That read like a fair review that gave props to BC where due.
Seriously folks, defending WOW's graphics sounds just a silly as those making excuses for Vanguards bugs ..
Sooner or later you're going to pay the piper that's how this buisness works. Blizz gambled on releasing WOW with dated graphics that run on 3-4 year old systems.
Guess what the gamble paid off with subscriptions...but the sacrifice was in the graphics department.
There are plenty other areas where WOW shines, however graphics aren't one of them...
let it go.
World of Warcraft's graphic were excellent, and to be honnest, they still are, because the ART makes up for the lesser powerful engine. World of Warcraft was the evidence that slapping a fancy engine on a game does not make it have great grapics, and Everquest 2 backs that up as well. You have to take in consideration the system requirements when you judge a game's graphics, as well as its age. Should reviewers give all Nintendo Wii games a bad rating in graphic deparment because it runs on a less powerful system? ofcourse not.
WOW's graphics were never great they were serviceable and that's exactly what Blizz intended for them to be. Blizz decided it was more important to have as many as possible play the game in lou of graphics. Hence the trade off plain and simple.
I don't buy that art excuse either as Lineage II which came before and Guild Wars soon after are examples of great Artistic style.
So again... WOW is a great game in other areas such as fun factor and ease of gameplay but graphics is not one of them.. When it comes to the art of the world, then WoW defenity beats the other 2 games you mentioned. and as I said, graphics should be rated compared to the system requirements, simple as that.
You just don't give up do you GL .It's quite obvious many of you are unable to look at this objectively and that's a shame.
instead of focusing on what WOW actually does well (fun gameplay, excellent UI) you zealots carry on this ridiculous crusade.
Simple and plain...WOW isn't on the level of Lineage II or Guildwars, graphicaly let alone the newer titles.
Realize it, accept it and move on as no MMO currently on the market is the best at everything.
Graphics are rated on graphic quality not some bloody curve.. if you're gonna collect kudos for what you do well then accept the damn hammer dropped on you for what you don't.
Enough with this silliness ....some of you are in worse denial than those Vanguard zealots.
Being a journalist myself, I hate to have a go at a fellow author, but this review doesn't tell me anything. Yes, the grahpics are the same, the sound is the same. It tells me that the community is bad, and there is no roleplay, but it doesn't tell me why. Dungeons and Dragons is a fantastic example of making roleplay in just running around doing adventures, without "banding up against something."
The main issue I have with it, is that the reviewer harps on that the game is "fun" and the "fun score" is by far the most important thing to look at. Yet, looking through the review, I don't feel informed as to why it's fun. It just is, is it? I should go down to the store and buy a game, just because you wrote a nine on a "fun-o-metre?" A good video game review will tell me what I'll experience playing the game, things that will likely frustrate me, things that I'll find fun. It will give me an overview of the game experience. Honestly, all I've played of the game is looking over a friend's shoulder for half an hour and playing for five minutes while he was cooking, and I could have come to all the same conclusions, apart from the random and arbitary "fun score." Examples, what are the alternate paths of levelling? Did you just read it off the World of Warcraft site and decide to include it? Are the quests diverse enough for it to make a difference whether I do them again or not? I'm sorry, but after reading your review, I have no idea what the game plays like, and thus, I regard this as a failure of reviewing.
Those two issues, coupled with a bunch of grammatical errors, example is the use of number characters incorrectly, make this review far from professional grade.
That is a really poorly thought out anology. You grade based on what they accomplish, if they are following the same education. But if Jimmy is following an education that is higher then billy, then obviously Jimmy has to come up with something much better then Billy to even get an equal score as Billy. Square enix has spend a damn load of time on Final Fantasy XII's graphics, its what the series is known for and they are some of the best graphics found on a playstation 2, but look and behold, FFXII only deserves a 5 in graphics because Gears of War on the Xbox360 has much and much better graphics, because it can make use of the Xbox360 higher system specs, which Square enix can not. this would be absolutely rediculous. by your standards, every reviewer should rate Wii games a 5 in graphics or less because it does not match up to the Xbox360 games's graphics.
Talk about poorly thought-out analogies. Now you are going cross-platform? You can't seriously believe that every game review, for all platforms, for all years published, are compared against each other? You're being ridiculous. He's comparing WoW's graphics to other contemporary MMO's. That's not an unreasonable comparison. King's Quest had good graphics for its minimum system specs. I'm sure, compared to its contemporaries, it received a high graphics rating. Should it receive a good rating compared to today's games? Of course not.
That is the point the reviewer is making. The original WoW, released in 2004, had good graphics compared to its contemporaries of the day. But BC doesn't improve on those graphics any, and compared to more recent offerings, they don't stack up as well. That is certainly not an unreasonable assertion.
MMO history: EQ1 - 65 DE Wizard DAoC - 50 Dwarf Thane, 50 Dwarf Healer EvE - Amarr, Caldari BShip Pilot CoH - 40 Ice/Ice Blaster, 40 Dark/Regen Scrapper WoW - 60 Undead Priest, 60 Tauren Warrior LoTRO - 30 Hobbit Burglar Currently Playing - Tabula Rasa
Edit: Vanguard just looks plain dead on those shots btw. Might be superior in engine department but they completely forgot to put any kind of life in the characters. They'll do great if they ever add undead tho, they've got zombies down to perfection
Indeed. I would like to say the same about EverQuest 2, good engine, but what they made out of it is not amazing.
I really enjoy the regular columns and behind-the-scenes articles on MMORPGs, which is why I absolutely hate their shallow, slanted reviews that tell you almost nothing about a game and/or expansion. I took the writer of the GW: Nightfall review to task for the same issues - not talking about cool features, not going into specifics (especially about higher end content), and rating rather inconsequential issues like "roleplaying" above the real issues most gamers care about - gameplay, graphics, stability, etc.
While I respect bringing in a writer who has little WOW experience to write the review "with fresh eyes," this writer obviously didn't immerse himself in the expansion. I want to hear the about finer points of how BC has changed the raid dynamic, how PVP has changed, what the new race areas are like, etc. MMORPG should have brought in an expert - preferably someone from one of the main WOW blog sites or a member of a top guild - to partner with Hasani.
Final rant - a score of 7.0 is not a "good" score, it's slightly above crap.
That read like a fair review that gave props to BC where due.
Seriously folks, defending WOW's graphics sounds just a silly as those making excuses for Vanguards bugs ..
Sooner or later you're going to pay the piper that's how this buisness works. Blizz gambled on releasing WOW with dated graphics that run on 3-4 year old systems.
Guess what the gamble paid off with subscriptions...but the sacrifice was in the graphics department.
There are plenty other areas where WOW shines, however graphics aren't one of them...
let it go.
World of Warcraft's graphic were excellent, and to be honnest, they still are, because the ART makes up for the lesser powerful engine. World of Warcraft was the evidence that slapping a fancy engine on a game does not make it have great grapics, and Everquest 2 backs that up as well. You have to take in consideration the system requirements when you judge a game's graphics, as well as its age. Should reviewers give all Nintendo Wii games a bad rating in graphic deparment because it runs on a less powerful system? ofcourse not.
WOW's graphics were never great they were serviceable and that's exactly what Blizz intended for them to be. Blizz decided it was more important to have as many as possible play the game in lou of graphics. Hence the trade off plain and simple.
I don't buy that art excuse either as Lineage II which came before and Guild Wars soon after are examples of great Artistic style.
So again... WOW is a great game in other areas such as fun factor and ease of gameplay but graphics is not one of them.. When it comes to the art of the world, then WoW defenity beats the other 2 games you mentioned. and as I said, graphics should be rated compared to the system requirements, simple as that.
You just don't give up do you GL .It's quite obvious many of you are unable to look at this objectively and that's a shame.
instead of focusing on what WOW actually does well (fun gameplay, excellent UI) you zealots carry on this ridiculous crusade.
Simple and plain...WOW isn't on the level of Lineage II or Guildwars, graphicaly let alone the newer titles.
Realize it, accept it and move on as no MMO currently on the market is the best at everything.
Graphics are rated on graphic quality not some bloody curve.. if you're gonna collect kudos for what you do well then accept the damn hammer dropped on you for what you don't.
Enough with this silliness ....some of you are in worse denial than those Vanguard zealots. Excuse me, but I don't see you "Giving up" in this thread either.
Every review out there rates World of Warcraft as graphical impressive, even with the Burning Crusade expansion. its YOU who should learn to accept, not me. mmorpg.com review is pretty much the only review that gives Burning Crusade such a low graphic score, while all other review sites (Read: Proffesional) give WoW's graphics score high scores. Geez, I wonder who is way off, all those reviewers, or mmorpg.com? I think its pretty obvious. Its rediculous to call me a "Zealot" when your making just as much posts on this subject as I am.
Talk about poorly thought-out analogies. Now you are going cross-platform? You can't seriously believe that every game review, for all platforms, for all years published, are compared against each other? You're being ridiculous. He's comparing WoW's graphics to other contemporary MMO's. That's not an unreasonable comparison. King's Quest had good graphics for its minimum system specs. I'm sure, compared to its contemporaries, it received a high graphics rating. Should it receive a good rating compared to today's games? Of course not.
That is the point the reviewer is making. The original WoW, released in 2004, had good graphics compared to its contemporaries of the day. But BC doesn't improve on those graphics any, and compared to more recent offerings, they don't stack up as well. That is certainly not an unreasonable assertion.
So its completely wrong to compare graphics of games build for a less power game console with the ones build for a more powerfull console, but its completely acceptable to compare the graphics of a game build for a higher specced computer with one build for a lower specced computer? Improving the graphics would increase the system requirements. Blizzard goal was to deliver good graphics while keeping the game avaible to everyone, and they damn well succeeded. Not to mention the Burning Crusade is an EXPANSION, not a whole new World of Warcraft.
The expansion has many elements that seemed to totaly escape the reviewer. I don't expect a review to go into every nook and crany but this was just lazy.
New races, ton's of quests, content for use with the new flying mount, how many new dungeons?, faction driven PvP like Halaa, the arenas and Caverns of time all delivered seamlessly and smooth.
The reviewer fired up his lvl 60 ran to Honor Hold, looked for evidence of a new graphics engine? and started typing.
The graphics are still great, they are "STYLIZED" to look just like the Warcraft World, have great lighting effects and best of all they work, ya that's right, they work, even in heavy fighting.
The ambient sounds in the game are great and the music is as good as any.
Rollplay as in every other rpg is player driven not coded, I play on an rppvp server and am happy with the amount and quality of rp guilds that are around.
I don't miss standing at a crafting station for hours in EQ2, I don't miss nodding off while my ship makes it's 20th jump in Eve, I don't miss the constant changes and scrapping of everything you played for in SWG, but this reviewer totaly missed the Burning Crusades expansion.
Agreed. This review isn't very good at all. It's more like a forum post than a review, to be honest. You can tell the author has tried to be fair and unbiased, but it comes across as unprofessional. The bigger game review sites are examples MMORPG.com should be trying to follow.
With regards to roleplaying in WoW, it's there. It might be different on the US realms, but here Earthen Ring has an amazing community. And roleplaying can be found in many cities and taverns.
I don't know why MMORPG.com staff and it's forum goers in general have something against WoW, it is easily the highest quality game in the genre atm.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
So its completely wrong to compare graphics of games build for a less power game console with the ones build for a more powerfull console, but its completely acceptable to compare the graphics of a game build for a higher specced computer with one build for a lower specced computer?
Yes, absolutely. You are talking about apples and oranges here. All Xbox360 conoles are identical. All Wiis are identical. There's no way a consumer could somehow rig their Wii to have better graphics than an Xbox, so it's silly to try and compare games from different platforms against one another. PCs are another can of worms. You either have to use an average of all PCs as a baseline (which is what the reviewer did) or you apply different standards to different games based on minimum system requirements. The problem with the latter is that is allows any game to have "good" graphics if they just lower the minimum system requirements enough. But what does that say about the quality of the actual end-product? So your game has lousy graphics? Just say the minimum system reqs are a P3 with 64MB of RAM and voila! Give that sucker a 10!
Improving the graphics would increase the system requirements. Blizzard goal was to deliver good graphics while keeping the game avaible to everyone, and they damn well succeeded.
Yes, they did! They delivered GOOD graphics, not GREAT graphics. That is the tradeoff you have to make when you lower your system specs! WoW would not have the subscriber base it has if has the system reqs of VG, but that doesn't mean you give them an easy high mark on graphics for making a good business decision. Those are two totally different categories. I have already stated that I thought a 5 was too harsh anyway, I would've given them a 6-7. But certainly not an 8 or higher, not compared to what is available today.
Not to mention the Burning Crusade is an EXPANSION, not a whole new World of Warcraft
An expansion that did nothing to improve graphical quality over the initial 2004 release. That is the point that the author is making, and is apparently lost on most of the readers here. Since the expansion added nothing graphically, what we are really comparing here are the original 2004 graphics verus 2007 MMO's.
My God, I'm not arguing that WoW sucks or BC is garbage or anything. Some of you guys seem to think that any criticism of WoW, regardless of whether or not it has merit, is blasphemy against the almighty Blizzard. WoW is a good game, in fact I still think overall it may be the best MMO on the market. But that does NOT mean it gets an automatic 10 in every category, and does everything better than every MMO out there! I think some of you need to see past your Blizzard brand loyalty and realize this.
MMO history: EQ1 - 65 DE Wizard DAoC - 50 Dwarf Thane, 50 Dwarf Healer EvE - Amarr, Caldari BShip Pilot CoH - 40 Ice/Ice Blaster, 40 Dark/Regen Scrapper WoW - 60 Undead Priest, 60 Tauren Warrior LoTRO - 30 Hobbit Burglar Currently Playing - Tabula Rasa
So its completely wrong to compare graphics of games build for a less power game console with the ones build for a more powerfull console, but its completely acceptable to compare the graphics of a game build for a higher specced computer with one build for a lower specced computer?
Yes, absolutely. You are talking about apples and oranges here. All Xbox360 conoles are identical. All Wiis are identical. There's no way a consumer could somehow rig their Wii to have better graphics than an Xbox, so it's silly to try and compare games from different platforms against one another. PCs are another can of worms. You either have to use an average of all PCs as a baseline (which is what the reviewer did) or you apply different standards to different games based on minimum system requirements. The problem with the latter is that is allows any game to have "good" graphics if they just lower the minimum system requirements enough. But what does that say about the quality of the actual end-product? So your game has lousy graphics? Just say the minimum system reqs are a P3 with 64MB of RAM and voila! Give that sucker a 10!
It seems that you completely failed to see my point. If a game is BUILD for a low spec computer, then how is it fair to compare it to, say, a game like Vanguard, which is aimed for a high end computer? Its exactly the same thing as a game aiming for a Wii platform, while others are aiming for an Xbox360. Blizzard could easily create graphics even much better then Vanguard if they wanted to, but that would mean less players would be able to actually play the game. Blizzard created a wonderfull looking game with low system requirements, and THATS impressive. Also you can't just say "well, we will lower the system requirements! HAH!", because you have to judge the graphics COMPARED to the system requirements.
Improving the graphics would increase the system requirements. Blizzard goal was to deliver good graphics while keeping the game avaible to everyone, and they damn well succeeded.
Yes, they did! They delivered GOOD graphics, not GREAT graphics. That is the tradeoff you have to make when you lower your system specs! WoW would not have the subscriber base it has if has the system reqs of VG, but that doesn't mean you give them an easy high mark on graphics for making a good business decision. Those are two totally different categories. I have already stated that I thought a 5 was too harsh anyway, I would've given them a 6-7. But certainly not an 8 or higher, not compared to what is available today.
Not to mention the Burning Crusade is an EXPANSION, not a whole new World of Warcraft
An expansion that did nothing to improve graphical quality over the initial 2004 release. That is the point that the author is making, and is apparently lost on most of the readers here. Since the expansion added nothing graphically, what we are really comparing here are the original 2004 graphics verus 2007 MMO's.
My God, I'm not arguing that WoW sucks or BC is garbage or anything. Some of you guys seem to think that any criticism of WoW, regardless of whether or not it has merit, is blasphemy against the almighty Blizzard. WoW is a good game, in fact I still think overall it may be the best MMO on the market. But that does NOT mean it gets an automatic 10 in every category, and does everything better than every MMO out there! I think some of you need to see past your Blizzard brand loyalty and realize this.
I actually think the real problem here is that you just HAVE to try and point out something that WoW does not do well, and I disagree with the point your making. an Expansion doesn't have to add extra graphics, few expansions do. Because that would mean a player is able to buy WoW, but not the expansion, because of the increased system requirements.
This points up the danger of confusing graphics engines with graphics excellence.
Vanguard has extremely fancy graphics and still looks butt ugly to me. Toons are wax androids with exquisitely rendered locks of hair that stick straight through a wall or a broadsword - very noticeably. Each feature on the lifeless dummy is infinitely adjustable, except the one feature that matters - looking alive. Microscopically detailed wooden walls flicker in and out of existence several times per second, because all that stuff is handled down in the driver, and the driver doesn't have an art director. It was the same with D&L by the way, and somewhat the same in EQ2 except under ideal lighting. All this is on a high end system - it's not the requirements.
Meanwhile there's WoW plugging along with what we are endlessly reminded is 2004 graphics. Yes, every graphics programmer knows they took shortcuts and "cheat" with canned animations and limited toon customization etc, for the same of performance and artistic consistency. And they're deliberately putting you in a cartoon world - Dr. Seuss meets Hagar the Horrible - instead of facing the tiresome challenge of making perfectly realistic cranberry bogs and Viking halls and whatnot. But that's their artistic call and they meet it brilliantly.
I suspect that somewhere down the line, Blizzard really will revamp the graphics, probably with an eye towards making those gorgeously rendered trailers more like the real game. But I do not think they will do it until they can guarantee that art direction still CONTROLS the final effect. Certainly the current crop of engines and games are mostly discouraging examples.
Dang WoW rocket team beats all others!!!!1 2 3......................................................................
Players should always remember gaming is very HARD work and Players should step away from activities for a time to rub lips with your wife and kids. But remember keep it short as prolonged attention my encourage longer sessions.
Good Review but as I believe some other people have stated, I think the game honestly got better rating than it should have.
As the article said, the graphics system has had nothing change. New models are not many, and even with the new models, much like the original you still find yourself running into everything over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... See what I'm getting at? When you enter regions, you fight about a group of 5 different kinds of creatures all which pretty much look the same. Obviously they can't completely give every individual mob a unique model, that would kill the servers and our machines. However, with the already low graphics quality overall (built to tend to those who have weak machines) it makes things even uglier to go into most regions and find but 5 creatures in there worth fighting, and the fight never changes.
I do agree with the author on role play... There isn't any... After trying over TEN different RP and RPPvP Servers alike ,believe me, there is very little RPing going on. They basically are PvE servers, or normal as the client will show them, they just have a different label. It was very disappointing that Blizzard does not appear to enforce rules very well on the RP Servers, and if they do but require the public to report problems on RP Servers, there are too many idiots to report.
PvP, like stated... You're not binding together and besides a bunch of NPCs that run around yelling "FIGHT THE BURNING LEGION!" and when you walk in the door, you don't see much Burning Legion outside of the instances. They don't exactly appear to be at war. Neutral Cities don't do much either, especially not for binding together. Blizzard recently released that rooftop camping is permitted in Outlands, unlike in cities like Booty Bay. Therefore, it is very popular that level 70 players with flying mounts fly to locations where the guards can't get them and then have fun picking you off trying to turn in quests.
The World PvP System is VERY unrealistic. At least with the Civilians and Dishonor Kills gone you can actually pvp freely, but that doesn't do much good since the only encouragements to PvP are...well...none... Nothing new with the way Battlegrounds work, and capturing a point in the Outland Zones give you a small buff or some other very minuscule benefits if you control everything. Not worth your time to go out of your way to do.
Looking at it as 'more hours of gaming,' you get more of the same thing you did levels 1-60. There are not many differences in what you'll do in outland than what you did before. Go kill X of this, Go gather me this, I need this to finish making a potion, go find this person, blah blah blah, we've done it before.
For what I'd personally expect from Blizzard this game would match the rating it received. In the aspects of MMORPG's in general, the expansion would merely get a 5/10 from me.
im sorry but i feel your review is not up to par , ive been playing htis game fore over 2 years now and , the only reson that keeps me playing is the friends , blizzard has become a large reacist in regards to the races in the game, they give all the best features and race abilitys to the aliance , ie night elf shadow meld.. this skill alows any night elf to stealth , no movement mind you but when a night elf hunter shadow melds and doesnt come out of it untill the aimed shot goes off , kills what ever mage in a hit then shadow melds to do it again, but its not just hunters , its any NE class.
if your on aliance you know it is beyond easy to get the ony quest done for the horde takes a very very long and painful set of quests that take you all over the world and back, i saw one post about pvp honor and dishonor that has been removed thank god for that , that really ruined pvp. But now comes the new BG eye of the storm , cool lay out but again broken, they allow the ppl with the most to leave the starter area long before the other team, i have yet to be in one where the horde was able to leave first , might just be our pvp bracket but who knows.
now lets compare the two new races and the classes they can be
Enchanting skill increased by 10. ( look out now a better chanter by 10 points)
Arcane Torrent - active - (Hunters/Paladins/Mages/Priests/Warlocks only)
Silences all enemies within 8 yards for 2 sec. In addition, you gain 5 + 1/Level Mana restored per Mana Tap charge currently affecting you - Instant - 2 min cooldown. ( this does not give enough mana at higher lvls )
Arcane Torrent - active - (Rogue only)
Silences all enemies within 8 yards for 2 sec. In addition, you gain 10 Energy for each Mana Tap charge currently affecting you - Instant - 2 min cooldown. ( paladin bubles removes this instantly)
Magic Resistance - passive
All resistances increased by 5.
Mana Tap - active
Reduces target's mana by 51 and charges you with Arcane energy for 10 min. This effect stacks up to 3 times. Amount of mana reduced is 50 + 1/Level - 30 yd range - Instant - 30 sec cooldown. (so if this is 50 +1 extra point a lvl then at lvl 70 the total mana drain 120 mana wich is nothing to someone with 10k mana with a 30 sec cool down makes this pointless)
Jewelcrafting skill increased by 5. ( wow whoopty doo)
Gift of the Naaru - active
Heals the target 50 + 15/Level over 15 sec - 40 yd range - 1.5 sec cast - 3 min cooldown.( 50 +15 a lvl , at lvl 70 should be around 1050 hot ) why are they allowed to be warriors?
Increases chance to hit by 1% for you and all party members within 30 yards. ( ditto)
Shadow Resistance - passive
Shadow Resistance increased by 10.
i have asked on the wow forums many times about this along with other ppl and what is blizzards response DELETE! no comments nothing , just get rid of the post before others question the logic of blizzard . now that my ranting is done on that part back to the review.....
fun : crafting is not fun running around trying to find nodes to mine or herb or kill endless beasts for leather , farm cloth to make a belt that no one wants to buy so you disenchant it and lose out on gold sinc every one complains how much things cost, and blizzard makes it harder and harder to make it on your own. there is nothing in the game that can keep a hard core player playing this for another year 6 months maybe
Value: 40$ was not worth it what so ever this should have been a free upgrade, i have played many games that gave free upgrades such as this, the 100s of hrs of new stuff false with in the first week i was able to completely clear every quest that was soloable , they do not have a live quest team wich they need very badly , there is nothing new ever added each month just nerf this and nerf that
customer service: has become automated in game so much that they just spam premade comments to you and then do nothing to help what so ever, they made promises to have player houseing way back when the game was being advertised its been 2 years and a new expan where the hell is the houses! at least where is guild houses its not hard just instance them too real easy ,
everything else was on the mark except one thing you have to play this more then a month to get a real feel for it and to hear what the players have to say , cant just go out on a date once then marry the girl she could be a psycho killer or something so plz next time take more then a month to review a large game like this and talk ot the players on both sides to hear how they feel they are being treated by blizzard .. oh and if you think this is going to help them reblance the game , first they should stop playing it them selfs , since 90% of the company is aliance, to remove the biastness that comes from thosew with power to change the outcomes they dont like.......( hopefully you guys wont delete this like blizzard would)
Here comes my two cents worth. Personally, the expansion for me was simply ok, but nothing was going to impress me after a two year wait regardless of what game it is. I waited over a year to get into the closed beta with my Blizzcon key, and within 2 weeks I was gone. Looking back, I should have kept it simply for the free play. There was nothing earth shattering about the expansion. The best part for me as a level 56 at the time was that there was no level requirement to enter Outland during the beta and I was returning after a long layoff. People have long argued that no expansion for two years was offset by constant free updates, although they are all pvp related and I detest pvp (then again WoWs PVE servers are NOT PVE servers as anyone can attack you if you make the wrong move with the opposite faction). But every other game puts out free updates on a constant mind numbing basis and they still manage to crank out good expansions timely also. I think due to the amount of popularity WoW has experienced and the fact that people still play regardless, it actually makes them lazy. This is pretty evident by the constant PVP only updates that can be cranked out in a week with no effort. Also, people are willing to wait 2 years and then pay full new game price of $50 for an expansion with no free time added so for Blizzard, why bother doing anything? They are meeting their company objective by making as much money as they can.
Also, you have to realize by WoW hitting the main stream, it's more of a game everyone plays, which makes it less of a dedicated gamer's challenge. You have to make it easier to play for the moms, grandparents and small children that now play it. If you've looked at the voting on the front page of mmorpg, it's not there in the top games for a reason. From a gamers viewpoint, you accomplish nothing by reaching 70 because everyone is at level 70 with very little effort. This is probably why it's nothing new or expected for such a long wait. Still no meaningful quests and zero storyline.
The graphics argument is rediculous. It's their style, and that's pretty much it. It's enjoyable and a break from the standard fare out there - so we can quit bashing them on that. I still play EQ1 and 2 and FFXI regularly and am happy with them. I personally dont have any problems with frame rates, and EQ2 does have the best graphics out there, especially with the release of the SOGA models. EQ2 and FFXI have breathtaking atmospheric effects and you can feel the afternoon sun and the warm summer nights just by looking at the graphics. Quit being cheap and go spend $80 at newegg and get an Athlon 64 and motherboard combo and that lag problem will be gone.
So anyway, the expansion for me is a disappointment, WoW was a game I played constantly for over a year and it got me through some very difficult personal times with the terminal illness of someone close to me and let me escape. I even paid over a hundred bucks to go to Blizzcon. It was very fun, but the more popular it became, it became more of a nuisance. I honestly like a challenge and new content every once in a while. I like expansions, but not waiting for 2 years and then for that one month having to fork out $75 for "an expansion" and one month of play. For Blizzard it works and people are willing to give them lots of money and then wait and pay full new game price for the next expansion and I won't do it anymore; they are basically taking advantage of their fanbase. So end result, a flop for me, just because it's the most popular among the general public doesnt make it the best.
Fair review, however my two cents on customer support especially for Europe is CRAP.
From personal experience. I am thinking of closing both my accounts on the American and European versions mainly because of what was done to my husband's account.
After buying the most praised Collector's edition he was banned from playing the game within 1 month of activation. The email sent to him said that after investigation on a particular date (note a date in which he logged in for about 5 mins, I play more than him!) he was found using software that gave him an advantage; what software? We checked everything out to see if any add-ons were a violation of the EULA before using them (Note he is a Computer Engineer so he is well aware of what add-on would be interacting with the game environment unfairly). The standard COSMOS which almost EVERYBODY uses was the only thing being used; Is COSMOS now banned from the accepted WOW add-ons; then many WOW customers accounts should be closed permanently!
Customer service didn't even contact him before the closure with a warning they just closed his account permanently. They didn't even respond when we emailed them asking about it. Nada, zilch, zero.
I find this to be poor and quite a rip off. Especially since on the American servers he has been a faithful, long playing customer since inception of the game. In fact, he recruited many of his buddies who became fast addicted. I am quite sure that there was no violation and quite sure that the matter was not investigated and handled properly by WOW staff.
So my Two cents just like in SOE Starwars Galaxies. Poor customer service, not listening/ interacting with your customers properly will be the death of WOW.
I thought they paid more attention to detail. Maybe not a graphic change but enhance the detail. That can go far sometimes.
WoW's graphics are straight texture-on-polygon, no bump mapping or any of that stuff. If you want more detail, you need bigger textures. They basically can't get more detailed without a new engine - unless they want to try and sell a 20 gig game that takes 2GB of ram just to play. That's the bind older games are in right now.
I thought they paid more attention to detail. Maybe not a graphic change but enhance the detail. That can go far sometimes.
WoW's graphics are straight texture-on-polygon, no bump mapping or any of that stuff. If you want more detail, you need bigger textures. They basically can't get more detailed without a new engine - unless they want to try and sell a 20 gig game that takes 2GB of ram just to play. That's the bind older games are in right now. Seeing as they already have high level shaders enabled, it'd be a major chore to do an Everquest and add bump mapping and shadows, now, wouldn't it? Also, a bit more detail on the world models, polygonal detail, that is, wouldn't go astray.
Either way, my real issue with this review is that I could've written it without playing the game, and it would've been better written and probably more descriptive, which leads me to think that the author didn't play the game and doesn't care about writing reviews.
Regardless of the limitations of the reviewer, I actually have played the whole thing, and for me, the biggest weakness is in the middle. You have beautiful new low-end content and beautiful new high-end content, but from 20 to 60 it's mostly the same old game. That's a little problematic for me. I would have preferred new lands and new quest paths right through. Otherwise I love BC.
Comments
WOW's graphics were never great they were serviceable and that's exactly what Blizz intended for them to be. Blizz decided it was more important to have as many as possible play the game in lou of graphics. Hence the trade off plain and simple.
I don't buy that art excuse either as Lineage II which came before and Guild Wars soon after are examples of great Artistic style.
So again... WOW is a great game in other areas such as fun factor and ease of gameplay but graphics is not one of them.. When it comes to the art of the world, then WoW defenity beats the other 2 games you mentioned. and as I said, graphics should be rated compared to the system requirements, simple as that.
You just don't give up do you GL .It's quite obvious many of you are unable to look at this objectively and that's a shame.
instead of focusing on what WOW actually does well (fun gameplay, excellent UI) you zealots carry on this ridiculous crusade.
Simple and plain...WOW isn't on the level of Lineage II or Guildwars, graphicaly let alone the newer titles.
Realize it, accept it and move on as no MMO currently on the market is the best at everything.
Graphics are rated on graphic quality not some bloody curve.. if you're gonna collect kudos for what you do well then accept the damn hammer dropped on you for what you don't.
Enough with this silliness ....some of you are in worse denial than those Vanguard zealots.
Dutchess Zarraa Voltayre
Reborn/Zero Sum/Ancient Legacy/Jagged Legion/Feared/Nuke & Pave.
The main issue I have with it, is that the reviewer harps on that the game is "fun" and the "fun score" is by far the most important thing to look at. Yet, looking through the review, I don't feel informed as to why it's fun. It just is, is it? I should go down to the store and buy a game, just because you wrote a nine on a "fun-o-metre?" A good video game review will tell me what I'll experience playing the game, things that will likely frustrate me, things that I'll find fun. It will give me an overview of the game experience. Honestly, all I've played of the game is looking over a friend's shoulder for half an hour and playing for five minutes while he was cooking, and I could have come to all the same conclusions, apart from the random and arbitary "fun score." Examples, what are the alternate paths of levelling? Did you just read it off the World of Warcraft site and decide to include it? Are the quests diverse enough for it to make a difference whether I do them again or not? I'm sorry, but after reading your review, I have no idea what the game plays like, and thus, I regard this as a failure of reviewing.
Those two issues, coupled with a bunch of grammatical errors, example is the use of number characters incorrectly, make this review far from professional grade.
Talk about poorly thought-out analogies. Now you are going cross-platform? You can't seriously believe that every game review, for all platforms, for all years published, are compared against each other? You're being ridiculous. He's comparing WoW's graphics to other contemporary MMO's. That's not an unreasonable comparison. King's Quest had good graphics for its minimum system specs. I'm sure, compared to its contemporaries, it received a high graphics rating. Should it receive a good rating compared to today's games? Of course not.
That is the point the reviewer is making. The original WoW, released in 2004, had good graphics compared to its contemporaries of the day. But BC doesn't improve on those graphics any, and compared to more recent offerings, they don't stack up as well. That is certainly not an unreasonable assertion.
MMO history:
EQ1 - 65 DE Wizard
DAoC - 50 Dwarf Thane, 50 Dwarf Healer
EvE - Amarr, Caldari BShip Pilot
CoH - 40 Ice/Ice Blaster, 40 Dark/Regen Scrapper
WoW - 60 Undead Priest, 60 Tauren Warrior
LoTRO - 30 Hobbit Burglar
Currently Playing - Tabula Rasa
Here are 2 video reviews of TBC,
uk.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/worldofwarcraftexp1/review.html
www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1423/World_of_Warcraft_The_Burning_Crusade_.html
Make your mind up.
I really enjoy the regular columns and behind-the-scenes articles on MMORPGs, which is why I absolutely hate their shallow, slanted reviews that tell you almost nothing about a game and/or expansion. I took the writer of the GW: Nightfall review to task for the same issues - not talking about cool features, not going into specifics (especially about higher end content), and rating rather inconsequential issues like "roleplaying" above the real issues most gamers care about - gameplay, graphics, stability, etc.
While I respect bringing in a writer who has little WOW experience to write the review "with fresh eyes," this writer obviously didn't immerse himself in the expansion. I want to hear the about finer points of how BC has changed the raid dynamic, how PVP has changed, what the new race areas are like, etc. MMORPG should have brought in an expert - preferably someone from one of the main WOW blog sites or a member of a top guild - to partner with Hasani.
Final rant - a score of 7.0 is not a "good" score, it's slightly above crap.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
WOW's graphics were never great they were serviceable and that's exactly what Blizz intended for them to be. Blizz decided it was more important to have as many as possible play the game in lou of graphics. Hence the trade off plain and simple.
I don't buy that art excuse either as Lineage II which came before and Guild Wars soon after are examples of great Artistic style.
So again... WOW is a great game in other areas such as fun factor and ease of gameplay but graphics is not one of them.. When it comes to the art of the world, then WoW defenity beats the other 2 games you mentioned. and as I said, graphics should be rated compared to the system requirements, simple as that.
You just don't give up do you GL .It's quite obvious many of you are unable to look at this objectively and that's a shame.
instead of focusing on what WOW actually does well (fun gameplay, excellent UI) you zealots carry on this ridiculous crusade.
Simple and plain...WOW isn't on the level of Lineage II or Guildwars, graphicaly let alone the newer titles.
Realize it, accept it and move on as no MMO currently on the market is the best at everything.
Graphics are rated on graphic quality not some bloody curve.. if you're gonna collect kudos for what you do well then accept the damn hammer dropped on you for what you don't.
Enough with this silliness ....some of you are in worse denial than those Vanguard zealots. Excuse me, but I don't see you "Giving up" in this thread either.
Every review out there rates World of Warcraft as graphical impressive, even with the Burning Crusade expansion. its YOU who should learn to accept, not me. mmorpg.com review is pretty much the only review that gives Burning Crusade such a low graphic score, while all other review sites (Read: Proffesional) give WoW's graphics score high scores. Geez, I wonder who is way off, all those reviewers, or mmorpg.com? I think its pretty obvious. Its rediculous to call me a "Zealot" when your making just as much posts on this subject as I am.
Talk about poorly thought-out analogies. Now you are going cross-platform? You can't seriously believe that every game review, for all platforms, for all years published, are compared against each other? You're being ridiculous. He's comparing WoW's graphics to other contemporary MMO's. That's not an unreasonable comparison. King's Quest had good graphics for its minimum system specs. I'm sure, compared to its contemporaries, it received a high graphics rating. Should it receive a good rating compared to today's games? Of course not.
That is the point the reviewer is making. The original WoW, released in 2004, had good graphics compared to its contemporaries of the day. But BC doesn't improve on those graphics any, and compared to more recent offerings, they don't stack up as well. That is certainly not an unreasonable assertion.
So its completely wrong to compare graphics of games build for a less power game console with the ones build for a more powerfull console, but its completely acceptable to compare the graphics of a game build for a higher specced computer with one build for a lower specced computer? Improving the graphics would increase the system requirements. Blizzard goal was to deliver good graphics while keeping the game avaible to everyone, and they damn well succeeded. Not to mention the Burning Crusade is an EXPANSION, not a whole new World of Warcraft.
This review is lousey.
The expansion has many elements that seemed to totaly escape the reviewer. I don't expect a review to go into every nook and crany but this was just lazy.
New races, ton's of quests, content for use with the new flying mount, how many new dungeons?, faction driven PvP like Halaa, the arenas and Caverns of time all delivered seamlessly and smooth.
The reviewer fired up his lvl 60 ran to Honor Hold, looked for evidence of a new graphics engine? and started typing.
The graphics are still great, they are "STYLIZED" to look just like the Warcraft World, have great lighting effects and best of all they work, ya that's right, they work, even in heavy fighting.
The ambient sounds in the game are great and the music is as good as any.
Rollplay as in every other rpg is player driven not coded, I play on an rppvp server and am happy with the amount and quality of rp guilds that are around.
I don't miss standing at a crafting station for hours in EQ2, I don't miss nodding off while my ship makes it's 20th jump in Eve, I don't miss the constant changes and scrapping of everything you played for in SWG, but this reviewer totaly missed the Burning Crusades expansion.
With regards to roleplaying in WoW, it's there. It might be different on the US realms, but here Earthen Ring has an amazing community. And roleplaying can be found in many cities and taverns.
I don't know why MMORPG.com staff and it's forum goers in general have something against WoW, it is easily the highest quality game in the genre atm.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Yes, absolutely. You are talking about apples and oranges here. All Xbox360 conoles are identical. All Wiis are identical. There's no way a consumer could somehow rig their Wii to have better graphics than an Xbox, so it's silly to try and compare games from different platforms against one another. PCs are another can of worms. You either have to use an average of all PCs as a baseline (which is what the reviewer did) or you apply different standards to different games based on minimum system requirements. The problem with the latter is that is allows any game to have "good" graphics if they just lower the minimum system requirements enough. But what does that say about the quality of the actual end-product? So your game has lousy graphics? Just say the minimum system reqs are a P3 with 64MB of RAM and voila! Give that sucker a 10!
Yes, they did! They delivered GOOD graphics, not GREAT graphics. That is the tradeoff you have to make when you lower your system specs! WoW would not have the subscriber base it has if has the system reqs of VG, but that doesn't mean you give them an easy high mark on graphics for making a good business decision. Those are two totally different categories. I have already stated that I thought a 5 was too harsh anyway, I would've given them a 6-7. But certainly not an 8 or higher, not compared to what is available today.
An expansion that did nothing to improve graphical quality over the initial 2004 release. That is the point that the author is making, and is apparently lost on most of the readers here. Since the expansion added nothing graphically, what we are really comparing here are the original 2004 graphics verus 2007 MMO's.
My God, I'm not arguing that WoW sucks or BC is garbage or anything. Some of you guys seem to think that any criticism of WoW, regardless of whether or not it has merit, is blasphemy against the almighty Blizzard. WoW is a good game, in fact I still think overall it may be the best MMO on the market. But that does NOT mean it gets an automatic 10 in every category, and does everything better than every MMO out there! I think some of you need to see past your Blizzard brand loyalty and realize this.
MMO history:
EQ1 - 65 DE Wizard
DAoC - 50 Dwarf Thane, 50 Dwarf Healer
EvE - Amarr, Caldari BShip Pilot
CoH - 40 Ice/Ice Blaster, 40 Dark/Regen Scrapper
WoW - 60 Undead Priest, 60 Tauren Warrior
LoTRO - 30 Hobbit Burglar
Currently Playing - Tabula Rasa
Yes, absolutely. You are talking about apples and oranges here. All Xbox360 conoles are identical. All Wiis are identical. There's no way a consumer could somehow rig their Wii to have better graphics than an Xbox, so it's silly to try and compare games from different platforms against one another. PCs are another can of worms. You either have to use an average of all PCs as a baseline (which is what the reviewer did) or you apply different standards to different games based on minimum system requirements. The problem with the latter is that is allows any game to have "good" graphics if they just lower the minimum system requirements enough. But what does that say about the quality of the actual end-product? So your game has lousy graphics? Just say the minimum system reqs are a P3 with 64MB of RAM and voila! Give that sucker a 10!
It seems that you completely failed to see my point. If a game is BUILD for a low spec computer, then how is it fair to compare it to, say, a game like Vanguard, which is aimed for a high end computer? Its exactly the same thing as a game aiming for a Wii platform, while others are aiming for an Xbox360. Blizzard could easily create graphics even much better then Vanguard if they wanted to, but that would mean less players would be able to actually play the game. Blizzard created a wonderfull looking game with low system requirements, and THATS impressive. Also you can't just say "well, we will lower the system requirements! HAH!", because you have to judge the graphics COMPARED to the system requirements.
Yes, they did! They delivered GOOD graphics, not GREAT graphics. That is the tradeoff you have to make when you lower your system specs! WoW would not have the subscriber base it has if has the system reqs of VG, but that doesn't mean you give them an easy high mark on graphics for making a good business decision. Those are two totally different categories. I have already stated that I thought a 5 was too harsh anyway, I would've given them a 6-7. But certainly not an 8 or higher, not compared to what is available today.
An expansion that did nothing to improve graphical quality over the initial 2004 release. That is the point that the author is making, and is apparently lost on most of the readers here. Since the expansion added nothing graphically, what we are really comparing here are the original 2004 graphics verus 2007 MMO's.
My God, I'm not arguing that WoW sucks or BC is garbage or anything. Some of you guys seem to think that any criticism of WoW, regardless of whether or not it has merit, is blasphemy against the almighty Blizzard. WoW is a good game, in fact I still think overall it may be the best MMO on the market. But that does NOT mean it gets an automatic 10 in every category, and does everything better than every MMO out there! I think some of you need to see past your Blizzard brand loyalty and realize this.
I actually think the real problem here is that you just HAVE to try and point out something that WoW does not do well, and I disagree with the point your making. an Expansion doesn't have to add extra graphics, few expansions do. Because that would mean a player is able to buy WoW, but not the expansion, because of the increased system requirements.
It seems we will have to agree to disagree.
Meanwhile there's WoW plugging along with what we are endlessly reminded is 2004 graphics. Yes, every graphics programmer knows they took shortcuts and "cheat" with canned animations and limited toon customization etc, for the same of performance and artistic consistency. And they're deliberately putting you in a cartoon world - Dr. Seuss meets Hagar the Horrible - instead of facing the tiresome challenge of making perfectly realistic cranberry bogs and Viking halls and whatnot. But that's their artistic call and they meet it brilliantly.
Players should always remember gaming is very HARD work and Players should step away from activities for a time to rub lips with your wife and kids. But remember keep it short as prolonged attention my encourage longer sessions.
As the article said, the graphics system has had nothing change. New models are not many, and even with the new models, much like the original you still find yourself running into everything over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... See what I'm getting at? When you enter regions, you fight about a group of 5 different kinds of creatures all which pretty much look the same. Obviously they can't completely give every individual mob a unique model, that would kill the servers and our machines. However, with the already low graphics quality overall (built to tend to those who have weak machines) it makes things even uglier to go into most regions and find but 5 creatures in there worth fighting, and the fight never changes.
I do agree with the author on role play... There isn't any... After trying over TEN different RP and RPPvP Servers alike ,believe me, there is very little RPing going on. They basically are PvE servers, or normal as the client will show them, they just have a different label. It was very disappointing that Blizzard does not appear to enforce rules very well on the RP Servers, and if they do but require the public to report problems on RP Servers, there are too many idiots to report.
PvP, like stated... You're not binding together and besides a bunch of NPCs that run around yelling "FIGHT THE BURNING LEGION!" and when you walk in the door, you don't see much Burning Legion outside of the instances. They don't exactly appear to be at war. Neutral Cities don't do much either, especially not for binding together. Blizzard recently released that rooftop camping is permitted in Outlands, unlike in cities like Booty Bay. Therefore, it is very popular that level 70 players with flying mounts fly to locations where the guards can't get them and then have fun picking you off trying to turn in quests.
The World PvP System is VERY unrealistic. At least with the Civilians and Dishonor Kills gone you can actually pvp freely, but that doesn't do much good since the only encouragements to PvP are...well...none... Nothing new with the way Battlegrounds work, and capturing a point in the Outland Zones give you a small buff or some other very minuscule benefits if you control everything. Not worth your time to go out of your way to do.
Looking at it as 'more hours of gaming,' you get more of the same thing you did levels 1-60. There are not many differences in what you'll do in outland than what you did before. Go kill X of this, Go gather me this, I need this to finish making a potion, go find this person, blah blah blah, we've done it before.
For what I'd personally expect from Blizzard this game would match the rating it received. In the aspects of MMORPG's in general, the expansion would merely get a 5/10 from me.
BC was given high marks were deserved (fun factor, value, performance) and was given low scores were justified (graphics.)
Dutchess Zarraa Voltayre
Reborn/Zero Sum/Ancient Legacy/Jagged Legion/Feared/Nuke & Pave.
if your on aliance you know it is beyond easy to get the ony quest done for the horde takes a very very long and painful set of quests that take you all over the world and back, i saw one post about pvp honor and dishonor that has been removed thank god for that , that really ruined pvp. But now comes the new BG eye of the storm , cool lay out but again broken, they allow the ppl with the most to leave the starter area long before the other team, i have yet to be in one where the horde was able to leave first , might just be our pvp bracket but who knows.
now lets compare the two new races and the classes they can be
Blood Elf Hunter, Mage, Paladin, Priest, Rogue, Warlock
i have asked on the wow forums many times about this along with other ppl and what is blizzards response DELETE! no comments nothing , just get rid of the post before others question the logic of blizzard . now that my ranting is done on that part back to the review.....
fun : crafting is not fun running around trying to find nodes to mine or herb or kill endless beasts for leather , farm cloth to make a belt that no one wants to buy so you disenchant it and lose out on gold sinc every one complains how much things cost, and blizzard makes it harder and harder to make it on your own. there is nothing in the game that can keep a hard core player playing this for another year 6 months maybe
Value: 40$ was not worth it what so ever this should have been a free upgrade, i have played many games that gave free upgrades such as this, the 100s of hrs of new stuff false with in the first week i was able to completely clear every quest that was soloable , they do not have a live quest team wich they need very badly , there is nothing new ever added each month just nerf this and nerf that
customer service: has become automated in game so much that they just spam premade comments to you and then do nothing to help what so ever, they made promises to have player houseing way back when the game was being advertised its been 2 years and a new expan where the hell is the houses! at least where is guild houses its not hard just instance them too real easy ,
everything else was on the mark except one thing you have to play this more then a month to get a real feel for it and to hear what the players have to say , cant just go out on a date once then marry the girl she could be a psycho killer or something so plz next time take more then a month to review a large game like this and talk ot the players on both sides to hear how they feel they are being treated by blizzard .. oh and if you think this is going to help them reblance the game , first they should stop playing it them selfs , since 90% of the company is aliance, to remove the biastness that comes from thosew with power to change the outcomes they dont like.......( hopefully you guys wont delete this like blizzard would)
Also, you have to realize by WoW hitting the main stream, it's more of a game everyone plays, which makes it less of a dedicated gamer's challenge. You have to make it easier to play for the moms, grandparents and small children that now play it. If you've looked at the voting on the front page of mmorpg, it's not there in the top games for a reason. From a gamers viewpoint, you accomplish nothing by reaching 70 because everyone is at level 70 with very little effort. This is probably why it's nothing new or expected for such a long wait. Still no meaningful quests and zero storyline.
The graphics argument is rediculous. It's their style, and that's pretty much it. It's enjoyable and a break from the standard fare out there - so we can quit bashing them on that. I still play EQ1 and 2 and FFXI regularly and am happy with them. I personally dont have any problems with frame rates, and EQ2 does have the best graphics out there, especially with the release of the SOGA models. EQ2 and FFXI have breathtaking atmospheric effects and you can feel the afternoon sun and the warm summer nights just by looking at the graphics. Quit being cheap and go spend $80 at newegg and get an Athlon 64 and motherboard combo and that lag problem will be gone.
So anyway, the expansion for me is a disappointment, WoW was a game I played constantly for over a year and it got me through some very difficult personal times with the terminal illness of someone close to me and let me escape. I even paid over a hundred bucks to go to Blizzcon. It was very fun, but the more popular it became, it became more of a nuisance. I honestly like a challenge and new content every once in a while. I like expansions, but not waiting for 2 years and then for that one month having to fork out $75 for "an expansion" and one month of play. For Blizzard it works and people are willing to give them lots of money and then wait and pay full new game price for the next expansion and I won't do it anymore; they are basically taking advantage of their fanbase. So end result, a flop for me, just because it's the most popular among the general public doesnt make it the best.
From personal experience. I am thinking of closing both my accounts on the American and European versions mainly because of what was done to my husband's account.
After buying the most praised Collector's edition he was banned from playing the game within 1 month of activation. The email sent to him said that after investigation on a particular date (note a date in which he logged in for about 5 mins, I play more than him!) he was found using software that gave him an advantage; what software? We checked everything out to see if any add-ons were a violation of the EULA before using them (Note he is a Computer Engineer so he is well aware of what add-on would be interacting with the game environment unfairly). The standard COSMOS which almost EVERYBODY uses was the only thing being used; Is COSMOS now banned from the accepted WOW add-ons; then many WOW customers accounts should be closed permanently!
Customer service didn't even contact him before the closure with a warning they just closed his account permanently. They didn't even respond when we emailed them asking about it. Nada, zilch, zero.
I find this to be poor and quite a rip off. Especially since on the American servers he has been a faithful, long playing customer since inception of the game. In fact, he recruited many of his buddies who became fast addicted. I am quite sure that there was no violation and quite sure that the matter was not investigated and handled properly by WOW staff.
So my Two cents just like in SOE Starwars Galaxies. Poor customer service, not listening/ interacting with your customers properly will be the death of WOW.
The thing is, there's almost a 2 months delay to do a fallacious review that gives the impression that was written in less than 5 minutes. Nice job.
Either way, my real issue with this review is that I could've written it without playing the game, and it would've been better written and probably more descriptive, which leads me to think that the author didn't play the game and doesn't care about writing reviews.