Green Monster Games (Curt Schilling)

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by Ngruk

Anyone here from Seattle? If so 38 Studios will be making it's first "public" appearance at the OGDC on the 10th and 11th. President, CEO Brett Close will be making our first foray into the gaming scene.

I'm in Seattle, but I don't know what OGDC is.

I'm not in the games industry either, though, so I suppose that isn't surprising.

[Old Man Potter]

Here's the link for the Online Game Development Conference 2007:

ogdc 2007 - home

I think it would be definately worth attending. Looks like some interesting panel discussions and speakers. Also, it would be a good chance to meet and network with MMO devs currently in the industry. I'd go just to be able to hear the orginal EQ spell guru Geoffrey Zatkin speak. It's being held during the week on Thursday and Friday May 10-11.

[Jait]

Schilling has been hanging out too long on these forums. Here's some pwnage on a_Barry_Bonds00.

Had to be posted.

SI.com - MLB - Schilling: Bonds cheated on wife, taxes,¿game - Tuesday May 8, 2007 6:58PM

Well said sir! No one likes exploiters. A Game is only a Game if it's a level playing field.

[Cadrid]

Curt,

I recall you commenting earlier in the thread on having an idea as to how Vanguard's subscriptions would turn out. Now that Sigil has been broken up, Vanguard is floundering, and the interviews of Brad and a former Sigil employee have exposed the poor management, would you say your predictions were accurate?

Also, has the failure of Vanguard altered your initial plan of development and management for 38 Studios? (according to the articles, the decision making at Sigil came down to 3 or 4 individuals that disregarded all input from the public and the team) Did you learn anything from Brad's and Jeff's mistakes?

Lastly, does anyone else on the Red Sox play games/MMOs? C'mon, I know Okajima whips you into submission on StarCraft, or Pappy rocks you at Halo.

EDIT: Oh, and any word on the Monsterography contest?

[Ngruk]

Originally Posted by Cadrid

Curt,

I recall you commenting earlier in the thread on having an idea as to how Vanguard's subscriptions would turn out. Now that Sigil has been broken up, Vanguard is floundering, and the interviews of Brad and a former Sigil employee have exposed the poor management, would you say your predictions were accurate?

Also, has the failure of Vanguard altered your initial plan of development and management for 38 Studios? (according to the articles, the decision making at Sigil came down to 3 or 4 individuals that disregarded all input from the public and the team) Did you learn anything from Brad's and Jeff's mistakes?

Lastly, does anyone else on the Red Sox play games/MMOs? C'mon, I know Okajima whips you into submission on StarCraft, or Pappy rocks you at Halo.

EDIT: Oh, and any word on the Monsterography contest?

I think we were pretty dang close on the initial numbers.

VG and what's happened to it, pre launch, and post launch, hasn't changed anything with regards to our project and our thoughts about making a game. Just reaffirmed things we believed and most people knew.

No one that I know of...yet....

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Ngruk

I think we were pretty dang close on the initial numbers.

VG and what's happened to it, pre launch, and post launch, hasn't changed anything with regards to our project and our thoughts about making a game. Just reaffirmed things we believed and most people knew.

No one that I know of...yet....

That's refreshing to hear.

VG/Sigil's "cautionary tale" seems to have soured a lot of would-be developers' tastes for the MMORPG market, and has caused a good many people in adjacent industries (film, television, VC, etc.) unfairly to believe that the MMORPG world is destined to be ruled by the "big dogs" (Sony, Blizzard, etc) from here to eternity.

Personally speaking, I think the MMORPG industry has been -- and, hopefully always will be -- all about "disruptive" influences. At any given moment, an exciting new underdog could become king. Or at least that's what I'd like to continue believing. I think it's certainly possible for an upstart company to dethrone Sony/Blizzard/etc. in this landscape with a groundbreaking new product, and I applaud the pre-Sony Sigil folks for trying. I just hope more aspiring studios aren't closing shop for fear of repeating some of the VG mistakes.

If we all, collectively, have learned anything from past attempts to launch MMORPGs, it's that fan support and feedback really do count. As MMORPGs become more commonly grounded in our culture, and as gamers grow accustomed to them, gamers start to develop very specific tastes for what they like and do not like in the genre. And if you listen carefully enough, you'll hear what they're saying.

I think one of the central challenges facing new MMORPGs in the future will be adapting to established consumer tastes (whereas even a couple of years ago, these tastes had not yet been cemented), while simultaneously offering a more revolutionary experience than what's currently available. Push too far in either direction -- the familiar or the revolutionary -- and you're going to bore or alienate your audience.

It's all about finding the right mix of innovation and tradition. The first company to figure out which traditional elements are necessary, and which can be innovated upon, will have the upper hand in the next MMORPG generation.

[Maxxius]

Originally Posted by Millie

. . . Push too far in either direction -- the familiar or the revolutionary -- and you're going to bore or alienate your audience. It's all about finding the right mix of innovation and tradition.

And there's the rub. The industry is one big evolutionary process. What may be fun today, will be boring tomorrow. Not to harp on VG as an example, but I always viewed it as an attempt at making a better horse buggey. And since the development process for a MMO can be years, you can literally wind up being made obsolete by the time you launch.

It is beyond dispute that WOW has set the high mark for these games. It did so largely by looking at what was disliked by current games and acting accordingly AS WELL as having an existing following off PC titles. This is not going to be easy to match by a total startup company. Hiring RA actually was a good thing since it did give you a quality author to write a quality story which is always important for MMOs. But I really do think you should produce regular PC titles first to build up a following before jumping into the MMO business. Build the following first I think. VG never had a shot at competing with WOW because of that despite all the grandiose plans. It simply had no history to build off of, aside from a loose connection off EQ.

So unless you come out with some kind of revolutionary game, which is in all honesty difficult to imagine at this stage, you really might want to consider the PC title approach first to build that following. Just my free 2 cents ;p

[snarkteeth]

How did the event turn out? I'm from seattle but I just caught this thread too late I guess. Would have been nice to see you guys.

Ever since the one developer from EQ2 who really seemed to have a clue (after talking to many) () joined you guys, I've been pretty excited. Hopefully I wont miss the next event!


Snarks
70 Swashbuckler
Dissolution

[Cybsled]

But I really do think you should produce regular PC titles first to build up a following before jumping into the MMO business. Build the following first I think

That really isn't required. At the retail level, if you're an unknown, your publisher will have more sway with the gaming public then your actual dev house. Case and point: Battlefield 1942. I can't count how many times I heard "Dude, it's like Medal of Honor, cept you can drive tanks and fly planes!". They saw that publisher label and made that connection to another product.

Furthermore, what if the regular PC title "fails"? MMOs are huge investments. Publishers and investors might look at the performance of your regular title and go "Well, they sold X and X amount of titles...I'm not sure a large investment in a MMO at this point would be prudent". Furthermore, having some meat already on your plate is no guarantee as VG already pointed out. VG, at least for MMO gamers, was sort of the first "celebrity" MMO. Obviously Schilling and McFarlane are 100x more bankable then McQuaid or Butler, since those names are famous from different markets. But a high pedigree or celebrity is no guarantee of lasting sales. It might affect the initial buyers, but once reviews start rolling in, it doesn't matter if Leonardo DiVinci himself traveled through time and designed the MMO...people will judge the game, not the names behind it.

While VG's failure might scare away potential investors, I think it's important to bear in mind some of the main reasons it failed. A MMO as your first title isn't a bad idea, but you need to make sure you learn from the failures of others in order to strengthen your product. Avoid excessive hype + ego (Didn't people learn this from Battlecruiser 3000AD and Daikatana?), avoid bland Dungeon and Dragon/LOTR clones (And if you are going to do the sword n' Sorcery thing, at least give it a really catching twist...like Super Steampunk, the game takes place in a Planescape-type/evil setting, the game takes place in a Thundar the Barbarian-type setting), avoid focusing on gfx and "The Vision" over gameplay and enjoyability, and avoid the trolls

[Valderen]

I'm not sure Vanguard will truly scare potential investor from investing in the MMO genre. It will be actually be very hard to get any solid data from Vanguard...the game was in a terrible state, it was a beta product at the very best.

It makes it hard to judge why it truly failed...was it because it was buggy unfinished game, was it because of extremely poor performance, was it because of the core design philosophy, or because of the bad implementation of those designs.

Investors will be more careful, they will hopefully realize that they need to make sure that developpers need someone over them to manage the project...can't let dreamers loose on something like that.

Hopefully 38 Studios will learn that management is as important as the vision. Vanguard isn't a lesson on vision and game design...it's a lesson in management.

[Cybsled]

Exactly. The point I was getting at is that you can't just count on big names to ensure good sales, unless said name is an institution in gaming itself. People will buy Madden no matter how shittastic it is. Rip ESPN Sports ;(

[Lleauaric~EW]

You dont have to reinvent the wheel every game imo.

I think looking at MMOs as an evolutionary process is the right approach. Use what works, adapt what you feel gives you an edge. WoW is the "dominate species" for a number of reasons. Adapt and improve. Do what they do well as well as they do it and improve what they dont do well. WoW did this to EQ, someone will do this to WoW.

The MMO community moves in packs. A good game will catch on fast via word of mouth. You dont need hype. Once a couple guys in a guild buy a game, they tell everyone else, and the pack either remains at its location or moves on to greener pastures.

What are the things we know a MMO needs in the most general sense.

1. Fluid, "alive" character models. A player spends most of the time looking at one thing, his avatar. its gotta look good, its gotta move well. It has to be interesting to watch.

2. An interesting and compelling background story. People want to feel like they are experiencing a really good novel. Follow a grand story arc that brings the player along with it. (someone get George RR Martin to write lore for them please! Nobody does grand and sweeping better than that man.. nobody)

3. Players want choices. They dont want classes that are essentially the same. Classes need to be clearly defined and with as few overlaps as possible. of course there will be some... but each class needs it own unique individuality and usefullness. Choices have to matter. As much as we want a grand story arc, we also want freedom to make choices and move about the world in a non linear sense. Also allow players to use different play styles.. Soloers, PvPers, Powergamers and progress in a fair way.

4. Interesting High End content. As Gordon Gecko said "Greed Is Good" Everyone watches the top guilds. Everyone needs something to push them ahead. Make the fights challenging, but also make the rewards comensurate. The number one reason imo that WoW has such a high turnover rate is the prevalence of the "Side Grade". WoW itemization must have been designed by Karl Marx. It removes motivation. Dont be afraid to reward the high enders. It only drives and motivates the rest of the player base.

I could go on.. but im others have theirs and would interested to read them

[Cybsled]

3. Players want choices. They dont want classes that are essentially the same. Classes need to be clearly defined and with as few overlaps as possible

You want unique classes, but you want to avoid the "specialist" as much as humanly possible...at least in terms of a individual class. For instance, at least in terms of instance running, you can do well with a warrior or a feral druid in a dungeon. If you pigeonhole classes too much, you get left with the dreaded "holy trinity".

[Faille]

I would much rather see more niche games survive and even thrive in the future. You only ever going to get a maybe 1 or 2 AAA titles that have the potential to reach wow numbers. Games like Eve though show that there's plenty of room for developers who design their games towards a very specific market.

Vanguard's problem is that is a niche game that tried to be a AAA title.

I think its going to be better for everyone if companies design their games to catch 50k-100k subs, and more importantly, have their budgets to match.

[Fammaden]

Originally Posted by Cybsled

You want unique classes, but you want to avoid the "specialist" as much as humanly possible...at least in terms of a individual class. For instance, at least in terms of instance running, you can do well with a warrior or a feral druid in a dungeon. If you pigeonhole classes too much, you get left with the dreaded "holy trinity".

M-U-L-T-I-C-L-A-S-S-I-N-G