The KGB Oracle Forums KGB National Announcements, News, and Help The KGB Sentinel Are we doomed to mediocrity?

This is my first post here, but I've enjoyed reading this thread. Clearly something some feel passionate about.

What I'd say about the topic is close to what Leverett said in his last post. "Why are there so many clones right now? It's because that's what the market wants...we also aren't the audience that makes up the mainstream market."

A lot of people I know just played single-player games before Blizzard decided to make something for the masses. In a way, how bad it even may sound, right now we have WoW to thank for the attention of the MMO genre. (I didn't say it's the right kind of attention, but it's a start)
Before WoW, I think EQ had about 500k people and that was considered to be about max a MMO could get. But now all bets are off.

Imo developers are indeed getting squishy when it comes to new ideas. However the pressure they're getting from their bosses to deliver must be immense these days. This French proverb depicts their problem: "It might be good in practical terms but in theory it will never work."
And as we all know a succesful businessmodel (theory) is what the money providers ask for these days.

But there's a second problem that I haven't seen come by much here. And that problem is...US.
We are the ones that demand new things. We demand stronger and better challenges. We demand, and expect to get what we want.
But that's the line between rl and in-game. It's here that we should realise, that as we want more and better, those 2 WILL get into conflict. I very much doubt we'll get another shock & awe experience before we get dna-based computers in combination with VR.

But does that mean we can't have fun in the meantime? Definitely not! I have a lot of fun with friends in whatever MMO I like. For me it's the combo of a game I find fun + my friends to play it with. I'm happy to stick with that for now.
However that doesn't mean I'm not crossing my fingers for something way out of left field that might blow me away.

I agree, it's always been my belief, a belief I've often preached about many times in the past, that gaming suffers at the hands of human nature. It is and has always been our own fickle tendencies to drive innovation to provide us with what we want. It is that primal psychological aspect of social interaction and community which dictates our passions, and in a gaming related context this is why the industry has been following the current trend. To provide what they think the larger majority wants based on sales figures and mass appeal.

Unfortunately just because 9 Million subscribers have bought into a specific idea or design element doesn't necessarily make it the best. The fact is many people that have ascribed to the notion that World of Warcraft is the pinnacle of game design only feeds the misconception that all games should be made this way, and ultimately most of these 9 million people do not have much gaming experience or mechanical understanding to know better. To realize these games have more potential as a social device or community resource then as just a loot fest dress up game.

Morphic sway rooms, virtual reality, and graphical interfaces will come with time as technologies improve at the steady pace we've all come to expect. Unfortunately the question begging to be asked is will human nature ever evolve past what it currently is and keep the same pace? Doubtful, the technological singularity in relation to Moore's Law does not specifically prove that mankind's ability to grow psychologically will match the growth of his intellect. Emotionally speaking mankind is fragile, and this means we invariantly build fragility into everything we make and anything we act upon.

There is lots of room to play here though. Lets look at the numbers.

A game with just 100,000 subscribers makes $1,000,000 per month. Thats nothing to shake a stick at. 500,000 subscribers is $5,000,000 a month or $60,000,000 a year.

I think that many folks had WOW as their first MMO experience. They have never experiences what we all long for here. Real open PVP like what Darkfall is offering. I think that a real challenge like that is the only thing that can hold interest over the long haul. Time wiull tell.

Depends... there is really a fundamental difference between
a MMCOAG (massivly multiplayer co-op aquisition game) like WoW and a "Sandbox" like DFO. UO was the first "sandbox"
and EQ generally the first MMCOAG.

EQ did better than UO, for a variety of reasons and became the most copied model. But even though we all call them MMO,
they are really so fundamentally different in what they try to achieve that we should really start thinking of them as different genres.

My updated Lexicon:

MMCOAG : massivly multiplayer co-op aquisition game

Games in this genre generally focus around large, complex challenges meant to be tackled with a diverse group.
This genre offers a unified, persistant game world, and typically continually adds new challenges. This game can have PvP, but the PvP usually operates within the same overall context as the rest of the game: as a large group activity , basically just another type of challenge - but for this challenge, player groups compete in a structured fashion, generally for some type of "rewards"

Games in this genre: WoW, Warhammer, DAOC, EQ, L2


-------------------------------------------------------

PLAAG : Persistantly Linked Area/Arena Game

A PLAAG game is a game where your player/account exists in the context of a much larger community, however actual play
exists in an "area" or an "arena". Highly structured, the game revolves around pre-determined challenges, but operates in a completely "instanced" environment. The difference between a PLAAG and a MMCOAG boils down mostly to the intended "hook", that is: the main focus of the game - a PLAAG will typically focus on the main mechanic "usually combat" while a MMCOAG focuses primarily on continual character advancement.

It is interesting to note, that while Guildwars is the most
thought-of PLAAG , newer FPS games such as COD4, BF2 and others also arguably qualify for this genre - as experience is gained, new items are unlocked for XP/completing missions
and or challenges.

Games : Guildwars , NWN Persistant communities, COD4, Planetside

------------------------------------------------------


Persistant Sandbox, or just "Sandbox" : A Sandbox is designed to provide an environment - as opposed to a structured content path, or a combat arena. The game is defined by its lack of definition, and exists , in its purest form as a "world simulation". UO was the first and best known, and at least at its inception even attempted to include complex ecosystems regulating things like reagent drops and mobile spawns.

The "hook" of a Sandbox game, is more or less that of having an alternative ego. Given real choice, its possible to create a real "character" and roleplay it as an idependant entity. It is also possible to engage in much deeper gameplay mechanics.

Sandbox are the most "social" of the games, because other users actions can directly affect the rest of the user base.
Sandbox games, usually exist as this social interaction being the main "hook" and focus of development.

Games: UO, EVE, Second Life

About what Drakiis was saying, sure, WoW brought a large number of players to the genre. Of the ones that were already playing MMOs though, I think WoW's success and appeal was timing more than the quality of their game. Except for EVE (which is pretty old itself, 2002?) every game out there with better gameplay than WoW is just far too old. The players have rolled and rerolled characters on them too many times to count.

And yeah, Jet is absolutely right, and that's why so many games are trying to just find a niche rather than be WoW-killers now. A few games like LotR tried and failed miserably. Games are better off catering to their couple thousand subscribers, and making a nice profit that way. Look at EVE, they've slowly been expanding their subscriber base since release, just recently they broke a concurrent-user record, they hit something like 27k, so let's say they have 60k members, that's about $900k a month, and they've been at it for six years or so now... that's a whole lot of mulah.

Actually I think the official number is around 250k subscribers. Their concurrent-user record typically reflects the state of their hardware, every time they upgrade hardware and/or software efficiency, the record goes up a notch.

Unfortunatly EVE, while a great game, doesnt hold my interest. I love the concept, but the play style just doesnt mesh well with my psychological profile. In other words, I have immense respect, and appreciate alot of the features.. its just not something I really enjoy playing- mostly due to
time/pacing issues.

If only games could be broken down into specific categories such as those Derid speaks of it would make internet gaming a far easier thing to understand for both those of us seeking pvp and those of us who are not.

I'd like to see game companies start using this as a way to build specific gaming communities, and as a way to find and build games for those specific groups of people.

If games had PvP, PvE, RvR, or some other such classification printed on the box it might be able to target those specific groups and deliver a quality experience for those people seeking such type of game. However I do not think they would do this because of the idea that one it's exclusive, and elitist, two it would seriously deflate the sales figures, three the design aspect and practicality.

They do really - you can pretty easily infer what category a game will fit in. A sandbox will always be touting player freedom, choices and talking about stuff you can do that effects the world.

MMCOAGs will always be talking about the gfx, content, and things the developers have set up for you to do.

PAAG games will always be talking about their combat system/etc

Its pretty easy to tell that Warhammer and AoC will be MMCOAG, Darkfall is a Sandbox and GW2 will likely be a PLAAG.

""Nor do they design said games with these sorts of classifications in mind, and eventually most games will tack on such aspects later to improve sales in a specific area that the game was not originally designed with. Which in the end leaves said games woefully weak overall when compared to a game designed from the ground up with one of the aboves features""

Exactly.

Thats the point. Its easy to tell what a game really is, regardless of whether they label it such, in their own minds or to the public.

Once you know what it is, you can usually tell what aspects will get dev time, what the devs will likely actually care about in the game, which aspects will get top priority - and just as telling - what type of players they will want to cater to when various groups start whining.

Its just one way to identify the underlying philosophy a game is created with. All games have an underlying philosophy, all devs have a type of game they want their players to play. If not in specific terms, at least from a general subjective perspective.

This is good and natural, and to be expected - and typically the games that execute best on their core philosophy are the ones that enjoy the most success.

But once I know a game is, at heart, a MMCOAG - I know its not for me long term - no matter what nifty trappings they disguise it with.