General Discussion

I thought this deserved its own post because many people misunderstand it.

Often, people around here make claims that what the general MMO populace wants (or at least many) is an MMO unlike the current ones (i.e. a sandbox title).  Others reject that that is a fact, and they are right to do so, but they often use flawed reasoning.  The flawed reasoning is pointing at the current market.  The argument goes something like this:  Since there are a lot more MMO players (I'm just talking about North America) today, people obviously want the WoW type of gameplay.  This really isn't the case though.  WoW isn't successful because its underlying philosophy is the best, but because it has so much quality.  WoW's quality is the reason it was so initially successful.  There is sort of a cascading effect also.  Since more and more people play WoW, others are more inclined to also play WoW because that's the point of the genre, to play with others (which is something developers are forgetting, hence the horrendous titles that have been released in recent times).

The major flaw in the argument is that it assumes other games similar to WoW are just as popular (once again, I'm basing this off of North America only).  WoW is really the only MMO that has hit such great numbers.  Games like AoC and Vanguard failed to do the same.  It is not that people especially love WoW, but that WoW is the only game worth playing at the moment (because that's where all the players are and it has high quality). 

Whether or not a sandbox can be successful isn't really a great debate.  Instead, I think that a large portion of the success of an MMO comes directly from its quality.  Quality is also a loose term, but I think most people understand what I mean.

Thanks for this, I've quoted your post on the World of Warcraft forums as well here: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=8557253745&postId=90228120030&sid=1#26

It fell into great alignment to a discussion I was having there.

No problem.  I just think WoW is misunderstood by a lot of people.  I believe its success comes from its quality and not necessarily the underlying philosophy of content-only-by-developers.

I think other types of MMOs could be just as popular if they were made properly.  MMOs (although many people hate all of the new ones coming out) are actually looking like they will have a bright future.  People LOVE playing online games.  I was going to do a big writeup sometime of what I think MMO philosophy should be.  I'm too lazy at the moment, but basically it's all about the players and the community.  That is why people play MMOs in the first place (to play with a lot of other people), no?

I agree with the OP.  I've been saying this for a long time.  I'd add that even if it were true that the majority of players only liked WOW-type games, that doesn't mean it's the only market worth pursuing.  In fact, the WOW audience is by definition an audience that has already been tapped.

Fully agree.  We've yet to see another MMO with the same quality of WoW which is also why we've yet to see one as successful.  The fact the game can run on almost any computer made in the last 8 years and its near bug-free state coupled with low lag is what makes it popular.  I recall when Star Wars Galaxies came out many tried it but quickly quit.  The company executives and linear proponents would have us believe this is because of the sandbox and steeper learning curve.  Yet I recall nearly every single negative review on that game focused almost solely on the fact that the game was an unfinished, bug-filled mess.

Originally posted by demalus

I thought this deserved its own post because many people misunderstand it.

 

Often, people around here make claims that what the general MMO populace wants (or at least many) is an MMO unlike the current ones (i.e. a sandbox title).  Others reject that that is a fact, and they are right to do so, but they often use flawed reasoning.  The flawed reasoning is pointing at the current market.  The argument goes something like this:  Since there are a lot more MMO players (I'm just talking about North America) today, people obviously want the WoW type of gameplay.  This really isn't the case though.  WoW isn't successful because its underlying philosophy is the best, but because it has so much quality.  WoW's quality is the reason it was so initially successful.  There is sort of a cascading effect also.  Since more and more people play WoW, others are more inclined to also play WoW because that's the point of the genre, to play with others (which is something developers are forgetting, hence the horrendous titles that have been released in recent times).

The major flaw in the argument is that it assumes other games similar to WoW are just as popular (once again, I'm basing this off of North America only).  WoW is really the only MMO that has hit such great numbers.  Games like AoC and Vanguard failed to do the same.  It is not that people especially love WoW, but that WoW is the only game worth playing at the moment (because that's where all the players are and it has high quality). 

Whether or not a sandbox can be successful isn't really a great debate.  Instead, I think that a large portion of the success of an MMO comes directly from its quality.  Quality is also a loose term, but I think most people understand what I mean.

Everyone is wrong.

Ultima Online was the #1 game of its time because that was the only game available.

Everquest was the #1 game of its time because that was the only game available.

Everquest clones  are the #1 games these days because Everquest clones are the only games available these days.

Originally posted by demalus

I thought this deserved its own post because many people misunderstand it.

 

Often, people around here make claims that what the general MMO populace wants (or at least many) is an MMO unlike the current ones (i.e. a sandbox title).  Others reject that that is a fact, and they are right to do so, but they often use flawed reasoning.  The flawed reasoning is pointing at the current market.  The argument goes something like this:  Since there are a lot more MMO players (I'm just talking about North America) today, people obviously want the WoW type of gameplay.  This really isn't the case though.  WoW isn't successful because its underlying philosophy is the best, but because it has so much quality.  WoW's quality is the reason it was so initially successful.  There is sort of a cascading effect also.  Since more and more people play WoW, others are more inclined to also play WoW because that's the point of the genre, to play with others (which is something developers are forgetting, hence the horrendous titles that have been released in recent times).

The major flaw in the argument is that it assumes other games similar to WoW are just as popular (once again, I'm basing this off of North America only).  WoW is really the only MMO that has hit such great numbers.  Games like AoC and Vanguard failed to do the same.  It is not that people especially love WoW, but that WoW is the only game worth playing at the moment (because that's where all the players are and it has high quality). 

Whether or not a sandbox can be successful isn't really a great debate.  Instead, I think that a large portion of the success of an MMO comes directly from its quality.  Quality is also a loose term, but I think most people understand what I mean.

Well that's an opinion. And I do have to agree that WoW's success can be attributed to its quality (which given what we have is very high). But that is not the sole reason.

The problem is that "gamers" can't imagine that there are people out there who aren't "gamers" (yeah, funny that) and who just want to log in, do some quests, make some friends or play with friends and family and log out.

Most people I know don't play games and do look down upon them (and quite frankly when one describes what we actually do in these games I can't blame them.. grind? spend hours uponi hours leveling a character?) and those that do play online games usually prefer Wow because it is very good casual gameplay.

There is not a one of them who would put up with what they might consider the nonsense of an open sandbox, piddling around game as they would consider it a waste of time when they can be doing almost anything else.

Log in game and chop virtual wood to sell to other players? hmmm, or I can make a real business and make real money. Choices, choices.

However, I'm all for persoanl choice. If one wants to do this then more power to them. If one wants to spend hours chatting or role playing or chopping virtual wood then more power to them. But I do queston as to why they think that more pointed gameplay and quests is worse then what can be seen by some as piddling your time away.

WoW is great for the casual player. Sure there are people who say "no.. it's a huge grind for gear and whatever else". Probably because that's how they see the game. yet none of the people I know care about this stuff. They log on, have fun and log off. Simple as that and they never feel this gear/facton whatever grind.

There are people out there who are not gamers and want to keep their lives but want some harmless entertainment.... I say good for them.

Originally posted by Sovrath
 

Well that's an opinion. And I do have to agree that WoW's success can be attributed to its quality (which given what we have is very high). But that is not the sole reason.

The problem is that "gamers" can't imagine that there are people out there who aren't "gamers" (yeah, funny that) and who just want to log in, do some quests, make some friends or play with friends and family and log out.

Most people I know don't play games and do look down upon them (and quite frankly when one describes what we actually do in these games I can't blame them.. grind? spend hours uponi hours leveling a character?) and those that do play online games usually prefer Wow because it is very good casual gameplay.

There is not a one of them who would put up with what they might consider the nonsense of an open sandbox, piddling around game as they would consider it a waste of time when they can be doing almost anything else.

Log in game and chop virtual wood to sell to other players? hmmm, or I can make a real business and make real money. Choices, choices.

However, I'm all for persoanl choice. If one wants to do this then more power to them. If one wants to spend hours chatting or role playing or chopping virtual wood then more power to them. But I do queston as to why they think that more pointed gameplay and quests is worse then what can be seen by some as piddling your time away.

WoW is great for the casual player. Sure there are people who say "no.. it's a huge grind for gear and whatever else". Probably because that's how they see the game. yet none of the people I know care about this stuff. They log on, have fun and log off. Simple as that and they never feel this gear/facton whatever grind.

There are people out there who are not gamers and want to keep their lives but want some harmless entertainment.... I say good for them.

See, I'd kind of expect the opposite.  "Gamers" may be competitive enough that the reward of being a high level or whatever may be worth a mindless grind, but that doesn't matter to a lot of people.  Most of the time, they play to have fun, not to be "uber".

On the other hand, chatting for hours sounds more like something a "normal" person would do.  Furthermore, even people who don't usually play games can appreciate the novelty of a "virtual world" where everyone has their part to play and they can do or be whatever they want.

Where does this idea that sandboxes are automatically hardcore come from?  SWG was a sandbox, and it was probably one of the most casual friendly games out there.  I would expect that overall linear games are by nature more hardcore than sandboxes.