What makes a MMO clone really? is it ability to solo? gear grind? instance dungeons and pvp? questing? what is it? all of the above or even when MMO takes most of the standard features made success by WOW and add some improvements of their own, should they still be labeled WOW clones? or just inspired by WOW? if yes then what should we call games like TSW and GW2? clones or just inspirations? because of these MMOS though themepark at heart and using same classic features are still adding their own twist to other things.
For example simplistic crafting, instanced pvp / pve, soloable, instant / fast traveling but also dynamic events, no gears or levels in case of TSW.
As for sandbox concept (and I do have to digress, damn) ... well a game with C64 gfx played through Facebook and dealing with planting carrots and pumpkins had 60+ million users... and someone still has the temerity to state that "sandbox concept does not have a popular appeal?"
So you'd consider Farm Town a successful sandbox game based purely on ad numerum then?
I'm sure the sandbox team will be pleased to hear that they've got a AAA game at last.
I think gamer's perception of what constitutes a "failed" game is certainly very different from the corporate definition...or UO would not still be open.
But you can't really have a discussion about what succeeded and what failed without a clear benchmark, up front, that we're discussing the same parameters. Because a lot of people are playing "failed" games (in someone's rhetoric) whose companies have no intention of ceasing operation, right now.
Go on, take a look. I'll help you out a bit - it's at top center in the "billions" category. Very informative and wonderful graphics btw, well worth studying.
Personally I detest Zynga and those crappy 'ville games they churn out, but it's the numbers man... Just plain numbers. "Sandbox concept is not commercially viable" must rank with the greatest historical fallacies of all times lol. If I had 50 million bux I'd invest them into a sandbox rather than story-based game because they do f***ing sell like crazy!
As for "parameters," in this thread the parameters are obviously profits as in "percentage return to investments." Not customer satisfaction, not box-sales, not retention... just return to investments. SW:TOR will be profitable, no doubt about it - they WILL return their investment... But by how much? That is the question. If they are counting on retention... I don't think the guys who put up the money will be very pleased.
People need to let WoW go already. Stop beating the dead horse and comparing everything to WoW.
I'd settle for a definition of "success". Consistent and empirical, please.
A game's not a failure just because George over there didn't like it.
Problem is that it's almost impossible to define "success" from the outside.
In business, you generally call a project successful if it generates more of a return than another similarly "risked" investment would return in a given amount of time.
For example, if you judge a new project to be as risky as investing in a startup company, and you expect a 20% yearly ROI if you had invested in a startup company; then your project would be successful if it generated greater than a 20% yearly ROI.
But how can you possible tell this looking from the outside in?
As for sandbox concept (and I do have to digress, damn) ... well a game with C64 gfx played through Facebook and dealing with planting carrots and pumpkins had 60+ million users... and someone still has the temerity to state that "sandbox concept does not have a popular appeal?"
So you'd consider Farm Town a successful sandbox game based purely on ad numerum then? I'm sure the sandbox team will be pleased to hear that they've got a AAA game at last. I think gamer's perception of what constitutes a "failed" game is certainly very different from the corporate definition...or UO would not still be open. But you can't really have a discussion about what succeeded and what failed without a clear benchmark, up front, that we're discussing the same parameters. Because a lot of people are playing "failed" games (in someone's rhetoric) whose companies have no intention of ceasing operation, right now.
http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-4760&y=-3170&z=5 Go on, take a look. I'll help you out a bit - it's at top center in the "billions" category. Very informative and wonderful graphics btw, well worth studying. Personally I detest Zynga and those crappy 'ville games they churn out, but it's the numbers man... Just plain numbers. "Sandbox concept is not commercially viable" must rank with the greatest historical fallacies of all times lol. If I had 50 million bux I'd invest them into a sandbox rather than story-based game because they do f***ing sell like crazy!
Haven't played Farmville, but was wondering if it had PvP of any kind... PvP is usually linked with sandbox games as a "must have."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
As for sandbox concept (and I do have to digress, damn) ... well a game with C64 gfx played through Facebook and dealing with planting carrots and pumpkins had 60+ million users... and someone still has the temerity to state that "sandbox concept does not have a popular appeal?"
So you'd consider Farm Town a successful sandbox game based purely on ad numerum then?
I'm sure the sandbox team will be pleased to hear that they've got a AAA game at last.
I think gamer's perception of what constitutes a "failed" game is certainly very different from the corporate definition...or UO would not still be open.
But you can't really have a discussion about what succeeded and what failed without a clear benchmark, up front, that we're discussing the same parameters. Because a lot of people are playing "failed" games (in someone's rhetoric) whose companies have no intention of ceasing operation, right now.
Go on, take a look. I'll help you out a bit - it's at top center in the "billions" category. Very informative and wonderful graphics btw, well worth studying.
Personally I detest Zynga and those crappy 'ville games they churn out, but it's the numbers man... Just plain numbers. "Sandbox concept is not commercially viable" must rank with the greatest historical fallacies of all times lol. If I had 50 million bux I'd invest them into a sandbox rather than story-based game because they do f***ing sell like crazy!
That does not bode well for the type of sandboxes that poster's on this site are wishing for.
What makes a MMO clone really? is it ability to solo? gear grind? instance dungeons and pvp? questing? what is it? all of the above or even when MMO takes most of the standard features made success by WOW and add some improvements of their own, should they still be labeled WOW clones? or just inspired by WOW? if yes then what should we call games like TSW and GW2? clones or just inspirations? because of these MMOS though themepark at heart and using same classic features are still adding their own twist to other things.
For example simplistic crafting, instanced pvp / pve, soloable, instant / fast traveling but also dynamic events, no gears or levels in case of TSW.
There is no hard and fast rule, it is completely subjective.
On a personal level, I would consider a game a clone if it offers me almost the exact same experience as another game.
Personally I detest Zynga and those crappy 'ville games they churn out, but it's the numbers man... Just plain numbers. "Sandbox concept is not commercially viable" must rank with the greatest historical fallacies of all times lol. If I had 50 million bux I'd invest them into a sandbox rather than story-based game because they do f***ing sell like crazy!
You may wish to avoid ad numerum as a benchmark, because you entirely preclude niche games. You also force us to accept WoW as the greatest MMO ever conceived in the same breath--meaning all "clones" of same must all be great games too. Can't have it both ways.
Most of the current MMO "sandbox" titles will fail utterly and completely under any such "just numbers" definition. The only one that might pull out would be EVE, and it took them more than five years to get there.
The players of the "little" games, however, insist that those games are the best they've ever played. The same players would reject Farm Town, Sims, Second Life out of hand entirely.
Apparently there's something more than raw sales figures that determine success. Is it quantifyable, or must we rely on rhetoric to eastablish it?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
What makes a MMO clone really? is it ability to solo? gear grind? instance dungeons and pvp? questing? what is it? all of the above or even when MMO takes most of the standard features made success by WOW and add some improvements of their own, should they still be labeled WOW clones? or just inspired by WOW? if yes then what should we call games like TSW and GW2? clones or just inspirations? because of these MMOS though themepark at heart and using same classic features are still adding their own twist to other things.
For example simplistic crafting, instanced pvp / pve, soloable, instant / fast traveling but also dynamic events, no gears or levels in case of TSW.
There is no hard and fast rule, it is completely subjective.
On a personal level, I would consider a game a clone if it offers me almost the exact same experience as another game.
But that is the thing there is no 'exact' experince. Even Rift had its own twists to things even though it plays like a traditional themepark MMO. I believe when it comes to labeling a MMO WOW clone people are just biased and do so just to play favorites with their own MMO of choice.
Whether we like it or not, the future does not look bright for desktop gaming period. With the introduction of tablets the mass market is being taken further and further away from the PC.
The majority of development will go where the money is.
There is no hard and fast rule, it is completely subjective.
On a personal level, I would consider a game a clone if it offers me almost the exact same experience as another game.
But that is the thing there is no 'exact' experince. Even Rift had its own twists to things even though it plays like a traditional themepark MMO. I believe when it comes to labeling a MMO WOW clone people are just biased and do so just to play favorites with their own MMO of choice.
Well "clone" is just a label...it's nothing objective. As you say, there is no point in arguing whether something should or should not be labeled a "clone" because there is no objective definition of what being a "clone" constitutes.
BUT.
You can objectively look at the major categories of a game and try to determine how similar they are to another game given your gaming experience. For example, you could choose categories that are common to all MMORPGs like:
PvE, PvP, leveling experience, grouping dynamics, world design, graphics, sound, class design, combat, etc.
And then compare them to their analogous categories in WoW.
If you find that nearly all of these categories are identical between your game and WoW...then maybe it is too close to WoW.
I'll be honest here........... I played WoW since beta and cancelled my sub about 5 months ago now (just burnt out). TBH there wasn't really any other good mmo's out there on the market. WoW was and still is a great mmo imo and it has been very successful, nobody can deny that. When WoW was released it didnt have a lot of competition (the mmo market wasnt flooded yet). Yes u had EQ, Lineage 2, CoH and Ultima Online and others im forgeting. WoW wasnt by any means a finished product at launch. It had all kinds of bug, gltches, underpowered/overpowered classes and servers were unstable. Blizzard had time to polish there product and thats exactly what they did. People now expect a "finished/polished product" at launch. I agree that it needs to be playable but no mmo at release will be 100% polished at launch. Yes i understand thats what beta testing is for but from a business standpoint i can see why they limit the beta testing. They dont want too many people testing it and finding out that they dont like the game and cancelling their subs. So yes, after lanuch and after the servers take on a full load they can start tweaking/patching the game but they cant do this until post-launch. They need to see if the servers hold up, what kind of bugs people run into when they have 1 million people playing their game and see how fast people are leveling. Anyways, WoW had the time to adjust, where as now, people dont give a game time to adjust cus after their free 30 days, if its not polished they cancel and go right back to WoW. NOW after saying all of this, whats my point u ask? I wouldnt mind seeing a WoW 2 or a remake of WoW with a better graphics engine or even a very close copy of WoW with a different name and a few changes here and there. Would it be successful, i think it would. If blizzard made it, it definitely would. I know this is something people dont want to hear but i think its true. Any thoughts or comments?
There is no hard and fast rule, it is completely subjective.
On a personal level, I would consider a game a clone if it offers me almost the exact same experience as another game.
But that is the thing there is no 'exact' experince. Even Rift had its own twists to things even though it plays like a traditional themepark MMO. I believe when it comes to labeling a MMO WOW clone people are just biased and do so just to play favorites with their own MMO of choice.
Well "clone" is just a label...it's nothing objective. As you say, there is no point in arguing whether something should or should not be labeled a "clone" because there is no objective definition of what being a "clone" constitutes.
BUT.
You can objectively look at the major categories of a game and try to determine how similar they are to another game given your gaming experience. For example, you could choose categories that are common to all MMORPGs like:
PvE, PvP, leveling experience, grouping dynamics, world design, graphics, sound, class design, combat, etc.
And then compare them to their analogous categories in WoW.
If you find that nearly all of these categories are identical between your game and WoW...then maybe it is too close to WoW.
But that is not how it works here. People usualy pick up two or three standard features and ignore all the rest and label a game WOW clone but when same is done to their oh so 'innovative' MMO, they go in defensive mode. It happens on these forums pretty much every single day.
But then again WOW CLONE is a very wrong 'label' to begin with because for clone a game has to be an exact and identical copy of WOW.
Yeah... Rift sitting under 300k subs, 1/3 of its servers shut down and the remaining servers mostly on low proves that copying Blizzard makes youa raging success...
Wanna make a successful mmo? Make it accessible easy to understand mechanics that offer deep gameplay the more you get into the game (easy to learn, hard to master). Release a polished product and support it.
Change the game on player data not the crying of the few on a forum (trion needs to learn that!).
Do that and your game should be successful.
Oh, you mean the Blizzard way?
*snicker*
I would say copy the way Blizzard develops and supports a game and not so much copy the game itself.
Personally I detest Zynga and those crappy 'ville games they churn out, but it's the numbers man... Just plain numbers. "Sandbox concept is not commercially viable" must rank with the greatest historical fallacies of all times lol. If I had 50 million bux I'd invest them into a sandbox rather than story-based game because they do f***ing sell like crazy!
You may wish to avoid ad numerum as a benchmark, because you entirely preclude niche games. You also force us to accept WoW as the greatest MMO ever conceived in the same breath--meaning all "clones" of same must all be great games too. Can't have it both ways.
Most of the current MMO "sandbox" titles will fail utterly and completely under any such "just numbers" definition. The only one that might pull out would be EVE, and it took them more than five years to get there.
The players of the "little" games, however, insist that those games are the best they've ever played. The same players would reject Farm Town, Sims, Second Life out of hand entirely.
Apparently there's something more than raw sales figures that determine success. Is it quantifyable, or must we rely on rhetoric to eastablish it?
Of course there are many ways you can judge a game's (or anything's) success. But we're talking about profitabilty in this thread and more particularly about whether or not the current "common sense" approach of copying the most profitable game at tha moment (in this case, WoW) is a guarantee of success or failure... using this particular yardstick.
Personally, sandbox games do not appeal to me. I played EVE on trial and found it too time-consuming and slow. Minecraft amuses me but I was never drawn to it - i'd much rather watch on youtube what crazy sh*** people can come up with in that game. I did plant some pumpkins in Farmville and enjoyed watching them grow but I quickly realized where it is all going to. But that is not what we're talking about here. What I find fascinating, time and time again, is how sandbox games are always maligned as "niche" or "non-commercial" on this site and in mmo world in general.. while making a killing elsewhere.
This is especially poignant considering that massive-online-multiplayer medium is practically ideal for sandbox type of gameplay - "look what I did!!!" factor in Farmville, for example, and yet no-one seems to be able to properly monetize it (except the evil Zynga and the slightly creepy CCP)
There is no hard and fast rule, it is completely subjective.
On a personal level, I would consider a game a clone if it offers me almost the exact same experience as another game.
But that is the thing there is no 'exact' experince. Even Rift had its own twists to things even though it plays like a traditional themepark MMO. I believe when it comes to labeling a MMO WOW clone people are just biased and do so just to play favorites with their own MMO of choice.
Well "clone" is just a label...it's nothing objective. As you say, there is no point in arguing whether something should or should not be labeled a "clone" because there is no objective definition of what being a "clone" constitutes.
BUT.
You can objectively look at the major categories of a game and try to determine how similar they are to another game given your gaming experience. For example, you could choose categories that are common to all MMORPGs like:
PvE, PvP, leveling experience, grouping dynamics, world design, graphics, sound, class design, combat, etc.
And then compare them to their analogous categories in WoW.
If you find that nearly all of these categories are identical between your game and WoW...then maybe it is too close to WoW.
But that is not how it works here. People usualy pick up two or three standard features and ignore all the rest and label a game WOW clone but when same is done to their oh so 'innovative' MMO, they go in defensive mode. It happens on these forums pretty much every single day.
But then again WOW CLONE is a very wrong 'label' to begin with because for clone a game has to be an exact and identical copy of WOW.
But if they do this, and they are wrong, then you have a legitimate argument against them . In fact, you could even use the framework I laid out (comparing individual categories) to show that they are wrong if you wished.
And as for clone...people don't use it to mean exact replica. The term "clone" in reference to video games has been around since the 80's:
But if they do this, and they are wrong, then you have a legitimate argument against them . In fact, you could even use the framework I laid out (comparing individual categories) to show that they are wrong if you wished.
And as for clone...people don't use it to mean exact replica. The term "clone" in reference to video games has been around since the 80's:
Maybe it is there since 80's but still doesn't make it right as a term to define similarities between two MMOS. atleast that is what i personally believe.
But if they do this, and they are wrong, then you have a legitimate argument against them . In fact, you could even use the framework I laid out (comparing individual categories) to show that they are wrong if you wished.
And as for clone...people don't use it to mean exact replica. The term "clone" in reference to video games has been around since the 80's:
Maybe it is there since 80's but still doesn't make it right as a term to define similarities between two MMOS. atleast that is what i personally believe.
Hehe you can ignore the colloquialism if you want, but it's pretty entrenched in the community at this point. I don't think you're going to get rid of it.
And if you choose to define clone as "exact replica" then you're going to get in lots of arguments with folks who are using it to mean the more accepted colloquial definition over nothing more than terminology .
I'll be honest here........... I played WoW since beta and cancelled my sub about 5 months ago now (just burnt out). TBH there wasn't really any other good mmo's out there on the market. WoW was and still is a great mmo imo and it has been very successful, nobody can deny that. When WoW was released it didnt have a lot of competition (the mmo market wasnt flooded yet). Yes u had EQ, Lineage 2, CoH and Ultima Online and others im forgeting. WoW wasnt by any means a finished product at launch. It had all kinds of bug, gltches, underpowered/overpowered classes and servers were unstable. Blizzard had time to polish there product and thats exactly what they did. People now expect a "finished/polished product" at launch. I agree that it needs to be playable but no mmo at release will be 100% polished at launch. Yes i understand thats what beta testing is for but from a business standpoint i can see why they limit the beta testing. They dont want too many people testing it and finding out that they dont like the game and cancelling their subs. So yes, after lanuch and after the servers take on a full load they can start tweaking/patching the game but they cant do this until post-launch. They need to see if the servers hold up, what kind of bugs people run into when they have 1 million people playing their game and see how fast people are leveling. Anyways, WoW had the time to adjust, where as now, people dont give a game time to adjust cus after their free 30 days, if its not polished they cancel and go right back to WoW. NOW after saying all of this, whats my point u ask? I wouldnt mind seeing a WoW 2 or a remake of WoW with a better graphics engine or even a very close copy of WoW with a different name and a few changes here and there. Would it be successful, i think it would. If blizzard made it, it definitely would. I know this is something people dont want to hear but i think its true. Any thoughts or comments?
I wouldn't mind a "WoW 2" if it were what you would expect from a normal sequel. Typical video game sequels strive to greatly improve upon the shortcomings of their predecessor and improve the experience. Just look at Daggerfall and Morrowind (or even Oblivion and Skyrim) to see what I mean.
If this is what you mean by WoW 2, then I'm all for it. In fact, that's basically what this OP was about.
But if you're talking about just remaking WoW with better graphics...then I'm not interested.
But that is not how it works here. People usualy pick up two or three standard features and ignore all the rest and label a game WOW clone but when same is done to their oh so 'innovative' MMO, they go in defensive mode. It happens on these forums pretty much every single day.
But then again WOW CLONE is a very wrong 'label' to begin with because for clone a game has to be an exact and identical copy of WOW.
Oh boy.
The term was never meant to be taken literally. It's merely a point of reference to help introduce a game to someone who has a history of playing WOW. It's quick way to let someone know what formula was used in the design of a game.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I'll be honest here........... I played WoW since beta and cancelled my sub about 5 months ago now (just burnt out). TBH there wasn't really any other good mmo's out there on the market. WoW was and still is a great mmo imo and it has been very successful, nobody can deny that. When WoW was released it didnt have a lot of competition (the mmo market wasnt flooded yet). Yes u had EQ, Lineage 2, CoH and Ultima Online and others im forgeting. WoW wasnt by any means a finished product at launch. It had all kinds of bug, gltches, underpowered/overpowered classes and servers were unstable. Blizzard had time to polish there product and thats exactly what they did. People now expect a "finished/polished product" at launch. I agree that it needs to be playable but no mmo at release will be 100% polished at launch. Yes i understand thats what beta testing is for but from a business standpoint i can see why they limit the beta testing. They dont want too many people testing it and finding out that they dont like the game and cancelling their subs. So yes, after lanuch and after the servers take on a full load they can start tweaking/patching the game but they cant do this until post-launch. They need to see if the servers hold up, what kind of bugs people run into when they have 1 million people playing their game and see how fast people are leveling. Anyways, WoW had the time to adjust, where as now, people dont give a game time to adjust cus after their free 30 days, if its not polished they cancel and go right back to WoW. NOW after saying all of this, whats my point u ask? I wouldnt mind seeing a WoW 2 or a remake of WoW with a better graphics engine or even a very close copy of WoW with a different name and a few changes here and there. Would it be successful, i think it would. If blizzard made it, it definitely would. I know this is something people dont want to hear but i think its true. Any thoughts or comments?
I wouldn't mind a "WoW 2" if it were what you would expect from a normal sequel. Typical video game sequels strive to greatly improve upon the shortcomings of their predecessor and improve the experience. Just look at Daggerfall and Morrowind (or even Oblivion and Skyrim) to see what I mean.
If this is what you mean by WoW 2, then I'm all for it. In fact, that's basically what this OP was about.
But if you're talking about just remaking WoW with better graphics...then I'm not interested.
What i mean is that if they made a "WoW 2" like "World of StarCraft" or something of that nature i think it would be highly successful. But i also think if they were to make a remake of WoW with a better graphics engine and a few changes here and there it would also be successful even though i wouldnt be interested in it.
But that is not how it works here. People usualy pick up two or three standard features and ignore all the rest and label a game WOW clone but when same is done to their oh so 'innovative' MMO, they go in defensive mode. It happens on these forums pretty much every single day.
But then again WOW CLONE is a very wrong 'label' to begin with because for clone a game has to be an exact and identical copy of WOW.
Oh boy.
The term was never meant to be taken literally. It's merely a point of reference to help introduce a game to someone who has a history of playing WOW. It's quick way to let someone know what formula was used in the design of a game.
Guess you didn't read rest of the posts ehh? i mentioned it quite clearly that it is not about taking it literally but people do not even get to desired acceptable threshold to label a MMO a wow clone. Couple of features are enough to make any MMO a clone.
Guess you didn't read of the posts ehh? i mentioned it quite clearly that it is not about taking it literally but people do not even get to desired acceptable threshold to label a MMO a wow clone. Couple of features are enough to make any MMO a clone.
Sure, when you're using it as a pejorative (as it most often is used), there's no standard "rules" to its application. Can't really expect there ever will be.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Comments
What makes a MMO clone really? is it ability to solo? gear grind? instance dungeons and pvp? questing? what is it? all of the above or even when MMO takes most of the standard features made success by WOW and add some improvements of their own, should they still be labeled WOW clones? or just inspired by WOW? if yes then what should we call games like TSW and GW2? clones or just inspirations? because of these MMOS though themepark at heart and using same classic features are still adding their own twist to other things.
For example simplistic crafting, instanced pvp / pve, soloable, instant / fast traveling but also dynamic events, no gears or levels in case of TSW.
If the game succeeded in the dev's and publisher's goals it is a success. everything else is opinion
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-4760&y=-3170&z=5
Go on, take a look. I'll help you out a bit - it's at top center in the "billions" category. Very informative and wonderful graphics btw, well worth studying.
Personally I detest Zynga and those crappy 'ville games they churn out, but it's the numbers man... Just plain numbers. "Sandbox concept is not commercially viable" must rank with the greatest historical fallacies of all times lol. If I had 50 million bux I'd invest them into a sandbox rather than story-based game because they do f***ing sell like crazy!
As for "parameters," in this thread the parameters are obviously profits as in "percentage return to investments." Not customer satisfaction, not box-sales, not retention... just return to investments. SW:TOR will be profitable, no doubt about it - they WILL return their investment... But by how much? That is the question. If they are counting on retention... I don't think the guys who put up the money will be very pleased.
Problem is that it's almost impossible to define "success" from the outside.
In business, you generally call a project successful if it generates more of a return than another similarly "risked" investment would return in a given amount of time.
For example, if you judge a new project to be as risky as investing in a startup company, and you expect a 20% yearly ROI if you had invested in a startup company; then your project would be successful if it generated greater than a 20% yearly ROI.
But how can you possible tell this looking from the outside in?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
That does not bode well for the type of sandboxes that poster's on this site are wishing for.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
There is no hard and fast rule, it is completely subjective.
On a personal level, I would consider a game a clone if it offers me almost the exact same experience as another game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You may wish to avoid ad numerum as a benchmark, because you entirely preclude niche games. You also force us to accept WoW as the greatest MMO ever conceived in the same breath--meaning all "clones" of same must all be great games too. Can't have it both ways.
Most of the current MMO "sandbox" titles will fail utterly and completely under any such "just numbers" definition. The only one that might pull out would be EVE, and it took them more than five years to get there.
The players of the "little" games, however, insist that those games are the best they've ever played. The same players would reject Farm Town, Sims, Second Life out of hand entirely.
Apparently there's something more than raw sales figures that determine success. Is it quantifyable, or must we rely on rhetoric to eastablish it?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
But that is the thing there is no 'exact' experince. Even Rift had its own twists to things even though it plays like a traditional themepark MMO. I believe when it comes to labeling a MMO WOW clone people are just biased and do so just to play favorites with their own MMO of choice.
Whether we like it or not, the future does not look bright for desktop gaming period. With the introduction of tablets the mass market is being taken further and further away from the PC.
The majority of development will go where the money is.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Well "clone" is just a label...it's nothing objective. As you say, there is no point in arguing whether something should or should not be labeled a "clone" because there is no objective definition of what being a "clone" constitutes.
BUT.
You can objectively look at the major categories of a game and try to determine how similar they are to another game given your gaming experience. For example, you could choose categories that are common to all MMORPGs like:
PvE, PvP, leveling experience, grouping dynamics, world design, graphics, sound, class design, combat, etc.
And then compare them to their analogous categories in WoW.
If you find that nearly all of these categories are identical between your game and WoW...then maybe it is too close to WoW.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I'll be honest here........... I played WoW since beta and cancelled my sub about 5 months ago now (just burnt out). TBH there wasn't really any other good mmo's out there on the market. WoW was and still is a great mmo imo and it has been very successful, nobody can deny that. When WoW was released it didnt have a lot of competition (the mmo market wasnt flooded yet). Yes u had EQ, Lineage 2, CoH and Ultima Online and others im forgeting. WoW wasnt by any means a finished product at launch. It had all kinds of bug, gltches, underpowered/overpowered classes and servers were unstable. Blizzard had time to polish there product and thats exactly what they did. People now expect a "finished/polished product" at launch. I agree that it needs to be playable but no mmo at release will be 100% polished at launch. Yes i understand thats what beta testing is for but from a business standpoint i can see why they limit the beta testing. They dont want too many people testing it and finding out that they dont like the game and cancelling their subs. So yes, after lanuch and after the servers take on a full load they can start tweaking/patching the game but they cant do this until post-launch. They need to see if the servers hold up, what kind of bugs people run into when they have 1 million people playing their game and see how fast people are leveling. Anyways, WoW had the time to adjust, where as now, people dont give a game time to adjust cus after their free 30 days, if its not polished they cancel and go right back to WoW. NOW after saying all of this, whats my point u ask? I wouldnt mind seeing a WoW 2 or a remake of WoW with a better graphics engine or even a very close copy of WoW with a different name and a few changes here and there. Would it be successful, i think it would. If blizzard made it, it definitely would. I know this is something people dont want to hear but i think its true. Any thoughts or comments?
But that is not how it works here. People usualy pick up two or three standard features and ignore all the rest and label a game WOW clone but when same is done to their oh so 'innovative' MMO, they go in defensive mode. It happens on these forums pretty much every single day.
But then again WOW CLONE is a very wrong 'label' to begin with because for clone a game has to be an exact and identical copy of WOW.
I would say copy the way Blizzard develops and supports a game and not so much copy the game itself.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
Of course there are many ways you can judge a game's (or anything's) success. But we're talking about profitabilty in this thread and more particularly about whether or not the current "common sense" approach of copying the most profitable game at tha moment (in this case, WoW) is a guarantee of success or failure... using this particular yardstick.
Personally, sandbox games do not appeal to me. I played EVE on trial and found it too time-consuming and slow. Minecraft amuses me but I was never drawn to it - i'd much rather watch on youtube what crazy sh*** people can come up with in that game. I did plant some pumpkins in Farmville and enjoyed watching them grow but I quickly realized where it is all going to. But that is not what we're talking about here. What I find fascinating, time and time again, is how sandbox games are always maligned as "niche" or "non-commercial" on this site and in mmo world in general.. while making a killing elsewhere.
This is especially poignant considering that massive-online-multiplayer medium is practically ideal for sandbox type of gameplay - "look what I did!!!" factor in Farmville, for example, and yet no-one seems to be able to properly monetize it (except the evil Zynga and the slightly creepy CCP)
But if they do this, and they are wrong, then you have a legitimate argument against them
. In fact, you could even use the framework I laid out (comparing individual categories) to show that they are wrong if you wished.
And as for clone...people don't use it to mean exact replica. The term "clone" in reference to video games has been around since the 80's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_clone
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Maybe it is there since 80's but still doesn't make it right as a term to define similarities between two MMOS.
atleast that is what i personally believe.
any thoughts on my post?
Hehe you can ignore the colloquialism if you want, but it's pretty entrenched in the community at this point. I don't think you're going to get rid of it.
And if you choose to define clone as "exact replica" then you're going to get in lots of arguments with folks who are using it to mean the more accepted colloquial definition over nothing more than terminology
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I wouldn't mind a "WoW 2" if it were what you would expect from a normal sequel. Typical video game sequels strive to greatly improve upon the shortcomings of their predecessor and improve the experience. Just look at Daggerfall and Morrowind (or even Oblivion and Skyrim) to see what I mean.
If this is what you mean by WoW 2, then I'm all for it. In fact, that's basically what this OP was about.
But if you're talking about just remaking WoW with better graphics...then I'm not interested.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Oh boy.
The term was never meant to be taken literally. It's merely a point of reference to help introduce a game to someone who has a history of playing WOW. It's quick way to let someone know what formula was used in the design of a game.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
What i mean is that if they made a "WoW 2" like "World of StarCraft" or something of that nature i think it would be highly successful. But i also think if they were to make a remake of WoW with a better graphics engine and a few changes here and there it would also be successful even though i wouldnt be interested in it.
Guess you didn't read rest of the posts ehh? i mentioned it quite clearly that it is not about taking it literally but people do not even get to desired acceptable threshold to label a MMO a wow clone. Couple of features are enough to make any MMO a clone.
Sure, when you're using it as a pejorative (as it most often is used), there's no standard "rules" to its application. Can't really expect there ever will be.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.