If we get to fly that ship to outer space then, I will without a doubt get this game, but if not then, I'll just let it pass my cold cold shoulder. It's just ashame if they have the idea of it but we can't access that awesome idea, kinda of a let down.
The housing as many mention is a really good idea,however it is also a reason you want better graphics,not cartoony ones.
When people work on their homes they like them to look cool or nice ,whatever term you prefer.Having all your items look like a cartoon does not meet the definition of a nice looking home.Sort of think of it like this,could you see your mom hanging up some tazmanian devil drapes in the living room?The homes wil lahve that Fred Flinstone sort of look,you know you can't reallyu call that impressive looking,just a cartoony look.
IMO the game is really good,it is the graphics that do irk me as being a bad decision for a quiality game.I feel it was an early decision based on cost,both design cost and implementation cost.This is sadly gfoing to happen with msot games becuase there is no guarantee of huge success anymore,the market is too saturated.
You should really learn to speak for yourself. Cool looking is in the eye of the bolder, it's not that hard of a concept but I guess on this forum it is to some people like you.
Now, unless you have actually played the game you can't say it is a really good game, that is how people on this silly forum set themselves up for failure and then spend the next 3 years of their lives dogging on a game they don't enjoy because they hype up the game to 100.
OP,
I am interested in the game for 2 reasons.
1. The pixar like charm.
2. The bunny woman. Nobody hates bunny woman right?
3. supposedly it is a sandpark game. I always wanted to play a sandbox like game. This isn't an important reason anyways, as long as the first 2 are met and it is not a sub based game, b2p, we all are good. Also it cant be clunky.
Maybe one day they will make a switch where for those that like the cartoony look, it switches to that, while those who like realism, it switches to that, but you still remain on the same server :-) lol. Hey, ANYTHING is possible :-). I bet if an MMO ever came out with this feature it would be an instant success lol.
IMO the game is really good,it is the graphics that do irk me as being a bad decision for a quiality game.I feel it was an early decision based on cost,both design cost and implementation cost.This is sadly going to happen with most games becuase there is no guarantee of huge success anymore,the market is too saturated.
We have seen cartoony graphics before,always of course personal opinion but i feel Wildstar's look borderline on the cheap side.
Or maybe it was a decision based on what the developers liked? Not to mention, what sells. Even discounting those two things entirely, how would they have told the story with the same loose, comic vibe with ultra-realistic graphics. Whether they look cheap or not is personal preference of course, but I think the opinion that they went with cartoony graphics because they were trying to save money is a little lop-sided as I've seen nothing to support it, and everything to the contrary.
I still don't see what's so "sad" about the whole thing, I guess. Maybe they're trying to appeal to the Mario / Ratchet and Clank / Adult Swim fans, and that's not a bad market to aim for if they want to make a profit. How many ultra realistic MMO's have been very successful? That's a genuine question, since I avoid most of them on the basis of how "parent trying to fit in with their kids" awkward they are.
IMO the game is really good,it is the graphics that do irk me as being a bad decision for a quiality game.I feel it was an early decision based on cost,both design cost and implementation cost.This is sadly going to happen with most games becuase there is no guarantee of huge success anymore,the market is too saturated.
We have seen cartoony graphics before,always of course personal opinion but i feel Wildstar's look borderline on the cheap side.
Or maybe it was a decision based on what the developers liked? Not to mention, what sells. Even discounting those two things entirely, how would they have told the story with the same loose, comic vibe with ultra-realistic graphics. Whether they look cheap or not is personal preference of course, but I think the opinion that they went with cartoony graphics because they were trying to save money is a little lop-sided as I've seen nothing to support it, and everything to the contrary.
I still don't see what's so "sad" about the whole thing, I guess. Maybe they're trying to appeal to the Mario / Ratchet and Clank / Adult Swim fans, and that's not a bad market to aim for if they want to make a profit. How many ultra realistic MMO's have been very successful? That's a genuine question, since I avoid most of them on the basis of how "parent trying to fit in with their kids" awkward they are.
Same wavelength here.
The thing is, I look for beauty and character in the visuals before realism. And with realism as your target, as things stand in video games, it's next to impossible to give your work character and make it beautiful at the same time. TSW is a good example here: The environments look beautiful, but the models and animation are awkward. And... making really good cartoony graphics takes a lot of talent and is just as difficult as well.
I'll just say, there is an audience that actually prefers this stuff to Crysis graphics (I know I do; I prefer Trine graphics to Crysis ones). So, that makes this an aesthetic decision first and foremost and not merely a system requirements one.
Actually I like how it looks. Games with realistic graphics are ten a penny these days, plus it seems to reflect it's light hearted and fun tone the game is going for.
I like the game b/c it has a sense of humor. The graphics don't appeal to me but I will still play. I like the new world and new creatures created.... it's just fresh to me.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
I guess this thread is all about graphics instead of content because there's not a lot of firm info out there. They haven't even released all the races and classes yet. So people are judging based on a first glance. And combat is being judged on starter zone video. It's kind of silly to be making judgements yet. We should just be watching and waiting. Judge later imo.
Personally, I can't wait to see this game. If Carbine follows through on the all the things I've heard so far, it will be my game for a very long time.
Guild warplots alone sound like a huge amount of fun. But 40 man raiding is the hook that got me. And instead of ignoring people who like to play a hard game, they're including tough content. Plus they're giving options for small groups and solo players. End game is where the story is happening. .. it all sounds cool to me.
I don't know why everyone is so caught up on the art style. I thought it was popular to say "gameplay over graphics." I like the graphics though. They're going to age a lot better than realism. Plus they go well with the quirky Firefly theme.
I am type of gamers who prefer gameplay over graphic. I dont like to play good looking game with crap gameplay.
Also I dont expect Wildstar to be revolutionary. In fact I don't expect the current MMOs these days to bring something new, I guess I will wait for Everquest Next or Blizzard new project, Titan to bring that revotionary which I hope to MMO industry.
In the mean time Wildstar just gives the old school mmorpg gameplays that I want (raids, housing, seamless world, open world pvp) So I will definitely play Wildstar while I'm waiting and see the new hope of MMOs come to the industry.
Where did you hear that there is an AA system? That interests me.
I remember reading about it on the Q&A on Wildstar Central forums regarding the leaked patch notes, let me see if I can dig it up.
Found it Post #168 (Page 9) on the Wildstar Central thread "Official M30 Patch Note Q&A thread":
Will there be Racial Skills? like in WoW because it could affect raids like in WoW everyone went to Horde over Alliance due to stats
We have a very clever solution to this that unfortunately isn't in the patch notes " />
Actually I mentioned this in public but never saw it picked up: The costs of things in the Elder Advancement system (to be revealed later) is influenced by your race choice. So stuff you'd think would be natural to the Granok is much cheaper, requiring less elder advancement, while stuff you'd associate with, well, smarter races is more expensive.
This way you can't permanently gimp yourself by a choice you made when you had the lowest information you'll ever have in the game (creating your first character) - but you can set yourself up with a little more work required for PvP or elder PvE optimality.
Oh cool, nice find. Does seem to be some sort of AA system.
The housing as many mention is a really good idea,however it is also a reason you want better graphics,not cartoony ones.
When people work on their homes they like them to look cool or nice ,whatever term you prefer.Having all your items look like a cartoon does not meet the definition of a nice looking home.Sort of think of it like this,could you see your mom hanging up some tazmanian devil drapes in the living room?The homes will have that Fred Flinstone sort of look,you know you can't really call that impressive looking,just a cartoony look.
IMO the game is really good,it is the graphics that do irk me as being a bad decision for a quiality game.I feel it was an early decision based on cost,both design cost and implementation cost.This is sadly going to happen with most games becuase there is no guarantee of huge success anymore,the market is too saturated.
We have seen cartoony graphics before,always of course personal opinion but i feel Wildstar's look borderline on the cheap side.
I agree with this. No one complains when a game has quality realistic graphics, but a lot of people do complain when games are given a more cartoony look. Of course some people will like the look, or will be willing to look past it, but there are a lot who won't even touch the game for that simple reason. And my dalliance into the forums here and elsewhere has already seen plenty of posts from people writing the game off simply because of the graphics. Not judging a book by it's cover is nice on paper but people do it all the time. I'll still play the game even though I don't like the graphics, but I think it wasn't the best business decision to go this route.
The housing as many mention is a really good idea,however it is also a reason you want better graphics,not cartoony ones.
When people work on their homes they like them to look cool or nice ,whatever term you prefer.Having all your items look like a cartoon does not meet the definition of a nice looking home.Sort of think of it like this,could you see your mom hanging up some tazmanian devil drapes in the living room?The homes wil lahve that Fred Flinstone sort of look,you know you can't reallyu call that impressive looking,just a cartoony look.
IMO the game is really good,it is the graphics that do irk me as being a bad decision for a quiality game.I feel it was an early decision based on cost,both design cost and implementation cost.This is sadly gfoing to happen with msot games becuase there is no guarantee of huge success anymore,the market is too saturated.
You should really learn to speak for yourself. Cool looking is in the eye of the bolder, it's not that hard of a concept but I guess on this forum it is to some people like you.
Now, unless you have actually played the game you can't say it is a really good game, that is how people on this silly forum set themselves up for failure and then spend the next 3 years of their lives dogging on a game they don't enjoy because they hype up the game to 100.
OP,
I am interested in the game for 2 reasons.
1. The pixar like charm.
2. The bunny woman. Nobody hates bunny woman right?
3. supposedly it is a sandpark game. I always wanted to play a sandbox like game. This isn't an important reason anyways, as long as the first 2 are met and it is not a sub based game, b2p, we all are good. Also it cant be clunky.
Probably good #3 isn't a big deal for you because based on everything that has been revealed in detail so far it's 100% themepark. Housing is not a sandbox feature, especially being instanced. The path system is NOT a sandbox feature anymore than rifts were a sandbox feature in RIFT. Now maybe the settler path / town building will be sandboxy, will have to wait for more detail, but that's about the only thing left to even attempt to put this in the sandpark category even a smidge. Not saying that's bad, it is what it is and I'm anxious to play it, but that whole perfect mix of sandbox and theme park hype from earlier in this game's hype train is a load as far as what I've seen.
Thank you. Can you explain a few things to me. A couple of points were interesting that you wrote:
1) What do you mean that housing is a primary feature? Is it different from housing in other MMOs?
2) I haven't seen examples of Dynamic Events. Can you show me some examples? Ill try googling this further. GW2 dynamic events though not bad weren't what was originally advertised.
3) What did you mean by Sandbox elements?
1) Wildstar was built from the start to have housing as a feature. There are plenty of videos on the housing feature (linked from other responses), but housing will contain both pure cosmetic stuff and practical things like raid portals, harvesting nodes, and more.
2) Some paths, in particular the soldier "holdouts" trigger dynamic events in the world. Anyone who happens along while a soldier is doing a holdout can participate and get rewarded, and they scale like other games with dynamic events.
3) Settlers in particular have many sandbox elements. They can setup various structures out in the world from simple campfires that provide buffs to those who use it to entire hubs complete with various vendors and bankers.
Man oh man, I can't wait to get my hands on the settler path! I hope to hear some more info soon.
I agree with this. No one complains when a game has quality realistic graphics
You can't be serious. Did you even read this thread? The consensus seems to be that unless they're done really well, they just look freakish. Your wording makes your statement a little more true, but the fact remains, quality is an opinion. I didn't think TSW had quality graphics. Just realistic ones. And even then, not very.
And no one ever answered me when I asked what hyper realistc MMOs were successful compared to less realistc ones / cartoony ones. Besides EVE.
I agree with this. No one complains when a game has quality realistic graphics
You can't be serious. Did you even read this thread? The consensus seems to be that unless they're done really well, they just look freakish. Your wording makes your statement a little more true, but the fact remains, quality is an opinion. I didn't think TSW had quality graphics. Just realistic ones. And even then, not very.
And no one ever answered me when I asked what hyper realistc MMOs were successful compared to less realistc ones / cartoony ones. Besides EVE.
First you would have to define a common understanding of the word successful that everyone agrees with because there have already been 1000 threads on this topic alone with no general consensus so what's the point of answering the question?
I agree with this. No one complains when a game has quality realistic graphics
You can't be serious. Did you even read this thread? The consensus seems to be that unless they're done really well, they just look freakish. Your wording makes your statement a little more true, but the fact remains, quality is an opinion. I didn't think TSW had quality graphics. Just realistic ones. And even then, not very.
And no one ever answered me when I asked what hyper realistc MMOs were successful compared to less realistc ones / cartoony ones. Besides EVE.
The keyword was quality, which you kind of picked up on. Yeah it's a preference of opinion what quality is, but for each person if a game has quality realistic graphicsm (quality to them), I highly doubt they are going to be like ugh I really don't like this - TOO REALISTIC! Maybe a very small minority. But plenty of people, myself included, could look at an animated cartoony look game or mmo and say it looks quality or well done, but I still don't like it because I don't like a cartoony look PERIOD.
And I'm not sure if you think you're making a point with your second question about what games with realistic graphics are as popular as ones with non-realistic ones - because the only super successful one was wow. And in that case it's simple that no game has been that successful, period, regardless of any feature or graphic quality. Could point to just as many flops of games with cartoony graphics as you could semi realistic ones.
And it isn't a black or white issue. A game doesn't have to be cartoony, or "hyper realistic", RIFT is kind of in the middle, as with LOTRO, Aion and a few others and those are fine. It's the full on cartoony look that I don't care for personally and that many don't. And it will lose a few customers for the game. And don't take my word for it, read the posts on the forums, on Massively and elsewhere from people writing the game off already based ont he graphic style.
There are quite a few people playing WoW right now (9 million?) who obviously don't mind a cartoon style. I've read that there are an estimated 20 million former WoW players out there somewhere. Wonder how many of them are looking for a new game? I expect it's a non-issue for Carbine.
It's probably a mistake to assume that all players who prefer a more realistic looking game will ignore this one though. I didn't like WoW's graphics, but I played it for 6 years. GW2 has beautiful graphics. I played it for a few months. Gameplay is what many of us are looking for.
Originally posted by Smikis new game, new content, focuses on pve, its hard to believe but they dont make pve mmorpgs anymore, even if most succesfull mmorpgs are all pve based,
really?
Most MMORPGS released are geared towards PVE and have some PVP tagged on..
I can only really think of two main steam MMOs that are or where PVE only on release or after.. EQ2 and vanguard. tho i have probally forgot a few.. but anyway there are very few dedicated PVP mmorpgs..
Any MMORPG that has been really sucesfull has had both PVE and PVP but mainly PVE..
When it comes to wildstar i agree with the OP..
Both Eq2 and Vanguard had PvP servers at release
That's why he said, "or after". The PvP servers were destroyed and there were really only 2-3 major changes applied to pvp through the development cycle prior to it being nearly completely removed.
There are quite a few people playing WoW right now (9 million?) who obviously don't mind a cartoon style. I've read that there are an estimated 20 million former WoW players out there somewhere. Wonder how many of them are looking for a new game? I expect it's a non-issue for Carbine.
It's probably a mistake to assume that all players who prefer a more realistic looking game will ignore this one though. I didn't like WoW's graphics, but I played it for 6 years. GW2 has beautiful graphics. I played it for a few months. Gameplay is what many of us are looking for.
I agree , I was one of those players that insisted on realistic looking games. I used to hate cartooney gfx as well, then after playing WOW I found it didnt matter to me at all, in fact I kinda like the totally unrealistic look now. I think it actually "ages" better over the years. In the end, its all about GAMEPLAY and in game features (raids, housing, etc) that will ultimately hold subscribers (either BTP or FTP). And if the cartooney gfx allow people with lower end computers to play the game, this will be an added boon. Face it, it was the low computer requirements in WOW that contributed somewhat to its success.
If Wildstar executes well the features displayed in their promotional video it will be moderately successful. If it executes these features flawlessly, it will be a hit. It has all the ducks lined up nicely, I am looking forward to this game, I just hope they don't blow it.
The game simply looks FUN. It doesn't take itself too seriously, seems to provide plenty of content, has a few unique features, and keeps enough traditional features for people to feel more comfortable.
In addition, the genre is sorely in need of quality Sci-Fi MMOs
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
The consistant theme here for people who are willing to give this is a try is large scale raids and revamped gameplay based upon this feature. So gameplay trumps graphics, as it should.
Originally posted by ShakyMo I don't understand the appeal to someone who isn't already quite happily playing wow.
There are a lot of people who are unhappily not playing WoW, because from Cata onwards (arguably Wrath but Cata is a very clear and marked transition) the game completely took a dump all over the original vision of what it should be.
Wildstar looks to be pre-Cata WoW, but with a better engine, better graphics, better dev team, housing, better raiding and a (hopefully) better community to the ability to switch off cross-realm stuff.
There's a market for a well-made clone of Vanilla/TBC/Wrath WoW that has far more flair and love than Rift.
RIFT was a *crushing* disappointment; a shallow, loveless, generic MMO the likes of which hasn't been seen in a P2P format since, well, forever.
Originally posted by ShakyMo I don't understand the appeal to someone who isn't already quite happily playing wow.
There are a lot of people who are unhappily not playing WoW, because from Cata onwards (arguably Wrath but Cata is a very clear and marked transition) the game completely took a dump all over the original vision of what it should be.
Not only that, but no matter how much I loved TBC and Wotlk, if I had to run another character to max level, I'd claw my eyes out. Some people are simply done with WoW because they love leveling and they've just been there, done that too many times for it to be fun anymore.
Comments
Maybe one day they will make a switch where for those that like the cartoony look, it switches to that, while those who like realism, it switches to that, but you still remain on the same server :-) lol. Hey, ANYTHING is possible :-). I bet if an MMO ever came out with this feature it would be an instant success lol.
There Is Always Hope!
Or maybe it was a decision based on what the developers liked? Not to mention, what sells. Even discounting those two things entirely, how would they have told the story with the same loose, comic vibe with ultra-realistic graphics. Whether they look cheap or not is personal preference of course, but I think the opinion that they went with cartoony graphics because they were trying to save money is a little lop-sided as I've seen nothing to support it, and everything to the contrary.
I still don't see what's so "sad" about the whole thing, I guess. Maybe they're trying to appeal to the Mario / Ratchet and Clank / Adult Swim fans, and that's not a bad market to aim for if they want to make a profit. How many ultra realistic MMO's have been very successful? That's a genuine question, since I avoid most of them on the basis of how "parent trying to fit in with their kids" awkward they are.
Same wavelength here.
The thing is, I look for beauty and character in the visuals before realism. And with realism as your target, as things stand in video games, it's next to impossible to give your work character and make it beautiful at the same time. TSW is a good example here: The environments look beautiful, but the models and animation are awkward. And... making really good cartoony graphics takes a lot of talent and is just as difficult as well.
I'll just say, there is an audience that actually prefers this stuff to Crysis graphics (I know I do; I prefer Trine graphics to Crysis ones). So, that makes this an aesthetic decision first and foremost and not merely a system requirements one.
I like the game b/c it has a sense of humor. The graphics don't appeal to me but I will still play. I like the new world and new creatures created.... it's just fresh to me.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
I guess this thread is all about graphics instead of content because there's not a lot of firm info out there. They haven't even released all the races and classes yet. So people are judging based on a first glance. And combat is being judged on starter zone video. It's kind of silly to be making judgements yet. We should just be watching and waiting. Judge later imo.
Personally, I can't wait to see this game. If Carbine follows through on the all the things I've heard so far, it will be my game for a very long time.
Guild warplots alone sound like a huge amount of fun. But 40 man raiding is the hook that got me. And instead of ignoring people who like to play a hard game, they're including tough content. Plus they're giving options for small groups and solo players. End game is where the story is happening. .. it all sounds cool to me.
I don't know why everyone is so caught up on the art style. I thought it was popular to say "gameplay over graphics." I like the graphics though. They're going to age a lot better than realism. Plus they go well with the quirky Firefly theme.
I am type of gamers who prefer gameplay over graphic. I dont like to play good looking game with crap gameplay.
Also I dont expect Wildstar to be revolutionary. In fact I don't expect the current MMOs these days to bring something new, I guess I will wait for Everquest Next or Blizzard new project, Titan to bring that revotionary which I hope to MMO industry.
In the mean time Wildstar just gives the old school mmorpg gameplays that I want (raids, housing, seamless world, open world pvp) So I will definitely play Wildstar while I'm waiting and see the new hope of MMOs come to the industry.
Oh cool, nice find. Does seem to be some sort of AA system.
Leveling content caters to your style of play with the path system
I think that sums up my interested on this title along with the housing.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
I agree with this. No one complains when a game has quality realistic graphics, but a lot of people do complain when games are given a more cartoony look. Of course some people will like the look, or will be willing to look past it, but there are a lot who won't even touch the game for that simple reason. And my dalliance into the forums here and elsewhere has already seen plenty of posts from people writing the game off simply because of the graphics. Not judging a book by it's cover is nice on paper but people do it all the time. I'll still play the game even though I don't like the graphics, but I think it wasn't the best business decision to go this route.
Probably good #3 isn't a big deal for you because based on everything that has been revealed in detail so far it's 100% themepark. Housing is not a sandbox feature, especially being instanced. The path system is NOT a sandbox feature anymore than rifts were a sandbox feature in RIFT. Now maybe the settler path / town building will be sandboxy, will have to wait for more detail, but that's about the only thing left to even attempt to put this in the sandpark category even a smidge. Not saying that's bad, it is what it is and I'm anxious to play it, but that whole perfect mix of sandbox and theme park hype from earlier in this game's hype train is a load as far as what I've seen.
Man oh man, I can't wait to get my hands on the settler path!
I hope to hear some more info soon.
You can't be serious. Did you even read this thread? The consensus seems to be that unless they're done really well, they just look freakish. Your wording makes your statement a little more true, but the fact remains, quality is an opinion. I didn't think TSW had quality graphics. Just realistic ones. And even then, not very.
And no one ever answered me when I asked what hyper realistc MMOs were successful compared to less realistc ones / cartoony ones. Besides EVE.
First you would have to define a common understanding of the word successful that everyone agrees with because there have already been 1000 threads on this topic alone with no general consensus so what's the point of answering the question?
There Is Always Hope!
The keyword was quality, which you kind of picked up on. Yeah it's a preference of opinion what quality is, but for each person if a game has quality realistic graphicsm (quality to them), I highly doubt they are going to be like ugh I really don't like this - TOO REALISTIC! Maybe a very small minority. But plenty of people, myself included, could look at an animated cartoony look game or mmo and say it looks quality or well done, but I still don't like it because I don't like a cartoony look PERIOD.
And I'm not sure if you think you're making a point with your second question about what games with realistic graphics are as popular as ones with non-realistic ones - because the only super successful one was wow. And in that case it's simple that no game has been that successful, period, regardless of any feature or graphic quality. Could point to just as many flops of games with cartoony graphics as you could semi realistic ones.
And it isn't a black or white issue. A game doesn't have to be cartoony, or "hyper realistic", RIFT is kind of in the middle, as with LOTRO, Aion and a few others and those are fine. It's the full on cartoony look that I don't care for personally and that many don't. And it will lose a few customers for the game. And don't take my word for it, read the posts on the forums, on Massively and elsewhere from people writing the game off already based ont he graphic style.
There are quite a few people playing WoW right now (9 million?) who obviously don't mind a cartoon style. I've read that there are an estimated 20 million former WoW players out there somewhere. Wonder how many of them are looking for a new game? I expect it's a non-issue for Carbine.
It's probably a mistake to assume that all players who prefer a more realistic looking game will ignore this one though. I didn't like WoW's graphics, but I played it for 6 years. GW2 has beautiful graphics. I played it for a few months. Gameplay is what many of us are looking for.
That's why he said, "or after". The PvP servers were destroyed and there were really only 2-3 major changes applied to pvp through the development cycle prior to it being nearly completely removed.
Wow 40 people in an instance isn't large scale pve.
I agree , I was one of those players that insisted on realistic looking games. I used to hate cartooney gfx as well, then after playing WOW I found it didnt matter to me at all, in fact I kinda like the totally unrealistic look now. I think it actually "ages" better over the years. In the end, its all about GAMEPLAY and in game features (raids, housing, etc) that will ultimately hold subscribers (either BTP or FTP). And if the cartooney gfx allow people with lower end computers to play the game, this will be an added boon. Face it, it was the low computer requirements in WOW that contributed somewhat to its success.
If Wildstar executes well the features displayed in their promotional video it will be moderately successful. If it executes these features flawlessly, it will be a hit. It has all the ducks lined up nicely, I am looking forward to this game, I just hope they don't blow it.
Current Games: WOW, EVE Online
The game simply looks FUN. It doesn't take itself too seriously, seems to provide plenty of content, has a few unique features, and keeps enough traditional features for people to feel more comfortable.
In addition, the genre is sorely in need of quality Sci-Fi MMOs
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
There are a lot of people who are unhappily not playing WoW, because from Cata onwards (arguably Wrath but Cata is a very clear and marked transition) the game completely took a dump all over the original vision of what it should be.
Wildstar looks to be pre-Cata WoW, but with a better engine, better graphics, better dev team, housing, better raiding and a (hopefully) better community to the ability to switch off cross-realm stuff.
There's a market for a well-made clone of Vanilla/TBC/Wrath WoW that has far more flair and love than Rift.
RIFT was a *crushing* disappointment; a shallow, loveless, generic MMO the likes of which hasn't been seen in a P2P format since, well, forever.
Eagerly awaiting: World of Darkness, ArcheAge.
Remember the good times with 40 man Molten Core raids.
Waiting for people at entrance for 2 hours was so much fun.
Then explaining what people have to do for another 30 minutes.
Who doesnt want that back?
Not only that, but no matter how much I loved TBC and Wotlk, if I had to run another character to max level, I'd claw my eyes out. Some people are simply done with WoW because they love leveling and they've just been there, done that too many times for it to be fun anymore.