Slashdot Mirror
The Lameness of Warcraft
Slate is running an article lamenting the fact that, despite World of Warcraft's popularity, it is a deeply flawed game. Author Chris Dahlen makes the statement that Blizzard's MMOG should take its cues from single-player RPGs by offering further customization, morality based choices, and dynamic events. From the article: "Blizzard has written new storylines before. Last winter, it challenged players to team up and fuel a worldwide war effort. As a payoff, it unlocked new territory. This was a good example of letting the users drive a story, but Warcraft needs more of them. New wars should break out, cities should rise and fall, and all hell should break loose at least once a month--and the players should be the ones to make it happen. After all, in a world that never changes, you can never make your mark." I want to be snarky and point out that this guy obviously has no idea how these games are designed, but I think he pretty much nails what every MMOG player really wants out of a game. Now, if only it were feasible within the bounds of money, time, and talent.
Warcraft 2 was probably the last best game in the series and the greatest game Blizzard ever made.
Not that I don't like WoW or anything, but I haven't seen anything in it worth paying every month for, in addition to the game itself. Until there *are* such dynamic events, I'll stick with games that are free once I buy them the first time... If ideas like this were implemented, though, there's a good chance I'd be willing to shell out.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
One thing that all MMO games need is self-generating content regardless of whether that content is procedural or combinatorial; procedural is where content is created through an algorithm, combinatorial is where you have content that is split into a bunch of independant sections where the final product is a combination of all of the sections. This is so important because it would free up resources to produce more "crafted" experiences.
Asheron's Call did it right with motes. Collect 2 and it forms a bigger one. Do this for elemental immunity %. 2^100 is a lot of motes to find. Sure you can find ones in higher #s but its a collect game that will never stop.
Castles that rule housings. You have to conquer the castle to get it, then people who farm the land and run crafthouses pay tithes to you. Any band of adventurers can try and steal your Castle off you, but your offline guildmates show up and defend it.
Real time combat like Mortal Kombat or Tekken. It'd be like Zelda Ocariana of time MMOG. You would have to do all sorts of sword play or aiming bows like a FPS.
Those are just 3 of my big ideas.
I already did #3, but I'm making it multiplayer over the next couple months. I got some bugs with directdraw not working, but it doesn't stop the 3d action combat.
God spoke to me.
You're a rat, and the game keeps sending you to look for bigger pellets.
People never tire of making that analogy, do they? But it's probably about the most worthless analogy you could make. Reducing an activity to stimulus/response may seem clever, but the trouble is that it works for pretty much every human behavior imaginable. And it certainly works for every leisure activity.
The problem is that games are supposed to be fun. You're going to have to work really hard to come up with an alternative criteria. And since fun is pretty subjective, there's really not much room for criticism.
Art, literature, poetry, drama and film all have associate bodies of academic criticism and pop-derivatives. So there's a semi-objective framework from which you can criticize these works even if they are popular. Everyone rushes out to see "Titanic", but it still had some really, really lame dialog.
Unless you're going to make a similar attack on gaming (e.g. lame dialog, bad graphics, etc.) it's really hard to make any criticism that doesn't reduce to petulant whining. There simple is no cohesive theory of gaming criticism (outside of technical elements), and so before you start slinging criticisms you need to build the framework. I don't see that happening in this article.
So basically, it's just whining.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
...Blizzard got it all wrong that is why nobody is playing it. Blizzard, Listen up! If you want people to play this little game you devised, you better start listening to random internet guy or else it will never take off.
You have been warned
Tell us something we don't know.
So basically, he's saying that WoW is a deeply flawed game because it's not absolutely perfect? Can anyone think of a game that features all of the aspects he claims WoW lacks, plus the ones it already has? While we're at it, does anybody have the waaaaambulance on speed dail? Let's face it, WoW is the best MMO out there right now. It's also *arguably* the best ever. If you can manage to complain about it, at the risk of being labeled a troll I'm gonna assume you're a wanker.
Seeing as how the entire Vivendi company's profits rose by 190% mainly on the "higher margin of the World of Warcraft business," I think Blizzard's standard response about money being a problem in the creation of dynamic events rings a little hollow.
One example (fta):
... yeah. There is no overarching story to WoW. Or at least not a long, drawn-out historical one. Like EQ or EQ2. Not sure about Vanguard. EQ had tomes and books found in libraries, spawn points and dropped off of mobs that painted a clear picture of the historical timeline and the relevance of various events. And there **were** one-time events that occured in-line with the history of the world (for example, the waking of the Sleeper).
...
Players never face moral quandaries and never get to choose between an upstanding act and an evil one.
Everquest allowed you to do this on a daily basis. EQ2 as well. Vanguard (will be released Q1 2007) will have this element as well.
And on storytelling
And Vanguard is doing away with static spawns. It should be a good thing
No, sorry to burst your bubble, but not every game, by far, wants a world which is torn asunder monthly.
Warcraft succeeds because blizzard realizes something the pundits don't, people still play games for fun.
Logging into an unknown situation isn't what most gamers want, if so many other games would have done well that haven't. For the most part players cannot be trusted, especially those who want anarchy and the like. Oh yeah they will repackage it as something other than anarchy but that is all they really want. Fun at someone else's expense drives that other off.
His ideas for character customization are fine, many would like that. Housing can wait, if ever. The game doesn't need it. As for the morals section, most players still wouldn't care. They will do the task presented. While it might be interesting to have the choice to cheat a NPC what real point is there? A lot of his ideas are best suited to PvP aspects of the game.
For the most part he seems to be lamenting that WOW does not have features he found interesting in another game. It goes without saying that that other game obviously is lacking in the rest of the department that he'd rather play WOW - just with some things added. WOW is a very good game. That people want to add features to it only proves that point. Unpopular games rarely get lauded and have recommendations placed to them as much as WOW does.
Look at it this way, there are games that do offer what he wants, and some are coming that will also. Will they succeed? Well it really comes down to one important factor : Is it fun? WOW still passes that test more than any other game for a majority of MMORPG players.
For everyone claim of WOW being lame I just have to ask, with population numbers like it has what does that make the other games?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The only talent or skill in an MMORPG is staying online.
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
The reason I never really got into MMORPGs, despite trying several including WOW was that you're living in a world where every real person is a hero. It reminded me of nothing so much as that Monty Python sketch where there's a world full of supermen. An offline RPG, on the other hand, lets you be the only hero or at least one of a small band of heroes, the fate of the world in your hands. Online, you're not really making any difference at all. No matter how many orcs you slay there'll always be more and more.
I want to be snarky and point out this editor obvious has no grasp of grammar.
The problem with this type of dynamic world alteration is that newer characters are subject to the mercy or malice of the majority of the top-level characters. While this may not seem like huge deal, it would suck really bad if you could no longer get your whatever-thingamajig because punks destroyed the place to get it. Also, on most servers, there is a huge imbalance between the number of alliance characters vs. horde characters, so the world (in most cases) would tip toward the alliance's favor time and time again.
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
EVE Online is almost entirely player driven. The story CCP (the company that makes the game) has is influenced by players. Epic wars and stories unfold all the time and it is all player built. WoW just isn't built with a structure to let this type of thing happen.
Indeed. How lame is chess--all you do is move the same pieces the same way over and over again. Obviously the game would be better if there were more options. If people didn't find the game fun, they probably wouldn't play it. While there are things it could have done better, it's hard to think of WOW as a failure. And there is no guarantee that a more complicated game, like the author desires, would actually attract a bigger audience. In fact, I would argue it would do less. If you make it more possible for people to "Leave Their Mark" you are, in the process, going to create a lot of users who fail to make their mark and are frustrated.
There are a lot of WoW stories. I have a hole in my understanding: what happens if you die in the game?
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
Shadowbane has a good number of the ideas he presents.
Shadowbane has cities and empires that rise and fall, server wars, people driven politics. No safe areas, you are always in danger of being killed, that really makes guilds, nations, alliances, territory claims really matter.
When I tried WoW, all I could do was laugh.
Shadowbane is an amazing game because the players make things matter, not the programmers.
I don't play anymore because after 18 months it had taken over my real life, but it was the best 18 months of gaming I have ever had and I have been playing MMORPGS since my BBS and MUD days.
Wax on, wax off baby!
Give me some money, a team, time, and good hardware and ill see what I can do.
Yes, I know I'm delusional, I'm gonna be a cube rat in the end but I can always dream.
You mad
"This was a good example of letting the users drive a story, but Warcraft needs more of them. New wars should break out, cities should rise and fall, and all hell should break loose at least once a month--and the players should be the ones to make it happen.
I want to be snarky and point out that this guy obvious has no idea how these games are designed, but I think he pretty much nails what very MMOG player really wants out of a game. Now, if only it were feasible within the bounds of money, time, and talent."
Isn't this basically starcraft or the original warcraft, albeit perhaps with sturdier buildings?
I think the trick is to have avatars manage resources, like a king, mayor or general. Avatars would capture territory, harvest resources, defend territory, build cities and armies, and go forth and conquer some more. You wouldn't directly control armies through mouse-click micromanagement, but rather they would simply follow orders. (A neat feature would be where you could capture enemy buildings instead of having to destroy others and only build your own.)
All of the back story elements that are difficult and expensive to develop would naturally arise as players form alliances, use each other, backstab, double-cross, and try every technique from the dirty playbook of human history to gain more power and wealth.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
What is the motivation for this kind of change??? In other words, why should Blizzard care? They are making money hand over fist with the current model, why change? Yes, some people are getting tired and leaving, but it seems like they are being replaced with new people just as fast. http://www.tomandemily.com/
http://www.tomandemily.com
Congratulations, you've just been successfully manipulated.
If there's anything thought provoking about this article, it's made me wonder how WoW stacks up in profitability versus OFFLINE RPGS.
How much money did Neverwinter Nights make?
It's almost unthinkable that an online RPG could reach that critical mass, it seems like only yesterday I was outraged when I bought Ultima Online and learned it had a monthly fee.
Does anyone have that kind of information on hand?
Zonk, it takes about six seconds to re-read the portion of the article you were responsible for writing. Maybe you could spend that extra time to at least give the illusion that you aren't typing with an Xbox360 controller in your other hand all the time..?
Personally, I would like to have seen a massive zombie invasion this last Halloween, but the author does have a legit point... This game sucks (Even when playing my 60 Priest) when all your quests are the same old repetitive killing/traveling/grinding/farming.
This is why I'm quitting the game after 16 months of playing.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
weapons and armor never shatter and break.
Do that and you'd have a lot less problems.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"I want to be snarky and point out that this guy obvious has no idea how these games are designed, but I think he pretty much nails what very MMOG player really wants out of a game. Now, if only it were feasible within the bounds of money, time, and talent."
You mean, like EVE somehow manages to do?
Right now, there's a rather large empire falling in the south. Fraps at eleven.
The thing with World of Warcraft is it does infact actually have a large amount of static content. There is plenty of quests to drive a storyline, but unfortunately most of this content is ignored by people who speed through these quests to get to the next best level.
The war effort that the player was talking about wasn't that "Storyline driven" At all. The result of the event was predetermined, and it was just a matter of time until it was unlocked. It was hardly the "teaming up" to conquer a huge task as he describes it.
Creating a game with towns that rise and fall, with invasions of all sorts would be to the extent of two things. Either a player inputted game where the players create the cities and what not, or massive, constant changing content by the developers. The first one is not the style of world of warcraft at all. If a player wants that, they may as well go to a game "like A tail of two deserts" (or whatever the game is called). The Second option would be on par to creating expansion packs that change existing content instead of adding it, which doesn't make alot of sense. For those who wish to "Change the world" There are plenty of options in the game, such as controlled territories, or guilds that set up their own raids, either in instances or towns.
Part of what I have seen in MMORPGs is it is difficult to have a world that is ever changing, because people start and stop the game at different periods of time. Having a kingdom go from prosperity to ruin may sound like a good idea, but in doing so, you must create new content for both before, during, and after, with some of the content in each portion being erased.
Some ideas that we see in RPGS would be nice, but unrealistic in an MMORPG.
In EQ1 I was disappointed that the war of Evil vs Good races never went anywhere. The backstory told of an attack on Freeport by the Evil races. I wanted to be able to take Freeport, get a group of PCs and enough strength to take out the Freeport guards and other NPCs.
Was never going to happen.
DAoC had the territory system and that was good, though organising 100s of people to do a raid was always a bit random.
Dynamic systems are a tricky business though. Keeping the balance right is an obvious challenge.
Eventually it will work out, all the MMO people know it. It's just a matter of time.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
...the article is about "World of Warcraft", a different kettle of fish entirely.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I actually just started playing last night after an unsucessful attempt to evade my friend's bombardment of WoW propoganda. I have to agree. The best part of the game for me so far is learning the build-making strat and seeing all the old stuff from the RTS games. I'm an old school Everquest raid fanatic that couldn't put the mouse down, but this game does little tog et me really excited. And yes, I just got done reasoning (with a sleep-deprived brain, mind you) that the game is reminiscent of single player, offline RPG's in much of it's approach.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Personally, I'd want a faster base movement rate if I was to return to WoW. Even with a mount, moving long distance is a gruelingly slow and intensely boring proposition.
One limitation is that you choose your faction at the moment you create your character, not through the quests that you choose. It's interesting to imagine how the game would be different if someone could choose to join the Defias or Bloodsail Buccaneers or the Venture Company by accepting certain quests. Sure, some quests let you gain reputation with certain factions, but the game doesn't really force you to choose one side or another through your actions.
I started playing WoW with a friend who's a policeman. When we got to the mid-twenties, we were gathering quests in Darkshire when he sent me a tell - "This guy just offered me money to make a hit on a guy in jail." Now, it's just a regular quest in the game, but from a real-life ethics perspective - especially for a guy whose day job revolves around the judicial process - a vigilante killing for hire is serious stuff. What if players could choose to kill the guy or escort him out after subduing him?
But yeah, we did end up killing all those dudes in the stockades.
I don't think Dahlen has any idea how "grinds" are created. They aren't part of the designs of the game: they are emergent phenomena that occur when players seek to isolate the most efficient method of achieving a goal, and then repeat that method.
By their very nature as rule-constituted software systems, games will tend to instrumental play. There is already one exception: Second Life, which is already available. My question is: why hasn't the world flocked there? Could it be that, despite protests to the contrary, we like a well-defined achievement path, and enjoy finding efficient methods for progressing on them? Could the grind be part of the pleasure, even if it doesn't "feel" like it is?
Almost every event in that game is player organized. And when it's not, the GMs come in and play characters and create events that shape the content and the game. Nations rise and fall in Eve, because it's all player driven. Ask Eve players why they think the concept is better. Especially ask the people who still play after like 4-5 years.
You should be able to jump into the world via virtual reality *whine*, and then you should be able to smell a dwarf and touch a night elf's booby's, BECAUSE I SAID SO *whine*. Everything this dude describes is beyond the capabilities of the developer to put into the game. So shut up and enjoy what they serve you *LOL*.
I believe he is dead on but only for a certain, and possibly, the majority fo the player base.
Instances, BGs and the emphasis on PVE content generates the lameness. However, there
is nothing to bring the casual and majority of paying customers for a completely player
driven world has this world would, more than likely, be brutal and completely unforgiving
to "nubs".
The closest thing I have seen and participated in of player generated content is on the
Hamorush (sorry spelling?) server. In this realm, the Horde guild is making an
attempt to bring open world PVP action back to the game. An alliance guild has been
created in response and, some may argue, actual War into Warcraft. Towns may not actually
fall but it does make the Hillsbrad unquestable.
I actually like the game the way it is, for the most part; I don't necessarily want world-altering events, because if I miss them, I never get to see them. I'd rather have events that are just there for everyone to do, despite the suspension of disbelief issues. (Those stupid kids in redridge are obviously throwing that necklace back in the lake the moment you hand it in.)
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
This has been done in a game called "Shadowbane", years ago. It's actually still around for free (game and network) from what I've heard.
It was built on the idea of "Guild Warfare", where guilds and townships would defend their territory from others with largescale, epic battles.
It worked great when it was happening but you quickly saw it was a fringe thing. People didn't like risking their things they played so long to aquire.
In the end, most people are care bears and just want to chat and farm while wasting away their lives.
Most people in these games don't fit the traditional model of gamers. In fact, many of the players in these games are pathetic and are easily killed by skilled game players who've put in a fraction of the time.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
'Players never face moral quandaries and never get to choose between an upstanding act and an evil one.'
Obviously this person has never been ninja'ed out of loot, had a priest suddenly drop out mid-instance, or had a gold-farmer train him. =P
You can see discussion about MMOs and how to "improve" them here:
VNBoards MMORPG Concepts and Design
I would say that pretty much no idea has been left unnoticed there.
I want to be snarky and point out that Zonk obviously has no idea how other games are designed, but I think he pretty much nails why games publishers make bad decisions about what they publish. Those looking to play something other than a massively single-player game such as WoW might want to look at games such as Eve Online.
Clearly this guy has barely played world of warcraft at all and doesn't understand what keeps people playing once they hit the level cap.
1. 90% of the people who play this game don't give a rats ass about the story and when presented with a quest, skip the text and just try to finish it as fast as possible as the means to level up or get an item that they need.
2. The real appeal of the game is the challenging raid encounters and the social environment that has evolved around beating said encounters. People end up in every social guilds that all work together to defeat very difficult content. It's like the same reason people play team sports, there is no story around the sport that makes it interesting, it's the strategy, the socializing, the working together that makes people keep playing team sports. Also, imagine a team sport where once you have mastered one level of the sport you are presented with new and even more difficult challenges. If your "team" is good enough and cohesive enough, there is even the thrill of being able to spend months working on encounters and being the first group of people in the world to beat them. This teamplay/challenge comes into play in both PVE and PVP aspects of the game. This is what bridges the gap between the FPS/RTS type players and the RPG type players out there (being able to fullfil a class based roll in a highly strategy scenario and evolve your class/gear over time).
He clearly has misconceptions about WoW and would like to play a game that involves more role playing gayness and less strategy/teamwork/progression.
I don't want an f'n house. I want to be challenged 100% of the time.
Item finding isn't even one of the major categories of play in an RPG. There are three types of players: Dice Rollers, Problem Solvers, and Role Players. A good DM knows his players and can juggle the desires of everyone in a group. When someone looks bored, the DM can throw in a challenge suited to that player.
Dice Rollers are numbers wranglers who want a good game of chance. The most common sub-species is the Hack-n-Slasher, but that's just because most rule sets lend themselves to that kind of dice rolling. In games that have skill rolls, you'll find these guys rolling for damn near every feat up to and including getting up in the morning. "An 18?!? I spring from my bed and land in my shoes in one smooth motion! Hurrah!"
Problem Solvers like puzzles and planning. These are the guys who calculate exactly how many miles your party will average per day trekking across the Great Arid Waste and know exactly how much food and water to pack. When the party stumbles across a series of levers and switches in the dungeon, these are the guys to call. "Gruntmore the Dwarf pulls the red lever, goes through the blue door, pushes the star shaped switch, coems back out, pushes the green lever to a 45 degree angle disabling the secret blade trap and we all go merrily on our way!"
Role Players like to have long, drawn out in-character conversations with every shopkeeper and passing peasant they encounter. Whereas Dice Rollers will do whatever it takes to win, and Problem Solvers playing stupid characters will still come up with genius plans, these guys are apt to do utterly stupid things if they think that's what their character would do. They also tend to talk about their characters in the first person. "I leap from behind the tree and run screaming at the horde of orcs- What? Yes, I know the plan was to sneak up on them, but I'm overconfident with anger management issues. But you should really say that in character..."
But perhaps I missed your point, were you saying RPGs are about item finding or RTSs are? In any case, I think the real trick to either is actually basing it on a good simulation of some sort, but having story telling hooks that can effect the sim in the scripting interface, and have those hooks have flexible triggers and random details so that the same basic plotline can be activated from many different starting points using characters and locations tailored to the individual players. But I understand how hard it would be to scale a system like that up to WoW levels.
The real problem with WoW is that it isn't an RPG and it isn't for people who traditionally like RPGs so the players who would bring real quality to the game are driven away by all the Azkiker4921s and l33tWariers in the game.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But then, if there were wars every month, how would gamers have time to make renditions of our favorite songs Warcraft-style?
Maybe once in a while there should be a player who has the power to kill any other player and admins too.
Then everyone would have to fight that player together and become heroes.
"You can just...stand outside in the sun throwing a ball around, or you can sit in front of your computer and do something that matters!"
Yes it would be pretty cool if you could make your character look different from all the other male Trolls running around, but keeping it just a few simple bodies that are only wearing different things is how the game stays so fast. If everyone looks completely different, every time you run through a city, your computer would have to load the graphic(and therefore need to be given the specs) for every character in the city instead of just which outline they chose and what the character is wearing. This would increase lag a ton and make it much harder for the game to run at fast speeds.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Not only I beg to differ, but furthermore, I cannot find words to express my disgust with that event. Let me explain.
Ok, Blizzard announced that in next content patch there will be some huge event, which everyone can take part which will unlock some new content. Content patch arrived, and for each server both factions (alliance and horde) needed to chinese-farm *ridiculous* amounts of materials (which drop from monster, can be gathered etc). Then, when all the materials were gathered, the Guy-with-the-key can open the gates of the new content ("Ahn'Qiraj"), which everyone should enjoy. Well, that one can sound kinda fun, but lets see some facts first.
Amount of materials were too much for like 98% of servers (look at the sheer number of materials here: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/wareffort/wareffor
At the same time with those huge farming effort, there was a quest line which could effectively be only taken by one(!) person in the whole server. Only that guy could initiate the boss fights, pick rewards, see quest text etc. But that guy needed help from his guild (best guild on the server) and other guilds in defeating some bosses. On some boss fights there was such a big slowdowns that server(s) couldn't handle it and crashed repeatedly. At the end of that ridiculously long quest line (for just that one guy), he got [Scepter of the Shifting Sands] by which he could open the gates of Ahn'Qiraj and ultimately unlock the new content (assuming that war effort - materials gathering was done). So what happened on our server (Ragnaros, EU)? Our server was average in gathering materials so after a month or more, they gathered them "for us". But there was a problem with the guy who needed to open the gates. Some major guilds (me included) helped him and his guild defeat some bosses and make that Scepter. When he finished the scepter somewhere in the middle of the night, he didn't came online for days, telling on the realm servers that whole realm population didn't "deserve" the gates to be opened, that he will not do it, generally flexing his e-peen. The guy single handedly held whole realm as a fools. Some seven days later guy opened the doors after some ass licking by his guild mates on forums. And this was not the one and only incident, there were a lot of them on other servers.
So to conclude, the event was total fiasco because of server crashes, non-existent story for 99.999% of players, e-peen flexing moron with the key, nolife kids telling others that they should farm materials more so they (nolifers) can go into the new instance, mind-puzzling number of materials to farm for *all* of the population etc.
We'll, that was my take on that glorious event.
PS Sorry for the grammar
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
Slate is running article lamenting the fact that, despite World of Warcraft's popularity, it is a deeply flawed game.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the game is deeply flawed... but there are certainly better MMORPGs out there. Why, then, is this game doing so well? I think it has to do with a few things - timing, name recognition, and balance. WoW came out and was relatively unchallenged... The only other major MMO at the time (that I can think of, I'm sure there were others) was Final Fantasy XI, which was suffering a bit from Real-Money Trade and people getting tired of the amount of grinding required to actually get anywhere. Grinding has been slightly alleviated, but it doesn't matter, because WoW has developed a huge playerbase and its growth doesn't seem to be slowing down. So while I might feel that FFXI is a superior game, my claim doesn't matter too much when you look at the number of subscribers - FFXI's highest was roughly around 650,000 (it has now retreated back down to around 500,000), where WoW is 7.5 million and still growing.
Another thing that WoW has going for it is its name. WarCraft is disputably one of the most praised RTS series ever. I know when I heard about World of Warcraft, I was psyched, because I loved the previous WarCraft games.
WoW seems to have found that sweet spot where it's easy enough for casual gamers to keep playing, but it has enough content to keep hardcore players addicted. And the formula works - with my work and my classes keeping me busy,leaving only a few hours here and there to play, WoW doesn't leave me completely and utterly frustrated like FFXI does.
So what if WoW is flawed? Apparently 7.5 million people don't mind it too much.
Don't get me wrong, I like Slate and read it every day, but THREE slashdot threads, almost in a row, direct from Slate?? Has Slashdot gone Slate-happy?
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Here's a plug for the interactive story line concept: Saga of Ryzom(SoR). In particular, check out the Ryzom Ring which allows players to create their own instanced quests off the main servers.
They also run GM-coordinated events, where GMs are actually directly involved (i.e.: spawning creatures, controlling environment, etc.). In this way big events are not just happening, they're happening differently across different servers. I've not reached the levels to confirm this, but from what I understand, landscapes between servers are actually different.
Like all MMOs, Ryzom has its faults, but it's definitely a mature community and I get this feeling that they're working towards the goals in TFA.
Face it, WoWs combat is lame.
All you basically do, is type a series of spells and hammer away with your weapon at the same time.
Compare this to a FPS or a beat them up, where there are skills inovlved on how to manouver, what kicks/ punches to use, or which weapons to use, and how. In Wow, combat is just a tactic of which spell to cast first.
More exiting combat, and less (boring) running from place to place, and im sold.
Ok I know I should and I will make an acount but I really wanted to respond to this.
The dynamic worlds some people (as in myself included) are asking for will obviously risk that one clan dominates the whole world. The problem is that you are saying this is bad.
Let's imagine a MMORPG of Starcraft. Let's say most people find the zergs cool and play a zerg. Obviously the whole universe would be eventually conquered by zergs. That's bad right ? Nope. The remnants of the Protoss and Terrans would be survivors moving from caves to caves, trying to survive until one day they get in touch with enough people to conquer a town or something. But even if they never do, the fun of roleplaying a minority trying to survive is there. I would actually be more bored in the dominant faction to tell you the truth.
What could the zergs do in that case ? Well obviously they would turn against themselves after a while because some player would want more power or something. The zergs would be divided and thus the "pwned" factions (say terrans and protoss) could slowly rebuild since no zerg would really care about them anymore.
So that kind of world would work.
What I would really like to see though is the ability to steal everything off a corpse like in Diablo 1. You might say losing your super master sword of ultimate doom would sabotage your fun but after the first time it happens to you you'll become less materialistic and focus on the game instead. Also you can always steal equipments from your enemies later.
Last thing I hate is that if you die it's supposed to be something bad. Lose half of your levels or something but don't treat us like kids !
The way games are made right now is that everybody wins. How boring is that ?
There's one flaw in your analagy. Those sports to which you refer involve playing against other people, not computer-controlled content with highly-patterned behaviors. WoW is a game for people who enjoy Mario-style challenges with their friends. And that's fine. But it's not a team sport.
In PvP is it different - you are playing against other players and in some sense your reputation is on the line when you enter combat, assuming the combat is important enough for people to notice and maybe record the outcome.
The OP may be confused about what makes WoW great (it is certainly appealing to a large class of MMO players) but he's not asking for more 'role-playing gayness', and WoW is not comparatively high on the 'strategy/teamwork/progression' rankings. It is a run-of-the-mill fantasy MMO with average game mechanics, the Honda of MMOs. People like Hondas. The OP prefers something more exotic, I think.
Why on earth would you vote that offtopic? Give the guy a break
I want to be snarky and point out that this guy obvious has no idea how these games are designed, but I think he pretty much nails what very MMOG player really wants out of a game. Now, if only it were feasible within the bounds of money, time, and talent.
It seems a little more likely that you're just buying into the excuses cooked up by the marketing departments of the MMORPG industry. Turbine pulled off most of what TFA asks for in the original Asheron's Call and made money hand over fist, and still had a hell of a lot fewer customers than WoW. With all those customers Blizzard could easily cram a lot more content into the game, but that would require Vivendi to be nicer to employees (so they'll stop leaving en masse every time NCSoft starts building a new game) as well as customers. The reason MMORPGs have devolved into 3D Diablo clones is that the publishers treat them as cash cows, and use the massive income generated to make their foundering companies look like they're doing better than they really are.
I still don't get games that make you collect stuff which lets you level up which lets you collect different stuff which lets you level up which lets you...
I'm not saying it's wrong, I just don't get the appeal of collecting things in an RPG. Clearly, there is a market for this kind of game, but I agree with the premise that there must be certain cataclysmic events. Things have to matter, or else who cares?
To me, WoW and others that are similar are just like the old "Hack" and "Dungeon" games except the graphics are a lot better.
In my opinion, the reason WoW will never improve substantially is because the publisher makes plenty of money just the way it is. Heck, if I owned it, I'd make sure the only thing that mattered was that people kept paying me $15/month. The trouble is, if you were building a competing game, you'd try to make it look and act like WoW as much as possible because it's proven to be successful. And as long as the market wants collecting games like WoW, then we'll never see anything better.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
But the land is what's magic about Wurm. You can terraform almost everything in the game - chop down forests and make plains, plant trees and make plains into forests, dig canals, flatten mountaintops and build fortification, dig tunnel labyrinths, and more. About the only thing players haven't done yet is fill in the ocean with dirt, but that should be possible the way the game engine is written :-) . So it is more than a war game, in fact the war is almost incidental to building the villages that fight the wars.
Oooo, screenshots
While others are Plugging above I might as well mention the Darkfall idea, beta is due to start in about a month. www.Darkfallonline.com
Anyway, I believe that it would be possible to regain a large portion of WoW's subscribers by purely starting a hardcore server. Now this wouldn't regain the content gripers, but it would make the anti-carebears happy. Also as above Ryzom Ring is there for the Content whores. Oh and by and by, even though I personally did not like WoW in the end because it is such a social game, I will probably end up playing the next Blizzard game to be released, not including the Burning Crusade.
What he's actually saying is that WoW needs to be more like Second Life, Matrix Online, and other RPG's that it outsells by the millions.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
New wars should break out, cities should rise and fall, and all hell should break loose at least once a month--and the players should be the ones to make it happen. After all, in a world that never changes, you can never make your mark.
Well, not in such a violent fashion, but this sort of thing is the plan for Uru Live.
Every day, there's a small change. Every week, a slightly larger change. Every month, a major change - a new area of the city opens, or you get access to a new Age.
A new story element is introduced roughly once each quarter... what the players do with it in the interim is entirely up to them. The players truly develop the story. There are no NPCs (in the computer-controlled sense), however Cyan does have actors who play the role of certain important people, ready to answer questions and react to whatever it is the players are doing.
This is a lot more impressive to me than Warcraft, although I do enjoy a good quest now and again.
Soylens viridis homines es
"The reason I never really got into MMORPGs, despite trying several including WOW was that you're living in a world where every real person is a hero."
Well, but that's a bit like saying everyone in the Justice League is like Batman or Superman. There's going to be a difference between the guild leader who main-tanks Naxx and the rogue who only gets into the run when there's an open DPS slot. You've probably got a lead priest who coordinates the healing. There's likely a guild on the server that everyone secretly wants to get into... or despises for it. And there's always the guy with the higher honor rating than you. It's more like being soldiers in an army than about being "heroes." Truth be told, the real heroes are NPC's.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Things like this are a simple thing when you step away from the machine...
... hold on, this really isn't impossible.
Asheron's Call had new earth-shaking player-driven events every month, and they had - what - 1/100th of the income and staff that World of Warcraft does?
World of Warcraft is making tens millions of dollars a month in subscription fees alone, and has an unimaginably large staff.
Asheron's Call made significantly less each month, and yet they'd make sure that every month there was something new and player driven. In some events, they would even have developers and admins manually control NPCs who helped or hindered players in person for the quests.
So don't tell me it isn't possible. I've seen it done much better with many less resources. The WoW team is just making so much money without doing it that they don't feel the need to. If WoW was struggling at 30k users and barely paying for their servers, you can bet they'd try harder with monthly dynamic content to try and get a larger market share.
-Vendal Thornheart
It's doubtful whether the author ever actually played World of Warcraft, but coming from a veteran of 1 and 3/4 years World of Warcraft basically has lost all fun that it initially had. The only point of the game is to get the next upgrade. A game that's entirely focused around gear upgrades and the next new shiny is appealing at first but after a year it gets really, really old. As a healer in numerous raids in MC, BWL and AQ40 the game requires a great deal of attention and energy to keep everyone alive. The fact that the game becomes like a job is also a factor in what makes the game lose a great deal of fun. I play games to get away from work not create a job which I am not even paid for.
I feel Blizzard did a lot right with the game but there is one major flaw: they did not create end-game content for the solo player or for small groups outside of PvP (which I don't really consider "content")
I am a casual player in theory but when I would get involved with my guild in raid groups, the only way I could get a possibility of an upgrade was to go to every raid every night, which often lasted 4+ hours. I eventually got very sick and was unable to work or go to school and this made me realize how ridiculous a game World of Warcraft is. When it requires that you spend 4+ hours in order to accomplish anything, you know something is wrong.
I want a game where I can spend 30 minutes playing and feel like I've accomplished something. And pretty much the only games that satisfy that are single player games at this point.
I think you fail to understand just what RPG's are, especially if you consider Diablo 2 as one =\
The right RPG's have more than just item-finding. That's just what pleases munchkins the most. An intriging, engaging storyline plus challenges other than fights are essential to an RPG.
Diablo's character statistics system is a tad too simple, too.
That's pretty much the conclusion I draw. The main fun in EVE is player based emergent conflict (but CCP do run NPC's to start some conflicts).
However the problem with EVE is that because of its focus on player conflict (economic as well as martial) it becomes a second job. To do any of this "high level" content you will need to put in 5+ evenings a week, and the core of your group will be no-lifers playing 10+ hours a day (I did this for a year and a half). There are very few safety nets in EVE, so if you don't show up to protect your star systems or stations you will lose them. And it will get written up in the forums and everyone will know how you failed (the forum and communities in EVE are very strong).
There is also the added bonus that occasionally, no matter what your occupation in eve, a group of old players will come crush you for the fun of it. Have fun fighting off a fleet of thirty battleships while you are flying a frigate. This is exactly the player based emergent behaviour the article writer wanted. He should go play EVE. Most other people seem to be happy playing WoW, where you only need to sacrifice three nights a week to raid high end content, and your achievements are safe from hostile players.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
someone can't spell "obviously."
What he wants has been here all along.
And I'm not going to answer PnP D&D (but it should be mentioned).
For years now the Neverwinter Nights (PC game) online persistent world community has provided compelling roleplaying, epic tales, daily DM participation, and content created by and evolved by the player communities themselves.
And now with the release of Neverwinter Nights 2, the adventure will continue with shiny new graphics, a more robust 3.5ed D&D rules implementation, and a much improved world design toolkit allowing builders to create more immersive content tha never.
You're going to be waiting an awfully long time before you can get this out of WoW. WoW is the Walmart of RPGs.
Ziiiiiiiiiiiiing!
I think what the author describes is really a problem with the entire MMORPG genre and not WoW specifically. The dilemma is, how do you create content that will push the genre in a new direction while pleasing 7 million casual to hardcore gamers and keep them paying a monthly fee? While adding interesting events is definitely a good idea, it really is not feasible. Take the AQ war effort for example, an interesting WoW event that required people to contribute to unlock a new area of the game. IMHO, this feature was a complete failure because it really only appealed to a small percentage of the community. The area being unlocked required months of preparation to even be able to tackle, so immediately any casual gamer that wasn't geared from head to toe had no shot at it. The end result? The casuals did almost no work and the hardcore teams did the lions share of the war effort, so they could unlock things for themselves... What's the moral of that story? Simply that adding dynamic and shifting content like that sounds good on paper, but adding a new multi-tiered dungeon that never changes or improving the PvP laddering system both have much wider reach and are a better use of the developers time. Adding time sinks that are repetitive and consume a players time are a better way to keep the monthly fees flowing. Thats the bottom line...
Zonk says this:
"I want to be snarky and point out that this guy obvious has no idea how these games are designed, but I think he pretty much nails what every MMOG player really wants out of a game. Now, if only it were feasible within the bounds of money, time, and talent."
But it's hard to actually read much into that because its hard to understand if he means "its not possible because its blizzard" or "its not possible anywhere". If its the latter then Zonk should probably not post about mmo's in the future. If you look at a game like eve-online then it is very very played controlled (I do play eve online myself, im in BoB if your wondering). BoB is considered the best pvp'ers in the entire game, but we own territory we've had for over a year now and we take more, alot of what happens in the game is a direct consequence of things we're resposible for. A few weeks ago we declared war on one our close lying alliances and the biggest aliance in the game (which is what i would say is "all hell breaking loose"). Its resulted in a new ship type being used a couple of times that hasn't been used until now (titans), and the ship itself costs so much and takes so much to be built its hard for anyone but an aliance to do it (actually, its impossible due to the game mechanics themselves). CCP claim eve's market is player controled, but thats not really true (imho), Star wars gallaxies is the only true player-controlled economy in the mmo landscape as far as im concerned.
But, people hate that too. Eve is really the type of place where you need to have friends and be able to influence real people and those consequences can affect the game the way no other mmo allows. Its quite impressive, but theres lots of people in game that complain "if you dont join an alliance you cant be anything in this game". So it has two sides (player controlled hell, that is).
"Blizzard has written new storylines before. Last winter, it challenged players to team up and fuel a worldwide war effort. As a payoff, it unlocked new territory. This was a good example of letting the users drive a story, but Warcraft needs more of them. New wars should break out, cities should rise and fall, and all hell should break loose at least once a month--and the players should be the ones to make it happen. After all, in a world that never changes, you can never make your mark."
There ARE mmorpgs that have non-static worlds that the players feel like they can change. (Because they can)
Might I reccomend some, such as a tale in the desert or possibly eve...
WoW used to get so much good press on Slashdot. Now this! I hope this doesn't have something do with...oh...I don't know... recent news?
Because Goddess knows, players in Everquest never needed to "grind"...
Seriously, WoW is the largest game out there for a reason, and there are many other games out there trying to appeal to different audiences. Someone in this thread mentioned that travel took too long in WoW - surf over to the Vanguard forums and see what people there think about that (hint: they believe EQ1 was the golden age of gaming and auction houses and fast travel destroyed the genre).
There's only so much you can do in an online game. FFXI actually had a great story, and let the players feel very much like the hero altering world events. But the grind and forced grouping in that game were insane. EQ2 doesn't know what it is: right now it's trying to be WoW, and not doing a very good job of it. Warhammer should be a great PvP game, and Age of Conan also looks very intersting.
And of course don't miss this gem.
Loads and loads of great games on the horizon, if you just pick your head up and look around.
But not an overarching story. A tale of Gods and godesses, of love and betrayal, etc. The article points this out quite clearly and none of the lore I can find on WoW contradicts this. There is "local lore" and some big stories ("the scourge" "the scarlet crusade" etc) but not an overarcing sweep of a story.
World of Warcraft is many ways boring and repetitive- but apparently that makes it tractable and enjoyable to, I dunno, 7 million players.
The other thing is- the game the article writer has in mind, where a new completely fresh war is launched every month with loads of content, may simply be beyond the limits of what is realistically possible in terms of human productivity. How many MMORPGs have had sweeping story arcs and fresh, dynamic stories? If they exist, why aren't they more popular, more recognized, and more successful than WoW?
Apparently it's really hard work to push out fresh content that doesn't break servers. If it were easy to make dynamic MMORPG storylines, I imagine companies less powerful than Blizzard would be doing it on a regular basis. If a "powerful" company like Blizzard only trusts themselves to push out quests with a limited scope and keep a mostly static world running, perhaps we can use that as a clue that it is difficult to push beyond such a stable world.
In the end, a GM, in some rare NPC form finally had to come along and destroy the gate the guild was defending.
Turbine finally conceded and raised statues dedicated to the defenders of that certain server's gate. The statues were viewable on all servers, and it showed everyone who played AC just how much a player's actions actually affected a game.
It's a shame more MMORPG's aren't like AC.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
it's not intended to be a great RPG with great gameplay.
it is intended to hook you enough to keep spending your money monthly.
that is the business model. ALL mmorpgs are deeply flawed from the enlightened player's perspective.
they are perfect from the shareholders' perspective.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Leeroy Jenkins!!!!
Very exciting, thrilling and just like in the movies but only if you allow yourselve to be swept along. If you pay even the slightest bit of attention you notice that all collapses are rather weak and obviously designed to be pulled right back up once the show is over, that explosions don't ever destroy anything and that in fact you are in carefully constructed machine designed to "collapse" over and over again only to be reset each time the audience has left. Sometimes even before the little cart has left the area (never ever look behind you in one of these rides)
WoW is like this. Put blinders on and it almost looks like your in a real RPG. There is a world out there waiting for YOU the hero to explore, creatures to fight, villains to slaughter, things to blow up. But they will reset in a few moments for the next audience only WoW never got the timing of the little carts with tourists right so the reset may trigger while you are still watching the show.
On the dock of the first main area for the night elves is a dude whose wive is ghost. The story itself is not that bad but this ain't a rpg. It is a adventure ride pretending to be an rpg, so you do not actually get any choice except to get out of the ride. But if you follow the ride there is only one conclusion wich is the same for everyone. Since you will pass this spot a lot you will more then likely see other players on the same ride. You might even be "turning in your quest" while someone else is seeing the touching reunion scene.
Offcourse single player RPG's are in essence the same. But here at least the "reset" for the next adventurer is hidden from your eyes. Only on replay will you suddenly find this magical world with all the same people wanting you to do the same thing you already done in a previous life.
But in a MMORPG you will be the 1000000th to discover the dying soldier who has been dying since game launch 3 years ago and will be breathing his last breath for years to come, get a unique blue stone for deliviring a broom (eq2) just like everyone else who got the same unique blue stone for the same broom.
It is kinda hard to then feel unique.
Is WoW wrong for being like this? Well, no. It is just the way MMORPG's play. While other ways are possible they are far more difficult to implement. Remember, Star Wars tried to be different and look how it ended up, a crap WoW clone desperate to get even a fraction of the players.
Second life and Eve Online are often mentioned but both are pathetic compared to the subscription numbers of WoW.
Theather gives you a far more personal experience then an adventure theme park ride BUT just how many theather productions can compete with the visitor numbers of even a small themepark?
Because if you can allow yourselve to ignore the obvious resets and that you are just the 1 millionth customer being services you get a fairly good fun experience.
It is just like life. We like to think the mega superstar waved at US in the 100.000+ audience, that the actor acted for us, that a <fill in your country here> audience really is special to a performer, that we are the best lover of your lover and we most certainly don't like to know that we are the 100th and that number 101 is already waiting in the hall.
But lets not forget that WoW is already amazing customized to you the player. An awfull lot of the NPC talk mentions your race and sex and proffesion. A feat many a single player RPG cannot even handle.
WoW is the current leader, it is not the most ambitious but it shows what can be done succesfully with todays technology and todays audience.
Todays audience? Why yes. What after all is the point of writing complex plots even allowing you to make complex moral decissions if the majority of g
And thank the gods for that- the last thing the world needs is more Robert Jordans.
There's one quest line that is a coda to a Blizzard novel. The quest chain that ends with In Dreams, the Fording saga, tells the story of the rebirth of the Knights of the Silver Hand. It's deep into lore, with the quest itself having pages of dialogue between characters. And as the game progresses, this storeline becomes more and more important, as Tiron Fording is the last True Paladin, a warrior of the Light whose powers can not be stripped from him despite the Order kicking him out.
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
I'm not sure if this has been said already or not...but when the guy made the comment on how the guy had no idea what he was talking about. He makes a good point. I've personally played (in order from most to least) Ultima Online, World of Warcraft, Runescape, and FFXI. My favorite MMO was hands down UO. It offered all the things that this guy mentions. The ability to become good or evil, factions that could be taken over, towns that rise and fall because of it, and all sorts of community story events. It was so engaging. The skill system was so customizable. It wasn't just about what weapons/armor you could or couldnt wield. In UO different combinations of equipment could be tailored for different characters. I loved WoW for the 6 months I played it, but it did just get to become a boring grindfest, repetitive instance-ing, and just the same, never-changing world.
Asheron's Call never was as popular as WoW is. Who cares if AC did it. Why would the people who run WoW look to an MMO that is vastly less successful than they are for examples of how to improve??
As for me: i was WoW player. loved it for a long while. not long after I hit level 60 though, I lost interest and closed my account. I'm glad for the people who are enjoying the game beyond that. The appeal of the grind for more stuff isn't enough to keep me playing. WoW has made the perfect game I think for the people who like that sort of thing above all else....
In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
Sure, if you just want to let off steam, get feel-good feedback, put a few ideas out there, then perfect. You've done your job.
But if you want to make a change, if you want big game companies to start listening and innovating and implementing your ideas, you've got to frame it all differently by talking to them. Not the fanboys and the serious gamers. Sure you might be saying what fans want, but you have to present it for the companies.
I don't work for any game companies, but these feature suggestions lack the justifications that they would look for. These guys want to deliver quality product on time and on budget. A big part of that involves balancing the pros and cons of implementing features.
Look at customization for example. I would love to trick out my avatar too, but the cons are huge. Large gatherings would generate massive lag (because that kind of data compounds fast), lots of users can't benefit much (using older computers with poor graphics), and not to mention the Myspace factor (give non-designers design power, get migraines). Suggesting possible caveats in the article (and possible solutions) goes a long way toward answering objections before they're even raised.
For big time MMOG devs it all comes down to this: Any feature is worth it, so long as the return it makes from users signups and/or retention is greater than the cost of development/maintenance. Show directly how each feature accomplishes these goals and you just might end up as a creative consultant. :)
Yeah, like a team sport, but one that leaves your real world meat sack unattended and going the way of man boobs. Seeing the South Park episode, "Make Love not Warcraft" was the perfect joke at this where the players doing the "Fight to Win" montage. I did like play WoW to begin with, but playing an instance for eight hours without a break is a little demanding - especially if you've still got a girlfriend.
Warcraft Exec #1: Fellow board members, we have a problem. Somebody in the World of Warcraft is ignoring the world's rules and is going around killing innocent players.
Warcraft President: Why kill innocent players? The game is about finishing quests.
Warcraft Exec #2: What kind of person would do this?
Warcraft Exec #1: Only one kind, whoever this person is, he has played World of Warcraft nearly every hour of every day for the past year and a half! Gentlemen, we are dealing with someone here who has absolutely no life.
Warcraft Exec #3: How can you kill that which has no life?
I think you have some misconceptions about WoW. 80% of players never zone in to raid instances, and that's why their prominence is being massively reduced in the expansion. The relatively small portion of players who raid are just treating it like EZ MODE EQ -- and spent the last two years vocally whining Blizzard into churning out content most subscribers would never see -- but that's not really where the genius of WoW's design is. They really should capitalize on the quality of the 1-59 game, because it's enormously better designed than the endgame.
Now, that doesn't mean I agree with the article's moronic conclusions, but it does mean I disagree with yours.
For everyone who hates WoW there is someone who will love Darkfall.
I love the fps nature of this game, and the persistent mmorpg aspect is a nice bonus.
It should be entering beta soon and be released next year.
Well worth the wait if you ask me.
I ripped this from the game's forum.
just some points of interest:
* full pk/pvp - no restrictions to who you can kill
* full loot - even items equipped
* item deterioration - items will be lost (making crafting lucrative)
* complex crafting construct
* instant travel will be difficult - opening up more pvp/pk confrontation
* player/guild run cities - capturable / siegeable / destroyable
* 100's of weapon designs for customization and personalizing your chars
* no levels!
* skill based structure - skill gain by use, skill loss by neglecting to use
* instant interaction - you do not have to grind before you play the game
* dismemberment - after unconscious, dismember (a killing blow) or revive/res
* no floating names - terrain cover actually works
* no targetting - you have to aim at who you want to hit
* no health bars - you have to judge by appearance how someone's doing
* ships - pirates / pirate guilds / sea transportation and storage for merchants
* huge underwater environment - no wasted space by a large part of the world
* 100's of underground environments - dungeons etc
* no instances
* zerg based guilds will have drawbacks
* party members take AOE damage; and radius mellee damage - from their group
* manual blocking
* manual attacking
* usable "moves"/"skills"/"spells" like in most games we're familiar with now
* manual parrying
* move while blocking
* increased damage from behind
* close range 3/4 mellee view
* FPS view for ranged (bow&arrow / magery)
* cookie cutter free - invest time in any skill you want to
* collision - no more walking through anyone (bodyblocking does apply)
* pushing
* formations will be key
* strategy and co-op for large battles will be key
* playing as an individual will be feasible
* griefing friendly
* racial anamosity and NPC faction - A and B get along, but not with C, D or E guards apply
* character appearance extremely customizable
* unique playstyles or tactics will be important
* minimal playerbase spread - no overabundance of servers
* limitless things to do during downtime
* racial benefits and drawbacks
* no classes
* shit talking friendly
I suggest that you play through Uldaman, at least.
SPOILERS follow
We get the beginning of the story of the creation of the world, and the origins of the Dwarven and Trog races. We are told how to get to the next piece of the story (and when we do, we see that the following parts are not implemented yet), and are told that VERY big events are in progress - the return of the world's creators.
The game's still young. There's a lot there that looks like the beginning of some fairly interesting, long range stories - but we haven't even had the first expansion yet, to see the next chapter of those stories.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
World of Warcraft does have a pretty complex gameplay system, the problem is that most of the fun parts are pretty much destroyed by the standard MMORPG developer vision of, "Spend time, progress"...I don't mean that grinding in itself is bad. I played the game for 6 months, and became increasingly aware of this MMORPG mentality, "If Player A spends more time than Player B, Player A should be *guaranteed* x rewards...". There's absolutely no way around it. If you want to get anywhere in the game, you have to follow the exact same path everyone else did. If Player B is "level 30" and finds a way to defeat Player A who is "Level 60", or finds a way to solo sections of a 40 person dungeon, that's absolutely terrible and will certainly be prevented in the next update(which most of the playerbase is happy to see happen). It's obvious from the way the combat is structured. In PVP, players have giant red tags over their heads to prevent any sort of hiding(that would avoid the numbers game that is PVP) etc...in PVE any target more than 4 levels above the player is essentially invincible. All of the giant 40 person bosses are immune to all the cool status effects classes can do to foster a sort of "ant colony" mentality in guilds, you'll never your guild member's individual contributions without some sort of data tracking UI mod.. The only MMORPG I've played that attempts to avoid this was EVE Online(a sort of space MMORPG). You could play for a few days and have a ship capable of going just about anywhere, and have a reasonable chance of survival against players with ships worth ten times as much(HOW TERRIBLY UNFAIR!). If you put less time into the game, you don't have as many options as you could otherwise, but you can still easily focus one thing and be pretty capable at doing that. This isn't a plug for EVE. The atmosphere absolutely sucks. Spaceships are supposed to be sexy. Instead, you are introduced to your character as some foul looking being(its impossible to make one that looks good) who is apparently suspended in a glob of green goop with tubes going up his ass. Not to mention that spaceflight itself is terribly boring. But they had some good ideas as far as giving players real freedom instead of a sort of single-minded time=progress focus like WoW. I suppose I just hate MMORPGs in general. The whole EARN things with your time just ruins it for me. Games(not just electronic) are about strategy and pushing the game mechanics to the limit, and playing mind-games with your opponents, perfecting your skills. These things are pretty much non-existant in warcraft.
The "overarching sweeping story" is that there are forces at work within Azeroth to set loose the Old Gods and their various servants from the elemental planes. Additionally, the plot point of the expansion is that the demons from the twisting nether have been plotting to make another assault on Azeroth, presumably using another planet and then outlands as a bypass to enter through the dark portal. Not to mention good old Arthas at Icecrown Glacier massing his forces for an eventual assault on something or other.
And before you can claim that none of this is visible in-game, these plot threads are the reason that players are supposed to be entering Molten Core (elemental lietenants of the old gods), Ahn'Quiraj (an old god himself, escaped from his underground prison and manipulating an ancient insectoid race), all of Outlands and the expansion (Burning Legion probable entry point), Naxxramas (Arthas's initial scouting force and primary foothold outside of Northrend).
Plus, many of these plot threads are intertwined throughout quests going all the way back to level 1 undead quests and level 1 dwarf quests.
So yes, there is an overarching plot. In fact there are many overarching plots.
You've just described why so many pen & paper roleplaying /suck/. It's because two-thirds of the players aren't roleplayers. The dice rollers should be playing Yahtzee and the Problem Solvers should be playing Rubrik's Cube. If you want to actually /roleplay/ stick with people who want to do that.
/good/ GM won't describe shopkeepers or wandering peasants that don't relate to the adventure. An /excellent/ GM will be able to conjure up an adventure on the fly that meets the desires of the players.
I completely disagree with you about items. Item collection is one of the key rewards in pen & paper RPGs and a skilled GM doles out those rewards frequently.
Your attitude about roleplayers is surprisingly dismissive and arrogant. Of course players want to talk with everyone they meet! They're looking for adventure! A
You bring up some good points though, like a a good GM being able to keep players entertained, and the fact that MMORPGs should just be MMOs and drop the RPG part.
I say this having just finished a 300+ page manuscript on gamemastering pen & paper RPGs.
You are playing a roleplaying game and you never once mentioned anything about roleplaying. An RPG is not about items. Its not about skill. It is about socializing in an enviorment with your friends. The reason you dont like the game is because you are not playing the game. You are given an enviorment to do pretty much anything you want. What you do is up to you. No one forces you to grind for hours to get an item. You set goals yourself and you complete them yourself. The game is not simple, you are simple. The only goals you can figure out are "Kill people in PvP" and "Collect shiney objects". Have you every assaulted a city? Have you ever fought infront of packed arena to test your metal against other players? Have you started a trading company? Have you attended a wedding? Have you gone skydiving? Have you challenged your friend to a fishing contest? Have you gone at a tavern after a long day slaying demons? Have you ever chased an outlaw an collected the bounty on his head? An RPG is not supposed to be hard to play. Its not supposed to take any "skill". Have you every played a pen and paper RPG? It requires no "Skill" other then bringing together a few friends.
I heard McDonalds has the greatest food in the world too, just look at how much they serve.
They do; it's very tasty and cheap to boot.
Oh, you meant healthy? Then why did you use an ambiguous word like great - even though inadvertently you spoke a truism; for people that like to eat at McDonalds, it's the greatest food in the world.
You seem to be trying to imply something unhealthy about WoW by metaphor, but just like McDonalds eaters there are other choices they can make if they wish.
I don't play WoW myself, but I know plenty of smart people that consider it a fun diversion.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Roleplaying "gayness"? Sounds a bit narrowminded. I am part of a roleplaying guild on one the game's roleplaying PVP (RP-PvP) servers. We roleplay, hold roleplaying events, AND we do 20 and 40 player raids and PVP. Sure, WoW is probably geared more towards "action" and less towards roleplaying (as in comparison to say, the old Ultima Online), but that does not mean there isn't room for both.
also with 180 servers its hard to allow the worlds to change alot, that would mean they would need teams of dedicated live event handlers for each realm..
its just not ever going to happen
Actually in Ultima Online we used to call that FHS (False Hero Syndrome).
....", and then when they got smacked into a bloody pulp by another player who then ripped thier skull from their body, stole all their items they couldn't handle it.
Despite what people believe they are not the hero of the world when they enter it. They just think they are.
So in UO for example before they made a non-PvP world a lot of players used to think "I am the great hero
Most would just leave, some would complain to GMs. Forcing support to hand hold rather then people taking care of the actions themselves.
FHS exists in other games, especially where PvP is involved and is probably the number 1 killer of characters.
Blizzard has written new storylines before. Last winter, it challenged players to team up and fuel a worldwide war effort. As a payoff, it unlocked new territory. This was a good example of letting the users drive a story, but Warcraft needs more of them.
As great as this sounds on paper, this is exactly what WoW does not need more of, at least not how they implemented it. The reality is that the new content being unlocked was for large raiding guilds, a small percentage of the player base. The primary quest chains required large amounts of in-game funds and guild organization to achieve. Very very few people got to experience this (fun) part of the content.
Then, they added some grinding requirements (turnins of massive amounts of trivial items), something that required "everyone" to participate in. This was the not-fun part of the content, and it had to be done by people who would never, ever experience the content they were unlocking. Many servers were only able to get their content unlocked by exploiting players by holding "contests" in which the winner got a reward for turning in the most stuff.
Seriously, one of the lamest things they've ever done in this game to date. It follows the pattern that WoW has followed thus far: Raiders get the fun challenges, and the best rewards. Non-raiders get to put in massive amounts of time performing repetitive tasks for sub-par rewards or none at all.
It seems they are making strides with this in the upcoming Expansion, since gear will be equalized when the level cap is raised, and also the raiding requirements are being reduced to 25 people instead of 40. But, I remain skeptical that they will hold to this design principle.
So, essentially the author wants WoW to be more like Saga of Ryzom?
I think that WoW's server concept might make this less feasible than Ryozm's three-plus-one servers (one for each of the English, German and French communities and one test server) - after all, if players change the world that means that every server will develop differently, leading to (w|m)ildly divergent realms. This is maintainable when you have few servers, especially when each server is used by speakers of one language (thus avoiding confusion between the individual servers), but with the dozens of servers WoW uses all hell would break loose, not to mention the confusion in the boards.
A: "Damn, I want Zoggo's Gauntlets!"
B: "Why, they suck?"
A: "Well, on my server Zoggo survived the assault on Deadopolis and thus had time to perfect the gauntlets. They give a sweet attack bonus."
B: "The assault on what? We don't even have that town!"
A: "Well, it used to be Darnassus but then the Forsaken took it over and renamed it."
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
...and also, voicing some rather old concerns (I'm sure it was around a year ago that PC Gamer in the UK covered the whole issue of the never-changing status quo with your quests never having an effect on your surroundings). It's true that WoW could benefit from a more 'interactive' world, where the boundaries and territories of your particular faction could change, but then other games do this - see EVE Online for instance; if you want to play a game where you have truly dynamic borders and power struggles, there's your candidate.
I think the biggest worry for me with WoW is one I've never seen discussed; the economy. Since each sharded server will eventually mature into a well-populated realm containing a large number of high-level characters, the value of certain commodities and equippable items will change. Eventually, as enough high-level players reach a certain state of wealthiness, you'll see the emergence of a large number of Twinks. As soon as this takes hold, items which are useful to Twinks shoot up in value and price out legitimate players. Rarer equipment which would normally only command a moderately expensive fee suddenly become beyond the reach of anyone except those who already have wealthy high-level characters.
The resale market isn't the only area affected. Tradeskills which would normally consume certain commodities and produce items of use to low to mid-level characters become irrelevent as the produce no longer has the demand, and so the trade goods used to make them also diminish in value. All the while, the few tradeskills of relevence in the endgame (such as enchanting) continue to become increasingly profitable (individuals charging a fee for the mere privilege of having an enchant performed, even if you provide the raw materials). As the status quo gradually shifts, so do the attitudes of the populace, who effectively all shrug their shoulders in resignation, saying "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
Other games (well, my only experience is with EVE Online) work by ensuring that the market is self-replenishing; goods are produced from raw materials but ships can be destroyed in combat, meaning that there will always be demand for further production. By not having any kind of 'release valve', the economy of WoW is in perpetual inflation, and eventually it has to break.
I can't say I liked the constant grinding in WoW very much, but since there is enough variation in it (you can grind rep, PVP ranks, gold or hunt particular items), it serves well enough to keep you busy and moderately entertained (which is the whole point). What drove me off in the end was the requirement to have a well-composed guild with 40 disciplined players ready for raiding in order to see the interesting content (I left when we were at Vael) and that Blizzard had weird ideas about seasonal content, which made me feel like the whole game was aimed at 10 year olds.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
And there needs to be big boss dragons for each hero to slay. But after that it gets really weird with WoW: not only there needs to be those big bosses, they need to have unlimited lives so that heroes can slay them again and again. To hell with the storyline, Ragnaros lives again! and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
While I certainly agree that this writer for Slate is a moron, my favorite part is the second last paragraph where he tries to compare Warcraft to Matrix Online, as if Matrix Online is somehow better in any regard. Lol!
The problem with most all of the WoW naysayers is that their alternative ideas have already been tried, and they have already failed. Complain all you want, but the gaming public has already voted with their feet.
The CTO game to NSF last week to talk about Second life (in terms of research, because NSF funds research). The Subscriber base has gone from 300K to over 1.1 Mil from Jan to November. Women especially enjoy the world (which Linden Labs refuses to call a "game")
At the rate in which it's growing, assuming they can scale and the rate of subscriber sign up does NOT increase they will surpass WoW within 3 years.
I could go on about Second Life. I don't use it THAT often (maybe once a week), but I think it's going to be VERY big.
You wanna see "cities" rise and fall? You want immersion in a universe-system that creates opportunities for player interaction?
Maybe I'm just sick of the swords and sorcery stuff, but as an ex-WoW'er, I'm blown away by Eve.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why don't the players make up the story? why is the company responsible for making new story lines? in a truly open-ended RPG, I would simply throw a bunch of players around, give them the means to do various things, and let them have endless fun...
If you want intense customization and morality choices, you don't want a MMORPG, you want a plain old paper and dice tabletop RPG, IMHO. And if you want that feeling of more than just you and the other 3-5 people in your party, then find a "massive" non-online game, like the living ones offered by the RPGA. In particular, I recommend the Living Arcanis campaign, where the actions of the players have made a lot of changes to what is going on.
(Note: The RPGA is a marketing arm of WotC/Hasbro, but not all the campaigns in it are.)
The player commerce, guilds/companies, corporate battles (some of them are quite interesting to watch if you stand back...) when one guy decides you're building too many space stations near to his. Great fun. 99% of the content in the game seems to be player driven, and while you spend a great deal of time mining and waiting for the skills to learn (but at least this kind of grinding is easier if you have friends in your corporation to help you, and you only waste TIME waiting for a skill to learn; there's no effort, it's as if your avatar is reading a book while you're idle, there's no running and jumping and skinning to do).
All in all i think a better organised game with a much better player experience, but if you don't like space, trading or corporate/interplanetary rivalry, you're pretty fucked. WoW is the best of a pretty okay genre of fantasy MMORPG, but I can't think of any other ones to rival EVE.
If you want to play a game where you can conquer territory and not worry about grinding or someone stealing your loot... PLAY PLANETSIDE!!! In PlanetSide you are a soldier in a never ending battle to capture continents. New and veteran players have access to the same equipment. The game requires operating within a team. Organized teams beat gaggles every time. The game isn't a grind or treadmill because you can start the game with just about any weapon or vehicle that a veteran can. High ranked players have access to more things at once. i've been playing it for about 3 years and still love it.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Hire a writer to make weekly content that flows with the world. Integrate player actions into the story. Change things in the world based upon players actions. This is one of the reasons I don't play MMORPG's and stick to standard RPG's. To me, online RPG's have a complete lack of purpose where there may be baby step goals, but they keep dangling the carrot just out of reach and there will never be any resolution. Plus I don't have time to waste on such things. The MMO I would jump on would be one that has a weekly running story I affect and that I can play for a couple hours a night and not miss too much if I miss a day.
"and all hell should break loose at least once a month"
You know. A lot of players are already "married" to WoW, no need to say it needs to be a woman.
Seriously though. The problem here is that to have real actual events shaping the world means that old content has to go away as it's changed by events. This really doesn't work in the current framework of MMOG's because a new player needs to have the same amount of content as previous players had.
A perfect example in WoW, the Gnomish captial of Gnomeregan was overtaken and irradiated. (i.e. it's an instance characters go to and fight evil machines and irradiated bad guys) You would think after 2 years we would have cleaned that place out and gotten the gnomes back their capital city. The problem is if they now change up the game and say 'OK, it's clean.. you can all safely go home now!' then you have a gaping hole where a pretty important instance for that level was.
The reality is that MMOG's have to stay pretty much static except for new additions. That poor villager who needed you to kill 15 orcs 2 years ago will still be in need of help killing orcs from new people today. Because if you don't then your content developers will constantly be re-inventing the wheel and recreating old content which means no new content, which means losing customers.
Want to see what happens when a game determines that the users will control in world development? Go check out Horizons.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
>I want to be snarky and point out that this guy obvious has no idea how these games are designed, >but I think he pretty much nails what every MMOG player really wants out of a game. Now, if only it >were feasible within the bounds of money, time, and talent. Obviously neither do you, it would be very easy to create a random AI built into each level local/state/continent that would then produce an event charged with certain characters from a bank of characters based on location and level of play or difficulty that would generate a storyline for a desired result.... ie- randomly rolled event "earthquake" = local + state + maybe continent (depends how big) towns and cities are devastated...many places are in ruin.... workers are running evrywhere building the houses back ( sort alot like age of empire which somehow blizzard managed to emulate with their lumber cutters ...so they could use the same model for city workers) ...slowly the towns are rebuilt...new quests pop up everywhere for all different levels
the lower more mundane...we need to get fresh water...go to the waterfall outside our city(stormwind) and fill these jugs....the more jugs the more xp...
the higher level.....they would be garrisoned to protect the city as nearby horde camps would definately see an advantage to attack or maybe blizzard also creates a horde quest
to go steal an artifact in the now less protected town or city(requires a raid) ...these are what makes Dungeons Masters tick man....god forbid we should replace paper & pen
with computers, we all lose our imagination! SHEESH
Is there anything in WoW that the player next day can show his friends on a map the next day and say "See that? I was responsible for that!"
This is why I liked Planetside (which to be fair is not a MMORPG but a MMOFPS).
The scale and size of it meant you could get into the bigger picture (other than just killing) and do something and make a difference. It didn't last long (usually overnight) but you could point to an enemy front, indicate the base that suddenly went neutral and then changed allegiance and then became the focus point of a offensive action that reclaims the continent (essentially a commando raid behind enemy lines achieving a strategic strike that denied the Enemy resources).
I guess all the different ways of killing (using artillery with spotters, or flying troop carriers to air drop onto hostile bases, or flying fighter cover for your bombers that are pounding the vehicle production facilities of an enemy base) are no different from the character specialities/roles in WoW raid but somehow the co-ordination feels better.
Oriental Hero "I want to live in a city where the Police don't shoot you" Jean Charles de Menezes
World of Warcraft is the new Counterstrike.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
This is a point that needs to be driven home and hammered into the throat of everyone saying how much Wow sucks. I wish I had a product that sucked so much that it was more popular and made more money than all of its other competitors combined. No one is saying it's perfect, no game is, but every game has good and bad points, and to say something is "bad" or "lame" smacks of grandstanding or jealousy from some people.
The points that were brought up plagues every single MMORPG ever.
All I am saying is wait for it.
The upcoming expansion levels the playing field between hardcore raiders and casual (those with real lives) players. But beyond pwning each other in PvP, what is there beyond that?
With the release of Naxx, we are taking steps closer and closer to confronting Arthas. The story begat from World of Warcraft must have an ending. Warcraft 1, 2 and 3 had endings and WoW shouldn't be any different.
In my opinion, I believe the storyline of WoW would end at the end of 2008 to pave way for either Warcraft 4 or WoW2. Let us not forget that the Warcraft movie is coming out and that would be a easy way to transition between two stories.
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
Blows WoW away in graphics, gameplay, and content
Especially with the new (Nov. 14) release ECHOES OF FAYDWER
Get out of the Cartooniverse of World of Borecraft. Enjoy a truly good avatar building engine. Give that 3d graphics card a workout and enjoy a sanely populated server.
Unless you just hate sony and hate having fun, EQ2 is guaranteed to please.
WoW does need events which make it seem like you change things. Frankly I always expected there to be some kind of weekly total of the battleground games won and lost by Alliance/Horde.
Players should have the ability to complete quests which take many hours to do, but which have effects which last until the weekly maintenance. E.G. so that there are continual attacks on a certain factions town and that the counter quest is available.
The Invasion stuff was really cool, but where were the drops outside of Nax.
The pvp content in Silithus and EPL is an attempt to do just what the article talks about, but Bliz ain't gone far enough yet. Buffs and graveyards dont cut the mustard as rewards. A better idea would be vendors who only sell to the horde cuz they won more games last week etc - thats a start.
If a buff is a reward, then really the buff that everyone at Ironforge should receive should be named after your player or guild. Rallying cry of the Dragonslayer? Try "Rallying cry of Guid I Stab Your Face" and then the world will become a little more personal.
Guild have precious little that they can do beyond PvP, instances and world bosses. Where is the rep??????
I think that this is Bliz being arrogant - they know that word spreads about a guild's profficiency, but this is "real" to the game.
Bosses downed should add to a guilds rep with a certain faction.
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments in the article which state that the raids are laughably easy - particularly MC
Having played Diablo 1&2. and SC and WC2/3, I find that the amount of skill required to last more then 10 minutes in WC3 is monumental compared to the challenge of AQ20 for example. And that only 2 things are required for a succesful run, decent gear, and good communication. Ventilo/Teamspeak is essential, and the group must know what spells to cast when. Of course this assumes you've got a balanced party, but Bliz are working on this for the expansion. Lets hope there's more different content.
Within a 40-man party the individuals skills are rarely tested. A hunter for example can trap one mob, put a pet on one, and tank another standard mob. But this is rarely called for.
Boss fights need to be more variable, more unexpected.
Guilds often say that they need people with skills, but once they've seen a few epics, they're happy to assume said skills are there. Epics > Experience > Skills in truth and as we've said it ain't hard to get epics.
PVP ranks are pointless also. Simply by playing AV a lot u can get a decent rank. U don't even have to be any good.
The game devalues skill because that would make it hard for 9 y/o's to play, and would cut the subscribers down - This just means that harder content should be put on top of the easy content, they as yet havent restricted any content to those who can.
We don't want to be lucky to get the opportunity to change the world, we want to be made to do "the right things" in order to make them happen.
WC3 skillz > WOW skillz, and there isn't anything in the game which delivers that level of difficulty. Discipline and taking orders - this ain't skill, and no WC3 player will win because a voice in their ear is ghosting for them.
What we really need are instances which have lots of quests inside the instance so that the individuals can run about inside of their own accord. It may sound like mindless chaos, but you would be able to reward the best member of the raid with items - or even a ticket to join a special random raid made up of non-newbs.
In lvl 60 envionments, players should be made to take on 2 or 3 opponents at once.
The Epic hunter quest tests the individuals skills, but where to go after that!!!
The game is so big, that there are a lot of ways in which they could change things to add the needed content, the original poster of the link to the article thinks that the desired would be unfeasible, but frankly it depends on wether you want Ironforge to be evacuated, or fur
slashdot - news for nerds. stuff that matters. Yup. This game matters a whole heap. People who enjoy it, play it, and you almost never hear from them.. The people who dislike the game.. are always trying to fight it like it's some corrupt political movement. Play the game and stfu or play a different game.
The problem here is that this is a great idea for L60 players with nowhere else to go. But for someone new to the game just trying to level up, well you're just making it harder for them than for the established players. Maybe you need starter worlds (servers), each of which evolve over time into more challenging storylines that everyone can move to together.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"I want to be snarky and point out that this guy obviously has no idea how these games are designed," You might want to reconsider that statement. Turbine did monthly content installments with AC1, which included content much like what the author mentions, including the complete destruction of a major city (as in "smoking crater"). While I have not seen another mmorpg do it, one did, so it can be done.
FYI, yes it is. However, meticulousness is the more common noun form in American English.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Reducing an activity to stimulus/response may seem clever, but the trouble is that it works for pretty much every human behavior imaginable. And it certainly works for every leisure activity.
People never tire of making that argument. The trouble is that, while it sounds good, it's just plain wrong. Most human activities fall into a stimulus-reasoning-response pattern. There is even a mathematical description of stimulus-response that explains why you are wrong. If you can't come up with a function of stimulus x that produces the predictable response y, you don't have a stimulus-response model.
After that, your argument goes off into the weeds on some wild tangent that basically adds up to "I like Warcraft. This guy didn't like something that I like. Therefore this guy is a whiner." Of course now, if you really are a WoW fan, I have become what your kind calls a "hater", and by calling me such you'll have proven to your peers that I'm an idiot. It's stimulus-response.
Players should get to create "alternative" content as a reward. Other players should have the opportunity to go through "An_Orc_Cave_01" yet again, or "So-and-so's_Orc_Cave" for a change. Then the other players should rate the experience on a few different fronts.
The shift that has to occur is that designers have to think of their playerbase as a wing of their dev team - from whom they take recommendations, get content, get feedback and work for free - in fact, they pay you to hire them - the first MMO to do this well can become more popular then WoW.
I sincerely doubt any one company will (1) write the game engine and (2) develop the content and (3) offer the customer service and (4) host the game on their servers in the future. In part, that is a different story.
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Sadly your mathematical "proof" does you no better. The stimulus/response referred to in this article are meant in the statistical sense. This is an article about regression modeling and has nothing to do with human behavior. Stimulus/response, in statistical terminology, are just a better way of saying "independent/dependent variables". We don't like to use independent/dependent (as is done in high school) for the simple reason that independence and dependence have specific meaning in statistics. So, in short, your wikipedia link is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I'll try to clarify the context I have in mind for "stimulus/response":
It's not as simple as a direct mathematical function from one variable (or vector of variables) to another. We're talking about a highly complex (e.g. chaotic) system. So it would be naive to expect the inputs to map directly to the outputs. What I'm actually referring to is materialism in general. According to materialist theories for human cognition, the "self" is massively modular. That means that you've got a vast array of systems, all of which act deterministically. You feed in input (stimulus) and the output is determined by the system (response) without any intervention of a human will. The will, in essence, disappears into the cogs of the machine. Instead of an actual entity, human will becomes merely a simplified description of the system as a whole. And this is leaving out the possibility of randomness (although whether true randomness, in the form of quantum events, could possibly have an effect on neurons - and thus behavior - is dubious at best). So "stimulus/response" just refers to the fact that there's nothing between the input (stimulus) and the output (response) except, as Newton would put it, billiard balls on a billiards table. Every step along the way is deterministically defined.
I'm not trying to wow you with my mumbo jumbo pseudo-science babble. I realize that I'm still an amateur in this field. I'm just trying to explain to you that there's a lot more going on. When I see someone say "stimulus/response" I immediately think: "deterministic". To me it doesn't matter how many intermediaries you throw up between the stimulus and the response. You could have an entire rube goldberg contraption that would make any simple function-mapping impossible, but would fail to alter the fundamental nature of "stimulus/respones" - determinism. If you are seriously interested in this topic at all, check out "Elbow Room" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) by Daniel Dennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett).
In particular, pay attention to his analogy regarding the digger wasp. From wikipedia:
My point regarding "stimulus/response" is essentially just a rej
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
I'm just trying to explain to you that there's a lot more going on. When I see someone say "stimulus/response" I immediately think: "deterministic". To me it doesn't matter how many intermediaries you throw up between the stimulus and the response. You could have an entire rube goldberg contraption that would make any simple function-mapping impossible, but would fail to alter the fundamental nature of "stimulus/respones" - determinism.
I see what you're saying, and I come to exactly the opposite conclusion that you have given the same data. If anything you have further strengthened my opinion that most human behavior is not purely stimulus/response. Human behavior is not deterministic based solely on stimuli. It is not a matter of how many intermediaries there are between the stimulus and the response. In fact, given the same stimuli repeatedly, a human may not respond the same way twice simply because there are many factors in the response that cannot reasonably be considered stimuli. Furthermore, given exactly the same stimuli, people have the capability of choosing a response arbitrarily. You may argue, though, that context is a stimulus...
From a physical perspective, you cannot convince me that any level of simulation, down to a quantum mechanical copy of a human being would be able to predict the responses of the subject. Such a copy would diverge immediately and rapidly from the subject person. So, is a system that is not provably deterministic actually deterministic? I would say no. I have a feeling that many quantum physicists would agree with me. Perhaps materialists are right, and "free will" is merely a set of quantum states, but that certainly isn't deterministic; the outcome is not yet defined. Or perhaps I'm wrong and even in quantum mechanics, nothing is random. Even so, that still leaves the problem of The Beginning, which is essentially the same philosophical problem when you boil it all down.
Now, I'd like to go back to something you said early on in your comment:
it would be naive to expect the inputs to map directly to the outputs.
Then you say:
That means that you've got a vast array of systems, all of which act deterministically. You feed in input (stimulus) and the output is determined by the system (response) without any intervention of a human will. The will, in essence, disappears into the cogs of the machine. Instead of an actual entity, human will becomes merely a simplified description of the system as a whole.
How can you not see that those two statements contradict each other? You're saying that the inputs don't map directly to the outputs (presumably because you don't know how to describe the mapping), and then you are saying that the inputs do map directly to the output. So, are you saying that the statistical model doesn't apply because we have to take the "cogs of the machine" on faith? If so, you seem to be describing yourself as a materialist using an argument that is spiritual.
If anything you have further strengthened my opinion that most human behavior is not purely stimulus/response... In fact, given the same stimuli repeatedly, a human may not respond the same way twice simply because there are many factors in the response that cannot reasonably be considered stimuli. Furthermore, given exactly the same stimuli, people have the capability of choosing a response arbitrarily. You may argue, though, that context is a stimulus.
1. First of all, there is no evidence that humans can actually decide "arbitrarily". In order to be genuinely arbitrary, you'd need to have some kind of a biological genuine random-number generator. Unless you think humans have little quantum-detectors in their brains, it's hard to imagine how this could work.
2. "factors that cannot reasonably be considered stimuli" What might these factors be? In a materialist universe *all* you have is the physical state of the brain/mind and the physical input to that system. But this system is a result of past stimulus, is it not? Either a thing physically effects the brain (e.g. is stimulus) or, in a materialist universe, it does not exist. Thus, quite literally, you've got nothing but a physical system that is determined by previous stimuli, and then additional stimuli. That is *all*.
It's fine with me if you're position is "strengthened", but it's pretty clear to me that you had no logical basis for it in the first place, and are continuing to react to my viewpoint viscerally instead of rationally.
How can you not see that those two statements contradict each other? You're saying that the inputs don't map directly to the outputs (presumably because you don't know how to describe the mapping), and then you are saying that the inputs do map directly to the output.
OK... way to tell me what I'm saying instead of read what I wrote. The difference is this: the connection between inputs and outputs is deterministic, but not direct. "Direct" is not a scientific term (as far as I know) so I'll explain further. If you are subject to a vector of inputs at time t1, the output (at time t1+x) will be a result of the not just the stimuli from time t1, but also the condition of your brain at time t1, which is in turn a consequence of vectors of inputs received at times t1-y (y>0). Thus the system as a whole is entirely stimulus/response, but *part* of the response of the system is to change (in deterministic ways). Thus it is not "direct" since the systems makeup changes over time. In addition, "direct" can also refer to the fact that the human neurological system is very complex (that's the modern term for chaotic). What this means, by definition, is that a very small change in the inputs or state of the system (the initial conditions) can result in dramatic changes in the output. Thus you can't possibly subject the system to "repeated stimulus" because with every new stimulus the system changes. These changes are complex, and therefore the resulting changes can be orders of magnitude more dramatic than the (approximately) identical stimuli.
So, are you saying that the statistical model doesn't apply because we have to take the "cogs of the machine" on faith? If so, you seem to be describing yourself as a materialist using an argument that is spiritual.
The cogs of the machine are not taken on faith. They are called neurons. As well as other biological entities. Do you disbelieve in neurons? Would you consider neuroscience to be "spiritual"?
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
In order to be genuinely arbitrary, you'd need to have some kind of a biological genuine random-number generator. Unless you think humans have little quantum-detectors in their brains, it's hard to imagine how this could work.
Define detector. Why can't a system that contains parts which behave randomly when observed individually produce random output? Biological neurons are capable of firing based on the stimulus of a single particle. Quantum physicists say that the movement of individual particles is completely random. Isn't that enough of a quantum detector? (Of course that still doesn't answer the question of whether said randomness qualifies as 'will'...)
The cogs of the machine are not taken on faith. They are called neurons. As well as other biological entities. Do you disbelieve in neurons? Would you consider neuroscience to be "spiritual"?
No, but you said:
"We're talking about a highly complex (e.g. chaotic) system. So it would be naive to expect the inputs to map directly to the outputs."
For any given state of a neural network, you can describe a direct map between a set of inputs and the output. Your application of your definition of direct seems dubious to me, as an input driven by feedback (state) is still an input to the system. Furthermore, if you follow your hypothesis to it's logical conclusion, the entirety of existence is simply the intermediary between the initial input and the final output. Doesn't that mean that every input into the human system is merely state in the system. After all, then inputs at t1-y in your example couldn't possibly have been anything but what they were... Lastly, if you don't buy that state is an input, how can human reaction be considered stimulus/response when clearly the response is the result of a sequence of stimuli?
complex (that's the modern term for chaotic)
Frankly, while the rest of what we're discussing is philosophical, that statement is just bullshit.
chaotic - adj, Completely unordered and unpredictable
complex - adj, Involving many parts; complicated
A system can be extremely complex without being chaotic. Chaos is practically synonymous with nondeterminism.
it's pretty clear to me that you had no logical basis for it in the first place, and are continuing to react to my viewpoint viscerally instead of rationally.
Right. If I was being logical I would come to the same conclusion as you?
Why can't a system that contains parts which behave randomly when observed individually produce random output?
In general, it can. In this case, however, the only parts of the system that behave randomly are sub-atomic particles. Unless you have a different suggestion for the non-deterministic elements?
Quantum physicists say that the movement of individual particles is completely random. Isn't that enough of a quantum detector?
Exactly, that's why I made referrence to a quantum-detector. The problem is one of scale. There's no way that a neuron, which is a cell composed of millions of atoms, could be sensitive to the quantum variations in any given atom. Nor is there any evidence of a kind of escalator that could some how amplify a quantum event to a level that could influence a neuron. So when I said "quantum detector" I'm explaining that even though there's plenty of random behavior in the brain at the sub-atomic level, there's nothing at the cellular level that is affected by that quantum behavior. That's where you need a detector: at the cellular level. No biologist that I know of seriously entertains the notion that such a detector exists.
As far as whether random fluctuations get you a "will", I don't think they do. I'm not a combatibilist. I think random fluctuations aren't what we want when we talk about "will" at all.
For any given state of a neural network, you can describe a direct map between a set of inputs and the output.
You are again displaying your ignorance. In order to describe the map between a set of inputs and the output, you'd need a description of the state of a neural network. We don't even have that! And we're not close to it either. We don't even have a definition for "neural network". Where do you set the boundary? The spinal cord clearly plays a role, so don't say "the brain". So every single nerve from brain to tip of the toes? Fine - use that as a starting point. You seriously think we can model an entire neural network? We're not even close. Once we get there, we can see whether or not the inputs map to the output, but I'm still fairly certain they won't. We'll get to why once I address your misconceptions about "chaos".
Frankly, while the rest of what we're discussing is philosophical, that statement is just bullshit.
This is the what, second time you've used a copy/paste "definition" to prove I'm wrong? Third? And it's the second or third time you've been completely, totally wrong. The simple reason for this is that I'm using these terms in their technical sense. I used stimulus/response in the philosophical/neurological sense, you mis-applied their statistical definitions. In this case I'm referring to chaos theory/complexity theory. Looking the words up in websters or dictionary.com is not going to get you the technical definition I'm working with.
I really don't have the time or inclincation to give you a full tutorial on chaos/complexity theory. Honestly, I don't have the academic backgroun either. I haven't even finished my masters in System's Engineering yet (which deals with complex systems). But let me take this statment for starters: Chaos is practically synonymous with nondeterminism.
Contrast your statement with this (from wikipedia's entry on chaos theory): As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, exhibiting an exponential error dispersion, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters
So we're back to what I originally described. As a chaotic/complex system, the brain is deterministic. No randomness. Despite this it exhibits some of the characteristics of randomness. Thus, quite fairly, the brain can be both deterministic AND not have the inputs relate DIRECTLY to the outputs in the conventional sense. Not only is that possible, it's kind of the point of chaotic/complex systems.
Right.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
I'm not calling you irrational because you're not agreeing with me. I'm calling you irrational because as long as you continue to use words without knowing the meaning of those words you can't even join in the discussion.
That's truly hilarious.
The only reason we ended up in this conversation (instead of me not responding to your second comment) is because you presnted your argument using words that mean something completely different. You, of course, justified your incorrect terminology by saying that you are using the "technical" definition, which is utter bullshit. Alternatively, you use a word (chaos), and then later say you were refering to chaos theory which is something completely different.
You are now number three on my list of idiots who have claimed the OED definition of an english word is incorrect. I would like to continue the philosophical portion of our discussion, but I cannot because we don't speak the same language. I don't have time to argue simply because what was written isn't what was meant.
The original terms were "stimulus/response". The context was as follows:
I think it's fairly clear that I'm using the terms stimulus and response as they refer to human behavior. I'm discussing reduction of an activity, and I mention that it works for every human behavior imaginable. The context, I think, is pretty clear.
Your response went something like this:
The referenced wikipedia page (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus-response_mod el) clearly refers to "stimulus/response" in the statistical sense. You are thus conflating two different meanings of the words, from the realm of human behavior and from the realm of statistics. I'm not making up anything here, nor is this bullshit. I do statistical analysis for a living. I'm working on my masters degree right now, and in the last lecture in my "Statisttics for Engineers" class the usage of the terms "stimulus and response" was a brief tangent the professor took. So it's fresh in my mind. I really don't know what else to tell you on that part.
Frankly, I'm not too worried about convincing you. Since your chosen form of argumentation involves repeatedly calling your opponent an idiot (not to mention arguing based on baseless assumptions about their free-time activities), I'm well-aware that trying to change your mind is likely a lost cause. This is purely intended for the odd lurker who may (for whatever reason) stumble across this thread.
Alternatively, you use a word (chaos), and then later say you were refering to chaos theory which is something completely different.
In point of fact I did not use the word "chaos". Feel free to look through my posts if you like. Use the find function to speed things up. I did, however, use the term "chaotic". This is the original context:
Thus I am clearly referring to complex/chaotic systems. I'm sorry if you expected to find the mathematical definition of either "chaos" or "complexity" in the OED. You should have tried wikipedia first. Here's the relevant section on complex systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system I would direct your attention to a quote near the bottom: "Every decade or so, a grandiose theory comes along, bearing similar aspirations and often brandishing an ominous-sounding C-name. In the 1960 it was cybernetics. In the '70s it was catastrophe theory. Then came chaos theory in the '80s and complexity theory in the '90s." Cybnernetics is considered by many to be the birth of systems engineering (my field). Chaos theory and complexity theory are developments in this field (although systems engineering is by definition multi-disciplinary).
So this leaves us with two examples in which I used a term in what I thought was fairly clear context. In the first term you jumped from one discipline (human behavior) to another (statistics) and used a specialized definition from the latter to contradict my usa
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.