The MMORPGs Of 2004 Analyzed

Thanks to GameSpy for their feature discussing the large array of new MMORPGs due in 2004, as they suggest: "We're in the middle of an MMORPG gold rush, with companies hurtling headlong into the battle for your time, and more importantly, your monthly fee. The big question is whether there will be enough players to go around." Featured games include Everquest II (it's argued: "EverQuest players are a natural target audience that can't be ignored, but Sony obviously doesn't want players canceling their accounts to migrate to the sequel"), The Matrix Online ("When The Matrix Online actually goes online, how many people will still care?"), and World Of Warcraft ("Blizzard has never been known for innovation. Will this ultimately come across as just another MMO?")

Comments

Re:Blizzard not innovative?

[DeadScreenSky]

Which of those games has any serious amount of innovation in it? I will agree the Starcraft series had an amazing amount of polish, but I can't think of one single innovation unless we go deep into tiny specific details.

Hell, it is hard enough to find a Blizzard game which doesn't feel like it was ripped off from a Games Workshop product, down to visual designs.

Blizzard innovation questionned

[jdifool]

This is amazing that /. published such a provocative/flamebait statement over Blizzard Entertainment.

I had previous discussions with ex-DiabloII players who convinced me of the very structural drawbacks the company developped the last past years.

But if there is something that cannot be retrieved, well, it IS their innovative way of thinking video games. I red the posts so far, and saw some people arguing about the upgrading skills of Blizzard.

Let me argue in two points.
1) Blizzard released twice two revolutionnary gaming principles. First Warcraft I, that, if it may have been inspired by older games (I'm thinking of Populous), initiated the micro-war strategy. And then Diablo which emphasized a very simple principle of repetitive fun into an overall fantasy scheme. So please don't tell they have not been innovative. Or maybe one may think that being innovative is truly to invent something ; in which case the only ever innovative game was Pong.

2) Concerning the improving skills, I can only agree. But keep in mind that they only improved the very principles they just have been making before. This in the basic principle of sequels and extensions. Let's examine what were the improvements. In Warcraft II, the right-click availability in order to made orders and strategies easier to achieve. In Starcraft, the principle of TOTALLY different races, with customizations of buildings, units, and basic strategy. In Warcraft III, the implementation of heroes inside a strategy game, with experience, skills, and special items. In Diablo II, skills organized by trees, specialization inside the trees. Etc. etc. etc. As it is said somewhere, different words carry differents ideas. Improvement is not innovation, but f***** important improvements sometimes do look like innovation.

Offtopic I may be. But really this is not fair. I don't have any shares form Blizzard, and I do disagree with their latest strategical orientations. But good work definitely needs to be recognized.

Regards,

Jdif