I agree that the genre needs a reboot now. The games are similar and are getting boring and predictable. But an easy way to reboot it would be making one based on a different pen and paper RPG than D&D which almost every single MMO are based on (including WAR which is upsetting since warhammer fantasy RPG in itself was very different and new thinking). Make a Runequest online or Palladium online instead. And kill of the cooldowns. Let the attacks take longer time to make instead, particularly powerful magic and balance the DPS agains that. Of course you also need a reason tonot spamm the same attack then, like that if you do to many similar attacks will it reduce the damage or so. Levels is another thing that should be revamped or taken away, and we don't need so many of them anyways. Talking with non MMO players to get ideasmight be a good idea, particularly from pen and paper RPG gamers, they have a experience that should work well in a MMO.
I believe there was a Rifts mmorpg at least being discussed. Palladium needs to find a developer and publisher. Rifts would be my first choice since it has a wonderful blend of Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Cyberpunk. It's been years since anything has really been said about a Rifts mmorpg though.
As far as a reboot to the genre goes, something does need to change, and we'll most likely see that change in the next couple of years. EQ began it's domination of the market in 1999, 5 years later WoW began it's domination. We're at the 5 year mark for WoW, something is bound to change.
SWoTOR is being developed by Bioware which has a very similar reputation as Blizzard for releasing quality products, not to mention Star Wars has an extremely large fanbase. KotOR was probably the best series of games based on the Star Wars universe, mostly because it wasn't about Luke, Vadar and the rest. It's hard not to see how this situation mirrors the pre-release of WoW a half a decade ago.
Blizzard is working on a new mmorpg that they claim is based on a completely original setting (not starcraft, diablo or wow2). Blizzard certainly has the money in order to snag up whatever talent they want, plus their ability to release a game whenever they feel it's ready (face it, noone is going to effe with Blizzard in that regard), means that Blizzard's next mmorpg could wind up being the next best thing.
Unfortunately, I believe we're coming into a period where Indie games are going to take a serious backseat to games that have a ton of cash thrown at them. Once we get out this this phase Indie gaming will be very similar to independant films. Low budget, but extremely high quality and generate an extreme fanbase which is small, but rabid.
While I won't disagree with the premise of your article, I will disagree on your assessment of pre-trammel UO players (I are one) and why many of us aren't happy with how MMOs are being made today. Sure, the "newness" of the genre was very appealing. I remember being stationed at Ft. Benning for a period when I first found out about Ultima Online. That game and Command and Conquer (the first one) were the single reason we bought our first computers.
But no, that wasn't the only reason I hold UO (and AC) in higher esteem. Like my answer or not, which all you "nostalgia" buglers seem to ignore in an interest of being "right", Ultima Online, as Player_420 stated above, let you do a great many more things than combat. Pure and simple. Those "things", no matter how much you( in the general sense) want to trivialize them are a large part of what made the game great. Those extra "details" such as requiring reagents in certain combinations to cast spells, having different ores give different properties to craftables, being able to fish and catch a detailed variety of fish, making a boat, making and decorating a house that was out in the world and not instanced.
Those things made UO feel like a "world" and not a game.
"Games" are being made today and I mean that in a side-scroller "arcade" sense. There's little if any lateral movement outside of combat, combat, combat. The little movement available certainly isn't as deep and well thought out and integrated back into ALL other game systems.
WoW with it's previously well-known and successful RTS franchise brought in a whole bunch of non RPG, non-table-top dice rolling gamers. RTS gamers like it quick fast and in a hurry. That's the premise of RTS', after all. And that's the game WoW is for the greater majority, with a slow down at the "end-game" and raiding (well, used to be anyway. Now some raids have been toned down number wise which overall speeds things up).
Now, I don't hate wow, it's just not anywhere near my definition of what is either fun or an MMO. It is for others and that's cool. My issue, which you eluded to, is that the CEOs and money lenders have taken over the show and that narrow gameplay focused, "game" creation mentality has taken over (dreaming of wow success and missing for 5+ years now terribly on all fronts) and no companies with the big bucks are attempting to put more "worlds" into the genre and add some variety.
When such a company with the dollars to do it very well does make such an effort to make an MMO that is more "world" and less "game" we all may be pleasantly shocked at how well it does. Well, the people who only want games and want every MMO to be such won't. But I don't really care about their opinions anyway, so.
Game: "end-game" concept; "winnable" in a large sense; combat oriented; under developed "other" game systems/mechanics that are only functional at best and don't really affect any other gameplay.
World: Not designed for player to get from character creation to X defined point in order for "the real game" to start; not combat oriented but can very much still have a great combat system; has systems that, if looked at logically make sense in terms of thinking in order for this to happen these are the steps I must go through; overall takes into account all aspects of "life" in a world and allows for the player to do as many of them as possible (Sure, it may be hard to define where that line begins, but UO and SWG (pre nge) are two good examples of where to begin).
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
"the best chance of which is to duplicate the success of games like WoW... I think you get where I'm going with this."
What other games are like WoW in success? WoW is the "White Elephant" in the house. Its whims guide the leanings of all others in the house. Its modle is dominating the investments of game companies. You are correct in trying to bring new ideas in but they have to be un-tainted by WoW.
Is breaking up the genere in sub-catagories an answer? I just don't know. What I do know is folks have to get out of the "house" to avoid the Elephant crap.
Great topic Jon, I had only one issue with it: "the best chance of which is to duplicate the success of games like WoW... I think you get where I'm going with this."
What other games are like WoW in success? WoW is the "White Elephant" in the house. Its whims guide the leanings of all others in the house. Its modle is dominating the investments of game companies. You are correct in trying to bring new ideas in but they have to be un-tainted by WoW. Is breaking up the genere in sub-catagories an answer? I just don't know. What I do know is folks have to get out of the "house" to avoid the Elephant crap.
There aren't any, which I believe was Jon's point. A point the CEO's and insiders in the industry, at least the ones making the final decisions, don't seem to get.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood sues his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed.
Others point at Blizzard's behemoth World of Warcraft as the source of all of the genre's woes, suggesting that because of its success all games that come after it are copies.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
The problem with MMO's today is that they are based on previous games, rather than on RPG's. When EQ, AC, and UO were being developed, the basis was RPG's. The games weren't perfect, for various reasons, but they were all popular and are all still loved by people, most of whom no longer play.
So, step one would be to make new MMO's based on RPG's, instead of based on other MMOs.
The part that he misses is that if you do that, without learning from the mistakes that other games have made, you'll make the same mistakes.
The ideal design would be to create the MMO based on table top gaming - but to avoid the pitfalls that UO,EQ and AC made.
The MMO genre is stale because of WoW. Sure its a good game but the most successful thing about it is also the genre's downfall. It opened the genre to the lowest common denominator. It is built to be soo easy and intuitive where the dumbest person on the earth can pick it up and play it. It has catered to people who have 2 hours a week to spend on games and rewards that type of play. And unfortunatly, thats where the money is.
Because the money is in the above play styles, we have seen all of the copycat going on. Theres no room for innovation because it will ultimatly lead away from the above play styles which means less money. Its a catch 22.
If WoW had never released we would have 1 to 5 new games on the market that were worth playing and those companies would still be making a profit. Instead we got 50+ games that are stale and bug ridden and down right bad.
WoW is a good game for the type of player it is ment for. Problem is, it took away any innovation for any other type of player.
The MMO genre is stale because of WoW. Sure its a good game but the most successful thing about it is also the genre's downfall. It opened the genre to the lowest common denominator. It is built to be soo easy and intuitive where the dumbest person on the earth can pick it up and play it. It has catered to people who have 2 hours a week to spend on games and rewards that type of play. And unfortunatly, thats where the money is. Because the money is in the above play styles, we have seen all of the copycat going on. Theres no room for innovation because it will ultimatly lead away from the above play styles which means less money. Its a catch 22. If WoW had never released we would have 1 to 5 new games on the market that were worth playing and those companies would still be making a profit. Instead we got 50+ games that are stale and bug ridden and down right bad.
WoW is a good game for the type of player it is ment for. Problem is, it took away any innovation for any other type of player.
This is a good post.
As for my opinion on the article, Imo the current mmo genre is so freaking bad I play nothing but games that released atleast 5 years ago. I can only stomach games that are completely different than your normal fantasy themepark with its shallow item hunt endgame.
When a person that is a diehard fan of this genre only plays Eve and sandbox games with populations as low as 5k you know somethings wrong.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood sues his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed. It's difficult to argue that there isn't at least a little bit of stagnation in the MMO industry right now. There are a lot of theories as to why this might be. Some point to the growing trend toward item shop revenue models and the perceived greed of companies that makes these games. Others point at Blizzard's behemoth World of Warcraft as the source of all of the genre's woes, suggesting that because of its success all games that come after it are copies. Whatever the specific reason, it is difficult to argue that the MMORPG genre isn't in some kind of decline. The last few years of releases haven't exactly lived up to their hype and scepticism about each and every game that is announced seems to climb as games move closer and closer to launch.
This article stole the words right out of my mouth... Going to a carnival for the 100th time is never going to as amazing, and exciting as the very first time you went when you where little and everything was new. You start to see it for what it is, more of a object, yet you still hold to the memory of the first time with a strong sense of nastalgia.
Beyond the nastalgia and old feelings, there are some concrete points that the people who compare everything to UO have... UO did have alot of that freedom that many mainstreem MMO's currently do not. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in the MMO crowd these days got introduced through "Hold your hand" themepark gameplay. That's not a bad thing, but it's a completely different mindset from the UO vets who are more closely related to actually "Fantasy lovers". The guys who played MUDS, did RP, and loved D&D.
The mass of the Genre = People who fill the same urge as the guys who play a FPS, except they like the added social aspect.
Inbetween players = Have the same nastalgia as the UO&EQ vets because they where there also, but do not mind alot of the MMO's today because they realize that as you get older, you get busier and don't have as much time to lose yourself inside of a genuine experience. We take entertainment value for face value. If I have fun for 30 minutes, awsome.
The UO vets, Eq vets, Mud players, ect. == Look for a genuine experience, freedom, and a "Quality" social aspect where you truly let youself free.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood sues his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed.
Others point at Blizzard's behemoth World of Warcraft as the source of all of the genre's woes, suggesting that because of its success all games that come after it are copies.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood sues his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed.
Others point at Blizzard's behemoth World of Warcraft as the source of all of the genre's woes, suggesting that because of its success all games that come after it are copies.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
If that's the case you're both wrong.
ROI is return/investment. It isn't fear of a small return that investors fear = it's the size of the investment to gain that return. There are millions of investors who would love to own part of an MMO that has 100K subscribers paying $15 a month. What there isn't are millions of people who want to invest $4 million for 1% of such a company.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood sues his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed.
Others point at Blizzard's behemoth World of Warcraft as the source of all of the genre's woes, suggesting that because of its success all games that come after it are copies.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
You'd half to kill or brainwash every single person who started their MMO experience with WoW. The only other thing that could do that is a RADICALLY different MMO that practically rewinds the genre to the classic UO days. Unfortunately, UO's model, although awsome, is EXTREMELY niche in todays market. Because the majority of the consumer base in the genre doesn't have the same standards of expectency as a UO vet.
If something amazing like that happened, we wouldn't even realize it untill after it hit us.
Not enough balance between solo and grouping material....God knows I don't have time to raid therefore I lose out on all the good stuff. when I do try to pvp I am crushed and left with no self esteem. My character then looks ridiculous because I never get the pretty armor. Everyone is asking what gear I have and when I do finally get time to raid or do heroic: What does that mean? I don't get in the group. Left out again. The other reason why the industry is dry i think is because people do not want to leave their first love or give up years of investment in that one game but in actuality if people did this then they would force the game companies to make more games at a better quality. WOW loves that people love them. They really don't have to do much more innovation. Just recycle what they have and add a few things here and there. Bah. Everyone leave now so they get the message to create a new game and not a "destroyed" new game "Cataclysm". Don't get me wrong,I am guilty. I still play WOW occasionally but I really want all that money they are making to go into a new game, a new idea, new graphics....They have the resources to do so. People are the main problem. Thaty is what I am saying. The publishers don't help with there max-profit mentality either. But "We the People" are really the ones with the power to change....Just quit the game and tell them why....go play something else in the mean time. Be patient and wait for them to get the message. You do have a life outside MMOs,right? Ciao. Ok bash me now....
Like several have said on here, the current market makes FUNDING the major problem. Plenty of people have creative ideas. Plenty of people in game companies have creative ideas. Plenty of indie developers have creative ideas. The problem is, they can't get money to fund the production of an MMO using those creative ideas because people keep shooting for WoW-like success or are so cautious they are only willing to pay for a WoW-like game.
Slowly we are getting some major companies to branch out. SW: TOR and FFXIV look like they'll diverge a decent bit from the standard model. It is/was only a matter of time. After a certain number of failures investors are going to start trying other tactics. Looks like for now things are going to proceed in baby steps, but maybe we'll get something REALLY different in 5 years or so after some of the "good bit different" games come out and do well.
Edit: Doesn't help that the consumers seem happy to buy crappy games and pay a monthly fee while they are fixed. Depends on how broken they are but it does seem like we should have a bit more backbone on this front. Stupid human psychology...
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood sues his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed.
Others point at Blizzard's behemoth World of Warcraft as the source of all of the genre's woes, suggesting that because of its success all games that come after it are copies.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Part of the problem with the genre is companies aren't interested in making better games they can draw players in with and keep a strong subscription base. They seem to want to sell a bunch of hype they know they can't actually achieve, lure peoplle in with promises for lifetime subscriptions they can't keep and then figure out a way to nickle and dime lifetime subscribers with for pay DLC all while producing some pretty subpar content that relies on PvP to keep people content because there isn't enough content to keep them entertained.
When MMOs first came out, I think there was still a sense of hey, what can we really do with this, how are we going to make this awesome as opposed to trying to create the biggest cash cow possible today and wondering why no one sticks around.
By the way, I've enjoyed Star Trek (all the series) for a long, long time and I really enjoyed the new movie. Not sure what kind of point you were trying to make with that. As for Star Trek online, starting to look like a typical MMORPG with ships instead of character models.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
My initial thought is that these games have to be planned by people who aren't developers. there, I've said it. Now for the explanation before you all chase me up to the windmill with pitchforks in hand. As an example, no matter what you think of Apple computer or Steve Jobs, there was a point where they were facing a particularly difficult design decision. Apparently Steve Jobs asked for something to be made and all his engineers said it couldn't be done. Well, given that it is essentially his company eventually the engineers put themselves to the task and though they kept saying "it couldn't be done", eventually they actually figured out how to do it. What we need are game creators and writers to imagine worlds. We need players to talk about what they think is fun. THEN we need the programmers to put those computer like brains in motion and make it happen. It's almost as if the game has to be created prior to the programming and that everything needs to be mapped out so that there isn't a lot of adding and subracting because ideas were not thought through.
I clipped apart your post to highlight what I think is rather important. Jon Woods is heading in the right direction when he talks about MMO outsiders, but they can't be completely outside, as they will make the same mistakes and arrive at the same conclusions -- thus eating up development dollars. What is needed, however, are non-programmers designing games. Is an author required to know how to construct a pencil, and make papyrus in order to write a master work? Rhetorical question, obviously. And while there are a one or two filmmakers who can perform all aspects of making a film (from script, to cinematographer, to editing, to sound design), most are storytellers first and join forces with other artists. Hitchcock had script writers he worked with, had cinematographers, had editors. He had the vision, and he guided those he worked with to that vision.
Game Design needs the equivelant of a film Director who has a vision, understands game theories, but doesn't necessarily have to know how to program. Of course you will find the rare individual who has brilliant vision, who understands game theory thoroughly, and who can program or design fantastic game levels. But as we see, that individual is rare -- the equivelant is rare in filmmaking as well.
What I sense in the MMO industry today are a lot of programmers who are passible at game design and storytelling. It's like a film directed by editors or the sound designer. How does that equate to consistent success? Even with highly skilled and dedicated film directors, success isn't gaurenteed. I have a lot of respect for programmers -- some of them can be incredibly smart -- but that doesn't make them de facto great game designers or visionaries.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Of course, those of us that have fond memories of UO, EQ, and AC also know something else: Back then we didn't have a choice if we wanted a mmorpg. Sure, you could jump between the those 3 or some old MUD (or maybe Lineage if we knew about it), but really if you wanted to be surrounded by 100's or 1000's of other players, you needed to be playing one of the 3. But now, how many are there? You could play a different game every week for a year and still not get beyond the tip of the iceberg. So back then you found one of three that you liked and played it. The friends you made there did the same thing, and everyone was always there if you were away for a while. Unlike now, when your guild or friend list is continually churning over names.
As to innovating something new. I just don't think it is going to ever happen as long as WoW continues to exist in the manner it does to this day. Sure, there will be a standout that succeeds on a "small" scale like EVE, but those are going to be few and far between. But even WoW has effected how we look at the scale of EVE. Compared to what existed in 99 and early 2000's, it would have been a major contender.
Originally posted by Cerion I clipped apart your post to highlight what I think is rather important. Jon Woods is heading in the right direction when he talks about MMO outsiders, but they can't be completely outside, as they will make the same mistakes and arrive at the same conclusions -- thus eating up development dollars. What is needed, however, are non-programmers designing games. Is an author required to know how to construct a pencil, and make papyrus in order to write a master work? Rhetorical question, obviously. And while there are a one or two filmmakers who can perform all aspects of making a film (from script, to cinematographer, to editing, to sound design), most are storytellers first and join forces with other artists. Hitchcock had script writers he worked with, had cinematographers, had editors. He had the vision, and he guided those he worked with to that vision. Game Design needs the equivelant of a film Director who has a vision, understands game theories, but doesn't necessarily have to know how to program. Of course you will find the rare individual who has brilliant vision, who understands game theory thoroughly, and who can program or design fantastic game levels. But as we see, that individual is rare -- the equivelant is rare in filmmaking as well. What I sense in the MMO industry today are a lot of programmers who are passible at game design and storytelling. It's like a film directed by editors or the sound designer. How does that equate to consistent success? Even with highly skilled and dedicated film directors, success isn't gaurenteed. I have a lot of respect for programmers -- some of them can be incredibly smart -- but that doesn't make them de facto great game designers or visionaries.
It is my understanding that they already do that...well, perhaps minus some of that vision thing. There are game designers in the industry that do no programming.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood sues his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed.
Others point at Blizzard's behemoth World of Warcraft as the source of all of the genre's woes, suggesting that because of its success all games that come after it are copies.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Opening paragraph. That's the key right there. You make thesis statements in the opening paragraph. They aren't analytical and neither are they in depth. They tell you what the author believes and then the author goes on to elaborate on that belief in the body of the article, which Jon did.
So, regardless of what you believe, he wrote it just fine. I have written 5 different papers over the past 2 months and each professor pointed out they wanted their papers written in such manner. Macro-level statement up front and followed by micro-level specifics in the body.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Whatever the specific reason, it is difficult to argue that the MMORPG genre isn't in some kind of decline. The last few years of releases haven't exactly lived up to their hype and scepticism about each and every game that is announced seems to climb as games move closer and closer to launch.
Not that I'm against innovation, but you can argue that it isn't in decline.
In fact, the easiest way to argue that is with numbers, which show that the subscription mmo market bucked the trend during the GFC and grew quite substantially and further, is likely to keep growing.
Blizzard set a very high standard with WoW - but Blizzard were a powerhouse in the gaming industry before WoW and they really knew what they were doing. They designed a good product, developed it fully before releasing and marketed it perfectly.
That's why WoW was and still is so successful.
Then every hick and his donkey said, "There's gold in them thar virtual hills" and tried to clap together an mmo.
Not surprisingly, a lot of them have been duds, or in some cases what may eventually have been good games but released way too early.
That doesn't mean the genre is in decline. I'm confident that free-market natural selection has and will continue to kick the less fit mmo developers to the curb.
Originally posted by Cerion I clipped apart your post to highlight what I think is rather important. Jon Woods is heading in the right direction when he talks about MMO outsiders, but they can't be completely outside, as they will make the same mistakes and arrive at the same conclusions -- thus eating up development dollars. What is needed, however, are non-programmers designing games. Is an author required to know how to construct a pencil, and make papyrus in order to write a master work? Rhetorical question, obviously. And while there are a one or two filmmakers who can perform all aspects of making a film (from script, to cinematographer, to editing, to sound design), most are storytellers first and join forces with other artists. Hitchcock had script writers he worked with, had cinematographers, had editors. He had the vision, and he guided those he worked with to that vision. Game Design needs the equivelant of a film Director who has a vision, understands game theories, but doesn't necessarily have to know how to program. Of course you will find the rare individual who has brilliant vision, who understands game theory thoroughly, and who can program or design fantastic game levels. But as we see, that individual is rare -- the equivelant is rare in filmmaking as well. What I sense in the MMO industry today are a lot of programmers who are passible at game design and storytelling. It's like a film directed by editors or the sound designer. How does that equate to consistent success? Even with highly skilled and dedicated film directors, success isn't gaurenteed. I have a lot of respect for programmers -- some of them can be incredibly smart -- but that doesn't make them de facto great game designers or visionaries.
It is my understanding that they already do that...well, perhaps minus some of that vision thing. There are game designers in the industry that do no programming.
It's possible that I've missed that, though I tend to follow MMOs pretty closely. My understanding, and research, has shown me that programmers turn into "game designers". Are there actually University degrees that offer nothing but game theory, writing, and perhaps psychology classes? It seems to me that, years ago when I was researching such a thing, game design degrees consisted of a slew of programming courses.
Now I believe that there are game designers now who do no programming -- but are they trained game designers? Or have they garnered the title "Game Designer" after leaving their programming desks?
Genuinely curious.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood sues his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed.
Others point at Blizzard's behemoth World of Warcraft as the source of all of the genre's woes, suggesting that because of its success all games that come after it are copies.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Opening paragraph. That's the key right there. You make thesis statements in the opening paragraph. They aren't analytical and neither are they in depth. They tell you what the author believes and then the author goes on to elaborate on that belief in the body of the article, which Jon did.
So, regardless of what you believe, he wrote it just fine. I have written 5 different papers over the past 2 months and each professor pointed out they wanted their papers written in such manner. Macro-level statement up front and followed by micro-level specifics in the body.
So the micro-level specifics in the body should refute the macro-level statement up front? That's silly. The micro-level specifics should support the marco-level statements. Otherwise, why make them?
Like several have said on here, the current market makes FUNDING the major problem. Plenty of people have creative ideas. Plenty of people in game companies have creative ideas. Plenty of indie developers have creative ideas. The problem is, they can't get money to fund the production of an MMO using those creative ideas because people keep shooting for WoW-like success or are so cautious they are only willing to pay for a WoW-like game. Slowly we are getting some major companies to branch out. SW: TOR and FFXIV look like they'll diverge a decent bit from the standard model. It is/was only a matter of time. After a certain number of failures investors are going to start trying other tactics. Looks like for now things are going to proceed in baby steps, but maybe we'll get something REALLY different in 5 years or so after some of the "good bit different" games come out and do well. Edit: Doesn't help that the consumers seem happy to buy crappy games and pay a monthly fee while they are fixed. Depends on how broken they are but it does seem like we should have a bit more backbone on this front. Stupid human psychology...
This, this, this, 100x this!
We don't need a reboot, what we need is for investors to realise that they can't compete with WoW, their only chance for success now is to take risks and invest in making something that hasn't been done before.
The only companies that are currently able to do this are those who can self-publish (i.e. SquareEnix) and those who already have a very good record (i.e. Bioware). Bioware has support because its publishers/investors trust them based on their history.
Personally the perfect MMO to me would be one that felt more like a fantasy life-sim. I want combat and adventure, sure, but I also want to do everything else possible in a fantasy world. Let players be creative, rather than having to follow the paths set out by the developers (that includes character advancement paths). The closest thing to that I see on the horizon is FFXIV so I'm just waiting it out...
I also agree with the edit. Too many players cling to games in the hope that it will improve. They cling to the idea behind the game and what they wanted it to be for them. As a result it only makes other companies think they can get away with making the same mistakes.
Assuming that the problem isn't that mmos' are fads (ala the pet rock) and are a long lasting form of entertainent (like, say, the tv), then I don't think the answer needs to be a complete reboot either. I think the answer lies more in what others here have talked about: ideas/vision/dreams. I'd call it philosophy...
Right now, we can pretty much figure out what most mmo companies have as a "philosophy" for a game. The old standby's like "make a profit", "convert an established property", and "have the best graphics" are the current industry leaders. As such, most developers, from the execs on down, put all their work towards fulfilling those "philosophies". Hence the repeated designs, the same marketing patterns, etc...
But, imagine what might happen if a developer went in a totally different direction with their philosophy, forced all of their workers to work towards that philosophy exclusively, and never compromised.
Imagine a game who's philosophy was "It never ends!", or, "Every day the world changes", or "Never play the same way twice". What would a programmer have to come up with to make sure that the game never ends for the player? What decisions would a producer make if he or she could not get away from the fact that every day the game world has to change? What would take priority in the design process if you couldn't let players play the same way twice?
That's where the change comes from: Top down, not bottom up. And not because the top has all the power, or because they have all the money...but, because in any good group, a successful business, a political campaign, or even a government agency, all of the team members HAVE to come together under some umbrella. They need SOMETHING to work for...something to combine their talent, drive, energy, and thoughts, towards. If the goal is profit, than that's what the team will work towards. If the goal is innovation, that's what the team will strive for. Heck...I say it to my own boss all the time...he's the director of our "program", and as such, he determines the "philosophy" of our program. If it's unsound, then the work he gets out of his staff will be the same...but, if its strong, then he'll find success. You get the picture.
It appears, as an outsider looking in, that mmo companies are struggling because their "philosophies" are no longer sound. Therefore, the work they produce is no longer sound. Until they make an adjustment at the top...at the overall driving force behiind their work, than things won't improve.
Assuming, again, that this isn't just a fad...and I'm not so sure that it isn't.
Comments
I believe there was a Rifts mmorpg at least being discussed. Palladium needs to find a developer and publisher. Rifts would be my first choice since it has a wonderful blend of Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Cyberpunk. It's been years since anything has really been said about a Rifts mmorpg though.
As far as a reboot to the genre goes, something does need to change, and we'll most likely see that change in the next couple of years. EQ began it's domination of the market in 1999, 5 years later WoW began it's domination. We're at the 5 year mark for WoW, something is bound to change.
SWoTOR is being developed by Bioware which has a very similar reputation as Blizzard for releasing quality products, not to mention Star Wars has an extremely large fanbase. KotOR was probably the best series of games based on the Star Wars universe, mostly because it wasn't about Luke, Vadar and the rest. It's hard not to see how this situation mirrors the pre-release of WoW a half a decade ago.
Blizzard is working on a new mmorpg that they claim is based on a completely original setting (not starcraft, diablo or wow2). Blizzard certainly has the money in order to snag up whatever talent they want, plus their ability to release a game whenever they feel it's ready (face it, noone is going to effe with Blizzard in that regard), means that Blizzard's next mmorpg could wind up being the next best thing.
Unfortunately, I believe we're coming into a period where Indie games are going to take a serious backseat to games that have a ton of cash thrown at them. Once we get out this this phase Indie gaming will be very similar to independant films. Low budget, but extremely high quality and generate an extreme fanbase which is small, but rabid.
While I won't disagree with the premise of your article, I will disagree on your assessment of pre-trammel UO players (I are one) and why many of us aren't happy with how MMOs are being made today. Sure, the "newness" of the genre was very appealing. I remember being stationed at Ft. Benning for a period when I first found out about Ultima Online. That game and Command and Conquer (the first one) were the single reason we bought our first computers.
But no, that wasn't the only reason I hold UO (and AC) in higher esteem. Like my answer or not, which all you "nostalgia" buglers seem to ignore in an interest of being "right", Ultima Online, as Player_420 stated above, let you do a great many more things than combat. Pure and simple. Those "things", no matter how much you( in the general sense) want to trivialize them are a large part of what made the game great. Those extra "details" such as requiring reagents in certain combinations to cast spells, having different ores give different properties to craftables, being able to fish and catch a detailed variety of fish, making a boat, making and decorating a house that was out in the world and not instanced.
Those things made UO feel like a "world" and not a game.
"Games" are being made today and I mean that in a side-scroller "arcade" sense. There's little if any lateral movement outside of combat, combat, combat. The little movement available certainly isn't as deep and well thought out and integrated back into ALL other game systems.
WoW with it's previously well-known and successful RTS franchise brought in a whole bunch of non RPG, non-table-top dice rolling gamers. RTS gamers like it quick fast and in a hurry. That's the premise of RTS', after all. And that's the game WoW is for the greater majority, with a slow down at the "end-game" and raiding (well, used to be anyway. Now some raids have been toned down number wise which overall speeds things up).
Now, I don't hate wow, it's just not anywhere near my definition of what is either fun or an MMO. It is for others and that's cool. My issue, which you eluded to, is that the CEOs and money lenders have taken over the show and that narrow gameplay focused, "game" creation mentality has taken over (dreaming of wow success and missing for 5+ years now terribly on all fronts) and no companies with the big bucks are attempting to put more "worlds" into the genre and add some variety.
When such a company with the dollars to do it very well does make such an effort to make an MMO that is more "world" and less "game" we all may be pleasantly shocked at how well it does. Well, the people who only want games and want every MMO to be such won't. But I don't really care about their opinions anyway, so.
Game: "end-game" concept; "winnable" in a large sense; combat oriented; under developed "other" game systems/mechanics that are only functional at best and don't really affect any other gameplay.
World: Not designed for player to get from character creation to X defined point in order for "the real game" to start; not combat oriented but can very much still have a great combat system; has systems that, if looked at logically make sense in terms of thinking in order for this to happen these are the steps I must go through; overall takes into account all aspects of "life" in a world and allows for the player to do as many of them as possible (Sure, it may be hard to define where that line begins, but UO and SWG (pre nge) are two good examples of where to begin).
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Great topic Jon,
I had only one issue with it:
"the best chance of which is to duplicate the success of games like WoW... I think you get where I'm going with this."
What other games are like WoW in success? WoW is the "White Elephant" in the house. Its whims guide the leanings of all others in the house. Its modle is dominating the investments of game companies. You are correct in trying to bring new ideas in but they have to be un-tainted by WoW.
Is breaking up the genere in sub-catagories an answer? I just don't know. What I do know is folks have to get out of the "house" to avoid the Elephant crap.
There aren't any, which I believe was Jon's point. A point the CEO's and insiders in the industry, at least the ones making the final decisions, don't seem to get.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
The article is half correct.
The problem with MMO's today is that they are based on previous games, rather than on RPG's. When EQ, AC, and UO were being developed, the basis was RPG's. The games weren't perfect, for various reasons, but they were all popular and are all still loved by people, most of whom no longer play.
So, step one would be to make new MMO's based on RPG's, instead of based on other MMOs.
The part that he misses is that if you do that, without learning from the mistakes that other games have made, you'll make the same mistakes.
The ideal design would be to create the MMO based on table top gaming - but to avoid the pitfalls that UO,EQ and AC made.
No one has done that yet.
The MMO genre is stale because of WoW. Sure its a good game but the most successful thing about it is also the genre's downfall. It opened the genre to the lowest common denominator. It is built to be soo easy and intuitive where the dumbest person on the earth can pick it up and play it. It has catered to people who have 2 hours a week to spend on games and rewards that type of play. And unfortunatly, thats where the money is.
Because the money is in the above play styles, we have seen all of the copycat going on. Theres no room for innovation because it will ultimatly lead away from the above play styles which means less money. Its a catch 22.
If WoW had never released we would have 1 to 5 new games on the market that were worth playing and those companies would still be making a profit. Instead we got 50+ games that are stale and bug ridden and down right bad.
WoW is a good game for the type of player it is ment for. Problem is, it took away any innovation for any other type of player.
This is a good post.
As for my opinion on the article, Imo the current mmo genre is so freaking bad I play nothing but games that released atleast 5 years ago. I can only stomach games that are completely different than your normal fantasy themepark with its shallow item hunt endgame.
When a person that is a diehard fan of this genre only plays Eve and sandbox games with populations as low as 5k you know somethings wrong.
So yeah we need a reboot, badly.
PLaying: EvE, Ryzom
Waiting For: Earthrise, Perpetuum
Read Rebooting or Re-Imagining the Genre.
This article stole the words right out of my mouth... Going to a carnival for the 100th time is never going to as amazing, and exciting as the very first time you went when you where little and everything was new. You start to see it for what it is, more of a object, yet you still hold to the memory of the first time with a strong sense of nastalgia.
Beyond the nastalgia and old feelings, there are some concrete points that the people who compare everything to UO have... UO did have alot of that freedom that many mainstreem MMO's currently do not. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in the MMO crowd these days got introduced through "Hold your hand" themepark gameplay. That's not a bad thing, but it's a completely different mindset from the UO vets who are more closely related to actually "Fantasy lovers". The guys who played MUDS, did RP, and loved D&D.
The mass of the Genre = People who fill the same urge as the guys who play a FPS, except they like the added social aspect.
Inbetween players = Have the same nastalgia as the UO&EQ vets because they where there also, but do not mind alot of the MMO's today because they realize that as you get older, you get busier and don't have as much time to lose yourself inside of a genuine experience. We take entertainment value for face value. If I have fun for 30 minutes, awsome.
The UO vets, Eq vets, Mud players, ect. == Look for a genuine experience, freedom, and a "Quality" social aspect where you truly let youself free.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
If that's the case you're both wrong.
ROI is return/investment. It isn't fear of a small return that investors fear = it's the size of the investment to gain that return. There are millions of investors who would love to own part of an MMO that has 100K subscribers paying $15 a month. What there isn't are millions of people who want to invest $4 million for 1% of such a company.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
You'd half to kill or brainwash every single person who started their MMO experience with WoW. The only other thing that could do that is a RADICALLY different MMO that practically rewinds the genre to the classic UO days. Unfortunately, UO's model, although awsome, is EXTREMELY niche in todays market. Because the majority of the consumer base in the genre doesn't have the same standards of expectency as a UO vet.
If something amazing like that happened, we wouldn't even realize it untill after it hit us.
Not enough balance between solo and grouping material....God knows I don't have time to raid therefore I lose out on all the good stuff. when I do try to pvp I am crushed and left with no self esteem. My character then looks ridiculous because I never get the pretty armor. Everyone is asking what gear I have and when I do finally get time to raid or do heroic: What does that mean? I don't get in the group. Left out again. The other reason why the industry is dry i think is because people do not want to leave their first love or give up years of investment in that one game but in actuality if people did this then they would force the game companies to make more games at a better quality. WOW loves that people love them. They really don't have to do much more innovation. Just recycle what they have and add a few things here and there. Bah. Everyone leave now so they get the message to create a new game and not a "destroyed" new game "Cataclysm". Don't get me wrong,I am guilty. I still play WOW occasionally but I really want all that money they are making to go into a new game, a new idea, new graphics....They have the resources to do so. People are the main problem. Thaty is what I am saying. The publishers don't help with there max-profit mentality either. But "We the People" are really the ones with the power to change....Just quit the game and tell them why....go play something else in the mean time. Be patient and wait for them to get the message. You do have a life outside MMOs,right? Ciao. Ok bash me now....
Like several have said on here, the current market makes FUNDING the major problem. Plenty of people have creative ideas. Plenty of people in game companies have creative ideas. Plenty of indie developers have creative ideas. The problem is, they can't get money to fund the production of an MMO using those creative ideas because people keep shooting for WoW-like success or are so cautious they are only willing to pay for a WoW-like game.
Slowly we are getting some major companies to branch out. SW: TOR and FFXIV look like they'll diverge a decent bit from the standard model. It is/was only a matter of time. After a certain number of failures investors are going to start trying other tactics. Looks like for now things are going to proceed in baby steps, but maybe we'll get something REALLY different in 5 years or so after some of the "good bit different" games come out and do well.
Edit: Doesn't help that the consumers seem happy to buy crappy games and pay a monthly fee while they are fixed. Depends on how broken they are but it does seem like we should have a bit more backbone on this front. Stupid human psychology...
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Part of the problem with the genre is companies aren't interested in making better games they can draw players in with and keep a strong subscription base. They seem to want to sell a bunch of hype they know they can't actually achieve, lure peoplle in with promises for lifetime subscriptions they can't keep and then figure out a way to nickle and dime lifetime subscribers with for pay DLC all while producing some pretty subpar content that relies on PvP to keep people content because there isn't enough content to keep them entertained.
When MMOs first came out, I think there was still a sense of hey, what can we really do with this, how are we going to make this awesome as opposed to trying to create the biggest cash cow possible today and wondering why no one sticks around.
By the way, I've enjoyed Star Trek (all the series) for a long, long time and I really enjoyed the new movie. Not sure what kind of point you were trying to make with that. As for Star Trek online, starting to look like a typical MMORPG with ships instead of character models.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I clipped apart your post to highlight what I think is rather important. Jon Woods is heading in the right direction when he talks about MMO outsiders, but they can't be completely outside, as they will make the same mistakes and arrive at the same conclusions -- thus eating up development dollars. What is needed, however, are non-programmers designing games. Is an author required to know how to construct a pencil, and make papyrus in order to write a master work? Rhetorical question, obviously. And while there are a one or two filmmakers who can perform all aspects of making a film (from script, to cinematographer, to editing, to sound design), most are storytellers first and join forces with other artists. Hitchcock had script writers he worked with, had cinematographers, had editors. He had the vision, and he guided those he worked with to that vision.
Game Design needs the equivelant of a film Director who has a vision, understands game theories, but doesn't necessarily have to know how to program. Of course you will find the rare individual who has brilliant vision, who understands game theory thoroughly, and who can program or design fantastic game levels. But as we see, that individual is rare -- the equivelant is rare in filmmaking as well.
What I sense in the MMO industry today are a lot of programmers who are passible at game design and storytelling. It's like a film directed by editors or the sound designer. How does that equate to consistent success? Even with highly skilled and dedicated film directors, success isn't gaurenteed. I have a lot of respect for programmers -- some of them can be incredibly smart -- but that doesn't make them de facto great game designers or visionaries.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
Of course, those of us that have fond memories of UO, EQ, and AC also know something else: Back then we didn't have a choice if we wanted a mmorpg. Sure, you could jump between the those 3 or some old MUD (or maybe Lineage if we knew about it), but really if you wanted to be surrounded by 100's or 1000's of other players, you needed to be playing one of the 3. But now, how many are there? You could play a different game every week for a year and still not get beyond the tip of the iceberg. So back then you found one of three that you liked and played it. The friends you made there did the same thing, and everyone was always there if you were away for a while. Unlike now, when your guild or friend list is continually churning over names.
As to innovating something new. I just don't think it is going to ever happen as long as WoW continues to exist in the manner it does to this day. Sure, there will be a standout that succeeds on a "small" scale like EVE, but those are going to be few and far between. But even WoW has effected how we look at the scale of EVE. Compared to what existed in 99 and early 2000's, it would have been a major contender.
It is my understanding that they already do that...well, perhaps minus some of that vision thing. There are game designers in the industry that do no programming.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Opening paragraph. That's the key right there. You make thesis statements in the opening paragraph. They aren't analytical and neither are they in depth. They tell you what the author believes and then the author goes on to elaborate on that belief in the body of the article, which Jon did.
So, regardless of what you believe, he wrote it just fine. I have written 5 different papers over the past 2 months and each professor pointed out they wanted their papers written in such manner. Macro-level statement up front and followed by micro-level specifics in the body.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Whatever the specific reason, it is difficult to argue that the MMORPG genre isn't in some kind of decline. The last few years of releases haven't exactly lived up to their hype and scepticism about each and every game that is announced seems to climb as games move closer and closer to launch.
Not that I'm against innovation, but you can argue that it isn't in decline.
In fact, the easiest way to argue that is with numbers, which show that the subscription mmo market bucked the trend during the GFC and grew quite substantially and further, is likely to keep growing.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23003
Blizzard set a very high standard with WoW - but Blizzard were a powerhouse in the gaming industry before WoW and they really knew what they were doing. They designed a good product, developed it fully before releasing and marketed it perfectly.
That's why WoW was and still is so successful.
Then every hick and his donkey said, "There's gold in them thar virtual hills" and tried to clap together an mmo.
Not surprisingly, a lot of them have been duds, or in some cases what may eventually have been good games but released way too early.
That doesn't mean the genre is in decline. I'm confident that free-market natural selection has and will continue to kick the less fit mmo developers to the curb.
It is my understanding that they already do that...well, perhaps minus some of that vision thing. There are game designers in the industry that do no programming.
It's possible that I've missed that, though I tend to follow MMOs pretty closely. My understanding, and research, has shown me that programmers turn into "game designers". Are there actually University degrees that offer nothing but game theory, writing, and perhaps psychology classes? It seems to me that, years ago when I was researching such a thing, game design degrees consisted of a slew of programming courses.
Now I believe that there are game designers now who do no programming -- but are they trained game designers? Or have they garnered the title "Game Designer" after leaving their programming desks?
Genuinely curious.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Opening paragraph. That's the key right there. You make thesis statements in the opening paragraph. They aren't analytical and neither are they in depth. They tell you what the author believes and then the author goes on to elaborate on that belief in the body of the article, which Jon did.
So, regardless of what you believe, he wrote it just fine. I have written 5 different papers over the past 2 months and each professor pointed out they wanted their papers written in such manner. Macro-level statement up front and followed by micro-level specifics in the body.
So the micro-level specifics in the body should refute the macro-level statement up front? That's silly. The micro-level specifics should support the marco-level statements. Otherwise, why make them?
This, this, this, 100x this!
We don't need a reboot, what we need is for investors to realise that they can't compete with WoW, their only chance for success now is to take risks and invest in making something that hasn't been done before.
The only companies that are currently able to do this are those who can self-publish (i.e. SquareEnix) and those who already have a very good record (i.e. Bioware). Bioware has support because its publishers/investors trust them based on their history.
Personally the perfect MMO to me would be one that felt more like a fantasy life-sim. I want combat and adventure, sure, but I also want to do everything else possible in a fantasy world. Let players be creative, rather than having to follow the paths set out by the developers (that includes character advancement paths). The closest thing to that I see on the horizon is FFXIV so I'm just waiting it out...
I also agree with the edit. Too many players cling to games in the hope that it will improve. They cling to the idea behind the game and what they wanted it to be for them. As a result it only makes other companies think they can get away with making the same mistakes.
Assuming that the problem isn't that mmos' are fads (ala the pet rock) and are a long lasting form of entertainent (like, say, the tv), then I don't think the answer needs to be a complete reboot either. I think the answer lies more in what others here have talked about: ideas/vision/dreams. I'd call it philosophy...
Right now, we can pretty much figure out what most mmo companies have as a "philosophy" for a game. The old standby's like "make a profit", "convert an established property", and "have the best graphics" are the current industry leaders. As such, most developers, from the execs on down, put all their work towards fulfilling those "philosophies". Hence the repeated designs, the same marketing patterns, etc...
But, imagine what might happen if a developer went in a totally different direction with their philosophy, forced all of their workers to work towards that philosophy exclusively, and never compromised.
Imagine a game who's philosophy was "It never ends!", or, "Every day the world changes", or "Never play the same way twice". What would a programmer have to come up with to make sure that the game never ends for the player? What decisions would a producer make if he or she could not get away from the fact that every day the game world has to change? What would take priority in the design process if you couldn't let players play the same way twice?
That's where the change comes from: Top down, not bottom up. And not because the top has all the power, or because they have all the money...but, because in any good group, a successful business, a political campaign, or even a government agency, all of the team members HAVE to come together under some umbrella. They need SOMETHING to work for...something to combine their talent, drive, energy, and thoughts, towards. If the goal is profit, than that's what the team will work towards. If the goal is innovation, that's what the team will strive for. Heck...I say it to my own boss all the time...he's the director of our "program", and as such, he determines the "philosophy" of our program. If it's unsound, then the work he gets out of his staff will be the same...but, if its strong, then he'll find success. You get the picture.
It appears, as an outsider looking in, that mmo companies are struggling because their "philosophies" are no longer sound. Therefore, the work they produce is no longer sound. Until they make an adjustment at the top...at the overall driving force behiind their work, than things won't improve.
Assuming, again, that this isn't just a fad...and I'm not so sure that it isn't.
My two cents.