I've read the thread and I've played it all. Been playing WOW since beta phase 1. I've experienced every decent MMORPG for at least a month. The good ones for a few. If lvl 60 in WOW bores you, how can every MMORPG not bore you? How quickly did you reach 60? My guess is pretty fast. So what if Horizons has better crafting...EVERY other aspect of the game is gerally pretty horrible. ATITD lets you build cities and SB lets you destroy them so Blizzard I guess MUST do that also all in one package with no expansions.
So in order for WOW to be good it has to do everything better than every other MMORPG at the same time? This game does crafting better and that game does character creation better and this other game has city building. But, which one does everything WOW does as well in 1 single package and is attractive to just about anyone interested in the genre? You'd be hard pressed to find one that's even remotely close. Of course WOW doesn't do everything the best, but it improves upon many features, adds a bunch and most importantly, brings it all together very well, something NO other MMORPG has ever been able to do. And its been done in its 1st year of release.
Its just a series of steps. Its like being upset that we didn't progress from a a horse and buggy to an F-15 instantly. Each succesful MMORPG borrows and improves features people like and adds a few more. Most have some GLARING issues that really turen people off. Somehow WOW has been able to appeal to more people than any MMORPG before by a rediculous margin. You can hadley compare the numbers. The closest game, L2, is limited to asian markets, since no one else plays it at all.
To each his own. As for me not having a clue=) Dream on. Can you criticise a game because you dislike a feature? Of course, even 6 yr olds have opinions. You don't have to like WOW, but you have to appreciate it for what its done and will continue to do. The flaws people find are glaringly worse in other games and mostly based on previous MMORPG burn out, unreasonable expectations, or bitterness. WOWs strengths outwiegh its weakness cmpared to other MMORPGs that crumble under false promises, bad coding, bad graphics, bad overall design, game breaking bugs, boring gameplay, huge time commitments, lack of interesting features and so on.
Going into WOW expecting to LIVE in the game will make you come away annoyed. Actually, going into any game expecting it to keep you ocupied for so long is the best way to hate a game. You can't go treating it like your first MMORPG because the sense of wonder is over. You'll never recapture that feeling. Don't even bother trying to find it.
I'm sorry you're bored with WOW already. I'm not. Good for me=)
Originally posted by Josher If lvl 60 in WOW bores you, how can every MMORPG not bore you?
Err, they did, I said that. Proof that you didn't actually read the posts, just assumed.
I quit EQ because I could no longer solo, and hated the grind. I quit horizons due to the grind, and new games being released. Before WoW came out in Europe I tried several other games, but they too much of a grind.
I still PLAY WoW. But I now play a warrior, level 26. I didn't say I hate WoW, or it bores me. I said I hate the lack of casual end game.
In any case, I was responding to the OP, and the title of this thread. Are you saying that WOW CANNOT be legitimately bashed?
Originally posted by Jodokai Apology accepted Ico. Like I tell Wepps, I'm not one of the typical brainless masses you find. I take the time to do the research.
Lol, what apology? I haven't seen queues in months on the various servers I play on, like Archimonde and Azgalor, both High Population servers. My new character on Argent Dawn hasn't seen a queue in the week that I've been playing there.
Why don't you actually play the game before commenting. ^_^
Now if you want to discuss battleground queues, I'll gladly agree with you.
Ico Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
A mmorpg is in the market to make cash. Clear and simple. Cash determines a mmorpgs succcess. In this context, WoW is by far the most succesful mmorpg ever.
Is it a mmorpg beloved by all? Of course not. Thats impossible. Is it a mmorpg beloved by more people than any mmorpg in history? So far, yes. 4 million subscribers attest to that.
Like many, my first month(s) in WoW were filled with amazement and enjoyment at the game. It impressed me at every turn. From their unique graphics to large landscapes to everything imbetween. Its one problem...(and its a big one), is lack of endgame content. MMORPGs are meant to be games that can satisfy gamers for many months if not years. Most can live up to this requirement(despite having other flaws along the way). WoW, however, cannot.
While the path to 60 is very enjoyable, once there the game comes to a grinding halt. Players realize they only have a handful of activites to do and once they have done them each a dozen times, the games lack of depth becomes apparent. This is the biggest reason(imo), people left WoW. This is why to many of us, its not a great game. Developers lacked foresight into seeing this problem.
So how do you make a casual endgame without hurting the multiplayer portions? If you hate grinding, seriously, you've burned out on the genre. They're ALL grinds eventually. You repeatedly have to do something to get better. Thats the core mechanic. As long as that something is interesting enough to most people, they keep playing.
What MMORPG has a casual endgame anyway? Most become completely group mandatory well before you reach max lvl. Do you expect all the dungeons designed around groups to become soloable so it destroys all group play? It would be a balancing nightmare. DO you expect equal rewards for solo play to make group play absolete? Soloing is easy!! ANy solo rewards now would have to be comparable with current group rewards which would trivialize group play. The casual endgame is rolling an alt which you've done it seems or PvP. If you don't like PvP, thats not the games fault. DM can be done in under 2 hours. Thats as casual as it gets.
Eventually, you HAVE to run out of things to do or get bored. Sounds pretty unreasonable to expect neverending content. There's no MMORPG in development that is offering more solo content than group content anyway. Priorities. You don't create a multiplayer game hoping everyone will play alone. Blizzard lets you do both at least. In a multiplayer game you eventually have to group or the multiplayer is eliminated and the developer just wasted their time. If you want solo content play a single player RPG. Thats what I do.
It sounds like you always quit for the same reason and that reason is your lifestyle. The genre doesn't suit you past a certain point. I'm in the same boat. It doesn't suit a lot of people. I can't do MC or expect to climb past rank 5 or 6 in PvP, but I understand theres a reason for it. Is that the game's fault or ours? Blizzard said you can play solo. They never said the ENTIRE game was available to you.
Unreasonable expectations. I can't play football anymore because I'll get crushed, but I don't expect everyone else on the field to alter the game to suit me. Sound familiar?
Originally posted by Josher So how do you make a casual endgame without hurting the multiplayer portions? If you hate grinding, seriously, you've burned out on the genre. They're ALL grinds eventually. You repeatedly have to do something to get better. Thats the core mechanic. As long as that something is interesting enough to most people, they keep playing. What MMORPG has a casual endgame anyway? Most become completely group mandatory well before you reach max lvl. Do you expect all the dungeons designed around groups to become soloable so it destroys all group play? It would be a balancing nightmare. DO you expect equal rewards for solo play to make group play absolete? Soloing is easy!! ANy solo rewards now would have to be comparable with current group rewards which would trivialize group play. The casual endgame is rolling an alt which you've done it seems or PvP. If you don't like PvP, thats not the games fault. DM can be done in under 2 hours. Thats as casual as it gets. Eventually, you HAVE to run out of things to do or get bored. Sounds pretty unreasonable to expect neverending content. There's no MMORPG in development that is offering more solo content than group content anyway. Priorities. You don't create a multiplayer game hoping everyone will play alone. Blizzard lets you do both at least. In a multiplayer game you eventually have to group or the multiplayer is eliminated and the developer just wasted their time. If you want solo content play a single player RPG. Thats what I do. It sounds like you always quit for the same reason and that reason is your lifestyle. The genre doesn't suit you past a certain point. I'm in the same boat. It doesn't suit a lot of people. I can't do MC or expect to climb past rank 5 or 6 in PvP, but I understand theres a reason for it. Is that the game's fault or ours? Blizzard said you can play solo. They never said the ENTIRE game was available to you. Unreasonable expectations. I can't play football anymore because I'll get crushed, but I don't expect everyone else on the field to alter the game to suit me. Sound familiar?
Your arguement is a bladder full of hot air.
quoted from the blizzrd website;
Beyond the doors of AhnQiraj, Silithus is being fleshed out as a major quest hub with episodic storylines that extend into its depths and past its borders. Players have frequently requested more small-party and solo content, and weve focused our efforts to meet those desires around Silithus. Everyone should definitely check out the new quest and storylines when the Silithus content is released in patch 1.8.
Hmm, Silithus is a level 60 zone. End game. Players asked for casual end game content, blizz are working on it.
Speaking of raising the bar, we know that many players are curious about our plans for Hero classes. We want to assure everyone that developing the Hero-class system as a way for top-level players to advance their characters to new heights remains a high priority for us.
Hmm, so blizz ARE working on advancement EVEN when you reach level 60.
If blizzard consider it possible to have casual content AND a form of advancement in the end game, then the "genre" as you put it, has nothing to do with it.
Blizzard have always claimed their player base is mostly casual, yet they didn't put a casual end game in. See the flaw in their business plan. NOW they are adding it before their player base starts to dwindle. It has ALWAYS been possible to have casual content as 60, there are many methods for keeping people playing when they reach the high levels.
Let me give you an example. Horizons has mutliclassing. If I reached level 100 with my Ranger I could mutliclass. That is, switch to healer and level that class. I would retain many of the abilities from my ranger, including HP, strength, etc. So you don't reroll, you keep playing the same char, getting better and better. However, HZ is a grind, no real content. But if HZ had all the quests that WoW does, then I'd switch to a new class and level it by doing all the quests I had missed. In HZ I could build my own house, combine this with quests for exotic items to decorate your house, and you have something to keep you playing, that is not hardcore grinding.
Originally posted by Finduilas Hmm, so blizz ARE working on advancement EVEN when you reach level 60.
If blizzard consider it possible to have casual content AND a form of advancement in the end game, then the "genre" as you put it, has nothing to do with it. Blizzard have always claimed their player base is mostly casual, yet they didn't put a casual end game in. See the flaw in their business plan. NOW they are adding it before their player base starts to dwindle. It has ALWAYS been possible to have casual content as 60, there are many methods for keeping people playing when they reach the high levels.
If you are going to quote Blizzard for the basis of your argument, try including the entire quote, not just a small section of it out of context.
"Two examples of this new smaller-scale style of raid encounter are the upcoming ZulGurub [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/underdev/zulgurub.html] and AhnQiraj content additions. Many of you have already learned about Zul'Gurub from the recent preview we posted and from helping us test this new content on the Public Test Realms. AhnQiraj, which is subdivided into two different encounters, actually takes the small-raid concept a little further. The exterior area is a challenging 20-man raid dungeon, and the interior location presents the next top-tier 40-player raid experience after Blackwing Lair.
Beyond the doors of AhnQiraj, Silithus is being fleshed out as a major quest hub with episodic storylines that extend into its depths and past its borders. Players have frequently requested more small-party and solo content, and weve focused our efforts to meet those desires around Silithus. Everyone should definitely check out the new quest and storylines when the Silithus content is released in patch 1.8. "
So clearly, Blizzard is putting in content BOTH for casual players who are L60 and "hard core" raiding guilds/players. They are also going to put in Hero classes at some point to advance your character past 60. This is a huge gripe many people had with games like Everquest. Once you hit max level, your only choice was to join a raiding guild and kill mobs that required full raids of 72+ players to kill. There was very little to do solo or even with a group. SOE eventually put in more content for groups, but even to this day in EQ, a player who raids will have gear that makes them x4 as powerful as casual players who solo or group. Hell, in WoW you even have the choice of pursuing kick-ass PvP gear as an alternate to getting gear from raids and zones like Molten Core. This is a huge change from just about any other game I've played or heard of.
Aside from catering to both casuals and raiders, what else do you want them to put in there? A cure for cancer maybe? World peace?
I've read the thread and I've played it all. Been playing WOW since beta phase 1. I've experienced every decent MMORPG for at least a month. The good ones for a few. If lvl 60 in WOW bores you, how can every MMORPG not bore you?
-- Because other MMORPGs actually have content and are better thought out than WoW. AC1 -- actual world events that change things and keep it fresh all the way up the levels: geography changes, NPCs die and are replaced, towns are levelled, stories are woven that include players and affect the world. Horizons crafting is so superior to WoW it's not even a comparison. Depth of crafting? There are a vast array of materials and recipes; there are techniques that add specials to your build; you can BUILD actual, non-instanced, fully-realised houses and structures like bridges in the world. And Horizons has in its world-events (that actually change things) woven that crafting into the unfolding stories. How can other games not bore me? Because other games actually DO things and are vastly more DYNAMIC than the STATIC, neverchanging world of WoW.
More to the point, you spend your entire post giving your OPINION and stating that no one else's opinion is valid or counts.
I particularly like the "Can you criticise a game because you dislike a feature? Of course, even 6 yr olds have opinions. You don't have to like WOW, but you have to appreciate it for what its done and will continue to do."
Really? You stoop to childish namecalling, and expect people to take you seriously? Those of us who have come here and argued clearly and point-by-point what basis we're using to judge the game are hardly 6-yr-olds -- you might try arguing the points instead of resorting to name-calling and idiotic comments like that. Further, no, I do not have to "appreciate it for what it has done and will continue to do." Perfectly rational human beings DON'T like what WoW has done, which is add NOTHING to the MMORPG genre other than the dumbing-down of every convention to appeal to the masses. Did it improve on crafting from other games? Nope, reduced it to the "take five bricks, stand near forge, choose recipe, click build" idiocy without any depth beyond that. Can't remotely compare to crafting in Saga of Ryzom, Horizons, the scavenging in AC1. Did it bring mass combat PvP to us in a way that WASN'T a poorly-implemented rip-off of prior designs? Nope. Dark Ages of Camelot's RvR actually works and has a point beyond just bashing each other. Shadowbane has far superior PvP. The list goes on. Immersiveness? Not when game mechanics are forcibly pushed into the world, instead of designing the game to incorporate the mechanics into the environment -- like, for instance, EQ2's "waving and gesturing" of NPCs to get your attention instead of stupid ? hanging over NPC's heads. World events that actually CHANGE the world? Nope. WoW is utterly static. Nothing changes. Nothing will change. They've said that their philosophy (Blizzard) is to make sure that each and every player can experience each and every aspect of the game exactly as the player before them. So you'll never get anything remotely approaching the dynamism of the AC1 world, or the events in Horizons, or a dozen other games.
Hm. Combat? Nope. Just the usual "click attacK" and mash some buttons to represent specials during combat. Hm. Where have I seen that? Oh yeah, virtually every other game, except those that actually try to IMPROVE on the concept and make it more PLAYER-oriented and IMMERSIVE. Like AC1's controls in combat -- you put your shield to face your opponents, you choose at what height to swing and how hard/often, where enemies actually are rated for weaknesses and strengths that correspond to those strengths/weaknesses.
Hm. THe list goes on. The point is that WoW didn't bring ANYTHING to the table new. Not one thing. And it didn't even improve on the concepts it copied from everyone else. There a positives for WoW, that's not the point. The point is, that people can disagree and base that disagreement on valid points. I'm not telling anyone they have to agree with me -- I'm stating why I think the way I do. I'll leave the "it's my opinion or I'll call you names" crap to others.
One thing I've learned from MMORPG message boards is that AC fans for some reason are very hostile. People overly obsessed with immersion in a videogame ussually are the same. Also, when I mentioned any 6 yr old can have an opinion , it was a metaphor, not a personal attack. You're attacking people in almost every post. My opinion is only backed up by a lot of subscribers and shared amongst websites and reveiws. Its only the MMORPG elite, the jaded and burned out that seem to have MAJOR issues with WOW.
I just question why you're forced to use features from multiple VERY low population, niche or failed titles to prove a point about innovation? Everyone can like what they like, but 1 feature that might be well done doesn't matter when the game just isn't very good as a whole. SB had great ideas that crumbled under horrible implimentation. PvP in a point and click interface? What is this, 1997? PLayers warned them in beta that it would cause major problems. Horizons also had great ideas that never works well at all and will follow AC2 on the chopping block sooner or later. SB probably won't be far behind. Ryzome?? Too much bad to cover up whatever it does well. Eve is too slow, tedious and boring to attract anyone not interested in sacrificing their lives.
AC's combat system was made mostly pointless knowing that most of the population cheats or quickly jiggling your character back and forth causes latency issues, negating any benefit the battle system has. Grouping was also almost obsolete. Besides, the animation was/is laughable, the graphics are the same and its skill system is horribly imbalanced requiring uber templates and boting so you don't get steamroled. Low, medium and high don't matter when its flawed at the core, and again, most people left for greener pastures a long time ago. So, an innovative and battle system was created and dismissed as very few really cared for it due to bad implimentation. If it was really that great, would'nt more people have played it? Does it matter how well a car drives if it stalls most of the time you pull it out of the driveway? No, you simply stop driving, return it as a lemon and buy another car.
If WOWs combat feels the same, well I guess every FPS's combat feels the same and every sports game plays the same also? All cars must drive the same, too since you just turn a wheel and step on the gass? Great logic. Its in the implimentation, cohesion and flow and if you can't see where WOW improves on the point and click, then thats your loss, or you don't have enough experience in the game. Little things like the Warrior charge/intercept and how well totems are implimented and even the Warlock stone system are pretty innovative. The number of options most classes have is much greater than other MMORPGs. Throw in enchants, potions, scrolls, trinkets, engineered items, food, drink, bandages, and switching weapons in combat and youve got LOADS of options. GO ahead and just "mash buttons" when you fight people. I will slauhgter you EVERY single time. I slaughter loads, because they "think" all you have to do is mash buttons. There are too many options. This is NOT DAOC. I wish MMORPGs could be more twitchy and interactive but developers have to work within limitations.
EQ2's animated NPCs were nifty. Did it get old? Yup. So you hate the markers for WOW quest NPCs? I thought it was odd also, but I understood their purpose. Over time I appreciated the feature. Many do. Its one of the applauded features in most non-jaded reviews. Blizzard didn't want to waste all their time making so many quests only for them to be skipped over by too many people because they didn't know which NPCs to go to. Thats what woul've happened you know. Or I guess Blizzard wanted to force people to go to FAQ sites just to know where the quests are? You call the markers BAD implimentation. I call them an innovation that brought over 2 million subscribers to a genre that was never even notcied before. All this innovation in other games somehow attracted all these gamers...or not? Very few played MMORPGs before WOW. WOW hasn't succeeded on name alone. Its doing well because its getting the best reviews in magazines, looks great, plays great and has good word of mouth. No one is going around saying "BUY RYZOME" or AC2 or ShadowBane. Why not?
I'm sorry you feel that anything positive Blizzard has done here "is not the point." Bashing is akin to mindless criticsm without anything to back it up. Isn't THE POINT, WOW doesn't really do anything bad? How many other MMORPGs can you actually say that about. It might not unreasonably innovate like some gamers wish, but like in another thread, innovation sometimes is the fastest way to remove yourself from the marketplace.
How many MMORPG have some major bad points that turn people off immediately? The only things found BAD about WOW seem to be from jaded gamers who think anything NOT innovative is somehow bad. Heres a short list.
WOW is bad because you can't solo enough? WHat MMORPG lets you solo more AND group?
WOW is bad because you can't loot enemy corpses? Thats been found to be a great way to not sell your game.
WOW is bad because you can't effect the world and other players enough. The consequences of such a feature is a great way to alienate most players. See below for elaboration.
WOW doesn't have world events? It actually DID change for the hollidays, so you can throw that one out. The traveling fair is also coming. BLizzard also isn't so stupid as to start changing their world WHILE so many new players are starting to play and haven't even expereinced whats already there. I guess the game/balance breaking consequences and elimination of content already created is good use of recources? (AC could change their world because so few people actually would be effected and the art was so simplistic, creating the change took little effort. They had to do something to slow down the rate of cancelations anyway. When did the 1st changes take effect by the way? The first 10 months?)
WOW doesn't let you control anything in the persistant world. OK, so in that context I guess graveyards would be a "cool" thing to control. Ignore the fact that it would be too effected by population imbalance and force most Horde on all servers to quit the game or reroll Alliance. GOod way to lose subscribers.
On that note, you're able to kill quest givers, NPCs and raid cities. Guess what happened? The players were completely disrupting too many others ability to play, so BLIZZARD punished that ability due to player outrage. Players were still allowed to do it, but stopped because effecting the world negatively had consequences. Punishment was not acceptable to most players. Causing ANNOYANCE was. Personal gain is most important. If effecting the world matters so much, players would accept the HKs as a BONUS and INNOVATION. PLayers did NOT welcome this innovation and instead refuse to effect the world because acting like a thug removes honor. Since people don't want to be punished even when they deserve it, they decided not to accept their punishment and NOT effect the world. So, Blizzard DOES allow people to change the world and people decided to stop doing it. How interesting.
Crafting isn't completely new. Thats a good one. Its done simply and well, but its a weak point if you're a crafter. I''d love a very detailed mini-game crafting interface, but Blizzard knows not may people enjoy crafting if it takes too much effort, so they made it simple. Besides, other games, crafted gear and found loot tables always clash with one another causing balance shifts. IN WOW its completely balanced. You have some great crafted gear and none of it makes found loot obsolete and vice versa. DOAC had some major issues with this.
Progress is too quick. Thats why 2+ Million people are playing. Theres a method to Blizzard madness.
I can't solo past 60. This is still a multiplayer game and Blizzard never said you could solo everything. The amount of solo content is staggering compared to every MMORPG on the market.
Your statement that WOW doesn't even improve anything is pure baseless opinion and you're in the minority. But, you must be used to that being a fan of AC=) The battle system is faster, more varried and interactive than most, and certainly improved. The mount and travel system is varied and MUCH improved. The graphics certainly are. The quest system certainly is by sheer volume. Ease of play while still retaining depth at higher lvls is improved. Accessibility as a MMORPG is greatly improved. Rolling up alts and having fun the 2nd time around is improved. The detailed design of the zones are GREATLY improved. The lack of a grind up to max lvl is HIGHLY improved. The ability to overcome the holy class trinity by organization and careful play is much improved. PvP mechanics are improved rewarding skill a bit more. Gear still rules the day, but it alwasy will until there is no more gear.
I'm sure you'll disagree with all of this, but that would mean you're just ignoring the facts. As we all know, common MB debate is never based on facts. Opinion and hostility is much more important.
Originally posted by Josher One thing I've learned from MMORPG message boards is that AC fans for some reason are very hostile. People overly obsessed with immersion in a videogame ussually are the same. Also, when I mentioned any 6 yr old can have an opinion , it was a metaphor, not a personal attack. You're attacking people in almost every post. My opinion is only backed up by a lot of subscribers and shared amongst websites and reveiws. Its only the MMORPG elite, the jaded and burned out that seem to have MAJOR issues with WOW. I just question why you're forced to use features from multiple VERY low population, niche or failed titles to prove a point about innovation? Everyone can like what they like, but 1 feature that might be well done doesn't matter when the game just isn't very good as a whole. SB had great ideas that crumbled under horrible implimentation. PvP in a point and click interface? What is this, 1997? PLayers warned them in beta that it would cause major problems. Horizons also had great ideas that never works well at all and will follow AC2 on the chopping block sooner or later. SB probably won't be far behind. Ryzome?? Too much bad to cover up whatever it does well. Eve is too slow, tedious and boring to attract anyone not interested in sacrificing their lives. AC's combat system was made mostly pointless knowing that most of the population cheats or quickly jiggling your character back and forth causes latency issues, negating any benefit the battle system has. Grouping was also almost obsolete. Besides, the animation was/is laughable, the graphics are the same and its skill system is horribly imbalanced requiring uber templates and boting so you don't get steamroled. Low, medium and high don't matter when its flawed at the core, and again, most people left for greener pastures a long time ago. So, an innovative and battle system was created and dismissed as very few really cared for it due to bad implimentation. If it was really that great, would'nt more people have played it? Does it matter how well a car drives if it stalls most of the time you pull it out of the driveway? No, you simply stop driving, return it as a lemon and buy another car. If WOWs combat feels the same, well I guess every FPS's combat feels the same and every sports game plays the same also? All cars must drive the same, too since you just turn a wheel and step on the gass? Great logic. Its in the implimentation, cohesion and flow and if you can't see where WOW improves on the point and click, then thats your loss, or you don't have enough experience in the game. Little things like the Warrior charge/intercept and how well totems are implimented and even the Warlock stone system are pretty innovative. The number of options most classes have is much greater than other MMORPGs. Throw in enchants, potions, scrolls, trinkets, engineered items, food, drink, bandages, and switching weapons in combat and youve got LOADS of options. I wish MMORPGs could be more twitchy and interactive but developers have to work within limitations. EQ2's animated NPCs were nifty. Did it get old? Yup. So you hate the markers for WOW quest NPCs? I thought it was odd also, but I understood their purpose. Over time I appreciated the feature. Many do. Its one of the applauded features in most non-jaded reviews. Blizzard didn't want to waste all their time making so many quests only for them to be skipped over by too many people because they didn't know which NPCs to go to. Thats what woul've happened you know. Or I guess Blizzard wanted to force people to go to FAQ sites just to know where the quests are? You call the markers BAD implimentation. I call them an innovation that brought over 2 million subscribers to a genre that was never even notcied before. All this innovation in other games somehow attracted all these gamers...or not? Very few played MMORPGs before WOW. WOW hasn't succeeded on name alone. Its doing well because its getting the best reviews in magazines, looks great, plays great and has good word of mouth. No one is going around saying "BUY RYZOME" or AC2 or ShadowBane. Why not? I'm sorry you feel that anything positive Blizzard has done here "is not the point." Bashing is akin to mindless criticsm without anything to back it up. Isn't THE POINT, WOW doesn't really do anything bad? How many other MMORPGs can you actually say that about. It might not unreasonably innovate like some gamers wish, but like in another thread, innovation sometimes is the fastest way to remove yourself from the marketplace. How many MMORPG have some major bad points that turn people off immediately? The only things found BAD about WOW seem to be from jaded gamers who think anything NOT innovative is somehow bad. Heres a short list. WOW is bad because you can't solo enough? WHat MMORPG lets you solo more AND group? WOW is bad because you can't loot enemy corpses? Thats been found to be a great way to not sell your game. WOW is bad because you can't effect the world and other players enough. The consequences of such a feature is a great way to alienate most players. See below for elaboration. WOW doesn't have world events? It actually DID change for the hollidays, so you can throw that one out. The traveling fair is also coming. BLizzard also isn't so stupid as to start changing their world WHILE so many new players are starting to play and haven't even expereinced whats already there. I guess the game/balance breaking consequences and elimination of content already created is good use of recources? (AC could change their world because so few people actually would be effected and the art was so simplistic, creating the change took little effort. They had to do something to slow down the rate of cancelations anyway. When did the 1st changes take effect by the way? The first 10 months?) WOW doesn't let you control anything in the persistant world. OK, so in that context I guess graveyards would be a "cool" thing to control. Ignore the fact that it would be too effected by population imbalance and force most Horde on all servers to quit the game or reroll Alliance. GOod way to lose subscribers. On that note, you're able to kill quest givers, NPCs and raid cities. Guess what happened? The players were completely disrupting too many others ability to play, so BLIZZARD punished that ability due to player outrage. Players were still allowed to do it, but stopped because effecting the world negatively had consequences. Punishment was not acceptable to most players. Causing ANNOYANCE was. Personal gain is most important. If effecting the world matters so much, players would accept the HKs as a BONUS and INNOVATION. PLayers did NOT welcome this innovation and instead refuse to effect the world because acting like a thug removes honor. Since people don't want to be punished even when they deserve it, they decided not to accept their punishment and NOT effect the world. So, Blizzard DOES allow people to change the world and people decided to stop doing it. How interesting. Crafting isn't completely new. Thats a good one. Its done simply and well, but its a weak point if you're a crafter. I''d love a very detailed mini-game crafting interface, but Blizzard knows not may people enjoy crafting if it takes too much effort, so they made it simple. Besides, other games, crafted gear and found loot tables always clash with one another causing balance shifts. IN WOW its completely balanced. You have some great crafted gear and none of it makes found loot obsolete and vice versa. DOAC had some major issues with this. Progress is too quick. Thats why 2+ Million people are playing. Theres a method to Blizzard madness. I can't solo past 60. This is still a multiplayer game and Blizzard never said you could solo everything. The amount of solo content is staggering compared to every MMORPG on the market. Your statement that WOW doesn't even improve anything is pure baseless opinion and you're in the minority. But, you must be used to that being a fan of AC=) The battle system is faster, more varried and interactive than most, and certainly improved. The mount and travel system is varied and MUCH improved. The graphics certainly are. The quest system certainly is by sheer volume. Ease of play while still retaining depth at higher lvls is improved. Accessibility as a MMORPG is greatly improved. Rolling up alts and having fun the 2nd time around is improved. The detailed design of the zones are GREATLY improved. The lack of a grind up to max lvl is HIGHLY improved. The ability to overcome the holy class trinity by organization and careful play is much improved. PvP mechanics are improved rewarding skill a bit more. Gear still rules the day, but it alwasy will until there is no more gear. I'm sure you'll disagree with all of this, but that would mean you're just ignoring the facts. As we all know, common MB debate is never based on facts. Opinion and hostility is much more important.
Originally posted by Jodokai 5. Ah yes fix the wait queues and then I might acutally get what I'm paying for. Perish the thought.
Wait queues? Lol, those have long been gone. I haven't seen those on either Azgalor or Archimonde (both High Pop Servers) in months.
They are launching new servers frequently to counter the population problem, so the problem is not one worth mentioning, but queues do exist. At least I can say that with certainty for the european PvP and RP (Argent Dawn) servers, although the wait is just a few mins, no biggy.
Ico,
In case you missed it the first time I highlighted it in red.
Well, Josher, while you were learning things on boards, you might try learning how to read. I used AC1 as ONE example, and ran down a long list of other games and other features as well. Horizons, Saga of Ryzom, DAoC, Shadowbane, EQ2. All used as examples, in ways to support the overall argument. But then again, I guess if you bothered to acknowledge that little fact about all of my posts here, it would kind of undo your entire first sentence and what you develop from it.
I haven't attacked anyone in the original posts, and only responded specifically to you when you started attacking people by calling them names and referring to anyone who disagrees with you as such.
Your points in your most recent response totally ignore the points. WoW's crafting, for instance, is exemplary of the rest of the game. It brings nothing new to the genre and doesn't even provide the sort of depth and capacities found in other and older games -- look, read carefully, let me take your hand here so you don't lock onto just one example and make an entire posting from it: Horizons, Saga of Ryzom, Tale in the Desert I and II, AC1, and others. It takes the simplest road possible: offer some recipes, a very limited range of core materials, no personalization of items (aka Horizons' Techniques, for instance, but by no means the only instance).
Oh, and try to develop a line of thought that's more than just "how come you use low-pop games to attack a high-pop game?" That would be, because those lower population games do things BETTER (according to criteria I laid out in my first posts) than the high-pop game. They also tend to be the ones that are actually trying to bring new things into the genre and trying to figure out how to bring more immersion into the games. In no way, and in no logical argument, can raw numbers be directly correlated to quality. If that were the case, Microsoft's Windows would be the best OS on the planet -- most stable, most innovative, etc. If that were the case, GM would be on top of the quality ratings and making the best cars. Etc.
The criteria, which would be the basis for criticising any game, are the key. Is WoW the most immersive game on the planet? Is it even close? No, it isn't. I spelled out my definition for immersion already in a prior post. Immersion means making the game mechanics as invisible as possible to the actual environment, using your design and environment to convey the information you need to, be that in combat or regarding NPCs or anything else. This is part of the overall point: Blizzard's designers, on that basis, do not care a whit about immersion, they set out to make it as easy as possible even when those "simplifications" contradict an immersive feel to the environment. And no, having folks waving at me never got old, because it was something that was believable within the environment. Having giant ? hanging overhead isn't. It's just a sop to simplify things so people don't have to think for themselves or put forward effort to learn things. Is that a bad thing? Not for some, yes for others. If your criteria is an environment where immersion is first, where being in a world whose design doesn't throw in artificial structures that are jarringly and obviously not "realistic" to that environment, then yes, you're not going to like it. If you don't care when the mechanics intrude into the environment, like EQ2's idiotic "you can't go through that door until you have six monkeys, a trained parrot, and a tea-kettle inscribed in pink letters" artificiality at launch, then you won't be bothered by it. It's not about right and wrong -- it's about the criteria used and what people play for that determines how they judge a game, and thusly how their criticisms read.
I would be embarrassed to call plopping Santa Claus in the AH a "world event", or a fishing competition, or the travelling circus. Ooh, that was tough. And what level of impact do these bring to the world, to contribute to the persistence of an "ever-changing" world that grows according to people's actions (aka roleplaying)? None. They come, they go, nothing changes. Nothing can change. That's not WoW's purpose, nor as I quoted before is it their intention. Comparing a fishing competition to, say, the Horizons event that unlocked an entire geographic area when players came together to figure out how to build a bridge over a vast chasm, while having to employ others to defend them while doing it, is ridiculous. It also neatly focuses on the point: other games are trying to offer interactivity (hence, better immersion) in their games, the ability to actually affect and influence the unfolding stories and the environment, while WoW doesn't. Is that bad? Again, only if your criteria is my definition of "immersion" -- the capacities of the players to be involved in and affect the storylines and the environment and the sustenance of the environment in a consistent, contextual way. If it doesn't bother you that the best you're getting out of Blizzard for a "world event" is simply what other games like the original EQ called "players getting together on their own" (fishing competition, wow, that took effort) then great, the game is for you. If your criteria is otherwise, then it isn't.
The point is, and this seems to be a shock to folks primarily in WoW forums: different people have different criteria as to what constitutes a good game, an innovative game, etc. (Though "innovative" does have a fixed definition and therefore isn't subjective.) The fact that I have on set of criteria and you another doesn't invalidate either point -- but it does counter the OP's idiotic assertion. And, it addresses yours specifically, since you continually fall back on two arguments, both specious: #s = quality; and the "my opinion is the right one, therefore anything else is wrong and all people who think that way are 6-yr olds".
I would be embarrassed to call plopping Santa Claus in the AH a "world event", or a fishing competition, or the travelling circus. Ooh, that was tough.
Why should it be embarassing? You argue the entire time that WoW did *nothing* new, but when they put things into the game like Holiday themes or events you simply dismiss them out of hand. I personally found the Holiday events to be a really nice touch, because in previous games (EQ for instance) there were initially some really pathetic GM run events for Haloween and whatnot that amounted to nothing more than 'spawn some loot mobs and let players fight over it'. Why would you just dismiss the circus? How would you know what went into putting it in place, and even if it doesn't have a profound change on the environment, it's still a dynamic event.
And what level of impact do these bring to the world, to contribute to the persistence of an "ever-changing" world that grows according to people's actions (aka roleplaying)? None. They come, they go, nothing changes. Nothing can change. That's not WoW's purpose, nor as I quoted before is it their intention. Comparing a fishing competition to, say, the Horizons event that unlocked an entire geographic area when players came together to figure out how to build a bridge over a vast chasm, while having to employ others to defend them while doing it, is ridiculous.
A couple points. How long into Horizons's existence did this take place? WoW hasn't even been around for a year. You are comparing a game that has been around longer to a relatively new game. I think its *very* possible that dynamic events like this will take place in WoW in the future. A lot of people have speculated that something like this will happen with the opening of the Dark Portal.
It also neatly focuses on the point: other games are trying to offer interactivity (hence, better immersion) in their games, the ability to actually affect and influence the unfolding stories and the environment, while WoW doesn't.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Is that bad? Again, only if your criteria is my definition of "immersion" -- the capacities of the players to be involved in and affect the storylines and the environment and the sustenance of the environment in a consistent, contextual way. If it doesn't bother you that the best you're getting out of Blizzard for a "world event" is simply what other games like the original EQ called "players getting together on their own" (fishing competition, wow, that took effort) then great, the game is for you. If your criteria is otherwise, then it isn't.
Again with the "effort" thing. I think you have to ask yourself what the important thing is, that players are having fun or that it took a collosal "effort" on the part of the developers to put that event/feature in place. I think something Blizzard understands more than almost any other company out there is how to focus their energy on what makes a game fun and enjoyable as opposed to putting something in for the sake of it being there.
The point is, and this seems to be a shock to folks primarily in WoW forums: different people have different criteria as to what constitutes a good game, an innovative game, etc. (Though "innovative" does have a fixed definition and therefore isn't subjective.) The fact that I have on set of criteria and you another doesn't invalidate either point -- but it does counter the OP's idiotic assertion. And, it addresses yours specifically, since you continually fall back on two arguments, both specious: #s = quality; and the "my opinion is the right one, therefore anything else is wrong and all people who think that way are 6-yr olds".
So essentially this entire discussion is pointless, because any aspect of WoW that I try and argue is new or innovative, you will just poo-poo away because either it didn't take "effort" or it's something unimportant in your eyes, despite the fact that other players might enjoy it (the faire... a fishing competition, etc).
One thing you might want to consider about what differentiates successful for niche or flop MMORPG's is that while innovate is a GOOD thing, it's only good if it advances the genre or game in a positive way. I think some devs get too caught up in putting in a new feature for marketing or bragging rights when its something people don't want or doesn't add enjoyment to the product. The simple fact is that there are elements to current and past MMORPG/CRP's that are tried and true necessary qualities. Things like "levels" or "skill points" (under the blanket of character development), PvP, buying and selling among players, a magic system, etc. If you take your argument of innovation to its logical conclusion, each new game should just toss these all away just for the sake of being different. I think the truth is that the company who can take these tried and true things and blend them successfully and with quality will always have the best product.
Spyd, just because you don't like what WOW has done, doesn't mean its not innovating. I mentioned using pure fact how WOW has world events and ways to somewhat change the persistant world. I also proved that going too far would break the game. Thats the difference. AC, Horizons and SB are broken due to some of these innovative features they tried. Blizzard is either implimenting them in small doses or saving them for when the demand is there. You can not dismiss these features because you don't like them. LOADS of people playing loved the new Holliday quests, NPCs and snowballs, and they loved the fireworks. I guess they were bad ideas just because you thought they weren't immersive enough. Aren't features in games that are broken and have a very small playerbase not VERY good? The innovative idea has to WORK you know, to be considered a great idea. Hovercrafts that fly using water as fuel is a great idea, but what good is it if it doesn't work?
Just because you're not immersed in the game doesn't mean other people aren't and the number of players prove that point. Sure, people play AC, Horizons and even Ryzome, but isn't the fact that so few do, an indication of a problem? WHat good did that immersion bring? No one is playing those games. SO which has more weight in todays market? The game that very few people enjoy because it has game breaking problems casued by some innovative ideas or the game that Millions of people are playing, is not broken, is ADDING features and has a great future?
Innovation isn't bad when done properly. Most MMORPGs, because they can't attract a playerbase aren't using thier ideas well, so the fact that they tried them doesn't give those concept much weight as to how NEEDED they are. Ideas without a great game behind them are useless.
Isn't a fun, stable, balanced, great looking game that does everything a MMORPG is supposed to do a great start? WOW has achieved this in less than a year. By your logic, they should just throw all of that away just to appease a select few who want features the majority of the PLAYERBASE doesn't want. I mentioned innovative additions to the battle system. Can you seriously state other MMORPGs have as many options AND are not slow and tedious? WOW does it while retaining all the fun. Thats a great thing.
Give up the 8 yr old reference. I guess putting an age on the "random" person with an idea offended you? Such a defensive attitude doesn't prove your case. I didn't call you one, but you're certainly getting closer at this rate=)
WOWs most important innovative feature is that its not BORING and tedious to most people like previous MMORPGs and the players all showed to celebrate in that innovation. WHat other MMORPG can use that as a selling point? Denying that Blizzard took a winning formula and made it better, would make you kind of out of touch. WOuld'n't the sales figures be an indication. I'm also curious as to how long you played. You mightve mentioned it, but I'm not going back through 5 pages;)
WOW doesn't have city building, land ownbership, harsh death penalties, major world changing events that have to disrupt gameplay, because those features have no proof that they can retain customers. You know what gets people to buy a MMORPG? A well done game from the ground up that has no glaring problems.
One: it is embarassing because it offers nothing by way of immersiveness or the players being able to alter the gameworld. Players can gather, as in the fishing tournament -- and that's it. EQ1 had such things -- they were player-driven competitions, while the company worked on events that were story/plot-based. Like the old skeleton rushes at the gates of Queynos. Nothing is done to advance any depth of story or plotlines, nothing is changed, nothing CAN be changed by the players. Blizzard has stated that their intention is NOT to do anything that would alter the existing game in any way that would prevent a new player who comes in a year from now from experiencing exactly the same content, in the same way, as those playing already. I dismiss "Santa" and "Easter Eggs" and using this-world's religious and social holidays as the reason to do static "world events" in the World of Warcraft because none of it is consistent within the frame and lore of the WORLD OF WARCRAFT. Last time I checked, All Hallow's Eve (teh upcoming real-world Halloween "world event"), Christmas, Easter -- these things were references to the real world's Christianity and other religions, none of which are in the Warcraft world. Did we have Santa or Easter eggs in the various games I've mentioned? Nope, sorry. Those games are concerned with keeping their gameworld lore CONSISTENT to itself. Blizzard isn't. And they've said they aren't. They're interested in fashioning a game that appeals to the widest array of people, and they've pinpointed that formula beyond the successes of other companies. They're to applauded for that, and for those who like what they've produced, that's great. But in no way can it be called "innovative", nor can you argue that, if the game were interested in consistently presenting itself, you'd have Santa and Easter and Halloween.
Horizon's crafting system let you build houses and bridges out of the box. Saga of Ryzom's crafting system has been in place for quite a while now, all accomplished in only months since release. Actually, with Ryzom, they're about to release the "Ryzom Ring", which allows the players to use the tools they use to create new content, from geography upwards. These are things that let you DO things in the gameworld. Affect it. Actually make a difference in a storyline. Roleplay and have your actions count for something.
AC1 has seasons out of the box. Not just random weather (ala EQ1/EQ2, which both had that weather out of the box) but actual seasons and weather according to season. AC1 had world events from the beginning that altered the world according to player actions and to the events within the story.
Oh, by the way, you're also misstating my argument. WoW offered nothing new from the sense of existing conventions. Every game out there adds content -- hence, "new" to the gameworld. But what WoW didn't do was come up with an innovative approach to the game mechanics. It just took the existing mechanics and simplified them all to appeal and be playable by the widest possible base. And there's nothing wrong with that. It works; hence their subscriber base. My argument throughout is that there are those of us who just want more from a game than a game-world that is static. And because so many can't seem to understand "static" versus "new content", it's referring to the NATURE of the content and the NATURE of the game mechanics. They'll add weather eventually -- and mark my words, it'll be fixed weather in geographic areas (snow in areas that already have snow, etc) and it'll be based on a random-occurence algorithm (the simplest of things to create). They won't make the snow actually pile up, they won't attempt a seasonal framework for weather -- that would be more complicated than Blizzard has stated their purposes with WoW are. And yes, my complaint with this specific mechanic, weather, also applies to EQ1/EQ2, which both, out of the box, offered the random-weather mechanism. And no, the lack of weather ISN'T the complaint - the nature of the game mechanics, the lack of player ability to affect ANYTHING in a meaningful and lasting way, is.
Or, to rephrase: it's far more impressive to be able to build fully-realised housing yourself, or to realise that, as you build your house in the game and watch it physically under construction, you can work with others to build it faster, or bring in skills they have that you don't, than it is to have none at all, or to have EQ2's moronic "instanced" housing. (yup, we all live in that one building, using the same door, that's inspiring). It's far more impressive to realise that the challenge of finding out what's beyond that chasm is to put together the people and resources to build a bridge to span the chasm, and fight to defend the area while you're doing it, than to run the same moronic quests over and over again, knowing full well that the same quests will await you, and play out in the same way, every time you roll up a character.
It's far more impressive to build things that you can customize and actually affect, so that the items are distinct, than it is to "repeat ad nauseum" the same recipes the other 4 million people are also building, to produce items that are exactly the same as they produced.
It's far more impressive and immersive to play in a gameworld that is consistent within itself, instead of having artificial mechanics intrude into the environment. It's far more impressive to actually have to do something in combat, like move yourself and be responsible for keeping your shield between yourself and your opponents for it to count, than it is to learn what buttons to hit while you stand there. WoW (and EQ2) keep the same mechanics in place, though WoW's animations are smoother -- shoot from distance; walk up, click attack; memorize details on what your "specials" in combat are, mash buttons accordingly. Which is more involving or challenging: having to move yourself around while fighting, dancing in and out, hefting your shield (or offhand weapon) in the direction of your opponents to block their attacks, while swinging at different parts of their bodies because the game mechanic ascribes strengths and weaknesses to different parts of the creatures? Or walking up, clicking attack, and just playing out the buttons for specials in patterns you've learned.
It's far more impressive to play in a world with other players where we can kill one another and loot one another's corpses -- when there's a mechanic in place that is consistent to the gameworld environment that ascribes consequences to the actions. Hence, a reputation factor, guards that react according to your status and the "worth" of your actions. Players that band together (ala UO) to take care of the morons who think it's fun to just bash new players. A game mechanic that facilitates and rewards those sorts of formations, instead of just rewarding "killing". An honor system that actually looks up the word "honor" and realises that it means more than just "killing", it includes a definition of behavior.
But again, this is all the criteria I USE. It doesn't have to be the one you use. Nor the one the next person uses, which will be a third set of criteria. This is all in response to the idiociy of stating "this game cannot be legimitately bashed" -- every single game can be legimitately bashed. No game is perfect. What we look for are games that come closest to what we want out of them. Why some people, such as myself, react to WoW as we do is precisely because it didn't attempt anything "new" in terms of mechanics, or a new twist on any mechanics, or bring any new methods for players to affect the gameworld into the mix of MMORPGs, and we'd prefer not to see clones of this method of doing it. It just copied existing conventions and made sure they were as uncomplicated as possible. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. As long as you're looking for a game like that. I prefer my world events to actually change the world, instead of offering static content that is utterly forgettable and leaves no mark or impact on the environment. Hence my disdain for "ooh, we get to hunt for Easter eggs, cause we all know that Easter is such a full part of the lore of Warcraft, just like Santa". But again, that's me. I would never stoop to saying that my opinion is the only way to play, or the only one that matters; nor would I call those who disagree with me 6-yr olds.
Every one of us that have been playing MMORPGs for a while would love all the things you mentioned, but one reason it hasn't been done properly yet is becasue it a major undertaking. Most developers would rather start with what works and go from there. The ones that jump too soon, get into trouble by getting over their heads.
One day, all those features will be possible, but it'll onyl be from a MAJOR developer because the recourses needed will be tremendous unless you sacrifice something. If the battle system has to be sacrificed for city building, most players won't be interested. If the graphics have to be tuned down, thats another nail in the coffin. If the control has to sacrificed, thats another problem. Its all give and take.
Eventually, we'll have more imersive worlds, but for the time being, it still has to be a fun game first to attract enough players to make such an undertaking worth the investment in the first place.
Read the new Battleplan. Blizzard is planning on adding persistant capturable areas. See!!! Baby steps. Start with what works and add more later.
I think thats why the OP started the thread. You have to walk before you can run or you just fall on your face=)
Originally posted by spydermr2 But again, this is all the criteria I USE. It doesn't have to be the one you use. Nor the one the next person uses, which will be a third set of criteria. This is all in response to the idiociy of stating "this game cannot be legimitately bashed" -- every single game can be legimitately bashed.
So basically, as I said before, your just using your set of "criteria" as the only leg of your argument. I could point out things that WoW has done that no other game has done, but you'll just shoot them down as "simple", "non immersive", "not requiring effort" or some other nonsense dismissal.
Not everyone likes the same type of game, so really any game can be bashed, doesn't matter how good it may or may not be. Personally, my idea of fun isn't grouping with 40 other people to kill some "uber" beast or clear a dungeon of npcs, it's grouping with others to counquer parts of the gameworld and/or leave my mark on it.
The world in WoW is pretty much static, nothing you do will ever change it. Even the battlegrounds don't meet my expectations. What's the point of fighting a battle if the results don't really have an impact on anything, and the exact same battle will just be fought again immedietly after its conclusion.
I'm also not a huge fan of class systems. Template options in WoW fall short in my opinion. There are basically 2-3 playable templates for each class, without much room to create something truely unique.
Originally posted by Josher Read the new Battleplan. Blizzard is planning on adding persistant capturable areas. See!!! Baby steps. Start with what works and add more later.
Now that's what I'm talking about, but as of now its only "on the table". If this happened I'd probably give WoW another shot, especially with the new rp-pvp servers. For all the faults I listed above, it still is a well made game, just doesn't present the features I find most enjoyable as it's focus.
If this goes through I wonder if the battlegrounds would ever be used again.
It's one of the best games out....But you do the same damn shit over and over and over....
WoW has nothing for customization ( skills and other things ) to set you apart from others.
There pve is great but again same thing over and over till you get your items...not much fun imo
The PvP in WoW - join AV fight die res fight die res...over and over till you get ur items/rep. the pvp was better before BG's imo. although it's still very cookie cutter. also it's not very skill based shit a 2 yo could play wow.
On my server massive ques 500ish at prime time
I could go on with things i don't like about WoW but it's all preference.
I've played way to many MMORPG's
What i'm looking for is an up to date twist of UO - AC - SB since i'm more of a pvp type. nezt game for me is DnL *prays*
In every successful MMORPG you do the same thing. Dungeons, grinding and more dungeons and grinding until the next expansion. Its that or chatting and RPing and thats not content as far as I'm concerned. They're all the same. DOAC is applauded for the best working PvP system, since its still going strong, yet NOTHING really matters at all in that game either. FIght for 8 hours defending a keep only for it to be stolen at 4 am. Yeah, thats a whole lot of fun. Thats why I left. I defend and attack defend and attack, and I gain nothing from any of it. At least in WOW, I can get some loot. I'm using the first year of DOAC, since thats when I played, just like WOW. SB isn't a good example a great PvP system since its broken and dying. It was just a good idea. That idea has to work for it to be good feature.
SO if you bash WOW, bash them all. If you bash them all, then you've become jaded=) If you've become jaded, its time to take a long break.
Originally posted by CaptainRPG If you look at the overall statements: "Too grinding, too easy to solo, everyone is a jerk in the community, too much ganking...etc." that Socialism speaking. If you looked at the complaints: "the quests take too long, Paladins suck, Rogue are overpowered, the later quests are the same as the early quest...etc." That's the players wanting more variety in their gameplay. Again, this is a subject, you just need to shut up about.
heh who are you to complain about people being jerks...
Comments
I've read the thread and I've played it all. Been playing WOW since beta phase 1. I've experienced every decent MMORPG for at least a month. The good ones for a few. If lvl 60 in WOW bores you, how can every MMORPG not bore you? How quickly did you reach 60? My guess is pretty fast. So what if Horizons has better crafting...EVERY other aspect of the game is gerally pretty horrible. ATITD lets you build cities and SB lets you destroy them so Blizzard I guess MUST do that also all in one package with no expansions.
So in order for WOW to be good it has to do everything better than every other MMORPG at the same time? This game does crafting better and that game does character creation better and this other game has city building. But, which one does everything WOW does as well in 1 single package and is attractive to just about anyone interested in the genre? You'd be hard pressed to find one that's even remotely close. Of course WOW doesn't do everything the best, but it improves upon many features, adds a bunch and most importantly, brings it all together very well, something NO other MMORPG has ever been able to do. And its been done in its 1st year of release.
Its just a series of steps. Its like being upset that we didn't progress from a a horse and buggy to an F-15 instantly. Each succesful MMORPG borrows and improves features people like and adds a few more. Most have some GLARING issues that really turen people off. Somehow WOW has been able to appeal to more people than any MMORPG before by a rediculous margin. You can hadley compare the numbers. The closest game, L2, is limited to asian markets, since no one else plays it at all.
To each his own. As for me not having a clue=) Dream on. Can you criticise a game because you dislike a feature? Of course, even 6 yr olds have opinions. You don't have to like WOW, but you have to appreciate it for what its done and will continue to do. The flaws people find are glaringly worse in other games and mostly based on previous MMORPG burn out, unreasonable expectations, or bitterness. WOWs strengths outwiegh its weakness cmpared to other MMORPGs that crumble under false promises, bad coding, bad graphics, bad overall design, game breaking bugs, boring gameplay, huge time commitments, lack of interesting features and so on.
Going into WOW expecting to LIVE in the game will make you come away annoyed. Actually, going into any game expecting it to keep you ocupied for so long is the best way to hate a game. You can't go treating it like your first MMORPG because the sense of wonder is over. You'll never recapture that feeling. Don't even bother trying to find it.
I'm sorry you're bored with WOW already. I'm not. Good for me=)
I started playing WoW in March when it went live in Europe. Hit level 60 in July.
I work full time, play maybe 2 hours per night, unless I go out. even weekends I don'y play all day, got a life you see.
To go from level 59-60 you need about 220k XP. Many quests at that level give between 7 and 10 XP. Believe me, it's NOT hard to reach 60.
You said it best my friend.
" Now I've had it for about two weeks now. I currently have a lvl 35 Orc Hunter... "
nuff said.
Err, they did, I said that. Proof that you didn't actually read the posts, just assumed.
I quit EQ because I could no longer solo, and hated the grind. I quit horizons due to the grind, and new games being released. Before WoW came out in Europe I tried several other games, but they too much of a grind.
I still PLAY WoW. But I now play a warrior, level 26. I didn't say I hate WoW, or it bores me. I said I hate the lack of casual end game.
In any case, I was responding to the OP, and the title of this thread. Are you saying that WOW CANNOT be legitimately bashed?
Lol, what apology? I haven't seen queues in months on the various servers I play on, like Archimonde and Azgalor, both High Population servers. My new character on Argent Dawn hasn't seen a queue in the week that I've been playing there.
Why don't you actually play the game before commenting. ^_^
Now if you want to discuss battleground queues, I'll gladly agree with you.
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
A mmorpg is in the market to make cash. Clear and simple. Cash determines a mmorpgs succcess. In this context, WoW is by far the most succesful mmorpg ever.
Is it a mmorpg beloved by all? Of course not. Thats impossible. Is it a mmorpg beloved by more people than any mmorpg in history? So far, yes. 4 million subscribers attest to that.
Like many, my first month(s) in WoW were filled with amazement and enjoyment at the game. It impressed me at every turn. From their unique graphics to large landscapes to everything imbetween. Its one problem...(and its a big one), is lack of endgame content. MMORPGs are meant to be games that can satisfy gamers for many months if not years. Most can live up to this requirement(despite having other flaws along the way). WoW, however, cannot.
While the path to 60 is very enjoyable, once there the game comes to a grinding halt. Players realize they only have a handful of activites to do and once they have done them each a dozen times, the games lack of depth becomes apparent. This is the biggest reason(imo), people left WoW. This is why to many of us, its not a great game. Developers lacked foresight into seeing this problem.
So how do you make a casual endgame without hurting the multiplayer portions? If you hate grinding, seriously, you've burned out on the genre. They're ALL grinds eventually. You repeatedly have to do something to get better. Thats the core mechanic. As long as that something is interesting enough to most people, they keep playing.
What MMORPG has a casual endgame anyway? Most become completely group mandatory well before you reach max lvl. Do you expect all the dungeons designed around groups to become soloable so it destroys all group play? It would be a balancing nightmare. DO you expect equal rewards for solo play to make group play absolete? Soloing is easy!! ANy solo rewards now would have to be comparable with current group rewards which would trivialize group play. The casual endgame is rolling an alt which you've done it seems or PvP. If you don't like PvP, thats not the games fault. DM can be done in under 2 hours. Thats as casual as it gets.
Eventually, you HAVE to run out of things to do or get bored. Sounds pretty unreasonable to expect neverending content. There's no MMORPG in development that is offering more solo content than group content anyway. Priorities. You don't create a multiplayer game hoping everyone will play alone. Blizzard lets you do both at least. In a multiplayer game you eventually have to group or the multiplayer is eliminated and the developer just wasted their time. If you want solo content play a single player RPG. Thats what I do.
It sounds like you always quit for the same reason and that reason is your lifestyle. The genre doesn't suit you past a certain point. I'm in the same boat. It doesn't suit a lot of people. I can't do MC or expect to climb past rank 5 or 6 in PvP, but I understand theres a reason for it. Is that the game's fault or ours? Blizzard said you can play solo. They never said the ENTIRE game was available to you.
Unreasonable expectations. I can't play football anymore because I'll get crushed, but I don't expect everyone else on the field to alter the game to suit me. Sound familiar?
Your arguement is a bladder full of hot air.
quoted from the blizzrd website;
Beyond the doors of AhnQiraj, Silithus is being fleshed out as a major quest hub with episodic storylines that extend into its depths and past its borders. Players have frequently requested more small-party and solo content, and weve focused our efforts to meet those desires around Silithus. Everyone should definitely check out the new quest and storylines when the Silithus content is released in patch 1.8.
Hmm, Silithus is a level 60 zone. End game. Players asked for casual end game content, blizz are working on it.
Speaking of raising the bar, we know that many players are curious about our plans for Hero classes. We want to assure everyone that developing the Hero-class system as a way for top-level players to advance their characters to new heights remains a high priority for us.
Hmm, so blizz ARE working on advancement EVEN when you reach level 60.
If blizzard consider it possible to have casual content AND a form of advancement in the end game, then the "genre" as you put it, has nothing to do with it.
Blizzard have always claimed their player base is mostly casual, yet they didn't put a casual end game in. See the flaw in their business plan. NOW they are adding it before their player base starts to dwindle. It has ALWAYS been possible to have casual content as 60, there are many methods for keeping people playing when they reach the high levels.
Let me give you an example. Horizons has mutliclassing. If I reached level 100 with my Ranger I could mutliclass. That is, switch to healer and level that class. I would retain many of the abilities from my ranger, including HP, strength, etc. So you don't reroll, you keep playing the same char, getting better and better. However, HZ is a grind, no real content. But if HZ had all the quests that WoW does, then I'd switch to a new class and level it by doing all the quests I had missed. In HZ I could build my own house, combine this with quests for exotic items to decorate your house, and you have something to keep you playing, that is not hardcore grinding.
Yes, casual end game in an mmo IS possible.
If you are going to quote Blizzard for the basis of your argument, try including the entire quote, not just a small section of it out of context.
"Two examples of this new smaller-scale style of raid encounter are the upcoming ZulGurub [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/underdev/zulgurub.html] and AhnQiraj content additions. Many of you have already learned about Zul'Gurub from the recent preview we posted and from helping us test this new content on the Public Test Realms. AhnQiraj, which is subdivided into two different encounters, actually takes the small-raid concept a little further. The exterior area is a challenging 20-man raid dungeon, and the interior location presents the next top-tier 40-player raid experience after Blackwing Lair.
Beyond the doors of AhnQiraj, Silithus is being fleshed out as a major quest hub with episodic storylines that extend into its depths and past its borders. Players have frequently requested more small-party and solo content, and weve focused our efforts to meet those desires around Silithus. Everyone should definitely check out the new quest and storylines when the Silithus content is released in patch 1.8. "
So clearly, Blizzard is putting in content BOTH for casual players who are L60 and "hard core" raiding guilds/players. They are also going to put in Hero classes at some point to advance your character past 60. This is a huge gripe many people had with games like Everquest. Once you hit max level, your only choice was to join a raiding guild and kill mobs that required full raids of 72+ players to kill. There was very little to do solo or even with a group. SOE eventually put in more content for groups, but even to this day in EQ, a player who raids will have gear that makes them x4 as powerful as casual players who solo or group. Hell, in WoW you even have the choice of pursuing kick-ass PvP gear as an alternate to getting gear from raids and zones like Molten Core. This is a huge change from just about any other game I've played or heard of.
Aside from catering to both casuals and raiders, what else do you want them to put in there? A cure for cancer maybe? World peace?
I've read the thread and I've played it all. Been playing WOW since beta phase 1. I've experienced every decent MMORPG for at least a month. The good ones for a few. If lvl 60 in WOW bores you, how can every MMORPG not bore you?
-- Because other MMORPGs actually have content and are better thought out than WoW. AC1 -- actual world events that change things and keep it fresh all the way up the levels: geography changes, NPCs die and are replaced, towns are levelled, stories are woven that include players and affect the world. Horizons crafting is so superior to WoW it's not even a comparison. Depth of crafting? There are a vast array of materials and recipes; there are techniques that add specials to your build; you can BUILD actual, non-instanced, fully-realised houses and structures like bridges in the world. And Horizons has in its world-events (that actually change things) woven that crafting into the unfolding stories. How can other games not bore me? Because other games actually DO things and are vastly more DYNAMIC than the STATIC, neverchanging world of WoW.
More to the point, you spend your entire post giving your OPINION and stating that no one else's opinion is valid or counts.
I particularly like the "Can you criticise a game because you dislike a feature? Of course, even 6 yr olds have opinions. You don't have to like WOW, but you have to appreciate it for what its done and will continue to do."
Really? You stoop to childish namecalling, and expect people to take you seriously? Those of us who have come here and argued clearly and point-by-point what basis we're using to judge the game are hardly 6-yr-olds -- you might try arguing the points instead of resorting to name-calling and idiotic comments like that. Further, no, I do not have to "appreciate it for what it has done and will continue to do." Perfectly rational human beings DON'T like what WoW has done, which is add NOTHING to the MMORPG genre other than the dumbing-down of every convention to appeal to the masses. Did it improve on crafting from other games? Nope, reduced it to the "take five bricks, stand near forge, choose recipe, click build" idiocy without any depth beyond that. Can't remotely compare to crafting in Saga of Ryzom, Horizons, the scavenging in AC1. Did it bring mass combat PvP to us in a way that WASN'T a poorly-implemented rip-off of prior designs? Nope. Dark Ages of Camelot's RvR actually works and has a point beyond just bashing each other. Shadowbane has far superior PvP. The list goes on. Immersiveness? Not when game mechanics are forcibly pushed into the world, instead of designing the game to incorporate the mechanics into the environment -- like, for instance, EQ2's "waving and gesturing" of NPCs to get your attention instead of stupid ? hanging over NPC's heads. World events that actually CHANGE the world? Nope. WoW is utterly static. Nothing changes. Nothing will change. They've said that their philosophy (Blizzard) is to make sure that each and every player can experience each and every aspect of the game exactly as the player before them. So you'll never get anything remotely approaching the dynamism of the AC1 world, or the events in Horizons, or a dozen other games.
Hm. Combat? Nope. Just the usual "click attacK" and mash some buttons to represent specials during combat. Hm. Where have I seen that? Oh yeah, virtually every other game, except those that actually try to IMPROVE on the concept and make it more PLAYER-oriented and IMMERSIVE. Like AC1's controls in combat -- you put your shield to face your opponents, you choose at what height to swing and how hard/often, where enemies actually are rated for weaknesses and strengths that correspond to those strengths/weaknesses.
Hm. THe list goes on. The point is that WoW didn't bring ANYTHING to the table new. Not one thing. And it didn't even improve on the concepts it copied from everyone else. There a positives for WoW, that's not the point. The point is, that people can disagree and base that disagreement on valid points. I'm not telling anyone they have to agree with me -- I'm stating why I think the way I do. I'll leave the "it's my opinion or I'll call you names" crap to others.
One thing I've learned from MMORPG message boards is that AC fans for some reason are very hostile. People overly obsessed with immersion in a videogame ussually are the same. Also, when I mentioned any 6 yr old can have an opinion , it was a metaphor, not a personal attack. You're attacking people in almost every post. My opinion is only backed up by a lot of subscribers and shared amongst websites and reveiws. Its only the MMORPG elite, the jaded and burned out that seem to have MAJOR issues with WOW.
I just question why you're forced to use features from multiple VERY low population, niche or failed titles to prove a point about innovation? Everyone can like what they like, but 1 feature that might be well done doesn't matter when the game just isn't very good as a whole. SB had great ideas that crumbled under horrible implimentation. PvP in a point and click interface? What is this, 1997? PLayers warned them in beta that it would cause major problems. Horizons also had great ideas that never works well at all and will follow AC2 on the chopping block sooner or later. SB probably won't be far behind. Ryzome?? Too much bad to cover up whatever it does well. Eve is too slow, tedious and boring to attract anyone not interested in sacrificing their lives.
AC's combat system was made mostly pointless knowing that most of the population cheats or quickly jiggling your character back and forth causes latency issues, negating any benefit the battle system has. Grouping was also almost obsolete. Besides, the animation was/is laughable, the graphics are the same and its skill system is horribly imbalanced requiring uber templates and boting so you don't get steamroled. Low, medium and high don't matter when its flawed at the core, and again, most people left for greener pastures a long time ago. So, an innovative and battle system was created and dismissed as very few really cared for it due to bad implimentation. If it was really that great, would'nt more people have played it? Does it matter how well a car drives if it stalls most of the time you pull it out of the driveway? No, you simply stop driving, return it as a lemon and buy another car.
If WOWs combat feels the same, well I guess every FPS's combat feels the same and every sports game plays the same also? All cars must drive the same, too since you just turn a wheel and step on the gass? Great logic. Its in the implimentation, cohesion and flow and if you can't see where WOW improves on the point and click, then thats your loss, or you don't have enough experience in the game. Little things like the Warrior charge/intercept and how well totems are implimented and even the Warlock stone system are pretty innovative. The number of options most classes have is much greater than other MMORPGs. Throw in enchants, potions, scrolls, trinkets, engineered items, food, drink, bandages, and switching weapons in combat and youve got LOADS of options. GO ahead and just "mash buttons" when you fight people. I will slauhgter you EVERY single time. I slaughter loads, because they "think" all you have to do is mash buttons. There are too many options. This is NOT DAOC. I wish MMORPGs could be more twitchy and interactive but developers have to work within limitations.
EQ2's animated NPCs were nifty. Did it get old? Yup. So you hate the markers for WOW quest NPCs? I thought it was odd also, but I understood their purpose. Over time I appreciated the feature. Many do. Its one of the applauded features in most non-jaded reviews. Blizzard didn't want to waste all their time making so many quests only for them to be skipped over by too many people because they didn't know which NPCs to go to. Thats what woul've happened you know. Or I guess Blizzard wanted to force people to go to FAQ sites just to know where the quests are? You call the markers BAD implimentation. I call them an innovation that brought over 2 million subscribers to a genre that was never even notcied before. All this innovation in other games somehow attracted all these gamers...or not? Very few played MMORPGs before WOW. WOW hasn't succeeded on name alone. Its doing well because its getting the best reviews in magazines, looks great, plays great and has good word of mouth. No one is going around saying "BUY RYZOME" or AC2 or ShadowBane. Why not?
I'm sorry you feel that anything positive Blizzard has done here "is not the point." Bashing is akin to mindless criticsm without anything to back it up. Isn't THE POINT, WOW doesn't really do anything bad? How many other MMORPGs can you actually say that about. It might not unreasonably innovate like some gamers wish, but like in another thread, innovation sometimes is the fastest way to remove yourself from the marketplace.
How many MMORPG have some major bad points that turn people off immediately? The only things found BAD about WOW seem to be from jaded gamers who think anything NOT innovative is somehow bad. Heres a short list.
WOW is bad because you can't solo enough? WHat MMORPG lets you solo more AND group?
WOW is bad because you can't loot enemy corpses? Thats been found to be a great way to not sell your game.
WOW is bad because you can't effect the world and other players enough. The consequences of such a feature is a great way to alienate most players. See below for elaboration.
WOW doesn't have world events? It actually DID change for the hollidays, so you can throw that one out. The traveling fair is also coming. BLizzard also isn't so stupid as to start changing their world WHILE so many new players are starting to play and haven't even expereinced whats already there. I guess the game/balance breaking consequences and elimination of content already created is good use of recources? (AC could change their world because so few people actually would be effected and the art was so simplistic, creating the change took little effort. They had to do something to slow down the rate of cancelations anyway. When did the 1st changes take effect by the way? The first 10 months?)
WOW doesn't let you control anything in the persistant world. OK, so in that context I guess graveyards would be a "cool" thing to control. Ignore the fact that it would be too effected by population imbalance and force most Horde on all servers to quit the game or reroll Alliance. GOod way to lose subscribers.
On that note, you're able to kill quest givers, NPCs and raid cities. Guess what happened? The players were completely disrupting too many others ability to play, so BLIZZARD punished that ability due to player outrage. Players were still allowed to do it, but stopped because effecting the world negatively had consequences. Punishment was not acceptable to most players. Causing ANNOYANCE was. Personal gain is most important. If effecting the world matters so much, players would accept the HKs as a BONUS and INNOVATION. PLayers did NOT welcome this innovation and instead refuse to effect the world because acting like a thug removes honor. Since people don't want to be punished even when they deserve it, they decided not to accept their punishment and NOT effect the world. So, Blizzard DOES allow people to change the world and people decided to stop doing it. How interesting.
Crafting isn't completely new. Thats a good one. Its done simply and well, but its a weak point if you're a crafter. I''d love a very detailed mini-game crafting interface, but Blizzard knows not may people enjoy crafting if it takes too much effort, so they made it simple. Besides, other games, crafted gear and found loot tables always clash with one another causing balance shifts. IN WOW its completely balanced. You have some great crafted gear and none of it makes found loot obsolete and vice versa. DOAC had some major issues with this.
Progress is too quick. Thats why 2+ Million people are playing. Theres a method to Blizzard madness.
I can't solo past 60. This is still a multiplayer game and Blizzard never said you could solo everything. The amount of solo content is staggering compared to every MMORPG on the market.
Your statement that WOW doesn't even improve anything is pure baseless opinion and you're in the minority. But, you must be used to that being a fan of AC=) The battle system is faster, more varried and interactive than most, and certainly improved. The mount and travel system is varied and MUCH improved. The graphics certainly are. The quest system certainly is by sheer volume. Ease of play while still retaining depth at higher lvls is improved. Accessibility as a MMORPG is greatly improved. Rolling up alts and having fun the 2nd time around is improved. The detailed design of the zones are GREATLY improved. The lack of a grind up to max lvl is HIGHLY improved. The ability to overcome the holy class trinity by organization and careful play is much improved. PvP mechanics are improved rewarding skill a bit more. Gear still rules the day, but it alwasy will until there is no more gear.
I'm sure you'll disagree with all of this, but that would mean you're just ignoring the facts. As we all know, common MB debate is never based on facts. Opinion and hostility is much more important.
They are launching new servers frequently to counter the population problem, so the problem is not one worth mentioning, but queues do exist. At least I can say that with certainty for the european PvP and RP (Argent Dawn) servers, although the wait is just a few mins, no biggy.
Ico,
In case you missed it the first time I highlighted it in red.
Well, Josher, while you were learning things on boards, you might try learning how to read. I used AC1 as ONE example, and ran down a long list of other games and other features as well. Horizons, Saga of Ryzom, DAoC, Shadowbane, EQ2. All used as examples, in ways to support the overall argument. But then again, I guess if you bothered to acknowledge that little fact about all of my posts here, it would kind of undo your entire first sentence and what you develop from it.
I haven't attacked anyone in the original posts, and only responded specifically to you when you started attacking people by calling them names and referring to anyone who disagrees with you as such.
Your points in your most recent response totally ignore the points. WoW's crafting, for instance, is exemplary of the rest of the game. It brings nothing new to the genre and doesn't even provide the sort of depth and capacities found in other and older games -- look, read carefully, let me take your hand here so you don't lock onto just one example and make an entire posting from it: Horizons, Saga of Ryzom, Tale in the Desert I and II, AC1, and others. It takes the simplest road possible: offer some recipes, a very limited range of core materials, no personalization of items (aka Horizons' Techniques, for instance, but by no means the only instance).
Oh, and try to develop a line of thought that's more than just "how come you use low-pop games to attack a high-pop game?" That would be, because those lower population games do things BETTER (according to criteria I laid out in my first posts) than the high-pop game. They also tend to be the ones that are actually trying to bring new things into the genre and trying to figure out how to bring more immersion into the games. In no way, and in no logical argument, can raw numbers be directly correlated to quality. If that were the case, Microsoft's Windows would be the best OS on the planet -- most stable, most innovative, etc. If that were the case, GM would be on top of the quality ratings and making the best cars. Etc.
The criteria, which would be the basis for criticising any game, are the key. Is WoW the most immersive game on the planet? Is it even close? No, it isn't. I spelled out my definition for immersion already in a prior post. Immersion means making the game mechanics as invisible as possible to the actual environment, using your design and environment to convey the information you need to, be that in combat or regarding NPCs or anything else. This is part of the overall point: Blizzard's designers, on that basis, do not care a whit about immersion, they set out to make it as easy as possible even when those "simplifications" contradict an immersive feel to the environment. And no, having folks waving at me never got old, because it was something that was believable within the environment. Having giant ? hanging overhead isn't. It's just a sop to simplify things so people don't have to think for themselves or put forward effort to learn things. Is that a bad thing? Not for some, yes for others. If your criteria is an environment where immersion is first, where being in a world whose design doesn't throw in artificial structures that are jarringly and obviously not "realistic" to that environment, then yes, you're not going to like it. If you don't care when the mechanics intrude into the environment, like EQ2's idiotic "you can't go through that door until you have six monkeys, a trained parrot, and a tea-kettle inscribed in pink letters" artificiality at launch, then you won't be bothered by it. It's not about right and wrong -- it's about the criteria used and what people play for that determines how they judge a game, and thusly how their criticisms read.
I would be embarrassed to call plopping Santa Claus in the AH a "world event", or a fishing competition, or the travelling circus. Ooh, that was tough. And what level of impact do these bring to the world, to contribute to the persistence of an "ever-changing" world that grows according to people's actions (aka roleplaying)? None. They come, they go, nothing changes. Nothing can change. That's not WoW's purpose, nor as I quoted before is it their intention. Comparing a fishing competition to, say, the Horizons event that unlocked an entire geographic area when players came together to figure out how to build a bridge over a vast chasm, while having to employ others to defend them while doing it, is ridiculous. It also neatly focuses on the point: other games are trying to offer interactivity (hence, better immersion) in their games, the ability to actually affect and influence the unfolding stories and the environment, while WoW doesn't. Is that bad? Again, only if your criteria is my definition of "immersion" -- the capacities of the players to be involved in and affect the storylines and the environment and the sustenance of the environment in a consistent, contextual way. If it doesn't bother you that the best you're getting out of Blizzard for a "world event" is simply what other games like the original EQ called "players getting together on their own" (fishing competition, wow, that took effort) then great, the game is for you. If your criteria is otherwise, then it isn't.
The point is, and this seems to be a shock to folks primarily in WoW forums: different people have different criteria as to what constitutes a good game, an innovative game, etc. (Though "innovative" does have a fixed definition and therefore isn't subjective.) The fact that I have on set of criteria and you another doesn't invalidate either point -- but it does counter the OP's idiotic assertion. And, it addresses yours specifically, since you continually fall back on two arguments, both specious: #s = quality; and the "my opinion is the right one, therefore anything else is wrong and all people who think that way are 6-yr olds".
Spyd, just because you don't like what WOW has done, doesn't mean its not innovating. I mentioned using pure fact how WOW has world events and ways to somewhat change the persistant world. I also proved that going too far would break the game. Thats the difference. AC, Horizons and SB are broken due to some of these innovative features they tried. Blizzard is either implimenting them in small doses or saving them for when the demand is there. You can not dismiss these features because you don't like them. LOADS of people playing loved the new Holliday quests, NPCs and snowballs, and they loved the fireworks. I guess they were bad ideas just because you thought they weren't immersive enough. Aren't features in games that are broken and have a very small playerbase not VERY good? The innovative idea has to WORK you know, to be considered a great idea. Hovercrafts that fly using water as fuel is a great idea, but what good is it if it doesn't work?
Just because you're not immersed in the game doesn't mean other people aren't and the number of players prove that point. Sure, people play AC, Horizons and even Ryzome, but isn't the fact that so few do, an indication of a problem? WHat good did that immersion bring? No one is playing those games. SO which has more weight in todays market? The game that very few people enjoy because it has game breaking problems casued by some innovative ideas or the game that Millions of people are playing, is not broken, is ADDING features and has a great future?
Innovation isn't bad when done properly. Most MMORPGs, because they can't attract a playerbase aren't using thier ideas well, so the fact that they tried them doesn't give those concept much weight as to how NEEDED they are. Ideas without a great game behind them are useless.
Isn't a fun, stable, balanced, great looking game that does everything a MMORPG is supposed to do a great start? WOW has achieved this in less than a year. By your logic, they should just throw all of that away just to appease a select few who want features the majority of the PLAYERBASE doesn't want. I mentioned innovative additions to the battle system. Can you seriously state other MMORPGs have as many options AND are not slow and tedious? WOW does it while retaining all the fun. Thats a great thing.
Give up the 8 yr old reference. I guess putting an age on the "random" person with an idea offended you? Such a defensive attitude doesn't prove your case. I didn't call you one, but you're certainly getting closer at this rate=)
WOWs most important innovative feature is that its not BORING and tedious to most people like previous MMORPGs and the players all showed to celebrate in that innovation. WHat other MMORPG can use that as a selling point? Denying that Blizzard took a winning formula and made it better, would make you kind of out of touch. WOuld'n't the sales figures be an indication. I'm also curious as to how long you played. You mightve mentioned it, but I'm not going back through 5 pages;)
WOW doesn't have city building, land ownbership, harsh death penalties, major world changing events that have to disrupt gameplay, because those features have no proof that they can retain customers. You know what gets people to buy a MMORPG? A well done game from the ground up that has no glaring problems.
One: it is embarassing because it offers nothing by way of immersiveness or the players being able to alter the gameworld. Players can gather, as in the fishing tournament -- and that's it. EQ1 had such things -- they were player-driven competitions, while the company worked on events that were story/plot-based. Like the old skeleton rushes at the gates of Queynos. Nothing is done to advance any depth of story or plotlines, nothing is changed, nothing CAN be changed by the players. Blizzard has stated that their intention is NOT to do anything that would alter the existing game in any way that would prevent a new player who comes in a year from now from experiencing exactly the same content, in the same way, as those playing already. I dismiss "Santa" and "Easter Eggs" and using this-world's religious and social holidays as the reason to do static "world events" in the World of Warcraft because none of it is consistent within the frame and lore of the WORLD OF WARCRAFT. Last time I checked, All Hallow's Eve (teh upcoming real-world Halloween "world event"), Christmas, Easter -- these things were references to the real world's Christianity and other religions, none of which are in the Warcraft world. Did we have Santa or Easter eggs in the various games I've mentioned? Nope, sorry. Those games are concerned with keeping their gameworld lore CONSISTENT to itself. Blizzard isn't. And they've said they aren't. They're interested in fashioning a game that appeals to the widest array of people, and they've pinpointed that formula beyond the successes of other companies. They're to applauded for that, and for those who like what they've produced, that's great. But in no way can it be called "innovative", nor can you argue that, if the game were interested in consistently presenting itself, you'd have Santa and Easter and Halloween.
Horizon's crafting system let you build houses and bridges out of the box.
Saga of Ryzom's crafting system has been in place for quite a while now, all accomplished in only months since release. Actually, with Ryzom, they're about to release the "Ryzom Ring", which allows the players to use the tools they use to create new content, from geography upwards.
These are things that let you DO things in the gameworld. Affect it. Actually make a difference in a storyline. Roleplay and have your actions count for something.
AC1 has seasons out of the box. Not just random weather (ala EQ1/EQ2, which both had that weather out of the box) but actual seasons and weather according to season.
AC1 had world events from the beginning that altered the world according to player actions and to the events within the story.
Oh, by the way, you're also misstating my argument. WoW offered nothing new from the sense of existing conventions. Every game out there adds content -- hence, "new" to the gameworld. But what WoW didn't do was come up with an innovative approach to the game mechanics. It just took the existing mechanics and simplified them all to appeal and be playable by the widest possible base. And there's nothing wrong with that. It works; hence their subscriber base. My argument throughout is that there are those of us who just want more from a game than a game-world that is static. And because so many can't seem to understand "static" versus "new content", it's referring to the NATURE of the content and the NATURE of the game mechanics. They'll add weather eventually -- and mark my words, it'll be fixed weather in geographic areas (snow in areas that already have snow, etc) and it'll be based on a random-occurence algorithm (the simplest of things to create). They won't make the snow actually pile up, they won't attempt a seasonal framework for weather -- that would be more complicated than Blizzard has stated their purposes with WoW are. And yes, my complaint with this specific mechanic, weather, also applies to EQ1/EQ2, which both, out of the box, offered the random-weather mechanism. And no, the lack of weather ISN'T the complaint - the nature of the game mechanics, the lack of player ability to affect ANYTHING in a meaningful and lasting way, is.
Or, to rephrase: it's far more impressive to be able to build fully-realised housing yourself, or to realise that, as you build your house in the game and watch it physically under construction, you can work with others to build it faster, or bring in skills they have that you don't, than it is to have none at all, or to have EQ2's moronic "instanced" housing. (yup, we all live in that one building, using the same door, that's inspiring). It's far more impressive to realise that the challenge of finding out what's beyond that chasm is to put together the people and resources to build a bridge to span the chasm, and fight to defend the area while you're doing it, than to run the same moronic quests over and over again, knowing full well that the same quests will await you, and play out in the same way, every time you roll up a character.
It's far more impressive to build things that you can customize and actually affect, so that the items are distinct, than it is to "repeat ad nauseum" the same recipes the other 4 million people are also building, to produce items that are exactly the same as they produced.
It's far more impressive and immersive to play in a gameworld that is consistent within itself, instead of having artificial mechanics intrude into the environment. It's far more impressive to actually have to do something in combat, like move yourself and be responsible for keeping your shield between yourself and your opponents for it to count, than it is to learn what buttons to hit while you stand there. WoW (and EQ2) keep the same mechanics in place, though WoW's animations are smoother -- shoot from distance; walk up, click attack; memorize details on what your "specials" in combat are, mash buttons accordingly. Which is more involving or challenging: having to move yourself around while fighting, dancing in and out, hefting your shield (or offhand weapon) in the direction of your opponents to block their attacks, while swinging at different parts of their bodies because the game mechanic ascribes strengths and weaknesses to different parts of the creatures? Or walking up, clicking attack, and just playing out the buttons for specials in patterns you've learned.
It's far more impressive to play in a world with other players where we can kill one another and loot one another's corpses -- when there's a mechanic in place that is consistent to the gameworld environment that ascribes consequences to the actions. Hence, a reputation factor, guards that react according to your status and the "worth" of your actions. Players that band together (ala UO) to take care of the morons who think it's fun to just bash new players. A game mechanic that facilitates and rewards those sorts of formations, instead of just rewarding "killing". An honor system that actually looks up the word "honor" and realises that it means more than just "killing", it includes a definition of behavior.
But again, this is all the criteria I USE. It doesn't have to be the one you use. Nor the one the next person uses, which will be a third set of criteria. This is all in response to the idiociy of stating "this game cannot be legimitately bashed" -- every single game can be legimitately bashed. No game is perfect. What we look for are games that come closest to what we want out of them. Why some people, such as myself, react to WoW as we do is precisely because it didn't attempt anything "new" in terms of mechanics, or a new twist on any mechanics, or bring any new methods for players to affect the gameworld into the mix of MMORPGs, and we'd prefer not to see clones of this method of doing it. It just copied existing conventions and made sure they were as uncomplicated as possible. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. As long as you're looking for a game like that. I prefer my world events to actually change the world, instead of offering static content that is utterly forgettable and leaves no mark or impact on the environment. Hence my disdain for "ooh, we get to hunt for Easter eggs, cause we all know that Easter is such a full part of the lore of Warcraft, just like Santa". But again, that's me. I would never stoop to saying that my opinion is the only way to play, or the only one that matters; nor would I call those who disagree with me 6-yr olds.
Every one of us that have been playing MMORPGs for a while would love all the things you mentioned, but one reason it hasn't been done properly yet is becasue it a major undertaking. Most developers would rather start with what works and go from there. The ones that jump too soon, get into trouble by getting over their heads.
One day, all those features will be possible, but it'll onyl be from a MAJOR developer because the recourses needed will be tremendous unless you sacrifice something. If the battle system has to be sacrificed for city building, most players won't be interested. If the graphics have to be tuned down, thats another nail in the coffin. If the control has to sacrificed, thats another problem. Its all give and take.
Eventually, we'll have more imersive worlds, but for the time being, it still has to be a fun game first to attract enough players to make such an undertaking worth the investment in the first place.
Read the new Battleplan. Blizzard is planning on adding persistant capturable areas. See!!! Baby steps. Start with what works and add more later.
I think thats why the OP started the thread. You have to walk before you can run or you just fall on your face=)
So basically, as I said before, your just using your set of "criteria" as the only leg of your argument. I could point out things that WoW has done that no other game has done, but you'll just shoot them down as "simple", "non immersive", "not requiring effort" or some other nonsense dismissal.
Not everyone likes the same type of game, so really any game can be bashed, doesn't matter how good it may or may not be. Personally, my idea of fun isn't grouping with 40 other people to kill some "uber" beast or clear a dungeon of npcs, it's grouping with others to counquer parts of the gameworld and/or leave my mark on it.
The world in WoW is pretty much static, nothing you do will ever change it. Even the battlegrounds don't meet my expectations. What's the point of fighting a battle if the results don't really have an impact on anything, and the exact same battle will just be fought again immedietly after its conclusion.
I'm also not a huge fan of class systems. Template options in WoW fall short in my opinion. There are basically 2-3 playable templates for each class, without much room to create something truely unique.
Now that's what I'm talking about, but as of now its only "on the table". If this happened I'd probably give WoW another shot, especially with the new rp-pvp servers. For all the faults I listed above, it still is a well made game, just doesn't present the features I find most enjoyable as it's focus.
If this goes through I wonder if the battlegrounds would ever be used again.
I'm with the flamers
I've played WoW since BETA
It's one of the best games out....But you do the same damn shit over and over and over....
WoW has nothing for customization ( skills and other things ) to set you apart from others.
There pve is great but again same thing over and over till you get your items...not much fun imo
The PvP in WoW - join AV fight die res fight die res...over and over till you get ur items/rep. the pvp was better before BG's imo. although it's still very cookie cutter. also it's not very skill based shit a 2 yo could play wow.
On my server massive ques 500ish at prime time
I could go on with things i don't like about WoW but it's all preference.
I've played way to many MMORPG's
What i'm looking for is an up to date twist of UO - AC - SB since i'm more of a pvp type. nezt game for me is DnL *prays*
Blah blah blah......
In every successful MMORPG you do the same thing. Dungeons, grinding and more dungeons and grinding until the next expansion. Its that or chatting and RPing and thats not content as far as I'm concerned. They're all the same. DOAC is applauded for the best working PvP system, since its still going strong, yet NOTHING really matters at all in that game either. FIght for 8 hours defending a keep only for it to be stolen at 4 am. Yeah, thats a whole lot of fun. Thats why I left. I defend and attack defend and attack, and I gain nothing from any of it. At least in WOW, I can get some loot. I'm using the first year of DOAC, since thats when I played, just like WOW. SB isn't a good example a great PvP system since its broken and dying. It was just a good idea. That idea has to work for it to be good feature.
SO if you bash WOW, bash them all. If you bash them all, then you've become jaded=) If you've become jaded, its time to take a long break.
heh who are you to complain about people being jerks...
Mostly Harmless Guild ♦ Youtube ♦ Sponsored by Mr. Beer