Nepotism and Incompetence - Sigil's Legacy

Visceral Monkey writes "In the wake of SOE's purchase of Sigil and Vanguard , there are a number of questions to be answered. The commentary site F13, purveyors of usefully cynical opinions, have a pair of fascinating interviews on the subject. The first is an anonymous discussion with a former team member, laying out the working conditions at Sigil prior to the end. The second is a talk with Brad McQuaid, one of the men behind EverQuest and the captain of the debacle that is Vanguard. Both interviews highlight the nepotism, incompetence, corruption, and evasion that were the last day of Sigil Online Games."

Comments

Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brad wasn't the genius behind EverQuest. EverQuest was just a situation. The right game at the right time with the right design. Vanguard now has become the biggest flop vs hype in MMO history. This guy so poorly managed his company, it's amazing he ever had one to begin with... Anybody following Brad McQuaid might as well drink the poison-laced kool-aid now as he has nothing to offer but broken promises and nothing tangible.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whole heartedly agree..

As the article states, the thing Brad is very good at is selling and bullshit. I have seen them man in action and he can sell ice to eskimos but backing up the wind....not so much. I was not surprised by the statement of 'the dungeon was made especially to not show the flaws' for E3.

What I am really surprised by is the nepotism....seriously, rule of thumb is to keep the team seperate at all times. Hell, Brad should have known himself considering there was a few rounds of it under his hat on the EQ team (I distinctly remember a tale of a GM who got involved with the head of the CS department I believe and a whole firestorm of problems internally). If he idly stood by and let brothers, in-laws, and wives get hired, he deserves every bit of fury that the gaming public can put on him.

BTW, the dismissal is low by ANY standards. A mass trap&kill like that is total bush league...and if that douche talking about his house is the truth, the guy needs a serious schooling in 'tact' before he goes to another place.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[vux984]

Brad wasn't the genius behind EverQuest.

No, but to his credit, he deserves credit for being able to say no to the player base.

WoW is the natural evolution of Everquest. It does practically everything the players wanted from everquest.

The irony is that WoW by giving players everything they want, has no point. Its easy. Its dumb. It has no soul. Everquest, by refusing to give in to the players forced the players to adapt and cope. When you accomplished something in Everquest (pre Luclin), it felt like an accomplishment. Getting to the end of WoW outside of the 'hardcore raid game' can be done by a trained monkey.

That's not to say Everquest didn't have its short comings -- it had a boatload, literally ;) But the reason Vanguard was so anticipated was that people thought Brad would be able to pull off a new game with the spirit of everquest -- a game that was genuinely hard, but still fun.

A game that felt like a *world*, rather than just a chatroom-zone that linked to to instanced missions (a theme which D&D online took to the extreme)

A game that didn't hold your hand to the point that you almost can't get lost, or fail, or lose anything ever, unless you actually try. EQ was famous for brutally punishing players for mistakes, and often even just arbitrarily (spawning a cyclops 2 feet from you that can kill you in 1 second), but as annoying as that was, it was actually preferable to the risk free 'you can run away from anything mechanics' that dominate later games.

A game where death was something that actually hurt, as opposed to the 15 second inconvenience it is in most games now. In early EQ dying sucked. If you survived a difficult fight, or an unwanted add, or whatever, it was truly elating. If someone saved your ass you were grateful, they'd just saved you 20 minutes of travel and 2 hours worth of monster killing not to mention a possibly difficult corpse recovery... in modern games, dying is irrelevant, so avoiding it is meaningless. Early EQ was sometimes harder than it really should have been, but it was more satisfying than any title today, at least to a LOT of fans.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Dachannien]

Vanguard now has become the biggest flop vs hype in MMO history.

I'll take it you've never heard of The Matrix Online.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[PhilipMckrack]

I agree. I started playing just after beta, quit for a while just before Kunark and came back just after Velious was released and then played for 3 years or so. The game was much more enjoyable early on when it was really hard. When it took 2 or 3 hours to cross the continent and then you could only bind in cities. It made the world feel "real" in some way. Another world you could escape into. That's what everyone talks about when they talk about EQ, the hard stuff they did early on. Even the people that complain about it.

I was always behind the "vision" and understood what Brad meant. He had an ideal for the game to make it better that even if the players didn't like, made the game better. The players always wanted the game to be easier, even if they asked in a round about way. I also liked how he wanted it to be a real world type experience and that not all aspects of the game would revolve around level. You could be an artisan and not kill anything and still offer something to the game. That was destroyed when he left and tradeskills and other skills were tied to levelling and specific items.

Nothing will ever rival the original EQ in my mind because as far as I can see every game has revolved around the level grind and not around the experience of playing that eq offered at first.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Anonymous Coward]

Matrix Online... Hell Matrix Online didn't even have hardly anybody beta'ing it. I think you are inexperienced in the MMO world because the only hype that surrounded Matrix Online was from people who didn't play MMOs. I remember trying the open beta and seeing only 200 people online... LMAO. Yea, you got me there, MO was definitely the biggest flop. I would say MO was the biggest flop vs the intellectual property being licensed behind it. But that doesn't mean much when the avg gamer can look at Starwars games, practically any movie video game, etc.

What I'm specifically referring to is the PC Gamer cover given to Vanguard that stated WOW Killer? and believe me, a lot of people, including myself bought into that... and it might have been true if the game had another year of development in it before release.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[darkshadow]

"A game that didn't hold your hand to the point that you almost can't get lost, or fail, or lose anything ever, unless you actually try. EQ was famous for brutally punishing players for mistakes, and often even just arbitrarily (spawning a cyclops 2 feet from you that can kill you in 1 second), but as annoying as that was, it was actually preferable to the risk free 'you can run away from anything mechanics' that dominate later games."

Ever run into a Fel Reaver?

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'm specifically referring to is the PC Gamer cover given to Vanguard that stated WOW Killer? and believe me, a lot of people, including myself bought into that... and it might have been true if the game had another year of development in it before release.

The game had one person as their entire QA team, just one poor soul to test an MMO! The fact that this was ever allowed to happen suggests to me that nothing could have saved that game from its creators.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Skuld-Chan]

I disagree that a trained monkey can do end game raid content in WoW. Last I heard there's only a handful of hardcore raiding guilds who have even stepped foot in The Eye in Tempest Keep - and so far none have defeated the final boss.

The guild I'm in (and this isn't too uncommon) hasn't even got to the end of Karazhan.

EQ was a timesink - nothing more nothing less. If anything WoW a good chunk of that and look where it left EQ... I honestly think most former EQ players (and I run into them all the time on WoW) left because they realized sleeping in shifts for a video game is stupid.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[toleraen]

Ever have your name shouted by Cazic Thule?

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Chris Burke]

A game that didn't hold your hand to the point that you almost can't get lost, or fail, or lose anything ever, unless you actually try. EQ was famous for brutally punishing players for mistakes, and often even just arbitrarily (spawning a cyclops 2 feet from you that can kill you in 1 second), but as annoying as that was, it was actually preferable to the risk free 'you can run away from anything mechanics' that dominate later games.

A game where death was something that actually hurt, as opposed to the 15 second inconvenience it is in most games now. In early EQ dying sucked. If you survived a difficult fight, or an unwanted add, or whatever, it was truly elating. If someone saved your ass you were grateful, they'd just saved you 20 minutes of travel and 2 hours worth of monster killing not to mention a possibly difficult corpse recovery...

So let me get this straight. The game is difficult, you can't run away from a fight that is too much for you, a single random spawn while you're fighting other mobs could result in you being overwhelmed, and if you die from such a cheap occurance you not only have to waste half an hour getting to your corpse, you then have to repeat 2 hours of mindless grinding just to regain your lost progress? Two and a half hours of boredom is my punishment for daring to try to kill one more mob at once than I should, or being around when a mob spawns?

FUCK THAT.

I'm sorry, forget whether or not death has "meaning". My time has meaning. We're talking about a genre that is already defined by taking the least amount of content and turning it into the maximum amount of time spent by the player by requiring lengthy "grinds". At least when I grind in WoW I'm making forward progress. Two hours is a full night's session -- if I logged on one night, ground away for two hours, then the next night had to repeat the exact same process because I'd gotten unlucky and died, I'd cancel my subscription. It's already sketchy enough deliberately wasting my time so as to acrue more monthly fees, but to actually set me backwards as "punishment" for the game being cheap would be the final straw.

I can't imagine how groups would form in EQ, unless you already knew everyone involved. At least, I'd never join a PuG, because I'm never going to want to risk losing 2 hours of actual progress because of someone else's screwup. In a WoW PuG I'm only risking the actual time I spend with the PuG (plus some gold), they can't actually undo the progress I've made before.

If I want an RPG where death has meaning, I'll play nethack. At least in nethack the game knows how to be both hard and give you plenty of ways to escape or otherwise survive deadly situations.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[toleraen]

Last I heard there's only a handful of hardcore raiding guilds who have even stepped foot in Plane of Hate - and so far none have defeated Innoruuk.

The guild I'm in (and this isn't too uncommon) hasn't even got to the end of Fear.

There, I oldschool Everquested it for ya. To say WoW raiding is somehow better than EQ raiding means you've never raided EQ. I haven't raided EQ for years, but I recall it being a ton of fun, challenging, and very very enjoyable. It's been a while since I've played a game that required that level of skill in their players.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Aladrin]

You can say that all you want, but you and I seem to be in the minority. The average gameplayer WANTS pointless difficulty. They want artificial obstacles. It somehow gives them a feeling of accomplishment.

I got over that a few years ago. I now only enjoy games if there is an actual reward for my work, instead of just being allowed to grind to the next level. I enjoy plot, puzzles, and other such rewards. I do not enjoy mindless tedium in order to experience more mindless tedium.

I recently started playing WoW. There is a -tiny- bit of plot, there's quite a bit of exploring to do, and that's about it. I don't expect to make it to the end of my first month... I haven't even entered in payment information yet. But for $20, I've had more entertainment than I usually get from a new $50 game.

Everquest did not have plot when I played. There was string of quests from town to town, detailing the invasion that was about to happen, and attempting to prevent it. (Yes, WoW has this... Hoard side, as a troll, I've been going through it. It seems silly in an MMO, because you KNOW the outcome is predetermined, but at least it's something.) EQ simply had a bunch of pointless quests that went nowhere.

Unfortunately, this IS enough for the mindless masses of MMO players. Somehow they get what they need from it. It's okay, though, because when this entire group gets sick of grinding, they'll all want something more, and developers start making 'good' games.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[brkello]

Yes...EQ was brilliant. I wish more game developers would design things that served no other purpose but waste hours of your time and effort. They really should integrate that in to single player games. In Final Fantasy, it should erase your last 10 save games are start you out with 0 gold. That way you will really be scared when you fight that last boss! (obvious sarcasm)

I'm sorry, but the people who actually yearn for this type of game are a much smaller number than the people who play games to enjoy them. WoW is not dumb. WoW reduced the penalty for death to something you don't want but is ultimately trivial. It makes the leveling part of the game quick and enjoyable (for the masses) and made the end game where they would focus on challenge and teamwork (for the "hardcores"). They combined the best of all worlds and dropped most of the boring crap and that is why it is popular.

The ex-EQers are just like those old people that complain about how hard they had it. How they had to suffer walking to school in snow up hill both ways. And, apart from the obvious bs of walking uphill both ways, they did have it harder in many ways. EQ players didn't have a choice...so they got used to their lot in life. But now there are choices...and very few people are going to choose to play a game that is the gaming equivalent of going to the dentist. EQ was like a psychological experiment to see how much they could torture a player before they quit.

I understand there is more of a rush when you have more on the line. And some people like that. And there are niche games like Eve Online that supposedly cater to that sort of personality type. The problem with these games that are high risk...people take less risks and it becomes boring. Eve, for example, has most people hiding away in safe parts of the empire. The less safe parts are full of large groups of people that try to find someone all by themselves. It makes for stupid and uninteresting PvP.

In EQ, are you going to take on that strange monster you never saw before that is a bunch of levels above you? Of course not, you are going to run for safety. In WoW, you can take bigger risks because it isn't a big deal. If you succeed, there is your rush. If you fail, well, you just didn't waste half a day of "work".

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[vux984]

I disagree that a trained monkey can do end game raid content in WoW.

If you read what I wrote specifically excluded hardcore endgame raiding from what a trained monkey could do.
So we agree.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[brkello]

I think WoW proves that most people don't want pointless difficulty.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take it you've never heard of The Matrix Online.

Please...Matrix Online is practically Half Life 2 if you set it up against the debacle known as World War 2 Online.

At least your Neo did not half to run for 20 minutes to get his ass shot off, respawn, and then do it over again.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Chris Burke]

You can say that all you want, but you and I seem to be in the minority. The average gameplayer WANTS pointless difficulty. They want artificial obstacles. It somehow gives them a feeling of accomplishment.

I don't mind difficult. What I do mind is punishment for failing to meet that difficulty, especially since it sounds as though like most game developers SOE can't distinguish "hard" from "cheap".

It's bad enough that MMOs make you grind, though as you can tell by the fact that I'm subscribed to WoW I put up with it. But to be forced to regrind is just ridiculous.

This is why even though I loved Diablo II I never actually got through Hell difficulty. It just pissed me off too much when some Multiple Shot+Lightning Enchant+Fire Enchant boss would one-shot me and I'd lose every bit of experience I had earned that whole day. The only way to ensure forward progress was to never try to do anything difficult. I'd rather just start a new character.

I much prefer WoW, where if I want to throw myself at something I have no business trying just to see if I can pull it off, I can, and if I'm wrong, then I lose five minutes and some gold. Actually, sometimes I wish WoW was harder, and it would be okay because the penalty for death is reasonable. I'm ever so glad they decided not to copy the Diablo II mechanic.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[vux984]

I can't imagine how groups would form in EQ, unless you already knew everyone involved.

The risk of someone else screwing up and getting you all killed was far less than the risk of getting yourself killed if you tried to do anything interesting by yourself.

At least, I'd never join a PuG, because I'm never going to want to risk losing 2 hours of actual progress because of someone else's screwup.

I hear ya man, I mean, I know you only logged in to watch that little xp bar move forwards. The actual socializing, and working as a team, and so on are all secondary concerns.

In a WoW PuG I'm only risking the actual time I spend with the PuG (plus some gold), they can't actually undo the progress I've made before.

Not only that. If you spend any time with a group (pug or otherwise) that doesn't directly result in "progress" that time must have been "wasted".

My time has meaning.

Yes, I can see that. I certainly understand how you wouldn't want "playing the game" to get in the way of "progression".

We're talking about a genre that is already defined by taking the least amount of content and turning it into the maximum amount of time spent by the player by requiring lengthy "grinds".

Who defined it like that? Everquest wasn't meant to be a game you 'finished'. It was meant to be a game you explored. There was plenty to do at 20th level, and even more to do at 30th. The game at 50th wasn't going to disappear, so what's the rush?

At least when I grind in WoW I'm making forward progress. Two hours is a full night's session -- if I logged on one night, ground away for two hours, then the next night had to repeat the exact same process because I'd gotten unlucky and died, I'd cancel my subscription.

I would too, if I were you. But then I won't "grind" so after two days I don't look at my "progress bar" see that it hasn't moved, and cry about all the time I've wasted. Instead, I have 4 hours worth of enjoyment to look back on. Why cancel my subscription? I'm having a blast. Its the people fixating on the xp bar, grinding away in one spot, night after night, that get frustrated and burnt out.

It's already sketchy enough deliberately wasting my time so as to acrue more monthly fees, but to actually set me backwards as "punishment" for the game being cheap would be the final straw.

You are the one who decided that not seeing the progress bar move amounted to 'wasting your time'. The key to having fun in a mmorpg is ignore progression and just have fun. You are going to progress anyway - some days fantasticly - other days none... but there's no reason to fixate on it.

As for EQ being 'cheap' in terms of arbitrary and completely unjust deaths: That there would be a wandering cyclops that could squash you if you weren't paying attention and let it get too close WAS part of the vision, but getting squashed on a zone-line or re-spawn were unfortunate artifacts of the game engine and never really part of the 'vision'.

When vangaurd was announced the premise was that he'd recognized that that that the game mechanics and game vision have been at cross-purposes -- the most efficient way to "progress" was the least fun ("grinding") while the most fun path through the game (exploring new areas, challenging new creatures, taking risks, etc) resulted in the worst progression. So one of Vangaurds mottos was that the most efficient path also be the most fun. So even people fixated on progress would end up having fun in spite of themselves ;)

It was (and still is) a good idea.

WoW's "solution" of just removing all the risks and obstacles to progression has led to a soulless experience.

As for WoW's endgame... that's a different story. And I'll concede that WoW endgame is pretty good... if you happen to be in the minority of players who play frequently and regularly enough to fit into an organized raiding guilds schedule. Unfortunately, most players never see that

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Shipwack]

...ever been in a Turkish prison?

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever run into a Fel Reaver?

You miss the point. Losing to anything in the game - including a "fel reaver" - has no consequences. The worst thing that happens? You have to waste some time running back to a corpse (a brief flash in the pan compared to the time sink that is travelling around mindlessly when you're alive) and/or you have to pay a pittance to repair some equipment.

Warcraft's strong point is that anyone from an idiot to a genius can pick it up and play it, and it's failing point is the same. It's easy to get into, but it never gets challenging. There's no motivation to do well or learn tactics because winning and losing feel the same, and if you blunder around long enough you're practically guaranteed to get where you need to go after awhile.

The only motivation in Warcraft is to do something, but the mechanics don't give you much leeway in what you do, so you just grind around. Warcraft is an exercise in futility from start 'til self-inflicted end and that's all it was ever intended to be.

Without any threat of loss, and no ultimate goal to achieve, it's an absurdist time and money sink, not a game.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, but to be fair, the only reason the trained monkey can't do it is because he has a life outside the game and doesn't have the time to grind for the uber-items those areas require.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[vux984]

I'm sorry, but the people who actually yearn for this type of game are a much smaller number than the people who play games to enjoy them.

What exactly is enjoyable about a game you cannot lose?

It makes the leveling part of the game quick and enjoyable (for the masses) and made the end game where they would focus on challenge and teamwork (for the "hardcores"). They combined the best of all worlds and dropped most of the boring crap and that is why it is popular.

The masses and the hardcores are different groups. The leveling part of the game is tedious and pointless, and that's all the masses get to see. The hardcores, yes, they get an interesting game to play... but not all of us can (or will) play as part of organized raid guilds playing daily at the same time. Its not the best of all worlds. Its two different worlds sandwiched together, with the two population groups barely interacting with each other.

In EQ, are you going to take on that strange monster you never saw before that is a bunch of levels above you? Of course not, you are going to run for safety.

In early EQ, you knew better than to take monsters a 'bunch levels above you'. The game as much as told you when you looked at it not be an idiot. It was the monsters slightly above your level that posed a challenge -for your group-. As EQ aged, and mudflation took hold the whole 'monster evaluation system' broke... because you could take on critters 3-5 levels above your group... but not 20. Of course some monsters were undercons, and some where overcons, where they were tougher or weaker than they appeared... that wasn't a bug it was a feature. It added uncertainty when facing new mobs. And you quickly learned to deal with it. In some games it almost tells you what your exact odds of winning are before you take yoru first swing.

In WoW, you can take bigger risks because it isn't a big deal.

In WoW every battle outcome is only a question of how far forwards you will go. Do you want to fight small monsters where you'll go a little bit forwards every fight? Or fight bigger ones where you'll go further after most fights, but won't move at all occasionally. Oooo...lets take the 'bigger risk'...

You have to have something to lose before you can call it a risk. In WoW, outside of the raid game, very rarely are you in situations where you take actual risks.

I understand there is more of a rush when you have more on the line. And some people like that.

Indeed! Although with WoW, since you usually have nothing on the line, why is 'victory' any rush at all?

And there are niche games like Eve Online that supposedly cater to that sort of personality type. The problem with these games that are high risk...people take less risks and it becomes boring.

I disagree. I think in the case of Eve, the problem is that risk levels have become unmanageable. For many many a foray into 0.0 is a losing proposition. The odds of being blown to bits unless you belong to the right social network permanently exceeds the odds of making a profit.

This is a failure of Eve's mechanics. Eve could be improved.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[ThePiMan2003]

The problem is that people seem to equate playing a game with "work" I enjoyed getting the xp I lost the first time, I will enjoy getting it the second time. Its not a race to max level.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Chris Burke]

I notice you don't mention the exp penalty for death once in this post. Did you completely miss the point of my post which was very specific, or are you deliberately ignoring it so that the concept of not liking negative progress is the same as only caring about forward progress?

Who defined it like that? Everquest wasn't meant to be a game you 'finished'. It was meant to be a game you explored. There was plenty to do at 20th level, and even more to do at 30th. The game at 50th wasn't going to disappear, so what's the rush?

The makers of the game built it that way. That's why in EQ you have the rare spawns that drop the loot that get camped all day, because they want that one mob to take up literally days of your time. Of course it was never meant to be "finished", because then you'd be done and might cancel. Actually producing enough content that you could see it once then move on, but still play for more than a month, is impossible. So all MMOs from UO to EQ to WoW are based around "grinding" or "farming" locations, dungeons, mobs. Because you have to do the same thing many, many times.

And I'm not in a rush. I have no problem progressing at a nice leisurely pace, and doing things that don't cause any direct progression at all. But then, if I'm sick of the content at 20 and want to see the content at 30, then yes, that progression is important, because that's the only way to see that new content. Having a death penalty that makes it so that you have to spend more time to get the same progression certainly is the opposite of encouraging a leisurely pace.

I am okay with not making forward progress. I am not okay with having what forward progress I have made UNDONE by either a mistake or a cheapness in the game. What is so hard to understand about that?

You are the one who decided that not seeing the progress bar move amounted to 'wasting your time'. The key to having fun in a mmorpg is ignore progression and just have fun. You are going to progress anyway - some days fantasticly - other days none... but there's no reason to fixate on it.

No, seeing the progress bar move BACKWARDS is very, very much "wasting my time". Even right here, you seem to deliberately omit that part. You should have said "You are going to progress anyway - some days fantasticly - other days none - and other days negative such that you will completely undo every bit of progress you may have made the day before, so maybe you won't progress anyway."

As for EQ being 'cheap' in terms of arbitrary and completely unjust deaths: That there would be a wandering cyclops that could squash you if you weren't paying attention and let it get too close WAS part of the vision, but getting squashed on a zone-line or re-spawn were unfortunate artifacts of the game engine and never really part of the 'vision'.

And was punishing you for those "unfortunate artifacts" part of the "vision"? They couldn't get rid of the artifacts that lead to cheap deaths, but kept in the mechanic for punishing you for cheap deaths. Sounds like their "vision" could have used some lasik.

When vangaurd was announced the premise was that he'd recognized that that that the game mechanics and game vision have been at cross-purposes -- the most efficient way to "progress" was the least fun ("grinding") while the most fun path through the game (exploring new areas, challenging new creatures, taking risks, etc) resulted in the worst progression. So one of Vangaurds mottos was that the most efficient path also be the most fun. So even people fixated on progress would end up having fun in spite of themselves ;)

How can you explore new areas if you aren't high enough level to reach them? And I'm sure it was tons of fun "exploring" the same zone for the Nth time because an "unfortunate artifact" made it so that the last time you "explored" the area didn't count. Then you "take a risk" (like crossing a zone boundary) and die, so you get to "

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[aztektum]

Its easy. Its dumb. It has no soul.

Does that mean 8 million people are soulless idiots? Or that 8 million people just want to fuck off and forget the shit in the lives for short stints could also be made. Who wants to play a "game" and be "entertained" by being "brutally punished." And yes I realize that comment leaves itself open to S&M jokes, but seriously...

20 minutes of travel and 2 hours of monster killing just to retrieve your corpse? Sounds less like creative/intelligent game design and more like swindling lifeless suckers into sticking around and collecting their monthly fee.
br. For the record, I don't currently play WoW and only have played it for a total of 4 months since launch.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[vux984]

I notice you don't mention the exp penalty for death once in this post. Did you completely miss the point of my post which was very specific, or are you deliberately ignoring it so that the concept of not liking negative progress is the same as only caring about forward progress?

No. I didn't mention it specifically, because negative xp is not the only way it can be handled. Other games have had meaningful death penalties without negative xp.

That's why in EQ you have the rare spawns that drop the loot that get camped all day, because they want that one mob to take up literally days of your time.

That's utterly naive. Yes, that's how it worked out, but not how it was originally designed. The designers never thought for a moment that the rare items were going to get camped like that... they thought the players that ended up with them would consider them a bonus.

And for what its worth, in the original EQ you didn't *NEED* those camped weapons... they were nearly insignifant boosts over much more easily obtained items, and were never 'make or break' must haves.

And was punishing you for those "unfortunate artifacts" [stupid deaths] part of the "vision"?

No. It wasn't but not throwing out the baby with the bathwater was why they were left in. EQ had issues, lots of issues... that was one of them. No question. But WoW's solution was even stupider than leaving the problems as they were.

Sorry, but especially EQ requires grinding to advance, which is why you said the penalty for death was "2 hours of monster killing". That's grinding, boyo.

No, its not. Sorry. Your wrong. 2 hours of sitting in one spot is grinding... going to the same place everyday is grinding. But monster killing is what that game was if you didn't like killing monsters EQ wasn't a good game to play. There are lots of approaches to killing monsters that don't equal grinding. ... at some point you've explored everything in your level range but you don't have enough exp to move on because you died, so grinding you go.

There was enough content at most level ranges to allow for several deaths. If you died incessantly and continually than the issue isn't the game, its the player.

what every EQ refugee I've spoken to has said is a great improvement.

And yet here we are... and many more like me.

That's why I'm able to take it easy when I'm leveling -- no matter what happens, I'll either go forward or not move at all, never will I go backwards.

Yeah. That's WoW in a nutshell. No matter what happens, you can't lose. Whee. Even the worst player in the world can make it to max level.... the worst player in the world WILL make it to max level ...and then he wonders why he's not welcome in a raid guild.

EQ was a popular unforgiving game. Eve is a popular unforgiving game. Both of them had flaws and could be improved. There is room in the market for a good unforgiving game that rewarded skill and intelligence more than simply punching in the clock and getting your dose of 'progress' like WoW does.

Brad offered the promise of making that game with Vangaurd... that is why it had the hype it did.

I sure as hell don't want to spend 2 hours killing -- even spread out over time -- just to regain what I lost due to a glitch in the game. That is the height of lame.

Everybody agrees with you on that point. OK. EVERYBODY. EQ had its share of problems... that was certainly one of them.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[vux984]

Does that mean 8 million people are idiots?

Yes. The popularity of reality TV adequately proves that.

Who wants to play a "game" and be "entertained" by being "brutally punished." And yes I realize that comment leaves itself open to S&M jokes, but seriously...

Civilisation? Masters of Orion II? DialboII "Hardcore" (permadeath)... there is no shortage of games out there that have the capacity to obliterate a player.

20 minutes of travel and 2 hours of monster killing just to retrieve your corpse? Sounds less like creative/intelligent game design and more like swindling lifeless suckers into sticking around and collecting their monthly fee.

This sort of thing REALLY didn't happen as much as all that to the players who got good at the game. This sort of thing happened to players who got into "PowerLevelling Grinding Groups" and got slingshot to levels far beyond their skill level, and then they'd die incessantly (and take their group out with them) whenever called upon to do anything actually 'hard'.

They didn't know how to get places. They didn't know monster aggro ranges. Or how chain aggro worked. They didn't know which mobs cast, nor what they cast. They didn't know what their own class was capable or nevermind their groupmates. They didn't know sweet fuck all. And they got brutalized everywhere they went until they either learned the game, or quit in frustration.

But if you actually played the game, exploring the low level dungeons, advancing at a slow pace, taking risks instead of just grinding in an xp spot under the watchful eye of 2-boxing elite players who would be fine even if you walked away from the keyboard for an hour. If you earned your levels and learned the nuances of the game you really didn't die that often... and when you did die you knew HOW to die... you learned to stand and die at an accessible place, perhaps near a zone in, or near your group, away from problem spawns. You learned to die near a landmark rather than run through a swamp blind and screaming. You learned to take a death to give the rezzer time to zone or campout. And you learned to take death in stride, to avoid it at all costs, and when it was inevitable to think ahead to the corpse recovery.

The game required skill and knowledge to play effectively at the high game. WoW doesn't... until you hit the raid game... and even then most of the real skill, talent, and knowledge is concentrated in a few individuals while the rest are just sheep to be herded around, valued for their 'elite' ability to do what they are told.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[PhilipMckrack]

Trying not to sound like a Brad fanboy, I think EQ original, kunark and velious eras were the most fun. That's about the point in turned into a grindathon and stopped being as much fun. That's also about the time that Brad left. I put the two together, when he left the developers went in a different direction.

Several things were put in the game that the "hardcore" players kept asking for, faster transport, easier binding, more uber loot in much harder places to get, tying tradeskills to levelling, and changing the game from an open free range game to a keyed, flagged mess you had to work your way through. It went from being the open world Brad "visioned" to a bastardized console first person shooter that was linear as the people from SOE took over.

I complained then and I still complain today that way too much effort was put into appeasing the 10% top tier players and too little time appeasing the 90% casual gamers that played. The top players always said that if it wasn't for them nobody would play, like they were the "pros" that everyone else tried to emulate. In reality it really didn't matter to me what they were doing because I would never be able to put in the time they did. Their game was completely different than mine and the people I adventured with. If the developers spent half the time creating fun enjoyable quests and having true gm's run real events instead of creating uber dungeon 43 with big loot item rare drop that 1% of the population would benifit from it would have been a much better (longer lasting) game.

But I agree with you, the difficulty was the key. Just like the previous poster said, its all about the grind today. Back then it was an adventure and an accomplishment just to travel and see the world.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Alioth]

There's also having too _little_ risk.

Back in the late 80s, I used to play a MMORPG called Shades (in those days, they were known as MUDs). It was a proper hack-and-slash MUD, not one of these wimpy 'no PKing allowed' MUDs that came afterwards.

If you were killed by a bot or by another player, you lost half of your points.
If you were killed by another player in a fight you started, you lost EVERYTHING.

There were ways out of fights - for a small points penalty, you could flee (or for a larger points penalty, quit or yank the phone cable out the socket). But in a battle in this *text* game, you felt a rush of adrenaline you just don't feel even in the most graphically pretty game because when you died, you took a really big hit. So if you thought you were in with a chance, you'd stay, keep casting spells, keep trying to steal your opponents weaponry, taking desperate glances at your remaining stamina and hoping that the enemy didn't have a trick up his sleeve. Then when the fight ended, and you'd survived, there was the mad race to find the Strange Little Girl (who'd heal you) and you'd feel terror at any 'bot or other player you saw (especially another player - since fight messages were broadcast, they'd know you're probably low on stam without having to cast a score spell to find out your status) who might have an opportunistic go at you. Or you'd feel "a slight tugging sensation" because every man and his dog knew your stam was low and was trying for an opportunistic summon-and-slay!

If that risk hadn't been there, it'd have been very much duller. However, every Shades player recalls the frantic flight and adrenaline when low on stam, just because another player gave you a funny look :-) Fun times.

Shades still exists by the way, but MUDs have unfortunately gone out of style, so there's hardly ever anyone on :/

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Dachannien]

Been playing 'em since 1999.

My point is that The Matrix Online is pretty much unrecoverable in terms of floppiness. If SOE had wanted to do something with the game, they would have by now. They'd have given it the storytelling and development resources that its original designers had envisioned for it. Plus, the hype that came with the movies was tremendous, but unless they release a sequel/prequel movie, they're never going to have that opportunity again.

On the other hand, Vanguard still has a chance to be evolutionary (though admittedly not revolutionary) in terms of expanding gameplay possibilities with its detailed crafting system and the diplomacy system. Time will tell whether SOE will let it flop. It's clear that it hasn't lived up to the hype and probably won't in the future, but the difference between hype and reality isn't quite as huge as you say, and if SOE bothers to support the game, that difference will diminish over time.

BTW, I thought about mentioning WW2OL but didn't, because the staggering drop in subscribership in TMO after its release indicates that a lot more people were interested in the concept but couldn't deal with its execution, while WW2OL has always had low subscriber numbers, but those subscribers have stuck with it. Actually, The Sims Online would be a better example than either of those, but the gameplay there is different enough that I didn't know whether it should truly be counted as a MMOG or not.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[Alexpkeaton1010]

"Does that mean 8 million people are idiots?

Yes. The popularity of reality TV adequately proves that."

-> How is a person an idiot if they choose a different game than you? Are you the sole arbiter of popular culture?

"Who wants to play a "game" and be "entertained" by being "brutally punished." And yes I realize that comment leaves itself open to S&M jokes, but seriously...

Civilisation? Masters of Orion II? DialboII "Hardcore" (permadeath)... there is no shortage of games out there that have the capacity to obliterate a player."

-> Civilization and Masters of Orion II have a new technology called "saved games". Diablo II's hardcore mode is *optional* in a *free* online mode.

" This sort of thing REALLY didn't happen as much as all that to the players who got good at the game. "

-> Well, after I got my Tier 2 in WoW I didn't die in non-raids either, unless it was PvP.

"The game required skill and knowledge to play effectively at the high game. WoW doesn't... until you hit the raid game... and even then most of the real skill, talent, and knowledge is concentrated in a few individuals while the rest are just sheep to be herded around, valued for their 'elite' ability to do what they are told."

-> Oh really? How about PvP? How about trying to solo group quests? How about stealth farming BRD for your Barman Shanker (back in the day). How about trying to do a 5 man with just a hunter pet tanking? How about stalking some poor Hordie in Bird Form way high in the sky, then raining down a RAWRbomb on his arse without getting fall damage? All things you can do without raiding, but things you would never do if there was a severe death penalty.

The point is, a game was made for your tastes, it is called "Vanguard". Not sure if you heard of it, it has about 90k people who play it. For everyone else, there is WoW, LoTro, and the new MMOs coming out (Age of Conan and Warhammer Online). Clearly, the direction that MMOs are going in is opposite of your tastes, so your tastes must be in the minority.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[sdhankin]

What exactly is enjoyable about a game you cannot lose?

What exactly is enjoyable about a game you cannot win?

It's the nature of the genre. It's not win or lose - it's the journey. If I enjoy the journey, what's your beef?

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[theghost]

"What exactly is enjoyable about a game you cannot lose?"

It's not that you cannot lose, it's that you have to work to succeed. You can grind out XP and gold on easy mobs all day and be bored stiff, or you can try to solo group quests or go into dungeons that actually require a modicum of teamwork and skill to complete.

A low death penalty encourages you to take risks and do fun, challenging stuff because the only real penalty for failure is failure itself. You don't have to go do boring stuff for 2 hours to make up for the failure. You can try to do the fun stuff again, try a different strategy, or a different group of people without having to worry about being forced to go back to boring crap.

Remember the old carrot and stick thing? Death penalties are sticks. EQ had a big stick, WoW has a small one. (Insert obvious phallic joke.) Loot and bragging rights are the carrot. EQ and WoW both have pretty equivalent carrots.

A bigger stick doesn't make the carrot sweeter for most people. It's the challenge you have to overcome to get the carrot that matters there.

Bragging about how big your stick is just masochistic and every bit as shallow as the phallic equivalent.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[vux984]

Oh really? How about... [bunch of stuff]

So WoW is a game that can be challenging if you deliberately handicap yourself. I don't deny that. Anything can be made hard if you deliberately avoid the easy route and/or handicap yourself. That doesn't make the game itself hard though.

The point is, a game was made for your tastes, it is called "Vanguard".

I'm not sure Vangaurd is any good. I haven't played it. The reviews have been terrible... and not because its "hard", but because its not finished yet. The fact that it was picked up by Sony is a point against it too... for a number of reasons.

That aside Brad is an arrogant asshat. I never liked him, and thought he was a jackass during most of early EQ. When he left I was thrilled, and then the game went to shit, and I grudgingly came to realize that Brad for all his faults, had been the counterpoint to a lot of pressure to dumb down the game.

Clearly, the direction that MMOs are going in is opposite of your tastes, so your tastes must be in the minority.

No question. Content for people who like a challenge and like to think has always been a niche market. The masses prefer things that are easy and simple. Just look at pop culture... music, movies, tv... easy and simple reign supreme.

For everyone else, there is WoW, LoTro, and the new MMOs coming out (Age of Conan and Warhammer Online).

We'll see. Warhammer is a thinking person's game. It will be interesting to see if Warhammer fans end up liking Warhammer Online if it follows WoW's lead too closely.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[vux984]

If I enjoy the journey, what's your beef?

Nothing. I have no problem with anyone enjoying WoW. In fact I think its great that you have a title that's designed for your tastes.

I however, don't enjoy the journey in WoW. I find it a pointless endeavour where I don't have to think to progress, where simply being awake is enough. I find that profoundly unsatisfying.

I would like to play a more challenging game. It would be nice if someone wrote a good one. I don't expect you to play it.

I had hoped Vangaurd would be that game.

Re:Brad was not responsible for EQ1's success.

[sdhankin]

Indeed, it is as you say, a matter of tastes. I found Vanguard to be not only a boring grindfest, but one I was lucky to play for an hour without being booted from the server by various bugs. It became a normal part of the game. I slogged my way to level 17 or 18 if I recall, listening to all the folks in the forums tell me how much better it got when you hit the 20s. I couldn't for the life of me imagine why someone would go through uninteresting game play for hours on end just to get to "the good stuff".

Prior to that I'd played EQ, EQ2 and FFXI (which had the harshest death penalty of all) and found Vanguard to be mostly from the EQ mold. Not that I was really surprised considering its lineage, but I was hoping for more than EQ remade.

After dropping Vanguard, I decided to give WoW a try, having listened to the naysayers up until then. What a surprise - it was actually fun. And I often have to think strategically to finish quests, largely because I like to take on ones generally too high for my character. I'm having a ball, and it shows no sign of letting up. Sure, there are fetch and kill quests, just like all the others, but many require planning to get through. In general, they're well designed and keep my interest.

May you find the game you are looking for. I predict there will be many more coming. I predict most will not satisfy either of us. Quality MMO's of any stripe are fairly rare.

Wait, What??

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd have been just as well off to save my money, go buy a playboy, a jar of Vaseline and not cook a valentine diner."

"Its like a used rubber any more...the more they get out of you, the more they just wanna throw you away"

"I've got an axe to burn with that guy"

Is that their new game?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first read the header, I thought that'd make a great name for a lighthearted action/adventure game about a not-too-bright guy named Sigil who gets thrust into difficult situations because he's heir to the throne. Turns out it's more internal game industry politics about a company I've never heard of. Oh, well.

Demotivators

[twistedsymphony]

Sounds like they subscribe to the Art of Demotivation.

A favor

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm stuck behind a firewall and can't read either of the linked interviews. If they're not too long, can someone repost them here?

Re:A favor

[Anonymous Coward]

f13.net: How long, roughly speaking, did you work for Sigil?

Ex-Sigil: A Few.

f13.net: Were you there during the Microsoft years? Or at least, before the split.

Ex-Sigil: Yes.

f13.net: In terms of hands-on involvement, how much did Microsoft make their presence known?

Ex-Sigil: Initially they stayed fairly hands-off, but as things got further along they wanted to see results of their money.

f13.net: Can you elaborate on that a bit?

Ex-Sigil: We gave demos to high-level Microsoft people frequently. These demos were often just dog and pony shows where content was created specifically for the demo. There was no intention that this content ever be used in game. When you spend 30+ million on a project, you want to see results. They became more and more suspect as time went on, and more and more people got involved. Though, they were mostly just oversight. They never sent anyone down here to actually work on the project.

f13.net: Did they set the milestones?

Ex-Sigil: They set monthly milestones. They wanted a succesful MMOG. They had so many false starts with other things that they just wanted a profitable game.

f13.net: They weren't trying to be the next WoW?

Ex-Sigil: Anyone who thinks you can make a WoW killer these days is foolish to try. You need to be your own game. WoW is a juggernaut and really needs to not be the watermark for success. WoW is a tough subject around Sigil too...

f13.net: Why?

Ex-Sigil: There are a lot of people, Brad included who were certain it would be a short-lived game. Some, in fact, including Brad, never played it. WoW should have been the example of 'look at what a good game can do!' when instead it was often spoken of like a bad thing.

f13.net: As WoW grew, did Microsoft expect more results from their new investment? Did the pressure get put on at any point?

Ex-Sigil: No.

f13.net: Then when did Microsoft grow suspicious that they weren't going to get an actual product out of Sigil?

Ex-Sigil: When they started testing it themselves.

f13.net: Or rather, talk about how and when things started going downhill.

Ex-Sigil: Tt's hard to say really, management never communicated stuff like that to us. Often times I feel like they told us more spin and nonsense then they told the public.

f13.net: So management kept everyone in the dark as much as possible?

Ex-Sigil: Completely.

f13.net: What was the rumor mill like at this time? Surely people had friends and spoke to eachother.

Ex-Sigil: Sure. People who had contacts at MS kept getting info that they were really unhappy with things, and at the same time, we had a set-in-stone release date of June/July... 2006. Or rather - that was when Microsoft was going to cut of funding.

f13.net: How long before those summer days did rumors of leaving Microsoft start flying around?

Ex-Sigil: Management told us they were shopping things around and were entertaining outside investors to complete the project. But actually leaving Microsoft as a publisher was never discussed until they told us it was happening and we were co-publishing with SOE.

f13.net: At this time, how far along was the game itself?

Ex-Sigil: Well... if you call what we shipped 100%, I'd put the game at around 65%.

f13.net: What were the terms of the alliance with SOE at this time, if you knew?

Ex-Sigil: Co-publishing, with Sigil retaining all IP rights... is what we were told.

f13.net: What was SOE's involvement from beginning the partnership up until E3 2006?

Ex-Sigil: No hands-on influence from SOE, only leveraging of SOE assets like testing.

f13.net: Let me backtrack a little bit, simply for background - what was the hierarchy like within Sigil?

Ex-Sigil: There was input all around, but at each level, that input was simply discarded by the decision makers. Basically there were a handful of people who made decisions, regardless of input from anyone else.

f13.net: Wh

Re:A favor

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone post up the McQuaid interview as well? Thanks

Re:A favor

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you to whoever posted this. And to the moron that moded this redundant I asked for it to be posted, so it's informative, not redundant.

"We want to come back to SOE"

[volpone]

O RLY? http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/05/10

Sometimes things go wrong

[Kohath]

It's pretty easy to criticize when things go wrong. But in order for something like an MMO to be completed and succeed, a tremendous number of things need to go right. And even when that happens, like with Everquest 2 (which is a fun, profitable game), you still get criticized.

Vanguard had a lot of problems, but if you actually read all the interviews, the core of their problems seems to be excess optimism. They tried to create the end-all and be-all MMO, and they didn't have what it took to succeed.

They didn't have the money or time to achieve their vision. And they didn't have the discipline to narrow their vision to fit the resources they had.

A lot of the rest of their problems seem to be less significant (or facets of the lack of discipline). You can say Brad ought to have been in the office at some events, but that doesn't make any money change hands. Employees' feelings don't make an MMO succeed. Hype doesn't make a bad game good or an over-hyped game bad. The practical things are the ones that matter.

Re:Sometimes things go wrong

[dc29A]

It's pretty easy to criticize when things go wrong. But in order for something like an MMO to be completed and succeed, a tremendous number of things need to go right.

I find Sigil very easy to criticize. ONE QA!? What the hell? Let me repeat that, one single QA. One person to test the entire game. For projects far less complex we use 10 times the number of QA people Sigil used. It's beyond mind boggling that a project of Vanguard's complexity has one single person doing QA. If that is not worth criticising, I don't know what is. I won't even mention the fake demos Sigil showed Microsoft. The internal bickerings and whatnot.

Sigil screwed up from the start. Very bad management. They could probably write a book about how not to lead a company.

One QA!? Jebus ...

Re:Sometimes things go wrong

[Kohath]

The fact that they had one QA person didn't make the game a failure. The things that made the game a failure led to them only having one QA person.

Brad explained this in his interview. Focusing on only having 1 QA person misses the big picture.

You're right about the bad management though.

Re:Sometimes things go wrong

[Atroxodisse]

Wow. One QA person? Really? That's sad. They should have had dozens of QA people at the very minimum.

Re:Sometimes things go wrong

[Atroxodisse]

Actually I would say that Employees feelings DO (and not just CAN) make or break any piece of software. Morale is the key motivator. If your employees aren't motivated it doesn't matter how many hours they're working, they won't get the work done and the work they do complete will be sub par. Process, resources and plans are important factors in success but if you don't have morale you have nothing.

Re:Sometimes things go wrong

[Alexpkeaton1010]

The reason why this game failed is simple: Bad Management. Not lack of money, not lack of time, not over-hype. Sigil should be a case-study in every MBA program as to how to NOT manage a project.

Deja Vu

[Organic Brain Damage]

Sigil = Ion Storm
Vanguard = Daikatana
McQuaid = Romero
EQ1 = DOOM

Details here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daikatana

Same as it ever was.

Most MMOs will be flops

[ceswiedler]

The MMO industry is shaping up to be much like the movie industry. There's a ton of money to be made, and everyone knows it, and everyone wants a piece. But making a blockbuster, or even breaking-even, is HARD. Really hard. And expensive. And so the only way to be profitable is to make a lot of them, some good and some bad, and hope you come out ahead.

Worse, at least the movie business is rather mature. There are lots of people who know what they're doing, more or less. The MMO business is in its infancy. It's as if movies had been invented in 1970, then Jaws comes out in 1976, and you have a dozen production companies striving to reproduce that one huge success.

In this day and age, just getting an MMO out the door is basically a success.

How to conduct an interview 101

[Clockworkalien]

Today's glaring violations of the unwritten interview rules are: Rule of journalism #1: You NEVER ask yes/no questions of an interviewee. You can elicit more information from the respondent using open-ended questions, which encourage them to talk and provide salient details. Rule of journalism #2: Don't ask leading or biased questions. It happens a few times during this interview. Rule of journalism 3#: You should not be talking more than the subject. Ask more open-ended questions. Break the ice prior to conducting the interview. Have some questions prepared beforehand that will require your respondent to elaborate.

Re:How to conduct an interview 101

[Kohath]

Real journalists tend to conduct the most worthless, uninformative interviews. Have you ever read an interview about a game before? The journalist hasn't played the game. The questions are extremely generic because the journalist doesn't have a clue.

Journalists are some of the least-informed, least-interesting, least-curious people. If they don't care about the subject of the interview, you get PR drivel. If they do care, they are biased and not objective and after the interview is edited, you basically get the journalist's spin rather than information.

These interviews were good because the interviewer cared about the answers and the subject.

Re:How to conduct an interview 101

[jfodale]

I wish I had mod points for you, but alas, no.

An interview that sounds more like a casual conversation is personal, informative, and to the point. An interview that lets the interviewee ramble on for 4-5 paragraphs feels too artificial to me. I prefer f13's style greatly.

Re:How to conduct an interview 101

[thepontiff327]

I agree. Who came up with these rules for conducting an interview anyway? A journalist? I don't even think its any kind of an honorable profession anymore.

Re:How to conduct an interview 101

[MBraynard]

I liked this interview because it's clear the interviewer knows the material and wants actual answers that I, the reader, would want. I like it when I find my voice in the interviewer. Same deal with Bill O'Rielly (well, not all the time, but pretty frequently). Where did you get your rules of journalism? They suck.

Wow, is Brad an A$$h0le or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really, this guy's a complete piece of drek. You'd have to be a fool to work for him. Same for those other guys. Can you imagine that? 'You're all fired and I'm gonna buy a new house' crap? Most places I've worked at would have stormed the stage and beat that guy to death!

It is about tastes

[SmallFurryCreature]

To stay out of the MMO minefield I will instead use racing games as an example. Grand Prix Legends on the PC and, well any racing game on the consoles.

GPL is brutal, the cars are a bitch to handle, require real skill, have full length F1 races, are fragile as hell and have random breakdowns. This means that if you make a mistake that could easily be the end of the race, if you drive the full 2 hours succesfully you can still be out by a random failure or simply running out of fuel.

Compare this to console racing games, no random failures, damage model is a health bar (no sudden death by loosing a wheel), races are at most a few minutes, the AI sucks donkey balls and you can usually easily make up a mistake and overtake all of the computer racers even if you are way behind.

Two totally different ways of doing the same game type.

Which is better? Well, for me they both got their place. Console racers on my PSP (I own a DS as well, no big consoles) for a quick fix and GPL and similar on the PC for when I am at home and got the time for them.

Driving a full race, definitly makes you more aware of the risks. Go for first and overtake the leader (well, 2nd, 3rd Oh okay, overtaking the guy with the smoking engine 5 laps behind the leader) OR play it safe and get the 2nd place points and NOT risk wrecking your car on the finishing lap.

Choose right and you win, choose wrong and 2 hours of gameplay are, wasted?

HOLD ON ONE FUCKING SECOND

What kind of player would consider those hours wasted? Are you so shallow that that you think 2 hours spend playing a game is only worth it if you the game tells you, you are a winner?

Surely it is the game itself that should be fun? Two hours racing EVEN if I crash in GPL is FUN! Every single lap. The risk of NOT finishing the race on adds to it. No victory without defeat. What is the thrill in completing Monaco in 3rd place if you didn't feel like it took all your skill and a lot of luck to do it?

I get more satisfaction from GPL then a console racer. Offcourse GPL takes more time BUT it also gives me more.

On the other hand I can't just run GPL while travelling on the train, nor would I want to loose my GPL race because the conductor asked for my ticket, a console race, well, who cares, no risk, no punishement.

So I can see your point BUT I can also see why you are absolutly wrong.

In MMORPG's the "risk" is in taking on higher level mobs, more of them and with the risk of adds. For non MMO players who are still reading, MMO's offcourse got no saves, so death cannot be as brutal and simple as in single player games. Permanent death is considered to extreme as well so avatars when they bite off more then they can chew have to be brought back into the game world. Usually a player respawns at a fixed location with some punishement (loss of XP, temporary stats decrease, equipment loss). Sometimes these punishments can be lowered by travelling back to the area of your death.

How harsh this punishement is depends on a lot of things. Some games have almost no penalty, some make you long for real death.

WoW and Everquest 1/2 for instance both asked you to go back to your place of death to lower the penalty. The difference being that in WoW you travel back as an immortal ghost who cannot be attacked or attack. A save run that is purely a time waster.

In Everquest 1/2 and Vangaurd the corpse run is done while you are alive BUT under influence of a stat punishement. In Vanguard even with your best gear missing. So you have to fight your way back in a reduced state to your death body that is probably surrounded by the same mob that killed you in the first place.

So what does this mean?

Well, lets mention another game, Star Wars Galaxies. At one point people in that game KILLED THEMSELVES to safe having to travel back to base. Suicide as a fast travel option, desirable gaming tactic OR the sign of complete and utter ruin. Discuss.

In LoTRO if you do NOT die when yo

Re:It is about tastes

[garylian]

You got one thing wrong with your otherwise nice description...

EQ2 no longer makes you go get your corpse to reduce anything. When you die, you suffer a 0.5% xp penalty, which you can either recoup by killing mobs, or if you go off-line for a few hours, it clears itself.

Even at high levels, it only takes a few mobs to erase 1 death's debt.

This just in...

[wezeldog]

Brad McQuaid announces that he will develop and publish games for mobile devices...

Another Ex-Employee Chiming in

[Anonymous Coward]

I am also an ex-Sigil employee. I was not there for the mass firing... I left earlier. But I have no doubt that it went down exactly as this person says. That's how things are run at Sigil. It's the most unprofessional place I have ever worked. Hell, the McDonald's where I worked when I was a kid was more professional and had better morale than at Sigil. My quality of life went up about 100% after leaving there.

The meeting was even worse than this guy said. I heard that someone asked if there was going to be any kind of severence for people getting fired and when he didn't get an answer and asked again, Donna Parkinson... a direcor... managment... was overheard to say "would someone please answer this asshole." Nice touch, huh? That doesn't surprise me either.

There were dozens of problems with this project. But the bottom line comes down to mismanagement. Brad and Jeff isolated themselves from most of the company, leaving management of the the project, company, and personnel to the directors, namely Platter, Gilbertson, and Donna Parkinson (the former Office Manager turned Director of Business Development). And I can't think of one person at the company that has any respect left for any one of them.

The thing that sucks is that most of us there at Sigil left other jobs to be there. Some people turned down other offers and stuck it out to finish the project and finally get some kind of pay off for the rediculious hours and demands we had put up with. Now we all walk away with nothing. Oh, wait.... not all of us. Some people are house hunting with what they made from the sale of the company. The rest of us got nothing for our years of work and the sacrifices we made.

I keep reading comments like none of these people should ever be given management positions again. I agree. Hell, I wouldn't hire them to run a hamburger stand. And I will leave any project that they are ever attached to in the future. They don't deserve another chance or one bit of my respect.

To all of you in management that are moving on to SOE or got paid for your share of the company, I hope you all sleep well tonight and enjoy your new jobs and your money from the sale (I don't care how much you did or didn't get, you got more than the rest of us). I still believe what goes around comes around. So I am hoping that all of us that you have screwed over the past few years find a way to land on our feet again in spite of our names being attached to your company. And I hope other people finally see you for the back-stabbing, greedy, childish assholes the rest of us from Sigil already know you are.

Why does this surprise so many?

[garylian]

Just about everyone and their brother was trying to come up with the next WoW, after seeing the money that Blizzard was raking in. Heck, it started before that, with the success of EQ1.

A MMO that has more than 100,000 subscribers is basically printing money. Keep the customers happy, and you have a great revenue stream that keeps on coming. Sure, you can release some non-MMO and make xx% on those 100,000 copies, and have to patch it. Or, you can release a MMO, make that same money, and keep on making money from your monthly fee while you do those patches. Gee, I wonder what many companies tried to do?

Yep, make MMOs. LOTS of them. Look at some of the crap NCSoft is putting out. Some of them are old Korean games that are simply getting a re-skin. I liked CoH/V for simple fun, but most of their titles have been crap.

The problem lies in the fact that most of these MMOs were bad ideas that only got worse as the corruption and nepotism set in. Everyone wants to get in on that "sure thing" revenue stream that a successful MMO has. So, there was some nepotistic investor "bloat".

Brad simply had a major leg up on the competition. Simply having his name associated with Sigil and V:SoH meant that people were going to pay a LOT more attention to this game than any other new game publisher was going to get. And that extra attention, coupled with the Brad "fanboi" syndrome, meant a guarantee of a certain intial sales figure. Hello, Investors!

So, this shouldn't really surprise people THAT much. Sure, you wish Brad and Sigil had better motives and intentions, but making and running a MMO is pure business. Brad figured that out, and became just like any other business man. He did his best to ensure his own profits, and screw the guys who really got him there: the developers.

The sad part here is folks are getting bent out of shape over this, and it happens all the time in other businesses. Someone buys out company, brings in various "pet investor friends", milks the company a little, then sells it off. The employees that made the company get shit on, and the investors make a fortune.

Welcome to the real world, MMOs!

Re:Why does this surprise so many?

[Valdrax]

The sad part here is folks are getting bent out of shape over this, and it happens all the time in other businesses. Someone buys out company, brings in various "pet investor friends", milks the company a little, then sells it off. The employees that made the company get shit on, and the investors make a fortune.

I think that it's far sadder that this sort of behavior no longer provokes outrage in some people, like yourself.
Do you really that's it's okay that this is business as usual?

Really, people that pretend that they're wiser for their apathetic cynicism just get on my last nerve sometimes.