You know, I never thought to write this up when it happened at the time but, the more I think about it, days later, the more it niggles at the part of my brain which is reserved for conversations that aren’t allowed to run their full course and leave me with more questions than answers. You know the kind… you start thinking about them just before you have to go to sleep and the like.
So what’s behind this rather angsty introduction? Well, you see, in a recent thread on the BioWare forums, I pointed to an earlier – and extremely popular if the amount of Diggs was any indication – MMOCrunch editorial I’d written which ran, in part:
MMORPGS have been dumbed down to the max and someone, somewhere, needs to show that this need not be the case for people who want something more from their gaming than being pushed from quest to quest, zone to zone, doing EXACTLY the same thing everyone else is doing, ad infinitum.
Next thing, BioWare employee James Henley (who has identified himself in other posts he has made on the forum as “World Designer, Unnamed MMORPG, BioWare, Austin Studio”) shot back a pithy one-liner at me, just 18 minutes after my post:
I’m almost positive that, one day, people will learn to tell the difference between a fact and their opinion.
To me, that came across as a rather snappy – and kind of unnecessary – comment in general, but also suggested that he disagreed with what I’d said. I mean, people only tend to take what I like to call “the snappy route” on a forum when they disagree with you. Does that seem like a fair assessment to you, dear readers?
I replied, asking for more of his thoughts because I was genuinely intrigued why he would make this comeback. In asking, I pointed out that today’s MMORPGs are a conveyer belt of quests; have levels that are, seemingly, an arbitrary number, rather than meaning something; that people are sick of “the quest grind” in MMORPGs, especially when the quests are variations of “Kill 10 monsters” and “Deliver this letter” and there has been a real void in the market for an intelligent MMORPG, post Ultima Online and the original SWG.
Do they seem like valid complaints from the MMORPG community at large? I thought so. So I naturally wanted James’ thoughts.
No response.
Later, the thread was closed altogether because there is currently a catch-all thread that BioWare uses for its MMORPG discussions (whether they relate to its MMORPG project, or not), so the chance for James to reply directly to the thread disappeared entirely.
Now, why does the exchange still bother me? Primarily because I was talking about a games developer needing to go out there into the marketplace and take a stand by creating a sandbox MMORPG to counteract the plague of MMORPGs that are currently out there, all offering exactly the same thing and all of them, you will note, boring the pants off users, faster and faster with each new release.
(Heck, it’s no lie to say that people were sick of Age of Conan’s end-game within weeks of launch. That’s patently ridiculous, and definitely not what you get when a game has sandbox options…)
Yet here was James, sprinting off the line, with his slap down.
I could be completely wrong… wouldn’t be the first time and certainly won’t be the last… but the way James got snappy with the ideas in my post sort of suggested to me that BioWare is making a game that does have levels; does have a quest series that keeps people on rails and doesn’t have the kind of intelligent crafting system that made the original incarnation of Star Wars Galaxies so damn great at first.
Because you’d think that if BioWare WASN’T making such a game, the likes of James could sit back, smugly confident with proceedings and if he DID need to make a reply it would be more along the lines of, “Well, just you wait and see…” instead of being all snappy about it.
It makes me rather sad, actually, that if BioWare’s new MMORPG is Star Wars-based (and all signs certainly point towards that, although it’s not 100% confirmed), that it could be a shadow of the original Star Wars Galaxies when, five years on, it should be SO MUCH MORE.
KoTOR I and II were level and quest based games. They had very few sandbox elements. Do you think it’s better to appease the millions of players that bought those games, or the few hundred thousand players that get misty eyed when they think of Pre-NGE SWG? I know which group I’d go after.
If you look at the financial success of offline and online RPGs, so far among sandboxes only the two most recent Elder Scrolls games have really been able to break into the mainstream. And both of those games also feature levels and quests (in addition to numerous sandbox elements). Virtually everything else, from Diablo to WoW to Final Fantasy VII+ that has gone mainstream was level based and linear.
As far as sandbox MMOs, no-one has done any better than EVE long term. Pre-NGE SWG peaked a little higher, but lost subs quickly after that (even before the CE patch). UO never even cracked 200K that I am aware of.
If I were an investor and the lead designer of the KoTOR MMO came to me with an undirected sandbox design, I would pull my money on the spot. Perhaps sad for all gamers, but true.
You bring up an interesting point, re: KotOR I & II, but there are probably two things to keep in mind here: (i) The game is more likely to be called Star Wars: The Old Republic and, as such, isn’t a spiritual successor to the KotOR line of RPGs and, (ii) Even if it does turn out to being called Knights of the Old Republic Online, changes *must* be made to the format, regardless. Because an RPG isn’t an MMORPG. And an MMORPG isn’t an RPG. That’s why I actually believe the game will be called Star Wars: The Old Republic in the first place. Well, that and the fact Lucasarts has registered that name for what it describes as an online game.
The other thing I would say is that a game doesn’t have to be entirely sandbox to survive. But it needs that element. I think a lot can actually be learned from SWG in its current state. Yes, its CURRENT state. Because in its current state, you have masses and masses of excellent RP underpinnings for people who want to RP… the amount of craftable items from clothes to starships makes a mockery of every other game’s crafting… in addition to a Legacy quest series that can take you from CL1 to CL90, in addition to a bunch of off-shoot missions, theme parks, etc. This represents the best of both sandbox elements AND more traditional here-let-me-hold-your-hand-and-tell-you-where-to-go-next questing.
Please, for the love of progress, let go of your dream of a Star Wars sandbox game coming back. The failure — and given the size of the license, Galaxies can’t be regarded as anything but a commercial failure — of Galaxies compared to later mass market MMOs makes that a pipe dream.
This kind condescending fanboyism that prizes complexity over simplicity, obscurity over clarity and pointless, frustrating difficulty over accessibility is the kind of thing that, until this generation of games, kept MMOs confined to a tiny niche.
World of Warcraft is a better game, in almost every respect, than the games you admire. Its simplicity, balanced gameplay, polished, directed gameplay and attention to detail blow previous games out of the water. Resenting them for being successful is like hating the kid who is both popular and smart. Hate him all you want, he’s still smarter and prettier than you.
When I think sandbox, the first thing I think of is something like pre-NGE SWG or EVE where it is basically “Ok, here’s a bunch of systems. Now go make your own fun kids!” I don’t think the masses are ready to swallow that.
I certainly agree with you that mixed sanbox/ directed content hasn’t yet been done well in an MMO (current SWG possibly accepted, I haven’t logged in years). When I think of all of the successful (to my mind) offline sandbox games, that’s also the style that they tend to follow. GTA, Morrowind, Fallout I and II. Freedom and depth enough to do whatever you feel like, but there are also some compelling stories arcs to go through.
Absolutely, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. 100% sandbox is too much, even for me. I think 50-50 would be a lovely split between sandbox and directed content… whereas right now, a game like Age of Conan, for example, would be about 95-5 in favour of directed content. And what sandbox elements exist are pretty terrible, eg: cities tucked away in instances; buildings and walls needing to be built in specific locations with no room to personalise your city’s design; limited crafting options, etc.
The final BioWare guy pretty much nailed it: “To show that something can be done” is a terrible business model, and is usually suggested by someone who has absolutely no personal or professional stake in the thing to be tried.
To match that with Henley’s comment, there are plenty of “opinions” out there that sandbox is superior. The “facts” are that sandbox have thus far been a niche corner of the market. UO is creaking by, EVE has its little audience, and SWG has always been a mess.
Can it be done? Sure. But it won’t be done until an independent studio does it, does it damn well, attracts a ton of players and makes a ton of money. Then, and only then, will a AAA studio pull a Blizzard and borrow all those successful elements and improve them.
It always amazes me when people think (and I’m not accusing Rob of this, just to be clear) that just because old SWG was a sandbox, no levels, no classes that therefore BioWare will make their Old Republic game that way. WHY? BioWare’s sole strength has been providing single-player RPG’s that use intriguing mechanics *which are complemented by age-old mechanics of levels* to tell the story they’ve written. Telling stories are not the forté of MMOG’s. BioWare does not “owe” the disgruntled SWG fans a damn thing.
Rob and I agreed in the original (and this) thread that 100% sandbox does not work as a game. But just from reading forums over the past few years, it’s quite apparent that everyone has their own definition of what makes a sandbox. What if I made a game with no levels and no classes but was primarily directed content? What if I made a game that had levels and classes but let you do anything you wanted? I’ve seen many a game use “levels” (including BioWare’s) that had an entirely different meaning than what is most-often used in the MMOG genre.
Wizard101 is possibly a good example of a hybrid. A good mix of directed content, or just jump into someone else’s fight (open grouping with no penalties for the win!) for xp. When you gain a new level, your stats don’t increase and all the garbage from MMOG’s, it simply means you gain access to a new card to play (combat is a CCG presented in Final Fantasy fighting format) in your deck. You get to create your own deck and take your wizard along whichever path you want, which could be considered a sandbox element.
I’m inclined to agree that they probably were getting defensive based on a project they’re working on. Who knows though? I don’t find it very difficult to believe that Bioware will make an extremely linear, uninventive and traditional Star Wars MMO, or that they will make lots of money doing it.
Ignore the troll who tells you that you shouldn’t ask for someone to reinvent SWG. Sure you should, because if it had not been buggy and badly managed, it would have been a colossal commercial success. There were groundbreaking elements that deserve to be mainstream features; they just weren’t … quite pulled off.
There’s room in the market for MMOs that don’t fully emulate WoW’s theme park style. People did not leave SWG in droves because they didn’t have stuff to do, or because they were intimidated by the plethora of options. They left because of the unfixed bugs and the NGE.
I also agree wholeheartedly with Scott that 100% sandbox doesn’t work. One does need some directed content, probably. Heck, even SWG had that. I would not define it as 100% sandbox. The only major game that I really would put in that category is Second Life. And as Linden keeps reminding us, SL isn’t really a game at all.
Thanks for replying, Krib. The battle I fight, daily, on the BioWare forums, revolves around this argument:
WoW and SWG are very different. WoW was a success. SWG was a failure. Ergo, WoW’s way of doing things was right and SWG’s way of doing things was wrong.
The over-simplification of the argument is so staggering, I don’t even know where to start replying, half the time.
Without going to the BioWare forums myself, I seem to recall being given the advice “choose your battles wisely” a few times. Is this really a “battle” worth fighting on the BioWare forums? If you are in fact one of the “BioWare *needs* to make SWG set in KOTOR” guys, then I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. BioWare is going to do what they want, the way they want, and the way they feel will make them money. Which would be the proven safe way with a few evolutionary features.
SWG had so many great ideas, great concepts. I seem to recall reading many articles at the time saying SWG was more of a social experiment than a game, and I’d agree. The amount of social interaction was greater there, including RP, than I’ve ever seen anywhere else. The ability to have an impact on the items you craft, on the economy… these are things I think — no, I believe — developers need to take a look at and improve upon. But looking at SWG strictly as a *game* it was a broken turd. The best aspects of it had very little to do with the game of it. Other than skills-based and class-less; those parts of the inner game mechanics I did enjoy very much.
Yes, skills-based systems get constantly tweaked and re-balanced. Guild Wars is a great example of that. But don’t classes in the “normal” games get constantly tweaked too? Seems to me they do.
Flavor of the month builds? Sure! For those players who are incapable of having an independent thought, they’ll just plugin someone’s forum build. That doesn’t mean it’s “the best” (or at least not for long) and using GW as another example, builds are only good (or “the best”) in certain situations. And for those who feel they “must” use the flavor of the month build, is that any different than feeling they “must” use a specific build for raiding or PvP-ing in WoW? Seems like the opposite side of the same coin to me.
Preaching SWG to the WoW kids is useless, because they can’t go try out old SWG for themselves to see what you’re talking about. They can only try the NGE SWG. If you’re trying to convince someone, you need to pick a good example they can actually play. EVE, GW… Ryzom is coming back… Champions Online and Star Trek Online will be skills-based as well, but they’re a few years out, as is Earthrise and others. Things are beginning to come full-circle, we’ll see how they’ve changed when they arrive.
Way off topic, but I really, really, intensely dislike whatever the theme/CSS is doing when it removes linebreaks from comments. Turns everything into a difficult-to-read wall of text…
Shame too, when it does such a nice job on the main articles.
As always, you make a lot of sense, Scott. I’m really looking forward to seeing how it all pans out when things turn full circle, too. I wonder if any of the WoW kids – one of whom told me I was a “retard”, for preferring skills-based progression – will come and seek me out with a, “Sorry man, you were right all along…” when these new games come out and the WoW kids realise that skills-based is pretty cool? Yeah… and pigs might fly, too :)