Slashdot Mirror
Richard Garriot Argues Against Stagnant MMOG Design
The creator of Ultima Online and Tabula Rasa and well-known designer Richard Garriot spoke at the Develop Conference in Brighton, England on the subjects of stagnating MMOG design and the NCSoft deal with Sony. His commentary on Massive game design is fairly direct: "If you look at the vast majority of MMOs that has come out since Ultima Online and Everquest, you can look at the features and they are almost exactly the same. Even though the graphics have got better and the interface is much slicker, fundamentally the gameplay is unchanged. Worse yet, there are many things that have become standard that I look at and even though they are powerful enough to encourage the behavior of people obsessed with playing these games, I don't think they are the right way of building the future."
So go build a better game or just go away.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Take Warhammer Online http://www.warhammeronline.com/. That looks like the first MMO that'll actually be fun to play IMO. PVP with some clear cut goals and accomplishments. But really, it's about time someone said this, the MMO genre is really boring right now.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
And how many years have you been writing computer RPGs, Mr. AC?
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Hey awesome, if you've got some great ideas that gamers will love, then go ahead and make a new game.
I realize that this was an article that someone wrote based on this other guy talking, but there didn't seem to be much in the way of actual suggestions, just the observation that many MMO's have a lot of very similar qualities. Which, by the way, is true of just about every game genre that's ever existed.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Isn't he dead?
Truly a British icon.
Who here that remembers the original muds thought that we'd be a lot further along in vr worlds after 3-d near-photo-realistic graphics became prevalent? The market is great at filling needs, but I think it sometimes stinks at serving innovation.
From the sounds of the article, Rasa feels that grinding is dominating MMO gameplay and that it's time to innovate. Having never played UO, but spending plenty of time in EQ and Warcraft, I can't say that all MMOs are dependent on grinding. I can understand a want to innovate and create a something completely new for MMOs, but in order for characters to advance, they need to be given waypoints to show completion. I agree that grinding doesn't have to be the only way, it's just the easiest way, and easily understandable to any MMO gamer out there.
"The only constant in the universe is change." - Unknown author
MMORPGs need more interactive elements and less static content. I would love to see a game where you could start a merchant empire, overthrow a king, or build a village, as well as delving in dungeons and hacking monsters. Everything outside of combat skills is relatively useless in most MMORPGs. With elements of simulation included, skills such as diplomacy, leadership, and acting would become important. Every server would develop differently. Developers wouldn't write static content, but would instead script dynamic content that would draw from the present game world instead of shoe-horning new plots into every instance. For instance, rather than making quests that use the same NPCs, existing NPCs with the right characteristics would be used every time the quest was given. Rather than use the same locations, generic locations such as "any lower class bar" could be specified, and the quest might be activated any time the PC went into such a location.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
He's just bitter he wasn't invited to Comic-Con.
Slightly change the wording and you pretty much sum up what's wrong with society nowadays. Stagnation is a problem across the globe. When was the last revolution we had? The seventies? Berlin wall? Maybe i'm being cynical.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
Eve and DOAC are good departures from the MMO standard. Still are I think. Whats also great about those 2 games is you don't have to spend 8 hours a day on them to do well.
He's totally right and he doesn't need to offer suggestions -- he's just stating the obvious because that's apparently what all the MMOG developers have forgotten since the UO/EQ days. Now, it's mostly about keeping players on the hamster wheel (grind) and paying the monthly fee to make your parent company/publisher happy.
For example: WoW is a terrible GRIND when you compare it to a game like UO, which had a much more robust setting to play in. Uo had crafting, gathering, hunting, quests, treasure hunting, boating in the seas, dungeons, role playing, houses, player cities and PVP (and that's just from 1996 to 2000 when I played) Those were all *MAJOR* aspects of the game. In WOW, the only major aspects are: PVP and Gear Grinding.
BOOORRRINNNGGG
Games like UO were designed to be open ended and non-linear, unlike WoW (which I played for 2 years, BTW). The UO developers might not have thought players would create an innovative city (such as Oasis on the Sonoma server) or build Fish Tanks in their towers using scraps of cloth left over from crafting and the fish you could catch from the sea... but due to the open ended design of the game, you COULD do creative things like this -- ALL over the place in UO.
That's what he is saying and I agree with him.
I'm FOR Stagnant MMOG Design
I agree 100%. It never fails to amaze me how a new game will come out and claim to have "innovative design" when I have already seen it in UO. And, I'm not talking out of my ass. I've played just about every major MMO to come out. Everquest, UO, Meridan, AO, DAoC, WoW, EQ2, Vanguard, LOTR:O, Eve, Dofus, Neocron, Second-Life, and probably some I'm not thinking of right now. UO came the closest to killing the grind (you could have a max character within days, except in trade skilling) but it still failed on a lot of accounts. Recently (I came back for a short while) it has become too item-centric. While it used to be "Pick up some random armor and your on par with everyone else". I won't be happy until I can jack in matrix style though, so here's to hoping.
YOU are the one who hailed the original Lineage as a sign of the next big step in MMOs.
YOU are the one who championed Lineage II and brought its grind to end all grinds to North American shores.
YOU are the one who, to judge from all the little NDA-breaking birdies, is developing a boring PVE grind that rivals the worst of the Korean-developed games that you've fallen in Stockholm Syndrome with.
Your ship has sailed, Richard. Unfortunately, you were too busy sitting at Brit Bank on your true black horse to notice. You're just embarrassing yourself now.
I played UO for years and years, it still has a fond place in my heart. But you're complaining about an excess of grinding in WoW, and then lauding UO for its gathering and crafting systems? They were nothing but a grind, and even less engaging in general due to the extremely repetitive nature of the activity and general lack of threat (barring random PvP encounters if you chose to do it in Felucca, obviously). Similarly - hunting and treasure hunting form two of the primary quest archetypes of WoW also (and are, I would argue, better developed in the latter setting). "Dungeons" are much better developed in WoW (although the instancing does somewhat detract from the fun of that, from a certain point of view) and are the main setting of the gear grind in WoW.
In terms of actual game mechanics, I would suggest that WoW beats UO hands down - many of the concepts you laud in UO are not only present in WoW, but are refined and improved on. What's different is primarily the arrangement of the world, and the adjacent mechanics which aren't strictly related to "gameplay". WoW is very clearly a path from A to B, where A is level 1 and B is a pimped out level 70. You can take small diversions along the path (crafting, RP, etc), but basically they are all fitted in to support your primary profession of bashing creatures' faces in. UO, on the other hand, had a much broader scope: there was no fundamental need to go kill beasts of any sort (indeed, it was often not that profitable to do so) and you could build a skillset completely independent of your ability to smash faces and still have a complete, meaningful character. Coupled with the additional mechanics for interacting with the world (which rarely affected actual mechanics), you have a recipe for a much more broader, more realistic feeling world than that offered by the rather linear pathway in WoW and similar MMOs.
To each his own. You favor linear, I favor non-linear.
UO had variety, I feel WOW did not have as much due to WOW's linear nature. Of course it's all a grind in the end, but UO's variety and open-endedness made it feel like much less of a grind.
I think most RPG fans would agree, Non Linear Gameplay > Linear Gameplay.
UO > WOW
Fallout > The Legend of Zelda
For example: WoW is a terrible GRIND when you compare it to a game like UO, which had a much more robust setting to play in. Uo had crafting, gathering, hunting, quests, treasure hunting, boating in the seas, dungeons, role playing, houses, player cities and PVP (and that's just from 1996 to 2000 when I played) Those were all *MAJOR* aspects of the game. In WOW, the only major aspects are: PVP and Gear Grinding.
BOOORRRINNNGGG
This argument is flawed. With the exception of player housing/cities and boating, WoW does everything that you've mentioned as great about UO (ok, you could argue for roleplaying too since even on the RP servers people don't do it, but that is the fault of the community, not the game). Nothing wrong with enjoying UO and not WoW, but don't bother quantifying your opinion to try and make it fact.
On topic, Garriot is right. The problem isn't just in game design, but its in people's perception of it. Because it is a subscription service, customers expect the game to go on orders of magnitude longer than some $50, no subscription, one shot game. And companies want to keep the money flowing, so there will always be the level/reputation/honor/gold/(vareiable of choice) grind to make players play longer.
How is there even treasure hunting in WOW? Lock Boxes?
In UO, you had to find a random map then track down the treasure, dig it up, fight off spawns then claim your reward. In WOW, you find a lock box with treasure already in it from the start -- or maybe you have to "hunt" for a Rogue to open it for you, lol.
Dungeons in UO are more opened ended because THEY ARE NOT INSTANCED, therefore there is more open ended opportunity to interact with mobs/players. Not just "Point A to Point B" like it is in a WOW dungeon.
UO's engine supported role player to a greater extent than WOW. In WOW, you can only RP with costumes and text/emotes. In UO, you can RP with Costumes, text and in-game mechanics.
Example: I had a guild of role playing bandits called BaH (Bandits and Highwaymen - yes a real RP guild). We would drop a bag in the middle of the East Britain road to lure people into stopping to peek. A dozen of us of us would HIDE on the side of the road (because everyone could always have the hiding skill on any character, unlike WOW - another example of open ended vs wow's linear design) and wait for our prey. Then we'd cast Paralyze and surround them. After the paralyze wore off, they could not move because UO had collision detection (WOW does not). So we had them right where we wanted them, as bandits. We then "snooped" their packs to find something we wanted to steal (IE: Hold them up). Never anything substantial, because it was more about the role playing.
If they gave it up, we'd let em go. If they gave us lip, we PK'd them, like real bandits would probably do.
You can't do things like that in WOW because of engine limitations and their considerations to "balance".
UO also had player run vendors which is why it had a much better crafting system.
WoW is huge because it attracts players who like it's simplicity. That is why it is the biggest MMORPG and has huge draw from outside the tradition gamer market.
Since most MMORPGers play WoW I would say the most people perfer the WoW style.
QED
OU was horrible. The gathering was painful, the ganking was completely out of control. Most people want to play the game and not have to worry about getting jumped. Who would of thunk it?
I am sure people who enjoy PVP would want to have there PvP interrupted by unexpectedly needing to craft.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
> "Dofus"
Star Wars Galaxies?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
SWG had a lot of potential, but SOE royally fucked that game up because they are imbeciles.
Can you say the same in WoW? Is there any reason for a high level player to go to a low level crafter? Or how about low level players helping on high level quests?
This is grind. Players feel the need to do monotonous dull tasks to level up because doing the riskier task will kill them and halt their progression, or slow it down(exp penalty). In UO the only reason to grind was if your impatient, or a powergamer. There was never a need for it. In WoW, it's gameplay design. This is what Garriot is angry about. Grind is now considered to be a gameplay aspect that players "expect", and grind isn't fun.
^^ this guy has said it much better than I could. Thanks.
I guess you didnt have uo assist and a macroing program.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
The road to a massive improvement of MMORPGs is simple, really. It's just hard to find it. Here's my theory:
Whoever comes up with a design concept that eliminates the constant grinding has a winner on his hands. Grinding is what:
* Makes only freaks with nothing else to do reach the top levels/weapons/armours/etc
* Put off lots and lots of casual players who play to get away from work and stupid job
* Makes the whole thing so boring and repetitive
Find something to replace grinding as the core gameplay component and you'll start the next era of massive multiplayer online gaming.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Hes got some massive hurdles ahead of him and anyone that attempts these things. One of which is, people. -Improving Combat- It's an MMOG, and that means there's a lot of data that has to be processed simply from a technical point of view. Anything outside of the Hack/Slash + buttons for spells/abilities means the player may have to deal with a ton of data, if you're talking about adding in combos combined with group dynamics, and this may exclude a very large percentage of the gaming populace. MMOGs appeal to a lot of people because of their simplicity. Many many people play World of Warcraft who are not gamers, and enjoy it because it is easy for them to manage combat. -Artificial Intelligence- This is probably the area that needs the most work, and will make all other areas look better. That is to say, by improving the AI, you can make combat seem more fluid and dynamic. Not, auto-attack, ability 1, ability 2, ability 1, ability 2. Loot corpse. Creatures never adapt to a player, instead developers opt. to simply add various creatures with their own weaknesses/strengths towards the various classes in the game. This gives players a feeling of power in some instances and weaknesses in others. Your problem here is balancing challenge and fun. If you want a 'smart' NPC it's pretty simple in an MMO. if IsHealerPresent() then TargetHealer(); Kill(); end You'll have the smartest NPCs ever spawned in an MMO, and the fewest number of players ever. So, while I think this area needs the most work, you're going to have a real challenge in making the AI, smart...but not captain obvious. -Strategic Demands- Your real problem here is people. If you want strategy. Then people have to be willing to follow the will of a select few. Good luck here. For the ones that will, they will be labeled as elitists and you will find them in the biggest 'raid guilds'. They will have the best gear in the game. Your other players will feel left out of the design decisions, and quit the game. If you need further proof of this, just look at an RTS (Real Time Strategy) game. How does the game function? Do several people control an army? No, it's a single individual player controlling hundreds of units, and factories. People tend to dislike being told what to do, and so a lot of people are going to dislike playing a game where all they are doing is following orders. -Ethical Choices- Players will make the choices that gets them the most gear, best gear, or most money. They will care not for being good, or bad. They play the game, most of the time to be 'The Best', and will do whatever it takes. If you're going to punish a player for a choice you gave them, they will not be your biggest fan. I mean, of all the people that played Oblivion, how many people DIDN'T join the black hand (assassin's guild) because they didn't want to be 'Evil'.
Hes got some massive hurdles ahead of him and anyone that attempts these things. One of which is, people.
:)
-Improving Combat-
It's an MMOG, and that means there's a lot of data that has to be processed simply from a technical point of view. Anything outside of the Hack/Slash + buttons for spells/abilities means the player may have to deal with a ton of data, if you're talking about adding in combos combined with group dynamics, and this may exclude a very large percentage of the gaming populace. MMOGs appeal to a lot of people because of their simplicity. Many many people play World of Warcraft who are not gamers, and enjoy it because it is easy for them to manage combat.
-Artificial Intelligence-
This is probably the area that needs the most work, and will make all other areas look better. That is to say, by improving the AI, you can make combat seem more fluid and dynamic. Not, auto-attack, ability 1, ability 2, ability 1, ability 2. Loot corpse. Creatures never adapt to a player, instead developers opt. to simply add various creatures with their own weaknesses/strengths towards the various classes in the game. This gives players a feeling of power in some instances and weaknesses in others.
Your problem here is balancing challenge and fun. If you want a 'smart' NPC it's pretty simple in an MMO.
if IsHealerPresent() then
TargetHealer();
Kill();
end
You'll have the smartest NPCs ever spawned in an MMO, and the fewest number of players ever. So, while I think this area needs the most work, you're going to have a real challenge in making the AI, smart...but not captain obvious.
-Strategic Demands-
Your real problem here is people. If you want strategy. Then people have to be willing to follow the will of a select few. Good luck here. For the ones that will, they will be labeled as elitists and you will find them in the biggest 'raid guilds'. They will have the best gear in the game. Your other players will feel left out of the design decisions, and quit the game. If you need further proof of this, just look at an RTS (Real Time Strategy) game. How does the game function? Do several people control an army? No, it's a single individual player controlling hundreds of units, and factories. People tend to dislike being told what to do, and so a lot of people are going to dislike playing a game where all they are doing is following orders.
-Ethical Choices-
Players will make the choices that gets them the most gear, best gear, or most money. They will care not for being good, or bad. They play the game, most of the time to be 'The Best', and will do whatever it takes. If you're going to punish a player for a choice you gave them, they will not be your biggest fan.
I mean, of all the people that played Oblivion, how many people DIDN'T join the black hand (assassin's guild) because they didn't want to be 'Evil'.
--
Changed my default to Plain Old Text
Anarchy Online already did the more FPS version of a MMO.
Tabula Rising isn't groundbreaking. It's another stab with small variations of games that have already been done. Whether or not it gets done better remains to be seen.
AO isn't an "FPS version of an MMO" in any way, shape, or form. Futuristic? Sure. Many more ranged abilities? Perhaps (but even if, not by much). FPS? Not at all. An "FPS version of an MMO" looks more like Planetside or The Agency. I'm not sure yet how much Tabula Rasa will resemble it; so far, it doesn't appear much like it. "Action-y" in more City of Heroes fashion, perhaps, but not an FPS.
Vanguard is falling victim to this right now. You have a game that was an evolution of ideas from different MMOs. It wasn't like the rest mechanically and unfortunately, it had very high system requirements and poor performance at launch. Subscriber numbers are down because of the performance of the game and SOE is changing the game something serious. They are basically looking at EQ2 and Vanguard and mashing them together. With the next game update, they are stripping out the EE system which allowed you the ability to equip items above your character level and going with a basic level limited approach. They have done many other things but this is one of the most unique implementations of character customization I've seen in a long time and it pains me to see it go. The crafting system is also sliding right in line with how EQ2 crafting works and moany of the other unique parts of the game are being axed for typical MMO mediocrity.
It just hurts to see a game that had potential be stripped down to MMO commonality. Sorry for the rant, but it seemed to fit in with this guy's idea on how MMOs are all becoming the same.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Obviously, to SOME extent grinding is necessary (not counting PvP which Guild Wars has down damned near perfectly) but when you start talking about hundreds of hours just to REACH the end game (let alone take part in end game activities), you've got massive barrier against casual gamers.
The best way to describe the current version of Tabula Rasa without breaking the NDA is to describe it as more of a zelda like MMO. Very action oriented combat, very intuitive. The only mmo I know that attempted anything like this, failed very quickly(I can barely remember the name, but it had crafting and a lot of caves).
:).
The best answer I can give you that it's not Planetside, it's not Anarchy Online, and it's not City of Heroes
The only mmo I know that attempted anything like this, failed very quickly(I can barely remember the name, but it had crafting and a lot of caves).
*blinks* Uh...
*BRAINDAMAGES*
The article mentions one. That's it.
I would have thought that "many" qualifies as at least 3 or 4.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I think it's more LucasArts that stuck the fork in them, though certainly the wild imbalance issues and constant bug-fixing and "breadth-but-without-depth" that was at the core of most of their mechanics and worlds was all on their head. (Also JTL. MAN could JTL have been cool if there was more put into the missions and modes!)
Actually, I just deleted my copy of EasyUO off this very PC two nights ago while doing a clear out in preparation for moving it. That doesn't change the underlying problem that the system was staggering repetitive (and, as a corollary, I never felt the need to download WoW Glider or the like to avoid the grind in WoW for the most part)
You can avoid grinding in EVE Online completely. Your skills train 24/7 automatically, so you'll usually have around the same number of skills as a person that started within 2 months of you, give or take depending on the layout. You can also completely avoid money-grinding by moving in with a 0.0 alliance and relying on rewards and occasional operations for income. If you want to grind, though, it lets you do that too... in fact, a lot of people just choose to grind. Asteroid miners in particular come to mind.
For tradeskills, there are some, but they are few and far between. The best example I can think of is the quest A Short Incubation, a level 47 quest which requires 2xElixir of Fortitude, which can be crafted by someone with 175 skill in Alchemy (which in turn requires a character of at least level 20).
Before the disenchanting nerf, low level enchanters could disenchant any level item. This would have been quite handy for the expansion, as other professions, such as Tailoring and Engineering, start to require enchanting materials.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Pirates of the Burning Sea looks like it's the most innovative MMO coming out soon, unless Garriot puts his money where his mouth is and Tabula Rasa turns out amazing. PotBS mostly does away with the grind, has a completely player operated economy and a player-driven world, and it certainly gets away from the tired fantasy setting and all that stuff. Finally, the gameplay's totally different from almost every other MMO. Stuff like EVE and a Tale in the Desert or whatever also break the rules; he's really complaining more about the trend, rather than about everything.
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
The major evolution I'm holding out for in MMOs is the shift from building experiences for users as opposed to systems for the users. Right now all the games are building zones and areas as tailored experiences that are gamed and completed. UO was actually a game that made systems first, and the experiences were up to the players. Sure, there were dungeons and all, but the majority of the game play was created by the users.
Static content creates static experiences. It's also really expensive. Think of all the art, code and design resources that went into the Onyxia raid, and then think of the bang for the buck. Players go on it over and over again, rolling the dice for drops but getting the same experience every time. It further gets stagnated by the fact that anyone can go to a number of sites and read complete walk throughs of the entire encounter.
A shift to creating systems would generate dynamic experiences. For example, what if the environment was a system that generated dragons. The dragon then became a target for the players, because they hear about it when the random player spotted it flying through a zone. The players then can set the tone of how to approach it and the experience as a whole is different every time.
As a designer, this is a challenge I'm taking on now. It's really not that hard, as we have lots of really good examples of how to do it (traditional RPGs are the best place).
The bigger challenge is convincing the publishers to fund it.
At least, that's my challenge. hehe.
Play more games.
UO Gamers: Hybrid(a freeshard) has between 800-1200 on at all times and avoids the problems EA has caused.
Your synopsis is totally off the mark. It applies more to old-school console games, not online games. PvE-oriented MMORPGs make the bulk of their profit from subscriptions, not box sales. (Guild Wars is an obvious exception that is more in line with FPS and RTS models, which depend upon a combination of box sales, user mods, and great PvP to prolong the game's lifespan.) With PvE-oriented MMORPGs, hardcore players are irrelevant: they represent a miniscule portion of the overall population yet consume an inordinate amount of company resources (bandwidth etc.) by playing frequently, and consume content faster than it can be produced, quickly becoming bored/irate and at risk of quitting. Casuals, on the other hand, pay the same monthly subscription while consuming content at a slower pace and making low to moderate use of resources. For a game that relies primarily on prefabricated, PvE-oriented content, the casual player is better for profits in the long run.
I was in line for my Wii. I am here in Austin, TX. There is this guy behind me, and in conversation, he says he knows Gariot, and had dinner with him. Among the conversation, the best line of all, was him saying 'He is having trouble with his new house as the draw bridge is having architectual problems over his moat'. Now, I drive down 360 everyday on the way to work, and I can see what I think is his new castle up on the hill, it might be his old. And it is HUGE! I have no idea where his funding is coming from, but I always respect the guy, because I have finished more of his RPGs than any others. Him and Carmack.
Everquest became WoW and WoW became LOTRO. They changed slightly and the clones each were of much better quality then the original but still, when you play LOTRO you are playing an upgrade of EQ, just a pretty one with a lot less bugs.
But what is the alternative? I don't even think that the problem is the game designers, it is the gamers.
First off, most MMO gamers display an IQ slightly below that of a concussed kitten. Present them with anything that is not a direct carbon copy of what they have experienced before and they will falter. Lotro shows this by being just the tiny bit different from WoW in its classes and their capabilities. You would not believe the number of new players that keep asking about the hunters pet. (In WoW hunters have pets, in Lotro it is loremasters)
What is the point of innovation if the majority of players just want the same old thing? It would be like trying to replace that standard bed time story for a small child. They do NOT want a new story,they want the one they heard a thousand times before that ain't gonna suprise them, (or if the you are feeling nasty require them to think).
Up to now Star Wars Galaxies was the MMO that tried to do things different.
First of was its questing system, it really didn't have one, instead you usually undertook missions to get rid of certain enemies. This meant that the Pick Up Group routine was totally different, nobody was on different stages of a quest series, nobody needed just one of X please please please while the group was just about to kill the boss. You just joined a group thatwas going after the critter of your choice and that was it.
Second there was far less class rigidity, outside the powerplayers there wasn't much call for a group needing class X. Granted in LOTRO you also don't really need class X if you are any good but well, most players aren't. But in SWG you could always be a bit of a medic yourselve for minor healing etc etc.
Then there was the loot system, or rather, the absense of one. No ninja's, no needers, no moaning, no bitching. The drops were vendor fodder and crafting resources WHICH EVERYONE got a share of depending on their scouting skills.
The economy was centered around user crafting, you could not buy any equipment from NPC's or loot it. It had to be made by other players. Also the game at least tried to make low level crafting items of some use to high levels. Low level batteries for high level robots for instance, no by no means perfect but compared to Lotro's crafted items below tier 4 are worse then any loot or quest reward, it was a lot better.
And what happened to SWG? Well it was bugged, and a resource hog but it also failed massivly against the totally non-innovating, do everything by the book World of Warcraft.
Sure, WoW had a lot of other things going for it but it is hard not to get the message "everquest light sells, innovation doesn't".
We voted with our dollars and SOE listened, they WoWed SWG and now we got nothing left but dull everquest clones.
So whose fault is that? We gamers bought nothing but FPS so that is all we currently get as games on the PC.
Turbine and Blizzard understand this. Sure they could introduce a player crafting economy and upset all the pure questers who suddenly need to start buying their stuff. Sure they could introduce a more flexible class system and upset all the players who can't handle themselves in a group without a tank-healer-dps core. Sure they could introduce more flexible questing that doesn't tell you go to location X and kill ten Y and they would upset all the players that already have enough difficulty with the tutorial.
Frankly, you could make an innovative MMO, I personally have already come up with a handfull of designs, and you will be sure to attract a small niche, forever destined to have no more then a small group of players while the EQ clones are raking in the big bucks. Cause whenever I come up with a new way of doin
I disagree with his comment that it's a stagnant industry. While there are quite a few games built on the EQ model, others are branching out in new directions.
;-)
Horizons, while still a grind, was an example of the latter, changing the focus of the game from "improve self" to "improve world".
For an example of an MMO that's definitely not built on the EQ design, check out Empire of Sports. Disclaimer: I work there. Lots of neat ideas in the game, focused on (duh) sports, physiology, metabolism, etc.
The industry is growing and changing, but perhaps not in the way that Lord British wants.
Cause you definately should be:
/var/www/eos/libs/syncresult.php on line 19".
.php my expectations are already set as low as possible.
"Fatal error: No request, maybe no session or no cookie in
That's shockingly bad. When I am suprised at the low quality of a PHP site then something is very wrong, since anytime I see
I think part of what he's talking about is just the plain old lack of forward progress. Here we are 11 years after the UO beta, like what... 14 years after Master of Orion... and we are still recreating practically every thing for every game. I'll give you an example because it's been on my mind.
Ever since I started posting in another place about what games have cooperative campaigns and skirmish modes, I've been thinking about why so few do and why the AI is so often bad in them. It's because it takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money to do correct AI in a game. Well, all this time and we haven't done a dern thing to improve that.
What's needed is some sort of open resource library somewhere of unit AI behavior that would define how units should act in a game. Let all the devs be able to use it. Most of these game companies don't have the money or time to hire a dedicated AI designer/programmer and with every game, they've got to research and define and code how every unit would act in every situation. Good luck with that. Units could be regiments or companies or individuals depending on the game, RTS, or FPS or MMO etc. Each unit would have to be identified by by "epoch" or "age" I guess, ie: like Ancient, Medieval, Napoleonic, Modern etc. Then by type of unit, Cavalry, Infantry, Line Infantry, Artillery, Horse Artillery, magician(s), priest, healer, Sloop of War, patrol boat, frigate, bomb ketch, ship of the line, etc. Then the activities, what to do if attacked by X and movement is Y and you get the picture. Can't just jump into it though, you have to have a group of AI savvy experts define the methodology and what categorizations would be generic enough to be useful. This is just meant to think about, I'm not an AI codemonkey - better brains than mine would have to do it.
That's the reason a lot of these games don't have intelligent AI even for single player, and that's the stumbling block for co-op multiplayer against the computer. It would take someone just working on this one aspect of it, for each developer for each game, a loooong time to define these things correctly. And every developer has to do it over and over.
Now that's just an example because I was thinking about that particular topic a couple days.
That is the "kind" of advance to which R. Garriot refers I believe. Doing the kind of things like this which would free up all the game companies to be more creative. Standardization and availability of those things that further the industry freeing the developers up to be more creative and honestly, let the smaller ones make more money so they can make more games.
I played EVE Online for about 9 months. Other than a brief stint with Guild Wars, it is the only MMO I've played and it is certainly the only one that ever interested me. EVE avoids all of the many fundamental problems with most MMOs. EVE is brilliantly conceived; the irony is -- it's not much more fun than any other MMO, though for different reasons. As another poster explained, the effort required to extract any measure of success in EVE is astronomical. The very, very, very few rule the many on every level. In this sense, it is a parallel to real life. I wonder if in attempt to create a better MMO, we discover that such a game is not any more "fun" than real life. I submit that a game like Oblivion offers a much better adventure.
"Grind is now considered to be a gameplay aspect that players "expect", and grind isn't fun."
I would submit its only expected by the old guard and those with no life - the new players don't like it - hence the fact that people are buying gold hand of fist in some of these games.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I think what I said was a bit too oddly phrased. What I meant to say was that Grind is now considered a gameplay aspect that players expect to the developers that design the mmorpg.Basicallky the designer thinks that the players want grind, or that grind is needed for an mmorpg. Grind was built into WoW. Grind was built into Vangaurd. Grind isn't fun.
I hope that clears up what I meant.
Smaller companies are doing quite a bit of MMO innovation, but without strong publisher support the word never gets out, or the game never finishes. However, people tend to forget that Publishers don't invest in MMO's at the drop of the hat. They do exhaustive research and spend a ridiculous amount of money doing consumer insight testing. You generally get two groups of opinion out of this: MMO gamers, who basically want a slightly better version of whatever it is that they are playing now.(Time's person of the year: YOU!) Receptive gamers and non-gamers, who, having never played an MMO, want the moon. None of the above situations is very conducive to innovation. ...and that's not even touching the surface of MMO's, like what the Koreans are doing.
On one hand I want to back British because he makes decent games. On the other hand it sounds like he's posturing, putting down other titles to make his work look better. I'd like to hear what title does that's so damn innovative (and someone needs to tell the gamer gods that "somewhat better A.I." isn't next-gen.
I know what you ment. There are old guard developers, some of those working on world of warcraft where hardcore everquest loosers before.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
oh, thanks for clearing that up.
Disclaimer: I am not a regular MMORPG gamer, and have not seriously played one since the Planetside days.
IMHO the big problem with MMOGs is grinding. That being said I don't think getting rid of levels or skill advancements is necessarily a good idea.
There needs to be a move towards regarding grinding as a specialization, as opposed to a generic level-up. I think Planetside had this down, and to this day I still regard it as the best MMOG I've ever played. It's too bad the expansion fuxed it and its lack of players killed it.
In PS, leveling up isn't a generic strength increase, you still get generally the same HP as everyone else, you're not suddenly infinitely hard to kill, nor do your shots suddenly become more accurate. In the end you level up for the skill points, which can be invested into character specializations. Like the big guns? Throw SPs into big hulking MAX suits... Like being a support player? Then throw some SPs into driving transports. In the end a successful squad or team relies on members of all specializations, making each one important, and allowing players to truly play their style.
Ultima Online was PURE genius. It was simple, not overdone, but at the same time it had a degree of freedom not found anywhere else. Before EA got it's flighty talons on it, the game was pure magic. I started playing in 1999, and the game just had a huge appeal to me right away. And the worst thing is that since it was my first graphical MMO, I expected it not to be a unique experience. Since then I have jumped from game to game, hoping to find another game like it. I have been disappointed at every turn. My only fear is that I will never again see such a game.
Whether Richard Garriott actually plays Tabula Rasa himself. :p
It seems like the real world economics of the MMORPGs require grind to pace the players and keep the $/player up. Without something to slow them down players would exhaust their interest in the content more quickly and stop their subscriptions.
I have greatly admired Richard since I started playing Ultima IV in the early 80's. The Ultima series was hands-down the best RPG ever IMO. If I could pry myself away from WoW, I'd go back and play every one of them again. I highly respect his vision of games and the ideals he tries to incorporate into them. I especially admire how he and his team put the players' experience before everything else.
That said I think he is too much an optimist about players, how they will react to a game and what happens if you give them control. I am hoping that he learned a great many lessons in UO. Based upon my own 10 years of MMO playing, something like the following:
While I'm looking forward to TR, I still doubt it will be either a revolution or a WoW-killer. I do believe that Richard is the most likely designer/producer to create a major innovation in a MMO, but I feel it is a few years' distant.
Not active treasure hunting that requires a dedication of skills (cartography, mining) as in UO, but numerous quests that equate to treasure hunting: finding pieces of maps, gathering and putting together clues or unraveling a mystery by performing certain steps. I would like to see something akin to the UO treasure hunting system introduced to WoW, but I do not feel it's absence detracts from WoW at all.
Thus you forced your style of game play on someone else, changing their game play to something undesirable and adding a dislike for the game to their memories. It was actions like this that caused the creation of Trammel and the numerous departures of players before and after the split. Vendors had nothing to do with crafting and more to do with a mechanic to offer goods/services when you were not online. I greatly prefer the AH system in WoW, but would like greater capabilities of offering services (smithing, tailoring, etc.)
WoW has all of those with the exception of housing (thus player cities) and boating. While I would like to see player/guild housing in WoW, I simply hope they put it on a separate server to prevent ruining the landscape and the monster/resource spawn as UO did.
PvP and Grinding? It baffles me that this is all some people get out of WoW. How shallow and narrow-minded does a person have to be to take one character, push through all the levels (whether questing or grinding), see some high level instances, get some uber gear and declare "I've seen it all." Annoying beyond belief.
There are eight completely different starting experiences up to level 20. I've enjoyed every one of them and still feel that I missed a good deal of content. I've focused on the four blacksmithing professions, enchanting, engineering and alchemy; I have yet to completely master any of those and I know there are several other professions to explore. I never had the opportunity to experience all of the original raiding instances and I've only visited a few of the new instances, so I know I have all of that content in front of me. I've played an average of 25 hours a week since the original beta, and I'm still thoroughly enjoying WoW. I played UO for 7.5 years and 3.5 years of that I considered "maintenance" (login, do routine, logout) which led me to sell my account shortly after WoW was released.
I don't see how you can call WoW "linear" when you are free to ignore any and all quests and go do whatever you wish with only level restrictions. Get to those levels however you wish, and the world is your playground. It was the same in UO. You'd be a fool if you thought you could take starting skills and some basic weapons and armor and go explore the world, go fight any higher "level" monster, go to any dungeon or jump into PvP. Maxed skills and magic armor/weapons made a huge difference. Getting skills maxed in UO - that is one definition of "grinding" in my book. Resource gathering in UO was mind-numbing; WoW makes it considerably more interesting and you're likely to be able to quest, find treasure or join a group along the way.
I define "grind" as performing an action repeatedly for only one purpose (skill gain or XP). I laugh at anyone that calls WoW a grind or thinks they must grind in WoW. There are so many quests in so many zones there is no reason to ever kill something w/o a quest behind it unless you want to. It all comes down to choices. You want the top gear? Work for it, team up and run the instance or perform the actions to get it. You want the recipes or enchants from reputation? Repeat the actions to get them. You want to be a complete socialite who does nothing but stand in a town, drunk and talking to anyone who will listen? Knock yourself out. You're free to do whatever you wish.
There are a few aspects of UO that I'd like to see implemented in any MMO (boating, housing), but for my money and time, WoW is vastly superior. I greatly respect Richard and his visions. I'm looking forward to trying any game that he produces. WoW has figured out the magic formula for appealing to as many play styles and people as possible. Whatever innovations improve upon that will be fascinating to see. I strongly believe Richard is the most likely game producer to create such innovations, but it may be several years before we see it.
Loser, thy name is Avatar8. Way to spend 40 hours a week for 10 years playing video games.