quote: Original post by solinear
Maybe it''s the whole fantasy thing. Make standard fantasy and you''ll do well. The more races and variety you have, the better you''ll do too.

3 or 4 years ago, games magazine journalists were insisting that fantasy games were sad, RPGs were yesterday''s news, and Tolkienesque settings were gone. How pleased I am to see them having to pretend they never said such things.



[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

Personally I think AO had a great chance to get into the market with its different setting, but blew it because of the bugs. Still, even though the game was largely unplayable (like many others, I bought the game when it was released but did not renew the account when my free month was up), I remember reading somewhere that it did manage to get 50k subscribers at its heigth.

AO had another problem too and that was that it was not different enough from EQ and the other popular games despite the fact that it was set in the future. I think it was a mistake from the AO designers to include swords, castles, medieval looking armor and ''nano tech'' (most players called it spells because that''s how it was implemented) in its supposedly futuristic world.

Marketing theory suggests that you really need to differentiate yourself from the competition in order to do well in the market, so I would personally not make another fantasy game right now if I wanted to break into the market. That is, unless I can come up with some really really obviously original features that can only be implemented in a fantasy context. For instance, DAoC had its PvP focus with the possibility to lay sieges and control territory, its familiar historical and mythological setting that appealed to many Europeans, and the timing of its launch that came in a ''draught'' in the market.

quote: How pleased I am to see them having to pretend they never said such things.

Just to let everyone know, I''m not a media person, so he wasn''t referring to me

To follow up the complete statement, I''ve always been into fantasy... started playing D&D in 5th and 6th grade (I''m almost 32 now, just to give you an idea) and never really got out of it. I''m into fantasy and sci-fi almost to an extreme. The weirdest thing to me is that while games get fantasy right most of the time and sci-fi right sometimes, movies get fantasy horribly wrong and sci-fi right most of the time (btw, there are rare exceptions, such as Harry Potter and LOTR). Thank god for books.

quote: Marketing theory suggests that you really need to differentiate yourself from the competition in order to do well in the market, so I would personally not make another fantasy game right now if I wanted to break into the market.

Yep, marketing theory is right too. I know every time I go to a movie I think about how original it is...

Last I knew marketing theory was to jump on the bandwagon. Take advantage of a genre while the populace is warm on the idea and get your money while the gettin''s good.

In my opinion, there is one very important thing you need for any MMOG:

Common point of reference.

If you can get the rights to make a Star Trek game, you''re golden because of the common reference. If you could make a Predator and Aliens game, you''ll have the beginnings of a good plan. Star Wars: Galaxies will be an amazing success for obvious reasons.

Dune would even be pretty good, considering that there are so many options for the player to engage in, but it would really be a role-playing game, not a ''kill stuff and gain power'' game. The segmentation of the society would give easy to explain classes (Mentat, Bene Gesserit, Tlelaxu, etc... not to mention the usuals like physician) and the fact that Brian Herbert is writing Novels again, you might be able to get approval, so long as you place the books in the same timeline as his books instead of the classic Dune books.

Babylon 5? It might work, if you can find the right angle... the board game stank because idiots made it and basically copied an intro version of another game (Star Fleet Battles). Result: too simple for anyone really into sci-fi.

How can you roleplay something where there is no point of reference? It just doesn''t work well. We know what dwarves and elves act like from 100s of books over the past 6 decades, mythology and all of the pnp role-playing games out there (and the hundreds of books supporting them). There are some games out there that look like they will be amazing, but they will fail due to a lack of common reference. Big World (Citizen Zero) and Atriarch look to be games that will be excellent, but the lack of a role-playing reference will definitely hurt, if not cripple these games.

Being different is taking a chance. Being a copycat with important differences gives the greatest chance of success. Until Star Wars/Star Trek: TMP, all sci-fi was largely of the post apocalyptic kind in movies. All of a sudden we started seeing more of the optimistic appearing in sci-fi movies, from Blade Runner, where it was a dreary existence, but society was still functioning and our power as a race had never faltered to ET and movies like Back to the Future (and a hundred more I can''t think of offhand). The sci-fi craze that has come since is completely based upon the large success of those two movies (and their resultant franchises). Today something like 1/4th of the top 100 grossing films of all time are sci-fi based... I think that less than a half dozen of them are fantasy. I would almost bet that after Harry Potter and LOTR continue their successful run, fantasy is going to start it''s little run in the movies. Technology is hitting the point where you can do it somewhat reasonably and the return is there if you do it right.

Hollywood is about as conservative as it gets (though the people act like they''re not), they only take chances on nearly sure things or as a way to develop a promising director/producer. Now that fantasy has shown that it can bring in the big bucks, there will be a small rush to get some good fantasy books converted into movie format. I just hope they don''t stick with the crappy writers that have made most of the horrible fantasy movies up until now (man was D&D a disappointment).

You don''t have to do fantasy, it''s just the easiest genre that has a very common reference and NO ROYALTIES generally. Go see how much you''ll pay in royalties to Paramount for Star Trek or to the Herbert family for Dune...

Creating a common point of reference is important but I think you devalue game developers as artists if you are saying that game developers can not create compelling original content or communicate a focused vision of the world to the players, but have to rip-off books and movies. Working with connotations to communicate focused visions is probably something that game developers can learn a lot about from traditional art fields though.

Jumping on the bandwagon is fine as long as you are willing to settle for the smaller market share that the market leader leaves you, but the best positioned products are the ones that get percieved as leaders in their own cathegories rather than followers of other successful products that are still popular (being the latest is also a way to be different, but for that to be really useful, people must really be getting tired of the competitors). It is no wonder that big developers like EA look for other genres than fantasy when they try to break into the MMORPG market (EA's Earth and Beyond had been in development for some time when Star Wars Galaxies was announced).

Edit: Added lots to a small post.

[edited by - HenryAPe on October 3, 2002 6:43:54 AM]

quote: Original post by solinear
To follow up the complete statement, I''ve always been into fantasy... started playing D&D in 5th and 6th grade (I''m almost 32 now, just to give you an idea) and never really got out of it. I''m into fantasy and sci-fi almost to an extreme. The weirdest thing to me is that while games get fantasy right most of the time and sci-fi right sometimes, movies get fantasy horribly wrong and sci-fi right most of the time (btw, there are rare exceptions, such as Harry Potter and LOTR). Thank god for books.

Gaming journalists are so out of touch though, it''s untrue. And they like to think they''re film journalists, which is perhaps a reason for the point you make above. One magazine ran an article mentioning that "how come most game players don''t know any names of the game developers? Yet they could list their 5 top film directors." Which is patently false... most people I know could barely name 5 directors, never mind know enough to make an informed choice (as opposed to just reeling off the first 5 they could think of).

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

quote: ...if you are saying that game developers can not create compelling original content or communicate a focused vision of the world to the players, but have to rip-off books and movies...

Actually that''s not even close to what I said or what I meant. I was using other entertainment mediums and how success is achieved through them (movies mostly, but partially books) as a model for success in game development, or at least creating more successful games. The gaming industry already does it though, look at all of the RTS games, the FPS games and RPGs. They are generally successful, so others copy the formula to create a successful game. I mean, how many copies of Civilization are out there, including the copies that are RTS games? Master of Magic, Empire Earth, etc... they are all the same game, but they each seem to have a little different theme and they pull in aspects of other games too.

Don''t get me wrong, the genre defining games (Civ, Doom/Quake, Warcraft, EQ, Ultima/Pool of Radiance, etc...) are the best ones usually, but taking those games and finding ways of making them your own are sometimes the best chance to make a successful game.

quote: Jumping on the bandwagon is fine as long as you are willing to settle for the smaller market share that the market leader leaves you, but the best positioned products are the ones that get percieved as leaders in their own cathegories rather than followers of other successful products that are still popular (being the latest is also a way to be different, but for that to be really useful, people must really be getting tired of the competitors).

I didn''t say do it second rate. Unreal sure as hell doesn''t settle for a smaller market share. Sure, people want to see Quake4 or Doom4 or whatever, but that''s more to see what cool stuff that Carmack is going to add into the next engine.

I also wasn''t necessarily stating that everyone should jump on the bandwagon, just that it is the best chance to make a successful game that will mean that you''re going to continue making games. Burn more than one publisher with a large project gone bad and you won''t find anymore funding. Give them a regular staple of moderately successful games and you''ll keep in a job, that might give you the chance to take the chance on the big break game that you want to make and if it''s a bust, you still have a relatively successful track record to fall back on.

quote: It is no wonder that big developers like EA look for other genres than fantasy when they try to break into the MMORPG market (EA''s Earth and Beyond had been in development for some time when Star Wars Galaxies was announced).

Don''t get me wrong, EA is vastly successful, but they STARTED the (modern) MMORPG market with UO and I think their choice to not make another fantasy MMORPG is a mistake. UO was missing so much that Ultima had, such as more than one race, that they really should have created the new version. So many people couldn''t wait to see what UO2 would do to one-up EQ that it wasn''t even funny. I''m not even an Ultima fan and I wanted to see what they were going to end up with.

quote: Gaming journalists are so out of touch though

This is kinda funny. I wish I read more gaming magazines, but the only one I read is Game Developer Magazine nowadays.

quote: One magazine ran an article mentioning that "how come most game players don''t know any names of the game developers? Yet they could list their 5 top film directors."

I think this is because most journalists are writers first and gamers second. The result? They end up being more concerned with reading another book or seeing a movie (a book for those with a short attention span) than finding out who made that awesome game they play.

Sure, I can name a half dozen game developers out there, but I can also much more easily name off a good dozen movie directors. Remembering Carmack, Garriott, Molyneux and Meier is a given for most gamers, but naming off people like Spielburg, Lucas, Howard, Tarantino and Coppola is only a given if you''re still breathing. Trying to compare a medium that has been around for almost a century to one that just came out of it''s infancy about 15 years ago is just silly. Coppola was directing before the first Zork came out and while maybe a couple of million people know who John Carmack is by name, hundreds of millions know who Lucas is all over the world. It''s like comparing the performers of CATS! to the Beatles... even Jesus couldn''t stand up to the Beatles

quote: Don''t get me wrong, EA is vastly successful, but they STARTED the (modern) MMORPG market with UO and I think their choice to not make another fantasy MMORPG is a mistake.

I kind of agree with you here, not because UO was lacking races, but because UO early became an established brand among MMORPGs and could have been used to create a franchise. Still, it did get overrun by EverQuest and I am guessing the many fantasy MMORPGs that were in production was what made EA kill the production of UO2 and go with something different.

Yeah, I think that maybe the problem that they encountered is that they lacked a lot of the drive and vision (didn''t Verant really kill that word?) that was at the core of their RPGs (Ultima) when they lost Richard Garriott (sp?). Now they''re busy trying to find a market for an MMOG and leaving the largest market to everyone else.

The biggest problem for the gaming industry right now, as I see it, is that most publishers can''t seem to connect all the dots that have been left throughout history. During every single recession/depression entertainment as a whole has achieved extremely high growth. With the exception of the music industry right now (which suffers from GIGO, but they would rather blame it on Napster, Bearshare and the like... I mean have you actually listened to that crap by Shakira? And she''s the ''hot new thing'' out now) entertainment spending is through the roof. Almost every single game publisher out there had to raise their estimates for income/profit because of last quarter''s results. If the investors could only step back and see where the profits are at, they would simply move their investments around during every recession to entertainment and leave the production industry alone until the recession looks to be ending, then move back while the prices are still good... but don''t pay attention to me, look at income and profit history for yourself and you''ll see what I''m talking about. The investors that I''m working with have followed my advice and looked at the numbers, they''re almost itching to give us money right now because of it.

quote: Original post by solinear
(...) If the investors could only step back and see where the profits are at, they would simply move their investments around during every recession to entertainment and leave the production industry alone until the recession looks to be ending, then move back while the prices are still good (...)

You make a sound point here; it''s a common saw that during bad times people want to be entertained. But then... while overall the entertainment sector will do well in certain conditions, any individual entertainment company is less of a sure bet. Unless you''re talking media giants whose profits are made rock-solid by massive diversification, entertainment is also well known to be a risky business, where it''s possible to make a lot and also possible to lose a lot.

So sure, during bad times I''ll buy Time-Warner. But venture capital for any particular "next big thing" is something I''d think twice before putting up.

Boy, this thread has diverged somewhat hasn''t it?

quote: Original post by solinear
Yeah, I think that maybe the problem that they encountered is that they lacked a lot of the drive and vision (didn''t Verant really kill that word?) that was at the core of their RPGs (Ultima) when they lost Richard Garriott (sp?).

Lost him? They effectively fired him.

They didn''t do UO2 because they wanted to keep milking UO1. Less risk, less expense. EA had the next financial quarter to think of, you see. Next year can look after itself, supposedly.

Oh... regarding movie directors etc... most people I know only know actors, not directors. I bet you''d find the same if you picked out an average person between 20 and 30 years old. Did they watch Titanic for DiCaprio or Cameron? But as ''creative types'' you and I - and some journalists - are more likely to know the people who do the actual development work, in that we know directors rather than actors, and we don''t go round thinking that Ultima Online is a game by Electronic Arts or that Activision made Quake 3.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]