I think we're both dancing around confusion. you are correct, Gravity itself can be proven, but once cannot prove HOW it works. Sorry for that. anyhow..for realls....
When I think of the WOW crowd, to me its a bunch of juvenile ragers. The type that spend more time trying to "bug" or exploit an instance than it would take to just fight through the thing. The type of people that take out lifes problems on random people in groups. Jerks. Just about every game I play, well except EVE LOL, has a much nicer, more mature crowd.
When I think of the WOW crowd, to me its a bunch of juvenile ragers. The type that spend more time trying to "bug" or exploit an instance than it would take to just fight through the thing. The type of people that take out lifes problems on random people in groups. Jerks. Just about every game I play, well except EVE LOL, has a much nicer, more mature crowd.
Darkfall, Runescape, LOTRO (At least with lower levels) and EQIIX communities are just as bad if not worse.
The WoW crowd is more or less Joe Regular who could not give a shit if a game is a "Sandbox" or "Themepark" so long as its fun.
No, not the same at all. Gravity can be proved mathematically, and has pased every single test it has ever been given which is why it's a law.
The statement that a crowd exists because everyone knows it exists is a error in logic.
Venge
Gravity hasn't been proven by anything. It's called the THEORY of gravity for a reason. Once can DEFINITELY make a hell of an argument for it..but no math has proven it.
you can't prove gravity (in any way that we know of at the moment). You can't prove gravity (or any thing else) even with an infinite number of observations because of the Problem of Induction.
Yeah, I got a chuckle when I read the word "law" with respect to gravity.
You are correct Gurpslord, it is indeed the theory of gravity (Newton). Food for thought: there is actually more proof of the theory of evolution than that of the theory of gravity.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
the wow crowd has become more or less a way to describe a type of player. It is a player who joins a game, dislikes and unique systems or difficulty. Wants to know what the "best race/class/weapon tpye" is and then wants to know what the fastest possible route to "endgame" is.
While the time of this player being a tourist on break from wow has passed, as those players have now spread out much more, for about 5 years there was without a doubt a sizeable portion of the wow community looking for a home often time they would join a game, then in discontent over the new games ways, would be very vocal about stating that he/she was just going to go back to wow since it was clearly superior in their eyes.
The reference to wow stuck, the mentality stayed, however this is nothing more than an instant gratification crowd who wants to be the best as fast as possible with as few obsticals to it as possible, and often dislikes the very mechanics and systems that seperate the few slightly unique games left out there.
I see them in the full loot sandbox games i frequent. They hate the idea of full loot, because they are thinking in terms of losing a purple set they had to raid grind to get for 3 months. Still in the mentality of their old game. THen they complain how there is nothing to do but grind, again lost without the ! over npc's to guide them, unable to use their imagination to create reason for progressing. Lastly they complain that it takes too long to get to "endgame" which may or may not exist but they want it now. These people choose to macro rather than enjoy the game, in order to raise their skills, because they need to hit that endgame that doesnt exist. As per my sandbox games: theres no endgame instance pvp battle grounds or arenas...stop rushing to endgame ffs.
No, not the same at all. Gravity can be proved mathematically, and has pased every single test it has ever been given which is why it's a law.
The statement that a crowd exists because everyone knows it exists is a error in logic.
Venge
Gravity hasn't been proven by anything. It's called the THEORY of gravity for a reason. Once can DEFINITELY make a hell of an argument for it..but no math has proven it.
you can't prove gravity (in any way that we know of at the moment). You can't prove gravity (or any thing else) even with an infinite number of observations because of the Problem of Induction.
Yeah, I got a chuckle when I read the word "law" with respect to gravity.
You are correct Gurpslord, it is indeed the theory of gravity (Newton). Food for thought: there is actually more proof of the theory of evolution than that of the theory of gravity.
Once again no. Newton's laws are called Laws. Law of inertia, law of F=ma and law of action and reaction, these are newtons laws of gravity. The theory is einsteins theory or relativity to explain gravity.
Venge
edit - even in your own link it talks about the "other proofs". "There are some deductive and mathematical ways to justify some of the logic behind induction. Besides those responses mentioned above, of further relevance to deductively proving aspects of the practice of inference are: law of large numbers, Neyman–Pearson lemma, de Finetti's theorem, and Hans Reichenbach's theorie"
The law is that it occurs, the theory is how it occurs. Just like evolution, we know evolution happens we have seen it in our lifetimes in species changing and typically becoming more complex, we can measure it. The theory is partially on how it occurs (very partially) and if it indeed means one species change into another, but that species change is not disputed. It's observed.
The nature of gravity is theoretical.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
When I think of the WOW crowd, to me its a bunch of juvenile ragers. The type that spend more time trying to "bug" or exploit an instance than it would take to just fight through the thing. The type of people that take out lifes problems on random people in groups. Jerks. Just about every game I play, well except EVE LOL, has a much nicer, more mature crowd.
Darkfall, Runescape, LOTRO (At least with lower levels) and EQIIX communities are just as bad if not worse.
The WoW crowd is more or less Joe Regular who could not give a shit if a game is a "Sandbox" or "Themepark" so long as its fun.
This is how I feel. When I played LotRO at launch, WAR beta, Tabula Rasa beta, and many other games what I saw in general chat was nothing but rude comments towards anyone who indicated anything negative towards the current game. During my first month in LotRO I would see someone ask about how a feature worked, and I'd almost see one person say "lol go back to WoW if you can't figure it out", etc.
I would say the majority of the "WoW crowd" type folks, are just jerks no matter what game they are playing. Those playing WoW are playing WoW and don't really give other mmos much thought (because they enjoy their current mmo). What I've see more of anywhere, including this site, is negativity from people who hate WoW.
Nothing is going to change either. Once WoW becomes a smallish game (years from now), and we have our next giant mmo, we'll see the same WoW haters and WoW crowd folks be turned into XXX haters and YYY crowd folks.
It's the internet, people use it to watch porn, check email and spout hate.
ARGUMENT: WoW has 12 million subscribers while hardly any other MMORPGs pass 1 million.
Misleading. The majority of WoW's "subscribers" are in China, and they don't pay the monthly fee like N. Americans do. WoW's total box sales in N. America is actually closer to 3-4 million than 12. It's a faulty comparison when you compare the N. America sales of another MMORPG to the total amount of people that have played WoW worldwide.
ARGUMENT: The vast majority of players don't want a challenge and want everything handed to them. If you make a challenging MMORPG, hardly anyone will buy it.
Probably not true. Dark Souls is a RIDICULOUSLY challenging game...probably more challenging than any MMORPG to ever be released, and yet it has already sold 620K units in North American despite being a relatively recent release. It will very likely breach 1 million N. American sales in the long run, and that's a very respectable 1/3rd - 1/4th of WoW's total sales. The fact that a game that is so ridiculously, brutally, challenging sold so well tells me that the "fact" that the vast majority of players don't want a challenge is bunk.
ARGUMENT: Players want to be hand held. They won't play a game with non-linear "sandbox" gameplay that focuses on world interactivity.
Flat out WRONG. You want proof? Just look at single player games. Oblivion sold about 1.7 million units in 2006 with N America making up the majority of those sales. So it's probably safe to say it sold 2 million in N. America by now. That's 1/2 - 2/3rds of WoW's N. American sales. And yet Oblivion features highly non-linear gameplay, tons of world interactivity, and hardly any hand-holding at all. GTA is another big seller that has similar features (though it is less "sandboxy"). This to me, completely disproves the notion that the vast majority of players need to be "hand-held" to enjoy a game.
ARGUMENT: Every sandbox game to come out in recent time has failed horribly. Therefore most people prefer the WoW model.
Misleading. Every sandbox that has been released since SWG (which had its own issues) has been an indie mess, low quality, unpolished, and full of bugs. In addition, most of them just try to emulate the success of a game that game out in 1998 (and fail horribly at that) instead of trying to be original and evolve the genre. These "failures" are terrible examples. It would be like concluding that people hate movies because every movie released is the quality of "Gigli."
So what's my point in all this? I want to try to dispel the perception that we're stuck with WoW clones because they are the only games with a chance at success. I don't believe that this "WoW Crowd" dominates the market as so many others do.
So what are your thoughts? After reading my counters to common arguments, do you agree or disagree?
1. Is a subjective counter, one which opens the argument up to further discussion. No matter the amount of discussion on THAT argument, neither side will win. World of Warcraft made the mmorpg market accessable to a wider variety of gamer, both younger and more numerous. Whether this avaliability of the game has indeed spawned a generation of "WoW crowd" mmog gamers is up in the air. As far as I am concerned the exsposure the market has recieved largely due to WoW has indeed spawned a "WoW Crowd" , which doesn't mean that everyone who has played WoW fits that mold. I challenge you to log into WoW and watch general chat for an hour, then quiz some of us ( and perhaps yourself ) who have been playing since muds if the average chat log would have been present or even tolerated then. There absolutely is a "WoW Crowd" but everyone defines it diffrently , similarly everyone seems to define a sandbox diffrently.
2. You can NOT utilize a completely diffrent type of game, much less on a completely diffrent delivery system to a Mmorpg in support of an argument relative to mmorpgs.
3. Again , see number two.
4. Anyone that uses the fourth argument is not worth arguing with.
There is a common belief among many posters in this forum that the MMORPG market is dominated by this incomprehensible group called the "WoW Crowd." And by this, I don't just mean "those who play WoW." I mean a group consisting of players who disdain any kind of game that is not almost exactly like WoW. Anytime we discuss a game that deviates from the WoW, someone will inevitably say "well the WoW crowd won't get it."
I think that the "WoW crowd" is bunk. I don't believe that the vast majority of the MMORPG market is dominated by a group of players so close minded that they will only play games like WoW. Why do I hold this rebel belief do you ask? Well it's because I looked at a lot of the common reasoning that leads one to believe that the "WoW crowd" is real...and it's pretty sketcy. Here are some of the common arguments along with why they aren't so solid:
ARGUMENT: WoW has 12 million subscribers while hardly any other MMORPGs pass 1 million.
Misleading. The majority of WoW's "subscribers" are in China, and they don't pay the monthly fee like N. Americans do. WoW's total box sales in N. America is actually closer to 3-4 million than 12. It's a faulty comparison when you compare the N. America sales of another MMORPG to the total amount of people that have played WoW worldwide.
ARGUMENT: The vast majority of players don't want a challenge and want everything handed to them. If you make a challenging MMORPG, hardly anyone will buy it.
Probably not true. Dark Souls is a RIDICULOUSLY challenging game...probably more challenging than any MMORPG to ever be released, and yet it has already sold 620K units in North American despite being a relatively recent release. It will very likely breach 1 million N. American sales in the long run, and that's a very respectable 1/3rd - 1/4th of WoW's total sales. The fact that a game that is so ridiculously, brutally, challenging sold so well tells me that the "fact" that the vast majority of players don't want a challenge is bunk.
ARGUMENT: Players want to be hand held. They won't play a game with non-linear "sandbox" gameplay that focuses on world interactivity.
Flat out WRONG. You want proof? Just look at single player games. Oblivion sold about 1.7 million units in 2006 with N America making up the majority of those sales. So it's probably safe to say it sold 2 million in N. America by now. That's 1/2 - 2/3rds of WoW's N. American sales. And yet Oblivion features highly non-linear gameplay, tons of world interactivity, and hardly any hand-holding at all. GTA is another big seller that has similar features (though it is less "sandboxy"). This to me, completely disproves the notion that the vast majority of players need to be "hand-held" to enjoy a game.
ARGUMENT: Every sandbox game to come out in recent time has failed horribly. Therefore most people prefer the WoW model.
Misleading. Every sandbox that has been released since SWG (which had its own issues) has been an indie mess, low quality, unpolished, and full of bugs. In addition, most of them just try to emulate the success of a game that game out in 1998 (and fail horribly at that) instead of trying to be original and evolve the genre. These "failures" are terrible examples. It would be like concluding that people hate movies because every movie released is the quality of "Gigli."
So what's my point in all this? I want to try to dispel the perception that we're stuck with WoW clones because they are the only games with a chance at success. I don't believe that this "WoW Crowd" dominates the market as so many others do.
So what are your thoughts? After reading my counters to common arguments, do you agree or disagree?
You're comparing single-player games to multiplayer online games. If your suggestion is that an MMO that is instanced, single-player focused and challenging would do well, then I agree. Other than that, the argument falls apart when you figure in
- lack of save points
- influence of and conflict with other players
- online connection speed/stability
- persistant state world that was in motion before the player arrived and still needs to be playable once he leaves.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
First no, I have collected a certain annoyance about the typical WoW fanboi, but I dont believe everyone playing WoW is like that.
I also dont argue about what the WoW crowd likes or doesnt like. Thats because I assume that people who like WoW - play WoW. I am not interested in getting people to stop their favorite MMO. I am open about explaining what I dont like about WoW and why I myself dont play it, but if others want exactly that - let them.
And I just cant see that many other people would argue as the OP implies. Who here really is interested in getting people to stop WoW if they like it ?
Second, if Oblivion isnt handholding - then what is ? Map, questpointer, its all there. Oblivion has as much handholding as possible.
Finally Sandbox MMOs - I am not very interested in those kinds of games, but I fail to see why EVE is such a bad game, if you like that kind of game.
So what are your thoughts? After reading my counters to common arguments, do you agree or disagree?
The arguments do not address the social aspects of MMOs when comparing to single player games. The social aspects of the two genres are very different and very important to their development. The arguements do not not address the issues of system component failures and hardmore encounters.
A financially successful hardmode MMOs can be made. However, there is no evidence to suggest they will ever be mainstream so a hardmode MMO will be only a tiny portion of a general audience MMO or an indie creation (ie, no AAA) for now.
Sandbox MMOs have been done in the past, have been done recently, and will be done in the future. Whether a AAA developer develops one is another story. I think the issue with sandbox games is the lack of a solid hook that will drive such a game to a large population base for a long period of time. Without a solid justification for population/sales no one is going to invest the hundres of millions. What we are more likely to get is the gradual trasition of pure themepark to a hybrid due to cometition and the need to differentiate. Something like The SIMS might be able to do it but it might also fail to generate much longterm interest due to the new social paradigm a multi-player game generates if it is not properly adapted.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
There is a common belief among many posters in this forum that the MMORPG market is dominated by this incomprehensible group called the "WoW Crowd." And by this, I don't just mean "those who play WoW." I mean a group consisting of players who disdain any kind of game that is not almost exactly like WoW. Anytime we discuss a game that deviates from the WoW, someone will inevitably say "well the WoW crowd won't get it."
I think that the "WoW crowd" is bunk. I don't believe that the vast majority of the MMORPG market is dominated by a group of players so close minded that they will only play games like WoW. Why do I hold this rebel belief do you ask? Well it's because I looked at a lot of the common reasoning that leads one to believe that the "WoW crowd" is real...and it's pretty sketcy. Here are some of the common arguments along with why they aren't so solid:
ARGUMENT: WoW has 12 million subscribers while hardly any other MMORPGs pass 1 million.
Misleading. The majority of WoW's "subscribers" are in China, and they don't pay the monthly fee like N. Americans do. WoW's total box sales in N. America is actually closer to 3-4 million than 12. It's a faulty comparison when you compare the N. America sales of another MMORPG to the total amount of people that have played WoW worldwide.
ARGUMENT: The vast majority of players don't want a challenge and want everything handed to them. If you make a challenging MMORPG, hardly anyone will buy it.
Probably not true. Dark Souls is a RIDICULOUSLY challenging game...probably more challenging than any MMORPG to ever be released, and yet it has already sold 620K units in North American despite being a relatively recent release. It will very likely breach 1 million N. American sales in the long run, and that's a very respectable 1/3rd - 1/4th of WoW's total sales. The fact that a game that is so ridiculously, brutally, challenging sold so well tells me that the "fact" that the vast majority of players don't want a challenge is bunk.
ARGUMENT: Players want to be hand held. They won't play a game with non-linear "sandbox" gameplay that focuses on world interactivity.
Flat out WRONG. You want proof? Just look at single player games. Oblivion sold about 1.7 million units in 2006 with N America making up the majority of those sales. So it's probably safe to say it sold 2 million in N. America by now. That's 1/2 - 2/3rds of WoW's N. American sales. And yet Oblivion features highly non-linear gameplay, tons of world interactivity, and hardly any hand-holding at all. GTA is another big seller that has similar features (though it is less "sandboxy"). This to me, completely disproves the notion that the vast majority of players need to be "hand-held" to enjoy a game.
ARGUMENT: Every sandbox game to come out in recent time has failed horribly. Therefore most people prefer the WoW model.
Misleading. Every sandbox that has been released since SWG (which had its own issues) has been an indie mess, low quality, unpolished, and full of bugs. In addition, most of them just try to emulate the success of a game that game out in 1998 (and fail horribly at that) instead of trying to be original and evolve the genre. These "failures" are terrible examples. It would be like concluding that people hate movies because every movie released is the quality of "Gigli."
So what's my point in all this? I want to try to dispel the perception that we're stuck with WoW clones because they are the only games with a chance at success. I don't believe that this "WoW Crowd" dominates the market as so many others do.
So what are your thoughts? After reading my counters to common arguments, do you agree or disagree?
You're comparing single-player games to multiplayer online games. If your suggestion is that an MMO that is instanced, single-player focused and challenging would do well, then I agree. Other than that, the argument falls apart when you figure in
- lack of save points
- influence of and conflict with other players
- online connection speed/stability
- persistant state world that was in motion before the player arrived and still needs to be playable once he leaves.
Dark Souls actually has every single one of those things you mentioned except for a persistent state world. I think the line between single player games and MMO games is blurrier than many think. In fact, playing a game like Borderlands almost feels identical to playing a modern MMORPG...the only difference is that you don't randomly run into people while you're in your own little quest bubble.
There is a common belief among many posters in this forum that the MMORPG market is dominated by this incomprehensible group called the "WoW Crowd." And by this, I don't just mean "those who play WoW." I mean a group consisting of players who disdain any kind of game that is not almost exactly like WoW. Anytime we discuss a game that deviates from the WoW, someone will inevitably say "well the WoW crowd won't get it."
I think that the "WoW crowd" is bunk. I don't believe that the vast majority of the MMORPG market is dominated by a group of players so close minded that they will only play games like WoW. Why do I hold this rebel belief do you ask? Well it's because I looked at a lot of the common reasoning that leads one to believe that the "WoW crowd" is real...and it's pretty sketcy. Here are some of the common arguments along with why they aren't so solid:
ARGUMENT: WoW has 12 million subscribers while hardly any other MMORPGs pass 1 million.
Misleading. The majority of WoW's "subscribers" are in China, and they don't pay the monthly fee like N. Americans do. WoW's total box sales in N. America is actually closer to 3-4 million than 12. It's a faulty comparison when you compare the N. America sales of another MMORPG to the total amount of people that have played WoW worldwide.
ARGUMENT: The vast majority of players don't want a challenge and want everything handed to them. If you make a challenging MMORPG, hardly anyone will buy it.
Probably not true. Dark Souls is a RIDICULOUSLY challenging game...probably more challenging than any MMORPG to ever be released, and yet it has already sold 620K units in North American despite being a relatively recent release. It will very likely breach 1 million N. American sales in the long run, and that's a very respectable 1/3rd - 1/4th of WoW's total sales. The fact that a game that is so ridiculously, brutally, challenging sold so well tells me that the "fact" that the vast majority of players don't want a challenge is bunk.
ARGUMENT: Players want to be hand held. They won't play a game with non-linear "sandbox" gameplay that focuses on world interactivity.
Flat out WRONG. You want proof? Just look at single player games. Oblivion sold about 1.7 million units in 2006 with N America making up the majority of those sales. So it's probably safe to say it sold 2 million in N. America by now. That's 1/2 - 2/3rds of WoW's N. American sales. And yet Oblivion features highly non-linear gameplay, tons of world interactivity, and hardly any hand-holding at all. GTA is another big seller that has similar features (though it is less "sandboxy"). This to me, completely disproves the notion that the vast majority of players need to be "hand-held" to enjoy a game.
ARGUMENT: Every sandbox game to come out in recent time has failed horribly. Therefore most people prefer the WoW model.
Misleading. Every sandbox that has been released since SWG (which had its own issues) has been an indie mess, low quality, unpolished, and full of bugs. In addition, most of them just try to emulate the success of a game that game out in 1998 (and fail horribly at that) instead of trying to be original and evolve the genre. These "failures" are terrible examples. It would be like concluding that people hate movies because every movie released is the quality of "Gigli."
So what's my point in all this? I want to try to dispel the perception that we're stuck with WoW clones because they are the only games with a chance at success. I don't believe that this "WoW Crowd" dominates the market as so many others do.
So what are your thoughts? After reading my counters to common arguments, do you agree or disagree?
You're comparing single-player games to multiplayer online games. If your suggestion is that an MMO that is instanced, single-player focused and challenging would do well, then I agree. Other than that, the argument falls apart when you figure in
- lack of save points
- influence of and conflict with other players
- online connection speed/stability
- persistant state world that was in motion before the player arrived and still needs to be playable once he leaves.
Dark Souls actually has every single one of those things you mentioned except for a persistent state world. I think the line between single player games and MMO games is blurrier than many think. In fact, playing a game like Borderlands almost feels identical to playing a modern MMORPG...the only difference is that you don't randomly run into people while you're in your own little quest bubble.
That I think is a major differnence. An MMO *must have* other people. Whether you do anything with them is another factor but there must be other people
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No, not the same at all. Gravity can be proved mathematically, and has pased every single test it has ever been given which is why it's a law.
The statement that a crowd exists because everyone knows it exists is a error in logic.
Venge
Gravity hasn't been proven by anything. It's called the THEORY of gravity for a reason. Once can DEFINITELY make a hell of an argument for it..but no math has proven it.
you can't prove gravity (in any way that we know of at the moment). You can't prove gravity (or any thing else) even with an infinite number of observations because of the Problem of Induction.
Yeah, I got a chuckle when I read the word "law" with respect to gravity.
You are correct Gurpslord, it is indeed the theory of gravity (Newton). Food for thought: there is actually more proof of the theory of evolution than that of the theory of gravity.
Once again no. Newton's laws are called Laws. Law of inertia, law of F=ma and law of action and reaction, these are newtons laws of gravity. The theory is einsteins theory or relativity to explain gravity.
Venge
edit - even in your own link it talks about the "other proofs". "There are some deductive and mathematical ways to justify some of the logic behind induction. Besides those responses mentioned above, of further relevance to deductively proving aspects of the practice of inference are: law of large numbers, Neyman–Pearson lemma, de Finetti's theorem, and Hans Reichenbach's theorie"
The law is that it occurs, the theory is how it occurs. Just like evolution, we know evolution happens we have seen it in our lifetimes in species changing and typically becoming more complex, we can measure it. The theory is partially on how it occurs (very partially) and if it indeed means one species change into another, but that species change is not disputed. It's observed.
The nature of gravity is theoretical.
This exchange has been really amusing.
Gurpslord, the fact that you compare the existence of the WoW crowd with the existence of GRAVITY is ridiculously funny. I mean...on one hand you have the WoW crowd. A generalization that the majority of MMORPG players fit into one specific (derogitory) stereotype. Next you have GRAVITY. A fundamental principle of physics on which much of our understanding of the world is based.
Do you really think these two are REMOTELY comparable. If you did anything with your arguments, it's just prove that the presumption of the "WoW crowd" that so many people have here is based on absolutely nothing.
There is a common belief among many posters in this forum that the MMORPG market is dominated by this incomprehensible group called the "WoW Crowd." And by this, I don't just mean "those who play WoW." I mean a group consisting of players who disdain any kind of game that is not almost exactly like WoW. Anytime we discuss a game that deviates from the WoW, someone will inevitably say "well the WoW crowd won't get it."
I think that the "WoW crowd" is bunk. I don't believe that the vast majority of the MMORPG market is dominated by a group of players so close minded that they will only play games like WoW. Why do I hold this rebel belief do you ask? Well it's because I looked at a lot of the common reasoning that leads one to believe that the "WoW crowd" is real...and it's pretty sketcy. Here are some of the common arguments along with why they aren't so solid:
ARGUMENT: WoW has 12 million subscribers while hardly any other MMORPGs pass 1 million.
Misleading. The majority of WoW's "subscribers" are in China, and they don't pay the monthly fee like N. Americans do. WoW's total box sales in N. America is actually closer to 3-4 million than 12. It's a faulty comparison when you compare the N. America sales of another MMORPG to the total amount of people that have played WoW worldwide.
ARGUMENT: The vast majority of players don't want a challenge and want everything handed to them. If you make a challenging MMORPG, hardly anyone will buy it.
Probably not true. Dark Souls is a RIDICULOUSLY challenging game...probably more challenging than any MMORPG to ever be released, and yet it has already sold 620K units in North American despite being a relatively recent release. It will very likely breach 1 million N. American sales in the long run, and that's a very respectable 1/3rd - 1/4th of WoW's total sales. The fact that a game that is so ridiculously, brutally, challenging sold so well tells me that the "fact" that the vast majority of players don't want a challenge is bunk.
ARGUMENT: Players want to be hand held. They won't play a game with non-linear "sandbox" gameplay that focuses on world interactivity.
Flat out WRONG. You want proof? Just look at single player games. Oblivion sold about 1.7 million units in 2006 with N America making up the majority of those sales. So it's probably safe to say it sold 2 million in N. America by now. That's 1/2 - 2/3rds of WoW's N. American sales. And yet Oblivion features highly non-linear gameplay, tons of world interactivity, and hardly any hand-holding at all. GTA is another big seller that has similar features (though it is less "sandboxy"). This to me, completely disproves the notion that the vast majority of players need to be "hand-held" to enjoy a game.
ARGUMENT: Every sandbox game to come out in recent time has failed horribly. Therefore most people prefer the WoW model.
Misleading. Every sandbox that has been released since SWG (which had its own issues) has been an indie mess, low quality, unpolished, and full of bugs. In addition, most of them just try to emulate the success of a game that game out in 1998 (and fail horribly at that) instead of trying to be original and evolve the genre. These "failures" are terrible examples. It would be like concluding that people hate movies because every movie released is the quality of "Gigli."
So what's my point in all this? I want to try to dispel the perception that we're stuck with WoW clones because they are the only games with a chance at success. I don't believe that this "WoW Crowd" dominates the market as so many others do.
So what are your thoughts? After reading my counters to common arguments, do you agree or disagree?
You're comparing single-player games to multiplayer online games. If your suggestion is that an MMO that is instanced, single-player focused and challenging would do well, then I agree. Other than that, the argument falls apart when you figure in
- lack of save points
- influence of and conflict with other players
- online connection speed/stability
- persistant state world that was in motion before the player arrived and still needs to be playable once he leaves.
Dark Souls actually has every single one of those things you mentioned except for a persistent state world. I think the line between single player games and MMO games is blurrier than many think. In fact, playing a game like Borderlands almost feels identical to playing a modern MMORPG...the only difference is that you don't randomly run into people while you're in your own little quest bubble.
That I think is a major differnence. An MMO *must have* other people. Whether you do anything with them is another factor but there must be other people
True, but even given that I don't think that single player games are so different that they can't be compared with MMORPGs. I actually think some single player games are strikingly similar to MMORPGs...especially modern ones.
It's not like comparing SPRPGs to MMORPGs is an apples to oranges comparison. It's more like a Gala apples to Granny Smith apples comparison.
I always laff when someone quotes WoW as haveing 12million subs . the 12mil + subs is counting every sub that was ever on the game , including test run accounts.
real paying every month and playong every month subs are less then 500k far less .
STOP FEEDING THE HYPE ................... thats 99% of whats wrong with every game in the world today , all you half wits keep feeding the hype
I always laff when someone quotes WoW as haveing 12million subs . the 12mil + subs is counting every sub that was ever on the game , including test run accounts.
real paying every month and playong every month subs are less then 500k far less .
STOP FEEDING THE HYPE ................... thats 99% of whats wrong with every game in the world today , all you half wits keep feeding the hype
I always facepalm when I read something like this as the definition as been stated over and over and over and verified by countless other sources, and falls in line with quartely report earnings.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
the wow crowd has become more or less a way to describe a type of player. It is a player who joins a game, dislikes and unique systems or difficulty. Wants to know what the "best race/class/weapon tpye" is and then wants to know what the fastest possible route to "endgame" is.
While the time of this player being a tourist on break from wow has passed, as those players have now spread out much more, for about 5 years there was without a doubt a sizeable portion of the wow community looking for a home often time they would join a game, then in discontent over the new games ways, would be very vocal about stating that he/she was just going to go back to wow since it was clearly superior in their eyes.
The reference to wow stuck, the mentality stayed, however this is nothing more than an instant gratification crowd who wants to be the best as fast as possible with as few obsticals to it as possible, and often dislikes the very mechanics and systems that seperate the few slightly unique games left out there.
I see them in the full loot sandbox games i frequent. They hate the idea of full loot, because they are thinking in terms of losing a purple set they had to raid grind to get for 3 months. Still in the mentality of their old game. THen they complain how there is nothing to do but grind, again lost without the ! over npc's to guide them, unable to use their imagination to create reason for progressing. Lastly they complain that it takes too long to get to "endgame" which may or may not exist but they want it now. These people choose to macro rather than enjoy the game, in order to raise their skills, because they need to hit that endgame that doesnt exist. As per my sandbox games: theres no endgame instance pvp battle grounds or arenas...stop rushing to endgame ffs.
There were actually a lot of people that hated full loot PvP way back in the UO days. That's why they made Trammel, because so many people complained about getting PK'd. Note this was in the late nineties.
Were these people part of the WoW crowd? I'm guessing no, because WoW didn't come out until half a decade later.
"The WoW crowd" has just become a general prejorative that people apply to folks they don't like in MMORPGs...that's really it. I don't think there is this massive amount of of players that fit the stereotype of the "WoW crowd" that everyone seems to throw around. It's more complex than that.
Someone who really likes WoW, may also really like a well done sandbox game, or a sandbox themepark hybrid, or something completely new. And this is what my OP is about. There is this belief that the "WoW crowd" is massive and will only play WoW...I don't think it's true.
True, but even given that I don't think that single player games are so different that they can't be compared with MMORPGs. I actually think some single player games are strikingly similar to MMORPGs...especially modern ones.
It's not like comparing SPRPGs to MMORPGs is an apples to oranges comparison. It's more like a Gala apples to Granny Smith apples comparison.
It is comparing apples to oranges.
They are designed differently, have different customer bases, different objectives , different playability, different lifespans, and different marketing strategies. They are completely different catagories in the "Fruit from a tree" section. You would have a better chance at comparing Cooperative online rpgs to Mmorpgs, than you would Sprpgs. They are simply and utterly completely different types of games.
I played WoW since beta and the chat has always been like the famous "Barren's Chat". These same players were the same players some of you call "more mature older players" who played classic mmo/muds. Burnt-out casual/hardcore players of EQ, DAoC, AO, etc... made up the old WoW crowd.
They were the same crowd that demanded this and that to be changed. Most of the changes of WoW (during that time was already the simplest game) came from veteran mmo players who wanted less tedious/grindy content/gameplay or some of you always argue is called "hardcore".
This "WoW Crowd" is just the product of all the vocal veteran mmo players who did not get the title because they were scattered playing different mmos before WoW. WoW simply brought them together. WoW's population just made this crowd more noticeable. I remember they used to be called...
There is some truth to it in that the runaway success of WoW made MMO's into a mainstream thing, for better or for worse. Just ask an old-timer who was online in the early days about the 'Eternal September', which started when AOL came along and brought the Internet to a mainstream audience with a similar effect. The bigger a community, the bigger the asshole crowd in it gets, and they tend to be the loudest and most memorable. I don't think there is a 'WoW crowd' anymore though, as by now the phenomenon has spread pretty thoroughly to just about every other game out there.
But ..He also before that played Diablo and Diablo2
He bought Starcraft2 when that came out..
and he will most likely play Diablo3
But this is also the the ONLY knowledge he has about games, only Blizzard games..
If I woudnt have been there and told him that there is ALOT of other games out there, he would NOT have played any other games then the ones Blizzard has created..
And...He's older friends before me contains of people much like himself..everytime they try to get him to play another game , it's a Blizzard title..
There Is a WoW crowd..Or maybe it's a Blizzard Crowd
True, but even given that I don't think that single player games are so different that they can't be compared with MMORPGs. I actually think some single player games are strikingly similar to MMORPGs...especially modern ones.
It's not like comparing SPRPGs to MMORPGs is an apples to oranges comparison. It's more like a Gala apples to Granny Smith apples comparison.
The mechanics are essentially the same but MMOs have a limiting factor on the mechanics allowed and difficulty based on number of players involved and system component failure rate.
However, the social aspects really make single player games and MMOs completely different beasts. The social aspects drive the two genres in very different design directions.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
I played WoW since beta and the chat has always been like the famous "Barren's Chat". These same players were the same players some of you call "more mature older players" who played classic mmo/muds. Burnt-out casual/hardcore players of EQ, DAoC, AO, etc... made up the old WoW crowd.
They were the same crowd that demanded this and that to be changed. Most of the changes of WoW (during that time was already the simplest game) came from veteran mmo players who wanted less tedious/grindy content/gameplay or some of you always argue is called "hardcore".
This "WoW Crowd" is just the product of all the vocal veteran mmo players who did not get the title because they were scattered playing different mmos before WoW. WoW simply brought them together. WoW's population just made this crowd more noticeable. I remember they used to be called...
"trolls"?
I have never read anything so wrong in all my time on these forums. To even think you would accuse the orginal mmorpg players of being the "barrens chat" cause its absolutely unthinkable. The majority of us MUD era players / First generation mmorpg players in no way resemble the community which resided in the Barrens chat.
The Barrens chat is what happened when the game was designed to target the wider and younger audience. ( Note not all of the attracted crowd are the culprits, nor are all us vets innocent.)
But ..He also before that played Diablo and Diablo2
He bought Starcraft2 when that came out..
and he will most likely play Diablo3
But this is also the the ONLY knowledge he has about games, only Blizzard games..
If I woudnt have been there and told him that there is ALOT of other games out there, he would NOT have played any other games then the ones Blizzard has created..
And...He's older friends before me contains of people much like himself..everytime they try to get him to play another game , it's a Blizzard title..
There Is a WoW crowd..Or maybe it's a Blizzard Crowd
Fuck me! World of Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo. Not only Blizzard games but some of the best games ever made. He should be shot for playing some of the best PC games ever made. You so called "Hardcore" (Laugh) players are alot worse than the "WOW crowd"
Comments
Once again..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
I think we're both dancing around confusion. you are correct, Gravity itself can be proven, but once cannot prove HOW it works. Sorry for that. anyhow..for realls....
back on topic hehe.
When I think of the WOW crowd, to me its a bunch of juvenile ragers. The type that spend more time trying to "bug" or exploit an instance than it would take to just fight through the thing. The type of people that take out lifes problems on random people in groups. Jerks. Just about every game I play, well except EVE LOL, has a much nicer, more mature crowd.
Darkfall, Runescape, LOTRO (At least with lower levels) and EQIIX communities are just as bad if not worse.
The WoW crowd is more or less Joe Regular who could not give a shit if a game is a "Sandbox" or "Themepark" so long as its fun.
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
Yeah, I got a chuckle when I read the word "law" with respect to gravity.
You are correct Gurpslord, it is indeed the theory of gravity (Newton). Food for thought: there is actually more proof of the theory of evolution than that of the theory of gravity.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
the wow crowd has become more or less a way to describe a type of player. It is a player who joins a game, dislikes and unique systems or difficulty. Wants to know what the "best race/class/weapon tpye" is and then wants to know what the fastest possible route to "endgame" is.
While the time of this player being a tourist on break from wow has passed, as those players have now spread out much more, for about 5 years there was without a doubt a sizeable portion of the wow community looking for a home often time they would join a game, then in discontent over the new games ways, would be very vocal about stating that he/she was just going to go back to wow since it was clearly superior in their eyes.
The reference to wow stuck, the mentality stayed, however this is nothing more than an instant gratification crowd who wants to be the best as fast as possible with as few obsticals to it as possible, and often dislikes the very mechanics and systems that seperate the few slightly unique games left out there.
I see them in the full loot sandbox games i frequent. They hate the idea of full loot, because they are thinking in terms of losing a purple set they had to raid grind to get for 3 months. Still in the mentality of their old game. THen they complain how there is nothing to do but grind, again lost without the ! over npc's to guide them, unable to use their imagination to create reason for progressing. Lastly they complain that it takes too long to get to "endgame" which may or may not exist but they want it now. These people choose to macro rather than enjoy the game, in order to raise their skills, because they need to hit that endgame that doesnt exist. As per my sandbox games: theres no endgame instance pvp battle grounds or arenas...stop rushing to endgame ffs.
Once again no. Newton's laws are called Laws. Law of inertia, law of F=ma and law of action and reaction, these are newtons laws of gravity. The theory is einsteins theory or relativity to explain gravity.
Venge
edit - even in your own link it talks about the "other proofs". "There are some deductive and mathematical ways to justify some of the logic behind induction. Besides those responses mentioned above, of further relevance to deductively proving aspects of the practice of inference are: law of large numbers, Neyman–Pearson lemma, de Finetti's theorem, and Hans Reichenbach's theorie"
The law is that it occurs, the theory is how it occurs. Just like evolution, we know evolution happens we have seen it in our lifetimes in species changing and typically becoming more complex, we can measure it. The theory is partially on how it occurs (very partially) and if it indeed means one species change into another, but that species change is not disputed. It's observed.
The nature of gravity is theoretical.
This is how I feel. When I played LotRO at launch, WAR beta, Tabula Rasa beta, and many other games what I saw in general chat was nothing but rude comments towards anyone who indicated anything negative towards the current game. During my first month in LotRO I would see someone ask about how a feature worked, and I'd almost see one person say "lol go back to WoW if you can't figure it out", etc.
I would say the majority of the "WoW crowd" type folks, are just jerks no matter what game they are playing. Those playing WoW are playing WoW and don't really give other mmos much thought (because they enjoy their current mmo). What I've see more of anywhere, including this site, is negativity from people who hate WoW.
Nothing is going to change either. Once WoW becomes a smallish game (years from now), and we have our next giant mmo, we'll see the same WoW haters and WoW crowd folks be turned into XXX haters and YYY crowd folks.
It's the internet, people use it to watch porn, check email and spout hate.
1. Is a subjective counter, one which opens the argument up to further discussion. No matter the amount of discussion on THAT argument, neither side will win. World of Warcraft made the mmorpg market accessable to a wider variety of gamer, both younger and more numerous. Whether this avaliability of the game has indeed spawned a generation of "WoW crowd" mmog gamers is up in the air. As far as I am concerned the exsposure the market has recieved largely due to WoW has indeed spawned a "WoW Crowd" , which doesn't mean that everyone who has played WoW fits that mold. I challenge you to log into WoW and watch general chat for an hour, then quiz some of us ( and perhaps yourself ) who have been playing since muds if the average chat log would have been present or even tolerated then. There absolutely is a "WoW Crowd" but everyone defines it diffrently , similarly everyone seems to define a sandbox diffrently.
2. You can NOT utilize a completely diffrent type of game, much less on a completely diffrent delivery system to a Mmorpg in support of an argument relative to mmorpgs.
3. Again , see number two.
4. Anyone that uses the fourth argument is not worth arguing with.
You're comparing single-player games to multiplayer online games. If your suggestion is that an MMO that is instanced, single-player focused and challenging would do well, then I agree. Other than that, the argument falls apart when you figure in
- lack of save points
- influence of and conflict with other players
- online connection speed/stability
- persistant state world that was in motion before the player arrived and still needs to be playable once he leaves.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am amazed about the OP.
First no, I have collected a certain annoyance about the typical WoW fanboi, but I dont believe everyone playing WoW is like that.
I also dont argue about what the WoW crowd likes or doesnt like. Thats because I assume that people who like WoW - play WoW. I am not interested in getting people to stop their favorite MMO. I am open about explaining what I dont like about WoW and why I myself dont play it, but if others want exactly that - let them.
And I just cant see that many other people would argue as the OP implies. Who here really is interested in getting people to stop WoW if they like it ?
Second, if Oblivion isnt handholding - then what is ? Map, questpointer, its all there. Oblivion has as much handholding as possible.
Finally Sandbox MMOs - I am not very interested in those kinds of games, but I fail to see why EVE is such a bad game, if you like that kind of game.
The arguments do not address the social aspects of MMOs when comparing to single player games. The social aspects of the two genres are very different and very important to their development. The arguements do not not address the issues of system component failures and hardmore encounters.
A financially successful hardmode MMOs can be made. However, there is no evidence to suggest they will ever be mainstream so a hardmode MMO will be only a tiny portion of a general audience MMO or an indie creation (ie, no AAA) for now.
Sandbox MMOs have been done in the past, have been done recently, and will be done in the future. Whether a AAA developer develops one is another story. I think the issue with sandbox games is the lack of a solid hook that will drive such a game to a large population base for a long period of time. Without a solid justification for population/sales no one is going to invest the hundres of millions. What we are more likely to get is the gradual trasition of pure themepark to a hybrid due to cometition and the need to differentiate. Something like The SIMS might be able to do it but it might also fail to generate much longterm interest due to the new social paradigm a multi-player game generates if it is not properly adapted.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
Dark Souls actually has every single one of those things you mentioned except for a persistent state world. I think the line between single player games and MMO games is blurrier than many think. In fact, playing a game like Borderlands almost feels identical to playing a modern MMORPG...the only difference is that you don't randomly run into people while you're in your own little quest bubble.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
That I think is a major differnence. An MMO *must have* other people. Whether you do anything with them is another factor but there must be other people
This exchange has been really amusing.
Gurpslord, the fact that you compare the existence of the WoW crowd with the existence of GRAVITY is ridiculously funny. I mean...on one hand you have the WoW crowd. A generalization that the majority of MMORPG players fit into one specific (derogitory) stereotype. Next you have GRAVITY. A fundamental principle of physics on which much of our understanding of the world is based.
Do you really think these two are REMOTELY comparable. If you did anything with your arguments, it's just prove that the presumption of the "WoW crowd" that so many people have here is based on absolutely nothing.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
True, but even given that I don't think that single player games are so different that they can't be compared with MMORPGs. I actually think some single player games are strikingly similar to MMORPGs...especially modern ones.
It's not like comparing SPRPGs to MMORPGs is an apples to oranges comparison. It's more like a Gala apples to Granny Smith apples comparison.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I always laff when someone quotes WoW as haveing 12million subs . the 12mil + subs is counting every sub that was ever on the game , including test run accounts.
real paying every month and playong every month subs are less then 500k far less .
STOP FEEDING THE HYPE ................... thats 99% of whats wrong with every game in the world today , all you half wits keep feeding the hype
I always facepalm when I read something like this as the definition as been stated over and over and over and verified by countless other sources, and falls in line with quartely report earnings.
Venge
There were actually a lot of people that hated full loot PvP way back in the UO days. That's why they made Trammel, because so many people complained about getting PK'd. Note this was in the late nineties.
Were these people part of the WoW crowd? I'm guessing no, because WoW didn't come out until half a decade later.
"The WoW crowd" has just become a general prejorative that people apply to folks they don't like in MMORPGs...that's really it. I don't think there is this massive amount of of players that fit the stereotype of the "WoW crowd" that everyone seems to throw around. It's more complex than that.
Someone who really likes WoW, may also really like a well done sandbox game, or a sandbox themepark hybrid, or something completely new. And this is what my OP is about. There is this belief that the "WoW crowd" is massive and will only play WoW...I don't think it's true.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It is comparing apples to oranges.
They are designed differently, have different customer bases, different objectives , different playability, different lifespans, and different marketing strategies. They are completely different catagories in the "Fruit from a tree" section. You would have a better chance at comparing Cooperative online rpgs to Mmorpgs, than you would Sprpgs. They are simply and utterly completely different types of games.
Edited * - Because i'm not sure what applies are.
I played WoW since beta and the chat has always been like the famous "Barren's Chat". These same players were the same players some of you call "more mature older players" who played classic mmo/muds. Burnt-out casual/hardcore players of EQ, DAoC, AO, etc... made up the old WoW crowd.
They were the same crowd that demanded this and that to be changed. Most of the changes of WoW (during that time was already the simplest game) came from veteran mmo players who wanted less tedious/grindy content/gameplay or some of you always argue is called "hardcore".
This "WoW Crowd" is just the product of all the vocal veteran mmo players who did not get the title because they were scattered playing different mmos before WoW. WoW simply brought them together. WoW's population just made this crowd more noticeable. I remember they used to be called...
"trolls"?
There is some truth to it in that the runaway success of WoW made MMO's into a mainstream thing, for better or for worse. Just ask an old-timer who was online in the early days about the 'Eternal September', which started when AOL came along and brought the Internet to a mainstream audience with a similar effect. The bigger a community, the bigger the asshole crowd in it gets, and they tend to be the loudest and most memorable. I don't think there is a 'WoW crowd' anymore though, as by now the phenomenon has spread pretty thoroughly to just about every other game out there.
I have a neigbour that plays WoW..:)
But ..He also before that played Diablo and Diablo2
He bought Starcraft2 when that came out..
and he will most likely play Diablo3
But this is also the the ONLY knowledge he has about games, only Blizzard games..
If I woudnt have been there and told him that there is ALOT of other games out there, he would NOT have played any other games then the ones Blizzard has created..
And...He's older friends before me contains of people much like himself..everytime they try to get him to play another game , it's a Blizzard title..
There Is a WoW crowd..Or maybe it's a Blizzard Crowd
The mechanics are essentially the same but MMOs have a limiting factor on the mechanics allowed and difficulty based on number of players involved and system component failure rate.
However, the social aspects really make single player games and MMOs completely different beasts. The social aspects drive the two genres in very different design directions.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
I have never read anything so wrong in all my time on these forums. To even think you would accuse the orginal mmorpg players of being the "barrens chat" cause its absolutely unthinkable. The majority of us MUD era players / First generation mmorpg players in no way resemble the community which resided in the Barrens chat.
The Barrens chat is what happened when the game was designed to target the wider and younger audience. ( Note not all of the attracted crowd are the culprits, nor are all us vets innocent.)
Again .. I haven't read anything so wrong.
Fuck me! World of Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo. Not only Blizzard games but some of the best games ever made. He should be shot for playing some of the best PC games ever made. You so called "Hardcore" (Laugh) players are alot worse than the "WOW crowd"