My son loves the spell animations (which he yells out "abracadabra" for each time) the most.  I love playing with my son, and watching afterwards as the quests have inspired him to create his own imaginary adventures at home.

Bountytaker

I tend to judge my games based on their "worth", compared to the price.  You could try something like that as your "rating" metric.  Game is worth:  1) Box price plus free trial; 2)  One month sub; 3)  Multi-month sub; 4)  Yearly sub; 5) Lifetime sub.

If you tell someone an mmo's not much better than a free trial, they get the point much better than 6.6.  Tell them you'd lifetime sub to it, and they'll know what that means too.

Might be weird, and you'd have to adjust for F2P games, but who knows.  Just a thought

Originally posted by eburn

Originally posted by Dameonk

Um... Zombies!?

Zombies/Survival Horror is just screaming to be made into an MMO.

There's so many factors of the genre that would fit perfectly into an MMO world I'm surprised no one's done it yet.

MMO makers don't want to go anywhere near ANYTHING that would require permadeath as part of it's game play.

A zombie MMO would hardly be in it's SURVIVAL/HORROR niche if you took out the 'game over' screen that can't exist in a MMORPG.

 There are ways to have meaningful character death in an mmo without it being traditional "permadeath".

If a zombie/survival mmo was "team" based (in other words, you lead a "team" of survivors, not just one character), you can lose members of the team in a meaningful way WITHOUT forcing someone to start over completely.

There's also the "zombie" mechanism, where you lose you continue to play as a zombie.

And so on.  Yeah, true, "old school" permadeath probably won't fly in an mmo anymore, but variations on it could be made to work in the right setting.

The sad thing is, this exact list could have been made in 2000.  Who would have thought this "genre" would go a whole decade and still be stuck in the same two settings?

Oh...wait...just about ever person who's ever played an mmo.  That's who.

:P

Advice:  To avoid some of the rancor this "article" generated, next time title it "My favorite....." instead of "top ten....."  Then start the article with "In no particular order.....".  By doing this you will avoid some of the judgement of the readers, who, instead of seeing "rankings" will see, simply, "personal preferences".

An example to illustrate:

"My Thoughts on Mr. Murphy's Article and the Discussion That Followed"

This is in no particular order.

-What a weird list.

-Glad he's a "reporter" and not a "developer".

-Pick a side:  COH or ChampO.

-Stradden's(Jon Wood's) post was quite unprofessional. 

-POTBS is sinking like the titanic

-Man, some folks will go WAY OFF TOPIC in the forums

-Why do people take this stuff so seriously?

-I'm really not surprised by Stradden's tone

-Another list article?  Why do I read this site again?

-Maybe I should check out Mr. Webb's newest "article"......nah.

Now, while that might reach a certain, magic "list" number, I can assure you that those are not my "top" thoughts on this discussion, nor are they listed in any relevant order.  They are simply my personal, rambling, unimportant opinions which I felt deeply compelled to share with you all.

See.....not to hard to avoid the rancor...you just have to try.

These "fake news" April Fool's Day posts get worse every year.  I don't think I even chuckled once with this one.

Maybe the fact that I find Mr. Wood's "articles" here to be pretty bland/useless, andthat I  wouldn't be bothered by his "moving on" played a role in my response.  Ah well.

Beta tested this one.  Buggy, but fun.  They really need to amp up the customization, IMO.  I'm pretty sure people expect more from their golf games nowadays, and really, it's just not as fun watching the same couple of golfers compete.

Agree that browser games are making a strong move.  I've enjoyed quickhitfootball.com, although, again, it still needs work.

Another thought:

By Mr. Webb's standards, COV and All Points Bulletin should never have been made.  After all, those games ask players to be "villains" too.  Yet, somehow, one has players, and the other has buzz.  How could games that ask players to be the antagonist, to play against the "heroic journey", be even conceived for today's modern mmo audience?

Could it be because, again, not everyone is obsessed with saving the princess from the castle?  Could it be that there are players out there that want to be the evil king who kidnaps the princess and surrounds her with evil minions and a trained dragon, just to see how it plays out?

Couldn't be.  Surely, everyone wants to play the same way...as Lord Victor von Amazing, Master of the Uberness!

"Another way to kill the sense of the heroic is to set the action in a mundane environment. When Star Wars Galaxies first came out, much attention was based on its Jedi mechanic. While a few select players managed to eventually become Jedi, most players ended up leading a fairly humdrum life, dancing in cantinas or hunting small furry things, essentially doing jobs that somewhat mirrored normal everyday activities. Don’t get me wrong, SWG is an awesome game with arguably the best crafting and housing systems in living memory. However, if I’m playing in the Star Wars universe, I want to be piloting the Death Star, not cleaning out its restrooms. For players wanting to feel like heroes, SWG at launch was hard going."

Whooo boy.  Head's up man....you're going to get some harsh feedback for this comment, for sure.  I remember when a dev on post NGE forums made a snarky comment about players finding enjoyment in "virtual camping".  Threw the entire community, not just the scout professionals, into a fit.  So, be forewarned.

I'll try to put nicely what others will likely say harshly:  You don't get it!  Yes, mmo's use genres that traditionally utilize the "heroic journety".  And, these games struggle to make players feel like individual, special heroes.  But, not every player WANTS to be a hero.  Some (many?)  just want to "LIVE" in the world that the game creates.  Others want to achieve things OUTSIDE of defeating the big bad.  Being the best, the first, or the only DOESN'T automatically = being a "hero".  Most want to just PLAY with others and have fun.  After all, these are "virutal worlds", not virtual novels.

The obsession you have with the "heroic story" is cool, even admirable...but, I have to say, it seems out of place in the mmo world.  As you said in an earlier article, the "heroic story" is designed to be about (the) ONE.  The game genre you want to fit it into so neatly and nicely is designed to be (massivley) MULTIPLAYER.  Everything one tries to do to make an INDIVIDUAL feel ultimately heroic in an mmo will only drive that player into a more isolated/instanced/individual gameplay experience.  Which, by definition, is a single player game, right?

You (the industry) are trying too hard to put a square peg (ultimate individual hero) into a round hole (cooperative virtual world).  And it's getting you no where.  Facebook games are growing by millions, by the day, and they haven't figured out how to make one feel like they are a lone HERO....they've figured out what people like to do for fun with their free time, and then they're giving them games that are fun to play (in their free time, or not :)).

Just make a good game, then let people figure out if they want to be a hero, a janitor, a hunter, a gatherer, a leader, a follower, a dancer, a tinker, tailor, or "indian" chief.  In other words, can't you just let the players play.

Just my two cents.

BTW:  While I'm not sure the Death Star had toilets, I'm pretty sure no one "drove" it.  Can you even "drive" a small moon?  ;)

As was already said, they aren't the first group to try to tie regeneration into their storyline.  COH/COV does it, as does SWG (cloning facilities).  You don't even have to write a whole bunch to "make it work"...just put a little bit of an idea out there, and players will RP it the rest of the way anyway.

BTW:  Aren't you the same writer who thought that regeneration couldn't be explained in a zombie mmo?  I guess "being saved at the last minute" or "being immune to the virus" is a lot less realistic than a magical "well" technology that everyone uses to regenerate themselves, body and "soul". :rolleyes:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

huh....what....you read a book about movies and have discovered that mmo's quests are boring....they should strive to be more like movies.....exciting stuff.....

Hey...wake me after you read a book about business and come up with the "new" idea that mmo's should improve their economic structures, in game and out.....

*snore*

More on Jennings blog:

http://brokentoys.org/

Granted, its "one side", but, I have to say....announcing the firings in a 10-K report BEFORE completing an "investigation" is shady at best.

1)  I wouldn't pay 50 dollars per month or any computer game, regardless of what type or how good.  I can't imagine ANYONE spending 700 dollars a YEAR on one computer game.  Would theme park mmo fans even pay that?  It seems like a pretty ludicrous number to come up with.  Would you ask the same of movies?  Say, paying 30 dollars to go see an Oscar Nominated movie instead of 10 dollars to see Transformers 2?  No, I doubt it would ever be put that way.

Now, something reasonable, like 17-20 dollars per month, would make one have to think.  Would you pay "slightly more" than standard price for a product that has LESS than the standard features?  Tough call.  As long as I could demo it, read unbiased reviews, and know that the publisher/marketing guys aren't going to fudge around with price right after they get my money, then yeah, I'd probably pay a little more for a product that I REALLY wanted that seemed well produced, even if it didn't equate to the standard expectations.

2)  I'm fine with less content.  I'm tired of developers directing our gameplay anyway.  Spend more time on giving PLAYERS the tools to make/create content (mission generators, NPC use, story creation, webpages, rewards to offer, fun social areas), and put more money into a Live Events Team so that the world is fresh as opposed to static, and I'd be happy as a clam.  The less fed ex and kill ten rats the better, I always say. 

3)  This one is tricky, IMO.  I'm okay with some slowness to the games development, but I readily admit, I get impatient with companies that take "too long" to improve the world.  Really, it goes back to the monthly fee.  If I'm paying "every month", then somewhere, deep down, I believe that work should be getting done every month to make the game fresh and exciting.  I know that's not really the case, but its just an instinct that I have as a game player.  MMO's shouldn't be "static".  If solo player PC games can get updates out quicker than an mmo, then somethings wrong.

But some of answer two would resolve that.  If they put in as many tools as possible for player generated content, and if they had a viable Live Event system working, then waiting for a "big update" wouldn't really be such a priority.  I'd see where my money is going...or, wouldn't care, because I'd be too busy doing new stuff every once in a while anyway.

Still...the third one is the toughest one for me.  If they could fill my time and communicate clearly/regularly (like showing us the development pipeline), then I can hang on for longer.  Eventually, though, my patience will likely probably get thin.

The problem though, IMO, is most companies seem to WANT to charge you more, WANT to direct your path through the game, don't WANT to innovate, and WANT to take their damned time doing it.  Which is why this genre is going to be in serious trouble if Facebook games continue on their current path.  They seem to be doing it cheaper, faster, and with more excitement than many mmo makers right now.  If Sid, Raph, and Garriot all find success there, than these questions and answers may be moot anyway.

This site needs more articles and follow up discussions, like this. Thanks to all those involved...it's been a great read to end the nght with.

Originally posted by mmosnark

Originally posted by reventon

Although there's a point in this column, I don't think it's the point the writer's trying to make...

Metacritic isn't the party at fault here. Their system works fine. The problem is that MMORPG's are, as the writer points out, difficult to review well.

But then again... isn't reviewing any game difficult? It's always hard to balance subjective and objective "facts", lots of reviewers don't play through entire single player games either, some review games within a genre they dislike, etc. etc.

So, to the writer: Yes, the scores on Metacritic can be (way) off, true. This has nothing to do with Metacritic though, it's down to the fact that reviews (of any kind, really) are simply not always correct.

What Metacritic does actually lessens this problem, because they offer an average, so the truly ridiculous should be compensated...

I got a strong feeling while reading this article that the writer has some personal beef with Metacritic, especially since he doesn't offer any ideas on how to improve the system, but simply says "you can't really review MMO's, so Metacritic sucks" which doesn't make a lot of sense....

Which leads me to discard his ideas the same as I, ironically, discard many reviews.

 

 

There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week.

However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie.

What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat.

So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.

 

 

Assuming that was really the point of the article, I have to say, the argument you make isn't very compelling either.  Consider that you only include three examples of how "horrible" these scores are when put in the hands of investors:

The first example is made up ("It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year.)  This isn't a fact.  It's your "worst case scenario", sure, but not fact.

The second example (I've been at one company where a chunk of my bonus was directly proportional to the Metacritic scores of the projects I worked on), while true, and certainly "bad", is a bit exaggerated.  After all, it was a "bonus", and, by your admittance, only a chunk of it was based on that.  Yes, basing pay for employees on outside, poorly formed, metrics is a horrible/terrible trend.  But what, exactly, does one expect their "bonus" to be based on?  Aren't "sales" an outside, and sometimes not clearly defined, metric as well?  Worrisome...sure...but, IMO, not damning of the site,or the industry, just yet.

The third example ("Take a closer look at some of the investor reports that were released last week. Metacritic scores, and their inferred fiscal importance, are sprinkled liberally throughout all of them".) isn't unique.  Investors put all kind of info into their yearly reports.  Anything they can do to enhance their financial position, they will.  Most folks know they pick and choose info to make them appear as positive as possible.  That's been going on in all kinds of industries for decades.  Why is it so bad now?  Sure, it might lead to more pressure for developers, as they're work is tied more directly into the health of the investor company, but there are a LOT of other ways that same problem could come about.  Why pick this one?

You've got three items to support your point.  One is made up, one is exaggerated, and one isn't unique to the "cause" you identify.  So, if your point wasn't to bash Metacritic, then I'd say you did a poor job of making your point.

MMO fans have been out ahead of this story for quite a while now.  Heck, I remember a blogger/poster here talking about all of the shenanighans with this guy, and his company, a LONG while ago.  He got lambasted by some, supported by others...but, strangely, it never triggered any deeper looks by "reporters".

Funny that the "news" division of this site, and other mmo sites, never got out ahead of this story.  It was always canned interviews and press releases, forum posts reviews, and day-late news...never any investigative journalism.  All that access to the industry, its insiders and fans, and this site (and others) can't "break" the story about the "ponzi scheme" taking place?  Makes me question the purpose of a "news" section/division.

How embarassing would it be if a regualar newspaper or business report got more "inside details" on this event than the mmo-news sites?  Outsiders with no real knowledge of the biz beating gaming reporters to the meat of significant gaming story would, IMO, be quite shameful.

Originally posted by dar_es_balat

This has about as much to do with MMO's as The Real World has to do with Music Television.

Let's stick to reporting things that actually have to do with Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming, and stay away from how we can use twitter to make friends during online sessions of Texas Hold Em.

Sid Meier likely abandons a traditional Civ mmo for a Civ facebook game.

Raph Koster shutters Metaplace and retools to make facebook games.

And now Garriott announces plans to focus on facebook games.

That's three of the biggest names in gaming/mmo's, all in the last 6 months.

I've already said this a few times on this site:  "Traditional" mmo's have been put on notice!  Facebook-style gaming is not going to be an "evolution" of the genre, and they're not going away.  They will try to wrest control of the market.  It will NOT be an easy fight.  Companies like NCSoft, Blizzard, Cryptic, etc...better get their act together.....or a few years from now, we might only be talking about Ultima XIII - The Battle for Farmville.

While I agree with the "basic" premise that mmo reviews are, overally, poorly done, I don't think you make the best case with your list.

Quite a few of the numbers listed are near copies of mmorpg.com's scores...and, if you throw in the Lich King expansions review numbers, you get even more parity.  Certainly not enough absurdity in the scores to make one "wretch".

Actually, the bigger problem seems to be that money folks are putting too much emphasis into these numbers...and the folks in the industry aren't doing much to stop them from this poor decision.  But, then again, what do you expect from an industry that is (admittedly) becoming more and more under the control of investors and not developers.

Yes...review scores, and reviews in general, of mmo's are spotty at best.  It's a problem that needs to be fixed.  By the gaming media.  Developers have little control over the media and the choices they make.  I suggest the developers who are "sick" over these numbers actually focus on the one thing they can change...the affect it has on those that supply their cash.  Instead of rolling over an allowing them to base your work on some ridiculously created metric, get them to understand how it all really works.

But, that will take time, and could risk angering those who pump the well.  And, admit it Mr. Webb, tthat means they won't...because no one wants to turn off the faucet....

Instead, we'll likely just hear more complaints (possibly in article form)

Originally posted by Esther-Chan

I think you are missing one of the key things about MMORPGs and that's their social environments. MMORPGs are more than just killing monsters or each other, they are a way for people to connect. Cooperating with Facebook isn't a sign of the apocalypse but rather the evolution of MMORPGs and how they connect with the world.

I am fully aware of the social aspect of mmo's.  I understand what the words "massively" and "multiplayer" mean.

And I do not suggest that it is a "sign of the apocalypse". 

But, one can't also assume that facebook would simply be the "evolutionary next step" of mmo's.  Not if they end up being so completely different than the traditional mmo.  It is too early to tell whether this developing trend is an "improvement" on the current mmo genre....or an outside challenge to it.

A few months back, Sid Meier announced that his company was developing a Civ game for Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/civnetwork?v=info).  As some may recall, this coincided with a project that sounded an awful lot like a Civ MMO, lead by Scott Jennings, being cancelled. It would seem that Facebook had lured one of the gaming gods, and perhaps, hurt the traditional mmo audience at the same time.

And it may have happened again.  Recently, Metaplace, the software platform designed to democratize the development of virtual worlds, created by Raph Koster and the folks over at Aerae game, closed due to a "lack of traction".  The company seemed to suggest it had alternative plans for staying active, and a recent name change to Metaplace Inc suggested it would try something new.

That something new?  "Island Life" (http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=188275806009#!/apps/application.php?v=info&id=188275806009), a "Farmville" clone that was once a part of the Metaplace network, and is now in the early beta stages.  Raph is apparently quite involved in its development, as I've read reports of his talking with players during beta.  Plus, if you read the info on that site, it seems to suggest this is the new direction they may be going.

Extremely big deal?  Maybe not.  But the fact that a "gaming god" might abandon a hot IP mmo for facebook, to be followed by the man behind SWG (and others) HAS to suggest that Facebook is starting to mount a challenge to the stagnating mmo gaming industry, right?