World of Warcraft

[Assur]

Hi everyone

I've got to go with Drasca on that one, nobody has seen the real game or even played the beta, so nobody knows how the real game will be :o

On the other hand Blizz does have a record of making good games (Warcraft, Starcraft, DI, DII), so I am hoping!

@ Nobbie loved your MF-guide, but consider this, even if the game costs $ 240 a year (your first posting?), so what, I spend a lot more money in pubs, if I play WoW, I will save money and do something for my health!

Im Prinzip ist es ein Streit um des Kaisers Bart.

good hunting

[Cryptic]

It saddens me that not a single person in this thread has been able to look at the game’s features, graphics, and atmosphere in a positive matter. Everyone has focused on either ( a ) the price, ( b ) the negative differences between WoW and D2, or ( c ) arguing with those who dare to have opposing viewpoints. That’s unfortunate, especially looking back at the optimism of the post that originated this thread.

MMORPGs are not for everyone. I, personally, came into computer games from a role-playing background. Spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a worthy game has never been out of the question for me – when you break down the hours of fun I’ve had playing, say, Call of Cthulhu with friends, divided by the dollars paid, then experiences such as D2 pale in comparison. Sure, I only paid $70 or so for D2+LoD, but I’ve had priceless interactions with friends in CoC that will stay with me forever. I personally can’t say the same for D2. You have to consider not only the price vs. time issue, but also the *quality* of the experience itself.

MMORPGs are full of power gamers, just like any other game. But the mindset that is most fully rewarded by the MMORPG experience is quite unlike anything catered to by the other game genres. If you can’t understand the pleasure of wandering out into the wilderness, sitting on a virtual mountaintop alone, and watching the sun rise; or, if the idea of losing yourself in an alternate social and cultural realm of wonder doesn’t intrigue you; or if you don’t understand the appeal of immersing yourself in an alternate persona, a true, emoting character, instead of just crunching Paladin block percentages, then these games are not for you. And if you’re fixated on either ( a ), ( b ), or ( c ) above, then this game was not made for you either. Walk on by, find something more to your liking. But why make a point of ruining the experience for those who find it enjoyable?

The primary satisfaction to be found in a quality MMORPG is this: It is an elaborate, living, and evolving construct, filled with real, thinking and feeling people, a world created to provide you with the most immersive and satisfyingly unreal experience possible. Are any of these games perfect? No. But they all become much better over time.

To be cynical for a moment: Subscribers gain better customer service than the players of other games. If you stop playing D2 on Battle.net, what does Blizzard lose? Absolutely nothing. You already bought the game. If you leave B-net, all you’re doing is freeing up bandwidth. But if you’re a paying monthly subscriber? If they lose you, they lose money. Even if you don’t trust Blizzard’s passion for making quality games (which they’ve proven for years now), then you can still see that they have a vested interest in making their WoW players happy. The game experience will be rocky at first (MMORPG launches always are), but it will vastly improve with time, and you can always look forward to added content. The 1.10 waiting experience, for example, will have no parallel in WoW. Expect to be catered to. Expect to be listened to. If you adamantly don’t have any faith in that, then WoW is only strengthened by your absence.

I must say that I am sincerely looking forward to meeting some of you in the virtual world of WoW. But to all of you who refuse to give it a chance, due to the vehemence of your preconceptions … I must say that I am sincerely looking forward to *not* seeing you there, too.

[kandrathe]

I must say that I am sincerely looking forward to meeting some of you in the virtual world of WoW. But to all of you who refuse to give it a chance, due to the vehemence of your preconceptions … I must say that I am sincerely looking forward to *not* seeing you there, too.

A monthly fee is not a preconceived notion. It sounds like a fact to me.

Simply put, I don't pay for what I can get for free. When I do pay for a computer gaming experience I prefer to pay once. I spent $30 for DII and another $30 for LOD, and it gained me thousands of hours of entertainment. If I had to pay $10 per month for battle.net I wouldn't have played it online. If the game had been structure such that you must play it online, then I would not have bought it. I would rather invite a friend over to my house and play a LAN based game, or some head to head action game on my console, or play a single player game alone, or go see a good movie. Lots of options for entertainment which don't involve P2P.

That is me. But you might like to pay to play, that is your deal. In fact, I would rather devote my talents to creating a free MMORPG and drive all the P2P environments under. But, again, that is just me. From my experience with the gaming world, nothing mucks up a great (or potentially great) game like corporate greed.

Edit: Speaking of corporate greed reminds me of Micro$oft's acquisition. I was keeping track on the unrest within the Asherons Call community about 6 months back. Haven't heard much about that MMORPG lately. Anyone still play it?

[whyBish]

Do you think that any company will continue to support a MMORPG after the bubble has burst when the number of active clients has dropped to a few hundred?

And that interestingly leads me back to the international viewpoint. Some areas will not be financially viable to place servers in.

Like I said, I doubt I would ever play a P2P MMORPG, but if I hear good things about WoW after it has been released then I will take the time to make an <emp>investment decision</emp>.

[Guest]

And Im not saying you should.

But if you do play it you you realize that massivly multiplayer aspect is what makes it so popular.

The game is half a a giant PvP war half a mosterkilling/crafting game. Its about playing with and fighting other people - lots and lots of people.

None of the example you mentioned capture the feel of being part of DAOCs realms at all.

[Guest]

Both DAOC and Planetside are a persistant war. In fact Planetside is nothing but a war with no NPCs at all.

[Selby]

Howso?&nbsp; The heart of the issue is this: is there something fundamental about MMORPGs that could merit the extra expense over an equally good game that lacks the same element because it is not pay-for-play?

It depends on your point of view. MMORPGs have character development (if you call powerleveling character development) and dynamic content updates that most single\multi player environments do not have. D2 & Blizzard are the few exceptions with releases like the 1.10 patch changing game dynamics. Most companies just tweak bugs and then move on with their single with multi player games. The social aspects of a world that changes over time on a server that is owned by the company is not something that is easily duplicated. Another way to look at it is that the company is being paid to host the server that you play on and store the data so that nothing can happen to it. You can say that FPS games are free so MMORPGs should be too. Well, character development is absent in FPS games and all you need there is a box to route connections as opposed to a server package designed to host a world, character data, and NPC data.

As a jaded gamer who doesn't like MMORPGs because of other people, it makes me sad to see the potential such a genre has to only be ruined by other people.

As for the servers shutting down and you having a worthless product, if enough people liked the game chances are they put together an emulator package for it. Quite a few for the various MMORPGs exist out there. Not the same thing as a company server, but the players will find a way if they want the game badly enough.

It comes down to a simple decision of is playing the game fun enough to warrant paying the $9.95 a month? For some people it obviously is. MMOG players are saying "why would I play Diablo? It's just a point and click exercise" while you guys are saying "Why would I pay to play something I can play for free?" Different strokes for different folks and all that.

[Bolty]

nobody has seen the real game or even played the beta

Untrue :)

-Bolty

[Occhidiangela]

:P

[Bun-Bun]

Edit: Speaking of corporate greed reminds me of Micro$oft's acquisition. I was keeping track on the unrest within the Asherons Call community about 6 months back. Haven't heard much about that MMORPG lately. Anyone still play it?

I think it's been spun off or repurchased by its creators. AC2 is definitely dead. I wouldn't hold out much hope for AC. OTOH, a couple of my Monday night gaming crew are still into it a bit, although SW:G has taken over much of their time. For that matter, SW:G has grabbed _four_ of that group, although two work as SW:G developers at Sony, so I'm not sure it's entirely voluntary. :)

For me, though, I'm reluctant to buy into a MMORPG. The ones where I know folks are all PC-only, making my cost of entry prohibitive (4 Macs in the house, no PCs). If Bilzzard does a Mac WoW client or the next rev of Virtual PC supports 3D hardware, I may give it a try.

[Bolty]

Who said anything about ME?

-Bolty

[Occhidiangela]

Oops! :o

[Nystul]

MMORPGs have character development (if you call powerleveling character development) and dynamic content updates that most single\multi player environments do not have.

I hate to have to use NWN as my example for everything, especially since it is a game with some serious drawbacks of its own, but Bioware has developed and offered lots of free content for their own game. New modules, new monster types, new tilesets, etc. I would say much more and much earlier than what Blizzard did with D2. The goal there is not infinite character development, because Bioware isn't about that, but it certainly could have been.

Another way to look at it is that the company is being paid to host the server that you play on and store the data so that nothing can happen to it.

That's a valid arguement. I think this is possible to do on a private server, but you need some method to keep the raw amount of character data under control. That means a potentially severe limit on the total number of characters. If we could get away with storing data on the client-side without idiots cheating all the time, private servers could have a lot more flexibility.

You can say that FPS games are free so MMORPGs should be too. Well, character development is absent in FPS games and all you need there is a box to route connections as opposed to a server package designed to host a world, character data, and NPC data.

FPS games have all of these data types on a small, short-term scale while allowing a fairly large amount of players. Neverwinter Nights allows all of these things server-side long term. What I'm not sure about is what kind of scale would be practical in such a model. I think this is an idea which has a lot of untapped potential, which is obviously similar to the way you feel about MMORPGs.

As a jaded gamer who doesn't like MMORPGs because of other people, it makes me sad to see the potential such a genre has to only be ruined by other people.


A double-edged sword any time you make games that are reliant upon the interaction of large numbers of people. Even if you make a lame dude play by the rules, but he's still a lame dude.

As for the servers shutting down and you having a worthless product, if enough people liked the game chances are they put together an emulator package for it. Quite a few for the various MMORPGs exist out there. Not the same thing as a company server, but the players will find a way if they want the game badly enough.

This paragraph is actually very supportive of my point. By emulating the server, they are effectively hacking the MMORPG into a Quake-model game. For the people who continue playing the game on those servers, the benefits of the corporate server are not entirely essential to why they enjoy the game. This also contradicts your earlier paragraph about FPS vs. MMORPG, because if people are emulating MMORPG servers on a smaller scale when the game isn't even designed that way, then clearly it would also be possible to develop a game specifically on that model. The difference being that if the game was developed on that model, it would have the advantages of scripting tools and much better scalability on the low end, while lacking the amount of direct support that the company could offer over the long haul if they were getting a monthly fee.

[Nystul]

Significantly more than 100 players directly affecting you at any given time? I can't even imagine that, but it doesn't sound very appealing.

[gekko]

Significantly more than 100 players directly affecting you at any given time?&nbsp; I can't even imagine that, but it doesn't sound very appealing.

And yet, that's the exact thing that makes MMORPG's appealing to so many people. Think about it: why can 10 or 20 play one of those FPS games in the same map, over and over, without getting bored? Because every single game, something different can and will happen. That simple sounding fact is something no computer AI can yet promise.

The theory behind MMORPG's makes me salivate. Imagine a secure portion of the WoW server where only members of the LL could enter. Imagine having this conversation with fellow lurkers while sitting in a tavern sipping ale. Imagine gathering a group of adventurers from that save tavern and venturing out to do battle with a group of enemies in a far off castle who thought independently, communicated, and trained together.

Of course, the reality is much different. As with any online game community, the vast majority of players always seem to be juvenilles of any age who not only refuse to work for the common good -- they will actively do whatever is in their power to make every other player's life miserable while online. Only in small communities can online play be truly enjoyable (to me, at least). Of course, "small" is a very relative term. Personally, I would consider the Amazon Basin a fair sized community. However, by definition, an MMORPG requires more than just a "fair sized" community. It requires hundreds, if not thousands, of players online basically constantly.

Personally, I will not purchase WoW with a pay-to-play structure for two reasons: first, I would have no idea whether or not I would enjoy the game long-term. I prefer to wait until a game has been played and over-played before jumping in. As a side note to that reason, there is also no guarantee on the longevity of the game or its server. I'd hate to see my hard spent money and time be deleted when a company decides it's no longer profitable (admitadely, I wouldn't fear that so much where blizzard is concerned, given the life-time of the free servers for Diablo and WarCraft).

Secondly, well, I just don't trust blizzard anymore. I still pull out D2 and play for a bit, but I simply can't justify laying down $70 plus a montly fee (I'm in canada, and on a mac, which 'hikes' the rates) for a game that I MUST play on one of blizzard's servers. Given their track record for hacks and dupes alone... *shrugs*

To each his own. Blizzard CAN design really excellent games. IF they go back to their roots and away from the junk-food model of D2's current incarnation (unlikely, as it has already been pointed out the MMORPG model blatantly pursues the junk-food ideas as its only apparent goal), WoW will be a stunning game.

To me, that's a big if. Too big.

gekko

edit: minor spelling, grammer, and clarity nitpicks

[Assur]

Untrue&nbsp; :)

-Bolty

Upps, sorry.

I humbly abase myself, O great one!

[Quark]

http://www.computergaming.com/article2/0,4...,1270731,00.asp

[Drasca]

Untrue&nbsp; :)

-Bolty

Wouldn't it be an Alpha for in house testing without QA seperate testers? a la the beta faq?

So no beta as of yet technically. Beta is still a red herring though. Beta is not the final product in a MMORPG... in fact there is no "final product" per se with (presumably) content updates, as well as balance, interface and other changes. As the presented product at any given time changes, Beta becomes nearly irrelevant.

And yes, Blizzard games with different versions that play drastically different dohave a final product. You may at any time choose to downgrade to prior versions. That isn't possible with the Blizzard only servers. Most recent update or bust.

[Guest]

At least in DAOC. Most players are collage age or older, but there are younger players around.

And in the case of regular server their is almost no greifing. Their are wars zones, but everyone who enters them them knows it and you can play the whole to max level with out going in.

I think by far the most notable feature of DAOC is cooperation.



BTW: Im not trying to say DAOC is a perfect game, it has huge flaws in some aspects. But i think many of you are imagining a far different game than actually exists.

[Telveck]

I am going to get this game for a single reason. And I will play it until the Devs (Admins) whatever you want to call them make me change it.

Reason - I want to have a Undead Thief named... get this...

Boner McHappypants =D

When the Admins/Devs make me change it, i'll quit the game and give my account to a friend. Who will pay me back for all the money I spent on it, like he always does =P

So no loss for me.