You keep repeating niche game types produced by few people. Again, when something is only made by a few people and is never available in the desired format, then there is no way for consumers to show their interest in the product.
You can't buy an MMO that doesn't exist.
If noone supports these lower budget niche games, the niche will never become stronger and that wish high quality niche MMO may remain nonexistent forever. Showing interest in a subgenre (even if the current games are not up to your expectations) is the only way to help make something happen. Thus I disagree with your "there is no way to show interest".
You keep repeating niche game types produced by few people. Again, when something is only made by a few people and is never available in the desired format, then there is no way for consumers to show their interest in the product.
You can't buy an MMO that doesn't exist.
If noone supports these lower budget niche games, the niche will never become stronger and that wish high quality niche MMO may remain nonexistent forever. Showing interest in a subgenre (even if the current games are not up to your expectations) is the only way to help make something happen. Thus I disagree with your "there is no way to show interest".
~Ish.
I was not discounting the support of niche titles, more so the reality that you can't prove the popularity of an MMO if that MMO does not exist to have any data on/about. Buying games from an associated genre helps, but there are issues that I've already mentioned in the form of pointing out how many developers are producing for said genre, what platforms they deliver to, and the scope of their content.
You can support a small title for as long as you want, but unless it has a broader market presence and comparative depth of play to other big titles then it's simply not going to have the same userbase.
Beyond that, the arguing point was that people have "voted with their wallets" about the popularity of MMOs, to which my point in these statements was the fact that there wasn't any strong options to vote for within that space in the first place.
It's all well and good to support the genre, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't buy what does not exist.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You keep repeating niche game types produced by few people. Again, when something is only made by a few people and is never available in the desired format, then there is no way for consumers to show their interest in the product.
lol .. don't tell me consumers cannot show their interests in farming by buying harvest moon. Don't tell me consumer cannot show their interests in slow travel by buying American Trucks. Don't tell me consumers cannot show their interests in fishing by buying fishing sims.
None of those activities become 1/100000 as big as combat. Do you dispute this fact?
You repeat this same fallacious cycle all over again. I have no interest in playing your mindless game.
wait .. didn't you say that you were never against repetition?
And clearly you have high interests ... since you responded so much to mine, and others' discussions.
And I suppose you have no counter argument, and did not dispute what i said. I understand.
I have interest in the discussion of the thread, not of your trolling.
And sure, I'm fine handling repetition under many circumstances, but you refuse to make even a rational argument, which only leaves me to repeatmyself.
I have no interest in countering an argument that is not even rational in the first place, my post to Gaendric addressed what little of a point you had any ways.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
No people have preferences. If WoW was the end all of combat it would be in every game.
With WoW you discount a lot of what I said. Battlenet had a huge player base. WoW gameplay at the time was unrivaled in playability. It was able to bring in lots of its core online gamers and others as their first MMORPG. The familiarity and connections keep MMORPG players playing. Last but not least the timing and be the only modern MMORPG on the block. It all works together.
To say that if something better comes along it would just take over is not always true. New Coke won the blind taste test polling over the old Coke. It bombed pretty badly. Just like WoW 2 wasn't guaranteed to be bigger than the first even if it was better in every way. That's not how human nature works.
Your argument is essentially 'if most felt Starry Night was a great painting, then every artist would always produce art of at least that quality.'
Why make such an irrational statement?
A. Not all companies are capable of that quality. B. Not all companies are focused on delivering that quality. They're mistakenly distracted, as you are/were, that other factors matter more than the fun of the core gameplay activity. So they dump thousands of dev-hours into systems that don't improve that fun, and that's why no games have even come close to surpassing WOW's combat depth.
If New Coke failed, and if MMORPGs don't even have a New Coke, how likely do you think it is that one of those obviously inferior MMORPGs will succeed to WOW's level? Other factors are involved to success -- success is always the result of a ton of deterministic factors -- but product quality* is one of the biggest factors. And in games quality most strongly determined by the quality of the most common activity(ies), which tends to be combat in MMORPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You can even see in the post you quoted that he stated the extreme condition that if WoW combat was the pinnacle of design that more would seek to repeat it. Your example of "most people liking starry night" doesn't even properly apply as a result because your counterargument isn't addressing the principle of quality of design but simply of viewer preference.
In other words, it's an argument you just made up.
As for your extra tangent, it's a repeat of the same thing we have correctedwitha lot of detail.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
No people have preferences. If WoW was the end all of combat it would be in every game.
With WoW you discount a lot of what I said. Battlenet had a huge player base. WoW gameplay at the time was unrivaled in playability. It was able to bring in lots of its core online gamers and others as their first MMORPG. The familiarity and connections keep MMORPG players playing. Last but not least the timing and be the only modern MMORPG on the block. It all works together.
To say that if something better comes along it would just take over is not always true. New Coke won the blind taste test polling over the old Coke. It bombed pretty badly. Just like WoW 2 wasn't guaranteed to be bigger than the first even if it was better in every way. That's not how human nature works.
Your argument is essentially 'if most felt Starry Night was a great painting, then every artist would always produce art of at least that quality.'
Why make such an irrational statement?
A. Not all companies are capable of that quality. B. Not all companies are focused on delivering that quality. They're mistakenly distracted, as you are/were, that other factors matter more than the fun of the core gameplay activity. So they dump thousands of dev-hours into systems that don't improve that fun, and that's why no games have even come close to surpassing WOW's combat depth.
If New Coke failed, and if MMORPGs don't even have a New Coke, how likely do you think it is that one of those obviously inferior MMORPGs will succeed to WOW's level? Other factors are involved to success -- success is always the result of a ton of deterministic factors -- but product quality* is one of the biggest factors. And in games quality most strongly determined by the quality of the most common activity(ies), which tends to be combat in MMORPGs.
I can not state how much I agree with this, except perhaps that WoW has the most indepth combat, although it is FAR from as shallow as many make it out to be. Great post Axe, I do not understand how hard this concept seems to be for some. Blizzard succeeds the way it does because they deliver quality, perhaps not your style of gameplay and/or graphicswise but they take known concepts and mechanisms and ad an amount of quality others just can't match, they will never win an originality prize, but most fun? Hell yes.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
No people have preferences. If WoW was the end all of combat it would be in every game.
With WoW you discount a lot of what I said. Battlenet had a huge player base. WoW gameplay at the time was unrivaled in playability. It was able to bring in lots of its core online gamers and others as their first MMORPG. The familiarity and connections keep MMORPG players playing. Last but not least the timing and be the only modern MMORPG on the block. It all works together.
To say that if something better comes along it would just take over is not always true. New Coke won the blind taste test polling over the old Coke. It bombed pretty badly. Just like WoW 2 wasn't guaranteed to be bigger than the first even if it was better in every way. That's not how human nature works.
Your argument is essentially 'if most felt Starry Night was a great painting, then every artist would always produce art of at least that quality.'
Why make such an irrational statement?
A. Not all companies are capable of that quality. B. Not all companies are focused on delivering that quality. They're mistakenly distracted, as you are/were, that other factors matter more than the fun of the core gameplay activity. So they dump thousands of dev-hours into systems that don't improve that fun, and that's why no games have even come close to surpassing WOW's combat depth.
If New Coke failed, and if MMORPGs don't even have a New Coke, how likely do you think it is that one of those obviously inferior MMORPGs will succeed to WOW's level? Other factors are involved to success -- success is always the result of a ton of deterministic factors -- but product quality* is one of the biggest factors. And in games quality most strongly determined by the quality of the most common activity(ies), which tends to be combat in MMORPGs.
I can not state how much I agree with this, except perhaps that WoW has the most indepth combat, although it is FAR from as shallow as many make it out to be. Great post Axe, I do not understand how hard this concept seems to be for some. Blizzard succeeds the way it does because they deliver quality, perhaps not your style of gameplay and/or graphicswise but they take known concepts and mechanisms and ad an amount of quality others just can't match, they will never win an originality prize, but most fun? Hell yes.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That really wasn't the point though.
The argument was not of how polished the product is, but the mechanical qualities of it and the reproducibility of the conditions that led to it's runaway success.
While the global quality of the game is/was certainly high (which was never in dispute), the matter of what other factors has created a gulf between the reality of the genre and the expectations that have come of it. The statement Axehilt is arguing against is that people shouldn't be chasing WoW's or anyone else's tail making the same gameplay that's already generated a captive market, but instead realize the fact that MMORPGs are capable of a much broader range of gameplay that's not been given the polished AAA treatment.
You just got suckered by the equivalent of watching one person critique the drive train, engine, steering, and fuel economy of a car with a salesman countering by saying their car has the best fit and finish even though that has next to nothing to do with the components the first guy mentioned.
The question of a single game's fun was not the argument, Axe simply distracted people (apparently quite successfully in your case) with a red herring of an argument about quality.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
No people have preferences. If WoW was the end all of combat it would be in every game.
With WoW you discount a lot of what I said. Battlenet had a huge player base. WoW gameplay at the time was unrivaled in playability. It was able to bring in lots of its core online gamers and others as their first MMORPG. The familiarity and connections keep MMORPG players playing. Last but not least the timing and be the only modern MMORPG on the block. It all works together.
To say that if something better comes along it would just take over is not always true. New Coke won the blind taste test polling over the old Coke. It bombed pretty badly. Just like WoW 2 wasn't guaranteed to be bigger than the first even if it was better in every way. That's not how human nature works.
Your argument is essentially 'if most felt Starry Night was a great painting, then every artist would always produce art of at least that quality.'
Why make such an irrational statement?
A. Not all companies are capable of that quality. B. Not all companies are focused on delivering that quality. They're mistakenly distracted, as you are/were, that other factors matter more than the fun of the core gameplay activity. So they dump thousands of dev-hours into systems that don't improve that fun, and that's why no games have even come close to surpassing WOW's combat depth.
If New Coke failed, and if MMORPGs don't even have a New Coke, how likely do you think it is that one of those obviously inferior MMORPGs will succeed to WOW's level? Other factors are involved to success -- success is always the result of a ton of deterministic factors -- but product quality* is one of the biggest factors. And in games quality most strongly determined by the quality of the most common activity(ies), which tends to be combat in MMORPGs.
No, my argument is that market conditions were unique to WoW cannot be emulated even though the gameplay has been emulated. The other things you are talking about are your opinion. Do you understand what opinions are? Not sure you do.
And sure, I'm fine handling repetition under many circumstances, but you refuse to make even a rational argument, which only leaves me to repeatmyself.
I have no interest in countering an argument that is not even rational in the first place, my post to Gaendric addressed what little of a point you had any ways.
wait .. you have no interest in argument that is not even "rational", by your judgment, and you keep repeating yourself? There is some lapse of logic here.
And also hypocritical ... so it is ok that you repeat yourself, but not for others? Way to define a "rational" argument. But i understand.
The question of a single game's fun was not the argument, Axe simply distracted people (apparently quite successfully in your case) with a red herring of an argument about quality.
nah .. what is distracting is bad car analogies, and your irrational arguments. But hey, forums are not always logical, and i understand.
No, my argument is that market conditions were unique to WoW cannot be emulated even though the gameplay has been emulated. The other things you are talking about are your opinion. Do you understand what opinions are? Not sure you do.
What benefit do you think you get by ignoring the truth?
We just spent the last few post covering how, objectively, no games have come close to WOW's gameplay quality.
Earlier we covered how your list of "market conditions" that led to WOW's success were objectively wrong. Later games released into an environment which was as good as, and in several respects better than, the environment WOW launched into. Those later games didn't do as well as WOW. So obviously your hypothesis is wrong.
What specifically in my post do you feel was opinion?
MMORPGs don't have a "New Coke" (a product objectively better than the current dominant product.) Measured by the quality of their core gameplay, there is no MMORPG with objective evidence of being deeper than WOW.
If New Coke (a superior product) failed to succeed then logically (not an opinion) we would assume that objectively worse products (the MMORPGs we've seen) are even less likely to succeed.
Not all companies are capable of Blizzard-quality games. A simple fact, not opinion. The deep design skill-set that existed at Blizzard throughout WOW's development cannot be matched by most companies.
The leadership at many companies makes the same wrong assumptions as you have. This isn't automatically a fact, but is evidenced by the games we've seen.
The reason for the first 2 bullet points are the second 2 bullet points. This is as close to an opinion as it gets, but even then what other explanation could you provide for the lack of WOW-quality MMORPGs? A company must be willing and able (the 3rd bullet addresses ability, the 4th addresses will) in order to execute such a game, and the evidence we've seen shows us this hasn't happened.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, my argument is that market conditions were unique to WoW cannot be emulated even though the gameplay has been emulated. The other things you are talking about are your opinion. Do you understand what opinions are? Not sure you do.
What benefit do you think you get by ignoring the truth?
We just spent the last few post covering how, objectively, no games have come close to WOW's gameplay quality.
Earlier we covered how your list of "market conditions" that led to WOW's success were objectively wrong. Later games released into an environment which was as good as, and in several respects better than, the environment WOW launched into. Those later games didn't do as well as WOW. So obviously your hypothesis is wrong.
What specifically in my post do you feel was opinion?
MMORPGs don't have a "New Coke" (a product objectively better than the current dominant product.) Measured by the quality of their core gameplay, there is no MMORPG with objective evidence of being deeper than WOW.
If New Coke (a superior product) failed to succeed then logically (not an opinion) we would assume that objectively worse products (the MMORPGs we've seen) are even less likely to succeed.
Not all companies are capable of Blizzard-quality games. A simple fact, not opinion. The deep design skill-set that existed at Blizzard throughout WOW's development cannot be matched by most companies.
The leadership at many companies makes the same wrong assumptions as you have. This isn't automatically a fact, but is evidenced by the games we've seen.
The reason for the first 2 bullet points are the second 2 bullet points. This is as close to an opinion as it gets, but even then what other explanation could you provide for the lack of WOW-quality MMORPGs? A company must be willing and able (the 3rd bullet addresses ability, the 4th addresses will) in order to execute such a game, and the evidence we've seen shows us this hasn't happened.
You're talking about your opinion. What is better, worst or the same as WoW is opinion.
I think you're signature quote explains your views as the superior authoritarian view on good and bad ideas. You feel like you're the person who gives judgement on that.
The question of a single game's fun was not the argument, Axe simply distracted people (apparently quite successfully in your case) with a red herring of an argument about quality.
nah .. what is distracting is bad car analogies, and your irrational arguments. But hey, forums are not always logical, and i understand.
Went with a car analogy because Axe has made multiple, complain at him if you want to bark up that tree.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And sure, I'm fine handling repetition under many circumstances, but you refuse to make even a rational argument, which only leaves me to repeatmyself.
I have no interest in countering an argument that is not even rational in the first place, my post to Gaendric addressed what little of a point you had any ways.
wait .. you have no interest in argument that is not even "rational", by your judgment, and you keep repeating yourself? There is some lapse of logic here.
And also hypocritical ... so it is ok that you repeat yourself, but not for others? Way to define a "rational" argument. But i understand.
Never said it wasn't ok for others to repeat themselves ( I even said "I'm fine handling repetition under many circumstances" even in the post you quoted), so it's not hypocritical. What I did say was that you are making a pointless tangent to which I can only repeat corrections I havealreadymade.
Right now all you are doing is saying useless things that are disproved by people simply reading the post you even quoted. It's not constructive in the least, has nothing to do with the point of the thread, and only serves consequently as a derailing tangent into nonsense. Stop trolling.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
What specifically in my post do you feel was opinion?
First two bullet points were addressed in detail in justhowfar from objective reality they actually are.
The last few posts have been a repeat of the same argument that's been corrected as well as observable and objective market forces offered in counterpoint.
Earlier we covered how you tried to hand-wave many market conditions, and couldn't in any rational manner. Later games released against a titan for competition and was competing in a market space with a largely captive audience. Many things that you claimed were better, simply were false arguments and failed to account for much of the progressive nature of MMOs continued existence and the aggressive nature of Blizzards own marketing and release schedule to directly stave off competition.
What specifically in your post was opinion?
The "new coke" argument is effectively a rehash of what we've said, so I guess thanks for agreeing with us there.
Your second statement is pretty much aimless addressing a nonexistant argument.
Third statement is equally aimless. Not everyone needs to produce to Blizzard's polish standards within known territory. Someone needs to be more pioneering than Blizzard and take the risks in exploring new things so that genres can continue to progress rather than stagnate.
Leadership at many companies make many of the same wrong assumptions you do. We can see this in how companies blindly parrot the design of another successful company and then subsequently fail because of it all the time.
The reason for the first two bullet points is the unstated point that you have simply rejected any objective information, rational argument, or cited content that disproves your beliefs.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Combat is usually the most important aspect of a game because few games allow you to level without using combat. Off hand, GW2 allows you to level just by crafting. Eve Online you can become a trader and never leave the station or create your own profession such as a intermediary for trading or information broker. But most games not only use combat only to level but want you to quest only for leveling like ESO that during the beta you could level by grinding, solo dungeons, or PvP, people were leveling too fast so they nurfed everything but quests, then nerfed quests a little to entice players to buy XP potions.
I would like to see a game which allow you to level just by exploration map completion or off line leveling, or like Eve using training manuals.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Never said it wasn't ok for others to repeat themselves ( I even said "I'm fine handling repetition under many circumstances" even in the post you quoted), so it's not hypocritical.
You said, on June 15, and I quote "You're a broken record of the worst kind, given we've corrected you on this exact misconception of yours already in repetition."
(that "you" is not direct at me, btw).
So you derides others being a "broken record" while you are being one yourself. That is not hypocritical, what is?
You don't remember everything you have posted, and you are inconsistent. It is the internet. I understand.
Never said it wasn't ok for others to repeat themselves ( I even said "I'm fine handling repetition under many circumstances" even in the post you quoted), so it's not hypocritical.
You said, on June 15, and I quote "You're a broken record of the worst kind, given we've corrected you on this exact misconception of yours already in repetition."
So you derides others being a "broken record" while you are being one yourself. That is not hypocritical, what is?
You don't remember everything you have posted, and you are inconsistent. It is the internet. I understand.
My last post to you had very clear correction on this matter. Let's quote the entire segment you pulled that from so that we aren't making false statements;
"Never said it wasn't ok for others to repeat themselves ( I even said "I'm fine handling repetition under many circumstances" even in the post you quoted), so it's not hypocritical. What I did say was that you are making a pointless tangent to which I can only repeat corrections I havealreadymade."
You being a "broken record of the worst kind" (Also of note, that broken record comment was pointed at axehilt for repeating an argument that'd been corrected multiple times, hence the link that was in the original comment which you removed. I can easily tell why you'd think it was about you though, seeing how applicable the statement is.) does not defy any of that, it simply elucidates that your arguments are not just repetitious, but without merit. The repetition wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the other half of the equation happening there. I've been remarkably consistent on this, it's only when people are incapable of reading more than one sentence that they have issues.
EDIT: I see you edited your post after I corrected you on your quote source. Try and keep some level of honesty.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You're talking about your opinion. What is better, worst or the same as WoW is opinion.
I think you're signature quote explains your views as the superior authoritarian view on good and bad ideas. You feel like you're the person who gives judgement on that.
Technically it's my opinion that the earth is spherical. Like my opinion on WOW's depth that opinion is backed up with fairly strong evidence proving it to be true. So "you're talking about your opinion" doesn't really field a viable argument against the underlying truth of what I'm saying.
The evidence and logic stands uncontested.
Did you even read my signature quote?
It has nothing to do with my being an authority.
It has to do with the reason why ideas are accepted or rejected.
It points out that the reason often isn't truth, and instead is a tool used to express like or dislike of someone.
I point out that I strive to avoid that instinct (where most other forum posters don't.)
For example if you were to post a stronger body of evidence and logic that actually outweighed and disproved the evidence/logic I've presented, then I would reverse my position and agree with you. Because you would have presented the truth of the matter and provided the logic/evidence to prove it. I would agree with you even though I somewhat dislike you (because you've historically posted poor opinions which aren't based on evidence,) and at the same time it would make me dislike you less (because you would have disrupted that historic pattern and embraced rationality.)
To be clear, the authority here is truth. We know truth through evidence and logic. I've presented thus-far-undisputed evidence of WOW's combat being objectively deeper than other MMORPGs' combat, and pointed out how that's likely to have a significant correlation to a game's success based on how we know players enjoy games (Koster, 2004) and also alluding to the broader set of traits to WOW's combat (smoothness, etc) which caused WOW to be more enjoyable (in that most common way games are enjoyed) than other MMORPGs. I've pointed out how your theories behind WOW's success were flawed by pointing out how SWTOR launched with all of those traits (and a few significantly better than WOW launched with), and still didn't hit WOW-level success. SWTOR was the best example because it had many of the traits you list all in the same game, but most other games shared at least some of the traits (for example every single post-WOW MMORPG launched into a world with superior access to internet and high-speed internet than WOW had.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your entire claim just now is proven false as quickly as pointing out that my last post correcting you debunks pretty much everything you just claimed.
The evidence and logic has been readily ignored by you in favor of building a false narrative, that is the epitome of arguing from the stance of opinion. If you truly believed the authority was truth then there has been a litany of facts that you have disregarded and defied to maintain your position which should have been accounted for a long time ago.
But truth isn't what you are seeking, the reaffirmation of your opinions is.
For example, you claim you have undisputed evidence, yet many have given example of very real games and very real mechanics that do in fact put it into dispute. Instead of acknowledge this reality, you actively repeat a lie to yourself and everyone else so that you can preserve a long-disproved opinion.
You gave a poor counterargument by trying to argue SWTORs case which was proven patentlyfalse as well. Your entire attempt at claiming Ver's arguments as flawed were themselves marred by that fact that you kept dodging actually addressing the points as he posed them and instead took to setting up false arguments to run tangent on.
For example your parenthesis claim;
"every single post-WOW MMORPG launched into a world with superior access to internet and high-speed internet than WOW had"
This statement is immediately wrong for the fact that at every major release WoW was still there, with it's own major expansion and content update, to maintain an audience that had already invested collective millions into a title of the same form as those new ones. A captive audience does not migrate that fast (the change in a largely F2P modern userbase has shown a shift in this however).
What you have done is engage in the illusion of intelligent argument. You have tried to sell your opinions time and again as the ultimate nature of truth when they are in fact barely touching on any real data save for what few stats you can find to support your opinions, and there has been plenty of data provided and repeated which you could have learned from by now, but it's more than obvious that the truth is not what you seek.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Quite a fun read through. Apart from Narius, I have found bits in each person's responses that I agree with, but a lot I disagree with.
First Assumption: "fun" comes from making meaningful decisions
I believe Axe has posted links to Raph Koster's research to back this up but this is something I agree with from personal experience. You can gain fun in other ways (watching movies is fun and involves no decisions) so things like graphics, animations etc can be fun to view, but making meaningful decisions is the root of good gameplay. In combat, this means things like deciding when to dodge, what skills to use, where to move to etc. It also applies to other genres, like where to place farms, how to build your transport routes etc.
Second Assumption: WoW's success is due to it's depth of combat
This assumption is one I vehemently disagree with because it has no basis in reality. First, the depth of combat being unequalled is not true. I've argued on a number of occasions that this is not true. Granted I've not played WoW so don't have firsthand experience, but looking at the combat rotations posted by Axe I can say that LotRO (vanilla) had deeper combat. There is also a distinction to be made between "deep" and "complex". Whilst some of WoW's combat is deep, a lot of it is simply complex, so doesn't involve meaningful decisions.
Secondly, in all the MMOs I've played, those classes with the deepest combat mechanics are the ones that are played the least. Whilst hardcore gamers may prefer deep combat mechanics, the average gamer tends not to care.
Thirdly, trying to judge a game's success based on an objective feature list is silly., but if you're going to do it, at least include everything. WoW's success is three-fold: - Timing: WoW released a superior product at a time of market growth. They targeted casuals and were thus able to capture a much larger audience than anyone thought possible. -Content: this is where Axe is right. The content of WoW was vastly superior to it's competitors at the time of launch, both in terms of quality, accessibility and sheer amount. -Social: This is the part Axe consistently ignores. MMOs are fundamentally about other people, it is their single most defining quality. WoW had a good couple of years of uncontested supremacy and during that time, players formed bonds with other players. This means to beat WoW, you either need a vastly superior product (hasn't happened) or some way to convince players to move en-masse or break their bonds of friendship. (also hasn't happened).
Third Assumption: Correlation = Causation
This is the single biggest mistake Axe seems to make. Even assuming that WoW does have superior combat depth, it does not mean that WoWs success is caused by having better combat. Firstly, the combat depth only starts to shine during endgame, which as we know is only done by a small minority of players. Secondly, whilst Axe disagrees, I know LotRO had just as much, if not more, combat depth than WoW, so you immediately have an example of a game with better combat but worse sales, proving the assumption to be at least partly wrong.
Games are simply too complex to correlate one single feature to its success or failure.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Quite a fun read through. Apart from Narius, I have found bits in each person's responses that I agree with, but a lot I disagree with.
First Assumption: "fun" comes from making meaningful decisions
I believe Axe has posted links to Raph Koster's research to back this up but this is something I agree with from personal experience. You can gain fun in other ways (watching movies is fun and involves no decisions) so things like graphics, animations etc can be fun to view, but making meaningful decisions is the root of good gameplay. In combat, this means things like deciding when to dodge, what skills to use, where to move to etc. It also applies to other genres, like where to place farms, how to build your transport routes etc.
Second Assumption: WoW's success is due to it's depth of combat
This assumption is one I vehemently disagree with because it has no basis in reality. First, the depth of combat being unequalled is not true. I've argued on a number of occasions that this is not true. Granted I've not played WoW so don't have firsthand experience, but looking at the combat rotations posted by Axe I can say that LotRO (vanilla) had deeper combat. There is also a distinction to be made between "deep" and "complex". Whilst some of WoW's combat is deep, a lot of it is simply complex, so doesn't involve meaningful decisions.
Secondly, in all the MMOs I've played, those classes with the deepest combat mechanics are the ones that are played the least. Whilst hardcore gamers may prefer deep combat mechanics, the average gamer tends not to care.
Thirdly, trying to judge a game's success based on an objective feature list is silly., but if you're going to do it, at least include everything. WoW's success is three-fold: - Timing: WoW released a superior product at a time of market growth. They targeted casuals and were thus able to capture a much larger audience than anyone thought possible. -Content: this is where Axe is right. The content of WoW was vastly superior to it's competitors at the time of launch, both in terms of quality, accessibility and sheer amount. -Social: This is the part Axe consistently ignores. MMOs are fundamentally about other people, it is their single most defining quality. WoW had a good couple of years of uncontested supremacy and during that time, players formed bonds with other players. This means to beat WoW, you either need a vastly superior product (hasn't happened) or some way to convince players to move en-masse or break their bonds of friendship. (also hasn't happened).
Third Assumption: Correlation = Causation
This is the single biggest mistake Axe seems to make. Even assuming that WoW does have superior combat depth, it does not mean that WoWs success is caused by having better combat. Firstly, the combat depth only starts to shine during endgame, which as we know is only done by a small minority of players. Secondly, whilst Axe disagrees, I know LotRO had just as much, if not more, combat depth than WoW, so you immediately have an example of a game with better combat but worse sales, proving the assumption to be at least partly wrong.
Games are simply too complex to correlate one single feature to its success or failure.
1. Probably worth clarifying (since I usually mention it but not in this thread), I only say it's the most common type of fun (not that it's the only type of fun.) This list contains 44 best-selling games. Only 2 (both Wii Fit) aren't predominantly driven by this type of fun.
This type of fun is essentially "we experience pleasure in learning". This means it extends beyond games into things like movies, and extends across many layers of that entertainment (when you watch the movie Independence Day you're learning not only how the plot progresses, but also how to defeat a fictitious alien invasion.) This also illustrates that the things learned don't have to be real to be enjoyable (because if hostile aliens actually invaded they'd be way further ahead of us technologically than Cortez was when he conquered the Aztecs; a 90s laptop definitely won't be enough to stop them.)
But obviously we learn better first-hand, which is why interactive entertainment (with decisions) is better at it than non-interactive.
2. WoW has taken flak for its changes making the game "too simple", so calling WOW's system "complex" is a little odd. In-game you don't exactly have a giant list of buttons to press (like earlier MMORPGs, and with some class exceptions...my shaman still has kinda a mess of buttons that all matter to varying degrees.)
Keep in mind that combat rotations are only one factor behind WOW's combat depth, and the variations of its mobs and other dynamic factors like what other players are doing factor into what you're doing too. This last factor isn't formalized so much as "he used ability A so I should use ability B" (although that does arguably exist in a limited degree when you coordinate around Bloodlust) and is more the dynamic
The timing element is disproved again and again when every post-WOW MMORPG has released in an era with more casual MMORPG players than there ever was, and most have directly targeted those players, and broadband has been more common, and even more successful IPs were used. These games checked all those boxes, yet didn't achieve WOW's level of success.
The social element you over-sell a bit; due to our limitations as a species we have limits in terms of just how many people you can meaningfully interact with. So in a game as long as you have that meaningful handful of players you enjoy interacting with, anything else is excess. So even if we ignored the cart-before-horse nature of this point (WOW had lots of players because it had lots of players), we'd have to face the fact that it doesn't actually take a lot of players for players to be satisfied socially.
3. I'm all for people introducing stronger evidence behind WOW's success. I don't feel so strongly on the subject that I have no doubt that this was the cause of WOW's success (so I'm not actually arguing that correlation=causation.) But I consistently see the games with the most interesting sets of decisions result in some of the highest success as games. And critically "interesting" applies not just at the highest tiers of competition (the absolute measure of a game's depth) but at lower tiers too (whether the set of decisions that newbies or average players experience are fun to them.) It's just I typically can't delve into a deeper, nuanced discussion of the topic because I'm stuck countering blatantly false ideas like WOW being successful just because it was when broadband started getting popular (as if that was somehow a bigger factor then (when broadband was still uncommon) than now (when broadband is significantly more prevalent.))
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. And if you also notice on that list of best sellers that there are plenty of non-combat games as well as titles that have combat alongside other activities (or as is the case of platformers, have combat as a component of a different primary activity).
That people have fun by being engaged in decision making is simply the nature of games in the first place, they are an interactive medium and in order to be interactive the player needs to be offered a choice, even if it's as simple as pressing a button or not.
2. This is mostly a tangent, and fails to address what was already given in example that other games have deeper complexity to their combat.
Similarly, the "every post-WOW MMORPG has released in an era with more casual MMORPG players" is pretty much an entirely false premise and argument. WoW didn't disappear after it launched, and they streamlined many thing over time while expanding their content and timing later expansions to compete against new launches to retain their userbase. On top of that, traditionally MMO players did not migrate as much because of the monetary and time investment that is placed into their game of choice. That there are "more casual MMORPG players" ends up being a moot point because most of those players are already spoken for.
The social element is honestly more so undersold. Your counterargument that people only interact with a set number of other's in no way invalidates the argument. People still play these MMOs in a social environment with friends, family, guildmates, etc. Those are social, personal, and emotional bonds built between humans that tether then to the games they play together. If you have a social group like that in one MMO, you aren't as likely to abandon the game because you aren't that likely to abandon them.
3. This....is just... I'm certain there's a word that ends in "pathy" to describe the opinion you just shared.
You have to blatantly ignore tons of information and arguments provided to make up such nonsense. Not even Ver ever said that WoW's success was hinged on broadband going mainstream, he gave a bunch of meshed reasons that all contributed to the runaway success of the game. Blatantly lying about what's been said by others, ignoring anything that counters your opinions, and then cherry picking only the snippets of phrases that might be twisted to reaffirm your beliefs is nothing short of psychosis.
All of this being predicated on a tangent you spawned forth to avoid the point of the thread even, the fact that while combat is the most common form of central gameplay, it's is in no way mandatory to be the singular focus of a title.
We can see as much in that link to the top selling games, that only a subset of them are single-minded about combat (which is even more emphasized by the single-platform sales).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
Showing interest in a subgenre (even if the current games are not up to your expectations) is the only way to help make something happen. Thus I disagree with your "there is no way to show interest".
I was not discounting the support of niche titles, more so the reality that you can't prove the popularity of an MMO if that MMO does not exist to have any data on/about.
Buying games from an associated genre helps, but there are issues that I've already mentioned in the form of pointing out how many developers are producing for said genre, what platforms they deliver to, and the scope of their content.
You can support a small title for as long as you want, but unless it has a broader market presence and comparative depth of play to other big titles then it's simply not going to have the same userbase.
Beyond that, the arguing point was that people have "voted with their wallets" about the popularity of MMOs, to which my point in these statements was the fact that there wasn't any strong options to vote for within that space in the first place.
It's all well and good to support the genre, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't buy what does not exist.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Hence why we're back to this stuff.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And clearly you have high interests ... since you responded so much to mine, and others' discussions.
And I suppose you have no counter argument, and did not dispute what i said. I understand.
And sure, I'm fine handling repetition under many circumstances, but you refuse to make even a rational argument, which only leaves me to repeat myself.
I have no interest in countering an argument that is not even rational in the first place, my post to Gaendric addressed what little of a point you had any ways.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Why make such an irrational statement?
A. Not all companies are capable of that quality.
B. Not all companies are focused on delivering that quality. They're mistakenly distracted, as you are/were, that other factors matter more than the fun of the core gameplay activity. So they dump thousands of dev-hours into systems that don't improve that fun, and that's why no games have even come close to surpassing WOW's combat depth.
If New Coke failed, and if MMORPGs don't even have a New Coke, how likely do you think it is that one of those obviously inferior MMORPGs will succeed to WOW's level? Other factors are involved to success -- success is always the result of a ton of deterministic factors -- but product quality* is one of the biggest factors. And in games quality most strongly determined by the quality of the most common activity(ies), which tends to be combat in MMORPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You can even see in the post you quoted that he stated the extreme condition that if WoW combat was the pinnacle of design that more would seek to repeat it. Your example of "most people liking starry night" doesn't even properly apply as a result because your counterargument isn't addressing the principle of quality of design but simply of viewer preference.
In other words, it's an argument you just made up.
As for your extra tangent, it's a repeat of the same thing we have corrected with a lot of detail.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The argument was not of how polished the product is, but the mechanical qualities of it and the reproducibility of the conditions that led to it's runaway success.
While the global quality of the game is/was certainly high (which was never in dispute), the matter of what other factors has created a gulf between the reality of the genre and the expectations that have come of it. The statement Axehilt is arguing against is that people shouldn't be chasing WoW's or anyone else's tail making the same gameplay that's already generated a captive market, but instead realize the fact that MMORPGs are capable of a much broader range of gameplay that's not been given the polished AAA treatment.
You just got suckered by the equivalent of watching one person critique the drive train, engine, steering, and fuel economy of a car with a salesman countering by saying their car has the best fit and finish even though that has next to nothing to do with the components the first guy mentioned.
The question of a single game's fun was not the argument, Axe simply distracted people (apparently quite successfully in your case) with a red herring of an argument about quality.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And also hypocritical ... so it is ok that you repeat yourself, but not for others? Way to define a "rational" argument. But i understand.
- We just spent the last few post covering how, objectively, no games have come close to WOW's gameplay quality.
- Earlier we covered how your list of "market conditions" that led to WOW's success were objectively wrong. Later games released into an environment which was as good as, and in several respects better than, the environment WOW launched into. Those later games didn't do as well as WOW. So obviously your hypothesis is wrong.
What specifically in my post do you feel was opinion?"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think you're signature quote explains your views as the superior authoritarian view on good and bad ideas. You feel like you're the person who gives judgement on that.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Right now all you are doing is saying useless things that are disproved by people simply reading the post you even quoted. It's not constructive in the least, has nothing to do with the point of the thread, and only serves consequently as a derailing tangent into nonsense. Stop trolling.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
What specifically in your post was opinion?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I would like to see a game which allow you to level just by exploration map completion or off line leveling, or like Eve using training manuals.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
(that "you" is not direct at me, btw).
So you derides others being a "broken record" while you are being one yourself. That is not hypocritical, what is?
You don't remember everything you have posted, and you are inconsistent. It is the internet. I understand.
"Never said it wasn't ok for others to repeat themselves ( I even said "I'm fine handling repetition under many circumstances" even in the post you quoted), so it's not hypocritical. What I did say was that you are making a pointless tangent to which I can only repeat corrections I have already made."
You being a "broken record of the worst kind" (Also of note, that broken record comment was pointed at axehilt for repeating an argument that'd been corrected multiple times, hence the link that was in the original comment which you removed. I can easily tell why you'd think it was about you though, seeing how applicable the statement is.) does not defy any of that, it simply elucidates that your arguments are not just repetitious, but without merit. The repetition wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the other half of the equation happening there. I've been remarkably consistent on this, it's only when people are incapable of reading more than one sentence that they have issues.
EDIT: I see you edited your post after I corrected you on your quote source. Try and keep some level of honesty.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The evidence and logic stands uncontested.
Did you even read my signature quote?
- It has nothing to do with my being an authority.
- It has to do with the reason why ideas are accepted or rejected.
- It points out that the reason often isn't truth, and instead is a tool used to express like or dislike of someone.
- I point out that I strive to avoid that instinct (where most other forum posters don't.)
For example if you were to post a stronger body of evidence and logic that actually outweighed and disproved the evidence/logic I've presented, then I would reverse my position and agree with you. Because you would have presented the truth of the matter and provided the logic/evidence to prove it. I would agree with you even though I somewhat dislike you (because you've historically posted poor opinions which aren't based on evidence,) and at the same time it would make me dislike you less (because you would have disrupted that historic pattern and embraced rationality.)To be clear, the authority here is truth. We know truth through evidence and logic. I've presented thus-far-undisputed evidence of WOW's combat being objectively deeper than other MMORPGs' combat, and pointed out how that's likely to have a significant correlation to a game's success based on how we know players enjoy games (Koster, 2004) and also alluding to the broader set of traits to WOW's combat (smoothness, etc) which caused WOW to be more enjoyable (in that most common way games are enjoyed) than other MMORPGs. I've pointed out how your theories behind WOW's success were flawed by pointing out how SWTOR launched with all of those traits (and a few significantly better than WOW launched with), and still didn't hit WOW-level success. SWTOR was the best example because it had many of the traits you list all in the same game, but most other games shared at least some of the traits (for example every single post-WOW MMORPG launched into a world with superior access to internet and high-speed internet than WOW had.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The evidence and logic has been readily ignored by you in favor of building a false narrative, that is the epitome of arguing from the stance of opinion. If you truly believed the authority was truth then there has been a litany of facts that you have disregarded and defied to maintain your position which should have been accounted for a long time ago.
But truth isn't what you are seeking, the reaffirmation of your opinions is.
For example, you claim you have undisputed evidence, yet many have given example of very real games and very real mechanics that do in fact put it into dispute. Instead of acknowledge this reality, you actively repeat a lie to yourself and everyone else so that you can preserve a long-disproved opinion.
You gave a poor counterargument by trying to argue SWTORs case which was proven patently false as well. Your entire attempt at claiming Ver's arguments as flawed were themselves marred by that fact that you kept dodging actually addressing the points as he posed them and instead took to setting up false arguments to run tangent on.
For example your parenthesis claim;
"every single post-WOW MMORPG launched into a world with superior access to internet and high-speed internet than WOW had"
This statement is immediately wrong for the fact that at every major release WoW was still there, with it's own major expansion and content update, to maintain an audience that had already invested collective millions into a title of the same form as those new ones. A captive audience does not migrate that fast (the change in a largely F2P modern userbase has shown a shift in this however).
What you have done is engage in the illusion of intelligent argument. You have tried to sell your opinions time and again as the ultimate nature of truth when they are in fact barely touching on any real data save for what few stats you can find to support your opinions, and there has been plenty of data provided and repeated which you could have learned from by now, but it's more than obvious that the truth is not what you seek.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
First Assumption: "fun" comes from making meaningful decisions
I believe Axe has posted links to Raph Koster's research to back this up but this is something I agree with from personal experience. You can gain fun in other ways (watching movies is fun and involves no decisions) so things like graphics, animations etc can be fun to view, but making meaningful decisions is the root of good gameplay. In combat, this means things like deciding when to dodge, what skills to use, where to move to etc. It also applies to other genres, like where to place farms, how to build your transport routes etc.
Second Assumption: WoW's success is due to it's depth of combat
This assumption is one I vehemently disagree with because it has no basis in reality. First, the depth of combat being unequalled is not true. I've argued on a number of occasions that this is not true. Granted I've not played WoW so don't have firsthand experience, but looking at the combat rotations posted by Axe I can say that LotRO (vanilla) had deeper combat. There is also a distinction to be made between "deep" and "complex". Whilst some of WoW's combat is deep, a lot of it is simply complex, so doesn't involve meaningful decisions.
Secondly, in all the MMOs I've played, those classes with the deepest combat mechanics are the ones that are played the least. Whilst hardcore gamers may prefer deep combat mechanics, the average gamer tends not to care.
Thirdly, trying to judge a game's success based on an objective feature list is silly., but if you're going to do it, at least include everything. WoW's success is three-fold:
- Timing: WoW released a superior product at a time of market growth. They targeted casuals and were thus able to capture a much larger audience than anyone thought possible.
-Content: this is where Axe is right. The content of WoW was vastly superior to it's competitors at the time of launch, both in terms of quality, accessibility and sheer amount.
-Social: This is the part Axe consistently ignores. MMOs are fundamentally about other people, it is their single most defining quality. WoW had a good couple of years of uncontested supremacy and during that time, players formed bonds with other players. This means to beat WoW, you either need a vastly superior product (hasn't happened) or some way to convince players to move en-masse or break their bonds of friendship. (also hasn't happened).
Third Assumption: Correlation = Causation
This is the single biggest mistake Axe seems to make. Even assuming that WoW does have superior combat depth, it does not mean that WoWs success is caused by having better combat. Firstly, the combat depth only starts to shine during endgame, which as we know is only done by a small minority of players. Secondly, whilst Axe disagrees, I know LotRO had just as much, if not more, combat depth than WoW, so you immediately have an example of a game with better combat but worse sales, proving the assumption to be at least partly wrong.
Games are simply too complex to correlate one single feature to its success or failure.
This type of fun is essentially "we experience pleasure in learning". This means it extends beyond games into things like movies, and extends across many layers of that entertainment (when you watch the movie Independence Day you're learning not only how the plot progresses, but also how to defeat a fictitious alien invasion.) This also illustrates that the things learned don't have to be real to be enjoyable (because if hostile aliens actually invaded they'd be way further ahead of us technologically than Cortez was when he conquered the Aztecs; a 90s laptop definitely won't be enough to stop them.)
But obviously we learn better first-hand, which is why interactive entertainment (with decisions) is better at it than non-interactive.
2. WoW has taken flak for its changes making the game "too simple", so calling WOW's system "complex" is a little odd. In-game you don't exactly have a giant list of buttons to press (like earlier MMORPGs, and with some class exceptions...my shaman still has kinda a mess of buttons that all matter to varying degrees.)
Keep in mind that combat rotations are only one factor behind WOW's combat depth, and the variations of its mobs and other dynamic factors like what other players are doing factor into what you're doing too. This last factor isn't formalized so much as "he used ability A so I should use ability B" (although that does arguably exist in a limited degree when you coordinate around Bloodlust) and is more the dynamic
The timing element is disproved again and again when every post-WOW MMORPG has released in an era with more casual MMORPG players than there ever was, and most have directly targeted those players, and broadband has been more common, and even more successful IPs were used. These games checked all those boxes, yet didn't achieve WOW's level of success.
The social element you over-sell a bit; due to our limitations as a species we have limits in terms of just how many people you can meaningfully interact with. So in a game as long as you have that meaningful handful of players you enjoy interacting with, anything else is excess. So even if we ignored the cart-before-horse nature of this point (WOW had lots of players because it had lots of players), we'd have to face the fact that it doesn't actually take a lot of players for players to be satisfied socially.
3. I'm all for people introducing stronger evidence behind WOW's success. I don't feel so strongly on the subject that I have no doubt that this was the cause of WOW's success (so I'm not actually arguing that correlation=causation.) But I consistently see the games with the most interesting sets of decisions result in some of the highest success as games. And critically "interesting" applies not just at the highest tiers of competition (the absolute measure of a game's depth) but at lower tiers too (whether the set of decisions that newbies or average players experience are fun to them.) It's just I typically can't delve into a deeper, nuanced discussion of the topic because I'm stuck countering blatantly false ideas like WOW being successful just because it was when broadband started getting popular (as if that was somehow a bigger factor then (when broadband was still uncommon) than now (when broadband is significantly more prevalent.))
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That people have fun by being engaged in decision making is simply the nature of games in the first place, they are an interactive medium and in order to be interactive the player needs to be offered a choice, even if it's as simple as pressing a button or not.
2. This is mostly a tangent, and fails to address what was already given in example that other games have deeper complexity to their combat.
Similarly, the "every post-WOW MMORPG has released in an era with more casual MMORPG players" is pretty much an entirely false premise and argument. WoW didn't disappear after it launched, and they streamlined many thing over time while expanding their content and timing later expansions to compete against new launches to retain their userbase. On top of that, traditionally MMO players did not migrate as much because of the monetary and time investment that is placed into their game of choice. That there are "more casual MMORPG players" ends up being a moot point because most of those players are already spoken for.
The social element is honestly more so undersold. Your counterargument that people only interact with a set number of other's in no way invalidates the argument. People still play these MMOs in a social environment with friends, family, guildmates, etc. Those are social, personal, and emotional bonds built between humans that tether then to the games they play together. If you have a social group like that in one MMO, you aren't as likely to abandon the game because you aren't that likely to abandon them.
3. This....is just... I'm certain there's a word that ends in "pathy" to describe the opinion you just shared.
You have to blatantly ignore tons of information and arguments provided to make up such nonsense. Not even Ver ever said that WoW's success was hinged on broadband going mainstream, he gave a bunch of meshed reasons that all contributed to the runaway success of the game. Blatantly lying about what's been said by others, ignoring anything that counters your opinions, and then cherry picking only the snippets of phrases that might be twisted to reaffirm your beliefs is nothing short of psychosis.
All of this being predicated on a tangent you spawned forth to avoid the point of the thread even, the fact that while combat is the most common form of central gameplay, it's is in no way mandatory to be the singular focus of a title.
We can see as much in that link to the top selling games, that only a subset of them are single-minded about combat (which is even more emphasized by the single-platform sales).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin