| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (30)

Posted: Dec 1st 2007 12:58AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
are online games very different from poker night?
A game is a game.
Either you play for the people, the fun, or just to win.
Warcraft needs something to win.
After sitting thru hours of updates and patches just get the game to run, I think I should win a free month of service, or a level up of my choosing.
Warcraft gets lame becouse it is static to its customers, more than its gameplay.

Posted: Dec 1st 2007 6:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you want to have your life completely subsumed by a game that is infinite and is almost 100% dependent on your own ambitions then, as others have mentioned, Eve is the game for you with the one proviso that it takes forever to get enough skills to be even reasonably self sufficient and you will have to cooperate with others at some point or other. Another issue can be the price of death. You do not rise up again with all your equipment, whatever was on your ship is destroyed or taken as loot by your killer, and you must ensure you have bought a clone or you risk losing skills as well. The loss of a ship is a gut wrenching experience as you may have saved for months to get the thing. Often the equipment on the ship is worth much more than the ship itself as huge premiums are paid for exotic equipment that gives you maybe a 2% advantage.

This game continues to evolve with a new upgrade due next week, which has major changes to graphics, new ships, the complexity of which is beyond this blog. However, Eve now has its own real economist, who has a doctorate, has Corporations that have shares which can be and are traded on a stock exchange, mercenaries who will kill for fun or money, systems which can be conquered and held by alliances, and wars that can take treachery and destruction to incredible levels.

There are real life alliances, for example Red Alliance is primarily Russian and very well organised. Almost everything is created by the players, although Blueprints are seeded into the game some at such enormous prices that no individual player could possibly afford to buy. Making the largest ships can take weeks if not months, Oh, and by the way, unlike WoW Eve is a single universe, it is not sharded. This game is Capitalism at its rawest.

Posted: Dec 1st 2007 7:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We have had this before have we not?

We have had MMO's that 'evolve' and they were not liked.

I don't know if you remember the "Sleeper" in Everquest. Here was an event that once beaten could not be beaten again.

You know the biggest question raised?

Why did I pay for content I can't ever access?

It is one thing to create an expansion for level 50+ because you can argue that the content will still be there whenever player X gets to level 50+ that is not the case if the content 'evolves'

I put it to you like this. If you walk into a furniture store and you buy a 3 seat sofa, and the store 'evolves' and has no more 3 seat sofas.

Should I pay when I go to the store for a 3 seat sofa, even though there are only 2 seaters left?

Of course not.

So why is a game different?

If I pay the same price as the person playing next to me, I should have access to the same content that they have access to, even if it is at a different pace.

If you 'evolve' the game and allow character actions to massively change the content of the game, you will as in the case of the sleeper create a situation where people pay the same price but do not enjoy the same content.

Posted: Dec 1st 2007 7:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Think we're talking about two different things here Fong. You're referring to PVE primarily and you're right, I don't have an answer for that at this time, so for now, ya I'd say you need instances that anyone can participate in so every gets to participate. So if there was a dragon's lair in a mountain range somewhere, ya that should be an instanced area that anyone and everyone should be able to participate in. And that's what I referred to above when I mentioned the different leveled instances around a city.

What I'm primarily talking about when I say the world should be more dynamic is RVR /PVP combat where the territorial borders of the kingdom are always changing. In effect, think of Warcraft II but with characters for each of the units. Even more so, in larger RVR combat like this the goals are often much bigger therefore it requires a lot more people to achieve certain goals.

For example, say there are certain fortresses along a border territory and to win over that area you need to reach a point within the fortress and obtain something (i.e. touch a flag, whatever). Now to accomplish something like this might require a huge coordination of people attacking at different points around the fortress. Even more so, to get inside and reach this flag room, requires even more coordination. But the final act of capturing that flag might just be done by one person.

Now if I was playing a game like this I wouldn't complain that "That's not fair that only one player gets the glory capturing the flag. I should as well. These shouldn't be RVR / PVP areas but instances with NPCs instead so everyone can get the glory of capturing the flag whenever they want."

The key thing here is that with these larger RVR objectives everyone does get to contribute in achieving the objectives, no matter how small their contribution, because it requires many people to achieve the goal (it can't be done by just a small group or guild). Again this is no different than how games like Warbirds or Allegiance worked but the idea is to bring it to a larger scale. For example in Warbirds, you have multiple squadrons (guilds) usually coordinating and assisting each other to capture enemy territory because it's really difficult for just one squadron to do it alone.
Reply

Posted: Dec 1st 2007 7:21AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I made a comment above.

That it was not liked. That is an unqualified statement at this stage.

To prove that statement.

Scars of Velious was the expansion that EQ brought out with the Sleeper. After this expansion they brought out 3 more.

None of those expansions had any content like the Sleeper. Now we have no figures, because EQ like WoW hides its active player numbers relying on 'subscribers' these of course include anyone that has ever subscribed. Whether they actively play or not.

Anecdotally I ran a guild in EQ and I lost players when the Sleeper was killed on our server, and I know of lots of people who left the game after the Sleeper was killed on their server.

This was not just because they wanted to kill the sleeper, there were many people I knew who left the game who were never of a level to attack the sleeper.

They left with these types of comments.

I am not paying for content so that the developers friends in the top guilds can enjoy it.

Now if the content of SoV and The Sleeper had been a success, then I am sure EQ would have repeated that content. They never did.

Stop asking for something that the majority of people don't really want.

I don't want to pay for content so that a few can enjoy it and the rest of us can go without.

You want a massively evolving game, then you need a massively evolving subscription fee, because you can't ask everyone to pay the same amount, if they don't have access to the same content.

Posted: Dec 1st 2007 8:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry Nollind, I was replying to this comment by the blogster.

"No doubt there'll be WoW players out there screaming at the thought of any content whatsoever being removed from the game, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the greater good."

That was the part I was replying to.

I do agree with you about making the PvP side of games more dynamic and I believe the technology is there to do that.

There is a problem though that no amount of game balance can fix, the problem of dominance. If one side begins to dominate you lose players.

Now with a game like WoW with a persistent and non-changeable world, one side can dominate all week long, but next week? There is no advantage, you start from zero and everyone has an equal chance.

When you start moving borders, destroying buildings and NPCs you end up in a position where one side gains an advantage that is not easy to overcome.

You also have to understand the audience. These are PvP players, they enjoy competition. If one side begins to dominate and begins to gain further advantage by the changing world, then the other side sees a lack of competition.

You have to rebalance the world. That is difficult to do if you a world that is changing based on player actions.

Posted: Dec 2nd 2007 9:32AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
On target: World events, such as opening the Gates of AQ, add a great deal of interest and refresh the game. However - once they are gone, poof! static world with some minor alterations.

This is not a fair representation of life. Life is full of one way doors and irrevocable changes. And a real story moves forward.

Even the bored and the blasés could be enticed to join again if there was some progressions. I know I id, many times, with another Blizzard title of old, Diablo II.

Once you reached 70, got your dream gear together, and ran a few engames raids - not much else remains to do for novel experience. Reroll, or pkill the opposite factions, or become a collector of rare mounts... And even rerolling is iffy, since after a few times, you know how to work the game, make money, skill up, level up in little time...


So yeah, absolutely right: A good virtual world mimics the real one. Alliances change. Politics are a dangerous game and have lasting consequences. Terrain can be conquered, and lost.

It's not for a lack of possibility,nor for sure for a lack of wealth in Blizzard's coffers.

I fear that, with the closure of Blizzard North, MANY of the creative folks with vision who originally made this company great went to work elsewhere, and accountants now run the show, ie what can we do at minimum costs to exploit this franchise just a bit more.

Posted: Dec 2nd 2007 7:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Try Wurm - http://www.wurmonline.com

Although it doesn't have the high budget (and therefore high graphics) of many other games, it offers one oddity.

You can change the land.

You can dig holes, build hills, dig mines, create land bridges, landscape and generally sort your self out however you like.

Consequently, even though the graphics allow very few options, what you can do is almost limitless - and people's way of building their home up mountains, on lakes, in forests, on plains, is as varied as their imaginations.

Terraforming on Wurm has really allowed people to be themselves. Also, it is a good place for older players who just want a peaceful life and not get plagued by zitty kids wanting to have a war (they have their own server for that)

Posted: Dec 2nd 2007 11:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Fong...

I played EQ when the Sleeper was killed on our server as well. However, I have a completely different experience of that event. For me, and for many of my friends and guildmates, the slaying of the Sleeper was one of the most influential factors in keeping us in the game. Understanding that players could make permanent, lasting changes to the gameworld was incredibly exciting.

You seem to forget that even though Kerafyrm (the Sleeper) was slain on pretty much every server, people on virtually every server still talked about him and that event for years afterward. The lore and player-written stories about Kerafyrm were absolutely legendary.

I'm surprised that no one here has mentioned the incredibly dynamic Ultima Online. Most of the content was player-created, of course, but the game platform was simple enough that live events were at least biweekly.

In UO, I'm pretty sure that if something big happened like a city's vendors being kidnapped, then the game designers would just say, "Deal with it." After all, why do they *have* to make different routes for people who would be inconvenienced by the disappearance of non-essential (or even essential) NPCs? That would defeat the purpose of producing a more authentic feeling.

I realize it's an economical decision, but WoW players are way too used to being pampered.

Posted: Dec 4th 2007 8:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Brilliant ideas here you lot, some of you should be working for blizzard, no seriously, I have always been one for progressive content.

Featured Stories

MV Guide: May 21 - 27, 2012

Posted on May 21st 2012 9:00AM

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW