EverQuest Sequel Shows Complexity, Ditches PvP

Thanks to GameSpy for its hands-on preview of Sony Online's forthcoming PC MMO EverQuest II, as the author discusses the graphics ("EverQuest II is one of the most beautiful games in development... Every square inch begs to be explored"), the play style ("EQ2 has a smaller, more intimate feel, more like tabletop roleplaying games centered on small parties"), and the complexity ("Everyone starts on the same island, then has to choose allegiance to one of two main cities (and belief systems!) From there, more and more options open up, sort of like an inverted gameplay pyramid.") Elsewhere, over at EQ2 Stratics there's further confirmation from devs that: "There are no plans for a PvP [Player vs. Player] server at release. There is no ETA on when or if we will ever have one."

Comments

So?

[obeythefist]

It's still going to be a levelling treadmill. People will still farm loot.

But it will look prettier and so it will garner more subscriptions for Sony.

Re:So?

[Castaa]

In the end, what MMO isn't a treadmill in one way or another?

You have to stratify the player base somehow. It's a very tough problem.

Re:So?

[AuMatar]

You do? Why?

(Hint: the answer is you don't)

Re:So?

[ADRA]

But instead of making it fun, will they take away some of the better parts of MMO's?

REAL Content?
Asherons Call 1 was the only game I could stand for longer than a month because there was always so much content.

Reason for dropping it:
Costs too much money to add more and more content into the game.

PVP for some edge?
If you havn't played in a PVP, You feel physically scared making a mad dash in & out of town fearing a random player coming around and taking a run at you. I wouldn't make PVP manditory, but its definitly an interesting piece.

Reason for dropping it:
Costs too much to balance PVP vs. non-PVP combat.

Re:So?

[Castaa]

Ok, would-be MMO designer. Give us your best solution instead of an empty 3 word reply.

Re:So?

[AuMatar]

Add real content instead of artificially stretching it out by adding time wasting treadmills?

Not that I expect Sony to do this, but the first MMO designer to do so and not horribly fuck up the game (Shadowbane did so, but forgot to add the content qand realesed the 2nd most buggy game I've seen in my life) will rake in the cash.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll need much larger teams and much more robust content-generation tools to be able to even remotely continue to add enough content for the masses to consume. Look at a single-player game's (say, any RPG) development cycle. Those games have what, 40? 60? hours of game play? Maybe more. Lets be generous and say 100 hours of game-play. Lets be generous, again, and say that takes 2 months to get through.

Your general population would burn through that content much too quickly for your MMO to have any legs at all.

This is why repetative content is a must in MMOGs. I'm not saying EQ did it right; not saying EQ2 is going to do it right. But some sort of reusable content is absolutely necessary for these games to be able to survive without thousands of people working on them, or some very very sophisticated development tools. CoH, WoW are getting closer, but their mission 'types' are pretty few and far between. Plus their story arc is pretty short.

Re:So?

[SnoBall]

Hehe. Doom is the most beautiful game in development, Sony simply lied to us... And. I don't actually play RPGs, however, I prefer the run, gun, and ask questions later, First person shooters. At least it is prettier. :D

Re:So?

[*weasel]

No other genre outside of RPGs seems to need levelling treadmills to engage players.

They all have to use this thing called 'content' to keep players involved with their game.

Gameplay for Super Mario Brothers doesn't revolve around getting progressively bigger in order to jump onto progressively larger mushroom men. Grand Theft Auto tends to keep players engaged without giving Tommy Vercetti successively more armor and health so he can defeat successively stronger bad guys.

Power progression is fine, to an extent. But it is by no means a reasonable design for the entirety of gameplay. The Strategy genres have done well by unlocking additional units, and powers over time -- but they don't make players grind a map 10 to 20 times to unlock the next unit.

Sure, actual content is much more difficult to create, and there's a very definite end to it. But there's a definite end to the treadmill too. The only difference between the two, is that the treadmill can be slowed down so that you have to experience their distinct lack of content over and over and over again. It's very hard to slow down progression through actual content.

Power progression is dismissable in single player RPGs - but in an MMO it creates too many problems to be considered a harmless tradition.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

Your general population would burn through that content much too quickly for your MMO to have any legs at all

No, your hardcore population would burn through that in no time. But they'll burn through your treadmill in (comparatively) no time as well. The only benefit to a treadmill is that it is easy to tune to slow people down. Actual content -- well that has to be fun, and well crafted. The negatives of treadmills -- that could fill a book.

The rub is that the casual market, the people who have rejected the treadmill, is thus far undefined. Unfortunately every game to this point has either exposed casual players as victims in a harsh PvP environment, been a technical disaster, alienated them with treadmills, or some combination of the three.

Repetitive content is a sure thing to capture a known crowd -- but that doesn't make it a must. What it does, unfortunately, is make it a must for corporate funding. SOE, EA, and Vivendi won't very well sink $10m+ into an MMO that's aiming for an unproven market. Particularly not after The Sims Online.

But no other form of entertainment dares to subject their consumers to repetitive content just to slow them down. What author pads a novel with repetitive slag, just to ensure that speed readers don't finish in a day? What TV series pads its DVDs with timesinks to ensure that hardcore fans can't watch an entire season in a night? Is it really so awful if a subset of your fans finish?

The hardcore, obsessive, audience is not the audience; It is an audience. This subset of the potential audience should never be confused for the entirety of that potential audience.

Re:So?

[Number 110]

I would disagree. Games like Super Mario Brothers do not have statistics associated with the character and so do not have as clear a leveling concept as a game such as Everquest, however you are not able to start a completely new game of SMB, turn left and confront the final boss. You position within these games in very much akin to your level. Unfortunately this does not generally work for games like Everquest where the basic storyline is non-linear. Games by their nature have to give some form of reward. If they do not then people will grow bored and stop playing them. The leveling system of Everquest is the simplest but you could use a skill gains system similar to Sims Online or Starwars Galaxies or an item acquisition based system. In the end though people need to feel some form of forward progression or else they will soon stop playing. Now this isn't to say that a game necessarily requires grinding. It is entirely possible to make a game in which a character is able to move from well written quest to well written quest all the way through their life until they reach the end of their character advancement, but as you have said creating that much content is problematic (read: expensive).

Re:So?

[daveashcroft]

Everquest II? :-O Im pre-booking my place in betty ford right now!

Re:So?

[Number 110]

But no other form of entertainment dares to subject their consumers to repetitive content just to slow them down. What author pads a novel with repetitive slag, just to ensure that speed readers don't finish in a day? What TV series pads its DVDs with timesinks to ensure that hardcore fans can't watch an entire season in a night? Is it really so awful if a subset of your fans finish?

Really? Watch nearly any network television series. Assuming they even have an overall story arc that continues through the season you will still have a variety of 'filler' shows that have nothing to do with advancement of the character or promotion of the storyline.

The reason for this is simple, when you buy a book or watch a movie the company gets all your money up front. They don't get any more money whether you go through all their content in a day, week, or a year. In fact, they get the same money even if you never go through their content. All they need to do is sell you the book. TV series on the other hand need to keep you watching in order to make money. They trickle out just enough 'content' (storyarc episodes) to keep you watching and then pad out the rest with filler.

Online games likewise need to keep people playing in order to survive. The majority of their money is made in their subscription (though they make far less than most people realize). Because of this they need methods to make players continue to remain in the game. MMOs are expensive to make. Because of the client/server code that has to be written, a world that has to be built that is significantly larger than the world of a stand alone game, the much tighter balancing that need to be done and the customer support that has to be provided MMOs are an order of magnitude more complex than stand alone games, with budgets to match.

Currently the cost to produce an MMO is somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million. If you spent that much designing a game that sold 400,000 units (which is a lot) and most players completed it during their first free month the end retail price of the product would be around $200 (manufacturers typically see around 1/4 of the retail cost of a game after it passes through manufacturing, distribution, and retail), and that will only break even. That won't turn a profit or cover the costs of other games that are partially completed before being cancelled.

This isn't, of course, to say that grinding is the only way to keep people interested. There are other ways to slow the consumption of content. What it is saying, however, is that your idea of simply letting people proceed through the content at a breakneck pace does not work for an MMO.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

I think it's optimistic to call the storyline of Everquest 'non-linear'. I think 'non-existent' would be more fair. I think equating the position within a storyline or set of levels of SMB, to a set of numbers associated with an EQ character is a mistake.

It is precisely EQ's lack of context given to its gameplay that is the problem. It isn't 'levelling' per se, it's that true progression in EQ requires takes place outside of any sort of story context.

In a single player RPG, character progression and story progression are fairly neck-and-neck. You level as a matter of course while experiencing the world. You dont experience some story, then go camp gnolls until you're ready for the next bit.

In treadmill games, the context to progression is nonexistant, or too far behind character progression. Everquest requires repetition outside of the progressive context of the story, in order to unlock the next chapter.

The treadmill accusation isn't an indictment of levelling overall - because one could easily run into the same problems in a skill-based system. But rather a charge against levelling for the sake of levelling -- power gain for the sake of power gain.

The idea that a tangible reward at the end of play is required is another point of departure between us. My contention is that if the journey is good, the total enjoyment is enough of a reward. A player doesn't have to be given a pile of fake money or a bigger sword to validate the adventure of killing the dragon. He needs something to ensure that he's capable of meeting the next challenge - but the desire should be to meet the new challenge - not to get a widget that makes the current challenge easier.

As you note, doing levelling 'right', where it is a byproduct of having fun doing quests is expensive - but that's where persistent worlds are going. Blizzard is aiming to do exactly that with World of Warcraft, and for the most part City of Heroes offers that today.
Actually, CoH is something akin to what I'm advocating. It has no loot to speak of - and levels are largely a by product of going through the story. The EQ crowd isn't very fond of CoH -- because they burn through the content very fast, and there isn't any 'loot'. But the game has pulled in a very respectable number of subscriptions thus far - particularly for a nearly unmarketed game.

Now there's certainly a viable niche for games that have no predefined story. Free-form sandbox games closer to UO, and The Sims Online. But treadmills and 'loot' have even less of a place in such games.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

Really? Watch nearly any network television series. Assuming they even have an overall story arc that continues through the season you will still have a variety of 'filler' shows that have nothing to do with advancement of the character or promotion of the storyline.

Are you honestly suggesting that the non-big-conspiracy-plot episodes of X-Files are equivalent to camping a static spawn in Everquest?

A tangential episode may not progress the overall story arc - but it has a story and progression of its own. Mulder isn't just spawn camping El Chupacabra until the Smoking Man is ready to kick off the next step of a sinister plot.

He's presented with a smaller, perhaps self-contained or mini-arc mystery that he has to work through. People watch week-to-week. If a series actually employed 'filler' on par with EQ, it'd fail in a heartbeat. If 'filler' episodes of ER weren't engaging, no-one would care who is HIV positive, or has a brain tumor.

The lack of a central story arc is also fine -- provided that each episode is entertaining and the dramatic context is existent.

Online games likewise need to keep people playing in order to survive

Absolutely true. The incorrect assumption there, is that they need to keep the same people playing without any further development cost - and that if a hardcore subset 'finishes' before the next content expansion is available, everyone will quit.

I also don't buy into your pessimistic view of the profit margins of a persistent world game.

they need methods to make players continue to remain in the game

The content should do that. Providing them a string of slightly larger foozles to whack with slightly larger sticks unnecessarily limits your audience. It's more counterproductive than offering an achievable 'end'.

That won't turn a profit

Yes, your example is not fiscally sound. The solution there is not to spend $20m and not have a target of 400k copies. The solution is to spend $6-8m and have a break-even at somewhere around 200k copies. City of Heroes reportedly cost in the $8m range, and has sold very well to date. Though I cannot find exact unit numbers, the fact that it's been at NPD's number 1 spot for PC game sales in the US for the last 2 months bespeaks a genuine hit. (200k copies is not an unreasonable estimate for what its total run will be)

or cover the costs of other games that are partially completed before being cancelled

Come on now, these 'other games' should have their own theoretical $20m budgets. If you're going to suggest part of the revenue pie from one project has to float others - then you have to be honest about the cost. If there is more than 1 game in development to float, then it doesn't actually cost $20m to make one of these games -- and one game being unable to support the development of several isn't really indicative of its economic viability.

What it is saying, however, is that your idea of simply letting people proceed through the content at a breakneck pace does not work for an MMO.
And once again, you're assuming the entirety of the audience, or at least the fiscally significant portion, does indeed go through content at a breakneck pace.

You are ignoring that there is a large audience of gamers that simply does not have the time, nor the desire to spend 6 hours a day gaming, let alone with a single game. I'm saying the much larger audience will be consuming content at somewhere around 6 hours a week.

You are also ignoring that the mechanics of treadmill design disincentives new players. A treadmill game has to sell a ton of copies out of the gate, because the level stratification of players effectively alienates late-comers.

All good episodic content provides suitable hooks to let late-comers get up to speed fairly quickly, and have enough context to enjoy even a single episode -- even if it means they 'miss out' on old cont

Re:So?

[Number 110]

I think it's optimistic to call the storyline of Everquest 'non-linear'. I think 'non-existent' would be more fair.

Yeah, but it's also inflammatory and does nothing to progress a dialogue. Certainly you can complain about the amount of content but my point wasn't that EQ was content rich. It was that your statements that a game could be pure content without leveling (at least in some form) is false. EQ is non-linear. Overall you are not forced to go from Zone A to Zone B to Zone C. There may be some instances such as when you enter the zone containing a dungeon then move into the dungeon, but the overall design is that characters can go whichever direction they please.

I think equating the position within a storyline or set of levels of SMB, to a set of numbers associated with an EQ character is a mistake.

Certainly the two are not identical, but I think they are analogous. You can't take on the big Turtle Boss until you first defeat the big Goomba Boss. One could even make a claim that the areas that you have to transverse where there is either no puzzle to solve or else the puzzles are of a type the player has solved previously constitute 'grinding' and are simply there to pad out the game. I would not make such an argument however and would point out that just like any story has to have peaks and valleys a game has to have easier areas to help bring you back down a bit before the next big thing.

It is precisely EQ's lack of context given to its gameplay that is the problem. It isn't 'levelling' per se, it's that true progression in EQ requires takes place outside of any sort of story context.

In a single player RPG, character progression and story progression are fairly neck-and-neck. You level as a matter of course while experiencing the world. You dont experience some story, then go camp gnolls until you're ready for the next bit.

Actually I have played plenty of stand alone games where you are sometimes forced to go out and beat up on the random monsters just to level up a bit so you can undertake the next challenge. It is usually not to the degree that it's done in EQ however, so I think it is more an issue of balance than in having it occur at all.

In treadmill games, the context to progression is nonexistant, or too far behind character progression. Everquest requires repetition outside of the progressive context of the story, in order to unlock the next chapter.

The treadmill accusation isn't an indictment of levelling overall - because one could easily run into the same problems in a skill-based system. But rather a charge against levelling for the sake of levelling -- power gain for the sake of power gain.

Again, I think we are really somewhat on the same page here. It equates to balance. You would not be against the fact that leveling occurs or is even occasionally required. Your objection is that with weak storylines the main goal is to level and the storyline is only an afterthought.

The idea that a tangible reward at the end of play is required is another point of departure between us. My contention is that if the journey is good, the total enjoyment is enough of a reward. A player doesn't have to be given a pile of fake money or a bigger sword to validate the adventure of killing the dragon. He needs something to ensure that he's capable of meeting the next challenge - but the desire should be to meet the new challenge - not to get a widget that makes the current challenge easier.

Yes, if the journey is good then it is the reward in and of itself. However, this is notoriously tricky to do and rarely draws the same audience as a more traditional 'winning the prize' storyline. Look at the movies and see how many of them are about reaching and winning some objective (getting the girl, winning the race, defeating the Empire) and how many are simply about the journey (such as i

Re:So?

[Number 110]

(Bah. Accidentally posted this in reply to my original post instead of in reply to this post. Just ignore the first one and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain)

I think it's optimistic to call the storyline of Everquest 'non-linear'. I think 'non-existent' would be more fair.

Yeah, but it's also inflammatory and does nothing to progress a dialogue. Certainly you can complain about the amount of content but my point wasn't that EQ was content rich. It was that your statements that a game could be pure content without leveling (at least in some form) is false. EQ is non-linear. Overall you are not forced to go from Zone A to Zone B to Zone C. There may be some instances such as when you enter the zone containing a dungeon then move into the dungeon, but the overall design is that characters can go whichever direction they please.

I think equating the position within a storyline or set of levels of SMB, to a set of numbers associated with an EQ character is a mistake.

Certainly the two are not identical, but I think they are analogous. You can't take on the big Turtle Boss until you first defeat the big Goomba Boss. One could even make a claim that the areas that you have to transverse where there is either no puzzle to solve or else the puzzles are of a type the player has solved previously constitute 'grinding' and are simply there to pad out the game. I would not make such an argument however and would point out that just like any story has to have peaks and valleys a game has to have easier areas to help bring you back down a bit before the next big thing.

It is precisely EQ's lack of context given to its gameplay that is the problem. It isn't 'levelling' per se, it's that true progression in EQ requires takes place outside of any sort of story context.

In a single player RPG, character progression and story progression are fairly neck-and-neck. You level as a matter of course while experiencing the world. You dont experience some story, then go camp gnolls until you're ready for the next bit.

Actually I have played plenty of stand alone games where you are sometimes forced to go out and beat up on the random monsters just to level up a bit so you can undertake the next challenge. It is usually not to the degree that it's done in EQ however, so I think it is more an issue of balance than in having it occur at all.

In treadmill games, the context to progression is nonexistant, or too far behind character progression. Everquest requires repetition outside of the progressive context of the story, in order to unlock the next chapter.

The treadmill accusation isn't an indictment of levelling overall - because one could easily run into the same problems in a skill-based system. But rather a charge against levelling for the sake of levelling -- power gain for the sake of power gain.

Again, I think we are really somewhat on the same page here. It equates to balance. You would not be against the fact that leveling occurs or is even occasionally required. Your objection is that with weak storylines the main goal is to level and the storyline is only an afterthought.

The idea that a tangible reward at the end of play is required is another point of departure between us. My contention is that if the journey is good, the total enjoyment is enough of a reward. A player doesn't have to be given a pile of fake money or a bigger sword to validate the adventure of killing the dragon. He needs something to ensure that he's capable of meeting the next challenge - but the desire should be to meet the new challenge - not to get a widget that makes the current challenge easier.

Yes, if the journey is good then it is the reward in and of itself. However, this is notoriously tricky to do and rarely draws the same audience as a more traditional 'winning the prize' storyline. Look at the movies and see ho

Re:So?

[Number 110]

Really? Watch nearly any network television series. Assuming they even have an overall story arc that continues through the season you will still have a variety of 'filler' shows that have nothing to do with advancement of the character or promotion of the storyline.

Are you honestly suggesting that the non-big-conspiracy-plot episodes of X-Files are equivalent to camping a static spawn in Everquest?

A tangential episode may not progress the overall story arc - but it has a story and progression of its own. Mulder isn't just spawn camping El Chupacabra until the Smoking Man is ready to kick off the next step of a sinister plot.

He's presented with a smaller, perhaps self-contained or mini-arc mystery that he has to work through. People watch week-to-week. If a series actually employed 'filler' on par with EQ, it'd fail in a heartbeat. If 'filler' episodes of ER weren't engaging, no-one would care who is HIV positive, or has a brain tumor.

Yes, I am suggesting they are equivalent, at least in the aspect that the filler episode is something done to slow down your consumption of the true 'content' of the series.

Obviously they need to be well done and obviously you feel they aren't in EQ. I am not debating that. All I am debating is your idea that there should be no roadblocks to the consumption of content.

The lack of a central story arc is also fine -- provided that each episode is entertaining and the dramatic context is existent.

Agreed, just as I feel that non-storyline related material that consumes time can be good for a game like EQ. It is under the proviso that it's done well.

Online games likewise need to keep people playing in order to survive

Absolutely true. The incorrect assumption there, is that they need to keep the same people playing without any further development cost - and that if a hardcore subset 'finishes' before the next content expansion is available, everyone will quit.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the same people'. If you sell 200,000 units then you aren't going to somehow get more people playing the game than that, so yes, you have to figure on your income coming from that base of people.

As far as assuming everyone will quit because some people finish it first that is not my assumption at all. If you build a game with 100 hours of content (which is a lot)then even your most casual gamers will have consumed it all within 5 months. Since the first month is free you will only have 4 months of billable time and this only for very casual players. Most of your players will exit long before then. Even the casual players need something to slow down their consumption of content for the game to survive.

I also don't buy into your pessimistic view of the profit margins of a persistent world game.

My view isn't based on mere pessimism. It is supported by Developing Online Games by Mulligan and Patrovsky. While I will admit that even experts are not always correct unless you can provide something more than your opinion to disprove their statements then it is more in truth to say that it is your view that is overly optimistic. (This isn't a flame, just saying that they have done research and are respected in their field. Unless you can provide your own evidence to refute them I don't see how your view of MMO profit margins can be anything other than optimism)

they need methods to make players continue to remain in the game

The content should do that. Providing them a string of slightly larger foozles to whack with slightly larger sticks unnecessarily limits your audience. It's more counterproductive than offering an achievable 'end'.

Unfortunately that content has to be created. That takes more money, pushing the end price of the game up. As I pointed out above if you have 100 hours of content and you rely on

Re:So?

[*weasel]

Yeah, but it's also inflammatory and does nothing to progress a dialogue.
Only those in denial of the truth find it inflammatory. It's not a comment that says "EQ's a bad game", or "those playing EQ are bad people". All the statement does is state that EQ is not played for the story. Tetris isn't played for the story either - and it's a hell of a game.

It was that your statements that a game could be pure content without leveling (at least in some form) is false.
Whoa now - it's a bit early to call that assertion false, particularly since no-one has tested it. You could say that it's just my opinion, and that it's totally unproven - but to say it's false outright is a bit dismissive. I'd go so far as to call that statement inflammatory. That said, my contention that a completely level-free game is possible isn't really related to my suggestion that new games shouldn't stick to treadmills just because that works for EQ-style games.

EQ is non-linear. Overall you are not forced to go from Zone A to Zone B to Zone C.
I beg to differ. Whereas there may be some minor choices in involved in choosing hunting areas - just about every person plays through the same zones at the same levels. There is a 'best' spawn for a particular level, and hunting anywhere else is discouraged by the mechanics. (Travel time, organizational time of finding a group or filling open spots, additional risk by not having anyone near by to bail you out, etc)

You can't take on the big Turtle Boss until you first defeat the big Goomba Boss.

Yet SMB doesn't require you to jump on the same goomba 80 times before you can defeat the big goomba boss. If you can get through the level without squashing a single goomba minion, you can still fight and defeat the boss.

I think it is more an issue of balance than in having it occur at all.

I absolutely agree with that. If such instances are balanced and don't make up the entire game, it can be done reasonably.

Your objection is that with weak storylines the main goal is to level and the storyline is only an afterthought
Absolutely. Keep in mind I'm not saying that it isn't a valid game type. I'm suggesting there are other ways to design persistent world games, and developers shouldn't feel constrained to keeping their designs all in the same vein.

However, this is notoriously tricky to do and rarely draws the same audience as a more traditional 'winning the prize' storyline
It doesn't have to draw the same audience, that's the thing. There's a different audience out there. The problem in this genre is that we're overfishing one stream - within eyeshot of the lake.

Look at the movies and see how many of them are about reaching and winning some objective

Levels aren't 'objectives' the way that 'defeating the Empire' or 'winning the girl' is. The analogues to those objectives in a game world would be: 'defeating the empire' or 'winning the girl', not 'grinding the death star until I hit 25 and can do Dantooine', or 'saving the girl -- so I can can get this sweet +4 crossbow!'.

I think it's dangerous to use too large a brush when painting these situations.

I didn't mean to label people 'EQ player' or 'CoH player' -- I perhaps chose bad wording. I was just trying to point out that there are a subset of gamers who really are only looking for levels and loot. They 'get' EQ, but they don't 'get' CoH. The fact that many EQ players do 'get' CoH and have fun with it is indicative that there is a different audience out there, and aiming for it doesn't necessarily mean you're rejecting the players of all the existing games.

Considering the popularity of EQ I think you are looking at more than a 'niche'.
Considering that 2/3-rds of those who were open-minded enough to buy EQ in stores, didn't subscribe after the first month -- I think EQ is still a niche. I think the potential

Re:So?

[Number 110]

I think overall you and I probably agree more than we disagree (which is what makes this dialogue interesting to me). Your basic precept, at least in my opinion, is that leveling was bad and an unneeded and an unnecessary arbitrary constraint and that 'pure content' should replace it.

When I said a pure content game couldn't succeed you were right, I should have chosen my phrasing more carefully. In my opinion a pure content game can't succeed, at least not on the level of EQ. Even CoH isn't pure content. You get missions to go out and beat up 15 thugs. When you move through a warehouse there is a certain degree of staggering out the enemies to create a 'grind' before you get to the boss. The thin is that CoH handles this a lot better than EQ. There is little 'random' (keep killing orcs until I finally get the sword I want) or 'unmotivated' (just charging around beating on gnolls until I level) grinding that occurs.

Because pure content games naturally constrict your progression I think they will appeal to fewer people. They are also far harder to make, in my opinion. This doesn't mean they can't succeed, simply that they will become the 'art house movies' of the MMO world. People will talk about them but they will have a smaller audience and generate lower revenues.

No, I do not assume that EQ got everything right and that anyone not following it is doomed to obscurity. In fact I feel there are many things wrong. Over focusing on leveling is one. I think there should be more social support. I'm just saying that as a general rule I don't think pure content is a way to go. Content rich? Sure, but there needs to be something extra to help draw out the life of that content.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

Having read the entirety of your comment, I went ahead and deleted the response in progress that I'd had. We're going to just have to politely agree to disagree on the economic viability side.

Feel free to disregard my positions as opinion; it won't bother me. But those numbers do not sound even remotely correct to me. Until I read their context so I can point out where I believe they've gone wrong and why, or a second source and its analysis weighs in - it's really not worth further discussion.

I can't well convince you of anything, because you have a set of numbers from industry types that runs counter to what I'm saying, and I'm just some pseudonymous /.'er. And you can't well convince me of anything, because I haven't seen the full context of their assumptions and figures, and all my professional experience with turneky networked software solutions tells me they're wrong. ... so how about that weather?

Re:So?

[Number 110]

Economic models are like any other theoretical model and are right until someone can show where they are wrong. :)

I tried to point out that I'm not saying they are right and no one else can be, but they do have good information and a lot of what they have (such as their costs to develop a game) are based on real world projects. While I can respect your position dealling with turnkey network software and I can see how you would think that gives you a good track on the costs to build an MMO, their estimates are actually based on real MMOs, past and in developement, so it may include things you are overlooking (such as the fact that you have a substantial art and design team that you do not have with network software design).

If you are interested in getting the full context the book is Developing Online Games: An Insider's Guide. It is written by Jessica Mulligan and Bridgette Patrovsky and has an ISBN of 1-5927-3000-0. It's published by New Riders and can be picked up from Amazon for around $50 I think.

And in all seriousness, if you have disputing sources I would like to know. I'm not comfortable with only a single source of information since the authors are human and prone to error just like any of us.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

Exactly.

So we are at an impasse.
It's at this point that I make a reference to the Princess Bride's duel of wits, and we duck out of the economic side of the discussion.

Re:So?

[Dachannien]

Considering that SMB can be beaten in just over 5 minutes, I think you're comparing apples and oranges here.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

Your basic precept, at least in my opinion, is that leveling was bad and an unneeded and an unnecessary arbitrary constraint and that 'pure content' should replace it.

Slight adjustment to that: the core of my posts was meant to convey that all persistent worlds do not have to confrom to the designs that have been used in the past. (treadmill-based levelling)

I think replacing the treadmill with pure content can indeed create a game that will find its own market, and potentially a larger market than Yet-Another-EQ-Clone. Mostly because the mechanics of the treadmill are not conducive to retaining casual players.

Waaaay back at the top of this thread, was the post that suggested that all MMOs were necessarily treadmills, and that stratifying the playerbase was necessary.
While that may be true for a subset of persistent worlds - I take issue with the assumption of 'this is the way it has to be, because this is the way it has always been'. Personally I don't care too much for treadmill worlds, but I do recognize that many people do like them.

What I'm suggesting is that there is also a market for a different type of game. One that is prefaced on bringing players together and engaging them, rather than sorting them out and keeping them busy with 'winning the prize'.

In my opinion a pure content game can't succeed, at least not on the level of EQ.

Well, when a pure content game comes out - we'll have a reference to argue the point. In the meantime, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

You get missions to go out and beat up 15 thugs. When you move through a warehouse there is a certain degree of staggering out the enemies to create a 'grind' before you get to the boss

I think you're abstracting gameplay a bit too far by calling that a 'grind'. We don't want to provide just a choose-your-own-adventure book after all. In my opinion, it only becomes a 'grind' when the path to progression lacks context.

Thugs in a warehouse protecting the boss, while that isn't sweeping dramatic tension, it's a bit more context than yet another repop. If your goal is to defeat the boss, and you don't have to 'level' off X number of thug pops before you can defeat him - then I think that's a great step forward.

Hell, if the thugs could be defeated or avoided by clever play that leverages the context and not just straight combat - that's even better.
(E.g. bribing mercenaries to walk away, threatening crooked cops, promising junkies a smooth ride, distracting guard dogs with a scooby snack, sneaking through shadows, hacking security systems, etc)

Because pure content games naturally constrict your progression...

How is it that pure content game constricts progression?

Re:So?

[iocat]

Mindless leveling is fun. For some people, at some times, successfully doing something by rote means, or by performing actions where the outcome is rarely in doubt, can be incredibly satisfying. It's almost analagous to building a model. You know what the thing is going to look like; you could have probably bought one that already looked like that; but it's fun sometimes to successfully follow instructions and watch something get created, even if you know what is going to be made.

Frankly, it's not really my cup of tea -- although I do get the urge every couple of years and pick up some dungeon crawler -- but I don't understand why people pick on leveling in and of itself as some kind of proof of failure of RPGs. That's like bagging on fighting games for requiring you to learn combos.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

I wasn't picking on levelling, I was picking on the earlier post in the thread suggesting that treadmills were required for MMORPGs.

I'm just suggesting there are other ways to do it. Some people love EQ, and that's great. But alot of people don't -- in fact most people who actually got as far as buying EQ didn't stay past the first month.
So there's no reason to assume that what worked for EQ is the way things have to be.
As I recall original UO was about as different from EQ as it could be -- and it was pretty darn popular too (until it was mismanaged into the ground).

Why change a winning formula?

[BlueCup]

Everquest was by far the most popular mmorpg the US has ever seen... so why are they changing some of the formulas? The major thing that first drew me into the game was the different starting locations for races... it made it feel more like a world than an AIM Client with pictures...

Re:Why change a winning formula?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everquest was first, it used the traditional fantasy races and classes and had a half naked elf chick on all of their boxes. That is why it did so well.

Asheron's Call, Dark age of Camelot, Anarchy Online are all much better games. I have played them all, I have a dozen friends who have played them all, and not one of us thinks EQ is even in the top 3 of MMORPGs.

And a side note: Lineage, FInal Fantasy 11 and PhantasyStar Online all claim to have larger player bases than EQ, so it isn't even the biggest RPG out there. Google is your friend, look it up.

Re:Why change a winning formula?

[BlueCup]

Indeed, those 3 do have larger player values... but, to quote my original comment

most popular mmorpg the US has ever seen

All three of those do not have more people in the US, they have more people in the world.

Reading Carefully is your friend.

Re:Why change a winning formula?

[Anonymous Coward]

The big problem with each race having it's own starting city is the fact that the game is designed to get you away from your starting city as soon as possible.

Once you've outleveled your noobie zone, and moved on to another area, there is never a reason to go back to your home city, besides a quest perhaps.

So what you end up with is something like 12 cities that are usually completely devoid of life, because the other 99% of the players are higher than level 4, and there's never any reason for them to return.

Re:Why change a winning formula?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the US has seen them, and they are more popular, therefore EQ is not the most popular the US has ever seen.

It might be the MMORPG most popular with US players that the world has ever seen, but I would want to see the numbers.

Re:Why change a winning formula?

[ACNeal]

Now I know why I never leveled up past 20. I always hung around home, trying to return before logging out.

I had started talking about moving my home, but then I would get concerned that friends I had made wouldn't know where to find me. The online chatting became more important to me than leveling, but most people I met were all about leveling. Makes for short lived friendships. And not worth $12/mo.

Re:Why change a winning formula?

[Number 110]

Everquest is the most popular MMO with US players. It in fact has about twice as many players as the next most popular MMO in the US, both in terms of accounts and in terms of unique logins per day.

As for the other games mentioned, in addition to being popular in Asia it is also important to understand that their account numbers are boosted by a very different market. Many accounts will be owned by Baangs (the local version of an internet cafe) which will make the playing populace seem much larger than it is. This isn't to say they are not big and popular games, simply that when you hear their numbers some adjustments need to be done.

Re:Why change a winning formula?

[Anonymous Coward]

Admit it, you were wrong, or else just keep contradicting counter arguments, whatever floats your boat.

Re:Why change a winning formula?

[Number 110]

Umm...I didn't make the original argument that EQ was the most popular MMO that the US has ever seen. I was addressing this statement you made:

It might be the MMORPG most popular with US players that the world has ever seen, but I would want to see the numbers.

Now it is true that I didn't give you numbers, so here:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~sirbruce/Subscriptio ns.html

If you look Everquest has around 420,000 subscribers. DAOC has about 250,000.

I will admit that I was wrong in two things; first it does not have roughly twice the subscribers. It has about 1.7x and while I could claim rounding I'm a big enough man to admit the gap is significant enough. Secondly, I forgot that DAOC is the runner up for American MMOs in terms of subscriptions. That belongs to Starwars Galaxies, another SOE game.

So to make my statement correct, EQ has about 170% of the subscriptions of its closest American competitor. Does that work better for you?

The fact is that the intent of BlueCup's statement is correct. You can twist it about and suggest he's wrong since America has 'seen' Lineage and FF XI but you should know his intent was to say that it's the largest in America. Trying to twist words because you're being proven wrong is no way to try to win an argument.

Or you could just keep contradicting people. Whatever floats your boat, as you say.

Re:Why change a winning formula?

[Dachannien]

You can always just play Everquest, then. EQ2 needs to fill a space in the genre not occupied by SOE's other games - otherwise, they'll just be shuffling around their current subscribers instead of attracting new and previously cancelled ones. Anyway, the devs of the original EQ have said that they plan to keep the game running and updated for perhaps ten more years. (Whether it has that much longevity in the market is anybody's guess, as is how much market share EQ2 will steal from EQ.)

great

[phloydphreak]

now I can pay rent, go to work, and work for the city all for the low low cost of $10 a month.

Hardly a huge graphical revolution...

[djcapelis]

The interface and graphics are a very similar style as EQ1. I really don't see horridly innovative graphics increases, just more pixles, not anything more descriptive or mechanically working better.

Re:Hardly a huge graphical revolution...

[Ayaress]

Really, does anything have revolutionary graphics anymore? Now that cell shading is all over the place, we're back to the same place we've been the last few years: Double the pixels, double the polygons, barely noticeable increase in quality.

"every square inch begs to be explored"

[scrytch]

One of the most beautiful ... games.

Bah. Got me all excited over a game?

Naysay all you like...

[Defunkt]

I see a lot of naysaying in the comments so far.

Naysay all you like - I regularly play the EQ2 internal beta build and it is not just EQ with new graphics, nor is it a levelling treadmill. There is tons of content, plenty of balanced questing, and dynamic encounters. Naysay all you like; you'll all be proven to be nothing more than mere armchair critics, while EQ2 goes on to win customers and awards. The game is shaping into something truly incredible, and the rest of you will see that when it is released.

Re:Naysay all you like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell modded this guy down to 0?? I wouldn't have modded him up, but there are too many fucking idiots with more mod points than they know what to do with these days.

Re:Naysay all you like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Naysay!

Re:Naysay all you like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell modded this guy down to 0?

Maybe somebody who noticed that the poster is a professional PR shill for Sony, and not an ordinary legitimate commenter.

What, you thought that stuff doesn't go on in places like Slashdot? How naive and quaint!

Re:Naysay all you like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy way to get free karma - claim to have some affiliation that gives you true insight into the topic at hand. Make your claim with no way to back it up.

Were you the same guy that posted the same BS about Galaxies when it was still in beta 1?

Re:Naysay all you like...

[Anonymous Coward]

so..what about the NDA you agreed to when getting into this beta?

Re:Naysay all you like...

[Number 110]

It doesn't occur to you that maybe he works in some other field at SOE other than marketting (professional PR shill) or is against Slashdot rules these days for people to take pride in what they do?

I mean really, is it unexpected that the people who work on EQ2 read games.slashdot.org? As for him being a legitimate commentator why isn't he? Because he identifies him self as being associated with Sony? So I suppose no one who actually works for a game company should ever post (since they will obviously have their own agendas). That sounds like an excellent way to make sure you have informed people giving commentary.

Looking through the preview..

[CashCarSTAR]

I would say, that with a downgrade in graphics, and a few slight tweaks, this is basically Final Fantasy XI. Not that this is a BAD thing....

Actually, that guild system seems like too much of a pain. I like the Linkshell I'm in FFXI, tons of people, always helping each other out, like a strong large community, always growing, and there's no real motive for us not to grow, meet new people and join together.

No PvP is a big improvement 'tho...PvP attracts the immature set..

No PvP = no subscription for me

[Osmosis_Garett]

Its sort of sad to see games moving in this direction. There is nothing more challenging than playing vs another human being, and nothing more boring than fighting the same NPC mobs over and over to get the ph4t l00tz. I belong to a PvP guild, and our average member age (of around 140 members) is about 25 years old. I can assure Sony that none of my guild will be playing this game. To be honest, none of us were really considering playing it in the first place, because the EQLive team has never given any serious consideration to the PvP crowd as their crappy PvP servers can attest to. There are much more interesting PvP games on the way (Darkfall, Dragon Empires, or Guild Wars to name a few) to want to lose a few pounds on this level treadmill.

To the people who feel that 'pvp attracts the immature crowd', mabye you're just a bit too old (or too mature) to be playing video games. We'll be all practiced up and waiting for you when you get bored of kiting a_hill_giant01 for the 100th time to get that last bubble of lvl 35.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Golias]

There is nothing more challenging than playing vs another human being

Correction: There are few things less challenging than playing an MMORPG dual against another human being. There is no skill involved in the combat system of these games, apart from the group tactics of fighting large armies of NPC mobs. If you win a PVP match-up in Everquest, AC, or whatever, you have accomplished pretty much nothing. You won because you went into the fight with the more powerful PVP character.

If you want be "challenged" by other people, go outside and play golf, tennis, basketball, or at the very least play an FPS game on your computer. MMORPG PvP is a joke.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Osmosis_Garett]

I can't really argue with that, and I agree with your correction. Still, one thing which is less challenging than playing a duel with another player is playing a duel with an NPC. Also, once you start playing on the 'free for all' kind of PVP servers, you get a group dynamic which introduces a lot of strategy and also some vaguely militaristic approaches.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Psychochild]

Correction: There are few things less challenging than playing an MMORPG dual against another human being.

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased since I run my own PvP-focused game, Meridian 59, but I'm going to have to disagree with this assertion. While it may feel ultimately hollow in many games, there are some games out there that focus on providing an interesting experience when fighting against other players; it depends on the game.

Fighting against another player can be a lot of fun because other players can come up with creative strategies and use their abilities in interesting ways in order to fool their opponent. In Meridian 59, you can take over an opponent's guild hall if you can sneak in behind another player. So, one player used a polymorph spell to change himself into a small monster (a dreaded giant rat of all things!) and used the size difference to hide easier.

In another example, there's a spell called "Mark of Dishonor" which reduces the target's vigor if they are evil. Since vigor is important in regeneration, this can be a crippling blow to an opponent. However the spell is an enchantment that prevents you from recasting the spell. However, you can cast a spell that is normally helpful that removes negative enchantments to remove Mark of Dishonor and cast it on an opponent again. This strategy has the disadvantage that if an ally is trying to cast a harmful spell, like Hold, on the target, you could remove that as well. We simply can't program an A.I. to come up with strategies like that on the fly and realize the consequences of the strategy.

So, in M59 you have challenge, skill, and the accomplishment of vanquishing a worthy opponent. A bit contrary to your assertion.

Of course, there are games where this isn't true. Many games are dominated by character level and equipment. A weak opponent has no chance to fight against a much more powerful opponent. When your only strategy is to have a higher level and use your most powerful damage abilities repeatedly, then the game becomes shallow and superficial. Victory means nothing since it was mathematically guaranteed before the first blow was even landed.

Have fun,

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Mongoose Disciple]

MMORPG PvP is a joke.

Inasmuch as that's true, it suggests a direction for future improvement -- not something all MMORPG developers should give up on entirely.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Well PvP does attrat the immature crowd. But thats not saying all PvPers are shit little kids wanting to take their uber level 100's to kill level 5 newbies.

Im looking for a PvP challenge myself. Been playing some Lineage 2 trying to get high enough to get involved in PvP.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Ayaress]

Haven't played Everquest since my 7 free days I got when I bought the game (way back when it came out) expired, but that doesn't count for all MMORPGs.

The way Ashen Empire's PvP combat works, it comes down to skill, much as players say otherwise. A lot of people just fight it out by beating on each other and clicking their potions, switching to a staff and casting remedy, etc, but the experienced PvPers all know that if you time your movements, you can get in hits on your opponent without them being able to hit you.

The good PvP players (the old FU guild (Fear Us) being some of the best in their day) would regularly kill level 60's and 80's with level 16 and 20 newbie characters. That's harder now with the rebalances, but it's still more about timing than stats. Not very long ago, a major PKer actually quit the game when a dozen or so level 10's looted his Staff of Enervation. To loot, you have to keep a person away from their body for about three minutes, meaning this guy got killed at least two or three times by people 80 and 90 levels below him. It's rare, but not at all unheard of for high level characters to loose items to groups of newbies.

No more Everquest for PvP?

[LGagnon]

Jade will be pissed.

Re:No more Everquest for PvP?

[cabra771]

I like your sig.

At least its better then a broken promise...

[JExtine]

"There are no plans for a PvP [Player vs. Player] server at release. There is no ETA on when or if we will ever have one."

Well, at least that's better then Sony telling everyone there is going to be PvP at release, then backing out on it, implementing it 3-4 months later, and debugging it a couple more months after that. Then again, with no ETA, who knows if it will ever be implemented or just another broken promise...

Re:At least its better then a broken promise...

[Anonymous Coward]

How could it be a broken promise when they explicitly say they do not even know if they will offer PVP? Just wonderin'...

Ultima has an opening here

[voss]

A complete rework of Ultima Online adding Complexity and using the Ultima interface which is so much more sensible than that gawdawful EQ interface might topple EQ.

Beautiful

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but this game really has very little going for it graphically. You could say it has some of the most *advanced* graphics, but not beautiful. If your idea of "beautiful" is having gaudy bump/normal maps applied to every conceivable surface, then it's a graphical wonder!

One step backward is two steps forward

[MMaestro]

Without complaining about EQ2 copying FFXI, I think its a good idea that they're taking the no PvP system seriously. Ever since the release of Ultima Online, PvP hs generated largely unpopular support. Yeah it was cool you could kill your friends or some random people you just ran into. But it wasn't cool if you were on the recieving end. Or if you got 'PKed' for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. PvP was largely, uncool in MMO games.

With the expection of the unique cases (Planetside and Lineage 2 FOCUSING on PvP) PvP has largely be unsuccessful in MMO games. GM support is woefully outstretched with most players takings matters into their own hands (spam in a high populated area and guess how many people will mute you... and leave you muted as long they play the game.) One of the most unbelieved results was when players in Ultima Online formed anti-PK clans and went around PKing PKers.

Re:One step backward is two steps forward

[Nexxpert]

From someone who got PK'ed a lot back in the good old days of Ultima Online and for a time, Tallon and Sullon zek of EQ. I enjoyed the PVP aspect, even if it meant dying. Most of all because it gave a sense to the world that other players could affect me, and not just everyone affecting the world by killing the same old mobs over and over. I enjoyed shadowbane for a little while, but the reason I left soon after I started was not because of the pvp, it was because the content was lacking. There were no dungeons, just a very flat and boring land which players had to run across and kill boring monsters.

My dream MMORPG would have the pvp rule set of the initial UO (without carebear land), the world depth and racial detailing of EQ, the sieges of Shadowbane, the easy and rewarding leveling/quest scheme of City of Heroes, all tied (somehow) into a real time fighting engine like PlanetSide. oh yeah, and all of this in a world that can hold double the amount of players, so that the solution to PK'ers should not be to get rid of PVP, but to try and move elsewhere just as nice, and not just a walk away, i'm talking deep into a wooded area where pk'ers would have to spend considerable amounts of time to find it.

But seriously, pvp is cool on both ends, as long as it doesn't put the dead player at a big disadvantage. In UO, it didn't really matter because equipment was cheap and the theif of it actually kept up the trade skill professions. That's really how trade skills are missing the marks in most games today. Once things are made, they're made but not lost. PVP and tradeskills go hand in hand. Lose your armour? that's good news for the blacksmith who need customers.

PvP

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think having no PvP is a very wise move. Since December, I've been a pretty heavy FFXI player and my experiences of PvP there have been quite amusing.

When I took up FFXI, there was no PvP, but everybody wanted it. For the first few months, every linkshell I joined was full of people demanding PvP, whining about needing PvP, moaning that they were going to give up the game if they didn't get PvP and saying "just wait until they bring in PvP" to everybody they didn't get along with. Even at the time, I could spot the obvious flaws in this, although I seemed to be in a pretty small minority.

Square-Enix seemed to take quite a lot of time develop PvP. Whether this was because it was a complex task, or because they had other priorities, I can't say. I suspect it was a bit of both.

Eventualy, PvP was introduced. It was fairly limited in scope... you had to go to specific areas and participate in special events to take part in it. "Never mind", thought the PvP crowd, "we can still kill all those people who've been annoying us". Then they found out that they couldn't. The outcome of PvP combat in a MMORPG is heavily dependant on the class and level of the participants. If you wanted to kill somebody and were able to, there was no way they'd let you get close enough to try. Of course, you couldn't spend all your time chasing them, as you had to watch out for all the people who wanted to kill *you*.

The result is that, on the server I play on at least, PvP is essentially dead in the water a couple of months after its launch. I'm glad they introduced it; it stopped a lot of moaning from the kiddies. Howver, I can see that Square-Enix wasted a lot of time and effort implementing a major feature which just doesn't get used now. It's not rocket-science for Sony to want to avoid making the same mistake.

Re:PvP

[Mongoose Disciple]

Disclaimer: I have, in the past, spent significant time as an administrator of a PK MUD. Obviously, this puts a certain spin on my opinions here.

The outcome of PvP combat in a MMORPG is heavily dependant on the class and level of the participants.

Historically, this has been true, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

It's possible to create a game in which one or two classes don't dominate PvP.

It's equally possible to create a game in which the higher level character does not win 90% of the time.

I'd further add that I believe that it's possible to do both without creating a game that's stupid or boring.

When I think about PvP, oddly, I often think of the movie My Cousin Vinny. There's a scene in there where Vinny explains that even though the prosecution's case seems very solid, it really can't be because the boys are innocent. He uses cards as an analogy for their witnesses, showing that while they look perfect and respectable taken from one angle, viewed from another, there's nothing there. I'm not explaining it very well, but those who have seen the movie will know what I'm talking about.

I think the balance of various character types in a PvP game needs to be like that. There should be no other character type in the game that yours can't beat with a little ingenuity and the proper setup. If you can engineer a situation that pits the "square" face of your card against some less ideal face of theirs, you should be able to win. The reverse, of course, is also true: there should be no character type in the game that yours can't lose to if you fight dumb enough.

Now, it's probably true that few, if any, MMORPGs currently in existence are deep enough, strategically, for that kind of class balance model to be possible. In my mind, that's a sign that we should be demanding more from games, rather than give up on the PvP model for this kind of game.

Bah...still same old EQ

[Lord_Dweomer]

"EverQuest II is one of the most beautiful games in development... Every square inch begs to be explored"

Right, maybe when you first start playing, but eventually you figure out where you need to run, and you don't even bother exploring every inch, because there's nothing worth looking for there. Your goal is to get from Town A to Zone B and camp so you can continue the level grind.

I'm sorry, but I'm extremely jaded from EQ. At least with Ultima Online you could wander around and forage for herbs, and find random wildlife, and harvest natural resources from *gasp* nature.

This is all without mentioning the fact that now people are able to host their own UO servers.

When EQ 2 comes out, they could make a LOT of money selling a dev kit for letting people make their own worlds/servers. They could even sell server space. But no...of course not, that would never happen.

Re:Bah...still same old EQ

[BGJayR]

Another game that you need to explore in order to harvest natural ressources is The Saga of Ryzom. Very nice scenery and wildlife.

Not immature, just different.

[Mongoose Disciple]

PvP attracts the immature set..

That's not entirely true.

Here's a paper written a long time ago about different player types in MUDs. It holds for other games as well. If you dig around, you can also probably find a test to tell you what type you are.

Granted, I think the author's own biases show. He describes the "killer" type, which would be the type drawn to PvP, as about griefing. I don't think that's true, though it might certainly seem so from an achiever standpoint. More, I think it's about competition, about an ideal that you're the best because you can and do go out and beat other people, not because you log more hours.

Players of the current crop of MMORPGs are almost universally achievers by Bartle's model. If you wonder why these games turn into super levelling treadmills, the answer is fairly simple: It's because that's what their core audience genuinely wants. They might bitch about the timesink that it is, but their choice to continue playing demonstrates more clearly than words that they anything but despise it.

screw this crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys dont fret, EQ will be the same old same old.....but this wont be www.shadowpool.com

People can oogle all they want but frankly EQ will be nothing new. And COMPLEX?! WHAT, this crap isnt complex. 4 classes? 4 ways to advance? HOw is this complex? I want skills systems, i want to make the character I want, not what sonywants my character to do. I hate screaming that "We need a healer!" or "We need a tank!" screw it, i want people who make tank healers :) or caster archers :).

PvP = no subscription for me

[metamatic]

Yeah, but PvP = no subscription for me.

And if you look at the top selling video games, PvP combat games are (a) the minority in terms of sales, and (b) a market that's glutted with competition.

It makes perfect sense for Sony to go for the non-PvP MMOG market. It's wide open.

The question for me is whether they'll do a Mac and/or Linux version, and offer a demo...

Re:PvP = no subscription for me

[Number 110]

In addition to being a minority and a glutted market PvP is also about three times as hard to balance. People grumble that their wizard can't kill orcs as fast as a magician of the same level but watch them scream when their wizard keeps getting cacked by the same magician.

EQ2 Equals Another Failed Sequel

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I can read about the game, they are improving the engine, trying to get a way from the massive campaign groups to designing a system like other games such as random generated quests and smaller group battles.

Finically speaking, it will be a success for the reason that they had a huge following. Nevertheless, the reason I am saying it will be a failure in my view is that they are not doing anything original from what I have read that hasn't been done before either by first EQ, Anarchy, UO or Dark Ages of Camelot. They were the first large scale 3d adventure (wasn't a top-down view) game nonetheless that is no longer the case. Making assumptions based on the earlier game but when EQ first came out they didn't design it with or without PVP. Their main thoughts where trying to develop a game that went to a new level beyond UO which they did. PVP just went to the wayside so as the game developed it designed itself around non-pvp system and that's what they know now. When the EQ was released I switched to the team PvP server from beta because I enjoy competing against another player ever so often instead of AI all the time(The early days when you could charm another player!). For me, AI is becoming better but it still is not up to par when it comes too a human rival. Personally, I can only compete against the same AI for so long before I am looking for something new. However don't get me wrong, I have a feeling EQ2 will be good for players that like to socialize but isn't that why they mad Sims Online?

Nice discussion

[tmortn]

I have to say though I think there is something that has not been dealt with. Obviously you have to have content in a game but it does not have to be consumable in the sense you two have gone back and forth on.

Take sports games for example... in particular Madden. Football games have been essentially the same since the initial madden release. Same rules. Lots of the same plays etc.... They add new bells and whistles and better graphics but you know what I mean.

However the game is a reusable resource. You don't have to lead people on by getting better players etc... There is not problem with people starting right out with skilled teams because it is a game that can be played out again and again and maintain its enjoyable nature.

This is the elusive nature of gaming that has thus far eluded MMORPG designers for the most part. It exists only in the social interaction of groups.

To me it is not the aquisition of higher/better goods that need draw people on but an environment which is continually enjoyable to engage with even if it is repetitive in nature. By creating the treadmill and things like levels you create the elusion of an 'end' I got to max level wooot... now what ? So you create something that is consumable to some extent and it creates a problem. You attract obbsessive compulsive achievers and do what you can to slow them down and yet once they get through the treadmill they are always going to lack for something else to do if you have made the game a slow grind of gaining something that runs out instead of a perpetual motion machine. That makes sense in a stand alone game... not in a multi player interactive world.

The most noteable example of this insanity that comes to my mind is Dark Age of Camelot. They had a possible player V player sport type world interaction with realm V realm play and then they made it almost impossible to get to and enjoy if you were not a power gamer. They placed blocks to peoples enjoyment of what had great potential in order that they didn't 'consume' the game to fast and it cost them.

The MMO game gold mine will be creating a game environment which engages people without the pull of 'improovement' but instead simply pulls them to interact for the sake of interacting ala sports. Sports addict people and they never get old, they continue to do the same thing over and over and over even though they may be as good as they will get... and in a video game you have a forum where getting old and no longer being able to particiapate is not an issue unless you do silly things like make it an issue with insane time requirments to get anywhere and artificially seperate everyone with levels that mean nothing more than one person has spent more time in this pariticular world than someone else. Make the seperation skill based.. IE you can be new and fit in with people of equal skill level be that advanced or utter noob.

After all once you boild it down killing a rat in EQ is the exact same as killing the dreaded Grue of shinning evil. Point click and wait. Why try to pull people with imaginary gains in levels and not focus on the interaction that does hold them ? Place game play dynamics that rely on stratigies and cooperation rather than the uber sword of elvishness and X number of experience points before you can point click and wait on the uber evil god of slaying. You have real people in the game world, let them run the world. People are sordid, scheming and endlessly changing. If you harness your players properly you don't have to create content because they will create it for you.

Re:Nice discussion

[Zhirem]

You have real people in the game world, let them run the world. People are sordid, scheming and endlessly changing. If you harness your players properly you don't have to create content because they will create it for you.

I have enjoyed reading this discussion. However, the above point I believe is worth looking at again:

I would argue that the quoted statement is not a good assumption. Look at There and Second Life. Additionally, SWG for most of it's live lifespan has relied upon the players to create content.

I would argue that this approach is also doomed to failure. SWG is my only example as I have not played Second Life or There (but am to understand that these games are a build your own type of thing, a sandbox with legos if you will).

However, in SWG, because the majority of the content has not been incredibly well received, at one point the devs said the point of having such poor or limited content is that the devs wanted to rely upon the player base for building their own content. They just wanted to put together the best sandbox they could to promote such activity.

The reality: You have one or two servers where one or two Player Associations do engage in sandbox content creation. The problem is that there are FAR too few players willing to create the content. Many players do NOT view content creation as fun. I would argue that most do not. They are paying to play a game that someone has built and is providing for them. Not to put in 'work' creating things for the benefit of the community of players. Most believe that that is in fact what the devs should be doing.

(additionally, most players are so creatively challenged that they cannot even come up with an original name, let alone any type of original or compelling story, etc.)

Getting off on a rant and I had not intended to do that. So I will close with this:

If I am to create my own content, one had best give me the most user-friendly tools with which to do this, and incentive for doing so. If one does not, then one's game is bound to die a premature death.

I had thought that with the levels of complexity and 'balanced' systems would make SWG the end-all be-all of the MMORPG market. I was mistaken. It does provide quite a sandbox, but in the end, just really is not fun. SOE spent a WHOLE lot of money to have the end result being far more like work than like play.

Anyways, nice discussion. It has been a pleasure to follow along and watch it progress.

- Zhirem

Re:Nice discussion

[Number 110]

Thank you both Tmortn and Zhirem for your comments (as well as *Weasel without whom this discussion never would have started)

I don't think the sports game idea would really work well with an MMO. Sports players tend to be different from MMO players, favoring consoles over PCs and the real world (watching sporting events for instance) over the fictional (watching movies).

This is of course a huge generalization and there is cross over with sports players who like movies and suck. There is even a fair amount of overlap with players who do both, but I think that trying to build an MMO using design techniques gleaned from sports games is a very risky proposition.

MMOs, at least to my perception, are about storytelling at the core and in any story a character needs some form of progression. In most cases this is usually towards a clearly defined objective (get the girl, avenge the father) but even in cases where the story is 'without goal' such as Kurosawa's Ikiru there is growth of the character. In fact in such stories where there is no simply goal the growth of the character is paramount and so is usually much better explored.

Sporting games on the other hand are based around the idea of competition. No one watching a football game really expects the players to emerge as changed individuals and better human beings for their experiences in the game.

Again, this isn't to say there aren't elements of crossover between the two. Certainly many stories are told with the background of competition (such as Rocky) and certainly there are many people in MMOs who turn character development into a competition, seeing who can level faster, however despite the points that the two may share in common the have very separate roots, at least to my perceptions.

With an MMO some form of character advancement is almost guaranteed. Even if skills never were to advance you would have an inevitable increase in ability as better items are looted from fallen enemies. While it is possible to make an MMO that has no loot, or nearly no loot (such as City of Heroes) I think that people would quickly loose any feeling of accomplishment if they started with the best weapon they would ever have an they never got a better one. Additionally without an increase in skills or the promise of loot there would be little motivation for to fight a group of orcs. Even City of Heroes, which emphasizes skill gains over loot, has forms of loot, both in terms of tradable items as well as coinage, and it is a genre in which the looting of a fallen enemy does not typically occur (I've never seen Batman decide to loot some criminal that he smacked down).

In sports games of course this is not an issue. Equipment is regulated and a rookie player possesses the exact same quality of equipment as the most elite veteran. Additional the looting of people such as a sacked quarterback is strongly discouraged.

On to player created content:

I am an old dyed in the wool RPGer. I started with D&D nearly 25 years ago and some of the best games I have ever played in were player motivated games. Those were the games in which characters had goals and pursued them (I want to build a castle and become a baron, for instance). Rather than just being presented with the dungeon of the week and moving through it the players would typically decide what it was that they wanted to do and would inform the GM of their choices. The GM would then prepare the appropriate stories based on those choices (the King isn't crazy about your idea of establishing yourself as a baron and sends down a contingent of 100 knights to kick your butt) and then the players would choose new courses of action, such as raising troops or sending an envoy to the King and offer him a third of the taxes raised for the next 20 years as well as a dozen heads of cattle a year.

I got so heavily into this mode of play that when I joined a new group I was shocked to remember that not everyone used this style of play. In fact it was a minority of people w

Re:Nice discussion

[tmortn]

I agree very much with what you had to say.

I will point out one thing, I know sports have a given competitive and regulated nature but what I was pointing out is that the real game world interaction of EQ is essentially no different at lower levels than it is at higher levels in much the same way that a pitcher approaches a batter the same way in little league as they would in the majors. Subtelties emerge obviously but the essential confrontation remains unchanged.

In real life there are real sepreations between little league and major league players. There are obvious age and skil differences which keep Jr. or Joe six pack from bing signed to play ball at the big league level. But if you have this ability there is nothing stopping you except to many other skilled players.

In EQ the seperation between the uber warriors and guilds is two fold. There is a deffinate skill usage invovled in choosing strategies etc.. but there is also a highly artificial barrier in the level system and the time required to advance through it.

I do not buy that not having any attainable/clearly defined or improovment scheme in place means an MMO cannot survive. Witness the many players who continue to play even after obtaining all that they can. Lvl 60 EQ players and such, many who have played for years.

The true hook is the social interaction. Its almost impossible to make content for more than a few hours of game play without some form of artificial pacing system. However as I have pointed out the EQ mechanics don't really change from the 1st level to the last level yet people continue to engage in this action for a reason. THe similarity I see with sports games is that their interactions are also the same from start to finish. I simply see no reason to have the artificial stretch. All it does is cause a barrier to interaction between players. MMO's should be ALL about getting people to play together and have as few artificial seperations as possible. People are quite good at seperating themselves already. Have lots of quests, have execution order ( a - b - c etc... ) have open ended options but don't restrict what you can start and what you can do by 'levels' or by what you have or have not or at least don't make attaining what you need the process of weeks if not months.

I agree that most people have niether the time nor inclination to ceate content. But there are many that do and to date they have had very little power. Even in SWG there was no changing the world once you got down to brass tacks. It was still and is a 'ground hogs day' game same as every other MMO to date. There and second life are more along the idea of what I am thinking but take that freedom and plop people down in a world with something to do rather than fart around in beach buggies and paint ball games. Give them the Starwars Universe and let them create the tale of in a galaxy far far a way and then get out of their way instead of spoon feeding them pre-determined morsels. Give them the Star Trek world and let them decide where the borders and neutral zones go, which races becomes dominate. Set them up in Middle earth and let them tell the tale of the 3rd age, Aurther and his Court, Robin Hood, WWII and more.

Developers are scared of this approach because they loose control, and with control they loose predictability. The possibility comes that the game will go horribly wrong but with that risk also comes the possiblity of a self sustaining environment that people return to over and over and over and has no expiration date because it will change as the population does. It is a fundamentally different approach that has yet to be tried. There and second life has NO story, SWG, Camelot, EQ and others have a story but essentially no change so there might as well be no story.... IE its just a back drop. It is a playing field as surely as a baseball diamond or football gridiron.

A player driven game is the perpetual motion machine of the games. Take Counter Strike and other MOD heavy games that completely o

PVP

[Stormcrow309]

It is my opinion that the best route to take is to have an 'optional' pvp system. Make the players turn on a feature, or join a faction like SW:G. That way, you know what the hell you are in for and if you complain - well you can stuff yourself into a pringles can before I take you off ignore.

--- Why doesn't life have an effective /ignore flag.