Just wondering...

If Vanguard and Tabula Rasa was developed by a completely new designer who had the resources of Sigil/Sony and NCSoft, do you think they would have done better?

My answer is yes.  I am leaning towards the belief that these older, so called legendary designers no longer have the ability and skills to design a great successful MMO.  Now a new designer might not have made a WoW killer but I do think they would have made a couple of good MMOs with a decent fanbase, like say LotRO.

---

Originally posted by nomadian
what IS wrong with WAR exactly? Surely, it is a replicate of DAoC with its RvR just with a complete different style. (DAoC medievil or something, and WAR obviously WAR)

---

They put in Scenarios, that was wrong from the very start of the game wich is praised to be RvR.

Don't get me wrong i have nothing against instanced PvP but i am pretty sure the Developers flagship was called RvR. The instanced version of it dosn't really feel anywhere like "RvR".

Originally posted by SpectralHunt

McQuaid developed Everquest.  Vanguard, his second attempt was a flop and is now on life support.

Garriott developed Ultima Online.  Tabula Rasa will be shutdown in February.

Jacobs developed DAoC.  WAR, while not a failure, is not IMO meeting the hype and expectations.

I'll even throw in Bill Roper who developed Diablo but his Hellgate: London is a disaster.

Ok this will be my shot at it..

I think in the case of McQuaid beyond the rumors of some personal issues.. It was the fact perhaps the other people who worked on EQ were more responsible for its success than we know or knew.  Maybe Steve Clover or some of the others were the actual "spark" that kindled that fire.

When Brad went on to Sigil with Jeff Butler.. Most of Butler's experience was actually in customer service.  When he was promoted to producer of the EQLive team.. he was promoted from Lead GM.  I'm not sure how much development experience he had.

Garriott.. I was a big fan of his during the single player Ultima days.  Personally I was always under the impression that he wasn't that hand's on with Ultima Online.  I played the game from 1997 until 2002 but I always thought Raph Koster was more involved with it than Richard.

With TR probably the big problem was he was distracted.. obviously wanting to go into space.  The game had to suffer when the guy with his name on the box.. takes off for space training etc  I think he could have put resources (his own) into the game and done something...  instead he obviously wanted to pursue other interest.

Jacobs...

My perspective of playing DAoC was always that Mark Jacobs was just a PR kinda guy.  That isn't to say he isn't involved.. but I just never thought of him being responsible for what DAoC was.

Over the years most of the people who created all those things we loved.. left Mythic.

I'm probably wrong about a lot of my perceptions..

I think in the end maybe the issue is the team of people that created these past games.. wasn't around the next time.  MMO's are a team effort and even an executive producer really can't control everything.  So once you lose the talent in a certain area you can't always replace that.

I expected or hoped for a LOT more from all of those games.

Originally posted by SpectralHunt

McQuaid developed Everquest.  Vanguard, his second attempt was a flop and is now on life support.

Garriott developed Ultima Online.  Tabula Rasa will be shutdown in February.

Jacobs developed DAoC.  WAR, while not a failure, is not IMO meeting the hype and expectations.

I'll even throw in Bill Roper who developed Diablo but his Hellgate: London is a disaster.

Why are these guys failing or failing to meet expectations?  I'm beginning to think that these original devs have lost touch with the gamers of today.  I don't think they understand how much gaming has changed in these last few years.  Or, most likely in Garriott's case, they are incredibly arrogant and believe all the hype about themselves.

But let's be honest here.  To reach the level of a lead designer of a major MMO, you need to be a bit arrogant and self-confident.  But maybe these devs are too cocky?  Too arrogant to admit they are good designers but poor managers and therefore too stubborn to delegate management to others?

Why are these old devs failing?  Maybe it's time companies started looking past these guys and find some fresh blood.

Well, both game designers and music artists do get burnt out. Sometimes you have one great idea and that is it. Think of all the bands with one big hit and nothin more... Remember Babylon zoos Spaceman? Or Village peoples YMCA? All creative bussiness have them, they have one great idea and nothing else.

A MMO needs a good idea around it and not all devs can make more than one. That is also the reason that so many companies makes sequels instead of new games, EA and Blizzard lives on that. Same things with movies, if the first one sold well then make another one and people will see it even if the sequel isn't as good. And you don't have to make new characters either then.

It might off course also be that the devs are too cocky. I don't think you have to be arrogant to become a lead game designer, some do but there are others that are a lot better and work as a team.

And in Ropers case; he made Diablo together with Jeff Strain from Arenanet. If you played Hellgate and Guildwars you can see who made what there and you know why GW sold a lot while HGL failed badly. Roper was the practical guy while Strain did the creative work, together that works great but Roper just couldn't do the creative work by himself.

The problem with the other three was that they looked on Wow and thought they could do the same thing but better. To qoute Strain (yes, I am probably a fan boi there): "If people love Wow they will continue to play Wow, we do our own thing and don't look on them. We neither can or will compete with Wow".

Also, didn't SOE buy Vanguard from a small company called sigil and then changed it so it could "Compete" with Wow before releasing it?

ah I see, thanks for replies. Surely this does you make wonder whether EA had an influence with that and seeing how popular BGs were with WoW..

Originally posted by Antarious

I'm probably wrong about a lot of my perceptions..

Eh, pretty much all the responses are speculation and perceptions.  No reason yours isn't as valid as anyone elses, especially since you do make good points.

I do agree MMOs are a collabrative effort.  But like most other markets, people like to see a face that represents the game.  That's why we know who McQuaid, Garriott and Jacobs are because whether or not they were integral to the making of the game, they are the promoters.  I do think they must have been integral or the company would have chosen someone else to represent their game.

Why they weren't around the second time around?  If I had to guess?  Egos.  Instead of depending upon the sweat and hardwork that got them to where they are, they assumed their popularity would carry the game.  Once they found out that didn't work, they disappeared...

Originally posted by Loke666

Also, didn't SOE buy Vanguard from a small company called sigil and then changed it so it could "Compete" with Wow before releasing it?

SOE did buy Vanguard from Sigil but it was already a disaster by then.  I know there are a lot of SOE haters here (SWG debacle) but I don't blame them for Vanguard.  Vanguard's failure rests solely upon Sigil when they were independent.  They wasted time and resources and basically went to Microsoft (who said no) and Sony to bail them out.

All Sony did and is still doing, is trying to keep Vanguard afloat and profitable like most of their MMOs.  Now if that means making it more like WoW, then that's what they will do.  In reality, Vanguard isn't becoming like WoW.  Sony has EQ2 for that.  They are trying to keep Vanguard more hardcore but it's just hard to come back from a failed launch.

Originally posted by declaredemer

The market, my theory goes, wants (1) world immersion (that MMORPG "feel" again) + (2) Character Customization that is far beyond talent trees but involves in-depth character development involving story that developers and players create + (3) Innovative features, including player empowerment and world's that change and evolve not just physically but politically, resource-wise, and with "events," inter alia.

That you are obviously wrong. The market wants polished entertainment with lots of content. WOW has proven that.

Originally posted by SpectralHunt

  The market is asking for WoW. 

WoW is vulnerable, similarly to how EQ was vulnerable with WoW's release. 

WoW's vulnerability is its lack of world immersion, customization, and innovative features. 

EQ's vulnerability was this raid-guild focus, excessive downtimes, zerg/raid guilds, etc. 

Originally posted by declaredemer

WoW is vulnerable, similarly to how EQ was vulnerable with WoW's release. 

WoW's vulnerability is its lack of world immersion, customization, and innovative features. 

EQ's vulnerability was this raid-guild focus, excessive downtimes, zerg/raid guilds, etc. 

When you are at the top of the hill, you're always looking down to make sure no one else takes your place.  Yes, WoW is vulnerable.  Every MMO at the top is vulnerable.  There will never be a perfect MMO that will stay on top forever.

But so far, going five years, WoW has reaped ridiculous success to the point where they shouldn't even be compared to other MMOs when measuring success.  They are an absolute anomally right now.

WoWs features that you consider vulnerabilities seem to be doing well for them.  They just keep trucking along, crushing other AAA MMOs in their wake.

I sense you are very frustrated at the current MMO landscape.  And you are hoping to see a future MMO that will be completely different from WoW that will crush it, thus proving your point.  Hey, I hope that happens.  I'd enjoy a more immersive world too.  But I do think you are thinking with your heart right now.  The truth is, from what I gather, is players want a WoW like experience, that's easy to participate, incredibly polished and refined in their gameplay and most of all, very casual.

The MMO landscape has changed.  If devs think they can go back to the old ways of the first MMOs, I think they will fail.  Lessons have to be learned and the old devs seem like they didn't learn anything.

WoW's accessibility should be implemented.  If you want, add a fourth factor to the mix.

WoW's Accessibility + World Immersion + Customization + Innovation = Next Big Thing

If the market wants a WoW-like game, they will go play WoW, if they are not already.

The same game, with different lore, is not going to be successful.  I already Coca Cola, and Pepsi, and I do not need another soft drink. 

Nevertheless, what you were alluding to, I want MMORPGs to become more of a work of art again of creativity and genius and less of a product. 

Intellectually, most MMORPGs are shallow. 

Creatively, they are lacking.

Innovation, if there is any, is not in the area of concepts of world immersion and customization.

A WoW-competitor will not be a WoW-clone.  A WoW comeptitor will take the things from WoW that work but expand on world immersion, customization, and totally innovated features such as player empowerment tools/opportunities and a game that changes, and evolves, with and without player actions.

I think it's former players too.
 

Vanguard with all it's flaws and bugs, was a decent try. But all the EQ players (me included) could not bring themselves to grinding in an MMO again. New players had less trouble with the grind than former hardcore EQ players had. We could do it, we just didn't feel like it because we knew what it was going to be like.

I think it's really hard when you have reached a certain point in an MMO to do it again in another MMO.

I can't get into new MMO, even though I know not all of them are bad games, I just can't grind all the levels again, I don't want to, there's just no point to do it all again.

And EQ has (had) a community you grouped with and level'd with. WoW just has nothing, it's just ridiculous how everyone solo's and no one has to depend on one another. WoW is a quest grind that's too easy and predictable, it sucks.

I could play a skill based pure action game or one not purely progression oriented, but most MMO atm are Quest Grinding, that's worse than EQ.

I think the entire industry needs to step back, and reasses technology and technological trends.  They (game designers),  no longer are visionaries--like they dead-ended or something.  With enormously powerful hardware sitting everyone's desktop (including mom and pop driving dual/quad core rigs), there should already be a 'great leap', in the new games.  And I don't mean DX10; I mean cheap high reso VR glasses/goggles paired with ears/mic for total emmersion, and games taking advantage of this.  Also no one (designers) seem to be expiermenting with novel ways to keep games dynamic.  I think they fear lack of computer power to realize their dreams which is a red herring.  It's time for new engines also--multithreaded from the very first line of code--mulit-GPU from the first line of code etc.  But it's cheaper to just throw out junk and ride the laurels of old technology.  Shame really.

Little things can make an MMO into a great one. Everquest's combat and classes is one of the best of all MMO.

I think some luck was responsible for this, a lot of looking at mud's and a lot of D&D influences. I don't think one person was responsible for EQ's success. It was just a combination of having a very good combat system, a good community and little to no competition.

Originally posted by declaredemer

A WoW-competitor will not be a WoW-clone.  A WoW comeptitor will take the things from WoW that work but expand on world immersion, customization, and totally innovated features such as player empowerment tools/opportunities and a game that changes, and evolves, with and without player actions.

That's very possible.

I just want to throw this out as well.  I believe I heard this on a podcast with one of the WoW developers.  A question was asked whether WoW will change the world permanently, like say destroy a town and replace it with something else.  I know there are lots of players that would love to see stuff like this.  I think Asheron's Call does this.

The answer was expected.  Because Blizzard invested a great deal of time and resources to their art assets (not to mention the changes in questing and rewards), they most likely will not change any of their old content in a drastic fashion.  It's more cost effective for them to just add new zones or continents to move the story.

I do see the problem here.  Players want change and I'm sure companies are willing to change things, if it weren't so costly.  And it's not just a one time thing.  You'd have to change up the setting many times throughout the course of a game.  And Blizzard meticulously worked on their art to make sure every little blade of grass was where it was supposed to be.  If they had to rush out game changes, how good will that be?

It's a very thin line to balance.  A good developer has to determine what the balance of graphics, customization and immersion has to be, while keeping the gameplay fun and smooth.

Originally posted by declaredemer

WoW's accessibility should be implemented.  If you want, add a fourth factor to the mix.

 

WoW's Accessibility + World Immersion + Customization + Innovation = Next Big Thing

 

 

If the market wants a WoW-like game, they will go play WoW, if they are not already.

 

 

The same game, with different lore, is not going to be successful.  I already Coca Cola, and Pepsi, and I do not need another soft drink. 

 

 

Nevertheless, what you were alluding to, I want MMORPGs to become more of a work of art again of creativity and genius and less of a product. 

Intellectually, most MMORPGs are shallow. 

Creatively, they are lacking.

Innovation, if there is any, is not in the area of concepts of world immersion and customization.

 

A WoW-competitor will not be a WoW-clone.  A WoW comeptitor will take the things from WoW that work but expand on world immersion, customization, and totally innovated features such as player empowerment tools/opportunities and a game that changes, and evolves, with and without player actions.

 

 

I don't know if that is correct. For the longest time EQ was the biggest MMORPG around. It's main competitor, WoW, was an EQ clone.

Sure, a well polished streamlined clone, but a clone nonetheless.

My first MMO experience was UO, but the first MMO I really played was Asherons Call (for 5 years). Currently im subscribed to Lotro and wow. I should cancel my wow sub cause I dont play it at all but whatever. My view is that everyone is just trying to chase wow's success and maybe they just dont realize that it is a total fluke.

I honestly dont think that any MMO is going to be as successful as WOW, until blizzard launches whatever MMO it is developing now. Blizzard brought people in and they are going to stay with blizzard. I love Turbine as a developer and I think Lotro is an amazing polished MMO, but it is too similar to WOW to really take people away from WOW.

I think these older developers look at millions of subscribers and design their games around that, not around a vision of what they really wanted in the beginning. Games like UO, EQ, and AC were designed around a concept of unknown subscriber numbers, they were shots in the dark pretty much. Now everyone see's this million person market and they are all shooting for that when they design their game. They lose focus on what made them successful in the first place, they lose focus on the original design of their gameplay.

I do agree that if someone created a game that was as user friendly as wow with great character customization and world immersion it would be successful, but it wont be as successful as WOW unless blizzard does it. They have the name and they have the user base that will follow whatever product they release like its the second coming, nothing wrong with that but its the reality of the world.

A team creates games, none of those people mentioned developed the games by themselves and had very different teams on subsequent games.  Pretty obvious that keep a successful team together is the thing to do.  And no Bill Roper, while keeping some of his ex Diablo team together did not keep the good one's.