Yes, the sun magazine and the bildzeitung are the best newspapers ever.
McDonalds and Burger King are the best restaurants you can visit.
Britney Spears and I dont dare even naming the *** thats currently most "popular" in "music" are the best musicians.
People, eat shit, millions of flies cant be wrong !
If that makes you sleep at night and feel superior then thats alright, I suppose. ...
Sub numbers or sales really are the only objective method to measure games. Rest are all more or less subjective. What Kimmyboy wrote was true.
You did not say indication. And that doesn't mean anything, measure or indication. Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality. It is not an objective measure or indication.
All of what follows is, of course, opinion. Going to look at a large amount of categories of these games and grade em A-F
First thing you see when starting up an MMO
Character Creation:
EQ2: B+ - large racial variety, decent amount of appearance options
WoW: C+ - nice amount of races, very limited options
Rift: C- -decent appearance customization, but one of the worst race selections in any MMO
SWToR: D -only slightly better than WoW in appearance customization, but the race selection sucks gven the IP
Newbie Zone(s) and Tutorial:
WoW: B -varied zones for each race, good pace brnging you along
SWtoR: B -the voice overs are a good intro, less variety than WoW but a good intro to the game
EQ2: B- -the zones are all well done, but it feels a little more overwhelming than the other two
Rift: C -Puts its worst foot forward. Rifts dont even come into play until after the zone, and there is only one zone per faction. You get way too many abilities that overlap/are useless
Game World/Lore
WoW: B+ -Even before expansons, azeroth was fairly large. Lots of prexsting lore, and its displayed well. Varied areas
EQ2: B+ -Almost the same reasons as WoW. The lore doesnt come through as much in EQ2, its more subtle. The world is larger, but the islands make up of the original zones kinda sucks. The expansions fare much better
Rift: C- -world is small, and the lore isnt spectacular.
SWToR: C- -world is much bigger, but nt as open as it should be. Star Wars lore saves this from being an even lower grade.
Leveling Experience(first time):
WoW: A- -great quest presentation, active dungeons, active battlegrounds, good storylines. Plenty of places to go. Downgrades a little because 61-85 isnt quite as good as 1-60, but the first time through its not as bad
SWToR: B -lots of stories to be told, its still active enough that you can get the group quests done (YMMV, but Ive never had issues).
Rift: B- -Dungeon queues are long, but since they wisely marged servers they are no longer dead while leveling, and events actually happen n 20-45 zones,although not super common. Quests kind of suck, but its still fun going throgh zones- the first time
EQ2: C -Not a low grade because of quality, but because the top heavy aspect hurts. Freeport can bump this up to a B because its much more active. The quest lore for the leveling content isnt that great though. There is a fantastic selection of dungeons, some open world some instanced if you can get folks to do em.
Leveling Experience(alt replayability):
WoW B+ -remans fun for all the same reasons, plus multiple zones each level means youll see different things, if you want
EQ2: C -same grade as the first character, lots of content, and again those dungeons. Youll probably have a better network of friends the second time and do more of them.
Rift: C- -kiind of boring second time through, due to repeated content
SWTOR: C- -yes, you get a new main quest...but youve seen everything else already
Class System:
Rift: A- -Im one of the guys that *doesnt* love the soul system. I think the individual souls are a little too watered down to make the thing work better. Still, Im the minority and most people love it
EQ2: B -Good class variety with most well defined and desirable. AAs are often cookie cutter but there is a good deal of choice to be had
WoW: B- -Talent trees are cookie cutter, but they all are useful and on most cases ar elike 3 seperate classes, they play that differently.
SWTOR: D -uninspired use of talent tree system, not man choices at all
Crafting:
EQ2: B -amount of quests is great, and your wares are HIGHY desriable for leveling characters. The system gets tedious though and the max level usefulness is iffy.
SWToR: C- -if they fix high level crafting usefulness it would go up to a C+
Rift, WoW: D uninspired, boring. Useless as you level since you outlevel your skill too fast. Not 100% worthless at max level
This is taking longer than I thought....just going to do grades for the rest:
PvP:
WoW: B-
Rift: C
SWTOR: C-
EQ2: D
Max level, solo content
Rift: C
WoW: C-
SWtoR: D
EQ2: D
Max level, group content
Rift: B
EQ2, WoW: B-
SWToR: C
Max level small raid content:
Rift: B
WoW, EQ2: B-
SWToR: C
Max level large raid content:
EQ2, WoW: B
Rift: B- (Only one raid added in the last 11 months, yes I know one is coming)
SWToR: C-
Non Combat stuff:
EQ2: A-
WoW: B
Rift: B-
SWToR: D
Developer:
Rift: A-
SWTOR: B- (WHAT????? 1.2 looks awesome, Bioware does seem dedicated to development, I am givng them some benefit of the doubt here...this could drop rapidly still)
EQ2: C (honestly from 2006-2009 SoE was a solid A for EQ2, but 2010-11 have been weak plus that whole past history thing)
WoW: C- (wheres the damn content? Cataclysm sucked. Too much income to not have more content)
Your post makes me smile, because it makes me realise that I still have a life, even though I love MMO's.
Opinions, including mine of your thead, are like !#*holes, everyone has one!
Vack FF XIV - the single worse game to cross my hard drive, ever.
"Rift: B- -Dungeon queues are long, but since they wisely marged servers they are no longer dead while leveling, and events actually happen n 20-45 zones,although not super common. Quests kind of suck, but its still fun going throgh zones- the first time"
This one needs to be re-visited. Queues are near instant at 50 and within a few minutes at lower level. 2x DPS lev 2x-3x takes 3-4 mins to get in one.
I dont think Ive ever had a wait less than 10 minutes for a dps queue while leveling. RotF on the most popular server (Faeblight) took 30 minutes the other night. Obviously tanking is much faster. Since it was with regards to leveling. queues at 50 are irrelavant.
You did not say indication. And that doesn't mean anything, measure or indication. Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality. It is not an objective measure or indication.
How is it not an objective measurement? If we count all the players who pay for the game from the same data, wouldn't we get the same result? The number should stay the same no matter who counts (errors excluded).
Also, if it would not give any indication, people would play garbage, but they do not play garbage, so it really does give some indication of quality.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Good point, didnt put that in and its a big one. While all of it is subjective, this might be most of all. Also, I was not plagued by the ability queue issue in SWToR for whatever reason so while it will be much lower for those who experience it, I actually enjoyed the combat there.
WoW: B+ -easily the smoothest combat. For whatever reason, everything works exactly as you want it, when you want it. Also there is great variety here, more so than the other games. It loses points because of unnecessary changes the game likes to make (Hunters and Paladins for instance with Cata revamps..no reason to drastically overhaul these classes). All 4 games essentially use the same type of combat, and WoWs execution is easily the best
EQ2: C -its fluid (though less than WoW) but suffers from ability bloat. Just too many abilities. However, this also rewards people that look deeper into their priority system (rotation is a stupid word to use since almost no classes follow set rotations consistently). Also wth the exception of beastlord there arent really any big differences in mechanics between the classes.
SWToR: C -Its higher for me personally, but I am knocking it down a bit for the issues that some people face. I just found the combat to be more visceral, for whatever reason. Maybe its because I played it right after several months of Rift
Rift: C -Yes, its fluid (again less than WoW). But its the most boring of the systems and also the spammiest. half the classes rely on the same mechanic (combo point system) which adds to that spammy feeling. The macro system is far too powerful, reducing some (not all) specs to only a few buttons. Rift is saved from an even lower grade because of mages, which are more interesting and less spammy than the other 3 classes.
You did not say indication. And that doesn't mean anything, measure or indication. Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality. It is not an objective measure or indication.
How is it not an objective measurement? If we count all the players who pay for the game from the same data, wouldn't we get the same result? The number should stay the same no matter who counts (errors excluded).
Also, if it would not give any indication, people would play garbage, but they do not play garbage, so it really does give some indication of quality.
1. using the same forumla American Teen Idol is of higher quality than HBO series Rome.
2. One must consider two important factors:
a. dollars spent on advertising to make one aware of the option
b. restrictions in the market place for total amount of options impossed by publishers.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You did not say indication. And that doesn't mean anything, measure or indication. Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality. It is not an objective measure or indication.
How is it not an objective measurement? If we count all the players who pay for the game from the same data, wouldn't we get the same result? The number should stay the same no matter who counts (errors excluded).
Also, if it would not give any indication, people would play garbage, but they do not play garbage, so it really does give some indication of quality.
1. using the same forumla American Teen Idol is of higher quality than HBO series Rome.
2. One must consider two important factors:
a. dollars spent on advertising to make one aware of the option
b. restrictions in the market place for total amount of options impossed by publishers.
1. No, it doesn't say that. It says that American Teen Idol is not devoid of quality. (and tbh, Rome wasn't all that good)
2. That is why it merely gives indication and nothing more.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You did not say indication. And that doesn't mean anything, measure or indication. Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality. It is not an objective measure or indication.
How is it not an objective measurement? If we count all the players who pay for the game from the same data, wouldn't we get the same result? The number should stay the same no matter who counts (errors excluded).
Also, if it would not give any indication, people would play garbage, but they do not play garbage, so it really does give some indication of quality.
1. using the same forumla American Teen Idol is of higher quality than HBO series Rome.
2. One must consider two important factors:
a. dollars spent on advertising to make one aware of the option
b. restrictions in the market place for total amount of options impossed by publishers.
1. No, it doesn't say that. It says that American Teen Idol is not devoid of quality. (and tbh, Rome wasn't all that good)
2. That is why it merely gives indication and nothing more.
Here is the trap you have created for yourself.
A. if popularity is evidence on the table that something is not devoid of quality then it must imply that things that are not popular are a lack of evidence on the table that something is quality otherwise the data point of intrest becomes NULL.
B. what is the qualifier of popular? 10 viewers? 100 viewers? 1 million viewers? or more viewers then something else?
oopsy!
oh since we have decided to state opinions as facts I will as well. Rome is of MUCH better quality than american teen idol could ever dream of.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Your post makes me smile, because it makes me realise that I still have a life, even though I love MMO's.
Opinions, including mine of your thead, are like !#*holes, everyone has one!
In other words:
'you didnt give my game straight As and the game I dislike straight Fs'
Nope, I actually think most MMO's are good, Heck I played all those games the OP graded. I thought they all had some good, even great things in them.
After reading the passage, I just had an epiphany actually. While I may not agree with all said, the post did make me smile, as I am glad that people obsess about this stuff, and write their little scoring systems. It helps those of us that love to play these games, but do not wish to make it a encompassing lifestyle, think about new and old titles.
Besides my game isn't even listed there in the grade system, that should age me some over the OP's thread.
Carry on ladies and gents, and a good day to you all.
Vack FF XIV - the single worse game to cross my hard drive, ever.
You did not say indication. And that doesn't mean anything, measure or indication. Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality. It is not an objective measure or indication.
Unless you have an objective measure of quality, i do not see how you can support your statement. In fact, you said "Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality". Show me the correlation numbers and that they are weak. I don't think anyone should take your word for it.
Here are the only objective measures (obviously YOUR opinion does NOT count):
- popularity .. i.e. sub numbers, sales numbers, # of hours played ......
- aggregate of review .. i.e. metacritics, gameranking.com ...
The second one is essentially aggregate opinions from a selected number of people who have PAID JOBS reviewing stuff. I would not consider that totally objective.
If you use the SECOND measure as quality, it does correlate with sales.
And I quote "However, at least two major publishers have conducted comprehensive statistical surveys through which they've been able to draw a correlation between high metascores and stronger sales (and vice versa), but with a much tighter correlation in specific genres of games than in others."
1. No, it doesn't say that. It says that American Teen Idol is not devoid of quality. (and tbh, Rome wasn't all that good)
2. That is why it merely gives indication and nothing more.
Here is the trap you have created for yourself.
A. if popularity is evidence on the table that something is not devoid of quality then it must imply that things that are not popular are a lack of evidence on the table that something is quality otherwise the data point of intrest becomes NULL.
B. what is the qualifier of popular? 10 viewers? 100 viewers? 1 million viewers? or more viewers then something else?
A. There is an underlying assumption that people don't play bad games. Where is the trap? You can think of my view as a logical implication:
P -> Q, where P is "Game is popular" and Q is "Game has quality"
If P is true, then Q must be true.
If P is false, nothing can be said about Q (it can be either true or false).
If P is true and Q false, the whole statement "Popular games have quality" is false and I would be wrong.
B. It is all relative ofcourse. Any divison between popular and unpopular will be more or less arbitrary, but we can atleast agree that if anything is popular it is World of Warcraft.
...and rest of your post doesn't deserve a reply.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You did not say indication. And that doesn't mean anything, measure or indication. Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality. It is not an objective measure or indication.
Unless you have an objective measure of quality, i do not see how you can support your statement. In fact, you said "Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality". Show me the correlation numbers and that they are weak. I don't think anyone should take your word for it.
Here are the only objective measures (obviously YOUR opinion does NOT count):
- popularity .. i.e. sub numbers, sales numbers, # of hours played ......
- aggregate of review .. i.e. metacritics, gameranking.com ...
The second one is essentially aggregate opinions from a selected number of people who have PAID JOBS reviewing stuff. I would not consider that totally objective.
If you use the SECOND measure as quality, it does correlate with sales.
And I quote "However, at least two major publishers have conducted comprehensive statistical surveys through which they've been able to draw a correlation between high metascores and stronger sales (and vice versa), but with a much tighter correlation in specific genres of games than in others."
What does the correlation with reviews and sales have to do with quality? Quality is not even mentioned in your example.
You also haven't demonstrated that those measures are objective. All measures are subjective.
1. No, it doesn't say that. It says that American Teen Idol is not devoid of quality. (and tbh, Rome wasn't all that good)
2. That is why it merely gives indication and nothing more.
Here is the trap you have created for yourself.
A. if popularity is evidence on the table that something is not devoid of quality then it must imply that things that are not popular are a lack of evidence on the table that something is quality otherwise the data point of intrest becomes NULL.
B. what is the qualifier of popular? 10 viewers? 100 viewers? 1 million viewers? or more viewers then something else?
A. There is an underlying assumption that people don't play bad games. Where is the trap? You can think of my view as a logical implication:
P -> Q, where P is "Game is popular" and Q is "Game has quality"
If P is true, then Q must be true.
If P is false, nothing can be said about Q (it can be either true or false).
If P is true and Q false, the whole statement "Popular games have quality" is false and I would be wrong.
B. It is all relative ofcourse. Any divison between popular and unpopular will be more or less arbitrary, but we can atleast agree that if anything is popular it is World of Warcraft.
...and rest of your post doesn't deserve a reply.
You start with the assumption that people don't play bad games. We do not concede that. Do you mean to say that lots of people don't play bad games? Explain why even failed MMOs have lots of players?
You haven't demonstrated your basic premise.
If people do play bad games than popularity does not equal quality.
You start with the assumption that people don't play bad games. We do not concede that. Do you mean to say that lots of people don't play bad games? Explain why even failed MMOs have lots of players?
You haven't demonstrated your basic premise.
If people do play bad games than popularity does not equal quality.
I'd say the burden of proof is on you. Tell me about these "failed MMOs". Name one game that is both bad and popular.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The thread is funny because the OP pretty much takes every possible chance to take a shot at RIFT which is a game I love and am currently subscribed to.
I took shots where Rift deserves it and scored it highly where it deserves it too. I gave it high scores in key categories like class system, solo content, and small raid content. There are plenty of shots that i could have taken but didnt.
i personally worked with them to test HK raid instance.. when we were testing the instance, developers were able to change boss mechanics without even applying a hotfix to game..
not to mention Rift has the best class/soul system until today.. Tera's glyph system will kick rift's souls system..
Wow was the best mmo until WOTLK..
SW:TOR is good game, but it needed at least 6 more months closed beta testing.. not to mention devs started GPU optimization 1 week before the launch.. now the result is obvious you get 5 fps with super PC on ilum zergfest...
Sw:TOR is the worst MMO ever created cause of EA... if bioware had 6-10 more months, they would presented much better game.. not to mention HERO engine is total fail...
To be honest i am active tester in Tera-EU closed beta, and i can say Tera is really good.. its not korean grind-fest, it has amazing new feautres, it has sandbox taste with themepark features.. I think Tera will be the next step until Guild Wars 2..
Sorry, really, really, really disagree with you on your C- score to WoW's content. I don't think there has ever been a game that has given us so much great content.
The release of Everquest 1 had more intresting content than what WoW has today in my option.
I feel sry for those gamers who didnt play pre WoW games, the games that came before WoW had so much more substance and offered more in my option.
Comments
You did not say indication. And that doesn't mean anything, measure or indication. Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality. It is not an objective measure or indication.
Your post makes me smile, because it makes me realise that I still have a life, even though I love MMO's.
Opinions, including mine of your thead, are like !#*holes, everyone has one!
Vack
FF XIV - the single worse game to cross my hard drive, ever.
What, no combat mechanics?
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
I dont think Ive ever had a wait less than 10 minutes for a dps queue while leveling. RotF on the most popular server (Faeblight) took 30 minutes the other night. Obviously tanking is much faster. Since it was with regards to leveling. queues at 50 are irrelavant.
How is it not an objective measurement? If we count all the players who pay for the game from the same data, wouldn't we get the same result? The number should stay the same no matter who counts (errors excluded).
Also, if it would not give any indication, people would play garbage, but they do not play garbage, so it really does give some indication of quality.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Good point, didnt put that in and its a big one. While all of it is subjective, this might be most of all. Also, I was not plagued by the ability queue issue in SWToR for whatever reason so while it will be much lower for those who experience it, I actually enjoyed the combat there.
WoW: B+ -easily the smoothest combat. For whatever reason, everything works exactly as you want it, when you want it. Also there is great variety here, more so than the other games. It loses points because of unnecessary changes the game likes to make (Hunters and Paladins for instance with Cata revamps..no reason to drastically overhaul these classes). All 4 games essentially use the same type of combat, and WoWs execution is easily the best
EQ2: C -its fluid (though less than WoW) but suffers from ability bloat. Just too many abilities. However, this also rewards people that look deeper into their priority system (rotation is a stupid word to use since almost no classes follow set rotations consistently). Also wth the exception of beastlord there arent really any big differences in mechanics between the classes.
SWToR: C -Its higher for me personally, but I am knocking it down a bit for the issues that some people face. I just found the combat to be more visceral, for whatever reason. Maybe its because I played it right after several months of Rift
Rift: C -Yes, its fluid (again less than WoW). But its the most boring of the systems and also the spammiest. half the classes rely on the same mechanic (combo point system) which adds to that spammy feeling. The macro system is far too powerful, reducing some (not all) specs to only a few buttons. Rift is saved from an even lower grade because of mages, which are more interesting and less spammy than the other 3 classes.
1. using the same forumla American Teen Idol is of higher quality than HBO series Rome.
2. One must consider two important factors:
a. dollars spent on advertising to make one aware of the option
b. restrictions in the market place for total amount of options impossed by publishers.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In other words:
'you didnt give my game straight As and the game I dislike straight Fs'
1. No, it doesn't say that. It says that American Teen Idol is not devoid of quality. (and tbh, Rome wasn't all that good)
2. That is why it merely gives indication and nothing more.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Here is the trap you have created for yourself.
A. if popularity is evidence on the table that something is not devoid of quality then it must imply that things that are not popular are a lack of evidence on the table that something is quality otherwise the data point of intrest becomes NULL.
B. what is the qualifier of popular? 10 viewers? 100 viewers? 1 million viewers? or more viewers then something else?
oopsy!
oh since we have decided to state opinions as facts I will as well. Rome is of MUCH better quality than american teen idol could ever dream of.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Nope, I actually think most MMO's are good, Heck I played all those games the OP graded. I thought they all had some good, even great things in them.
After reading the passage, I just had an epiphany actually. While I may not agree with all said, the post did make me smile, as I am glad that people obsess about this stuff, and write their little scoring systems. It helps those of us that love to play these games, but do not wish to make it a encompassing lifestyle, think about new and old titles.
Besides my game isn't even listed there in the grade system, that should age me some over the OP's thread.
Carry on ladies and gents, and a good day to you all.
Vack
FF XIV - the single worse game to cross my hard drive, ever.
Unless you have an objective measure of quality, i do not see how you can support your statement. In fact, you said "Popularity among the masses is only a week correlation to quality". Show me the correlation numbers and that they are weak. I don't think anyone should take your word for it.
Here are the only objective measures (obviously YOUR opinion does NOT count):
- popularity .. i.e. sub numbers, sales numbers, # of hours played ......
- aggregate of review .. i.e. metacritics, gameranking.com ...
The second one is essentially aggregate opinions from a selected number of people who have PAID JOBS reviewing stuff. I would not consider that totally objective.
If you use the SECOND measure as quality, it does correlate with sales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacritic
And I quote "However, at least two major publishers have conducted comprehensive statistical surveys through which they've been able to draw a correlation between high metascores and stronger sales (and vice versa), but with a much tighter correlation in specific genres of games than in others."
A. There is an underlying assumption that people don't play bad games. Where is the trap? You can think of my view as a logical implication:
P -> Q, where P is "Game is popular" and Q is "Game has quality"
If P is true, then Q must be true.
If P is false, nothing can be said about Q (it can be either true or false).
If P is true and Q false, the whole statement "Popular games have quality" is false and I would be wrong.
B. It is all relative ofcourse. Any divison between popular and unpopular will be more or less arbitrary, but we can atleast agree that if anything is popular it is World of Warcraft.
...and rest of your post doesn't deserve a reply.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
What does the correlation with reviews and sales have to do with quality? Quality is not even mentioned in your example.
You also haven't demonstrated that those measures are objective. All measures are subjective.
You start with the assumption that people don't play bad games. We do not concede that. Do you mean to say that lots of people don't play bad games? Explain why even failed MMOs have lots of players?
You haven't demonstrated your basic premise.
If people do play bad games than popularity does not equal quality.
At the pinnacle of my love for the respective games:
WoW: A+
SWTOR (based on potential): A
Rift: A
EQ2: Haven't played it
In restrospect:
WoW: A-
RIFT: B
SWTOR: F
"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
I need to take this advice more.
I'd say the burden of proof is on you. Tell me about these "failed MMOs". Name one game that is both bad and popular.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And pity the fool who doesn't!
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Warcraft: C- (Probably a B+ during the BC years)
Rift: C
SW:TOR: C-
Aion: B (After 3.0 I'm looking at bumping it to an A)
STO: D
DCUO: D
EQ2: C
LotRo: C+
Age of Conan: D
Champions Online: D
I took shots where Rift deserves it and scored it highly where it deserves it too. I gave it high scores in key categories like class system, solo content, and small raid content. There are plenty of shots that i could have taken but didnt.
Rift has the best developers in any mmo
i personally worked with them to test HK raid instance.. when we were testing the instance, developers were able to change boss mechanics without even applying a hotfix to game..
not to mention Rift has the best class/soul system until today.. Tera's glyph system will kick rift's souls system..
Wow was the best mmo until WOTLK..
SW:TOR is good game, but it needed at least 6 more months closed beta testing.. not to mention devs started GPU optimization 1 week before the launch.. now the result is obvious you get 5 fps with super PC on ilum zergfest...
Sw:TOR is the worst MMO ever created cause of EA... if bioware had 6-10 more months, they would presented much better game.. not to mention HERO engine is total fail...
To be honest i am active tester in Tera-EU closed beta, and i can say Tera is really good.. its not korean grind-fest, it has amazing new feautres, it has sandbox taste with themepark features.. I think Tera will be the next step until Guild Wars 2..
The release of Everquest 1 had more intresting content than what WoW has today in my option.
I feel sry for those gamers who didnt play pre WoW games, the games that came before WoW had so much more substance and offered more in my option.