Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The State of the Industry Address
Isendar
Member Posts: 20
Now what I have to say, I am just speculating. Please don't flame me or anything because you think my guesses are incorrect. I know I could be wrong. The point of this post is what I think is occurring in the industry and the future of it. As a QA Tester for a gaming company I have some knowledge though of how the industry works.
MMOs, believe it or not have changed (I can hear the: DUH!s already). Gone was the era of substance, lore, and story. Now we have graphics. Can we even call these games true MMOs? With the rate of subscriptions, amount of active subscribers, and the amount of MMOs on the market, it's a pretty safe bet to say that the industry is headed for a halting crash. Maybe i'm alone to think that an Online RPG needs to have a decent story to play. I mean, in that case, can we even call it an RPG if it doesn't have a decent story or even one at all?
Am I an old dinosaur to remember and long for the old days when lore and quests and stories were as vivid as old school D&D? Even DDO is a mockery of what it originally stood for (Yes I beta tested). MMOs seem to be turning into online action games. If that's true, then the genre will change for the worst. Everquest was the last MMO to have a somewhat decent storyline/lore. Is that the end? Is this how the MMO industry is going to grow up. I see alot of upcoming MMOs that look decent, but will they sell? Will they even hit the shelves? Will they change to the new era of Action Online Games? I mean seriously what's going on???
Note: I plan on working on an MMO that's not just graphically impressive (not overwhelmingly though) but also storyline/plot/lore wise. I think it's about time the industry went back to its roots. Lets bring back the old dinosaurs (like myself) who used to play the ancient MMOs for the story, not just the graphics. We wanted a transition from MUDs to FPS style graphics, but we didn't expect a whole industry to shit in the opposite direction!
-Isendar
Comments
I think the first generation of MMOs is over and done with. Companies are going to have to start innovating to compete in the increasingly crowded genre. There was a time when every FPS was a clone of Doom (or Wolfenstein if you want to get old school), and when all RTS games looked like C&C, or Warcraft.
World of Warcraft has brought a ton of new people to the MMO market, but they will realize (ust like those of us who have played the genre longer) the games are tediously similar.
Right now the genre is stagnant, but there is enough discontent among the playerbase that eventually the clamor for something better will bear fruit.
Heh. Remember when the arcades were full of nothing but 2D fighting games? Most of those were terrible too.
Anyway when someone makes an MMO in which the story actually counts for anything, and the player can change the world through adventuring, and not simply building a house in the middle of a swamp I'll be waiting.
When people will pay others to play a game for them it might be a sign the game isn't all that fun.
I totally agree with you guys!
I've have posted more rants on this subject than I care to remember. The way I see it is that some gamers, like me, are far more discriminating than most. We have a vision of what MMOGs could be like and, unfortunately, many gamers simply don't share that vision. Many gamers couldn't care less about character customization, these types would be perfectly happy with some randomly generated generic avatar, because that's not why they play. Others want to create a very special and unique avatar, one they can care for and nurture and watch as it grows. My point is is that we are now seeing the genre beginning to break apart and differentiate into several distinct catagories. The genre is suffering through growing pains.
In the near future we will see that Massively Multiplayer Online Games will be the "McDonalds" of online games, catering to the people at the lower ends of the economic strata. Higher end Persistent Online Worlds, like the Virtual Reality types, will cater only to those who have the means to support them.
The meme I've been pushing is the True Masterpiece MMOG, a very high quality MMOG. Unfortunately we won't see anything even remotely like this for some years yet. The good news is that things are starting to move in that direction: Faster internet connections will soon enable Direct Online Distribution of MMOGs, allowing Independent developers to get their games to market faster and for much less $$; Powerful tools like Unreal Engine 3(&4) will significantly reduce the need for programmers in development teams, further reducing development costs; etc..
If we want better MMOGs we gotta stick together and fight for them!
I think "growing pains" is a good term for it. But more accurately, I think the industry is feeling out it's market and finding out how far they can take it (or break it). In the long term, that's a great thing, it's gonna bring more money into the industry which will fuel bigger and better games (or not). However, for us, the already existing player bases, it's gonna suck. A lot. Because we are being used as the market lab rats for them to test all their garbage on. SWG (pure shit) is a perfect example.
I also think that this industry is void of something intergal that all creative media needs desperately. Creative leaders. We saw some great ones come and go in the early phases of MMOs, but these guys made their money and moved up to bigger and better things (Raph Koster champion of the Online World philosophy). Unfortunately for us, the gamers, the people (morons) that have stepped up to fill those shoes are a few sizes too small. Here's my proof, a great leader is gonna be the guy who has a great innovative idea and goes out on a limb, takes a risk, and makes a killer game. Every great game in history was designed by one of these guys (ID, Richard Garriot, Chris Roberts, Ken Williams, the original Verant crew.......). Then there are all the rest (asswipers), the guys who lean on marketing research (numbers outa the sky) and focus groups cause they aren't sure enough of their own ideas to just make shit happen. Marketing is great for Toilet paper companies, it has no businness in Games. The bottom line is, if you make a great game people will play it. If you make a crap hack game people will leave it on the shelves (NGE).
The way the industry is right now, we've got marketing firms coming up with games for us (slit their bloody throats). They are telling the big wigs (pompus money grubbers, John Smedley) at the studios what people want to play (I take offense to that btw), and the studios are telling their pushover producers (Julio Torres) what to make. It ends up being a vicious cycle of pure shit (pure shit). Yeah, occasionally they'll hit something that sells because it's mildly amusing (WOW), in reality, it's like finding a bottle of dirty water in the desert. WOW is a great, working game. It got it's many subscribers not by being a great revolutionary game, but because it's a shining gem among a pile of shit. It's breaking records that would have been broken by any game that was the top of it's class at this particular time in our technological history. It's just fact, more people get high speed internet everyday, more people buy new computers everyday.
I can only hope that you are right, in that the technology to make these types of games gets so advanced and cheap that a new breed of revolutionary game makers can start making great games again, not because they want to make a million dollars, but because they want to play the really cool game they make.
The Millenium Lee
It seems like that currently developers are in some kind "creativity hole" with all class-level system games and they are also trying to copy WoW's great success by copying WoW's game play. However there is also some games coming that are really innovative, but most of them are either from really small companies, low profile and/or not so idealistic concepts like UO was at it's time.
By "creativity hole" I mean that developers have stopped seeking alternatives for level, XP and quests content, when WoW has proven that class-level system is a working concept. You can move players around game world by spawning different level monsters and quests to different parts of world. Game balancing is easy, because players have limited paths that they can progress (classes). Developing new expansion packs is also easier and less risky, because you really don't need to develop new features to game. You just need to add more quests and levels.
WoW's success has also been wake up call for investors. They are not interested to pay anymore from idealistic research projects like SWG was when it was released. Idealistic research projects are like communism - they may fail and they cost much. They don't want to pay from basic research anymore - they don't want to see projects that take years to develop. They just want to copy current success models, because they think that is less risky and faster path to take.
MMORPGs are currently in same phase as first person shooters were after Doom was released. All developers are trying to copy success of one game. They might have better graphics, they might have more levels and they might have different kind game world, but in essence they all are same. Problem is that players are slowly developing tolerance to these games and they need to get their fix from other kind games or they need stronger doses. Maybe few first games that are copying WoW are able to get successful sales.
In another hand, MMORPGs are extremely complex and almost all games have added something new to genre. But in other hand, it seems like that level-class system is unsuitable to develop long term communities and player relationships: player relations are normally limited to combat only activity, level limits player grouping and interaction, players are following monotonous class paths, players have typically very limited ways to express themselves and trying another path requires starting new a new character. Also open PvP seems to be impossible to develop to these games, because level 1 new player is always killed by a level 60 veteran.
"I know I said this was my last post, but you my friend are a idiotic moron." -Shadow4482
I tend to disagree. There's many recent titles with a very nice, depthful lore and storyline, including City of Heroes, Everquest 2 and World of Warcraft. The actual problem relies on the lack of means to effectively pass that lore to the player.
In all of the three examples above, there is a large number of beautiful quests with a progressive storyline and plots with intrigue and twists. However, in all the three games, the majority of players do not bother reading it. Even players interested in lore tend to click through the dialogs until they get the actual task of the quest. I'm willing to bet good money that noone bothered reading the dialogs in the Darathar raid series in EQ2 (a really beautiful storyline), as they were more interested to complete the quest and gain the fabled reward. World of Warcraft tried to combat this by forcing you to read the quest description as it appears, but mods quickly appeared that circumvent this.
Successful game titles do not lack in lore. They lack in ways to present it.
EDIT: As for the halting crash, I also disagree. MMORPGs are becoming more mainstream every year and the increased availability of broadband connections (esp. in Europe) also leads to an increase in potential customers. Greece is a good example of a previously unexplored MMOG market due to lack of broadband connection availability. Instead, what we will see is an increased competition in this field, where old companies that are not able to adjust will slowly vanish.
Currently playing:
* City of Heroes: Deggial, Assault Rifle/Devices Blaster. Server: Defiant.
* City of Villains: Snakeroot, Plant/Thorns Dominator. Server: Defiant.
Oh my gosh. My bad. Your so right. Sadly enough I guess that's the world we live in. A world where people just need to get things done, not understand why but just get it done. I don't want to get too much into the philosophy of the real world, but I think the world is getting kinda bored with everything. I mean space travel has nearly halted (lack of funds) and now they say it's up to the private sector. I think we've lost that wonder of the world around us. But getting back to the issue at hand. The game i'm working on will in a way force a player to read the lore. The trick is, not to make the story too long. Anything over 5-8 lines of content will bore most players. All you have to do is limit the content and don't add things like what you get if you complete this quest (unless it's gold or something). I don't know exactly but somehow i'm going to work on a system to where players need to not only understand but also read the content of a quest to complete it.
BTW I meant a halting crash being in the future. People don't pay money for other people's crap, so why would gamers pay for a game company's crap (Well when they see something better they'll refuse to pay for crap). Once MMOs reach that point, that's where the crash will occur. When they realize there's something way way way better on the horizon. WOW became the mass exodus out of discontent with the current state of the MMO world. I agree with all those immigrants. I personally hope to start the next mass exodus out of WOW and to another, greater game. A game with substance, rich lore, mystery, and players have to frickin read the darn scrolls to know what their doing!
-Isendar
Thanks all, great points and especially thanks to deggilator. You knew more about what I was talking about then even what I wrote. LOL, or was that an exuse...
BTW it's the difference between having Steak for dinner or eating grubs. When you have that choice, i'm pretty sure your gonna order the steak...
I want my games to have lore.
However, almost all games have a "static lore" which never changes over time, nor does the gameworld itself change over time, having neither seasons (weather yes; seasons, no) nor progress, except in the regard of "expansions" which are done because of $$$.
Example: the same farmer says the same thing requesting you get the "annoying mobs" out of his orchard FOREVER. Yes, repeatable quests ARE necessary, that is understood, but even repeatable quests could be changed and updated on a regular basis to keep the game fresh.
There are some notable exceptions, such as Asheron's Call, where the game world changed regularly, where there were live events, where the lore "unfolded" like a story and where the gameworld was changed sometimes drastically, such as when whole towns were destroyed (later rebuilt differently) and even (this is true) all the seas and waters were turned blood-red!
I have no idea of any developers would ever create a truly living, evolving game -- but I certainly would like to see it.
~ Ancient Membership ~
Nail on the head, Spirit. Static lore kills an MMO. These games are supposed to be persistant online worlds, but nothing ever changes in most of them. WoW is a prime example. You could go kill Onyxia every week. So much for taking part in an epic story.
When people will pay others to play a game for them it might be a sign the game isn't all that fun.
I don't think the industry is in for a crash.
However, there is going to be a paradigm shift to more quality games.
Developers now see there is a massive market out there. It will be worthwhile to develop rich compelling games with a production price tag to match. Blizzard is taking in $90 million a month in sub fees. The market can support huge development costs.
Speculation here....but maybe one day we will see as much effort and money go into future MMOs as we see in blockbuster hollywood movies. I mean Episode III made in the order of $300 million in theaters and that was a big deal. Blizzard will make that in the next 3 1/2 months alone.
EXACTLY!! The game i'm working on is exactly like that. There will be seasons, and whole armies will be able to invade (you don't control the army, but you can become a part of it) towns/castles and topple them. They can be rebuilt in the current location or another location (not too far away...). Certain bosses can be killed permanently only to be replaced by a new boss or even no boss at all. Quests will change depending on how many players actually complete that quest. I.E.: If a player has to kill the scarecrows in a farmer's field, and 200-500 players complete that quest, the farmer will either change to issue another quest, or not issue the same quest at all. It will be complex and difficult for the players, but interesting and new. New updates will occur and certain NPCs who never gave out quests in the first place, may suddenly have a quest (that's actually current for today's MMOs).
Only games to date that have some of those features that i've played:
City of Heroes: During beta they had the ritki invasion. Although it didn't last long, it was great having to fight you way to access public transportation (kinda similair to real life = P). It wasn't much, but I think if the Ritki actually managed to destroy Atlas Park (lowbie starting zone) then the heroes could help rebuild it.
Everquest: The infamous Kerafyrm the Sleeper. Once a guild awoke him, killed him, or died to him, he'd fly up to the moon, never to return again. Also a couple months before Lost Dungeons of Norrath, SOE unlocked some fairly high level hunting grounds. Unfortunately I was too low level at the time (Level 40 something) but about a week later, SOE closed those secret zones down. Now no one can access them...
Of course most of these examples are one time events. Kerafyrm the Sleeper is the only true example. If SOE had continued the pre-LDON limited time adventure stuff, it might have made the game more interesting...
-Isendar
It's kind of interesting to see how everyone just automatically assumes that investors have no balls. When I think of the amount of money that they shuffle around it makes me nervouse too, but these people have to take risks in order to keep the gold flowing whether they like it or not. The best example is the VC (venture capatalist) who invests in 50 different startups in the hopes that one of them makes enough money to cover the losses on the other 49 AND make a profit. That's a true gambler my friends.
Another thing to remember is that opening an MMO is like opening a new fast food chain. You can make it just like McDonalds, but if there's nothing new to draw costumers then they will overlook your business entirely. That's not to say that there aren't cases where they only change something superficial in order to avoid copyright and tradmark violation lawsuites. One comparison of Fiaries and Chuzzle will give you a prime example of that kind of practice. Personally, I would just stick with Chuzzle if I already bought it. Not having bought either one, I could buy just choose randomly and it wouldn't matter. Same thing with MMO knockoffs.
Yeah, you can expect to see a sci-fi knock off of WoW and GW within the next 5 years, but not all games are going to be such blatant ripoffs. I'd assume that most of the games will be taking off into new territory with some old interfaces. This is because the person pitching the game has to show that the game is "just like WoW, but different." If the game is third person with alot of the same UI, then the presentation can fool non-gaming investors into thinking they're funding another WoW. I'm kind of reminded of a story that the maker of Spirit Wars has posted on his sight of how he explained his game to investors by saying "it's just like chess, but....."
Most VCs and Angels are fire and forget types. They'll want YOU to keep them posted so that they can keep playing golf and enjoying 12 martini lunches. If they spent money on you, they'll let your plan run it's course. If you fall behind schedule though, they'll be majorly pissed. It's not the investors that are keeping MMOs down, it's the producers and designers.
Hmmm... All will reveal itself with time. MMOG's are not become more expensive to make but cheaper. Developers will have to become more "niche" in the market as it expands. The one thing that the MMORPG forum should have shown us all is that not everyone is on the same page and frankly never will be.
With that fact alone developers will soon have to pick and choose exactly what part of the MMO market do they want their consumers from. Or run the risk of alienating their consumers by trying to make a game that tries to apeall to all consumers which i feel after WOW will be highly unlikely.
Games like Wow and Guild wars have opened the doors to a whole mass of consumers but at the same time as those consumer become more savvy interms of gamplay, graphics and overall quality they will eventually splinter off into various niches. Some like PVP mostly, others questing, others looting, and etc.
We are on the threshold of a new world. Either game developers trip over their own feet and loose the courage to take new bold steps in MMO's. Or they charge right in with all they got and ride off gloriously into the sunset. Either way we will all be here watching, waiting, anticipating.
Faranthil Tanathalos
EverQuest 1 - Ranger
Star Wars Galaxies - Master Ranger
Everquest2 - Ranger WarhammerOnline - Shadow Warrior
WOW - Hunter
That's right I like bows and arrows.
So far a good read, I would just like to point out that 'Saga of Ryzom' does have seasons, and the landscape will become snow covered to reflect that. ( well it did the last time i played it anyway ).
Lots of good points... keep em comming.
The only way your going to make an evolving game is if the players hae a direct hand in changing it. I know people don't want to hear this because I have been talking about it all day in different threads. I have heard many people say this about the original UO. It let the player decide what to do. Your guilds thought of missions against other guilds. Your guild could take over certain areas of land and call it their own but it wasn't officially made that way by the game. It was just the fact that if you came in that area you were running a risk of fighting that guild. You also had a risk of players trying to pick pocket you which was something to always keep you on your toes. In Face of mankind which I beta tested at one point the players assigned missions.
What if inside your guild hall you had a mission board. On this board are missions placed by the guild members.
Example: We need to collect X amount of iron ore to make new swords for the guild.
Example: Soul reaper from the guild LNP killed one of our members and looted his best ax...he is now known as a enemy of this guild anyone who kills him and recovers the ax will be rewarded with 200gold.
Example: We are looking for a good area of land to expand our guild. Be on the look out for a good area with resources and decent defendability.
I have been saying this stuff to some of the same people that replied in this thread all day that are wanting evolving gameplay but they blasted the idea. In UO your guilds done this they made rival guilds..they made ally guilds...they took over areas.
The only way this can happen is if it's a totally open pvp enviroment. Maybe UO didn't have it perfect but they had the basic idea down.
The biggest problem is the griefing of lower level players. I think this could be solved through laws. If you kill "X" number of players "x" number of level below you who are not in a guild then your charactor has to pay a fine and if the problem persist then you are put in jail for a week. (realtime) If you kill a the same person "x" number of times in a role (griefing) then you are put in jail for a week (realtime) I would like some intelligent answers as to why this wouldn't work? I kept saying "x" number of times because this would all have to be tested and balanced of course.
As for the second biggest problem in UO (in the minds of the people that are against open pvp and full loot systems) is the loot system. You could take everything that the person had. This is realistic because you could do this in real life if you wanted to. There are a few ways you could fix this. I think if they made it impossible to carry 2 full suites of armor at the same time this would make sense. Could anyone really still be able to fight while carrying their armor plus another persons armour? This would work like a weight system and carrying small things like rings and belts would be easy but you couldn't carry every piece of armor they had. Maybe just one or 2??
Another way to expand on this is if you want there armor then you can trade yours for theirs...because this would work with the weight system. I know first thing someone would say is....they would wear crappy armor just so they could give it to me and take mine....well if he can kill you and he's using crappy armor and u have on good armor then something is wrong anyhow. I dont' want to have to sit down and figure out every little detail....I shouldn't have 2
Read my post above I would like to know why it wouldn't work?
Actually, the game wouldn't have to be that large really. SWG's size easily dealt with the amount of guilds in the game. I knew someone would come up with a reason why they can't do it. I just knew it. I dont' think people want a better game.....I think they would rather go against the things I said just because they didn't think of it.
Um yea, because for a game to be enjoyable it needs to be more than a 3D RTS that has to lower the quality of the visuals to compensate for a slightly dynamic enviroment. Sure it seems like a good idea on the outside, but games like Risk Your Life have already touched on that subject matter with bad results. The community is HIGHLY volitile, and the game becomes more stressful than any real life situation.
I'd like to add that Risk Your Life created bonds in weeks that only formed in other games after months of team work and getting to know each other. Unfortunately the highly intensive task of risking everything at every second is enough for some players to experience for a month then quit. The ever evolving and progressing community where competition is king turns "All or nothing" into "All then nothing" for certain players.
very interesting posts guys, alot of good points raised. but the fact of the matter is online games where created for human interaction and human content which the mmo industry is completely failing to see. even in the simplest form of online gaming (cs bf) the games are amazingly playable due to one fact....human interaction and content. mmos are the daddys of online gaming but refuse to accept this opting for more player versus game content and environment and thats why the industry is becoming stale. im waiting for oblivion for my player versus content/environment needs...and im waiting for the next inspiting mmo for my player versus inteligent beings needs. i cant stress enough that the state of the industry is in this condition because the devs, in their ignorance, are failing to capitalise on what online gaming is really about...i do not come online on an mmo to be challenged by quests and bots its ultimately mind numbing...i come online in the hope that player content is as diverse and encouraged as possible.....you cannot become bored with a game when the content is completely player driven!!! the industry will wake up to this sooner or later its inevitable...but untill then keep posting topics and opinions like we r doing untill someobody listens
C
GIRO thanks for a mature reply. I am not suprised by people still flaming things that I say even when i'm trying to come up with better ideas on how to make a game that would allow player based content that would ultimately give them a funner game to play. The reason i'm not suprised is it seems most people would rather disagree with you than let you better then in anyway. It's because as people we all think our opinions are the correct one. FLAME ON