Let me put it this way, if all the loot in every activity you did not enjoy was removed from the game, would your gaming experience be more fun? Would you somehow have a better time playing?
I realize this question wasn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to address it anyway. The fact is, for many players, yes, this would make their experience more fun. Distinguising between PvP and PvE balance, and acknowledging that PvP balance is a legitimate topic, most players who want balance in the PvE portions of the game seem motivated primarily by a desire to make sure no other players have more fun than they do. Class balance, loot balance, whatever other kind of balance you want to talk about, most of the time people who cry for so-called "balance" just want someone else's fun factor to be reduced in a way that will have absolutely no practical benefits for the players doing the crying.
If Player A is a Rogue who does not PvP, and Player B is a Druid who does not PvP, then it really has absolutely no effect on the gameplay experience of Player A if B is twice as strong, half as strong, exactly as strong, has better loot, worse loot, equivalent loot, because it isn't going to change one little bit of player A's experience. If you think your class/play style is less fun than another class/play style, then you can always change your class/play style or leave the game. Removing purple from the game entirely would be fair, in a relativistic sense, removing them from just activities that certain people don't enjoy would not.
Of course, I don't believe that is the argument that was actually being presented. The admittedly rather rude poster you were responding to wasn't advocating taking anything away from anybody, he was advocating letting non-raiders get decent equipment too. If the raiders like to raid, then non-raiders getting purple loot shouldn't make the game less fun for them, just like raiders not getting purples shouldn't be something to make non-raiders happy. People need to stop worrying about whether somebody else is having more fun, and just worry about their own fun.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Embarrassment? Please explain your reasoning that treating each play style equally is somehow wrong.
We are paying customers with different play styles. The MMO company caters to those multiple play styles, but not equally and yet charges the same subscription fee despite this. It is well within any customer's right to demand equal treatment and consideration. You get epics for your play style, we should get epics that are just as good for ours. Just because we play the game differently than you does not justify the inequality, especially for a piece of frigging entertainment software.
Developers purposefully choose to give raiders the best of the best, based on an arbitrary system made up of some illusionary risk vs reward scam. I've yet to see a game where raiders risk anything more than other types of players. Even time invenstment isn't a factor. You might sit in front of the computer for an 8 hour session, but I will end up putting in just as much if not more time as you will over a time period, but will not see equal rewards and that is bullshit.
I think the underlined portion is what draws the attention towards you. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that your subscription fees are funding the entire development of the game for everyone else. Raid content of a game is a small fraction of the overall content of a game. Truth be told the overwhelming amount of content in warcraft is for casual players.
Your subscription dollars are no more important than anyone else. If you chose not to partake in a portion of the games content then that is your choice. You should not be rewarded for opting out of content, regardless of what you enjoy or do not enjoy. Raid content is much harder than solo content and the rewards are commensurate to the respective tasks. If there was a way to make solo, or any other type of content have the same time, expense and difficulty factors as group content then by all means hand out rewards on an equal footing.
You say raiders don't risk anything more than you do? Ok, how much gold did you spend while soloing quests for 3 hours on repairs, flasks, potions, reagents, etc? I can burn through 200 gold easily in one night of raiding while at the same time I can easily make 300+ gold soloing quests without spending 1 coin on death penalty, reagent, potion or flask.
Let me put it this way, if all the loot in every activity you did not enjoy was removed from the game, would your gaming experience be more fun? Would you somehow have a better time playing?
Daff is correct. Warcraft balances casuals and hardcores. I see no justification of why someone who puts in more effort, shouldn't get more result. I don't know why you (vrazule) have any form of hatred towards the hardcore but I assure you that it is unwarranted. Raiders spend more, they achieve more, and to be honest vrazule it's not anything a smart casual guild couldn't do.
This is the crux of why hardcores don't understand why casuals hate them. Hardcores do the exact same thing, put in slightly more time, and prepare themselves better. How hard is it to do that for the rest of ya?
Example: I was in a hardcore guild back in the day, and guess what? We cleared instances in an hour and/or cleared up to where we wanted. It was unusual to spend 2 hours a night on anything other than some progression night that we have a hard time, usually once a week at maximum. How did we do it? We had an extremely simple rule: no stupid deaths. We were essentially #1 on our server, and were all just smart/very good players. We were actually one of the first guilds in the US to clear Nax pre-BC for example. The fights actually became fun because you weren't raiding through midnight. Post-BC and into Lich King is no different. As far as harder things = better rewards, well if you don't like that, maybe you shouldn't play level based games, actually, maybe you shouldn't play games. Maybe you should go play something skill-based, like darkfall or fallout 3. I see 0 reason why someone who puts in less effort should have equivalent as someone who puts in more effort. No game exists that does that, mostly because that's the same as starting everyone at max level.
I'm a casual player, and even I get to go on most raids when they need someone smart, who can listen and follow directions and pay attention to what is going on, to fill in an empty spot in a raid.
All that matters in a raid is your ability to perform. That does mean preparation: having the right gear, knowing how to play your class, and studying various boss strategies. That also means being able to shut your piehole and follow directions, and paying attention to what the hell is happening on your screen.
I've had to deal with a lot of scrubs in Heroics lately due to people having said they are all "EZ mode". No, they are not. They are easy only if you and your friends are all savvy and know what is going on there. I've watched Heroic OK absolutely destroy people even in raid gear. I've watched PUGs put the smackdown on OS with one or more drakes.
It is not about how much time you put into the game.
It is about how well you do with the time you put into the game.
And it's the same way in every MMO in history, more or less.
Embarrassment? Please explain your reasoning that treating each play style equally is somehow wrong.
We are paying customers with different play styles. The MMO company caters to those multiple play styles, but not equally and yet charges the same subscription fee despite this. It is well within any customer's right to demand equal treatment and consideration. God. You know I ate a HotPocket today, and not only did it burn my tongue, but it tasted like frozen crap. I hope the one I buy tomorrow is bett... errr, maybe I should just not pay for something I don't like. If enough people stop buying HotPockets, they'll definitely have to adapt their product or face going out of business. In much the same way, you can cancel your WoW subscription. Buying the box copy doesn't somehow entitle you to see every facet of the game - the box even states that it requires a monthly fee, etc. etc. to play it, and it's your decision to spend the time necessary or not. You seem to think your demands > everyone else's. Grow up, seriously (I'm only judging your childish attitude in your posts, not your personal self before you take the stance that 'I don't know you'). You get epics for your play style, we should get epics that are just as good for ours. Just because we play the game differently than you does not justify the inequality, especially for a piece of frigging entertainment software. I can't believe how many people in this thread feel this way. I haven't even touched WotLK, but I know enough from BC that the non-raid content was piss-poor easy already without raid gear, and the only necessity* for raid gear was to progress further into raids. If you abhor raiding to such a degree, then you don't have any need for raid-quality gear whatsoever to enjoy the rest of the game's content. Furthermore, unless something has just completely and drastically changed, PVP gear (read: arena and honor gear) was almost always better in the long run than raid gear for PVP, which seems to be one of your other arguing points.A couple hours a day in battlegrounds will easily net you some epics in a fair period of time (fair being you will have to spend the same amount of time as anyone else to get said gear). Sure, in quest items and normal dungeon gear you won't be topping the charts every BG, but you don't get to start as the best. That's definitely not your 'right'.
Developers purposefully choose to give raiders the best of the best, based on an arbitrary system made up of some illusionary risk vs reward scam. I've yet to see a game where raiders risk anything more than other types of players. Even time invenstment isn't a factor. You might sit in front of the computer for an 8 hour session, but I will end up putting in just as much if not more time as you will over a time period, but will not see equal rewards and that is bullshit. I could go on for days about how much 'bullshit' this paragraph contains, but the simple fact is: no. The so-called 'hardcore' players you refer to generally spend more time at the game in a day than you claim in a week, and many of them play for years. So unless you somehow intend to play for decades, at the rate you claim, then clearly this will never take place.
End of the day, your entire argument sounds like one big whiny e-peen envy post. So someone has better gear than you - big deal. I'm sure questing on normal mobs is just so tough that anything less than one-shotting everything you come upon is just completely and utterly shitty. C'mon man, you need to read your own posts and realize what you sound like. The reality here is, you want all the reward without the work, and that's a conclusion drawn simply by reading any one of your posts thus far.
As for the entire topic at hand, I'm pretty sure my points are covered above. The only thing I can really add to this, with what little knowledge I have of WotLK, is that there already are implementations of their raids in easier, and progressively more difficult forms. I can't possibly imagine what more a player could ask for. I played WoW for almost 3 years in total, knew I never would, and never did see BWL, or Naxx in vanilla. I never saw Sunwell, or finished Black Temple in BC. Do I feel cheated somehow, or bitter at WoW for not having gotten to see those places? Hell no. I was in a casual friendly setting both times through, and had a blast raiding with sincerely tight-knit guildmates both times I played. Gear came when it did, but the fun was almost always there, even through moderately frustrating moments (part of what made the reward after the effort even more significant). To top it all off, before my guild in BC managed to work up to T5 and T6 content, I got PVP gear to be competitive in PVP. I never had issues competing with raid-geared players, and in plenty of cases wrecked people who were sporting T6 with no resilience while wearing my "welfare epics".
Regardless, if you bought WoW, played for whatever period of time, and ran out of stuff to do that gives you satisfaction or fun (minus the raiding that you A: have no time for or B: hate) then join the club. Time to move on to a new game if you don't find your current one fun anymore. Enough of the "I WANT TO HAVE MY CAKE AND EAT IT, TOO" banter in this thread. Each individual chooses their priorities, and if yours is on your family/significant other/social life/whatever is more important than gaming, then more power to you. Don't, however, come here fussing about the fact that someone has more shiny, glowy gear than you, or complain out of jealousy of the dude that tops the PVP scoreboard every battleground because he has X gear that you can't get due to time constraints. Think: South Park's WoW episode, and be happy that reality is where you excel (unless you don't, and your life sucks so bad you seek that much fulfillment in a video game).
Edit for:
P.S. My arena duo reached over 2100+ when my partner and I were active, and rarely, if ever, did we play more than the 10 required games per week. That's less than 30 minutes a day - no arguable real time constraint for anyone who is that serious about PVP.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
I'm a casual player, and even I get to go on most raids when they need someone smart, who can listen and follow directions and pay attention to what is going on, to fill in an empty spot in a raid. All that matters in a raid is your ability to perform. That does mean preparation: having the right gear, knowing how to play your class, and studying various boss strategies. That also means being able to shut your piehole and follow directions, and paying attention to what the hell is happening on your screen. I've had to deal with a lot of scrubs in Heroics lately due to people having said they are all "EZ mode". No, they are not. They are easy only if you and your friends are all savvy and know what is going on there. I've watched Heroic OK absolutely destroy people even in raid gear. I've watched PUGs put the smackdown on OS with one or more drakes. It is not about how much time you put into the game. It is about how well you do with the time you put into the game. And it's the same way in every MMO in history, more or less.
You are out of luck, because I am in a bad mood and so let's see what you write/
1. "I think it is unhealthy for the industry as a whole to be blindly copying WoW when there is plenty of room for improvement" Improvement? They can't even copy the technical standards of today's WotLK , ... let alone "improve". I am not willing to play games that are technically and by execution INFERIOR to what I pay for atm. The above is the simple reason why any new MMO's fall so hard after release..... Short and simple. 2. "a game that has already been released should *never* fundamentally alter it's game mechanics after it is released, because to do so just isn't fair to all the people who have invested tons of time and money into the way the game is currently designed. " Why not if the game mechanic is far more polished and serves to help all the current gamers and ex gamers who return. Besides in RL you DO change over time also. Investing in a new suit, computer television set etc. Nothing is eternal, only the bad ones don't change. 3. These posts are always driven by the same motivation: the frustration that one game (company) dominates sales and subscription numbers. Do you realy think the Wow Blizzard dev team is that inferior to your all mighty thoughts of what SHOULD be an mmorpg? So Bioware is obviously filled with high intelligent and MUCH more capable developpers than Blizzard ever had ... and they haven't even published any mmorpg content. ----> Fact : the only mmorpg's that always offer MUCH better gameplay value than Wow are the unpublished ones.
1. For me, technical standards aren't all that important. When I speak of lots of room for improvement in relation to WoW, I am referring to improvements in story, player choice within quests, and other immersion enhancing elements. As long as the graphics don't make me feel like I am playing a game from last decade, and the gameplay isn't so bad as to be painful as I move from story element to story element, I really don't care about the "technical" standards. That is just an issue of personal preference and prioritization.
Just as you are not willing to pay for games which are technically inferior to ones you already pay for, I am not willing to pay a monthly subscription for a game which in terms of immersion, story quality, and player choice, is inferior to almost every CRPG ever made, when many of the great ones I either already have, or can get for a one-time fee of $10.00 or less. Neither of us is wrong, we just have different tastes.
2. I wasn't referring to incremental change and gradual improvement, I was referring to *fundamental* change. That is why I referenced the New Game Experience in Galaxies, it altered the experience so profoundly as to create an entirely different game. That is not a fair thing to do to customers, and I meant my remarks as an illustration of why WoW couldn't implement most of my (or anyone else's) theories of game improvement, even if they had the desire to do so, because if they did, the game that resulted from it would not be the game people have devoted years to.
3. Of course people are frustrated when one company/game dominates a genre, and they should be. Different people have different tastes, and if all the restaurants started making nothing but hot dogs, the people who like hamburgers would feel screwed. That is perfectly natural.
And I never claimed the WoW development team was inferior in any cosmic sense. The product they want to offer simply isn't the product I would like to see. If my tastes were universal law, yes, they would be an inferior development team, but they aren't. Neither are the tastes of those who like what Blizzard is selling.
I never understand why people bring up a company lacking prior MMO experience as a reason not to expect much. It is typically an argument used by fans of WoW, and Blizzard had no MMO experience prior to creating WoW, so it seems like a bit of a silly position to take. Especially given that no company has more MMO experience than SOE, and they ruin everything they touch.
And I don't claim that BioWare developers are "more capable" than Blizzard, only that they are more focused on the aspects of the gaming experience that I find most enjoyable. They are better at creating stories, and they offer more player choice in interacting with those stories. Sometimes they focus so much on story that gameplay suffers, but for me that is ok.
Also, it shouldn't be a question of whether a game offers "better" gameplay than WoW. It should be a question of whether a game offers an appealing gaming experience on it's own terms. If a given gamer is going to use WoW as the standard by which to judge all other games, he should probably stop wasting his time on other games and just keep playing WoW. If a given gamer doesn't like WoW, it shouldn't matter in the slightest whether or not a game's gameplay "measures up" to the WoW standard.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
You are out of luck, because I am in a bad mood and so let's see what you write/
1. "I think it is unhealthy for the industry as a whole to be blindly copying WoW when there is plenty of room for improvement" Improvement? They can't even copy the technical standards of today's WotLK , ... let alone "improve". I am not willing to play games that are technically and by execution INFERIOR to what I pay for atm. The above is the simple reason why any new MMO's fall so hard after release..... Short and simple. 2. "a game that has already been released should *never* fundamentally alter it's game mechanics after it is released, because to do so just isn't fair to all the people who have invested tons of time and money into the way the game is currently designed. " Why not if the game mechanic is far more polished and serves to help all the current gamers and ex gamers who return. Besides in RL you DO change over time also. Investing in a new suit, computer television set etc. Nothing is eternal, only the bad ones don't change. 3. These posts are always driven by the same motivation: the frustration that one game (company) dominates sales and subscription numbers. Do you realy think the Wow Blizzard dev team is that inferior to your all mighty thoughts of what SHOULD be an mmorpg? So Bioware is obviously filled with high intelligent and MUCH more capable developpers than Blizzard ever had ... and they haven't even published any mmorpg content. ----> Fact : the only mmorpg's that always offer MUCH better gameplay value than Wow are the unpublished ones. ------ Back on topic: do you see in RL all places on earth also? No? Well then it's time to stop playing mmo's isn't it?
Ta da! The Great WoW Fanoi of MMORPG has arrived! Actually, the reason WoW people dislike new mmorpg's is because they have NEVER played an mmorpg at release. Lets imagine that WoW was released today. Simply put if 99% of the mindless drones that play WoW today would HATE WoW. Lets look at what max level content WoW had at release:
Onyxia an Molten Core.
Thats it. A sum total of 2 raid instances and a total of 11 bosses. Nothing else.
No PvP system of any sort (patch 1.4) No battlegrounds (patch 1.5). No new raid instances until patch 1.6. No dailies. No achievement system. No world bosses until patch 1.3. So there was not one piece of endgame content added until Azuregos and Lord Kazzak in patch 1.3 ... 3.5 months after WoW was released.
infact, at release WoW had broken classes (warlock and hunters) and talent reviews didnt start until 1.6 with warlolcks and warriors and hunters in 1.7. Terrible gear itemisation. Hybrids werent hybrids at all. They were just healers with 2 other junk trees. Only warriors could tank. By patch 1.12 (last major patch before 2.0 and BC) WoW had added a LOT of new content and every class had had talent reviews.
Every criticism you make of new mmorpg's can be applied to WoW when it was released in late 2004. Which leads me to the logical conclusion that the majority of players who play WoW now would have hated it on release.
And once the masses have spoken that X mmo is crap then the masses have decided its crap forever. How many WoW worshippers have tried Vanguard or Age of Conan lately?
WoW's secret for success is that it didnt start attracting the impressionable and gullible masses until it had time to put in new content and fix up its problems.
New mmorpg's are no different to WoW when it was released. Infact, new mmorpg's today are more polished and have more content than WoW's release.
You are out of luck, because I am in a bad mood and so let's see what you write/
1. "I think it is unhealthy for the industry as a whole to be blindly copying WoW when there is plenty of room for improvement" Improvement? They can't even copy the technical standards of today's WotLK , ... let alone "improve". I am not willing to play games that are technically and by execution INFERIOR to what I pay for atm. The above is the simple reason why any new MMO's fall so hard after release..... Short and simple. 2. "a game that has already been released should *never* fundamentally alter it's game mechanics after it is released, because to do so just isn't fair to all the people who have invested tons of time and money into the way the game is currently designed. " Why not if the game mechanic is far more polished and serves to help all the current gamers and ex gamers who return. Besides in RL you DO change over time also. Investing in a new suit, computer television set etc. Nothing is eternal, only the bad ones don't change. 3. These posts are always driven by the same motivation: the frustration that one game (company) dominates sales and subscription numbers. Do you realy think the Wow Blizzard dev team is that inferior to your all mighty thoughts of what SHOULD be an mmorpg? So Bioware is obviously filled with high intelligent and MUCH more capable developpers than Blizzard ever had ... and they haven't even published any mmorpg content. ----> Fact : the only mmorpg's that always offer MUCH better gameplay value than Wow are the unpublished ones. ------ Back on topic: do you see in RL all places on earth also? No? Well then it's time to stop playing mmo's isn't it?
Ta da! The Great WoW Fanoi of MMORPG has arrived! Actually, the reason WoW people dislike new mmorpg's is because they have NEVER played an mmorpg at release. Lets imagine that WoW was released today. Simply put if 99% of the mindless drones that play WoW today would HATE WoW. Lets look at what max level content WoW had at release:
Onyxia an Molten Core.
Thats it. A sum total of 2 raid instances and a total of 11 bosses. Nothing else.
No PvP system of any sort (patch 1.4) No battlegrounds (patch 1.5). No new raid instances until patch 1.6. No dailies. No achievement system. No world bosses until patch 1.3. So there was not one piece of endgame content added until Azuregos and Lord Kazzak in patch 1.3 ... 3.5 months after WoW was released.
infact, at release WoW had broken classes (warlock and hunters) and talent reviews didnt start until 1.6 with warlolcks and warriors and hunters in 1.7. Terrible gear itemisation. Hybrids werent hybrids at all. They were just healers with 2 other junk trees. Only warriors could tank. By patch 1.12 (last major patch before 2.0 and BC) WoW had added a LOT of new content and every class had had talent reviews.
Every criticism you make of new mmorpg's can be applied to WoW when it was released in late 2004. Which leads me to the logical conclusion that the majority of players who play WoW now would have hated it on release.
And once the masses have spoken that X mmo is crap then the masses have decided its crap forever. How many WoW worshippers have tried Vanguard or Age of Conan lately?
WoW's secret for success is that it didnt start attracting the impressionable and gullible masses until it had time to put in new content and fix up its problems.
New mmorpg's are no different to WoW when it was released. Infact, new mmorpg's today are more polished and have more content than WoW's release.
You are really trying to compare Vanguard and AoC to WoW at release? WoW was still a very fun, playable game, even with little endgame content. It was miles beyond those two games. You can't be serious. =/
This sort of revisionist history does nothing but hurt your own credibility
You are really trying to compare Vanguard and AoC to WoW at release? WoW was still a very fun, playable game, even with little endgame content. It was miles beyond those two games. You can't be serious. =/ This sort of revisionist history does nothing but hurt your own credibility
Eh, speaking as someone who played all three at release, his history might be revisionist, but only slightly. Vanguard's primary problem at release was that the world was far too big, and the starting populations far too scattered, for the number of players coming into the game, making it seem very empty. Essentially though it was a decent game, and whether or not it was as fun/more fun than WoW at release was a question of preference, not quality. "Miles beyond" is a very substantial stretch.
The Tortage part of AoC was far *more* polished, immersive, and for me at least, enjoyable, than anything that existed in WoW as of the day it went live. The later AoC content wasn't at that same quality level, and the leveling curve was excessively fast, but again, primarily issues of taste, not quality.
WoW at release had its fair share of bugs, server crashes, and unfinished classes, but at the time the MMO population as a whole still understood that those things are normal for a game that just launched, and most people didn't run in circles throwing screaming hissy fits about it, the way many late-comers to WoW do now when a new MMO isn't perfect out of the box.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
You are out of luck, because I am in a bad mood and so let's see what you write/
1. "I think it is unhealthy for the industry as a whole to be blindly copying WoW when there is plenty of room for improvement" Improvement? They can't even copy the technical standards of today's WotLK , ... let alone "improve". I am not willing to play games that are technically and by execution INFERIOR to what I pay for atm. The above is the simple reason why any new MMO's fall so hard after release..... Short and simple. 2. "a game that has already been released should *never* fundamentally alter it's game mechanics after it is released, because to do so just isn't fair to all the people who have invested tons of time and money into the way the game is currently designed. " Why not if the game mechanic is far more polished and serves to help all the current gamers and ex gamers who return. Besides in RL you DO change over time also. Investing in a new suit, computer television set etc. Nothing is eternal, only the bad ones don't change. 3. These posts are always driven by the same motivation: the frustration that one game (company) dominates sales and subscription numbers. Do you realy think the Wow Blizzard dev team is that inferior to your all mighty thoughts of what SHOULD be an mmorpg? So Bioware is obviously filled with high intelligent and MUCH more capable developpers than Blizzard ever had ... and they haven't even published any mmorpg content. ----> Fact : the only mmorpg's that always offer MUCH better gameplay value than Wow are the unpublished ones. ------ Back on topic: do you see in RL all places on earth also? No? Well then it's time to stop playing mmo's isn't it?
Ta da! The Great WoW Fanoi of MMORPG has arrived! Actually, the reason WoW people dislike new mmorpg's is because they have NEVER played an mmorpg at release. Lets imagine that WoW was released today. Simply put if 99% of the mindless drones that play WoW today would HATE WoW. Lets look at what max level content WoW had at release:
Onyxia an Molten Core.
Thats it. A sum total of 2 raid instances and a total of 11 bosses. Nothing else.
No PvP system of any sort (patch 1.4) No battlegrounds (patch 1.5). No new raid instances until patch 1.6. No dailies. No achievement system. No world bosses until patch 1.3. So there was not one piece of endgame content added until Azuregos and Lord Kazzak in patch 1.3 ... 3.5 months after WoW was released.
infact, at release WoW had broken classes (warlock and hunters) and talent reviews didnt start until 1.6 with warlolcks and warriors and hunters in 1.7. Terrible gear itemisation. Hybrids werent hybrids at all. They were just healers with 2 other junk trees. Only warriors could tank. By patch 1.12 (last major patch before 2.0 and BC) WoW had added a LOT of new content and every class had had talent reviews.
Every criticism you make of new mmorpg's can be applied to WoW when it was released in late 2004. Which leads me to the logical conclusion that the majority of players who play WoW now would have hated it on release.
And once the masses have spoken that X mmo is crap then the masses have decided its crap forever. How many WoW worshippers have tried Vanguard or Age of Conan lately?
WoW's secret for success is that it didnt start attracting the impressionable and gullible masses until it had time to put in new content and fix up its problems.
New mmorpg's are no different to WoW when it was released. Infact, new mmorpg's today are more polished and have more content than WoW's release.
When WoW was first launched, the major contendor was EQ2 (just launched) and EQ1. UO is dying, every other game pales and fading. WoW brings a lot of additional polish and ideas superior to EQ1 and EQ2, a superb UI, very polished feelings, lore comparable to EQ, and real fun to level. I have fun levelling in WoW, much more so than levelling in EQ2. Much much more so. My first month of EQ2 was almost over when I got my hands on WoW, and I never returned to EQ2 till 2007.
Druing the WoW launch, EQ2 does not really work at all. EQ1 is was and always has been one hell of a ever-camp fest. Raids in EQ1 was never great fun, its just a lot of pain and xp lost for a few gear. And very elitist in that its hard for an average guild to do it at all. So WoW was a blessing at that time. This should be the valid ground of comparison. Its meaningless to criticize WoW back then by telling us how good WoW now is. Fact is, it is a shame to note that a lot of new game release lately are inferior to WoW launch years ago. Try Darkfall.
WoW at launch is not good, but its better than almost anything out there then. If WoW at launch was competing against another product like the current WoW, WoW at launch will die a swift death.
Now new games coming to the market, I mean today, will have to prove its value against the current batch of competitors, including the current WoW, the current EQ2, EvE and so on. Naturally, if the new game does not provide enough reason for others to switch to it, or attract new gamers on its own, the new game will have a miserable path.
Are there good launches lately? LOTRo. I was in closed beta all the way. Its the smoothest launch I ever have, totally playable from closed beta onwards. We are playing in beta not betaing. Yet the game somehow lacks retention power. My family abandoned 3 lifetime accounts, eventually. Cannot explain why.
Don't jump into sweeping conclusions. There is more than one type of WoW players. The 3 gamers in my family are totally and diagonally different, all play WoW, among many other games. Not all WoWers are innocent about gaming or software beta, testing ... . I am a software engineer by profession, for 25 years, and travelled to half of the world already in my profession. Who told you that WoW players do not play other games? Go check up guild such as Old timers. Says who WoW gamers dislike other new MMOs?
You are really trying to compare Vanguard and AoC to WoW at release? WoW was still a very fun, playable game, even with little endgame content. It was miles beyond those two games. You can't be serious. =/ This sort of revisionist history does nothing but hurt your own credibility
Eh, speaking as someone who played all three at release, his history might be revisionist, but only slightly. Vanguard's primary problem at release was that the world was far too big, and the starting populations far too scattered, for the number of players coming into the game, making it seem very empty. Essentially though it was a decent game, and whether or not it was as fun/more fun than WoW at release was a question of preference, not quality. "Miles beyond" is a very substantial stretch.
The Tortage part of AoC was far *more* polished, immersive, and for me at least, enjoyable, than anything that existed in WoW as of the day it went live. The later AoC content wasn't at that same quality level, and the leveling curve was excessively fast, but again, primarily issues of taste, not quality.
WoW at release had its fair share of bugs, server crashes, and unfinished classes, but at the time the MMO population as a whole still understood that those things are normal for a game that just launched, and most people didn't run in circles throwing screaming hissy fits about it, the way many late-comers to WoW do now when a new MMO isn't perfect out of the box.
I don't know what Vanguard you played when it launched, but the one I played was unplayable. It is alot better now, but the first month... no make that 6 months were terrible. AoC was absolute unfinished garbage. I played all 3 games from the day they were released and WoW was a much better game on release and still is. I will say though, that if Vanguard actually had some support, or was actually being developed... by say Blizzard, it could be a hell of a game. I really enjoyed it later on. But it is SOE, and they have a skeleton crew on that game with very little work towards anything new for it. Such a shame.
edit more rant..
I mean we are talking 50 hours of AoC "polish" ... right into unfinished garbage vs months of playtime in WoW at realease. You gotta be kidding me.
Zorn loves to talk features such as achievements or phasing as the rationale for WoW's success and the reason for the failures of competitors. The whole success of WoW in my opinion - and the failure of other games - comes down to polish. That is really it.
When you stepped out in Elwynn forest or Dun Morogh with your level 1 character the whole world was breathing (and still is) - critters, normal mobs, animations/sound in synch, extremely polished musical score, low latency, Mercedes feel interface (without options at release though) etc. The quest lines very fast sucked you into the world. Exactly what gives this feel I cannot put my finger on but I collectively call it polish. Other games that have had the same effect on me: Diablo, Starcraft, Homeworld 1 and 2, Dawn of War (best intro movie ever for that matter), System Shock 1 and 2 and a few others - but there are not many.
The point I am trying to make is that this is more like films - the most explosions do not result in box office success - The Usual Suspects had a small budget, was tight as hell (Polish) and was successfull while Alexander had a mammoth budget, filled with features and failed.
Blizzard is great with that polish. Lost some of it in Diablo II but came back with The Frozen Throne and WoW. Lost some again with TBC but came back in WotLK.
I am critical about certain features of WoW such as the general easyness of WotLK but I will never take away the greatness of Blizzard when it comes to the game crafting and hence polish. Only Relic can match that today (when they have a good day).
You are really trying to compare Vanguard and AoC to WoW at release? WoW was still a very fun, playable game, even with little endgame content. It was miles beyond those two games. You can't be serious. =/ This sort of revisionist history does nothing but hurt your own credibility
Eh, speaking as someone who played all three at release, his history might be revisionist, but only slightly. Vanguard's primary problem at release was that the world was far too big, and the starting populations far too scattered, for the number of players coming into the game, making it seem very empty. Essentially though it was a decent game, and whether or not it was as fun/more fun than WoW at release was a question of preference, not quality. "Miles beyond" is a very substantial stretch.
The Tortage part of AoC was far *more* polished, immersive, and for me at least, enjoyable, than anything that existed in WoW as of the day it went live. The later AoC content wasn't at that same quality level, and the leveling curve was excessively fast, but again, primarily issues of taste, not quality.
WoW at release had its fair share of bugs, server crashes, and unfinished classes, but at the time the MMO population as a whole still understood that those things are normal for a game that just launched, and most people didn't run in circles throwing screaming hissy fits about it, the way many late-comers to WoW do now when a new MMO isn't perfect out of the box.
Two things. WoW at launch was superior to a lot of games back then. AoC at launch is superior in some ways to WoW launch, but that was 4 years later and standard has improved. AoC at launch is competing against TBC of AoC, and against a very polished LOTRo, which was launched almost pefectly smooth and feature complete. I think that should be the way comparison goes. Compare with current best.
WoW at launch was a big hassle for a week. I cannot log in nor stay online long, due to server overcrowded. It took me a week before I can start playing smoothly (restarted on a batch of new servers). Once I started playing the game grabbed me, and comparing with the crop of games around early 2005, WoW is good. That is enough. If hypothetically, I am starting the 2005 version of WoW today, yes I will say its lacking. Same for EQ, if I start playing the earliest EQ today, the interface alone will make it look stupid.
Indeed, I agree that the community back in 2000 are much more tolerant and mature. My first death in EQ was a joke. I cannot find my body, the forest outside oggok is so dark. As a level 6, I ran into lvl 20s spectres, not far from the city gates AND the city guards do not defend me against the spectres. I do not cry foul. I just deleted the precious level 6 and start again. Yes we took it the hard way back then, b/c, honestly, there was no better games back then.
The standard of games, and of good launches are much higher these days. Is it natural that we compare the latest launches with the best game out here for content (WoW >> War) and with the best launch for smoothness (LOTRo launch >> DF launch). Can't blame us taking the best standard for comparison. Tho, we do not always dismiss a game if it does not start out perfect.
I think Blizzard largely ignored what gamers wanted from an MMO and instead wondered what non-gamers who'd never heard of an MMO wanted.
So what you got was a game that would run on pretty much any half-decent pc it was installed on, had a thorough tutorial system and was logically laid out. And once in the game, it was bright, colourful, packed with content and, even to a complete novice, very intuitive in how it worked. The zones were all graphically distinct but you travelled through them seamlessly. Even though it was an MMO there was a huge emphasis on soloable content so that you could, if so inclined, get to the cap without ever grouping.
The list goes on but all of these things were, to Blizzard, a priority over the fact that X class was gimped or Y class over-powered and that's an ethos that persists even now. They keep on making the game easier, more accessible, friendlier, simpler and it keeps selling.
The ruptured capillaries in your nose belie the clarity of your wisdom.
Zorn loves to talk features such as achievements or phasing as the rationale for WoW's success and the reason for the failures of competitors. The whole success of WoW in my opinion - and the failure of other games - comes down to polish. That is really it. When you stepped out in Elwynn forest or Dun Morogh with your level 1 character the whole world was breathing (and still is) - critters, normal mobs, animations/sound in synch, extremely polished musical score, low latency, Mercedes feel interface (without options at release though) etc. The quest lines very fast sucked you into the world. Exactly what gives this feel I cannot put my finger on but I collectively call it polish. Other games that have had the same effect on me: Diablo, Starcraft, Homeworld 1 and 2, Dawn of War (best intro movie ever for that matter), System Shock 1 and 2 and a few others - but there are not many. The point I am trying to make is that this is more like films - the most explosions do not result in box office success - The Usual Suspects had a small budget, was tight as hell (Polish) and was successfull while Alexander had a mammoth budget, filled with features and failed. Blizzard is great with that polish. Lost some of it in Diablo II but came back with The Frozen Throne and WoW. Lost some again with TBC but came back in WotLK. I am critical about certain features of WoW such as the general easyness of WotLK but I will never take away the greatness of Blizzard when it comes to the game crafting and hence polish. Only Relic can match that today (when they have a good day).
Can't agree more.
WoW has that feeling of gaming. You are playing a game, not struggling with things that does not enhance gameplay. Everything is natural, for a player who has some gaming background (me). Its also intuitively natural for another family member of mine, who was then 10+. Even my sister's baby pick up how to play (move around, jump and look for wild life, fire, water, whatever he can identify on the screen) WoW lately, at age 3. This feeling of naturalness (not a valid word) makes you feel like playing, you are actually playing, not labouring with the interface.
Smoothness polishness naturalness, whatever it is called, allows you to enjoy the content, and the content at start cannot be criticized any more. WoW launch, as well as Diablo I, were the moments I feel I need to take time off work to log on my game rig. Shame on me. Totally irresistable. The world, the feelings, the community, the music the ... everything. LOTRo almost matched that when my hobbits walked out to the shire. Yes LOTRo got me for a while but then it lost me. WoW keeps me coming back on and off.
I think Blizzard largely ignored what gamers wanted from an MMO and instead wondered what non-gamers who'd never heard of an MMO wanted. So what you got was a game that would run on pretty much any half-decent pc it was installed on, had a thorough tutorial system and was logically laid out. And once in the game, it was bright, colourful, packed with content and, even to a complete novice, very intuitive in how it worked. The zones were all graphically distinct but you travelled through them seamlessly. Even though it was an MMO there was a huge emphasis on soloable content so that you could, if so inclined, get to the cap without ever grouping. The list goes on but all of these things were, to Blizzard, a priority over the fact that X class was gimped or Y class over-powered and that's an ethos that persists even now. They keep on making the game easier, more accessible, friendlier, simpler and it keeps selling.
True, which is not a bad thing.
It makes the game enjoyable to some, and that is good for those. No game can please everyone, its unfair to beat on Blizz b/c someone falls out sidee the target market of WoW. Fact is, Blizz insert as much variety as they can into the game to give it a wide appeal.
I sometimes got the feeling that some (mind it SOME) of the critics of WoW are trying to stand out of the crowd. WoW is the crowd, anything WoW offers is for the crowd. The critics has to point out something to appear different, or maybe looks bigger (using words like hard core, carebears ...). Come to think of it, WoW is a game. We log on for fun, not military training or reflex test. I do not need to be flogged for a hour before I can enjoy a game. Blizz makes everything else as smooth as possible so you can enjoy the game right away. How so? Very few hardware issues, almost any rig can run it. Auto config, install and play, the default setting handles all. Very simple but effective interface, Blizz learn the lessons of its competitors. The list goes on.
DF, VG, ... all those anti-WoW new games plays out the opposite. VG tries to force grind and time sink, DF tries to hurt you even before you can buy the game. No, the average gamer want to feel relaxed in a game, and play at his own pace. He does not need to be forced into ffa pvp or grinds, just to fill an e-ego. I do not need to feel hurt and grind in a game to feel that I am somebody important or succesful. On the contrary, I need to wind down. Work is enough, not another "job" when I log on WoW, or another game, for that matter.
It really isn't fair to compare a game at release to a game that has been out for years. A game has to release before it runs out of funding, in order to get more money with which to improve the game. WoW has been getting millions of $15.00 a month subscriptions for years now, releasing tons of patches and two expansions, all after spending years in original development, obviously it is going to be more polished than a game that has been in development for a total of only 3 or 4 years.
Anyone who goes into a new game with the attitude that it *must* have a comparable amount of content to current-state WoW and be just as polished is, frankly, an idiot. The only reason LOTRO was able to be as polished as it was on release is because there really wasn't very much to it. Much easier to polish one rock than a handful of them. You can expect a lot of content, or you can expect polished content. It just isn't realistic to expect both from a new game. Hell, if you use modern WoW as your standard for quantity of content or polish, it isn't realistic to expect either.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Not going into details: but here is one example what I mean by "techniques": when I adventure in Oblivion and ride a horse every few seconds my screen freezes up and ... I see ".... loading graphics..." in the middle of my screen. Guess what brakes immersion?
Talk about a straw man example, Bethesda hasn't made a really good and immersive game since Daggerfall.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
With WoW setting a standard for quality of game delivery, average competitors have to come up with either a comparable enticing world (LOTRo) or totally new features (CoX), or well good luck.
Sometimes I still wonder, how many times would I go back to WoW before I finally call it quits. UO, SWG, DAoC, and even CoX are gone. When I pulled the plug, its done (CoX I returned once). WoW, I just keep coming back on and off. Even LOTRo, when I left my lifetime membership account, I never go back.
Can't explain why. I am trying EvE now, no idea if it would replace WoW.
It really isn't fair to compare a game at release to a game that has been out for years. A game has to release before it runs out of funding, in order to get more money with which to improve the game. WoW has been getting millions of $15.00 a month subscriptions for years now, releasing tons of patches and two expansions, all after spending years in original development, obviously it is going to be more polished than a game that has been in development for a total of only 3 or 4 years. Anyone who goes into a new game with the attitude that it *must* have a comparable amount of content to current-state WoW and be just as polished is, frankly, an idiot. The only reason LOTRO was able to be as polished as it was on release is because there really wasn't very much to it. Much easier to polish one rock than a handful of them. You can expect a lot of content, or you can expect polished content. It just isn't realistic to expect both from a new game. Hell, if you use modern WoW as your standard for quantity of content or polish, it isn't realistic to expect either.
I think you got me wrong. Its not about fairness, it about competition.
Imagine a soccer team promoting from League B to League A or superleague, whatever. Who will you compete in the next season? THE BEST. Period.
Imagine Aion now just launched. If it has to draw massive subs, which game will it challenge? WoW. If Aion cannot compare to WoW in reasonable terms, it will fail to get as much sub as it wants (not meaning it will die). Now is it fair, no, but in the business world, newcomers always have this as disadvantage, as customers will invariable judge the newcomer using the best existing standard. I for one, will not switch to a new game that offers just as much or less than the old game, unless the old game fails. Say for instance (really imaginary), WoW issued a localised version of WoW in my country (imagine I am indian). If my english is so good that I do not care for indian text, do I feel the need to drop WoW and go to WoW india?
Now if Champion online comes, yes I expect it to have much less feature and maybe hiccups. BUT, it has something WoW can never offer, the superheros. That is something I would like to try. Aion, its very similar to WoW, and since I do not pvp that much these days, I am not too eager to start the download. If Champion online, startrek or whatever comes around, I would watch closely, and most likely I will try out Champion online.
The point with polish is that it does not necessarily come at a great development cost - you need the right people. Relic as an example is a small team with relatively small budgets and they deliver polish.
The more interesting question is why so many game developers in the MMO space miss this exact point? WAR launches new content instead of putting every development dollar they have behind getting the client and server coding 100% right. It is just weird.
So I guess what I am saying is that the gap is not widening with 15 USD a month and user. WoW is aging and a developer that understands that content and features is great but polish is greater can develop a good product at a reasonable cost.
It really isn't fair to compare a game at release to a game that has been out for years. A game has to release before it runs out of funding, in order to get more money with which to improve the game. WoW has been getting millions of $15.00 a month subscriptions for years now, releasing tons of patches and two expansions, all after spending years in original development, obviously it is going to be more polished than a game that has been in development for a total of only 3 or 4 years. Anyone who goes into a new game with the attitude that it *must* have a comparable amount of content to current-state WoW and be just as polished is, frankly, an idiot. The only reason LOTRO was able to be as polished as it was on release is because there really wasn't very much to it. Much easier to polish one rock than a handful of them. You can expect a lot of content, or you can expect polished content. It just isn't realistic to expect both from a new game. Hell, if you use modern WoW as your standard for quantity of content or polish, it isn't realistic to expect either.
Not only is it fair, but it is reality to compare new released games to what is currently on the market. Since no one can go back in time to play another mmo as it was released, new games are competing with how other mmos are currently. It is the only comparison that is relevant. Fair is not a word that should be used let alone calling people idiots for not accepting unfinished games at release.
This whole mentality that it should be expected and acceptable for mmos to release in the condition they have been just so they can get more money to to continue delveopment post release is a huge reason so many think they will succeed and travel this route. It is not our job to fund games that could not deliver a competitive product to the market. It is not my fault they could not meet their deadlines and budget restraints.
I don't think anyone is expecting massive amounts of content or perfection at release, but the standards have been raised since the days of pay to play beta testing releases for mmos. If a company wants to attract players away from polished, content filled functional mmos, they have to offer a compelling reason for players to make that switch. They better offer well designed mechanics at release, not promises of fixes 6 months later. There only needs to be enough content to occupy players for a decent amount of time, not multiple years. They game needs to not only be playable, but entertaining as well.
Once a game releases it should not be spending the next 12 months solely fixing all of its problems, it should be working new content. If developers are running out of money and time they need to revise their design process to be more realistic. Maybe cut their advertising a little bit, because all the hype in the world is not going to overcome shitty gameplay at release.
If we lived in a world where money men were willing to keep paying until an MMO was finished before releasing it, it might be fair for customers to expect a high level of polish and a high level of content. We don't live in that world. I am not complaining that it is unfair from a "business" standpoint, I am just pointing out that customer expectations, understandable or not, are simply not realistic, and if they bothered to pause and think about it, they would know their expectations are unreasonable.
That being said, I fully agree that if a game basically tries to imitate WoW, it should fail, because why would anybody play an underdeveloped clone of a game that is already out when they have the option of going for the real deal? That is the primary reason that WoW-envy is the biggest problem in the industry right now, all the development dollars that get spent on almost-certain-to-fail WoW clones could be getting spent on games that are new and different enough that players might be willing to forgive the standard release day level of flaws in order to stick around and see how the game's unique elements pan out.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
When WoW was first launched, the major contendor was EQ2 (just launched) and EQ1. UO is dying, every other game pales and fading. WoW brings a lot of additional polish and ideas superior to EQ1 and EQ2, a superb UI, very polished feelings, lore comparable to EQ, and real fun to level. I have fun levelling in WoW, much more so than levelling in EQ2. Much much more so. My first month of EQ2 was almost over when I got my hands on WoW, and I never returned to EQ2 till 2007. ...
You missed the whole point of my post. My point was that the people throwing hissy fits saying that mmo's like Warhammer have no content are the same people who didn't come to WoW until at least 2006 and had never played an mmorpg before. Of course games like Warhammer are not helped by a relentless hype machine. But simply put if you took a bunch of WoW fanbois and put them on a WoW server at release in late Nov 2004 they would hate it. Thats NOT to say WoW was bad at launch but that the WoW fanbois have unrealistic expectations of what an mmo can offer at launch. When 98% of WoW's current players were not there for WoW's launch, then how do they know what a launch is like?
When WoW launched it was very successful and most of the people who tried WoW out were EQ, SWG, AO, UO players . IE mostly people who have played an mmorpg before and had realistic expectations.
But by the time the masses arrived to WoW Blizzard had polished the game, made improvements and released a truckload of content. For example during 2005 and the 1st week of Jan 2006 Blizzard released the PvP system, 3 battlegrounds, Blackwing Lair, Zul'Gurrub, 6 world bosses, the AQ war effort event and AQ20 and AQ40. 5/9 classes also had talent reviews. So obviously by Jan 2006, 14 months after it was released WoW was a much improved game.
But the WoW fanbois write off games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer FOREVER because they weren't perfect at launch. Ok,
Ok, look at this. Blackwing Lair was the first 40 man raid instance introduced into WoW after release. It was introduced in patch 1.6 on the 12th July 2005. Now WoW went live about 23rd Nov 2004. So it took Blizzard 8 months to release new raid content.
Warhammer: Age of Reckoning was released on the Sept 18th 2008. It is now May 2009. 8 months after the initial release, same amount of time it took Blizzard to release new raid content for WoW. So obviously theres a double standard here.
But the WoW fans will only ever judge Warhammer by what it was like at release, not what it is today. it wouldnt how many improvements, polish, bug fixes and new content games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer release. The WoW fanbois will forever judge them based on what they were like at release.
Why can't I judge WoW forever based on what it was like at release? The diehard WoW fans get to do it with every other mmorpg.
Comments
I realize this question wasn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to address it anyway. The fact is, for many players, yes, this would make their experience more fun. Distinguising between PvP and PvE balance, and acknowledging that PvP balance is a legitimate topic, most players who want balance in the PvE portions of the game seem motivated primarily by a desire to make sure no other players have more fun than they do. Class balance, loot balance, whatever other kind of balance you want to talk about, most of the time people who cry for so-called "balance" just want someone else's fun factor to be reduced in a way that will have absolutely no practical benefits for the players doing the crying.
If Player A is a Rogue who does not PvP, and Player B is a Druid who does not PvP, then it really has absolutely no effect on the gameplay experience of Player A if B is twice as strong, half as strong, exactly as strong, has better loot, worse loot, equivalent loot, because it isn't going to change one little bit of player A's experience. If you think your class/play style is less fun than another class/play style, then you can always change your class/play style or leave the game. Removing purple from the game entirely would be fair, in a relativistic sense, removing them from just activities that certain people don't enjoy would not.
Of course, I don't believe that is the argument that was actually being presented. The admittedly rather rude poster you were responding to wasn't advocating taking anything away from anybody, he was advocating letting non-raiders get decent equipment too. If the raiders like to raid, then non-raiders getting purple loot shouldn't make the game less fun for them, just like raiders not getting purples shouldn't be something to make non-raiders happy. People need to stop worrying about whether somebody else is having more fun, and just worry about their own fun.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Embarrassment? Please explain your reasoning that treating each play style equally is somehow wrong.
We are paying customers with different play styles. The MMO company caters to those multiple play styles, but not equally and yet charges the same subscription fee despite this. It is well within any customer's right to demand equal treatment and consideration. You get epics for your play style, we should get epics that are just as good for ours. Just because we play the game differently than you does not justify the inequality, especially for a piece of frigging entertainment software.
Developers purposefully choose to give raiders the best of the best, based on an arbitrary system made up of some illusionary risk vs reward scam. I've yet to see a game where raiders risk anything more than other types of players. Even time invenstment isn't a factor. You might sit in front of the computer for an 8 hour session, but I will end up putting in just as much if not more time as you will over a time period, but will not see equal rewards and that is bullshit.
I think the underlined portion is what draws the attention towards you. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that your subscription fees are funding the entire development of the game for everyone else. Raid content of a game is a small fraction of the overall content of a game. Truth be told the overwhelming amount of content in warcraft is for casual players.
Your subscription dollars are no more important than anyone else. If you chose not to partake in a portion of the games content then that is your choice. You should not be rewarded for opting out of content, regardless of what you enjoy or do not enjoy. Raid content is much harder than solo content and the rewards are commensurate to the respective tasks. If there was a way to make solo, or any other type of content have the same time, expense and difficulty factors as group content then by all means hand out rewards on an equal footing.
You say raiders don't risk anything more than you do? Ok, how much gold did you spend while soloing quests for 3 hours on repairs, flasks, potions, reagents, etc? I can burn through 200 gold easily in one night of raiding while at the same time I can easily make 300+ gold soloing quests without spending 1 coin on death penalty, reagent, potion or flask.
Let me put it this way, if all the loot in every activity you did not enjoy was removed from the game, would your gaming experience be more fun? Would you somehow have a better time playing?
Daff is correct. Warcraft balances casuals and hardcores. I see no justification of why someone who puts in more effort, shouldn't get more result. I don't know why you (vrazule) have any form of hatred towards the hardcore but I assure you that it is unwarranted. Raiders spend more, they achieve more, and to be honest vrazule it's not anything a smart casual guild couldn't do.
This is the crux of why hardcores don't understand why casuals hate them. Hardcores do the exact same thing, put in slightly more time, and prepare themselves better. How hard is it to do that for the rest of ya?
Example: I was in a hardcore guild back in the day, and guess what? We cleared instances in an hour and/or cleared up to where we wanted. It was unusual to spend 2 hours a night on anything other than some progression night that we have a hard time, usually once a week at maximum. How did we do it? We had an extremely simple rule: no stupid deaths. We were essentially #1 on our server, and were all just smart/very good players. We were actually one of the first guilds in the US to clear Nax pre-BC for example. The fights actually became fun because you weren't raiding through midnight. Post-BC and into Lich King is no different. As far as harder things = better rewards, well if you don't like that, maybe you shouldn't play level based games, actually, maybe you shouldn't play games. Maybe you should go play something skill-based, like darkfall or fallout 3. I see 0 reason why someone who puts in less effort should have equivalent as someone who puts in more effort. No game exists that does that, mostly because that's the same as starting everyone at max level.
/rant
I'm a casual player, and even I get to go on most raids when they need someone smart, who can listen and follow directions and pay attention to what is going on, to fill in an empty spot in a raid.
All that matters in a raid is your ability to perform. That does mean preparation: having the right gear, knowing how to play your class, and studying various boss strategies. That also means being able to shut your piehole and follow directions, and paying attention to what the hell is happening on your screen.
I've had to deal with a lot of scrubs in Heroics lately due to people having said they are all "EZ mode". No, they are not. They are easy only if you and your friends are all savvy and know what is going on there. I've watched Heroic OK absolutely destroy people even in raid gear. I've watched PUGs put the smackdown on OS with one or more drakes.
It is not about how much time you put into the game.
It is about how well you do with the time you put into the game.
And it's the same way in every MMO in history, more or less.
End of the day, your entire argument sounds like one big whiny e-peen envy post. So someone has better gear than you - big deal. I'm sure questing on normal mobs is just so tough that anything less than one-shotting everything you come upon is just completely and utterly shitty. C'mon man, you need to read your own posts and realize what you sound like. The reality here is, you want all the reward without the work, and that's a conclusion drawn simply by reading any one of your posts thus far.
As for the entire topic at hand, I'm pretty sure my points are covered above. The only thing I can really add to this, with what little knowledge I have of WotLK, is that there already are implementations of their raids in easier, and progressively more difficult forms. I can't possibly imagine what more a player could ask for. I played WoW for almost 3 years in total, knew I never would, and never did see BWL, or Naxx in vanilla. I never saw Sunwell, or finished Black Temple in BC. Do I feel cheated somehow, or bitter at WoW for not having gotten to see those places? Hell no. I was in a casual friendly setting both times through, and had a blast raiding with sincerely tight-knit guildmates both times I played. Gear came when it did, but the fun was almost always there, even through moderately frustrating moments (part of what made the reward after the effort even more significant). To top it all off, before my guild in BC managed to work up to T5 and T6 content, I got PVP gear to be competitive in PVP. I never had issues competing with raid-geared players, and in plenty of cases wrecked people who were sporting T6 with no resilience while wearing my "welfare epics".
Regardless, if you bought WoW, played for whatever period of time, and ran out of stuff to do that gives you satisfaction or fun (minus the raiding that you A: have no time for or B: hate) then join the club. Time to move on to a new game if you don't find your current one fun anymore. Enough of the "I WANT TO HAVE MY CAKE AND EAT IT, TOO" banter in this thread. Each individual chooses their priorities, and if yours is on your family/significant other/social life/whatever is more important than gaming, then more power to you. Don't, however, come here fussing about the fact that someone has more shiny, glowy gear than you, or complain out of jealousy of the dude that tops the PVP scoreboard every battleground because he has X gear that you can't get due to time constraints. Think: South Park's WoW episode, and be happy that reality is where you excel (unless you don't, and your life sucks so bad you seek that much fulfillment in a video game).
Edit for:
P.S. My arena duo reached over 2100+ when my partner and I were active, and rarely, if ever, did we play more than the 10 required games per week. That's less than 30 minutes a day - no arguable real time constraint for anyone who is that serious about PVP.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
That looks like a list of why mmos have become big POS.
This man speaks the *truth*!
1. For me, technical standards aren't all that important. When I speak of lots of room for improvement in relation to WoW, I am referring to improvements in story, player choice within quests, and other immersion enhancing elements. As long as the graphics don't make me feel like I am playing a game from last decade, and the gameplay isn't so bad as to be painful as I move from story element to story element, I really don't care about the "technical" standards. That is just an issue of personal preference and prioritization.
Just as you are not willing to pay for games which are technically inferior to ones you already pay for, I am not willing to pay a monthly subscription for a game which in terms of immersion, story quality, and player choice, is inferior to almost every CRPG ever made, when many of the great ones I either already have, or can get for a one-time fee of $10.00 or less. Neither of us is wrong, we just have different tastes.
2. I wasn't referring to incremental change and gradual improvement, I was referring to *fundamental* change. That is why I referenced the New Game Experience in Galaxies, it altered the experience so profoundly as to create an entirely different game. That is not a fair thing to do to customers, and I meant my remarks as an illustration of why WoW couldn't implement most of my (or anyone else's) theories of game improvement, even if they had the desire to do so, because if they did, the game that resulted from it would not be the game people have devoted years to.
3. Of course people are frustrated when one company/game dominates a genre, and they should be. Different people have different tastes, and if all the restaurants started making nothing but hot dogs, the people who like hamburgers would feel screwed. That is perfectly natural.
And I never claimed the WoW development team was inferior in any cosmic sense. The product they want to offer simply isn't the product I would like to see. If my tastes were universal law, yes, they would be an inferior development team, but they aren't. Neither are the tastes of those who like what Blizzard is selling.
I never understand why people bring up a company lacking prior MMO experience as a reason not to expect much. It is typically an argument used by fans of WoW, and Blizzard had no MMO experience prior to creating WoW, so it seems like a bit of a silly position to take. Especially given that no company has more MMO experience than SOE, and they ruin everything they touch.
And I don't claim that BioWare developers are "more capable" than Blizzard, only that they are more focused on the aspects of the gaming experience that I find most enjoyable. They are better at creating stories, and they offer more player choice in interacting with those stories. Sometimes they focus so much on story that gameplay suffers, but for me that is ok.
Also, it shouldn't be a question of whether a game offers "better" gameplay than WoW. It should be a question of whether a game offers an appealing gaming experience on it's own terms. If a given gamer is going to use WoW as the standard by which to judge all other games, he should probably stop wasting his time on other games and just keep playing WoW. If a given gamer doesn't like WoW, it shouldn't matter in the slightest whether or not a game's gameplay "measures up" to the WoW standard.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Ta da! The Great WoW Fanoi of MMORPG has arrived! Actually, the reason WoW people dislike new mmorpg's is because they have NEVER played an mmorpg at release. Lets imagine that WoW was released today. Simply put if 99% of the mindless drones that play WoW today would HATE WoW. Lets look at what max level content WoW had at release:
Onyxia an Molten Core.
Thats it. A sum total of 2 raid instances and a total of 11 bosses. Nothing else.
No PvP system of any sort (patch 1.4) No battlegrounds (patch 1.5). No new raid instances until patch 1.6. No dailies. No achievement system. No world bosses until patch 1.3. So there was not one piece of endgame content added until Azuregos and Lord Kazzak in patch 1.3 ... 3.5 months after WoW was released.
infact, at release WoW had broken classes (warlock and hunters) and talent reviews didnt start until 1.6 with warlolcks and warriors and hunters in 1.7. Terrible gear itemisation. Hybrids werent hybrids at all. They were just healers with 2 other junk trees. Only warriors could tank. By patch 1.12 (last major patch before 2.0 and BC) WoW had added a LOT of new content and every class had had talent reviews.
Every criticism you make of new mmorpg's can be applied to WoW when it was released in late 2004. Which leads me to the logical conclusion that the majority of players who play WoW now would have hated it on release.
And once the masses have spoken that X mmo is crap then the masses have decided its crap forever. How many WoW worshippers have tried Vanguard or Age of Conan lately?
WoW's secret for success is that it didnt start attracting the impressionable and gullible masses until it had time to put in new content and fix up its problems.
New mmorpg's are no different to WoW when it was released. Infact, new mmorpg's today are more polished and have more content than WoW's release.
Ta da! The Great WoW Fanoi of MMORPG has arrived! Actually, the reason WoW people dislike new mmorpg's is because they have NEVER played an mmorpg at release. Lets imagine that WoW was released today. Simply put if 99% of the mindless drones that play WoW today would HATE WoW. Lets look at what max level content WoW had at release:
Onyxia an Molten Core.
Thats it. A sum total of 2 raid instances and a total of 11 bosses. Nothing else.
No PvP system of any sort (patch 1.4) No battlegrounds (patch 1.5). No new raid instances until patch 1.6. No dailies. No achievement system. No world bosses until patch 1.3. So there was not one piece of endgame content added until Azuregos and Lord Kazzak in patch 1.3 ... 3.5 months after WoW was released.
infact, at release WoW had broken classes (warlock and hunters) and talent reviews didnt start until 1.6 with warlolcks and warriors and hunters in 1.7. Terrible gear itemisation. Hybrids werent hybrids at all. They were just healers with 2 other junk trees. Only warriors could tank. By patch 1.12 (last major patch before 2.0 and BC) WoW had added a LOT of new content and every class had had talent reviews.
Every criticism you make of new mmorpg's can be applied to WoW when it was released in late 2004. Which leads me to the logical conclusion that the majority of players who play WoW now would have hated it on release.
And once the masses have spoken that X mmo is crap then the masses have decided its crap forever. How many WoW worshippers have tried Vanguard or Age of Conan lately?
WoW's secret for success is that it didnt start attracting the impressionable and gullible masses until it had time to put in new content and fix up its problems.
New mmorpg's are no different to WoW when it was released. Infact, new mmorpg's today are more polished and have more content than WoW's release.
You are really trying to compare Vanguard and AoC to WoW at release? WoW was still a very fun, playable game, even with little endgame content. It was miles beyond those two games. You can't be serious. =/
This sort of revisionist history does nothing but hurt your own credibility
Eh, speaking as someone who played all three at release, his history might be revisionist, but only slightly. Vanguard's primary problem at release was that the world was far too big, and the starting populations far too scattered, for the number of players coming into the game, making it seem very empty. Essentially though it was a decent game, and whether or not it was as fun/more fun than WoW at release was a question of preference, not quality. "Miles beyond" is a very substantial stretch.
The Tortage part of AoC was far *more* polished, immersive, and for me at least, enjoyable, than anything that existed in WoW as of the day it went live. The later AoC content wasn't at that same quality level, and the leveling curve was excessively fast, but again, primarily issues of taste, not quality.
WoW at release had its fair share of bugs, server crashes, and unfinished classes, but at the time the MMO population as a whole still understood that those things are normal for a game that just launched, and most people didn't run in circles throwing screaming hissy fits about it, the way many late-comers to WoW do now when a new MMO isn't perfect out of the box.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Ta da! The Great WoW Fanoi of MMORPG has arrived! Actually, the reason WoW people dislike new mmorpg's is because they have NEVER played an mmorpg at release. Lets imagine that WoW was released today. Simply put if 99% of the mindless drones that play WoW today would HATE WoW. Lets look at what max level content WoW had at release:
Onyxia an Molten Core.
Thats it. A sum total of 2 raid instances and a total of 11 bosses. Nothing else.
No PvP system of any sort (patch 1.4) No battlegrounds (patch 1.5). No new raid instances until patch 1.6. No dailies. No achievement system. No world bosses until patch 1.3. So there was not one piece of endgame content added until Azuregos and Lord Kazzak in patch 1.3 ... 3.5 months after WoW was released.
infact, at release WoW had broken classes (warlock and hunters) and talent reviews didnt start until 1.6 with warlolcks and warriors and hunters in 1.7. Terrible gear itemisation. Hybrids werent hybrids at all. They were just healers with 2 other junk trees. Only warriors could tank. By patch 1.12 (last major patch before 2.0 and BC) WoW had added a LOT of new content and every class had had talent reviews.
Every criticism you make of new mmorpg's can be applied to WoW when it was released in late 2004. Which leads me to the logical conclusion that the majority of players who play WoW now would have hated it on release.
And once the masses have spoken that X mmo is crap then the masses have decided its crap forever. How many WoW worshippers have tried Vanguard or Age of Conan lately?
WoW's secret for success is that it didnt start attracting the impressionable and gullible masses until it had time to put in new content and fix up its problems.
New mmorpg's are no different to WoW when it was released. Infact, new mmorpg's today are more polished and have more content than WoW's release.
When WoW was first launched, the major contendor was EQ2 (just launched) and EQ1. UO is dying, every other game pales and fading. WoW brings a lot of additional polish and ideas superior to EQ1 and EQ2, a superb UI, very polished feelings, lore comparable to EQ, and real fun to level. I have fun levelling in WoW, much more so than levelling in EQ2. Much much more so. My first month of EQ2 was almost over when I got my hands on WoW, and I never returned to EQ2 till 2007.
Druing the WoW launch, EQ2 does not really work at all. EQ1 is was and always has been one hell of a ever-camp fest. Raids in EQ1 was never great fun, its just a lot of pain and xp lost for a few gear. And very elitist in that its hard for an average guild to do it at all. So WoW was a blessing at that time. This should be the valid ground of comparison. Its meaningless to criticize WoW back then by telling us how good WoW now is. Fact is, it is a shame to note that a lot of new game release lately are inferior to WoW launch years ago. Try Darkfall.
WoW at launch is not good, but its better than almost anything out there then. If WoW at launch was competing against another product like the current WoW, WoW at launch will die a swift death.
Now new games coming to the market, I mean today, will have to prove its value against the current batch of competitors, including the current WoW, the current EQ2, EvE and so on. Naturally, if the new game does not provide enough reason for others to switch to it, or attract new gamers on its own, the new game will have a miserable path.
Are there good launches lately? LOTRo. I was in closed beta all the way. Its the smoothest launch I ever have, totally playable from closed beta onwards. We are playing in beta not betaing. Yet the game somehow lacks retention power. My family abandoned 3 lifetime accounts, eventually. Cannot explain why.
Don't jump into sweeping conclusions. There is more than one type of WoW players. The 3 gamers in my family are totally and diagonally different, all play WoW, among many other games. Not all WoWers are innocent about gaming or software beta, testing ... . I am a software engineer by profession, for 25 years, and travelled to half of the world already in my profession. Who told you that WoW players do not play other games? Go check up guild such as Old timers. Says who WoW gamers dislike other new MMOs?
Eh, speaking as someone who played all three at release, his history might be revisionist, but only slightly. Vanguard's primary problem at release was that the world was far too big, and the starting populations far too scattered, for the number of players coming into the game, making it seem very empty. Essentially though it was a decent game, and whether or not it was as fun/more fun than WoW at release was a question of preference, not quality. "Miles beyond" is a very substantial stretch.
The Tortage part of AoC was far *more* polished, immersive, and for me at least, enjoyable, than anything that existed in WoW as of the day it went live. The later AoC content wasn't at that same quality level, and the leveling curve was excessively fast, but again, primarily issues of taste, not quality.
WoW at release had its fair share of bugs, server crashes, and unfinished classes, but at the time the MMO population as a whole still understood that those things are normal for a game that just launched, and most people didn't run in circles throwing screaming hissy fits about it, the way many late-comers to WoW do now when a new MMO isn't perfect out of the box.
I don't know what Vanguard you played when it launched, but the one I played was unplayable. It is alot better now, but the first month... no make that 6 months were terrible. AoC was absolute unfinished garbage. I played all 3 games from the day they were released and WoW was a much better game on release and still is. I will say though, that if Vanguard actually had some support, or was actually being developed... by say Blizzard, it could be a hell of a game. I really enjoyed it later on. But it is SOE, and they have a skeleton crew on that game with very little work towards anything new for it. Such a shame.
edit more rant..
I mean we are talking 50 hours of AoC "polish" ... right into unfinished garbage vs months of playtime in WoW at realease. You gotta be kidding me.
Zorn loves to talk features such as achievements or phasing as the rationale for WoW's success and the reason for the failures of competitors. The whole success of WoW in my opinion - and the failure of other games - comes down to polish. That is really it.
When you stepped out in Elwynn forest or Dun Morogh with your level 1 character the whole world was breathing (and still is) - critters, normal mobs, animations/sound in synch, extremely polished musical score, low latency, Mercedes feel interface (without options at release though) etc. The quest lines very fast sucked you into the world. Exactly what gives this feel I cannot put my finger on but I collectively call it polish. Other games that have had the same effect on me: Diablo, Starcraft, Homeworld 1 and 2, Dawn of War (best intro movie ever for that matter), System Shock 1 and 2 and a few others - but there are not many.
The point I am trying to make is that this is more like films - the most explosions do not result in box office success - The Usual Suspects had a small budget, was tight as hell (Polish) and was successfull while Alexander had a mammoth budget, filled with features and failed.
Blizzard is great with that polish. Lost some of it in Diablo II but came back with The Frozen Throne and WoW. Lost some again with TBC but came back in WotLK.
I am critical about certain features of WoW such as the general easyness of WotLK but I will never take away the greatness of Blizzard when it comes to the game crafting and hence polish. Only Relic can match that today (when they have a good day).
Eh, speaking as someone who played all three at release, his history might be revisionist, but only slightly. Vanguard's primary problem at release was that the world was far too big, and the starting populations far too scattered, for the number of players coming into the game, making it seem very empty. Essentially though it was a decent game, and whether or not it was as fun/more fun than WoW at release was a question of preference, not quality. "Miles beyond" is a very substantial stretch.
The Tortage part of AoC was far *more* polished, immersive, and for me at least, enjoyable, than anything that existed in WoW as of the day it went live. The later AoC content wasn't at that same quality level, and the leveling curve was excessively fast, but again, primarily issues of taste, not quality.
WoW at release had its fair share of bugs, server crashes, and unfinished classes, but at the time the MMO population as a whole still understood that those things are normal for a game that just launched, and most people didn't run in circles throwing screaming hissy fits about it, the way many late-comers to WoW do now when a new MMO isn't perfect out of the box.
Two things. WoW at launch was superior to a lot of games back then. AoC at launch is superior in some ways to WoW launch, but that was 4 years later and standard has improved. AoC at launch is competing against TBC of AoC, and against a very polished LOTRo, which was launched almost pefectly smooth and feature complete. I think that should be the way comparison goes. Compare with current best.
WoW at launch was a big hassle for a week. I cannot log in nor stay online long, due to server overcrowded. It took me a week before I can start playing smoothly (restarted on a batch of new servers). Once I started playing the game grabbed me, and comparing with the crop of games around early 2005, WoW is good. That is enough. If hypothetically, I am starting the 2005 version of WoW today, yes I will say its lacking. Same for EQ, if I start playing the earliest EQ today, the interface alone will make it look stupid.
Indeed, I agree that the community back in 2000 are much more tolerant and mature. My first death in EQ was a joke. I cannot find my body, the forest outside oggok is so dark. As a level 6, I ran into lvl 20s spectres, not far from the city gates AND the city guards do not defend me against the spectres. I do not cry foul. I just deleted the precious level 6 and start again. Yes we took it the hard way back then, b/c, honestly, there was no better games back then.
The standard of games, and of good launches are much higher these days. Is it natural that we compare the latest launches with the best game out here for content (WoW >> War) and with the best launch for smoothness (LOTRo launch >> DF launch). Can't blame us taking the best standard for comparison. Tho, we do not always dismiss a game if it does not start out perfect.
I think Blizzard largely ignored what gamers wanted from an MMO and instead wondered what non-gamers who'd never heard of an MMO wanted.
So what you got was a game that would run on pretty much any half-decent pc it was installed on, had a thorough tutorial system and was logically laid out. And once in the game, it was bright, colourful, packed with content and, even to a complete novice, very intuitive in how it worked. The zones were all graphically distinct but you travelled through them seamlessly. Even though it was an MMO there was a huge emphasis on soloable content so that you could, if so inclined, get to the cap without ever grouping.
The list goes on but all of these things were, to Blizzard, a priority over the fact that X class was gimped or Y class over-powered and that's an ethos that persists even now. They keep on making the game easier, more accessible, friendlier, simpler and it keeps selling.
The ruptured capillaries in your nose belie the clarity of your wisdom.
Can't agree more.
WoW has that feeling of gaming. You are playing a game, not struggling with things that does not enhance gameplay. Everything is natural, for a player who has some gaming background (me). Its also intuitively natural for another family member of mine, who was then 10+. Even my sister's baby pick up how to play (move around, jump and look for wild life, fire, water, whatever he can identify on the screen) WoW lately, at age 3. This feeling of naturalness (not a valid word) makes you feel like playing, you are actually playing, not labouring with the interface.
Smoothness polishness naturalness, whatever it is called, allows you to enjoy the content, and the content at start cannot be criticized any more. WoW launch, as well as Diablo I, were the moments I feel I need to take time off work to log on my game rig. Shame on me. Totally irresistable. The world, the feelings, the community, the music the ... everything. LOTRo almost matched that when my hobbits walked out to the shire. Yes LOTRo got me for a while but then it lost me. WoW keeps me coming back on and off.
True, which is not a bad thing.
It makes the game enjoyable to some, and that is good for those. No game can please everyone, its unfair to beat on Blizz b/c someone falls out sidee the target market of WoW. Fact is, Blizz insert as much variety as they can into the game to give it a wide appeal.
I sometimes got the feeling that some (mind it SOME) of the critics of WoW are trying to stand out of the crowd. WoW is the crowd, anything WoW offers is for the crowd. The critics has to point out something to appear different, or maybe looks bigger (using words like hard core, carebears ...). Come to think of it, WoW is a game. We log on for fun, not military training or reflex test. I do not need to be flogged for a hour before I can enjoy a game. Blizz makes everything else as smooth as possible so you can enjoy the game right away. How so? Very few hardware issues, almost any rig can run it. Auto config, install and play, the default setting handles all. Very simple but effective interface, Blizz learn the lessons of its competitors. The list goes on.
DF, VG, ... all those anti-WoW new games plays out the opposite. VG tries to force grind and time sink, DF tries to hurt you even before you can buy the game. No, the average gamer want to feel relaxed in a game, and play at his own pace. He does not need to be forced into ffa pvp or grinds, just to fill an e-ego. I do not need to feel hurt and grind in a game to feel that I am somebody important or succesful. On the contrary, I need to wind down. Work is enough, not another "job" when I log on WoW, or another game, for that matter.
It really isn't fair to compare a game at release to a game that has been out for years. A game has to release before it runs out of funding, in order to get more money with which to improve the game. WoW has been getting millions of $15.00 a month subscriptions for years now, releasing tons of patches and two expansions, all after spending years in original development, obviously it is going to be more polished than a game that has been in development for a total of only 3 or 4 years.
Anyone who goes into a new game with the attitude that it *must* have a comparable amount of content to current-state WoW and be just as polished is, frankly, an idiot. The only reason LOTRO was able to be as polished as it was on release is because there really wasn't very much to it. Much easier to polish one rock than a handful of them. You can expect a lot of content, or you can expect polished content. It just isn't realistic to expect both from a new game. Hell, if you use modern WoW as your standard for quantity of content or polish, it isn't realistic to expect either.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Talk about a straw man example, Bethesda hasn't made a really good and immersive game since Daggerfall.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Zorn: Is that not really a source of pain?
With WoW setting a standard for quality of game delivery, average competitors have to come up with either a comparable enticing world (LOTRo) or totally new features (CoX), or well good luck.
Sometimes I still wonder, how many times would I go back to WoW before I finally call it quits. UO, SWG, DAoC, and even CoX are gone. When I pulled the plug, its done (CoX I returned once). WoW, I just keep coming back on and off. Even LOTRo, when I left my lifetime membership account, I never go back.
Can't explain why. I am trying EvE now, no idea if it would replace WoW.
I think you got me wrong. Its not about fairness, it about competition.
Imagine a soccer team promoting from League B to League A or superleague, whatever. Who will you compete in the next season? THE BEST. Period.
Imagine Aion now just launched. If it has to draw massive subs, which game will it challenge? WoW. If Aion cannot compare to WoW in reasonable terms, it will fail to get as much sub as it wants (not meaning it will die). Now is it fair, no, but in the business world, newcomers always have this as disadvantage, as customers will invariable judge the newcomer using the best existing standard. I for one, will not switch to a new game that offers just as much or less than the old game, unless the old game fails. Say for instance (really imaginary), WoW issued a localised version of WoW in my country (imagine I am indian). If my english is so good that I do not care for indian text, do I feel the need to drop WoW and go to WoW india?
Now if Champion online comes, yes I expect it to have much less feature and maybe hiccups. BUT, it has something WoW can never offer, the superheros. That is something I would like to try. Aion, its very similar to WoW, and since I do not pvp that much these days, I am not too eager to start the download. If Champion online, startrek or whatever comes around, I would watch closely, and most likely I will try out Champion online.
The point with polish is that it does not necessarily come at a great development cost - you need the right people. Relic as an example is a small team with relatively small budgets and they deliver polish.
The more interesting question is why so many game developers in the MMO space miss this exact point? WAR launches new content instead of putting every development dollar they have behind getting the client and server coding 100% right. It is just weird.
So I guess what I am saying is that the gap is not widening with 15 USD a month and user. WoW is aging and a developer that understands that content and features is great but polish is greater can develop a good product at a reasonable cost.
Not only is it fair, but it is reality to compare new released games to what is currently on the market. Since no one can go back in time to play another mmo as it was released, new games are competing with how other mmos are currently. It is the only comparison that is relevant. Fair is not a word that should be used let alone calling people idiots for not accepting unfinished games at release.
This whole mentality that it should be expected and acceptable for mmos to release in the condition they have been just so they can get more money to to continue delveopment post release is a huge reason so many think they will succeed and travel this route. It is not our job to fund games that could not deliver a competitive product to the market. It is not my fault they could not meet their deadlines and budget restraints.
I don't think anyone is expecting massive amounts of content or perfection at release, but the standards have been raised since the days of pay to play beta testing releases for mmos. If a company wants to attract players away from polished, content filled functional mmos, they have to offer a compelling reason for players to make that switch. They better offer well designed mechanics at release, not promises of fixes 6 months later. There only needs to be enough content to occupy players for a decent amount of time, not multiple years. They game needs to not only be playable, but entertaining as well.
Once a game releases it should not be spending the next 12 months solely fixing all of its problems, it should be working new content. If developers are running out of money and time they need to revise their design process to be more realistic. Maybe cut their advertising a little bit, because all the hype in the world is not going to overcome shitty gameplay at release.
If we lived in a world where money men were willing to keep paying until an MMO was finished before releasing it, it might be fair for customers to expect a high level of polish and a high level of content. We don't live in that world. I am not complaining that it is unfair from a "business" standpoint, I am just pointing out that customer expectations, understandable or not, are simply not realistic, and if they bothered to pause and think about it, they would know their expectations are unreasonable.
That being said, I fully agree that if a game basically tries to imitate WoW, it should fail, because why would anybody play an underdeveloped clone of a game that is already out when they have the option of going for the real deal? That is the primary reason that WoW-envy is the biggest problem in the industry right now, all the development dollars that get spent on almost-certain-to-fail WoW clones could be getting spent on games that are new and different enough that players might be willing to forgive the standard release day level of flaws in order to stick around and see how the game's unique elements pan out.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
You missed the whole point of my post. My point was that the people throwing hissy fits saying that mmo's like Warhammer have no content are the same people who didn't come to WoW until at least 2006 and had never played an mmorpg before. Of course games like Warhammer are not helped by a relentless hype machine. But simply put if you took a bunch of WoW fanbois and put them on a WoW server at release in late Nov 2004 they would hate it. Thats NOT to say WoW was bad at launch but that the WoW fanbois have unrealistic expectations of what an mmo can offer at launch. When 98% of WoW's current players were not there for WoW's launch, then how do they know what a launch is like?
When WoW launched it was very successful and most of the people who tried WoW out were EQ, SWG, AO, UO players . IE mostly people who have played an mmorpg before and had realistic expectations.
But by the time the masses arrived to WoW Blizzard had polished the game, made improvements and released a truckload of content. For example during 2005 and the 1st week of Jan 2006 Blizzard released the PvP system, 3 battlegrounds, Blackwing Lair, Zul'Gurrub, 6 world bosses, the AQ war effort event and AQ20 and AQ40. 5/9 classes also had talent reviews. So obviously by Jan 2006, 14 months after it was released WoW was a much improved game.
But the WoW fanbois write off games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer FOREVER because they weren't perfect at launch. Ok,
Ok, look at this. Blackwing Lair was the first 40 man raid instance introduced into WoW after release. It was introduced in patch 1.6 on the 12th July 2005. Now WoW went live about 23rd Nov 2004. So it took Blizzard 8 months to release new raid content.
Warhammer: Age of Reckoning was released on the Sept 18th 2008. It is now May 2009. 8 months after the initial release, same amount of time it took Blizzard to release new raid content for WoW. So obviously theres a double standard here.
But the WoW fans will only ever judge Warhammer by what it was like at release, not what it is today. it wouldnt how many improvements, polish, bug fixes and new content games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer release. The WoW fanbois will forever judge them based on what they were like at release.
Why can't I judge WoW forever based on what it was like at release? The diehard WoW fans get to do it with every other mmorpg.