Poll: What do you think of World of Warcraft?

[Archaeology Hat]

For example, once I was told I had to attend 80% of raids, though I am a college student, or I would get kicked out of the guild I was in. .

Don't play with Jerks and this problem will go away.

As for WoW, yes, I play it on and off, yes I will buy the expansion, do I care that Blizzard aren't totally original? Nope, not one bit, they make games that are simple and fun that I can play as much or as little as I want.

Stammer you somewhat miss the point, most game studios don't have a massive number of IPs, Valve has what? Half-life and Portal (Which is essentially part of Half-life), Bioware makes... the same RPG over and over in slightly different settings and people call them amazing, Bethesda have made... let's see oh my! They've mainly Elderscrolls games! Oh and Fallout 3! Creative Assembly? Why they've only made the Total War series and a rugby game! Blizzard aren't totally original, no, what they do is take established concepts from all over the place, polish and streamline them to near perfection. Besides, theyre one of the few PC first developers left along with Valve and CA which gives me a little bit of love for them.

If you're going to be cynical about Blizzard be cynical about the games industry as a whole, over the past few years games have become more and more expensive, more and more buisiness centred with less and less content. Blizzard's so called "greed" is a reflection on the wider industry and it's greed

 

[Alexadecimal]

Blizzard's new idea of "Give everyone everything" is fundamentally flawed. Hybrid classes are now able to compete with DPS classes on a DPS basis. So now rolling a Druid is worth way more then rolling a Warlock. That Druid can fill another roll in a raid by simply respeccing. Granted they need the gear to support it, but gear isn't hard to get in WoW anymore. A Warlock can't respec to fill any healing roll, or tanking roll at all. They deal damage and that's all.
quote]

I agree with you there, the pure DPS classes (which I deem to be mages, locks, rogues and maybe hunters) should be able to pump out the most DPS, because that's what theyve been designed to do and is the only thing they can do. Hybrid classes should do less DPS but have valuable utilities, so a raid wouldn't be complete without a ret Palladin or an ele Shaman. At the moment an ele Shaman can do a similar ammount of DPS as a Mage and yet have the option to heal and wear mail, which I will agree is unfair against the 'pure' classes.
It's annoying how every class can do everything now, how Druids can essentially res and circle of healing now making us holy priests even less useful, but I'll see how things play out.

 

[Stammer]

Blizzard's entire existence =/= the past 5 years. Blizzard is an old company.
You're right. That's why I said they are thriving solely on their last couple of games. Before Final Fantasy 1, Squaresoft was going to die out because no one gave a crap about their games. But then they released it and their entire existence started to thrive mostly because of Final Fantasy. It's a similar situation, except Squaresoft wasn't lazy. They didn't just stop immediately as they found their hit.

Uh, Starcraft 2? Diablo 3? The former has been in development a loooong time. What do you want them to do? Divert resources from these games and pump out some mediochre crap so that they can say that they made something?
And you clearly didn't read my post.

Discarded new content? What?
For the sake of example, let's say StarCraft 1 had 100 total units, structures, etc, in total for all three sides. Now let's say for the sake of example that StarCraft 2 was going to have 200 total units, structures, etc, in total for all three sides. They cut 90 of those 200, so now they're only giving us 110 units, structures, etc, to use, meaning they've only added like 10 new things. As I've said from the start (when they first announced the game), it's going to be more of a mediocre expansion than a full-fledged sequel.

That's not the sign of a bad company that's a sign of you hating Blizzard and believing it will do bad things based on... nothing. What evidence is there that Diablo 3 will be lacking? Gameplay videos? Something said in an interview? I know it's not from past reputation because I have never known Blizzard to release a sub-standard game.
I think you and Descartes would have had a lot of fun hanging out together. He also believed that the only thing that could be even remotely probable is something that was 100% certain. He would also believe that unless they announced the game in either fashion, we should hope for the best. Me? I'm a rational being. I can look at the company's existence and say "This is what I'm expecting based on everything else that they've ever done." I also think Descartes would think that the next upcoming Sonic game should be expected to be amazing.

 

[Zyrusticae]

What the hell is with the discussion of Blizzard's future products in this thread?

Anyway, for the topic of this thread, I can some it up very briefly (from the eyes of an MMO vet): Been there, done that. I didn't find it as engaging as Eve Online or Star Wars Galaxies. Take from that what you will.

Also:

For the sake of example, let's say StarCraft 1 had 100 total units, structures, etc, in total for all three sides. Now let's say for the sake of example that StarCraft 2 was going to have 200 total units, structures, etc, in total for all three sides. They cut 90 of those 200, so now they're only giving us 110 units, structures, etc, to use, meaning they've only added like 10 new things. As I've said from the start (when they first announced the game), it's going to be more of a mediocre expansion than a full-fledged sequel.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

First of all, each side is almost entirely new, with some old standbys that have been recurring for some time now, like the Terran's now-iconic marines, siege tanks, and battle cruisers. Realize that the difference between the wraith and the banshee, the goliath and the viking, the nighthawk and the science vessel are incredibly huge in terms of the impact they have on gameplay. They don't need a huge number of new units to make a new game. Too many units results in an overlap of roles (see Supreme Commander), convoluting the game's core gameplay. This is especially important for Starcraft, which excels in making sure that each and every unit's role is obvious from the outset.

More than just the changes to the units are the changes in their abilities - even one new ability can drastically change a race's tactical paradigm, and here we've got a whole slew of such abilities, like the nighthawk's ability to drop autocannons on demand and the fact that the Terran's healing now comes from a large flying target that also happens to be able to transport troops. And then there's changes in the movement code and pathfinding A.I., which fundamentally changes how the game is controlled. So on and so forth.

This, of course, is only considering the multiplayer side of the equation -- the single-player side is set to have a whole host of interesting new features as well as units not available in the multiplayer portion. The fact that the player can now choose how to reach the end adds considerable replayability over previous incarnations, and the in-game cinematics allow so, so much more story than before.

How you get the impression that it's going to be a 'mediocre expansion' is well beyond my comprehension. Needless to say, I disagree wholeheartedly.

 

[Stammer]

lol I have nothing to say to that post. It's pretty clear that someone's been living under a rock for the past couple of weeks not to hear about the downfall of StarCraft II.

 

[Zyrusticae]

Are you sure it's not the other way around? Because I've been following SC2's progress very, very, very closely. Something as major as 'the downfall of StarCraft II' is something that would not pass me by.



So, then, in other words, you're conceding that you have no decent argument, and rather than make yourself look bad you'd rather make yourself look even worse with obvious denial. Okay, then. Whatever floats your boat.

If it makes you feel better, have some delicious eye-candy [http://www.starcraftzone.com/images/misc/singleplayer_Screenshots03.jpg].

 

[Zer_]

lol I have nothing to say to that post. It's pretty clear that someone's been living under a rock for the past couple of weeks not to hear about the downfall of StarCraft II.

What is this downfall you speak of? Are you talking about the 3 part release of StarCraft?

I'm actually supporting this decision on Blizzard's part. It just means they will spend that much more time on each campaign as opposed to cramming all three of them in an unrealistic timeframe. Fact is Blizzard is making this move to avoid the single most common mistake in game development history (Rushing a game before it is ready for release).

When you buy the first release (I believe it's the Terran campaign) you get the full multiplayer game. This means that you won't have to buy any of the subsequent releases to experience the StarCraft multiplayer.

More units does NOT mean it's a better game. In fact it's almost always on the contrary. Having too many units results in overlapping roles, or it just ends up making the game a giant clusterfuck of niche units.

Blizzard is making StarCraft 2 to be like StarCraft 1, there's absolutely no denying that. The reason for this is because of the hardcore StarCraft players. These players are very very reluctant to accept sweeping changes. The kind of changes that Blizzard has shown us so far are all logical evolutions. There are some new mechanics and some new features. It's like the Call of Duty series. Despite 1, 2, and 4 being pretty much the same, they tweak things, change things and in 4's case replace the weapons with new ones. They make these changes in the right place thus still giving us the "Call of Duty" feel, and yet still making it feel new. And that's something that is VERY hard to achieve, and so far Blizzard has done pretty well in regards to StarCraft 2.

It's actually very difficult to make a Sequel to such an awesome game like StarCraft. In fact, based on my experience in the industry, it's a lot more difficult to make a Sequel both just as good, yet new and refreshing (all while retaining the heart and soul of the original) then it is to come up with an entirely new concept.

In regards to WarCraft, Blizzard started making the Warhammer game, and they had the plug pulled on them. Most likely because Games Workshop didn't like what they had done. So Blizzard took the ideas they worked hard to create and they basically turned around and gave Games Workshop a slap in the face by making a smash hit. So they stuck it to the man by proving them wrong, what's wrong with that?

Now, Blizzard isn't all peaches and cream, though. I really dislike what World of WarCraft is being turned into. I've also heard that Blizzard plans to "Monetize" Battle.net; the currently free service that allows players around the world to play Diablo, Diablo 2, and StarCraft online. (Yeah I forgot WarCraft 2). Now they haven't said how they will do this, but to be honest I don't like the sound of it.

I admit that Blizzard isn't huge on originality. Fact is none of their games are truly based on an original concept. StarCraft is a 2D RTS game, not much else to it. The point is that it's a 2D RTS game that just does it all right. Basically you're bashing on a company for refining the wheel. Replace your car wheels with pre-industrial revolution wooden wheels then tell me you don't appreciate the time and effort that has gone into refining an idea. Blizzard did just that with StarCraft. They took the idea of Real Time Strategy, Simplicity, and Balance and brought it to a level that is still seen today as the benchmark.

 

[ImmortalItalian]

Don't care. Hate this massive hype over this game. Hope it ruins the game so the community chooses another game to flock to...

 

[CrafterMan]

If I see another WoW thread... I swear to god... I am going to f***ing snap.

Its a game. My friends play it. I don't. People choose to play it, it is not an addiction as you can switch off the power to your computer. You cant do the same with cigarettes or alcohol. I think people who think WoW is addictive don't know what addiction is.

Sorry for the rant fellow escapists, Im just sick to death with WoW threads.

-Joe

 

[reaper_2k9]

I don't know and I wont know until I actually play it. But a lot of my friends that play are pumped up about it even those that have quite the game are going to join back up and play again.

 

[SimuLord]

I hope it keeps my wife busy so I can spend my time with games like Fallout 3. Personally I think MMORPGs are a massive waste of time, but my marriage benefits from a spouse who is so wrapped up in the game that she doesn't nag me about my own massive amount of gaming time.

 

[Stammer]

Wall o' text

I seriously hope you weren't planning on having me read that. I looked at the first sentence, and realized it definitely wasn't going to be worth my time.

Sum it up next time, or at the very least make the introduction to your short-story interesting enough to draw in the reader. I don't have ADD, but I don't have a very big attention span for walls of text when I'm liberally expecting it to be another "If the game is so easy and requires no skill, why can't a level 1 player kill a level 70 player?" post.

 

[Not Good]

I prefer not to. Probably because I'd be sucked in so quick I'd dissappear of the face of the earth.

 

[TJ rock 101]

(Warlocks get a teleport spell, really looking forward to that one ^^)

Here's hoping its a portal spell so you guys can suffer with the spam of 'TP TO IF PLZ!'

not a city teleport, its like a mages "blink" spell

 

[SinisterDeath]

When I played wow, I hoped they would live up to there promise of releasing content, they had PROMISED to release in the initial game, And every time they said it would be in the 'next big patch' and got pushed back further and further (Hero classes, I'm looking at you). I lost a bit of hope.
The first expansion, Okay, whatever, it made sense outlands =/= azeroth, so it was fine for an expansion... Requiring expac to get lvl 70? Kinda an asshat move, but okay, whatever...

Then they announced the expansion, and I quit the game that day.
Releasing 'areas' and 'content' that was promised in the orignal game, They turned from a company that produced quality products at a great price, and they spent YEARS developing their games.
There bid into the MMORPG was left with their game releasing earlier then intended, which is ussually expected of the mmo market... But now the very fact they are making it a practice to sell content, they had promised would be in their orignal game? Uggh, I lost all faith in Blizzard, and hopefully D3 and S2 will redeem it.

Oh, and the next expansion for wow, better Include the Emerald Dream in it, cause lets face it, thats the only plot line that matters in the game.

 

[TJ rock 101]

Stammer sounds like hes going to come to blows with some of the people on this thread...
Starcraft almost became koreas national sport as soon as it was released, the story was amazing and it still sells copies today (or so i have been told) starcraft II is going to have a much longer story and more gameplay mechanics, the triple release wont stop it being a hit.

but diablo III to me just looks like diablo II but with better environments and the player not having to chug potions like they would die in 10 seconds without one.

 

[Assassin_Thunder]

World of warcraft is crap and for people that have no life

 

[SinisterDeath]

but diablo III to me just looks like diablo II but with better environments and the player not having to chug potions like they would die in 10 seconds without one.

I disagree, I think its definately an upgrade, the graphics/environments are alot more 'colorful', in a good way. AKA they make sense. And until we know the 'story' I'm guessing after D2 the world 'recovered', aka things get shiny. And dungeons tend to be just as dark as they used to be. >_>
But yea, I don't know anyone who hasn't wasted at least 3-6 month of there life on D2, and I plan to sink a few into D3. Gotta hit a dungeon crawler game every few years. Tried one last year, no where near as fun as D2.

 

[aliofsparta]

first of all for those who think wow isnt orginal or that it copys of lord of the rings.
1-wow hase taken every thing from warcraft and made it into an online game and IN warcraft there was a whole story bout the lich king.orcs.elvs.a large allince of many races..and then after soem years there came a movie that literly copyed warcraft and that moviw was called lord of the ring..and after soem years came a game that copyed the movie and it was also called lord of the ring.
so think .wow is acltly on eof teh few ORIGNAL games that was ever made..and lord of the ring came AFTER it so u do the math and conseder who is the copy the one that came irst or the one that came second ?
2-and wow is actly a great game.the majoraty of people who hat ewow are 75%people who never played it.25% people who played it and DIDNT get the main idea of teh game.its not about mindless grinding and its not about lvling to lvl 60/70/80 its not about farming for mony and gear its not about mindless raiding.its about teh very idea of the game and the huge amount of thing u can do in it and its about the very story of the game.serusly most people think that wow is all bout gear and lvls and no skill.it is true it all buttons that u click but the skill in it is WHEN AND WHY u click it and how u take advantige of the effects and what to do and when to do it.beside if u hate killing monsters or going raids tehre are plenty things u can do.wow is about being teh best in it its about ENJOYING THE GAME not just lvl to lvl 70 and go raid ofcourse u will hate the game that way.