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

Frost Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

About Blizzard. Blizzard just keeps polishing their old ideas, each iteration getting progressively better. Not necessarily a bad way to do business, you know what you're getting: a reiteration of their previous game (which was fun) with some more fun and style added. So we shall see if it's just another MMO.

Re:Frost Post.

[JVert]

There has to be a limit though on how many times one can recycle a idea, and it still be entertaining.

Have you seen windows lately?

Gold Rush?

[shweazel]

I have yet to see a MMORPG that lived up to its pre-release hype.

So maybe we should hold off with the "gold rush" crap until these games are actually out.

Re:Gold Rush?

[Inominate]

It is a gold rush.
Some people made a lot of money on mmogs, so everyone jumps in, few will have much success.

Few of the new batch of games will succeed, even wow is going to have problems. In the MMOG world, a ripoff of another mmog is asking for failure. Few people will leave the mmog theyve been playing for 6mo+ to go play another 'new' game thats almost like it. The formula of ripping off successful games that works in the offline game world doesn't fit well in the mmog market.

No MMOG will match the EQ or UO untill someone attempts something truely innovative, and makes it work well.

Sequels, licenses, and spinoffs, oh my!

[Psychochild]

It's interesting to see that the online RPG market is already turning to sequels, licenses, and derivatives after less than a decade of wide-spread commercial attention. It seems that the large game publishers are falling back on what they know in order to maximize profit.

It's a bit unfortunate, because the online medium deserves a lot better than that. You can do some very cool and interesting things online that you simply cannot do with traditional single-player games. The social dimensions these games and worlds can explore are astounding.

I think that in the future we'll see the rise of more 'independent' games. My own company, Near Death Studios, runs Meridian 59, a classic game with a strong focus on PvP. We are willing to cater to the smaller market that wants meaningful PvP in their game. There are plenty of other games out there, including the rather unique A Tale In The Desert that offers an entirely non-combat world. I think that as more people are able to take bold steps in developing an indie game, you will see more options out there. My hope is that the indie games will be able to offer people more of what they want, instead of just trying to slap a license into an online world where it doesn't fit, or build a sequel of a game that should last a long time. By offering people a more focused experience, instead of pandering to a mythical "mass-market audience" for these games, the indies will hopefully show the power of the online medium.

Of course, if only it were that easy. Players have to actually support these games for them to grow. Yeah, indie games are as a rule less pretty and less polished than big-name games. But, if the gameplay is more of what you like, why not support them? The gameplay is arguably the reason why people play these games. Also, most of the smaller games can't afford big advertising budgets like the large games do. EQ has probably spent more on advertising than ATITD has spent on game development as a whole, so obviously more people are going to hear about EQ rather than ATITD. So, people need to do a bit more searching for these games. In the end, I think it's the best option to keep the online medium intersting and fun for the most people.

My crazy opinions as an indie online game developer.

Blizzard

[magiluke]

The article does say that Blizzard isn't very innovative. I was always under the impression that they were innovative. Even if WOW isn't going to be the first MMORPG ever made, I'm sure they will do something with it that will set it apart from the rest. After all, last time I checked, every game they have ever made has achieved Game of the Year status.

Blizzard not an innovator????

[MBraynard]

"Blizzard has never been known for innovation. Will this ultimately come across as just another MMO?")

Yeah, consider who the innovators are and you normally find a great idea poorly implemented. What Blizzard has CONSISTENTLY done is take an idea and OPTIMIZE it and make it better than anything else. This is exactly why the Blizzard MMORPG gets my wager as the MMORPG to win the war of 04.

Re:Analyzed?

[JVert]

Dont try to read the html version of the matrix online. That is impossible. You have to realize:

there is no html version.

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