N. Evan Van Zelfden"If you truly want to make a successful MMOG, you must remember that nothing draws a crowd like a crowd." N. Evan Van Zelfden looks at one of the year's biggest success stories, World of Warcraft.
Issue 25 - 2005: A Massively Multiplayer Odyssey
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Original Comment by: Andrea Appel (a.k.a. Alexandra Erenhart)
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
I remember the first time I played WoW. I was born and live in Chile, where I have almost no chance to get into legal servers without paying a big amount of money (unfair!!). But, lucky of me, I have a texan fiancee, computer geek, with a WoW subscription. Last February I spent my summer (yes, summer, below the equator line) vacations in his apartment, and when he was out working, I used to take over his computer and play. I was all into Ultima Online by then, and I was a GameMaster of an emulator server. So I used to play that. But seeing my fiancee playing WoW built curiosity in me. So I tried it one day, used his account, and made a character.
I knew about the storyline behind Warcraft. I played warcraft I and II and got all into the story. I just played a bit of warcraft III because of hardware limitations, but I knew the story too. While I started to level up my character, I started to recognize all those places that were mentioned in the previous games of warcraft. It was awesome to see them in another point of view. I started exploring and exploring as much as my level could allow me. And I became obsessed by it. I cought me and I couldn't leave it. After leaving and coming back to Chile, where I couldn't play because of my old computer, I had to leave it aside. But I still want to play it badly. Now I have the chance to get a new system, and I will definitely get a WoW account through my fiancee.
I don't know why this game made me become so obsessed about it. I'm already all over games, but this one just marked me. I don't know if it was the awesome graphics, the huge world waiting for me to explore it, the friends I made there.... Maybe all of them. Maybe it's because it combined one of my most beloved games with one of my favourite game system (Warcraft + MMORPG).
Well, that's it. I just felt the need of sharing this
Happy New Year in advance for everyone!
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
I remember the first time I played WoW. I was born and live in Chile, where I have almost no chance to get into legal servers without paying a big amount of money (unfair!!). But, lucky of me, I have a texan fiancee, computer geek, with a WoW subscription. Last February I spent my summer (yes, summer, below the equator line) vacations in his apartment, and when he was out working, I used to take over his computer and play. I was all into Ultima Online by then, and I was a GameMaster of an emulator server. So I used to play that. But seeing my fiancee playing WoW built curiosity in me. So I tried it one day, used his account, and made a character.
I knew about the storyline behind Warcraft. I played warcraft I and II and got all into the story. I just played a bit of warcraft III because of hardware limitations, but I knew the story too. While I started to level up my character, I started to recognize all those places that were mentioned in the previous games of warcraft. It was awesome to see them in another point of view. I started exploring and exploring as much as my level could allow me. And I became obsessed by it. I cought me and I couldn't leave it. After leaving and coming back to Chile, where I couldn't play because of my old computer, I had to leave it aside. But I still want to play it badly. Now I have the chance to get a new system, and I will definitely get a WoW account through my fiancee.
I don't know why this game made me become so obsessed about it. I'm already all over games, but this one just marked me. I don't know if it was the awesome graphics, the huge world waiting for me to explore it, the friends I made there.... Maybe all of them. Maybe it's because it combined one of my most beloved games with one of my favourite game system (Warcraft + MMORPG).
Well, that's it. I just felt the need of sharing this
Happy New Year in advance for everyone!
Original Comment by: evanagd
Thanks for sharing! I know exactly how you feel ? I was a fan of the Command and Conquer RTS games. Then they came out with an FPS based in the same world. It was a remarkable experience to wander around that world in 3-D.
Thanks for sharing! I know exactly how you feel ? I was a fan of the Command and Conquer RTS games. Then they came out with an FPS based in the same world. It was a remarkable experience to wander around that world in 3-D.
Original Comment by: Andrea Appel (a.k.a. Alexandra Erenhart)
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
"Now if only Blizzard could finish up starcraft: ghost.... "
LOL we're all waiting for that!! But well, Blizzard took its time to release WoW too... if it ends up being something like that, I don't mind waiting
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
"Now if only Blizzard could finish up starcraft: ghost.... "
LOL we're all waiting for that!! But well, Blizzard took its time to release WoW too... if it ends up being something like that, I don't mind waiting
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast
I think part of the delay is that they brought the game back in-house. I forget who was developing it initially, but they had it for a while, now Blizzard is working on it, so who knows. You are correct though, I waited for ages for Starcraft and it was definitely worth it. WC3 not so much though. Can't say about WoW because I avoid MMO's on principle...
I think part of the delay is that they brought the game back in-house. I forget who was developing it initially, but they had it for a while, now Blizzard is working on it, so who knows. You are correct though, I waited for ages for Starcraft and it was definitely worth it. WC3 not so much though. Can't say about WoW because I avoid MMO's on principle...
Original Comment by: neven
I agree with the principle.
There is simply no end to an MMO. How can you engage in a story that doesn?t reach a culmination? It?s worse than playing a soap opera!
I agree with the principle.
There is simply no end to an MMO. How can you engage in a story that doesn?t reach a culmination? It?s worse than playing a soap opera!
Original Comment by: Andrea Appel (a.k.a. Alexandra Erenhart)
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
That's true to a certain extent. You can give your own ending to an MMO. Otherwise nobody would ever stop playing them. For some of them is reaching (in the case of WoW) lvl 60 (or 70 in the near future), for others getting that special item. Who knows.
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
That's true to a certain extent. You can give your own ending to an MMO. Otherwise nobody would ever stop playing them. For some of them is reaching (in the case of WoW) lvl 60 (or 70 in the near future), for others getting that special item. Who knows.
Original Comment by: jlaakso
http://7178.blogspot.com
I was really, really tempted to get WOW, but ultimately decided against it. I have so little time for games in general these days that I don't want to use it all on one game.
I've played some Anarchy Online. That was a horrible time-hog and I let it go after a couple of months of active playing.
http://7178.blogspot.com
I was really, really tempted to get WOW, but ultimately decided against it. I have so little time for games in general these days that I don't want to use it all on one game.
I've played some Anarchy Online. That was a horrible time-hog and I let it go after a couple of months of active playing.
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast
Sorry for the delay...
I don't like MMO's on principle for several reasons.
1.) I like games because they are games. While it's true that games are for me a means of escape, I think that if you look at a videogame as a way to replace your real life than not only are you in trouble, but you are missing out on a hell of a lot. I think that MMO's are currently the most advanced way to replace your life, and I think of them as more of a "service" than a "game" per say. Back in college all my friends played D&D. I never did. They would all talk about it like it really happened, which frankly I find creepy. My favorite games have always been so because of their mechanics more so than their immersion, which is why I love board and card games as well. (Before I went to college I was seriously working on becoming a professional bridge player, but that dream kinda slipped away).
2.) The pay model. To play WoW for the first year would cost me $225 (game + fees) not to mention the fact that you need broadband in order for it to be worth it (which I have anyway, but that's besides the point). For that amount of money I would rather splurge on Radiant Silvergun and then go out to dinner.
3.) The time factor. Maybe it means I'm not "hardcore" but I'm not willing to sink the time required into an MMO. I think games like that are dangerous because you invest all this time and energy into them, but somehow or another it's going to amount to very little, because they are not so much skill-based as they are time/effort based (not to mention that all it takes is freak "1" instead of a "0" somewhere and your characters are gone). Just like how Magic: The Gathering is only about 30% deck building skill, 5% play skill, and the rest the worth of your cards. I mean at least if I put all that time into Street Fighter I have developed a skill of some sort (albeit a largely useless one).
Does that make sense? What do you think?
Sorry for the delay...
I don't like MMO's on principle for several reasons.
1.) I like games because they are games. While it's true that games are for me a means of escape, I think that if you look at a videogame as a way to replace your real life than not only are you in trouble, but you are missing out on a hell of a lot. I think that MMO's are currently the most advanced way to replace your life, and I think of them as more of a "service" than a "game" per say. Back in college all my friends played D&D. I never did. They would all talk about it like it really happened, which frankly I find creepy. My favorite games have always been so because of their mechanics more so than their immersion, which is why I love board and card games as well. (Before I went to college I was seriously working on becoming a professional bridge player, but that dream kinda slipped away).
2.) The pay model. To play WoW for the first year would cost me $225 (game + fees) not to mention the fact that you need broadband in order for it to be worth it (which I have anyway, but that's besides the point). For that amount of money I would rather splurge on Radiant Silvergun and then go out to dinner.
3.) The time factor. Maybe it means I'm not "hardcore" but I'm not willing to sink the time required into an MMO. I think games like that are dangerous because you invest all this time and energy into them, but somehow or another it's going to amount to very little, because they are not so much skill-based as they are time/effort based (not to mention that all it takes is freak "1" instead of a "0" somewhere and your characters are gone). Just like how Magic: The Gathering is only about 30% deck building skill, 5% play skill, and the rest the worth of your cards. I mean at least if I put all that time into Street Fighter I have developed a skill of some sort (albeit a largely useless one).
Does that make sense? What do you think?
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast
I was thinking about it a lot more and wanted to follow-up to my previous post, because I think that it makes it sound like I only really like linear games, which is untrue. I love Sim City and have lately been hooked on Animal Crossing DS.
Which got me thinking.
As I said above, part of the reason I do not like MMO's is that they do not develop much skill on the player's part. Neither does Animal Crossing, really. Even less so, because there is no way to die or lose. You could play forever without paying off your loan to Tom Nook and it would not matter.
So I think that what I like about it is that it makes you feel like a kid. You are inhabiting this small town where everybody is friendly, nothing bad ever happens, you can do pretty much whatever you like, and so on. It's a place of innocence, which I think we all long for at times. Of course this also contrary to my feelings about MMO's because Animal Crossing could be considered an attempt to replace your real life. But I'm not sure that it does so in the same way.
For one, AC is certainly not the most advanced game in terms of pure immersion. The game obviously looks like a game made for kids. It's obviously unrealistic in that the town is surrounded by rock walls, and the economy makes no sense because all of the money is being filtered through Tom Nook (who really owns the whole town, if you think about it). So AC is interesting because it is a sort of "life game" but it really does not try to be all that realistic. Sure you can do all kinds of things, it's open-ended, and the basic premise is that you are trying to build a life for yourself in a strange place. But unlike MMO's, it makes no bones about being unrealistic. I mean do you really think you could dig up a triceratops skull next to your apple tree out back?
This is interesting, because from my perception people take MMORPG's (and pen and paper RPGs) and basically try to live in them, even though those games are largely only about leveling up and finding items. Conversely, AC is an attempt at giving you a game to live in, but it seems not to have the same drawing power, possibly because of its lack of realism.
But this lack of realism is what draws me to it. I have never enjoyed games that consciously try to emulate reality. I don't like sports games, I don't like sim racing games (Project Gotham? No thanks. Burnout? Hell yeah!). I like games that let me do and experience the impossible through a world or setting entirely different from our own (by "world" here I do not necessarily mean an immersive one - I would say that Ikaruga or Mario each have their own world which does not attempt to recreate the real one).
For the most part, I enjoy games that require you to develop a skill of some sort, be it in a fighter, a shooter, a platformer, a sim game, etc. AC obviously does not, but I also find it to be unusually relaxing. Honestly I was not planning on buying it, but then I thought, I owe it to myself and to the industry at large to push myself to try something different, because that's the best way to fight the sequels. I think what has keep me coming back to it is the creativity: everybody could play it differently. I don't much care for the social part of the game (I rarely talk to the other people or send them letters) but I am fascinated with the museum and always trying to add stuff to it. I'm also trying to optimize my own money making by cutting down trees and replacing them with rare fruit trees, so that I can sell the fruit that will eventually grow. Of course, SimCity has a lot of creative potential too.
Also, I think the notion that MMO's are "social games" is pure crap. Most of the communication that occurs between people is non-verbal, so I would much rather play some Mario Kart 64 with my friends in the room than I would any given online game. Even with technologies like VOIP you are missing out on a lot of meaningful information, which I think is a pretty high barrier to developing a meaningful relationship with somebody you only know from a game.
So I guess I would say, I like games that either force me to develop a particular skill, or games that provide me with some sort of creative outlet. That combined with my perceptions of the sociological/psychological aspects of MMO, I do not see any reason to play one.
I was thinking about it a lot more and wanted to follow-up to my previous post, because I think that it makes it sound like I only really like linear games, which is untrue. I love Sim City and have lately been hooked on Animal Crossing DS.
Which got me thinking.
As I said above, part of the reason I do not like MMO's is that they do not develop much skill on the player's part. Neither does Animal Crossing, really. Even less so, because there is no way to die or lose. You could play forever without paying off your loan to Tom Nook and it would not matter.
So I think that what I like about it is that it makes you feel like a kid. You are inhabiting this small town where everybody is friendly, nothing bad ever happens, you can do pretty much whatever you like, and so on. It's a place of innocence, which I think we all long for at times. Of course this also contrary to my feelings about MMO's because Animal Crossing could be considered an attempt to replace your real life. But I'm not sure that it does so in the same way.
For one, AC is certainly not the most advanced game in terms of pure immersion. The game obviously looks like a game made for kids. It's obviously unrealistic in that the town is surrounded by rock walls, and the economy makes no sense because all of the money is being filtered through Tom Nook (who really owns the whole town, if you think about it). So AC is interesting because it is a sort of "life game" but it really does not try to be all that realistic. Sure you can do all kinds of things, it's open-ended, and the basic premise is that you are trying to build a life for yourself in a strange place. But unlike MMO's, it makes no bones about being unrealistic. I mean do you really think you could dig up a triceratops skull next to your apple tree out back?
This is interesting, because from my perception people take MMORPG's (and pen and paper RPGs) and basically try to live in them, even though those games are largely only about leveling up and finding items. Conversely, AC is an attempt at giving you a game to live in, but it seems not to have the same drawing power, possibly because of its lack of realism.
But this lack of realism is what draws me to it. I have never enjoyed games that consciously try to emulate reality. I don't like sports games, I don't like sim racing games (Project Gotham? No thanks. Burnout? Hell yeah!). I like games that let me do and experience the impossible through a world or setting entirely different from our own (by "world" here I do not necessarily mean an immersive one - I would say that Ikaruga or Mario each have their own world which does not attempt to recreate the real one).
For the most part, I enjoy games that require you to develop a skill of some sort, be it in a fighter, a shooter, a platformer, a sim game, etc. AC obviously does not, but I also find it to be unusually relaxing. Honestly I was not planning on buying it, but then I thought, I owe it to myself and to the industry at large to push myself to try something different, because that's the best way to fight the sequels. I think what has keep me coming back to it is the creativity: everybody could play it differently. I don't much care for the social part of the game (I rarely talk to the other people or send them letters) but I am fascinated with the museum and always trying to add stuff to it. I'm also trying to optimize my own money making by cutting down trees and replacing them with rare fruit trees, so that I can sell the fruit that will eventually grow. Of course, SimCity has a lot of creative potential too.
Also, I think the notion that MMO's are "social games" is pure crap. Most of the communication that occurs between people is non-verbal, so I would much rather play some Mario Kart 64 with my friends in the room than I would any given online game. Even with technologies like VOIP you are missing out on a lot of meaningful information, which I think is a pretty high barrier to developing a meaningful relationship with somebody you only know from a game.
So I guess I would say, I like games that either force me to develop a particular skill, or games that provide me with some sort of creative outlet. That combined with my perceptions of the sociological/psychological aspects of MMO, I do not see any reason to play one.
Hmm, I can understand where you are coming from about looking for a place of innocence, a place where people just won't bother you, Slarti. I get that way sometimes and end up playing a single-player game.
I think I disagree with you a little bit about the social aspect of MMOGs, though. Yes, there is no face-to-face communication, but one can certainly communicate over im or the telephone, or even message boards and comments. It's not the same type as having a group of people over to your house to hang out, but that's not always feasible at any given time. It is in MMOGs.
Additionally, for a game like Mario Kart, it's fun to all hang out and play together. Have you ever tried to play an RPG with a few other people? It might just be my control freak coming out, but it makes me crazy to watch other people play an RPG. An MMOG allows multiple people to play while "hanging out."
As far as replacing one's real life, I think this is less an inherent evil of MMOGs and more how people play them. Some people can and do play them for a few hours a week, not caring that it takes them months to reach lvl 60 as opposed to weeks. There will always be people who play for several hours a day, just as there are people who buy a 50-hours-of-gameplay game on Friday night and beat it by Monday morning. It's all in how a person chooses to play.
I think I disagree with you a little bit about the social aspect of MMOGs, though. Yes, there is no face-to-face communication, but one can certainly communicate over im or the telephone, or even message boards and comments. It's not the same type as having a group of people over to your house to hang out, but that's not always feasible at any given time. It is in MMOGs.
Additionally, for a game like Mario Kart, it's fun to all hang out and play together. Have you ever tried to play an RPG with a few other people? It might just be my control freak coming out, but it makes me crazy to watch other people play an RPG. An MMOG allows multiple people to play while "hanging out."
As far as replacing one's real life, I think this is less an inherent evil of MMOGs and more how people play them. Some people can and do play them for a few hours a week, not caring that it takes them months to reach lvl 60 as opposed to weeks. There will always be people who play for several hours a day, just as there are people who buy a 50-hours-of-gameplay game on Friday night and beat it by Monday morning. It's all in how a person chooses to play.
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast
Julianne:
To your RPG question:
Yes, actually. Sophomore year at college myself and two friends split the cost of a used copy of Xenogears (this was back before it was released as part of the Greatest Hits collection so it was $45). Because we split the cost, the three of us would hang out and take turns playing it, and it was an absolute blast. Hell, I don't think any of us could have made it through that game by ourselves (I still can't decide if it's one of the worst or best games I've ever played). We played for six hours straight the first night, and stayed up all friday night more than once that semester trying to finish the stupid thing. Also, Secret of Mana on the snes is way more fun when you have two friends to play it with.
On communication:
You are correct in that there are multiple forms of communication available, but you learn so much more about a person by observing them for ten minutes or so than you could talking to them on IM for months.
Time:
You make good points, because it's true than it is more or less up to the individual player. But I realise I have this competitive streak in me, as well as this need to powerlevel in almost every game that allows it (even Advance Wars DS, which I do not have anybody to play with). So I'll admit that I am afraid of getting too hooked on an MMO. But I am also under the impression that to get the "full experience," ie, belonging to a guild, participating in guild events etc, you need to sink a lot of time into the game. So it probably has a lot to do with my personality as well, because I do not like having commitments to that sort of thing; I want to play when I want to play, and for the most part dealing with people on the internet is not my idea of fun.
Money:
Even though I only briefly mentioned it, this is a big deal to me. Even though it's only $15 a month (on average), you have to keep paying that so it adds up quickly, whereas a non-mmo game you buy once and can play it as long as you like. I realize that it takes a lot to run those huge server farms and I understand why they charge monthly, but part of me feels like paying for a game like that is just getting screwed.
Life-replacement:
I do agree that this too comes down to individual play style, but I feel like the intention of the game is to let people do that. I mean is it not an attempt to create a secondary, complete world? Maybe not as much so as Second Life (of which I had never heard before reading The Escapist), but it's still there.
So given all that, I have thought about getting Guild Wars because it does seem interesting (and no monthly fee), but the genral consensus seems to be that it's not a "real" MMO because it's instanced like Diablo 2. Maybe someday I'll try it, but after this xmas I have 7 fantastic new games (well, new to me) to play on a variety of platforms, so I'll be busy for a while. Also, I try to avoid paying full price ($50) for a new game, I always wait until they come down a bit, which Guild Wars has yet to do (last I knew). This I feel bad about because I want to support the developers who make games I like, but I also do need to be budget conscious. I would pay more if the publisher wasn't taking so much of it.
(btw this is my biggest beef with Blizzard. They create their games with the intension of adding an expansion pack later that you pretty much have to buy if you want to play online, thereby making sure you pay at least $40. You can tell they plan on this because whenever you install an expansion to one of their games (at least after starcraft) you have to insert the original game disc from whence it pulls additional files, proving that the expansion was planned).
Julianne:
To your RPG question:
Yes, actually. Sophomore year at college myself and two friends split the cost of a used copy of Xenogears (this was back before it was released as part of the Greatest Hits collection so it was $45). Because we split the cost, the three of us would hang out and take turns playing it, and it was an absolute blast. Hell, I don't think any of us could have made it through that game by ourselves (I still can't decide if it's one of the worst or best games I've ever played). We played for six hours straight the first night, and stayed up all friday night more than once that semester trying to finish the stupid thing. Also, Secret of Mana on the snes is way more fun when you have two friends to play it with.
On communication:
You are correct in that there are multiple forms of communication available, but you learn so much more about a person by observing them for ten minutes or so than you could talking to them on IM for months.
Time:
You make good points, because it's true than it is more or less up to the individual player. But I realise I have this competitive streak in me, as well as this need to powerlevel in almost every game that allows it (even Advance Wars DS, which I do not have anybody to play with). So I'll admit that I am afraid of getting too hooked on an MMO. But I am also under the impression that to get the "full experience," ie, belonging to a guild, participating in guild events etc, you need to sink a lot of time into the game. So it probably has a lot to do with my personality as well, because I do not like having commitments to that sort of thing; I want to play when I want to play, and for the most part dealing with people on the internet is not my idea of fun.
Money:
Even though I only briefly mentioned it, this is a big deal to me. Even though it's only $15 a month (on average), you have to keep paying that so it adds up quickly, whereas a non-mmo game you buy once and can play it as long as you like. I realize that it takes a lot to run those huge server farms and I understand why they charge monthly, but part of me feels like paying for a game like that is just getting screwed.
Life-replacement:
I do agree that this too comes down to individual play style, but I feel like the intention of the game is to let people do that. I mean is it not an attempt to create a secondary, complete world? Maybe not as much so as Second Life (of which I had never heard before reading The Escapist), but it's still there.
So given all that, I have thought about getting Guild Wars because it does seem interesting (and no monthly fee), but the genral consensus seems to be that it's not a "real" MMO because it's instanced like Diablo 2. Maybe someday I'll try it, but after this xmas I have 7 fantastic new games (well, new to me) to play on a variety of platforms, so I'll be busy for a while. Also, I try to avoid paying full price ($50) for a new game, I always wait until they come down a bit, which Guild Wars has yet to do (last I knew). This I feel bad about because I want to support the developers who make games I like, but I also do need to be budget conscious. I would pay more if the publisher wasn't taking so much of it.
(btw this is my biggest beef with Blizzard. They create their games with the intension of adding an expansion pack later that you pretty much have to buy if you want to play online, thereby making sure you pay at least $40. You can tell they plan on this because whenever you install an expansion to one of their games (at least after starcraft) you have to insert the original game disc from whence it pulls additional files, proving that the expansion was planned).
Original Comment by: Doug Farrell
Slartibartfast:
I disagree with your assertion that pulling files from the original game disc during the installation of an expansion proves that the expansion was planned. The only way that would be a valid proof would be if there were files included on the original game disc that were not used by the original version of the game. Unless you have a way of determining which files on the disc are being used by the expansion, and not during the initial install, your assertion cannot be proven.
A more likely explanation, in my opinion, would be that there are files on the original game disc that are used by both the original content and the expansion content. By nature of it being an expansion, the developer can assume that the player has the original game disc, particularly if it is one of those games that require the "play disc" to be in the drive. If you know that the consumer already has those files, you can save space on the expansion disc(s) by not including them again? Most of the files that are reused in the expansion would not need to be recopied - only those files that changed in the course of gameplay.
Slartibartfast:
I disagree with your assertion that pulling files from the original game disc during the installation of an expansion proves that the expansion was planned. The only way that would be a valid proof would be if there were files included on the original game disc that were not used by the original version of the game. Unless you have a way of determining which files on the disc are being used by the expansion, and not during the initial install, your assertion cannot be proven.
A more likely explanation, in my opinion, would be that there are files on the original game disc that are used by both the original content and the expansion content. By nature of it being an expansion, the developer can assume that the player has the original game disc, particularly if it is one of those games that require the "play disc" to be in the drive. If you know that the consumer already has those files, you can save space on the expansion disc(s) by not including them again? Most of the files that are reused in the expansion would not need to be recopied - only those files that changed in the course of gameplay.
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast
Doug:
If there are files on the original disc that are used by both original and expansion content, then those files would have been installed initially and hence there would be no reason to copy them to the hd again. It should be easy enough to verify, either way.
I
Doug:
If there are files on the original disc that are used by both original and expansion content, then those files would have been installed initially and hence there would be no reason to copy them to the hd again. It should be easy enough to verify, either way.
I