Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by xDayx

Other than Diablo 1 and Vanilla Wow, I dont see what the big deal is over the Blizzard love.

Not an RTS fan I take it :)?

 Other than Total War series, nope. And even then I only spend about 20 hours total.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by mainogre

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by mainogre

...

I wouldn't mind a "WoW 2" if it were what you would expect from a normal sequel.  Typical video game sequels strive to greatly improve upon the shortcomings of their predecessor and improve the experience.  Just look at Daggerfall and Morrowind (or even Oblivion and Skyrim) to see what I mean.

If this is what you mean by WoW 2, then I'm all for it.  In fact, that's basically what this OP was about.

But if you're talking about just remaking WoW with better graphics...then I'm not interested.

What i mean is that if they made a "WoW 2" like "World of StarCraft" or something of that nature i think it would be highly successful. But i also think if they were to make a remake of WoW with a better graphics engine and a few changes here and there it would also be successful even though i wouldnt be interested in it.

I would love a World of Starcraft game if it was an MMORPG/FPS hybrid :).

As for WoW with better graphics with a few changes here or there...I think that's essentially what all of the games often labeled as WoW clones (Rift, Aion, WAR) are.  And they typically don't do very well...not even in the same league as WoW.

You see, I think the problem is that WoW exists and it has SOOO much content and so many players under its belt that it's almost impossible to win by cloning it.  You'll come out of the gate with a game with better graphics, but maybe 1/10th of the content that WoW has, and 1/100th of its player base.  And since WoW's graphics are still passable, there's just not much of a reason for folks to play your game over WoW unless it offers something really new and interesting.

Yeah i guess i have to agree with your statement. WoW was released in a different era of mmo's where it had time to develop which that's not really the case anymore. The only mmo i can think of that was as large as WoW at launch was Vanguard but Sony rushed it to launch and it failed because of this.

WOW hit the market at the right time...

more households were able to get PCs, also WOWs marketing did everything right.....

However The hype machine is now in SWTOR's corner and it's WOW 2.0 all over it seems, I fully expect SWTOR to be the next game we all learn to hate.

But hey if a game designer follows the model of WOW then so be it, the next big thing will be small steps away from that sort of model.

Originally posted by Whacko

WOW hit the market at the right time...

more households were able to get PCs, also WOWs marketing did everything right.....

However The hype machine is now in SWTOR's corner and it's WOW 2.0 all over it seems, I fully expect SWTOR to be the next game we all learn to hate.

But hey if a game designer follows the model of WOW then so be it, the next big thing will be small steps away from that sort of model.

 

I admit, im exciting for SWTOR (preordered) and it has a lot of similarities to WoW but i dont think it will put much of a dent in WoW at all. Im not a huge lore buff so i dont care to read/listen to npc's talking all the time. Also its gameplay is comparable to the 1st gen WoW. It's glitchy/buggy and clunky and i dont think people will give BioWare enough time to fix/patch everything imo. I hope they do cus ill be playing it :)

Originally posted by Creslin321

Now, you're probably looking at the title of this post, thinking of all the failed WoW clones, and concluding that I'm on crack.  Indeed, I expect there to be some folks who only read the title respond like so.  But let me explain...

So many devs look to WoW as the "standard" and model their games off of it.  But the problem is they are looking at what WoW IS, not what Blizzard DID when they made WoW.  They are trying to just "follow" the WoW model, instead following the Blizzard model that made WoW successful in the first place.

Recall that when WoW came out, the dominant MMORPG was Everquest.  So if Blizzard did what so many devs do today, they would have just made a high budget EQ clone that probably wouldn't have been nearly as successful.

But they didn't do that.

What they did, was they examined all of the complaints people had about EQ and the current stock of MMORPGs and made a game that tried to fix all of these problems.

Killing MOBs is too grindy?  You can't solo?  Okay, we'll add a quest-leveling system that is very accessible, less grindy, and everyone can solo.

PvP inaccessible?  Okay, we'll make an instanced battleground system so everyone can easily PvP (not in at release, but it was planned for release).

All you do in a group is camp a spawn in overcrowded dungeons?  Okay, we'll add instanced dungeons so that each group can get a quality experience.

Now that some time has passed, we see that these fixes were not "perfect" and new problems have arisen because of them.  And yet so many new MMORPGs just copy these features problems and all.

This is not what you should do if you want to dominate the market.

Someone needs to do what Blizzard did.  Examine all the problems with that CURRENT MMORPG model (WoW) and try to make all of them better with your game.  Come out with a game that blows WoW away.  Not one that just tries to live up to it.

Thoughts?  Do you agree with my sentiment, or do you think that the "WoW model" is what people should still follow?

Excellent post, not exhaustive or in-depth but to the point and accurate.

My answer to the question is Blizzard did it right, the method is right but the specific blueprint of the solution is no longer current.

Counter question: What do you do when the Model is the problem? (ie. the model is a Buffet of 'Features' to satisfy a variety of tastes but the main complaint is not the Features but rather that its a 'Buffet' instead of a 'Dinner Table setting' thats the problem - especially when everyone is accustomed to a buffet/variety of features).

Originally posted by Happyguy83

Originally posted by Creslin321

 

Thoughts?  Do you agree with my sentiment, or do you think that the "WoW model" is what people should still follow?

Wanna make a successful MMORPG?

 

1. Have a good IP

2. Have a good solid game

 

Nothing other then WoW,RIFT, TOR, and GW1 have had this. 

But as far as the question is concerned.

I think people should follow the "WoW" Model so long as its popular, same way they should follow the "COD" Model or the "Elder Scrolls" Model, or the 'Duke Nukem" Model.

 

TOR hasn't released yet, so while you may feel such an outcome is inevitable... it isn't proven, yet. Time and its attrition rate in the weeks and months post-launch, after the newness and novelty has faded, will bear that out.

That said, your list of "nothing other than..." is rather incomplete.

FFXI belongs on that list - 2nd generation MMO that maintained ~500k players for the majority of its time online, almost 7 years before it started to see a noticeable decline. Not many MMOs from that generation or this one can boast that.

Lineage 2 belongs on that list. While it petered out in the Western market, it did have (I believe) 6-8 solid and active servers in its Western market, and has had in the millions of players in its Eastern market. That's nothing to sneeze at.

The list could go on, really... I'm guessing the MMOs you listed are those you've personally played and/or liked/enjoyed... They aren't the only ones that belong on such a list, however.

Originally posted by Celcius

Originally posted by Nadia

Anarchy Online introduced instances

I don't really consider what AO had as instancing, it was a randomly generated mission system..the part where you can play with your own group in it was sortof a side effect. WoW made true instancing where quality content (not randomly generated stuff) was instanced into multiple versions so that people can play it within their own gamespace. 

I'm not sure what you'd call it when someone feels that "what they don't consider" something to be overrides what it actually is... For the sake of being pragmatic, we'll say it's flat out wrong.

Anarchy Online most definitely has/had instancing, and uses them in a variety of ways.

How you disqualify AO's instancing system by referring to it merely as  "randomly generated missions" is also rather disingenuous. They aren't mutually exclusive, and AO combines them both.

You go to a mission kiosk and have missions generated for you. You accept a mission, and an instanced dungeon type area is dynamically generated for you and/or your party; no one else can enter unless you duplicate the mission key and give it to them. That is instancing pure and simple.

Being able to go into mission instances with a group was not "sort of a side effect". You are seriously reaching here. Group missions  are a fully realized system, equal to solo missions. They have kiosks specifically for group missions. That's not a "side-effect". That's a fully implemented group instancing system.

Missions also isn't the only place instances are used. 

They used instancing for personal apartments... each player received their own instanced version of one of the apts available in the game.

They also used instancing to create new "channels" of a given area - much like they do in Age of Conan, and much like what Guild Wars did with its hub areas. As one instance of an area would "fill up", a new, empty one would be dynamically created and players entering that area would be placed in that instance instead. A place you commonly saw that happen earlier in AO's years were the old Backyards on Rubi-Ka. 

Point is... Anarchy Online most certainly does have instancing and it most certainly was one of the first MMOs, if not the first MMO to implement it.

Originally posted by Draron

Sadly, with WoW being the most subscribed MMO atm, the people making MMO's don't see any problems with it. When (or if) SWTOR gets more subs than WoW, they will see that WoW's lack of story as a problem. Until then, they think there's nothing broken about WoW (which there isn't to a lot of players) and will keep copying.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by Creslin321

Someone needs to do what Blizzard did.  Examine all the problems with that CURRENT MMORPG model (WoW) and try to make all of them better with your game.  Come out with a game that blows WoW away.  Not one that just tries to live up to it.

Well isn't that what ANet is trying to do with GW2?

I totaly agree with you btw and that's exactly why I think SW:TOR is going to fail badly. Just imagine if Blizzard said "anyone who is deviating from EQ model must be crazy" and made WoW a direct copy of EQ with all the dull and dumb things from that game such as praying and standing in line for a boss fight... Sure some people would love it but would it have 11+ mil subs? No, I don't think so.

Yes, I agree :).

I just try not to list GW2 in any of my OPs, because if I do, a bunch of people will label me "fanboi" and not take the post seriously.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by Creslin321

Someone needs to do what Blizzard did.  Examine all the problems with that CURRENT MMORPG model (WoW) and try to make all of them better with your game.  Come out with a game that blows WoW away.  Not one that just tries to live up to it.

Well isn't that what ANet is trying to do with GW2?

I totaly agree with you btw and that's exactly why I think SW:TOR is going to fail badly. Just imagine if Blizzard said "anyone who is deviating from EQ model must be crazy" and made WoW a direct copy of EQ with all the dull and dumb things from that game such as praying and standing in line for a boss fight... Sure some people would love it but would it have 11+ mil subs? No, I don't think so.

Yes, I agree :).

I just try not to list GW2 in any of my OPs, because if I do, a bunch of people will label me "fanboi" and not take the post seriously.

 

Problem, but what is gw2 doing that's new?

 Do you want the list?

I believe one of the greatest difficulties with this is debating whether "rectifying" certain aspects of the formula is worth it or not. No matter how much developers try, everything they change will bring about unwanted side-effects. Take your WoW example with instanced PvP. WoW made PvP extremely accessible through a simple to use and intuitive queueing tool. What happened, however, is that World PvP greatly diminished with most people only interested in getting into the action instantaneously.

---

Originally posted by Creslin321

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by Naqaj

---

Originally posted by Creslin321
*** good stuff***

---

The sad thing is, one should think this is self-evident, but so very few developers actually seem to understand this...

---

This is exactly what developers have been doing for the past 7 years. They just aren't as good at it as Blizzard was. Runes of Magic is WoW, but free. They fixed the issue of cost. After that? Not too much. Trion looked at having dynamic events to address a static theme park world. It worked pretty well, but I don't think it's going to be enough to give Rift a 7 year life span. Bioware is looking at creating a personal story to fix the issue of having a connection to your character and the game. I think Bioware's 'fix' is going to be the most successful and give them the most longevity to address other short falls in the mmorpg genre.
 

---

You're right that devs do try to fix some of WoW's issues in their games, and your points are well taken.
But, I just don't think it's enough.  You can't fix one thing, but leave like 20 other ancient problems in your game.  You really have to do a complete overhaul and fix MOST (not all) of the problems that plague the current stock of MMORPGs.

---

I personally dont think that sub numbers make a great game. Obviously this is what game makers want, to make money, but having a lot of people playing doesnt mean its good. Mcdonalds sells a lot more food than a fine restaurant like Villa Blanca, but does that mean its better? Of course not. In the 80s ford sold millions of Escorts, and Ferrari sold only thousands of Testarosas, does that mean Escorts are better than Testarosas? Of course not.

Accessablity, and marketing are what made WoW so popular. They have commercials with William shatner, and Mr. T and friggen Chuck Norris for goodness sake! I cant recall ever seeing a commercial for another MMO. Sure i see a lot of commercials for Xbox games, but MMOs, cant recall one.

So, if you could make Ferraris as cheap as Fords, how many people would be driving Fords? I guess there might still be a lot of people who wouldn't be able to handle 650 horsepower, and they would pick the Focus over the Enzo, just like there are people who would choose an easy game like WoW over one that is actually challenging and fun to play.

For me, ill take the Ferrari please, especially if its 12k dollars!

Originally posted by shawn01

I personally dont think that sub numbers make a great game. Obviously this is what game makers want, to make money, but having a lot of people playing doesnt mean its good. Mcdonalds sells a lot more food than a fine restaurant like Villa Blanca, but does that mean its better? Of course not. In the 80s ford sold millions of Escorts, and Ferrari sold only thousands of Testarosas, does that mean Escorts are better than Testarosas? Of course not.

Accessablity, and marketing are what made WoW so popular. They have commercials with William shatner, and Mr. T and friggen Chuck Norris for goodness sake! I cant recall ever seeing a commercial for another MMO. Sure i see a lot of commercials for Xbox games, but MMOs, cant recall one.

So, if you could make Ferraris as cheap as Fords, how many people would be driving Fords? I guess there might still be a lot of people who wouldn't be able to handle 650 horsepower, and they would pick the Focus over the Enzo, just like there are people who would choose an easy game like WoW over one that is actually challenging and fun to play.

For me, ill take the Ferrari please, especially if its 12k dollars!

This comparison is seriously flawed. Not everyone has a Ferrari because it costs a fortune. That isn't the case with MMO's because most of the ones that are worth playing cost the same. It's just a matter of which MMO people prefer playing.

If you tell a Ford owner that a Ferrari is a better car, they will gladly agree. If you tell a WoW player that LotRO is a better game, they won't agree at all.

So it's either:

• Modify certain weak aspects of a game model.
• Revisit/Re-use an old game model.
• Invent a new one.

Originally posted by cali59

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by Creslin321

Someone needs to do what Blizzard did.  Examine all the problems with that CURRENT MMORPG model (WoW) and try to make all of them better with your game.  Come out with a game that blows WoW away.  Not one that just tries to live up to it.

Well isn't that what ANet is trying to do with GW2?

I totaly agree with you btw and that's exactly why I think SW:TOR is going to fail badly. Just imagine if Blizzard said "anyone who is deviating from EQ model must be crazy" and made WoW a direct copy of EQ with all the dull and dumb things from that game such as praying and standing in line for a boss fight... Sure some people would love it but would it have 11+ mil subs? No, I don't think so.

Yes, I agree :).

I just try not to list GW2 in any of my OPs, because if I do, a bunch of people will label me "fanboi" and not take the post seriously.

 

Problem, but what is gw2 doing that's new?

 Do you want the list?

Right, if you read my post, you will see that i said what if you could sell ferraris for the same price as fords? Thats what you can do with video games, you can make really good games for the same prices as boring clones.

Reading comprehension ftw!

Originally posted by shawn01

what if you could sell ferraris for the same price as fords? Thats what you can do with video games, you can make really good games for the same prices as boring clones.

Except, you know, we've never seen anyone do it.  Quality takes time, and time equals money.  A company on a Ford budget generally builds a startup or small indy that gets mired down there with the plethora of F2Ps.

Pretty much the only counter-example is EVE.  But not many games can survive a five year growing pains period.

We see Vanguard and FFXIV trying to make "recovery" after disappointing launches and long rebuild processes--how do you rate their odds against releases of new games?

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by shawn01

what if you could sell ferraris for the same price as fords? Thats what you can do with video games, you can make really good games for the same prices as boring clones.

Except, you know, we've never seen anyone do it.  Quality takes time, and time equals money.  A company on a Ford budget generally builds a startup or small indy that gets mired down there with the plethora of F2Ps.

Pretty much the only counter-example is EVE.  But not many games can survive a five year growing pains period.

We see Vanguard and FFXIV trying to make "recovery" after disappointing launches and long rebuild processes--how do you rate their odds against releases of new games?

The example shawn01 brought It isnt about Ferraris selling low as Fords. In gaming, Fords sells as high as Ferraris 

---

Originally posted by Icewhite

---

Originally posted by shawn01
what if you could sell ferraris for the same price as fords? Thats what you can do with video games, you can make really good games for the same prices as boring clones.

---

Except, you know, we've never seen anyone do it.  Quality takes time, and time equals money.  A company on a Ford budget generally builds a startup or small indy that gets mired down there with the plethora of F2Ps.
Pretty much the only counter-example is EVE.  But not many games can survive a five year growing pains period.
We see Vanguard and FFXIV trying to make "recovery" after disappointing launches and long rebuild processes--how do you rate their odds against releases of new games?

---