"Out on the road today, I saw a DEADHEAD sticker on a Cadillac
A little voice Inside my head said, "Don't look back. You can never look back."

Smaller instanced dungeons are here to stay.

Large raids are impersonal and no longer what a large portion of the playerbase wants. A game will likely still have them but their days as the focus are over IMO.

Quote:

Original post by Stangler The move towards dynamic content is a good assumption but your actual ideas about how that will happen seem way off IMO.

The specific examples as suggestions may be off, as I have said openly since I cannot know the rest of the game that a system such as this will exist in.
However, I am certain that the adaptable system will be in place for an attempt at immersion and to lessen the load of manual mechanics alterations by the developing staff.
Meaning, the mechanics will adjust their options to you dependent on your game-play, and then you will make your choices from those options.

Quote:

Original post by Stangler I think you should start with WOW and really try and understand what people like it so much. This may be difficult if you don't like WOW.

I have since the game came out.
I don't have to like games to understand what occurs.
I literally have studied toys and games since I was five years old and my grandfather began teaching me the introduction to making toys and games that he did by hand.

I've never stopped since then.
The point of saying that was to explain that my personal taste does not come into my examination of what I see in a given game or industry of gaming.

In the case of WoW, it is largely successful because it accomplishes 6 basic things:
1) Efficiency
2) Reliability
3) Ease of use
4) Simple and Clean
5) Constant disturbance
6) Higher than average developer interaction

Those are the reasons WoW is successful.

These are also the basic functions of success for a grocery store:
1) Efficient
2) Reliably stocked
3) Easy to locate items
4) Simple to get around and Clean
5) Constant change-over of new product or promotions
6) Higher than average employee to customer interaction

In fact, these are the basic concepts to success in pretty much any consumer market business.
So this is why WoW succeeds.
Everything else falls into one of these categories.

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn Quote: Original post by Kylotan Quote: Original post by Telastyn Quote: Original post by Griffin_Kemp Now we have instancing everywhere, employing the basic structure of randomization that Diablo began 13 years ago. Umm, Diablo is really nothing more than a graphical version of Rogue, made some ~27 years ago. I wouldn't be too surprised if a mud hadn't implemented instancing before Diablo ever came out. Generally not, because back in the old days, online RPGs were games you played with all the other players, not glorified lobby systems letting you go into a dungeon exclusively made for your small band of RL friends. ;) Finding some other adventurers already underground picking the loot off the corpse of the dead red dragon was part of the fun. Yeah, it's unlikely, but I could imagine some sort of instanced arena to control PvP or some instanced planar sanctuary or instances to do some Wizard testing. Not the same game impact, but similar technological requirements.

The point, I think you catch, is that Diablo really took that concept and brought it to a realization of actual use beyond just the simple, "Yes, the numerical algorithm can be ran on a computer."
And threw it into a wide range of interactive three dimensional space, with a town to shop in, and a dungeon to walk to, and went online to play with multiple members who could go with you to these randomly generated dungeons that only your party would see.

That's pretty much the genesis of what we understand as instancing.

Re: The elements of success of WoW

According to your post, would the fact that World of Warcraft is introduced after the Warcraft series play no basic role in the success of WoW? What about the fact that WoW is well-known and there are a lot of players? Where do these factors go?

Quote:

1) Efficiency 2) Reliability 3) Ease of use 4) Simple and Clean 5) Constant disturbance 6) Higher than average developer interaction Everything else falls into one of these categories.

Where would price go? System requirement? The general Accessibility catagory? What about user expectations?

Which of your six catagories will be affected if:

1) WoW is rated for Everyone
2) WoW is rated for Mature Audience Only
3) WoW has no female characters
4) The monsters in WoW don't die.
5) The database is periodically reset so that every player gets to start with a clean character.
6) PvP is always on.
7) There is only one class, and only one weapon.
8) User picks the desired race by selecting it at the beginning of the game.
9) User picks the desired race by clicking a randomly appearing icon in the game 50 times. The player character will slowly evolve into that race. If the player clicked the icon of another race, the player will get negative progress toward the desired race.

Which catagory these decisions affect? How would you classify them?

[Edited by - Wai on June 2, 2009 7:05:00 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Wai What about the fact that WoW is well-known and there are a lot of players?

That's namebrand recognition, which won't in itself make anything succeed.
If the game sucked, it would suck.
Just like Pepsi Blue didn't win because it wasn't market successful regardless of the fact that it carried the Pepsi brand.

Quote:

Where would price go?

Ease of use.

Quote:

System requirement?

Efficiency, Simple and Clean, Ease of use.

Quote:

The general Accessibility catagory?

Efficiency, Simple and Clean, Ease of use.

Quote:

What about user expectations?

That's actually target marketing, but in this list it directly ties into developer to consumer interaction; keeping in touch with your clientele so to constantly be aware of what the demands are, and how to shift supply.

Quote:

1) WoW is rated for Everyone 2) WoW is rated for Mature Audience Only

Primary is Ease of use; this is the same as asking about a chainsaw versus a hammer. A much younger age may use a hammer, but an older and more knowledgeable age is generally required for something as dangerous as a chainsaw. Likewise, mature content is not easy for children to use when you look at this from a market standpoint because parents will not allow them to use the game as easily. It also risks offensive material, which may cause the game to be more difficult for some player to continue playing. Again, ease of use.

Quote:

3) WoW has no female characters

Ease of use, but this is silly in our generally politically correct society of business; the lack of gender options would be suicide in business models.

Quote:

4) The monsters in WoW don't die.

Ease of use, Simple and Clean, Higher than average developer interaction: lacking these things would produce concepts that are impossible or too difficult for players to consider continuing.

Quote:

5) The database is periodically reset so that every player gets to start with a clean character.

Reliability, Efficiency, Ease of Use, Simple and Clean: it would fail at all of these.

Quote:

6) PvP is always on.

That depends on your market once again; in some games this is the case because of their target; however in WoW, this would seem inappropriate considering it's market. Therefore, this would be Ease of use, and Developer interaction: lacking these two things would result in the idea of PvP shifting to always on...not to mention losing Reliability since it's a pretty core standard of WoW.

Quote:

7) There is only one class, and only one weapon.

Constant disturbance, Efficiency: you do not have enough variables to cause enough variation (constant disturbance) to keep things interesting, nor is this an efficient design for keeping players interested.

Quote:

8) User picks the desired race by selecting it at the beginning of the game.

primarily a consideration for Ease of use, but also affects Simple and Clean, and Efficiency.

Quote:

9) User picks the desired race by clicking a randomly appearing icon in the game 50 times. The player character will slowly evolve into that race. If the player clicked the icon of another race, the player will get negative progress toward the desired race.

This is part of Ease of use, Efficiency, Simple and Clean, and Reliability; since this is not how things work in WoW, switching to such a system without compensation in the rest of the system for such a dramatic change would crush the game.

I wonder if there ever will be a "future" or "next generation" for MMORPGs.

10 years ago, during the MUD (multi user dungeon) era, we had huge 40 man raids on high level dungeon for epic loot, clans, pvp ladders, trading, crafting, fishing, harvesting, lots of quests, different classes that specializes in something, "hero" classes when u hit level max and instances etc. Also, the horrible horrible grind. (even if exp grind isn't bad, u end up pvp grinding)

A few years later, graphical MUDs like Everquest came out with more or less the same features but with graphics.

Now, 10 years later, the most popular MMORPG is WoW, which is basically the same thing as Everquest and MUDs.


- Where is the innovation? lol.


I have a theory : As each generation of gamers get older and has to spend all their time working and thus quits gaming, the next generation of youths take over them in gaming. To the new comers, the "same old thing" IS new. Because they have never played MUDs or Everquest before, WoW IS innovative.

Re:

For each catagory, how do you determine whether the effect promotes further success or hampers success? Do you just assume that you know the effect? How do you know?

Quote:

Everything else falls into one of these categories.

How do you describe the relation between having a female character in the game and "ease of use"? How do you know that it is better to have female character than to have only male characters? What if the game is "NFL 2009" (American Football)? Would it increase success to have female characters when none of the teams have one in reality? Is this still in the catagory of "ease of use"?

Quote:

Original post by Girsanov I wonder if there ever will be a "future" or "next generation" for MMORPGs. 10 years ago, during the MUD (multi user dungeon) era, we had huge 40 man raids on high level dungeon for epic loot, clans, pvp ladders, trading, crafting, fishing, harvesting, lots of quests, different classes that specializes in something, "hero" classes when u hit level max and instances etc. Also, the horrible horrible grind. (even if exp grind isn't bad, u end up pvp grinding) A few years later, graphical MUDs like Everquest came out with more or less the same features but with graphics. Now, 10 years later, the most popular MMORPG is WoW, which is basically the same thing as Everquest and MUDs. - Where is the innovation? lol. I have a theory : As each generation of gamers get older and has to spend all their time working and thus quits gaming, the next generation of youths take over them in gaming. To the new comers, the "same old thing" IS new. Because they have never played MUDs or Everquest before, WoW IS innovative.

A stone wheel is just like a race car tire... kinda.

A game is not good just because it is completely new and different. Originality is overrated. Quality is what matters and relative to everything else on the market WOW is far superior. WOW also shows the real potential of the market IMO.

The genre still has a ton of potential but the new benchmark is clearly WOW. If you want a VW type game the benchmark may be different but the market is also drastically different.

Wai...I'm not clear on your point at all; your overall interest and goal in this tangent.

Quote:

how do you determine whether the effect promotes further success or hampers success?

That is completely dependent on the target market and the goal of achieving from and with that target market.
The characteristics I listed are threshold categories that are not specific to any given category of consideration, but inclusive of all considerations in business.

WoW has solidly provided a sound business model successfully in an MMORPG.
This is not something that is any one of it's mechanics or designs, but all of them with consideration for it's mission statement and market goals.

Quote:

How do you describe the relation between having a female character in the game and "ease of use"?

If you want a female avatar and none exist, it is more difficult for you to enjoy the game; to use it.

Before you can even get into much else in the game, you already encounter your first hurdle with the product; it does not contain an avatar that is identifiable to your tastes for vicarious expression.

Quote:

What if the game is "NFL 2009" (American Football)? Would it increase success to have female characters when none of the teams have one in reality?

The question you originally asked was about WoW and it's target market, not about NFL 2009's target market.
Shifting the target market shifts what is and what is not needed.

I might as well ask what category not serving alcohol at a daycare falls under, and then after receiving an answer ask how I can say that not having alchohol is a bad business model, and further it by asking what if my business is a bar.

It's not an appropriate question considering the market in both businesses are completely different businesses.
Just because children at daycare and adults at a bar are both people doesn't mean they are the same target market.
Likewise, just because players of WoW and players of NFL 2009 are both gamers doesn't mean they are the same target market.

Quote:

Is this still in the catagory of "ease of use"?

Yes.
How easy would a male sports fan (the typical target market for NFL 2009) find it to play and enjoy a game such as NFL 2009 (a vicarious American Football simulator) if it did not simulate it's suggested environment appropriately.

Considering the target market for NFL 2009, if I wanted women to be in a football game, then I would have to appeal to the mature side of the male ego through sexual address by having rough and tough women in scantily clad shoulder pads with heavily augmented rules causing the game to be more outlandishly brutal and taboo-pushing.

Quote:

Original post by Wai Quote: Everything else falls into one of these categories.

Perhaps you would be happier if I added an errata that reads, "one or more".

Quote:

Original post by Stangler Quote: Original post by Girsanov I wonder if there ever will be a "future" or "next generation" for MMORPGs. 10 years ago, during the MUD (multi user dungeon) era, we had huge 40 man raids on high level dungeon for epic loot, clans, pvp ladders, trading, crafting, fishing, harvesting, lots of quests, different classes that specializes in something, "hero" classes when u hit level max and instances etc. Also, the horrible horrible grind. (even if exp grind isn't bad, u end up pvp grinding) A few years later, graphical MUDs like Everquest came out with more or less the same features but with graphics. Now, 10 years later, the most popular MMORPG is WoW, which is basically the same thing as Everquest and MUDs. - Where is the innovation? lol. I have a theory : As each generation of gamers get older and has to spend all their time working and thus quits gaming, the next generation of youths take over them in gaming. To the new comers, the "same old thing" IS new. Because they have never played MUDs or Everquest before, WoW IS innovative. A stone wheel is just like a race car tire... kinda. A game is not good just because it is completely new and different. Originality is overrated. Quality is what matters and relative to everything else on the market WOW is far superior. WOW also shows the real potential of the market IMO. The genre still has a ton of potential but the new benchmark is clearly WOW. If you want a VW type game the benchmark may be different but the market is also drastically different.

I have to agree here; rule-wise very few games (if you want to get down to it) have done anything truly new, or very often.
However, games continue to be innovative within the industry because of their effect upon the industry and pushing the envelope of what is possible in the technology of the market and what is possible in the market itself.

I completely agree that WoW brought MMORPG's into a solid form that proved the marketable power of an MMORPG.
If no game had done what WoW has done, MMORPG's would most likely be receiving far less funding than they are right now.

Right now, the aim is to attempt to push that gain of attention as close to WoW's success as possible, and since WoW perfected the old system of the first class of MMORPG's (and second class as well), then the current incarnations are having to bolster up and try to create new attractions other than simply refinement of the older systems since WoW has already nailed that down tightly and securely.

Re: Definition of success

I am interested in this because the definitions are argurably the most important assets to design. When I read your list of six catagories of reasons behind success, I was alarmed because it appeared that you were just replacing one term by six equally undefined terms. Now I don't know whether you are talking about characteristics of success, definition of success, or reasons of success. This has to do with the wording. It has to do with the wording.

For instance, how do you define the difference between "efficiency", "simple and clean", and "ease of use"? How do you tell when an element is "unreliable" versus providing good level of "constant disturbance"?

Do you mean that something successful must satisfy all six, or could it only satisfy some of them?

A successful obstacle course or puzzle is probably not "simple". Is there a contradiction?

What is the "constant disturbance" in Tetris?

How do you define the six terms as they are applied to games?

For instance, I think the way you relate these two is a stretch:

Quote:

Q: How do you describe the relation between having a female character in the game and "ease of use"? A: If you want a female avatar and none exist, it is more difficult for you to enjoy the game; to use it.

You are speaking at the abstraction layer of the game as a black box, not the game mechanics of the game. In your description, you have a set of user desires, and your product (the game) has a set of uses. And your description just say, "The product has to satisfy the user's desire easily."

And, in this catagory, you include a lot of things, including the pricing, accessibility, distribution, technical support, etc. You might as well rename this catagory as "customer is satisfied with product."

In my set of 9 questions, you associated all of them to ease of use except (7). I suppose that you should have associated (7) also, because everything related to the experience playing the game is part of your "Ease of use".

I just wasn't expecting a description at this abstraction level where the entire game is a black box. My questions were directed to dynamics inside the black box.

For instance, say the game is Prince of Persia. In that case, Ease of Use might be defined as the ease to execute a movement once the player had decided on that movement. However, some of these movements could take skill. Is that against Ease of Use?

In your definition, it would not be against Ease of Use, because you would say, "The user wants challenge, so they use the game to get challenges. Since the game provides challenge, all is good."

Similar, it seems that your set can't say something meaningful about other skill-based games such as bullet-hell, fighters, FPS, etc. Your catagories are almost a tautology. Suppose I define success to be a market-dependent term, such that a game is successful if it has the largest market within a predefined audience.

Consider this hypothetical situation:

The total number of people in the audience is 3000. There are two games: Tetris, and Street-Fighter. Say I want to compare the two games and see which one is more successful. The market data will arrive in one month. But according to your knowledge, you should be able to predict which game is the successful game if you have individual data on the six catagories before the market data arrives. Now, you are asked to get the data of "Ease of Use", How do you define it? How do you get the data? What data would you be collecting? How do you justify that "Ease of Use" is one of the six significant factors of success?

[Edited by - Wai on June 3, 2009 1:18:48 AM]