Green Monster Games - Curt Schilling
- Thread starter Lord Thanos_foh
- Start date
Honestly, imo, MMO"s will get bigger, but not as big as they could be. Some factors and correct me if I"m wrong.
1.) Tough to build and sustain. Look at movies and music. New releases every month. MMO"s not so much.
2.) Your customer base on average are white males. Not a knock, but you have to build games to meet that customer base"s needs, thus limiting the types of games you can create.
3.) Nerd factor. Games are still games, and culturally people as they become more professional with limited amounts of time, only have time for one MMO. This limits the amount of releases an industry can sustain when combined with #2.
There are hosts of other reasons why MMO"s are an incredible financially successful niche market. But it"s still a niche, and I doubt when you have development times of 3+ years will it ever be more than that.
Dragean were you talking about advertising outside the box for MMO"s or games in general?
1.) Tough to build and sustain. Look at movies and music. New releases every month. MMO"s not so much.
2.) Your customer base on average are white males. Not a knock, but you have to build games to meet that customer base"s needs, thus limiting the types of games you can create.
3.) Nerd factor. Games are still games, and culturally people as they become more professional with limited amounts of time, only have time for one MMO. This limits the amount of releases an industry can sustain when combined with #2.
There are hosts of other reasons why MMO"s are an incredible financially successful niche market. But it"s still a niche, and I doubt when you have development times of 3+ years will it ever be more than that.
Dragean were you talking about advertising outside the box for MMO"s or games in general?
I"ll take EQ with tons of quests and instances or WoW with grouping as a viable means of exping and camps plz.
...and my idea for a Lufia 2 style 100 level dungeon.
...and my idea for a Lufia 2 style 100 level dungeon.
please, whatever you do with your game, don"t make it feel like WoW. if i wanted WoW, i"d still be playing it. i just think there"s so much potential out there for a true "next gen" mmo. the last thing i want to play is WoW 2.0.Ngruk said:
You are right. I don"t know if it"s because of the loss income on pirating that companies are using the internet to get their games known.Draegan said:
But you are right, gone are the days of Sega and Nintendo commercial wars. Only mainstream commercials I can think of are Rockstar, Call of Duty, Gears of War, EA Sports, and Warcraft.
Sad isn"t it.
What does that mean? What"s next gen? What would make a game "not WOW". You have to quantify your statements or else you come off spouting buzzwords like "done correctly" and "next gen". Or coming off as a WOW hater saying "ANYTHING BUT WOW PLEASE!"etchazz said:
What do you dislike about WOW so much that you don"t want to see it in the next game?
I think you"re TV viewing has changed. You market to your audience, so I don"t see many video game commercials anymore because I don"t watch many cartoons or the channels that cater to 12-18 year olds.Blackulaa said:
Target audiences.
F*ck you Draeg,
I"m on every Saturday morning watch Snorks and Dungeons and Dragons...
Ok you"re right.
I"m on every Saturday morning watch Snorks and Dungeons and Dragons...
Ok you"re right.
good point. ok, here are some of my gripes about warcraft:Draegan said:
1) i don"t like WoW because 99% of the game is soloable, in my opinion taking away the entire point of making a mmorpg. if i wanted to play a solo game there are hundreds of them out there that don"t require a monthly fee.
2) i don"t like instances, i actually enjoy competition. i believe the way around instances is to make the game bigger, giving players more places to go. also, make the dungeons in the game bigger so they can support more players in them. imo, these options are better than creating instances.
3) i don"t like the me, me, me crowd found in WoW. i enjoy games that are extremely difficult and make you work for your loot. i am not a communist so i don"t buy in to the "everyone should be equal" BS that i feel in WoW.
4) i want a game that is non linear (including the dungeons). i don"t want to go to town A, finish up the quests there and then on the final quest turn in some npc says, "you should now go try out town B."
5) i want a game that offers more classes, skills and races than WoW does and more ways to make my character feel unique and not like mage2476. how about a talent tree that actually effects your character and has an actual impact on your character and the game that makes you stop and think about where you want to place your points? and not, "oh, if i don"t like this decision i"ll just spend a few gold and put my points somewhere else."
i think it would be rather cool if you had several trees to choose from, each with pluses and minuses, but whichever one you choose, you"re locked in to that one for good.
6) i want a game where my actions and decisions as well as the actions/decisions of others has an actual impact on the game itself. perhaps changing factions of certain cities or starting wars or conflicts that could last until someone else changes them back. i liked the idea of diplomacy in VG, even though it was executed horribly (card game) the concept was there to make something new and unique that was supposed to have an impact on the actual playing of the game.
well, i could go on, but i don"t want to write a novel or bore people to death. these are some of the problems i have with warcraft and some ideas that i think would make a new MMO fun to play.
Apart from point 5 and 6 on your wish list, you"re basically typing the dynamics of EQ. To some extent, even 5 is almost the same as how AA points used to be (still are? been a while since I played).
Is that what you?re after, a system of play that?s almost a decade old?
Your first point wouldn"t work at all, an increasing amount of players prefer the emphasis on solo play. Most just want a bragging platform, a place where they can stand on a soap box and show what they?ve achieved. If they go for the percentages, the solo play is where it?s at, especially for the bigger casual audience.
Is that what you?re after, a system of play that?s almost a decade old?
Your first point wouldn"t work at all, an increasing amount of players prefer the emphasis on solo play. Most just want a bragging platform, a place where they can stand on a soap box and show what they?ve achieved. If they go for the percentages, the solo play is where it?s at, especially for the bigger casual audience.
i don"t have a problem with soloable stuff in a MMO, just not the grand percentage of it like what is found in WoW. i think a middle ground can be achieved. this belief that if you don"t make your game just like warcraft then it will fail is utter bullshit. most people want something different and challenging. a game doesn"t have to have 30 million subs in order to be successful. i would take quality over quantity any day.Blitzspear said:
I think its more or less the high-fantasy aspect. That sector of the genre is grossly overpopulated and has become equally stale. Mechanically, theres only so much you can logically accomplish with any mmo. I think most people realise this. You could easily replace "WoW" with EQ, L2, DAoC, etc..... I really don"t think its hate so much as it is boredom.
Hate is a pretty strong word. Do I hate WoW? No. Am I bored of it? Absolutely. But no more bored than I am with EQ, DAoC, etc., and I don"t hate any of those either.
Thats why I think if a new IP is going to do extremely well in the genre, its going to have to be something completely different from the traditional high fantasy. From the earliest premise of the IP to the finished game. Otherwise its destined to be just "more of the same".
Hate is a pretty strong word. Do I hate WoW? No. Am I bored of it? Absolutely. But no more bored than I am with EQ, DAoC, etc., and I don"t hate any of those either.
Thats why I think if a new IP is going to do extremely well in the genre, its going to have to be something completely different from the traditional high fantasy. From the earliest premise of the IP to the finished game. Otherwise its destined to be just "more of the same".
i"ll agree with you on that. i for one would LOVE to see a new star wars MMO that didn"t suck. maybe based on the knights of the old republic game or something. i just think there is so much potential for a star wars MMO if it was done correctly. i"m thinking jedi"s where you get to choose between being good or joining the dark side, or joining the rebels or the empire or perhaps aligning yourself with both? so much wasted potential. oh well, at least SWG wasn"t as bad as the prequels.Rayne said:
but you are correct, the high fantasy genre found in most MMO"s in becoming rather stale. perhaps mcfarlane and salvatore can create some new races/classes that can breathe some new life into the genre?
WOW may be 99% soloable but it is 100% groupable. Its a choice.
When given that choice we have found that most people solo...but its still a choice. The options are there but people just choose not to take them yet still somehow manage to bitch about it constantly.
I like instances, they are more immersive to me. I hate things like Guk, Karnors, and camp checks. It always felt like I just stepped into an alley full of day laborers that would screw each other just to beat the other guys into the back of a truck for work.
I want to go and have my adventure. I don"t want to have to sign up for an adventure and hope I get a chance to do it before I run out of time. I want to play the game and have fun, not stand in line. I don"t care about competing with someone over gear or mobs, I want to take my group and have an adventure. That is why I play.
Everyone outside of my group/guild is just a resource that I can buy from...if I wanted to get to know em I would be grouped or guilded with them. If the entire rest of the server was gone in either EQ or WOW the only way I would notice is because I couldn"t buy some stuff in the markets.
But... thats just me.
When given that choice we have found that most people solo...but its still a choice. The options are there but people just choose not to take them yet still somehow manage to bitch about it constantly.
I like instances, they are more immersive to me. I hate things like Guk, Karnors, and camp checks. It always felt like I just stepped into an alley full of day laborers that would screw each other just to beat the other guys into the back of a truck for work.
I want to go and have my adventure. I don"t want to have to sign up for an adventure and hope I get a chance to do it before I run out of time. I want to play the game and have fun, not stand in line. I don"t care about competing with someone over gear or mobs, I want to take my group and have an adventure. That is why I play.
Everyone outside of my group/guild is just a resource that I can buy from...if I wanted to get to know em I would be grouped or guilded with them. If the entire rest of the server was gone in either EQ or WOW the only way I would notice is because I couldn"t buy some stuff in the markets.
But... thats just me.
you just summed up the entire problem with the WoW community: I, I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me, me. if you cared to look up MMORPG, you would see that it stands for massively MULTIPLAYER online game. if you hate interacting with other people so much, go fucking play oblivion.Gaereth said:
Well, i"ve said it before but:etchazz said:
I"d love to see an Eve/AO hybrid type of game. Eve type gameplay, with AO"s skillpoint/level system. Something with multiple conflicts, and depending on how you view those conflicts, you decide which ones to be involved in, and what side of the conflict best fits your views. With aspects of combat and defense that allow you to choose from either in-space combat/defense, or on-world combat/defense. A system where you keep moving depending upon where beneficial resources will be at a particular stage of development.
In both of the games I use for reference, one thing stands out clearly. In both games, its MOST beneficial to idle and remain in a single location. Because the game places the resources you can utilise in a single area. In Eve its moons and asteroid fields. In AO, its tower fields and player cities. Every other interesting aspect of those games is spread all over the place, but when it comes to collective efficiency, its all crammed into one area.
The game i"d like to play has you on the move constantly, doing different things, because at some point the resources in your current location will no longer be as collectively beneficial as moving somewhere else. Think "borgs" from Star Trek. When your corp/org/guild/whatever becomes stronger, its combined with your strengths as an individual, therefore making you a more beneficial member/individual.
Imagine for a minute if dropping a tower and modules either in space or on a planet/moon for defense and resource harvesting took minutes instead of hours as it currently does in Eve. It takes certain skills to anchor them, other skills to utilise them, and other skills to utilise the material gained from them. With those resources becoming less beneficial the longer you remain there. If there are 3 stars and 5 planets/moons, thats 8 resources you can achieve from that location. However, you might be limited to a max resource count, so moving to the next beneficial area would be more advantageous than hanging around these 8 resources for months on end.
But, all the while these resources are being harvested/defended, your collective effort is being rewarded with strengths beneficial to achieving the next set of goals. While you hold one location from would be attackers, you"re simultaneously assaulting the next beneficial location, while you might have scouts/roving teams seeking out more locations in the process.
There are tons of various ways to achieve all this, but they will certainly be confined to whats currently logical for an mmo.
You"re definitely right: people have a choice to solo or group in WoW and most prefer to solo. However, I think a whole lot of that decision is based specifically in the way that WoW is designed-- soloing is often the fastest, easiest option. I want to see a game that makes grouping easy. Not required, like in EQ where most of the classes needed a group to advance, but easy.Gaereth said:
The game should have built-in mechanisms for connecting people and giving the group a quest and sending them out. I"m not talking about a good LFG tool. I want to see a mechanism that"s built into the very core of how the game works, not an after thought. Because my feeling is that a lot of people like the social aspect and cooperative play that comes with grouping up-- look at the coop modes jumping up everywhere: Gears of War, Rockband, the Halos, hell even some EA Sports titles are supporting same-team play. What people HATE is LFGing and feeling like they"re wasting their time trying to play a game, not actually playing it.
Doesn"t mean I have to play with them.etchazz said:
I have been in the same guild since 2000, play in groups nightly, and always have more offers to play with others than I can accept just from my guild mates. Why should I care about others?? I have dozens of people that I look forward to spending my time with....why should I care about the rest??
Its like real life to me. I have my friends and family that I do things with when I want to....I wave to neighbors when I see them. But if the neighbor goes away I don"t really care....it doesn"t effect me one way or the other. Going to the grocery store isn"t made more special by large crowds. If I was the only one there I would be fine with it.
I choose whom I socialize with. Me, I. I choose.
If I choose to go outside of my guild then I can...I don"t, but I could. Hell, I started WOW in beta and I can count on one hand how many times I have been in a pick up group yet I have always played grouped. I choose to play the game grouped. I can"t name a level on my main that I hit while playing solo...not even the first 20.
But I get a choice on how I play. I choose to play with people I want to play with and love it. I am not forced. Its my choice.
You made the stupid assumption that I play solo.... I don"t. Never have.
1) Levels 1-70 are soloable. Any of the instances, PVP, raids etc are not. I don"t ever want to see a game where you are forced to group to hit max level. You can argue for or against bonuses or deterants for either solo or grouping but you should never be forced. It"s bad game design, never force your community to do anything.etchazz said:
2) Instances are a personal opinion. I prefer them because you can put in better scripting etc into some of the encounters. I also think that larger worlds (at release) are not good. See VG. Unless you have a population to support a large world, and you have a big enough dev team to put out 2-3 dungeons per level tier it"s not a good idea right off the bat in an MMO.
3) I couldn"t disagree more, but you"re allowed your opinion of course. I like games where everyone can get a piece of the pie and but there"s still a larger layer for the more committed to aim for. I think WOW does this well enough.
--
Question for you: If all of WOW"s raid loot, T6 or better quality, was colored purple and every other piece of gear in the game under that level of quality was blue, would you still feel the same way?
--
4) I agree on linear dungeon design. WOW 1.0 did a great job with BRM and a few other dungeons. Theres a thread here and over at EJ discussing it now. As far as quest hubs and leading you on to the next spot, I don"t see anything wrong with it. What is so bad? You want to have to discover it yourself? You want to wander around aimlessly until you find the spot? Perhaps is shouldn"t be as simple as once your done with most of the quests you get something telling you to go talk to the other person in the next done. Maybe a story string or a quest string should lead you there?
I"m not sure what you"re getting at to not like quests leading you through the game, what should be there instead?
5) Not sure where you"re going with this one. But let me pick it apart.
A) Classes. I think WOW has enough classes. I don"t prefer a game with 20 classes like EQ2, I prefer a smaller division with distinct roles. But again, personal opinion, either could work if designed properly where you"re not copying each class but have different names.
B) Skills and stat choice is personal opinion as well. But you inevitably end up with cookie cutter builds anyway. But I don"t like that way, I prefer a stricter class distinction. But again, either works, people prefer different things. People like purposely gimping themselves just so they"re different.
C) Talent trees in WOW affect your character. I"m not sure where you"re going with this. Example: Paladin. Each tree makes you a tank, a healer and a DPS. Not sure how much more diverse you"re looking for.
D) Permanence in character decisions leads to more headaches than it"s worth. Why would you want to make a paying customer angry they hit the wrong button, chose a skill thats awesome at level 10 but is ass at level 40? Hardly ever do new players have a progression path mapped out at level 1 before they log on. Why put in a mechanic that forces players to reroll if they want to change their mind? It just doesn"t make sense and doesn"t lend to a more enjoyable gaming experience over time. You"re pegged into a class roll when you chose a race and class, but why would you further peg someone in a talent tree? Why not just make more and more classes? Instead of making a mage and then have talent trees for different elements and then making in permanent, why not have an option of Fire Mage, Ice Mage, Shadow Mage etc from the reroll screen?
Having to many classes, I think, confuses the average person and also puts layers of doubt in them as they play. If an average player logs on and see a class list like:
Knight, Soldier, Gladiator, Paladin, Templar, Berserker, Warrior, Pikeman, Ninja, Red Mage, Healer, Cleric, Priest, Abbot, Monk, Ice Mage, Water Mage, Earth Mage, Enchanter, Psiciost, Physician, Hunter, Ranger, Tracker, Illusionist, Shaman, Conjurer, Wizard, Sorcerer etc. etc. etc
Don"t you think a person may become confused and not know what the fuck is going on? You have to ease people into making decisions. Make the game fun and comfortable in the beginning. Also, how are you going to develop a unique way for all those classes to stand out? You"re going to hit an extreme amount of redundancy and then run into balance issues, development cost/time issues, gear issues etc. Keep it simple.
6) Dynamic world etc are hard to create. This Mortal Online thing 2Bit put up is interesting, and I"d like to see it happen, can"t argue with you there. I think it"s hard to implement and guard for hacking. See: Dumar vs. Zhen in some other threads. I"d love to see it happen, but I"ll believe that it"s impossible until I see it.