Things that WOW didn't invent

[FireLance]

You know, having just got back from a two-day business excellence conference, the real perversity of it just struck me: normally, adapting good practices from successful companies is considered a good thing.

If the adaptation resulted in what you believe to be negative consequences, then state what you think the negative consequences are. Why is there such a pervasive perception that similarity is bad?

 

[MarkChevallier]

Replace 4e with 3e and WOW to Diablo your post could be seen verbatim ten years ago.

That's what drives me around the twist with these comparisons. It's like it's a suddenly new thing that d20 games resemble video games. Good grief, the 3e=video games has been around for a DECADE now. It's the same post, just with funny glasses and a fake moustache.

The intensity and frequency of the comparisons has increased, because the observation is more true of 4e than it has been of previous editions. The comparison is not inherently bad - every time you see it, I suggest you "mentally translate" it to: "This game considers fun more important than immersion." (Or, if it helps, "This game is more gamist and less simulationist" - but those are justly unfashionable terms now.)

Most people can see why the comment is more true of 4e than it is of 3e, but they may disagree about whether or not that is a good or a bad shift in emphasis. The "computer game" comparison is usually an illustration, a way of trying to make that point. If you want to engage with the arguer - best to discuss the root of their case rather than the specifics of the example they're using. Even if you argue the example out the window, you won't convince them of anything or really engage with them - you'll just win a few internet points.

 

[cwhs01]

I think White Wolf's Mage: The Awakening had the concept of "quintessence" which was basically distilled magic power. I don't know whether you could render down magic items to get it, though.

The PnP RPG Ars Magica has the Vis concept. Raw distilled magic that can be used to fuel rituals, spells or create permanent magic items. I only know about 2nd and 3rd editions of the system, but i should think that it dates back to the original.

White Wolf had something to do with one of the ArM editions i think, and (i think?) Mage was influenced by that game.

 

[Hussar]

The intensity and frequency of the comparisons has increased, because the observation is more true of 4e than it has been of previous editions. The comparison is not inherently bad - every time you see it, I suggest you "mentally translate" it to: "This game considers fun more important than immersion." (Or, if it helps, "This game is more gamist and less simulationist" - but those are justly unfashionable terms now.)

Most people can see why the comment is more true of 4e than it is of 3e, but they may disagree about whether or not that is a good or a bad shift in emphasis. The "computer game" comparison is usually an illustration, a way of trying to make that point. If you want to engage with the arguer - best to discuss the root of their case rather than the specifics of the example they're using. Even if you argue the example out the window, you won't convince them of anything or really engage with them - you'll just win a few internet points.

Heh, you're nicer than me.

I react the same now as I have for years to the "This game is videogamey". Which is to assume the poster actually can't come up with a real criticism of the game and would rather use hot button terms to troll their way into a conversation. It translates most of the time to, "I don't like X, I don't like Y, therefore X=Y and they're both bad because I don't like them."

If they actually had a valid criticism, they'd voice it rather than simply relying on vague, virtually meaningless terms.

 

[tyrlaan]

I react the same now as I have for years to the "This game is videogamey". Which is to assume the poster actually can't come up with a real criticism of the game and would rather use hot button terms to troll their way into a conversation. It translates most of the time to, "I don't like X, I don't like Y, therefore X=Y and they're both bad because I don't like them."

If they actually had a valid criticism, they'd voice it rather than simply relying on vague, virtually meaningless terms.

Heh, I just thought people used that line because all the other kids are doing it

 

[diaglo]

the original owners of blizzard were D&D gamers. there is an article in GQ which talks about how they tried to model their game after their D&D campaign.

that was back when Warcraft was the only title out. and Warcraft 2 was about to be released.

 

[Umbran]

Two of you are resorting to blanket ad hominem attacks. Unlike you, I will not be so rude as to venture a guess why.

But you will stop. You rudeness is the sort of thing that continues hostility long after the wrongs are done and over with. It is unacceptable.

 

[ChaosShard]

Nope, the Warhammer Fantasy link is certainly true, but Starcraft was purely an in-house spin-off. You could argue that the similarities suggest otherwise, but as far as I know there was no official link between 40K and Starcraft.

Off-topic:

Yeah, the Terran vs. Zerg/Space Marines Vs. Tyranids thing was done by Heinlein in Starship Troopers. IIRC the book has the Mobile Infantry in powered armor akin to the Terran Marines and Imperial Space Marines, whereas the movie has them in lighter body armor, akin to the Imperial Guard.

Looking for similarities in to other IP in GW stuff is like hunting for a needle in a needle factory. Don't get me started on how much the 4th edition Skaven book "borrowed" from Lieber's Swords of Lankhmar.

On-Topic:

WOW didn't invent very much of anything. What it did (on launch) was improve on a few key things. IIRC some of the old school EQ guys came to Blizzard prior to the Molton Core raid being released, and ushered in the era of the 40-man raid. Once the 1st expansion came out, they started doing 10 and 25 man raids, and now have regular (10 man) and hard mode (25 man) versions of each new raid.

Basically, they take ideas that work and tweak them to fit into WoW, but I really don't recall anything revolutionary.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

It's not so much that WoW invents things, it just synthesizes them into something vastly different than the sum of the parts might suggest.

My question is the reverse of the OP: is there anything that WoW actually DID invent, and if so has any other game (online or P+P) used it?

Lanefan

Not much that really fits in the headspace of this thread, but tons that applies to what they're really good at: videogames.

Example:
Everyone in MMOs (and even many single player CRPGs) shamelessly uses a carbon copy of their user interface. Not particularly germane to this discussion, but HUGELY influential. It just works. If you haven't played a lot of CRPGs or MMOs, you won't understand how rare that was before Blizzard came along. Figuring out the UI was often harder than playing the game.

In general terms, they really just painted everything with a paintbrush full of fun. It was a thick coat of paint that obviated sharp edges that could ruin your fun. Example: you don't lose items/xp for dying, you just take extra damage to your items. There's a very minor penalty, but not one that is so harsh you feel like one death set you back 2 or 3 evenings worth of play.

Strangely, once Blizzard did it, not punishing your playerbase for playing your game became standard.

 

[OchreJelly]

Blizzard's MO has pretty much always been to make huge evolutionary changes, NOT big revolutionary changes. This applies to all their games, be it Diablo, Starcraft or Warcraft games. They are arguably the best in the industry at taking tired formulas, re-spinning them, adding incredible art design, and a super fine level of polish. They make something old look new and make it look easily done.

When I first played WOW I saw it as a refinement of all the MMO's that came before it. Things like the quest system, the easy leveling curve, the welcoming UI were all Blizzard's take on systems that had been done in MMOs before, but poorly. I didn't look at the things like "Health", "armor class" etc. because these are tropes in video games that go back long before even MMOs and can so easily trace their roots to PNP that we can simply take them for granted.

If I could flip this argument around and ask the question, "what will 4E do to influence future MMO's?" my gut reaction would be to say that the class design will be the key take-away. By that I mean MMOs will embrace and extend the way 4E handles roles; with a skeletal class design that says "defenders all do this at their core" and "all leader classes will be able to heal like this" etc. Again this is not a revolutionary change, but an evolutionary refinement of gaming.