Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
WoW is not a genre
Creslin321
Member Posts: 5,359
There seems to be a spreading belief that the single game "World of Warcraft" does in fact, define a genre (or sub-genre). And as such, it's completely valid for games to be made by shamelessly copying its model.
Personally...I don't think this could be more wrong. WoW is a specific implementation of a "themepark MMORPG." Other themepark MMORPGs include games like Everquest and DAoC. These games are significantly different from WoW, so the whole "traditional themepark = WoW" argument is bunk.
IMO, WoW is far too narrow of a box to fit an entire genre in. I mean, just think about everything that goes along with the WoW model:
1. "Traditional" quest node leveling.
2. Warfronts.
3. Instanced dungeons.
4. Auction house
5. Two factions with open-world PvP options.
6. Raids.
7. Gear grind at end game.
8. Trinity.
(EDIT: Thought of some more)
9. Hotkey skill bars.
10. Talent trees.
Now ask yourself, after you implement all of these things, just how much can you actually differentiate your game from WoW??? These things will take a lot of work to implement and will pretty much define your game.
Trying to make WoW into a genre just means trying to recreate WoW with different animations and maybe a "twist." Personally, I really think we need something different and I'm tired of devs thinking they can just copy WoW's model and have a gold mine.
Thoughts?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Comments
good post, but we cannot allow this message to be heard. fighting forum battles is a lot more fun than actually playing one of the recent WoW clones.
I'm old I guess, "instanced" still says AO to me.
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.
You just tripped over yourself. EQ & DAOC are NOT "Themeparks". They're hybrids, and their pre-2008 existances could have been considered "light" sandbox MMORPGs.
The Core-Definition of a "Themepark": an MMORPG where the ENTIRE leveling process is guided by a hand-holding linear questing approach, and player design (e.g: classes/races) are barely different from any other player's design. Meaning, player choice has EXTREMELY low impact on character differentiation.
Additionally: Themeparks are not the first, or last apparently, to use "instancing". Instancing is a HORRIBLE mechanic used by lazy developers whom want to limit player interactions for both World-Design, and Gameplay-management down to the Nth degree. Instancing needs to be phased out completely, it creates "empty" worlds like SWTOR.
DAOC & EQ are NOT themeparks. True, they've implemented "some" light questing systems now to keep up with the "Casual" crowed, but more the 90% of their gameplay is free-form player choice.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
That is the problem. when you cap at 10 - 14 mil. plyers thats more then all the other western MMOs combined and then someone copys them and hits 1 mil. box sells over night all the devs try to do the same, and thous All the new MMOs are somuch like WoW that it is scary.
If there is a hit MMO that is not like WoW the dev may start being creative again, but tell then I will play EQ2, and hope for a better tomarrow, tomarrow.
You can debate it for sure, but many of us believe that Everquest was the first real successful themepark MMO. And DAoC is pretty much the same deal except it had RvR as well. None of this "EQ is a sandpark" crap started until after all of the WoW clones were released. The only reason people think EQ is a sandpark is because the abundance of WoW imitators make it seem like to be a themepark you have to copy WoW and be ultra-linear.
If MMORPGs continue down the linear trend, soon people will start considering WoW as a "sandpark."
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I'm not saying that WoW innovated any of the things I mentioned...just that they are the defining features of WoW.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
When they where relesed, they where called "themeparks", and not hybrids (EQ set the standard for "themeparks") so he is right.
But you are right as well, the term has changed over the years ("themepark" standard is, at present time, set by WoW).
The problem being with instances is that when you start implementing features like "Instance Finder" like WoW did a long time ago. You completely kill off the open-world.
Instances, by definition, destroy "Open World" feeling.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
I will agree to a point that the term has shifted over time to describe WoW's design, and this can be attributed to the massive copying & cloning of WoW's design down to a science.
Unfortunately, developers don't seem to understand that the modern term for "Themepark" has had it's market cornered by WoW. What developers NEED to understand is that there are 3x as many customers (30million+) whom are still out there playing online games, but are so spread out due to different interests, lack of innovaction, etc etc that there is still room for exploring other mediums.
I think at one point it was guestimated that there are over 6million "Sandbox" gamers online spread out amongst more than 13 MMOs, and the rest are playing Single-Player RPGs in order to get their "sandbox" fix since the MMO market has fallen behind on modern interests.
To emphasis: WOW is NOT the only MASSIVE market, but is the ONLY one that has been tapped to it's maximum potential. Trying to feed off WoW's model will ONLY have you pitted against WoW directly, and NOT tapping into that section of the market that is left to tap. There isn't another 5+million players floating around who want a DIFFERENT type of WoW. You'd have to have LEGENDARY programming coupled with a 500million budget to even compete with WoW's market.
(ala: SWTOR, but their programmers were terrible)
WTB: AAA Sandbox, this market has NOT been tapped yet!
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
EQ and DAoC can only be considered sandbox if your entire frame of reference for MMOs is themepark focused games. This is not to say I feel these are bad games at all; the assumption made around here when they see someone call their cherished MMO a themepark. The ability to do quests in Zone A vs quests in Zone B doesn't make a game any less of a developer-driven class restricted level-based linear game.
As to the premise for the OP's post, I think he's channeling the spirit of Tobold. Much like Tobold's blog entry, the OP doesn't give examples of this or even explain who these people are - developers, media, players, etc - which would help a lot in actually discussing who seems to hold that sentiment and why they seem to feel that way.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Hmmm well to give you some more specifics, here is what I have noticed..
1. A lot of players on the forums seem to think that WoW is the definition of "themepark" and therefore it is okay to create WoW copies because you're just creating games in a genre. Fadedbomb gave a good example of this, even though I actually agree with his other arguments in his more recent post...so no offense Fadedbomb
.
2. The devs of SWTOR have made many statements which make me think that they believe WoW is a "genre" as well. First of which is was that guy that said not copying WoW was "stupid." Another of which is when James Ohlen recently said that many people consider the MMORPG genre to be a "single game genre" with WoW being that single game.
3. The devs of WAR have also expressed this. I remember that Paul Barnett in his "victory" speech after WAR was launched said that, in order to design a successful game, you need to basically build on (i.e. shamelessly copy) the leader and then just add your own spin to it. This, once again, makes it seem like WoW is a "genre" and you can copy its formula and then differentiate from it.
4. More than anything though, all of the AAA games released from like 2007 to now should illustrate this argument best. They are nearly ALL basically WoW copies. This is the devs speaking with their actions...they think "WoW" is broad enough to turn into a genre where multiple games are successful...I really disagree and so does the western market.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Hmmm...
That was pretty interesting to read, as I never really noticed that before but I can see it now that you pointed it out.
My thoughts on that last part, that the devs speak with their actions, is that it is because players have spoken with theirs. If data shows the players are enjoying a certain design, it makes a certain amount of sense to repeat it. How much sense it makes to be the 20th in line to repeat it, though, that's another thing.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Supply follows perceived demand
. Devs see a bunch of people playing WoW...figure that's what they want...make a WoW copy. And in some genres...this can actually work. If you really enjoyed a tactical FPS in April 2011, you may enjoy another very similar game in November 2011. After all...how long are you (read most people) going to play a single tactical FPS game?
And I think that's one of the BIG differentiating factors between the MMORPG genre and other genres. MMORPGs typically have a MUCH longer life than most other games. TONS of people are still playing WoW and that's been out for over a 7 years. So when you release an MMORPG, you are actively competing with games that were released over half a decade ago.
So it's not so easy to just copy a game and then profit...at least in the long-term. In the case of MMORPGs, if you want to copy a game and "beat" it, then your copy has to be superior in many, many ways. And given that WoW has had over 7 years of post-release development...this is no easy task!
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You can say that.
Doesn't make it true.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Much like buying cars some players have brand loyalty too.
Unless you're making another in a string of sequels.
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.
Heheh...Madden anyone
?
But really, in my post I was talking specifically about MMORPGs.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
For me FPS games have not really changed much since the days of Doom 2/Quake. This probably means that I am not the target demographic for FPS games since I simply do not put that much weight on the nuances of the various games. On the other hand I see differences between WoW and its 'clones' that many other seem to just glance over. This does not mean that I like those games but they hardly seem like just remakes of WoW.
Re fps: I disagree, Crysis, portal 2, l4f2f, bf3, ss3 all feel different to each, they ate less close than say wow / rift / Swtor
Well a few things have been missed on why WOW became so successful and why many think themeparks are the wya to go.
1- MMORPG's were kinda new at this time. A few 100k and the game was successful and massive at the time. Sandboxes and themeparks were still in the toddler stage. But majority of the players were still playing console games and single player rpgs on the pc.
2- Internet access and useage peaked during this time also. More people online = larger customer base.
3- game appeased young children as well as adults.But it was made for people that liked easy play, non indepth games.
4- todays market try to copy blizzard and make these cheesy themepark games hoping to have the "rags to riches" success blizzard did. They follow to close to WOW and in most cases try to walk in their footsteps. Even blizzard mentioned this in an article.
5- No one has taken a gamble and tried anything else.
Sandboxes realy didnt have a chance to get off the ground. As i said these games were still kinda new to many people. When WOW came out it was advertised well, marketed well, and attracted so many more people probably due to its name and its reputation (blizzard - war craft and starcraft). I just dont see how so many are happy with the themepark games instead of a realy good sandbox with all its features. Im sure people are just getting sick of these wow style games, but nothing better has come out so they stick with what they know and have invested a lot of time in.
On a personal note i just hate limitations, being led around, lack of player content, creativity is lost, and tired of hitting max level and only thing to do is dailies, warzones, and raids. MMO's should have a lot more. With archeage (maybe) coming to america a few months/years down the road , the repopulation and its amazing features, that sandboxes are given a new light and maybe attract more gamers and companies to work on something different than straight up themepark games.
Mos tthis is my speculation, but also been written about dozens of times. Im an older gamer and im sick of these childish easy dumbed down console rpgs getting released that all look and feel the same. In my opinion, im sure many here like being led around and not allowed to use their creativity to make content. Easier just to wait for content from the company i guess.
Most people here only look at only a subset of MMOs and within that group they see a range of difference For example, if you add Dungeon Fighter, Atlantica, ATITD, Mabinogi, EVE, Puzzle Pirates, Vindictus and Maple Story to the MMO list then you start to see how others can find WOW, EQ, Rift, and Aion to be extremely similar.
All to often the answer to that is "Well, some of those aren't REAL MMOs," which underscores the issue - limiting one's acceptance of what is an MMO only to WOW-like MMOs and then having issues with the feeling that all MMOs seem the same or, worse, perceiving that any of the WOW-like MMOs are really that much different from each other.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well said.
And really, I think you could even take a look at a subset of MMORPGs that are fairly similar to WoW and still see how they are more different from WoW than WoW-copies. For example, consider themeparks:
EQ, DAoC, GW (yes, not technically an MMORPG, but definitely an online themepark), and the upcoming GW2
All of these games are pretty different from WoW. They all offer a pretty unique experience, despite the fact that they are all of the developer-guided "themepark" approach.
Now consider:
Aion, WAR, SWTOR
All of these games are extremely similar to WoW. They all have the exact same fundamental system (dungeons, questing, warfronts, etc.) but they just have a single "twist" that's different. In Aion you can fly. WAR is focused on PvP. SWTOR has VO and story. Other than that...they are basically WoW.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Wow basically followed the rules when making an MMO.
You have 2 paths to choose.
1) To compete with the 800 lb gorilla in the room you need to make a 850 lb gorilla. Anything less is fail. Time tested.
2) Don't make a gorilla. This can be difficult as most investors won't take a chance that your new pink peacock is going to make the players happy.
So in conclusion,
Wow in 2004 went route #1 and EQ was the gorilla and the time and succeeded by making the 850 lb gorilla.
Eve went route #2 and was successul in making a niche indie game. The pink peacock.
Swtor went route #1 and made a 400 lb gorilla which is why it will fail.
AOC, LOTR, D&D all went route #1 and their 400 lb gorillas are f2p.
thats not even true at all. there are so many themepark MMO out there much different from WoW.
Aion has only 2 races for example, and flying combat and massive endgame PvP zone.
Warhammer took a whole different way of going about the themepark design by making it PvP focused instead of PvE focus. how is that a standard of WoW? in WoW before Warhammer came, the only way to gain EXP from PvP was by turning in marks in Vanilla WoW. that was long scrap before the Warhammer hype even came.
LoTRO didnt even have faction PvP. So how is it off the standards of WoW? it had player housing, as well as solo instances. and so much more, that WOW HAS NEVER DONE!!!
AoC,,, come on,,, do I really?
Vanguard,,, again fully persistent world and no PvP. how is this themepark the standard of WoW?
the list goes on.... Blizzard had to even go as far as to copy many of these ideas from these other games...... to make this so called Standard you all speak of...
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Eve's route also had the problem of not making great returns for a long time...kind of turns off big money investors.