www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
How to out-WoW World of Warcraft
The New York Times recently had an interesting article on the sea change in video games: hardcore games are out, casual games are in. A completely silly Guitar Hero game easily outsells state of the art FPS Crysis or Bioshock. Far more people want to wiggle a Wiimote than get to grips with the 20 buttons on a XBox or PS3 controller. And World of Warcraft, which is much simpler and easier than its competitors, rules the MMORPG market.
Put another way, it may be a sign of the industry’s nascent maturity that as video games become more popular than ever, hard-core gamers and the old-school critics who represent them are becoming an ever smaller part of the audience.And this is exactly why we haven't seen a WoW-Killer yet: All the announced new games are more hardcore, shooting for "more critically acclaimed than WoW". If you want to make a game that sells more copies than WoW, you have to forget about what the gamers tell you they want. You need to go for the non-gamers, make your game even more accessible than WoW. Here is one possible recipe:
That is not so unusual in other media. In most forms of entertainment there is a divide between what is popular with the masses and what is popular with the critics. Plenty of films get rave reviews but never make it past the art houses. Plenty of blockbusters are panned.
The reasons for that seem fairly clear. Film, books and music (and food, for that matter) have been around long enough to have developed highly sophisticated cognoscenti whose tastes have little to do with the mass audiences that still drive those markets. Food critics have as much sway over Red Lobster as book critics do over Danielle Steel.
1) Production values as high or higher than World of Warcraft. The "industry standard" of what is "acceptable" in bugs and server downtime is still abysmal. A WoW killer needs to be virtually bug-free, and up 24/7. The graphics don't need to be stunning, but the artistic quality needs to be high. WoW's attention to minor details is a big part of it's success. 3D graphics, not cheap 2D browser graphics though.
2) Even easier controls than World of Warcraft. Which brings us to the first point where the gamers will start howling: Every class in that WoW-Killer game needs to have significantly less spells and abilities. Even a high-level character would be able to pack all of his possible spells and abilities on a single hotkey bar.
3) Even slower combat, with no twitchy components whatsoever. To keep it interesting the combat must be a bit more strategical and interactive: Pressing the *right* button must be more important than pressing it fast. More visual input, where you need to watch what the monster in front of is doing to decide what your best cause of action is. Less numbers and theorycrafting.
4) Elimination of class "roles", but not of classes. The tank/healer/dps division of labor has to go. There should be no aggro-increasing abilities whatsoever, no classes with better damage absorption, and no classes with better healing abilities than the others. Basically every class would be a different flavor of dps class, and all healing would be done with some version of potions and bandages, available equally to all. Thus no more "LF2M healer and tank", any combination of classes would be equally viable for grouping. And there would be no more classes that were required for grouping, but less good in soloing.
5) No talents or specialization. Thus no gimping or best builds or templates, a mage is a mage is a mage. You can't choose anything wrong, because there is nothing to choose.
6) No "end game" whatsoever. When you hit the level cap, there isn't much left to do, no raids, no PvP. Instead when you hit the level cap with a standard character, you unlock one or two new character classes in a fixed order, which you can then level up to the cap again to unlock even more classes. The unlocked classes aren't any more powerful than the starting classes, just more "cool". Ninja, anyone?
7) Far more social options than World of Warcraft: player housing, with houses also serving as shops for player-made wares. Guilds being organized as player-run cities. Sidekick / Mentoring system to play with players of different levels. Guild achievements measured in trophies and other "fluff", no epics. Contribution to guild achievements not depending on your level, no more "need to level up to reach the fun part" gameplay.
8) More different sub-games. Not just adventuring with a combat game, but alternative activities like crafting mini-games, or a collectible virtual card game like the Vanguard diplomacy system.
Now some of you are going to shout that they would never play such a game. Which is totally okay, because you are a gamer and aren't the target audience anyway. The game isn't supposed to be good from a game critic point of view. It is designed to be accessible for the mass market, the many millions of people who still consider World of Warcraft to be too complicated. The millions of people who play free browser MMORPGs in 2D graphics, and who would love to play a game which had as high production values as WoW, but was more easy to play.
- posted by Tobold @ 8:22 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Lol Tobold, while I might agree with you, I wouldn't dare to call Guitar Hero "a completely silly game" in public. I'm looking forward to seeing what reaction that provokes.
I think your strategy for a WOW killer is spot on Tobold but are you sure that such a game would have no appeal for existing MMORPGers? Old timers may have fond memories of how hardcore things used to be but when offered a choice most of them opt for easy mode just like everyone else. As long the game you describe has plenty to do, lots of social interaction and some kind of achievement ladder I could see plenty of harcore players abandoning their forced labour raiding schedule to get into the next big thing.
I think your strategy for a WOW killer is spot on Tobold but are you sure that such a game would have no appeal for existing MMORPGers? Old timers may have fond memories of how hardcore things used to be but when offered a choice most of them opt for easy mode just like everyone else. As long the game you describe has plenty to do, lots of social interaction and some kind of achievement ladder I could see plenty of harcore players abandoning their forced labour raiding schedule to get into the next big thing.
As much as that game sounds like a horrible bore to me I really think you are correct about what is needed for a game to top WoW.
It wouldn't be a WoW killer really, since those who are already into a game like WoW would find it too simplistic and lacking in challenge, but, just like the Wii, it could find a different and bigger market.
I do think that some end game, with raiding would be included though. Of course it couldn't be tuned to demand strict class set ups, lengthy attunments, hefty consumable expenses and all what we assosiate with WoW raiding. However I think a very sizeable portion of a potential casual MMO audience would be very interessted in asome form of end game that involved doing things in a larger group, like killing a large and impressive boss, as long as it can be done with pretty much any group, regardless of group composition.
It wouldn't be a WoW killer really, since those who are already into a game like WoW would find it too simplistic and lacking in challenge, but, just like the Wii, it could find a different and bigger market.
I do think that some end game, with raiding would be included though. Of course it couldn't be tuned to demand strict class set ups, lengthy attunments, hefty consumable expenses and all what we assosiate with WoW raiding. However I think a very sizeable portion of a potential casual MMO audience would be very interessted in asome form of end game that involved doing things in a larger group, like killing a large and impressive boss, as long as it can be done with pretty much any group, regardless of group composition.
# posted by 
: 20/2/08 10:36
: 20/2/08 10:36
I suspect that the kind of player that is attracted to the MMORPG genre in the first place is the kind of player that will be able to negotiate WoW without too much trouble.
I'm just not all that sure there is an untapped mass market out there for a simpler MMORPG experience. I think Blizzard nailed accessibility completely, and sure, maybe you could imagine a game with fewer rough edges, but take too much away and you'll be left with something that no-one will want to play.
I'm just not all that sure there is an untapped mass market out there for a simpler MMORPG experience. I think Blizzard nailed accessibility completely, and sure, maybe you could imagine a game with fewer rough edges, but take too much away and you'll be left with something that no-one will want to play.
I think your close to spot on, but I would just remove point #6. The End game becomes what you put beneath point #7.
I also think you can do the talent type of system but it needs to be more accissible and "toy" than the WoW respec mechanics.
I also think you can do the talent type of system but it needs to be more accissible and "toy" than the WoW respec mechanics.
# posted by : 20/2/08 11:08
: 20/2/08 11:08
Accessibility is no doubt about it the way to go when mainstreaming future gameplay.
(An example in the FPS genre is the upcoming Battlefield Heroes)
I concur with most of the 'ingredients' in your recipe, except on a few minor details:
3) "More visual input, where you need to watch what the monster in front of is doing to decide what your best cause of action is."
So right! More 'reaction' in game mechanics, please ...but it's not in conflict with twitchy components. Quite the contrary. More reaction-based twitch means less numbers and theorycrafting.
6) Not so sure about the "no end game" statement. Following your own point, we just have to make end game content more accessible. More flexible.
Accessible end game can be solved with content that scale/adapt to your playstyle. The Diablo/Mythos scaling mechanics based on group size are such a solution.
(An example in the FPS genre is the upcoming Battlefield Heroes)
I concur with most of the 'ingredients' in your recipe, except on a few minor details:
3) "More visual input, where you need to watch what the monster in front of is doing to decide what your best cause of action is."
So right! More 'reaction' in game mechanics, please ...but it's not in conflict with twitchy components. Quite the contrary. More reaction-based twitch means less numbers and theorycrafting.
6) Not so sure about the "no end game" statement. Following your own point, we just have to make end game content more accessible. More flexible.
Accessible end game can be solved with content that scale/adapt to your playstyle. The Diablo/Mythos scaling mechanics based on group size are such a solution.
I'm not sure I agree to this. WoW has done two things:
1) Work heavily on accessibility and appeal and detail
2) Give a route to mature players and have depth
The second may seem like it's for the core players but I would question that. A lot of my former really casual friends "matured" in WoW. Having depth to a game creates longevity even for casual people.
But I still think that a WoW killer can improve over this, because the maturing game not only add depth to game-play (you can play wow using 3 buttons, or very many) is by not actually segregating out players by game mechanics.
Many non-gamers really want to game together when online. Any barriers to join play is a bad idea and even the accessible WoW has too many of them.
And the maturing needs to be a very well-tuned curve. Stuff like a tank in 5-man gear gettting squished in Karazhan isn't really a smooth tuning curve.
Of course independent of all this, more innovating world system and other technical innovations can also outdo WoW and actually matter to players. The old WoW effect that the world is seamless and rarely visibly loads can be outdone.
An the out-WoW will allow players to play for 5 minutes without suffering drawbacks (running/beaming from inns to Foozles, long trips between quest zones).
There are a lot more players that have 5 minutes to spare than have 15, 30 or 2 hours.
1) Work heavily on accessibility and appeal and detail
2) Give a route to mature players and have depth
The second may seem like it's for the core players but I would question that. A lot of my former really casual friends "matured" in WoW. Having depth to a game creates longevity even for casual people.
But I still think that a WoW killer can improve over this, because the maturing game not only add depth to game-play (you can play wow using 3 buttons, or very many) is by not actually segregating out players by game mechanics.
Many non-gamers really want to game together when online. Any barriers to join play is a bad idea and even the accessible WoW has too many of them.
And the maturing needs to be a very well-tuned curve. Stuff like a tank in 5-man gear gettting squished in Karazhan isn't really a smooth tuning curve.
Of course independent of all this, more innovating world system and other technical innovations can also outdo WoW and actually matter to players. The old WoW effect that the world is seamless and rarely visibly loads can be outdone.
An the out-WoW will allow players to play for 5 minutes without suffering drawbacks (running/beaming from inns to Foozles, long trips between quest zones).
There are a lot more players that have 5 minutes to spare than have 15, 30 or 2 hours.
# posted by : 20/2/08 11:53
: 20/2/08 11:53
Getting rid of the need for healers would be a good idea. Lack of healers in WoW is a major problem for not only pugs, but guilds too. Gear with healing stats built-in and of course potions etc would do instead.
I don't think tanks are such a problem, but they need to be more like dps warriors to keep people happy when soloing.
No reason why the tank can't still be the target of monsters in a group.
I don't think tanks are such a problem, but they need to be more like dps warriors to keep people happy when soloing.
No reason why the tank can't still be the target of monsters in a group.
# posted by : 20/2/08 11:56
: 20/2/08 11:56
No twitchy combat?
I know that you don't like twitchy stuff, but that doesn't mean that it can't be mainstream. Guitar hero, the game you're citing is about as twitchy and reflex/reaction based as a game can be and yet it's hugely, ridiculously popular, suggesting you could be in the hardcore minority on this one.
I know that you don't like twitchy stuff, but that doesn't mean that it can't be mainstream. Guitar hero, the game you're citing is about as twitchy and reflex/reaction based as a game can be and yet it's hugely, ridiculously popular, suggesting you could be in the hardcore minority on this one.
If WoW made every non instanced quest solo able, you'd be halfway there.
I agree with you on talents. They're a disastrous idea. I expect Blizzard to tone that down with their next MMO.
I agree with you on talents. They're a disastrous idea. I expect Blizzard to tone that down with their next MMO.
# posted by : 20/2/08 12:05
: 20/2/08 12:05
I would play that game. I really would. Possibly except for #3 - everyone likes mashing buttons. And as for the comment "nobody wants to play an ugly green thing" - possible. But I think that the variety of looks, both environmental and character-wise in WoW is what attracts non-gamers. Archlord-esque orcs with nice pecs are no fun.
# posted by : 20/2/08 13:26
: 20/2/08 13:26
I'm not sure about the "no endgame" idea, it may be that lots of players just need that "ding" to keep playing, but there is plenty of stuff that could be done at max level (whatever it is), that does not involve huge amounts of time, and is simple to do if needed.
Another point about the popularity of WoW that a lot of people seem to miss: Blizzard is already quite well liked by a lot of people for Starcraft, the Diablo series, etc., and anything they produce gets a lot of attention as a result, World of Warcraft included. A lot of the other MMORPGs out there seem to be produced by less well known or popular businesses.
I think you have some good points, but that game would ultimately fail miserably.
I am going to sound like an arrogant prick, but most of the people on this planet, regardless of nationality, don't like to think.
That is why the blocbusters, the bestsellers, the most frequented restaurants, etc, are all crap!
People want to be entertained, just sit someplace and laugh/eat/read something that brings immediate enjoyment without any "effort". It's as if when you finally get a job, a family and the works you cannot be bothered to grow anymore as an individual.
Games are no different. Why do you think Second Life was a (arguably) success? Is a chat room with toons, but people can still go there and pretend they are playing a game.
Same is for WoW, the early game is painfully easy at times and is getting easier by the patch. But at least Blizzard left something to the ones that see gaming as an hobby to do.
So, people are too lazy or too dumb, but no one likes to have those words written all over their foreheads. And that's why that no one would pay to play a game where everybody could do everything with little effort.
Although many people complain about the inaccessibility of end-game raiding, if Blizzard created "easy mode" versions of raid dungeons they would be slashing their wrists. No one wants to admit they like it easy and dumb. No one would like that the content they put so much effort to discover and beat would be made available for people with money who can't be bothered to do a little effort into something they're suppose to enjoy. So the High End guilds would gradually leave the game for something where they could still feel Elite, and the rest of the people, after blazing through the raids once or twice would give up WoW because "WoW is a game for wusses, now."
Blizzard stroke a correct balance between hardcore and casual and i don't think that a more casual friendly game than WoW would really be a threat.
It would always be the game for those too dumb to play WoW, and i don't really think people would cough up 15€ a month to be labeled "dumb".
Just my two cents.
I am going to sound like an arrogant prick, but most of the people on this planet, regardless of nationality, don't like to think.
That is why the blocbusters, the bestsellers, the most frequented restaurants, etc, are all crap!
People want to be entertained, just sit someplace and laugh/eat/read something that brings immediate enjoyment without any "effort". It's as if when you finally get a job, a family and the works you cannot be bothered to grow anymore as an individual.
Games are no different. Why do you think Second Life was a (arguably) success? Is a chat room with toons, but people can still go there and pretend they are playing a game.
Same is for WoW, the early game is painfully easy at times and is getting easier by the patch. But at least Blizzard left something to the ones that see gaming as an hobby to do.
So, people are too lazy or too dumb, but no one likes to have those words written all over their foreheads. And that's why that no one would pay to play a game where everybody could do everything with little effort.
Although many people complain about the inaccessibility of end-game raiding, if Blizzard created "easy mode" versions of raid dungeons they would be slashing their wrists. No one wants to admit they like it easy and dumb. No one would like that the content they put so much effort to discover and beat would be made available for people with money who can't be bothered to do a little effort into something they're suppose to enjoy. So the High End guilds would gradually leave the game for something where they could still feel Elite, and the rest of the people, after blazing through the raids once or twice would give up WoW because "WoW is a game for wusses, now."
Blizzard stroke a correct balance between hardcore and casual and i don't think that a more casual friendly game than WoW would really be a threat.
It would always be the game for those too dumb to play WoW, and i don't really think people would cough up 15€ a month to be labeled "dumb".
Just my two cents.
# posted by : 20/2/08 15:27
: 20/2/08 15:27
The other question is: what kind of setting would this MMO be?
I don't think fantasy would be accessible enough, maybe a GTA type world with exclusively human avatars and lot so fdriving around? Maybe sci fi would actually work in this context? Sports games are very popular maybe that would do it although Football Superstars seems to be doing this already.
I don't think fantasy would be accessible enough, maybe a GTA type world with exclusively human avatars and lot so fdriving around? Maybe sci fi would actually work in this context? Sports games are very popular maybe that would do it although Football Superstars seems to be doing this already.
# posted by : 20/2/08 15:37
: 20/2/08 15:37
"It would always be the game for those too dumb to play WoW, and i don't really think people would cough up 15€ a month to be labeled "dumb"."
Well, that was an excessivly ignorant post, and this final snippet is the icing on the cake.
A game like the one Tobold proposes wouldn't necessarily be a direct threat to WoW, just as Vanguard or EVE never were threats to WoW.
The majority won't give a flying fuck about wether or not it's percieved as a game for wusses by some raiding elite. You won't find WoW raiders wringing their hands over how EQ or EVE players might percieve them as inferior gamers. The market that would be interested in a "hyper casual" MMO wouldn't know what they were missing an neither would they care if they found out about it, just like people who enjoy Wii Sports don't go around harbouring a feeling of inferiority towards people who complete hardcore games like Ninja Gaiden.
Well, that was an excessivly ignorant post, and this final snippet is the icing on the cake.
A game like the one Tobold proposes wouldn't necessarily be a direct threat to WoW, just as Vanguard or EVE never were threats to WoW.
The majority won't give a flying fuck about wether or not it's percieved as a game for wusses by some raiding elite. You won't find WoW raiders wringing their hands over how EQ or EVE players might percieve them as inferior gamers. The market that would be interested in a "hyper casual" MMO wouldn't know what they were missing an neither would they care if they found out about it, just like people who enjoy Wii Sports don't go around harbouring a feeling of inferiority towards people who complete hardcore games like Ninja Gaiden.
# posted by : 20/2/08 16:06
: 20/2/08 16:06
Tobold I agree with your base premise. But I think WOW is pretty dumbed down now. I think the controls character development etc are pretty much where they need to be.
The next WOW killer just needs to leave all the hardcore players who have convinced the devs they are the carrot that motivates us...(LMAO) behind and just focus on content for those very profitable casual and people in the middle.
The game that puts as much development bandwidth into world development and new quests etc as Blizzard puts into the next raid instance will be the wow killer.
Of course that means a non standard vision and going against standard Game Development 101.
The next WOW killer just needs to leave all the hardcore players who have convinced the devs they are the carrot that motivates us...(LMAO) behind and just focus on content for those very profitable casual and people in the middle.
The game that puts as much development bandwidth into world development and new quests etc as Blizzard puts into the next raid instance will be the wow killer.
Of course that means a non standard vision and going against standard Game Development 101.
The game you described sounds a lot like some of the free to play MMOs available from eastern game publishers. I guess if you had good marketing and was free you might be able to beat WoW in numbers if not revenue.
I disagree with the idea that WoW succeeds because it eschews complexity. What it does is emphasize elegance in its design, which is *not* the same thing.
There is already an MMO that fits most of your descriptions...and it is pretty much a failure at < 1% of the MMO universe...City of Heroes. So nice try but no, you're pretty much flat out wrong with what it takes to beat wow. (Though you are dead on with needing to appeal to the masses just the way you suggest will make the game flat out not fun.)
"The majority won't give a flying fuck about wether or not it's percieved as a game for wusses by some raiding elite."
That, my friend, is where you are wrong. Everything in this world is always driven by an elite.
Why do you think that Blizzard puts so much resources in high end raiding?
Wouldn't it be more business wise to just make the whole end game accessible to everyone? I don't really know, but Blizzard has been in the business for so long that they must know a thing or two on player behaviour.
Regarding EQ players... Where do you think the current high-end raiders come from? And why do you think they stay in WoW? Because there's a challenge! In a game as described, there would be no challenge whatsoever.
Another thing, the MMO market has nothing to do with single-player game console or pc market, so you rcomparison is a bit failed. There is a difference in jumping up and down your couch because you beat Ninja Gaiden or parading yourself in Shat in full Tier 6. Silly, maybe, but the second one is being silly with a crowd.
Nevertheless, most of the people who cried over the difficulty of the Karazhan Attunement changed their minds as soon as they managed to do it.
If anything, Blizzard could improve on the logistics of raiding, making it easier for people to get organized. But starting to just tear down the game so that you can do it all and see it all even if you play 20 minutes a day would be disastrous.
And, there are lots of casual games out there that can't get a visible percentage of WoW's player base. You could argue that if they were more developed people would come. But would you risk you money on it?
Have a nice day.
That, my friend, is where you are wrong. Everything in this world is always driven by an elite.
Why do you think that Blizzard puts so much resources in high end raiding?
Wouldn't it be more business wise to just make the whole end game accessible to everyone? I don't really know, but Blizzard has been in the business for so long that they must know a thing or two on player behaviour.
Regarding EQ players... Where do you think the current high-end raiders come from? And why do you think they stay in WoW? Because there's a challenge! In a game as described, there would be no challenge whatsoever.
Another thing, the MMO market has nothing to do with single-player game console or pc market, so you rcomparison is a bit failed. There is a difference in jumping up and down your couch because you beat Ninja Gaiden or parading yourself in Shat in full Tier 6. Silly, maybe, but the second one is being silly with a crowd.
Nevertheless, most of the people who cried over the difficulty of the Karazhan Attunement changed their minds as soon as they managed to do it.
If anything, Blizzard could improve on the logistics of raiding, making it easier for people to get organized. But starting to just tear down the game so that you can do it all and see it all even if you play 20 minutes a day would be disastrous.
And, there are lots of casual games out there that can't get a visible percentage of WoW's player base. You could argue that if they were more developed people would come. But would you risk you money on it?
Have a nice day.
# posted by : 20/2/08 16:53
: 20/2/08 16:53
Everything in this world is always driven by an elite.
That is what the elite likes to think, but it isn't true. As the original New York Times article I quoted said, for example the elite chefs have obviously zero influence on what normal people actually eat. Elite authors and book critics have zero influence on bestsellers. etc.
When WoW came out the Everquest elite of the day called WoW "dumbed down EQ". I didn't see that elite disdain stop anyone from playing WoW. And it won't stop anyone from playing an even more accessible and easier game. Because that game will *still* have its own elite, in my proposal the guys who unlocked all of the character classes, and they will swear that the game they are playing got the difficulty just right and is in no way dumb. Just like the WoW elite thinks WoW got the difficulty exactly right and isn't dumb, although most of them wouldn't last a week in EQ1.
That is what the elite likes to think, but it isn't true. As the original New York Times article I quoted said, for example the elite chefs have obviously zero influence on what normal people actually eat. Elite authors and book critics have zero influence on bestsellers. etc.
When WoW came out the Everquest elite of the day called WoW "dumbed down EQ". I didn't see that elite disdain stop anyone from playing WoW. And it won't stop anyone from playing an even more accessible and easier game. Because that game will *still* have its own elite, in my proposal the guys who unlocked all of the character classes, and they will swear that the game they are playing got the difficulty just right and is in no way dumb. Just like the WoW elite thinks WoW got the difficulty exactly right and isn't dumb, although most of them wouldn't last a week in EQ1.
"Why do you think that Blizzard puts so much resources in high end raiding?"
Because a lot of people raid because they enjoy a challenge and that in itself justifies Blizzard spending resources on that market segment, especially since that segment is more likely to jump ship, since the competition on the casual side of MMO's is far more relaxed than on the more hard core one.
That doesn't mean those hard core raiders, a segment I'm personally closer to than the casual side, has any real influence in driving casual gamers to WoW. The latter segment don't play WoW because they aspire to become raiders or because they want to achieve something that impress raiders.
Making a game even more casual than WoW won't necessarily cannibalize WoW's user base, just like WoW probably has a very marginal effect on a hardcore game like EVE, but it might potentially find a much larger user base that find even a game like WoW to be daunting and intimidatingly complex. You assume that the potential market is current gaamers, when it in reality might be people who have at the most played a game of Wii Sport a few timess with their family at christmas and would view the game as a shinier alternative to Facebook.
Because a lot of people raid because they enjoy a challenge and that in itself justifies Blizzard spending resources on that market segment, especially since that segment is more likely to jump ship, since the competition on the casual side of MMO's is far more relaxed than on the more hard core one.
That doesn't mean those hard core raiders, a segment I'm personally closer to than the casual side, has any real influence in driving casual gamers to WoW. The latter segment don't play WoW because they aspire to become raiders or because they want to achieve something that impress raiders.
Making a game even more casual than WoW won't necessarily cannibalize WoW's user base, just like WoW probably has a very marginal effect on a hardcore game like EVE, but it might potentially find a much larger user base that find even a game like WoW to be daunting and intimidatingly complex. You assume that the potential market is current gaamers, when it in reality might be people who have at the most played a game of Wii Sport a few timess with their family at christmas and would view the game as a shinier alternative to Facebook.
# posted by : 20/2/08 17:31
: 20/2/08 17:31
I disagree with a lot of what you're saying here. I'll just go through your suggestions:
1) Agreed.
2) No. No way, while I enjoy my Paladin's simplicity in comparison to the warrior I tried when I had to come to grips with "stance-dancing" and the rage system, etc. The Paladin seemed more traditional with mana, and while it started just because it seemed easier to play, I do really enjoy the Paladin now. Being my main ever since I bought and played the game 2 weeks before I left for 6 week holidays, now that I've come back, he's been lvling again. 38 last night. I enjoy having a variety of options, what I feel is that we should have a good hot-bar full of NECESSARY skills, for all situations, but the other skills/spells would probably be swapped in/used as needed.
3) Hard to argue this one. If we didn't have the whole "manually turn around" thing in combat that causes all your opponents to jump around like a bunny around you, I think that itself would work better (in other words, auto-spinning around when the attack is prepared)
4/5) No, I personally think that when it comes to a tanking class/healing class, we should adapt the talent system, make it very simplistic. Set it so that when they return to a capital city or something similar, they can swap between two modes, "heal" and "kill" (using the healer as an example) which would alter stats accordingly.
6) No. No way. Do you know what it's like playing a Korean MMO? Where you just grind for hours and hours and at the end of the day they say, "Lol" and give you an arena to duel in?
7) Agreed.
8) Agreed.
Actually I want to suggest something I thought in relation to talent trees when messing around and designing bits and pieces of my own MMO. (and summarily wrote up on an MSWord Document)
Training Grid = Talent Tree (It's sci-fi)
SOME classes can choose to ‘spec’ in a training grid, NOT ALL can. For example Assassins, Marauders and Snipers can not, while Panzers, Berserkers, Medics and Technicians can. This is because some classes work nicely for both PVP and PVE roles without talents to bolster them to a certain role, while the others do not. If a class with a training grid DID NOT put points in their grid talents, they would NOT be equal to a Sniper, etc. They would be “gimped”. These are not “buffs” but necessary choices to fill in the gaps with the class.
1) Agreed.
2) No. No way, while I enjoy my Paladin's simplicity in comparison to the warrior I tried when I had to come to grips with "stance-dancing" and the rage system, etc. The Paladin seemed more traditional with mana, and while it started just because it seemed easier to play, I do really enjoy the Paladin now. Being my main ever since I bought and played the game 2 weeks before I left for 6 week holidays, now that I've come back, he's been lvling again. 38 last night. I enjoy having a variety of options, what I feel is that we should have a good hot-bar full of NECESSARY skills, for all situations, but the other skills/spells would probably be swapped in/used as needed.
3) Hard to argue this one. If we didn't have the whole "manually turn around" thing in combat that causes all your opponents to jump around like a bunny around you, I think that itself would work better (in other words, auto-spinning around when the attack is prepared)
4/5) No, I personally think that when it comes to a tanking class/healing class, we should adapt the talent system, make it very simplistic. Set it so that when they return to a capital city or something similar, they can swap between two modes, "heal" and "kill" (using the healer as an example) which would alter stats accordingly.
6) No. No way. Do you know what it's like playing a Korean MMO? Where you just grind for hours and hours and at the end of the day they say, "Lol" and give you an arena to duel in?
7) Agreed.
8) Agreed.
Actually I want to suggest something I thought in relation to talent trees when messing around and designing bits and pieces of my own MMO. (and summarily wrote up on an MSWord Document)
Training Grid = Talent Tree (It's sci-fi)
SOME classes can choose to ‘spec’ in a training grid, NOT ALL can. For example Assassins, Marauders and Snipers can not, while Panzers, Berserkers, Medics and Technicians can. This is because some classes work nicely for both PVP and PVE roles without talents to bolster them to a certain role, while the others do not. If a class with a training grid DID NOT put points in their grid talents, they would NOT be equal to a Sniper, etc. They would be “gimped”. These are not “buffs” but necessary choices to fill in the gaps with the class.
# posted by : 20/2/08 20:45
: 20/2/08 20:45
There's a fine line between too simple and too complicated. Clearly Blizzard has been trying to find that line over the years as it fiddles with the classes and spells. Regarding the latter, to simplify the number of spells anyone has to keep track of, I think some spells should only be useful up to a certain level. That is, the basic spells become useless above, say, level 20, when other spells become available.
B. Sutor
B. Sutor
Tobold, apply for the patent before it's too late!
1) Yes, a WoW-killer has to be solidly designed and implemented. It has to be targeted to low-end computers, not laggy, not prone to crash. WoW's reuse of artwork and lack of flexibility in item and toon appearance could be a weak spot to target.
2) Yes, easier controls would be nice. For example, 'complexities' such as the warrior battle stance are generally artificial, since a savvy player will circumvent the inconvenience with macros. Worse still, those not savvy with macros are put at a disadvantage - one would not think that WoW's interface design intent was to favor those who can write macros, but that is just what they did! Feeling compelled to research on theorycrafting sites is not a good thing IMO.
3) Slower combat would be good, IMO, because it could lead to better quality combat rather than feeling like a twitching contest. If combined with much-needed collision detection, such combat could be a great deal more realistic-feeling (it's goofy to be able to back though people to avoid backstabs).
4) Class roles and "aggro" are artificial design constructs; I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the "trinity" go. And if that resulted in less need for dependence on add-ons to track things like aggro and healing, such combat would IMO feel more like old-school fantasy combat and less like monitoring a Star Trek combat monitor and responding to prompts.
5) No talents - fine by me. Maybe "talents" could determine look-and-feel of your attacks or spells, rather than actual differences in the effect and damage. Also, no talents could lead to more class types.
6) No endgame - that is the way things used to be in old-school computer games, and I don't see a return to the past as a bad thing in this case. Replay value becomes paramount in the proposed model; if the game was a WoW-clone perhaps it would allow a crossing-over between factions to open up the full game to everyone, instead of the Alliance-Horde divide that splits content access, unlocking access to various new zones and dungeons through re-play. Make every quest repeatable, and design a mechanism for late entry into quest chains.
7) Fluff is in! Gotta get that Talbuk, that Romantic Picnic Basket, that Delicious Chocolate Cake Recipe, that Mr. Pinchy! More of that, and ways to display your junk collection, can only add to the fun IMO.
8) Sub-games are good. WoW is trying to make sub-games like fishing, cooking, and general crafting more appealing. I think that a WoW-killer could use sub-games to add breadth to the experience. It is much more cunning (and takes more work and imagination) to use diversions to slow the rush through content than to put obvious barriers like attunements in place.
1) Yes, a WoW-killer has to be solidly designed and implemented. It has to be targeted to low-end computers, not laggy, not prone to crash. WoW's reuse of artwork and lack of flexibility in item and toon appearance could be a weak spot to target.
2) Yes, easier controls would be nice. For example, 'complexities' such as the warrior battle stance are generally artificial, since a savvy player will circumvent the inconvenience with macros. Worse still, those not savvy with macros are put at a disadvantage - one would not think that WoW's interface design intent was to favor those who can write macros, but that is just what they did! Feeling compelled to research on theorycrafting sites is not a good thing IMO.
3) Slower combat would be good, IMO, because it could lead to better quality combat rather than feeling like a twitching contest. If combined with much-needed collision detection, such combat could be a great deal more realistic-feeling (it's goofy to be able to back though people to avoid backstabs).
4) Class roles and "aggro" are artificial design constructs; I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the "trinity" go. And if that resulted in less need for dependence on add-ons to track things like aggro and healing, such combat would IMO feel more like old-school fantasy combat and less like monitoring a Star Trek combat monitor and responding to prompts.
5) No talents - fine by me. Maybe "talents" could determine look-and-feel of your attacks or spells, rather than actual differences in the effect and damage. Also, no talents could lead to more class types.
6) No endgame - that is the way things used to be in old-school computer games, and I don't see a return to the past as a bad thing in this case. Replay value becomes paramount in the proposed model; if the game was a WoW-clone perhaps it would allow a crossing-over between factions to open up the full game to everyone, instead of the Alliance-Horde divide that splits content access, unlocking access to various new zones and dungeons through re-play. Make every quest repeatable, and design a mechanism for late entry into quest chains.
7) Fluff is in! Gotta get that Talbuk, that Romantic Picnic Basket, that Delicious Chocolate Cake Recipe, that Mr. Pinchy! More of that, and ways to display your junk collection, can only add to the fun IMO.
8) Sub-games are good. WoW is trying to make sub-games like fishing, cooking, and general crafting more appealing. I think that a WoW-killer could use sub-games to add breadth to the experience. It is much more cunning (and takes more work and imagination) to use diversions to slow the rush through content than to put obvious barriers like attunements in place.
# posted by : 20/2/08 21:45
: 20/2/08 21:45
While I agree with most of what you are proposing (#1 and #7 especially), does this idea of a mass-audience MMO have to be a zero-sum equation? Does every feature have to removed instead of improved?
I think that a more elegant version of a hypothetical MMO could offer different demographics rewarding experiences, rather than pleasing one at the expense of the other.
The challenge, as I see it, is also the ‘fun’ aspect of what modern game developers face today. The arcane and time-consuming job of balancing need not be simplified, but rather it needs to be the underlying rule that affects all aspects of the game from conception to release. Rather than adding features, and trying to balance the new with the old content; real thought should given to overall balance and personal gameplay (or choices). Elegant design at conception, rigid adherence to the fundamental balance during design, and flexibility of choices within the designed content is not impossible, but unfortunately hypothetical at this point.
I think that a more elegant version of a hypothetical MMO could offer different demographics rewarding experiences, rather than pleasing one at the expense of the other.
The challenge, as I see it, is also the ‘fun’ aspect of what modern game developers face today. The arcane and time-consuming job of balancing need not be simplified, but rather it needs to be the underlying rule that affects all aspects of the game from conception to release. Rather than adding features, and trying to balance the new with the old content; real thought should given to overall balance and personal gameplay (or choices). Elegant design at conception, rigid adherence to the fundamental balance during design, and flexibility of choices within the designed content is not impossible, but unfortunately hypothetical at this point.
While this might work pretty well, I do still think you need depth to a game, *some* depth (talents, endgame stuff, etc.), even if you don't revel in it as much as hardcore players. It forms a sort of background feeling that there's more to the MMO than meets the eye, so you don't get the boring feeling of having "figured it out" too soon.
# posted by : 21/2/08 04:13
: 21/2/08 04:13
I have a gut feeling, unsupported but seem as good a possibility as any, opinion that World of Warcraft won't be outsold or otherwise outcompeted directly, what seems more likely to happen is that other MMORPG type games will come out and over time pull people here and there from World of Warcraft. They will never outsell WoW on their own, or at most will keep about even with WoW (a bit below but still pretty popular)as I'm guessing warhammer will do, but they will draw players away, and show how different variations on the type can do pretty well on their own. When world of warcraft has been appropriately drained by the various types of new MMORPG's on the market to not being that big a deal anymore, is when some new game will come out as the new king (assuming a "new king" even appears, which my guts says is likely but cannot be backed up).
There seems to be a pattern in general with people, not just in games, but in politics, environmental issues, family and money management issues, movies, religion, etc., of expecting a problem to be solved, or an issue to be dealt with, by one big thing rather than a bunch of small things added together. This pattern seems to show up when people talk about dethroning WoW, or even the expectation the every new MMORPg will be "the next big thing", rather than that a bunch of smaller games will appear that do a few things different apiece, that someone will than take and put together to produce another big game.
There seems to be a pattern in general with people, not just in games, but in politics, environmental issues, family and money management issues, movies, religion, etc., of expecting a problem to be solved, or an issue to be dealt with, by one big thing rather than a bunch of small things added together. This pattern seems to show up when people talk about dethroning WoW, or even the expectation the every new MMORPg will be "the next big thing", rather than that a bunch of smaller games will appear that do a few things different apiece, that someone will than take and put together to produce another big game.
Let's see... MMO genre is so young that we can compare it with some other media or craze.
In music we could say that WoW is like Elvis or Beatles: by far the most successfull on their own. Will EQ stand as Rolling Stones with it's longevity? Outliving the furious growth and size of WoW eventually?
The greats in pop music didn't slow down the up and coming artists. I'm certain WoW will remain as The MMO for years, but there will be more variety in the games in the near future, and sadly the market will fragment, creating more niche games for hardocore raiders, casual gamers and casual socialisers.
I'm not betting on seeing a WoW killer per se, but I'm certain we'll see some very, very interesting concepts emerging in the next few years from the indie and small producer side. Who knows, maybe even the Far Eastern games will find the way to produce a game that suits better to the Global scene?
We have seen the King. Now we have to wait to see the heirs.
Copra
In music we could say that WoW is like Elvis or Beatles: by far the most successfull on their own. Will EQ stand as Rolling Stones with it's longevity? Outliving the furious growth and size of WoW eventually?
The greats in pop music didn't slow down the up and coming artists. I'm certain WoW will remain as The MMO for years, but there will be more variety in the games in the near future, and sadly the market will fragment, creating more niche games for hardocore raiders, casual gamers and casual socialisers.
I'm not betting on seeing a WoW killer per se, but I'm certain we'll see some very, very interesting concepts emerging in the next few years from the indie and small producer side. Who knows, maybe even the Far Eastern games will find the way to produce a game that suits better to the Global scene?
We have seen the King. Now we have to wait to see the heirs.
Copra
I want to comment on the 'mass market appeal'aspect of your post.. which seems to be the way Nintendo is currently going with their Wii console. At first I thought: Wow, this is the next step in interactivity with a machine, a really innovative controller that can handle lots of different and new inputs. So I went and bought one, which I bitterly regret up to now.
Problem is, apart from maybe 2-3 games in a year (Zelda, Metrois and Mario Galaxy), no good game has seen the day of light.... But what kind of games do we get? Silly little minigame compilations with no lasting playing appeal whatsoever! Games that can be fun for 10-20 minutes, but are then tucked away, never to be played again... Now this is not a rant, don't get me wrong, this serves as an illustration of what you said: games are being made for casual gamers, not the hardcore gamers that once made up the industry. Just look at the sales charts: Nintendo are doing quite well for a system with so few 'good' games....
Now I do sometimes enjoy a casual game (Worms anyone?), but I would quit my gaming habits without my Wow and my Final Fantasy Tactics. Complex games that require my full attention, the kind of games you think about even when you're not sitting in front of your screen playing them...
I am afraid that once companies realise that they can make equally as much (or even more) money with cheap to produce, casual games than with expensive innvative titles, the industry will come to a complete halt. What do you think about that Tobold?
Problem is, apart from maybe 2-3 games in a year (Zelda, Metrois and Mario Galaxy), no good game has seen the day of light.... But what kind of games do we get? Silly little minigame compilations with no lasting playing appeal whatsoever! Games that can be fun for 10-20 minutes, but are then tucked away, never to be played again... Now this is not a rant, don't get me wrong, this serves as an illustration of what you said: games are being made for casual gamers, not the hardcore gamers that once made up the industry. Just look at the sales charts: Nintendo are doing quite well for a system with so few 'good' games....
Now I do sometimes enjoy a casual game (Worms anyone?), but I would quit my gaming habits without my Wow and my Final Fantasy Tactics. Complex games that require my full attention, the kind of games you think about even when you're not sitting in front of your screen playing them...
I am afraid that once companies realise that they can make equally as much (or even more) money with cheap to produce, casual games than with expensive innvative titles, the industry will come to a complete halt. What do you think about that Tobold?
# posted by : 21/2/08 09:04
: 21/2/08 09:04
The hardcore gamer and the casual gamer consume vastly different amounts of content. If the current business model in which both pay the same lump sum per month continues, you are totally right: it isn't economical to make any games for hardcore gamers under those conditions.
But the more likely outcome is a change of business model, where the amount of money people pay is more closely related to the amount of content they consume, like in every other entertainment business. And then suddenly the hardcore gamers become more interesting, because they would pay more per month than a casual gamer.
But the more likely outcome is a change of business model, where the amount of money people pay is more closely related to the amount of content they consume, like in every other entertainment business. And then suddenly the hardcore gamers become more interesting, because they would pay more per month than a casual gamer.
I think you are very close to dead-on in your next big MMOG description, Tobald. I am the loser old-guy gamer who would love that game, and I spend as much time playing MMOGs as anyone (30+ hours per week), I just hate the end game.
Of course I have nits to pick, like I love spec trees, but I think you should be able to respec with abandon so that you can't make an irreversible mistake like some other harder-core MMOGs.
Knowing that I can achieve every achievement in the game solo (it might just take me 50% longer than someone who groups) would be my number one desirement in a game spec. This falls exactly into your philosophy of a dumbed down game.
Sammy
Of course I have nits to pick, like I love spec trees, but I think you should be able to respec with abandon so that you can't make an irreversible mistake like some other harder-core MMOGs.
Knowing that I can achieve every achievement in the game solo (it might just take me 50% longer than someone who groups) would be my number one desirement in a game spec. This falls exactly into your philosophy of a dumbed down game.
Sammy
# posted by : 21/2/08 20:47
: 21/2/08 20:47
The only problem I would have with this idea is that people are to used to the norm, the epics, the talents, the extra spell, etc. Im not sure taking away these things wouldnt have the exact opposite effect desired.
# posted by : 22/2/08 01:05
: 22/2/08 01:05
there is a definite tipping point. If the game is too easy then thier is no psychological reward to stimulate that pavlovian reflex.
But if you make it too hard it eventually becomes demoralizing and people start dropping out.
Because they decided to try and cater to Everyone they have unintentionally abandoned all hope of ever being in that happy sweet spot. Because anything that puts PVE there screws up PVP etc.
But if you make it too hard it eventually becomes demoralizing and people start dropping out.
Because they decided to try and cater to Everyone they have unintentionally abandoned all hope of ever being in that happy sweet spot. Because anything that puts PVE there screws up PVP etc.
Amusingly enough a game that seems vastly different from the game Tobold described, yet seemes to share a lot of the accessability is getting some nice attention now. It looks quite interesting, in my opinion, ans it will be interesting to find out how it turns out. The developer sure has a lot of pedigree.
APB
Post a Comment
APB
# posted by : 22/2/08 20:49
: 22/2/08 20:49<< Home
