I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but I think that adding new playable races is something that MMORPG creators are generally reluctant to do, compared with adding, say new classes, new items or new quests.
The reason is simple... it doesn't give as much of an incentive for the established hardcore players to pick up the expansion, as it's something they wouldn't be able to take advantage of without creating a whole new character and starting again. New items and quests can be picked up with existing characters. A lot of MMORPGs will let you change your class pretty much at will now (FFXI being the best example), but once you pick a race, you're pretty much tied to it.
So yes, I strongly suspect this is a joke. In fact, I wonder if it's a bit of a wry admission from certain parts of Lucasarts that... yes... Jar-Jar really was THAT unpopular:)
Neverwinter Nights - old now. Graphically unimpressive even at time of its release. Never lived up to full potential because it assumed people we willing to go through far too steep a learning curve to make modules. Lack of party control crippled it for single-player.
Morrowind - available on X-Box
City of Heroes - it's a MMORPG... it's early days. We'll see how it fares. I doubt it's going to beat FFXI.
UT2004 - largely an update of UT2003, with a few bits of Tribes bolted on. Utterly stale.
Farcry - will grant you this one. Gameplay (particularly difficulty curve) has some problems, but it does go beyond what the consoles will do.
Serious Sam - multiple versions available on all consoles. Has been for some time, actually.
Empire Earth - may be good, might not be. Never heard much about it, so I doubt it's a "killer" title.
Rise of Nations - fairly generic RTS. Again, utterly stale.
Doom 3 - also for X-Box.
Half-Life 2 - if it doesn't turn out to be also for X-Box, I'll eat my hat.
The Matrix Online - after Enter the Matrix and the second two films, can't say this excites me.
Everquest 2 - I suspect FFXI has beaten it to the post.
I'm always wary of developers who give their hardcore fans too much of a say in the development of their games. From what I can see, there are a number of reasons not to do this.
First of all, hardcore gamers tend to be pretty far removed from the gaming mainstream in a whole host of ways. My own experiences of them (I used to be the head admin of a major UK-based online gaming league) have demonstrated that the real hardcore tend to be ultra-conservative change-phobics, whose only real hopes for any sequel are that it will look better and not force them to learn any new skills or, god forbid, make them go through any kind of introductory period in which the great unwashed might a chance to frag them. As a result of this, sequels developed in this way tend to be dry, devoid of any gameplay innovations and off-putting to the casual gamer, with Quake 3 being perhaps the arch example of this.
The other thing I've noticed is that even if a developer goes all-out to take on board the feedback of the hardcore players, they'll never be happy. Most hardcore gamers will live, sleep, eat and breathe their game. For them, the prospect of the next installment in the series is viewed much how an evangelical Christian would view the Second Coming. When the sequel in question finally arrives, it inevitably disappoints. The hardcore community immediately rants about the developers "selling out" and decides to demonstrate how "l33t" it is by staying with the previous installment for at least a year.
Finally, one of the striking things I've observed about hardcore gamers is that they don't actually buy many games. For them, their game of choice, be it Quake 3, Counter-Strike or Everquest, will be the only game they play. Moreover, as a large proportion of hardcore gamers are kids, students or the unemployed (as the only groups with the time required to hone their skills to the levels needed), their natural state is broke, and if they can pirate a game, they often will.
It's interesting to note that what's almost certainly the most successful and enduring online fps ever (Half-Life, and its mods) was developed as a mass-market, singleplayer focussed game. I suspect that the best way to get a hit like this is to ignore a lot of what the focus groups and message boards are telling you that the hardcore want and just make the game on the basis of its original vision.
Always funny how an article that goes against the slashdot orthodoxy can generate such a rabid response.
The article does make some good points. The current crop of Gamecube-only titles really are, for the most part, a bunch of remakes of or uninspired sequels to much older games. Mario Sunshine is indistinguishable in all but graphics from Mario 64, while Mario Kart Double Dash is a rather insipid updating of a game that originally appeared on the SNES and has changed very, very little since then. Zelda - Wind Walker was a huge disappointment for me... the gameplay was exactly the same as it's always been and the graphics, to be frank, can't measure up to those of Final Fantasy X, which must be... what... 2 years old now(?). Hell... while Squaresoft are notorious for milking sequels, at least they add a completely new combat system and visual style for pretty much every game.
I've not got a grude against the Cube. I own all three of the current gen consoles and they all get used. The problem is that Sony and Microsoft are just so much better at innovation these days. Sure, the PS2 and Xbox have their own share of uninspired sequels, but the PS2 has really pushed back the boundaries of gaming with accessories such as the Eye Toy and the Xbox has shown that, like it or not, consoles can actually do a decent job of games traditionally associated with desktop systems - see, for example, the recent Crimson Skies, which, in my opinion at least, is comprehensively better than the PC original.
Yesterday, I walked into GAME with 150 in my pocket to pick up some games. I'd meant to buy some Gamecube games, I really had, but every time I picked one up, I realised I already owned it in another guise. Given that GC games seem to be the most expensive (in general) here in the UK, this is a big disincentive to buy. The result - while I came out with games and accessories for the PC, PS2 and Xbox, none of my money went to Nintendo.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but I think that adding new playable races is something that MMORPG creators are generally reluctant to do, compared with adding, say new classes, new items or new quests.
:)
The reason is simple... it doesn't give as much of an incentive for the established hardcore players to pick up the expansion, as it's something they wouldn't be able to take advantage of without creating a whole new character and starting again. New items and quests can be picked up with existing characters. A lot of MMORPGs will let you change your class pretty much at will now (FFXI being the best example), but once you pick a race, you're pretty much tied to it.
So yes, I strongly suspect this is a joke. In fact, I wonder if it's a bit of a wry admission from certain parts of Lucasarts that... yes... Jar-Jar really was THAT unpopular
Neverwinter Nights - old now. Graphically unimpressive even at time of its release. Never lived up to full potential because it assumed people we willing to go through far too steep a learning curve to make modules. Lack of party control crippled it for single-player.
Morrowind - available on X-Box
City of Heroes - it's a MMORPG... it's early days. We'll see how it fares. I doubt it's going to beat FFXI.
UT2004 - largely an update of UT2003, with a few bits of Tribes bolted on. Utterly stale.
Farcry - will grant you this one. Gameplay (particularly difficulty curve) has some problems, but it does go beyond what the consoles will do.
Serious Sam - multiple versions available on all consoles. Has been for some time, actually.
Empire Earth - may be good, might not be. Never heard much about it, so I doubt it's a "killer" title.
Rise of Nations - fairly generic RTS. Again, utterly stale.
Doom 3 - also for X-Box.
Half-Life 2 - if it doesn't turn out to be also for X-Box, I'll eat my hat.
The Matrix Online - after Enter the Matrix and the second two films, can't say this excites me.
Everquest 2 - I suspect FFXI has beaten it to the post.
Evil Genius - not heard of it, won't comment.
I'm always wary of developers who give their hardcore fans too much of a say in the development of their games. From what I can see, there are a number of reasons not to do this. First of all, hardcore gamers tend to be pretty far removed from the gaming mainstream in a whole host of ways. My own experiences of them (I used to be the head admin of a major UK-based online gaming league) have demonstrated that the real hardcore tend to be ultra-conservative change-phobics, whose only real hopes for any sequel are that it will look better and not force them to learn any new skills or, god forbid, make them go through any kind of introductory period in which the great unwashed might a chance to frag them. As a result of this, sequels developed in this way tend to be dry, devoid of any gameplay innovations and off-putting to the casual gamer, with Quake 3 being perhaps the arch example of this. The other thing I've noticed is that even if a developer goes all-out to take on board the feedback of the hardcore players, they'll never be happy. Most hardcore gamers will live, sleep, eat and breathe their game. For them, the prospect of the next installment in the series is viewed much how an evangelical Christian would view the Second Coming. When the sequel in question finally arrives, it inevitably disappoints. The hardcore community immediately rants about the developers "selling out" and decides to demonstrate how "l33t" it is by staying with the previous installment for at least a year. Finally, one of the striking things I've observed about hardcore gamers is that they don't actually buy many games. For them, their game of choice, be it Quake 3, Counter-Strike or Everquest, will be the only game they play. Moreover, as a large proportion of hardcore gamers are kids, students or the unemployed (as the only groups with the time required to hone their skills to the levels needed), their natural state is broke, and if they can pirate a game, they often will. It's interesting to note that what's almost certainly the most successful and enduring online fps ever (Half-Life, and its mods) was developed as a mass-market, singleplayer focussed game. I suspect that the best way to get a hit like this is to ignore a lot of what the focus groups and message boards are telling you that the hardcore want and just make the game on the basis of its original vision.
Always funny how an article that goes against the slashdot orthodoxy can generate such a rabid response.
The article does make some good points. The current crop of Gamecube-only titles really are, for the most part, a bunch of remakes of or uninspired sequels to much older games. Mario Sunshine is indistinguishable in all but graphics from Mario 64, while Mario Kart Double Dash is a rather insipid updating of a game that originally appeared on the SNES and has changed very, very little since then. Zelda - Wind Walker was a huge disappointment for me... the gameplay was exactly the same as it's always been and the graphics, to be frank, can't measure up to those of Final Fantasy X, which must be... what... 2 years old now(?). Hell... while Squaresoft are notorious for milking sequels, at least they add a completely new combat system and visual style for pretty much every game.
I've not got a grude against the Cube. I own all three of the current gen consoles and they all get used. The problem is that Sony and Microsoft are just so much better at innovation these days. Sure, the PS2 and Xbox have their own share of uninspired sequels, but the PS2 has really pushed back the boundaries of gaming with accessories such as the Eye Toy and the Xbox has shown that, like it or not, consoles can actually do a decent job of games traditionally associated with desktop systems - see, for example, the recent Crimson Skies, which, in my opinion at least, is comprehensively better than the PC original.
Yesterday, I walked into GAME with 150 in my pocket to pick up some games. I'd meant to buy some Gamecube games, I really had, but every time I picked one up, I realised I already owned it in another guise. Given that GC games seem to be the most expensive (in general) here in the UK, this is a big disincentive to buy. The result - while I came out with games and accessories for the PC, PS2 and Xbox, none of my money went to Nintendo.