|
Players were saying that?
BR: Yeah, players were saying like, "It's just Champions."
Do you think that's a bit cynical?
BR: Sure. [laughs] We're gamers. I think gamers are a cynical lot by nature, right, and I think that in the MMO space, and especially in the internet, where anonymity reigns supreme, it's very easy to say, "I'm going to say this really caustic cynical thing and get a lot of comments on my thread, and that's awesome."
But I also think that you have to dig past that perceived cynicism. Because at the core of that -- there was a real statement -- was the fact that there were elements of those games if you looked at it.
But they did not play this game. It was not as simple as just putting the patina on it of "Well, they're the same game re-skinned." It's like, "Yeah, there wasn't a lot of change to some of the interface elements. There wasn't a lot of change here."
This has that same feel, right, even in the way certain things are presented because they didn't have time to make another massive UI path, so things just kind of stayed the same. So, a contact would talk to you, and it's like, "Oh, yeah. That's kind of the same way I get quests in this other game. Okay." Even if there's a lot of differences and even if the gameplay is really different. So, that's the challenge. I think it's a really good model, but of course, the thing is it has to be games that people like playing.
A hard-learned lesson for me was to not just discount that stuff, was to say, "Is there something underneath there that we can really pull?" Like, no, I don't think Star Trek is really just Champions reskinned. But there was something there. There's a reason that people are saying that.
As opposed to just focusing on the words that got said and whether you agree with that or not, or whether that upset you or whatever it is... It's like, "Why do people think that?" Let's try to figure that out.
And I think there were a lot of differences, and a lot of conscious choices that got made on Neverwinter Nights that were based off of that. You know, where we said, "We have to completely do the UI ground up. We are not re-using any UI. Throw out everything for placement. Even the way we want to approach the presentation of the game and questing and everything."
We're like, "Yes, it's the same engine, it's the same backend, right. All the major tools are there. But we need to have different ways that we approach that." So, we get rid of that subtle samey-ness as much as possible.

I'm surprised this was a problem. Sure, you can see audience overlap, but they do seem like they'd draw different audiences.
BR: Yeah. I honestly don't know how much of a problem it was. It was a comment that came through. Part of it, too, was because people knew it was built on the same engine. I mean, if you look at the games side-by-side, they don't look anything alike. But I think there are elements you could look like and go, "Oh, yeah, that placement is the same." It really wasn't those [places] where every little bit was different.
I think one of the reasons you don't hear that, for example, just from experience, on like a StarCraft property -- every single one of those games they do ground-up. They don't re-use 3D engines. Which is kind of insane. Again, not the model that any right person in their head does.
"Hey, I want to start a game company, and we're going to do projects that take, you know, five, six, seven, eight years to make, and we're going to ground-up build each one of them every time. You know, we're not going to re-use almost anything." But that's why their games look very different and feel very different. They don't [reuse anything] except for things like sound libraries or things that are inconsequential in the end.
But I think that there are things... I mean, even if things like the way characters move and things like that, right. You're like, "Oh, this guy's... That weird little joggy thing, you know."
Subtle samey-ness.
BR: Yeah. There's a subtle samey-ness between them, and players didn't like that. You know, "I want this to be totally, wholly different and unique."
Probably people who weren't interested in Champions might have just sort of heard online like people gossiping, and not realize that It wouldn't have been meaningful to them. They never would have noticed it, since they wouldn't have had the opportunity to notice it, but then it starts creating negative buzz...
BR: Yeah. There's definitely a zeitgeist that occurs, this hive mind, where people are like, "Yeah!" They're never like, "Oh yeah, I read somewhere..." They're just like, "Oh, no, this does that."
|
MMORPGs are a difficult market to penetrate and the current predominant business models screw over the developers.
Check out this episode of Extra Credits:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1906-The-Fu ture-of-MMO
s
Hellgate failed because it was badly conceived from the get go. When roper left everyone was expecting Isometric Action RPG, instead it was a third person pseudo MMO, it was just awful.
Kudos Bill...Best of luck on your next venture!
I really hope Cryptic can make something a little bit more for grownups with the Neverwinter title.
About the negatice criticism you will always get that...whatever you do. You never get good criticism...always bad. Doesn't matter if you're selling cookies, driving a bus or checking parking meters. (Ok...maybe the cookies was a bad example..lol.)
The thing is that kids today have very bad or no upbringing at all and they are very competitive in everything they do. They will instantly...even before a game has been released make a list of why your game sucks and why game B is so much better.
Maybe this could be the trouble, people waited too much from him and let's admit that he is capable of lots more, just give him a break to get used to work outside AB.
Comparing making a video game to a movie is kind of unfair. Making a movie and a game are totally different things (besides the script for the most part). I would think writing a script for a movie might be harder than a video game, you need much more dialog. Other than that I think making a game would be harder. The time to program the engine (Unless you use a pre-made one), the time it takes to code it.
Its harder to just throw away a game because it takes so long to make. NCsoft has a thing about throwing away games and it must kill the people who work on them. They could easily do what was done with Champions, D&D and other games, just sell the game to another publisher and let the game have a chance as F2P. If a movie is done and doesn't do well in the theater, or if the producer thinks it won't do well they can just send it to video and/or Netflix or other on demand service and people can and will watch it no matter how bad it is. Sure they shelve movies before or int he middle of being made, not sure how often that happens.
Did you not play mass effect 2 Robert? Or GTA4, or Red dead redemption? Games have a tonne of dialog now-a-days. Not all of them to be sure but games with lots of NPC's who the team wants to give voices to adds up really quickly.
ames_genres_and_other_media_formats.php. Perhaps Roper should try to get a publishing deal from HBO?
Until competent MMO middle ware comes about, i don't think that model will work well for MMOs, but its only a matter of time until someone releases a WOW level middleware solution..
Bleh. If you want to know why MMOs don't work any more, you don't have to look any farther than that.
From an hardcore gamer standpoint, it really seems like 90% of MMOs since WoW (2005) wanted to follow WoW footsteps, either financially or with game mechanics.
There *is* demand for that kind of game. EQ rose to massive success and WoW overtook it fivefold based on that tight reward loop. Maybe no one can do it at that scale anymore because of WoW's gravity, but claiming people don't want it is clearly wrong.
There are certainly a lot of game players that do not like the WoW-style reward loop. It's not at all obvious yet what they do like, and if it can be made into an MMO.
nowadays. This is what kills videogame in general.
And this is why 8-bit era was so glorious : it was new, free from any
model re-use.
There should be a number 1 rule in every game studio :
"Any time you start a new game development, just burn all your game
mechanism models".
To a broader approach, I would say that this "model discount syndrome", as mister Roper mentionned it, is the cynical, logical result of our actual society : driven by investors and shareholders.
Nobody wants to take risks. Nobody wants to lose that precious penny in some kind of "that could work, but we're not 100% sure". This is pitifully rotting creations, and we all know it.
Nobody wants to "just try and let instinct guide ourselves" anymore. We're all robots, production machines.
This is even what killed a lot of games these recent years : we could feel that the studio wanted to put an original feature in it, like I don't know, a new quest system, a new interaction ... and when you look at the bigger picture, you see those features overwhelmed by mainstream déjà-vus.
Game Industry has become profoundly shy. Gamemaking actors do not have this inner craziness anymore. This furious, innocent desire to plant new flags.
To all developers, game studios, gamedesigners : Just put your guts on the table. Take risks, follow your instinct. Put all those obvious rehashes into trashcan.
Every good gamedesigner is also supposed to be a good gamer. And a good gamer knows what's original, what's saturated, and what's addictive.
P.S : thank you very much for this article, very instructive.
Smaller indie studios are where innovation at all costs still works - but nobody is going to trust them with a hundred million dollar budget.