![PC Games (Games) PC Games (Games)](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/pcgames_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Movies Movies](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/movies_64.png)
![Role Playing (Games) Role Playing (Games)](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/rpg_64.png)
![Star Wars Prequels Star Wars Prequels](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/starwars_64.png)
![Entertainment Entertainment](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/entertainment_64.png)
![Games Games](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/games_64.png)
The Mystery Of Star Wars Galaxies 54
Tim Burke writes "I've got a piece up on my website that acts as a form of independent postmortem for Star Wars Galaxies, discussing my initial impressions and lasting conclusions on the PC MMORPG." Burke argues cogently enough that SWG lead designer Raph Koster comments that it's a "good essay" over at GameGirl Advance, despite direct criticism of his team as having a "prevailing assumption... that players make content, not designers", and the suggestion that Koster is "muleheaded" about "the importance of creating a sense of achievement in a persistent world entirely through barriers of time and repetition."
Ralph Koster (Score:1, Insightful)
SWG is a massive collection of screwups and random decisions that managed to pick up a large subscriber base, based on it's being starwars(Even though it's not). Proving that if you throw enough money at an mmog, it will suceed.
Re:Ralph Koster (Score:1)
I'm googling for it right now. Any additional reference anyway?
Proving that if you throw enough money at an mmog, it will suceed.
It is not said that things will stay the same forever even in the MMOG fields. Think to what happened to Pepsi and Coke, or to RIAA's industries :)
Re:Ralph Koster (Score:3, Informative)
The same thing can be said about SWG, now that he has less contact alot of stuff is being proposed that is against what raph originally planned and is getting wide support and design.
BTW raph was put in charge of all SOE games and based on current messages in now messing with EQ2, he has delayed it to make changes he w
Re:Ralph Koster (Score:2)
Re:Ralph Koster (Score:2)
Around a month ago he moved from Austin to San Diego.
I RTFA (Score:1, Funny)
MMOG = failure? (this is a question). (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand the relevance of creating and selling a MMOG (Multi-Massive Online Game).
I mean. It requires a lot of resources in creation, development, manteinance, and it also requires a lot of marketing in order to reach a vast audience. It is strenuous on resources, and with human nature of the players, a MMOG experience may be even worse than Real Life.
Ok, I am biased against MMOGs, I only played freeware ones and I find hard to collect the necessary time to play one anyway (I still prefer usenetting). But this "let's do a MMOG" craze looks to me like the other crazes that there were back in the days, only worse.
Example: after playstation came out, every single industry tried to put a 3d videocard for pcs (and now only NVidia, who played well, and ATI, who was relatively out of the high-end 3d business until late, are the top of the market).
Another Example: In 1996, how many IPSs were proliferating trying to replicate the success of Compuserve, AOL and Prodigy?
Third Example: Wizards of the coast came out with Magic the Gathering in 1992/1993, then everyone and their dog published their own C/TCG. (When WoTC grabbed the patent on C/TCGs the market was sweeped by WoTC fees, leaving WoTC with a monopoly).
Ok, this process of everyone investing their asses in the product may incentivate innovation, but how many wrong investments were made? And now, what MMOG should I play first without having time sinkholes, idiotic admins (problem that is seen also by the linked article - see the highly censored SWG forums), and ton of bugs et al? At least AOL delivered you the packet you wished to retrieve on the internet (yeah, ok, along with SPAM, but this is the problem of the internet in the whole, not of AOL), and 3D cards delivered you pixels arranged to resemble 3d solids on the screen... but after SWG and the other batch of would-be-evercrack, how can we say that these services are delivering FUN?
+ + + + ;_;
I thank the AC who stole my first meaningful first post
Re:MMOG = failure? (this is a question). (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MMOG = failure? (this is a question). (Score:1)
The problem is: are MMOGs bringing out something innovative and that is going to stay around for a long time (like the web, instant messaging, irc or usenet) or are they something that are going to dissipate and settle in their niche (like mud gaming), after the fad passes?
Re:MMOG = failure? (this is a question). (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple answer why everyone and thier mother is developing a MMORPG is simple money, money,money.
With your average game with a $50+ price range the makes of the game will only see around $15 after all is said and done. So over the time it takes for the game to be developed for an average game you will see a time value of money in the 12-15% considering the amount you could of made from putting the money in the bank and just getting interest it is still worth it.
Now for your average MMORPG, you still have that $15 from the package, but you are collecting an additional amount each month, and for alot of people even years. Even with higher costs the quess is that the average MMORPGs has around 19% return on money with the bigger ones in the 30%+ range. Throw in yearly expansion packs and it is really nice money.
One of the smaller developers said they need around 50K players to break even with paying themselves a small amount,running the game and paying investors. It was guessed they had around 70K subscribers so that would be a nice chunk of change.
Re:MMOG = failure? (this is a question). (Score:5, Insightful)
MMORPGs are currently in the stage that 3D games were during the first few years of the PlayStation. They're definitely going to become a normal part of mainstream gaming in the future, but no one knows exactly how to make them yet. Somewhere, someone is cooking up a Final Fantasy VII or a Metal Gear Solid of an MMORPG , but no one really knows who has it, so they're just taking their best ideas and throwing them into the market to try and see what sticks. Eventually the gameplay will evolve into the sort of naturally refined gameplay that you expect from new 3D action games, first person shooters, 2D side scrollers, and the various other genres of games, but that's going to take awhile.
And personally, I'm going to do exactly what I did with the PlayStation: not sink a single dollar into the damn thing until someone delivers the REAL goods. Eventually, it will happen. Until then, you're paying for the beta test of the hottest MMORPG of late 2006.
Re:MMOG = failure? (this is a question). (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MMOG = failure? (this is a question). (Score:2)
Re:MMOG = failure? (this is a question). (Score:2)
ummmm (Score:1)
"Three page rant" would be a better title, though it is very well written.
Re:ummmm (Score:1)
MMORPGa's? Who needs them? I've got SW:Knights of the Old Republic.
Just another rant (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes it can be absolutely boring but generally only if you are a power gamer, someone who demands instant advancement with as little work as possible. No, I would NOT enjoy spending an hour grinding out couplers and grips: so I don't!
This is basically an attack on Koster and
Just another apologist... (Score:1)
The essay is an effective attack on SWG despite the screed against Raph, not because of it.
-e-
Re:Just another apologist for a complainer (Score:1)
I'm so tired of the people out there who are apologists for every damn netizen with an axe to grind.
His argument does not hold water but is simply based on whines about what he finds boring and his hate for Koster.
Re:Just another apologist for a complainer (Score:1)
Re:Just another apologist for a complainer (Score:2)
He may not be, but I am. I have loads of fun playing this game and find that I spend much more time in it than I should. In fact, I can't wait to get home so I can spend even more time playing instead of doing other things I should be doing.
Seriously, if you just enjoy the game and quit worrying about being "l33t" immediately, the game gets much funner. I've found
Common Problem with Licensed Games (Score:5, Interesting)
Back on various Pern-themed MUSHed, based upon the Anne McCaffrey's Dragonrider books, you had a very similar situation: everyone wanted to be a dragonrider (and, even more pointedly, the higher level gold/bronze dragonriders). Folks who could not obtain a gold dragon in one of the MUSHes would start their own MUSH (generically called the "gold-of-their-own" MUSHes since the person starting the new MUSH always gave him/herself a gold dragon). Guess what? It isn't all that fun when everyone wants to play the same type of character.
Imagine playing a Star Trek game: folks would most likely want to be a Captain or a bridge officer, NOT Ensign Red Shirt or Dumbass Diplomat. In vampire games, you'd want to be a vampire (or, these days, a vampire slayer, I guess).
The problem is that it is NO fun being a Captain, or a Jedi, or a Vampire if EVERYONE else is a Captain, Jedi or Vampire. That, invariably, is why MMORPGs based upon the concept that one type of person is better than everyone else is destined to fail, unless care is given to balancing all the different career paths.
Movies tend to focus on extraordinary individuals, and Star Wars, Matrix, Star Trek, etc, all have that "bias." Creating games based on those extraordinary people works perfectly fine in single-player experiences (where everyone CAN be the Captain), but suffers greatly when spread across hundreds or thousands of people.
I think that's why more generic MMORPGs like Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot tend to be more interesting: while there are some balance issues, there's not a clearly superior "endstate" class, like Jedi or Captain or Vampire. There's no pre-conceived notions of how to do things, and no reference material (like movies) to inform the experience.
Re:Common Problem with Licensed Games (Score:2)
That's why every Star Wars game lets you play as a Jedi.
Re:Common Problem with Licensed Games (Score:2)
The FS slots are also affected by "permadeath" after a certain point in training, so you can't go and take on a Krayt Dragon alone and expect to keep your character around.
Yes, most games in the Star Wars genre allow you to play the Jedi, but Star Wars: Galaxies developers made a really good
Re:Common Problem with Licensed Games (Score:2)
And, no, I'm not kidding. They really did this.
Re:Common Problem with Licensed Games (Score:2)
I absolutely loved the idea of this game when it was announced, and I waited patiently for them to release it. After playing it, mastering Artisan and then Architect, there was nothing for me to do.
SOE seems to say that they've developed one thing and then release patches and new features to the contrary. It's sad, really, because the po
Re:Common Problem with Licensed Games (Score:1)
To add a short thought to this idea, I think the 'politic'/'civics' aspect is something that should be explored more in online games. I am currently playing a MUD right now that puts a heavy focus on play-run cities, goverments, guilds, etc., and it is a more rewarding experience than I have ever had in an online game.
Wrong assumptions and stuff... (Score:1, Insightful)
* Advancement system is boring : this has already been discussed here. It's boring if you wanna be master in 2 days. Normal people will find it ok.
* You cannot sell anything until you are at high level : plainly wrong. I used to sell GOOD weapon powerups for a good price, and that's among the first items you can build. Now i'm tailor and i'm making tons of mo
Re:Wrong assumptions and stuff... (Score:2)
Killing the same creatures over and over again with your axe is boring after about 30 minutes.
Re:Wrong assumptions and stuff... (Score:1)
There are LOTS of other things to do in SWG, and many way to kill monsters
Re:Wrong assumptions and stuff... (Score:2)
None of those things fit with the character you're trying to make? Create a new character on a differe
Re:Wrong assumptions and stuff... (Score:1)
other mmorpgs (Score:1)
I played ao for over 2 years and was looking for a sci-fi mmorpg. AO became old pretty fast.. no storyline.. not enough quests.. It's current state is how i percieve swg to be in a year or 2.. of sony get their act together that is.
What i'm missing in all these discussions is a game that has grown a lot lately. I've recent
I left SWG yesterday (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not for lack of interest in MMORPGs... I've played Everquest since near the beginning.
I have to say, I'm quite disappointed in how SWG turned out. I can tell that the SWG team must not have had anything to do with the EQ team, or they wouldn't have made the mistakes they did.
I could write a long list of things to SOE about why I think the game failed, but I think it'll just fall onto deaf ears. It's time to move on to something that's more fun.
If another company decides to look at the MMORPG area, take a cue from Everquest. A system that rewards players little by little, adding to the characters power over a long period of time works well.
Add a ton of content, and I mean a ton. Don't rely on your players for this, because that's not what players will pay to play. It's like going to the movies, only to find that once you get there, you're responsible for entertaining everyone else.
Rewards should be items, not just money. Money should be hard to get. Too much money will ruin the economy.
Re:I left SWG yesterday (Score:1)
Other people play these games to have fun, to hang out in a social situation, join up with
Re:enough already (Score:2)
Discussing any game in terms of its design decisions would seem to be a valid (and very timely) topic for
Re:enough already (Score:1)
Economy (Score:4, Insightful)
The most glaring issue is that there is no real advancement through manufactured goods in terms of the scale of the economy. A top-end weapon costs roughly the same order of magnitude as a newbie weapon in terms of the cost of materials required to construct the weapon. Because of this (and the players' evident unwillingness to charge the exorbitant prices they should for top-end crafted items), the best crafted weapons cost about the same order of magnitude as the bottom-end crafted weapons.
Because of this, there is very little room for more than a few people in the sellers' market. Get a factory fired up, and one person can produce a significant portion of all the goods their local customers need, and can use their spare time to produce special-request items on the side. Thus, new entries into the market must either undercut the market or go completely without sales while they skill up to Master in order to be competitive.
The crafting professions should have been designed so that top-end items were multiple orders of magnitude more expensive than bottom-end items, in terms of material costs to produce. The same % markup would result in a significantly larger inflow for those who specialized in top-end items, thus decreasing the impetus to bottom-feed (make items available at lower levels in the skill tree). This would open up those lower-level markets to relatively unskilled crafters, and would permit them to sell their items rather than simply using the "practice" mode on every attempt.
Additionally, crafting should have been designed so that lower levels of skill permitted the production of widgets necessary in the production of higher-level items. This is true already, in some cases, that you need a few of some crafted item in order to make another crafted item. But in order to prevent high-skilled players from simply cranking those bits out themselves, the quantities needed should have been in the dozens or even hundreds - enough to ensure that there would be a market for those items from lower-skilled players (if for no other reason than to save the high-skilled player a lot of time and trouble).
There are various other flaws with the game in terms of design and the expectation that players would do more than they are doing now. However, there are far more achievers in these games than designers would care to think (almost everyone has a bit of Achiever in them), and not coming to that realization was the design team's fundamental mistake.
Re:Economy (Score:1)
There's the ultra-simple stuff, made from raw materials.
There's the mid-level stuff, that requires multiple different low-level products (not materials, products).
There's the high-level stuff, that requires multiple different low-level products made in specific ways (generally from factories, which cost enough that generally only mid-high level crafters bother). along with some of those low-level products from
Persistent shouldn't mean unchanging. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Persistent shouldn't mean unchanging. (Score:2)
Re:Persistent shouldn't mean unchanging. (Score:2)
Upon reading the Essay (Score:1)
Koster... genius?!? Bwahahahaha... (Score:1)