Beating WoW At Its Own Game 383
The BBC has up a short piece on the hopes of game developers and investors to 'beat World of Warcraft'. Representatives for the upcoming Age of Conan, recently-released Lord of the Rings Online, and Star Wars Galaxies all discuss what it's like competing in a post-WoW world. Funcom game director Gaute Godoger has a point when he says, "The industry so needs competition to World of Warcraft ... We need other strong games that can make people understand that there's more to it than WoW." The article discusses some of the features each of these games offer that differ from WoW, and theorizes a bit on where the MMOG genre will go next.
SWG one of the first MMOs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm... didn't SW:G come out after Dark Age of Camelot which was a nice MMO that was based around the concept of "Do Everquest but make it fun"?
Maybe the SW:G team could have spent some time with the Everquest team to help them avoid making the exact same missteps?
Some suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Either make me pay a monthly fee, or make me pay for the client, not both. Charging for both makes it seem like you're not convinced I'll want to keep playing. By all means have a CD distributed in stores at a price that covers costs; it's just the phenomenon of paying $50 for the chance to pay another $10 that doesn't make sense.
2. If you can't make the client free, make it transferable, so I can sell it if I decide I don't want to keep playing. There's no way I'm going to spend $50 on a game I may not even like, if I can't resell it to get back some of the cash.
3. Include Mac and Linux. I don't run Windows and won't run Windows. There are millions of us, and we have very few MMORPG choices right now, so it's an easier niche for you to get into than the more saturated Windows market.
4. Make it possible to play the entire game in cooperative mode. I have zero interest in deathmatches.
5. I prefer SF to fantasy, yet most RPGs are fantasy. I guess it's easier to artificially limit the players and work around plot issues when you have magic around and a lack of fast long distance transport and communication technologies.
6. Don't riddle the game with spyware and have an abusive EULA. Yeah, WoW got away with it, but that's no excuse.
7. Don't require bleeding-edge hardware. My next machine is probably going to be a laptop with Intel graphics.
Generally, the idea I'm presenting is to try and go for the potential players who are not being served at all by the current online gaming market, rather than to compete to steal customers who already have a choice of a half dozen games they could be playing. You know, try to be the Wii rather than the PS3.
Re:No first post (Score:4, Insightful)
Links about WoW addiction:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WOW_widow [yahoo.com]
http://soulkerfuffle.blogspot.com/2006/10/view-fr
http://wowdetox.com/ [wowdetox.com]
http://wowrecovery.com/ [wowrecovery.com]
http://deletewow.com/ [deletewow.com]
One out of many particularly sad stories: http://www.wowdetox.com/view.php?number=13640 [wowdetox.com]
No Mention of EVE Online? (Score:4, Insightful)
EVE Online is one of the largest MMORPGs out there. Its also possibly the only successful science fiction based MMO game. Given these two characteristics, combined with the fact that EVE's developer team is much more hands-off with regard to player-to-player interaction, I'm surprised that EVE was nowhere to be found the article.
Re:Some suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)
Polish is the Defining Characteristic for Blizzard (Score:5, Insightful)
I've found that to be the case with most Blizzard games. They don't do anything particularly innovative (Real Time Strategy existed before Warcraft, MMORPGs existed before WoW), but the level of polish on a Blizzard game is far above and beyond any other game in the same genre.
Heck, look at Starcraft. That game is still being sold and played, despite approaching 10 years of age. Reason: the game was simple to understand and play, and the races were far more balanced than in any other game of that time. Nothing really new or innovative, but the overall execution was of high quality, ensuring continued success.
Re:How do you beat WoW at it's own game? (Score:3, Insightful)
A master programmer passed a novice programmer one day. The master noted the novice's preoccupation with a hand-held computer game. ``Excuse me,'' he said, ``may I examine it?''
The novice bolted to attention and handed the device to the master. ``I see that the device claims to have three levels of play: Easy, Medium, and Hard,'' said the master. ``Yet every such device has another level of play, where the device seeks not to conquer the human, nor to be conquered by the human.''
``Pray, great master,'' implored the novice, ``how does one find this mysterious setting?''
The master dropped the device to the ground and crushed it underfoot. And suddenly the novice was enlightened.
The success of WoW (Score:4, Insightful)
First and foremost, they had an already existing background world. That started it off well. Warcraft has a LONG and quite well known world. Not with movie goers, not with bookworms, but with computer players. That sets it apart from SWG and LOTR. Yes, both have a large fanbase, but those aren't necessarily gamers. WoW had a gamer fanbase from the start.
Second, it's easy. Sorry, dear WoW players, but that game is easy. Easy. Easy. I know a five year old who's leveled to 60 without any real difficulty. But that actually meant that it was one of the first MMORPGs that drew the attention of people who're not hardcore number crunchers and grinders, who don't first of all consult a billion pages about the game to find out whether spell X or spell Y is in situation Z more appropriate.
It was basically the mix of having a good player base at its start and being easy enough that people who got invited by those who knew its name (i.e. the "old" Warcraft players) didn't get bored with the detail work.
How to Beat WoW at its own game... (Score:4, Insightful)
You need only look so far as Diablo and Diablo 2 to realize that when it comes to addicting grindfests, Blizzard is king. Attempting to take Blizzard down on their home turf is a ridiculous goal, and one that should be abandoned by any MMORPG hopeful.
I can't say I pay attention to subscription numbers, but to my knowledge the most successful MMORPG outside of WoW is EVE. EVE also happens to be fundamentally different from WoW.
The problem with these companies is that they're trying to make "WoWLotR" or "WoWConan". They see WoW as a formula they can copy and make money from. What they fail to realize is that the "GTA Clone" strategy doesn't work with MMORPGS. Even if you were able to make a game as good as WoW was when it launched you're still 2 and a half years behind on new content updates, balance tweaks and cosmetic upgrades. Even if you can make the game as good as WoW is now, you still don't have the 8 million strong playerbase. Your game literally needs to be significantly better than WoW straight out of launch.
No, you can't beat WoW at its own game. You can wait for it to eventually fade and then stab it when its weak, but that's a long ways off yet. If you want a successful MMORPG, it needs to be different from WoW. It needs to do the things people wanted from WoW but didn't get. I doesn't even have to be in a fantasy setting. I know I'd enjoy a Dynasty Warriors MMORPG, were it done right (we probably don't have the technology to make that as awesome as it could be, sadly).
In summary, trying to beat WoW at what WoW does best (it's own game) right now is like trying to beat an olympic athlete in a marathon when they have an 8 mile head start.
Re:No Mention of EVE Online? (Score:2, Insightful)
- It's not fantasy, but fantasy is the smart move because it is easier to understand and create; everyone knows the "ground rules."
- It's not warm or cuddly. You can be 5 hours in and get (metaphorically speaking) lured into an alley, have your throat slashed, and everything you own taken from you. (Scan-probing pirates in missions, anyone?) That's not smart because it makes people quit.
- The game is utterly, utterly sandbox. The missions are nothing but money generation and have no effect on your character's skills, and very little (positive) effect on equipment/ships.
- Some of the worst social behaviors possible are rewarded: ganging up on people, backstabbing, betrayal, strong preying on the weak, opportunism, and so on.
And yet despite all this, the game continues to thrive precisely BECAUSE it does not pander to the weak. It thrives because genuine accomplishment and reaching the highest levels of the game really does mean something (running major alliances, flying a titan), and not everyone can even come close to doing it. Because EVERYTHING in EVE relies on the player base, the community-binding aspect of the game is tremendously retentive.
In WoW, you can solo, get bored, and leave. In EVE, cooperation is an absolute must to experience more than a quarter of the game's content - and so people will actively solicit you into their groups, if they're smart - and many are.
EVE has a decent number of things wrong - including a grave, grave problem looming with the hideously imbalanced titan-class vessels appearing more and more on the battlefield - but anytime you create a total antithesis to the most popular game, you're going to draw a pretty good "backlash" crowd, and EVE has.
MMORPGs aren't just games... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some suggestions (Score:3, Insightful)
I also agree on the necessity to design for lower end machines. I think the reason WoW is as popular as it is is mainly a function of how it can run on such a wide range of machines.
Lastly, as much as I hate spyware and invasive anti-cheat programs...what good are they if they don't use them? Why do I still get spammed in-game tells in WoW for real money seller websites? My WoW chat window is fast turning into resembling my yahoo email inbox...
Re:No first post (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the real point here is, "people who have problems with addiction shouldn't engage in behaviors that can, *for some people*, be addicting"?
I mean, comeon, I like a self-reinforcing, carrot-stick game well enough, but lately I can't get around to playing it. The game (or any game) on its own isn't nefarious. But, I suppose we have to villianize it *somehow*, right?
Re:No first post (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the same as WoW, then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I'm not arguing with your assessment of either. It's just silly nevertheless to hear the LOTRO creators make such claims as that they're beating WoW by eliminating grinding (when WoW didn't require any either) or that titles for the number of creatures killed are what turns grind into non-grind.
It's blatantly silly. If anyone despised WoW's "collect 25 murloc heads... and only 1 murloc out of 20 has a head" quests and considers those "grind", then adding a title for number of murloc kills doesn't turn it into non-grind. If anything, it just adds insult to injury. The _last_ thing I'd want, when I'm bored out of my skull killing those murlocs... and yet another one was headless, is a message to pop up telling me that I got some title for a million murlocs killed. Not only it wouldn't make it magically "non-grind", it would be a reminder of all the points before when I grinded murlocs for some dumb quest.
Basically I'm used to hearing silly boasts from people making yet another "X killer" (where X can be WoW, iPod, etc) or "beating X at its own game", but this kind ranks not only as silly, but as... clueless. If the best they can come up with is "I know, let's add some titles", then they're truly and completely clueless. They didn't actually look hard at what they're copying, what works, what doesn't, what's not what the players want, and what they could design otherwise. They're taking wild guesses at something they don't even freaking understand, and hoping WoW would just have a heart attack so they can claim the kill.
Re:No first post (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No first post (Score:5, Insightful)
But in the end it still came down to a decision, and as much as we would like it to be otherwise, we are faced with the reality that we are responsible for our actions regardless of the factors that influenced the decision. You can be predisposed to being fat, but it does not excuse you in the eyes of society. When it really comes down to it, gun to the head, people will see bodyfat as a reflection on that person's character. Whether or not the circumstances are "fair" doesn't make much of a difference.
An alcoholic can blame alcohol all he or she wants, but the responsibility will sit with the alcoholic for their actions. And it's their prerogative to make the right decisions and accept the consequences. It may seem harsh, but I do prefer it over the alternative, where decisions are made for me by someone else.
Re:No first post (Score:5, Insightful)
No, WoW did not destroy your marriage. It didn't show up and sleep with your wife. You and your wife's inability to deal with problems in your marriage destroyed it. It's not nefarious, it's a game that millions (literally) play without it messing up their lives.
In short, "save it for Livejournal".
Re:No Grinding in LOTR Online? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are lots of good quests in WoW. Any instance quest is usually good, because instances are the best part of the game (if a terrible pain in the ass to actually do; can't wait for next patch to bring back the LFG channel). Other quests involve infiltrating some location to find an object/boss to kill. Those are fun too. You're killing the monsters because they're between you and your goal, not because it has been decreed that X of them must die.
All of those "kill X cheese beasts" and "slay weregoats until you find Y goatees" are just filler. They are grinding that you were ordered to do by an NPC. It's slightly better than just plain grinding -- in particular, if you stack quests and turn in several at once it's better exp than just grinding -- but basically the same. If the NPC instead said "Just go kill harpies until you level" would it really be any different?
I think there's a lot of room for improvement in WoW's questing. Exciting quests that require you to accomplish something are fun but rare. Quests that require nothing more than leaving a huge pile of bodies in one small section of the map -- which I'm saying I can't see any substantive difference from grinding -- are the bulk of quests.
Yes, there *is* more to it than WoW... (Score:3, Insightful)
WoW goes about as far as it's possible to go while still having what is very largely a static environment. Blizz are in the process of phasing in what essentially amounts to zone-wide games of domination, (if your faction holds all 3 or 4 castles in the zone at once, all players in your faction get a 5% damage bonus) but that still isn't what a vocal minority of players have expressed that they want.
What I've heard said minority in the playerbase saying it wants in terms of world pvp is a scenario where regions can literally be taken by one side or the other. In other words, although Hillsbrad for example might start out neutral/contested, there could be a scenario where Alliance players could invade it and it could literally become an Alliance zone. At the moment, zone allegiance is static; it never changes.
The problem with this sort of thing however is that there are technical issues with regards to implementing it, and that said technical issues are mostly above the industry's preferred pain threshold; especially considering that they involve introducing things that are radically outside the current paradigm. (At least from what I've seen) The other incentive for Blizzard NOT to introduce such things is that even though some players generally do want them, such players are a tiny minority. Most players are firmly addicted to ovine repetition such that if Blizzard *were* to start introducing genuinely innovative/novel aspects into the game, it'd probably scare the sheep away. That's something Blizz really don't want to do, because given that the sheep are the overwhelming majority, they're also where Blizz consistently will make most of their money.
If you look at the differences between WoW and UO in particular, what sets WoW apart isn't what Blizzard added to the model anywhere near as much as what they took away. UO was a lot more open-ended; yes there were dungeon crawls, but there was also a much more thorough economy, a somewhat more diverse reportoire of trade skills, and there were player created and run towns in some places due to the player real estate. In other words, the game wasn't only about "Go to X location and kill some monsters, or X dungeon and kill some more monsters there, or X set part of the map and kill other players there."
The real problem though, now that I look at it, isn't with the development industry. It's with the players themselves. If WoW has proven anything, it's overwhelmingly that players want an extremely narrow, object-oriented game environment for the most part. They need objectives spelled out for them extremely precisely. Maxis actually found out the same thing with The Sims; most human beings simply don't have the initiative or the intelligence required to set their own objectives within the game environment, but instead require the game designers to do it for them.
So yes...UO in particular and other games as well have showed us that there's a lot more to it than WoW, but what WoW itself and players' response to it has overwhelmingly shown is that neither the design industry nor the playerbase itself for the most part *wants* more. If Blizzard have any overwhelming talent, it is a talent for identifying and isolating those elements of fantasy which the gaming public want, and then regurgitating said elements back to the gaming public in an utterly McDonaldised way. They did this with both D2 and Starcraft as well as WoW. The end result is a game which is massively horizontal, rather than vertical. There's no depth whatsoever; it's based around literally mind-numbing repetition, but even though nearly the only two activities include killing monsters and finding gear with which to kill yet more monsters, the sheer number of different monsters and loot in themselves make the game sufficiently superficiallly interesting that you're able to at least temporarily (depending on your degree of intelligence, which thankfully for Blizzard, is minimal in the ca
Re:No first post (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's one of the big secrets: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are somewhere between fifteen and twenty million macs in use right now that are recent enough to run WoW. Even though these are people who have not chosen their platform to maximize the number of games available to them, let's say that one in ten has at least some interest in gaming occasionally.
That's about two million potential customers for whom there is very little product competition. A market that size is about a quarter of WoW's total playerbase, and far larger than most games ever see.
Blizzard is one of the few companies that has been bright enough to catch on to the value of making big-scale games for this incredibly ripe market, and I suspect that it has been a big contributor to their success. With luck, a few other big game authoring companies will figure out this trick as well.
Re:No Grinding in LOTR Online? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that quest-grinding is bad in WoW, you never played DAoC. That was some seriously painful grinding, and frequently without the quests to make the objectives interesting.
The game's saving grace was the PvP endgame (and, to an extent, the 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, etc battlefields), which WoW could stand to learn from, IMHO. But man, getting there was brutal. You frequently didn't even get good equipment rewards for quests, which WoW was pretty good at with its pre-BC areas, and is top-notch with the new races in BC (I did a Draenai or however you spell them through to 28 so far, and until 21 I didn't have to buy any equipment from a vendor in order to adequately complete the quests given to me, aside from arrows; this is hugely different from many past MMO newbie experiences).
Re:No first post (Score:3, Insightful)
All your actions and behaviors have a chemical component. That is how the brain works.
An alcoholic can blame alcohol all he or she wants, but the responsibility will sit with the alcoholic for their actions. And it's their prerogative to make the right decisions and accept the consequences. It may seem harsh, but I do prefer it over the alternative, where decisions are made for me by someone else.
Your decisions are made for you by "someone else"; it's called your subconscious which is nothing but deterministic chemical reactions happening in your brain. Your consciousness is not being in control of your actions but rather being aware of them. See Libet's experiments.