Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 15, 2019, 05:01:14 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Shop: Amazon
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  World of Warcraft  |  Topic: WoW Patch... Fanboys Heads Explode 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: WoW Patch... Fanboys Heads Explode  (Read 24460 times)
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5922


Reply #70 on: August 20, 2004, 03:48:44 AM

It may be that the new EQ-expansions are more casual-friendly, but they got increasingly bland. The unique feelings of the different places in the old expansions seem to be missing. Might be nostalgia, though.
toma levine
Terracotta Army
Posts: 96


Reply #71 on: August 20, 2004, 07:50:07 AM

"the hate" is out, "fear" is in.

I have these horrible nightmares where I'm playing WoW, doing quests and having fun all over the world; then things suddenly slow down more and more until I've been stuck in Duskwood for a whole month. Then, I realize I'm not in Duskwood at all, I'm back in Toxxulia Forest again. Then I wake up in a cold sweat.
jpark
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1538


Reply #72 on: August 20, 2004, 09:10:40 AM

Quote from: toma levine
I have these horrible nightmares where I'm playing WoW, doing quests and having fun all over the world; then things suddenly slow down more and more until I've been stuck in Duskwood for a whole month. Then, I realize I'm not in Duskwood at all, I'm back in Toxxulia Forest again. Then I wake up in a cold sweat.


hehe some zones are like that.  I always got lost in Tox, and Dark Astoria in CoH with its impossibly high buildings and impenetrable fog constantly arrests my movement rate.

The zones of WoW really seem to stand out though - brilliant colors - and an "alive" landscape (from the screenshots and HRose descriptions).  In EQ I often felt like I was in a virtual golf course - where it seemed every tree and rock was "placed" there.  

Anyone know the patch status for adding more weather effects in WoW zones?

"I think my brain just shoved its head up its own ass in retaliation.
"  HaemishM.
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213


Reply #73 on: August 20, 2004, 10:08:17 AM

The reason I was pissy yesterday is that people are screaming about the world coming to an end because "OH NOES THEY RELEASED A BUGGY PATCH IN THE BETA TEST!!111!!!"  People need to settle the hell down.

I will stick to my guns on the "game was too easy" issue (play a warrior as my main btw, and no I was not talking about just 1-on-1 though if you pay any attention you rarely get more than 2 on you except for a few spots and that is still easy to handle).  Soloing needed to be a little harder (not more tedius, just harder so you have to think a bit at least once in a while).  AE tactics made groups too easy (and flummoxed class balance).  There is a LOT of fine tuning and bug squashing that needs to be done, but I think the last patch was progress.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must note that I am also looking forward to checking out EQ2 and (asbestos on) Vanguard.  Say what you want about McQuiad, he made a game with character.  EQ through Velious had more character and feel than any other game I have ever seen.  WoW is the first one I have played that feels even close.  I think that in the next year we will finally see an "EQ done right" style game that is actually better than EQ.

This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
angry.bob
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5442

We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I.


Reply #74 on: August 20, 2004, 10:52:56 AM

Quote from: El Gallo
I must note that I am also looking forward to checking out EQ2 and (asbestos on) Vanguard.  Say what you want about McQuiad, he made a game with character.  


Okay, that explains a lot. Now that I know to completely ignore anything you have to say about games, let me say that adding a completely pointless timesink and exponentially increasing difficulty that grinds away at your ability to live a life or function as a person is absolutely not "character". It was and still remains a tool to stretch out subscription lengths, and thankfully it's not something people are willing to deal with anymore except for a few abherant retards who rationalize being failures as humans to accomplishing something and being "elite" in a videogame that no one will give a shit or remember 10 years after it launches.

Hopefully, the desires of the entirely reasonable "crybabies" wanting fun over some shitfest grinds will win out and you and your type will be ignored.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213


Reply #75 on: August 20, 2004, 11:05:01 AM

I meant character as in the character/atmosphere/design of the zones.  Compare the guks or sebilis or even ever/permafrost to the bland, soulless and frequently modular areas in most other games (and EQ after McQuaid left).  I wasn't talking about the timesinks (which got worse as McQuaid got less involved with EQ anyway, since he was only partially involved with the Luclin shitfest and had nothing to do with the PoP flagging backflagging and reflagging nightmare).  

Like I said, I wasn't calling people crybabies in WoW because they don't want timesinks, I don't want them either.  The problem is that they want a game where it is literally impossible to ever lose no matter how shitty you play, which I don't want.  Godmode isn't fun.

This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27447

Badge Whore


Reply #76 on: August 20, 2004, 12:10:58 PM

I agree with Tebonias and ElGallo about the 'blandness' of EQ in recent days.  The level of craft isn't there in the newer zones and it leads to a much more 'blah' game world.  So long as you long for that aspect of EQ out of MMOs I'm with you all the way.

After that point, I'm all about angry.bob's arguement.  It's a game, it shouldn't be a second fucking job much less a primary one.  That bullshit is what I've seen McQuaid arguing for, though, and not the immersive gameworld of the original EQ. Thus, my hate.
 
Quote
16.3 How will you address the problems associated with treadmilling and camping?

People have all sorts of opinions not just on 'treadmilling' but also on what 'treadmilling' means.

In a very general sense, we suppose it's referring to the fact that the vast majority of MMOGs use 'time invested' as their primary advancement mechanism. Sure, there's a lot of skill and knowledge involved, but at the same time one of the great things about MMOGs is that people can advance simply by being tenacious (unlike, say, a twitch game where no matter how hard you practice there's always somebody else with a higher dexterity in real life).

In a more specific sense, we see the 'treadmill' indicted as often being too slow, or too repetitive and boring. And we agree here. The time you invest in leveling your character, or honing his skills, or seeking after that valued item should be neither boring nor repetitive. It's on us game developers to make sure that advancement is fun. Easier said than done, sure, but looking back we've identified a LOT of areas where we'll do better next time (camping is the big one for us).

'Camping', to us, is sitting in one spot for a ludicrous amount of time waiting for a mob to spawn, hoping that it has an item you are looking for.

To be clear, Sigil very much believes in the concept of rare items, long quests, and a challenging game. We just believe players should be 'doing' dungeons/adventure areas... moving about, having fun, PLAYING the game. Vanguard: Saga of Heroes will employ an advanced encounter system that should address the camping issue and make dungeon crawling a lot more fun.


That's from Vanguard Saga's FAQ.[/quote] It says to me the same nonsense Brad & Co. were saying when they ran EQ.  "But guys, you're not supposed to be playing that way.. play it like THIS and it'll be fun." without actually addressing anything.  That kind of stubborn-headed nonsense makes things fun only for those who think exactly like the designers.

Quote
16.8.3 What about downtime waiting for spawns and/or other events

Spawns will be based on timers, but our advanced encounter system is designed to reward players for moving through dungeons and other adventure areas. This should seriously minimize the amount of sitting around in one spot doing nothing but waiting for a spawn (camping).


Many times I recall whining from the old EQ live team about how you were supposed to crawl through a dungeon, not just camp the named areas.  So their solution appears to be 'just move the named around and force crawling'.  It'll still be more efficient to sit in one of the 'safe spots' and pull until the named pops.  Unless they actually do implement the fabled 'anti-camping code.'


EQ at the time of Kunark was NOT a fun game.  It's what they're aiming for, though.

And the biggest bugger of them all you find under "General MMO Philosophy."

Quote
18.1.15 Should power players and casual players yield the same rewards?

At the risk of jumping head first into the controversy, my feelings go back to the concept of risk vs. reward.

If you fight for hours and hours into the depths of a dungeon, knowing that if you screw up it's a lot of time lost, I'd argue the risk is greater, and so should be the reward.

So I think these varying types of encounters and contiguous time commitments do have an impact on risk/reward and that the lewts should be adjusted accordingly.

I think we are very committed to providing different regions of content for different playstyles and time commitments. But I don't think we'd agree to an assertion the rewards should be roughly the same.



Time = Rewards.

No thanks, I'll pass.

The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213


Reply #77 on: August 20, 2004, 01:30:06 PM

I don't know, it sounds like that could be the design philosophy for WoW or CoH.  You seem to be reading into everything and coming up with the most negative interpretation of every word possible.  Maybe he deserves that from EQ1, but I don't think it is a fair reading of the text.

The first quote is "we hate camping and boring treadmills and want more fun dungeon crawls and will design a game to make that a reality."  Now, you can doubt that he can pull that off.  Maybe they can't.  Maybe the "advanced encounter system" won't work.  We won't know until the beta at the earliest.  But it doesn't sound at all like "we are going to clone Sebilis and then bitch at the players because they camp instead of crawl" which is how you take those comments.

Second quote is the same deal.  I will be skeptical about the "advanced encounter system" until I see it in action, especially because it lack details.  But I won't just make up things like "obviously that just means they want to clone sebilis but have the mushroom king spawn at different spots."  Maybe that's what it means, maybe it isn't.  The point is that we don't know.

The third quote is something we all like to bitch about, advancement where time spent is a component, but you aren't going to avoid it.  If you don't want time = rewards, you won't like Vanguard, you won't like WoW, you won't like CoH, and you won't like Diablo.  Time = rewards in all those games.  The only remotely frightening thing in this quote is the "hours and hours" remark, which comes across as a bit of a hyberbole to me, especially since he says that there will be solo routes always available to the top levels.  Anyway, if you kill a trivially easy mob in some easy outdoor zone that takes no thought or effort, you should not get as much of a reward as you do for cooperating with other skilled players crawling through to the bottom of a challenging dungeon for a couple hours where each person's skills are tested to the extreme.  That doesn't sound so bad to me.  I just want something fun to do when I log in.  If I can log in for a quickie during a weeknight and do some worthwhile soloing and log in for a few hours on a Sunday afternoon and do a worthwhile dungeon crawl, I'll be happy.  If I can't, I'll quit.

Anyway, Vanguard may well suck ass.  I just said I was looking forward to checking it out.

This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 30338

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #78 on: August 20, 2004, 01:44:07 PM

Quote
So long as you long for that aspect of EQ out of MMOs I'm with you all the way.

After that point, I'm all about angry.bob's arguement.

Ditto. I have gone on record many, many times about how much I liked the original EQ 'dungeons' (Unrest technically isn't a dungeon, but pretty cool nonetheless), and that I feel they've set a bar no mmog (that I've played or heard about) meets or exceeds, even subsequent EQ expansions.

And once I got tired of hanging out in the atmospheric gameworld, it was all over for EQ, as the core mechanics are pretty crappy.
Quote
knowing that if you screw up it's a lot of time lost

Final straw in EQ, dying to green and blues that conned indiff, putting my 54th level necro a sliver from /regressing/ to level 53. It was taking me about a month to recover from /each death/ at that point (I wasn't in a big guild or a powergamer). So I logged off in the Magi Room of Guk, and there he sits to this day.

My time is valuable to me. I'd rather play something that doesn't eradicate the small gains I do make in the time I spend playing, it doesn't make the game more fun or the rewards more worthwhile for me, it just tells me it's a game I won't be playing.

In that 40-minute video on kikizo with the Big Blue Box devs, one dev states a nice piece about how he despises punitive games that punish players for screwing up. I find it refreshing to hear from a developer, I don't play games to get punished, there's plenty enough of that in the real world. Games should be fun, alpha and omega.

Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205


WWW
Reply #79 on: August 20, 2004, 02:07:40 PM

Quote
In that 40-minute video on kikizo with the Big Blue Box devs, one dev states a nice piece about how he despises punitive games that punish players for screwing up. I find it refreshing to hear from a developer, I don't play games to get punished, there's plenty enough of that in the real world. Games should be fun, alpha and omega.


Depends on how far you take this.  Godmode sucks and is incredibly boring because you can't lose.  If you never punish a player for screwing up they can never lose.  That game will suck balls IMO.

If punishment is equated to lack of progress than I could see it, but only if the challenges are actually difficult.

It reminds me of why I hated dungeon siege.  The game played itself if you went through any effort to setup even a mediocre AI for your characters.  Clicking in the next room was sufficient to defeat that room.
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 30338

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #80 on: August 20, 2004, 03:31:12 PM

Well, even assuming that, there's a difference between being punished by reloading a save game and losing 5 minutes of gameplay and a mmog costing you hours, days, or more, which compounds upon each successive 'mistake'.

You can have challenges without punishing people for not besting those challenges. A losing scenario that's rewarding in a different way, for instance, or at least fun. Everything should be fun, even losing or dying.

I never said anything about godmode :)

Phred
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2025


Reply #81 on: August 20, 2004, 07:17:25 PM

Bottom line is the same management that approves shipping crappy, unfinished, poorly thought out, least amount possibly spent on expansions out the door in EQ is going to be in charge for EQ2. As long as they get their bonuses every quarter they couldn't give a shit about the quality of the work, so personally I hope EQ2 crashes and burns.
Rodent
Terracotta Army
Posts: 699


Reply #82 on: August 21, 2004, 01:33:23 AM

BRING BACK THE VISION!


Wiiiiii!
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #83 on: August 22, 2004, 03:48:50 AM

So you are still fooling with the "difficulty" in a MMOG? Really? You even believe your own words?

I'll avoid to link my long essays and I'll just say that difficulty in a MMOG doesn't exist, because these games are designed with the "risk vs reward" model. When WoW was "easy" you simply fought higher levels mobs, ofter aggroing more than one and still winning. Now that the game is harder (I don't know since I didn't have the time to test) nothing will change from the difficulty point of view. You'll simply have to aim at lower level mobs, one at time. I die in WoW 20 times more than I do in DAoC. Where's the god mode? If I easily win it's simply time to move on a harder target.

This is all about the grind. After you killed a mob once all the gameplay goes to hell, even in a game like WoW where you have many, many tools if you compare it to a similar game like DAoC.

So stop talking about the difficulty in a MMOG, because it really cannot exist without stirctly instanced content for a fixed number of players.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
ahoythematey
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1729


Reply #84 on: August 22, 2004, 07:09:48 AM

Hrose, how would you suggest Blizz handles player advancement in a game which is likely to become 1+ million people strong, without using a tried-and-true method of monster-slaying/questing xp gains while at the same time making it accessible to their fanbase and appealing to the uninitiated?
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #85 on: August 22, 2004, 07:34:15 AM

Quote from: ahoythematey
in a game which is likely to become 1+ million people strong,


Not gonna happen.

Bruce
ahoythematey
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1729


Reply #86 on: August 22, 2004, 07:56:42 AM

Bear in mind, bruce, that I am making a loose guess on total subscriber count during WoW's peak popularity.  Stranger things have happened than the smash-success of a potentially super game being placed by a world-reknowned developer into a rough market.
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #87 on: August 22, 2004, 08:51:45 AM

What in the world makes you think everyone who bought a Warcraft title is going to be willing to subscribe to a World of Warcraft MMOG?

As I just said in an interview for EGB, I think WoW can get 100,000 - 200,000 subscribers within the first 6 months no problem.  But I would be reluctant to predict anything beyond that.  And 1 million?  That would be more than EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot, and Star Wars: Galaxies combined.

Not gonna happen.

Bruce
ahoythematey
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1729


Reply #88 on: August 22, 2004, 06:27:07 PM

What about the korean market?  I realize if any market is suffering from a glut of MMO's it is Korea, but that country damn near lives for Blizzard games.  Please understand, I'm being entirely sincere in my inquiry, since I know for a fact you'd have more hard data on MMO statistics than I would care to research.  Just curious...
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #89 on: August 22, 2004, 08:51:13 PM

Quote
As I just said in an interview for EGB, I think WoW can get 100,000 - 200,000 subscribers within the first 6 months no problem. But I would be reluctant to predict anything beyond that.


Quote saved. We'll see in about a year. My prediction is 400k in the first six months.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58598


WWW
Reply #90 on: August 22, 2004, 09:35:15 PM

I think WoW will do incredibly well. Not because it will bring anything new to the table, or because it will actually be good. But rather, because it is a Blizzard game. Blizzard games have millions upon millions of players worldwide. They release one game at a time with a fairly reasonable amount of time in between each one (especially since Blizzard North dissolved).

WoW will bring a lot of players to the MMORPG world that aren't already completely jaded by online gaming. It will be the new Everquest. Everquest brought us all to the world of MMORPGs (well, you know what I'm saying, of course there were MU*s, but anyway...).

Do I think that WoW will be "The Game of Choice" (tm) for the current MMOG vets - No, not at all. But it will be the Game of Choice for the new generation of MMOG players.

I think all the vets will be playing Guild Wars, EQ2, and Tabula Rasa becasue they know better than to trust a team known for streamlining rather than innovation. Though, everything that is old to us will be 'New' to the Kekelaaaaaaa~ generation of MMOG gamers. I'm going to hopefully be fooling around with WoW this week, but I've been catching up on what they're doing and to all the people who are planning to preorder it, all I can say is: Enjoy babysitting n00blers, n00blers.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58598


WWW
Reply #91 on: August 22, 2004, 09:37:01 PM

Quote from: HRose
Quote
As I just said in an interview for EGB, I think WoW can get 100,000 - 200,000 subscribers within the first 6 months no problem. But I would be reluctant to predict anything beyond that.


Quote saved. We'll see in about a year. My prediction is 400k in the first six months.


If EQ2, Guild Wars, Tabula Rasa, and a few other games weren't on the horizon - I'd say double or triple that number. 400k sounds about right though given the number of Blizzard fans who will probably sign up. I know 5 of my friends who have never played an MMORPG before are salivating at the mere mention of the game. Needless to say, I don't talk to them much at the moment. It's Pavlov's MMOG.

Edit: And no reason to save the quote - neither you nor he are the once and future Master of MMOG subscription numbers.
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #92 on: August 23, 2004, 01:32:56 AM

Quote from: ahoythematey
What about the korean market?  I realize if any market is suffering from a glut of MMO's it is Korea, but that country damn near lives for Blizzard games.  Please understand, I'm being entirely sincere in my inquiry, since I know for a fact you'd have more hard data on MMO statistics than I would care to research.  Just curious...


Ahh, my mistake.  I did not realize that they were targeting simultaneous release in Korea.  However, the Korean MMOG-style is very different from NA-style.  History has shown that it is hard to produce a game that appeals well to both audiences... L2 and FF XI may be the best examples of crossover.

I wouldn't want to gamble on any predictions on how the game will be received in Korea.  400K certainly isn't impossible.  But 1 million?  Nope, it's not in the cards.

Bruce
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213


Reply #93 on: August 23, 2004, 09:58:03 AM

Quote from: HRose
So you are still fooling with the "difficulty" in a MMOG? Really? You even believe your own words?


I mostly agree that these games are about RvR rather than skill.  However, there is a skill involved in these games, and that skill is the ability to cooperate effectively, and includes logistics, cohesion, and discipline.  There should be a big difference between an extremely coordinated group of people and 5 random b.net retards mashing keys or 5 people who placed their cats on their keybords while they went to the can.

This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
personman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 380


Reply #94 on: August 23, 2004, 11:17:32 AM

Quote from: schild
WoW will bring a lot of players to the MMORPG world that aren't already completely jaded by online gaming. It will be the new Everquest. Everquest brought us all to the world of MMORPGs (well, you know what I'm saying, of course there were MU*s, but anyway...).


As was said for TSO and SWG.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58598


WWW
Reply #95 on: August 23, 2004, 12:08:23 PM

Quote from: personman
As was said for TSO and SWG.

Neither of which have even remotely near the same level of gameplaying fanbois as WoW. Blizzard has an installed base of customers who are BRAND loyal. In addition the number of people that are loyal to them outnumbers probably any other company on the market. They will eat up almost any shit Blizzard feeds them.

As for SWG, it did bring a lot of people to MMORPGs, it's why you didn't see any other MMOG drop in membership numbers near at the amount that SWG gained them. As for TSO, I know a lot of girls who played it and just found it to be an awful waste of time.
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #96 on: August 23, 2004, 02:08:41 PM

While I agree that WoW will bring some new people to the mmog genre, I just don't see it sustaining them.  Let's face it, the Diablo Monty Haul-esque nature most of these people are expecting will soon be replaced by the lack of immediate gratification that all mmog treadmills bring.  The short attention span folks will buy this title at release and quickly move back to their PS2 or Xbox lives.

I think WoW will have some solid numbers at release and perhaps grow a bit for the first 3-6 months... after that it will likely level off or decline slightly.  I'm guessing this one at the 250 - 300k subscriber mark with an outside shot at 400k.  Why?  I don't see WoW bringing anything to the table that we haven't already seen.

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
jpark
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1538


Reply #97 on: August 23, 2004, 02:38:43 PM

Quote from: Nebu
...Why?  I don't see WoW bringing anything to the table that we haven't already seen.


Improvements yes but on the side of innovation you might consider one thing:  its graphics strategy.

WoW graphics are heavy on style, masking their simplicity and low poylgon count.  That we can agree on, but consider the implications:

1.  Effort on patches can be concerned not with graphic upgrades, but improvements in game play (new quests, class adjustments, guild tools).
2.  A wider market segment of those that can meet the systems specs
3.  Resistant to becoming "dated".  WoW graphics merit is based on style (is Bugs Bunny outdated cartoon due to lack of resolution? - maybe with Pixar - but how long did that take?).
4.  Reduced lag for pvp battles and raid encounters.

EQ2 is the opposite of course - their idea of a graphics strategy - is to have graphics so demanding that systems today cannot run them with all options on.  The longevity of EQ2 graphics is tied to the same old technology cycle we are all familiar with - sooner or later technology improves these graphics will look tired.

WoW may have sidestepped the whole issue.  Not everyone will like the graphics , but for the market they attract, the future of upgrade path of this MMORPG can be focused on things other than graphics.

Think about it - 5 years from now - is the cartoon nature of the WoW graphic system going to look "dated"?
My 2 cents :)

"I think my brain just shoved its head up its own ass in retaliation.
"  HaemishM.
personman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 380


Reply #98 on: August 23, 2004, 02:48:19 PM

I'm not sure a graphics strategy as a pivotal factor really applies anymore.  The leap in graphics technology would practically demand virtual reality, when compared for example the leap of UO 1997 to EQ2.  EQ2 could replace textures for many years to come and still be an attractive competitive product.

While Blizzard technically now has have more free time for gameplay balancing it's not clear from the other competitors this is something to expect.  Nor is it clear from their own track record.  Adjusting an ongoing game is more a political/marketing challenge than an engineering one.  It probably makes more business sense to make a new product and reuse the branding.  Much as is already being done these days.
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #99 on: August 23, 2004, 04:59:28 PM

Quote from: Nebu
I don't see WoW bringing anything to the table that we haven't already seen.


1- Accessibility
2- Fun
3- Stability

If you look at the slideshow presentation of Lum about the mass market you'll see that accessibility is *everything*. And I agree. If CoH was able to get 190k I'm sure WoW will be able to triplicate that number. And without involving the Korean market.

There isn't a single game out there that even comes near to the accessibility of WoW.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 30338

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #100 on: August 23, 2004, 05:00:04 PM

Quote
Everquest brought us all to the world of MMORPGs

Actually, it was UO for me.
Quote
Let's face it, the Diablo Monty Haul-esque nature most of these people are expecting will soon be replaced by the lack of immediate gratification that all mmog treadmills bring. The short attention span folks will buy this title at release and quickly move back to their PS2 or Xbox lives.

And those monty-haulesque games they love so much were free to play online ad nauseum. As I found when trying to recruit members of my bf1942 clan to go play Planetside, the transition from free to monthly fee can be a nigh insurmountable problem.

HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #101 on: August 23, 2004, 05:08:53 PM

Quote from: personman
EQ2 could replace textures for many years to come and still be an attractive competitive product.

Quoting Haemish:

Quote
Everything looks like it shambled out of a fucking wax museum.

If your 3d artists are mediocre, as these guys are, if they cannot imbue the art with a sense of style, the models will be bland suckage. Numbers (i.e. math and high-level abstract technical shit) is not pretty.

In my opinion there's no match between EQ2 or WoW.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #102 on: August 23, 2004, 05:14:59 PM

Quote from: HRose

1- Accessibility
2- Fun
3- Stability

If you look at the slideshow presentation of Lum about the mass market you'll see that accessibility is *everything*. And I agree. If CoH was able to get 190k I'm sure WoW will be able to triplicate that number. And without involving the Korean market.

There isn't a single game out there that even comes near to the accessibility of WoW.


1. Accessibility will bring users if and only if it's coupled to appeal.  I have tried/played just about every mmog released since UO and I have almost no desire to play WoW.  I'm willing to bet that there are others that feel this way. When I stated that it didn't bring anything new to the table, I meant in terms of gameplay elements.  Been there, done that... I see no reason to endure the Blizzard fan base while attempting to play another game carved from the typical mmog mold.  CoH had a mission/task/quest driven system and it still felt like the usual whack_a_mole treadmill.  I lasted a month in CoH and I consider it to be the finest mmog combat system out there.

Second topic: If I can't afford to upgrade my computer, can I afford a monthly sub fee? I'm not sure what Blizzard plans on their subscription fee, but I'm certain that it will be a barrier for many (as Sky pointed out).  

2. Fun - Subjective.  No point in arguing this one.

3. Stability.  Unproven.  They have the tools in place that demonstrate stability, but we'll have to wait until release to see how they do.  I'll admit that they'll likely have a flawless release, but until we see it, it's all conjecture.

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213


Reply #103 on: August 23, 2004, 05:30:13 PM

One of WoWs biggest advantages is that EQ is finally on it's long awaited death spiral, with WoW being best situated to take advantage.  I have never seen any other MMOG garner the attention that WoW is getting on the various EQ boards.  Not even close.

This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58598


WWW
Reply #104 on: August 23, 2004, 05:58:03 PM

Quote from: HRose
In my opinion there's no match between EQ2 or WoW.


You're absolutely right. I guess I'll be seeing you in EQ2.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  World of Warcraft  |  Topic: WoW Patch... Fanboys Heads Explode  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC