Green Monster Games (Curt Schilling)

[Gnome Eater]

Originally Posted by Neric

They do deserve lots of respect for getting the industry to where it is, but they also deserve tons of blame for what happend ever since. I am not sure what outweighs the other. It's the typical hero/goat thing.

His point is that it is easy as hell to attack someone that has actually gone forward and done something, while you get to sit in the luxury of internet anonimity and give your monday morning quarter back opinion on shit you never have done or never will.

Brad has done some pretty shitty decisions in MMORPG's, but most of his ideas were really good, and you will never ever come up with ideas that are never 1/1000th as good, nor will you ever make anything as nice. You are free to cheerlead on the side, but sometimes people tend to act like huge tough guys because of the anonimity afforded by the net.

[Neric]

I don't have a problem with people giving Brad credit for Everquest while playing Vanguard. Don't expect it from me though.

[Frax]

Originally Posted by Neric

They do deserve lots of respect for getting the industry to where it is, but they also deserve tons of blame for what happend ever since. I am not sure what outweighs the other. It's the typical hero/goat thing.

I guess if you feel like you have some bizarre right to grind an axe with them I could see acting like a wounded duck all the time. Its entertainment, if you don't like their game or think they lie to you stop paying and playing them? Voting witih your money is the only way to have a say.

[Requiem]

Curt, read your damn PMs. =P

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by Ngruk

Say what you want about Brad, or Smed, or any of them, but the fact remains that when you want to lay the cards on the table they are the only ones with hands to play. They've been there, and done that, from start to finish, which I don't think any other person on these boards can claim. That in and of itself deserves something in the way of respect, to me anyway.

I'll give them the respect they deserve in expanding the MMORPG genre into a marketable and profitable venture for other companies -- so we see more MMOROG"s being made. But what they are also responsible for is using the live patching process other than for what it should have been used for.

I disagree with McQuaid's design philosophy, and that I can deal with - it's an opinion. What got me mad before he stated it wouldn't happen again with Vanguard (Time will tell now) were his business practices. Apples and oranges as far as I am concerned.

I'll give credit where it is due in both regards. On one side, he showed that this market was a viable venture. On the other, he also showed himself and other publishers that live patching processes can be used for unethical gain.

[Ngruk]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

I'll give them the respect they deserve in expanding the MMORPG genre into a marketable and profitable venture for other companies -- so we see more MMOROG"s being made. But what they are also responsible for is using the live patching process other than for what it should have been used for. .

Being your opinion it's not for me to judge it as right or wrong, but we can agree to disagree. In the marketplace today, you have companies building games on the backs of the people that broke the ground almost a decade ago. It's stunning to me that there is not more 'don't make the same mistake twice' mentality out there, but there just isn't given what we've seen over the last few years and what we see incomming.

I have not read any of Brad's comments in here nor do I know his handle, but from my point of view Brad and the guys that did EQ were trendsetters and wallsmashers. If you look at what UO was, and is today, you won't see much change other than game play content. Nothing has happened with the technical side of it nor do I think they intend anything to happen to it.

Given that I think it's safe to say that what the EQ guys did was incredibly risky and groundbreaking in and of itself. Also, imo, if they hadn't done it, who would have? Someone surely would have come along and done it, but would we be better for it? Would WoW be what it is without EQ to use as a reference? I don't think so.

And as far as the patch thing I will say this. It WAS an awesome tool at first to get things fixed, FAST! I do however think it's become a completely abused method of serving your fanbase. I think the patcher has become the designers fallback position when considering whether or not something is done, and we all suffer for that in my opinion. I could live to regret that comment someday but that's certainly my view on it as of now.

Originally Posted by Utnayan

I disagree with McQuaid's design philosophy, and that I can deal with - it's an opinion. What got me mad before he stated it wouldn't happen again with Vanguard (Time will tell now) were his business practices. Apples and oranges as far as I am concerned. .

If you want my opinion (not sure you are asking but I am offering), Brad makes games he thinks are cool and kick ass. I don't have a problem with that. The fact that he's been there and done that, start to finish, is pretty stinking unreal to me as I sit here at the bottom of that impossibly long staircase, and start to make my climb.

I think what's gotten designers in trouble (speaking as a customer now) is what they tell us, promise us and show us, and then what they actually deliver us seem to always end up looking and feeling very different. I also see the MMO space as one where people feel like they HAVE to let you guys in on what they are doing and HAVE to give the game magazines the "scoop" to be considered serious players, and I think that's hurting more than it's helping when all the feedback starts being factored in.

Originally Posted by Utnayan

I'll give credit where it is due in both regards. On one side, he showed that this market was a viable venture. On the other, he also showed himself and other publishers that live patching processes can be used for unethical gain.

It's my belief that the patching setup was intended for use in a very different way when it was introduced, and has seen it's current state evolve from issues and scenarios no one envisioned at the outset. When you are a trendsetter I think you deal with that more often than the people that follow you.

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by Ngruk

Being your opinion it's not for me to judge it as right or wrong, but we can agree to disagree.

Well, after reading what you said we agreed from what I could tell. You agreed with me that McQuaid and the like were responsible for bringing the genre to the marketplace, proving it could be profitable, and helping it get into mainstream. We also agreed that the live patching process is easily abused (And was/is) today.

If you want my opinion (not sure you are asking but I am offering), Brad makes games he thinks are cool and kick ass. I don't have a problem with that. The fact that he's been there and done that, start to finish, is pretty stinking unreal to me as I sit here at the bottom of that impossibly long staircase, and start to make my climb.

I agree, I do not have a problem with that either. I may disagree with his design decisions, like Unibody for Vanguard which is the worst idea yet, and I disagree with how far he hasn't come yet with this much development time -- but my problem is in the delivery, the hype, the PR, and some of the business decisions made which have really brought this genre into the ground just as fast as it put it up. I often wondered just how long it was going to take people to stop looking at this genre as a, "Well, I'll buy this game in 6 months when they finish it after retail release". That's horrible. And as long as that patching process is abused by publishers, it is going to continue.

I think what's gotten designers in trouble (speaking as a customer now) is what they tell us, promise us and show us, and then what they actually deliver us seem to always end up looking and feeling very different.

Basically the Peter Molyneux effect. Hype, hype, and hype. Then the game comes, a lot of features cut but those features cut are not given the same press as the hype they were given years ago, and you end up with a very pissed off fanbase. In the case of Molyneux, I doubt his reputation will ever recover with customers. But this continues way too much in the MMORPG arena.

I also see the MMO space as one where people feel like they HAVE to let you guys in on what they are doing and HAVE to give the game magazines the "scoop" to be considered serious players, and I think that's hurting more than it's helping when all the feedback starts being factored in.

I disagree. I tend to think they want to. If you read magazines you will see screenshot after screenshot with not a lot of merit to the actual discussion of the gameplay, or mechanics. It's been pretty dumbed down to mainstream now in my opinion. You have a lot of hype and not a lot of substance. When you do have the opposite, it's usually someone trying to sell the game on hype (Molyneux) without any expectation of ever coming through on it. Anyone can design a game on paper. When those people can translate it into a playable game, hit those same milestones, and come through for once, that is when they will be an accomplished designer.

It's my belief that the patching setup was intended for use in a very different way when it was introduced, and has seen it's current state evolve from issues and scenarios no one envisioned at the outset. When you are a trendsetter I think you deal with that more often than the people that follow you.

I think it's intended set up was exactly like you say. But unfortunately, as time goes on, we saw it being used via every company as a way to shuttle out piss poor product out the door knowing they could patch it later while banking on the leveling curve. It failed every time. DAOC lacked post 35 itemization and RvR relics. EQ expansions lacked high end zones being completed, resulting in players hard work and effort usually met with a brick wall of no itemization or just flat out broken encounters.(What was worse though was they lied about it) AO was a joke. Star Wars Galaxies used the patching process to actually finish the retail game they already sold - and lied about it as well with many things (Jedi being in game for one, than watching even that patched in 6 months later)

Whatever you do, just don't use the gift of that to finish a game. Yes, an MMORPG is never truly finished - but there is a big difference in using the patching process to add content, fix minor bugs, etc; and using it to completely pass things that should have been done before the game shipped.

And I think you'll see that most people (Including myself) are forgiving as all get out if you slip up and are honest about it. Didn't get it in the game in time? Fine. Let the player base know it will be patched in later. But lie about it, and you are going to see a shitstorm of anti credibility rain down faster than station access pass subs have fallen across the board.

Credibility means everything in this genre. Lose that, and you may as well throw in the towel. It is partly why I feel SOE doesn't do nearly as well. They made improvements in EQ2, but it wasn't enough. They now have to overcome the stigma of the past, and as you can see for yourself - it has fully impacted their bottom line.

In the end, it doesn't matter what the live patching process was intended for, because it's all about what it has become.

[Spyryt]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

...I think it's intended set up was exactly like you say. But unfortunately, as time goes on, we saw it being used via every company as a way to shuttle out piss poor product out the door knowing they could patch it later while banking on the leveling curve. It failed every time. DAOC lacked post 35 itemization and RvR relics. EQ expansions lacked high end zones being completed, resulting in players hard work and effort usually met with a brick wall of no itemization or just flat out broken encounters.(What was worse though was they lied about it) AO was a joke. Star Wars Galaxies used the patching process to actually finish the retail game they already sold - and lied about it as well with many things (Jedi being in game for one, than watching even that patched in 6 months later)...

plus WoW adding in the rest of their high-end dungeons post-release "for free".

Just wanted to support your argument. You're welcome.

[Utnayan]

Whatever floats your boat. You feel that way, I don't - but either way, in both our viewpoints, the patching process was abused.

[Rythonn]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

Whatever floats your boat. You feel that way, I don't - but either way, in both our viewpoints, the patching process was abused.

You are so biased towards WoW, it's annoying. It's a great game but is no way any better then EQ when it comes to what you just bitched about it couple post ago.

Basically the Peter Molyneux effect. Hype, hype, and hype. Then the game comes, a lot of features cut but those features cut are not given the same press as the hype they were given years ago, and you end up with a very pissed off fanbase. In the case of Molyneux, I doubt his reputation will ever recover with customers. But this continues way too much in the MMORPG arena.

I can't think of any game that has done this more then WoW did. Siege Weapons , hero classes, etc etc. Hell Tigole in an interview about the game was hyping dungeons that wouldn't be out for over a year, as if they would be in the game at release.

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by Rythonn

You are so biased towards WoW, it's annoying. It's a great game but is no way any better then EQ when it comes to what you just bitched about it couple post ago.

I am sick of this argument in which you, and others, fail to see the common sense right in front of you. Did Blizzard watch as players tried to figure out shit that didn't exist for months on end while not telling them about it, and in fact, actually lie about it being in the game in the first place? No. They didn't.

SWG: Jedi. Lied about being in game. Patched in 6 months later.
EQ Velious Sleeper's tomb itemization. Lied. Patched in 6 months later.
Plane of Mischief. Lied and said it was working, patched in 4 months later.
Vex Thal - Lied. Patched in 6 months later.
EQ2 - Froglok race. Lied. Patched in 6 months later.

World of Warcraft: Shipped without raid content. Didn't lie after launch and said it would be in game when it wasn't. Patched it in for free instead of charging for it (And any other company would have charged - don't tell me they wouldn't have) and didn't watch as players wasted months of time trying to figure out shit that didn't exist because it lengethend sub revenue.

Had SOE/EQ/EQ2 just came out and said that the content wasn't in the game and informed players so they wouldn't waste their time, or actually go out of their way to lie about it, I wouldn't have an argument to stand by. Is it still happening now with EQ2 end game content? No one really knows, because it isn't a hot topic. EQ2 end game content and itemization is about as exciting as giving an enema to Big Bird.

I can't think of any game that has done this more then WoW did. Siege Weapons

They said in the future.

hero classes

They said in the future months before the game came out.

Tigole in an interview about the game was hyping dungeons that wouldn't be out for over a year, as if they would be in the game at release.

And I am sure he learned a valuable lesson in the fact that sometimes things are going to be forced on you to release when not done with content. He did it once, I doubt he will ever make the same mistake again. Peter Molyneux breathes and dies by making those mistakes over and over, because for him they are not mistakes, it is the way to generate revenue time and time again. If you need examples: Black and White, Fable, Black and White 2. Over and over the same thing.

If Tigole does it 3 more times across 3 more different games, with a pseudo apology for it after each time while he drives off into the sunset with Air Force Amy and his new Ferrari, let me know. I'll blast off on him.

Either way, this goes to motive and it goes to honesty. A company that does this but doesn't lie about it still gets a pass from me. A company that does this and lies to it's customer base in the process after launch of the title is in a completely different unethical ballpark.

[Asmadai]

Utnayan, Blizzard is a company that doesn't have near the MMORPG experience under their belts as SoE has. Claiming that SoE is worse, merely based on the fact that Blizzard hasn't had near the chances to screw up is an invalid comparison.

Imagine if a new gaming system came out, for all sakes we'll call it the FG1. Lets say the FG1 has a nice launch, with alot of following to it. Claiming that the company that creates the FG1 is better than Nintendo or Sony just because they had a nice first system launch wouldn't really be fair would it?

[Kaxmax]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

Utnayan, Blizzard is a company that doesn't have near the MMORPG experience under their belts as SoE has. Claiming that SoE is worse, merely based on the fact that Blizzard hasn't had near the chances to screw up is an invalid comparison.

Imagine if a new gaming system came out, for all sakes we'll call it the FG1. Lets say the FG1 has a nice launch, with alot of following to it. Claiming that the company that creates the FG1 is better than Nintendo or Sony just because they had a nice first system launch wouldn't really be fair would it?

So it's an invalid comparison because there's a possibility Blizzard may lie to their customers some time in the future?

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

Utnayan, Blizzard is a company that doesn't have near the MMORPG experience under their belts as SoE has. Claiming that SoE is worse, merely based on the fact that Blizzard hasn't had near the chances to screw up is an invalid comparison.

Imagine if a new gaming system came out, for all sakes we'll call it the FG1. Lets say the FG1 has a nice launch, with alot of following to it. Claiming that the company that creates the FG1 is better than Nintendo or Sony just because they had a nice first system launch wouldn't really be fair would it?

But a nice launch doesn't mean going out of your way to become unethical. So what you are saying is we will have to wait to see if Blizzard becomes unethical with this latest expansion and as time goes on?

[Asmadai]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

But a nice launch doesn't mean going out of your way to become unethical. So what you are saying is we will have to wait to see if Blizzard becomes unethical with this latest expansion and as time goes on?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying we can't judge the company. I'm just saying in it's still far to early to compare it legitimately with SoE and the other MMO veterans. I'm thinking from the company standpoint here.

We can still determine whether or not the expansion was released properly from a moral standpoint, but to claim whether or not the expansion will have a successful launch based on a prior 'failure' of SoE's isn't fair. It's too premature a thing to do at the moment. Blizzard has quite an advantage over SoE in not being the forerunner for the MMO world. They can easily see what went wrong in the past, and can do things to prevent it from happening now. (Thus the 6+ million subscribers and the biggest MMO fanbase in history.)

In my mind, Blizzard is still in the 'lets wait and see phase'. No one really claims SoE or anyone did truly anything unethical (Other than that pile SWG, but we won't even go there, heh) unless it relates to an expansion. Sleepers Tomb, Vex Thal, etc. Seeing as how this will be Blizzard's first MMO expansion, this is their chance to really set the pace even moreso than now, and to show that they can release a fully functional expansion, with none of the unethical qualities attached to it.

I'm not saying to wait forever; this expansion and the success/failure that comes behind it will be a good time to start really making the comparisons tho.