Post by: Smash_Brother on July 24, 2006, 08:06:47 AM
I was all set on never playing WoW ever again, but with this new development, I'm tempted.
I always played a shadow priest as my main, and shadow priests are excellent against paladins. However, I play Alliance so I never got to use my abilities to crush paladins by the pile.
Now that the horde will have them, it means there will be tons of ripe targets for PvP and the only thing I enjoyed about WoW was the PvP...
It's a race between Nintendo and Blizzard. If the Wii launches first, I'll invest heavily in that and likely be more than entertained enough to not switch to WoW.
If the expansion launches first, I'll likely fall victim to that and level my Draenei shaman while enjoying toying with the hapless paladins of the horde.
Dammit, Blizzard...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on July 24, 2006, 08:11:53 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 24, 2006, 08:13:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
Now if only Blizzard would start making games(WoW, WarCraft, Starcraft, etc etc.)for Nintendo Wii then they will both get your money and all of you would be happy.
Oh god...don't scare me like that...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on July 24, 2006, 08:26:08 AM
If they make it(WoW) interactive with the PC(& 360*) version that would be nice too.
*there is neither a Wii or 360 version of the game, I only mentioned it because I figured they might want the largest userbase possible if they decided to make it for the consoles. LIVE and WC24 might not be all that different when all is said and done.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 24, 2006, 09:02:34 AM
I literally had 40+ keys which all performed important functions mid-game when I played it so there was no way I could have gone without a keyboard.
For this reason, pitting someone on a keyboard against a controller player would be cruel.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on July 24, 2006, 09:14:44 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 24, 2006, 09:18:43 AM
WoW for the 360 would likewise need to be redesigned from the ground up in order for the UI in WoW to work to any extent.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on July 24, 2006, 09:26:02 AM
Post by: Ceric on July 24, 2006, 09:41:22 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 24, 2006, 10:01:01 AM
Post by: Ceric on July 24, 2006, 10:04:41 AM
Post by: mantidor on July 24, 2006, 11:49:39 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 25, 2006, 07:58:49 AM
In some cases, this fee is worth it, especially when there are hired GMs in the games which make massive world events happen, interact with players, keep the story pushing forward, etc.
In WoW's case, it really ISN'T worth it because they don't have any of the aforementioned, meaning that the world is static and unchanging.
The PvP was insanely fun which is the only reason I'd consider going back, period.
The bad news? I found out that the WoW expansion comes out on Oct 3rd.
Hurry Nintendo, hurry! I don't NEED the Wii, but I need some killer DS apps to keep me occupied until it comes out...
Post by: SixthAngel on July 26, 2006, 06:46:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
I still believe theres no game good enough that you have to pay monthly fees to play it, not even Zelda, not even Metroid.
Thats the reason I have never played any mmorpgs. Once I spend 50 bucks for a game I don't want to have reach back into my wallet again to enjoy the purchase. It costs over a hundred dollars a year for most of these games and this money could be going to companies making quality games that I can fully enjoy after purchase.
Post by: Kairon on July 27, 2006, 02:30:49 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 28, 2006, 11:16:31 AM
Maybe that Gamestop employee was BSing me because he said Oct. 3rd., but the site itself says Nov 28th.
I firmly believe that the Wii will have launched by then.
Also, in response to criticism of paying for online games, you're paying for the continued development of the game.
Imagine a fantasy game world so real and immersive that it truly ropes the gamer in (I'm not talking about WoW), a world where the playerbase is constantly threatened by attack from monsters (and I mean the monsters organize and attack the town for REAL, not just stand around waiting for players to come kill them) and powerful villains who actually scheme against the players, forcing them to band together for safety and survival.
The world has villains who rise and fall, all of them playing out various story arcs, conspiring against players, leaving behind clues to their origin leading to immense puzzles which players must solve in order to defeat them. The players themselves might actually find themselves conversing with these villains or other characters controlled by human GMs.
In addition, they continue developing, adding new areas, monsters, items, story, etc. to the game
In these situations, the monthly fee is well worth it and is generally a bargain: $100 a year is NOTHING compared to what I spend on games every year, games which, while good, typically only last me 10-15 hours and I spend $50 a pop on these. When you pay for an online game, you're paying for the labor which goes into the continued development of the game and the game world to keep it fresh and interesting.
In some cases this fee is worth it. In others, it is not. Games like the one I described are a rarity: I've only ever found one like it and it was a very old 2D game which lacked the player base to make it fun, but if I ever find another like it, I'll probably play it for years.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 28, 2006, 02:36:16 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 28, 2006, 07:03:52 PM
That sounds like it might be right up my alley, so long as it can avoid the pitfalls of previous MMOs.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 28, 2006, 08:47:29 PM
Aka expansion packs.
In these situations, the monthly fee is well worth it and is generally a bargain: $100 a year is NOTHING compared to what I spend on games every year, games which, while good, typically only last me 10-15 hours and I spend $50 a pop on these.
I wouldn't pay one cent a month for 100 hours of MMO gameplay, in fact I'd probably insist on being paid an hourly wage for it. Comparing the price of an MMO to the price of a regular game is stupid since both games have comparable amounts of content but the MMO insists that you spend days grinding before you can see the next bit of content.
Smash, the term you're looking for is a 'sandbox MMORPG'.
Or MUD.
They have Raph Koster [..] in high positions
Okay, that game's a write-off then. Koster is the guy who formed (if we don't count Pavlov) the theories how to mximize the addictive potential of a game which IIRC involves keeping fun at a minimum (since using a bit of fun as the reward for hours of tedious grinding is the way to keep people addicted).
Post by: Shecky on July 29, 2006, 04:58:32 AM
Last I checked with WoW, those incremental content updates were things meant for the original release. So basically you were paying them as they _finished_ the game. The expansion due out soon won't be free... so then were you paying them to work on the expansion, only to have to buy that? The monthly cost is, if anything, for the horsepower and network connections needed for the centralized structure of these games. Even then, these games are engineered to minimize these costs to the company.
I've enjoyed the game GuildWars, as I was able to play for roughly 40 hrs, and feel like I progressed the whole time (lvl 14/20). Even though I played WoW for 4 months or so, I only got to see a handful of areas in likely triple or more of that time (and didn't even get to an equivalent lvl 42/60). I haven't played either game in over a month now. If I want to go back and play WoW for a few days I would need to reactivate, vs just loading GuildWars and off I go... I'll take option two, thanks.
Time is valuable; grinding wastes my time.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 29, 2006, 05:46:23 AM
Quote
Okay, that game's a write-off then. Koster is the guy who formed (if we don't count Pavlov) the theories how to mximize the addictive potential of a game which IIRC involves keeping fun at a minimum (since using a bit of fun as the reward for hours of tedious grinding is the way to keep people addicted).
Funny you say that, since #3 of his The Commandments of Online Worlds says this:
Quote
Thou shalt not remove fun or implement unfun for the sake of longer subscriber longevity, nor shalt thou consider thy sort of fun to be the only sort of fun to be had, for many and mysterious are the ways of enjoyment.
Yes, grinding sucks. But part of the problem can be game design. Pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies wasn't much of a grind-fest because you were trying to grind a good temp, not trying to reach level 90 ASAP. And to be honest, I like grinding more then getting most of my XP from quests. If I want to do quests, I'll boot up Oblivion.
Post by: Ceric on July 29, 2006, 06:47:01 AM
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 29, 2006, 07:20:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
MMORPGs are only good if you have people you want to play with and can always play with. I have a hard time making freinds online. Especially MMORPGS. I personally would rather have a Regular RPG where the whole story is focused around me and the progression is focused around me. All is designed to be fun or thoughtful. There is no filling in the gaps with real people. It's not crowded or to sparse. Tangible rewards. None epic advancement. When it takes me like 100 times making something to go to level 1 of crafting in a 100 level system yeah... Thats to much. No finding a party. No idiots. Personally I liked how PSO did it. Though I personally wouldn't mind a co-op RPG. You could have a totally different save you could play with a friend online. Be able to combine and split the party to get more done. Massive != better.
Agreed. The reason I play no MMORPGs is that the current ones are little more then single-player RPGs with other people in it.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 29, 2006, 07:27:57 AM
PSO still had a lot of grind. You practically have to do all quests to level enough to progress and that usually means 10-20 runs through each area.
Post by: Ceric on July 29, 2006, 07:31:02 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 29, 2006, 10:45:09 AM
Post by: Ceric on July 29, 2006, 11:18:41 AM
The sad thing is my copy went missing about a year ago.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 29, 2006, 08:56:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k I wouldn't pay one cent a month for 100 hours of MMO gameplay, in fact I'd probably insist on being paid an hourly wage for it. Comparing the price of an MMO to the price of a regular game is stupid since both games have comparable amounts of content but the MMO insists that you spend days grinding before you can see the next bit of content.
That's nice. Convince the 100 million people worldwide who continue to patronize games like this and maybe we'll get somewhere.
And like I said, I ain't talking about WoW.
Quote
I've enjoyed the game GuildWars, as I was able to play for roughly 40 hrs, and feel like I progressed the whole time (lvl 14/20). Even though I played WoW for 4 months or so, I only got to see a handful of areas in likely triple or more of that time (and didn't even get to an equivalent lvl 42/60). I haven't played either game in over a month now. If I want to go back and play WoW for a few days I would need to reactivate, vs just loading GuildWars and off I go... I'll take option two, thanks.
You can hit max level in WoW in 2 weeks, 1 if you're hardcore.
The point of WoW wasn't grinding, it was PvP.
And the point is cost: Say you buy 1 full priced game per month at $50 (a low estimate for your average gamer), that's $600 per year.
The price of an MMO at $50 for the game and $15 per month is $230 the first year and $180 yearly after that. If that MMO occupies the person to the point that they buy no other games, who cares? They're saving $370 a year on entertainment costs. If they're content with it, more power to them.
For the record, I want MMOs which have more player interaction by necessity and little to no grinding, but with so many people patronizing WoW, we likely won't see a massive commercial product which is anything too different from it.
Post by: Kairon on July 30, 2006, 12:31:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
For the record, I want MMOs which have more player interaction by necessity and little to no grinding, but with so many people patronizing WoW, we likely won't see a massive commercial product which is anything too different from it.
I'm of the opposite opinion. The immense juggernaut success of WoW must certainly mean that any future MMORPGs need to distinguish themselves and carve out new gameplay hooks and experiences in order to avoid being lost in the immense shadow that WoW casts.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Shecky on July 30, 2006, 04:02:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
You can hit max level in WoW in 2 weeks, 1 if you're hardcore.
Well the set of data points that I have show any normal person taking roughly 30 DAYS of straight play time to reach lvl60. I could believe 2 weeks of straight play. I would need to see a screen with a lvl60 character and the /played command to believe something less
And to be fair, if you wanted to power level in GuildWars, I'm sure it's much shorter by comparison.Quote
The point of WoW wasn't grinding, it was PvP.
Fair enough, but one problem with WoW is that in order to be relatively usefull in PVP, you need to be a higher level (hence you would need to grind)
Post by: Shecky on July 30, 2006, 04:15:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I'm of the opposite opinion. The immense juggernaut success of WoW must certainly mean that any future MMORPGs need to distinguish themselves and carve out new gameplay hooks and experiences in order to avoid being lost in the immense shadow that WoW casts.
Heh, more like most companies will think that they can one up WoW and that consumers have no problems shelling out $15/mo for their version/clone. I really wish people would push back more on this cost/month model. Companies are seeing the dollar signs and before we know it, solitare will be have a montly charge. (Ditto that argument for micropayments)
Post by: Ceric on July 30, 2006, 04:45:18 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 30, 2006, 09:19:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon I'm of the opposite opinion. The immense juggernaut success of WoW must certainly mean that any future MMORPGs need to distinguish themselves and carve out new gameplay hooks and experiences in order to avoid being lost in the immense shadow that WoW casts.
Warhammer Online sounds like a WoW clone, as does LOTR Online.
These companies see that Blizzard had a runaway success with WoW and would like nothing more than to take some of that pie via one upping bliz slightly.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 30, 2006, 09:29:13 AM
Post by: Kairon on July 30, 2006, 09:32:55 AM
Or maybe I'm giving today's consumers too much credit. *sigh*
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on July 30, 2006, 09:34:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
Companies are seeing the dollar signs
Interestingly enough, there has been a spate of MMORPG cancellations recently, as well as big failures. WoW is actually doing a lot to kill off other MMORPGs even before they come out!
Not to mention that MMORPGs are just impossibly expensive to develop, those dollar signs are looking more and more difficult to get.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 30, 2006, 11:46:32 AM
Post by: Kairon on July 30, 2006, 07:17:50 PM
As SWG descends into the sarlaac pit, will anyone else dare face Luke SkyWoWker on his own terms?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
BTW: I heard SWG sucked to begin with. *shrug*
Post by: KDR_11k on July 30, 2006, 08:41:09 PM
Because you've seen everything in WoW already while you cannot say the same about W:AoR? I've heard of many people cancelling their accounts in WoW because they got bored with it and moved on to something else.
Interestingly enough, there has been a spate of MMORPG cancellations recently, as well as big failures. WoW is actually doing a lot to kill off other MMORPGs even before they come out!
You make it sound like that's an uncommon situation in the MMO market.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 31, 2006, 06:06:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah, but SWG was already sinking fast, so they had nothing to lose. Well, actually, they do: their current tiny userbase as well.
As SWG descends into the sarlaac pit, will anyone else dare face Luke SkyWoWker on his own terms?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
BTW: I heard SWG sucked to begin with. *shrug*
SWG is and always was buggy mess, and if it had been an Everquest clone in the beginning, it would have died long ago. What kept it afloat was the sandbox style. With that gone thanks to the NGE, allmost all the playerbase is long gone and the game's sinking faster then Luke's X-Wing when it was stuck in the swamp, and there's no Yoda to pull it out.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 31, 2006, 12:03:46 PM
WoW is hard to leave when you're playing it with others but alone it's easy to kick: if you don't have RL friends to play and PvP with, there's typically no point.
Post by: Kairon on July 31, 2006, 02:53:37 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Shecky on July 31, 2006, 06:29:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
WoW is hard to leave when you're playing it with others but alone it's easy to kick: if you don't have RL friends to play and PvP with, there's typically no point.
RL friends? Really Lame? Friends don't let friends MMOG... (Seriously at a loss for what RL is...)
Post by: SixthAngel on July 31, 2006, 06:36:18 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 31, 2006, 06:46:42 PM
I'm the one who got them addicted (kinda) but I've since stopped playing the game.
Post by: ReverendNoahWhateley on August 03, 2006, 03:42:23 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on August 04, 2006, 05:27:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ReverendNoahWhateley
Honestly, take your average WarCraft Orc and pair him alongside a Warhammer Orc, and tell me which one rocks harder.
The one with longer hair for improved head-bangability.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on August 04, 2006, 05:37:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ReverendNoahWhateley
Honestly, take your average WarCraft Orc and pair him alongside a Warhammer Orc, and tell me which one rocks harder.
Warhammer Orcs, 'cus we was born for fightin'! We smash dem 'Umies an' dose Stunties, an dem Elf-boyz goes squish real good! Dem Warcraft Orcs be a bunch of grot-loving nobz, an we'd smash dem good!
Post by: ReverendNoahWhateley on August 10, 2006, 06:00:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_StabbalotQuote
Originally posted by: ReverendNoahWhateley
Honestly, take your average WarCraft Orc and pair him alongside a Warhammer Orc, and tell me which one rocks harder.
Warhammer Orcs, 'cus we was born for fightin'! We smash dem 'Umies an' dose Stunties, an dem Elf-boyz goes squish real good! Dem Warcraft Orcs be a bunch of grot-loving nobz, an we'd smash dem good!
My favorite quote from Dawn of War comes from the Ork Warboss.
"Ah'm da biggest, so's AH'M da BOSS!"
Fo' real do', Orcs in WarCraft are essentially Wood Elves on weight gain powder. Only, in their case, it works.
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 18, 2006, 06:31:39 PM
Looks like you got your wish, Ty. I'll be posting a great deal less since I won't be spending every day waiting for Wii news anymore.
