Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

The MMORPGs Of 2004 Analyzed 43

Posted by simoniker from the more-more-more dept.
Thanks to GameSpy for their feature discussing the large array of new MMORPGs due in 2004, as they suggest: "We're in the middle of an MMORPG gold rush, with companies hurtling headlong into the battle for your time, and more importantly, your monthly fee. The big question is whether there will be enough players to go around." Featured games include Everquest II (it's argued: "EverQuest players are a natural target audience that can't be ignored, but Sony obviously doesn't want players canceling their accounts to migrate to the sequel"), The Matrix Online ("When The Matrix Online actually goes online, how many people will still care?"), and World Of Warcraft ("Blizzard has never been known for innovation. Will this ultimately come across as just another MMO?")
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The MMORPGs Of 2004 Analyzed More

The MMORPGs Of 2004 Analyzed

Comments Filter:

  • Frost Post. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 07, 2003 @06:02PM (#7420928)
    About Blizzard. Blizzard just keeps polishing their old ideas, each iteration getting progressively better. Not necessarily a bad way to do business, you know what you're getting: a reiteration of their previous game (which was fun) with some more fun and style added. So we shall see if it's just another MMO.

    • Re:Frost Post. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by roche ( 135922 )
      There has to be a limit though on how many times one can recycle a idea, and it still be entertaining.

      My example was the last Sim City. It was fun, I guess. They added a few new features, and improved the graphics. At the heart of the game, it was still Sim City. I played the previous versions so much before, there wasnt enough there to keep me interested for more than a hour.
      • With their RTS's, I agree. They have basically polished it, and added stuff onto it. Warcraft 3 is the best RTS since Total Annihilation IMO. (Though I can take or leave Diablo.)

        As for WoW, it's the first MMORPG that's actually interested me. I'm going to sign up for the beta when they start it. (Heard everything from late December, to next week for the beta starting).

        I've recently been testing Earth and Beyond, the MM space sim... And it's pretty boring so far. Played for about 7 hours and not met one ot

      • Re:Frost Post. (Score:3, Funny)

        by JVert ( 578547 )
        There has to be a limit though on how many times one can recycle a idea, and it still be entertaining.

        Have you seen windows lately?

  • Gold Rush? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by shweazel ( 583363 )
    I have yet to see a MMORPG that lived up to its pre-release hype.

    So maybe we should hold off with the "gold rush" crap until these games are actually out.

    • Re:Gold Rush? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Inominate ( 412637 )
      It is a gold rush.
      Some people made a lot of money on mmogs, so everyone jumps in, few will have much success.

      Few of the new batch of games will succeed, even wow is going to have problems. In the MMOG world, a ripoff of another mmog is asking for failure. Few people will leave the mmog theyve been playing for 6mo+ to go play another 'new' game thats almost like it. The formula of ripping off successful games that works in the offline game world doesn't fit well in the mmog market.

      No MMOG will match th

  • Sequels, licenses, and spinoffs, oh my! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Psychochild ( 64124 ) <psychochildNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 07, 2003 @06:11PM (#7421018) Homepage
    It's interesting to see that the online RPG market is already turning to sequels, licenses, and derivatives after less than a decade of wide-spread commercial attention. It seems that the large game publishers are falling back on what they know in order to maximize profit.

    It's a bit unfortunate, because the online medium deserves a lot better than that. You can do some very cool and interesting things online that you simply cannot do with traditional single-player games. The social dimensions these games and worlds can explore are astounding.

    I think that in the future we'll see the rise of more 'independent' games. My own company, Near Death Studios, runs Meridian 59 [meridian59.com], a classic game with a strong focus on PvP. We are willing to cater to the smaller market that wants meaningful PvP in their game. There are plenty of other games out there, including the rather unique A Tale In The Desert [atitd.com] that offers an entirely non-combat world. I think that as more people are able to take bold steps in developing an indie game, you will see more options out there. My hope is that the indie games will be able to offer people more of what they want, instead of just trying to slap a license into an online world where it doesn't fit, or build a sequel of a game that should last a long time. By offering people a more focused experience, instead of pandering to a mythical "mass-market audience" for these games, the indies will hopefully show the power of the online medium.

    Of course, if only it were that easy. Players have to actually support these games for them to grow. Yeah, indie games are as a rule less pretty and less polished than big-name games. But, if the gameplay is more of what you like, why not support them? The gameplay is arguably the reason why people play these games. Also, most of the smaller games can't afford big advertising budgets like the large games do. EQ has probably spent more on advertising than ATITD has spent on game development as a whole, so obviously more people are going to hear about EQ rather than ATITD. So, people need to do a bit more searching for these games. In the end, I think it's the best option to keep the online medium intersting and fun for the most people.

    My crazy opinions as an indie online game developer.

  • Blizzard (Score:2, Insightful)

    by magiluke ( 629097 )
    The article does say that Blizzard isn't very innovative. I was always under the impression that they were innovative. Even if WOW isn't going to be the first MMORPG ever made, I'm sure they will do something with it that will set it apart from the rest. After all, last time I checked, every game they have ever made has achieved Game of the Year status.
    • Blizzard has always been about perfecting existing genres rather than creating new ones out of whole cloth. That certainly seems to be their focus with WoW. I have my money on WoW for being the last man standing in a bloody arena full of fantasy MMOGs.
  • When The Matrix Online actually goes online, how many people will still care?

    Not me, they took enough of my money. I was a fan until I saw revolutions.
    • I was a fan until I saw revolutions.

      You're more dedicated than me -- I stopped being a fan when I saw Reloaded.
      • I was a fan until I saw revolutions.
        You're more dedicated than me -- I stopped being a fan when I saw Reloaded.

        Well, I was hoping that revolutions would solve the reloaded problems.

        It didn't even try.

        Lotsa cool "shooting at stuff" though...
  • "Blizzard has never been known for innovation. Will this ultimately come across as just another MMO?")

    Yeah, consider who the innovators are and you normally find a great idea poorly implemented. What Blizzard has CONSISTENTLY done is take an idea and OPTIMIZE it and make it better than anything else. This is exactly why the Blizzard MMORPG gets my wager as the MMORPG to win the war of 04.

  • "EverQuest players are a natural target audience that can't be ignored, but Sony obviously doesn't want players canceling their accounts to migrate to the sequel"

    Then maybe they should have considered possible Not calling it Everquest 2.. I'm just throwing out ideas here, but if you don't want people leaving everquest for the sequel, don't bill it as a sequel, bill it as a new game.
  • Or will I get from one part of the town to the next on autothwip (or, worse, autorun)? I've never been a fan of MMORPGS, and I do want to reserve hope for this one, but what's the fun of, say, creating a character who's high on agility, dexterity, and speed, if the primary bonus one gets out of this is a decreased enemy hit percentage?
    I want to do a backflip in midair, knock two villains' heads together, and then perch on a wall, not right click, select melee, wait, then right click on the other, and repeat
  • Excuse me? Blizzard not innovative?

    *cough* Warcraft 1,2, AND 3 *cough*
    *cough* Starcraft 1 and Broodwars *cough*
    *cough* Diablo 1 and 2 *cough*

    If anybody can make an awesome MMORPG in a time when the MMORPG market is saturated with crap and ripoffs, its Blizzard. They have a history of bringing us innovative games that are *gasp* fun to play! I have stayed out of the MMORPG fray for a while now after having become jaded by EQ and its ilk, but if any of the new MMORPGs coming out gives me any hope, it is Wo

    • ..what you think it means.

      Unless of course you're using the Microsoft definition of innovation.

      I'll agree that Blizzard has the ability to make an awesome MMORPG.. but it's not from innovating. As pointed out elsewhere, Blizzard's strength comes more from perfecting.
    • Which of those games has any serious amount of innovation in it? I will agree the Starcraft series had an amazing amount of polish, but I can't think of one single innovation unless we go deep into tiny specific details.

      Hell, it is hard enough to find a Blizzard game which doesn't feel like it was ripped off from a Games Workshop product, down to visual designs.
    • Alright, perhaps I was a little too hasty to defend Blizzard and in the process confused making good games with innovation. Do we seriously need three separate posts from three separate people to point out the exact same thing? Sheesh, I got the point already.

  • I am completely and utterly without any excitement over World of Warcraft. I expect Blizzard to do what they always do, take the basic elements of something that has been established and streamline the mechanics. If you hate the game play style already, it isn't going to do anything for you. I expect WoW to be the best leveling up, hack and slash, MMORPG ever... exactly what I have no desire to play. Leveling treadmills, no matter how fast or slow bore me to no end. I can not even begin to explain how
  • This is amazing that /. published such a provocative/flamebait statement over Blizzard Entertainment.

    I had previous discussions with ex-DiabloII players who convinced me of the very structural drawbacks the company developped the last past years.

    But if there is something that cannot be retrieved, well, it IS their innovative way of thinking video games. I red the posts so far, and saw some people arguing about the upgrading skills of Blizzard.

    Let me argue in two points.
    1) Blizzard released twice two revo
    • Blizzard innovated the RTS genre? Hah, try Westwood. Remember Dune II from back in 1992? Warcraft appeared on the scene a full two years later. Dune II is what brought RTS to the forefront, not Warcraft.

      As far as Diablo goes - Rogue, Nethack, etc.. I don't think I could fit all of Diablo's predecessors on a page without bankrupting /.'s harddrives. Rogue - 1983, Nethack - 1992, Diablo 1996. Given 15 years of hack'n'slash games Blizzard had ample material to stich together into their action-arcade "classic"
      • Hi,

        I loved your last statement. I AM the fanboy. Seirously, I tend not to be a fan of any kind ; as I said previously, I do not support the eventual orientation of Blizzard, since the departure of Roper and the likes.

        Again, and now it will come to very different feeling about the gaming experience :
        - I was 8 when I first play to Dune II ; in my mind, despite the fact that strategy has been revealed, it was more a kind of fun - just send your spy and win the game by stealing spice ressources - than real mi
        • Well, it's hard to say that Blizzard innovates and then not give examples. The simplest way to convince me (or anyone else, really) is to give examples of where Blizzard has innovated - and just saying "diablo" doesn't count. Examples of what made it innovative. Show where it went that it's predecessors didn't. I've run in to too many fanboys who don't provide a good argument to show what Blizzard did that was worthy of being deemed 'innovative' - simply giving concrete examples that show original thoug
          • Hi,

            I didn't want to be unpleasant ; nonetheless this is what you try to be with your last post.

            I think my point is quite clear. If you forgot it, just read my first post, where my main arguments are.

            But to make things even clearer, let's just relinquish innovation on games principle, for we can't find an agreement on that.
            I would just like to add that Blizzard triggered a revolution in the games treatment.
            - Amazing support for the games : Diablo II 1.10 patch, even if there are plenty of things to say ab
  • According to the Flash-drowned website, one of the features of The Matrix Online will be "Numerous different 'Matrix' abilities that players can swap out and exchange like playing cards".

    Err, what?

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close