The Quest To Build a Better Warcraft

Red Herring tackles the rush into virtual space, talking about the MMOG goldrush and the business consequences World of Warcraft has had on the games industry as a whole. Though sometimes it doesn't seem to fully understand the difference between a single player game and a Massive one, the article still touches on a number of important points. Lots of folks are looking to cash in on WoW's success, and they're importing or licensing every Massive game they can find to get on the bandwagon. "The problem is that no one knows what the next WoW killer will look like. Creating a hit video game, which combines strong characters, a compelling story, and top-notch production values, is part art and part inexact science. Making a hit game can be much more difficult than producing an Oscar-winning movie. After all, the hit video game must be compelling enough to keep players coming back for more." Even if a lot of their conclusions are odd, and they call Puzzle Pirates silly, it's worth a look. What do you think it's going to take to crack Blizzard's deathlock on the Massive genre?

Comments

Game engine

[wilsonthecat]

The content is all that amazing in World of Warcraft, but the game engine is second to none. Make a game engine as good as WoW's, with the character animation, UI and scripting support and you've got a WoW-killer. Until then they are just bad immitations.

Re:Game engine

[Derekloffin]

I'm not sure I'd call WoW's game engine 'second to none'. It has numerous technical issues that continue to haunt it even today, and judging from the very odd occurances of things that were working fine suddenly going buggy on an update that didn't touch anything that should have been related I wouldn't put much stock on it's code being very clean either. Basically, it's power has come at costs in other areas.

Re:Game engine

[Negatyfus]

That's an easy comment. Name some of these technical issues that you mention. It's not perfect, but I can't for the life of me think of any severe problems.

Re:Game engine

[UnknownSoldier]

> but the game engine is second to none.

Oh please. Maybe on stability, but not on features.
i.e.
The game only supports blob shadows.

Re:Game engine

[seebs]

Who cares?

Seriously, it's a total non-issue to me, and I think that's why they're succeeding. What sold WoW three accounts in my household was that their client was playable on an old G4 iBook.

Re:Game engine

[edremy]

I'll mention one that has been driving me nuts lately- "stuck" monsters. It's not at all uncommon to get a mob stuck into the terrain such that it is completely immune to all attacks but can hit you from almost any distance. You'll see it 30 yards away swinging a sword and a big "-500" and "DAZED" appears over your head. The only thing you can do is run away and hope that it can't kill you in time. Sometimes these guys are stuck below the terrain so that you can't even see where they are- you just aggro them by accident and suddenly your health is falling.

Then there are the "You don't have permission to loot that corpse" bug, the numerous quests that are so buggy that nobody can complete them (Like the one in the dungeon in Terrokkar that if someone fails on the attempt it requires a server reset before it will ever work again) and so forth. These are probably scripting rather than engine bugs, but still.

WoW is remarkably polished for a game its size, but it's by no means bug free.

Re:Game engine

[Negatyfus]

Well, no. I'd never claim it's bug-free, but it's still Blizzard-class quality. I've never had that stuck mob problem, though. That must be new since the expansion, because I've never noticed before, when I was playing a lot more. You're right that a lot of problems are content-based and not necessarily engine. As far as design and implementation goes, I think the entire engine (graphics and gameplay) is one of the best ever made for an MMORPG. It's just well put-together and relatively trouble-free these days.

Re:Game engine

[nahdude812]

I don't think he was talking about bleeding edge graphics, but rather about the GAME engine. Quest system, stats system, combat mechanics, spell/resist mechanics, talent specializations, interface customization system, etc. The flexibility of their GAME engine means they can easily create compelling content.

Visually what has been compelling to me about WoW was not the special effects, but rather the artistry. They have beautiful, vibrant, imaginative, and colorful landscapes, buildings, characters, monsters, and spells. These things are not very well aided by the graphic engine (which generally keeps it to the basics), but are amazing nonetheless. As a result, the hardware needed to play it is less than other games which are less visually interesting, where they get hung up on bump maps and dynamic shadows, and other things which are nice only in a peripheral way, and don't really contribute that much to the enjoyability of the game itself. Kinda like a typical focused-primarily-on-cgi movie, which is beautiful but boring.

Re:Game engine

[Johnny O]

I have had that same problem happen to me before the expansion (rarely) and after the expansion (too many times to list).. Once again last night with an invisible ogre damaging me till i vanished (my companion didnt see anything either and we couldnt figure out until I vanished, why we were in combat and couldnt mount) as well as a vulture that i was stacking up combo points on yet was taking no damage, yet I was till I ran away.

The bugs are there. Alot more than before the expansion.

Re:Game engine

[VGPowerlord]

Actually, stuck enemies in the main world were much worse when the game first came out than they were right before the expansion came out... at some point, Blizzard added an algorithm that would unstick some enemies in certain circumstances.

Re:Game engine

[LunarCrisis]

That's an easy comment. Name some of these technical issues that you mention. It's not perfect, but I can't for the life of me think of any severe problems.

The first one that comes to mind is that when you stand on top of a vein and mine it out from under you, you stay suspended in the air. You pretty much stay there until you hit a movement key, at which time you start falling. To be fair, though, that's probably a very small bug. I would guess they just forgot a particular event which makes objects go from inactive to active (these probably aren't the actual terms) in the physics simulation.

I hate that they removed the /bug command from the beta, that was quite useful.

Re:Game engine

[Anonymous Coward]

WoW's engine is not that great. One severe problem noone has mentioned (and I don't know why it wasn't mentioned yet) is the fact that you can't have more than 200 people in the same area or the server likes to crash on you. Think of Tauren Mill/south shore battles... 100 players? huh oh, lets get some 5 second lag .. 200players? CRASH! that is the main reason I don't like pvp in WoW.. I came from Lineage2 where you could have thousands(literally) of players in the same area and have a massive battle with only your computer to lag you. And the graphics were better in Lineage2, how does that work? My guess is, a better game engine. Something WoW lacks.

Re:Game engine

[Anonymous Coward]

wow (pun intended) you could not be more incorrect in your post. The technology, the game engine, scripting language is hardly the best on the planet. And is at most only a minor contributor to WoW's success. Certainly any MMO tech that is written needs to be solid, reasonably scalable and as bug free as you can get it. But if thats all you focused in on then your already dead in the water.

There are literally hundreds of great MMO technology games out there far superior to what blizzard was able to muster up with practically 0 MMO tech experience of their own. Blizzards tech was actually not very good at all as far as MMO tech goes. Very poor scalability and utilization of their hardware (low player per cpu numbers). Very poor database implementation that limited scalability of each "shard", buggy transferring between areas where characters blink in and out of view,etc.

Its one of the reason they had to prematurely open up all those "dark" shards when they launched, was not just because of popularity it was because each whole shard of hardware was not handling anywhere near what other MMO games can do.

So tech is not going to make a wow killer. if your tech sucks then nothing can help you, but if its solid then all you have is a place to start.

Game design, story, and presentation(gui, how the world looks, the vision of the world, pacing, etc) is ultimately and significantly more
important then any code you write for it.

good technology does not make a good game. and in fact its the lack of technology in WoW that has helped it. What I mean is everything thinks your game needs to be photo realistic and look like Half Life 2. Guess what, if your still thinking that after what WoW has shown us then your a moron and destined to fail.

Problem with your game looking like HL2 is obvious, its only going to look like that on a small percentage of the players computers out there. You just limited your player base right out of the hole.

We don't need bump mapping, pixel shaders, heat wave shader effects, etc. What we need is good, consistent art. And thats what WoW is (among other things). The vision, all art should fit and look like it belongs.

WoW shouldnt' get awards for good graphics, the graphics engine is 10 years behind what is available today (consider how low poly all stuff is in WoW and the lack of excessive graphics capabilities), but it should get awards for great art direction.
Not saying thats a bad thing, the toning down of graphics opened up the availability of the game to more players.

and thats just the beginning of what makes WoW great and what you will need to do to compete.

you still need to get the kick ass game design and the story.

good luck with that btw since no one really understands that part yet, its still more art then science.

but personally I dont think the next wow is going to be a rpg, or at least I hope not, there are so many other areas to go into
it would be great to see another FPS(leverage what you can learn from what planetside did wrong), a RTS style MMO, couple out there
but too hardcore for the majority. But plenty of examples to learn from.

and frankly thats how blizzard started right? they leveraged what was out there, learning from it and made improvements. For
all that WoW is, when you boil it down its a watered down version of EQ, plain and simple. Plenty of people may disagree
but its a fact. The dev team were hard core players of EQ long before there own WoW game came along.

And its typical of the successful formula blizzard has used time and time again. Every game they have made from diablo, starcraft and wow
all existing in other forms long before blizzard came along (if you dont think so then you do not know your game history very well).

they took what was out there already and made it better (which is the black box most of us have yet to understand, we know they do it, just not sure how).

almost no one would accuse blizzard of

Re:Game engine

[dave562]

I've been running into the same problem with the stuck mobs and getting attacked even though there do not seem to be any monsters around. I've also had some issues that I would attribute to lag lately. Last night me and my girlfriend were fighting a mage (horde PC, we are alliance). I spent a good 30 seconds trying to cast spells on the mage, and they simply wouldn't fire off... no casting bar, no nothing. Then I was suddenly dead. The weird thing is that the mage was constantly freezing my g/f, and I was able to disenchant the frost effects, and I could heal myself and heal her. But any time I tried to do anything to actually damage the mage, it just wouldn't work.

Re:Game engine

[Scooter]

MMO NetHack. That's what we need! It'll run on a Dec VT100 :P I'd actually play that come to think of it...

Re:Game engine

[Pxtl]

I'm sorry, no. Blizzard has never been all that for engines. They're good because of artistry and patience. An engine with great *support* for character animation is meaningless without good character animation. Blizzard has time and time again taken new genres and made the best game in the genre not for any particular technical improvement, but by raw force of quality gameplay and artistry. StarCraft, Diablo, WoW - all of these looked, technologically-speaking, primitive compared to their peers. The point is that Blizzard pours so much hard work into their games that they always succeed beyond expectations. StarCraft's 2D isometric engine looked archaic next to it's contemporaries like Total Annihilation... but the storyline, artwork, voice acting, and solid gameplay made them win. There is very little in Blizzard games that we haven't seen a hundred times before - but Blizzard gets it RIGHT.

WoW is just the same thing - take an established genre, and make the perfect game within it.

Re:Game engine

[Lord Kestrel]

While not a MMO in the usual sense, try playing nethack on devnull.net (if they ever come back online).

Re:Game engine

[toriver]

I think that's a client-server sync lag issue: I've experienced it the other way: Humanoid mobs running away server-side but the models stayed at the same spot on the client so I had no idea where it actually was, just that I wasn't facing it or it was too far away. Haven't experienced it after version 2.0.3 though.

Re:Game engine

[Weasel Boy]

Funny you should mention it, because Blizzard acknowledges that NetHack and Moria were the direct inspirations for Diablo. And WoW is basically MMO Diablo. So, in effect, MMO NetHack would be... World of Warcraft. ;-)

Also, for what it's worth, Clan Lord did MMO NetHack for April Fool's a few years ago. Here's a screen shot.

Re:Game engine

[Kalriath]

You can't by any stretch of the term call ANY of those "Engine Bugs" like the GP was talking about. Those are server side errors and mistakes. I agree that these are problems, but replying with them in answer to someone saying the engine is second to none is like replying with the price of fish to a query as to when the next bus will arrive.

Re:Game engine

[Kalriath]

I guess we'll get to say this a lot:

The Game Engine has NOTHING at all to do with the servers. The Game Engine encompasses the local software. The Server Software is just that, the Server Software.

The reason your "severe problem" has not been mentioned is that it is NOT an Engine bug. That's why it hasn't been mentioned.

Re:Game engine

[UnknownSoldier]

> but rather about the GAME engine. Quest system, stats system, combat mechanics, spell/resist mechanics, talent specializations, interface customization system, etc. The flexibility of their GAME engine means they can easily create compelling content.

As a game dev, their engine doesn't really stand out, to me. Half of the things you mention are game design issues -- with the engine supporting those.

- Their waypoint system sucks compared to EQ2.
- Their character creation screen also stinks (you can't zoom in on the face??) Guild Wars does a much better job in this aspect.
- You can't customize your stats like you could in D2. i.e. Every Level 60 Pali has the exact same base stats. Why a RPG wouldn't let you customize your character is beyond me.
- Their crafting UI dialog is non-resizable; no way to sort items by skill.
- Why does tailoring stick EVERY silk, mageweave, etc, item under a "Cloth" category??
- They have limited fonts unless you install the mod ClearFont
- Their talent dialog is too tall in game, so you have to scroll up and down.
- You can't have 2 talent builds one for PvE and one for PvP which stinks.
- They usually break every mod with every patch, even when none of the Lua API has changed.

I agree that their combat system is pretty good. You can tell its an outgrowth from D2, since it had the whole +/-5 levels XP thing. They "ripped" the 3 tree talent system off from D2. They have a very good UI SDK/customization.

But on the whole, yeah, it works without issue, but that's too be expected. Wow isn't revolutionary, just evolutionary -- they streamlined a lot of the UI issues, but its still got a ways to go, before I'd consider it "great."

Re:Game engine

[UnknownSoldier]

> I've never had that stuck mob problem, though. That must be new since the expansion, because I've never noticed before,

Uhm, NO, that bug has been in since the game launched, because I've seen it when I first started playing back then.

Similiarly, "You can't loot that right now" WHEN your the only person in your party, and you killed the mob -- has been since the game launched.

Fortunately, they don't happen much these days -- the loot bug was terrible back in Dec 2004.

Re:Game engine

[UnknownSoldier]

That's very true!

Blizzard focuses on the _fundamentals_: Gameplay... everything else is just icing on the cake. Not saying their games are perfect, because they sure aren't, but what they have down in _spades_ is _fun_.

Re:Game engine

[Negatyfus]

Oh well, I don't know. I just don't encounter all that much problems. Maybe that's because I don't spend 50 hours a week playing the game.

Re:Game engine

[Negatyfus]

That guy was probably cheating.

Re:Game engine

[MeanderingMind]

But on the whole, yeah, it works without issue, but that's too be expected. Wow isn't revolutionary, just evolutionary -- they streamlined a lot of the UI issues, but its still got a ways to go, before I'd consider it "great."

The fundamental insight into Blizzard a lot of people miss is just this, Blizzard doesn't start revolutions.

Blizzard is the master of taking a genre and making it excellent. WarCraft, StarCraft and Diablo all had significant predecessors, but each took the concept and expanded them. The results were incredibly easy for a wide audience to enjoy, while having enough depth to appease the nigh-insatiable desires of the more intense gamers.

WoW is simply another example of this. It really is nothing that anyone hasn't done before, except they've done it remarkably well. It's easy to learn, understand and play on a casual level, while having rewards for those who dedicate themselves to it.

It didn't revolutionize MMORPGs, but it bring them into the limelight.

Re:Game engine

[Anonymous Coward]

Tarren Mill
Southshore

thank you

Re:Game engine

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because the servers aren't part of the game. Oh wait - they're a pretty damn integral part of the game.

Of course the servers are part of a MMOG's game engine. The game software is much more than just the client.

Make Smarter People Sign Up

[Apple Acolyte]

Give me an MMO with the quality of WoW and a higher caliber of people to play with, and I'm there.

Re:Make Smarter People Sign Up

[certain death]

Guild Wars. Very nice engine, excellent graphics (STOMPS WoW) and an excellent community with more adults, not a bunch of 12-14 year olds.

Re:Make Smarter People Sign Up

[0xdeadbeef]

When is a Guild Wars scandal going to shut you guys up? It's so nice not to see people hawking EVE anymore.

Comparing GW graphics to WoW is like saying The Polar Express looked better than The Incredibles.

Re:Make Smarter People Sign Up

[Lordpidey]

Perhaps AO would be a good choice? The complexity of having a good character in AO is greater than that in basically any other MMO. In most MMOs equipment is locked by level, in AO, its locked by the character's skills, so you have to think about how you can raise a skill to equip better stuff, this process is called "twinking" (no, its not just for alts, its for mains too)

Second Life

[MichaelSmith]

I don't play games at all, but I had a look at Second Life recently and I think that it (and the systems which will come after it) will appeal to a much broader market than games like Warcraft.

Re:Second Life

[TeraCo]

Sure, except there's no fucking gameplay in Second Life. I play WoW because I want to kill dragons with morons, if I wanted to stand around with morons I'd go outside.

Re:Second Life

[hellasaltine]

Second Life is virtual mile after virtual mile of strip clubs and clothing stores.

Not to mention it isn't even a game.

Re:Second Life

[discord5]

I had a look at Second Life recently and I think that it (and the systems which will come after it) will appeal to a much broader market than games like Warcraft.

Second life is essentially a chatclient to spend real money on virtual goods (or for the few who actually build stuff make real money on virtual goods).

The problem with second life is that for many people there is no reason to "play" it. There is no real objective to the game, eg. you don't get to slay dragons and rescue the princess, you don't get the rarest of rarest of items that increases your stats so you can brag in your guild about your latest armor or sword, you don't have that rare drop to fit on your brand new spaceship you use to pirate.

Many people play MMOs in a really competetive fashion, or for the challenge, or because they're addictive. I don't really see any of these qualities in second life. It's basicly a market of virtual goods, and they're making a lot of noise because they're selling baked air, everyone knows it, and appareantly everyone

The broader market? I dunno, I've met a lot of different people in WoW. Ranging from the immature adolescent ("lolol i'm so l33t") to the student with time to waste ("I raid every evening, have calculated the best uber stats for my character, troll forums, and somehow have to get a passing grade this year") to the adult with spare time ("My kids play this game, and this is a great way of keeping an eye on their online activities, and it's fun too" "I'm single and bored on weekday evenings" "My wife has another headache"). I think that WoW and Second Life have all of these groups as well, but that the WoW player is in it for the gameplay and the Second Life player is in it for the chat.

Re:Second Life

[operato]

and i thought i was the only one living on moron mountain!

Re:Second Life

[ProppaT]

Or you could do like me and play WoW inside Second Life. Yeah, I found a little house in the middle of nowhere. It's kind of low key at this point, but I expect that it'll really take off soon. They have WoW emulator clients on one side of the room and live german scheizer sex shows on the other.

Re:Second Life

[bogjobber]

The problem with second life is that for many people there is no reason to "play" it. There is no real objective to the game, eg. you don't get to slay dragons and rescue the princess, you don't get the rarest of rarest of items that increases your stats so you can brag in your guild about your latest armor or sword, you don't have that rare drop to fit on your brand new spaceship you use to pirate.

I think that's one of the real problems with Second Life. Overall it's basically just a large, detailed chat room. This attracts other people that chat rooms attract, largely alternative-lifestyle folks that have a hard time finding like-minded social groups in real life. That community is the only thing that holds people together, and for most people there isn't enough of a reason to hang out in Second Life making friends as opposed to hanging out in real life and making friends.

Re:Second Life

[electrosoccertux]

The problem with second life is that for many people there is no reason to "play" it.

Was there a point to Animal Crossing?

Re:Second Life

[cowscows]

Second Life is just a huge pile of unrealized potential. What it sort of claims to be is an online 3d framework in which enterprising people could ideally create something analogous to WoW, but having a lot of the common stuff (graphics engine, network code, physics, etc.)already taken care of by Linden Labs. The problem is that a lot of that underlying framework is just really really sucky. There are tons of people who tried to create FPS type games within SL, some very smart and inventive people. But things like the lag inherent in SL just make it unworkable in any practical sense. I don't know much specific about how Linden Labs has structured SL, but I know that the creative players in the game have been pushing the limits of what SL can do, and the devs have not kept up at all in terms of increasing performance or increasing what's available to players.

I'm not saying that fulfilling the potential that many players see in SL is an easy task, I have no doubt it's quite difficult, or else it'd have been done already. But the only way that it's going to happen is through a lot of constant and iterative development. SL was a great first step, but it's made very little technical progress in the past few years. Instead Linden Labs has decided to focus their energies more on the social aspects, which is no doubt easier for them, but really is a waste of time. The social aspects will be self creating, since the game is played by people. I'd rather see LL put my subscription money towards some technical progress, rather than another press release about their progressive views on intellectual property rights. I'm not that concerned about whether or not I own my SL creations, because in SL it's so hard to make anything that's actually worth a damn.

Re:Second Life

[bigred85]

--Was there a point to Animal Crossing?

No, but at least you didn't have to pay for "goods" and "services" that didn't actually exist.

Re:Second Life

[steveo777]

Best comment I've seen in a long time. Funny? Yes. But more deserving of insightful. Now, if the world were populated with dragons. Then I'd love to go outside and kill dragons with morons (read: dragon fodder)

Re:Second Life

[basscomm]

Tell that to Tom Nook. I'm still trying to pay off my mortgage for my second story.

Re:Second Life

[Secwind]

alot ppl that ply WoW not because they like the game so much, but to be in that online community and chill w/ ppl that has similar goals. When I was plying, guildies would log on and start exchange how their day go in the guild chat. it's a getaway from rl and be relaxed after a day's work

Re:Second Life

[bricklayer]

I would rather kill dragons with morons, too, but most morons are hard to throw.

Re:Second Life

[Jesterboy]

Animal Crossing may have not had an overt goal, but the structure of the system allowed you to set your own goals to accomplish. You could try and fully upgrade your house, collect all the fossils/fish/bugs/type of furniture, try to make all the townspeople happy, etc.

Second Life has none of these; there's no real strcuture to it. Its only a fancy interface to a chat room.

Are we really talking about MMO ?

[Ksempac]

Creating a hit video game, which combines strong characters, a compelling story, and top-notch production values

Compelling story ? Strong characters ? We re not talking about MMO games here...MMO aims to the "lowest common denominator" between players to attract as much people as they can. WOW did it so well that they managed to attract people who hardly ever played video games before...and that's also why hardcore gamers tend not to play WOW.

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[Ryunosuke]

you've hit the nail on the head. WOW is basicly the poor man's mmorpg. It's dumbed down enough that casual players can play, pretty enough to capture said casual players, and occasionally has some end game stuff for the "raiders". one of the reasons why Eq2 (my personal favorite) will never ever be #1 is that they never dumbed down anything in (besides removing the shards early in the second year). Eq2's leveling and tradeskilling is a bitch. Wow's isn't. I played wow for 3 months, and I felt as if I was accidently leveling at times. WOW is the lowest common denominator of mmorpgs. It attracts and keeps more people than a lot of the "harder" ones. I know more people playing WOW than Guild Wars, City of Heroes, and Eq2 combined. A shame Vanguard is a pay to play beta, or it could have given wow a run for its money. no big deal, though. An eq3/Wow2 will eventually take over and we'll have these threads all over again ;)

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[ZombieWomble]

I felt as if I was accidently leveling at times.

Darn, were you being distracted by all that fun you were having? The reason many MMOs struggle is because of the idea, echoed in your post, that it is a good thing for levelling to be "a bitch". It is not. A game should fun to play, not something which you can work at for hours and end up no closer to any sense of accomplishment (or even further from one, in the case of harsh death penalties and the like). Building a game which is accessible and fun is not aiming the lowest common denominator, it's simply understanding why exactly people want to play games. I'm sure there'll still be a market of some sort for the hardcore gamers and their somewhat masochistic tendencies, but I suspect it'll rapidly fall even further into niche territory as WoW and it's successors continue to tailor towards the type of games the majority of people enjoy.

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[b00tleg]

I actually played City of Heroes before I played WoW. CoH was probably the easiest MMO I have ever scene. Not to say it wasn't fun I only cancelled it because I spent too much time / money on it. When I got into WoW I was overwhelmed by how much extra complexity there was compared to CoH. I never felt like starting over/rerolling in WoW as I did in CoH. WoW succeeds because of all the options they offer... I need to get off slashdot, the more I see WoW news I want to sign backup. I've been clean for over a year now.

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[Gr8Apes]

I truth, I played and quite EQ, because it was SSDD. Just because you put different bit maps on the screen didn't really change your strategy all that much. You had blunt/blade/magic targets in every level category, and the technique for most efficiently destroying them never changed across the levels.

And that brings me to another thing - levels. Levels in EQ(2), WoW, etc, have completely perverted what should be fun. Leveling is about the only important thing. A level 20 char will neer be killed by a level 5 mob unless they're attempting to commit suicide. Heck, not even by 4 level 5 mobs.

Since all these games are based off D&D, perhaps looking at that system might show that play rather than leveling was what made it fun. Levels did not have the dramatic effect they do in MMOs. A thief of moderate ability could kill a high level mage with luck, for example. A high level mage could, with an obscene amount of luck, kill a dragon single-handedly. (basically, mages and necromancers were the pinnacle of power but were very destructable)

These scenarios are impossible to even strive for in MMOs as they are today. 2-3 level differences are death sentences to the lower level individual.

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[C0rinthian]

I find it ironic that people who want their gameplay to be work look down on those who want their gameplay to be fun.

Regarding the original topic: I think the 'next big thing' will have to change the game significantly. Anyone trying to make a new WoW, or WoW in Space, or anything remotely like WoW is shooting themselves in the foot. They need to figure out WHY WoW works so damn well, and apply that to something different enough that people would want to play it instead.

It is going to be VERY difficult to make a EQ-style MMO without it being completely overshadowed by the 800 lb gorilla that is WoW.

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[AvitarX]

Though a slightly different genre, doesn't Guild Wars (and expansions) try to fix the whole level thing?

I think part of the problem though is that if you don't get way powerful then there is a risk of not feeling accomplishment.

For example look at Civilization vs Colonization. Without the large and quickly expanding tech tree the game can feel much slower.

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[Gr8Apes]

The tech tree is actually one of my gripes with Civilization, even though I may be partly responsible for it. (A long long time ago, in another life, I was part of the independent Civ II effort)

I have often thought there should be a better way, although Civ does simplify the entire management aspect. It's still smacks far too much of board games optimizations, and that was one of my gripes about board games.

Colonization I haven't played, so I cannot comment.

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[eboot]

So you like MMORPGs to be full of socially awkward losers with a ton of time and nothing else to do but grind away at a 'tough' MMORPG and a female population of 00000.000001? (.000001 refers to the person who hasn't removed there pants since they started playing the game and is no longer certain of it's sex). Thanks but I'll stick to WOW with it's population diversity and chat that doesn't 100% revolve around stats and loot.

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[brkello]

You are confusing difficulty with wasting your time for no good reason. Other games are "harder" because they are more harsh to the player. Crafting isn't difficult because it is hard to figure out, it is difficut because you fail a lot. Is it harder to level in other games? Sure, but the difficulty isn't something that requires more intelligence...you do the same thing over and over playing it safe because the penalties are so harsh when you die. This isn't fun.

That is the main difference between WoW and a lot of other MMORPGS, they actually remove all the stupid stuff that makes the game a job. Plenty of hardcore players play WoW. The people who think they are "real" hardcore players because it takes them a year to get the max level are just trying to justify throwing all that time away grinding. I enjoy doing things that are fun. Just because you like hitting your head with a hammer doesn't make you more of a man (hardcore)...it just makes everyone else think you are stupid.

Re:Are we really talking about MMO ?

[dave562]

Darn, were you being distracted by all that fun you were having? The reason many MMOs struggle is because of the idea, echoed in your post, that it is a good thing for levelling to be "a bitch". It is not. A game should fun to play, not something which you can work at for hours and end up no closer to any sense of accomplishment (or even further from one, in the case of harsh death penalties and the like).

I completely agree with this. One of the things that makes WoW so addictive is the ease at which the quests go by. They have made the quests simple enough to complete, difficult enough to be somewhat of a challenge, and they feed them to you in such a way that the next, slightly more difficult quest is just over the horizon, waiting for you the next time you log on. Even my girlfriend who wasn't a computer gamer before we started going out now looks forward to WoW night. I think that a lot of the attraction for her is the ease of game play.

Starcraft?

[Skywings]

How about World of Starcraft. I know this has been mentioned many times, but I do think it is a good idea. I'm hooked on to Eve Online. I can see something like Eve with a Starcraft theme. I'd buy it.

Re:Starcraft?

[Marquis2]

I have thought about a world of starcraft also, I am a massive fan of blizzards work but after playing WoW for over 3 months I can't help but think it would just suck.

Re:Starcraft?

[mwvdlee]

They'd be gutting their own WoW market.

Starcraft is arguably even better IP than Warcraft was, especially in Asian countries, so I'd be willing to bet money on "World of Starcraft" appearing in the future. The only question is when.

My guess is it'll probably appear about 1-2 years after subscription numbers for WoW drop below, say, 50% of current amount.

p.s. Doesn't Blizzard also have the Diablo IP? You can bet that will be turned into an MMO too. From a gameplay point of view this would be very interresting.

Re:Starcraft?

[blahplusplus]

"How about World of Starcraft. I know this has been mentioned many times, but I do think it is a good idea. I'm hooked on to Eve Online. I can see something like Eve with a Starcraft theme. I'd buy it."

Please no, Eve's pace of gameplay is enormously tedious and boring. It's great if you like waiting a lot but the lack of an optional skill based action oriented ship-to-ship fighting leaves a lot to be desired. Starcraft works on the principle of management but it also takes skill, speed and dedication. Eve is not such a game, all it takes in eve is time and dedication.

Re:Starcraft?

[geminidomino]

p.s. Doesn't Blizzard also have the Diablo IP? You can bet that will be turned into an MMO too. From a gameplay point of view this would be very interresting.

It already was. They just replaced "Diablo" with "Ragnaros"

Re:Starcraft?

[scoser]

Sure, all it takes in Eve is time and dedication, until you get your butt kicked by someone with fewer skillpoints and a smaller ship, but more tactical acumen and skill. If you're saying you don't need skill or tactics to win in Eve, you're vastly wrong.

Re:Starcraft?

[fitten]

Starcraft works on the principle of management but it also takes skill, speed and dedication. Eve is not such a game, all it takes in eve is time and dedication.

Not entirely true. Many of us who play Eve *like* the fact that you don't have to hop yourself up on caffiene just so you can click like a crack monkey in order to play the game and the primary determination of the encounter being who can click buttons faster than the other person. The main part of 1-vs-1 combat in Eve (or even small gang like 2-vs-2 or 3-vs-3) is fitting your ship (you can't really fit to counter all the possible tactics you'll encounter so you have to work on tactics that you think you can use best), choosing your targets, and then knowing what to do when in order to combat your opponent(s). Almost all of this comes from exactly what you say, time and dedication to the game, but with the additions of experience and being able to anticipate and deal with situations that don't go as you expect. Yes, it's a slower paced fighting game, but the depth of what you have to know in order to PvP well is a lot more than other games. For example, some knowledge of trigonometry is nice to have, if not being able to calculate sin/cos/tan to the 5th decimal place, but knowing how transverse and radial velocities effect your chances to hit your opponent given the weapons you have mounted is critical to the success of your chances of winning a fight (your guns hitting another ship is a bit more than your simply being in range and 'pointed' in the right direction).

Blob fighting is something else entirely (ok... everybody fire on ShipA, now everybody fire on ShipB, etc.)

What about the rest of us?

[RichPowers]

You don't need FedEx quests, level grinding, and fairytales to have an MMO. All you need are lots of players interacting online. Yet for some reason the major studios don't get this. They feel that every MMO needs dumbassed level grinding, quests, etc. The same stuff we've seen over and over. There's no reason why a game as simple as Team Fortress Classic couldn't be an MMO.

WoW dominates the "traditional" MMO market right now. It's foolish to directly compete with WoW unless you have a strong IP, huge marketing budget, and gameplay that makes players to give up their WoW timesink for your timesink. Most startup MMO companies lack at least two of those things...

But you have a chance if you create an online game that appeals to other gamers. What do Half-Life 2, Halo, and Gears of War have in common? They're shooter games and they're best-sellers, yet no one has created a successful FPS MMO. That market is a potential goldmine...as long as devs steer clear of the traditional MMO crap.

Imagine a MMOFPS similar to Guild Wars. No monthly fee, but frequently-released expansions. There would be a co-op campaign where you and your party fight the baddies and advance through the game's storyline, all while gaining access to new weapons/skills. Add in some arenas for on-the-fly PvP combat, territorial conquest zones, and a some sort of guild structure. Now you've got yourself a game. Simplified, I know, but a competent studio could easily pull that off.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

There was a MMOFPS. It sucked because everyone camped the respawn spots.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[Negatyfus]

Well, you know. Games like PlanetSide has proved to be not very successful. Fact is, many people want the traditional MMORPG gameplay.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[code-e255]

Although some people don't like the leveling treadmill, all those artificial time-sinks keep the people playing for a long time, and that's what MMO companies want.

What would be so great about an MMO Half-Life or whatever? As far as I know, the HL dedicated server already allows you to create a server with hundreds of players, but either the server can't handle the load, or people's connections aren't good enough to make everything appear smooth. In RPGs it doesn't matter if you're lagging a bit, but in an FPS, even a slight bit of lag can make the game unplayable. Internet technology isn't quite mature enough for a "real" twitch-skill MMOFPS.

Also, imho, in FPS games can have too many players. If you've got too many people shooting rockets and sh*t all over the place in a very small area, the quality of gameplay just deteriorates as you don't really have much control over winning. And if you'd have huge outdoor maps like in PlanetScape, you end up with loads of bland, uninspired terrain and no real exciting maps like in traditional FPS games.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[Barny]

It's foolish to directly compete with WoW unless you have a strong IP, huge marketing budget, and gameplay that makes players to give up their WoW timesink for your timesink.

So I guess based on that warhammer on-line (one of the strongest ever IPs, rivalled only by LotR really) backed by EA Games (they have some spare money, i think) and good pvp is going to be the WoW killer then?

Re:What about the rest of us?

[niconorsk]

Just because an idea was tried and failed, doesn't mean that the idea in itself is bad. It could just mean that the implementation of said idea is bad.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[Negatyfus]

Actually, the game is pretty good. Game reviewers tend to agree. It's just not the formula that gets people addicted for years on end, working on their character. Character development will always play a minor part in MMOFPS games.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[B0red At W0rk]

Internet technology is mature enough in countries where broadband, multi-megabites per second is ubiquitous. Just not in North America :(

Re:What about the rest of us?

[jfodale]

If anything has a chance of dethroning WoW, anytime soon at least, Warhammer is probably the best candidate. I foresee Warhammer attracting a lot of the PvP crowd from WoW.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[bishiraver]

There are other ways to keep a player engaged than dangle a never-achievable carrot in front of their noses.

Make a game world that's dynamic and actually changes based on socio-economic-political structures (ie..guilds) over time, without falling into the shadowbane trap... and you could have an amazing MMO that needs no 'grind' (or very minimal grind to play 90% of the game) to keep players engaged. Don't know if the server technology is there for it yet.. but I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[Drantin]

Would be ironic considering that one of their other big properties people keep harping on, Starcraft, was originally based on WarHammer...

Re:What about the rest of us?

[argStyopa]

What would be so great about an MMO Half-Life or whatever? As far as I know, the HL dedicated server already allows you to create a server with hundreds of players, but either the server can't handle the load, or people's connections aren't good enough to make everything appear smooth. In RPGs it doesn't matter if you're lagging a bit, but in an FPS, even a slight bit of lag can make the game unplayable. Internet technology isn't quite mature enough for a "real" twitch-skill MMOFPS.

You mean, like Battleground Europe (WW2 MMOFPS - 10k+ players simultaneously on a map 2x the size of Belgium)?

That game is 5 years old, by the way. Buggy release, but an outstanding game now.
What they've found is that MMOFPS are extremely sensitive to skill level, moreso than click-to-attack MMORPGs. Hardcore players don't just get better gear (which allows them to accomplish more), hardcore players are MUCH better so much so that newer players have no chance - there are fewer ways to 'handicap' or 'balance' pvp in FPS games.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[ranton]

without falling into the shadowbane trap...

What is the shadowbane trap? I used to like that game when I was in school; I only stopped when I had too much work to spend that much time on a game. Needed some kind of quest system, but was far more fun than games like WOW because things you did actually mattered on a large scale.

--

Re:What about the rest of us?

[ArsonSmith]

My biggest problem with wow questing and leveling is it has no greater effect on the rest of the world. I do a quest to help rebuild a bridge and 20 levels later I run through that area and the bridge is still busted.

Basically WOW is little more than a single player game with other people running around. Unless those other people talk to you or challange you in some way there is nothing else that they do that affects you.

At a minimum I'd like to see a real horde vs alliance power shift over time. But really I'd like to see quests that I do have an effect on the rest of the game. I know it would be hard, but with the amount of money that is in this it shouldn't be too much to have developers that can create on the fly questing. Real game world affecting problems that need to be solved and a more dynamic world in general. Why are miners digging the same hole for months and getting no where?

Re:What about the rest of us?

[KDR_11k]

I just wish it was 40k, not Fantasy. 40k would work at least as well for an RPG and would give us a break from all this Tolkienesque fantasy stuff MMOs are loaded with. Swords and sorcery are nice but sometimes you just want to toast some heretics with a flamethrower.

Re:What about the rest of us?

[Barny]

(yeah, a bit late but)

I agree, a 40k based game would have been spectacular, personally a xv-8 suit with twin linked missile pods would be my choice of gear... or maybe an '88 and just snipe :)

I will stick to Eve-online and City of Villains till war is out, then probably to Age of Conan from there.

"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[Qbertino]

"World of Warcraft" is the MMORPG.
On the issue:
Building a World of Warcraft successor is easy. Look at what they do, copy it and do it better. Improve the things that aren't good and add the things that are missing. Generally the japanese do this sort of things when it comes to electronics. It's the very same way people could build an iPod killer. It's just that somebody still hasn't built a single device that can compete with it on the most simple specs (large memory, video capability, ease of use, decent looks).
Same goes for WoW. Look at the game. Play it. Aside from Monopoly sucktion it's advantages are very real and obvious.
1) Runs easily on older hardware without looking like crap.
2) Runs on Macs and plays nice with mac users. (potential universal opinion leaders when it comes to nice gaming and fun stuff)
3) Takes 90 seconds for the most ultimate n00b get into.
4) Slowly reveals it's complexity bit by bit without overwelming anybody at any point.
5) Has a powerleveling 'grind option', but not an omnipresent one.
6) Has an optional powerquesting stance.
7) Is beautyful and content laden enough for all who just like to run around and are not to interested in 5 or 6.
8) Has a super addictive end-game that even amplifies the underlying 'diabolo collectors habit' subnote of the entire career in conjunction with strong multiplay / competetive play.
9) Has subtle Humor made by the actuall builders, doesn't take itself so serious - important if your offering a full-time imersive VR.
10) Builds on a world that is not and doesn't have to be realistic or even plausible when considering distances between regions (this is why LotR online will fail. The Shire is 25 minutes away from Mordor - how weird is that?)
11) Dedicated company and team with sufficient cash and corporate strategy backing. Blizzard made a decision and came through with it all the way. No half-assed stuff. And, look, a miracle! They've got a game that works and people like! Unbelieveable!

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[Negatyfus]

Yeah. Sounds absolutely simple. A BABY could do it. :P

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[bug1]

WoW has some major weaknesses as well.
  - 2 years in and they still dont have class balance, it looks like they never will.
  - Deadend skill progression system

Unless youve played eve-online you probably dont appreciate how broken aspects of WoW are.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[UnknownSoldier]

Agreed.

So a blacksmith can make armor but can't repair his own?

Why does all the high-level smithing gear suck compared to what you can farm/grind for?

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[geminidomino]

Honestly, has there ever been a Multiplayer Blizzard game that had anything resembling class balance?

The fire sorceress over there says "no."

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[Saffaya]

StarCraft.

The balance is what keeps the game still relevant 10+ years after.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[geminidomino]

How many patches did that take? Because it still didn't exist last time I played it (which was, admittedly, when it was still newish... 8 or 9 years)

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[Das Modell]

Kind of hard to create balance when every class is convinced that its nerfed, broken and generally worthless, unlike all those other classes that are overpowered, imba and ez-mode.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and "Zelda" is a female name, while "The Legend of Zelda" is a game series. Give me a break.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[ifrag]

Yea... but seriously... how do you stop the siege tank rush with marine and bunker line support as Zerg? If you go straight for queens with Spawn Broodlings you can get that shortly after the Terran has siege mode, however this timing assumes the Zerg built almost no units or defenses while the Terran players can simultaneously build an army.

I guess the real counter is to harass well with Zerglings to delay their buildup, but on a large map it can be difficult to get them there in time to still be effective.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[elrous0]

Building a World of Warcraft successor is easy. Look at what they do, copy it and do it better.

Yeah, and then all you have to do is convince WoW's 5 million+ players to give a rat's ass.

-Eric

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[14CharUsername]

maybe rush the tanks with zerglings? They may take out the first wave with the tanks but after that the lings will chew up the tanks. Once that's done they are left with just rines. You could also use lurks to slow them down. It won't stop them since they can get you with comsat + tanks but if you can delay long enough to get air you're gold baby.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[14CharUsername]

I think he meant that with LOTR there is that there are maps for middle earth right therr in the book. The developers have choose between ignoring these maps or using them. If they ignore the original maps and make their own LOTR fans will bitch that the shire is too close to mordor. If they use the maps then it can make it difficult to design quests that are fun if there are vast stretches of land between one town and the next.

Warcraft doesn't have to worry about that since the world was only vaguely defined in the strategy games and even then no one is a fanatic enough to worry about towns being moved closer together or whatever. The developers are free to design the game to be fun without worrying about it being realistic or true to some piece of literature.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[PingSpike]

I'm not sure what the complaint is about the terrans. Their units all suck because they require extensive micromanagement. The siege tank is the only awesome unit they have, the rest range from moderately interesting but of limited utility to completely useless. And since the zerg have flying siege tanks they win.

I like to play the terran sometimes, but I find them a real challenge.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[tc]

In my experience it's rock-paper-scissors:

Zerg beats Terran. Zergling rush FTW!
Terran beats Protoss. Firebats mangle zealots, sci-vessels take down shields
Protoss beats Zerg. Templars chew up zerglings, archons+scouts chew up everything else

However it's still close enough that the r-p-s aspect only really matters when skill is quite finely balanced.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[code-e255]

If it's so f***ing easy, why has nobody managed to make a better WoW yet?

Yeah, they all suck. If they'd hire you they'd end up with twice as many subscribers as WoW.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[Cornflake917]

Unless youve played eve-online you probably dont appreciate how broken aspects of WoW are. Please, for all of us, just shut the fuck up.

I played both WoW and Eve for extensive periods of time. Eve is really great if you're a hardcore RP'er and want to make your own corporation. Other than that it's a horribly boring game. Eve is ten times more broken then WoW. The T2 market is a mess, invention is worthless, pvp combat involves 90% waiting around doing nothing, major gui bugs, gate queues, boring mission system, I can keep going. If anything it's other way around. You can really see that Blizzard puts in alot more effort in to their game then CCP.

Oh and you want to talk about balancing in Eve? Don't make me link all the "Nerf Amarr", "Boost Minmatar" and all the other threads involving balance between the races.

Each class in WoW is totally unique, with competely different sets of abilities and each require totally different play styles. To make all 9 classes perfectly balanced is asking way too much. However, they are always tweaking the builds and making the balance better. Regardless, every single class is useful in some way.

Your play style in Eve, regardless of ship or situation, is turn on tank-modules/speed boosters, maintain optimum range, hit f1-f8. Yet there are many ships in Eve that are just completely useless. The "priest/healer" type ships are hardly ever seen in combat.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[bug1]

"Oh and you want to talk about balancing in Eve? Don't make me link all the "Nerf Amarr", "Boost Minmatar" and all the other threads involving balance between the races."

Dude, during your extensive time playing eve did you notice that you fly other race's ships, and you arent pigeon holed into a partiular style of play (healer/tank/dps/hydrid), in eve your character can progress in whatever direction you like.

"To make all 9 classes perfectly balanced is asking way too much"

You say it all here, you know WoW will never be balanced as its based on a broken design.

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[Negatyfus]

My game is better than your game!! :)

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[Anonymous Coward]

(something about your mother) !

Re:"Warcraft" is not a MMORPG. Warcraft is an RTS.

[Cornflake917]

You failed to mention the fact that there's thing called "rerolling." If you don't like a certain class, you reroll another class. And it doesn't take very long to max out a class. So you're not "pigeon holed" into a style of play in WoW either.

Regardless, I rather play a broken game that's fun then a broken game that's boring.

Huh?

[bigstrat2003]

The article seems to imply that WoW has somehow paved the way for indie games. I quote:

"Things were much simpler only a few years ago, when practically all video games were developed or published by industry giants such as Electronic Arts, TakeTwo, and Activision.... Then came World of Warcraft...."

Maybe I'm behind the times, but how has WoW made it more possible, suddently, for indie games to make it big? That might be the case if Blizzard were a small-time developer, but we know that's not true. Blizzard might not be as massive as EA, but they're one of the biggest names in gaming, a company who makes games that are universally expected to be good. How does their making WoW change the scenario the author talks about? Just don't get that.

Re:Huh?

[js92647]

*cough* Vivendi

Re:Huh?

[DarkJC]

Yeah and if I recall correctly it's budget was upwards of 50 million USD. That's definitely not an indie budget.

Development approach the key to MMORPG success?

[IndieKid]

Anyone looking to make the next WoW killer would be well advised to look at the way Blizzard went about it. A MMORPG is not something that can be turned out in a couple of years with a standard development team to make use of some film licence; it takes significant investment, in terms of time, manpower and cash. Of course, that's not to say that using existing fictitious worlds as a starting point is a bad idea - MMOs need a lot of content to sustain them and getting the appropriate intellectual property owners on board could make sense. I think a lot of the obvious licences have already been used for MMOs though (Star Wars, the Matrix and Lord of the Rings spring to mind). End-user involvement is critical to the success of a MMO game. Any MMO game that is developed behind closed doors and then unleashed on the world is doomed to failure in my opinion. Extensive alpha and beta programmes open to anyone willing to participate are something the industry are going to have to get used to. If your game is any good chances are that the guys you had playing in beta will spread the word and you'll have a ready made subscriber-base when you go live.

Make the skill bar actually take skill.

[CrazyJim1]

Instad of mashing the only skills that do stuff, make all the skills balanced such that combat involves choosing the right move for the right situation. I know when I played my icemage, I'd just keep casting frostbolt, then when something got near me frost nova, backup a step, frostbolts again, the reset the frost skills, frost nova, backup a step, frost bolts until dead. In a group, sometime I'd cast ice block to save myself from the tremendous aggro I got for doing the most damage in the group. In 60 levels, I was only using like 4 skills. You'd think a game could be more complex and make you really think during the game so your choices on the skillbar mattered depending on the situation at hand, instead of a boring repetitive sequence for each battle.

Of course this leads you to the next step: Tekken Online. A game where you have to fight out battles unarmed or with a weapon like hackand slash, but gives you stats to build your character so harder monsters can be taken out with more ease. The moves shouldn't be as hard as a traditional fighter, but instead of trying to mash the right buttons to get off harder moves, they just cost more power and you have to earn them.

Re:Make the skill bar actually take skill.

[Dan B.]

That doesn't work simply due to the massive amount of key input data the server needs to process. Even WoW struggles with it's paltry couple of k/s to each player. And they are mostly only hitting one to three keys every 2.5 seconds.

Think about it this way.

10,000 players on a realm.
1 input per player per second, plus movement data, opponent data, and environment data (surrounding units, etc. say 10).
Each player needing to be updated, on average, with only 10 other players inputs / movements.
Lets just say one byte (a whole eight bits) per each of the above on line 2.

( 1 + 1 + 1 + 10 ) x 10 x 10,000

That is about 1.25 MB / sec going in and out of the server, not counting in game mail, auctions, loot, etc. with numbers I just totally made up. In terms of network speed, that is 10Mbit/s of saturated pipe. There are something like 150 realms for WoW and it gets laggy at times, sure, but it copes pretty well imho.

How much input do you give your dude in Tekken in 1 sec? If you play like me, probably enough to give yourself a blister on you thumb after 2 hours. And you only have one other opponent. Multiply that sort of input to the processor out and you will see just why you can't have a 'skill' requirement client side.

Re:Make the skill bar actually take skill.

[andi75]

I agree that solo'ing single mobs is quite braindead. But you have to use your wits if you want to battle three same or higher lvl mobs (depending on your gear ofc.) and you're already low on mana/hp. Also, if you play a hybrid class (shaman/druid), group play is a lot more interesting, at least when the instance is challenging enough. You have to constantly adapt to the situation and decide between

1) getting aggro off the clothies
2) heal those clothies instead, while the tank hopefully gets the aggro back
3) heal the tank instead, because the priest is getting clobbered
4) make sure your ego is satisfied (i.e. you're still on top of the damage meter)

Re:Make the skill bar actually take skill.

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't played a mage to a high enough level to know if it really becomes that boring (at levels less than 20, I'm using all the abilities available up to that point often), but at least for other classes, the problem is that you run out of space using the default UI. Even though I enable all action bars, I run out of space. While obviously many of the abilities aren't needed frequently enough in combat to require hotkeys, the default 1-= hasn't been enough for any class I've played beyond level 30.

Of course, using 20 different abilities becomes routine as well, and for simpler mobs/bosses often only 4-5 of those are needed, but I don't see how that could be too different.

For raiding content, the key isn't the amount of abilities used, but the overall tactics of the fight and working together. Granted, MC is ridiculously easy once you learn it, but it gets more interesting after that (well, I haven't seen the TBC raiding content).

Re:Make the skill bar actually take skill.

[Xentor]

Ok, I'll have to chime in here, as my main raiding character is a level 70 firemage.

Despite being almost entirely fire spec, I use about, say, 80% of my abilities, including a few frost spells. The only damage spell I almost never use is your favorite, Frostbolt, simply because it isn't worth the 3-second cast time without putting talent points into the frost tree.

If all you like to do is target and keep mashing one button, fine. If you want to have more fun and squeeze every inch of firepower out of your character, you might want to look at those other buttons. Many are only useful in specific situations, but excel greatly in those cases. Dealing raw damage in a raid is easy, but when things get nasty in a 5-man group, and you need to know what to do, who to do it to, and when... Well, that's when it gets fun.

Re:Make the skill bar actually take skill.

[crabpeople]

Dude, when I played wow as fire arcane, pretty much all the number keys and function keys and mouse buttons were mapped to something. Just because you are roleplaying a character with no style, doesn't mean everyone was. I was a pimp mage who used a cornicopia of spells. You kind of have to constantly be cycling through firebolts and arcane missles, the arcane aoe spell, fireblast, etc.. to be good at pvp.

Although I would agree that if your raiding, the rules of the raid tend to proclude any creativity. Thats kinda why I quit playing. What fun is mashing icebolt 5000x in a row in mc? Just be glad your not a healer. From what I understood that was even more boring on raids.

Re:Make the skill bar actually take skill.

[bradleynash]

Which version of WoW do you have? In the one I've been playing I have to reach a certain level to get certain spells and abilities or improvements on existing spells and abilities. Not only do I have to get the level, but I also have to buy it. The money isn't free, so I have to get that too. I would say that's earning the abilities. And they don't all have the same cost. Shadowbolt and Curse of Agony take different amounts of mana and have different casting times. So I really don't know what your complaining about

Puzzle pirates

[LarsWestergren]

they call Puzzle Pirates silly

Well, yeah, it is silly, but in a good way. It is supposed to be a bit of playful, lighthearted fun, not a gritty realistic pirate simulation complete with veneral diseases and scurvy....

And as the article points out, they are doing quite well with that concept. Also check out the upcoming Bang!Howdy by the same team. Java based, just like RuneScape, and Wurm Online. The last one is pretty impressive considering it is made by only two developers.

Re:Puzzle pirates

[FirienFirien]

They call PP silly because it doesn't match the same gameplaying market. Most of the masses of World of Warcraft and the other MMORPGs base their systems around fighting to gain experience and items to improve fighting and levels, then skills, and so on, with a nicely interlinked system of "improve X to speed up your increase in everything else". The mindset of hardcore gamers varies, but it's leagues different from the mindset of those people interested in PP. Three Rings have put significant effort into keeping PP lighthearted, to almost completely eliminate that leveling grind (the only "levels" are a simple unlocking of gameplay, aimed to introduce a gentle learning curve and achievable within a day no matter what your skill level. With no grind, no prizes or items that increase or decrease your skill level (and they've specifically said they won't put any in), almost nothing to increase your chances of "winning" - this is completely unappealing to most MMORPG veterans.

Handily for PP, that's not the kind of people they're targetting anyway. The game is incredibly social - you win more money by understanding how to work as a team, and you win more money by sticking with a team for a while.

By being a light game, they're targetting a completely different market from WoW and the likes. That means they get customers. It's still utterly possible to be elite, to grind vast amounts of money, and so on - but that depends on your inherent skill at the puzzles.

It's also the only game I know of that awards a significant amount of ingame prizes for forum competitions - art, poetry, art, making monkeys out of socks and rubber bands, art, making comics, writing stories, even singing can win prizes. You barely have to play at all and you can get a (rare, but completely decorative, worth lots and lots of money) parrot or monkey on your shoulder. Alternatively you can avoid the forums completely and spend the time enjoying role-based teaming where everyone plays to their natural strengths.

If you look at PP from a WoW's-eye view, yeah, it's silly. If you look at WoW from a PP's-eye view, it's draining, time-hogging, and grind is one hell of a negative word.

Re:Puzzle pirates

[kidcharles]

Ah, venereal diseases and scurvy. Reminds me of my 20's.

World of Starcraft

[Dan B.]

What do you think it's going to take to crack Blizzard's deathlock on the Massive genre?

As per the subject line, World of Starcraft.

Well, not exactly that, but it would be good. The only thing I see breaking the MMO market now is something that gamers love (FPS), rolled in to the same detailed and compelling game we return to day after day (MMORPG). What I see is an FPS come RPG title based in a world that thrives on people banding together to achieve goals, but leaves the door open for PvP combat a-la the WoW style PvP servers.

The key factor would of course be the ability of the developer to work out some sort of faction / race / class based system with the familiar leveling / gearing requirment, and rolling in an FPS front end. Three way battles like those in Starcraft would be awesome, as the current Horde vs. Alliance system in WoW is getting a bit tired.

I still play WoW nearly 20 hours a week, down from over 40 to sometimes 60 a week last year, but would jump straight in to World of Starcraft if it were to miraculously appear in the above stated incarnation.

Re:World of Starcraft

[Dom1105]

"WoW has some major weaknesses as well. - 2 years in and they still dont have class balance, it looks like they never will. - Deadend skill progression system "

WHAT !?! that is so WRONG that I can not come to the conclusion of why some one would say it. The classes are very balanced, maybe not in EVERY single aspect but overall. IE- Warriors get lots of health but lack mana, the must use rage which depletes over time and is only restored by being hit or by hitting something else. / Priests get the shaft in almost every respect except that they can heal themselves and others. / Mages get boatloads of mana for attacks that use boatloads of mana, and they do boatloads of damage. you may not think it but the classes are balanced enough as it is already. If the classes were any more balanced it would take all of the fun out of the game. as for the skill progression the skills are just fine the way they are. you start getting skills at level 10 and you get 1 per level after that. giving you 60 skill points to spend on any of your choice of 3 different skill branches that will help you in different areas. (IE- priests have a "holy" branch which improves healing, a "Discipline" branch which improves their stats and non healing spells, and a "Shadow" branch which improves their attack spells.)

Re:World of Starcraft

[geminidomino]

The classes are very balanced, maybe not in EVERY single aspect but overall.

Put down the joint. Your over-enthusiastic quoting makes it clear you've had enough, long before anyone even reads your fangasm screed.

None Will Succeed

[Ka D'Argo]

I only played WoW briefly, but I know enough as a regular player does to know no other company at present will "beat" WoW. Why? Their personal limitations.

Other companies, won't take a chance. How many MMO's can claim they offer player based scripting for god knows how many in game effects? Or any of the other features WoW has? Despite the fact I dislike WoW, Blizzard did do that that right; Instead of coming up with some super special features of their own that other MMO's didn't have, they cherry picked what they thought were the best features. Not stolen content mind you but just things that an MMO should have. Case in point, umpteenth kinds of filters for the various chat huds. You'd be amazed that not every MMO offers a good deal of filters like WoW, or hell even any filters at all.

And the engine itself, of WoW, is the killer. Sure it's not really some supreme graphical eye candy people expect three years later after it's release but that is the point. Blizzard took a chance. They released a game engine that surprisingly works very well on low end hardware PC's which people tend to forget makes up the majority of gamers. Ever wonder why Counter Strike 1.6 is probably the most popular first person shooter, still, to date? Cause Half Life 1 can be run on some very low end hardware (if I remember right, the HL1 engine is a modified Quake 2 engine). Point being, no other MMO company is going to cater to low end PC users. More and more MMO's have such huge graphical requirements. You think Vanguard is going to topple WoW? No. Even if the gameplay and options of the client matched that of WoW, they'd still be eliminating a huge chunk of the 7 million WoW base (asssuming Vanguard had 7 mil) simply cause a good portion of those people wouldn't be even able to run the game.

Blizzard rolled the dice and won. They took a chance on merging a ton of features from various MMO's and a game engine that wasn't exactly the top of the game when it came out, and it worked. You find me another developer that will take those chances, and you'll find yourself a candidate for a WoW successor.

Re:None Will Succeed

[LarsWestergren]

if I remember right, the HL1 engine is a modified Quake 2 engine

Valve modified the Quake 1 engine actually, but since they took so long to release Q2 had been out for a while. Most people assumed it was the Q2 engine they based it on since it looked so good.

Re:None Will Succeed

[UnknownSoldier]

> Blizzard took a chance. They released a game engine that surprisingly works very well on low end hardware PC's which people tend to forget makes up the majority of gamers.

Completely agreed! But the reason this _worked_ is because the world is cartoony to begin with, so it is easier to forgive the low-poly modeling.

This is one reason UO lasted so long -- you could play it on laptops.

Re:None Will Succeed

[DarkJC]

Blizzard's art direction is just so fantastic that they can afford to dial down the graphics while still making it look quite lush and truely like another world.

I remember the first time I walked through Ashenvale, for instance. The way the trees and everything are done, they takes your attention away from the low polygon count and manage to portray this lush new world that you've definitely never seen before.

That brings me to another point...every zone in WoW is fairly unique and full of content and things to do. In other MMO's I've always found there have been either zones that look alike, or zones that feel kind of barren and empty. However in WoW, even the barrens/desolace/take_your_pick feels alive. These things go a long way towards the feeling of the overall polish and impression the game gives you while playing, and it's that little attention to detail that I find most game companies overlook.

Re:None Will Succeed

[code-e255]

Yup.

Great artwork running very efficiently trumps fancy graphics technology (pixel shaders, HDR, bump mapping, etc).

Especially in an MMO it's damn important to keep poly-counts and stuff fairly low, so that the game doesn't turn into a slide-show as soon as more than 10 people are in your vicinity.

Re:None Will Succeed

[Admiral Justin]

I completely agree, and I'll share the experience of someone who only recently started (!) playing WoW.

(I'm an alliance paladin, and I dance dance dance, dance dance dance)

Northshire: Human starting area. Nice, peaceful atmosphere for the most part. Sort of shady area.

Elwynn Forest: Connects to Northshire. Very peaceful seeming, but the mass of tall trees, the hills, and lakes gives you a great sense of the initial grand scale of the world.

Stormwind City: Connected to Elwynn, is a very lively city with distinct people and sections, that all feel like they belong together.

Westfall: Dust bowl-y landscape. Slow, rolling hills, farms strewn about, but the fences alone tell you that all isn't right in the world. The fences are falling apart, the farms are dying.

Duskwood: It's dark, the trees hang low, the landscape hides much, and feels oppressive.

Redridge Mountains: Harsh, mountainous terrain. Long treks up steep inclines, with enemies hidden behind sharp corners.

Ironforge: Dwarfs. Little people. Why do they build such huge structures? Overcompensating for something, are we?

Loch Modan: Numerous hills and a dam-blocked lake define this area. the surrounding area is all mountain.

Wetlands: Oddly enough, they are wet. Very much gets the point across that it's a wetland area, with little bridges crossing spans between bands of water, dark green vegetation everywhere.

I'd talk more about areas of Kalimdor, but I just haven't spent much time there.

Every area has it's own feel, you can tell where you are in the world just by how the landscape looks. Once you've been to an area, you could randomly appear there for some reason, glance around and know where you are, just by looks. And every area also has people and things within it that flesh out the details.

The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard is constantly building a better WoW themselves. Any new MMORPG that tries to wrestle players from WoW would have to keep the same staggering pace of updates that Blizzard does.

I've been playing WoW from release day until now. I've killed bosses in some the hardest dungeons in the game before the expansion, like AQ40 and Naxx, got rank 10 in the old pvp system, and I've been level 70 since the end of January (the expansion was released on the 16th of January, heh). Yes yes, I have no life etc. Honestly I don't really spend that much time playing, it's pretty easy to login for a raid or 5-man dungeon, and logout after you're done. Which brings me to why WoW is so hard to beat: they're always responding to player feedback, and improving the game. One of the biggest complaints was the lack of 5-man dungeon content in the game compared to raid content. I really shouldn't use the word "lack" though, it only seems that way compared to raid content. At launch of the original WoW, there were three 5-man dungeons for level 60 players, a 10 man, and two 40 mans. Blizzard added one more 5-man, and 3 more 40-mans. So naturally players that don't like to raid felt left out. The expansion has a 5-man in almost every zone. There are 15 brand new 5-man dungeons in total, and 6 raid dungeons (one is a 10-man, the rest are 25-man instead of 40 like original WoW). All this is due mostly to player feedback. It's amazing to have hit the level cap and feel like there's still so much to do. I've been to every 5-man in the expansion at least once already, and I've enjoyed them all. I haven't tried any raids yet (our guild's first official raid isn't until March, to give everyone time to hit 70).

Basically, from what I've seen of the expansion (which is a lot), Blizzard took everything people didn't like about WoW end-game at level 60 and improved upon it in some way with end-game at 70. With so many small group dungeons to choose from, groups of friends that play together and small guilds now have much more to do after hitting the cap. All the 5-man dungeons are fairly fast-paced, only a few have lots of trash mobs. You can summon people right to the door of a dungeon using Meeting Stones. The end-game seems to have been streamlined to allow people to have less downtime preparing to play so that people can just dive into a dungeon and have fun right away.

Even the most casual players, and the ones with the most busy schedules, are starting to reach 70 now. I feel like the leveling curve was really well paced, fast enough to not feel like much of a grind, and slow enough that it doesn't feel worthless when you hit your next level. It's really an exciting time to be playing WoW right now, and I honestly can't wait to see what Blizzard decides to put in next. If anyone's going to build a better WoW, it's Blizzard.

Re:The problem is...

[garylian]

Staggering updates???? Are you kidding me? Unless you are talking about how freakin' slow they are, you've had too much of the WoW Kool-Aid.

Let's think about this. Let's compare EQ2 and WoW, since they came out within 2 weeks of each other.

WoW, 1 expansion (just released) and some free content added. Only hotfixes bugs that have a positive effect on a character. Took over 6 months to put a test server up. Major patch every 1-2 months (with the most recent expansion getting a little more patch activity.) Horrible patching method, login queues.

EQ2, 3 expansions and 3 adventure packs, which you had to pay for, unless you have a Sony All Access account. (The last expansion contains all game content, btw. Buy it, and you get the original plus the 3 expansions.) Hotfix on any bug that shows up and gets fixed. 31 "Live Updates" (major patches) since release. A test server from day 1. Fast patches from a direct server (only the EoF patch took a while, and that was a massive patch for a full expansion) and no login queues.

I played WoW for 9 months with a casual gameplay style, duoing with the wife and grouping for instances with guildmates. The gameplay itself I loved until 60. One of my biggest beefs with WoW, besides the total boredom of gear grinding at lvl 60, was the fact that bugs that should have been a simple fix were always held back for a full patch, unless it benefited the players. Give us a bug that made content easier, and that got fixed fast. Give us a bug that borked a whole class, and it waited a month or more. They wait because a small patch with their patching method of P2P file sharing for a small patch makes for a poor way to handle it. If the patch is over in 2 minutes, there isn't time to share it.

And, they were famous for breaking the same thing with each patch they did. They had like 3-4 patches in a row where they borked corpse looting to the point it took a full minute to get the item(s) from a corpse. They'd fix it after 2 or so weeks, and then the next patch would come out, and break it again.

WoW is a great game from 1-60 (now 70, but I haven't played that part), with just about anyone being able to solo or duo a ton of content, and now single group instances for high-end content is even better. We may never see a game hit so many people like WoW did.

But updates? I'm sorry, but game updates are Blizzard's weakest point on WoW. And the primary reason is their horrible patching method. If someone created another game just like WoW, and had a better patcher and no login queues, Blizzard could have problems.

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone created another game just like WoW, and had a better patcher and no login queues, Blizzard could have problems.

The problem with this is that WoW's patching (I assume you mean the version of BitTorrent they use) and the login queues are a symptom of its success, and it would be very hard for any other MMORPG with the player base WoW has to do things differently. If some company did so, then I'd agree, that'd be great, but I don't see it happening in the near future. They've also released a few small patches without using BitTorrent, but all the larger ones still use it. Also, I feel I should point out that with the launch of the expansion, they upgraded all the hardware for the realms and I haven't seen a queue since. I play on a realm that regularly had 500 person queues at prime time, and not one queue since the 16th of January. The updates *were* pretty regular, though you're right that Blizzard did have a habit of releasing big changes every so often rather than a few changes here and there. While not a lot of solo/small group content was added outside of Dire Maul, Silithus, and the Argent Dawn quests, the pvp system was revamped twice, and the raid content was nop-notch. If you weren't in a raiding guild, then yeah, I admit you weren't getting your money's worth playing WoW. But now with all the small group content, it's not as big an issue as it was, though it may be again depending on what content Blizzard patches in. I'm curious as to what class you play that got "borked" for months, since I've played since release and haven't really noticed, other than perhaps the Feral Druid talent Furor being broken for a while, most class-breaking bugs are fixed pretty regularly. I've only played a Rogue exclusively though, so I may have missed whatever bugs borked a class.

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you keep seeing the same issue following patches with looting corpses (this also applies to anything involved with inventory like mailing items, rearranging your bag layout, etc.) is not because they keep reintroducing the same bug or keep breaking some critical component. It is because inventory changes are database transactions somewhere on the backend.

My assumption is that even though the servers are up and you can play, sometimes inventory maintenance (database maintenance) activities are still going on in the background. At some point, the database gets busy with maintenance and transactions and it takes longer to respond. Just breathe, relax, and if you can't stand it, find something else to do with your time. And I'd suggest if you'd really like to understand the nature of bugs, databases, etc. take an IT course or two at your local college.

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to contradict you, but I'm going to have to do just that.

Those bugs the other poster mentioned with the loot problems did happen, and it took them that long to finally redo their back end databases. Once the finally got around to better optimization, things worked better.

But the patches they were introducing at that time contained no real new content. This was in the first 4 months of the game, and I think there was only 1 content patch at that time, if memory serves me right.

Yes, it was symptomatic of their incredible success, but that still doesn't mean they didn't break things with each new patch.

Re:The problem is...

[Swift(void)]

But updates? I'm sorry, but game updates are Blizzard's weakest point on WoW. And the primary reason is their horrible patching method. If someone created another game just like WoW, and had a better patcher and no login queues, Blizzard could have problems.

How would you suggest they do it then? Sure, their patching method may not be great, but it avoids the "Oh great, another patch" feeling you get when a company patches every single day of the week in response to bugs. Logging on every day to 1 meg patches quickly gets more annoying than living with the bugs and patching once a month or even once a week.

Ontop of that, how would you suggest they distribute patches (sometimes over 60-70 megs when its a major content patch) to 8 million people better than P2P?

Re:The problem is...

[vonPoonBurGer]

Blizzard is constantly building a better WoW themselves.

Unfortunately, there are some problems that they will never be able to fix. For example, PvP balance is broken at the higher levels because the population balance is skewed. Across the entire game, there's 3 high-level Alliance players for every 2 high-level Horde (see here). On older servers, it's even worse, 3 Alliance for every 1 Horde (for example my old server, here). Even with the cross-realm battleground queues, Alliance players have to wait longer for games than Horde players. Once the Alliance players get a game though, they tend to win more games than the Horde because a larger population has more opportunities to run endgame content and acquire endgame epics, which in turn leads to a more powerful character.

The only way to truly eradicate that problem would be to do away with one of the core elements of the design, namely the whole concept of Alliance vs. Horde. Obviously that's something that just wouldn't make sense to do, it runs completely contrary to the flavor of the entire Warcraft series. I mean, the first game was called "Orcs and Humans," and not because they were drinking buddies. The only truly permanent way to get rid of this problem is to do away with the idea of player factions on a single server. That's what Fury, an upcoming PvP-centric MMO is doing. From their FAQ:

Are there going to be queues like WoW Battlegrounds?

No. Our realm architecture is very different to WoW and avoids queues or long waits.

In some games (like WoW) you fight within a realm where the total number of opponents is quite limited leading to long wait times. In other games (like Guild Wars) you fight in a single universe where the fights are random and social opportunities are scarce because you can't tell your friends from your enemies.

In Fury you live in a realm of friends and fight against other realms. This increases the number of your opponents and increases the social opportunities. Our matchmaking limits your maximum wait to a few minutes.

To think that WoW has a lock on the one true best design for an MMO is simply foolish. WoW has a pretty good model for 1-59 PvE leveling, but there are many ways to put these games together. I would argue that WoW's endgame is pretty boring, and the PvP model is clearly a half-assed afterthought. As such, I see plenty of potential for a well-designed PvP-centric MMO in the near future. It might be Fury, it might be Warhammer Online, or it might be something I haven't even heard of. But eventually someone's going to come along with a vastly superior PvP design compared to WoW, and combine it with equivalent production values. Whoever that developer is, I think they stand a good chance to take 10-20% of WoW's player base, which would put them well into profitability.

Re:The problem is...

[garylian]

I'd have to go back and look some of them up. I haven't played in well over 1yr.

But I do remember a hunter bug or two that were left on the test server when a patch came out, because they hadn't had time to finish testing it, and it waited until the next patch.

Talk to the warlocks that have been around since launch, and they have had some fun times, as well.

"... most class-breaking bugs are fixed pretty regularly." Yeah, at the next patch.

I've got friends that still play on Argent Dawn, and they still get login queues.

Hey, I'm not saying WoW isn't a great game. I really enjoyed my 9 months there, and then got out when I was bored out of my skull trying to obtain gear. Since PvP in Wow was, to me, just a gank fest with little meaning (and a dumb "honor" system) I quit. But I don't think anyone else is dumb for playing it.

I'm a realist about games. If something is broke, I'll complain about it. If something works, I'll give credit. Heck, I play EQ2 now, and I played it some in the early days while I was still playing WoW. When EQ2 was launched, it was really poor, and I quit after 45 days. Now? I don't know that I would enjoy WoW compared to EQ2. And I probably won't find out, because I won't buy the WoW expansion. No biggie. That doesn't mean WoW sucks. It just means I'm happy where I am.

But WoW patching is NOT frequent. Not compared to other MMOs out there. See the EQ2 forums update page, where they indicate when patches have been done. http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/forums/show.m?f orum_id=330 And note that the last 3 hotfixes aren't listed on there. Some really small ones only show up on the Update Notes screen of the launcher.

Now compare that to this: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/underdev/imple mented/ They don't make it easy to see the mini patch stuff there, and the support forums are a nightmare (like all MMO ones are.) If I missed it, oh well!

I'm sorry, but Blizzard is not great at patching.

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to truly eradicate that problem would be to do away with one of the core elements of the design, namely the whole concept of Alliance vs. Horde.

Which is exactly what Blizzard did with the Arena pvp system in the expansion. Yay for instant matches!

Re:The problem is...

[garylian]

To be quite honest about it, it isn't my problem any longer! I quit playing WoW.

However, while I agree that it would be painful to have to host and distribute that many files for a game with that many subscribers, other game companies do it for their scale. And they make it work. Especially when they download only the files you need to upgrade.

Smaller patches make it easier to distribute content faster. So, several small hot fixes beat one 70MB file. Instead, that file may now be 30MB, and those hot fixes solved a lot of immediate problems.

When I played, it wasn't unusual for it to take 6 or more hours to download each patch, prior to my going to a FilePlanet account or getting it from a friend who had one. With EQ2, I've only had 1 experience with that, and that was the recent EoF update, because everyone was trying to get the new Fae toons up.

Hey, you're paying what, 14.95 a month or so for service? Blizzard is making money hand over fist. Sure, it would cut into their probably huge profit margin if they went to a better patching method. But they are being cheap, and as long as they boast the subscriber numbers they have, there's no reason for them to change. Heck, I'm sure quite a few folks started to play again, just to hit 70 with older toons, and try the new races. More accounts means more $$$. Why would they change? To make customers feel more treasured? lol

But if a competitor had a game that started to really steal WoW's thunder and customers, and had a better patching method, you can see folks deciding that there is a better way.

wow killer will not be a pc game

[Anonymous Coward]

The wow killer will be the first group to bring a system with the complexity, subsription model and stickiness of WoW to a console (or consoles - imagine cross platform WoW).

This would justify a unique keyboard controller.

Get the gaming equivalent of Wow off the PC and onto the high def TV in the living room and the world economy will collapse due to videogame addiction.

Are you going to invent the hardware?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Have you actually ever played Guild Wars? Good, then have you ever thought about the difference in hardware compared to say a WoW or Everquest OR that MMOFPS planetside?

That is right. Guild Wars ain't all that massive.

Guild Wars has a couple of 3D chat rooms were players meet up but were NOTHING happens. From there extremely small groups of players head out into the game world that is unique for each group. This makes it a lot simpler to keep the world going serverside. You only need a machine capable of handling a handfull of players. Not a massive cluster capable of keeping thousands of players in the same space.

Guild Wars is a brilliant design but it ain't a true MMO, it is the reason why they don't need a monthly subscription fee but may it also be the reason why it doesn't equall WoW in its success?

Then there is another problem with Guild Wars. Even in its tiny gamespaces it suffers from some serious warping. Not that much of a problem with auto-targetted magic attacks BUT a real problem for a FPS.

The simple reason that FPS or for that matter direct combat has not made it big into MMO land is because the nature of beast doesn't lend itself to this.

And FPS players are cheap bastards. You expect a company to come up with hardware a great deal more powerfull then needed for WoW but also want it to be free.

You also over estimate the appeal of FPS. The simple fact is that WoW has shown the world that FPS just ain't popular. Just add up all the people that PAY for multiplayer FPS and then look at the 8 million PAYING subscribers for WoW.

I am not even sure that the number of free players of games like counterstrike can reach that number. But who cares anyway. You need paying customers. Not people who want everything for free.

Follow the money.

Re:Are you going to invent the hardware?

[Das Modell]

You also over estimate the appeal of FPS. The simple fact is that WoW has shown the world that FPS just ain't popular. Just add up all the people that PAY for multiplayer FPS and then look at the 8 million PAYING subscribers for WoW.

What does WoW have to do with FPS games? They aren't mutually exclusive or even competing for customers. WoW has broader appeal and has lesser system requirements than many FPS games, but that doesn't mean that FPS games are suddenly umpopular. Also, it's not technically possible to make a MMO FPS games on par with WoW.

The easiest way to beat WoW.

[MaXimillion]

Pokemon MMORPG.
I'm being serious here. It's one of the most popular game franchises, and well-known to non-gamers as well. The consept and playstyle lend themselves well to MMORPG gameplay. All that's needed is to take the good stuff from popular MMO's, mix them together with the Pokemon brand, and you'll have a game that'll get ten times the amount of players WoW has.

Re:The easiest way to beat WoW.

[ifrag]

I hate to admit it but you're right, it does at least have the potential. *IF* it was done well, but since they can't seem to take it anywhere beyond the formula used in the first game that seems unlikely. At least the Warlock and Hunter players will take a serious look at it.

Re:The easiest way to beat WoW.

[Randolpho]

Well, I'll say this about a Pokemon MMORPG:

I'd really love to grind Pikachu. Into dust.

Or, I'd really love to grind that Team Rocket chick Jessie. In an entirely different way.

Or,

Nah, I'll stop there. :D

Re:The easiest way to beat WoW.

[Rhone]

My initial reaction was "Great idea, it would get all the 5-10 year olds off of serious MMORPGs!"

But then I felt a surge of disappointment, because somewhere in the back of my mind I know the dark, horrible truth: Those 5-10 year olds are really 15-50 year olds who ACT like 5-10 year olds, except they probably wouldn't be as interested in Pokemon as real 5-10 year olds. Oh well, the thought of seeing some improvement in the maturity level present on my WoW servers was nice for the half-second that it lasted.

Re:The easiest way to beat WoW.

[Xentor]

I suddenly want something very bad to happen to you.

PLEASE no more Pokemon... Let it die! Let it go away! Sure, it'd get a lot of the little kiddies out of Warcraft (And thus make WoW players more mature on average), but do you REALLY want millions of kids doing nothing but Pokemon-related activities every day? Give it a month, and they'll be running around repeating their own names...

"Squirtle Squirtle! Squir-- Wait, what the #(*% am I doing? This doesn't make any sense!"
"Quiet, Earl, or you'll get the gas!"
"For chrissake, kids! Go read a book!"
-- Robot Chicken

Re:The easiest way to beat WoW.

[crabpeople]

When I hear the name pokemon, I associate it with like 10 year old kids. Wasn't that basically a tomagachi mixed with magic the gathering type cards? I know it became a tv show and stuff later, but I wouldnt picture that as like an adult game.

Re:The easiest way to beat WoW.

[MaXimillion]

The (first) Pokemon games are in fact quite decent RPG's, the childish aspect mostly from the TV show, and all the material built around the games, as well as the game sequels.

C,mon Bethesda!

[j3rryman]

Although i never really followed the story in the WC franchise, I do think blizz has a competent make-beleive world going. As a player/addict, I don't see myself leaving til there's a Elder Scrolls MMO.

Well, WoW works

[SmallFurryCreature]

Is it perfect? No. Could you make a game that simply improves on its mistakes? Possibly.

But what are its mistakes, and are they really mistakes or are they fundemental parts of the nature of MMO gaming.

It would be easy to think that you simply visit the WoW forums, note down the complaints of gamers and ex-gamers and then fix these in your game.

But wich to follow? Do you cater to the PvP haters or lovers?

WoW currently caters to both PvP and PvE but that also means neither side gets exactly the dedication they want. So they complain. BUT would a game without one be that successfull? Just how big is the subscriber base that is satisfied with the current combo? People who are satisfied tend not to post on forums. They are to busy having a good time in the game.

Same with the crafting/loot system. Again WoW has sought the middle ground, essentially both systems of getting your equipment are competing with each other. This means that pure crafters have a reduced market while at the same time those who are looting get lots of useless materials they need to sell.

And again, would a game that focusses on one exclusively (SWG had a pure crafting system) be that succesfull?

You could create a MMORPG were levelling up isn't everything. Were grinding to X isn't the primary goal. That would make the RPG crowd perhaps happier but might loose you all the grinding monkeys who no longer have an epenis to wave around.

WoW in many areas seeks the middle road. It works. 8+million people think the bits they like are better then the bits they don't like.

If you are going to change anything in that design you need to realize that you are going to please some but most likely upset a hell of a lot of other players.

Go pure PvP and you MIGHT appease those PvPers who left but you are going to loose for sure every single PvE player. PLUS a significant part of the players who like a bit of both.

Just read every comment here that suggests an obvious improvement and then ask youreselve what the total effect would be.

Then again, until WoW entered the market, people said that the MMORPG market had been saturated and that any new game could only poach from other games.

So is WoW the final MMORPG or is it just a more succesfull EQ waiting to be dethroned by the next comany.

Camp-proof respawning is possible

[tepples]

There was a MMOFPS. It sucked because everyone camped the respawn spots. Design defects like that are avoidable. Goldeneye 007 for Nintendo 64, a four-player FPS, had enough respawn spots such that if the game engine determined that a spot was being camped, it put a player somewhere else.

Vanguard?

[soccerace09]

Vanguard: Saga of Heroes seems to have an older crowd. It might be because it is a lot more difficult to grasp the concepts of crafting and the like. You might give it a shot.

Re:Vanguard?

[aicrules]

Unfortunately, Vanguard doesn't meet his first criteria of having the "quality of WoW" at this point. The animations in Vanguard are less than pretty, even if the environmental graphics are nice. You have to have a computer four times as powerful as you need for WoW with a specific type of video card to support those graphics...otherwise you're left with mediocre graphics with mediocre animation. Also, while it does cater to a smaller audience that would presumedly be more mature and interested in a more involved world, there were a wealth of noobs to be found during open beta. I will say that I absolutely loved the free-for-all PVP server in open beta while it was open...

Re:Vanguard?

[garylian]

V:SoH is still in beta. It's a paid beta, since you have to pay to play a game that isn't that close to finished, but it's not done.

And I'm not sold on the older crowd thing. The game is more designed for the more hardcore "I want things to be difficult, with a lot of raid content and lots of more difficult tradeskills" crowd.

Blizzard did a brilliant job of making WoW very casual gamer friendly, while still being able to keep a lot of those that desire a faster gameplay style happy. That's why so many people play it. V:SoH is not very casual gamer friendly, imo.

The lack of instanced dungeons is eventually going to catch up to them, I think. Instanced content means that casual gamers can pick a date with other casual playing friends, and group/raid a target without worrying if it's "up". The total lack of instances means that the big guilds will start to lock down the better targets.

That was one of EQ1's biggest drawbacks, imo. So many times on our server (Xegony), the big raid guilds would take down the mobs necessary to gain higher planer access. Sure, it had pretty nice loot on it, but they also knew that if they kept other guilds away from Time, they had less competition for it.

The whole "We've got to kill X mob to gain access to Y zone" thing bites when that X mob will only once a week for EVERYONE on that server. That roadblock became a tool for those uber raiding guilds to hold others back.

Re:Vanguard?

[EQ]

Xegony?

I was there day 1. When wee petitioned to have it be an "RP" server.

FoH is who you are referring to in locking others out of the planes. Farming bastards.

Instances are a must - thats why I switche to WoW instead of EQ (well, after Mythic ruined Realm v. Realm on Camelot with the horrible Atlantic expansion grind).

I used to be Chumba of Clan MacLear in both places.

As fas as Van goes, no surprises there in terms of grinds and so on - its the same crew that did EQ1 and their horrible grindfests and got the title "Evercamp" for all the camping you had to do to get good items (how long did you camp for the Ancient Cyclops? Hah!)

Re:Vanguard?

[garylian]

Small world.

I was in a few guilds as we kept morphing form one to another as our alliance (A New Dawn alliance) grew. I started out in The Silent Majority, then was in Friends of Light, and finally was in The Commune. I believe many of the TC members ended up on Argent Dawn allied with the Clan MacLear folks, if memory serves me right.

Re:Vanguard?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of you are level 42 losers. Please get a life. kkthxbye.

Re:Vanguard?

[JDAustin]

Instances are a must - thats why I switche to WoW instead of EQ (well, after Mythic ruined Realm v. Realm on Camelot with the horrible Atlantic expansion grind).

Yet EQ has been doing instancing longer then WoW has been out. In fact, the problem with cockblocking key raid mobs hasn't been an issues since Planes Of Power. Every expansions since has used instancing in one form or another for progression.

how many respawn spots do you need

[way2trivial]

when it's a MMofps game

4 players huh? need a maximum of five respawn spots.

MMOFPS, one thousand people online, due to the type of game, 50% are sniper dicks
so, 501 respawn spots.. yeah, that scales well...

Re:how many respawn spots do you need

[tepples]

Couldn't a bot just detect players who have stayed too long near one sniper point and ambush them? Or couldn't a group of dick-fighter players do the same?

Re:how many respawn spots do you need

[gauauu]

His point was not that you had to have the exact same mechanism that Goldeneye used, but that there are ways to prevent it. Goldeneye was just one example.

COPPA?

[tepples]

But how will Nintendo be able to handle all the COPPA paperwork from under-13 children signing up to play Pokémon online?

WoW killer?

[zyl0x]

One word: Tribes.

Re:WoW killer?

[DJ Paradox]

One word: Spore

Re:WoW killer?

[zyl0x]

Spore wouldn't make a very good MMOFPS.

P2P MMORPG

[nonos]

The Warcraft killer has to be huge (many many many servers) and free (no monthly fees). Why not a P2P application ?

Re:P2P MMORPG

[Kalriath]

Because that would royally suck. That's just ASKING for people to exploit/hack the game.

Scripting / Modding Support

[Shrubber]

I think part of WoW's success (part, not the biggest reason) is its built in framework for allowing users to customize the UI and create addons. It was a brilliant move to simply base a lot of the UI around previously existing script technology (Lua) and allow users to customize that. They have had to make some changes along the way to lock specific things down, but it is far better than any other MMOGs before, if I were forced to I wouldn't play with the default UI anymore.

That is why Second Life is so important, it will probably never amount to much on its own but the idea of allowing that next level of user created content will be integrated into other games. Second Life will influence games in the future as people borrow those ideas.

I think World of Warcraft has at least another two years of dominance before anyone else even has a remote chance of pulling away some of its player base, but I also think that any game that does will need to have a modifiable UI and robust scripting system in order to do it.

What it would take

[miyako]

I consider myself a fairly hardcore gamer- at least as close to a hard core gamer as one can be and still retain a full time job. I've always liked the concept of the MMORPG, and I've tried several different games, both large and well known (Ragnarok, WoW, CoH, DoaC) and less well known (A Tale in the Desert, Eternal Lands), and I've never played any game for more than 2 or 3 months.
I have since come to the conclusion that there are a few things that any MMO will have to deal with before I will consider giving it a shot. The first, and most important to me is, Eliminate Metagaming in MMOs. I realize that some amount of metagaming will always be present, but it seems like every MMO that I've played has really been all about the metagaming, with a small amount of lip service paid to the actual game.
The second thing that I want to see is for players to have the ability to have an effect on the game world. Specifically, I would like to see some sort of AI applied to NPCs which would allow dynamically generated generic NPC quests. If you've seen some of the demos for the Radiant AI that Bethesda developed for Oblivion (they eventually dropped most of what the developed in the actual release, because it was too processor intensive and they were having trouble tuning it from what I understand- but there are some interesting demo videos out there, they are included in the bonus DVD with the Oblivion collectors edition for the 360- probably available online as well) then this isn't so far out. If NPC Joe wants me to retrieve the Orb of Flabotanum for him, once I get it to him, then I don't really want 47 other people also retreiving the same thing.
I think that if a game developer could address these two issues, so that characters were actually role played, and that the PCs really could affect the world (even if the effects are largely just token nods to what the players have done) then it would get me, and a lot of other MMO hold outs, on board.
The problem of course is that I'm not sure how many people would want a game like I described. It seems most people like metagamming and grinding the same quest a hundred times, so I don't hold out much hope that a game will ever be made. Oh well, there is always still D&D on IRC- the real MMORPG.

Re:What it would take

[jfodale]

"What do you think it's going to take to crack Blizzard's deathlock on the Massive genre?" WoW will kill itself in time. Most MMOs do. Look at past MMOs - one of two things almost always happens.

1) The designers make a huge mistake and make an extremely unpopular change to the game.
2) The game accumulates so many expansions and endgame content that it is near impossible to attract new blood to the game.

Have we forgotten about Everquest already?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

...talking about the MMOG goldrush and the business consequences World of Warcraft has had on the games industry...

Have we forgotten about Everquest already? It would seem the same story could have been written 4 years ago...

Re:Have we forgotten about Everquest already?

[C0rinthian]

Yeah! I remember when EQ hit 8 million subs.

How about world of grand theft auto?

[psyder]

GTA has a great following and a world allready built up :)

Hey i still play Ultima Online

[zoggins]

The graphics are a bit dated, but the players are great and the game is still fun after 9 years.

Lower subscription fees

[Athrac]

The only reason why I haven't subscribed to WoW is because I don't see it worth the money. So, what we need is more competition on prices, not just better MMORPGs.

Re:Lower subscription fees

[Swift(void)]

Is that because the gameplay does not appeal to you, or because you simply have an aversion to having to pay monthly to play?

For just over the cost of a single movie ticket, you get as much game play every single month. I would call that value for money

Heard of Huxley?

[Durrill]

Just from observing the trend of MMO's, we can see that everyone is constantly trying to re-invent the wheel when it comes to the enjoyable traits of gameplay. Despite Planetside's dismal failure, other company's are infact trying to re-invent the MMOFPS.

http://www.webzengames.com/Game/Huxley/default.asp
http://mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overview/ga meID/197
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=1774

I've been following the details of this game since it was first announced at E3 two years ago. I'm an avid raider in WoW and this is the ONLY mmo that has caught my attention. I'm also a fan of paper based RPG games and for reasons I can not explain this MMO has a Rifts (Palladium) feel to it. If any of you are still on the search for a good MMOFPS, i'd recommend checking this out. It should be out sometime this year and will be running on the Unreal Engine 3.

MOD PARENT UP

[Eco-Mono]

I've been saying this for about five years now. Pokémon would make a fantastic MMO.

stargate worlds

[Joe The Dragon]

stargate worlds looks like it would be a good MMOG game
http://www.stargateworlds.com/

Mass Effect Online ?

[tomblag]

After seeing what bioware has done with mass effect, and the visual quality attained... , and the fact its in space.. if it was released on the pc as an mmo instead of on the xbox360, I think wow would be a goner. Alas, I think they are going with dragonage as their mmo, another fantasy showing.

Better end-game play

[pyite69]

The reason I quit WoW was because it was impossible to get things done in less than 3 hours - with a group of 40 doing the same raid over and over for months at a time.

I would rather see the endgame be a shitload of 5 man instances that can be done in an hour or two. Perhaps a couple of larger raids, but not to the point where they exclude casual players entirely.

Re:Better end-game play

[Anonymous Coward]

They did this in the expansion... the end end game is 25 man raids... but there are tonnes of 5 man that only take 1 hour... and then you can do them as end game Heroic and they take the same time but are harder

Re:Better end-game play

[SupremoMan]

Well then Sir, now is the time to return back to the fold. Especially if you are a formally disgruntled Druid.

BC an improvement. Why everyone likes WOW.

[Anonymous Coward]

        A majority of the instances in the Burning Crusade are all 5 man dungeons. They can usually be completed in less than 2 hours, sometimes less than an hour. When you're done clearing all of those you can activate heroic mode: Same instances with tougher monsters and better loot.

        There are still large and time consuming raid instances, but I haven't set foot in a raid dungeon since the expansion was released and I'm having loads of fun.

        To address the main topic, the reason WOW is so popular is because it's extremely user friendly to the new/casual player, at least for the level grind. Very friendly interface and tutorials, extremely in depth quest engine that is easy to understand. You can solo play all of the content up to level 70 if you wish. The attention to the "little things" is notable. The world is really polished. The details are all laid out for people. Lots of mini-games and tons of different things to do.

        The fact that I play WOW is not really surprising. I've played a number of MMOG's over the years (UO, EQ, Shadowbane, DAOC). What is surprising are the number of people who play WOW who aren't "hardcore" gamers. Hell, many aren't even gamers. My Wife plays WOW. The last video game she touched was Super Mario Brothers over 10 years ago. My Uncle plays WOW. He's a retired M.D. who only dabbled with RTS's previous to getting WOW.

        Blizzard's realization that people who have never played a MMOG before might actually like them is why WOW has become so successful.

Heres an idea

[iomanip]

Design a game with the playability of wow set in the environment of the Sprawl series of Gibson novels. That would be the ultimate game. Before you reply with 'go play neocroft 2', their payment system sucks and Americans can't seem to be able to play that game.

Just one BIG thing

[SendBot]

I hate how it takes so damn long to run around on feet until I can get a mount at level 40. At least when I play GTA I can steal transportation easily. Why can't I put a harness on a raptor to make it my personal taxi? The raptor would probably rather have that than a fatal backstab in passing.

Re:Just one BIG thing

[geekoid]

the key, in general, to making a game that people will keep playing is goal attainability.
If you just give something to people, then the reward effect is diminished.

When you get to 40 and gt your mount, it's a big deal.

Now, I think the mount should be an instance run quest reward, and not monay; which would ahve the nice effect of dimishing gold reselling.

When gold resellers founf out flyinh mounts are 6K gp, the probably came in there pants, and then bought a new house. In that order.

Blizzard is a unique institution

[wave-E]

WoW doesn't exist in a vacuum; it certainly isn't Blizzard's only effort to attain PC dominance. And as the competition haven't previously caught on to Blizzard's methods, I don't think it likely they'll catch em this time around. Two things mark every Blizzard release since Starcraft. The first is polish. Polish, polish, polish. There's a reason Starcraft II hasn't been announced 9 years after the fact; Blizzard rushes nothing. Every effort is the focus of incomparable time and effort (and money), and it shows. WoW has fundamental flaws, but it doesn't matter; it has so much more of quality than anything any of the competition has generated, and that's not likely to change. For one thing, not many companies have the sort of capital Blizzard has. And those that do don't operate by the same sort of fundamental cooperate properties that mark Blizzard as such a unique company. If this were EA, we would have had Starcraft II five years ago, and we wouldn't care.

The second property every Blizzard game has that I can't for the life of me figure out why other developer's don't catch on to is playability. And I don't mean easy to get into, I mean my computer can actually play the damned games when they come out, and play them damned well. Art over technical performance is I think a really hard thing for some techy types to get their heads around, and maybe that's why Western gaming often feels so stale, but Blizzard certainly seems to know where to put their money. Perhaps this would seem less a positive without the former polish, but I really wish more PC developers would try not developing for $500 video cards (you hear me Bioware - I want to play Dragon Age, not dream about it!)

Re:Blizzard is a unique institution

[Shad_the_protector]

We must also point there extremly good support service. You know many game that receive patch after 8 year out other than Starcraft.

WoW class patches

[stryc9]

most class-breaking bugs are fixed pretty regularly

Here is where I have to disagree with you. It is their method of patching (mostly taking away bugs that help a class right away, and leaving bugs, some class-breaking, in for a longer period of time) that pisses me off. At any time you can peruse a class forum, any class besides the OP rogues ;), you will find lots of bugs that have been in the game for a heck of a long time.

For instance, in 2.0 they changed the warlock DOTs to actually take into consideration the locks spell damage coefficients properly. Upto that point my dots were not using my 550 +DMG bonus from my gear. Sure, when they made the change the coefficients turned out to be too high and imbalanced so they had to be scaled back, but it took the whole lifetime of WoW to fix a bug, and one patch to tune it way back when Blizz didn't like it.

Again with the warlock class they finally in 2.0 had the warlock pets scaling by increasing their attributes like stam and int and damage output based on the attributes of the warlock which are based on his gear. That way when you are max level, but are getting better gear your pets will scale and become better. Then they had discovered sometime in 2.something that the locks pet called the imp was inheriting more of the locks +DMG bonus than it was supposed to. So, they hotpatched the servers and made it so that *all* lock pets inherited 0% of the locks +DMG bonus until they could fix it properly. Thereby breaking the damage and survivability of pets relied upon for a pet class.

In the years WoW has really pissed off a decent segment of it's userbase, one by one, class by class. GG Blizz.

Oh, and nerf Druids xxthxbye.

Re:WoW class patches

[Anonymous Coward]

any class besides the OP rogues ;)

Zomg you burn me! :P Though I will admit at 70 we are one of the strongest classes, it seems. It's really hard for anyone to top my damage in 5-mans. Decked out mages and fury warriors can come close, but I leave feral druids and hunters behind, and haven't met a lock that can keep up with me damage-wise, though I still love grouping with locks for the fears, seduction on trash mobs, imp buffs on bosses, healthstones and soulstones. So much utility that they almost seem overpowered in 5-mans, too. :P

no, I'm sorry

[way2trivial]

I'm sure there is a solution to the problem.

    the example given as evidence/proof however, is piss-poor.

the whole point is multi player, vs MASSSIVELY multi-player, is that the problems and solutions are different.

Saying you can fix it, this 4 person gamer had no problems dealing with it- does not support the assertion

the assertion may be valid, but the argument is not valid proof.

Behind the times!? Market change? The Answer!??!

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally it seems straight forward after spending sometime looking at the MMORPG seen. The big name is World of Warcraft but are there other MMORPG that are even close or are successful given WoW. The answer is Guild Wars. The funny part is both games are created from employees that work or worked at Blizzard. Compare the difference and create a new game using ideas from both: Leveling vers skills use is the major difference between the two games, but there are some cosmetics differences, races, and other minor differences.

Does that mean you might have to give up the monthly fees for MMORPG? Mostly likely, so I guess you will be missing the mega cash flow of the monthly fees but who wants to do that? On top of that, you will have to take the risk that Blizzard doesn't already know this and hope they do not have something in the works to kill of your product.

Nerds Class - good at critical thinking and solving problems spends less time cashing after money then other classes. They also tend to have more intellectual conversations. Bases ideas and believes on ideas that can be proven or shown to work.

WoW is not the biggest

[atomicstrawberry]

Everyone always cites WoW as being the most successful MMOG out there, but really that's not true at all. Certainly they're successful, but compare against Neopets, for example. As of the 1st of August last year they had 123 million accounts (though this figure is disputed), and the last figures I saw indicated they currently had about 35 million active users. Additionally they were doing it with a lot less staff than Blizzard have to employ, and using a lot less resources too.

WoW and Neopets certainly aren't in the same market, but they are peripherally related so it's worth keeping things in perspective.

Time.... that is what it will take...

[Rifter13]

Here is the thing. I think that WoW can be looked on, as much as EQ was. Remember Evercrack? I think that games have a "lifespan". Most modern games, that is measured in weeks, or months. MMORGPs extend this, by making things so massive. But, at some point you reach a critical mass, where people just don't care anymore. They have a few high level characters, they can do what they wish... and with how the high level raids are set up, you need to dedicate a good chunk of time to complete them, so that cuts out a chunk there.

I think you need to look at the numbers. Watch for when WoW reaches a flat spot in new subscribers, and then figure a year or so afte that. It will take a great game to beat WoW... but it will also have to be a great game, at the right time. I honestly don't think that you can bring in a WoW killer, without proper timing. It requires a lot of effort to get people to quit playing the game with their 3 or 4, or more topped out characters.

There is a very large time investment in playing WoW, which is why I believe that timing is critical for a new rlease.

The answer is...

[Deth Rot]

Another Blizzard game...duh.