We, the player/the customer, vote for what goes into games with 2 things: Our money and our posts/opinions.
Our money says that WoW is the greatest game ever and should serve as the basis for what the games of the future should be like.
Our posts ask for things that are far beyond what WoW or any other game has offered (but many have promised). Our posts flame WoW and pour hate on any other game... especially the games that attempt to stray far from the WoW mold.
We send so many unfocussed and mixed signals to gaming companies that they have no clue what to do, imho. Not that everyone has to agree with everyone else, but the MMO community is so spread out in our likes-dislikes that we seem to be an impossible target to hit. So, they stick with the 'what works/what has worked' recipe and follow the WoW model.
...
The other 2 guidelines for developers and game companies:
1... WoW is the freakishly successful game, and the example for the positive.
2... SWG:CU/SWG:NGE was a serious failure and is the example for all things negative.
...
IMHO... I liked games more when we had less information on them. There was a lot to be said for purchasing a game and being 'innocently' excited to play it. Going to the store and browsing the games on the shelves... pulling one down, taking it home, reading the manual while you install it, and then logging in and learning. Meeting other players that were experiencing the game the same way you were.
Nowadays... we don't get the chance to really have that type of excitement about games. Not in an age where games are 'failures' before they are ever even in Alpha-testing phase. Thousands upon thousands of posts that trash each and every game prevent almost anyone from having an untarnished opinion of a game prior to playing it.
Large, immersive virtual worlds where the players are given the tools to create their own story is not what most gamers want, judging from the success of today's "games" such as WOW vs the early MMORPG's that embraced these concepts.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
In a perfect world Technology and the Market goes hand in hand, but we do not live in a perfect world. The Cost of Technology and the improvements of said technology sometimes far outstrips the market ability to afford the increase in costs. Take Window Vista for example, the hype was vast improvement in operating software, the reality was that Microsoft screwed up. Vista by far was too buggy, security nightmare and with game developers and publishers making games for only vista put the hurt on the folks who could not afford to upgrade thier systems to Vista and were still using XP and this hurts the market in both the short term and long term. And since the market is now in a world wide recession, the cost of technology has become too expensive for the poor to low/medium income families. There are several MMO's that are in danger of being scrapped or delayed until further notice due to the recession in the world wide market. Star Trek Online forums, different postings suggest different things but it looks like from one dev post that in order to play STO one must have a super fast system capable of handing ultra-high graphics. Since everyone is not the same and only a small portion of the community namely those who can afford to get faster systems will be abled to afford to play Star Trek Online leaving the rest of us in the dirt and far behind. Seems to me that companies like Netdevil and Bioware do not bother to know what is going on with the large segment of the recession market population, they rather rely on the so can fanboy and fangirls and other mouthpieces giving them light at the tunnel speeches and not bothering to look at the reality of the market economy during the recession. Someone mentioned SWG. I was a beta tester for SWG before the freaking exodus. If they had BOTHER TO LISTEN TO US TELL THEM THAT THE NEW GAME ENVIROMENT WAS A FREAKING BAD IDEA THEN THERE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN A MASSIVE EXODUS and loss of over 50% of the subscriber base. The current subscriber base for SWG is the same after the exodus, not many have come back, even though they sort of fixed most of the problems that came with the NGE it is still screwed up. Bioware's effort to create a new SWG type game based on the Old Republic is laudable at it's best but they have been looking also at the lucas arts ent devs NGE idea which could be a bad thing since this is the same NGE idea that caused the massive exodus from SWG. You do the math? Would you really fork over investment money or pay to play a game that uses the same formula that caused a massive loss of subscrbers in another mmo? As you all know Netdevil's JGE been delayed due to reasons that are not the acutal reasons, loss of investors is one reason for the delay. Netdevil is not a super large company like SOE, EA and few others. Not having enough $$$ to contiune development can delay the launch date of a game. But they never going to mentioned that in public. One can only SPECULATE after reading between the lines in the official forums. It will come a time when the spending forces of the market will not be abled to handle the techology improvements. No matter how many morons say that the technology has no bearing on the market or that the market will be abled to ride out the world wide recession, they are telling you falsehoods to lure you into a false sense of security. There are way too many MMO's in development and a finite number of people and money. With the high costs of education and high demand for computer system trained people, the market recession has a major impact on the number of people getting a education.
Good post.
to the above in green, it's sad that many developing games don't or stop paying attention the the testers...War Hammer Online is feeling that mistake hard right now and they listened allot..up to a point and then they fell off and snuck some things past the testers...anyways some company's head (if doing their job well) is reading these forums daily if in a planning stage and others I'm sure are not.
to the above in blue, I would not fork over any investment to have what SOE did with SWG...If I had 10-20 mill to play with I would invest it into a company who listened to the gamers, focused on this smaller player base whose demographic are in the range of age 25-50, educated, mature and well to do 250k-500k sub range. This player base is here and now even in tight economical times and will most likely be here tommorow. The formula would definatly be different than what SOE did but the idea of the SWG type of MMO would be the same.
Player diversity with change possibilities.
World belonging more to the players than some AI NPC (player cities, economy, etc)
In depth non generic crafting system and entertainment/gathering hubs
There are many simple things that can highlight features in a game as seen in many other games....use them (change them up to not violate copyrights)
1) From Dark and Light.....custom building your own keep/walls/towers to be the focus of a player controlled area.
2) A simple pet option from the Necro's from Vanguard (opening the pet up and installing different parts..claws..special hide, etc.
3) SWG's current beastmaster system and beast creation is rather cool and unique.
I have the money, now show me hard proof that your vision of an MMO will work. I want working examples already in the market place before I will give you $18 million, cause I'm not going to give you that money unless I know I will get it back.
I think that's the major issue right there.
This doesn't ring true to me. Tabula Ras, 100 million dollars for a flop that is now closed. AoC, WAR, don't know the exact budgets, but they are not big successes, and they had big budgets.
The 18 mil figure was actually what a game with I think it was 200K subscribers would generate a year, gross, not the cost of production.
But in any case, going after the niche market with a moderate development budget does not seem to be any riskier than recent releases like AoC, WAR, Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, and so forth.
In fact, making a game with a moderate development budget and going for a niche market seems LESS risky, since the AA games are no gaurantee of success, and they lose a LOT more money.
IN other words, spend 5 or 10 mil on a niche game with an unproven design and risk not breaking even or losing it all, or risk 100 million on an AAA title like Tabula Rasa and lose it all.
The players are the issue. We, the player/the customer, vote for what goes into games with 2 things: Our money and our posts/opinions. Our money says that WoW is the greatest game ever and should serve as the basis for what the games of the future should be like. Our posts ask for things that are far beyond what WoW or any other game has offered (but many have promised). Our posts flame WoW and pour hate on any other game... especially the games that attempt to stray far from the WoW mold. We send so many unfocussed and mixed signals to gaming companies that they have no clue what to do, imho. Not that everyone has to agree with everyone else, but the MMO community is so spread out in our likes-dislikes that we seem to be an impossible target to hit. So, they stick with the 'what works/what has worked' recipe and follow the WoW model. ... The other 2 guidelines for developers and game companies: 1... WoW is the freakishly successful game, and the example for the positive. 2... SWG:CU/SWG:NGE was a serious failure and is the example for all things negative. ... IMHO... I liked games more when we had less information on them. There was a lot to be said for purchasing a game and being 'innocently' excited to play it. Going to the store and browsing the games on the shelves... pulling one down, taking it home, reading the manual while you install it, and then logging in and learning. Meeting other players that were experiencing the game the same way you were. Nowadays... we don't get the chance to really have that type of excitement about games. Not in an age where games are 'failures' before they are ever even in Alpha-testing phase. Thousands upon thousands of posts that trash each and every game prevent almost anyone from having an untarnished opinion of a game prior to playing it.
I agree with this post completely. Though I would add a bit to it.
To me, it is a matter of two camps. But the second camp really isn't a camp.
There is the massive main camp of people who enjoy a game structured like WoW. A game that can be played either casually or hardcore style, touches on each of the "ingredients" of MMO's, and includes PvP. Then there is the anti-WoW camp.
The problem with the anti-WoW camp, is they are a fractured group. There are so many sub-groups in that group.
-"We want a hardcore old school 50 man raid type game"
-"We want a hardcore old school, take 2 million years to get to the cap type PvE game with no PVP"
-"We want a hardcore, full loot style MMO with full PvP."
-"We want an MMO where you can be hair-stylist and never involve yourself in combat if you choose"
-"We want an MMO with zero instances."
-"We want an MMO with top of the line cutting edge graphics."
And I could go on and on and on with subgroups that I consider wanting a niche type MMO. With that said, and if you were an investor right now who had $20K in cash to buy shares of a company, would you buy them in let's say a tried and true developer who is aiming at something similar to a WoW style game, or would you invest it in an indie company making let's say a full PVP/loot style game? To use real but fictional (in terms of the investment piece) real world examples, if you could invest tomorrow in Bioware and the only game they were making was a game like TOR (ignoring what the IP is for argument's sake), or would you invest in the guys making Mortal Online? Would you invest in the massive Camp A, or would you invest in the splintered, fractured, 20 sub-group Camp B, and hope for the best?
to the above in blue, I would not fork over any investment to have what SOE did with SWG...If I had 10-20 mill to play with I would invest it into a company who listened to the gamers, focused on this smaller player base whose demographic are in the range of age 25-50, educated, mature and well to do 250k-500k sub range. This player base is here and now even in tight economical times and will most likely be here tommorow. The formula would definatly be different than what SOE did but the idea of the SWG type of MMO would be the same.
I would also ad "played many MMORPGs already, and looking for something different than the usual themepark. "
There will always be the new MMORPG player that is happy just to be in an online world and go on the themepark rides.
I agree this player base is here, now, and will pay to sub to a good game that offers something more. They don't exist in WoW numbers, but enough to make a game profitable.
To me, it is a matter of two camps. But the second camp really isn't a camp. There is the massive main camp of people who enjoy a game structured like WoW. A game that can be played either casually or hardcore style, touches on each of the "ingredients" of MMO's, and includes PvP. Then there is the anti-WoW camp. The problem with the anti-WoW camp, is they are a fractured group. There are so many sub-groups in that group. -"We want a hardcore old school 50 man raid type game" -"We want a hardcore old school, take 2 million years to get to the cap type PvE game with no PVP" -"We want a hardcore, full loot style MMO with full PvP." -"We want an MMO where you can be hair-stylist and never involve yourself in combat if you choose" -"We want an MMO with zero instances." -"We want an MMO with top of the line cutting edge graphics." And I could go on and on and on with subgroups that I consider wanting a niche type MMO. With that said, and if you were an investor right now who had $20K in cash to buy shares of a company, would you buy them in let's say a tried and true developer who is aiming at something similar to a WoW style game, or would you invest it in an indie company making let's say a full PVP/loot style game? To use real but fictional (in terms of the investment piece) real world examples, if you could invest tomorrow in Bioware and the only game they were making was a game like TOR (ignoring what the IP is for argument's sake), or would you invest in the guys making Mortal Online? Would you invest in the massive Camp A, or would you invest in the splintered, fractured, 20 sub-group Camp B, and hope for the best? This is the delimma for developers (IMO).
True about the fractured camps, however, there is overlap. Make one of these, and do it very, very well, and some of the other camps WILL play it, even though it's not EXACTLY waht they are asking for.
My investment would depend on the cost to make the game. TOR is costing more to develop, so will require more subs to make a profit. Mortal Online is costing less, and so will require less subs.
I'd need to know the total budget of each to decide on the best investment. If MO is going to spend 2 million bucks, then it might be the better investment. If they are spending 50 million it's a definite loser.
This doesn't ring true to me. Tabula Ras, 100 million dollars for a flop that is now closed. AoC, WAR, don't know the exact budgets, but they are not big successes, and they had big budgets. The 18 mil figure was actually what a game with I think it was 200K subscribers would generate a year, gross, not the cost of production. But in any case, going after the niche market with a moderate development budget does not seem to be any riskier than recent releases like AoC, WAR, Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, and so forth. In fact, making a game with a moderate development budget and going for a niche market seems LESS risky, since the AA games are no gaurantee of success, and they lose a LOT more money. IN other words, spend 5 or 10 mil on a niche game with an unproven design and risk not breaking even or losing it all, or risk 100 million on an AAA title like Tabula Rasa and lose it all. Which one is more risk?
The people with the money don't know the market.
So it comes down to providing them with an example to use to explain how their money will make more money!
You can use World of Warcraft as an example for linear progression themepark MMOs, which is great cause all the numbers are massive and none of the people with money will know that its impossible to replicate Blizzard's success.
What you can't do is show them an example of a successful sandbox or open ended MMO, at least not one that comes anywhere near close to the top themepark MMOs. So you can't even pretend that you can make money on the idea
Risks may be greater for copying WoW, but at the end of the day, you're not telling the person who's money it is that the risks are that high, you're just blinding them with all the big numbers.
Which is why, if anyone has proof that a non-themepark MMO would work, show me, so I can back up my ideas.
As a software developer in the business world I am here to say that what is possible technically is light years ahead of what business can full comprehend given how they are usually reacting to immediate concerns.
In general I think this is true in the gaming world. What is possible in games is mind blowing but business are not willing to take the risks and players are not ready to understand it.
at least in my view
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This doesn't ring true to me. Tabula Ras, 100 million dollars for a flop that is now closed. AoC, WAR, don't know the exact budgets, but they are not big successes, and they had big budgets. The 18 mil figure was actually what a game with I think it was 200K subscribers would generate a year, gross, not the cost of production. But in any case, going after the niche market with a moderate development budget does not seem to be any riskier than recent releases like AoC, WAR, Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, and so forth. In fact, making a game with a moderate development budget and going for a niche market seems LESS risky, since the AA games are no gaurantee of success, and they lose a LOT more money. IN other words, spend 5 or 10 mil on a niche game with an unproven design and risk not breaking even or losing it all, or risk 100 million on an AAA title like Tabula Rasa and lose it all. Which one is more risk?
The people with the money don't know the market.
So it comes down to providing them with an example to use to explain how their money will make more money!
You can use World of Warcraft as an example for linear progression themepark MMOs, which is great cause all the numbers are massive and none of the people with money will know that its impossible to replicate Blizzard's success.
What you can't do is show them an example of a successful sandbox or open ended MMO, at least not one that comes anywhere near close to the top themepark MMOs. So you can't even pretend that you can make money on the idea
Risks may be greater for copying WoW, but at the end of the day, you're not telling the person who's money it is that the risks are that high, you're just blinding them with all the big numbers.
Which is why, if anyone has proof that a non-themepark MMO would work, show me, so I can back up my ideas.
Since a basic SWG-preCU design has already been done (with elements from UO...after all these are the 2 most widely missed MMO types so sayeth the many people saying it or this niche), a small team of non lazy great coders could recreate a simular but different game in the same style in 6 months-year...also going with a futuristic-fantasy genre would leave lots of room for a story-game play- items, etc....more room.
With a cool and interesting story line in place and these features then accourding to John Smedly himself the number is 200k+ subs and all over there is talk of numbers far above this both official and non official....and this 200k number seems to be after they lost most of their player base after the NGE...Truthfully it's still one of the best crafting systems in a game...a little more generic than it once was but the game still manages to keep a 200k+ base it seems.
Unfortunately, even the dumbest financial body knows what Star Wars is.
So Star Wars Galaxies is a bad example, cause the first question they ask is,
"How many people played the game for the license and how many played the game for the gameplay?"
And I have no way to answer that question. EVE is the best example I'm aware of at the moment, but its difficult to relate EVE to avatar based MMOs, especially fantasy ones. I'm hopeful that eventually I will find the data needed, but its just not as simple as it might seem.
While I believe all of your points are valid, well-thought, and neatly presented, I have to respectfully state here that it's my opinion that you've all got your rose-tinted goggles on and are looking at the issue from the wrong angle, or through the wrong lenses.
Yes, subscriptions, retention, budget, scope, technology, etc. are all valid concerns, the issue happens long before the game ever comes to this point. What we have to do is reckon back to the time that WoW was in development and what was happening in the industry as a whole at that time. More specifically, we have to look at Blizzard as a company and understand what made WoW so special.
Long before World of Warcraft was released, Blizzard produced an absolute failure of a game called 'Blackthorn'. After that defeat, Blizzard made a singular promise TO ITSELF that it would hold as its highest standard even until this day and beyond. That promise was simple and elegant. Basically, it was: "We, Blizzard, will make games that are as bug-free as possible and ALWAYS FUN TO PLAY." At that time in the gaming industry, such a promise was unheard of. To quote IGN's 2004 most anticipated game release list: "Blizzard is known for releasing perfect products with superior gameplay and quality and fans are expecting the same with World of Warcraft. "
In the years leading up to World of Warcraft's release, we were looking at games like Everquest, Ultima Online, City of Heroes, EVE, ( both released the same year as WoW), Anarchy Online, SWG, and so on. But at the time, the MMO market was sparse. I can personally recall only one of my fellow students in college at the time was playing Everquest. The rest of us were still playing Diablo II, or Warcraft III. No one had a machine that could actually run Far Cry. The girls were playing Black & White. The simple fact of the matter is, we were still gaming for FREE (post-retail). The subscription model was frowned upon, even rejected as unscrupulous and the suggestion of asking for a monthly fee for a game was regarded as a capitalist money-grab. The idea was vehement. Especially when players were playing technologically beautiful games online against other players for free either in Star Wars: Battlefront, or Unreal Tournament 2004, and the like.
So, we have two factors in effect here. First, public image and business policy. Blizzard had established themselves in the industry as a leader in quality entertainment. A commitment to quality and gameplay standards seen as UNMATCHED throughout the gaming world. And for the most part, that was true. Even World of Warcraft had its issues at launch, but those bugs were aggressively, methodically, and regularly patched. It wasn't about the money though. It was about image. Was the game perfect? Was the game fun to play? It was all about the GAME.
The other factor was the business model. The MMO market and the subscription based persistent world was still wholly untapped for the most part. Though some ground-work was laid by the genre's true pioneers (EQ, AO, UO, EVE, etc.) the rest of the potential gaming market was relatively untapped.
So how is all of this relevant to the issue now, six years later, in the year 2009/2010? Well, Blizzard has maintained its public image and business policy. World of Warcraft has given them chance upon chance upon chance to prove it time and time again. Even now, with their 3.1 patch approaching, Blizzard continues to keep the gameplay fresh and entertaining and FUN, while the quality of the product maintains a polish level that very few other companies are willing to even begin to approach because of the massive financial overhead that it requires to maintain a game on that level of quality. Blizzard has done nothing radical or new. It's all about the Status Quo, but, not according to the industry, but rather, INTERNAL POLICY. Adherence to outstanding gaming quality is what keeps World of Warcraft at the top.
If ANY new game in this next generation is going to compete with Blizzard, the development houses that take that task on better understand two things.
1) First, your calendar better be timeless. Scheduling can't have an impact on your game. Take the time that it takes to make the game right. Pressure from investors will KILL YOUR GAME. Pressure from fans will KILL YOUR GAME. Pressure from internal sources, such as the accounting department or YOUR OWN GREED, ... WILL KILL YOUR GAME.
2) Second, your pockets better be lined with gold, and bottomless. Finance CANNOT be an issue, on any level, at any time. Your #1 absolute highest priority is QUALITY, not only in product stability, however, but in playability. At EVERY SINGLE ITERATION in your SDLC you had better be checking the game's PLAYABILITY with as much scrutiny as you check its stability.
That's my take.
(-szsleepy is a lifetime gamer (Atari console era), a professional (albiet inexperienced) software developer, a gaming industry enthusiast, and an MMO afficionado)
Unfortunately, even the dumbest financial body knows what Star Wars is. So Star Wars Galaxies is a bad example, cause the first question they ask is, "How many people played the game for the license and how many played the game for the gameplay?" And I have no way to answer that question. EVE is the best example I'm aware of at the moment, but its difficult to relate EVE to avatar based MMOs, especially fantasy ones. I'm hopeful that eventually I will find the data needed, but its just not as simple as it might seem.
Basing it off of EVE works great....basically a diverse niche sandbox style game with a somewhat generic type of space storyline...It seems to be doing pretty good.
I like it but my wife does not, it IMHO is lacking qualities that attract female players...I dont think most of them are attracted to driving space buses pew pewing other space buses. It lacks a physical personal connection...common trends girls and clothes and guys and their cars sort of thing.
There have been many compelling fictional representations of what the great MMOs of the future could be - you know, large non-instanced contiguous worlds where people hang out and form vibrant communities, build cities and keeps, wage long multi-faceted campaigns against their opponents; where pvp happens all over the place, sometimes in huge numbers, sometimes in small epic struggles; where people craft fun stuff, unearth hidden secrets, explore the paths less trodden; where there is a sense of adventure rather than grind, of epic size yet tight communities, personal progression, yet realm-wide struggles; where genuine relationships are formed, creativity is encouraged etc etc WoW was a passing first approximation, and was - whatever the haters say - the closest thing yet to a great MMORPG, but obviously falls below this standard on many level (no player housing! no guild halls! no real world city sieges! etc); and a slew of recent games have gone shockingly backwards in terms of the quality of product on offer (WAR, AOC - games far less accomplished than a game made four years before them). What's going on? I remain convinced this amazing genuine living breathing MMO is possible. iS more than just a pipe dream. Yet why are we faced with such a staggering string of pathetic duds? Is it simply that today's networking technology can't cope? Or is it that the market won't support such a large endeavour? Or is there a fundamental lack of ambition? I would love to hear opinions from people who have a clear sense of the industry right now. Wgy are we gaced with such an endless procession of turkeys?
Very simple. Because most people do NOT want worlds. They want games. The huge success of Diablo shows that a lot of people want simple hack-n-slash and a real virtual world is not really that important.
And grind is NOT a bad thing. Just look at Las Vegas and how many spend hours pulling slot machines? There is psychology literature showing that a simple grind/reward mechanism is what many people want.
There have been many compelling fictional representations of what the great MMOs of the future could be - you know, large non-instanced contiguous worlds where people hang out and form vibrant communities, build cities and keeps, wage long multi-faceted campaigns against their opponents; where pvp happens all over the place, sometimes in huge numbers, sometimes in small epic struggles; where people craft fun stuff, unearth hidden secrets, explore the paths less trodden; where there is a sense of adventure rather than grind, of epic size yet tight communities, personal progression, yet realm-wide struggles; where genuine relationships are formed, creativity is encouraged etc etc WoW was a passing first approximation, and was - whatever the haters say - the closest thing yet to a great MMORPG, but obviously falls below this standard on many level (no player housing! no guild halls! no real world city sieges! etc); and a slew of recent games have gone shockingly backwards in terms of the quality of product on offer (WAR, AOC - games far less accomplished than a game made four years before them). What's going on?
Am I right in assuming you never played SWG then? Before the NGE?
Very simple. Because most people do NOT want worlds. They want games. The huge success of Diablo shows that a lot of people want simple hack-n-slash and a real virtual world is not really that important. And grind is NOT a bad thing. Just look at Las Vegas and how many spend hours pulling slot machines? There is psychology literature showing that a simple grind/reward mechanism is what many people want.
The problem vitual worlds face is that they simulate the mundane too much. We play video games to escape the mundane stuff in our lives. The more mundane an activity, is the less attractive it is. It's the Hero vs Peon syndrome. Noone wants to be the Peon and everyone wants to be the hero. A world just cannot properly simulate everyone being a Hero.
Everyone has made great points and this thread could go on for ages as the topic is a very deep one.
While I do believe the OP is imagining a very very... multi-tiered game (within a game within a game as someone else basically said), I think it is possible. But with such a large ambition, since really what you want is the Matrix, you will need 1 thing to jump start it all.
Jedi mind tricks.
If you can convince the money to follow you (ALOT of money for this Matrix), then you're set right?
Heres a thought. What if you got the government to give full backing to the new ambitious v-world? What if it was a national project similar to ancient civs like Rome except instead of real world monuments you're just creating virtual worlds.
Scary thinking about who'd really control that world.
Very simple. Because most people do NOT want worlds. They want games. The huge success of Diablo shows that a lot of people want simple hack-n-slash and a real virtual world is not really that important. And grind is NOT a bad thing. Just look at Las Vegas and how many spend hours pulling slot machines? There is psychology literature showing that a simple grind/reward mechanism is what many people want.
The problem vitual worlds face is that they simulate the mundane too much. We play video games to escape the mundane stuff in our lives. The more mundane an activity, is the less attractive it is. It's the Hero vs Peon syndrome. Noone wants to be the Peon and everyone wants to be the hero. A world just cannot properly simulate everyone being a Hero.
I have to say that I really think you are wrong - and that you are making the same tremendous mistake that many game developers make.
They have got it into their heads that everyone wants to be 'Luke Skywalker' instead of being 'Uncle Owen'.
For a start, that's they have identified the wrong choice. Many people don't mind starting as 'Uncle Owen' and then becoming, through our own efforts, ingenuity and hard grinding, our own version of Luke Skywal;ker. But if we start as Luke, then what's the point of grinding through the game?
But ultimately, there are many people who do actually like being 'Uncle Owen'. if you have ever played the old SWG, you'll know that there were thousands of people who liked to be millionaire traders and explorers, who were doctors in the hospitals or ebtertainers in the cantinas, who liked to survey the planets and find the best resources where they could put up their extractors.
The idea that it's 'Luke Skywalker or nothing...' is very wrong.
Very simple. Because most people do NOT want worlds. They want games. The huge success of Diablo shows that a lot of people want simple hack-n-slash and a real virtual world is not really that important. And grind is NOT a bad thing. Just look at Las Vegas and how many spend hours pulling slot machines? There is psychology literature showing that a simple grind/reward mechanism is what many people want.
The huge success of Dialblo shows that people want hack and slash games...
...But the huge success of Second Life, The Sims and Civ shows they DO want worlds.
In other words, different people want different things - and the appetite for game worlds seems to be just as strong as for games that are just games.
Originally posted by hubertgrove But ultimately, there are many people who do actually like being 'Uncle Owen'. if you have ever played the old SWG, you'll know that there were thousands of people who liked to be millionaire traders and explorers, who were doctors in the hospitals or ebtertainers in the cantinas, who liked to survey the planets and find the best resources where they could put up their extractors. The idea that it's 'Luke Skywalker or nothing...' is very wrong.
I played SWG and what I remember is the entertainers in the cantinas and doctors in hospitals being primarily bots run by macro scripts. I would not qualify 'millionaire traders and explorers' as 'Uncle Owen' professions. Large parts of the crafting professions were also massive mundane grinds.
Very simple. Because most people do NOT want worlds. They want games. The huge success of Diablo shows that a lot of people want simple hack-n-slash and a real virtual world is not really that important. And grind is NOT a bad thing. Just look at Las Vegas and how many spend hours pulling slot machines? There is psychology literature showing that a simple grind/reward mechanism is what many people want.
The huge success of Dialblo shows that people want hack and slash games...
...But the huge success of Second Life, The Sims and Civ shows they DO want worlds.
In other words, different people want different things - and the appetite for game worlds seems to be just as strong as for games that are just games.
The SIMS online flopped and died. Arguably people playing SIMS want to have cute pets and big mansions and not worlds. Civ is a strategic game, it does NOT have virtual worlds.
I question the success of SL. It is essentially an online red light district. I don't think people want a world in SL. I think they want porn.
Is it the technology, capacity limitations, or the market, that is making everyone's dream of a really vibrant lived-in MMO feel like such a distant likelihood right now?
Truthfully it's a combination of these and many other factors.
But the biggest issue is that people define their "dream MMO" in a different way.
You mention "large non-instanced contiguous worlds where people hang out and form vibrant communities, build cities and keeps, wage long multi-faceted campaigns against their opponents; where pvp happens all over the place, sometimes in huge numbers, sometimes in small epic struggles; where people craft fun stuff, unearth hidden secrets, explore the paths less trodden; where there is a sense of adventure rather than grind, of epic size yet tight communities, personal progression, yet realm-wide struggles; where genuine relationships are formed, creativity is encouraged."
But I like some instancing because it allows for more dynamic encounters without the worry of other players ruining the fun for me.
And I don't like to PvP all the time, I like to be able to choose when I want to fight other players instead of NPCs/MOBs, not have it chosen for me.
The rest of what you mention I'd be all for.
Making the dream MMO where everyone is able to do everything they want to do and nothing they don't want to do with like minded players is possible to create, yes, but the technology and finances required to create a game on this scale would be so intensive, and it'd take so long to build....
Developers have to make choices. They have to choose what to include and not to include, what audience they are hoping to attract to their game. Then they see what they can do, working with technological and financial limitation as well as more basic factors of time and skill.
The end result is a diverse market of games that try to attract different players. Not everyone plays WOW for a reason. Some like the freedom and ruthlessness of EVE and some like the dedication and commitment of FFXI... while others like to hop in and PvP like Guild Wars or Warhammer... while some love raiding like WOW and EQ2...
The MMO genre is actually in a really good place right now. There are a lot of games available for a lot of different kinds of players, and generally speaking there are millions of players happily enjoying their chosen game.
Problem is, coming to sites like MMORPG.com you find a lot of people who are NOT happily enjoying their chosen game or any game.
What you must understand is that we are such a small portion of the over all MMO community, we just have to keep that in perspective.
There are also a lot of new and interesting games on the horizon from some really big names like Bioware and Square Enix that things are looking really good for the MMO genre.
If someone where to create the "perfect" MMO, it'd be the only MMO on the market because it'd be so good that every MMO player would be playing it.
Instead of trying to find the perfect MMO, try to find the MMO that is perfect for you and understand that it is going to be different then what is pefect for someone else.
WoW is a great game but its not a great MMO, think about what MMORPGS have become now. I mean you join a game with thousands of players per server, you immediately ignore them, and jump in a 10 man with 9 other jerks who ninja your gear. Why not just play a single player game then, would not Playing Icewind Dale provide the same benifit? Why subjegate MMOs with your will to turn them into a 5 to 10 man party game for just you and your friends?
A turn for the worse was taken when Everquest got popular, Instanced dungeons were in, player housing was out, whole guilds in a dungeon farming gear for weeks, never stepping out of the instance to notice the world they play in is un challenging. Maybe it's no suprise both these games have had the same head Devs? Or that they same Devs that created the Bursty gear based, Instance farming world that ignores most players, is the same POS that ruined UO by turning it into a carebear gear farm? To top all off you can put any idiot into one of those Gundams, I mean .. Paladins they call a class at WoW give him his favorite button and let him go to town.. thats not a mmorpg, WoW is now Gundam Wing.
See all these games arent creating a situation you have to win, or something you have to rise up against, your not creating fantasy characters trying to overcome evil in a liveing world, your creating a Demigod who is triyng to grow powerful enough to go into his Portal and defeat people who are holding his magic armor hostage. IT is Stupid, but blame the carebears there the ones who Fked it up for us.
Very simple. Because most people do NOT want worlds. They want games. The huge success of Diablo shows that a lot of people want simple hack-n-slash and a real virtual world is not really that important. And grind is NOT a bad thing. Just look at Las Vegas and how many spend hours pulling slot machines? There is psychology literature showing that a simple grind/reward mechanism is what many people want.
The huge success of Dialblo shows that people want hack and slash games...
...But the huge success of Second Life, The Sims and Civ shows they DO want worlds.
In other words, different people want different things - and the appetite for game worlds seems to be just as strong as for games that are just games.
The SIMS online flopped and died. Arguably people playing SIMS want to have cute pets and big mansions and not worlds. Civ is a strategic game, it does NOT have virtual worlds.
I question the success of SL. It is essentially an online red light district. I don't think people want a world in SL. I think they want porn.
OK, how about Eve, how about Rhyzom, how about Metaverse....
Please don't tell me that these too are not also 'virtual worlds' rather than 'just games'. Sorry mate but there are people out there who want different things than the things you want.
Comments
The players are the issue.
We, the player/the customer, vote for what goes into games with 2 things: Our money and our posts/opinions.
Our money says that WoW is the greatest game ever and should serve as the basis for what the games of the future should be like.
Our posts ask for things that are far beyond what WoW or any other game has offered (but many have promised). Our posts flame WoW and pour hate on any other game... especially the games that attempt to stray far from the WoW mold.
We send so many unfocussed and mixed signals to gaming companies that they have no clue what to do, imho. Not that everyone has to agree with everyone else, but the MMO community is so spread out in our likes-dislikes that we seem to be an impossible target to hit. So, they stick with the 'what works/what has worked' recipe and follow the WoW model.
...
The other 2 guidelines for developers and game companies:
1... WoW is the freakishly successful game, and the example for the positive.
2... SWG:CU/SWG:NGE was a serious failure and is the example for all things negative.
...
IMHO... I liked games more when we had less information on them. There was a lot to be said for purchasing a game and being 'innocently' excited to play it. Going to the store and browsing the games on the shelves... pulling one down, taking it home, reading the manual while you install it, and then logging in and learning. Meeting other players that were experiencing the game the same way you were.
Nowadays... we don't get the chance to really have that type of excitement about games. Not in an age where games are 'failures' before they are ever even in Alpha-testing phase. Thousands upon thousands of posts that trash each and every game prevent almost anyone from having an untarnished opinion of a game prior to playing it.
Large, immersive virtual worlds where the players are given the tools to create their own story is not what most gamers want, judging from the success of today's "games" such as WOW vs the early MMORPG's that embraced these concepts.
So no one is going to bother to build them.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Good post.
to the above in green, it's sad that many developing games don't or stop paying attention the the testers...War Hammer Online is feeling that mistake hard right now and they listened allot..up to a point and then they fell off and snuck some things past the testers...anyways some company's head (if doing their job well) is reading these forums daily if in a planning stage and others I'm sure are not.
to the above in blue, I would not fork over any investment to have what SOE did with SWG...If I had 10-20 mill to play with I would invest it into a company who listened to the gamers, focused on this smaller player base whose demographic are in the range of age 25-50, educated, mature and well to do 250k-500k sub range. This player base is here and now even in tight economical times and will most likely be here tommorow. The formula would definatly be different than what SOE did but the idea of the SWG type of MMO would be the same.
Player diversity with change possibilities.
World belonging more to the players than some AI NPC (player cities, economy, etc)
In depth non generic crafting system and entertainment/gathering hubs
There are many simple things that can highlight features in a game as seen in many other games....use them (change them up to not violate copyrights)
1) From Dark and Light.....custom building your own keep/walls/towers to be the focus of a player controlled area.
2) A simple pet option from the Necro's from Vanguard (opening the pet up and installing different parts..claws..special hide, etc.
3) SWG's current beastmaster system and beast creation is rather cool and unique.
those just off the top of the head.
PIRATE LORDS
I think that's the major issue right there.
This doesn't ring true to me. Tabula Ras, 100 million dollars for a flop that is now closed. AoC, WAR, don't know the exact budgets, but they are not big successes, and they had big budgets.
The 18 mil figure was actually what a game with I think it was 200K subscribers would generate a year, gross, not the cost of production.
But in any case, going after the niche market with a moderate development budget does not seem to be any riskier than recent releases like AoC, WAR, Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, and so forth.
In fact, making a game with a moderate development budget and going for a niche market seems LESS risky, since the AA games are no gaurantee of success, and they lose a LOT more money.
IN other words, spend 5 or 10 mil on a niche game with an unproven design and risk not breaking even or losing it all, or risk 100 million on an AAA title like Tabula Rasa and lose it all.
Which one is more risk?
I agree with this post completely. Though I would add a bit to it.
To me, it is a matter of two camps. But the second camp really isn't a camp.
There is the massive main camp of people who enjoy a game structured like WoW. A game that can be played either casually or hardcore style, touches on each of the "ingredients" of MMO's, and includes PvP. Then there is the anti-WoW camp.
The problem with the anti-WoW camp, is they are a fractured group. There are so many sub-groups in that group.
-"We want a hardcore old school 50 man raid type game"
-"We want a hardcore old school, take 2 million years to get to the cap type PvE game with no PVP"
-"We want a hardcore, full loot style MMO with full PvP."
-"We want an MMO where you can be hair-stylist and never involve yourself in combat if you choose"
-"We want an MMO with zero instances."
-"We want an MMO with top of the line cutting edge graphics."
And I could go on and on and on with subgroups that I consider wanting a niche type MMO. With that said, and if you were an investor right now who had $20K in cash to buy shares of a company, would you buy them in let's say a tried and true developer who is aiming at something similar to a WoW style game, or would you invest it in an indie company making let's say a full PVP/loot style game? To use real but fictional (in terms of the investment piece) real world examples, if you could invest tomorrow in Bioware and the only game they were making was a game like TOR (ignoring what the IP is for argument's sake), or would you invest in the guys making Mortal Online? Would you invest in the massive Camp A, or would you invest in the splintered, fractured, 20 sub-group Camp B, and hope for the best?
This is the delimma for developers (IMO).
I would also ad "played many MMORPGs already, and looking for something different than the usual themepark. "
There will always be the new MMORPG player that is happy just to be in an online world and go on the themepark rides.
I agree this player base is here, now, and will pay to sub to a good game that offers something more. They don't exist in WoW numbers, but enough to make a game profitable.
True about the fractured camps, however, there is overlap. Make one of these, and do it very, very well, and some of the other camps WILL play it, even though it's not EXACTLY waht they are asking for.
My investment would depend on the cost to make the game. TOR is costing more to develop, so will require more subs to make a profit. Mortal Online is costing less, and so will require less subs.
I'd need to know the total budget of each to decide on the best investment. If MO is going to spend 2 million bucks, then it might be the better investment. If they are spending 50 million it's a definite loser.
The people with the money don't know the market.
So it comes down to providing them with an example to use to explain how their money will make more money!
You can use World of Warcraft as an example for linear progression themepark MMOs, which is great cause all the numbers are massive and none of the people with money will know that its impossible to replicate Blizzard's success.
What you can't do is show them an example of a successful sandbox or open ended MMO, at least not one that comes anywhere near close to the top themepark MMOs. So you can't even pretend that you can make money on the idea
Risks may be greater for copying WoW, but at the end of the day, you're not telling the person who's money it is that the risks are that high, you're just blinding them with all the big numbers.
Which is why, if anyone has proof that a non-themepark MMO would work, show me, so I can back up my ideas.
As a software developer in the business world I am here to say that what is possible technically is light years ahead of what business can full comprehend given how they are usually reacting to immediate concerns.
In general I think this is true in the gaming world. What is possible in games is mind blowing but business are not willing to take the risks and players are not ready to understand it.
at least in my view
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The people with the money don't know the market.
So it comes down to providing them with an example to use to explain how their money will make more money!
You can use World of Warcraft as an example for linear progression themepark MMOs, which is great cause all the numbers are massive and none of the people with money will know that its impossible to replicate Blizzard's success.
What you can't do is show them an example of a successful sandbox or open ended MMO, at least not one that comes anywhere near close to the top themepark MMOs. So you can't even pretend that you can make money on the idea
Risks may be greater for copying WoW, but at the end of the day, you're not telling the person who's money it is that the risks are that high, you're just blinding them with all the big numbers.
Which is why, if anyone has proof that a non-themepark MMO would work, show me, so I can back up my ideas.
Since a basic SWG-preCU design has already been done (with elements from UO...after all these are the 2 most widely missed MMO types so sayeth the many people saying it or this niche), a small team of non lazy great coders could recreate a simular but different game in the same style in 6 months-year...also going with a futuristic-fantasy genre would leave lots of room for a story-game play- items, etc....more room.
With a cool and interesting story line in place and these features then accourding to John Smedly himself the number is 200k+ subs and all over there is talk of numbers far above this both official and non official....and this 200k number seems to be after they lost most of their player base after the NGE...Truthfully it's still one of the best crafting systems in a game...a little more generic than it once was but the game still manages to keep a 200k+ base it seems.
one fast search here for instance games.slashdot.org/article.pl
PIRATE LORDS
Economic parameters making things more difficult for new companies.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Unfortunately, even the dumbest financial body knows what Star Wars is.
So Star Wars Galaxies is a bad example, cause the first question they ask is,
"How many people played the game for the license and how many played the game for the gameplay?"
And I have no way to answer that question. EVE is the best example I'm aware of at the moment, but its difficult to relate EVE to avatar based MMOs, especially fantasy ones. I'm hopeful that eventually I will find the data needed, but its just not as simple as it might seem.
While I believe all of your points are valid, well-thought, and neatly presented, I have to respectfully state here that it's my opinion that you've all got your rose-tinted goggles on and are looking at the issue from the wrong angle, or through the wrong lenses.
Yes, subscriptions, retention, budget, scope, technology, etc. are all valid concerns, the issue happens long before the game ever comes to this point. What we have to do is reckon back to the time that WoW was in development and what was happening in the industry as a whole at that time. More specifically, we have to look at Blizzard as a company and understand what made WoW so special.
Long before World of Warcraft was released, Blizzard produced an absolute failure of a game called 'Blackthorn'. After that defeat, Blizzard made a singular promise TO ITSELF that it would hold as its highest standard even until this day and beyond. That promise was simple and elegant. Basically, it was: "We, Blizzard, will make games that are as bug-free as possible and ALWAYS FUN TO PLAY." At that time in the gaming industry, such a promise was unheard of. To quote IGN's 2004 most anticipated game release list: "Blizzard is known for releasing perfect products with superior gameplay and quality and fans are expecting the same with World of Warcraft. "
In the years leading up to World of Warcraft's release, we were looking at games like Everquest, Ultima Online, City of Heroes, EVE, ( both released the same year as WoW), Anarchy Online, SWG, and so on. But at the time, the MMO market was sparse. I can personally recall only one of my fellow students in college at the time was playing Everquest. The rest of us were still playing Diablo II, or Warcraft III. No one had a machine that could actually run Far Cry. The girls were playing Black & White. The simple fact of the matter is, we were still gaming for FREE (post-retail). The subscription model was frowned upon, even rejected as unscrupulous and the suggestion of asking for a monthly fee for a game was regarded as a capitalist money-grab. The idea was vehement. Especially when players were playing technologically beautiful games online against other players for free either in Star Wars: Battlefront, or Unreal Tournament 2004, and the like.
So, we have two factors in effect here. First, public image and business policy. Blizzard had established themselves in the industry as a leader in quality entertainment. A commitment to quality and gameplay standards seen as UNMATCHED throughout the gaming world. And for the most part, that was true. Even World of Warcraft had its issues at launch, but those bugs were aggressively, methodically, and regularly patched. It wasn't about the money though. It was about image. Was the game perfect? Was the game fun to play? It was all about the GAME.
The other factor was the business model. The MMO market and the subscription based persistent world was still wholly untapped for the most part. Though some ground-work was laid by the genre's true pioneers (EQ, AO, UO, EVE, etc.) the rest of the potential gaming market was relatively untapped.
So how is all of this relevant to the issue now, six years later, in the year 2009/2010? Well, Blizzard has maintained its public image and business policy. World of Warcraft has given them chance upon chance upon chance to prove it time and time again. Even now, with their 3.1 patch approaching, Blizzard continues to keep the gameplay fresh and entertaining and FUN, while the quality of the product maintains a polish level that very few other companies are willing to even begin to approach because of the massive financial overhead that it requires to maintain a game on that level of quality. Blizzard has done nothing radical or new. It's all about the Status Quo, but, not according to the industry, but rather, INTERNAL POLICY. Adherence to outstanding gaming quality is what keeps World of Warcraft at the top.
If ANY new game in this next generation is going to compete with Blizzard, the development houses that take that task on better understand two things.
1) First, your calendar better be timeless. Scheduling can't have an impact on your game. Take the time that it takes to make the game right. Pressure from investors will KILL YOUR GAME. Pressure from fans will KILL YOUR GAME. Pressure from internal sources, such as the accounting department or YOUR OWN GREED, ... WILL KILL YOUR GAME.
2) Second, your pockets better be lined with gold, and bottomless. Finance CANNOT be an issue, on any level, at any time. Your #1 absolute highest priority is QUALITY, not only in product stability, however, but in playability. At EVERY SINGLE ITERATION in your SDLC you had better be checking the game's PLAYABILITY with as much scrutiny as you check its stability.
That's my take.
(-szsleepy is a lifetime gamer (Atari console era), a professional (albiet inexperienced) software developer, a gaming industry enthusiast, and an MMO afficionado)
-.Sleepless.
Basing it off of EVE works great....basically a diverse niche sandbox style game with a somewhat generic type of space storyline...It seems to be doing pretty good.
I like it but my wife does not, it IMHO is lacking qualities that attract female players...I dont think most of them are attracted to driving space buses pew pewing other space buses. It lacks a physical personal connection...common trends girls and clothes and guys and their cars sort of thing.
PIRATE LORDS
Very simple. Because most people do NOT want worlds. They want games. The huge success of Diablo shows that a lot of people want simple hack-n-slash and a real virtual world is not really that important.
And grind is NOT a bad thing. Just look at Las Vegas and how many spend hours pulling slot machines? There is psychology literature showing that a simple grind/reward mechanism is what many people want.
Am I right in assuming you never played SWG then? Before the NGE?
The problem vitual worlds face is that they simulate the mundane too much. We play video games to escape the mundane stuff in our lives. The more mundane an activity, is the less attractive it is. It's the Hero vs Peon syndrome. Noone wants to be the Peon and everyone wants to be the hero. A world just cannot properly simulate everyone being a Hero.
Everyone has made great points and this thread could go on for ages as the topic is a very deep one.
While I do believe the OP is imagining a very very... multi-tiered game (within a game within a game as someone else basically said), I think it is possible. But with such a large ambition, since really what you want is the Matrix, you will need 1 thing to jump start it all.
Jedi mind tricks.
If you can convince the money to follow you (ALOT of money for this Matrix), then you're set right?
Heres a thought. What if you got the government to give full backing to the new ambitious v-world? What if it was a national project similar to ancient civs like Rome except instead of real world monuments you're just creating virtual worlds.
Scary thinking about who'd really control that world.
The problem vitual worlds face is that they simulate the mundane too much. We play video games to escape the mundane stuff in our lives. The more mundane an activity, is the less attractive it is. It's the Hero vs Peon syndrome. Noone wants to be the Peon and everyone wants to be the hero. A world just cannot properly simulate everyone being a Hero.
I have to say that I really think you are wrong - and that you are making the same tremendous mistake that many game developers make.
They have got it into their heads that everyone wants to be 'Luke Skywalker' instead of being 'Uncle Owen'.
For a start, that's they have identified the wrong choice. Many people don't mind starting as 'Uncle Owen' and then becoming, through our own efforts, ingenuity and hard grinding, our own version of Luke Skywal;ker. But if we start as Luke, then what's the point of grinding through the game?
But ultimately, there are many people who do actually like being 'Uncle Owen'. if you have ever played the old SWG, you'll know that there were thousands of people who liked to be millionaire traders and explorers, who were doctors in the hospitals or ebtertainers in the cantinas, who liked to survey the planets and find the best resources where they could put up their extractors.
The idea that it's 'Luke Skywalker or nothing...' is very wrong.
The huge success of Dialblo shows that people want hack and slash games...
...But the huge success of Second Life, The Sims and Civ shows they DO want worlds.
In other words, different people want different things - and the appetite for game worlds seems to be just as strong as for games that are just games.
I played SWG and what I remember is the entertainers in the cantinas and doctors in hospitals being primarily bots run by macro scripts. I would not qualify 'millionaire traders and explorers' as 'Uncle Owen' professions. Large parts of the crafting professions were also massive mundane grinds.
The huge success of Dialblo shows that people want hack and slash games...
...But the huge success of Second Life, The Sims and Civ shows they DO want worlds.
In other words, different people want different things - and the appetite for game worlds seems to be just as strong as for games that are just games.
The SIMS online flopped and died. Arguably people playing SIMS want to have cute pets and big mansions and not worlds. Civ is a strategic game, it does NOT have virtual worlds.
I question the success of SL. It is essentially an online red light district. I don't think people want a world in SL. I think they want porn.
Is it the technology, capacity limitations, or the market, that is making everyone's dream of a really vibrant lived-in MMO feel like such a distant likelihood right now?
Truthfully it's a combination of these and many other factors.
But the biggest issue is that people define their "dream MMO" in a different way.
You mention "large non-instanced contiguous worlds where people hang out and form vibrant communities, build cities and keeps, wage long multi-faceted campaigns against their opponents; where pvp happens all over the place, sometimes in huge numbers, sometimes in small epic struggles; where people craft fun stuff, unearth hidden secrets, explore the paths less trodden; where there is a sense of adventure rather than grind, of epic size yet tight communities, personal progression, yet realm-wide struggles; where genuine relationships are formed, creativity is encouraged."
But I like some instancing because it allows for more dynamic encounters without the worry of other players ruining the fun for me.
And I don't like to PvP all the time, I like to be able to choose when I want to fight other players instead of NPCs/MOBs, not have it chosen for me.
The rest of what you mention I'd be all for.
Making the dream MMO where everyone is able to do everything they want to do and nothing they don't want to do with like minded players is possible to create, yes, but the technology and finances required to create a game on this scale would be so intensive, and it'd take so long to build....
Developers have to make choices. They have to choose what to include and not to include, what audience they are hoping to attract to their game. Then they see what they can do, working with technological and financial limitation as well as more basic factors of time and skill.
The end result is a diverse market of games that try to attract different players. Not everyone plays WOW for a reason. Some like the freedom and ruthlessness of EVE and some like the dedication and commitment of FFXI... while others like to hop in and PvP like Guild Wars or Warhammer... while some love raiding like WOW and EQ2...
The MMO genre is actually in a really good place right now. There are a lot of games available for a lot of different kinds of players, and generally speaking there are millions of players happily enjoying their chosen game.
Problem is, coming to sites like MMORPG.com you find a lot of people who are NOT happily enjoying their chosen game or any game.
What you must understand is that we are such a small portion of the over all MMO community, we just have to keep that in perspective.
There are also a lot of new and interesting games on the horizon from some really big names like Bioware and Square Enix that things are looking really good for the MMO genre.
If someone where to create the "perfect" MMO, it'd be the only MMO on the market because it'd be so good that every MMO player would be playing it.
Instead of trying to find the perfect MMO, try to find the MMO that is perfect for you and understand that it is going to be different then what is pefect for someone else.
WoW is a great game but its not a great MMO, think about what MMORPGS have become now. I mean you join a game with thousands of players per server, you immediately ignore them, and jump in a 10 man with 9 other jerks who ninja your gear. Why not just play a single player game then, would not Playing Icewind Dale provide the same benifit? Why subjegate MMOs with your will to turn them into a 5 to 10 man party game for just you and your friends?
A turn for the worse was taken when Everquest got popular, Instanced dungeons were in, player housing was out, whole guilds in a dungeon farming gear for weeks, never stepping out of the instance to notice the world they play in is un challenging. Maybe it's no suprise both these games have had the same head Devs? Or that they same Devs that created the Bursty gear based, Instance farming world that ignores most players, is the same POS that ruined UO by turning it into a carebear gear farm? To top all off you can put any idiot into one of those Gundams, I mean .. Paladins they call a class at WoW give him his favorite button and let him go to town.. thats not a mmorpg, WoW is now Gundam Wing.
See all these games arent creating a situation you have to win, or something you have to rise up against, your not creating fantasy characters trying to overcome evil in a liveing world, your creating a Demigod who is triyng to grow powerful enough to go into his Portal and defeat people who are holding his magic armor hostage. IT is Stupid, but blame the carebears there the ones who Fked it up for us.
MMORPGS have become Arcade games.
The huge success of Dialblo shows that people want hack and slash games...
...But the huge success of Second Life, The Sims and Civ shows they DO want worlds.
In other words, different people want different things - and the appetite for game worlds seems to be just as strong as for games that are just games.
The SIMS online flopped and died. Arguably people playing SIMS want to have cute pets and big mansions and not worlds. Civ is a strategic game, it does NOT have virtual worlds.
I question the success of SL. It is essentially an online red light district. I don't think people want a world in SL. I think they want porn.
OK, how about Eve, how about Rhyzom, how about Metaverse....
Please don't tell me that these too are not also 'virtual worlds' rather than 'just games'. Sorry mate but there are people out there who want different things than the things you want.