I think Achoi pretty much nailed it on the head in his second sentence. Blizzard's goal with WoW is to make money. The thing that separates WoW from their other creations (and every game the Gamasutra article mentions) is the monthly fee. Once you set up a system in which the developer's interest is to keep you playing as long as possible, everything else in the article follows from that.
This is why you get quests like "Go kill 25 Trolls and 20 Orcs." And when you come back to turn that quest in you get "Now go kill 25 Orcs and 20 Trolls." Blizzard's ultimate goal is to keep you playing as long as possible. They don't care what level you get to in that time or what PVP rank you attain. They're just interested in that monthly fee. You can complain that the Honor System rewards people who play 10+ hours per day month after month, but seriously folks, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
In the end, the Gamasutra article points out several of the flaws in WoW, but it never advocates the correct solution. As gamers, you have to vote with your dollars, because it's the only thing that matters. Stop griping about it and simply DON'T PLAY games that have a monthly fee. Reject this pricing model that inevitably leads to grind-based leveling treadmills.
"Game-design-wise, WOW's success proves in a very strong way what I had hoped for years was true," says Auto Assault's Seabury, "which is that fun games are what people really want. I've often felt the first-generation MMOGs were built by sadomasochists, despite their success. There were so many punishing, tedious systems and mechanics that made those first games great for someone, for example, who might enjoy peeling their fingernails backward very slowly, just to say they could do it."
As a veteran of a few MMOG's (WoW and City of Heroes most recently), I thought Brad's comments were mostly on the mark. I was surprised at how even-handed his remarks about World of Warcraft were, although he did allow himself a few cheap shots.
I definitely think that he exaggerates the impact of instancing on speed of leveling. City of Heroes is a highly instanced game, in fact, the majority of missions take place in an instance, whereas very little of World of Warcraft takes place in instanced areas. But there's no question that the speed of leveling is dramatically faster in WoW. He gives some great analysis of the thought process behind designing a faster leveling game, but the statement that more instances = faster advancement is demonstrably false.
Furthermore, I think that instancing is just one aspect of an MMOG that can either work for or against community-building. The biggest factor in my mind is content soloability. If you don't NEED a group to defeat the vast majority of a game's content, a lot of people won't bother. You can pretty much solo your way to max level in WoW, but trying to do so in EQ or any traditional MMOG would be damn near impossible. This fits in with WoW's more casual-friendly atmosphere, but it means that unless you plan on joining a guild, you're unlikely to make many new friends.
Not that you'd really want to if you've spent any time listening to the General Chat channel in the Barrens. "OMFG Trollz r gayzor!!111!"
Slashdot Mirror
This is why you get quests like "Go kill 25 Trolls and 20 Orcs." And when you come back to turn that quest in you get "Now go kill 25 Orcs and 20 Trolls." Blizzard's ultimate goal is to keep you playing as long as possible. They don't care what level you get to in that time or what PVP rank you attain. They're just interested in that monthly fee. You can complain that the Honor System rewards people who play 10+ hours per day month after month, but seriously folks, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
In the end, the Gamasutra article points out several of the flaws in WoW, but it never advocates the correct solution. As gamers, you have to vote with your dollars, because it's the only thing that matters. Stop griping about it and simply DON'T PLAY games that have a monthly fee. Reject this pricing model that inevitably leads to grind-based leveling treadmills.
"Game-design-wise, WOW's success proves in a very strong way what I had hoped for years was true," says Auto Assault's Seabury, "which is that fun games are what people really want. I've often felt the first-generation MMOGs were built by sadomasochists, despite their success. There were so many punishing, tedious systems and mechanics that made those first games great for someone, for example, who might enjoy peeling their fingernails backward very slowly, just to say they could do it."
You may now return to your timesinks.
I definitely think that he exaggerates the impact of instancing on speed of leveling. City of Heroes is a highly instanced game, in fact, the majority of missions take place in an instance, whereas very little of World of Warcraft takes place in instanced areas. But there's no question that the speed of leveling is dramatically faster in WoW. He gives some great analysis of the thought process behind designing a faster leveling game, but the statement that more instances = faster advancement is demonstrably false.
Furthermore, I think that instancing is just one aspect of an MMOG that can either work for or against community-building. The biggest factor in my mind is content soloability. If you don't NEED a group to defeat the vast majority of a game's content, a lot of people won't bother. You can pretty much solo your way to max level in WoW, but trying to do so in EQ or any traditional MMOG would be damn near impossible. This fits in with WoW's more casual-friendly atmosphere, but it means that unless you plan on joining a guild, you're unlikely to make many new friends.
Not that you'd really want to if you've spent any time listening to the General Chat channel in the Barrens. "OMFG Trollz r gayzor!!111!"