Shock
06-21-2005, 10:51 AM
A few weeks ago, I saw a post on an MMORPG messageboard in regard to Brad McQuaid (one of the original designers of EQ) and I was curious as what his response would be if he was to read it. I didn't keep the person's name attached but I did send it directly to him in an email. Following, is the response that Brad wrote back. I thought some of you might would like to read it:
From: "Brad McQuaid" (email deleted to provide privacy, but I found it and so can you)
Subject: RE: Brad the topic of discussion on several MMORPG sites...Just FYI
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:31:09 -0800
> Brad was the biggest devotee EVER of the time sink.
Well, the advancement mechanism in MUDs and MMOGs is typically time
invested, plus then your strategy, how well you work together with
others, and general knowledge of the game. But investing time into a
massively multiplayer game doesn't mean it has to be tedious or boring.
It is challenging, though, to design a game meant to be played for
months and even years but also keeping it exciting at all times.
Downtime, say between combat or during travel, we did design into EQ on
purpose, but I think we went too far in some areas. I think there
should still be downtime in-between battles or sets of battles, so you
can use the restroom or grab a coke or go over the next strategy for the
next battle, but we went too far. Same with travel: sitting on a boat
and doing nothing is boring -- we should have done a better job there as
well. In Vanguard we have some pretty cool ideas on how to address
these issues -- if you haven't already, I do encourage you to read the
FAQ on www.vanguardsoh.com
>Making everything possible a time sink, like putting tradeskill items
for recipes in different towns and unstackable so you had to do spend
>huge amounts of time just running back and forth between vendors; like
making money hard to transfer in precise amounts; like making it
extremely slow and cumbersome to transfer items
>between inventory and the bank...it just went on and on.
Well, that's not accurate. We definitely did NOT create an interface to
waste a players time. I think the interface got better and better and I
was there when we decided to completely revamp it and make it XML based,
thereby enabling user customization. Keep in mind that I was there for
most of Luclin and also involved in initial planning for PoP. There's a
reason why, for example, we brought Tom King and others on board to help
design Vanguard's UI and that's because we want the best looking AND
playing UI.
Nor did we make things unstackable just to annoy or to waste people's
time; rather, we made certain items unstackable that we didn't want
people easily farming and amassing huge quantities of. I realize more
things were made stackable later into the game, both while I was there
and afterwards, and I think some were good ideas and some not -- depends
on the item.
> If anything possibly COULD be made to take longer, it absolutely,
without fail would be. If creating pointless tedium at every possible
opportunity could ever reach a level of genius, Brad did > it. Brad's
the original guy who didn't care how frustrating and tedious his game
was, so long as it slowed you down so you kept paying your monthly fee
for just a little longer.
Again, not accurate. Making the player frustrated and adding tedium is
bad design, period. People don't play games to be frustrated or bored
and deliberately designing a game that way would lose players, not gain
them. Creating a good balance of risk and reward and challenging
players, encouraging them to work hard, to level and obtain cool items,
is what keeps people around. That, and player interdependence which
forms friendships and communities in-game. This is what has made EQ so
popular, and is also one of the reasons it had such a low churn rate,
especially while I and others were on board.
> No way in **** would I ever play one of Brad's games again. The minute
he left EQ, things started becoming stackable, the bank easier to use,
etc., etc. Getting rid of him was like getting rid > of the plague. I'd
sooner sign up for a night under the bed with the boogeyman than come
anywhere near one of Brad's games again. That guy just DID NOT CARE, and
if you've seen some of the
> interviews he gave to magazines, didn't care who knew it either.
Wow, I've really done my best to remain humble and accessible doing
interviews, posting on message boards, answering emails, etc. I really
DO care. I'm in this business to make the games I and others want to
play and to make great games. And I want to see these games get better
and better, and one of the reasons we chose to make Vanguard is so we
can take all that we learned from EQ, both positive and negative, and
make an even better game. A successful and popular game is what we're
eager to make, but also a game we can be proud of and one the players
really enjoy.
> Other than that, I have no opinions on the matter...other than I hope
Vanguard isn't another EQ in the form of it's overly tedious playstyle.
I hope Vanguard is another EQ in terms of success, but hopefully also a
better game based on how much more we know now and also how much better
technology we're able to use. I'm sorry you (or whoever made this
statement) didn't like the game I co-designed or the decisions I made
when I was in charge of the game. Certainly no one can make a game that
is all things for all people. If someone likes the game EQ became after
I left better, then all I can say is examine why... Was it the issues we
address in the Vanguard FAQ and elsewhere? If so, then hopefully that
person will like Vanguard. If not, then that's fine too The number
of online gamers grows everyday, thanks to the success of games like EQ,
WoW, etc. and there should be more and more choices available to the
online gamer in the future. That means more choices, which is great --
people can choose the style of MMOG they want to play and enjoy those
games even more than games in the past.
If you or anyone has issues with statements we've made about Vanguard,
I'd be more than happy to address them and explain why we've made those
statements and decisions.
Thank you for the email,
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
Original Producer and co-Designer of EverQuest
President & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh.com / www.sigil.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad McQuaid" (email deleted to provide privacy, but I found it and so can you)
Subject: RE: Brad the topic of discussion on several MMORPG sites...Just FYI
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:31:09 -0800
> Brad was the biggest devotee EVER of the time sink.
Well, the advancement mechanism in MUDs and MMOGs is typically time
invested, plus then your strategy, how well you work together with
others, and general knowledge of the game. But investing time into a
massively multiplayer game doesn't mean it has to be tedious or boring.
It is challenging, though, to design a game meant to be played for
months and even years but also keeping it exciting at all times.
Downtime, say between combat or during travel, we did design into EQ on
purpose, but I think we went too far in some areas. I think there
should still be downtime in-between battles or sets of battles, so you
can use the restroom or grab a coke or go over the next strategy for the
next battle, but we went too far. Same with travel: sitting on a boat
and doing nothing is boring -- we should have done a better job there as
well. In Vanguard we have some pretty cool ideas on how to address
these issues -- if you haven't already, I do encourage you to read the
FAQ on www.vanguardsoh.com
>Making everything possible a time sink, like putting tradeskill items
for recipes in different towns and unstackable so you had to do spend
>huge amounts of time just running back and forth between vendors; like
making money hard to transfer in precise amounts; like making it
extremely slow and cumbersome to transfer items
>between inventory and the bank...it just went on and on.
Well, that's not accurate. We definitely did NOT create an interface to
waste a players time. I think the interface got better and better and I
was there when we decided to completely revamp it and make it XML based,
thereby enabling user customization. Keep in mind that I was there for
most of Luclin and also involved in initial planning for PoP. There's a
reason why, for example, we brought Tom King and others on board to help
design Vanguard's UI and that's because we want the best looking AND
playing UI.
Nor did we make things unstackable just to annoy or to waste people's
time; rather, we made certain items unstackable that we didn't want
people easily farming and amassing huge quantities of. I realize more
things were made stackable later into the game, both while I was there
and afterwards, and I think some were good ideas and some not -- depends
on the item.
> If anything possibly COULD be made to take longer, it absolutely,
without fail would be. If creating pointless tedium at every possible
opportunity could ever reach a level of genius, Brad did > it. Brad's
the original guy who didn't care how frustrating and tedious his game
was, so long as it slowed you down so you kept paying your monthly fee
for just a little longer.
Again, not accurate. Making the player frustrated and adding tedium is
bad design, period. People don't play games to be frustrated or bored
and deliberately designing a game that way would lose players, not gain
them. Creating a good balance of risk and reward and challenging
players, encouraging them to work hard, to level and obtain cool items,
is what keeps people around. That, and player interdependence which
forms friendships and communities in-game. This is what has made EQ so
popular, and is also one of the reasons it had such a low churn rate,
especially while I and others were on board.
> No way in **** would I ever play one of Brad's games again. The minute
he left EQ, things started becoming stackable, the bank easier to use,
etc., etc. Getting rid of him was like getting rid > of the plague. I'd
sooner sign up for a night under the bed with the boogeyman than come
anywhere near one of Brad's games again. That guy just DID NOT CARE, and
if you've seen some of the
> interviews he gave to magazines, didn't care who knew it either.
Wow, I've really done my best to remain humble and accessible doing
interviews, posting on message boards, answering emails, etc. I really
DO care. I'm in this business to make the games I and others want to
play and to make great games. And I want to see these games get better
and better, and one of the reasons we chose to make Vanguard is so we
can take all that we learned from EQ, both positive and negative, and
make an even better game. A successful and popular game is what we're
eager to make, but also a game we can be proud of and one the players
really enjoy.
> Other than that, I have no opinions on the matter...other than I hope
Vanguard isn't another EQ in the form of it's overly tedious playstyle.
I hope Vanguard is another EQ in terms of success, but hopefully also a
better game based on how much more we know now and also how much better
technology we're able to use. I'm sorry you (or whoever made this
statement) didn't like the game I co-designed or the decisions I made
when I was in charge of the game. Certainly no one can make a game that
is all things for all people. If someone likes the game EQ became after
I left better, then all I can say is examine why... Was it the issues we
address in the Vanguard FAQ and elsewhere? If so, then hopefully that
person will like Vanguard. If not, then that's fine too The number
of online gamers grows everyday, thanks to the success of games like EQ,
WoW, etc. and there should be more and more choices available to the
online gamer in the future. That means more choices, which is great --
people can choose the style of MMOG they want to play and enjoy those
games even more than games in the past.
If you or anyone has issues with statements we've made about Vanguard,
I'd be more than happy to address them and explain why we've made those
statements and decisions.
Thank you for the email,
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
Original Producer and co-Designer of EverQuest
President & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh.com / www.sigil.com
--------------------------------------------------------------