Author Topic: Nintendo and Blizzard race for my money... (Read 12128 times)

Smash_Brother · « **on:** July 24, 2006, 08:06:47 AM »

Dammit, dammit, dammit...

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...

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 24, 2006, 08:11:53 AM »

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.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #2 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...

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 24, 2006, 08:26:08 AM »

Hey, it could happen. I figure if it was going to happen, the only console with mouse like capabilties would be the perfect choice for such RTS games and WC24 sould probably be useful for an MMO such as WoW.

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.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #4 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:02:34 AM »

Truthfully, I couldn't see this game working with anything except a keyboard.

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.

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:14:44 AM »

maybe it would be a WiiDS conncectivity game. map on the top screen and qwert keybaord on the touch screen. That would make connectivity finally accepted by the mainstream gamer and boost sales of both systems.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:18:43 AM »

That would definitely be an ideal setup, but I used the keyboard as a giant controller, using my right thumb hanging off the mouse to even hit keys on the numpad.

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.

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:26:02 AM »

Or they could just release a wireless mouse and keyboard setup. as for the wii it could be a DS & Wiimote combination.

Ceric · « **Reply #8 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:41:22 AM »

or we could use those two USB ports.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #9 on:** July 24, 2006, 10:01:01 AM »

Since the controller uses Bluetooth, there's theoretically no reason why the Wii couldn't pick up other Bluetooth devices such as headsets, wireless mice and keyboards.

Ceric · « **Reply #10 on:** July 24, 2006, 10:04:41 AM »

or that too.

mantidor · « **Reply #11 on:** July 24, 2006, 11:49:39 AM »

I still believe theres no game good enough that you have to pay monthly fees to play it, not even Zelda, not even Metroid.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #12 on:** July 25, 2006, 07:58:49 AM »

Games which charge a monthly fee do so because they have a development team which never stops working on the game.

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...

SixthAngel · « **Reply #13 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.

Kairon · « **Reply #14 on:** July 27, 2006, 02:30:49 PM »

The original Star Wars on DVD also races for my money.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #15 on:** July 28, 2006, 11:16:31 AM »

WAIT a second...

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.

Sir_Stabbalot · « **Reply #16 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:36:16 PM »

Smash, the term you're looking for is a 'sandbox MMORPG'. Right now Bioware, the same company that made Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate and Knights of the Old Republic., is rumored to be making a sandbox-style MMO. They have Raph Koster and Rich Vogel (the two people who really came up with the idea of a sandbox MMO) in high positions, so I doubt they're just making Baldur's Gate III.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #17 on:** July 28, 2006, 07:03:52 PM »

Really now?

That sounds like it might be right up my alley, so long as it can avoid the pitfalls of previous MMOs.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #18 on:** July 28, 2006, 08:47:29 PM »

Also, in response to criticism of paying for online games, you're paying for the continued development of the game.

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).

Shecky · « **Reply #19 on:** July 29, 2006, 04:58:32 AM »

I agree with KDR... especially for WoW.
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.

Sir_Stabbalot · « **Reply #20 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.

Ceric · « **Reply #21 on:** July 29, 2006, 06:47:01 AM »

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.

Sir_Stabbalot · « **Reply #22 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.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #23 on:** July 29, 2006, 07:27:57 AM »

Personally I liked how PSO did it.

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.

Ceric · « **Reply #24 on:** July 29, 2006, 07:31:02 AM »

Yeah I know. In all actuallity it was nothing but grind to get items. Thats what it was. It didn't hide that fact at all. For some reason though I could do the samething over and over and over and over and not find it borrowing with that game. At least the first episode. The second episode was just a redo of the first unfortunately. Not something totally new like it should have been.

News:

Author Topic: Nintendo and Blizzard race for my money... (Read 12128 times)