How They Made World of Warcraft 140
SiliconJesus writes "Rob Pardo, VP of Design at Blizzard, gave an interesting keynote at the Austin Game Conference outlining the Blizzard philosophy on designing game content, core and casual players, and why story should always drive the game." From Raph's writeup: "If you extend the leveling curve too far, it becomes a barrier. You hit a leveling wall. Our walls are shorter and there are less of them. The short leveling curve also encourages people to reroll and start over. We had some hardcore testers who would level to 60 in a week. There was much concern within the company. But I would tell them that we cannot design to that guy. You have to let him go. He probably won't unsubscribe, he's going to hit your endgame content or he'll have multiple level 60s. In games with tough leveling curves, it discourages you from starting over." More is available from the conference, with Gamasutra having a rundown on Mark Terrano's writer's keynote, and Gamespot's piece on the MMOG Rant session. Paneled by the likes of Matt Firor, Lum, Rich Vogel, and Jessica Mulligan, that must have been entertaining to see live. One more thing - WoW has 7 Million subscribers now.
That's easy... (Score:5, Funny)
How They Made World of Warcraft? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How They Made World of Warcraft? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How They Made World of Warcraft? (Score:5, Funny)
-The Devil
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
and the reason for short leveling.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what I would have said (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Progress (Score:3, Interesting)
I always thought that the best way to create a MMORPG that catered to multiple targets is to have various paths and progress rates for everyone to choose from. Suppose you have a rank based system where (by default) levels 1-50 had one rank, 51-60 had 2, 61-70 had 3 and so on (for a total of 100 levels) where each rank took about 1-2 hours to successfully get; this would provide a challenge to most of the more casual players. At the same time you could provide Hero-Classes that have 1 rank for levels 1-10, 2 ranks for 11-20, 3 ranks for 21-30 and so on; to get to the level cap with these classes would be far more time consuming.
Now, if you gave a "talent" point (to steal WoW terms) for every rank, and each of the individual tallents were pretty weak the hero classes would have more abilities (and slightly stronger abilities) than the regular classes but would (probably) not become uber-invincible; thus they could exist in the same world together.
If correctly implemented, you'd hope that 75% of people would choose the "normal" path and enjoy their travels through the game; if done poorly 75% of the people would grind their way through a hero class hating the game while alienating the 25% of people who just want to have fun.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had a class that took longer and was somewhat more difficult to play as, but was inherently stronger, I'd say that definitely 75% of people would choose that class, regardless of the other classes. Why? Because they play games to be strong and powerful. Sure, there's always some people who like to role play, but for them the idea
Re: (Score:2)
I concur. People playing MMORPGs are like water flowing downhill finding the most efficient route -- they find the balance of risk-to-reward. Where Risk may mean time, effort spent, etc, and reward includes phat loot, levels, etc.
Cheers
--
Game Design is about the unholy trinity: Abstraction, Logicalness/Consistency, Convenience
Unfortunately, far too mamy players are argueing about the wrong thing, usually the red herring of realism. If you fav
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
In my opinion games should be designed around responsible play habits. More than 3 hours per day is bad for adults and kids alike. There are other games than WoW, people can play those when they run out of content. There will certainly be more content coming. Most people I know still have not even seen blackwing lair, and there are 2 r
Re:Progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Player grows normal character. Player sees difference between normal and hero. Player grinds hero. Hero is more powerful. Content is too easy. New content is generated to challenge heroes. Hero is now mandatory.
The idea isn't meritless, though -- it's just tricky to make it work.
yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
the levelling curve in WoW is very steep once you hit 60, after you are, say, 5/8 T2 and exalted with the BGs the impact of rerolling is HUGE, not to mention that very likely you'll be stuck in 'alt city' with your guild (having to pass on gear etc.) and have to always use your main whenever possible.
I can see somebody just hitting 60 with a mix of greens and blues thinking 'hey, that was fun, let me redo it on another character', but the situation is a lot different for the raiding crowd: yeah, it takes a couple of weeks going to 60 (esp. with friends helping you PL and so on), but it takes many many months progressing further, getting your profession's recipes, getting reputation, getting raid gear, getting PvP ranks, etc. etc. etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
i like the game... i'm growing to dislike some of the players...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A while back I had someone ask my why my lvl 30 warrior didn't have weapons that glowed. I just laughed and went back to hunting. I've been playing since the US stress test and my highest level character is 42. I do have 5 characters on my primary server though. I tend to solo a lot because I'm in no rush to level and spend a lot of time exploring. The best thing about MM
Re: (Score:2)
I don't play WoW and to me that just sounded like you're a scaled down version of a terminator with musical talent
"Story should always drive the game" (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, unless you consider the story while levelling to be:
"Greeting [Playername], we have been expecting you for a while now. We of the [Foo] Brotherhood have been trying to drive back the [Enemy] from the [Place] and are in dire need of some [Animal Anatomy]. Please collect [1..20] [Animal Anatomy] and return to us when you're done!"
[Animal Anatomy] Collected 0/[1..20]
Sorry, you obviously didn't play the game. (Score:2)
Most MMORPGs have FedEx, collection, and rescue style quests. Hell many stories have the very same elements. One thing people who put forth your comment is that they never offer anything realistic as an alternative to the existance of the type of "story/quest" they bemoan.
I bet you never read the complete text of the quests involved, let alone the chat of the NPCs giving it to you? T
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard put these quests in the game to relay a story but also to provide a distraction from the leveling process
The latter part of this has been acknowledged by Bliz. When constructing the "level grind" they were correct that actually levelling your character felt empty without tons of quests. And they set about adding literally thousands of quests to the gam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your quote is indicative of a quest log (for those unfamiliar with Wow, the quest log track the physical objectives need to do to complete the quest). Missing is the rest of the quest text and the dialog you often have with the questgiver explaining WHY you're doing the quest. Missing is the dialog of NPCs you meet while do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"We have been plagued by raids from the neighboring goblin tribe. These goblins are a vicious folk. They chop the very ears off each other to indicate their sheer evil ness. I want you to go and claim the few remaining ears of these goblins and bring them back to me!"
Re: (Score:2)
Booty Bay - population 2000.
I think it says it all there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Malfurion is summoned from the Emerald Dream and has dialog with Remulos, which ends with "Remulos, I am being drawn back... Tyrande... send her my love... Tell her I am safe. Tell her... Tell her I will return... Farewell..."
Designing? (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, I know that the characters/creatures/buildings/etc. look like they are made of polygons, but they HAVE to. It would be impossible to transmit that many raw video feeds across the Internet and still have a decent framerate.
If you used the device from the movie Tron then you could get inside and see what it is actually like - but the government won't let you.
The Crafting system needs work however (Score:2, Interesting)
Crafting's only real advantage was your ability to make things for lower level characters and sell
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not saying you are wrong but there is a different angle here.
You can get better items then what is crafted if you Raid often.
I have a Blacksmith who made most of his own equipment and they were great! He is 60th and he STILL uses what he made. Why? Because he does not Raid often.
So people like me the Crafting system is fantastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sekeran lost Damascene Cloth.
Sekeran lost Damascene Cloth.
Sekeran lost Damascene Cloth.
Loosing materials while
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of tailoring, you can make great items for yourself up to approximately level 22-24 at which point you're killing so many damn mobs for wool and silk cloth that you quickly character-level beyond from your tradeskill-level... while at the same time making enough silver from quests
Re: (Score:2)
so don't tell me I lose when you don't know the situation, or what you're talking about.
60 ain't the end in WoW (Score:3, Insightful)
In WoW, every character is essentially the same. There are no "stat points" to push around (more dex, more str, more hp, more whatever), the only thing resembling "stat points" that you distribute is your talent points which can be invested in one of three trees. Now, unless they changed it HEAVYILY since I dumped it, there is (depending on your character class) 1-3 ways to stat it, unless you want to end up with a useless character.
In other words, there are 2 different kinds of healers, 2 different kinds of Fighters and, if I remember correctly, one kind of Paladin that does not suck worse than a $2 whore.
So at 60, if there wasn't anything else, everyone would be at the same level. If you're 4 years or 4 weeks old, you're the same. And here comes the difference: Equipment. That's about the ONLY thing that divides the cracks from noobs. And, of course, the best equipment (read: the stuff you need to actually join raids for the top level mobs) cannot be made or bought, you have to be lucky enough to be there when it drops (because, of course, it also cannot be traded).
In other words, you spend your next year killing the same ol' stinkin' monster over and over and over, just to see your drop finally been looted accidently by some idiot.
So yes, the leveling curve ain't steep in WoW. But the grind is there, oh boy, it is.
how about some free play? (Score:2)
It ain't all good. (Score:4, Insightful)
WoW suffers from the internet problem of complete anonymity. Be an asshole all you want, if you end up getting the ramifications for it then you just switch to an alt. Everytime there is a problem with the big servers the smaller ones get swamped by people just being annoying because, well, because they can.
So the so-called low-levelling curve and easy re-roll capabilties of WoW also has a down side. To counter, in SWG you had one character per server and a limited number of servers. Be an asshole and you had to face the consequences.
Now imagine a MMORPG were your account gets you just ONE character with ONE name. An alt means buying the game again. So if you get ignored by lots of people that actually has an effect.
I am not saying that it is THE way to go but just that WoW's way of doing things is not without its negatives either.
Oh and about the so called casual user being able to get on just as good as the hardcore player. What a load of bullshit. The hardcore player will be able to grind the same instance over and over again, farming all the "phat" loots and kitting himself out of with all the best gear.This allows him to win in PvP easily wich again gives the player better gear.
Sorry, but WoW like every MMORPG rewards those who can/want to play the most hours. Oh and EVE fans. Think about this for a second. While getting new skills is not based on the amount of time logged in, nonetheless you HAVE to login every now and then to select a new skill to learn plus the game is heavily based on equipment wich is gotten by money wich is only earned while you are playing. So EVE just moved the focus from grinding XP to grinding money. Still the player that can afford to put in the most amount of time gets an advantage.
Perhaps this really can't be solved. After all it is part of live, train more in a sport/hobby and you will be better then someone who doesn't.
What instead perhaps MMORPG's should focus on is on making the whole game across the entire XP curve FUN. Yes that first quest and the last quest to be the same FUN! Idiotic perhaps but think about it. Was the first level of Doom, Half-Life a chore? Or were these games fun from the moment you entered the game, not just after you passed level X and gained weapon/skill Y?
If you want my opinion on why WoW is a success then it is simply because MMORPG's upto WoW just plained sucked donkey balls. WoW still sucks in many way but at least it stays away from the donkey's. Their main competitor SOE on the other sucks donkey balls but has its eye on the horses and wonders about elephants. WoW is a success not because it is that good but because it just ain't as bad as what came before.
For those who actually played Everquest 1/2 and WoW just compare the two. What really did WoW do different? What major innovations did it make? If you compare the design spec of EQ vs WoW instead of say EQ vs UO or EQ vs SWG or EQ vs Eve then I think you would be hardpressed to tell the difference. It is a bit like comparing Doom/Quake vs Unreal. Just what is the difference?
What it comes down too is that WoW is slightly better done. Graphics that work in style and performance (but still hardly perfect). Quests that focus less on (kill 10 bears, go back, kill 10 bears, go back, kill 10 bears, go back, rince and repeat until you are blue in the face). Quests that do not have as rare spawns as their objective (although WoW just like EQ1/2 suffers from the need item X to drop wich doesn't to complete, just less).
WoW is also less obsessive then EQ2 especially about crafting. Just que the items you want and sit back instead of forcing some extremely boring mini-"game" on you.
WoW ain't a better game t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.. Theres no way i would play a game where i was personally identifiable with the character. This is not a problem with the internet, this is a strength of the internet. It teaches people how to deal with assholes (obviously you never bothered to hone this skill). There will always be assholes, personally identifiable or not. If all you c
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the GP, incase you don't check, but I have learned one very good rule in life: People will only behave decently when they suspect that you could lunge at them and beat the shit out of them if they don't behave.
Fear is the greatest motivator, and the internet takes it away. What if everytime you were a prick to someone on the internet you got tasered? You'd be a lot nicer, right? Ever noticed how people used to be 'so much more polite' (or atleast, from what I have read it seems they used to be,
Low character limits are bad (Score:2, Informative)
It's actually 10. But how is this a bad thing? If I get bored of the character I'm playing, I can take a break and play a new toon of a new class with new professions with my friends on the same server without having to destroy all my hard work by having to delete my characte
Is anyone working on a FOSS P2P MMORPG ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One would hope that the content would improve over time. Performance is definately a big issue, perhaps the main issue.
Short answer: No (Score:4, Informative)
Idea is unworkable for so many ideas. The first is simply the amount of time and varied resources that would need to go in to the project. An MMORPG world requires a ton of art, sound and level design assets to be compelling. This isn't something the traditional geek is good at. However, even supposing you got all that part out of the way P2P just isn't possible. The load it would place on each client system, and line, would be crushing for any area where there's a few hundred players gathered. Also P2P has a problem of cheating. Who do I trust for what a given monster is supposed to be doing?
To work effectively as a real MMORPG, you've got to have some beefy servers. As a somewhat analogous situation, take the difference between IM and IRC. IM is something you could do totally P2P. Really the main function of the servers is just to let you find your contacts. You can send messages directly. However IRC relies on the presence of a server. After all, if you tried to have each and every client responsible for sending out hundreds (or thousands) of copies of each thing a person says, it'd crush a normal person's line, even broadband. So to work you need a server on a good line that aggregates everything and sends each person only one copy and only what they need.
Likewise with games. P2P works fine for something like C&C Generals. Each computer only has to communicate with a few others, maybe 5-6 at most. Also each game has nothing to do with any other, so if someone cheats, the other clients can just disconnect that one, doesn't affect anything overall. However it doesn't for something like WoW. If I move in a zone where there's 400 other players, they all need to know about it. It'd be just about impossible for my client to send that update to all of them at the same time, and for all of them to do the same thing. The chatter would be crushing. You need a central aggregation point.
The closest you can maybe get is a sort of half MMORPG like people do with Neverwinter nights. People run area servers, which link together. So a bunch of individuals run servers on their computer, each which supports like 64 people and represents an area. However that means only so many people can be in an area at once, and if that server dies, that area dies (and maybe delinks other areas). True P2P just isn't feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a client performs an action, that action is sent to the server, the server makes sure it's a valid action, and then sends the result of the action back to the client and to other clients that are "Close" (within X radius, or same zone, continent, whatever). That seems to be the way WoW works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the late reply; I found this thread in meta-moderation.
Anyway, I've been thinking about this kind of thing too. I think the most realistic thing to do in the short run would be to start an artwork library, with textures and 3D models and levels and such, that would be licensed such that it could be used in any Free Software game. Only after we've got most of the pieces should we start putting them together, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
You jest, but the author of the best rogue-like game, ADOM [adom.de], is working on a massively multiplayer version called Jade [adom.de]. I think there's a market of nostalgic text-based RPG players out there who would be all over this kind of thing. I've always found that as the sexiness of an online game's graphics decline, the number of jackasses decrease and the number of thoughtful, interesting roleplayers increase accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
The way it works is all clients connect to a server. Regardless of if it is physically many machines, it's logically a single server. That system then handles all interactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide any references or links regarding those tricks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) All game data is jsut a database. It's usesally not setup as a formal DB, just a flat memory/text file, but that's what it is none the less.
2) MMORPGs have massive amounts more data than normal games, which demands better storage.
3) Other MMORPGs have used enterprise DBs as backends. Sony said they used Oracle for Starwars Galaxies.
4) Blizzard went on a hiring kick for people who know Oracle. They also hired peo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing, actually (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, we got it - you didn't like the game. Now eff off. 7 million other people disagree.
See, Blizzard is a company. They don't have a sacrosanct goal to keep YOU entertained. If what they do appeals to 15 people who are willing to pay (note that part), and annoys/frustrates 5 other people, that's a successful strategy. In Blizzard's terms, if they offend 1 million hardcore gamers, but bring in 7 million casuals - that is a WIN (entirely setting aside the fact that for the same $15/month, a hardcore player is going to use FAR more bandwidth than a casual, be more hypercritical of everything, whinge more on the forums, all of which cost the company more of their own cash....)
Unless the 5 annoyed people are willing to pay 3x as much as the first 15, it makes business sense to appeal to the mass. It's democracy in action, and people vote with their dollars. It's the same reason that Ultimate Deer Hunter 3D is/was commonly near the top of the game sales charts. I might find it a joke, any regular game player might find it a joke, but people BUY it.
Companies are after your dollars, not your aesthetic approval (except insofar as it brings in dollars). Don't like it? Try to pay your rent with aesthetic approval and see how far it gets you.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, that's enough sarcasm for this post.
I think what you're ignoring is that threads like this make for exceptional market research for Blizzard. Even if they don't actually use all the information you're whining about people whining about, they're certainly better off for knowing what the "disgruntled market" is looking for, and having thought about why they're not doing it.
There are several good reasons why Blizzard never publicly admits
Not Just With MMO's (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been talking to other friends lately, and many of them say that they won't even finish a lot of the games they play, just because they don't have the time to do so, and playing through a game a second time quickly becomes a real luxury reserved for people with time. Yet many people who play through WoW create a second character, for three reasons - one, you don't feel like the end is so far out of reach that it's pointless to split your attention; two, the gameplay is different and has different rewards depending on the class that you choose and the paths that you take; and three, the gameplay at lower levels is still rewarding. When you look at the recent trend in console RPG's, I think there's a lesson that should be learned there about game design. I heard a lot of people telling me about how the new Dragon Warrior has some great old-school gameplay, but I just can't get myself excited enough to play through a game that innocuously huge that I know will take me a half a year to complete. The much hyped underground hit Disgaea, I picked up and began playing but sold on eBay halfway through the game because I didn't feel like I was being rewarded accordingly for the amount of time I was putting into it.
Games like Civilization, on the other hand, I'll not only play through one campaign, but eventually come back to play other campaigns, because I don't feel like I'm in an endless battle, nor do I feel like starting from the beginning puts me back on a trail that I can't complete. I can't stand to play a level 1 character in a standard RPG, because the real fun doesn't much start until you have several abilities. With games like WoW or Civilization, it's not so much that the early game is lacking so much as it's a separate entity. With Civ, you move from world building to intermediate diplomacy to the endgame race to complete your ultimate goal. With WoW, you go from simpler questing and personal grinding in the early game to the emphasis on five-man raiding after level 40 or so to the preparation for large raid content. The biggest difficulty is making early game content feel less like just a learning process and preparation for later material and feel more like its own separate part of the game. I would much rather see shorter games which emphasis on making the experience different each time you play the game than see games that focus on one huge, unique experience.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I try to ignore those, too.
So yes, there is a story, and there is endgame content that people can do, but not everyone bothers and it isn't really worth it to me as a casual gamer.
In fact, as long as i'm posting in a gaming thre
Re: (Score:2)
You've gotta be kidding me. If you think "we're preparing for a war, your realm must collect 10,000,000,000 leather hides" to be a quest with a story, you can probably not bother going to the movies any more... Just hang a piece of paper on your wall and write "story goes here" on it and watch it for a couple hours, it should be at least a
Re:I'm still wondering... (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole storyline of WoW is actually part of WC3, and to a limited extent WC/WC2. It sets the stage for the game, it justifies relationships in the game, and it helps set about the Geography of the game. Thats all you need to define a "Story". Hell, without story, you're pretty much playing a FPS, aren't you?
Re:I'm still wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, while you are right that nobody will ever be able to 'beat wow', there are still parts of WoW you can beat. For instance, every large 40 man raid comes with a story, some better than others of course. Look at Nefarian and Blackwing Lair. There is a LONG story behind that dragon, the lair, the orcs, and the surrounding zones (searing gorge and burning steppes). In fact, before you ever get to step foot in blackwing lair you have to go through some quests that highlight some of the story and lore. And if you want, you can read up on the particular lore of the encounter you are doing.
Some say "BUT!! BUT!! Once you kill Nefarian he isn't REALLY dead!"
Yea, well, once you read a good book, guess what, you can read it again. This is no different really.
TLF
Re:I'm still wondering... (Score:5, Funny)
You mean you don't destroy yours? I find that burning books after I read them gives them a satisfying sense of finality.
There is something to the lack of long-term effects on the game when you beat bosses, though. The fact is you aren't replaying an entire story arc in its entirety, but repeatedly replaying specific parts of the story in order to be able to progress to the next one, each time failing to see much of an even temporary effect of your actions. It's as if the ending of Dragons of Autumn Twilight had gone:
"And thus did the Heroes slay the Dragon Highlord Verminaard and free the slaves of Pax Tharkas. Then they slew him again, because he didn't drop the helm that Caramon wanted. Then they once again ventured into the fortress, hoping to find a pair of healer boots for Goldmoon. Finally, after the forty sixth slaying and subsequent celebration of the end of the greatly feared Dragon Highlord, the Heroes thought themselves prepared to move on to the next great challenge..."
Still I think it is just something that needs to be accepted as part of the game. They could make it so that you didn't repeat content and at least your own personal trek through the story was unbroken by giving you every relevent item from a dungeon on your first trip through, like a console RPG. Random drops are why you have to go back seven times seven times, but that may be a decent tradeoff for being able to find a group for dungeons instead of everyone saying they've already done it. Stories are great, but they do have to make a game (with thousands of people following the same story) out of it.
I do wish there were more examples of having at least a temporary effect on the world. For example, the quest in the Barrens which summons a mass of centaur invaders. As long as that quest is going on, anyone in the area needs to content with those invaders. They could do a lot more like this, giving the impression that your actions are doing at least something that affects those outside of your own group.
Re: (Score:2)
Some say "BUT!! BUT!! Once you kill Nefarian he isn't REALLY dead!"
Yea, well, once you read a good book, guess what, you can read it again. This is no different really.
Wow. I had never actually thought about it like that before. (This is not sarcastic.) I think a game that truly understood this concept could be very nice.
There's been tons of games that use it unwittingly. WoW, Everquest, Asheron's Call, etc. And of course, every offline game uses it for the concept of the whole game, as you can
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that today's games don't necessarily implement the aforementioned concept completely. They have had to find a happy medium (sometimes not so happy) between the story telling and the technical aspects of coordinating millions of people at once without costing millions of dollars a day. I could use the standard "in the future games will have (insert feature that they don't have today)...." ad infinitum, but we all know that no matter how adv
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm still wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Story != literary plotline. MMOs like WoW are not short stories, they are not even novels. I think you need to redefine your assumption of what 'story' is in the context of MMOs.
I'd contend that a 'story' in an MMO consists of related events occurring outside the actions of the player, that in turn affect the play experience. It's nothing more than an excuse for changing the setting, which gives players something new. When done well, the players are intrigued by the story, enough so that they don't notice that it's a pretext for introducing new/different content. The point is to keep things fresh enough that people don't cancel their subscriptions.
Re: (Score:1)
Asherons Call 2, for all its faults, did an excellent job of that.
Everquest 2 is doing this now. The large game updates include preludes to upcoming expansions months before the expansion is released, and zones from the original game are altered to show the expanding influence of the two major cities.
The story and lore of Warcraft are two of the reasons I
Re: (Score:2)
Consider some of your adventures in WoW (or EQ, or DAOC, etc). If you were to write them down, use some pretty prose, you might even have a good story. It's not part of the overwhelming "story of the world", but then
Re: (Score:1)
Anyway, it's very possible to have stories. You could, I dunno, roleplay and find other players who also roleplay. Or you could seek out a game that actually expands the story as it progresses.
And no, having an "actual plotline" like you describe does not necessarily mean that you are able to "beat" the game. Resolving a major conflict does not mean the game is over. This is l
There is a story in WoW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it can work for theme parks, it can work for virtual theme parks, which is basically what mmorpgs are, right down to their relative "sizes." It's no
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly true, I found. During a botched Jailbreak, I killed a certain NPC who was the end target of the quest string I was on. When I went to get the treasure, lo and behold, there he is, alive and well. Which was fine. I'm glad I got to chop the prick up a second time.
MMO's can have stories, for example (Score:2)
Re:My guess (Score:5, Insightful)
By ripping off Everquest?
Take a look at Blizzard's entire track record and there's not really anything groundsbreaking original in there. What Blizzard does it take a good idea, one that has had some success, and they improve on that idea to have *more* success than the previous incarnation. Take Warcraft for example (starting with the actual RTS). It had been done, and most people will point to "Dune" as the innovator. Take Diablo for example, it's basically a roguelike so you could say rogue, nethack, or anything in that genre. Obviously MMO's were not new, Blizzard just took it and molded it to make more money.
I think it's a good thing to have ideas improved upon and perfected like this, and it helps set somewhat of an industry standard for a certain level of quality. I've played just about every Blizzard game ever made, including that stuff with Interplay back on old consoles and they do make fun games, even if it's just taking an idea and going further with it. I have issues with WoW and went back to Frozen Throne, but it was a good year of gaming.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:My guess (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose that while we're at it we should knock on GoodYear for ripping off the first wheel and Boeing needs to be boycotted because they merely improved the "Bird"(tm) concept...
Re: (Score:2)
Except they didn't "rip off" the one thing Everquest had in spades: mindblowingly inaccessible content that catered to only a select type of gamer. Blizzard went out of their way to make as much of the experience as fun as possible for a long time for EVERYONE. I've known total non-gamers can pick up Wow and run with it. The same can't be said with EQ.
Re: (Score:2)
*cough*raids*cough*
I suggest you refine your definitions of "inaccessible" ("accessible" == "has 39 other friends in the game") and "Everyone" (WoWraiders \subset Everyone).
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck hitting top of the PVP ladder without epic gear, a crapload of free time and a static group ("preformed").
PVP is a lot more fun in the sub 60 category in my opinion. Although it's best to be using a twinked out alt - since almost everyone else is.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone can think of something better to do than play WoW at a given time -- but they can't think of something better to do *all* the time. WoW's damn fun in small chunks. No-one challenges that. They complain about the social aspect being weaker than other massmogs (it is), the end-game being all raiding (it is) and an interminable grind (it definitely can be). But they admit that for a couple hours a week, it's just good clean DIKU fun, turned up to 11.
The _vast_ majority