Hi,
What would be the average _minimum_ time investment to play the game?
That varies a lot. It is entirely possible to hop on the server for as little as half an hour and get some enjoyment out of it. There are some things that require a few hours of uninterrupted play. You could skip those, but then you'd be missing out on some of the better parts of the game.
Are, for example, 2 hours per day enough to justify the costs for the game?
This is an even harder question. Partially it depends on the cost of the game which, AFAIK, has not been announced. Partially it depends on how much enjoyment you get out of it. And, or course, a lot of it depends on how complete the game is when it ships. But overall, I'd say a strong "probably, yes".
What is your overall impression of the game so far?
Confused :) Even at the low settings I play at, it is a beautiful game. It spite of its many flaws, it is an addictive game. And I would have to admit that it is often quite a bit of fun. Of course, it is in beta and thus incomplete. So there is the perennial hope that many of the arghs will be fixed before it ships. There's already a lot of "good" in it. OTOH, there's a lot of bad, and some of it will probably stay. However enumerating it would only bring out the supporters and lead to another pointless argument.
The one thing that all can probably agree with is that there will be no true innovation. There will be no more (or less) reason to play WoW than there is to play any of the other MMOG out there. So the first question is whether you want to play any MMOG at all, and only if that answer is "yes" does the consideration of WoW over the others come into play. There are a few free trials, etc., and each person will have to answer both of these questions for him/herself. And a lot will depend, as always, on where your friends go.
I know that it is quite different from an action RPG like Diablo II, . . .
Actually, no. It is very very similar to D2. With just some name and graphics changes it could just as easily have been WoD. If Buzzard had been the main company and Blizzard the subsidiary, it probably would have been. And the backstory might even have been better. But, ultimately:
1) You pick a character. The selection is a little bit broader than in D2, but if you extrapolate the D1 to D2 progression, WoW has about the right number of classes. It adds races, but so would a WoD have done.
2) You go out and kill things, sometimes as part of a "quest" to get gear, money, and experience. While there are a lot more of them and the world is a lot bigger, most of the WoW quests are just as banal as the D2 quests.
3) You build up your character by tweaking with his/her attributes and selecting new gear. OK, we have the concepts of "training" which weren't in D2 and of trade skills (of which cube recipes were sort of an inkling).
4) Mostly the game consist of killing monsters so that you can get more powerful so that you can go to new areas so that you can kill more monsters. Sound familiar?
. . . but are its concepts similarly interesting and appealing?
"Concepts"? The only "concepts" are artistic. It is a "bubble gum" game, pure and simple. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing bad about a bubble gum game as long as it is done well and is fun. Most of the games most gamers play are bubble gum games. And Blizzard is the champion par excellence of bubble gum games. But if you are looking for anything deeper, such as a tactical or strategic challenge, or a chance to apply your intellect, don't look here. Blizzard does not take itself seriously (look at the out of context in game jokes), so don't make the mistake of taking *them* seriously.
Much like sausage, WoW can best be enjoyed if you don't think about it too much :)
--Pete
What would be the average _minimum_ time investment to play the game?
That varies a lot. It is entirely possible to hop on the server for as little as half an hour and get some enjoyment out of it. There are some things that require a few hours of uninterrupted play. You could skip those, but then you'd be missing out on some of the better parts of the game.
Are, for example, 2 hours per day enough to justify the costs for the game?
This is an even harder question. Partially it depends on the cost of the game which, AFAIK, has not been announced. Partially it depends on how much enjoyment you get out of it. And, or course, a lot of it depends on how complete the game is when it ships. But overall, I'd say a strong "probably, yes".
What is your overall impression of the game so far?
Confused :) Even at the low settings I play at, it is a beautiful game. It spite of its many flaws, it is an addictive game. And I would have to admit that it is often quite a bit of fun. Of course, it is in beta and thus incomplete. So there is the perennial hope that many of the arghs will be fixed before it ships. There's already a lot of "good" in it. OTOH, there's a lot of bad, and some of it will probably stay. However enumerating it would only bring out the supporters and lead to another pointless argument.
The one thing that all can probably agree with is that there will be no true innovation. There will be no more (or less) reason to play WoW than there is to play any of the other MMOG out there. So the first question is whether you want to play any MMOG at all, and only if that answer is "yes" does the consideration of WoW over the others come into play. There are a few free trials, etc., and each person will have to answer both of these questions for him/herself. And a lot will depend, as always, on where your friends go.
I know that it is quite different from an action RPG like Diablo II, . . .
Actually, no. It is very very similar to D2. With just some name and graphics changes it could just as easily have been WoD. If Buzzard had been the main company and Blizzard the subsidiary, it probably would have been. And the backstory might even have been better. But, ultimately:
1) You pick a character. The selection is a little bit broader than in D2, but if you extrapolate the D1 to D2 progression, WoW has about the right number of classes. It adds races, but so would a WoD have done.
2) You go out and kill things, sometimes as part of a "quest" to get gear, money, and experience. While there are a lot more of them and the world is a lot bigger, most of the WoW quests are just as banal as the D2 quests.
3) You build up your character by tweaking with his/her attributes and selecting new gear. OK, we have the concepts of "training" which weren't in D2 and of trade skills (of which cube recipes were sort of an inkling).
4) Mostly the game consist of killing monsters so that you can get more powerful so that you can go to new areas so that you can kill more monsters. Sound familiar?
. . . but are its concepts similarly interesting and appealing?
"Concepts"? The only "concepts" are artistic. It is a "bubble gum" game, pure and simple. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing bad about a bubble gum game as long as it is done well and is fun. Most of the games most gamers play are bubble gum games. And Blizzard is the champion par excellence of bubble gum games. But if you are looking for anything deeper, such as a tactical or strategic challenge, or a chance to apply your intellect, don't look here. Blizzard does not take itself seriously (look at the out of context in game jokes), so don't make the mistake of taking *them* seriously.
Much like sausage, WoW can best be enjoyed if you don't think about it too much :)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?