Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does WoW Influence Warhammer Online?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the many-ways dept.

69

OGX writes "While old school geeks & gamers know that Warhammer predated Warcraft, there are many MMORPG fanatics these days that don't know the history of both franchises, and comment that Warhammer Online resembles World of Warcraft. OGX has an article about this very question with some input from Mark Jacobs (Studio GM EA Mythic, VP EA)." From the article: "This history factors heavily in the present situation wherein the Warhammer Online game looks, to many, to be a descendant of the success of World of Warcraft in a market filled with many games trying to be just that. It's easy to see how this confusion would arise, and I asked Mark Jacobs, Studio GM EA Mythic, VP Electronic Arts, to share his thoughts about the situation." Warhammer may have influenced WoW, but WHO's interface still looks like a WoW rip-off to me.

cancel ×

69 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only because I was just reading it.... (5, Funny)

cjb909 (838363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999473)

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10 [penny-arcade.com] So no, I didn't RTA, and I don't know much about either WoW or Warhammer. But the comic fits!

Re:Only because I was just reading it.... (2, Insightful)

Zevon 2000 (593515) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000761)

This is one of the best PA comics, and it basically does sum up the entire article, doesn't it? Cartoon is worth 1000 words and all.

Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (2, Insightful)

legoburner (702695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999479)

It is pretty stupid for Warhammer Online to even be considered. Warhammer 40000 is about twice as popular as Warhammer, and will not be a direct, very similar competitor to the most successful MMORPG in the history of Earth. It is rumoured that Blizzard even tried to do a deal with Games Workshop to get Warhammer IP for Warcraft, but were declined as GW thought they could do it themselves. Blizzard now make more money from WoW in a month than GW make per year (in turnover, by profits it is an even more ridiculous diffence). GW are known for fairly terrible management and until it is changed or updated they deserve what they get. The best example is the fact that they conduct almost NO market research at all, claiming it is alright not to worry since they are a niche market (and they even state this on their investor relations pages!)

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (1)

twl1973 (877541) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999615)

It was explained that originally they were thinking about Warhammer 40K but the studio already had an online space game in semi-development so they went the Warhammer Fantasy route. The online space game was axed and at that time the development of Warhammer Fantasy was too far ahead to just pull the plug.

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999651)

That bummed me out too. When I first saw Warhammer I thought 40000 and was stoked. Then I found out it's just another fantasy based game /yawn...

WTB a good scfi-ish mmorpg...

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (2, Interesting)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999770)

I am with you... EVE is probably the closest we have... and yet the learning curve is soo steep and the diffrence between haves and have nots is so great... it is impossible to get into without becoming and staying a small time thug, something I won't do.

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999830)

I tried Eve and it was okay. I wanted to be able to get out on stations and planets and walk around and do stuff that way. And you're right about the huge divide between the haves and have nots.

Outside of all it's launch issues, AO was probably the best scifi mmo to date. I didn't like how it's combat worked (it felt disconnected), but the world was large and the tech was cool (implants, computers, weapons, etc...)

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999921)

I tried AO and frankly it wasn't for me... I guess I had trouble with the fact that it is a standard Fantasy MMO with a thin Sci-Fi coating or at least that is how it felt to me.

I would like to see a MMO that is not an EQ clone or a WoW clone with a unique engaging Sci-Fi story (it doesn't have to be wierd... just not a carbon copy), but I don't think anyone would take the chance right now with WoW messing up the market.

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (2, Informative)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000031)

There's a lot of problems with a Sci-Fi MMORPG. Here's a few off the top of my head:
  • Mobs: Who can you fight in a futuristic society? Not dragons or Firelords or giant mutant spiders, but people (maybe with a few cyborgs thrown in too). Not that exciting
  • Weapons: Guns. Lots of guns. Guns which are small, not that much fun to wield (from a MMORPG standpoint) and
  • Fights: Think about a gunfight. There's a lot of ducking for cover, poking your head out, firing a few times, and then repeating. Not exactly conducive to a MMORPG environment.
I could go on further, but that's enough. There's lots of problem with combat and Line of Sight which are going to cause problems with all the guns around. So instead, let's look at the Sci-Fi MMORPGs which have been released:
  • Anarchy Online: Launch problems and poor UI doomed this one, never had a huge userbase to begin with
  • Star Wars Galaxies: Repeated "revamps" killed this one, never had a huge userbase to begin with - though it started out well
  • Planetside: Pay-to-play a FPS, no thanks.
  • Matrix Online: Hah! The very definition of failure
It's no wonder that companies are hesitant to go for a Sci-Fi MMORPG.

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (1)

svip (678490) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000198)

* Mobs: Who can you fight in a futuristic society? Not dragons or Firelords or giant mutant spiders, but people (maybe with a few cyborgs thrown in too). Not that exciting

The Warhammer 40K setting has a plethora of alien races and other nasties.

* Weapons: Guns. Lots of guns. Guns which are small, not that much fun to wield (from a MMORPG standpoint) and

"Small" is the worst word you could ever use to describe the Warhammer 40K weapons. Try "oversized".

* Fights: Think about a gunfight. There's a lot of ducking for cover, poking your head out, firing a few times, and then repeating. Not exactly conducive to a MMORPG environment.

The tradition of awful sci-fi MMOs is a different matter where I agree entirely. But the 40K setting by its nature lends itself to a MMO much better than these games. This is why I wish they were still heading in that direction.

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (1)

svip (678490) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000217)

* Fights: Think about a gunfight. There's a lot of ducking for cover, poking your head out, firing a few times, and then repeating. Not exactly conducive to a MMORPG environment.

Oops, somehow snipped out my reply to this. It has been done before and can be done again hopefully better.

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (1)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000596)

Would a Warhammer 40k licensed MMORPG work? Sure. But it would still feel like an EQ/WoW clone with some Sci-Fi elements thrown on top of it, which is what I was trying to address with my previous post. Would I play a WH40k MMORPG? Sure. But it, just like the license it's based on, would just be a Sci-Fi wrapper over a primarily Fantasy base.

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000735)

I don't see how guns are any different than shooting fireballs or using bows and arrows in the fantasy based MMOs.

Re:Warhammer fantasy was a bad idea from the start (2, Informative)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 8 years ago | (#16001785)

Planetside is free. It works like a Korean MMO. You can actually access the entire game at no charge, but you have to pay if you want to get to the top of MULTIPLE specialties at the same time.

Mixed environment SHTF/TEOTWAWKI MMORPG (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 8 years ago | (#16002498)

Uh, so why not make a 3rd person shooter MMORPG? Is it really all that different from what we've got now with "turn based" FPS games?

You could nix the projectile pathfinding woes (and aimbots) pretty easily by simply having 'autoaim' by default. Basically, the aiming system used by third-person shooter games like GTA: the person controls the movement, target equisition, and when to fire, making it seem like you've got finite control, but the actual attack communication is pretty much just "player X attacks player Y with Z weapon for Z(skill_level) damage".

What I want: Mixed environment (urban/suburban/rural) SHTF/TEOTWAWKI MMORPG. Guns, survival rations, biker/ghetto/improv gangs to try and avoid/kill, terrorists, corrupt cops, municipal failures and dangers, (minimal) wild animals, etc. Sure, you've got the "fighting people" issue, but IMO you could make it interesting and engaging by making the progress determined by passed obstacles which may or may not involve people. IE, you gain XP by getting onto the other side of the river when the bridge is out. It's a fantasy world that blurs with reality making it damn addictive, and the array of weapons and tools can be broad. Not only that, but they then appeal more because, well, "for only $800 I could have one of these super blitzen boomer guns myself!"

And the great thing is, you could probably have it be (near) profitable before launch due to advertising. Unlike the realm of fantasy games or games like AO where the advertising is distracting and doens't fit in, the advertising in such a game would be a custom fit. Think about it: Smith and Wesson, Glock, Remington, Bushmaster, Black and Decker (as it'd be goal oriented, tools would be just as useful as weapons), various shoe companies (Nike, boot companies, hiking gear ocmpanies), automobile - 4-wheeler, motorcycle, car, truck - companies, outdoor gear companies in general... you name it. Coke or Pepsi billboards? Lo'orial (that makeup copmany)? Go for it! You could probably have those companies even help you with creating the models, skins and effects for their product because, hell - they want to have an impressive product display in the game, right?

How you'd market it to the companies is tricky, because then you'd run into "glock is better than 1911 pistols" type arguments, and would 9mm do more damage than .45acp or vice versa? Do you make Glocks and 1911s jam/misfire equally? Which do you make more accurate? The company that pays the most money, or simply charge them a base "you get the gun in the game ofr this amount of money"? I would think the companies would want some sort of guaranteed market return and impression amount... that'd certainly be the tricky part.

In my mind, such a game would have no real game path; things like alignment and class would not be purely artificial. Alignment could be determined by your character's appearance and affiliation (does he wear gang colors? is she in a cop uniform? etc.). Classing would, in my mind, be purely skill based, and determined by what you decide to make your charactre do. Want to be good at making things? Have the character make things. Good at shooting? Start fights a lot (though, there'd be a definate penalty for dying, to make such a character path more difficult and to make it so that a person couldn't become an ubersoldat).

Hell, throw in some zombies and you're fucking set.

Payback? (2, Informative)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999485)

If I recall currectly, the orginal warcraft games were heavily influences by warhammer (Failed to get the rights to use the "Warhammer" from games-workshop I believe). So as far as characters, fiction etc. No. As for the interface, likely. But then again, if it works why change it? (Law suit isn't the answer:P)

It all started as... (4, Informative)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000600)

Ok guys for those that do not know. What became the "Warcraft" and "Starcraft" series both started as "concepts" and "demo" versions that they sent to Games Workstop for a computerized version of the Warhammer and Warhammer40000 game systems. GW said no because they felt that they could do either a better job or for some other reason (possibly the whole, we didn't make it thus don't like it mentality). Blizard felt that they had a good thing going, so they changed some things around slightly and still continued creating/developing the games under the new name of "Warcraft" and "Starcraft". And so you have it, the reason they seem similar is because the whole idea of the warcraft and starcraft games to begin with was to be the computer versions of Warhammer and Warhammer40000.

Missing Link? (3, Insightful)

bateleur (814657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999490)

Interesting that the timeline in the article doesn't mention Dungeons and Dragons.

Given that Games Workshop was at one time the sole importer of D&D into the UK (prior to the design of Warhammer) I think I'd be quite confident in alleging they were influenced by it.

Re:Missing Link? (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999578)

The story seems predominantly interested in the artistic flavor of Warhammer vs. Warcraft. Since D&D doesn't really have a cohesive and distinctive artistic style (at least, not one that can be confused with Warhammer or Warcraft) that's kind of irrelevent.

What they're talking about is the stylized, oversized weapons and armor. Take the huge, rounded shoulder guards of Warhammer vs. Warcraft (also in Starcraft vs. Warhammer 40K) as just one example of what they're talking about.

-stormin

Re:Missing Link? (2, Informative)

bateleur (814657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999621)

I see what you're saying, but that doesn't really apply to the timeline. After all, they talk about Tolkien and "European Mythology". The huge shoulder pads and art style weren't much in evidence there. Both are in fact a side effect of the fact that GW's games were designed for use with Citadel's 25mm fantasy miniature range. They featured a lot of huge weapons and armour plates because they look great at that scale.

And in fact the first Citadel miniatures to feature this style as we know it today were Chaos Warriors... so maybe we need to add Michael Moorcock's novels to the timeline too?

Re:Missing Link? (2, Interesting)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999665)

Interesting that the timeline in the article doesn't mention Dungeons and Dragons. Given that Games Workshop was at one time the sole importer of D&D into the UK (prior to the design of Warhammer) I think I'd be quite confident in alleging they were influenced by it.

Warhammer was very certainly influenced by D&D. The origin of Warhammer is that they wanted to cheaply clone Chainmail [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Missing Link? (3, Interesting)

Shaper_pmp (825142) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000592)

More than that, GW are widely reknowned by their own employees and fans as serial IP-copiers.

Many races have been blatantly ripped off from film or TV, with the original Genestealers [wikipedia.org] (confirmed repeatedly by insiders as "borrowed" from Alien) being only the most egregious. Throughout the 80s and early 90s they ripped off ideas from all and sundry, then slowly modified and retconned them over time to hide their origins somewhat.

However, the worst case has simply has to be Space Marine "power armour" - the original idea for power armour was taken more or less verbatim from the Robert A. Heinlein novel "Starship Troopers" - design, function, the lot.

In ST (the book) the mobile infantry wear strength-enhancing "powered armour" suits, giving them a fighting chance against enemy combatants. In the film, the mobile infantry are essentially cannon fodder, diving headlong into combat wearing little more than a glorified bodywarmer.

The reason for this (I have had on good authority, from several ex-staff members) is because during the preliminary work on the film Starship Troopers, GW got wind of the development. They decided that the idea of "powered armour" was a little too close to their "power armour", and threatened to sue the film-makers unless they removed all reference to powered armour from the film.

Yep - that's right. They copied the idea almost verbatim from the book, then asserted ownership and threatened legal action when someone tried to use the source material in the (licenced) film.

This last point is directly from an ex-staff member, who was on socialising terms with the GW high-ups at the time and afterwards.

GW are many things, but original they ain't.

Yes, this is OT (1)

arodland (127775) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000807)

But your highlighting of "powered" armor reminded me of something that I wanted to share. When I first read Starship Troopers, I misread the first mention of powered armor as "powdered armor" -- you know, just add water. I thought it was an interesting concept, but I wasn't quite sure what the point was. Of course, I figured it out by the time they actually started using the stuff. Personally, though, I want one of Ringo's Armored Combat Suits. :)

Re:Missing Link? (1)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 8 years ago | (#16001651)

Shakespeare wrote one truly original story in his whole life (A Midsummer Night's Dream), but he is still regarded as the best English-language playwright and poet. It wouldn't have mattered if R&J was based on Pyramus and Thisbie instead - it still would've been Shakespeare's words and stagecraft that made it great. With this in the back of my mind, I think it's kind of stupid and shallow to say that Warhammer and Warcraft are anything alike because of The Warp vs. The Twisting Nether or Chaos vs. The Burning Legion. They're clearly the same content - even the Warp/Chaos is a Warhammerism for the Christian Hell/Demons, and the idea of sorcerers unwittingly courting Demonic powers is PRETTY DARN OLD - but all that stuff is basically some paint thrown up on the wall and some costumes, where the stories of Illidan and Ner'zhul, and of course, the gameplay, are what keep me enthralled.

Anyway, it's really interesting to see how blatently GW is willing to rip off their ideas. It's really alright, because they add a lot to them in terms of making the game a fun tabletop warfare game, just like Blizzard adds a lot in making the games playable on the computer. The law mongering is disgusting, however, and is a pretty crappy practice. Authors and artists are all basically copycats, and the fact that the laws don't recognize or support it is pretty shameful and can ultimately only be detrimental to our culture.

Re:Missing Link? (1)

Shilkanni (803384) | more than 8 years ago | (#16004043)

I totally agree and I think there's nothing wrong with derivative works. GW blatantly ripped off a lot of other concepts (Alien, Starship Troopers, Tolkein) and I didn't mind this at all, they took other people's ideas and weaved it together into their own universe to make decent wargame-lite settings. I think they took other peoples stuff, made it their own and took it somewhere else, and this is very different to blatant plagiarism. It sounds like Blizzard did the same.

It's pretty horrible if they truly threatened litigation over a concept which they took, but I think cross-influence is a positive thing.

To answer the question... (2, Funny)

Drachemorder (549870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999510)

No. Everyone knows that game designers never, ever, borrow ideas from other games.

Here's your sign.

Journalists stated that GW ripped off Blizzard?? (2, Insightful)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999520)

That's an embarassing statement if a _journalist_ writing articles for the gaming industry is that ignorant.

I've always figured that everybody knew that Blizzard 'stole' ideas from GW. My, how times have changed.

Re:Journalists stated that GW ripped off Blizzard? (1)

doobydoo (998781) | more than 8 years ago | (#16005928)

I agree. Maybe Im just old, all of 33yrs, but 17 yrs ago we used to play warcraft with paper and dice. It was called Warhammer. When we played with a keyboard, it was called MUDS. I played and still own Warcraft 1, and 2, and all WoW is, is an upgrade of Everquest, and WAR is an upgrade of WoW, with 10 more yrs or so, of history and followers.

Warhammer influence. . . (0, Redundant)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999552)

oh dear god I hope not.

They better have been (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15999556)

I would say that if you're creating a MMO game today and you're not heavily influenced by what WoW did right (and also paying close attention to what has gone wrong with WoW) you're going to produce a very unpopular product. WoW was the first MMO game that created an experience where anyone could play to the level cap and have a lot of fun doing it; there was tons of content that anyone could complete and very little of the game required you to group (or, in particular, be in the perfect group; my least favourite moments in games like DAoC were being excluded from a group because I was an enchanter). If you're like most MMO game developers and you listen too heavily to the most 'hard-core' 5% of your population you will create a game that is loved by 10% of your target market; if (on the other hand) you target the middle 50% of gamers you'll capture a huge chunk of your potential market.

Re:They better have been (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16000509)

WoW still seems pretty stuck on having "The perfect" group when running instances. You need your healer, you need your tank, your damage-dealers. And you need a full team of 5. I'm much happier with the way City of Heroes runs. It's popular to get a Tanker and a Defender (Buffer/Debuffer/Healer) in your group, but it is by no means necessary. And team sizes anywhere from 1 to 8 can deal with most content in the game (the game scales instances to team size).

Re:They better have been (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 8 years ago | (#16001447)

Group composition doesnt start to matter that much until pretty far into WoW (talking 45-50+ instances here).

Sure you probobly need a tank because its a good strategy (then the healer only has to heal one person) but it isnt just warriors who can tank. Druids can tank almost anything, and I have seen plenty of shammans or hunter/warlock pets tanking and doing just fine. When it comes to healing, priests are best at it but you dont need the BEST healing until you hit the very end of the game...druids, shammans and palidins can all heal just fine for 95% of the game (and there should be some elite part of the game where it DOES matter that you arent the best you could be). As for damage dealers...thats pretty much everyone else whether you have hunters, warlocks, mages, shammans, rogues, druids, other warriors, even priests doing it...groups are generally pretty open.

As to group size, it makes sense that if you are doing it near the lower end of when you should be able to...you are going to need a full group. You can do plenty of instances with a partial group and small groups are quite common when just doign quests out in the world. If 5 people arent enough, every instance allows at least 10 people in a group but you are penalized for using that ammount (you should be doign somethign easier if it takes you 10 people to do it.

Of course. (4, Insightful)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999557)

Yes. Next question?

At this point, the MMORPG market is basically WoW with a few outliers. I'm sure I'll get some EVE Online heat for that comment, but it's true. For much of the population, "MMORPG" is defined to be "World of Warcraft" the same way RTSes were defined by Starcraft. Blizzard has a knack for taking what's great in all its competition, putting it in one spot, and polishing it to a mirror shine. It's what they do.

Game developers aren't stupid. They see the phenomenal success of WoW and know that if they want to compete they have to provide at least the same level of play as their competitor (to get the former WoWers like me) and hopefully surpass their competitor (to get current WoWers). So, WAR takes the UI from WoW and probably steals a few of its other features to ease the transition until they get you hooked.

WAR is hoping provide a PvP alternative to WoW, which primarily focuses on PvE. Even low-level WAR quests involve some form of competition with the opposing faction. One preview I read had a Giant who you would either (a) get drunk to help fight for you against the other faction, or (b) destroy the first faction's alcohol to prevent the giant from getting drunk and thus fighting against you. And that was a newbie quest.

I'm hoping that the WAR team (BTW, that's their preferred acronym, for "Warhammer: Age of Reckoning") delivers on its promises. Give me WoW with a heavy focus on PvP and Realm-vs-Realm and they'll get my money for a few months.

Re:Of course. (1)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999659)

I don't see why you'd get heat from EVE players. While massive success is always everyone's goal, EVE Online has enjoyed a slow, steady success, as well as a retention of players who enjoy the game's overall "hardcore" style of gameplay.

Of course EVE's infrastructure would probably implode if a monstrous jump in new players occurred, but that's a different story. :)

Re:Of course. (1)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999796)

Every single MMORPG article on Slashdot inevitably gets a slew of EVE players who chime in with their advocacy of their chosen game. I think it's great that the playerbase is active and gets the word out about their games, but when I was lumping them in with the "outliers" I figured that I would get a few snide comments about how great their game is, how much it's grown, and how easy it is to try it out for their trial period. I tried EVE for a while and disliked the mechanics and the lack of a real "goal" so maybe I'm a bit biased.

The Slashdot crowd and the EVE crowd seem to have a lot of vocal overlap, is all I'm saying.

Re:Of course. (1)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000175)

"I tried EVE for a while and disliked the mechanics and the lack of a real "goal" so maybe I'm a bit biased."

I can understand the disliking of mechanics of EVE, but what kind of real "goal" does WoW have (or any MMORPG for that matter)?

Re:Of course. (1)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000528)

Well, in WoW, you had many long and short term goals. Short term you had a ridiculous amount of quests and dungeons you could do, all of which gave the game a short-term focus. I would talk with my co-workers about what quests or dungeons we would be facing that night in our adventures. Long-term you have reaching the level cap, getting better gear, etc. all of which tied into the short-term goals (finish this quest so I can get more XP so I can get to the level cap, etc). Even if WoW didn't have a goal, it disguised it very well in having other, more achievable goals to focus on.

It's been a while since I looked into EVE, but from what I recall there's not much aside from building up your bank. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Of course. (1)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000792)

I think that the quest system is one of the big draws for WoW for casual gamers like myself. I can log on in the evening, after dinner, play for a few hours and come away with a feeling of accomplishment, and still get enough sleep so that I can work the following day. Blizzard has done a lot right with WoW, and one of those things is allowing casual gamers to enjoy the game. I've tried a bunch of different MMORPG's, this one stuck because I didn't have to sink my life into it, just to be able to do anything interesting.

Re:Of course. (1)

aafiske (243836) | more than 8 years ago | (#16001015)

Well, I wouldn't say you're correct, but not because there are goals you're missing. The goal isn't bank. There is no goal.

One of the Eve devs put it exellently. Eve and WoW/clones are different types of games, at root. It's the sandbox compared to the amusement park. One isn't inherently better than the other, but they have their own advantages, and their own appeals. A lot of people who like one will get rapidly bored with the other.

It's fine to point out various advantages, and when someone comes along complaining that WoW has grown boring or is too limiting, it's very natural to suggest Eve. (Which is why you probably see it a lot.) For those who find Eve goalless/pointless, WoW is clearly the best choice if you're set on giving someone $15 a month.

Re:Of course. (1)

Taevin (850923) | more than 8 years ago | (#16002972)

*DISCLAIMER* I'm not trying to mock you and I don't think you have to agree with me about EVE, I'm just trying to show how similar the two are (actually most MMORPGs are very similar).

Well, in EVE, you had many long and short term goals. Short term you had a ridiculous amount of agent missions and complexes you could do, all of which gave the game a short-term focus. I would talk with my co-workers about what missions or complexes we would be facing that night in our adventures. Long-term you have maxing out your skills, getting better gear, etc. all of which tied into the short-term goals (finish this mission so I can get more ISK/loyalty points to get the better gear/rewards, etc.). Even if EVE didn't have a goal, it disguised it very well in having other, more achievable goals to focus on.

It's been a while since I looked into WoW, but from what I recall there's not much aside from building up your bank. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I think the two are more similar than you might think. In Wow there's a drive to get to level 60 and get all those purty purple items (sorry, I forget what the best stuff is called - been too long since I've played). In EVE there's a drive to get your skills to high levels and buy/build all those purty big ships and powerful equipment. I know getting a Carrier or a Dreadnought is still a twinkle in my eye :)

Re:Of course. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 8 years ago | (#16002523)

I can understand the disliking of mechanics of EVE, but what kind of real "goal" does WoW have (or any MMORPG for that matter)?

Obtaining phat lewt.

Seriously. As a group techies tend to be all about inrecmentally making something better and better. The hardware guys upgrade their systems on cyles measured in weeks when everyone else keeps a computer for years. It doesn't matter than it's goint to cost $400 for an extra 100Mhz. It's better. The software guys who just like to tinker will go through making sure every tiny program on their OS is updated to the latest and greatest version. The programmers will tirelessly go through their code and make the smallest of adjustments and tweak for performance where it really isn't needed.

Basically, Blizzard has adopted this obession with improvment into a game and have found our weekness. Warcraft is a way to have a little person of your own that through nothing but a small fixed fee and your own effort, you can constantly improve upon (levels, talents, reputation, professions, armor, weapons, enchants, etc). The a person obessed with improvement then improvement itself need be the only goal.

And yes, I'm just as guilt as the rest of us about this topic ;).

Re:Of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16009062)

So you're pre-emptively snide?
You should play Eve. So we can shoot you.

Re:Of course. (1)

Taevin (850923) | more than 8 years ago | (#16003017)

Indeed, I fear for CCP and Tranquility if the game ever exploded in popularity. I imagine they'd have to upgrade the cluster so much that it would make the current Tranquility look like a child's toy!

Oh, and I love your comics :)

Re:Of course. (1)

lewp (95638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999696)

Indeed. WoW, for whatever problems it has with a lack of decent PvP and server instability, is an amazing game. Any new MMO that comes out is either going to have to be equally amazing in its own right, which will be hard given the talent Blizzard has and the extremely long time they had to work on the game; or should really just steal as many ideas as possible from WoW and fix the problems.

WAR appears to be taking that route, and I'll definitely drop my WoW account to play it if it can deliver what it's promising.

Re:Of course. (2, Insightful)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999788)

Blizzard has a knack for taking what's great in all its competition, putting it in one spot, and polishing it to a mirror shine. It's what they do.

I don't think WOW is that good of a game. I think what Blizzard did best was leverage their existing fan base and get them to try an mmo. Personally, I was bored with WoW after 3 months and quit (as did my friends who I started playing with). Keep in mind that we all played DAoC for at least 3 years, so we weren't new to mmos either.

Re:Of course. (1)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999869)

Well, they must be doing something right because they have something like 6 million subscriptions. I'm interested in why you got bored with WoW. Coming from 3+ years of DAoC, I have a feeling it was because of the heavy focus on PvE and minimal PvP aspect of WoW. I also notice that you didn't say WoW was a bad game, just that you got bored. It really is a great game IMHO. I just got tired of the endgame politics, which is why I eventually quit (after 6 months of Beta and 1.5+ years of Retail)

Re:Of course. (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000894)

I'm not saying WoW is a bad game. It was pretty fun while I leveled then PvPed some. It's hard to put my finger on it, but I never really felt connected to my WoW characters like I did to the ones in daoc. The exploration and danger aspect really never came together for me in WoW. Maybe it was the carebearing or perhaps it was the lack of good PvP in WoW when I played it. The feeling while PvPing (either solor or 8 man) in DAoC, is a hard thing to match.

In in the end I don't think WoW is this revolutionary mmo that so many seem to think. WoW brought in a lot of new people to the mmo space who have nothing to compare against, so to them WoW is the best. To really say one game is the best though, players need to play more than just one or two. For example, I wasn't a big UO player, but I have some friends who still play it and think it is the best mmo to date.

I also don't think you can judge how great a game is simply by it's subscriber base. If some brand new to the scene company had released a game like WoW would it have been this big? Blizzard made a good game and they leveraged their fan base accordingly to get it going. I definitely applaud them for that. I hope though that this doesn't lead to every new mmo looking and playing just like wow from now going forward :/

Re:Of course. (1)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 8 years ago | (#16001151)

Of course WoW isn't revolutionary. No Blizzard games are. Blizzard takes a genre, picks the best parts of all the other games in that genre, removes the worst parts, polishes it up and then sells it to gamers. Blizzard is not about innovation, it's about polish. For the record, I played EQ for 2ish years, WoW for about 1.5 years, and tried (either during Beta or for the first free month) DAoC, SWG, Matrix Online, Planetside and EVE.

Every MMORPG from here on out will be compared to WoW and will have some part of it "taken" from WoW - even if WoW "took" it from some other game. That's just how the industry works. What's different is the focus. Like I said, it seems like WAR will be a PvP-oriented WoW (which it sounds like you'd be into). Vanguard will be for the hardcore, never stop, must play for days on end without bathing type, but much of its UI is owed to WoW. Eventually the next killer MMORPG will come out and eclipse WoW, but that will be many years from now.

And even though you and I don't judge games by their userbase, you can bet dollars to donuts that the publishers only care about the userbase. That's something a lot of people forget. Gaming companies are not out to make great games, they're out to make money. Making great games helps generate that money, but even mediocre games can make tons of money (see: Madden) so they continue to create them.

I'm tired, and I'm going to be blunt: (2, Funny)

Claws Of Doom (721684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999623)

Does anyone really care? They're all too busy playing, surely...

Fuck you Zonk. (2, Insightful)

BJH (11355) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999710)

Warcraft is quite obviously a ripoff of Warhammer. Similarity of interface in one particular game is nothing in comparison to what Blizzard have done to Games Workshop.

Re:Fuck you Zonk. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16001019)

And what about what Games Workshop did to everyone else?

Are you going to sit there and pretend that Warhammer is a uniquely develouped IP with little influence?
Hogwash.

Personally I look at BLIZZARD better as they have never threatened to sue Games Workshop.
(* While as Games Workshop has from groups, who it turned out had predated material, that could be convincingly argued that Games Workshop might have taken from themselves or other pre-dated sources.)

Re: Inflammatory Headline (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#16006295)

Does it matter?

What is suspicious is that just when WoW became popular, GW decided that there needs to be a Warhammer Fantasy (the version noone gives a damn about) MMORPG that takes its MMO implementation mostly from WoW (WH wasn't an MMORPG so Bliz could hardly have stolen those parts from WH). I mean, why not WH40k? Everyone would love that, if just for the change of setting from the MMO-standard Tolkienesque (Tolkien invented Orcs, the mythological figure is the Ogre) to futuristic. After all, they cancelled Imperator to make room for WAR.

Blizzard is ripper-offer, but so what (4, Insightful)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999738)

All three major Blizzard properties are rip-offs of someone else's ideas. Diablo was a rip of Rogue (and all Rogue-alikes everywhere); Warcarft was a rip of Warhammer; and Starcraft was a rip of Warhammer 40,000.

Big deal, I say. It's not like Games Workshop didn't draw on others' ideas too -- Moorcock and Herbert being prime examples. A messianic god emporer? Gosh, where could that have come from [dunenovels.com] ? This is the way it's supposed to work. Inspiration breeds inspiration. It's not so much "your" idea as it is your little twist on all the ideas you've absorbed from other people. You don't "own" it, because the person you got your ideas from didn't "own" theirs either. This stuff's not supposed to be locked down and inaccessible. If it was, we'd never have got Warhammer or WoW or any of the rest of it.

Re:Blizzard is ripper-offer, but so what (2, Informative)

nsanders (208050) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999919)

Actually, Blizzard didn't create Diablo, they purchased it. Blizzard North, was the original creator of Diablo, and before they were purchased by Blizzard they were called Condor. So you can't really blame Blizzard for any rip-offs on that game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_North [wikipedia.org]

sure you can (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000704)

But Blizzard also bought the blame when they bought the company. So yes, you can.

Smart business, really (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000043)

Let someone else innovate, avert the risk and then evaluate the best of their efforts and offer a more refined product.

Re:Blizzard is ripper-offer, but so what (1)

bogjobber (880402) | more than 8 years ago | (#16000233)

Warhammer also ripped off Lord of the Rings in a major way. I can't remember exact references (its been about 8 years since I played), but a huge amount of the names of characters and places are more or less directly taken from LotR. Also, the general geography of the original game bears a striking resemblance to that of Middle Earth.

Re:Blizzard is ripper-offer, but so what (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16001126)

Warhammer's and the LotR's geography both strongly resemble Europe's geography.

Damn; Tolkien ripped off reality!

Re:Blizzard is ripper-offer, but so what (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#16006397)

Of course. WH is using Orcs. That's a huge Tolkien ripoff right there.

Warning: (1)

zyl0x (987342) | more than 8 years ago | (#15999812)

Incoming 'truthiness' reference in 3.. 2.. 1..

DIAF, poseur Zonk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16001095)

Zonk:

As per the subject. Choad.

MMOs are all rip-offs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16001435)

The MMO industry is based on ripping competitors off. WoW ripped Mythic's own Dark Age of Camelot [darkageofcamelot.com] 's PvP system off pretty wholesale.

It's a market with limited ideas, so the best you can do is take the best parts of what's out there and put it all together, maybe add a cool widget or two to stand out. Blizzard did a pretty good job of that, and they've done pretty well by it.

Re:MMOs are all rip-offs (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#16006483)

So Mythic wasn't copying Blizzard, they were just expanding upon their own ideas?

Not only Warhammer Online... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16002344)

I think the success of Wow will irrevocably influence every MMORPG ever created from this point forward.

Imitation is.... (1)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | more than 8 years ago | (#16002531)

the most sincere form of flattery; considering how many times companies have tried to copy blizzard, wizards of the coast, warhammer, etc, it simply offers proof that the object of imitation is the epitomy of achievement (at the time) for what it aims to do.

i applaud blizzard for most of what they have done, but i also appreciate the original for what it offered; where would the copy/copies be (or would they even be?) without the original(s)?

my hat is off to you inventors of great themes/systems/ideas/engines.

Of course (1)

NexFlamma (919608) | more than 8 years ago | (#16002579)

It's going to be almost impossible for any future MMO to be successful while not borrowing ideas from WoW. It has become the template for success in the MMO market. With 6 million+ subscribers, they must be doing something right.

The real ironic part is that most of the original Warcraft lore was almost blatantly lifted from Warhammer all those years ago.

WoW. This generation? (1)

doobydoo (998781) | more than 8 years ago | (#16006078)

What is a generation in gamers? 2yrs? 5yrs? The question of Warhammer(remember minis and dice kids?) riding on the wake of Warcraft(the "Sims" of wargaming) is stupid, for a lack of a better term. Everyone seems to talk of Wow, as if Blizzard started it all, but they would almost certainly be putting out games like Warcraft 1, and 2, if it wasnt for Everquest! They just improved on an idea that was already there. So, I say its about time Games Workshop stepped up, and "put in their 25yrs worth of XPs", taking this genre to the next level, and possibly improving on it. If this "generation" of gamers are worried about WAR stealing from WoW, and we're skipping WoW taking from EQ, then the mythos and history of gaming are in a sad state. Games Workshop is a godfather to this industry, and deserves a little more respect than to be called "leaches"

Who the hell cares? (1)

vulgrin (70725) | more than 8 years ago | (#16006517)

ALL games borrow from each other just like every single form of media ever invented by humans. Who the hell cares if your Warcraft is "better" or "more original" than Warhammer, or vice versa? I think a certain man named J.R.R. Tolkien might have something to say about that... well, if he were still around.

Seriously - who the hell has time to even think up this crap?

Is Hell Cooling Down? (2, Interesting)

Avatar8 (748465) | more than 8 years ago | (#16007811)

I cannot believe the day has come that I must admit to something I never thought would happen: I agree with what the EA exec said.

ALL fantasy (books, film, TV, table games, RPGs, video games, MMOs, etc. ad infinitum) "borrow" from the root sources: mythos.

I don't know the truth and I doubt it will ever be revealed, but it sounds like Blizzard offered Games Workshop a video game to evolve their tabletop game and GW declined. Blizzard therefore changed the content enough to make it original by legel terms and ran with it all the way to multiple banks. This can definitely be seen as "borrowing" IP but recreating it in your own fashion. I'd compare this to me trying to paint the Mona Lisa. Sure there are some similarities, but you would definitely see my differences and personal artistic style.

GW in their turn "borrowed" from Dungeons & Dragons and all the spinoff franchises (books, artwork, cartoons, figures, etc.) to fashion their own IP.

Gary Gygax will freely admit he and Dave Arneson were completely influenced by J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth books. They, too, fashioned their own IP.

While I gladly accept the title of "Father of Modern Fantasy" bestowed upon Tolkien, in any of his biographies it is well known that he drew his ideas from numerous resources: C.S. Lewis, religion, Norse mythos and Finnish mythos. He gave England a bolder, more legendary history to counter the only other fantasy that existed at the time: fairies. While you may see pieces similar to legends and other stories, it is unarguable that the compilation is original and completely Tolkien's.

Finally all of that mythos, regardless of the country, came from the collective story telling, exaggeration and imagination of our ancestors as they sat in the dark, pondered the meaning of life and tried to explain what they didn't understand.

So what we're now playing and will be playing in the future are just extensions and evolutions of those original stories told around fires. The only reason this becomes an argument of who owns what or who created what is because of another evolution, the legal system. MMO's are just another form of storytelling, one in which we get to play a part and be involved in the story. Who knows what form storytelling may take in the next century.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?