I've encountered this issue myself in many different venues.
I grew up with electronics, computers and programming. I basically followed the full-fledged nerd path through high school, college and well into my career. I understand most acronyms relating to anything electrical or electronic and web/cyber/l33t speech translates quite easily.
Unfortunately I deal with a business world the language of which I do not speak.
I can analyze business needs, but when someone from purchasing or manufacturing starts talking about their process, how they're pulling from this PO to handle this order or manipulating stock, I get lost. When an accountant starts speaking, my eyes roll back into my head. I know I have the capacity to understand their concepts and procedures, but it's typically explained in a manner using their terminology and I need a glossary just to get past that.
Are our languages and processes really so different? I think they are. I think focusing and specializing in a certain field tends to blot out "common" language. Computers are a relatively recent (40 years) addition to business. I think business and financial procedures have evolved and become more complicated in their own right during that time, but I think business especially has trouble speaking to IT and vice versa.
Sadly it has fallen upon the shoulders of the geeks to learn business language instead of business learning ours. Apparently because of our more structured and logical thinking, we have the capacity to absorb more, adapt more easily and see connections where others miss them.
This may sound arrogant coming from a geek, but isn't this the current paradigm? Aren't the geeks expected to know more and do more while business plods along doing what they've always done for hundreds of years? When will IT be truly seen as an incorporated part of the business and not the infrastructure add-on?
Yes, I'm glad this judge spoke up instead of playing along. I'd wager this is newsworthy simply because he is the first to admit that he didn't know. What I wish and would dearly hope to see emerge over the next 20 years is a more common "language" that allows all fields to communicate back and forth without any misunderstanding or need for explanation. We have enough challenges getting past the languages of the world and the pitfalls of English that we shouldn't also have to learn specific languages/terminology.
Any experienced MMO player will consider any form of PvE whether it be quests, raids, or plain kill N monsters for next level as a "grind."
I am an experienced MMO player (1997, about a dozen games) and I do not consider quest based killing/drops grinding.
Only until one realizes that the game is to be played for fun, not to win or lose, will that person truly enjoy other experiences other than pure PvE.
The first half of the statement is quite true: the game is played for fun, not an end goal. The second half I'd put conditions on. Not sure if you mean other activities besides killing monsters (social, RP, crafting, etc.) or if you're pushing towards PvP. I've never had a good PvP experience mostly because of the people behind it. Anyone I've ever met, online or IRL, who participated in PvP typically aggravate me. It takes a certain personality to PvP, and I neither possess that trait nor do I understand it or like it.
I would truly like to see a new and good PvP MMO
With the huge variety of MMOs with differing PvP mechanisms, I cannot fathom why you haven't found one yet. To my knowledge according to the PvPers I've met, UO in it's original form was their "perfect PvP world." They had full and immediate access to prey on whomever they wished, gained money and items by taking it from their victims and only rarely suffered any losses to their huge numbers when groups of people stopped playing and enjoying their game to rise up and discipline the bad kids. That, of course, afforded the decent people no rest because it's exactly what the PvPers wanted, a constant, all out war that accomplished nothing and left the world empty...literally. Those first two years killed UO's chance of being where WoW is now.
Yes, I know there is a difference between PKing and PvPing, but again, of the people I've encountered, there is very little difference in their mindset. I personally think WoW has one of the best PvP systems I've seen (AC was pretty good). WoW is so good I've considered trying it myself, but I'm still enjoying the real game too much.
Regardless of how bulletproof, flawless or otherwise outstanding Zimbra may be, Comcast will likely screw up the implementation in such a way as to reflect badly on Zimbra and ostracize even more of their customers in the process.
I think your definition of "lots to do" would drive me bonkers.:-) I've been playing quite constantly since beta in October 2004. I have yet to "see it all" even in the old content. I'm no 16 hour hardcore player, but playing 2-4 hours (average) nearly every day, I think I've seen and done plenty of stuff and I know there's quite a bit more to do.
There isn't much "role" for an RPG
Having come from a hardcore role playing background, I feel that is up to the player to add not the game makers. I tried playing on a RP WoW server, but they were too snooty even for my arrogant self. Besides WoW had so much more to offer than other games that there was no need to add role playing to fill in the gaps.
combat is pretty straight forward (other than raids)
Why I like playing a variety of classes. I challenge myself by being able to remember how to use the special abilities of each class especially after having not played that class for a month or more. I also tend to challenge myself to kill higher level and multiple mobs at once (depending on the level and class I'm playing). With my rogue I can easily take on 3-4 mobs of a level above me, or a single mob 3-4 levels above me. It's quite a different play style on my paladin, warrior, priest, hunter or warlock.
I think there is quite a bit of variety of combat. There is just surviving, killing as fast as possible, conserving mana/health to continue fighting for long periods or controlling a crowd. I think raids are actually much simpler to play (more focused) than when you're soloing. I don't PvP at all, but I would imagine this variety and the skill need goes up considerably to handle an unpredictable target.
there isn't much in the way of non-combat activities
Such as...?
I enjoy the heck out of crafting. Of my nine characters on Lightbringer, six are miners, I have one of each type of black smith, an engineer, an alchemist and an enchanter. I keep hoping Blizzard will add a housing server (an instance that doesn't clutter up current landscape) so we might have the opportunities that affords. I'm not much of a socializer and that's what I see the bulk of the special events being geared towards: gathering people for a party.
LotRO's music system is a nice improvement and probably along the lines you're seeking for non-combat activities.
I agree there is room for improvement for WoW's quest engine. I won't explain why I think questing is better than grinding again (it's a response under this one, I believe), but suffice to say that questing gives much faster XP gains with (nearly) guaranteed gear improvement.
Some time ago WoW's quest were labeled as one of three types: kill count, gathering and FedEx quests. I would definitely like to see a wider variety of quests, but until I come up with or hear about better suggestions that we can submit to Blizzard, I've got no real complaints. I was very impressed to see that BC introduced a few variants of these quests (one as Draenei was still a basic FedEx, but it sent you all over the island, shape-shifting and ultimately ending at a rescue quest).
I do see a difference between questing and grinding mainly for the story parts and the purpose behind it. Thankfully, Blizzard was wise enough to provide plenty of monsters for both questers and grinders so each of us could play as we like.
I consider the whole of the Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo enterprises all quite original (yes, I know the debate between Warcraft and Warhammer).
Even though I never played EQ, I heard enough about it from friends who did play. I think WoW made huge strides of improvement over EQ: artwork, interface, story/history, crafting and questing.
Did EQ have any questing? If not then was there any purpose to killing monsters except to get experience, money and possibly some better gear? Was there a story? I think following a main storyline with lots of little side stories is a huge improvement. It puts the "RP" into "MMORPG; without it you're just playing Doom online in a fantasy setting. I always enjoyed the "choose your own adventure" books and that's what I compare WoW's questing system to.
Granted no RPG (MMO or otherwise) is truly original as they all stem from Tolkien's, Carroll's and Lewis' literary works and Gygax and Arneson's paper tactical strategies. One definition of "genius" I recall is "seeing a connection, relation or possibility where others do not." I think that is exactly what the Blizzard team did: they considered what had come before, where the genre was going, what were the weaknesses and what were the common denominators that would attract more players. I think the end result is a group effort of genius.
I did say it is my definition of "grinding." (killing for the sole purpose of experience)
Overall it gives that killing purpose, gets you involved in the story and gives you a guaranteed reward. Here's why I think questing is better than grinding.
1. If a person only grinds, they're slowing themselves down from gaining a level. If I kill 100 murlocs that give 100xp each, I've gained 10,000 experience points, gained 100x[random range money] and possibly 10 items worth keeping/selling.
If I'm on a quest to gather 10 murloc gizzards, I'm still going to kill 100 murlocs, gain all of the above items, plus another X amount of XP from the quest completion (usually 1/30th of total level experience) and get the guaranteed quest reward that is most likely suited for my class and level.
2. Once you undergo that quest, likely it may lead to another quest for more XP and rewards and it will reveal more of the storyline. "Oh, that's why troggs hate murlocs so much."
3. Killing for drops is a numbers game. Again killing 100 monsters may yield 10 usable/sellable items, but there is no guarantee (that's actually pretty high compared to most rare drops).
How are those kill counts and drop quests not a grind? They have purpose. Mainly to propel you through the game and progress you along the story as opposed to staying in one zone and killing x number of monsters until you're ready to go to the new zone, ignore all of that rich content and kill x more number of monsters for the same % gain as the previous level.
Main difference I've always seen between questing and just straight grinding is the much larger experience gain from questing. If one of the main objectives of the game is to gain levels to make all of the content available, then the fastest way to gain levels is to quest. In order to be prepared for that content, you'll need to be geared properly and have experience (strategy) in how to fight and use your abilities. Questing prepares you for all of that by providing good gear (usually) as rewards and by encouraging you to use new abilities as you get them.
Look at the paradigm that most level based games use: Dungeon & Dragons (and games similar before and after). You enter a dungeon searching for a lost treasure, you kill X monsters to get to that treasure and gain experience for those kills, for avoiding a trap or for performing a particular deed. Gygax and Arneson based this upon real life of gaining experience by doing something repeatedly. The more you do a task, the better you get at it.
The rewards for questing are much, much greater than any reward from pure grinding. In a level based game, experience must come from using your skills and progressing the storyline; questing does this. If you're looking to eliminate all forms of the grind no matter how broad your definition, then you're looking for a completely different game other than a level-based MMORPG.
LotRO's "Deeds" are recognition for "completing X quests in this zone" or "killing X monsters of a certain type." I equate them to WoW reputation, and you do them for the same reason: a reward.
In WoW you gain reputation to get recipes or gear. In LotRO you complete deeds to gain traits which you can add to your "talent" tree or you get a title which you can display and everyone cas see "Ah, Dodo the burglar hasn't died once in reaching level 10". Dissimilar systems with equable rewards.
I think most players will be killing those monsters anyway for quests or drops. If they see that they've completed their quest or they received that drop and they read their deed and discover that if they kill Y more they'll get a title or a trait, they'll likely push through and do it because there is a reward that justifies doing so.
All what? SOE games? Looks like that's all you covered. Yes, you seem to be an expert on Sony's many shortcomings and foul-ups.
All MMO's? You fell way, way short.
I haven't played them all by any stretch. I'd be impressed at someone who did and was able to maintain the job to afford all of them.:-)
I received most of my experience from beta testing.
Ultima Online - played 1997-2005
Asheron's Call - beta
Dark Age of Camelot - beta, played one month
Star Wars Galaxies - beta and the "return to SWG" free 10 days a few years later
Lineage - beta
Shadowbane - beta
Anarchy Online - beta
WoW - beta, played Nov. 2004 - present
Dungeons & Dragons Online - beta
Lord of the Rings Online - beta, presently playing
I'm sure I've forgotten a few, too. I tend to cover more breadth than depth, a very typical trait of casual gamers. I play WoW the same way: one of every class across a few servers, no 70's yet, but 65, 62, 61... etc.
I think the broader experience gives you a better idea of the entire genre, what's been tried and failed, what's been successful and where is this genre taking us in the future.
Like I said, I don't claim to have "played them all." Until someone shows up who has played them all and has a reputable, professional statement about these games then our statements are just opinions like everyone else's.
Excellent point! (If I hadn't already posted, I'd mod you up 2 points.)
Most people miss the difference between graphics and artwork. I missed it myself until a few years ago.
People asked me why I never played EQ. My knee jerk reaction was "I hated the graphics." They came back with "What? The graphics are awesome." Technically, yes, EQ graphics were awesome: high polygons, high shading, decent models. It was the artwork that I didn't like. I despise most games that try to look realistic... and miss, terribly.
I truly enjoy Blizzard's artwork, I always have since the original Warcraft. Does it look real? No. Can you tell what it represents? Yes. Does it look like something from a fantasy world? Definitely. Can you stand to view this artwork for hours a day/night and not get tired of it? Absolutely. Will this artwork need "upgrading" in 6-8 years when technology has surpassed it? No, not at all.
One of the (many) things I disliked about D&DO: the characters looked like a photo face pasted onto a paper doll. LotRO looks nice, and it, too, is all about nice artwork not trying to be realistic. Is it better than WoW's artwork? No, but it's different. Guy at work wanted me to play LotRO for the sole purpose of seeing the shadows and reflections. I got into the game and barely noticed them after 10 minutes. Thankfully the story and play held my attention longer.:-)
I don't think we're going to see a "WoW killer" until we hit the next generation of gaming and something kills MMO's in general.
Will all of those games pull people away from WoW? Yes, for a short term. Any non-perpetual game will distract someone for a week, perhaps a month, but in the meantime they'll keep their WoW account active, every night when they finish playing game X they'll log into WoW just to "check on things," and when they have finished game X they'll be right back in WoW.
I've seen this happen numerous times since I've been playing WoW (beta, October 2004). Even when the Wii came out, people would log on late at night and say "The Wii is so awesome. It's a great system. LFG for MC." I'm predicting that if Blizzard's announcement is Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 (RTS, not MMO) that we'll see a drop in WoW activity for a month or two until people finish them, but they'll still be checking in on WoW. My wife and I will likely get Diablo 3. If however Blizzard announces Starcraft Online and it does not "connect" with the WoW universe/accounts/servers, then yes, we likely will see a big drop in WoW subscriptions, probably by about 2 million (I suspect most will keep both).
I went ahead and purchased LotRO to get in on the founder pricing. I've played it all of 3 hours so far. I see it as a fall back for those few times when I do not feel like playing WoW.
We saw people predicting Ultima Online's death at the launch of every MMO. It is still going for their loyal player base. I seriously feel that WoW will still be going strong when it turns 10 years old as well.
I was unable to locate any data newer than June 2006, but at that time EVE was 1% like several others while WoW was 52%. I don't consider that "one of the largest."
I think you mean "simplified interface" so that anyone and everyone who even attempts the game discovers how easy it is to get started and gets hooked within minutes. I've met some handicapped players including one guy who was completely immobilized except for his head. Seeing his joy at playing UO was heart-wrenching. I'm quite certain he is playing WoW and enjoying it even more because it's so much simpler than UO. Whenever someone complains about a game being "dumbed down," I think of him.
Obviously, WoW is so dumb it attracted over 8 million people because it IS easy to play. The most amazing part of WoW, though, is even though it's easy to get started and continue to play in a casual manner, it can get as complicated as you wish and require a great deal of research, modification and time in order to complete the more challenging quests and instances.
Almost no penalty for dieing, especially in PVP?
If there were more penalties, you'd have more people getting frustrated, giving up, logging off and canceling subscriptions. You wouldn't have nearly as large, varied or active the PvP community that does exist. I tried getting my wife involved in UO (pre-pvp consent) twice. Both times PKs ruined her experience and drove her away. I introduced her to WoW while I beta tested it and she's played constantly ever since. One more experience we get to share together.
There are enough penalties for death. You have to pay to repair your equipment, or if you cannot get back to your body (long distance, over active spawn, etc.) then you REALLY pay by rezzing at the graveyard and taking extra damage. Plus it's a penalty of time lost when you should be enjoying yourself instead of running back to your corpse.
Grinding the same dungeons and over to get the best items?
That is the players' choice and the reason Blizzard introduced better items for casual players in Burning Crusade. (Plus that death penalty gets steeper.) Not everyone can commit the time or has the resources to run a raid, but I bet they would if they could.
There shouldn't be a need to grind, you should be able to raise your skills by simply using them, not grinding xp to go up a level.
There is absolutely no need to EVER grind in WoW. (**By "grind" I mean kill a monster for the sole purpose of experience gain.)
At launch there were 2500 quests per faction (Alliance, Horde); with BC I'd suspect it is now more like 5-6,000 per faction. My first character hit 60 within a few months (I'm a casual player who plays multiple characters at once) by only doing quests and running the instances associated with quests. There was never a point where I said "I'll go kill these wolves to gain my next level," it was always "Oh, look, I'll get my next level at my next quest turn in or while killing for that next quest."
Anyone who is "grinding" is ignorant of the available quests and simply doesn't understand how WoW is different from all those MMO's that came before it. For those that are ignorant, all it takes is a tell in the public channels asking "Where should a lvl xx go for quests?" I can reference the Prima strategy guide, wowwiki.com or any number of other resources if I cannot draw upon my own experience. There are so many quests, Blizzard had to up the quest log from 20 to 25 so people wouldn't have to do so much extra running back and forth. There is never any reason for a person's quest log to drop below 5 quests much less be empty.
By your definition of "truly great game," you just described Ultima Online as it existed in 1997-1999, and how the Felucca side of each shard still exists. I think most of us have grown beyond that.
By your complaints and suggestions I gather that you are an experienced gamer and one who participates in PvP. I've heard these same complaints from players over my 10 years of playing MMO's. Trust me, you are in the minority
In order to pull the same thing off, their competitors will need to get out of the 'launch first, patch later' mindset, which will absolutely require the trust of the people that fund the projects. Without that element of risk-taking on their part, there's no way that any development team will be able to pull the same thing off. All of that development and polish takes time and effort, which are fueled by money... and the precedent of shipping something that runs, rather than something that shines is still much stronger than WoW's literally phenomenal success.
Exactly! This is where EA screwed up with Ultima Online and Ultima IX: Ascension.
Both of those games had HUGE potential: a well-known story over 10 years old, a large and loyal following of fans and a well-known game development genius in Garriott.
UO developers tried to upgrade the entire game twice, but EA wouldn't hear of it because it would kill the current cash cow (there was no way to transfer UO players' "stuff" to the new versions). Garriott and his team wanted more time to fix and finish U9, but EA wanted it out before Christmas.
When (or If) EA ever learns this lesson, they'll be extremely dangerous. Thankfully, at least one development company that they do not own and cannot afford to buy and way ahead of them and by all counts, on all fronts, will stay there. I think there is plenty of room for healthy competition, and I hope all non-EA development companies strive to provide that competition because in the end it all means more and better games for us.
It all depends upon your definition of "grinding."
IMO grinding means killing monsters for no reason except experience and money.
"Farming" is killing monsters repeatedly until the item you want drops.
"Kill counts" are the number of monsters you must kill in order to complete a quest. Some consider this grinding, but I do not since it has an end and a purpose.
From what I heard (never played it) EQ required grinding just to reach the next level.
I feel that WoW successfully did away with the senseless grinding. There is absolutely no reason for any character to ever have to grind by my definition. There are always more quests to do at your level; they may not be in your race's zones if you think that linearly, but they do exist. If you're trying to get a certain piece of gear (or getting gear to sell) then you'll be out killing specific mobs for quite some time and gaining money and XP to boot until you get that gear. Still, you have a purpose and there is an end point.
I beta tested and bought LotRO (even though I posted here and elsewhere that I wouldn't: the idea of a pay once and never again fall back game for when I [rarely] don't feel like playing WoW was just too tempting). LotRO reminds me of Ultima IX: Ascension. It's a very linear story with lots of little branches. You are free to go and do whatever you wish, but the main story will not progress until you complete the chapter you're in. I have experienced only one instant where I felt grinding was necessary. I was about to complete a quest that would take me out of the current zone. I knew I hadn't defeated a certain boss, but I could not do it by myself or at my current level. I went and killed a few more monsters to get the last 15% of my level, went and killed that boss and then went to complete the zone quest. (I was rewarded as well since two excellent items dropped off that boss.)
Still if I had looked for a fellowship or just accepted that I didn't finish a quest in that zone, I could have continued on my way without grinding. I have a few RL friends that simply weren't on at that time, so I doubt I'll ever have to grind like that again.
Everything I see it mention of which I have any knowledge is correct to my recollection. I heard about Meridian 59, but I didn't enter the MMO world until UO when I started in October 97 I beat tested AC, DAoC, AO, SWG, Guildwars, Lineage, Shadowbane, D&DO and a few others. UO, WoW and LotRO are the only ones I've played retail. Hoping to beta test Tabula Rasa.
Yes, saying SWG was one of the first and they had nothing on which to base it is utter crap.
I cannot remember what year SWG came out (2000? 01?), but what I do distinctly remember is that Raph Koster was in charge of development and production overall AFTER he left the Ultima Online development team where he'd been for about two years after retail release (release September 1997).
If Raph's experience in developing and launching UO (by all means one of THE first MMO games) wasn't good enough, then what better experience could they possibly get?
I think SOE's statement should read "We didn't know what we were doing. We just stumbled along like the other MMO's of the time. We really wish we would have had some original ideas and real talent like those guys over at Blizzard. Who knew you could learn from other peoples' successes and mistakes?"
"Since our acquisition by EA, we have been afforded many wonderful development opportunities..."
Translation:
"Since we were assimilated, EA has separated our talented team and distributed them amongst several teams of numerous EA projects so that we can try and fix their problems. By the time we get back to working on OUR project, we'll be so burned out by EA politics, unrealistic timelines and 100 hour work weeks that what we have for Warhammer right now will be what we ship in 2008. We'll let the live product be the beta test and patch it every month, the EA way."
I hope the best for the Mythic buys, but according to history everything EA touches turns to crap.
I don't use a Mac, but I wish I did. With exception of specialized, Windows-only packages or tools, I think a Mac would definitely be able to do anything a PC can do in a corporate environment.
-Microsoft apps: no problem, actual MS products or open source equivalents.
-Graphics, video, audio: Mac's specialty.
-Database access: mostly depends on the type of the hosting server (SQL, Oracle, etc.) but I'd wager there are connectors from any one system to another.
-Legacy, Windows applications (no current Mac versions): Citrix server (Citrix supports Windows, Mac and Linux clients and allows any of those clients to run a Windows environment.)
I think this last point is where most issues could be resolved. Sure it costs more to provide this, but it allows for major flexibility regardless of clients and provides reverse compatibility. Any company wanting to transition would likely be willing to pay for such a solution. In the future, VMWare's desktop product (ACE) may be another solution.
One other point I believe many are missing. Last I checked, you cannot compare a PC's specs directly to a Mac's specs. i.e. the Mac CPU's don't have to run as fast and the HD's do not have to be as large due to the major differences of the OS and how applications are written for the Mac. (Maybe I've been away from Mac support too long if they are similar now.)
I think the main issue as with any platform change will be user education. If users are asking for Macs, by all means, get them one. From my experience support calls will decrease. If the user is uncomfortable with a PC, they'd likely adopt to a Mac even easier. The PC savvy users would be the ones most difficult to convert. Again with a Citrix server in the back-end, it wouldn't really matter.
The Vista PC is newer, so i can't do an apples and apples comparison,
I can from my upgrade experience. Not side by side, but Vista then XP on the exact same machine and network.
I bought a new "Vista capable" (very capable) machine: Intel E6300, 2Gb RAM, 2x nVidia 8800 GTS 320Mb cards in SLI.
Installation was quick and easy. It went downhill from there. I'm on a 15Mb fiber connection and a 50Mb file (nVidia driver) took 20 minutes to download through Vista/IE7 (I blame this partly on IE's anti-phishing/security scanning which can be disabled but defeats the purpose).
The UAC became annoying very quickly as I tried to customize my display and desktop. Again it CAN be disabled, but defeats its purpose.
Finally, as I tried to configure my dual display, Vista never recognized the second monitor. This is partly nVidia's fault for not having a fully Vista ready driver, but the latest versions of Windows have always had compatible drivers for current hardware. I found some work arounds, but why should I have to fidget with a brand new PC and brand new OS that should work smarter and simpler to get two screens to work?
The whole time while I tried to get basic desktop setup, restore data and install a few applications I keep seeing how sluggish Vista was to respond: slow menu pop-ups, slow screen refreshes, slow window openings and IE7 was very slow to open.(4-5 seconds compared to 2 on my current XP setup)
I gave up, formatted and installed XP. In 45 minutes I was at the desktop, customized, setup both displays correctly and downloaded that same 50Mb file in 20 seconds. My new computer now performs up to its expectations.
I *had* to get a vista machine, to do compatility tests for my games, but I certainly don't regret doing so. I'd be suprised if many end users who get an O/S with a new PC, who aren't uber geeks will go out of their way to ask for the earlier operating system, especially as any new machine will run vista fine.
I wanted to get Vista for the improved gaming environment I heard about. An online friend has already suffered with Vista on a new Dell laptop unable to use TeamSpeak/Ventrilo at the same time she plays WoW. I do many things (web, spreadsheet, TS) while playing WoW. I didn't care to ruin my gaming. A co-worker has Vista on his laptop and he's noticed how quickly Vista will drain his battery compared to XP.
I *am* an uber geek, and I strongly recommend against Vista to people I support, to co-workers, to friends online and IRL and to anyone willing to listen to an experienced voice. I'm the type of person who people recognize as technically savvy and approach me in Frye's/CompUSA for advice. (I have yet to figure out how they can tell.)
Vista will win in the long term.
Sadly, I agree. Just like VHS won over Beta and PC's have won over Mac's. Better products don't always win. I think Vista will survive, but it will take time and a great deal of improvement to bring it to the masses. In 1.5-2 years, the current power user hardware will be commonplace and the leading edge hardware will make Vista run at XP speed. Service packs will speed up the phishing filters, the UAC intelligence and the other background sluggishness that occurs.
I see Vista as Microsoft's first attempt at a more Mac/UNIX-like protected kernel. I'm thinking they got it about 60% right. Over time they'll steal more from Mac/UNIX and make Vista much better.
Personally, if I am forced away from XP, I'll be looking to Ubuntu and an emulator to allow me to play games or I'll finally bite the $$ bullet and get a Mac.
In 23 years of working in IT, I've encountered three women (including my wife) who I considered actual IT professionals (working on hardware or software in some fashion). There are plenty of women in IT-related positions (logistics, help desk/customer service, procurement, management, etc.), but very, very few who do something technical.
For years I worked my way up the chain, learning new technologies, staying on top of things, sacrificing sleep and family time for companies all for what? A 4% pay raise every three years... maybe.
Typically the only way I get a raise is to interview at a new company and show them what I've learned at the previous job. The current company doesn't care how much of myself I've re-invested into the company or that my family life is going to pot because I dedicate myself to the company.
The only good quote I ever heard from a former company president was "We work to live; we don't live to work." Damn straight and that's why I left that company - because that quote didn't apply to IT, customer support, system builders or shippers - it only applied to salespeople and management.
Over the past several years I've been doing my best to improve my career so that I could be with my family more often.
During one job they sent me out of town for a solid month and then for weekdays over the next four months. This occurred while our daughters were three and six. My wife worked, too, so this period nearly pushed her over the edge of sanity. I changed jobs ASAP.
IT today definitely seems to be geared towards the single male with little or no social life. I remember seeing jobs that would be great... if I were single: 80-100% travel, all expenses paid, bleeding edge technology and always doing something new in a new location.
Slashdot Mirror
I grew up with electronics, computers and programming. I basically followed the full-fledged nerd path through high school, college and well into my career. I understand most acronyms relating to anything electrical or electronic and web/cyber/l33t speech translates quite easily.
Unfortunately I deal with a business world the language of which I do not speak.
I can analyze business needs, but when someone from purchasing or manufacturing starts talking about their process, how they're pulling from this PO to handle this order or manipulating stock, I get lost. When an accountant starts speaking, my eyes roll back into my head. I know I have the capacity to understand their concepts and procedures, but it's typically explained in a manner using their terminology and I need a glossary just to get past that.
Are our languages and processes really so different? I think they are. I think focusing and specializing in a certain field tends to blot out "common" language. Computers are a relatively recent (40 years) addition to business. I think business and financial procedures have evolved and become more complicated in their own right during that time, but I think business especially has trouble speaking to IT and vice versa.
Sadly it has fallen upon the shoulders of the geeks to learn business language instead of business learning ours. Apparently because of our more structured and logical thinking, we have the capacity to absorb more, adapt more easily and see connections where others miss them.
This may sound arrogant coming from a geek, but isn't this the current paradigm? Aren't the geeks expected to know more and do more while business plods along doing what they've always done for hundreds of years? When will IT be truly seen as an incorporated part of the business and not the infrastructure add-on?
Yes, I'm glad this judge spoke up instead of playing along. I'd wager this is newsworthy simply because he is the first to admit that he didn't know. What I wish and would dearly hope to see emerge over the next 20 years is a more common "language" that allows all fields to communicate back and forth without any misunderstanding or need for explanation. We have enough challenges getting past the languages of the world and the pitfalls of English that we shouldn't also have to learn specific languages/terminology.
Yes, I know there is a difference between PKing and PvPing, but again, of the people I've encountered, there is very little difference in their mindset. I personally think WoW has one of the best PvP systems I've seen (AC was pretty good). WoW is so good I've considered trying it myself, but I'm still enjoying the real game too much.
Regardless of how bulletproof, flawless or otherwise outstanding Zimbra may be, Comcast will likely screw up the implementation in such a way as to reflect badly on Zimbra and ostracize even more of their customers in the process.
I think there is quite a bit of variety of combat. There is just surviving, killing as fast as possible, conserving mana/health to continue fighting for long periods or controlling a crowd. I think raids are actually much simpler to play (more focused) than when you're soloing. I don't PvP at all, but I would imagine this variety and the skill need goes up considerably to handle an unpredictable target.
Such as...?I enjoy the heck out of crafting. Of my nine characters on Lightbringer, six are miners, I have one of each type of black smith, an engineer, an alchemist and an enchanter. I keep hoping Blizzard will add a housing server (an instance that doesn't clutter up current landscape) so we might have the opportunities that affords. I'm not much of a socializer and that's what I see the bulk of the special events being geared towards: gathering people for a party.
LotRO's music system is a nice improvement and probably along the lines you're seeking for non-combat activities.
Some time ago WoW's quest were labeled as one of three types: kill count, gathering and FedEx quests. I would definitely like to see a wider variety of quests, but until I come up with or hear about better suggestions that we can submit to Blizzard, I've got no real complaints. I was very impressed to see that BC introduced a few variants of these quests (one as Draenei was still a basic FedEx, but it sent you all over the island, shape-shifting and ultimately ending at a rescue quest).
I do see a difference between questing and grinding mainly for the story parts and the purpose behind it. Thankfully, Blizzard was wise enough to provide plenty of monsters for both questers and grinders so each of us could play as we like.
Even though I never played EQ, I heard enough about it from friends who did play. I think WoW made huge strides of improvement over EQ: artwork, interface, story/history, crafting and questing.
Did EQ have any questing? If not then was there any purpose to killing monsters except to get experience, money and possibly some better gear? Was there a story? I think following a main storyline with lots of little side stories is a huge improvement. It puts the "RP" into "MMORPG; without it you're just playing Doom online in a fantasy setting. I always enjoyed the "choose your own adventure" books and that's what I compare WoW's questing system to.
Granted no RPG (MMO or otherwise) is truly original as they all stem from Tolkien's, Carroll's and Lewis' literary works and Gygax and Arneson's paper tactical strategies. One definition of "genius" I recall is "seeing a connection, relation or possibility where others do not." I think that is exactly what the Blizzard team did: they considered what had come before, where the genre was going, what were the weaknesses and what were the common denominators that would attract more players. I think the end result is a group effort of genius.
I agree that aside from order of MMO releases, the rest of your original post is quite accurate.
Overall it gives that killing purpose, gets you involved in the story and gives you a guaranteed reward. Here's why I think questing is better than grinding.
1. If a person only grinds, they're slowing themselves down from gaining a level. If I kill 100 murlocs that give 100xp each, I've gained 10,000 experience points, gained 100x[random range money] and possibly 10 items worth keeping/selling.
If I'm on a quest to gather 10 murloc gizzards, I'm still going to kill 100 murlocs, gain all of the above items, plus another X amount of XP from the quest completion (usually 1/30th of total level experience) and get the guaranteed quest reward that is most likely suited for my class and level.
2. Once you undergo that quest, likely it may lead to another quest for more XP and rewards and it will reveal more of the storyline. "Oh, that's why troggs hate murlocs so much."
3. Killing for drops is a numbers game. Again killing 100 monsters may yield 10 usable/sellable items, but there is no guarantee (that's actually pretty high compared to most rare drops).
How are those kill counts and drop quests not a grind? They have purpose. Mainly to propel you through the game and progress you along the story as opposed to staying in one zone and killing x number of monsters until you're ready to go to the new zone, ignore all of that rich content and kill x more number of monsters for the same % gain as the previous level.
Main difference I've always seen between questing and just straight grinding is the much larger experience gain from questing. If one of the main objectives of the game is to gain levels to make all of the content available, then the fastest way to gain levels is to quest. In order to be prepared for that content, you'll need to be geared properly and have experience (strategy) in how to fight and use your abilities. Questing prepares you for all of that by providing good gear (usually) as rewards and by encouraging you to use new abilities as you get them.
Look at the paradigm that most level based games use: Dungeon & Dragons (and games similar before and after). You enter a dungeon searching for a lost treasure, you kill X monsters to get to that treasure and gain experience for those kills, for avoiding a trap or for performing a particular deed. Gygax and Arneson based this upon real life of gaining experience by doing something repeatedly. The more you do a task, the better you get at it.
The rewards for questing are much, much greater than any reward from pure grinding. In a level based game, experience must come from using your skills and progressing the storyline; questing does this. If you're looking to eliminate all forms of the grind no matter how broad your definition, then you're looking for a completely different game other than a level-based MMORPG.
LotRO's "Deeds" are recognition for "completing X quests in this zone" or "killing X monsters of a certain type." I equate them to WoW reputation, and you do them for the same reason: a reward.
In WoW you gain reputation to get recipes or gear. In LotRO you complete deeds to gain traits which you can add to your "talent" tree or you get a title which you can display and everyone cas see "Ah, Dodo the burglar hasn't died once in reaching level 10". Dissimilar systems with equable rewards.
I think most players will be killing those monsters anyway for quests or drops. If they see that they've completed their quest or they received that drop and they read their deed and discover that if they kill Y more they'll get a title or a trait, they'll likely push through and do it because there is a reward that justifies doing so.
All MMO's? You fell way, way short.
I haven't played them all by any stretch. I'd be impressed at someone who did and was able to maintain the job to afford all of them. :-)
I received most of my experience from beta testing.
- Ultima Online - played 1997-2005
- Asheron's Call - beta
- Dark Age of Camelot - beta, played one month
- Star Wars Galaxies - beta and the "return to SWG" free 10 days a few years later
- Lineage - beta
- Shadowbane - beta
- Anarchy Online - beta
- WoW - beta, played Nov. 2004 - present
- Dungeons & Dragons Online - beta
- Lord of the Rings Online - beta, presently playing
I'm sure I've forgotten a few, too. I tend to cover more breadth than depth, a very typical trait of casual gamers. I play WoW the same way: one of every class across a few servers, no 70's yet, but 65, 62, 61... etc.I think the broader experience gives you a better idea of the entire genre, what's been tried and failed, what's been successful and where is this genre taking us in the future.
Like I said, I don't claim to have "played them all." Until someone shows up who has played them all and has a reputable, professional statement about these games then our statements are just opinions like everyone else's.
Most people miss the difference between graphics and artwork. I missed it myself until a few years ago.
People asked me why I never played EQ. My knee jerk reaction was "I hated the graphics." They came back with "What? The graphics are awesome." Technically, yes, EQ graphics were awesome: high polygons, high shading, decent models. It was the artwork that I didn't like. I despise most games that try to look realistic... and miss, terribly.
I truly enjoy Blizzard's artwork, I always have since the original Warcraft. Does it look real? No. Can you tell what it represents? Yes. Does it look like something from a fantasy world? Definitely. Can you stand to view this artwork for hours a day/night and not get tired of it? Absolutely. Will this artwork need "upgrading" in 6-8 years when technology has surpassed it? No, not at all.
One of the (many) things I disliked about D&DO: the characters looked like a photo face pasted onto a paper doll. LotRO looks nice, and it, too, is all about nice artwork not trying to be realistic. Is it better than WoW's artwork? No, but it's different. Guy at work wanted me to play LotRO for the sole purpose of seeing the shadows and reflections. I got into the game and barely noticed them after 10 minutes. Thankfully the story and play held my attention longer. :-)
Will all of those games pull people away from WoW? Yes, for a short term. Any non-perpetual game will distract someone for a week, perhaps a month, but in the meantime they'll keep their WoW account active, every night when they finish playing game X they'll log into WoW just to "check on things," and when they have finished game X they'll be right back in WoW.
I've seen this happen numerous times since I've been playing WoW (beta, October 2004). Even when the Wii came out, people would log on late at night and say "The Wii is so awesome. It's a great system. LFG for MC." I'm predicting that if Blizzard's announcement is Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 (RTS, not MMO) that we'll see a drop in WoW activity for a month or two until people finish them, but they'll still be checking in on WoW. My wife and I will likely get Diablo 3. If however Blizzard announces Starcraft Online and it does not "connect" with the WoW universe/accounts/servers, then yes, we likely will see a big drop in WoW subscriptions, probably by about 2 million (I suspect most will keep both).
I went ahead and purchased LotRO to get in on the founder pricing. I've played it all of 3 hours so far. I see it as a fall back for those few times when I do not feel like playing WoW.
We saw people predicting Ultima Online's death at the launch of every MMO. It is still going for their loyal player base. I seriously feel that WoW will still be going strong when it turns 10 years old as well.
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart7.html
Anyone know of any newer data?
I think you mean "simplified interface" so that anyone and everyone who even attempts the game discovers how easy it is to get started and gets hooked within minutes. I've met some handicapped players including one guy who was completely immobilized except for his head. Seeing his joy at playing UO was heart-wrenching. I'm quite certain he is playing WoW and enjoying it even more because it's so much simpler than UO. Whenever someone complains about a game being "dumbed down," I think of him.
Obviously, WoW is so dumb it attracted over 8 million people because it IS easy to play. The most amazing part of WoW, though, is even though it's easy to get started and continue to play in a casual manner, it can get as complicated as you wish and require a great deal of research, modification and time in order to complete the more challenging quests and instances.
If there were more penalties, you'd have more people getting frustrated, giving up, logging off and canceling subscriptions. You wouldn't have nearly as large, varied or active the PvP community that does exist. I tried getting my wife involved in UO (pre-pvp consent) twice. Both times PKs ruined her experience and drove her away. I introduced her to WoW while I beta tested it and she's played constantly ever since. One more experience we get to share together.
There are enough penalties for death. You have to pay to repair your equipment, or if you cannot get back to your body (long distance, over active spawn, etc.) then you REALLY pay by rezzing at the graveyard and taking extra damage. Plus it's a penalty of time lost when you should be enjoying yourself instead of running back to your corpse.
That is the players' choice and the reason Blizzard introduced better items for casual players in Burning Crusade. (Plus that death penalty gets steeper.) Not everyone can commit the time or has the resources to run a raid, but I bet they would if they could.
There is absolutely no need to EVER grind in WoW. (**By "grind" I mean kill a monster for the sole purpose of experience gain.)
At launch there were 2500 quests per faction (Alliance, Horde); with BC I'd suspect it is now more like 5-6,000 per faction. My first character hit 60 within a few months (I'm a casual player who plays multiple characters at once) by only doing quests and running the instances associated with quests. There was never a point where I said "I'll go kill these wolves to gain my next level," it was always "Oh, look, I'll get my next level at my next quest turn in or while killing for that next quest."
Anyone who is "grinding" is ignorant of the available quests and simply doesn't understand how WoW is different from all those MMO's that came before it. For those that are ignorant, all it takes is a tell in the public channels asking "Where should a lvl xx go for quests?" I can reference the Prima strategy guide, wowwiki.com or any number of other resources if I cannot draw upon my own experience. There are so many quests, Blizzard had to up the quest log from 20 to 25 so people wouldn't have to do so much extra running back and forth. There is never any reason for a person's quest log to drop below 5 quests much less be empty.
By your definition of "truly great game," you just described Ultima Online as it existed in 1997-1999, and how the Felucca side of each shard still exists. I think most of us have grown beyond that.
By your complaints and suggestions I gather that you are an experienced gamer and one who participates in PvP. I've heard these same complaints from players over my 10 years of playing MMO's. Trust me, you are in the minority
Both of those games had HUGE potential: a well-known story over 10 years old, a large and loyal following of fans and a well-known game development genius in Garriott.
UO developers tried to upgrade the entire game twice, but EA wouldn't hear of it because it would kill the current cash cow (there was no way to transfer UO players' "stuff" to the new versions). Garriott and his team wanted more time to fix and finish U9, but EA wanted it out before Christmas.
When (or If) EA ever learns this lesson, they'll be extremely dangerous. Thankfully, at least one development company that they do not own and cannot afford to buy and way ahead of them and by all counts, on all fronts, will stay there. I think there is plenty of room for healthy competition, and I hope all non-EA development companies strive to provide that competition because in the end it all means more and better games for us.
IMO grinding means killing monsters for no reason except experience and money.
"Farming" is killing monsters repeatedly until the item you want drops.
"Kill counts" are the number of monsters you must kill in order to complete a quest. Some consider this grinding, but I do not since it has an end and a purpose.
From what I heard (never played it) EQ required grinding just to reach the next level.
I feel that WoW successfully did away with the senseless grinding. There is absolutely no reason for any character to ever have to grind by my definition. There are always more quests to do at your level; they may not be in your race's zones if you think that linearly, but they do exist. If you're trying to get a certain piece of gear (or getting gear to sell) then you'll be out killing specific mobs for quite some time and gaining money and XP to boot until you get that gear. Still, you have a purpose and there is an end point.
I beta tested and bought LotRO (even though I posted here and elsewhere that I wouldn't: the idea of a pay once and never again fall back game for when I [rarely] don't feel like playing WoW was just too tempting). LotRO reminds me of Ultima IX: Ascension. It's a very linear story with lots of little branches. You are free to go and do whatever you wish, but the main story will not progress until you complete the chapter you're in. I have experienced only one instant where I felt grinding was necessary. I was about to complete a quest that would take me out of the current zone. I knew I hadn't defeated a certain boss, but I could not do it by myself or at my current level. I went and killed a few more monsters to get the last 15% of my level, went and killed that boss and then went to complete the zone quest. (I was rewarded as well since two excellent items dropped off that boss.)
Still if I had looked for a fellowship or just accepted that I didn't finish a quest in that zone, I could have continued on my way without grinding. I have a few RL friends that simply weren't on at that time, so I doubt I'll ever have to grind like that again.
Here's some reading to catch you up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_MMORPGs
Everything I see it mention of which I have any knowledge is correct to my recollection. I heard about Meridian 59, but I didn't enter the MMO world until UO when I started in October 97 I beat tested AC, DAoC, AO, SWG, Guildwars, Lineage, Shadowbane, D&DO and a few others. UO, WoW and LotRO are the only ones I've played retail. Hoping to beta test Tabula Rasa.
I cannot remember what year SWG came out (2000? 01?), but what I do distinctly remember is that Raph Koster was in charge of development and production overall AFTER he left the Ultima Online development team where he'd been for about two years after retail release (release September 1997).
If Raph's experience in developing and launching UO (by all means one of THE first MMO games) wasn't good enough, then what better experience could they possibly get?
I think SOE's statement should read "We didn't know what we were doing. We just stumbled along like the other MMO's of the time. We really wish we would have had some original ideas and real talent like those guys over at Blizzard. Who knew you could learn from other peoples' successes and mistakes?"
Minor correction. My subconscious was thinking "EA buys everything."
Translation:
"Since we were assimilated, EA has separated our talented team and distributed them amongst several teams of numerous EA projects so that we can try and fix their problems. By the time we get back to working on OUR project, we'll be so burned out by EA politics, unrealistic timelines and 100 hour work weeks that what we have for Warhammer right now will be what we ship in 2008. We'll let the live product be the beta test and patch it every month, the EA way."
I hope the best for the Mythic buys, but according to history everything EA touches turns to crap.
-Microsoft apps: no problem, actual MS products or open source equivalents.
-Graphics, video, audio: Mac's specialty.
-Database access: mostly depends on the type of the hosting server (SQL, Oracle, etc.) but I'd wager there are connectors from any one system to another.
-Legacy, Windows applications (no current Mac versions): Citrix server (Citrix supports Windows, Mac and Linux clients and allows any of those clients to run a Windows environment.)
I think this last point is where most issues could be resolved. Sure it costs more to provide this, but it allows for major flexibility regardless of clients and provides reverse compatibility. Any company wanting to transition would likely be willing to pay for such a solution. In the future, VMWare's desktop product (ACE) may be another solution.
One other point I believe many are missing. Last I checked, you cannot compare a PC's specs directly to a Mac's specs. i.e. the Mac CPU's don't have to run as fast and the HD's do not have to be as large due to the major differences of the OS and how applications are written for the Mac. (Maybe I've been away from Mac support too long if they are similar now.)
I think the main issue as with any platform change will be user education. If users are asking for Macs, by all means, get them one. From my experience support calls will decrease. If the user is uncomfortable with a PC, they'd likely adopt to a Mac even easier. The PC savvy users would be the ones most difficult to convert. Again with a Citrix server in the back-end, it wouldn't really matter.
I bought a new "Vista capable" (very capable) machine: Intel E6300, 2Gb RAM, 2x nVidia 8800 GTS 320Mb cards in SLI.
Installation was quick and easy. It went downhill from there. I'm on a 15Mb fiber connection and a 50Mb file (nVidia driver) took 20 minutes to download through Vista/IE7 (I blame this partly on IE's anti-phishing/security scanning which can be disabled but defeats the purpose).
The UAC became annoying very quickly as I tried to customize my display and desktop. Again it CAN be disabled, but defeats its purpose.
Finally, as I tried to configure my dual display, Vista never recognized the second monitor. This is partly nVidia's fault for not having a fully Vista ready driver, but the latest versions of Windows have always had compatible drivers for current hardware. I found some work arounds, but why should I have to fidget with a brand new PC and brand new OS that should work smarter and simpler to get two screens to work?
The whole time while I tried to get basic desktop setup, restore data and install a few applications I keep seeing how sluggish Vista was to respond: slow menu pop-ups, slow screen refreshes, slow window openings and IE7 was very slow to open.(4-5 seconds compared to 2 on my current XP setup)
I gave up, formatted and installed XP. In 45 minutes I was at the desktop, customized, setup both displays correctly and downloaded that same 50Mb file in 20 seconds. My new computer now performs up to its expectations.
I wanted to get Vista for the improved gaming environment I heard about. An online friend has already suffered with Vista on a new Dell laptop unable to use TeamSpeak/Ventrilo at the same time she plays WoW. I do many things (web, spreadsheet, TS) while playing WoW. I didn't care to ruin my gaming. A co-worker has Vista on his laptop and he's noticed how quickly Vista will drain his battery compared to XP.I *am* an uber geek, and I strongly recommend against Vista to people I support, to co-workers, to friends online and IRL and to anyone willing to listen to an experienced voice. I'm the type of person who people recognize as technically savvy and approach me in Frye's/CompUSA for advice. (I have yet to figure out how they can tell.)
Sadly, I agree. Just like VHS won over Beta and PC's have won over Mac's. Better products don't always win. I think Vista will survive, but it will take time and a great deal of improvement to bring it to the masses. In 1.5-2 years, the current power user hardware will be commonplace and the leading edge hardware will make Vista run at XP speed. Service packs will speed up the phishing filters, the UAC intelligence and the other background sluggishness that occurs.I see Vista as Microsoft's first attempt at a more Mac/UNIX-like protected kernel. I'm thinking they got it about 60% right. Over time they'll steal more from Mac/UNIX and make Vista much better.
Personally, if I am forced away from XP, I'll be looking to Ubuntu and an emulator to allow me to play games or I'll finally bite the $$ bullet and get a Mac.
In 23 years of working in IT, I've encountered three women (including my wife) who I considered actual IT professionals (working on hardware or software in some fashion). There are plenty of women in IT-related positions (logistics, help desk/customer service, procurement, management, etc.), but very, very few who do something technical.
For years I worked my way up the chain, learning new technologies, staying on top of things, sacrificing sleep and family time for companies all for what? A 4% pay raise every three years... maybe.
Typically the only way I get a raise is to interview at a new company and show them what I've learned at the previous job. The current company doesn't care how much of myself I've re-invested into the company or that my family life is going to pot because I dedicate myself to the company.
The only good quote I ever heard from a former company president was "We work to live; we don't live to work." Damn straight and that's why I left that company - because that quote didn't apply to IT, customer support, system builders or shippers - it only applied to salespeople and management.
Over the past several years I've been doing my best to improve my career so that I could be with my family more often.
During one job they sent me out of town for a solid month and then for weekdays over the next four months. This occurred while our daughters were three and six. My wife worked, too, so this period nearly pushed her over the edge of sanity. I changed jobs ASAP.
IT today definitely seems to be geared towards the single male with little or no social life. I remember seeing jobs that would be great... if I were single: 80-100% travel, all expenses paid, bleeding edge technology and always doing something new in a new location.