Jon Wood: Rebooting or Re-Imagining the Genre
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood uses his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed.
Column By Jon Wood on December 03, 2009
It's difficult to argue that there isn't at least a little bit of stagnation in the MMO industry right now. There are a lot of theories as to why this might be. Some point to the growing trend toward item shop revenue models and the perceived greed of companies that makes these games. Others point at Blizzard's behemoth World of Warcraft as the source of all of the genre's woes, suggesting that because of its success all games that come after it are copies.
Whatever the specific reason, it is difficult to argue that the MMORPG genre isn't in some kind of decline. The last few years of releases haven't exactly lived up to their hype and scepticism about each and every game that is announced seems to climb as games move closer and closer to launch.
The loudest voices of opposition seem to be coming from long-time MMO gamers. You know, the folks who were playing in the genre during pre-Trammel Ultima Online and before. It seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that it wasn't necessarily the game itself that managed to enrapture its players to the point that no game that came after would measure up. It was, instead, the mystique of something different come to life. It was the realization of RPG player fantasies come to life where they could play online in a world populated by other players. It was new, it was exciting and there were no pre-existing conventions that had to be followed to the letter. In short, what an MMORPG wasn't set in stone, it was being carved.
As time has gone by, and games have come and gone, expectations and conventions about what an MMO is have become more and more engrained in the consciousnesses of everyone involved. Players, developers, publishers and even journalists now have their own pre-conceived notions of what a game has to be in order to be a "successful MMORPG." There just isn't enough wonder left to really capture our collective imaginations.
So, what if we were somehow able to take that out of the equation? What if the only way to re-invigorate a flagging MMO industry is to completely re-define what an MMO is? Is that even possible anymore?
Right now, popular culture seems to be all about rebooting and re-imagining. From gussied up remakes of old songs to complete re-imaginings of pop culture mainstays like the most recent Star Trek movie, both the people who fund these pop culture projects and the audiences that consume them seem ready to at least pretend to forget about the things that have come before and open themselves up to new ideas and new approaches to classic ideas.
Well, we'd have to leave out publishers and the money people entirely, at least those who are familiar with the current MMO market. Most publishers, companies or individuals who would invest in an MMORPG do so with an expectation of return, the best chance of which is to duplicate the success of games like WoW... I think you get where I'm going with this.
;)
Even the cast of
Reboot is with me on this.
Then, we'd have to find an audience either open minded enough or ignorant enough of the current crop of MMORPGs that something completely outside the box wouldn't be a deterrent to enjoyment. We would need players who were willing to put aside concepts and conventions that they know are fun and look at something new as a whole. We'd need a media that was willing to do the same. This would be tough, because both of these groups consider themselves to be experts in the current product and old habits and perceptions are tough to break.
Finally, and I think that this is both the most important and the most improbable requirement on this list, we would have to find qualified, competent developers who had never played an MMO, and had their own set of ideas about how best to handle the idea of taking the core of a role playing game, either the electronic version or the pen and paper version, and create an online world that will allow thousands of players to exist and interact within. Just take a minute and consider the possibilities that this might open up. How, for example, would someone who had never head of the concept of instancing decide to tackle their content? How would people unfamiliar with raiding and gear grinding handle the concept of an endgame? The possibilities are endless.
This, my friends, could lead not to the innovation that so many of us have been begging for, but instead to the sense and feeling of true invention that captured so many people's imaginations during the birth of the genre.
More Jon Wood Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
As a pre-tram UO player I compare every new MMO to what UO was - a world where you could do anything...
Take a boat out to explore/fish the sea....get attked by sea monster and get killed. Your a ghost on a island unknown to you and you cant figure out how to come back to life.....the game had housing.....skill based advancment ect.
However I wouldnt go as far as saying the MMORPG genre is in any type of "decline"...in fact new and innovative titles are being worked on all over the board, the problem is, however, funding for INDIE projects.
Lets face it, a lot of these indie MMORPGs who ARE trying to do something different are NOT popular.
So instead of saying the genres in decline...instead we need to actually buy innovative titles that come out, in numbers that resemble WoW before we start seeing new concepts becoming mainstream.
I don't think rebooting the genre with people who have no MMO experience is the right way to go. In fact I think that is the opposite of the right way. People who are familiar with the genre, not only creating MMOs, but strong community members and people who have played a wide variety of the games would be the best people to send this genre in a new direction.
They know what's been done, they know what is old, but there are some who really think outside of the box, who choose to take on alternative solutions to the many problems indicated. If we start over from scratch, we'll make the same mistakes again and get ourselves no where.
Innovation comes from what is already there, not knowing history dooms you to repeat it. This is no different in this medium. To make good games, you have to think what the player wants, you have to do what your audience wants you to do.
My understanding may be a little off, but everyone always talks about MMOs being incredibly expensive endeavors. Why is that? I can understand how servers could be costly, and people are always expensive on an annual basis, but I just don't understand how these things can cost over 10 million dollars for a group of people to build the kind of game players want these days (Huge world with a thousand features).
Is most of this money put into advertising? Then maybe we're hyping too much. Maybe all these failures are simply due to overhype. Hype helps nothing but initial box sales, and those aren't what cover the input costs. Why do MMOs feel the need to advertise and go to conferenses all over the world when their game isn't due out for another 2 or more years? I think 3 to 6 months prior would be enough time to get all the MMO sites in a stir about a game that has had virtually no press (because they didn't pay for it) to just pop up and start beta testing.
So really, why is all this money needed? Why can't independent companies make games that are up to par with the AAA MMOs (even though many ARE)? Why are most MMOs judged before they are even touched?
I think this lack of innovation is just something in our heads because we've become more demanding, and it's not the developers that are missing out on this, it's the investors.
The meaning of MMO can not be changed. That is - you play with other players. Even tho Massively mutliplayer could be argued in games like WOW compared to games like EVE.
What could change is the way ppl play with and against each other. Levels, PVE and PVP, quest driven soloplay or grinding seems to be what this genre is all about. Maybe it doesn't have to be like that. EVE online did things in new ways when it came to levels - They created one huge gaming universe instead of many servers. Who is to say that others can't do the same? How about a MMO game that has more of puzzle elements ? Or even more of exploration elements like Im hoping Star Trek will turn into. I loved the old Star Trek games cause they had the feeling of the unknown - going into spacestations that were infected with stuff - or down to diffrent planets. Hell - even coming to the planet and scanning it to see the type - name - if it was habbited and what kind of culture was on it. That was EXITING. Im actually hoping Star Trek can be more than just a Shootem PVP -PVE style of a game. But tbh it doesn't look good what I have seen so far. Even the Bridge seems to be turned into a "housing" feature rather than coming up with new things.
Maybe we will need another Indy company to make something new for this genre. The big guys seems to only think about money and the safe way to make more money. Hopefully gamers are willing to give indy companies like CCP (EVE online) some chance to create something diffrent.
My hope when it comes to something new in MMOs is through Free to play. Alot of things can be experimented on in these games IF the devs really want to. How about a game without levels for example ? How about more of a loyalty or reputation with diffrent factions ? How about going out of the box with new races?
Finally, and I think that this is both the most important and the most improbable requirement on this list, we would have to find qualified, competent developers who had never played an MMO, and had their own set of ideas about how best to handle the idea of taking the core of a role playing game, either the electronic version or the pen and paper version, and create an online world that will allow thousands of players to exist and interact within. Just take a minute and consider the possibilities that this might open up. How, for example, would someone who had never head of the concept of instancing decide to tackle their content? How would people unfamiliar with raiding and gear grinding handle the concept of an endgame? The possibilities are endless.
Id like to draw a parallel between this quote and evolutionary convergence. In nature, evolution often finds the same solution to the same problem, and it does this independantly. The common ancestor of the human and the octopus was blind. Men and octopuses evolved seperately for millions of years. Yet, in both cases, eyes were developed, and not only that, but nature built them from the same material, crystalline I believe.
So, to answer what would come out of a mmo if it was developed by people with zero knowledge about how mmos work? chances are we would see something very similar to what we already have today. If they didnt have the concept of instancing, Im almost sure that they would come up with it again. Somethings would be different, sure, but I think the end result would be something we would all recognize.
My 2 cents.
You are right about the "newness" thing, but wrong about how to get it back.
WOW in large part was a big hit because (1) It had a lot of people who had gone through the good and bad of EQ and (2) it had staff that had deep experience in producing popular game software which led to (3) don't release anything until you have it right, and have the knowhow to get it right.
And don't tell me WOW wasn't a new step. The behemoth of MMOs was EQ at the time. 400k subs? WOW has had, what, 10 million or like 25 times as many?! Innovation can be how you execute, put the parts together, and make it work.
Great ideas without the exceptional expertise needed to carry them out are pretty useless, except for day dreaming. Its a pretty old canard that people who are new to a field will somehow bring "fresh air" that will create new breakthroughs. Nope, its usually the people who have been beaten bloody by the problems and realities of an endeavor that can imagine how to create something special with existing tools.
My guess...the next great MMO will come from...you guessed it....those trolls at Blizzard. Does anyone else have the wherewithal to even try anything but a clone? Oh yeah, I would love to see the next new genre coming out of a garage.
(sigh)
EVE online did not come from any trolls are any ppl that had done things exactly like all the others. They evolved their game with very nailed down features that they thought woud make a great game. And it was a TOTALLY new epxerince when it came to the MMO genre. What other MMO game is beeing played on one server with 50-100 K ppl playing simutaniously ? None.
And another thing about EVE that is also very special when it comes to this genre. I talked about this yesterday and I will do so again today. They actually evolve their game based on SUB money. NOT on payed for expansions. And this has imropved the ENTIRE game of EVE - from starting experience - up to the top corps. And this happens with every single expansion. Right now games like AOC are talking about their payed for expansion that will in no way change the first 20 levels of the game - and just change the next 50 in minor ways.
Payed for expansions in this case actually PREVENT the games to really evolve over time. Thats why game like WOW is still stuck with the same starting quests as day one - even tho totally new CONTINENTS have been discovered in the past 5 years. And all because the developers were busy making EXTRA money with new expansions. Instead of focusing on improving the content they had. In fact - you can argue that Blizzard has infact REDUCED the value of that content since most dungeons and almost all raids from both vanilla and TBC are now pointless. New players that are coming to the games today can not enjoy the challenges of that content because the developer isn't updating the game along with the expansions they are throwing out - Just because they are focusing on getting extra money.
Shoudln't subs be enough to maintain a crew to at least evolve the old content of these games ? How can EVE do it while other games can't ?
Well Jon, I have asked similar questions on these very boards.. I want to see another "Top Secret" (you remember that project right?) styled attempt where the community of gamers as a whole gets a chance to create a new MMO (just not something silly like a racing MMO)... I think this is where the industry should go.. let's give gamers, independents and other non-big corporations the chance to prove that great games CAN be created by something other than some big moneyed interests.
just my .02 influence.
MMO's are in a decline and the answers seem simple, the people that play MMO's, the creative people with ideas, they do not possess the skills needed to program a game, nor the resources to develop one. A long time ago, back in the days of MUD's, I realized that the most talented coders seem to code the least imaginative stuff.
MMO's will re-emerge the day that company's like EA and SOE, decide to take a chance and hire designers with new and possibly difficult to implement ideas(due to them not being done before). I am sure that the current state of computer tech does limit the creation process to a large degree, yet not so much that we keep seeing the same rehashed ideas in a new skin.
The MMO genre is a widely untapped genre that has so much potential, that I believe people simply do not know what to do with it. Its the same reason why some people do not play games such as Fallout 3. It seems that most people need their hand held while they are forced down a linear path ending up with a re-skin of the same old Korean grind fest (coughAioncough). Where are all the MMOFPS at? Im cant speak for you, but Planetside is the only MMOFPS that I see. Where are all the MMORTS games. Where are the MMOFPSRTS games. A game that allows one side to play like its an RTS, directing the flow of mobs, while another side plays like its and fps, and maybe even another side that plays like the standard MMORPG. A game like this would be intense,
I have pondered for a long time about a game where multiple kingdoms fight over a land, where playing each kingdom was almost like playing a different game in of itself. A game were one player is controlling his pack of wargs, directing them to attack a small village, and another player is playing his steampunk golem manuall aiming and shooting his steam powered rifle at a pack of wargs attacking his village.
So much potential, so many ideas, so who is to blame for the stagnation. I guess everyone is to blame...
I think that's a very corret assessment.
And given that nothing exists in a vacuum, take two people who have no idea what an mmo currently is and set them to the task and they will draw upon their past experiences which will most likely have a lot of overlap.
My initial thought is that these games have to be planned by people who aren't developers.
there, I've said it. Now for the explanation before you all chase me up to the windmill with pitchforks in hand.
As an example, no matter what you think of Apple computer or Steve Jobs, there was a point where they were facing a particularly difficult design decision. Apparently Steve Jobs asked for something to be made and all his engineers said it couldn't be done. Well, given that it is essentially his company eventually the engineers put themselves to the task and though they kept saying "it couldn't be done", eventually they actually figured out how to do it.
Added to that example, my own experience with software developrs shows me that they are usually pretty smart people who have very definitive ideas on how something "should" be done. Also, they don't tend to be great at outside the box thinking. In addition, many of these mmo projects seem to suffer from bad management. From my own experience it seems that programmers are not great at documentation and that sometimes one side just doesn't know what the other side is doing.
I'm talking about truly outside the box thinking. They are smart as a whip and can handle all the minutiae of programming but I've never gotten from my programming friends that they are trailblazers in the originality department. It's almost as if you have to force a paradigm change on them.
As one of my friends told me "I don't see why you need to click on icons to run programs when typing in the commands is just as easy".
Obviously not everyone sees eye to eye with that and many people warmed up to computers the more user friendly and accessible they became.
What we need are game creators and writers to imagine worlds. We need players to talk about what they think is fun.
THEN we need the programmers to put those computer like brains in motion and make it happen. It's almost as if the game has to be created prior to the programming and that everything needs to be mapped out so that there isn't a lot of adding and subracting because ideas were not thought through.
To that end, perhaps some sort of prototype that has nothing to do with the graphics or fancy animations needs to be made so that the actual game play can be evaluated purely on game play.
In any case, those are my shoot from the hip thoughts.
I Agree.
Matter of fact, the closest we've had to that in recent years in Age of Conan; ie folks who came from a single player rpg background, and with a good rep in that arena, to boot. Don't recall that going so well.
SWToR will be another company to give it a first shot. We'll see how that goes.
IMO, it's not the current concept of a MMO that's failing; it's in the development communities ability to fulfill that concept that's failing. AoC, WAR, and this year Champions Online are woefully short on content, thus they can't keep subs past 2-3 months. They have fallen apart where content and/or gameplay rich games like WoW, Eve, and LotRO still hold strong. There's enough going on in those games to keep people coming back month after month.
I like to reboot the whole industry -- when I first started to play Lord of the Rings, my son told me just wait till you get to th endgame. What ,this is a rpg it is not suppose to have an end game. Yes it does, well I lke to see it gone ,I believe a game once release should keep installing new story line or missions and quests every two week or every month. I am an explorer I like to roam around and see the sights from diferent angles
Some games limit your exploration like Guild Wars, Dungeon and Dragons online. In Lord of Rings the Middle Earth what there is of it yo just about go almost everywhere. Now that brings me to Star Wars Galaxies, Been playing it for almost 5 years now seen people come and go and come back. There is one thing, You can go almost every where.
One thing I hate is when SOE merge an Card Game with it. Shudders down my spine.
To make a great came KISS and follow a basic story structure that ihas always an underlying goal but keeps being remove from ones grasp.
Gee to many words
Sololo of Sliverlode of Lord of the Rings
I also think Blizzard's new IP game is going to be new genre game. I for one would like the ability to create a world and I think Blizzard knows I want to do this. I just need a decent set of tools so it doesn't take me ten years.
I think a reboot would be great. Since no games out today are anything like what was being made in the late 90's, going back to some of those mechanics and gameplay challenges would be new to most players. So in effect old would be new again.
Imagine if someone made a game like UO or EQ today just with much better graphics. Now imagine that there are no message boards like this one where people can be informed and learn about old games. These "new" games might just be lauded as innovative and a breath of fresh air for the genre.
Lets face it millions of players have WoW as their first and in many cases only MMO experience. How would those players fare in a UO or EQ style game? Would they complain that its to hard and quit or would they rise to the challenge and thrive in a challenge rich environment.
Bring back the old and make it new again. That would spice up the genre. May not be a WoW killer but would surely shake things up.
EVE online did not come from any trolls are any ppl that had done things exactly like all the others. They evolved their game with very nailed down features that they thought woud make a great game. And it was a TOTALLY new epxerince when it came to the MMO genre. What other MMO game is beeing played on one server with 50-100 K ppl playing simutaniously ? None.
And another thing about EVE that is also very special when it comes to this genre. I talked about this yesterday and I will do so again today. They actually evolve their game based on SUB money. NOT on payed for expansions. And this has imropved the ENTIRE game of EVE - from starting experience - up to the top corps. And this happens with every single expansion. Right now games like AOC are talking about their payed for expansion that will in no way change the first 20 levels of the game - and just change the next 50 in minor ways.
Payed for expansions in this case actually PREVENT the games to really evolve over time. Thats why game like WOW is still stuck with the same starting quests as day one - even tho totally new CONTINENTS have been discovered in the past 5 years. And all because the developers were busy making EXTRA money with new expansions. Instead of focusing on improving the content they had. In fact - you can argue that Blizzard has infact REDUCED the value of that content since most dungeons and almost all raids from both vanilla and TBC are now pointless. New players that are coming to the games today can not enjoy the challenges of that content because the developer isn't updating the game along with the expansions they are throwing out - Just because they are focusing on getting extra money.
Shoudln't subs be enough to maintain a crew to at least evolve the old content of these games ? How can EVE do it while other games can't ?
Simple answer:They can they're just too greedy to want to do it.
Long answer: It'd be a simply wonderful thing if games would let you get regular content as big as expansions w/o having to pay another dime beyond having to pay for each month of play. That's one thing that's turned me off of wow that plus the gear grind at end game.(scared me away from teh game pretty fast) Now hearing it from yet another person how fun EVE is. I might try it out. If you're currently playing and they have a "refer a friend" like item, feel free to send me the link.
Also most games which are developed are more interested in teh money rather than the enjoyment. It seemed to me, at least, via all the random things i keep hearing about CCP is that they're focused in getting someone, and keeping them. They're nto worried about shoving some random "expansion pack" down your throat to make it so you can't just keep playing but rather know that if you give it away for free players will just keep going.
Also the thing about the Macs. I completely agree with that statement. I looked at the APIs and how they worked from a code standpoint and i swore up and down that no coder actually designed those. For the other post about a MMOFPSRTS game that'd actually be a REALLY interesting idea if done right.
The industry needs to hire people who haven't already had "traditional ways" shoved down their throats. Innovation is dampered when you're forced to learn "how it's supposed to be done".
Like some of the good gents here, i seriously doubt that hiring strangers to MMO's would bring innovation. The big problem with Blizzard's Antichrist, what makes it so reluctant to go away and leave us alone to rediscover sheer innovation(how i miss Planetside-like risk-taking experimenting), is that it's a generic concept of RPG, there's generic kill 10 rats and collect their testicles, there's simple levels, simple linear dungeons... they were so mcuh strangers that they didn't even know they had to make end-game content... surprise surprise now nobody knows how to handle end-game content. While before WoW we saw games that were BEAUTIFULLY conceived for their end-games but with unpleasant grindy character progression.
MMO's were good and innovative because those designers were RIGHT BORN for conceiving multiplayer worlds. In my opinion those people conceived MMO's out of the ideal one: Ultima Online. That's a real online world, in a way WoW is not one.
Blizzard people WERE strangers to MMO's and made this 3-headed beast that's WoW.
To do an entirely different game one simply has to play WoW thoroughly for a year and then do an entirely different game.
And it's not even necessary, maybe, that you do a game that's 100% different... you just have to come up with a new way to conceive questing.
A NEW WAY. And there's probably a MILLION ways to do that.
I was just thinking this same thing the other day. Why oh why do expansions & content updates almost always focus exclusively on top end content? Why can't new content be available to players from level 1 ffs? Very few mmos have done this well, only CoH/CoV comes to mind. For some of us casual, time-limited players, new end-game content is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike & just as likely to push us away from a game, than see us stay & grind in the hopes that some day we'll get to see where these crumbs thrown at us by the devs lead.
OTOH Frobner, I think EVE leaves a lot to be desired in many other gameplay areas. It's no more 'one server' than GW (& less accessible in any case); has heaps of issues for PvE players or soloers & overall is a ganker's paradise. The free content/exp model based purely on subs seems to work, but personally I'd rather see a pay once only model like GW become more prolific. Another example of greed mixed with stupidity - the reason more mmos don't adopt this model is an utter mystery, given GW is financially a *huge* success, in the top 5 all time mmos anyway last I checked. I guess most devs aren't confident enough of the initial & ongoing sales creating a sustained revenue base that good ol greed wins out - "let's copy WoW's sub model as they're raking it in!". Pfft. Something like ATITD is far more 'one server' (it in fact is) & innovative than most other shootemup/grindfest mmos these days, but seeing it's so retro & you can't kill shit...
Bring on GW2 I say! :)
Very bad example with GW there. It has a *wealth* of exploration & no end game to speak of (in a traditional mmo/raid sense). In fact, it makes the level cap (20th) trivial, so that everything that comes after the first 20 'tutorial' levels is all about gameplay: missions, quests, grouping/socialising, crafting, collecting, not to even mention the entire other half of the game, the PvP aspects, which aren't my cuppa.
LOTRO, as great as it is, is a bit of a grindfest & quite repetitive at lower levels. You don't really start to get into the storyline until you're well into the 20s. It also suffers from a mid-game slump - every character from 25-35 has to do Lonelands/Northdowns/Evendim all over again, which gets tiresome. They should have created more low & mid game content, rather than focused on the past 2 expansions I say. I, for one of many, may never see Moria or Mirkwood.
I do agree that mmos need to allow a lot more freedom of movement/exploration though. Let me climb, fly, burrow, dive to anywhere I can see or imagine getting to if I had the means. GW is very limiting with the 'on-rails' levels & no jumping or climbing over obstacles. AoC has added a nice touch with the climbing skill more recently, but I still want a far more true 360 degrees of freedom, even in fantasy mmos. Gothic 3 id this very well as an offline crpg - a vast world & I could get to any place I could scale or see in the distance on the horizon.
Nothing worse than feeling like your character is more limited than you would be in the real world. I might be getting older & fatter, but I reckon I could climb most of the trees that most mmos simply ignore as an option & relegate to obstacles/scenery.
Outcast mmo anyone? <G>
Things that are sorely missing from these so-called persistent world: persistence!
So few mmos allow us to create & destory content, add our own missions/levels/storylines & generally feel like we have a real impact on the world. The trick is to making us feel like the hero/protagonist while at the same time allowing thousands of players to coexist. I've had some ideas about this kind of mmo for a long time now, but I doubt it will ever see pen to paper, much less the light of day. Oh well, guess I'll just keep hacking & slashing from one mmo to the next, in the hopes that someone, some day, will pleasantly surprise me :).
Btw ppl, stop blaming Blizztard & WoW - as bad & evil as they/it is <g>, you can go right back to EQ (& possibly M59 before it) to blame for this style of gameplay. Nuff said? Game over.
they dont need to reboot or re-image the genre at all, there are some promising games coming out in the next year.
As far as a reboot, I feel that you don't need to throw out the history to encourage new ideas. It would be kind of like pulling people off the street to design cars or airplanes. You just don't do it! They might have fresh ideas, but they also don't know what has been done before and failed horribly. Adding in people to the TEAM that are fresh is a good thing, but they would still need to have people in charge that have been through the wars. I totally understand your premise, but I feel that it won't work as stated.
As far as LotRO goes, I love the game and applaud Turbine for the expansions and the redo of Bree and now Lone lands. Since you haven't played in a while Nostromo, I'd encourage you to go back and see what all has changed. They have changed Breeland and Lonelands to make everything flow better as you level. I wish all companies cared about their games as much as Turbine does with LotRO.
Why, because the whole industry around video games is in a rut. Let's use a bit of history (post 1983).
Really games cost less than they did in the NES days (a $50 cartridge in 1985~ $99 today). In that time game size has expanded from 320 kilobit (super mario bros) to how many GB today? I'm sure someone could point out a host of flaws in those comparisons.
IIRC reviews really started to obsess about graphics in the Genesis/SNES days (early 90's). Starting a trend in game making that haunts us today. IMO it was Squaresoft and the mass marketing of FF7 on nothing but pre rendered cut scenes, that likely locked many gamers into the "graphics>all else" mindset. If not the gamers, certainly many devs and investors.
Right or wrong that is the basis of what follows.
First AAA is almost as f***ing worthless a marketing term as "innovative" or "Next gen". The general meaning of all 3 is "we have prettier graphics". Well, spreading those pretty graphics into a large world, takes a load of time. Then because of those pretty graphics, animations have to be spot on. IIRC it takes 4 frames to walk an 8 bit character believably, that would look choppy as all hell on higher res models. Now scale that to a huge world with loads of models, all requiring believable animations and more skins to differentiate players and buildings.
Something is still missing, oh yeah, the game. Content based world need tons of quests, 1000's of them, ideally indexed to the power curve of the player (ie level). Sandboxy games, need the many tools and systems that keep people interested, and need them to be "fair". Both are a full time job just to manage, nevermind actually build. Good, Fast and Cheap pick 2.
Cheers for that Greygon. I was duoing very slowly with the Mrs up until we moved into the new house we built almost 3 mths ago - very little time for gaming since :(.
I do have a solo hobbit burgler about to hit 20, so I might keep at it, chip away & see how I go ;). Unfortunately, I've also been distracted by numerous other games, including AoC, Borderlands, DA:O, Anno1404, Evony *blush*, Crysis, among others of late. So many games, so little time *sigh*...
I agree that the genre needs a reboot now. The games are similar and are getting boring and predictable.
But an easy way to reboot it would be making one based on a different pen and paper RPG than D&D which almost every single MMO are based on (including WAR which is upsetting since warhammer fantasy RPG in itself was very different and new thinking).
Make a Runequest online or Palladium online instead.
And kill of the cooldowns. Let the attacks take longer time to make instead, particularly powerful magic and balance the DPS agains that. Of course you also need a reason tonot spamm the same attack then, like that if you do to many similar attacks will it reduce the damage or so.
Levels is another thing that should be revamped or taken away, and we don't need so many of them anyways.
Talking with non MMO players to get ideasmight be a good idea, particularly from pen and paper RPG gamers, they have a experience that should work well in a MMO.
The problems is that too many companies are doing the same as they have always done in the computer games industry. You can hark back to the Space Invader clones, the sideways scroller clones, the isometric 3D clones, through the zillions of true 3D FPSs all the way up to todays fare in the form of the Alganons or Allods WoWs 'r' Us.
The biggest driver during all those periods has been technology allowing more and more features, unfortunately we may be hitting the brick wall in that respect, but occasionally someone would come up with a new idea or format that pushed things along. Right now in the MMO world it has kind of stagnated. Who knows maybe it's the hands on technology in Windows 7 and the abilty to have multi-talented/game boundary crossing avatars that will be the next big thing.
Rest assured, the industry doesn't need a reboot, it just needs a techo injection. :)
Whats need to be reboot or re-think is "the end game" elements.
I'll take WoW for exemple, the end game of WoW is to do the same dungeons, the same daylies over and over again, no surprise effects, no adrenaline rush, just the same strategies, the same boring content ,once you did the Kara or TOC ect.. you know what to expect you know what skills to use again such bosses, no surprise, same paths same bosses same things over and over and over and........
You work your way for getting gears thats as so minors rewards for one to the others, is a total shame and whats the point to do the same 10 5 mans dungeons for weeks or working on the same 10 or 25man contents if at the end you get the same gears as everyone else?? Its making me angry when I see someone else looking exactly like me!!
The lack of randomness is the plague of the MMO gender today.
Is it to hard to create a game with random worlds, dungeons, and encounters??
Just a short comment:
I can't believe you actually used the opportunity to use the old show Reboot in an article... My hat is off to you.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood sues(???) his column this week to talk about the idea of completely re-imagining the way that MMORPGs are constructed.
I believe there was a Rifts mmorpg at least being discussed. Palladium needs to find a developer and publisher. Rifts would be my first choice since it has a wonderful blend of Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Cyberpunk. It's been years since anything has really been said about a Rifts mmorpg though.
As far as a reboot to the genre goes, something does need to change, and we'll most likely see that change in the next couple of years. EQ began it's domination of the market in 1999, 5 years later WoW began it's domination. We're at the 5 year mark for WoW, something is bound to change.
SWoTOR is being developed by Bioware which has a very similar reputation as Blizzard for releasing quality products, not to mention Star Wars has an extremely large fanbase. KotOR was probably the best series of games based on the Star Wars universe, mostly because it wasn't about Luke, Vadar and the rest. It's hard not to see how this situation mirrors the pre-release of WoW a half a decade ago.
Blizzard is working on a new mmorpg that they claim is based on a completely original setting (not starcraft, diablo or wow2). Blizzard certainly has the money in order to snag up whatever talent they want, plus their ability to release a game whenever they feel it's ready (face it, noone is going to effe with Blizzard in that regard), means that Blizzard's next mmorpg could wind up being the next best thing.
Unfortunately, I believe we're coming into a period where Indie games are going to take a serious backseat to games that have a ton of cash thrown at them. Once we get out this this phase Indie gaming will be very similar to independant films. Low budget, but extremely high quality and generate an extreme fanbase which is small, but rabid.
While I won't disagree with the premise of your article, I will disagree on your assessment of pre-trammel UO players (I are one) and why many of us aren't happy with how MMOs are being made today. Sure, the "newness" of the genre was very appealing. I remember being stationed at Ft. Benning for a period when I first found out about Ultima Online. That game and Command and Conquer (the first one) were the single reason we bought our first computers.
But no, that wasn't the only reason I hold UO (and AC) in higher esteem. Like my answer or not, which all you "nostalgia" buglers seem to ignore in an interest of being "right", Ultima Online, as Player_420 stated above, let you do a great many more things than combat. Pure and simple. Those "things", no matter how much you( in the general sense) want to trivialize them are a large part of what made the game great. Those extra "details" such as requiring reagents in certain combinations to cast spells, having different ores give different properties to craftables, being able to fish and catch a detailed variety of fish, making a boat, making and decorating a house that was out in the world and not instanced.
Those things made UO feel like a "world" and not a game.
"Games" are being made today and I mean that in a side-scroller "arcade" sense. There's little if any lateral movement outside of combat, combat, combat. The little movement available certainly isn't as deep and well thought out and integrated back into ALL other game systems.
WoW with it's previously well-known and successful RTS franchise brought in a whole bunch of non RPG, non-table-top dice rolling gamers. RTS gamers like it quick fast and in a hurry. That's the premise of RTS', after all. And that's the game WoW is for the greater majority, with a slow down at the "end-game" and raiding (well, used to be anyway. Now some raids have been toned down number wise which overall speeds things up).
Now, I don't hate wow, it's just not anywhere near my definition of what is either fun or an MMO. It is for others and that's cool. My issue, which you eluded to, is that the CEOs and money lenders have taken over the show and that narrow gameplay focused, "game" creation mentality has taken over (dreaming of wow success and missing for 5+ years now terribly on all fronts) and no companies with the big bucks are attempting to put more "worlds" into the genre and add some variety.
When such a company with the dollars to do it very well does make such an effort to make an MMO that is more "world" and less "game" we all may be pleasantly shocked at how well it does. Well, the people who only want games and want every MMO to be such won't. But I don't really care about their opinions anyway, so.
Game: "end-game" concept; "winnable" in a large sense; combat oriented; under developed "other" game systems/mechanics that are only functional at best and don't really affect any other gameplay.
World: Not designed for player to get from character creation to X defined point in order for "the real game" to start; not combat oriented but can very much still have a great combat system; has systems that, if looked at logically make sense in terms of thinking in order for this to happen these are the steps I must go through; overall takes into account all aspects of "life" in a world and allows for the player to do as many of them as possible (Sure, it may be hard to define where that line begins, but UO and SWG (pre nge) are two good examples of where to begin).
Great topic Jon,
I had only one issue with it:
"the best chance of which is to duplicate the success of games like WoW... I think you get where I'm going with this."
What other games are like WoW in success? WoW is the "White Elephant" in the house. Its whims guide the leanings of all others in the house. Its modle is dominating the investments of game companies. You are correct in trying to bring new ideas in but they have to be un-tainted by WoW.
Is breaking up the genere in sub-catagories an answer? I just don't know. What I do know is folks have to get out of the "house" to avoid the Elephant crap.
There aren't any, which I believe was Jon's point. A point the CEO's and insiders in the industry, at least the ones making the final decisions, don't seem to get.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
The article is half correct.
The problem with MMO's today is that they are based on previous games, rather than on RPG's. When EQ, AC, and UO were being developed, the basis was RPG's. The games weren't perfect, for various reasons, but they were all popular and are all still loved by people, most of whom no longer play.
So, step one would be to make new MMO's based on RPG's, instead of based on other MMOs.
The part that he misses is that if you do that, without learning from the mistakes that other games have made, you'll make the same mistakes.
The ideal design would be to create the MMO based on table top gaming - but to avoid the pitfalls that UO,EQ and AC made.
No one has done that yet.
The MMO genre is stale because of WoW. Sure its a good game but the most successful thing about it is also the genre's downfall. It opened the genre to the lowest common denominator. It is built to be soo easy and intuitive where the dumbest person on the earth can pick it up and play it. It has catered to people who have 2 hours a week to spend on games and rewards that type of play. And unfortunatly, thats where the money is.
Because the money is in the above play styles, we have seen all of the copycat going on. Theres no room for innovation because it will ultimatly lead away from the above play styles which means less money. Its a catch 22.
If WoW had never released we would have 1 to 5 new games on the market that were worth playing and those companies would still be making a profit. Instead we got 50+ games that are stale and bug ridden and down right bad.
WoW is a good game for the type of player it is ment for. Problem is, it took away any innovation for any other type of player.
This is a good post.
As for my opinion on the article, Imo the current mmo genre is so freaking bad I play nothing but games that released atleast 5 years ago. I can only stomach games that are completely different than your normal fantasy themepark with its shallow item hunt endgame.
When a person that is a diehard fan of this genre only plays Eve and sandbox games with populations as low as 5k you know somethings wrong.
So yeah we need a reboot, badly.
This article stole the words right out of my mouth... Going to a carnival for the 100th time is never going to as amazing, and exciting as the very first time you went when you where little and everything was new. You start to see it for what it is, more of a object, yet you still hold to the memory of the first time with a strong sense of nastalgia.
Beyond the nastalgia and old feelings, there are some concrete points that the people who compare everything to UO have... UO did have alot of that freedom that many mainstreem MMO's currently do not. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in the MMO crowd these days got introduced through "Hold your hand" themepark gameplay. That's not a bad thing, but it's a completely different mindset from the UO vets who are more closely related to actually "Fantasy lovers". The guys who played MUDS, did RP, and loved D&D.
The mass of the Genre = People who fill the same urge as the guys who play a FPS, except they like the added social aspect.
Inbetween players = Have the same nastalgia as the UO&EQ vets because they where there also, but do not mind alot of the MMO's today because they realize that as you get older, you get busier and don't have as much time to lose yourself inside of a genuine experience. We take entertainment value for face value. If I have fun for 30 minutes, awsome.
The UO vets, Eq vets, Mud players, ect. == Look for a genuine experience, freedom, and a "Quality" social aspect where you truly let youself free.
I think that GREATLY simplifies the issue, and in doing so gets it entirely wrong.
The impact of WoW's success is not that the followers are clones, but that the scale of its profits has warped the brains of investors in MMO's in a way that retards risk-taking. Leading to a 'market researched', risk managed' approach to MMO development not by the devs, but as dictated by the investors who, despite investing their money, having no real appetite for risk.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
If that's the case you're both wrong.
ROI is return/investment. It isn't fear of a small return that investors fear = it's the size of the investment to gain that return. There are millions of investors who would love to own part of an MMO that has 100K subscribers paying $15 a month. What there isn't are millions of people who want to invest $4 million for 1% of such a company.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
You'd half to kill or brainwash every single person who started their MMO experience with WoW. The only other thing that could do that is a RADICALLY different MMO that practically rewinds the genre to the classic UO days. Unfortunately, UO's model, although awsome, is EXTREMELY niche in todays market. Because the majority of the consumer base in the genre doesn't have the same standards of expectency as a UO vet.
If something amazing like that happened, we wouldn't even realize it untill after it hit us.
Not enough balance between solo and grouping material....God knows I don't have time to raid therefore I lose out on all the good stuff. when I do try to pvp I am crushed and left with no self esteem. My character then looks ridiculous because I never get the pretty armor. Everyone is asking what gear I have and when I do finally get time to raid or do heroic: What does that mean? I don't get in the group. Left out again. The other reason why the industry is dry i think is because people do not want to leave their first love or give up years of investment in that one game but in actuality if people did this then they would force the game companies to make more games at a better quality. WOW loves that people love them. They really don't have to do much more innovation. Just recycle what they have and add a few things here and there. Bah. Everyone leave now so they get the message to create a new game and not a "destroyed" new game "Cataclysm". Don't get me wrong,I am guilty. I still play WOW occasionally but I really want all that money they are making to go into a new game, a new idea, new graphics....They have the resources to do so. People are the main problem. Thaty is what I am saying. The publishers don't help with there max-profit mentality either. But "We the People" are really the ones with the power to change....Just quit the game and tell them why....go play something else in the mean time. Be patient and wait for them to get the message. You do have a life outside MMOs,right? Ciao. Ok bash me now....
Like several have said on here, the current market makes FUNDING the major problem. Plenty of people have creative ideas. Plenty of people in game companies have creative ideas. Plenty of indie developers have creative ideas. The problem is, they can't get money to fund the production of an MMO using those creative ideas because people keep shooting for WoW-like success or are so cautious they are only willing to pay for a WoW-like game.
Slowly we are getting some major companies to branch out. SW: TOR and FFXIV look like they'll diverge a decent bit from the standard model. It is/was only a matter of time. After a certain number of failures investors are going to start trying other tactics. Looks like for now things are going to proceed in baby steps, but maybe we'll get something REALLY different in 5 years or so after some of the "good bit different" games come out and do well.
Edit: Doesn't help that the consumers seem happy to buy crappy games and pay a monthly fee while they are fixed. Depends on how broken they are but it does seem like we should have a bit more backbone on this front. Stupid human psychology...
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Part of the problem with the genre is companies aren't interested in making better games they can draw players in with and keep a strong subscription base. They seem to want to sell a bunch of hype they know they can't actually achieve, lure peoplle in with promises for lifetime subscriptions they can't keep and then figure out a way to nickle and dime lifetime subscribers with for pay DLC all while producing some pretty subpar content that relies on PvP to keep people content because there isn't enough content to keep them entertained.
When MMOs first came out, I think there was still a sense of hey, what can we really do with this, how are we going to make this awesome as opposed to trying to create the biggest cash cow possible today and wondering why no one sticks around.
By the way, I've enjoyed Star Trek (all the series) for a long, long time and I really enjoyed the new movie. Not sure what kind of point you were trying to make with that. As for Star Trek online, starting to look like a typical MMORPG with ships instead of character models.
I clipped apart your post to highlight what I think is rather important. Jon Woods is heading in the right direction when he talks about MMO outsiders, but they can't be completely outside, as they will make the same mistakes and arrive at the same conclusions -- thus eating up development dollars. What is needed, however, are non-programmers designing games. Is an author required to know how to construct a pencil, and make papyrus in order to write a master work? Rhetorical question, obviously. And while there are a one or two filmmakers who can perform all aspects of making a film (from script, to cinematographer, to editing, to sound design), most are storytellers first and join forces with other artists. Hitchcock had script writers he worked with, had cinematographers, had editors. He had the vision, and he guided those he worked with to that vision.
Game Design needs the equivelant of a film Director who has a vision, understands game theories, but doesn't necessarily have to know how to program. Of course you will find the rare individual who has brilliant vision, who understands game theory thoroughly, and who can program or design fantastic game levels. But as we see, that individual is rare -- the equivelant is rare in filmmaking as well.
What I sense in the MMO industry today are a lot of programmers who are passible at game design and storytelling. It's like a film directed by editors or the sound designer. How does that equate to consistent success? Even with highly skilled and dedicated film directors, success isn't gaurenteed. I have a lot of respect for programmers -- some of them can be incredibly smart -- but that doesn't make them de facto great game designers or visionaries.
Of course, those of us that have fond memories of UO, EQ, and AC also know something else: Back then we didn't have a choice if we wanted a mmorpg. Sure, you could jump between the those 3 or some old MUD (or maybe Lineage if we knew about it), but really if you wanted to be surrounded by 100's or 1000's of other players, you needed to be playing one of the 3. But now, how many are there? You could play a different game every week for a year and still not get beyond the tip of the iceberg. So back then you found one of three that you liked and played it. The friends you made there did the same thing, and everyone was always there if you were away for a while. Unlike now, when your guild or friend list is continually churning over names.
As to innovating something new. I just don't think it is going to ever happen as long as WoW continues to exist in the manner it does to this day. Sure, there will be a standout that succeeds on a "small" scale like EVE, but those are going to be few and far between. But even WoW has effected how we look at the scale of EVE. Compared to what existed in 99 and early 2000's, it would have been a major contender.
It is my understanding that they already do that...well, perhaps minus some of that vision thing. There are game designers in the industry that do no programming.
So, did you read the article where I go on to explain that? That's the reason we need a reboot... it was the theme of the article. *shrug*
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Opening paragraph. That's the key right there. You make thesis statements in the opening paragraph. They aren't analytical and neither are they in depth. They tell you what the author believes and then the author goes on to elaborate on that belief in the body of the article, which Jon did.
So, regardless of what you believe, he wrote it just fine. I have written 5 different papers over the past 2 months and each professor pointed out they wanted their papers written in such manner. Macro-level statement up front and followed by micro-level specifics in the body.
Whatever the specific reason, it is difficult to argue that the MMORPG genre isn't in some kind of decline. The last few years of releases haven't exactly lived up to their hype and scepticism about each and every game that is announced seems to climb as games move closer and closer to launch.
Not that I'm against innovation, but you can argue that it isn't in decline.
In fact, the easiest way to argue that is with numbers, which show that the subscription mmo market bucked the trend during the GFC and grew quite substantially and further, is likely to keep growing.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23003
Blizzard set a very high standard with WoW - but Blizzard were a powerhouse in the gaming industry before WoW and they really knew what they were doing. They designed a good product, developed it fully before releasing and marketed it perfectly.
That's why WoW was and still is so successful.
Then every hick and his donkey said, "There's gold in them thar virtual hills" and tried to clap together an mmo.
Not surprisingly, a lot of them have been duds, or in some cases what may eventually have been good games but released way too early.
That doesn't mean the genre is in decline. I'm confident that free-market natural selection has and will continue to kick the less fit mmo developers to the curb.
It is my understanding that they already do that...well, perhaps minus some of that vision thing. There are game designers in the industry that do no programming.
It's possible that I've missed that, though I tend to follow MMOs pretty closely. My understanding, and research, has shown me that programmers turn into "game designers". Are there actually University degrees that offer nothing but game theory, writing, and perhaps psychology classes? It seems to me that, years ago when I was researching such a thing, game design degrees consisted of a slew of programming courses.
Now I believe that there are game designers now who do no programming -- but are they trained game designers? Or have they garnered the title "Game Designer" after leaving their programming desks?
Genuinely curious.
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Opening paragraph. That's the key right there. You make thesis statements in the opening paragraph. They aren't analytical and neither are they in depth. They tell you what the author believes and then the author goes on to elaborate on that belief in the body of the article, which Jon did.
So, regardless of what you believe, he wrote it just fine. I have written 5 different papers over the past 2 months and each professor pointed out they wanted their papers written in such manner. Macro-level statement up front and followed by micro-level specifics in the body.
So the micro-level specifics in the body should refute the macro-level statement up front? That's silly. The micro-level specifics should support the marco-level statements. Otherwise, why make them?
This, this, this, 100x this!
We don't need a reboot, what we need is for investors to realise that they can't compete with WoW, their only chance for success now is to take risks and invest in making something that hasn't been done before.
The only companies that are currently able to do this are those who can self-publish (i.e. SquareEnix) and those who already have a very good record (i.e. Bioware). Bioware has support because its publishers/investors trust them based on their history.
Personally the perfect MMO to me would be one that felt more like a fantasy life-sim. I want combat and adventure, sure, but I also want to do everything else possible in a fantasy world. Let players be creative, rather than having to follow the paths set out by the developers (that includes character advancement paths). The closest thing to that I see on the horizon is FFXIV so I'm just waiting it out...
I also agree with the edit. Too many players cling to games in the hope that it will improve. They cling to the idea behind the game and what they wanted it to be for them. As a result it only makes other companies think they can get away with making the same mistakes.
Assuming that the problem isn't that mmos' are fads (ala the pet rock) and are a long lasting form of entertainent (like, say, the tv), then I don't think the answer needs to be a complete reboot either. I think the answer lies more in what others here have talked about: ideas/vision/dreams. I'd call it philosophy...
Right now, we can pretty much figure out what most mmo companies have as a "philosophy" for a game. The old standby's like "make a profit", "convert an established property", and "have the best graphics" are the current industry leaders. As such, most developers, from the execs on down, put all their work towards fulfilling those "philosophies". Hence the repeated designs, the same marketing patterns, etc...
But, imagine what might happen if a developer went in a totally different direction with their philosophy, forced all of their workers to work towards that philosophy exclusively, and never compromised.
Imagine a game who's philosophy was "It never ends!", or, "Every day the world changes", or "Never play the same way twice". What would a programmer have to come up with to make sure that the game never ends for the player? What decisions would a producer make if he or she could not get away from the fact that every day the game world has to change? What would take priority in the design process if you couldn't let players play the same way twice?
That's where the change comes from: Top down, not bottom up. And not because the top has all the power, or because they have all the money...but, because in any good group, a successful business, a political campaign, or even a government agency, all of the team members HAVE to come together under some umbrella. They need SOMETHING to work for...something to combine their talent, drive, energy, and thoughts, towards. If the goal is profit, than that's what the team will work towards. If the goal is innovation, that's what the team will strive for. Heck...I say it to my own boss all the time...he's the director of our "program", and as such, he determines the "philosophy" of our program. If it's unsound, then the work he gets out of his staff will be the same...but, if its strong, then he'll find success. You get the picture.
It appears, as an outsider looking in, that mmo companies are struggling because their "philosophies" are no longer sound. Therefore, the work they produce is no longer sound. Until they make an adjustment at the top...at the overall driving force behiind their work, than things won't improve.
Assuming, again, that this isn't just a fad...and I'm not so sure that it isn't.
My two cents.
It's possible that I've missed that, though I tend to follow MMOs pretty closely. My understanding, and research, has shown me that programmers turn into "game designers". Are there actually University degrees that offer nothing but game theory, writing, and perhaps psychology classes? It seems to me that, years ago when I was researching such a thing, game design degrees consisted of a slew of programming courses.
Now I believe that there are game designers now who do no programming -- but are they trained game designers? Or have they garnered the title "Game Designer" after leaving their programming desks?
Genuinely curious.
Weeell, I don't really know. I thought they had an interview on here a couple months back about jobs in the industry and it went over the fact that designers don't necessarily program. I know there are plenty of game designers (in a general sense) that can't program; they work on table-top games. I admit I don't have firm details other than that memory of an interview about the MMO industry....let's see if I can dig it up....
Ahh, here it is:
http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/3712/No-Programming-Required.html
I think the term you're looking for is called "player agency". It's something UO has/had, and early EQ had to some extent. Not talking 'sandbox' here, either. The way it was described to me is that players are allowed to be innovative with the tools they have. There's no overarching desire by the MMO devs to control every aspect.
For example, early in EQ, there was a certain Boss Mob at the end of a dungeon guarding a treasure (details are lost to me). Everyone followed the obvious SOP -- kill trash MOBS, reach Boss, kill Boss and gain treasure. Well some enterprising, clever Wizard used two spells to bypass all that. One was a Possession spell and another was a "Distant Eyes" spell (I don't know the proper names). The wizard used the Eyes spell on the first trash MOB to gain it's LOS and then possesses it to move it down the dungeon until the next trash MOB. Upon seeing the next trash MOB, the Wizard, safely outside the dungeon, casts his "Eye" spell on this next trash MOB and then Possesses it. So after completing this combo a number of times, the Wizard has LOS and Line of Effect to the Boss MOB through the final trash MOBs and gains control of the Boss without ever entering the Dungeon.
Exploit? Possibly. But it is definitely a great example of player agency -- using the tools the world gives you in new and innovative ways.
Second Life is a 'game' designed around this principle of maximizing player agency. There are a few other MMOs like this that I haven't played. For me, the world of Second Life just wasn't interesting enough -- a science fiction or fantasy world that incorporated these concepts could be compelling I think.
Always amazed at the intelligence of MMORPG.com's forums. In a good way. Compared to many others, I find so many illuminating responses.
Anyway, getting to the point, Jon says, "It seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that it wasn't necessarily the game itself that managed to enrapture its players to the point that no game that came after would measure up. It was, instead, the mystique of something different come to life." I am also an old UO player: I played in the Dread Lord days, which is quite a bit before Trammel, and I agree with Khalathwyr in disagreeing with Jon's statement. Khalathwyr said it best in that UO felt like a world, while WoW feels like a game. I began my time in UO by exploring the world while chopping wood to craft tons of bows so a friend and I could buy a boat in order to do some fishing in the process of which we then sailed around the world. Not everyone's cup of tea, certainly, yet enough people enjoyed it that an entire new genre was spawned... But now something like this is not possible in WoW or most other MMOs out there. Khalathwyr was right when he said that in the majority of MMOs these days, it is ALL about combat. MMOs were different back then, it's not just nostalgia on our side, and it's a little disheartening to see so many think so (and especially a community leader like Jon!). My fellow MMOers, I don't think you've been treated well. (and I agree that the genre needs a reboot).
On a slightly unrelated note, someone asked "Where are the MMOFPSes?" "Where are the MMORTSes?" For MMOFPSes, let me think of a few... Planetside, Tabula Rasa, Hellgate London... oh dear. It appears they have all failed! In this case, I think publishers may be quite right in being wary. Yet: Huxley is still coming, and Fallen Earth (indie-ish) does seem to have some success. Which is good news right?
For MMORTSes, they're, um, out there. There's Evony right? lol... My personal favourite MMO of all time is a RTS: Shattered Galaxy, which you can still play (and for free with only a slight disadvantage!).
But yes. Sadly, I don't think alternative genres have had much luck, which is a shame because many of them (I thoroughly enjoyed Planetside and the above mentioned Shattered Galaxy) are quite fun. Oh well, something good will come around eventually. I just hope another company manages to get theirs out before Blizzard's next MMO smash hit. And I hope that Blizzard makes something entirely new, rather than WoW 2. On one hand, why would they bother altering a successful model? On the other hand, won't they just keep WoW going? And on the third hand, if Blizzard's next MMO fails... that'll be a harsh blow for the MMO genre.
Regardless of whats in the article I was replying to the statement I quoted. I felt that statement, prominent as it is in the opening paragraph was incorrect in its analysis. I commented on it. If you agree with me, amend the statement.
Opening paragraph. That's the key right there. You make thesis statements in the opening paragraph. They aren't analytical and neither are they in depth. They tell you what the author believes and then the author goes on to elaborate on that belief in the body of the article, which Jon did.
So, regardless of what you believe, he wrote it just fine. I have written 5 different papers over the past 2 months and each professor pointed out they wanted their papers written in such manner. Macro-level statement up front and followed by micro-level specifics in the body.
So the micro-level specifics in the body should refute the macro-level statement up front? That's silly. The micro-level specifics should support the marco-level statements. Otherwise, why make them?
LOl, now if you honestly got that out of what I wrote...man...whew...No. They support it. Which is what he did. He made the broad statement that others view WoW's success was a source of the genre's woes. Then, in the body he explained that by that he was saying that those people believe the success of wow has caused the majority of other developers to try to imitate wow's model to try to capture it's retail success. This action has essentially stunted any growth as the folks with the money in the first place to take a risk and have a good shot at pulling it off (and adding variety to the genre) won't do so because they think the wow model is the only way to make the moo-la.
That's what I got out of his article anyway. Sure, he through in some other opinions and conspiracy theories
but staying on topic, he made the broad statement in the opening and then further defined it in the body. That's how most papers get written. If they went into analysis in the first paragraph what would be the point of even having the body?
Completely open world sandbox, quantum computers and an advanced AI. That is; A huge world so there will always be somewhere that you haven't been, a server that is capable of carrying out more calculations per second than the human brain and an AI that can make use of that power to spontaniously create unique content without the need of a development team.
Okay that all sounds like science fiction and at the moment it is just that. It is not however that far down the road. Computers powerful enough to create a unique world complete with ecology already exist, it just needs to be programmed with the correct parameters. You would end up though with a working model of a world and nothing more, a simulation if you like. Quantum computers are about 20 years away and that isn't really that long. Of course it would likely be another 20 on top of that for the costs to become reasonable but there you would have a machine that with an advanced enough AI could bring that world model to life and fill it with everything it needs. By advanced AI incedently we are talking of a machine that can learn which brings up a whole range of moral issues and doomsday scenarios but assuming that whoever builds the thing has enough of a brain to make the damn power plug easy to reach you would have the perfect MMO creator. A machine faster than the human brain could generate content on demand. There would be no need for any two players to be ever given the exact same quest for instance because the machine could create unique ones for everyone, even world changing story arcs etc.
You want to create an entirely new type of MMO then there it is and it's not as science fiction or as far away as many would believe. Finding someone with the money and the nerve to do it when the technology is available however is something else entirely.
Reads this while listening to Starship. I may be pulling a chicken little but the impact of this statement hit me like a ton of bricks. Is "Rock and Roll" going to be enough? What if their next MMO is a flop. The financial standard bearer of the genre takes a big hit? Their success, many will argue, made these investors want to cash in on this gaming genre. Does a WoW flop cause a MMO recession?
Water cooler material for sure.
A blizzard flop would like be the very blow that breaks the chains of the genre.
No more investors telling designers: "But WoW does this ... so you do it too."
It'll be: "WoW did that and it blew up in their face. What can we do to grab those 11mil people?"
Investors aren't idiots, but a proven money making method is almost universally embraced over the long shot gamble. It makes financial sense ... but crushes creativity beneath it's gold plated jackboots.
Eyes were devoleped before that. Go back far enough every living thing is related. Jump forward a bit the first makings of eyes started to appare, not like we have now, but they were a start. Now every single living thing that has eyes now comes from that single source. All releated. So no, Humans and Octopus didn't just coincidently both devolope eyes, we come from the same ancestor where eyes first started!
Its funny that people keep talking about MMORPG's being rebooted when in reality it needs to have the RISK vs REWARD and sting of loss factor back in it.
Most MMO"s post WoW lack these, that and the fact that every MMO that has some type of questing system in it are either fairly lax or stupidly redundant.
MMORPG's need to go back to their roots, aka making character progression CHALLENGING to attain again, make it sting when you die or fail and put time sinks in for goodness sakes. People hate them but lets face it if its harder to progress in an MMO you value your rewards more.
What made both the original UO and Everquest so addicting was several things. The fact that it felt good to achieve something because it was both challenging and tedious, the world in those games was fairly large so exploration was fun, plus it sucked when you either DIED or LOST. Also sense of community has somewhat died in MMO's if any of you ever played Everquest in the old days then you can remember Commonlands tunnels for buying and trading goods. I just don't see that in games anymore ( unless you play EvE or Darkfall ).
Face it, MMO's now have more ease in travel, more accessibility etc etc, but in the process it dumbed down the genre and also made the game world much smaller.
MMO companies need to ask themselves now, are they in it for the mass profit or do they truly want to make a game . If its profit they seek then make another WOW clone, if they want to make a game with a dynamic world and make it truly epic then look back to what made UO and Everquest so epic.
QFT
"Then, we'd have to find an audience either open minded enough or ignorant enough of the current crop of MMORPGs that something completely outside the box wouldn't be a deterrent to enjoyment. We would need players who were willing to put aside concepts and conventions that they know are fun and look at something new as a whole. We'd need a media that was willing to do the same. This would be tough, because both of these groups consider themselves to be experts in the current product and old habits and perceptions are tough to break." - Jon Wood
I think the dyed in the wool MMO players are the people that a "new" and "innovative" game will most interest.
The problem is that lately, every new and innovative game that is hyped as such falls flat. So of course, all the old dogs are a bit jaded. We still WANT that bone, but every time someone throws garbage at us, our hackles rise a bit more.
Don't mistake this for a complete lack of interest. We ARE interested. That wonder and awe all of us felt as beginners in noobieville (for me it was my free month of UO) is what really hooked us. We were playing our single player games but in a multiplayer format. It added this element of pure chaos (other players) that simply put was addicting as hell, and was exciting to behold for the first years.
Now, the problem is that the games aren't being made anymore. They have already BEEN made, and convincing any investors that the REAL cash cow is giving players something new AND identifiable (in other words, a familiar IP, but with a drastically different game dynamic than we are used to) is the real issue.
Games simply cost TOO MUCH to make. The substantial investment of funds demands a return on that investment. Forget "the object being to make money." Game companies aren't just looking to make money. In the MMO world, they are, bottom line, attempting to stay afloat.
I agree with the above poster though in that INDIE games are really the one thing that might be able to revive this genre in a lasting way.
I have loads of ideas on how to solve common problems that are recurring in ALL current MMOs. Staleness and repativeness of quests, gold farmers and account stealing, a lack of story, a lack of dynamic content, a linear and pointless level progression...
A lack of any lasting effect on the game world. A true sense of pointlessness that is just barely able to be ignored due to going out and having fun being more expensive over the course of a month....
The problem with all these problems isn't that any of them are unsolvable. Hundreds of people have had hundreds of fantastic ideas that WILL work to fix ALL of those problems. The thing is, no investor or bean counter really wants to change the game TOO MUCH and risk not hitting that all encompassing demographic that includes the entire WoW playerbase. No one wants to risk innovation because innovation ISN'T what they think WoW made it's bucks on, and for some stupid and short sighted reason, companies that wish to stay afloat think the WoW model is the ONLY substantiated model.
This is simply untrue, but most investors and most higher company decision makers aren't interested in the entire MMO history. About where it came from, what the initial steps were for those pioneer game companies, what the games have come from and what they have become. Not enough of them are interested in the fact that in terms of maturation, we are not taking baby steps anymore, but we ARE a 15 year old stuck in a high chair.
And that's the pity. The customer base for a new and innovative project is HERE. It's always been here. But as of late, we've been playing single player games and getting out to get tans more.
Let the almighty dollar speak volumes I suppose. In time, if things pan out the way they usually do, the genre will either pull itself out of the crapper in a spasdic bout of self preservation... or it will crash and burn, and we will all be speaking fondly of those days when we could sling fireballs at each other without seeing coke adds on our elven billboards, or Hanna Montanna billboards on the side of our magic airships.
Or INDIE companies will manage to market their software and make great games without the constricting influence of having to stick to the WoW demographic, and we will all experience a golden age of MMO releases...
I'm not holding my breath of course.
I believe it is in HUGE decline.The reason is cost alone.Some of the flaws i eluded to in AION have shown to be directly related to cost.VG a brilliant effort shunned because of lack of money.
How many BIG games have actually come out over the last 5 years?4-5?that is pretty sad to say the least,instead we have seen a bazillion horrible lack of content or plain cheap looking F2P games.
We have AOC,obviously rushed for a lack of content in some areas.LOTRO,i heard was a rather smallish game,but has tons of ideas.Warhammer again looks like AION a 2 faction PVP game,and the fact it watered down crafting ,told me again a rushed out the door game.Aion the newest,again 2 factions,linear start areas ,only 2,no water physics ,super cheap cost to develop,so money must have been a factor after they lost their shirt on TR.
I cannot think of any other big games to come out??This tells me that not too many are interested in putting the huge investment into a grand game,the ones that are doing it,are doing it with things like SPEEDTREE or generated worlds,and almost no content,just dot the NPC's add some boring ass quests,allow PVP and cya later.
I would not consider Fallen Earth to be a big game,because it is full of empty space,and again has literally no content,just boring quests and the ability to PVP.Sure it has crafting but that is done VERY cheap [automated].
I am glad to see that those who work in the MMO industry realise that there is stagnation. For years I have had the impression they have been sticking their heads in the sand and it is business as usual.
The whole concept of a new direction is a very tall order, but at least this article points out that we are in a hamster cage, treading the same old quests, classes, levels and races.
As I have commented before the move to better business models and a more corporate savvy MMO industry has given rise to more AAA failures, not less. Lots of non creative staff are being paid to ensure that new MMO’s are a success, and all the software house has to show for it is pretty histograms and pie charts when the MMO fails. Back to basics guys, you won’t make a MMO that will capture the imagination of players by employing lots of accountants and executive types.
Eyes were devoleped before that...
Octopus and mamals branched off long before they developed eyes. It was indeed a parallel evolution.
You can see that in the design of the eyes, they are very similar, but have some very clear differences. The octopus optic nerve is on the outside of the eye, while the optic nerve of mammal eyes goes through the retina. They are different designs from ground up, with different advantages and disadvantages.
Octopus and mamals branched off long before they developed eyes. It was indeed a parallel evolution.
You can see that in the design of the eyes, they are very similar, but have some very clear differences. The octopus optic nerve is on the outside of the eye, while the optic nerve of mammal eyes goes through the retina. They are different designs from ground up, with different advantages and disadvantages.
Eyes have been developed a lot of different times ( think the figure is well over 6 times that we know of). Flight has also developed several times (at least 4 times)*. Not that I think an evolutionary analogy really works that well for MMOs. Convergence would require basically the same evolutionary environment at the very least, but in a post-WoW world that environment is a lot different than pre-WoW. The game is also supposed to be adapted for our enjoyment, but humans enjoy a LOT of different stuff even in computer games, so the idea only one specific model fits seems pretty silly. (Then you'd need fairly stable gene pools with relatively low mutation rates and that's just not how design or funding works...it's much more chaotic; though this is a much more arguable point I suppose)....*continues to ramble on*
*Dinosaurs (pterodactyls), birds (which is actually separate), bats, insects.
Honestly, I think how WoW has gone lately is in the right direction.* Make it so that players can make things more challenging in they want and then give them more rewards for doing the more challenging content. That let's everyone get things done, but also gives people who do stuff on hard more prestige and cool stuff.
FFXIV looks like it is taking this to the next level, where you can basically increase the difficulty of a quest in a number of ways when you pick it up. At least that's how I understand the Guildleve system.
You might grouse that this still means "everyone" (e.g. anyone who gets a bit organized, plays enough, and wants to, which actually isn't everyone at all) gets to see all the content, but you are just going to have to live with that (it ain't changing). The big benefit though is that it means MMOs can have more of an emphasis on player skill instead of dumbing down the combat system so skill is a relatively small factor. Highly skilled players and low skilled players do the same quests, but the high skilled players up the difficulty and get better rewards (and they also get to enjoy a challenge). Lower skill players still get to enjoy a challenge and complete content. Everyone wins.
I think things are headed this way...slowly.
As for death penalties, I think they are always a bit tricky to do right. I think older games had too harsh penalties myself. I think it is better to do what some games have done and reward staying alive (so if you die you lose that reward which might just be some sort of buff...I think Spellborne has that system). That should make everyone more happy about things.
*I am not saying they have the best implementation, because the problem with WoW is the combat system isn't particularly suited for high skilled play (it's too simplistic, overall, little depth). Definitely the right idea though.
"The MMO genre is stale because of WoW."
Ok, before WoW how many people were playing MMOs in, say, the US. OK, 5 years later how many people are playing MMOs?
Right, the genre has gone downhill because of WoW and the 50x or whatever additional players is just an illusion. EQ was a behemoth with 300k subs and barely touched the mass media. Now we have WoW themed ads on network TV.
And, you know, I betcha most people (the sane ones) actually are playing so long as they enjoy it at whatever level, and not one second longer.
So we have an enormously expanded fan base, scores more companies at least trying to build new games, and somehow we are at the bottom of some ill defined horrible pit with the genre?
Get over yourselves, people. Looking at the forest, I think it looks like a golden age that keeps expanding. Sure its fine to keep looking for new ideas. But sheesh. Looks like a growth industry to me. And if the most popular stuff doesn't fit your personal idea of the perfect game experience? I don't think you start by trashing stuff that, by all measures, is the most successful genre creation in history.
And all you (insert derogatory moniker) that throw EVE out as an innovative, great product. Bleeeehh. Totally free for all cut throat world. Visited it, don't want to go there no more.
Its the successful games that stifle the genre! What nonsense. If we had solely UNSUCCESSFUL games in the genre, all our problems would be solved!!! Whoo Hooo!!!
Yep (well successful game, not games). Though if you don't get why, I doubt any further clarification would do you any good. However, for everyone else out there: when a single product dominates a market so that no other product can get a toehold in... yes that does stifle the market.
Allow me a parallel example, which I admit utilizes hyperbole to make it quite clear how I mean. You have a shampoo which is THE BEST. I'm going to call it Herbal Essences because, honestly, that is the BEST. Most people used to not use shampoo at all, I mean who needs more than just some water and a comb, right? But then Herbal Essences appeared and it had some sexy commercials with women shampooing their hair and moaning in delight. I mean, werd dawg, I'm sold. The shampoos before Herbal Essences really never marketed it that way and thus weren't very popular. Honestly, shampoo users before then were thought a bit strange, a bit nerdy in their pursuit of clean hair. But with moaning women, man! Suddenly, everyone was using shampoo. It was a revolution in hair care! Now the secret of this new Herbal Essence was its STRAWBERRY SCENT. For five years everyone smelled like Strawberries and it was wonderful. But then what's this, a new inventor comes along and I'm going to call her Mrs. DOVE, and she wants to use a vanilla scent!! AMAZING! Such variety, such a wonderful idea! She takes it to the investors so she can build a factory. They say WE LOVE SHAMPOO -- but what do you mean it won't have a strawberry scent?! DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH MONEY HERBAL ESSENCES IS MAKING. IT MUST HAVE A STRAWBERRY SCENT, HOW ABOUT NINE TENTHS STRAWBERRY AND ONE TENTH VANILLA? So the inventor, who cannot build factories with her bare hands, must say okay. Parallel example end.
Does this mean that WoW / Herbal Essences is any less of a product? No it doesn't. Does it mean that it is nevertheless stifling the market? Yes it does.
Reboot was such a great animated TV series back in the day. What if they made an MMO out of that show ? Dohh wrong segment ,this isnt Dana's what if article. Realy did enjoy the reboot series tho.
EVE online did not come from any trolls are any ppl that had done things exactly like all the others. They evolved their game with very nailed down features that they thought woud make a great game. And it was a TOTALLY new epxerince when it came to the MMO genre. What other MMO game is beeing played on one server with 50-100 K ppl playing simutaniously ? None.
And another thing about EVE that is also very special when it comes to this genre. I talked about this yesterday and I will do so again today. They actually evolve their game based on SUB money. NOT on payed for expansions. And this has imropved the ENTIRE game of EVE - from starting experience - up to the top corps. And this happens with every single expansion. Right now games like AOC are talking about their payed for expansion that will in no way change the first 20 levels of the game - and just change the next 50 in minor ways.
Payed for expansions in this case actually PREVENT the games to really evolve over time. Thats why game like WOW is still stuck with the same starting quests as day one - even tho totally new CONTINENTS have been discovered in the past 5 years. And all because the developers were busy making EXTRA money with new expansions. Instead of focusing on improving the content they had. In fact - you can argue that Blizzard has infact REDUCED the value of that content since most dungeons and almost all raids from both vanilla and TBC are now pointless. New players that are coming to the games today can not enjoy the challenges of that content because the developer isn't updating the game along with the expansions they are throwing out - Just because they are focusing on getting extra money.
Shoudln't subs be enough to maintain a crew to at least evolve the old content of these games ? How can EVE do it while other games can't ?
I know this is long, but please take the time to read it.
While I totally agree with you on the originality and innovation of EVE, there are some pretty obvious reasons why some things are "easier" for CCP with EVE as opposed to another developer with an entirely different game. EVE is a niche game. And it's a very good one for people who like THAT niche!
First of all...at this time, EVE has no "characters," other than an avatar image. There are no character animations to deal with, no HUGE differences in how one zone to the next looks, artistically...it's all outer space, so they're dealing with minimalistic graphic needs in comparison to other games....at least until ambulation becomes part of the picture, and even then...they have said it's not (yet) going to be for much other than social interactions. The ship animations, even during battles, just simply don't have the graphic complexity of other more "traditional" world battles. Just the amount of bandwidth it requires to run a game like EVE, I would imagine to be greatly less than what it takes to run a more traditional MMO. If we could examine the packets delivered and received in this process....I think we'd see that rather clearly.
EVE is complex in ways that other MMOs are NOT. It is complex in it's in game economics design. It is complex in it's in game "political" design. But it is NOT as complex in it's graphic design and world spaces (no pun intended). It is lovely and sleek and sharp and focused...like a finely honed spacecraft....which makes complete sense. It's clear, sleek design FITS with the IP. It is part of what people that play the game LOVE about it. But it is also a very specifically focused niche. And...I might add....not a LOT of women play EVE. There were only a few of us really, just a year ago. We were a definitively small group.
Many women mmorpg players have been playing since the days of MUDs and certainly since the days of UO and EQ. So there is a reason that EVE has far fewer female players, and it's not a dislike of PvP...it's something much more than that.
Now this is my opinion only, but.....I think EVE caters to people who are more "left brain dominant." It is a culmination of logic, simplicity (while being underneath....very complex), mathematics, and science...as an example of the "vibe" of the game and those to which it appeals. Take WoW, for example, as the polar OPPOSITE (because it is the best example of completely opposite). WoW caters to the "right brain dominant." It is very very colorful, or "cartoony." That vivid color and whimsical nature is something that would appeal to more "right brain dominant" people. It's childlike, in a sense, and playful in it's presentation....EVE, is not. EVE presents itself much more seriously, because it caters to people who are more logic-centric and not so "artsy," for lack of a better word. These are, at their simple base, just two different personality types and ways of thinking, imagining, and processing information and images.
I could go on and on about the left brain /right brain analysis of this, but suffice it to say....while being very complex under the hood with it's game mechanics....EVE presents itself in a very clean, crisp and minimalistic graphic form. There is just less graphic complexity to it in it's present state. The more graphically heavy a game gets, the more bandwidth to communicate all those pixels. And that is only ONE reason that "EVE can do it, and others can't." The base concept allows EVE to stay this way, and actually, if it were to deviate TOO MUCH from that crisp, clean, outwardly uncomplicated appearance, while maintaining it's rich complex CORE....it's present player base would not like it much, I am betting.
Eve is a great example of why it's technology that drives the next big thing in gaming. Eve is strongly based on Elite an open ended single player space trading game en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_(video_game). At the time there was neither the computing power to drive servers or anyone with high enough bandwidth for an online version to be possible it would take 20 years and CCP for that to happen. www.gamasutra.com/features/20050923/rossignol_01.shtml
As I posted earlier maybe it's touch screen or persistent avatars you can carry from game to game that's the next big thing, but whatever it is technology will be the driving force, not a reboot.
This is definately one of the better articles I have seen from mmorpg.com. I agree with what it is suggesting. Its a sad trend throughout human history though that fresh new ideas often face heavy opposition from the ignorant masses. People are sheep and they like to follow the flock and most people simply dont have the imagination to perceive something they havent already experienced. Trying to sell these narrow minded creatures something new can be very challenging. All they want and expect are games which have keywords like dungeons, raids, endgame, loot, levels, quests etc.......basicly all the things they have seen before.
Monkey see, monkey do.
The forum poster Metalhead recently started an interesting thread in which he suggests the notion of an mmo that doesnt have levels, exp points or skill points. You create a character and then play the game to achieve goals that influence the gameworld and the other players, NOT to constantly make yourself more powerful which really doesnt serve any purpose at all. Afterall everyone is going to be max level eventually so why not just ditch the levelling process and let us get on with playing a real mmo where players interact with each other? Why do we always have to go through this single player co-op process to get there? In most of these games the players are ignoring each other as they are too busy playing against the computer in their selfish need to level up..... for what? So they can all be on a level playing field at the end. What a waste of the internets potential!
One of the things many players hate is having to grind their way through repetitive content as they follow a levelling treadmill. Many players in fact rush through this rather dull levelling process (which is the meat of the game oddly enough) as fast as they can so that they can reach the endgame content and finally be free (ahh the relief to finally be free!) to do whatever they like without having to chase the next level. Some people even pay money to have people level up for them because the process is so boring. Unfortunately even then in most mmos the endgame doesnt offer much other than a bunch of dungeons to be run through over and over again.......and then they find themselves on yet another treadmill......a gear chasing treadmill. Thats what happens when single player games are dumped on the internet and have co-op features added.......because thats all most mmos are. Single player games. We have all leveled up in single player rpgs and it seems that the brainless masses cant stop doing it in what are supposed to be multiplayer games as well.
Monkey see, monkey do.
The majority of the responses to Metalheads post have been extremely narrow minded. The common one is that people believe that all rpgs MUST have character progression. Allegedly if it doesnt have levels, exp points or skill points then its not a roleplaying game. What a load of ignorant narrow minded shit! This is EXACTLY what the article is referring to. People have had an idea stamped into their brains over a period of many years and they are incapable of thinking beyond it. Rpgs must have character progression. They MUST have it. There is NO other way. Anything else will FAIL. It can NOT be done. We MUST be rewarded. Rpgs MUST have carrots in them. Give us carrots or we wont play. We dont care if the game is fun. We dont care if we can actually roleplay a character. We dont care if there are goals to be achieved in a virtual world. We dont care about interacting with others to achieve things that matter. Just give us "individual character progression" so we feel like our efforts are worthwhile.....because it isnt worthwhile unless I can see my character change right?
Monkey see, monkey do.
The other common dumb arse response is that any game which doesnt have character progression is.......a first person shooter? WTF?! How stupid can people be! So when you reach max level in an mmo and can no longer follow any form of character progression does the game suddenly become an FPS? No of course it doesnt.
Remove the character progression and all the shitty boring level grinding that comes with it. Instead focus on making a REAL multiplayer rpg where ALL players can freely interact with each other and all of the content (because there are no levels to seperate everyone) and give us stuff to do that involves influencing each other and the virtual world we inhabit. Let us be what we want to be, do what we want to do and stop forcing us to WORK to get to parts of the game we want to play. People keep crying about wanting an open online world to play in with other people and yet when they get that they dont want the other players to be able to effect them because it "interferes with their game". Insanity.
/rant off
There are two sources of what an MMORPG could look like that are still fairly untapped - PnP D&D and fantasy movies.
The experience of PnP D&D has yet to be captured. DDO missed the boat, but came closer than many others. Some of the feeling is captured with the advent of voice servers. However, these have become more useful for combat tactical coordination and often have very little to do with roleplaying.
Look at the mechanics of a swordfight in your favorite fantasy or martial arts movie and compare to your most recent raid. The differences are partly what make todays MMORPGs so dull. In the movies, you may notice the lack of floating numbers over anyones' heads. You may also notice that when a little guy gets hit by a big guy, the little guy flies across the room, smacks into the wall, and doesn't get up. When someone is set on fire, they (and their armor) burn. There's not a lot of healing during the fights, but bandaging afterwards is important to stop people from bleeding to death. Explosions kill, instantly, and they don't care if you're friend or foe. Two fighters don't stand there whacking each other with rubber swords - they move, a lot. They attempt to get past the opponent's defenses until one delivers a mortal blow to the other - usually one hit one kill. A ranger has a low percentage chance, but can shoot someone in the eye and kill them.
What I'm getting at is that combat should be a lot more strategic and less about the damage sponge based combat we have today where the big bad mob is forced to suck health from the "tank", the healer(s) refill the tank's health, and the dps take the health from the mob. Who wants to watch a couple of sponges with little numbers over their heads? Why can't we have dynamic combat where the rogue tricks the mob into a vulnerable position, the cleric blinds the mob with a holy light, the druid lowers the defenses of the mob with some nature-ish spell, the mage zaps the mob in a now exposed vulnerable spot, and the warrior finishes it off with a well-place blow to the neck?
As far as I'm concerned, computer games are all pretty much the same thing, so I really don't think innovation is the issue. I mean how different is GTA to WoW to CoD anyway? Think about it. Yes, there are some strategy games and simulators and things like that, but the bulk of the popular games are very similar.
I could come out with a list of 'innovative' requirements as long as your arm for a new MMO, but I can guarantee most of it would have been done in one game or another at some point, just on a different scale or whatever. I feel most innovation is tech-driven, so until we get virtual reality environments to play in, nothings gonna blow your socks right off.
What I think has screwed the last few big MMO releases is lack of polish. That's right, get more polish people making games...
Seriously, investors after a quick buck and devs trying to make a name for themselves are rushing out crap to cash in. Simple as that. That, and people are picking weird-ass IPs to based there games around that no one cares about. I'm betting the setting of that new Star Wars MMO could screw it right over - WTF is that!?! SWTOR... I mean it just rolls of the tongue. Too complication. You want to pull people in, make it accessible like WoW. And yea, WAAA cry the geeks, but without subs the game dies so sometimes you need to give a little to receive.
Aryas
I think a good portion of the problem is that the scope of MMOs today aren't even in the same ballpark as MMOs of yesterday.
It used to be that MMOs were about creating a functioning virtual world, not only in game mechanics, but in the sense of social and economic components. They were meant to not only serve as a playground for players around the world to play and interact with each other in, but to immerse them within the virtual world they were part of. There was a larger emphasis on community, interacting with that community, relying on, and contributing to that community.
Many features were provided to players to participate within the virtual world to allow them to not only interact on a deeper level, but impact these virtual worlds. Whether it through player housing, complex resource/crafting systems, player vendors, there were methods for players to have a need to participate on a larger level in the virtual environment, even if they didn't quite realize it.
Today however, most MMOs seem to focus on minimizing social interaction. Not only by not providing many of the features that enable social and economic interaction, but outright designing game mechanics to specifically enable players to outright sidestep participating in the larger picture. There is more focus on fighting NPCs MOBs and completing NPC tasks than there is about interacting with other players, most of which are static and unchanging.
So really, I see the stagnation as being an over-emphasis on static non-player content, and an under-emphasis on player created content. This results in the bland and generic MMOs where players feel like the only real thing to do is hack and slash their way through the game.
I suppose what I'm really trying to say is there is too much focus on "themepark" MMOs, and that is why everyone is seeing stagnation, because it is the themepark mentality that is the epitome of static and stagnant content and gameplay.
I'm still reading through the posts on this thread, and I'm really enjoying the discussion.
I started playing MMO's in 1995 with The Realm, and have played pretty much all of them since then. I started playing them because I've been roleplaying since 1975 and I thought it would be awesome to step into another world. And it was!
However, I think it's high time that someone brought the "RPG" back into MMO's. Case in point, Warhammer, the game that I have been enjoying with a core group of roleplayers, just shut down the last RP server, Phoenix Throne. I tried to roleplay on the new server, but I was immediately yanked out of the "world" and into "game" due to a plethora of stupid names and people jumping up and down all over like rabbits on amphetamines. So I went back to LotRO. The gameplay isn't as much of what I would like, since I love PvP, but the immersion is my priority, and that game has it in spades.
Companies need to stop calling the game an MMORPG if they can't be arsed enough to support the RPG part.
Help me, BioWare, you're my only hope.
I read some posts, but they pile up..
Ill try not to repeat what others have said.
What have made people enjoy simplistic games since the dawn of time?
- Something different than everyday life
- Social interaction
- Challenge, ether physical or mental
- A sense of accomplishment / excellence
My view of todays MMOs
We have leveling games, grinding games, social games..the list goes on.
What i feel that all the sub genres have in common is materialism.
These games appeal to peoples greed, like a carrot on a string.
And even worse, people feel superior to others becouse they have a blinking sword, fancy armor..
What i realized when playing MMOs is that i dont really enjoy all the time i put in to get that sword. And when i have it, theres a better sword that looks awesome. If i put in more time..
So where am i going with this? If you use countless hours of youre life doing something you dont really enjoy, and paying for it. Then youre just stupid.
Prototyping
I really think the entertainment industry as a whole need to rethink theyre whole idea of fun.
Experiencing something over and over is usualy horribly boring.
To counter that you need a fresh idea. This is the core of the problem.
We see things that allready exist, and we get overly focused on it.
Theres allso the prejudice factor that seem to be etched into peoples brains.
Before something new become popular it usualy get bashed half to dead. Ironicly everyone get all exited when its up for grabs.
I really dont think games need to be re-invented. As i said, its repetitive.
Recycling the really good bits, perfecting it, and adding something new. Thats what id like to see.
Reinventing the wheel is fine, but unless you know how to counter gravity i think youre stuck.
The magical hook
Nowadays the items we buy in the store are usualy made to break.
At some point we need something new, expensive. And its usualy the same as the old, just slightly different.
For games i feel this is a big problem. They spend millions on making a game, and make everything from scratch. Its stupid, why not add hooks?
Hooks are useful, you can hang stuff on them. If you want to hang something else you replace the old thing on the hook.
My point is that someone create something awesome, like a computer program. Then they discard it when it served its purpuse.
If they added a hook, they could reuse at least parts of it. Its prolly something beeing used all the time, but considering how timeconsuming and expensive the games have become, i dont think its used enough.
User content
The players in a game is a pretty powerful resource. Some people have the skills to create new content.
I remeber when Half-Life came out, they had the WorldCraft editor that the players could use to mod the game. Theres been many games since, that allow the users to create something, even if its just a toony character that looks ridiculous.
Ill really like to someone make a game that let the community create something. Iam not talking about pre-created items in a crafting system.
Imagine if you were handed a hammer and showel and a voice says "If you follow these rules, you can build a house. However youd like".
Id build a nice house, and defend it with my showel.
This type of creating would take a game to a new level. Imagine a clan/guild that have theyre own city. They enforce the law, wich they made.
I think the feeling youd get if you walked into that city, it would be alot better than a pre-created town filled with npcs.
With binding contracts between npcs, players and players. There could be real trading and industry.
The nice thing about involving the community is that alot of people get exactly what they want. And the game company just have to set the limits, without doing much work.
End
Id like to see proper rewards and greater penalties and risks. The whole grindfest concept need to go. Real life player skills and ingenuity should be what games are about. Not how many bling-blings you have and that you wasted the last years of youre life.
Some realism is allso lacking. When i shoot someone in the head, they should die.
And they should not come running back 5 minutes later.
Lastly, the industry wont try major changes as long as people pay them money.
You can scream all you like, if you finance a major company, you are to blame.
"The customer is allways right".
So, i think the big gaming companies just need a good kick in the right direction.
I would have to agree with Regen.
All content these days is hard-coded. As imaginative and well-done as it may be, once you've been through it a few times, it gets stale. Dynamic content would be a welcome addition to the genre. Give the players the tools to create content. Be it, town governance as previously mentioned, or the ability to create dynamic dungeon encounters.
The collective creativity of the players will always trump that of the developers...there are simply more of us.
Create a persistent world and let the collective creativity of your playerbase to run rampant. Not only are you going to save a load in developing expansions, but you are guaranteeing that the playerbase shapes the world to be one that they will always enjoy. If they find something lacking...they have the tools to change it.
"Yep (well successful game, not games). Though if you don't get why, I doubt any further clarification would do you any good. However, for everyone else out there: when a single product dominates a market so that no other product can get a toehold in... yes that does stifle the market."
Oh please. I am a company with the means to develop something. I am a venture capitalist, whatever. Before EQ, do I have any interest in a big investment in MMOs? After EQ is a success, yes now it doesn't look so stupid. Hmm, maybe Blizzard looked at it this way? Who knows? Now after WOW...hey there's big money, POSSIBLY. So maybe its EASIER now?
Your comment only makes sense for a monopoly/oligopoly, where prevention of competition is real. Let's see, before EQ how many new MMOs were there in the previous 5 years? OH,,, one maybe, UO? After EQ, many, and many had some success like DAOC. And after WOW...how many MMOs on the game board? Sure a lot of junk. A lot of disappointments. But that's how it works and it shows people are trying.
And now for more opinion that will gall you...my pick for the most important MMO release of the next year.
STO? Nope. I would like it to be but my money is on the people with resources and a history of success.
Cataclysm. Sorry if that ruins your day. Or maybe I am not sorry. A lot hangs on what innovation comes with this expansion. It could be a big flop, but whatever happens it will be the biggest news of next year.
Or as I say, maybe someone in a garage will make the next killer MMO! Hey, I can dream too.
From the article:
"...we would have to find qualified, competent developers who had never played an MMO...
"Just take a minute and consider the possibilities that this might open up. How, for example, would someone who had never head of the concept of instancing decide to tackle their content? How would people unfamiliar with raiding and gear grinding handle the concept of an endgame? The possibilities are endless.
"This, my friends, could lead not to the innovation that so many of us have been begging for, but instead to the sense and feeling of true invention that captured so many people's imaginations during the birth of the genre."
I completely disagree. Willful isolation and ignorance is never the correct course of action, it creates a stagnant pool of ideas. In order to fully understand why we have done what we've done, we must examine it carefully and formulate probable solutions from what we know, not from what we don't know.
When we need to design something new, we don't go into a trance-like meditative state and hope the muse strikes in time for the deadline. No, we search for what has been done, why it has been done, how it could be done differently, and how we can improve upon the old formulas if we get no new plausible concepts. It is a very scientific process.
Unfortunately, this process is stripped from game development as people like Bobby Kotick attempt to keep the status quo and live off the fat of the soon-to-be-immobile industry. Complacency leads to stagnancy. We as developers are complacent with our jobs because we're paid to make games, not to innovate. You see where this leads.
New ideas are formulated from old ones. In order to make any use from old ideas, one must first understand them and their nature.
If a developer told to design a massively multiplayer game has never played one, and they are cut off from the rest of the world, the end design will be something akin to the first MUDs - a coarse and unrefined prototype of the MMORPGs we have today. That's taking a step back, not forward.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Innovation stems from knowledge, not ignorance.
These big game developers need to stop trying to 'knock one out of the park' and work on a few niche games where they can take some chances. I don't think the players are a problem here, unless you are trying to get millions of subscribers to try a new MMO game concept. You will have to start off with some niche games, and those features that are successful will filter their way out into the mainstream naturally, or they will fade into game programming obscurity. There is very little innovation now, because everyone is trying to get WoW sub numbers, and they can't afford to gamble their insanely large investments.
SEED THE GAME
Some of you may remember a little game that was dead on arrival called, SEED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_%28computer_game%29
SEED was slated to be a scientific/political (non-combat) game based around player cooperation to deal with a "desert island" scenario where people on a space ship were supposed to land on a far away planet that had been terraformed, but when they arrived, they found out it had not. They also had no communication with Earth, so it was up to them to find a way to survive. (the description on the wiki page is much better than my Cliffs notes.)
The developers had planned to release the game with the players stranded on a breaking down, malfunctioning ship, then let the players ultimately decide how the story and gameplay would evolve with future game development. At least this is how I remember the concept being presented. The whole thing intrigued me to no end, and I was a member of the forums and was in closed beta (read: pre-alpha). The whole project just seemed so interesting and had a ton of potential that wasn't wrapped in combat like nearly all other MMORPG games are.
Unfortunately, they didn't have the funding to pull it off, and they tried to launch the game way too early, which is something we see with a lot of indie games, and it was shut down very shortly after launch. I wish they would have preserved the game's website with all the old forums and information on it, but they took it down.
This game wouldn't have grabbed millions of players, but it had the potential to be an 'EVE' in it's own way. The point is, there are people out there with awesome ideas, but no one will give them money. The responsibility for this genre not evolving lays completely in the laps of the corporations who will only fund "sure wins" that rarely ever win. Yes, it's their money, but they are the ones killing this genre if anything truly is. It's no coincidence that the Movie industry has a lot of regurgitated movies these days too. The same people and companies who are dumbing down the movies, are doing the same thing to the games.
It's marketing 101, really. Design your product for the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR to ensure the largest market. The only problem is, that leaves a good portion of people who don't want stupid products, out in the cold. We are also a ripe market just waiting to be tapped if anyone had the balls to do so.
I'm glad you mention FPS mmos - they're something I quite enjoy.
But in a similar vein to my earlier post...
Tabula Rasa may eventually have been a great game. I played it at release. The FPS was a breath of fresh air. It had a great atmosphere, with ships flying around and dropping mobs off, and mobs attacking cities and players able to attack and re-take said cities. TR had one of the most alive gameworlds I've ever played in.
But TR was going to be one thing and then halfway through its development cycle they decided to make a wholly new game. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that when they reached their deadline for release, the game wasn't actually finished.
TR's failure is no reflection at all on the type of mmo it tried to be.
Hellgate London... As a single player game, I enjoyed it. But I looked at the $15 a month subscription fee and the semi-mmo that would get me and immediately labelled it a rip-off. There was no way I was ever going to play the online version. I think it's like CO charging a subscription AND having an item mall. It's overpriced. Overpriced products don't sell - short of some seriously orgasmic marketing.
I never played Planetside so don't know why it bombed, but I doubt it was because it coloured outside the lines.
But Darkfall I have played. Really enjoyed the FPS again, but it was plagued by some seriously poor game design elements. FPS definitely isn't its problem.
These failures all have clearly identifiable causes and they have nothing to do with trying to be different.
There have been some positive developments on this front.
Icarus (the folk who made Fallen Earth) set out with a plan not just to develop Fallen Earth, but to develop an MMO development platform, with which they'd make Fallen Earth. In a way, Fallen Earth is just a product sample - their ultimate goal is to entice others to use their platform to make other mmos.
That kind of platform opens up interesting possibilities. I don't know what their precise funding model is, but they seem to be claiming on their site to be able to halve development costs. That means mmo developers using their platform can feasibly develop mmos for smaller audiences.
I see that kind of trend continuing, whether with Icarus or someone else.
Spore is another excellent example - the creature editor allows anyone to create whole, moving creatures from individual parts and with almost unlimited scope for variation. And the amount of data each creature design requires is miniscule.
And of course there's the TES construction modules, and many strategy games before it have allowed users to create their own maps with terrain editors.
The technology is there and I think it's only a matter of time before we see affordable "make-your-own-mmo" packages that will allow for the kind of variety you'd like to see.
There have been some positive developments on this front.
Icarus (the folk who made Fallen Earth) set out with a plan not just to develop Fallen Earth, but to develop an MMO development platform, with which they'd make Fallen Earth. In a way, Fallen Earth is just a product sample - their ultimate goal is to entice others to use their platform to make other mmos.
That kind of platform opens up interesting possibilities. I don't know what their precise funding model is, but they seem to be claiming on their site to be able to halve development costs. That means mmo developers using their platform can feasibly develop mmos for smaller audiences.
I see that kind of trend continuing, whether with Icarus or someone else.
Spore is another excellent example - the creature editor allows anyone to create whole, moving creatures from individual parts and with almost unlimited scope for variation. And the amount of data each creature design requires is miniscule.
And of course there's the TES construction modules, and many strategy games before it have allowed users to create their own maps with terrain editors.
The technology is there and I think it's only a matter of time before we see affordable "make-your-own-mmo" packages that will allow for the kind of variety you'd like to see.
Thanks for the reply, and I agree. I didn't know that about Icarus. I bought FE and started playing it, but exploration is a huge gaming feature for me (I learned) and the desert southwest as presented in FE was too boring to hold my interest. I wish them well in their plans to make an MMO creation platform.
Spore: I followed Spore for a long time before launch, and became interested in the methods they used to program it. Namely, the procedural generation / procedural animation which was used. That technology has the potential to really level the playing field for smaller game developers as it matures. One of the biggest expenses and time sinks in game dev is the art assets. Being able to "generate" most those assets with code rather than create them manually could save millions on a large MMO, especially when you need to populate huge game maps with natural looking terrain, flora and fauna.
Check out this indy game in development that is almost all procedurally generated. It's a real trip:
http://www.quelsolaar.com/love/index.html
I think the idea of having an entirely new crop of developers create something novel is what we all want to see. That is to say, sometimes we do need to reinvent the wheel. Thinking stems from ignorance -ignorance is what allows a person to pursue knowledge. So in the case of games, finding potential flaws in the current model of MMORPGs and correcting them is definitely something worth doing as it leads to innovation, but it doesn't lead to invention as I think Mr. Wood was saying.
World of Warcraft is a prime example of developers innovating the current genre. They had a goal in mind: "Let's make a game that anyone can get into, and let's have it so people can share this experience easily together." The end result was an extremely popular game, but it wasn't something new.
So, while it's not necessary for a developer to have never played an MMORPG before to make something really awesome, I think it is necessary to take a step back - away from the bounds that have defined MMORPGs thus far - to do something really new.
Take the Katamari series for example. There was nothing like it before and it ended up being a big hit. There is room for a new experience in MMORP gaming, the question is: Who is going to step up and make it?
And are gamers open-minded enough to accept it?
The idea that the entire MMORPG genre need to be rebooted is a frivolous idea at best. The entire MMORPG genre has been to one type of player (ie. those of us who enjoy mindless quests and grind), with the few exceptions (Ex. Eve Online, Sims Online, Second Life etc.). Now in order for those of us who are rather sick of the norm, there needs to be change in how MMORPG's are designed.
Instead of being designed to the majority, which in the corporate mind generates money, design the game to fit the individual. If the individual enjoys what he/she sees then and only then will they invest both time and money into a game. The corporate mindset as it is now only sees that it does not necessarily matter what the individual experiences, but rather what the majority experiences. If the majority is feeling happy then in turn the majority will stay, but this is clearly wrong. If the majority is happy, but the individual lacks an experiences he himself enjoys by himself then their is no reason to stay after they lose their initial euforia.
Example you are at a party everyone is enjoying themselves, but then you come to the realization that you are no longer necessary to the party and are being ignored, well then you leave, nobody notices or cares. It is only afterwards that you realise you have started a chain reaction your friend which you invited over noticed you leave, and this in turn causes him and everyone else to leave around the same time. The party sucks its only the people who make it fun. (unless of course it is rather early and your just a jackass and a loner)
Just like sheep if we no longer feel on an individual scale that we are happy we will follow suit and leave. In order to keep the sheep keep it happy or at least make it think other sheep are there.
How do you make a game to fit the individual, well now that is hard, and this could also be why corporate dislikes the idea, because it takes money and a shit load of time. Players need a presence among their peers, in order to accomplish this each individual therefore must be unique (ie. player created objects, avatars weapons). When a player walks into a room filled with noobs they will ask questions about how they did something because nobody else has done it. In a sense the creation of an MMORPG is the creation of an entirely new world through physics, chemistry, and biology, and must adjust dramatically over time just like the four seasons (without the global warming).
Sandbox games like pre-NGE SWG handled this by giving us many options and combinations of options so that not only could we build a fairly unique character, but we could also forge our own story through the game, however we wanted to express and experience it. That was gameplay from an individual level. Some people chose to play the hero roles, but many people did not. Some just wanted to explore or create, some wanted to be social or political.
As broken as SWG was, it was enough of a sandbox to hand us the tools to do this, and get out of our way, whether on purpose or accident. We didn't feel like we were playing a game. We felt like we were projecting ourselves into a virtual world, and most of the time the real world fell away through immersion. I'm not saying SWG was the end-all be-all of games. I'm saying that we have moved away from creating deep, diverse game worlds, and have literally thrown everyone into Disneyland expecting them to remain entertained when they ride the same or similar rides over and over again for months on end.
These combat theme parks leave out the those people who enjoy things other than combat, and you end up with a game full of the same aggressive people, and no artists, scientists, musicians, etc. This is one of the reasons they are boring for me, and they are becoming boring to more and more people as time goes on. Once you've spent a couple years playing theme-parks, they are all the same. SEED intrigued me because it was a completely different take on MMO play. I would have liked to have seen how that game evolved had it been properly funded.
I don't think MMOs are in a decline, consider this ask any person who's got a character on any grind game thats over level 50 (50% to end game) which they like more console games or MMOs. I'm confident they'll say MMO. I know personally whenim on anything but an MMO, i feel like im completely wasting my time, id rather read a book... So what im getting at is, MMos will never die the genre is now a foundation for newer things to come.
Personally, Ive found that games that don't force level grinds just so you can get to the next area or match your friends, to be much more interesting.
Take Wurm online for instance its a small game mostly due to a lack of dev interest in getting to big, also its limited funding however its a game with little to no developer made content, you have forests deserts and oceans things you'd find on any world, and the players make the world amazing and interesting. Lets consider that on wow games your gonna dungeon crawl and fight monsters and so on, but why? why are you doing thous things as am, player i mean, its certainly not for the flavor text your didn't read, no its to grind to the next level so you can get a moment of breath before moving on to the next grind, id like to see my effort reflected in the world im entering, if i attack and kill 50 worgs they better be dead for awhile because how can 50 worgs be born (spawn) in one patch of woods ever few seconds?
Take mortal online for instance, no levels just skills, now ill admit fresh landed and thous who have had time to train up they're skillz are on two different levels, the game is so much more interesting when you can log in, give it a few hours not months, and your already a big help to your friends or guild.I mean even if i cant swing the best sword as fast or often i can still toss around a few heals that do sway a battle in our favor.
Honest, I'd just like to see more games that focus on the world, and giving the people in it more of a role, im tired of these constant single player games that you can walk around with millions of people. How can it be so interesting when you can barely make an impact on the world. In real life, most anything you do effects the people around you, how is it ok for us all to have exactly the same experience. I say death to the single player games posing as MMOs.
Meridian 59, The Realm, UO, Lineage, just to name a few. There were quite a few more if you put the small effort in to looking them up.
I don't want to turn this great thread into a crazy SWG/NGE discussion, but this post reminded me of one of those "aha" moments I've had with this genre.
It was post NGE change, and the uproar was still very heated. There was this long thread on their forums about the Scout profession, which had been dropped. Folks were sharing their stories about hunting and camping with friends, capturing great screenshots, and the fun RP they experienced with the profession (while also ranting/raving about its demise).
A dev was dropping little posts in the discussion, and at one point, in an seemingly snarky tone, asked how folks could actually have "fun" doing virtual camping. The post caused an immediate firestorm.
For me, though, it was an "aha" moment. One that, now, seems to reflect more and more of the industry (and not just the NGE developers). That dev specifically, and most of that team probably, had a VERY DIFFERENT "philosophy" regarding what is "fun" and what mmo's should do...at least, different from what the players of THAT game had. The change may even have been as benign as going from "do what ever makes you happy" to "everybody likes adventures"...but, it was a change none the less. Changes in "philosophy" make a much bigger impact than most expect, because the change never stops at one place. It permeates the entire game.
Recently, I followed a game that planned to be single-player with an innovative online component. Over two years, the philosophy changed from that to a game that was equal in single and multiplayer modes, to, finally, an mmo that needs subscription fees, with an unequal single player experience that is designed more as a preview.
As you can imagine, the change in philosophy over those two years rubbed A LOT of players the wrong way, lead to a lot of lost fans, and hurt the final product (thanks to the mish-mash of designs that got cobbled together from the different time periods of the games development life).
Point being: The developers did more damage by changing their ideas on WHAT they wanted their game to be than if they had just stuck it out with what they originally envisioned. AND, the issue was compounded by the fact that the NEW philosophy was even FURTHER away from what the players philosophy was. That's poor execution...no matter what FIELD you are in.
I could go on...but no need to blather. Thanks for the reminder of that "aha" moment....its something I hadn't thought about in a while, and its fitting that this thread would bring it back up. :)
I hope, I can draw a good corolation with this.
Comic books have had thier ups and downs in industry. In 1989, comics got a boost of attention because the first "Batman" movie came out. This set off chains of reactions to the whole of the comic industry. New publishers popped up along with tons of new writers and artists. Were they any good? Some were great while others were shlock dealers. The way comics were reguarded changed, Marvel went public with its stock and more movies were commissioned. You would think it was a good period for comics, right?
By the time that "Batman and Robin" the forth film bombed at the box office and was an insult to comic fans the comic industry was killing itself. Greedy publishers were more into marketing Multi-covers of the same issues with thin stories and lower and lower panel count. Some books even released more than one issue per month to follow season trends of buyers. The industry standards suffered and quality of product dropped. A comic could be sold merrily on its cover rather than being of any deep significance. Was it all bleak? No, there were a few gems among the shlock but they were very few.
This period in comic industry is knows as the "Speculator Era". Folks were not reading books as often as they were buying them as investments. This trend encouraged publisher to get the comics out as fast and often as possible reguardless of content. Marvel and DC Comics were guilty but other publishers didn't help as some books amounted to artists making intersting "splash pages" after "splash pages" with little connection of story. A splash page is a one pic panel used to set a stage of a story.
Publishers went bankrupt in the mid-90's as customers quit buying this shlock. Have the practices stopped? Mostly, but a few still use these practices to maximize sales to the Hard Core comic fans.
I believe the MMO genere is in a type of "Speculator Era" with the success of WOW like the first "Batman" movie. What will come of this period of the genere of poor low quality games rushed to market before they are playable? The MMO genere as a whole will be found to be un-viable as a whole at some point and development and funding will dry up. It will be left with only a few companies supporting a handful of popular games with little entry. IP holders will ignore pitchmen in mass and find new ways to captialize on thier franchies without as high an investment. If MMO's continue the current trend, investors will become wise and pass on such projects.
Can this direction change? Sure, but it takes educated investors willing to take a chance. It takes folks willing to sacrifice investment time for a good product. It will also take a product to be released that is on par in quality to WOW. A product that is designed with long term goals and not "get rich quick" box sales marketing. It will take a dev team that is professional and dedicated to making that product the best they have ever done. If a member slacks or doesn't take the product seriously, transfer or fired. "Divas are left at the door."
Its just a game, right? Is 11 million subscriptions just a game to a investor?
There have been some positive developments on this front.
Icarus (the folk who made Fallen Earth) set out with a plan not just to develop Fallen Earth, but to develop an MMO development platform, with which they'd make Fallen Earth. In a way, Fallen Earth is just a product sample - their ultimate goal is to entice others to use their platform to make other mmos.
That kind of platform opens up interesting possibilities. I don't know what their precise funding model is, but they seem to be claiming on their site to be able to halve development costs. That means mmo developers using their platform can feasibly develop mmos for smaller audiences.
I see that kind of trend continuing, whether with Icarus or someone else.
Spore is another excellent example - the creature editor allows anyone to create whole, moving creatures from individual parts and with almost unlimited scope for variation. And the amount of data each creature design requires is miniscule.
And of course there's the TES construction modules, and many strategy games before it have allowed users to create their own maps with terrain editors.
The technology is there and I think it's only a matter of time before we see affordable "make-your-own-mmo" packages that will allow for the kind of variety you'd like to see.
There are a number of 'mmorpg in a box' development packages already available.
Can't read through 93 replies to see if anyone else has said this, so sorry if it's been said :)
Jon, you say "we would have to find qualified, competent developers who had never played an MMO, and had their own set of ideas about how best to handle the idea of taking the core of a role playing game, either the electronic version or the pen and paper version, and create an online world that will allow thousands of players to exist and interact within."
I would argue that is exactly what the developers are doing WRONG. The people who developed those other games were developers too, so in essence, you're recycling someone else's game into a different form, and relying on technology development to support it. This is why MMOs cost so freakin' much time and effort (not money, they're pretty cheap products actually) and virtually always disappoint - everywhere you fail in technology, you fail the game design.
I would say that it's far better to take the environment of an MMO, make it the best it can possibly be, and then see what kind of games we can play in it. And I don't mean minigames, I mean "how big and awesome of a game can we pull off with what we've got to work with?"
Right there, you sidestep all of the typical bull you need to go through to make a game work in an MMO. Now you can go ahead and hire game design people to make something that's as fun to play as it can be within the limits of the system. This is where you'll see the innovation that you (and we all) want, because you're giving the design people freedom to innovate, instead of compromising or outright cutting their great, innovative ideas because the technology won't support it (or will cost too much to do so).
I just thought of something- this is pretty much what Cryptic is doing. They created an engine and are now using it for Champions Online and Star Trek Online - two radically different gameplay experiences. Hmmmm.....
I don't want to turn this great thread into a crazy SWG/NGE discussion, but this post reminded me of one of those "aha" moments I've had with this genre.
It was post NGE change, and the uproar was still very heated. There was this long thread on their forums about the Scout profession, which had been dropped. Folks were sharing their stories about hunting and camping with friends, capturing great screenshots, and the fun RP they experienced with the profession (while also ranting/raving about its demise).
A dev was dropping little posts in the discussion, and at one point, in an seemingly snarky tone, asked how folks could actually have "fun" doing virtual camping. The post caused an immediate firestorm.
Did anyone tell him "the same way you used to have fun just hanging around with your friends, before you had your brain replaced with an eggplant"?
I think the idea of having an entirely new crop of developers create something novel is what we all want to see. That is to say, sometimes we do need to reinvent the wheel. Thinking stems from ignorance -ignorance is what allows a person to pursue knowledge. So in the case of games, finding potential flaws in the current model of MMORPGs and correcting them is definitely something worth doing as it leads to innovation, but it doesn't lead to invention as I think Mr. Wood was saying.
World of Warcraft is a prime example of developers innovating the current genre. They had a goal in mind: "Let's make a game that anyone can get into, and let's have it so people can share this experience easily together." The end result was an extremely popular game, but it wasn't something new.
So, while it's not necessary for a developer to have never played an MMORPG before to make something really awesome, I think it is necessary to take a step back - away from the bounds that have defined MMORPGs thus far - to do something really new.
Take the Katamari series for example. There was nothing like it before and it ended up being a big hit. There is room for a new experience in MMORP gaming, the question is: Who is going to step up and make it?
And are gamers open-minded enough to accept it?
Knowledge is never inhibiting, closed-mindedness is.
Ignorance is bliss and willful complacency (it is taking solace in the belief that there is nothing new to explore). It is what defines a closed-minded and mentally stagnant individual.
When you are taught how to do something, or how not to do something, you are establishing dogma and what is known as "functional fixation." That is closed-mindedness: establishing a conclusion and law instead of a theory. Theories can change and be flexible, laws cannot. When one cannot reconsider their position on something, they can be considered defiantly ignorant and closed-minded.
The more you know, the better. But what also matters is how you know.
Innovation happens in a non-linear way: a not-so-obvious solution to a simple problem. You cannot get that unless you understand the problem and what has already been attempted to solve it (lest you be doomed to repeat it).
World of Warcraft took the idea of Ultima Online and Everquest, as is evident from the UI, journal, and combat mechanics, and simply perfected it. The world's innovators are forgotten when the perfectionists take the gold and polish it. You are silly to believe that WoW is an original and innovative concept.
Needless to say, the designer of Katamari Damacy had played many video games before coming up with his own idea.
"Lead developer Keita Takahashi said that the team was aiming for four key points in developing the game: novelty, ease of understanding, enjoyment, and humor. Iwatani compared the game to Namco's Pac-Man, which focused on simplicity and innovation, and served as a template for future games from the company. At one point during development, Takahashi "proactively ignored" advice from Namco to increase the complexity of the game."
Is there anything ignorant about this man? He chose to decline the established dogma of his publisher, and to great success. Had he been ignorant, he would have listened to what he was told by Namco, and we would not have the fun game that is Katamari Damacy.
Will Wright is another open-minded individual. He thought up Sim City after playing with a level editor for one of his earlier games. He admitted that the level editor was more entertaining than the game itself, and so he wanted to play with that idea and make it into something other people could enjoy.
If he had never played a video game or even worked on one, we would not have had Sim City, The Sims, or SPORE's amazing creature creator.
Ignorance does not breed innovation. Functional fixation does not breed innovation.
Knowledge and open-minded theory application are the keys to creative invention.
First let me say that I am an ex Red 5 Studios, Blizzard, and Origin Programmer / Designer so I know a LOT about the internals of MMO's. With that, here is my plan... "The Paradoxical Plan" for my MMO Futures.
I have taken it upon myself to reinvent this genre by reinventing the way a video game company works. My first change is the new term GGU for Gargantuan Game Universe vs. Massively Multiplayer Online. Think of it as the Anarchy Online model of one server versus multiple "Shards" or "Servers", whatever your brand is calling them.
I am doing something I believe (I may be wrong though) that no one else has done. I am putting all my design, programming, hr, and any future docs for the development of this game on the net. I want other game studios to rip us off so other people know they stole something from us. A clear and presense of who came up with what. We may have come up with the idea, but you implemented it better than us, that's cool, but as a programmer and designer I want a track record... So I am starting one. I encourage other companies to SHOW they are not greedy like this. I dare them to. This is how I am planning and, "crosses-fingers" will get a successful company that isn't about making money but about making great games the players want to make.
Below is a link to my personal forums. It includes things such as my religion, psychic and supernatural phenomenon that I have seen, stories from the video game industry, sexual and profane material, so it is an 18+ site. (I haven't checked the legal issues of this, I am just being cautious.)
www.spiraledsouls.com/
Go to that link, agree to go to the forms. (Sorry for redirecting people from your forums to mine, but I encourage them to stay here!) Or open another tab, drink a jolt, and join me in the world of video game development.
Go to the VAIN17 forum to find the link to my design docs and such and I dare you to code them faster than me. lol.
-Jenuine "Daniel" Lee Buckler
I find it interesting that this article discusses that the industry needs a reboot and what it would take to have a new kind of MMORPG made... when there is one already listed on this very site that is under development to do that very thing. The game is changing much of what is normal in the clone MMOs we play.
I became interested in the game when I read the forums here and learned that it is not a grind MMO game. There are no monsters that pop back into existance to kill over and over. The world is not static, time moves on the world changes every day. Monsters and NPCs live lives, have agendas. Player actions can affect changes in the world. Players live personal stories and don't do the same little dumb quests that everyone else does. NPCs don't stand around and hand out the same quests to all players. Quests are big fantasy novel style non-linear adventures that differ for each player based on the players actions during the quests. And much more.
Sure, it's not done, and from what they have said, still early in graphics (though far in technology and design). But... it is an innnovative new MMO that breaks the mold. Perhaps you should ask the devs at MMO Magic what it is taking to make a new kind of MMO? The game is Citadel of Sorcery, and yes, I'm a big fan, but this is exactly the kind of game this article is about, and it is being made now.
There's nothing to discuss! To "reboot'', designers should simply come up with a new way to conceive quests and questing.
And the genre will be "re-imagined"... they simply have to see quests outside of their "box" and wow's box. Personally, modesty aside, I can come up with 20 new ways to do quests(as generic concept of doing tasks). What about reversing the quest concept? The routine says you take a quest from a damn NPC with his DAMN exclamation mark, and then you go to the cued place. What if you just pass by places, "do something" to them, so in a way you assign yourself a task, then you summarize what you have done, your "achievements", not as in how many rats' testicles you've collected naturally, but for example what building you destroyed, which person you killed, if you extinguished fire, irrigated a field, then you go to an NPC whose profession feels linked to what you did, a hunter, a farmer, vendor, trader, and SEE if your custom "voluntary" quest gives rewards, with a calculation of relevance.
Just an idea.
Beside questing everythng is secondary, character progression is the activity we do the most, and obviously it's the one that determines the game's "personality", if it's either a clone of WoW-subgenre or not.
take a game like the old SWG (i dont care if you dont want to hear about swg).
Take the crafting and resource gathering it had then. Instead of making the player log into the game and walk around each planet, design a browser based interface that players could just open their browser, log in, and see each planet. From there they could still manually sample each spot on the planet to find the highest concentration. Then either place and gather resources from the browser as well, or put in an order for a player in game to do it. Offering payment of whatever, cash, % of the take, special xp that the in game player could use for whatever.
Make it so the browser player gets additional perks for having friends to help or as neighbors or whatever.
let crafters use the browser too. To craft, advertise, search prices, restock vendors, ect..make it so they get additional bonus for getting friends to help or be nieghbors. Let them place orders for in game players to transfer goods, or supply looted materials.
Make money from advertising or small fee's that could be bypassed by getting more friends to help or be neighbors. give them game time credits if they ever want to sub to the real game, where they could view and decorate their shops. Charge higher prices, bypass the need to pay for work orders to be filled by players. You could even have set prices that browser users must use to control inflation and supply standard equipment so it's always available to newer players for good prices. or let in game players sell bad resources to them because they get perks for having more browser friends that let them condense large amounts of crap into very tiny amounts of good resources only usable in the browser, or they can pay to bypass this and re-sell in game at set prices. or sub and sell them for whatever to whoever. But these kind of abilities are from gaining new friends in the browser portion. So someone could just use a browser alt, but they would still have to bring in friends to gain abilities.
Allow the browser crafter to pay a lower sub to alter their browser char to a crafting only char only access crafting skills in game..no combat.
Just generic ideas off the top of my head, but the more in depth systems you have, the more groups you could target and offer web based clients to. the more people you get to play there, the more people will switch over to subscriptions. The more your game will be acceptable to the masses, NOT accessable only.
Now this might not get 10 million subs, but it might get you 100k more, or keep your game supplied with new people.
Why make an entirely new free web based mmo thats free to play and try to tempt them to buying things they don't want, instead of easing them into an already made cash cow, and doing so because they and their friends want to.
Obviously there are alot of things wrong with what i suggested, but they're just suggestions. I know it wouldnt work as described above. But it's an idea, rather than following SOE down the shitter. It would be rather easy to experiement instaed of designing a game based off your spying abilities and horrible marketing.(except blizz, they know how to do both:))
Chaeper than buying a company and hoping they can reproduce their success when no one else can.
It would be free-basing inspiration to current designers too if they could get something like that started. The different ways to do it are endless.
Spelling and grammer errors are there for a reason if anyone bothers to read this drivel.
Thanks for the reply, and I agree. I didn't know that about Icarus. I bought FE and started playing it, but exploration is a huge gaming feature for me (I learned) and the desert southwest as presented in FE was too boring to hold my interest. I wish them well in their plans to make an MMO creation platform.
Spore: I followed Spore for a long time before launch, and became interested in the methods they used to program it. Namely, the procedural generation / procedural animation which was used. That technology has the potential to really level the playing field for smaller game developers as it matures. One of the biggest expenses and time sinks in game dev is the art assets. Being able to "generate" most those assets with code rather than create them manually could save millions on a large MMO, especially when you need to populate huge game maps with natural looking terrain, flora and fauna.
Check out this indy game in development that is almost all procedurally generated. It's a real trip:
http://www.quelsolaar.com/love/index.html
I used to follow FE back before they abandoned certain core elements of the original game design which in my mind removed a lot of the fun factor for me personally and also doomed the game to general mediocrity. So I know about the platform stuff. I suspect if FE had been more successful so would everyone else by now. But I don't think it's quite lived up to their expectations of being a good showcase MMO for their product.
That indy game looks interesting... Not sure about the artwork though - it'd be like playing an mmo inside a Monet.
One word - Daggerfall. The pre-Morrowind "Oblivion" of it's day, it had as much of what you're talking about as the technology would allow. You even swung your sword different ways (thrust, overhand slash, diagonal slash, and another I can't remember) by holding the left mouse button and moving the mouse.
This made for some frickin' cool fights, lemme tell you. But... this requires people to actually actively PLAY. And the theme-parkers invented auto-targeting and auto-attack, and thus ended the whole "Errol Flynn" swordfighting in MMOs.
Interestingly, I notice the Wii and the new Project Natal might bring back what Daggerfall and Morrowind had going, as both of them use active control. So in the end, maybe we'll get out of the themeparks and into some real fun. I hope so anyways.
How about a game where death actually means something? Where the whole point of the game is to survive and accomplish quests without dying 200 times and self resurrecting like it's no big deal. And stop with the anime inspired graphics. Armor made out of 2" thick metal plates and 10 foot long swords would not be very useful to people in a fight as they would be far too heavy to budge let alone swing. And enough with dwarves that have no lower legs, just feet attached to where their knees should be.
A great example of a developer having a unique "Philosophy", and then, more importantly, STICKING TO IT.
Using the example above to highlight where mmo's go wrong, IMO, most of the current mmo developers would have taken the advice of their publisher and made the game more difficult. In essence, they would have abandoned one of their core philosophies and replaced it with a new one ( namely, "make money"). And that fundamental change would permeate the game.
If developers could just come form some unique, personal, non-generic philosophies, and then STICK WITH THEM like Takahashi did, we'd get more hits in the mmo world than misses.
*sigh* UO Pre-Trammel.. I would reopen my 3 old UO accounts if I could go back into that wonderful world, before it was nerfed and bunnyfied! The concept beats any fantasy MMOPRG made hands down.
Re-imaging the MMORPG genre is easy and hard.
Hard because every player has his own preferrd title, way to play and so on. So there are players that like farming, dungeons, new mobs, hard PvE challeges and so on. And, the other sifde of the medal, there are players that hate PvE and like PvP or RvR based games
In my opinion re-imaging the MMORPG genre is: cancel WoW from your hand, developers. WoW is WoW, and title that copy this game are nice in a few time but ugly on a long time. I played LOTRO (a classic WoW clone) for two years and till Moria was a nice game. But Moria introduces all the things that i hate in WoW: farming, high level istances (i know that there are istances on "classic" LOTRO, but they was easiest than Moria). So, after two years, i quit the game forever.
Now i'm playing on a DAoC unofficial shard and... yes, it's funny! A little farming, great RvR (on frontiers or on BGs), great players: it's all fantastic. I'm rediscovering an old classig game (great till ToA expansion) on it's classsc and old way. And i'm happy.
Why developers must cancel World of Warcraft from brain? Simple: impossible to do better than Blizzard. Only a Blizzard new game can be better tnan a Blizzard old game. So, dear developers, create your games forgetting World of Warcraft. Create new gams with original ideas, don't feel the cut&paste from other titles.
This may have been mentioned but I really think it would be a better idea to journey back to when MMO's had more longevity and examine what "new ideas" have been slowly decaying the MMO industry sense then. Any large organization, industry , military , government or what ever has a tendency for new leadership or heads of development to try to make a name for them selves by making dramatic changes. To the seasoned MMO player this should be one of the most feared things. Not only do they not tend to fix broken things or listen to the actual players rather than forum trolls but they tend to make changes that seem more geared toward adding an item to their job portfolio rather than making a better game a happier place for the players. Usually these changes are not even creative.
Combining game types into the MMO for instance rather than creating a great quality single type game IMO has been a mistake. I think examples can be seen in recent years of failures and low server populations in the newer games.
Thinking on and off about this all day...
The sense I had in the thread was a demand for an MMO that ditches questing and levels and items as progression, and creates a society in which the players find their place or places within that. Sounds brilliant. I tried EVE and it didn't take, but I admire EVE. I'm sorry I missed out on this early SWG people mention all the time.
I keep thinking about building such a game around that scene in Aliens... when the Marines and Ripley drop to the planet. The tension is almost unbearable... then the guy in charge is asked how many drops he's done and it's his first. It's a fantastic scene. And why? Because they had no clue what they were getting into and they were risking their lives. And because they were relying on each other. So let's make combat a big deal again. Only ever in a group and if you go on a drop you risk permanent death (one of my favourite games ever was Zangband).
To balance the Marine role, you now build support roles, non-combat roles... activities that have far less risk (usually planetside) once the Marines have cleared any known/perceived danger (successful drops would of course change the danger status of wherever the drops occurred), but always permanent death as the consequence if you do something stupid. If you have permadeath then it's important to let the player manage the risk so you'd have to find a way to improve grouping mechanics. Imagine PUGing with permadeath? I find the hardest thing in an MMO is finding like-minded people... I've been lucky a couple of times but definitely not with every MMO. An MMO that would genuinely help me find other players that have similar gameplay style... that would be something.
Just some thoughts that accumulated throughout the day.
I think the MMO industry can be rebooted very simply. The MMO industry as we know it was started up by tech geeks with no lives who were willing to invest all their time in their gaming obsession because it was a substitute for real life.
Get a handful of middle-aged people who have a family and careers and who would be interested in playing an MMO (and have the money to do so) if only they weren't totally designed for cola-guzzling cheetos-scarfing teens and twenty-somethings and ask them what they'd like to see in an MMO, how they would enjoy playing it, and what would keep them interested.
You'll probably end up with something along the lines of EVE, but with a more diverse at-the-keyboard experience than mining and blasting pirates.
If EVE was a slightly more diverse, traditionally-themed fantasy MMO (with elves and ogres, etc), I'd still be playing. Their offline progression system is brilliant.
Knowledge is never inhibiting, closed-mindedness is.
Ignorance is bliss and willful complacency (it is taking solace in the belief that there is nothing new to explore). It is what defines a closed-minded and mentally stagnant individual.
When you are taught how to do something, or how not to do something, you are establishing dogma and what is known as "functional fixation." That is closed-mindedness: establishing a conclusion and law instead of a theory. Theories can change and be flexible, laws cannot. When one cannot reconsider their position on something, they can be considered defiantly ignorant and closed-minded.
The more you know, the better. But what also matters is how you know.
Innovation happens in a non-linear way: a not-so-obvious solution to a simple problem. You cannot get that unless you understand the problem and what has already been attempted to solve it (lest you be doomed to repeat it).
World of Warcraft took the idea of Ultima Online and Everquest, as is evident from the UI, journal, and combat mechanics, and simply perfected it. The world's innovators are forgotten when the perfectionists take the gold and polish it. You are silly to believe that WoW is an original and innovative concept.
Needless to say, the designer of Katamari Damacy had played many video games before coming up with his own idea.
"Lead developer Keita Takahashi said that the team was aiming for four key points in developing the game: novelty, ease of understanding, enjoyment, and humor. Iwatani compared the game to Namco's Pac-Man, which focused on simplicity and innovation, and served as a template for future games from the company. At one point during development, Takahashi "proactively ignored" advice from Namco to increase the complexity of the game."
Is there anything ignorant about this man? He chose to decline the established dogma of his publisher, and to great success. Had he been ignorant, he would have listened to what he was told by Namco, and we would not have the fun game that is Katamari Damacy.
Will Wright is another open-minded individual. He thought up Sim City after playing with a level editor for one of his earlier games. He admitted that the level editor was more entertaining than the game itself, and so he wanted to play with that idea and make it into something other people could enjoy.
If he had never played a video game or even worked on one, we would not have had Sim City, The Sims, or SPORE's amazing creature creator.
Ignorance does not breed innovation. Functional fixation does not breed innovation.
Knowledge and open-minded theory application are the keys to creative invention.
I think we are arguing the same thing here. When reading that Wikipedia article you got that Katamari quote from, I was trying to convey the same message. The team ignored Namco's advice and stayed outside the bounds of what is normally considered during game development - in this case it was game complexity.
As far as WoW goes, there definitely was some innovation to the genre - otherwise it wouldn't have the subs it does. Whether that innovation was intentional or not, the MMO experience suddenly became available to everyone. How they innovated is to be debated, but there is no question that the result was a streamlined MMO experience that definitely has changed the way the world looks at MMOs.
Notice though, that I mentioned they didn't do anything new in terms of design. It was a cookie cutter model, but they set the standard for cookie cutters. If you cannot agree with that then you are being silly; the influx MMOs that follow that model definitely increased post-WoW. As have subs.
I agree entirely with what you say though, there is no way that ignorance can breed innovation because innovation means to make something already existing better. "So, while it's not necessary for a developer to have never played an MMORPG before to make something really awesome, I think it is necessary to take a step back - away from the bounds that have defined MMORPGs thus far - to do something really new." Away from the bounds that have defined MMOs I think relates to your open-minded theory application statement.