Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What percentage of a MMO has to be similar to WoW to be considered a WoW clone to you?
MMOExposed
Member RarePosts: 7,387
Well after GW2 beta weekend , I noticed that GW2 wasn't getting this label of being a WoW Clone, like I seen from other MMO.
but I can see it being compared to games like Rift,Tera, Warhammer, AoC, Aion
but all these games are what people on this site call, WoW Clones.
This had me wondering and theorizing over what determines what is or isn't a WoW clone to the community.
so I figured, it has to be some sort of percentage of similarities that determine which MMO games get considered WoW clones or not.
well, what percentage of a MMO has to be similar to WoW to be considered a WoW clone, from your point of view
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I didn't say it wasn't, did I?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I seen Darkfall get called a WoW clone on this forum before, but never seen MO called it. What gives?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Yeah but these Johnny come lately's will never understand it. That's why they make up the same poll every few months, they are poll clones for the original clone that looks like the word wow.
"EVE is likely the best MMORPG that you've never really understood or played" - Kyleran
I don't have a percentage. To me, the thing that makes a game a "wow clone" to me is the "bread crumb quest trail" concept.
I get it, quests exist, and they are the primary way to level. But, seriously, can we avoid the bread crumb feel? I think that may be the thing that irks me most.
Quests are rarely anything world-spanning, (or even zone spanning) its beomce "Go to quest hub A. Complete the quests at Hub A (which all are within an area concentrated around A), then get a quest that takes you to Hub B, repeat.
To me, ANY game that does this, is a "WoW clone" regardless of its genre, class structure, etc. Champions Online: Superhero WoW Clone. Lotro: Tolkeinesque WoW clone, Rifts: Wow Clone, TOR: Star Wars WoW clone.
This isn't a rag on "Theme Park" game either. I happen to like Theme Park. I just hate the extreme that Wow clones have reached...
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
I'm now absolutely convinced that MMOExposed is just a MMORPG.com staff account used to troll the crap out of these boards.
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
Personally I avoid use of the term WoW-clone because I feel "modern themepark" is more descriptive and more universally understood. Most don't want their game called a WoW-clone, but few are offended by a game being called a themepark.
Here's a minimal list for qualification:
Class based character creation
Hub based quest progression with XP and gear as quest rewards
Private instanced dungeons
Instanced battlegrounds with automatic queing
Raid oriented endgame with gear progression
In my understanding a themepark becomes more WoW like with:
Cartoonish art design
High fantasy gear with huge shoulders and sparkling glowing oversized weapons
Pseudo fantasy-medieval setting (swords, shields, guns, motorcycles, helicopters, aliens)
Numerous pop-culture references
Two faction system with multiple races having their own starting areas
Honestly, I dont think many games would get a perfect 10 out of 10 for the above.
I think its pretty clear that those who are new to playing mmo's or have ONLY played WoW assume everything else is a clone. Not to mention the idiotic assumptions that game X is supposded to be a WoW killer. Especially when no official dev has ever said that.
Personally, I hate most former WoW players. They ruin every mmo I go into because all that want to talk about is WoW, complaining becuase game X is not as easy as WoW, and etc.
It's not about percentages of likeness. WoW is a Themepark game. That simply means that you have levels (whether it's class based or skill based) that force the game's content to be divided to fit those levels, in a layer after layer system.
That's the core of "Themepark". It brings along other things to make the game work in that system.
layered gear (levels)
zoned areas of content (dungeons, etc.), based on the layer the player is at
In text based gaming, this core design was called DIKU. It's based on D+D, where you also had this layered content based on levels. It was only natural that DIKU and Themepark designs, since they are based on the D+D design, have classes. But you could easily substitute skill based and make it work the same way with layers of power.
It was also natural that a quest system was added in WoW, which is basically the same thing as "modules" (quest like booklets with pre-built content based on level, the player's current layer). EQ also had these modules (in the form of dungeons, etc.), but they lacked a quest system to stear players where to go next in their journey through layers. That was something the DM did in D+D paper and pencil gaming, and EQ missed.
So, refining the term "Themepark" to this basic structure of how a game works, there's really no percentages involved. It either is or it isn't a Themepark.
Now, when you start talking about "Sandbox", the primary difference is not being limited to content based on your layer, or level.
The entire way of how you play the game is changed. You can have good Sandbox designs, or bad designs. What anyone wants in either case is good design.
But Sandbox also brings some core pronciples.
No layers (levels of power). But don't take that the wrong way. You still want to have growth and advancement, and you can still have some content layers based on the layer of power. But it has to still make the entire world open. There's a fine line to draw here. An open world, but with some dungeons that are really tough where a small group of powerfull players can survive, but it takes larger groups of less powerfull players, etc. And of course it would be bad game design, even for a Sandbox, to make newbs able to handle most dungeons even in large masses. The idea of power gap removal (such as WoW has) can't be taken to that extreme for a good Sandbox game.
One world. No instances. But again, this is a basic concept. A great Sandbox could build in a few instances if done right. These would be exceptions from normal content with a purpose. For example, a magical portal in a dungeon that takes players to an instanced dungeon, but also back in time to a random point, where the contents are dictated by that time period, and where they won't meet other players because of the wide randomness of time periods (this is the justification). Or a spell that takes you into an etherial zone, a space like area with floating etherial rocks to walk on, and where players won't meet other player groups because of the justification of infinit possibilities on "where". Again, these should be exceptions to the rule of "one open world". But they can add to the game.
In all, any game can be made pretty much the same, in either a Themepark or a Sandbox system. As an example, you could take WoW, as it is, and turn it into a Sandbox with some changes that fit what I've outlined above.
Remove the power gaps of levels. Not levels entirely, just the huge gaps. Make it so a level 30 can play along side a level 60.
Remove the extremes of power gaps in gear too, same sort of thing. Make it so that a level 60 can make use of a level 30 item. It's just not quite as good.
Make most of the instanced content open. Leave a few, but make the reasoning fit as I said above (time travelling, etc.)
Add a lot of Sandbox worldly interactions. Doors to open and close, chests to loot, levers and mechansism to funtion, items to place, etc. A good Sandbox doesn't even need player housing, constuction, it's just that that would be a whole lot better. WoW isn't quite built for player houses (room wise).
And modify the entire world, MOBs and etc., to fit this Sandboxy form of game play.
You can still have the same quest. It's not the quests, it's the layered levels of questing that is Themepark.
Players can go to any part of the game world and play. They can stay inone area if they want to, or move around. Freedom.
But it would be a better Sandbox to start over and make a world where players can build houses, players can make furnishings for those houses, and the economy can be added to through this, as well as the game play.
So, as you can see, the core to "Themepark" is in the layers and zones of content. And that's why I say, it either is or it isn't a Themepark game.
And that's what makes most of these games "clones". They are all based on this layer of content game play, directed by level and not open to freedom.
Once upon a time....
While I understand the question, and I have my own answers as to why GW2 is not a WoW Clone and as a result why it is not being labelled as such, i have much troiuble voting on the poll. I do not think that this is a quantitative statistic, and it is more of a qualitative statistic.
Features alone do not make a game, even if features is what is being plastered in to our face day in day out by marketing of many of these games.
What makes a game is Gameplay Experience, (qualitative data), while many people can express this differently and you may get many different results, there is a common denominator.
The Experience of WoW is one focussed on Progression, there is absolutelly nothing else to do in the game than progress the character, and all the different features ...Quests, Instances, Raids, Battlegrounds, Daily Quests...Crafting and down to Gear...serve but one purpose...to progress a character, nicelly packed within a Story that unfolds as you progress...
Guild Wars 2 does not have that Focus, and hence it is not like WoW, Rift, AOC, AION, TOR all have been labelled as WoW clones because they have the same Focus and by so doing offer essentially the same Gameplay Exprience.
GW2 focus is simply to log on and have Fun with what is there with other people.
This is how I see it, and feel it.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
As long as it's not the exact same setting as WoW, then it's not a clone. A game having the same "features" as WoW doesn't make it a clone.
That's a huge mistake too many of these "wannabe seen as different than WoW" developers are making.
Bioware for instance.
They gave a taste of what the modern mmo gamer that enjoys WoW wanted, but didn't go far enough.
RPers have consistently twisted what RPG means. In doing that, and consistently being the most vocal minority on pretty much every gaming related site, they are slowly killing the genre.
Are you asking me to quantify my opinion and emotions? ahahahahaha! *does an Aristotle explanation of why emotions and opinions are incapable of being quantified offscreen.*
Anyway, I think of a game as a WoW clone when it has 8 out of 11 of the following, as others have said:
-you are lead from Quest hub to Quest hub, killing X and gathering Y around said quest hubs.
-The levelling process acting merely as a delay to endgame, instead of an adventure on its own.
-Cookie Cutter Classes that are almost exactly the same as WoW's classes, including class dynamics and interactions and abilities. For example, why does the mage shoot fireballs only? That's something WoW popularized where otherwise mages could be shooting wind/lightning/water/boulders/energy of the universe. Why does the dot mage have to be a "death" mage (aka WoW warlock). Why is the rogue type using combo points that build on the target like a WoW rogue? Why does the "ranger" type need to have a pet like WoW, when ranger's and beast masters were just fine being 2 seperate classes...
-Tacky mount system that exists only as a money sync to have, and time sync to have not.
-A hearth stone by another name
-Dungeons as instances. Raids as instances. PvP as instances. Instances, instances!
-Does the main antagonist really need to be a necromancer (aka lich king) or giant end of the world dragon (aka deathwing)
-Character Creation being just slight modifications to hair, face, and skin color, and nothing more.
-All worthwhile armor/weapons comes from drops, and crafting is just a sideline activity
-The economy revolves around raid drops/instance drops instead of crafting, and the AH system has no history tab (as if the closer it is to WoW's AH, the better)
-User interface that might as well be cut and pasted from WoW, except it has bugs that make it not quite as good as Wow's...
If it has 8 out of 11 of those features, I consider it a WoW Clone... And Maybe some people might agree and add some more.
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
I think there are several sub genres that are all themeparks. And, IMO, the WoW-clone is one of them. I dont think its fair to call the "WoW-clone" sub genre modern. I would prefer to call it popular and mainstream. A niche game based on other ideas can certainly also be modern and use a lot of new ideas. But it will not be very popular compared to WoW.
On the other hand...Most WoW -clones more or less fail and start to lose subscribers/active players after the first month. And one year after release 10-25% are still playing. Not very good, IMO. And I would not be surprised if investors and publishers give up and stop believing in and supporting such games. Perhaps its not possible to copy WoW:s success even if you try to copy the game. And even if its a good copy... People prefer the original and some are also Blizzard fans. Friends are playing WoW and they have also invested a lot of both time and money in it. Why would they want to play a clone and be forced to start again in a game that probably lacks WoW:s content, quality and polish?
I think the next really successful game will be different. People are loking for and waiting for something new. Probably without knowing exactly what they want. But when that game is released they will know.
And a good game is a game that is fun to play. Different sub genres can be fun if done right and if the developers have true talant and are gifted. But they will probably be more creative and make better games if they stop believing a game must be a WoW-clone to be considered modern or to be a success.
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209
I like pi(e).
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
All it needs are linear questing, quest hub, gear progression grinds, hotkey/target and raids. Even if the game has somethingmore, like companions for instance, it really just boils down to WoW with a new skin to me.
I like WoW by the way.
And percentage values are stupid.
So Warhammer is 78.4 percent similar to WoW?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
when comparing something to something else you are taking two objects and comparing attributes. you shouldn't be comparing the things shared but the differences compared to the things shared.
to me it is a clone when there is only one or two attributes that you notice that differentiates it from the original.
like rift... wow with special overworld dungeons which randomly spawn geographically; and invasions.
it also had similar small changes to other things. like an addition of puzzles and random loot chests... but nothing else at the level of major feature. if they developed further the puzzles to be a major and important mechanic then it would have at least one major difference. but as it stood when i played it, it was just a flavored equivalent of wow.
tera by contrast wasn't a wow clone because it didn't start at the level of wow and then go it's own way, it went it's own way and has some things which are similar but drew in a lot of variety in terms of insperation. i still don't like it but the point is the dissonance. allot of the time it fails where wow is great, or it starts from scratch in the mechanic rather than taking a wow mechanic and improving it. so it isn't a clone.
it isn't how do we fix this? but how do we want it to play?
Haha. I have to agree.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
could not vote as individual systems are weighted differently.
a simple percentage does not express my subjective opinion on the matter.
cheers!