WoW Endgame Quote

[Alrindel]

31-60 might be a DAOC curveball they threw between 40-50. Right now most people are of the opinion its a fast leveling game but since no one, not even the alpha testers have seen what life is like after 30 its hard to say.

There's also no guarantee they won't slash XP gain right before release, like certain recent SOE games...

[Ironwood]

There's also no guarantee they won't slash XP gain right before release, like certain recent SOE games...

Surely this is inevitable ?  I always thought that this had nothing to do with balancing, fun, or anything else but simply to set the levelling to a point where you can get viable beta feedback.  Bitchslap me if I'm wrong...

Oh, and thanks for taking my point and running with it Joe ; as a consumer of these products am I supposed to be impressed with the 'new shiny' ?  We've seen this.  We've done it.
Where's our new design ?

[LanTheWarder]

If anyone could do this correctly it's blizzard, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[tanandae]

Don't think this quite needs a new thread, so I'll just tag to the end of this one. This is the write up I said I'd do, based mostly on questions/answers here. More of the new stuff is towards the end:
http://www.lananfrank.net/lana/wow/review.htm

[Raven]

Don't think this quite needs a new thread, so I'll just tag to the end of this one. This is the write up I said I'd do, based mostly on questions/answers here. More of the new stuff is towards the end:
http://www.lananfrank.net/lana/wow/review.htm

That's a very good preview. Thanks for posting it.

Raven

[El Gallo]

I think they have made the greatest innovation this genre has seen in forever: they are actually aiming to release a game that has extensive content and mechanics that are not only present, but have actually been polished a few times.  WoW right now is in better shape, content and polish wise, than SWG was months after it was released, to say nothing of the release day status DAoC (best job so far on release mechanics, but no content), AC (decent content, mechanics a complete joke), AC2 (hahahahhaha), SB (hahahahhah), or AO (not enough space to fill in an adequate number of "ha's" to express AO's release-day status).

And it isn't going to be released for half a year from now, if not longer.

[schild]

Every company aims to release a game with what they think is extensive content and stability. Why would they aim for anything less? Until I play it, it's just Blizzard blowing smoke up our ass this week instead of Raph, NCSoft, or whatever the flavor of the week may be.

Remember David Allen and the original Horizons? Ok, good, now take a step back and stop trusting Blizzard and the hordes of fanbois that will come with them.

[El Gallo]

Yo, try reading more than the first line.  The argument is not "this game will probably be the most polished and content rich MMOG at launch because Blizzard and the Easter Bunny promised me that it would."  The argument is "this game will probably be the most polished and content rich MMOG at launch because it ALREADY IS as or more polished and content rich than most of the other MMOGs were when they were released and WoW still has 5+ more months of beta to go."

[schild]

/Sigh. That's not an argument. That's a statement, and it seems to have flown way over your head, but my response was, in short, 'I don't believe you.'

Why? Because I stopped listening to fans and developers a long time ago when it came to statements like that one. I have to play it for myself to believe that kind of hype.

For example, Lineage 2. I preordered the game just to get into beta before the open beta while it wasn't completely populated with dipshits. I found out the game had zero content until the endgame. Most of the reports previous to that pointed in the oppisite direction. If I play WoW and see that the quests are more than, "Go to the mysterious and dark hydra pit, he has been devouring the children of this fine city. Save them, but don't make a martyr of yourself! Oh and while you're down that, grab the chalice and some hydra scales/fur/whatever. It will help you on your way" etc. Then I might be inclined to like WoW, but given Diablo 1 & 2 and *Craft, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

All of Blizzard's games seemed polished because they were so simplified. They took the complexity of other games and washed it until it was smooth - sure, I enjoyed them, sure they were fun. But with an MMORPG where I'm expected to pay on a month to month basis I need more than simplistic fun. Unfortunately I have no reason to believe that Blizzard can deliver on that front - as much as I want them to.

Couple that with the installed fanbase for WoW and it leaves me with no choice but to call 'shannanigans' on anyone who says:

this game will probably be the most polished and content rich MMOG at launch because it ALREADY IS as or more polished and content rich than most of the other MMOGs were when they were released and WoW still has 5+ more months of beta to go.

However, I will admit WoW should be very stable - Blizzard knows server software. But if history proves anything, it will also cater to simplistic fools. I'd prefer unstable innovation to shiny & now-stable EQ with more purple and green. (Has anyone else noticed a LOT of purple and green in most of the screenshots?)

[Disco Stu]

Could you please change your avatar? Every time I see it I think I'm going to read something funny or interesting. Unfortunately your posts display neither of these qualities. I wrote some long bullshit about how you're wrong about a lot (all?) of the stuff you talked about but it’s quicker to just call you a fucking idiot and be done with it.

[HaemishM]

Yo, try reading more than the first line.  The argument is not "this game will probably be the most polished and content rich MMOG at launch because Blizzard and the Easter Bunny promised me that it would."  The argument is "this game will probably be the most polished and content rich MMOG at launch because it ALREADY IS as or more polished and content rich than most of the other MMOGs were when they were released and WoW still has 5+ more months of beta to go."

I made most of the same arguments about SB in beta before they released the 3.5 patch that fucked everything up.

In other words, what you've said about WoW has been said about most other betas here, including ones that launched in a state that can kindly be called shitty.

[Mesozoic]

Why? Because I stopped listening to fans and developers a long time ago when it came to statements like that one. I have to play it for myself to believe that kind of hype.

Then why are you talking about WoW?  It isn't out yet, and it sounds like you don't have a beta slot.  Lets just assume that you hate all unreleased games, then you can go do something else with your time.

Couple that with the installed fanbase for WoW and it leaves me with no choice but to call 'shannanigans' on anyone who says:

I don't get the whole blizz fan hate thing.  Yes, there are idiots posting on forums.  Yes, they have a rampant sense of self-entitlement and no real understanding of the development process.  This is different than [insert name of MMOG] how?  And how will this difference make WoW suck?

Watching WoW be developed is the inverse of watching SB through beta.  With SB, all the information that came out was bad.  Screenies, game mechanics, reports of instability, etc. etc.  In response people kept explaining away all the bad news, and I started to wonder, if this game was so hot why was all the pre-release info so damning?

Here - IMO - just about all the info coming out looks great, and people are explaining away all of that to make it look bad.   People who already hate blizzard and hate PvE - ::shock::  - they don't like Blizzard's PvE game.  Now we're at the point where people are actually of the opinion that the game will suck because the fanbase is stupid - as if other MMOG playerbases were Rhodes Scholars.

[HaemishM]

Part of SB's biggest problems aside from the typical bugs was the fact that a lot of its fanbase not in beta were complete cockmongers who only wanted to pwn at will.

I see the same thing in larger numbers on WoW boards. Nothing makes a PVE game more unbearable than idiotic turds on Jolt Cola and two hours of sleep running mob trains over you at midnight because they feel the camp of uberness is theirs by right.

[HRose]

Just passing by to say that I've tried the game for a few minutes and I'll play a few hours this night.

From the simple presentation point of view (interface, *client performance*, first steps and raw graphic) WoW completely and largely BLEW all my expectations (in a good way).

Really. As you log in the world feels fucking /amazing/. I've never felt this sense of wonder before. I've created a dwarf and the zone where you start feels incredible. Everything, from the size of the trees and buildings, the clip plane, the hills etc... gives you a new feeling compared to what I played till now. It's not that the 'level' is bigger. It's how things are put together that it makes you feel like in a world of giants.

And it's even more amazing when you go inside the buildings. There is an impressive quality of detail. And for quality I mean the raw graphic talent. Graphic has never been important for me but even this aspect alone makes a 'world' you really *don't* want to leave. I passed my first half-hour just wandering around in awe because I simply wasn't able to do anything else. In other games you start doing things, here I could just go around to explore and see "what's behind that hill".

This on a geforce 3, with a 2400+ Athlon processor, plugged in a very old motherboard. All settings possible cranked up:
It moves WAY BETTER than DAoC.

I'm already planning an humongous review for the next days, focusing of what isn't being told on other reviews I've read. Also focusing on what I don't like. For example the char creation is really worst than DAoC and I feel forced to crate my dwarf. Everything else just looked uninspired or terribly ugly. You go through the combinations but you'll finish to like just a pair of them. It also feels like playing LEGO. At the end, all you can change is the *head* of a character and it feels quite wrong.

But again. It triggered on me something that died in me years ago. The immersion. The breath in the cold, light shining on the textured terrain (incredible, you have to see this), footprints, an amazing clip plane (both for the world and PCs/NPCs), critters and an organic world design. It feels *different* from other games. I always cared just for the gameplay but here the gameworld has *value*. It isn't just the "frame" in which you play. Not olny it feels completely out of scale compared to, say, DAoC. But it blews completely something "nice but soulless", like SWG.

I expect a "spoiled" effect. I don't think I'm able to go back to the games I still like. It feels like a wet dream. This is right what you were dreaming to live as a kid and it has still the same emotional effect now, that I'm unable to be excited or surprised about a game..

Again, this is just the "feel" I had as I started, I don't know anything of the value of the game itself. But the graphic is 2000 times better than what I expected (forget the screenshots), and, despite this, the engine runs *perfectly* (while SWG, for example, runs like *crap*). So not only the graphic quality is out of scale, but also the performance is. This is, by far, the best looking game. And it's also smooth where other engines just run bad. So it's something you *can* play and live.

The controls are also a good improvement over DAoC (the "feel" of the toon is better due to a few tricks with the camera and the animations). If you played it you'll feel absolutely comfy with WoW. I redefined a few keys and I was basically playing the same game.

[El Gallo]

That's certainly true Haemish, they could always make the game worse as the beta goes along.  I don't recall anyone saying SB was "polished" at any point of the beta, I just remember a lot of "promising" talk, but then again I didn't follow the game that closely.

Nevertheless, based on first hand accounts from people I have gamed with for years, WoW is in better shape today than many MMOGs were on release day.  They could make a killing by running a server load check and releasing the game as soon as it even sort of passes (see: SWG or AC2 except without the "make a killing "part).  They aren't.  They could hold people to a NDA until the bitter end to hide all the failures of the game (see: just about every other game).  They aren't.  These three things don't guarantee shit, but they are at least a very promising start.

Now, the dreamers around here who think that the industry should move from churning out Model T Fords to flying cars from the Jetsons in one leap won't be happy.  But they won't be happy with anything other the next bowl of cheeba.  I, one the other hand, think that if the industry could make the leap from a Model T to a Maserati it would be a stupefyingly amazing achievement.  Hell, pulling off a base model Saturn at this point would be beyond all reasonable expectations.

[Paelos]

There will always be the two extremes in pre-release MMOs, the doomsdayers and the fanbois. They will always exist whenever there is uncertainty in how the game is going to turn out for launch. What intrigues me about WoW that didn't intrigue me about other games:

- The doomsdayers are having to work harder at pointing out why WoW will suck. The stability issues are getting better than average reviews from beta, which is something that I've never really heard from other games. Largely, you have to look at the high level stuff as the question mark and PvP, but the low-level fun content is getting good PR. Frankly, the biggest hits are lodged at the community at large which in my opinion is could only be marginally worse than every other game's l33t squads. If you are tired of dumbasses in game, then don't bother with multiplayer.

- There is a non-NDA beta, which not only inspires confidence in the project but also the idea that you can get more than just one viewpoint on the game. Frankly, with that beta, inevitably you will find out both sides of the good and bad from both the extremes, and hopefully the middle ground. Open information is good and will only serve to middle the largely vocal hype/bash outliers with quantity. The only thing that bothers me is that PvP is tightly guarded info-wise, which in my book means it will suck. Past experience favors the doomsday group when something is not reported on much as a key feature, like PvP.

- The length of development seems to be a good sign that WoW isn't trying to be quick and dirty with the testing process. I don't get the sense of a "shove it out the door" policy yet, but that's not to say it won't show up. Certainly, it's really too early to bumpfuzzle Blizzard on their cycle, but it shows promise, and should things turn tide we would hear quickly.

I'm not licking my chops over the impending feast yet, but I am actually paying attention to some of the info coming out of this development. I won't be making any pre-orders or first month subs, but I do think this game has solid odds on being fun while not revoluationary. If that's the case I'll give it a whirl for a while.

[Megrim]

There will always be the two extremes in pre-release MMOs, the doomsdayers and the fanbois. They will always exist whenever there is uncertainty in how the game is going to turn out for launch. What intrigues me about WoW that didn't intrigue me about other games:

 + stuff..

The thing is, (and i say this after having followed seriously the development of War3 & D2, as well as floating around in the Starcraft scene for a long time) Blizzard games are very much in the "holy shit, this is actually good!" stage during producation, with all sorts of wonderfull design ideas, lots of optimism, etc, etc..
However, they also have a very nasty habit of falling apart at the seams when released. They will still have a lot of teh shiney, but will often lack the core elements that made the original fun.

The flaw with that argument being that Wow has no original, but i'm still highly sceptical of their ability to balance the game in favour of fun & skill requiring gameplay (in recent memory, the jumbled up heap that is War3 doesen't help).

[Murgos]

...Blizzard games are very much in the "holy shit, this is actually good!" stage during producation, with all sorts of wonderfull design ideas, lots of optimism, etc, etc..
However, they also have a very nasty habit of falling apart at the seams when released...

Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it?  What are you using to create this 'theme of sucktitude upon release' with?  A statistical sample of 1?

The list of super-successful upon release blizzard games pretty much dwarfs any other development house, unless theres been a spate of 5 or 10 really sucky blizzard games that I missed while I was in a coma after being burned horribly in that car fire...

[Megrim]

Were you born this stupid or did you have to work at it?  What are you using to create this 'theme of sucktitude upon release' with?  A statistical sample of 1?

The list of super-successful upon release blizzard games pretty much dwarfs any other development house, unless theres been a spate of 5 or 10 really sucky blizzard games that I missed while I was in a coma after being burned horribly in that car fire...

Oh jeez, for a minute there i almost thought you were trying to hurt my feelings.

I guess i should clarify by asking what you consider successful?
Unless i'm hideously misinterpreted the point of Waterthread, we aren't talking about commercial success.

[angry.bob]

I guess i should clarify by asking what you consider successful? Unless i'm hideously misinterpreted the point of Waterthread, we aren't talking about commercial success.

Frankly, I'm not sure what Blizzard game you could consider a failure, regardless of what barometer you used to measure success. Sure, the sequels might not have fallen terribly far from their originals, but even D2, SC, SC2, and WC3 are still fun and enjoyed by millions to this day. Commecial successes? Check. Critical successes? Check. Enjoyed by players? Check. Longevity? Check.

Sure, none of their games cure cancer or inspire people to start down the path of becoming a bodhisattva. But then again if you're expecting that from a computer game you're a f*cking retard. By any definition of the word game, everything they've released has been an earth-crushing success.

[Morfiend]

I guess i should clarify by asking what you consider successful? Unless i'm hideously misinterpreted the point of Waterthread, we aren't talking about commercial success.

Frankly, I'm not sure what Blizzard game you could consider a failure, regardless of what barometer you used to measure success. Sure, the sequels might not have fallen terribly far from their originals, but even D2, SC, SC2, and WC3 are still fun and enjoyed by millions to this day. Commecial successes? Check. Critical successes? Check. Enjoyed by players? Check. Longevity? Check.

Sure, none of their games cure cancer or inspire people to start down the path of becoming a bodhisattva. But then again if you're expecting that from a computer game you're a f*cking retard. By any definition of the word game, everything they've released has been an earth-crushing success.

I agree. To me a good game is one that is fun to play, and keeps me entertained.

All of the above games. Check.

[Megrim]

Well, think of it this way (and i know you'v heard this all before):

Britney Spears is commercially successful. Everquest is "fun" and very, very successfull. Et cetera..

And while i'll freely admit to enjoying watching & listening to Britney Spears, this does not her a good musician make.


When i say that Blizzard's games have sucked i'm speaking from a comparitive point of view. Warcraft 3 is not a bad game. For the casual player to load it up, find a quick match and spend twenty-five minutes watching pretty colours flashing on the screen, this is a great step towards making a highly marketable & profitable product. Which is what Blizzard have done.
And therefore, unarguably, they make hugely successful products.

However, this also means that you are basing your opinion on the lowest common denominator. A prime shining example of which, i believe, is demonstrated only a few threads down.

During the War3 development cycle several changes were made throughout, the effect of which was something not unlike the Vatican proclaiming from tomorrow onwards, that Jesus was in fact gay.
Two of the biggest i can remember was that the fifth race was being cut, and the introduction of creeps (iirc this was sometime around the half-way mark. I could very well be wrong though, since i'm fuzzy on the subject).

Now obviously to little Billy this makes no difference whatsoever. He is still going to drag his parents to the Store, buy W3 and click repeatedly on the Night Elf archers while leaning dangerously close to the monitor and breathing raspingly. For him the game is fun.
However, if i list you some of the biggest complaints made against W3 made by player much more skilled than i, perhaps you will understand where i'm coming from:


the introduction of auto-cloning & auto-casting (albeit necessary & logical in some case e.g. Healing).

the shockingly, shockingly terrible economic structure.

for a game based around micro, abysmally slow and clumsy unit movement.

terrible pathfinding.

horribly cluttered-up spell effects and badly chosen unit-size vs screen-size ratio (don't get me started on air units).

Blizzard's insistance on doing absolutely nothing about maphacking and their mediocre efforts to curb it (although i don't know what the situation is atm).

the generally bad in-game mechanics desicions (e.g. creeps, upkeep, the way armour works).

the shocking racial balance issues that took them iirc seven patches and an expansion to correct (once again this could be wrong and there may still be some imbalances left. Having only recently started playing again, i'v not followed the scene for a while so take this /w a grain of salt).


Now i realise that none of the above may make any difference to you simply because you are not aware of these issues, and they do not interfere with you having a "fun" time. And they do not get in the way of Billy's fun time, but surely you must agree that equating yourself with Billy Jr. is not a reasonable idea?
But they do with mine. And they also interfere for a great deal of people who prefer to take their games not just for face value but with just a smigeon of seriousness on the side.

Now, when you compare the above list with, ooh.. say Starcraft, you get what.. ?
Perfect balance, almost perfect GUI (W3 did improve this in several aspects), depth and intellegence of gameplay unrivalled by any RTS and i daresay very few other games. A few bugs Blizzard was/is too lazy to fix, a few underused (due to various in-game mechanics) units & a thriving and mature (by Blizzard standards =) ) community and compeditive scene.

Now surely, people asked, after the phenomenal success that was Starcraft, surely Blizzard would build on it and totally own the living shit out of everything by whacking us in the face with Warcraft 3?

*bzzt* wrong answer.. I guess people didn't learn from Diablo 2.

And yes, i could very well strech this post out and list, point by point what people felt was seriously wrong with D2 (anyone remember the GuildHalls?), apart from the cheats, but the end effect is still the same. Heck, i remember a couple of threads before the F13 merge, where people here on WT consistently rated Diablo above D2, for a variety of reasons.


And this brings me back to my original point. I'm sure Wow will be great fun and will be popular and i might even subscribe to it for a few months. But after the initial shiney factor wears off, you'll see the seams appear.

[angry.bob]

Here’s the thing though: out of the stuff you listed, the only thing that’s an actual problem is the cheating. The rest of it’s pretty much personal preference. I’m sorry, but using a list of “problems” topped with “I don’t have to give each individual caster orders for each individual spell” as a downside is insane. That’s the sort of stuff that makes it better, just not for the very few people capable of micromanaging fifty units fast enough for them to be effective. I’m sure those guys are annoyed that unit speed was slowed down to curb opening rushes and other design decisions that help the non-elite were made, but that sort of stuff is what makes Blizzard good at making games.

I’m praying that WoW will be at least as “crappy” and “unfun” as Diablo 2 and Warcraft X. If that’s the case, it’ll give me something to do for the next several years. Unfortunately, from the sounds of the raid crap they’re peen waving about, they’re going the route of catering to the self-styled elite to the detriment of making a “game”. Threads here and many other places indicate that hours of camping and mandatory grouping is not what most people are looking to get into now. Sure there are exceptions (Mesozoic, I’m looking at you), but people are starting to demand the ability to lead an actual real life without falling hopelessly behind their single friends and co-workers in what is ultimately supposed to be a relaxing pastime. Being able to order 50 different units to cast 50 different spells in 60 seconds doesn’t make you a better tactician, it makes you a better hotkey-pusher. Camping shit hours on end with “guildies” or whatever doesn’t make you skilled or equal an accomplishment, it makes you a f*cking loser at life. Welcome to the realization that most people here could have earned at least a Masters with the time they’ve pissed away on “virtual worlds”. That’s why those of us with actual lives want a game, not a virtual c*ck-stroking to make us feel like we’re doing something vaguely equal to making our lives not be a total waste.

*edited to clarify that by "you" I don't mean anyone in particular like Megrim or Mesozoic, it's simply the way I write. Although, if you think camping shit in a game makes you skilled or whatever, I am actually talking about you. All of you who think that way, and I'm doing it all at once.

[ClumsyOaf]

Well, think of it this way (and i know you'v heard this all before):

Britney Spears is commercially successful. Everquest is "fun" and very, very successfull. Et cetera..

And while i'll freely admit to enjoying watching & listening to Britney Spears, this does not her a good musician make.


When i say that Blizzard's games have sucked i'm speaking from a comparitive point of view. Warcraft 3 is not a bad game. For the casual player to load it up, find a quick match and spend twenty-five minutes watching pretty colours flashing on the screen, this is a great step towards making a highly marketable & profitable product. Which is what Blizzard have done.
And therefore, unarguably, they make hugely successful products.

When you tell us that something is bad, it's much easier if you actually compare it to something - not just say that they suck from a comparative point of view.

However, this also means that you are basing your opinion on the lowest common denominator. A prime shining example of which, i believe, is demonstrated only a few threads down.

During the War3 development cycle several changes were made throughout, the effect of which was something not unlike the Vatican proclaiming from tomorrow onwards, that Jesus was in fact gay.
Two of the biggest i can remember was that the fifth race was being cut, and the introduction of creeps (iirc this was sometime around the half-way mark. I could very well be wrong though, since i'm fuzzy on the subject).

Ah, change is bad! And it is bad - why? If something doesn't work - why not cut it? The error must be that they didn't detect it earlier. Of course, for those who wanted War2 with better graphics - it must have been a tough blow...

Now obviously to little Billy this makes no difference whatsoever. He is still going to drag his parents to the Store, buy W3 and click repeatedly on the Night Elf archers while leaning dangerously close to the monitor and breathing raspingly. For him the game is fun.
However, if i list you some of the biggest complaints made against W3 made by player much more skilled than i, perhaps you will understand where i'm coming from:

Because, they want what is best for the game - and not what suits their playstyle and is best for them?

the introduction of auto-cloning & auto-casting (albeit necessary & logical in some case e.g. Healing).

the shockingly, shockingly terrible economic structure.

for a game based around micro, abysmally slow and clumsy unit movement.

The auto-casting could be seen as an attempt to take the focus away from micro? The slow movement could be seen as an attempt to take the focus away from micro?

In what way is the economic structure shocking? With the exception of the reduced number of units (which, one could say, takes the focus away from zerging and micro) it isn't very different from war2 or starcraft...

terrible pathfinding.

horribly cluttered-up spell effects and badly chosen unit-size vs screen-size ratio (don't get me started on air units).

Compared to?
Admittedly, I did easily lose overview in large battles - but that happens in most other games as well.

Blizzard's insistance on doing absolutely nothing about maphacking and their mediocre efforts to curb it (although i don't know what the situation is atm).

Here's a hint - there is no central game server in war3. The map data has to be hosted somewhere, no matter where they put it - it will be decoded.

the generally bad in-game mechanics desicions (e.g. creeps, upkeep, the way armour works).

Bad for whom? Creeps and upkeep added tiny bits of strategy to a game that is mostly tactics. I fail to see the problem with armor; it was rock/scissors/paper with a couple of units that arguably got assigned wrong armor type.

the shocking racial balance issues that took them iirc seven patches and an expansion to correct (once again this could be wrong and there may still be some imbalances left. Having only recently started playing again, i'v not followed the scene for a while so take this /w a grain of salt).

Easily shocked? The biggest imbalance was in the minds of the players. Once the rumor of a nerf came - the counter strategies came as well. Huntress got their damage reduced with 1 point and suddenly they didn't pwn anymore?

Now i realise that none of the above may make any difference to you simply because you are not aware of these issues, and they do not interfere with you having a "fun" time. And they do not get in the way of Billy's fun time, but surely you must agree that equating yourself with Billy Jr. is not a reasonable idea?
But they do with mine. And they also interfere for a great deal of people who prefer to take their games not just for face value but with just a smigeon of seriousness on the side.

They're wrong - I'm right! It's just a game, deal with it.
Hint: Just because someone is elitist doesn't mean they're right - that goes for both me and them.

Now, when you compare the above list with, ooh.. say Starcraft, you get what.. ?
Perfect balance, almost perfect GUI (W3 did improve this in several aspects), depth and intellegence of gameplay unrivalled by any RTS and i daresay very few other games. A few bugs Blizzard was/is too lazy to fix, a few underused (due to various in-game mechanics) units & a thriving and mature (by Blizzard standards =) ) community and compeditive scene.

Playstyles!
One playstyle worked better for SC, one worked better for War3. The games resemble each other quite a bit imho; the main difference is which playstyle is most efficient.

Now surely, people asked, after the phenomenal success that was Starcraft, surely Blizzard would build on it and totally own the living shit out of everything by whacking us in the face with Warcraft 3?

*bzzt* wrong answer.. I guess people didn't learn from Diablo 2.

And yes, i could very well strech this post out and list, point by point what people felt was seriously wrong with D2 (anyone remember the GuildHalls?), apart from the cheats, but the end effect is still the same. Heck, i remember a couple of threads before the F13 merge, where people here on WT consistently rated Diablo above D2, for a variety of reasons.

There are still close to 100k D2 accts online at peak. That's after they've banned everybody - twice. The reason Diablo is considered better is because it had a much better atmosphere and cooler monsters. The game mechanics in D2 are superior in almost every way.

And this brings me back to my original point. I'm sure Wow will be great fun and will be popular and i might even subscribe to it for a few months. But after the initial shiney factor wears off, you'll see the seams appear.

I guess I'll try to make a point as well, since I've SB'd your post :)

We have a bunch of MMOGs today that have essentially identical interfaces. Those interfaces are very complex and difficult to use for people who are not used to them. This, in turn, might be part of the reason why the genre isn't recruiting as many new players as expected. I expect Blizzard to present a more polished and easier to use interface. This might bring more people to the genre.

The LCD today is gamers; the casual gamer is still a gamer. We need a (popular!) game or two where the LCD is the newbie. WoW could be it, but probably isn't - with the endgame being raids.

If I don't like the game, so be it - but it will hopefully increase awareness of the genre, maybe increasing the willingness to invest in games that are not just crappy eq ripoffs. Which in turn will increase the chance of someone making a MMOG I'll actually like.

At least I can hope...

[Mesozoic]

Well, think of it this way (and i know you'v heard this all before):

Britney Spears is commercially successful. Everquest is "fun" and very, very successfull. Et cetera..

This argument is crap.  Spears is targeted at 13-year old girls.  Its not rocket science to realize that a forum full of +/- 25 year old gaming men are not fans of Spears's music.  Or that people who have played the shit out of EQ are tired of it.  So, wow, I guess commercial success is bad.  

CORRELATION DOES NOT = CAUSATION.

[Dravalen]

Bitching & moaing about wc3

I'll talk to my friend on who's 16th on the USWest FFA ladder(LemmingInstinct) about all the stuff you've talked about but from what I've heard from him other than the cheaters he doesn't see much wrong with wc3. Even from looking at the ladder pages there's a pretty even distrobution of races in the top places.

Back on the main topic, I'm putting faith in Blizzards simply because they've been known to pull games in the past(War of the Clans I believe) because they felt it was just the same game rehashed. If you can pull a game that has already had previews done in magazines for it I think they'll be wary about releasing an MMOG that's not up to blizzard quality.

[Alluvian]

Arguing against a sample size of 1 is pretty silly.  Ultimately, if that single sample is you, that is all that matters.  Everyone on the planet could love the game, but if you don't, that is the only person that matters.

I didn't like WC3, didn't like D2 (I would have liked it 5 years earlier than it was released).  Never played much SC because it just didn't appeal to me.  I am not a big RTS fan anyway so that is no big surprise.  Loved Total Annihilation and like some of the C&C games (original and generals).

I hope WoW is a good game, but don't know if I will play it or not.  My wife is very turned off by the graphics.  I don't see myself ever bothering to buy it unless I make beta and it is great.  The odds of that are about the same as a shark eating me in my office cubicle.

[MrHat]

I don't know if anyone else has realized this but perhaps Blizzard isn't shooting for long term subscriptions (2 year +).

Maybe they're aiming to provide gamers with a solid 5 or 6 months of gaming, then the gamer can move on.  I don't remember reading anywhere (and I've been reading alot) that there is a 3 or 4 or 5 year story arc involving X and Y and the great war.  Maybe that's what the end game means, you play through the content for one side (ala WC) then play through the content on the otherside (WC) then if you like the multiplayer (PvP, Raiding) you can stay on, otherwise move on like all their previous games.

Edit: Hahaha, "The odds of that are about the same as a shark eating me in my office cubicle."

[HRose]

Wanna bet that once you can play the game you'll look at it in a complete different way?

Really, from the outside, depending on your background, you'll feel worried about the content, the balance of PvP and so on. Once in, the game "seduces" you in a complete different way than any mmorpg to date.

This happens way before you can even start to think about what made you feel so immersed. It's the first time I caught myself *playing* instead of studying what's good or bad.

[naum]

I’m praying that WoW will be at least as “crappy” and “unfun” as Diablo 2 and Warcraft X. If that’s the case, it’ll give me something to do for the next several years. Unfortunately, from the sounds of the raid crap they’re peen waving about, they’re going the route of catering to the self-styled elite to the detriment of making a “game”. Threads here and many other places indicate that hours of camping and mandatory grouping is not what most people are looking to get into now. Sure there are exceptions (Mesozoic, I’m looking at you), but people are starting to demand the ability to lead an actual real life without falling hopelessly behind their single friends and co-workers in what is ultimately supposed to be a relaxing pastime. Being able to order 50 different units to cast 50 different spells in 60 seconds doesn’t make you a better tactician, it makes you a better hotkey-pusher. Camping shit hours on end with “guildies” or whatever doesn’t make you skilled or equal an accomplishment, it makes you a f*cking loser at life. Welcome to the realization that most people here could have earned at least a Masters with the time they’ve pissed away on “virtual worlds”. That’s why those of us with actual lives want a game, not a virtual c*ck-stroking to make us feel like we’re doing something vaguely equal to making our lives not be a total waste.

Man, I love reading posts by angry.bob ... I agree with everything you just said ...

... hopefully, in 2005, by the time the game is released, Blizzard won't have given in to the whiners ...

[Alluvian]

Wanna bet that once you can play the game you'll look at it in a complete different way?

See, your just not reading very carefully here.  I didn't say whether I would like it or not after I played it.  I am probably never going to play it.  Maybe if they offer a free trial some months down the road.  But I don't know any local friends who are getting it, and I won't get it unless I can test it out first.  So the game could give you blowjobs and it won't get my money until I try it.

If they do a City of Heroes or lineage type thing where a preorder gets you in a beta then maybe.  I can preorder fr $5 at EB and if I don't like it I can cancel.  No more than SWG.  But the odds of WoW doing an all preorder beta are probably back along the lines of the shark in my cubible consuming me again.

And I really could not care less about your opinions on the game Hrose.  I have disagreed with about 99% of the things you have said regarding mmogs.  And the 1% that I don't disagree with contradict something else you have said previously.  Not meant as an insult.  We just have totally divergent tastes.  Hell, your liking the game probably lowers my odds of liking it.

But again, for the reading impaired.  Me not pay if me not play first.  That will go for all future mmogs.  Couple this with the corrolary that I won't go to a mmog website prior to beta and I have mmog piece of mind.

[Mesozoic]

Sure there are exceptions (Mesozoic, I’m looking at you), but people are starting to demand the ability to lead an actual real life without falling hopelessly behind their single friends and co-workers in what is ultimately supposed to be a relaxing pastime.

Que?

I'm the one whining for "30-minute content."  Perhaps you have your geologic eras confused.

[Morfiend]

Maybe if they offer a free trial some months down the road.  

I think Kat said they are going to do a Open Beta near the end to stress test the servers.

[Alluvian]

I think Kat said they are going to do a Open Beta near the end to stress test the servers.

Yeah, but I said I would like to play the game.  :)

No way an open beta for WoW will be anything but a server death sentence.  I could play progress quest now and relable the button you click as "Login" and get the same experience.  :)

[HRose]

I think Kat said they are going to do a Open Beta near the end to stress test the servers.

Yeah, but I said I would like to play the game.  :)

No way an open beta for WoW will be anything but a server death sentence.  I could play progress quest now and relable the button you click as "Login" and get the same experience.  :)

That will prevent what you said. The open beta is a way to have a smooth launch. If they can survive that, they'll survive everything. We'll see how it will go.

I will also paste something I wrote commenting here and there and it's a point where I was able to explain another point completely new with my experience in mmorpgs:

Levelling is the *consequence* of your play session, not its cause. When you log off you aren't happy because you gained a bit of exp or RPs. You just had a lot of fun. It could be at level 1 or 40, it's still the same fun. You don't feel like doing this and this so you are able to reach a point where the fun is "supposed to be". Without never reaching it.