most of those ideas get cut or release as a buggy mess by time they release as they rush to beat a time table or rush to implement other stuff that the fans are screaming for. Anyone remember how exciting it sounded when Vanguard said it would have player made ships and ship battles in game or how neat Diplomacy sounded as a seperate leveling system when it was just part of the "Vision" manifesto? By time Microsoft pulled out, Sigil had a shell of it's initial promises implemented. I'd love to see something new but I doubt it is healthy to suggest that the "little guy" try it?
You have to be able to ignore the posters crying that it has no HPs, or Epics or something and be able to ignore the investors who threaten to pull cash because they don't see any dwarves or gnomes.
I really don't see how that's a gigantic issue. If somebody asked me to invest in a game, and said "We'll make it like World of Warcraft, but just do everything BETTER," I would literally throw them out. That's like betting Bamby will beat Godzilla - not a wise use of funds.
But if somebody came to me with a mockup of core gameplay (and in MMO's that means a combat system) that I could could try out and have FUN with - even if it was just animated stick figures - I would throw money at them like it's going out of style.
You can always hire drones to do artwork, and there are whole bookstores full of "backstories" you can buy if you don't want to spend ten minutes coming up with your own . Or, if you really want to jumpstart your marketing, you can just take a quick trip to the local theater, and draft a check for a few million for a wide range of IP's that'll provide public awareness and a core fanbase.
But fun is a very rare and magical quality. Only an idiot would throw cash down a black hole in the hopes that some wide-eyed dreamer will invent that. He'll have to do that on his own dime. But once someone can accomplish that little miracle, and find a way to demonstrate it, that's when any investor should feel safe plowing millions of dollars into the relative drudgery of content building.
To give you an idea about how the MMO market is reguarded,
I asked a Marketeer for a well known Sci-Fi Robot Franchise about the possiblity of making a MMO this past weekend. He stated that its been considered for thier franchise but there is not a company with the quality avaible to meet thier needs. This franchse is 20 years old and would be very very popular in the asian market but they just don't trust anyone out there. Lets face it, IP holders are not wanting to soil thier good names anymore on mediocre or poor products in a given market. More examples need to be made of successes and adaptions.
Comments
Unless you're referring to a post by someone else that I missed... I wrote "D&D-esque," not "UO-esque." Those are two very different things
Heck, the one time I put my money where my mouth is (Wish) we were making a game intentionally aimed at UO fans.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
The real problem with this is that while most of MMORPG.com's posters aren't happy with the current use of the "Rulebook", if we can that, most casual MMORPG players actually are. WoW still has a gazillion subscribers for a reason. We are a considerable amount of players indeed, but the proportions are incomparable. Also WoW is probably introducing new MMORPG players even today, who are actually quite happy with that game. We might be seeing at least three or four companies trying to "throw out the rulebook" in the near future (hopefully), but I hardly think it is going to be happening very often anytime soon, because MMORPGs are still very profitable in the way that they currently are, and trying to change the roots of the genre is a risky move indeed.
Regarding the use of D&D-esque character advancement.
It may depend on what is meant by "D&D-esque". One D&Dism is the use of character levels as opposed to simply allowing skill increases. Apart from D&D, not many tabletop RPG games use levels anymore, but levels remain extremely common in MMORPGs.
As others have said, I would hate to be the small company sticking my neck out on the chopping block of offering something new. Funding could be pulled after years of development, players might not jump on your revolutionary bandwagon. Several companies have promised the great new game and then in the end spent months trying to make it more WOW-like because the investors were probably saying "We don't get it" or the Beta testers were saying "This isn't like Everquest".
Another interesting concept is that gamers are changing. When EQ1 came out, I was 29 and single and and was willing to chase the "golden carrot" six hours a night, five nights a week because it was the only carrot out there and it was new and different. Somewhere my risk and reward view point changed. I now have a child and a wife and have to worry more about keeping my job in a recession and so I am a lot more likely to not stick it out with a game for two or three years. New players are coming along that want something totally different than me. When I look for a game, I look for that challenge and feeling of awe and such that EQ1 offered but my playstyle doesn't exactly allow me to play like that.
Basically I am saying that the investors don't know exactly what they want allthough many think it is a WOW clone and many players don't know what they want. I want that old sandbox challenge of a huge interactive world but I can't guarantee I wouldn't jump ship to something simple and linear if my work schedule became to tough in RL.
I agree with several posters that it will take a Blizzard type company to beat the 800lb Gorilla that they created. You have to be able to fund the game yourself and pick a new style and stick with it a and polish it into a diamond. You have to be able to ignore the posters crying that it has no HPs, or Epics or something and be able to ignore the investors who threaten to pull cash because they don't see any dwarves or gnomes.
I've seen several companies offer new and innovative ideas in the alpha game stage of an MMORPG. Unfortunately most of those ideas get cut or release as a buggy mess by time they release as they rush to beat a time table or rush to implement other stuff that the fans are screaming for. Anyone remember how exciting it sounded when Vanguard said it would have player made ships and ship battles in game or how neat Diplomacy sounded as a seperate leveling system when it was just part of the "Vision" manifesto? By time Microsoft pulled out, Sigil had a shell of it's initial promises implemented. I'd love to see something new but I doubt it is healthy to suggest that the "little guy" try it?
I really don't see how that's a gigantic issue. If somebody asked me to invest in a game, and said "We'll make it like World of Warcraft, but just do everything BETTER," I would literally throw them out. That's like betting Bamby will beat Godzilla - not a wise use of funds.
But if somebody came to me with a mockup of core gameplay (and in MMO's that means a combat system) that I could could try out and have FUN with - even if it was just animated stick figures - I would throw money at them like it's going out of style.
You can always hire drones to do artwork, and there are whole bookstores full of "backstories" you can buy if you don't want to spend ten minutes coming up with your own . Or, if you really want to jumpstart your marketing, you can just take a quick trip to the local theater, and draft a check for a few million for a wide range of IP's that'll provide public awareness and a core fanbase.
But fun is a very rare and magical quality. Only an idiot would throw cash down a black hole in the hopes that some wide-eyed dreamer will invent that. He'll have to do that on his own dime. But once someone can accomplish that little miracle, and find a way to demonstrate it, that's when any investor should feel safe plowing millions of dollars into the relative drudgery of content building.
My guess is that the best financial bet is to do what Blizzard did with WoW - base your game on a familiar, popular formula. I hope I am wrong.
To give you an idea about how the MMO market is reguarded,
I asked a Marketeer for a well known Sci-Fi Robot Franchise about the possiblity of making a MMO this past weekend. He stated that its been considered for thier franchise but there is not a company with the quality avaible to meet thier needs. This franchse is 20 years old and would be very very popular in the asian market but they just don't trust anyone out there. Lets face it, IP holders are not wanting to soil thier good names anymore on mediocre or poor products in a given market. More examples need to be made of successes and adaptions.