The problem with that suggestion is that the markets for those products have been so skewed by local/federal laws that they don't come quite close to resembling a 'free' market.
So the government (local and federal) has 2 choices: pull their grubby mitts out of the market and allow the situation to correct itself - or - try to legislate/litigate their way out of the current inconveniences.
Naturally they selected the more self-serving, short-term-visible, option during an election year.
Not to mention being able to rent games, return games with less hassle, not having to worry about drivers, directx, minimum system requirements, etc, etc.
PC gaming is and will remain an enthusiasts market. Console gaming is specifically designed to hit the consumer market. It will never be as high-end as PC gaming can be (resolutions, interface, polygons, mod-scenes, etc) - but it just doesn't need to be.
Most consumers play on consoles because its faster, cheaper, easier, and more convenient.
Most enthusiasts will never drop PC gaming because it will always be gaming on the bleeding edge.
The problem with that analogy is that the DC wasn't that much of an improvement over the PS1. It was still CD-driven, it didn't have that much more horsepower, and it didn't have must-have titles.
The PS2 on the other hand was promising dual functionality of dvd playback, must-have titles, and noticeably more horsepower than the DC.
If rumors of more horsepower within a year were enough by themselves to wipe out a 1 year head start, then the XBox would've hampered PS2 sales -- which it didn't at all. Even despite that the XBox has numerous, tangible, technical advantages on the PS2 (HD, ethernet, proscan, HDTV, dolby 5.1, etc). What it didn't have - was advantages that consumers were clamoring for out of the box. (DVD playback, must-have games)
If the neXtBox is just more polygons, more HDTV support, and even HD-DVD support - it likely will fail like the DC did.
If it comes with PVR functionality and stays at consumer prices - it might explode like the PS2 did. If they include PVR and a blue laser DVD RW drive - who knows how big they could get. PVR today is great technology looking for the consumer price point, just like DVD was in 2000.
(Un)fortunately for Microsoft, it appears they don't quite get it (or they're masterful at disinformation). They're talking about just releasing merely a bigger/better/faster console with the neXtBox, while Sony is already gathering market experience with a consumer PVR + console. (PSX)
With MS being wishy-washy on backwards compatibility, and waffling on the HD - they might not even be able to sell the neXtBox to current fans.
Yes, Blizzard put an undeniable stamp on the RTS genre. I'll go ahead and grant you 'warcraft' as revolutionary for the sake of argument. But with every game since: WC2, Dark Portal, SC, Brood War, and WC3 - they didn't do anything to alter the core mechanics of RTS games. Gather resources, rebuild the base each map, upgrade the troops, limit army size with 'farms', etc. All were in place each go-round. Adding heroes in War3 was a formalization of a story-mode gameplay element they'd had since WC2.
The Diablo comparison is actually pretty much my point. Diablo is to Ultima what WoW is to Everquest -- at least on the 'level of action' front. It's faster, with less downtime and more stuff going on. Combat is more interactive than picking a target and wait. Min/Maxing your party's class mix isn't necessary.
Some might say it's too fast, or doesn't address the core problems of class/level design. But the change in gameplay between WoW and EQ is similarly as striking as that between Ultima and Diablo.
The only problem with a general Diablo/Ultima, WoW/EQ comparison is that WoW adds depth in questing back into the MMORPG genre - where it's been sorely lacking.
I wasn't slamming Blizzard by any stretch, I was simply referring to their focus on refining and gradually improving, rather than going in a shockingly new direction with the entire design.
Witness Warcraft 3. The original game they displayed at E3 was revolutionary. Resource gathering was gone. The player could only see the map around his Heroes. Units had to be grouped with Heroes to go fight. Army size was thereby limited to number of Heroes.
Then look at what they ultimately decided to produce: Evolutionary change. They kept the tried and true mechanics that plenty of users don't seem to mind too much. They said screw the design critics - and delivered a polished game that they knew would work.
I'm not slamming that decision either. All I'm doing is illustrating my point. Blizzard has never been one to throw away the rules and start fresh in a genre. (or at least hasn't done so since the first warcraft)
Back on topic: World of Warcraft will play faster and more convenient - but its underlying design is still fundamentally the same as EQ - which is the same as Diku/Merc - which is the same as tabletop D&D. Anyone who tells you different hasn't played the game.
Blizzard has not revolutionized MMORPG design with WoW as it stands today. I doubt any change they make between now and release will do so either. What they have done, is damn well near perfected the model that nearly everyone's been using for the last few decades. (with regards to accessibility, usability, polish, and 'fun')
Blizzard has yet to ever revolutionize a genre. They built their name on taking the tried and true, simplifying it a bit, and heaping on the polish. They take a few evolutionary steps, and round off the corners.
Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo - none of these franchises really did anything 'new' or 'exciting'. What they did, they did well, and they did with a distinctive style.
The only thing WoW is poised to do - is bitchslap the notion that timesinks are necessary to make MMORPG advancement meaningful. That, and seriously challenge the lack of context that the other quest-light MMORPGs provide.
Their quests don't do anything mechanically that hasn't already been done. They are just more plentiful, more engaging, more well balanced, offer a choice in rewards, and more convenient to find and complete.
Their races don't have abilities that haven't been done before. They're not doing dragons or demons or anything way out there. But they've given each race flavor, history, culture, and style.
Playing an Orc warrior is not the same experience as playing a Dwarf warrior (unless you abstract gameplay to the the level of progress quest). You'll have different quests, the NPCs will have a distinct style and tone, and you will actually notice and experience the various facets of Orcish culture. (Tauren are probably the best example of this, with their wind-centric totemic culture).
Their classes don't do stuff that hasn't been done before. But they're more well balanced. All classes solo fairly well, and none are absolutely required for a group. You don't need a wizard to take out big mobs, you don't need a primary healer. Sure, they fit their role better than other classes, but nearly any group of 5 can get stuff done. And if you don't want a group? You can actually solo meaningful monsters to gain experience. It won't be the best, but it won't be pointless.
Their engine isn't pushing the limits of technology. Their models are low poly, and they have comparatively few options for customization (compared to lineage 2, ffxi, ac2, etc). But everything looks and moves fantastic. Everything fits together naturally and seamlessly. The colors and textures of a zone convey something that geologically plausible placement and piles of polygons don't.
WoW isn't going to change the way MMORPGs work. All it's doing is going to highlight all the broken mechanics everyone has glossed over.
It's not something you can provably demonstrate in text. The game does the current status quo, but does it right. If you didn't like EverQuest philosophically because you didn't like bashing monsters for fun and profit - then you won't like WoW. If you didn't like Everquest because you found yourself sitting around, punished by the broken rules more often than you were bashing monsters for fun and profit - then WoW will be right up your alley.
It's a game done very well, even at this state. But it's nothing revolutionary.
I don't mind the concept of popping out into dimensions XYZ, and wouldn't have minded if the game had even recurring 'jaunts' out and back in. I just didn't like the way you were tossed out there and/everything/ changed.
naturally there/should/ be resource management problems in an alien dimension - but the primary problem was the gameplay itself.
We went from solving plausible problems with logical puzzles - to jumping really high and riding a repeating pattern of flying manta rays without plummeting into the vastness of god-knows-where.
I didn't mind the mechanics of the alien dimension so much as those changes in gameplay. Healing goo was fine - but when most of that part revolved around trial-and-error gameplay of stumbling across the right stash of alien goo and dead-scientist gear, or jumping from the right pad the to the right rocky outcropping... i dunno - I've already played that game a few dozen times and was pretty happy with Half-life's play before that.
Going to the alien dimension was a good story move, and a plausible one. The way it forced a 180 degree change in playstyle was a bit unwelcome.
The gameplay won't live up to the overwhelming hype. It could be too short, too repetitive, not enough interactivity, too slow, maps too small -- who knows. 'Daredevil' looked like a sure thing on paper too, and was a terrible $40m investment.
The story could be trash. Most people I know hated when the first half-life devolved into 'Doom' at the end -- when the player hops the portal to dimension-XYZ or whatever it was. The game went from good scifi/action to rubber-monster-movie crap. All the interactivity of the environment was gone, all the atmosphere was gone, all the verisimilitude was gone - jump puzzles were in, ammo management was in, mystic healing goo was in. More of the same is not enticing.
The level design could be crap (which may be necessary to cater to horsepower restrictions that 'interactivity' likely creates). A limited diversity of gameplay could easily sink it, less 'scripted' sequences that made the first half-life classic could work against it. Convoluted maps and missions could easily sink it.
The 'interactivity' could be the exception (eg. happens rarely) and not the rule (eg. regularly appearing feature). If all the stuff they talk up at tradeshows happens 4 times in the game, it means nothing to the player. Particularly after all the hype, it'll create animosity amongst the would-be community (eg. short commercial run)
The game could run like absolute shit on all but the highest end rigs. Do 10 million people even have a PC with enough horsepower to run hl2?
The network play could be lame. Solid network play is necessary to build a community, to drive mod makers, to keep the game hot for years after release. If not for counter-strike, Valve would've sold a few million copies of Half-life and been happy. Counterstrike made it a best-seller for 4 years.
The API could be so complex that mod makers don't have the appropraite tools to actually make anything good before the community evaporates. Without a mod community the game will have a short run, and considerably less beneficial word-of-mouth. Without a long commercial run, it won't stay on the shelves until the mass of gamers finally get rigs that can run it.
The engine restrictions could limit the number of enemies on-screen, or the complexity of AI scripts. People generally don't want 1 enemy at a time in action games (doom3 might be an exception due it's 'horror' premise, or it could fail as well). Likewise players have lower toleranace for 'dumb' enemies, particularly after Valve's success with HL1's grunts and assassins.
They can screw it up. The hype could be smoke and mirrors. I doubt it - but it's far from a guarantee.
$40m dollars is assinine though. But if they can get a share of the licensed engine market - who knows. They probably also subsidized Steam and its infrastructure entirely under the HL2 budget.
Assuming that horsepower simply makes prettier 'graphics' is the shortcoming of this logic.
More horsepower is required to expand gaming. Adding horsepower for the next few upgrade generations will allow developers to increase the gamespace.
Consider interactivity: making the environment something you can break, manipulate, or build. How many items in the average 3d game scene are interactive? maybe 1%? walls aren't, windows aren't, 90% of doors aren't. You're lucky if one of the chairs is.
Right now machines aren't capable of tracking many interactive objects and maintaining the graphics that everyone seems to think are 'good enough'. Half-life2 is going to try, but thumb through the specs they've passed out to would-be licensees and mod makers: there are hard (and relatively low) limits on numbers of interactive objects. Slower systems severely limit the number of interactive objects one can use before the engine bogs down.
This is not to slam Valve, they are at the cutting edge of interactive environments, but rather to show how the cutting edge is still pretty limited.
Then there's AI. Right now AI are most often straight scripts with/maybe/ an attempt at some fuzzy logic. With more horsepower you can maintain the visual status quo but move forward with opponents that can 'think' without having to 'know' the entire gamestate just to path toward the player.
The fact that (nearly) everyone is still using a hacked A* algorithm to get a computer opponent where he needs to be is telling enough by itself. Algorithms more complicated than A* need more processor time. Heck, more processor time for pathing can yield improvements even without changing the algorithms. If you ever played Baldur's Gate, you'll remember that people complaining about pathing could edit their config files to 'up' the number of nodes used to calculate paths. The faster your machine, the more nodes you could add, the better the path-finding.
Even today this problem persists. Much moreso since the problem is now 3 dimensional, rather than 2 dimensional. This problem is at its worst in games with large numbers of units and dynamic maps (RTS games with their placeable buildings). To go back to a Bioware example - their Neverwinter engine doesn't even have a true Z-axis as far as its pathing is concerned. Their engine cannot model a footbridge that a model can walk across and under. They made a good number of concessions to make their game as interactive as possible, and run well.
Then there's lighting. With as many textures as we have precalculated (lightmaps, bumpmaps, reflection maps) things like truly dynamic lighting are still out of reach. Games like Doom3 and Splinter Cell attempt to mask this by making their scenes predominantly dark and showing off how great dynamic lighting looks with a handful of light sources.
Yet they both limit the number of light sources and also the number of models you'll see on-screen at one time, so the horsepower needed to calculate those few dynamic lights isn't bogging down the machine when the action happens.
Then there's my favorite issue: overdraw. When's the last time you played a 3d game that modeled, say, an office building that ended up looking like any office building you've ever been inside? I'm betting never. If you had, it'd have been in a 'portal' style-engine, in which case that game will never render the open spaces of the office park/outside/ the building.
Level designers work within the constraints of the engines. Modern bsp-derived engines overdraw polygons so much that you never see an actual downtown street with buildings you can enter without a load time.
Why isn't there a broad thoroughfare in an Everquest town? Why are the hallways in a counterstrike map so twisty? Why haven't you seen a large office building where you could enter each room?
It isn't for gameplay - though designers do a great
The real test will be whether simply queuing up a dozen actions is an effective way to fight. If you are rewarded for altering your queue in response to your enemy's tactics, then it wouldn't necessarily be 'click and watch'.
(things like adjusting positioning or switching on/off defensive modes, using a 'counter' style to your opponents style, etc).
Queuing is a nice way to mitigate lag or declare intent (so your character isn't sitting there like an idiot during a lag spike), but shouldn't be the best tactic to use for an entire fight.
If you simply don't use the pause functionality in SW:Kotor, it's a decent example of having an action queue, yet being required to adjust it regularly for best results. (I'd personally want for more counters, reactive styles than KOTOR - but it's a decent example.)
If the effectiveness of a character's chooseable combat options are independent of enemy tactics, then surely the gameplay would still amount to 'click and watch', albeit front-loaded with more clicking.
But it ultimately depends on whether you're rewarded more for spamming your 'best' combos, or reacting with the 'appropriate' moves given the situation.
The designers still have an opportunity to avoid 'click and watch'. Whether they will or not is anyone's guess.
Or, just have the phone use a general wireless device for storage. That way you could keep all your data (mp3s, digipics, pda, etc) in one place, and devices could leverage functionality.
I'd really like to be able to use 1 data source for my phone/pda/camera/mp3 player. Convergence devices are cute, but impractical. Removing storage from each of those items listed would let them shrink to about the size of a sharpie (real digi camera excluded, but getting there), and would let me/add/ functionality (new devices) without worrying about swapping data around, or incompatible memory card formats and such.
At the gym I like to have mp3s without the phone, and I'd like to not violate the 'ban' on digital cameras.
Pictures I take with my real camera, I'd like to be able to email.
Songs I get from iTunes i'd like to be able to email, or directly, wirelessly, share.
contacts in my pda i'd like to have access to on my phone - but I really don't need/want the power drain of a palmOS or winCE just to make a phone call.
so what are the restrictions on importing japanese phones?
I understand they have a different network, but is there any level of compatibility?
at 25000 yen (~$240) that v601sh is a hell of a deal even/with/ shipping. Heck, most of the japanese vodaphones are vastly superior to our tech/and/ cheaper.
The Brooklyn Bridge Florida Swampland Arizona Beachfront property The Washington Monument The Alamo
It makes that share price look pretty reasonable combined with that great console render they're going to maybe possibly pretend to manufacture and distribute.
Exactly. 'competition' is no reason to establish additional TLDs. As soon as the small 3rd party registrars cropped up domain prices fell by a two-thirds. That seems to have been the only competition we needed.
With the price of a domain hovering around the price of a large pizza - I think it's by far cheap enough for us to prioritize clarity and usability over some vague notion of further 'competition'.
EQ's tone, so to speak, is entirely different from just a couple years ago
That may well be. Like you, I am on the outside looking in, with the added distance that comes with never having had a character over level 25.
AlThough my weekly-movie crowd contains several EQ players, and their discussions about current guild 'politics' indicate that many of the 'dynamics' which I consider core problems, still exist. But we're well off-topic here:)
every game is fundamentally the same experience with some new, minor gimmick to set it apart
I think largely the same will be true when casual-friendly design hits. The big problem now is that the core experience now is only seen as 'fun' by about a couple million gamers.
I've actually had some ideas for dealing with this, but I'm hesitant to speak about them. As, like most of the ideas I've had, there's really nothing like it in existing MMOGs...
Please, share. Most of my ideas are thoroughly off the wall already. Actual 'new' ideas are what I thrive on, and the only ideas worth talking about:) do share.
give 'em what they're there for: better social interaction.
Is better social interaction a reward then? Or by facilitating better social interaction do they get over the fact that new competition can spring up overnight?
That's why the game needs to be designed from the ground up to recognize characters' accomplishments.
I agree wholeheartedly here as well. Recognition of actual accomplishment (not XP gain from doing the same thing over and over) is a core requirement for rewarding players in a game with a level playing field.
The question then becomes, how can we recognize through mechanics, the types of accomplishments that depend largely on subjective assessment? In-game communications media rely largely on being verifiable (given the amorphous nature of the community). It will work more fluidly if we have a way to allow players to verify claims of 'who's a good leader'. How do we let players determine in-game if J_Random_Pilot is a better leader for the current mission than K_Random_Pilot?
Do we create an official 'leader' label that is applied through raid participant voting? Do we create systems so that there exist certain 'official' objectives for raiding, and the elected 'leader' carries a persistent success rate at achieving assigned objectives?
I am saying that dynamic and player-driven environments are technologically possible (or will be within the next few years, anyways)
I think player-driven content and dynamic environments are a technical possibility now. The bulk of static-content decisions are all rooted in the same 'tried and true' business decisions.
Level-based design pretty much requires such massive quantities of content that content must be static, and predominantly Player vs Environment.
Not only would the architectures have to be totally different between the various platforms, but the gameplay crafted to the input as well.
Therefore, you're essentially creating an entirely unique game for each type of platform: handheld, phone, console, and PC - and just sharing parts of the saved games in between.
Which of course assumes there is some sort of common, user-friendly, data link between these platforms -- which of course does not currently exist.
The only place where this is remotely feasible is with online persistent worlds - because most devices (PCs, consoles, PDAs, phones) have an existing mechanism for internet communications.
In those cases, sure, it could be neat. But its more a plan for leveraging an already-profitable license to new platforms than a concept applicable to the average next-gen title.
And until a user-friendly common data interconnect is widely available for these platforms, publishers will be much better off crafting unique, disconnected games for each platform.
there's a pretty static population that's sort of just shuffled around.
For the most part I'd agree - though I contend that when hardcore gamers find the game design that truly speaks to them, they stay. The guys who are playing EQ right now don't honestly consider playing other games, and are even iffy on EQ2. They've been playing EQ for 5 years and never left.
Similarly with the other games -- when persistent world players put down roots in these games, they don't leave lightly. Many of them have yet to put down roots - but that, I feel, may be more an effect of personal preference not being beared out in the currently available designs.
To be honest, slight balance problems are the root cause of my leaving every persistent world I've played. If any one of them made a handful of changes, I might be just playing their game right now instead of having these discussions.
is that something that can really be quantified ahead of time?
not directly, no. What can be quantified is the resubscribe rate given modest attempts at 'upping the bar'. If you promise a new expansion and a few new levels every so often, how many fewer players will leave?
The strong attachment to the characters makes these hardcore players much more likely to 'tough it out' for fixes/patches/expansions. Publishers will be able to look at their data and see retention rate when there are no plans for 'something new', and when they plan a release an expansion that will allow players to 'advance' further.
a perpetual shift in gameplay would be a really good thing
Again, I agree wholeheartedly.
However, the key is how the current powergamers would react. These guys will dedicate hours to these games like a part-time job. They are the core of a game community, and largely determine its tone. Shifting the design in such a way that they are effectively never rewarded for having been there since day 1 might put them off.
I'm not saying they should be rewarded with gameplay dominance -- anything but. The reward though, has to be considered. There has to be benefit to sticking around, and currently - I don't know what that is.
But without a solid, dependable, core of online personas a casual-friendly game will be a community of strangers. Without community - persistence itself has little-to-no advantage over large-scale, free, one-off servers.
In every persistent world I've played, from small MUDs to commercial graphical MMOs, to small persistent NWN servers -- the hardcore players do form the community. In the MUDs (and nwnMUD, briefly) I've run, I see the same effect.
They might not be an inherently social core - but, well... they're always there. They know enough to be able to help others. They have enough to always be in a position to trade for goods.
Servers with predominantly casual players results in no-one recognizing anyone, no-one taking ownership, no-one setting consistent tone -- most people feeling alone in the crowd.
That's probably the most 'controversial' idea I have regarding casual-friendly design. At least, as applies to the casual-friendly design types. I do think powergamers are an absolute necessity for a persistent world, which seems to be Anathema to others who favor 'leveling the playing field'.
the box sales of MMOGs relative to their subscription numbers
This is the main support I keep coming back to. EQ is a multi-million selling box, but never got much past 400k subscribers. But perhaps the people who left were merely powergamers of a different flavor? Perhaps those who tried EQ and quit went on to be non-casual gamers in AC, DAoC, or SW:G.
Box sales vs subscriptions is strong evidence, but it's not quite conclusive. At this point, I think only the non-subscription rate for players who tried playing a persistent game casually and quit would be conclusive evidence. Of course, only a few big publishers would have that data (SOE, MS, EA), and they're not likely to share:)
However, SOE's focus on that potential market (with the friendlier-than-EQ Planetside and SW:G), and EA's focus (with the friendlier UO:X) are pretty good indicators for those of us without direct data.
MMOGs cannibalize each others' players
In my experience, (thankfully for the genre) this has not yet happened. Players come, players go - but no persistent game to date has stolen large numbers of players from its predecessors. DAoC has grown not by taking active players from EQ/UO/AC, but by catching the attention of players who had already left those games.
Are levels really meaningful? I would argue that they're not. They're shallow, contrived, and serve no real purpose.
Devil's Advocates have the advantage of asking the occassional loaded question:)
truly I agree with you: (time investment) + (repetition) != (meaning) || (achievement)
Still, there is no denying the attachment that hardcore players place on their irrationally-uber-characters. They will pay monthly fees for games they hardly play anymore due solely to the attachment to those bits. That's a dependable revenue source that I'm certain publishers consider when thumbing through design docs.
Lateral advancement is a noble goal - but how do we strike a balance between new and old players? What happens when a community of the 'old guard' suddenly encounters 'fresh meat', who very quickly, change the entire way the game is played due their new tactics and skill. EQ is largely future-proof in this regard, as player skill plays such a minor role.
A true multiple-axis advancement system would constantly be under fire though. Does the ability for a new Hero to spring up overnight lessen the feeling of achievement?
I tend to think not, but we don't exactly have a live example to study.... the bar has been set so low for MMOGs that there's nothing compelling people who aren't already involved in MMOGs to try them.
This is certainly an accurate, albeit sad, assessment of the genre. New MMO players are joining the genre to be sure, but fans from other genres aren't. Perhaps it's because of how hard level-based design makes it to indoctrinate a new friend (picking the right server, levelling, etc). Or more simply: watching someone play EQ is less fun than watching paint dry.
It's about choice.
Adding choice, is turning away from the tried-and-true.
It's not that you're undercutting the fun people find in EQ - it's that a company has to be convinced to invest millions in a game targetted at an audience that arguably may not even want to play an MMO, instead of churning out an incremental improvement in the proven style.
As for action MMOs... there may yet be technical hurdles keeping publishers away. World War 2 Online has a distinctly non-massive 64 unit visibility limit, and Planetside does client-side hitscan (not surprising there are/were hacks).
the first person to make a more skill-based MMOG (be it FPS-style, or more sim-ish) that appeals to casual gamers (i.e. no systems like "levels" that only fragment the player base, or absurd time requirements to advance) will be a very, very wealthy individual.
Playing devils advocate:
This of course assumes that casual gamers of a persistent world exist.
How do we know there is demand for persistent games that can be played a few hours a week?
Where are these gamers who don't play any persistent world now, but would like to?
What do they play now, and how would a persistent game appeal to them?
If we remove meaningful character advancement, do we obviate the primary benefit of persistence (growth)?
Skill-based MUDs have come and gone, so perhaps there's a reason level-based, timesink ridden MUDs are as dominant as their commerical, graphical, offspring?
Are casual gamers just hardcore gamers who haven't found that one design that they're willing to pay $15/mo for?
What benefit does a persistent design bring to skill-based games that currently have free multiplayer gaming modes?
But is the quest to cater to the casual audience going to far? If we switch too many systems away from the tried-and-true, do we alienate everyone searching for an audience that may well not exist?
Rubins personal desire for recognition may well be invalid. I don't know that I've ever even played one of his games (not a PS fan).
But why shouldn't developers be featured more prominently? What is inherently more glamorous about making a movie than making a game? That you're in Hollywood? That you direct a camera to take pictures of actors, rather than directing level designers to populate scenes around 3d meshes?
What is inherently more glamorous about writing a movie script as opposed to a gameplay script?
Rubins may well be whining. He may well be requesting undeserved recognition. As I've said, I haven't played his games, so I don't know. But there are deserving designers and developers who don't get recognition.
No-one wants the press to cover developers like they cover 'celebrities' -- but opening credits, listing credits on the corporate website, thats all I'm looking for.
Some developers are just doing a job, the same way some set designers and grips and even cameramen are just doing a job that almost anyone else in their field could do equally well. I'm not saying they should get attention.
But the creative talent is different. They are the ones who consistantly create (or fail to create) focus, gameplay, story and/or character for these games. The 'mark' they leave on their product is unmistakeable.
Even if Rubins is a whiny bitch, even if he is utterly undeserving of even as much recognition as he's found thus far -- that doesn't make him wrong in general.
Naming developer houses is a good start, particularly since so many of them tend to stick together even if they switch publishers. (such as Bill Roper, et al. leaving Blizzard en masse) But it's still beneficial to know the names, particularly the way publishers have been snapping up smaller dev houses to try to prevent them from being able to shop around for publishing contracts.
as for clarifications: Raph Koster is from UO, SWG, and legendMud (not EQ: that would be McQuaid and Smedley chiefly)
Monte Cooke notably for D&D 3e, various 3rd party d20 materials, older-school modules and supplements, etc.
Preston Watamaniuk is from various bioware titles. (NWN, KOToR, etc) In the interim I can't believe I forgot the other (perhaps more prominent) biowarians (no particular order): Trent Oster, Don Moar, Scott Greig, Mark Brockington, Rob Bartel... crap I can't remember em all... Preston just sticks out in my memory because that name is comically obtuse.
Oh, and I know I should've mentioned Molyneux. Not for Populous or Black & White personally, but for Syndicate, Syndicate Wars, Dungeon Keeper, and Theme Hospital.
As I said, I could squeeze a few more out of my head, particularly if I listed those who I recognize and respect for consistent quality output, but whose games I don't personally enjoy as thoroughly (such as Smedley and McQuaid - EQ, Carmack -duh, Sweeney -unreal, etc.)
But I could go on for hours with actors, writers, and directors of film - without coming up for air, let alone grasping at dusty memory.
Perhaps even more notably, I could go on for much longer with a list of film talent who I can't stand and will avoid at all costs because their work is almost certain to not appeal to me.
I only wish I had that kind of heuristic database to screen games in the same way.
Or... the NGage was just a bad product. It got flamed because it deserved to get flamed. It failed, because it deserved to fail.
As a gaming system: . you have to remove the battery to change the game. wtf?
. it cost more than 2x what a GBA SP did, even if you include the price of a seperate 3G phone.
. it had very little developer support. (likely due lame SDK, bad design, pricing)
As a phone:
. it looked absurd. (taco-phone is a deserved critique) . it's friggin huge. . the button layout and centrally located screen made it awkward to hold and manipulate effectively one handed (common use for a phone). . battery life is unacceptably short, unless you never, or rarely, use it for gaming - which obviates its dual functionality and makes the added cost unjustifiable.
The press around the DS revolves around legitimate concerns.
. lack of perceived purpose for a second screen . effect of 2 backlit screens on battery life . resultant unit pricing from added screen, necessitated battery . lack of certainty on backwards compat.
Any handheld that Nintendo announces, but won't confirm backwards compatibility for, is going to be met with heavy skepticism imo. If the DS truly isn't meant to be a successor to the GBA SP -- then what market could they possibly be aiming at? Why have 2 incompatible handheld products? Particularly when facing Sony's PSP, which will be its first legitimate challenge in the mobile arena in years.
The sketchy details, the possibility of no backwards compat and the lack of consumer demand for its key feature (the second screen) are valid concerns.
The notable failure of the pseudo-portable Virtual Boy is still rightly fresh in the minds of consumers and investors when they see a 'potentially revolutionary' functionality that no-one has really been asking for. Nintendo's strength and first party developers/licenses cannot make a success out of a bad product.
Do you think that American games designers don't deserve even the level of attention that their Japanese counterparts get?
Do you think the talent in the game industry is less worthy of celebration than the talent in the film industry?
A very big implication of Rubin's point is the way the indy film scene is much more active than indy gaming. With films, the/talent/ can put their name on an unknown/underfunded script and get it produced and put in theatres. At this point no game designer could do the same except those former independents who managed to wrangle lucrative publishing contracts while maintaining autonomy. (eg.. iD)
Designers and developers just aren't known to the public (and thereby investors). And the existing publishers certainly don't want to support any sort of trend that might pit their other products against 'their own' designers.
With publisher dominance of gaming, professional designers can't even lend a hand in an indy game design without threatening their employment.
Tolerating publisher dominance results the glut of uninspired rehash and licensing that we're currently seeing. Except, our gaming standbys are already more pronounced than Hollywood's. I'd much rather have a system where the talent is recognized, so they can gain clout and leverage, so they can help the indy scene (and thereby the genre) expand.
Which will outline the problems of add-on hardware for consoles all over again.
Most games don't leverage hardware add-ons because most people don't buy them. Offering content downloads to a small section of your community isn't going to be seen as a reasonable way to spend your development time and money. Since few people will have the HD, few people will have the new content, so few games will ever use it.
Games with fanatic followings like Phantasy Star Online and Final Fantasy XI can require adoption through a bundle - but what other developer is going to bank such a feature and development resources to support it, on their fanbase being made up of people who already bought FFXI?
It's the same problem XboxLive will run into when they start charging for content. Eg. Few people will pay for new maps, so no-one will be playing the new maps, which will be a disincentive for anyone else to buy the new maps.
Purchasable content and downloadable content will become adopted widely when everyone gets the content, but only the purchasers can use it.
Eg. a purchased avatar for The Sims that only paying customers can use, but anyone can see. Or a purchaseable mech for MechAssault that everyone can see and has to fight against, but only paying customers can select.
Naturally there'd be some design/balance issues to be considered, to ensure the game doesn't drive away users due unfair advantages from purchased content.
Though, the economic 'arms race' for new purchased content is essentially the driving force behind all Collectible Card Games.... so who knows?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that suggestion is that the markets for those products have been so skewed by local/federal laws that they don't come quite close to resembling a 'free' market.
So the government (local and federal) has 2 choices: pull their grubby mitts out of the market and allow the situation to correct itself - or - try to legislate/litigate their way out of the current inconveniences.
Naturally they selected the more self-serving, short-term-visible, option during an election year.
Not to mention being able to rent games, return games with less hassle, not having to worry about drivers, directx, minimum system requirements, etc, etc.
PC gaming is and will remain an enthusiasts market. Console gaming is specifically designed to hit the consumer market. It will never be as high-end as PC gaming can be (resolutions, interface, polygons, mod-scenes, etc) - but it just doesn't need to be.
Most consumers play on consoles because its faster, cheaper, easier, and more convenient.
Most enthusiasts will never drop PC gaming because it will always be gaming on the bleeding edge.
The problem with that analogy is that the DC wasn't that much of an improvement over the PS1. It was still CD-driven, it didn't have that much more horsepower, and it didn't have must-have titles.
The PS2 on the other hand was promising dual functionality of dvd playback, must-have titles, and noticeably more horsepower than the DC.
If rumors of more horsepower within a year were enough by themselves to wipe out a 1 year head start, then the XBox would've hampered PS2 sales -- which it didn't at all. Even despite that the XBox has numerous, tangible, technical advantages on the PS2 (HD, ethernet, proscan, HDTV, dolby 5.1, etc). What it didn't have - was advantages that consumers were clamoring for out of the box. (DVD playback, must-have games)
If the neXtBox is just more polygons, more HDTV support, and even HD-DVD support - it likely will fail like the DC did.
If it comes with PVR functionality and stays at consumer prices - it might explode like the PS2 did. If they include PVR and a blue laser DVD RW drive - who knows how big they could get. PVR today is great technology looking for the consumer price point, just like DVD was in 2000.
(Un)fortunately for Microsoft, it appears they don't quite get it (or they're masterful at disinformation). They're talking about just releasing merely a bigger/better/faster console with the neXtBox, while Sony is already gathering market experience with a consumer PVR + console. (PSX)
With MS being wishy-washy on backwards compatibility, and waffling on the HD - they might not even be able to sell the neXtBox to current fans.
Yes, Blizzard put an undeniable stamp on the RTS genre. I'll go ahead and grant you 'warcraft' as revolutionary for the sake of argument. But with every game since: WC2, Dark Portal, SC, Brood War, and WC3 - they didn't do anything to alter the core mechanics of RTS games. Gather resources, rebuild the base each map, upgrade the troops, limit army size with 'farms', etc. All were in place each go-round. Adding heroes in War3 was a formalization of a story-mode gameplay element they'd had since WC2.
The Diablo comparison is actually pretty much my point. Diablo is to Ultima what WoW is to Everquest -- at least on the 'level of action' front. It's faster, with less downtime and more stuff going on. Combat is more interactive than picking a target and wait. Min/Maxing your party's class mix isn't necessary.
Some might say it's too fast, or doesn't address the core problems of class/level design. But the change in gameplay between WoW and EQ is similarly as striking as that between Ultima and Diablo.
The only problem with a general Diablo/Ultima, WoW/EQ comparison is that WoW adds depth in questing back into the MMORPG genre - where it's been sorely lacking.
I wasn't slamming Blizzard by any stretch, I was simply referring to their focus on refining and gradually improving, rather than going in a shockingly new direction with the entire design.
Witness Warcraft 3. The original game they displayed at E3 was revolutionary. Resource gathering was gone. The player could only see the map around his Heroes. Units had to be grouped with Heroes to go fight. Army size was thereby limited to number of Heroes.
Then look at what they ultimately decided to produce: Evolutionary change. They kept the tried and true mechanics that plenty of users don't seem to mind too much. They said screw the design critics - and delivered a polished game that they knew would work.
I'm not slamming that decision either. All I'm doing is illustrating my point. Blizzard has never been one to throw away the rules and start fresh in a genre. (or at least hasn't done so since the first warcraft)
Back on topic:
World of Warcraft will play faster and more convenient - but its underlying design is still fundamentally the same as EQ - which is the same as Diku/Merc - which is the same as tabletop D&D. Anyone who tells you different hasn't played the game.
Blizzard has not revolutionized MMORPG design with WoW as it stands today. I doubt any change they make between now and release will do so either. What they have done, is damn well near perfected the model that nearly everyone's been using for the last few decades. (with regards to accessibility, usability, polish, and 'fun')
Blizzard has yet to ever revolutionize a genre. They built their name on taking the tried and true, simplifying it a bit, and heaping on the polish. They take a few evolutionary steps, and round off the corners.
Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo - none of these franchises really did anything 'new' or 'exciting'. What they did, they did well, and they did with a distinctive style.
The only thing WoW is poised to do - is bitchslap the notion that timesinks are necessary to make MMORPG advancement meaningful. That, and seriously challenge the lack of context that the other quest-light MMORPGs provide.
Their quests don't do anything mechanically that hasn't already been done. They are just more plentiful, more engaging, more well balanced, offer a choice in rewards, and more convenient to find and complete.
Their races don't have abilities that haven't been done before. They're not doing dragons or demons or anything way out there. But they've given each race flavor, history, culture, and style.
Playing an Orc warrior is not the same experience as playing a Dwarf warrior (unless you abstract gameplay to the the level of progress quest). You'll have different quests, the NPCs will have a distinct style and tone, and you will actually notice and experience the various facets of Orcish culture. (Tauren are probably the best example of this, with their wind-centric totemic culture).
Their classes don't do stuff that hasn't been done before. But they're more well balanced. All classes solo fairly well, and none are absolutely required for a group. You don't need a wizard to take out big mobs, you don't need a primary healer. Sure, they fit their role better than other classes, but nearly any group of 5 can get stuff done. And if you don't want a group? You can actually solo meaningful monsters to gain experience. It won't be the best, but it won't be pointless.
Their engine isn't pushing the limits of technology. Their models are low poly, and they have comparatively few options for customization (compared to lineage 2, ffxi, ac2, etc). But everything looks and moves fantastic. Everything fits together naturally and seamlessly. The colors and textures of a zone convey something that geologically plausible placement and piles of polygons don't.
WoW isn't going to change the way MMORPGs work. All it's doing is going to highlight all the broken mechanics everyone has glossed over.
It's not something you can provably demonstrate in text. The game does the current status quo, but does it right. If you didn't like EverQuest philosophically because you didn't like bashing monsters for fun and profit - then you won't like WoW. If you didn't like Everquest because you found yourself sitting around, punished by the broken rules more often than you were bashing monsters for fun and profit - then WoW will be right up your alley.
It's a game done very well, even at this state. But it's nothing revolutionary.
I don't mind the concept of popping out into dimensions XYZ, and wouldn't have minded if the game had even recurring 'jaunts' out and back in. I just didn't like the way you were tossed out there and /everything/ changed.
/should/ be resource management problems in an alien dimension - but the primary problem was the gameplay itself.
naturally there
We went from solving plausible problems with logical puzzles - to jumping really high and riding a repeating pattern of flying manta rays without plummeting into the vastness of god-knows-where.
I didn't mind the mechanics of the alien dimension so much as those changes in gameplay. Healing goo was fine - but when most of that part revolved around trial-and-error gameplay of stumbling across the right stash of alien goo and dead-scientist gear, or jumping from the right pad the to the right rocky outcropping... i dunno - I've already played that game a few dozen times and was pretty happy with Half-life's play before that.
Going to the alien dimension was a good story move, and a plausible one. The way it forced a 180 degree change in playstyle was a bit unwelcome.
The 'How' and 'Where' Valve could fail:
The gameplay won't live up to the overwhelming hype. It could be too short, too repetitive, not enough interactivity, too slow, maps too small -- who knows. 'Daredevil' looked like a sure thing on paper too, and was a terrible $40m investment.
The story could be trash. Most people I know hated when the first half-life devolved into 'Doom' at the end -- when the player hops the portal to dimension-XYZ or whatever it was. The game went from good scifi/action to rubber-monster-movie crap. All the interactivity of the environment was gone, all the atmosphere was gone, all the verisimilitude was gone - jump puzzles were in, ammo management was in, mystic healing goo was in. More of the same is not enticing.
The level design could be crap (which may be necessary to cater to horsepower restrictions that 'interactivity' likely creates). A limited diversity of gameplay could easily sink it, less 'scripted' sequences that made the first half-life classic could work against it. Convoluted maps and missions could easily sink it.
The 'interactivity' could be the exception (eg. happens rarely) and not the rule (eg. regularly appearing feature). If all the stuff they talk up at tradeshows happens 4 times in the game, it means nothing to the player. Particularly after all the hype, it'll create animosity amongst the would-be community (eg. short commercial run)
The game could run like absolute shit on all but the highest end rigs. Do 10 million people even have a PC with enough horsepower to run hl2?
The network play could be lame. Solid network play is necessary to build a community, to drive mod makers, to keep the game hot for years after release. If not for counter-strike, Valve would've sold a few million copies of Half-life and been happy. Counterstrike made it a best-seller for 4 years.
The API could be so complex that mod makers don't have the appropraite tools to actually make anything good before the community evaporates. Without a mod community the game will have a short run, and considerably less beneficial word-of-mouth. Without a long commercial run, it won't stay on the shelves until the mass of gamers finally get rigs that can run it.
The engine restrictions could limit the number of enemies on-screen, or the complexity of AI scripts. People generally don't want 1 enemy at a time in action games (doom3 might be an exception due it's 'horror' premise, or it could fail as well). Likewise players have lower toleranace for 'dumb' enemies, particularly after Valve's success with HL1's grunts and assassins.
They can screw it up. The hype could be smoke and mirrors. I doubt it - but it's far from a guarantee.
$40m dollars is assinine though. But if they can get a share of the licensed engine market - who knows. They probably also subsidized Steam and its infrastructure entirely under the HL2 budget.
Assuming that horsepower simply makes prettier 'graphics' is the shortcoming of this logic.
/maybe/ an attempt at some fuzzy logic. With more horsepower you can maintain the visual status quo but move forward with opponents that can 'think' without having to 'know' the entire gamestate just to path toward the player.
/outside/ the building.
More horsepower is required to expand gaming. Adding horsepower for the next few upgrade generations will allow developers to increase the gamespace.
Consider interactivity: making the environment something you can break, manipulate, or build. How many items in the average 3d game scene are interactive? maybe 1%? walls aren't, windows aren't, 90% of doors aren't. You're lucky if one of the chairs is.
Right now machines aren't capable of tracking many interactive objects and maintaining the graphics that everyone seems to think are 'good enough'. Half-life2 is going to try, but thumb through the specs they've passed out to would-be licensees and mod makers: there are hard (and relatively low) limits on numbers of interactive objects. Slower systems severely limit the number of interactive objects one can use before the engine bogs down.
This is not to slam Valve, they are at the cutting edge of interactive environments, but rather to show how the cutting edge is still pretty limited.
Then there's AI.
Right now AI are most often straight scripts with
The fact that (nearly) everyone is still using a hacked A* algorithm to get a computer opponent where he needs to be is telling enough by itself. Algorithms more complicated than A* need more processor time. Heck, more processor time for pathing can yield improvements even without changing the algorithms. If you ever played Baldur's Gate, you'll remember that people complaining about pathing could edit their config files to 'up' the number of nodes used to calculate paths. The faster your machine, the more nodes you could add, the better the path-finding.
Even today this problem persists. Much moreso since the problem is now 3 dimensional, rather than 2 dimensional. This problem is at its worst in games with large numbers of units and dynamic maps (RTS games with their placeable buildings). To go back to a Bioware example - their Neverwinter engine doesn't even have a true Z-axis as far as its pathing is concerned. Their engine cannot model a footbridge that a model can walk across and under. They made a good number of concessions to make their game as interactive as possible, and run well.
Then there's lighting.
With as many textures as we have precalculated (lightmaps, bumpmaps, reflection maps) things like truly dynamic lighting are still out of reach. Games like Doom3 and Splinter Cell attempt to mask this by making their scenes predominantly dark and showing off how great dynamic lighting looks with a handful of light sources.
Yet they both limit the number of light sources and also the number of models you'll see on-screen at one time, so the horsepower needed to calculate those few dynamic lights isn't bogging down the machine when the action happens.
Then there's my favorite issue: overdraw.
When's the last time you played a 3d game that modeled, say, an office building that ended up looking like any office building you've ever been inside? I'm betting never. If you had, it'd have been in a 'portal' style-engine, in which case that game will never render the open spaces of the office park
Level designers work within the constraints of the engines. Modern bsp-derived engines overdraw polygons so much that you never see an actual downtown street with buildings you can enter without a load time.
Why isn't there a broad thoroughfare in an Everquest town? Why are the hallways in a counterstrike map so twisty? Why haven't you seen a large office building where you could enter each room?
It isn't for gameplay - though designers do a great
The real test will be whether simply queuing up a dozen actions is an effective way to fight. If you are rewarded for altering your queue in response to your enemy's tactics, then it wouldn't necessarily be 'click and watch'.
(things like adjusting positioning or switching on/off defensive modes, using a 'counter' style to your opponents style, etc).
Queuing is a nice way to mitigate lag or declare intent (so your character isn't sitting there like an idiot during a lag spike), but shouldn't be the best tactic to use for an entire fight.
If you simply don't use the pause functionality in SW:Kotor, it's a decent example of having an action queue, yet being required to adjust it regularly for best results. (I'd personally want for more counters, reactive styles than KOTOR - but it's a decent example.)
If the effectiveness of a character's chooseable combat options are independent of enemy tactics, then surely the gameplay would still amount to 'click and watch', albeit front-loaded with more clicking.
But it ultimately depends on whether you're rewarded more for spamming your 'best' combos, or reacting with the 'appropriate' moves given the situation.
The designers still have an opportunity to avoid 'click and watch'. Whether they will or not is anyone's guess.
Or, just have the phone use a general wireless device for storage. That way you could keep all your data (mp3s, digipics, pda, etc) in one place, and devices could leverage functionality.
/add/ functionality (new devices) without worrying about swapping data around, or incompatible memory card formats and such.
I'd really like to be able to use 1 data source for my phone/pda/camera/mp3 player. Convergence devices are cute, but impractical. Removing storage from each of those items listed would let them shrink to about the size of a sharpie (real digi camera excluded, but getting there), and would let me
At the gym I like to have mp3s without the phone, and I'd like to not violate the 'ban' on digital cameras.
Pictures I take with my real camera, I'd like to be able to email.
Songs I get from iTunes i'd like to be able to email, or directly, wirelessly, share.
contacts in my pda i'd like to have access to on my phone - but I really don't need/want the power drain of a palmOS or winCE just to make a phone call.
so what are the restrictions on importing japanese phones?
/with/ shipping. Heck, most of the japanese vodaphones are vastly superior to our tech /and/ cheaper.
I understand they have a different network, but is there any level of compatibility?
at 25000 yen (~$240) that v601sh is a hell of a deal even
I believe they're listed as:
The Brooklyn Bridge
Florida Swampland
Arizona Beachfront property
The Washington Monument
The Alamo
It makes that share price look pretty reasonable combined with that great console render they're going to maybe possibly pretend to manufacture and distribute.
Exactly. 'competition' is no reason to establish additional TLDs. As soon as the small 3rd party registrars cropped up domain prices fell by a two-thirds. That seems to have been the only competition we needed.
With the price of a domain hovering around the price of a large pizza - I think it's by far cheap enough for us to prioritize clarity and usability over some vague notion of further 'competition'.
beastlyfido.mob
EQ's tone, so to speak, is entirely different from just a couple years ago
:)
:) do share.
That may well be. Like you, I am on the outside looking in, with the added distance that comes with never having had a character over level 25.
AlThough my weekly-movie crowd contains several EQ players, and their discussions about current guild 'politics' indicate that many of the 'dynamics' which I consider core problems, still exist. But we're well off-topic here
every game is fundamentally the same experience with some new, minor gimmick to set it apart
I think largely the same will be true when casual-friendly design hits. The big problem now is that the core experience now is only seen as 'fun' by about a couple million gamers.
I've actually had some ideas for dealing with this, but I'm hesitant to speak about them. As, like most of the ideas I've had, there's really nothing like it in existing MMOGs...
Please, share. Most of my ideas are thoroughly off the wall already. Actual 'new' ideas are what I thrive on, and the only ideas worth talking about
give 'em what they're there for: better social interaction.
Is better social interaction a reward then? Or by facilitating better social interaction do they get over the fact that new competition can spring up overnight?
That's why the game needs to be designed from the ground up to recognize characters' accomplishments.
I agree wholeheartedly here as well. Recognition of actual accomplishment (not XP gain from doing the same thing over and over) is a core requirement for rewarding players in a game with a level playing field.
The question then becomes, how can we recognize through mechanics, the types of accomplishments that depend largely on subjective assessment? In-game communications media rely largely on being verifiable (given the amorphous nature of the community). It will work more fluidly if we have a way to allow players to verify claims of 'who's a good leader'. How do we let players determine in-game if J_Random_Pilot is a better leader for the current mission than K_Random_Pilot?
Do we create an official 'leader' label that is applied through raid participant voting? Do we create systems so that there exist certain 'official' objectives for raiding, and the elected 'leader' carries a persistent success rate at achieving assigned objectives?
I am saying that dynamic and player-driven environments are technologically possible (or will be within the next few years, anyways)
I think player-driven content and dynamic environments are a technical possibility now. The bulk of static-content decisions are all rooted in the same 'tried and true' business decisions.
Level-based design pretty much requires such massive quantities of content that content must be static, and predominantly Player vs Environment.
Not only would the architectures have to be totally different between the various platforms, but the gameplay crafted to the input as well.
Therefore, you're essentially creating an entirely unique game for each type of platform: handheld, phone, console, and PC - and just sharing parts of the saved games in between.
Which of course assumes there is some sort of common, user-friendly, data link between these platforms -- which of course does not currently exist.
The only place where this is remotely feasible is with online persistent worlds - because most devices (PCs, consoles, PDAs, phones) have an existing mechanism for internet communications.
In those cases, sure, it could be neat. But its more a plan for leveraging an already-profitable license to new platforms than a concept applicable to the average next-gen title.
And until a user-friendly common data interconnect is widely available for these platforms, publishers will be much better off crafting unique, disconnected games for each platform.
there's a pretty static population that's sort of just shuffled around.
For the most part I'd agree - though I contend that when hardcore gamers find the game design that truly speaks to them, they stay. The guys who are playing EQ right now don't honestly consider playing other games, and are even iffy on EQ2. They've been playing EQ for 5 years and never left.
Similarly with the other games -- when persistent world players put down roots in these games, they don't leave lightly. Many of them have yet to put down roots - but that, I feel, may be more an effect of personal preference not being beared out in the currently available designs.
To be honest, slight balance problems are the root cause of my leaving every persistent world I've played. If any one of them made a handful of changes, I might be just playing their game right now instead of having these discussions.
is that something that can really be quantified ahead of time?
not directly, no. What can be quantified is the resubscribe rate given modest attempts at 'upping the bar'. If you promise a new expansion and a few new levels every so often, how many fewer players will leave?
The strong attachment to the characters makes these hardcore players much more likely to 'tough it out' for fixes/patches/expansions. Publishers will be able to look at their data and see retention rate when there are no plans for 'something new', and when they plan a release an expansion that will allow players to 'advance' further.
a perpetual shift in gameplay would be a really good thing
Again, I agree wholeheartedly.
However, the key is how the current powergamers would react. These guys will dedicate hours to these games like a part-time job. They are the core of a game community, and largely determine its tone. Shifting the design in such a way that they are effectively never rewarded for having been there since day 1 might put them off.
I'm not saying they should be rewarded with gameplay dominance -- anything but. The reward though, has to be considered. There has to be benefit to sticking around, and currently - I don't know what that is.
But without a solid, dependable, core of online personas a casual-friendly game will be a community of strangers. Without community - persistence itself has little-to-no advantage over large-scale, free, one-off servers.
In every persistent world I've played, from small MUDs to commercial graphical MMOs, to small persistent NWN servers -- the hardcore players do form the community. In the MUDs (and nwnMUD, briefly) I've run, I see the same effect.
They might not be an inherently social core - but, well... they're always there. They know enough to be able to help others. They have enough to always be in a position to trade for goods.
Servers with predominantly casual players results in no-one recognizing anyone, no-one taking ownership, no-one setting consistent tone -- most people feeling alone in the crowd.
That's probably the most 'controversial' idea I have regarding casual-friendly design. At least, as applies to the casual-friendly design types. I do think powergamers are an absolute necessity for a persistent world, which seems to be Anathema to others who favor 'leveling the playing field'.
the box sales of MMOGs relative to their subscription numbers
:)
:)
... the bar has been set so low for MMOGs that there's nothing compelling people who aren't already involved in MMOGs to try them.
This is the main support I keep coming back to. EQ is a multi-million selling box, but never got much past 400k subscribers. But perhaps the people who left were merely powergamers of a different flavor? Perhaps those who tried EQ and quit went on to be non-casual gamers in AC, DAoC, or SW:G.
Box sales vs subscriptions is strong evidence, but it's not quite conclusive. At this point, I think only the non-subscription rate for players who tried playing a persistent game casually and quit would be conclusive evidence. Of course, only a few big publishers would have that data (SOE, MS, EA), and they're not likely to share
However, SOE's focus on that potential market (with the friendlier-than-EQ Planetside and SW:G), and EA's focus (with the friendlier UO:X) are pretty good indicators for those of us without direct data.
MMOGs cannibalize each others' players
In my experience, (thankfully for the genre) this has not yet happened. Players come, players go - but no persistent game to date has stolen large numbers of players from its predecessors. DAoC has grown not by taking active players from EQ/UO/AC, but by catching the attention of players who had already left those games.
Are levels really meaningful? I would argue that they're not. They're shallow, contrived, and serve no real purpose.
Devil's Advocates have the advantage of asking the occassional loaded question
truly I agree with you: (time investment) + (repetition) != (meaning) || (achievement)
Still, there is no denying the attachment that hardcore players place on their irrationally-uber-characters. They will pay monthly fees for games they hardly play anymore due solely to the attachment to those bits. That's a dependable revenue source that I'm certain publishers consider when thumbing through design docs.
Lateral advancement is a noble goal - but how do we strike a balance between new and old players? What happens when a community of the 'old guard' suddenly encounters 'fresh meat', who very quickly, change the entire way the game is played due their new tactics and skill. EQ is largely future-proof in this regard, as player skill plays such a minor role.
A true multiple-axis advancement system would constantly be under fire though. Does the ability for a new Hero to spring up overnight lessen the feeling of achievement?
I tend to think not, but we don't exactly have a live example to study.
This is certainly an accurate, albeit sad, assessment of the genre. New MMO players are joining the genre to be sure, but fans from other genres aren't. Perhaps it's because of how hard level-based design makes it to indoctrinate a new friend (picking the right server, levelling, etc). Or more simply: watching someone play EQ is less fun than watching paint dry.
It's about choice.
Adding choice, is turning away from the tried-and-true.
It's not that you're undercutting the fun people find in EQ - it's that a company has to be convinced to invest millions in a game targetted at an audience that arguably may not even want to play an MMO, instead of churning out an incremental improvement in the proven style.
As for action MMOs... there may yet be technical hurdles keeping publishers away. World War 2 Online has a distinctly non-massive 64 unit visibility limit, and Planetside does client-side hitscan (not surprising there are/were hacks).
the first person to make a more skill-based MMOG (be it FPS-style, or more sim-ish) that appeals to casual gamers (i.e. no systems like "levels" that only fragment the player base, or absurd time requirements to advance) will be a very, very wealthy individual.
Playing devils advocate:
This of course assumes that casual gamers of a persistent world exist.
How do we know there is demand for persistent games that can be played a few hours a week?
Where are these gamers who don't play any persistent world now, but would like to?
What do they play now, and how would a persistent game appeal to them?
If we remove meaningful character advancement, do we obviate the primary benefit of persistence (growth)?
Skill-based MUDs have come and gone, so perhaps there's a reason level-based, timesink ridden MUDs are as dominant as their commerical, graphical, offspring?
Are casual gamers just hardcore gamers who haven't found that one design that they're willing to pay $15/mo for?
What benefit does a persistent design bring to skill-based games that currently have free multiplayer gaming modes?
Remember, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I fully believe in persistent world designs that embrace the casual player.
But is the quest to cater to the casual audience going to far? If we switch too many systems away from the tried-and-true, do we alienate everyone searching for an audience that may well not exist?
Not to mention the cell carriers /already/ know where your phone is.
Rubins personal desire for recognition may well be invalid. I don't know that I've ever even played one of his games (not a PS fan).
But why shouldn't developers be featured more prominently? What is inherently more glamorous about making a movie than making a game? That you're in Hollywood? That you direct a camera to take pictures of actors, rather than directing level designers to populate scenes around 3d meshes?
What is inherently more glamorous about writing a movie script as opposed to a gameplay script?
Rubins may well be whining. He may well be requesting undeserved recognition. As I've said, I haven't played his games, so I don't know. But there are deserving designers and developers who don't get recognition.
No-one wants the press to cover developers like they cover 'celebrities' -- but opening credits, listing credits on the corporate website, thats all I'm looking for.
Some developers are just doing a job, the same way some set designers and grips and even cameramen are just doing a job that almost anyone else in their field could do equally well. I'm not saying they should get attention.
But the creative talent is different. They are the ones who consistantly create (or fail to create) focus, gameplay, story and/or character for these games. The 'mark' they leave on their product is unmistakeable.
Even if Rubins is a whiny bitch, even if he is utterly undeserving of even as much recognition as he's found thus far -- that doesn't make him wrong in general.
Naming developer houses is a good start, particularly since so many of them tend to stick together even if they switch publishers. (such as Bill Roper, et al. leaving Blizzard en masse) But it's still beneficial to know the names, particularly the way publishers have been snapping up smaller dev houses to try to prevent them from being able to shop around for publishing contracts.
as for clarifications:
Raph Koster is from UO, SWG, and legendMud (not EQ: that would be McQuaid and Smedley chiefly)
Monte Cooke notably for D&D 3e, various 3rd party d20 materials, older-school modules and supplements, etc.
Preston Watamaniuk is from various bioware titles. (NWN, KOToR, etc) In the interim I can't believe I forgot the other (perhaps more prominent) biowarians (no particular order): Trent Oster, Don Moar, Scott Greig, Mark Brockington, Rob Bartel... crap I can't remember em all... Preston just sticks out in my memory because that name is comically obtuse.
Oh, and I know I should've mentioned Molyneux. Not for Populous or Black & White personally, but for Syndicate, Syndicate Wars, Dungeon Keeper, and Theme Hospital.
As I said, I could squeeze a few more out of my head, particularly if I listed those who I recognize and respect for consistent quality output, but whose games I don't personally enjoy as thoroughly (such as Smedley and McQuaid - EQ, Carmack -duh, Sweeney -unreal, etc.)
But I could go on for hours with actors, writers, and directors of film - without coming up for air, let alone grasping at dusty memory.
Perhaps even more notably, I could go on for much longer with a list of film talent who I can't stand and will avoid at all costs because their work is almost certain to not appeal to me.
I only wish I had that kind of heuristic database to screen games in the same way.
Or... the NGage was just a bad product. It got flamed because it deserved to get flamed. It failed, because it deserved to fail.
As a gaming system:
. you have to remove the battery to change the game. wtf?
. it cost more than 2x what a GBA SP did, even if you include the price of a seperate 3G phone.
. it had very little developer support. (likely due lame SDK, bad design, pricing)
As a phone:
. it looked absurd. (taco-phone is a deserved critique)
. it's friggin huge.
. the button layout and centrally located screen made it awkward to hold and manipulate effectively one handed (common use for a phone).
. battery life is unacceptably short, unless you never, or rarely, use it for gaming - which obviates its dual functionality and makes the added cost unjustifiable.
The press around the DS revolves around legitimate concerns.
. lack of perceived purpose for a second screen
. effect of 2 backlit screens on battery life
. resultant unit pricing from added screen, necessitated battery
. lack of certainty on backwards compat.
Any handheld that Nintendo announces, but won't confirm backwards compatibility for, is going to be met with heavy skepticism imo. If the DS truly isn't meant to be a successor to the GBA SP -- then what market could they possibly be aiming at? Why have 2 incompatible handheld products? Particularly when facing Sony's PSP, which will be its first legitimate challenge in the mobile arena in years.
The sketchy details, the possibility of no backwards compat and the lack of consumer demand for its key feature (the second screen) are valid concerns.
The notable failure of the pseudo-portable Virtual Boy is still rightly fresh in the minds of consumers and investors when they see a 'potentially revolutionary' functionality that no-one has really been asking for. Nintendo's strength and first party developers/licenses cannot make a success out of a bad product.
Why don't you agree with Rubin?
/talent/ can put their name on an unknown/underfunded script and get it produced and put in theatres. At this point no game designer could do the same except those former independents who managed to wrangle lucrative publishing contracts while maintaining autonomy. (eg.. iD)
Do you think that American games designers don't deserve even the level of attention that their Japanese counterparts get?
Do you think the talent in the game industry is less worthy of celebration than the talent in the film industry?
A very big implication of Rubin's point is the way the indy film scene is much more active than indy gaming. With films, the
Designers and developers just aren't known to the public (and thereby investors). And the existing publishers certainly don't want to support any sort of trend that might pit their other products against 'their own' designers.
With publisher dominance of gaming, professional designers can't even lend a hand in an indy game design without threatening their employment.
Tolerating publisher dominance results the glut of uninspired rehash and licensing that we're currently seeing. Except, our gaming standbys are already more pronounced than Hollywood's. I'd much rather have a system where the talent is recognized, so they can gain clout and leverage, so they can help the indy scene (and thereby the genre) expand.
Which will outline the problems of add-on hardware for consoles all over again.
Most games don't leverage hardware add-ons because most people don't buy them. Offering content downloads to a small section of your community isn't going to be seen as a reasonable way to spend your development time and money. Since few people will have the HD, few people will have the new content, so few games will ever use it.
Games with fanatic followings like Phantasy Star Online and Final Fantasy XI can require adoption through a bundle - but what other developer is going to bank such a feature and development resources to support it, on their fanbase being made up of people who already bought FFXI?
It's the same problem XboxLive will run into when they start charging for content. Eg. Few people will pay for new maps, so no-one will be playing the new maps, which will be a disincentive for anyone else to buy the new maps.
Purchasable content and downloadable content will become adopted widely when everyone gets the content, but only the purchasers can use it.
Eg. a purchased avatar for The Sims that only paying customers can use, but anyone can see. Or a purchaseable mech for MechAssault that everyone can see and has to fight against, but only paying customers can select.
Naturally there'd be some design/balance issues to be considered, to ensure the game doesn't drive away users due unfair advantages from purchased content.
Though, the economic 'arms race' for new purchased content is essentially the driving force behind all Collectible Card Games.... so who knows?