|
Now here's a question for someone has gone through a very conspicuous flameout. Are you surprised when you see publishers, experienced publishers, completely fuck up launches of MMOs and online games still? Like Final Fantasy XIV is a cluster.
BR: Yes and no. Yes, from that standpoint... There are certain things that have been done so many times, you're like, "Oh my God. How do you not do that?" But at the same time, having been in the middle of it, sometimes you just miss stuff. You're like, "You know, that never happened before," which always seems weird. That will invariably happen with something with every launch.
Like "Wow, we never had that problem until, of course, the game launched, and now this weird problem has shown up and, oh my god, how do we fix it?"
And the thing I think that's difficult, too, is there are times where the developer has to carry the blame for the publisher or the operator because the publisher or the operator in Asia has a lot more on the line. They're servicing multiple games. They have multiple products they've got out.
So, if there's a problem that happens, it's easier and safer for them to say, "Oh, well there was a problem with the code," or "The developer did something, but they'll fix it. They're good guys. Don't worry. It will get fixed." Because you can't lose faith in the people that bring you all the different games, you know, you're giving the money to.
There are instances where, certainly there were problems with things that happened with Hellgate, where when we would spend a day tracking it down, we would ultimately going back to someone not with our company and say, "You know, when you guys did this? You did that thing wrong, which is why this isn't working. So change this to that. You put the wrong file in." It's a simple mistake, but it happens.
So, in that instance, I'm not surprised that it happens because it's not like that person did it on purpose. It's just somebody messed that up. A lot of times, that fault all gets pushed back on the developer, when it isn't. It's just one of the hazards.
But at the same time, when it's a catastrophic failure, right, it's like, "Didn't anybody see this was going to happen?" I actually think that was one of the challenges we had with Hellgate, and this is something that was a strength at Blizzard that we didn't have when we started Blizzard. At Blizzard, there was Blizzard North and Blizzard HQ.
Irvine.
BR: Right, down in Irvine. Like, the Diablo guys would play the Craft games, and they'd say, "Hey, so we were playing this, and we noticed this, and we thought that, and have you guys thought about..." There was this really high level quantitative feedback on the game.
Same thing, working on the Diablo titles, the Craft guys would go like, "Hey, so we were playing this. Have you thought about that and have you thought about this?" So, you had this sounding board that was incredibly good to bounce ideas off of. And we had these oversight groups, these strike teams that we ran for everything that was all the highest level guys in the company that looked at every product and gave directed feedback.
We didn't have that. We were our only sounding board. Namco wasn't doing PC games. We were their only PC title. And they were doing very little development in the U.S., so any feedback we tried to get through Namco, they didn't have that level of experience we were doing at all.
When we were trying to get feedback from Hanbit, they were predominantly a publisher. They weren't doing any internal development. So, the feedback we got from them was from the publishing side, and a lot of times it was very vague. "Oh, you should have more social in your game." "What does that mean?" "Here's the elements we believe are social." "Where are we not doing that?" And they wouldn't be able to describe it.
Once, interestingly enough, in early '08, we took a business trip. Eric [Schaefer], Max [Schaefer], and myself came over to China to talk with several companies. We were trying to get more funding for Flagship. We started meeting with publisher-developers, like Perfect World is a good example.
And we'd sit down with them, with publishers that make their own games, and they would say, "Yeah, you know." And they would have the same comment. "You guys really need some more social aspects in your game." And we'd say, "You know, we've heard that before, but no one can explain that. What do you mean?" And they'd say, "Oh, this is what we mean," and they'd show us an example from their games.
We'd talk with developers, and we'd be like, "Oh. We understand what it is you're looking for now. Yeah. We can definitely do something... That would work in our game." But we didn't get a lot of feedback. Everybody needs that. Even the best writer needs an editor, right? Everybody needs that. I think that was a huge thing we didn't get.
I mean, that can be part of it, too. Was there ever anybody that could look at it and go, "Hey, maybe this is a problem," or "Have you thought about this," or "Holy crap, that's not going to work." So, it is a surprise because you just can't believe, like, "How can that, in this day and age, with all these games that have come out and all this information that's there, happen?" But I get how it happened.
|
Not really an MMO but still charging like one. I'm not surprised they went under.
The only sucky part about the game was the subscription model. I mean on the inside cover of the box release (that I still have) it was promised that there would be additional classes for subscribers, guild vs guild warfare etcetera. I was a subscriber for 9 months and only recieved an extended inventory. Had they mad eexpansions a "single Purchase" and introdced new features that way then it would have been a lot more sucessful inhte long run.
Great game, fantastic vision, horendous business plan.
I never thought it was a bad game at all. Definitely buggy, and not nearly as good as Diablo 2, but a lot of fun, and a lot of the same appeal as Diablo 2, with the added bonus of run n' gun action. If they had just made it single player from the start, it would've ended up amazing.
That, and the horrible last 10% of the story-mode with the broken "casual multiplayer minigame"-style missions, which caused me to never have finished the game.
Despite loving the setting and enjoying the story.
Hellgates various and varied flaws, to me, were easily overlooked when considering all the game had to offer and was attempting to offer.
And yeah, Roper was successful at Blizzard - a great company that does many things to make it's employees and projects successful. Oh yeah and gave him alot of press time to make a public name to get other offers / funding. And Roper took that for granted, ditched, and thus inherited the responsibility on himself - be it good or (the real case) bad. As he said they were their own victim.
I applaud the openness, and it sucks to hear about personal life being damaged/affected by work (if that was the case). In my opinion, a responsible designer would take on something much more manageable as a first project. As I understand they did have Mythos as some form of proof of concept, it's just a shame that the magic there was lost in the process of the "grander vision".
Roper is proof that many developers/publishers in the game industry are a bunch of sheep who follow the herd. They become so out of touch with gamers they can't use their imaginations anymore.
1. The promotion for the game started way too early. And since you have to keep building it up till release, the hype got to the point where the game could do nothing but disappoint.
2. The optional subscription. One of the big selling points was that it was free to play online, like the Diablo games. The sub made people feel like they were going to be second-class citizens unless they paid extra. And there did not seem to be a solid plan - to customers, it felt like a desperate, last-minute money grab, not to mention a slap in the face considering that the game wasn't quite finished yet. And the item inventory space for non-subscribers was way too small, rubbing some salt in the wound every time you ran out of space.
3. Business model. Development in San Francisco is expensive, especially when you are also spending money lavishly on non-development stuff. What happened to the console versions? The sub model appeared to be a kind of last minute "uh-oh, we'll never make our money back, I wish we'd made an MMO instead."
4. Too many chefs. The game design was not tightly focused. It wanted to go in more of an action direction than the Diablo games (which was about as much of an action game as an RTS), but it kept the OCD stat emphasis of RPGs. There were powers that would have worked well in a Diablo game, but in a FPS view, with fewer enemies, more enclosed spaces, and three dimensions, they didn't fit all that well. There was FPS with guns, but it felt like a gimped FPS because of how fired projectiles would just disappear after a certain distance. MMO-style fetch/kill quests thrown in at last minute for good measure, but with an inventory system that was really not suitable for the item drops associated with it.
5. Too ambitious. The "scrappy start-up" picks a modest target at first, gets a game out and refines the process and pipelines. Then they can make something bigger and better. Betting the farm on a semi-experimental idea isn't a great plan - better to iterate when it's not burning up a million dollars a month. It seems to me that the founders believed too much in their own legend, much like the people at Sigil.
Disagree with Sting above - if they wanted to cash in on the MMO genre, they would have made an MMO.
I agree with everything you said except that the whole 3D environment and third person perspective *is* mmo entirely, the fact that they wanted to charge subscriptions was just more proof they were influenced by MMO's during development, every game during that period had MMO influences because everyone saw the money MMO's were capable of pulling down. How you interface with characters, dialogue, etc, is entirely MMO like. They didn't understand the game they were making. Everyone thought roper and team were making an isometric action RPG rendered in 3D but still had the awesome goodness of the isometric action RPG, then they get this pseudo wacked out third person game.
Notice diablo 3 is totally in the isometric gameplay style of diablo 2, they didn't fundamentally break the gameplay. Quite frankly every gamer was expecting a game like Torchlight in gameplay style out of Hellgate, what they got was a big mess where the designers were clueless the were too influenced by MMO style games and you can see it in the design.
Consider what you just said " There were powers that would have worked well in a Diablo game, but in a FPS view, with fewer enemies, more enclosed spaces, and three dimensions,"
That statement is proof they were influenced by MMO's in a huge way.
As an FPS/RPG hybrid, Hellgate wasn't quite as good as Bioshock (as one example) in terms of pure shootiness and environment manipulation. This is simply because Hellgate was a Diablo-style numbers-heavy action-RPG first and an FPS second. But I enjoyed it for what it was.
EDIT: Oh yeah, despite the HORRIFIC problem of the rest of the game literally not acknowledging it was there and forcing you to look up FAQs, it had one of the best crafting systems of any game I had played. Until Minecraft, which also forces you to look up stuff on the wiki, Hellgate was the most fun crafting experience ever. (I would say Torchlight was even better, except Torchlight's crafting system basically is Hellgate's, just a little more refined.)
Every factor and feature that Roper mentioned as being included in the game, in the many interviews i read before the game was released were indeed there.
It was peoples pre conceaved notions of what it would be and how it would look that let them down, not Flagship.
I played for a month then opted for the lifetime membership as the game was realy good and had an original feel.
The game started out good and after the patches ended up being great.
I still see HGL as one of the best online games ever.
Thanks Roper and all who worked on Hellgate.
I'm still hoping HanbitSoft's Hellgate Resurrection makes it out8)
There is only one question worth asking Roper, that is never asked: Why so many grey zombies?
The game has them in 70% of the zones. The same grey zombie you see in the first area, is still there in the last areas. They had red and green zombies, but they were very rare and only appeared for quests.
That just isn't standard for the genre. Dragon Warrior 1, Rogue, Phantasy Star, Pool of Radiance... these games had a moving progression in their bestiaries..
Secondly, the subject, Roper, comes across as a very vain guy who honestly had no business being the CEO of anything. If you can't tell that your box sales aren't going to dig you out of a hole before the boxes hit the shelves, you are not good at running a business.
The baby with the bathwater, in this case, seems fitting. This whole interview is just one big apology, stopping just short of begging to be respected again. Sad.
It must be lovely passing judgement on people from up on your cloud.
It makes me wonder how badly can someone's career be burned by a failed product. I have no doubts that he is a good designer.
Or maybe it was something that happened at Cryptic that burned him with the development community?
"We'd talk with developers, and we'd be like, "Oh. We understand what it is you're looking for now. Yeah. We can definitely do something... That would work in our game." But we didn't get a lot of feedback. Everybody needs that. Even the best writer needs an editor, right? Everybody needs that. I think that was a huge thing we didn't get."
It's an angle I hadn't really thought much about before beyond the obvious "you should QA test games". Interesting...