PC gaming not domed?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by nostromo
I would be really, really surprised if Spore sold as well as the Sims. My prediction: it will sell at least as well as Black and White.

And history will no doubt view it in the same light as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by nostromo
Molyneux has a couple of hits under his belt, but nothing that comes even close to the Sims. And don't forget that Will Wright has also a couple of flops under his belt. The Sims online, anyone? Not everything he touches turns into gold. The Sims sold because its basically a computer version of playing with dolls. A classic game that young and not so young girls love playing. I would be really, really surprised if Spore sold as well as the Sims. My prediction: it will sell at least as well as Black and White.

Im quite aware that not everything Wright touches is a hit. Simearth? Simisle? Simchopper? etc, etc.

But hes the Sims, which is about as golden as anything in PC game biz other than WoW, and hes got Simcity, which has been a very successful series. Does Molyneux have anything as successful as the Simcity series?

Id be very, very surprised if Spore sold nearly as well as the Sims. It could fall well short of that, and still have a considerable impact on 2007 sales, more so than B&W had on its pub year sales.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im quite aware that not everything Wright touches is a hit. Simearth? Simisle? Simchopper? etc, etc.

But hes the Sims, which is about as golden as anything in PC game biz other than WoW, and hes got Simcity, which has been a very successful series. Does Molyneux have anything as successful as the Simcity series?

Depends on how you define success. Molyneux's contemporary efforts have had mixed reactions.

But games like Syndicate, Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Powermonger, Theme Park and Magic Carpet piss all over anything Will Wright has ever done. These games didn't sell that well by modern benchmarks of course simply because the market was just smaller. They are true innovative classics though that progressed a wide number of genres, compared to the same dire offerings ad infinitum from Will Wright (with a few highlights on the Sim City side).

So there's sales, and there's how history will view the two men. I know Will "pee" Wright has his fans here but in my view Molyneux did more for gaming in any one of those games above than Will Wright ever will.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Depends on how you define success. Molyneux's contemporary efforts have had mixed reactions.

But games like Syndicate, Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Powermonger, Theme Park and Magic Carpet piss all over anything Will Wright has ever done. These games didn't sell that well by modern benchmarks of course simply because the market was just smaller. They are true innovative classics though that progressed a wide number of genres, compared to the same dire offerings ad infinitum from Will Wright (with a few highlights on the Sim City side).

So there's sales, and there's how history will view the two men. I know Will "pee" Wright has his fans here but in my view Molyneux did more for gaming in any one of those games above than Will Wright ever will.

I am fine with Molyneuxs contribution to the history of gaming (though Wright has done quite a few other things than the repetitions of The Sims) However in context, I was clearly referring to sales, and to sales in the contemporary marketplace. That Molyneux games sold well when PC gaming was still a niche hobby (whether it will head that away again is not relevant) does not argue for the failure of B&W to sell well augurs poorly for Spore's sales.

[Nostromo]

Here's why Spore will sell poorly, IMO: cool concept, boring game. When I watch the gameplay videos, it all looks incredibly boring to me. I really don't understand why you guys are so jazzed up about this game. My only explanation is that what you are really jazzed up about is the concept and technology behind it, not the actual gameplay.

Of course, you could always counter that a game doesn't have to be fun in order to sell. After all, WoW isn't fun, but is the best-selling game of all time. I'm not sure what to answer to that. But one thing's for sure: Spore isn't as easily marketable as WoW. It will be a hard sell.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I am fine with Molyneuxs contribution to the history of gaming (though Wright has done quite a few other things than the repetitions of The Sims) However in context, I was clearly referring to sales, and to sales in the contemporary marketplace. That Molyneux games sold well when PC gaming was still a niche hobby (whether it will head that away again is not relevant) does not argue for the failure of B&W to sell well augurs poorly for Spore's sales.

That last sentence doesn't make sense, but even so it doesn't look like it refers to what I was arguing.

You asked if PM had anything as successful as WW. I gave the right answer - in sales no, in services to gaming, yes, in spades.

[Asher]

After all, WoW isn't fun, but is the best-selling game of all time.

I think that about settles your cred when it comes to game popularity.

[Nostromo]

Its not like I had much cred to begin with

Granted, WoW is very addictive. I myself fell in the trap for a while. But is it fun? Not really, IMO. There's no story to speak of, the quests are boring and repetitive, combat is boring. What else is there? I agree with Warren Spector's assessment :

Gamasutra: You've been a long time proponent of single player roleplaying experiences, what do you think of MMOs?

WS: Honestly, I don't much care for them. If I'm going to have a social experience, I'd rather have it in person. I feel like a blind, deaf and dumb person watching a movie while I'm playing an MMO because the social experience is really shallow. Again, this is one of the things I'll end up talking about at the GDC, but I'm, perhaps to a fault, a story person. I really need narrative. The level of narrative that people have been able to achieve in MMOs has been so shallow. I'm one of those people who doesn't find anything interesting at all in leveling up, finding a +3 sword or paper-dolling a character with a purple cloak. That doesn't appeal to me in any way as a human being. Put that all together and the play experience of MMOs is on par with roleplaying back in ‘87. In all fairness, my wife is a World of Warcraft addict.

[Asher]

Yeah -- and that's the problem. Compare WS' game popularity to MMORPGs.

You guys don't even come close to speaking for the majority. Using your opinions to project on the majority is therefore pretty dumb.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Asher

After all, WoW isn't fun, but is the best-selling game of all time.

I think that about settles your cred when it comes to game popularity.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Asher
Yeah -- and that's the problem. Compare WS' game popularity to MMORPGs.

You guys don't even come close to speaking for the majority. Using your opinions to project on the majority is therefore pretty dumb.

I don't pretend to be speaking for the majority. I'm just trying to understand why those games are so popular. Like I said, I played WoW for a while and I admitted in other threads that I was addicted to it, that it was like crack. OTOH, when I thought about it, I had to admit to myself that the damn game wasn't that fun to begin with. The cons seem to outweight the pros 2 to 1. So I was addicted to it, even though I didn't think it was very fun. Care to explain that?

[Asher]

I don't want to or feel the need to explain that, it's irrelevant.

Many people (myself included) found WoW fun.

[FrostyBoy]

nostromo, I think I can explain it for you.

Most games that are fun, say for example, Duke Nukem Forever, provide constant fun around nearly every corner. But for a game like WoW, the fun is at the peaks of time consuming effort; probably 80% of the time playing it is unfun, and 20% of it fun. That 80% of general nothingness is worth the 20% of fun.

WoW does have its very fun moments, things you can't find in any other game, so it has its strong values.

[Nostromo]

I think you nailed it.

When you're just about to quit, because you're bored to tears, the game reels you in with one of those "woha!" moments. Like the first time I visited Ironforge.

[snoopy369]

Wow (and MMORPGs) are enjoyable largely because of the social interaction, either the competition (PvP or PvE) or the friendships/alliances/etc. Not to set a stereotype, but it's quite commonly true that people who have a difficult time making friends IRL enjoy MMORPGs for that reason.

However, it's not just 'geeks with no friends'. The competitive aspect fills a niche that people who don't play sports need filled.

That's why the game doesn't have to have real gameplay value - it has value outside of the gameplay. Good MMOs have qualities that allow social interaction, that allow players to feel they've accomplished something by balancing easy/difficult and short/long; allow easily compared competitive rankings; and allow the various different playstyles (PvP, PvE, Social interaction, less seroius guild, superserious guild/alliance, etc.) to all coexist without bothering each other. Gameplay is second (or sixth!) to all that.

It's still necessary to hvae reasonable gameplay, but 'good' varies so much PvE vs PvP vs ... that it's hard to get truly great gameplay. PvP gameplay is quick, efficient usage of skills, targetting, small number of skills to manage, with a good compromise between "damage", "healing", "buff", and generally focuses on 'tight' playstyles that are very narrowly formed around one specific goal; while PvE gameplay is more focused on damage and ability to somewhat win on your own while still permitting co-op play similar to PvP.

*Whew*. That's my thoughts for now, i'm going to bed