Why did Warhammer mmo 'W.A.R.' never become big?
- Thread starter ayuri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
WAR failed to keep an audience. When you launch your game with PvP (sorry, RvR) as its focus, you'd better make sure that the PvP is balanced. They utterly failed to do so, pissing off a LOT of customers right there. Someone earlier in the thread (sorry, lost the quote) stated that keep defences could hinge on whether or not the defenders had a Bright Wizard. That's just unacceptable lack of balance.
To define success for an MMO, it's going to be in number of people playing. This isn't just for commercial reasons, although those are a large factor. Because MMO's are designed for large numbers of people to complete objectives together, you MMO has died the moment it is no longer possible to do so. WoW will be dead the day that you can no longer gather a large enough group to complete a raid. For WoW, that day is a loooooong way off. For WAR? It's coming pretty close.
To define success for an MMO, it's going to be in number of people playing. This isn't just for commercial reasons, although those are a large factor. Because MMO's are designed for large numbers of people to complete objectives together, you MMO has died the moment it is no longer possible to do so. WoW will be dead the day that you can no longer gather a large enough group to complete a raid. For WoW, that day is a loooooong way off. For WAR? It's coming pretty close.
And I suppose spending seven pages worth of your time saying "WoW isn't industry standard to me" (paraphrase of course) without giving any viable explanation is mature? You ignored my explanation of exactly what 'industry standard' means and just responded to me telling you you're being a c*** (which you are). Is that mature?Dulcinea said:
You're only serving to further devalue you're opinion in the Escapist community. Bravo.
Your ignoring the question I was answering. What has Portal copied. Thats broad. You could pick that apart and name 100 games its friggin copying. What Im naming is one thing, specifically the portals. Everything nowadays can be said to have copied off of something else.Dulcinea said:
Bullshit you've stated something that is contrary to a fact over and over for this entire thread. I chose to quote you because you've been acting like an asshole the whole time and I hoped, for some insane reason, that after everyone else telling you what "industry standard" means, you might listen to me explaining it.Dulcinea said:
I called you a c*** because a guy used a figurative term calling the sky blue and you said "Actually it's transparent" like some complete and utter tossbag. i.e. You acted like a c*** so I told you that you were acting like a c***.
I'm going to try my hand at this...
A standard is something (x) to compare everything else to (a,b,c...) in order to judge some measurable criteria. This has multiple interpretations which are often denoted before the word standard. A personal standard is a standard that you hold personally based on really whatever criteria you want. It is subjective and thus varies from person to person. This is what Dulcinea is talking about.
An industry standard is a standard set by the industry. It typically follows one of two things, either technical capabilities called a technical standard (such as a standard for a video card, motor, computer ect...), or in this case a standard of success which is based on cash flow. By this definition the standard of the industry is and is not WoW. This is because there are multiple standards for an industry. The standard for a pass/fail is simply if it made a net profit. The standard for a success is if it made enough profit that some can be re-invested in other projects without overall risk. A huge success would be something along the lines of WoW.
Some companies may hold there game to the standard of WoW (that would be the so called WoW-killers) but that is a standard set by the company, not the industry. The standard of success in the industry is solely based on cash flow. WoW is at the extreme end of the profit margin and is a high standard. That is to say, the industry does not look at a game that does not do as well as WoW and say it is a failure because it did not meet WoW's standard.
In conclusion: WoW is the industry standard for a huge success, but not the industry standard for a pass/fail or even success. It once was, but is clearly no longer a technical standard.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/industry-standard.html
A standard is something (x) to compare everything else to (a,b,c...) in order to judge some measurable criteria. This has multiple interpretations which are often denoted before the word standard. A personal standard is a standard that you hold personally based on really whatever criteria you want. It is subjective and thus varies from person to person. This is what Dulcinea is talking about.
An industry standard is a standard set by the industry. It typically follows one of two things, either technical capabilities called a technical standard (such as a standard for a video card, motor, computer ect...), or in this case a standard of success which is based on cash flow. By this definition the standard of the industry is and is not WoW. This is because there are multiple standards for an industry. The standard for a pass/fail is simply if it made a net profit. The standard for a success is if it made enough profit that some can be re-invested in other projects without overall risk. A huge success would be something along the lines of WoW.
Some companies may hold there game to the standard of WoW (that would be the so called WoW-killers) but that is a standard set by the company, not the industry. The standard of success in the industry is solely based on cash flow. WoW is at the extreme end of the profit margin and is a high standard. That is to say, the industry does not look at a game that does not do as well as WoW and say it is a failure because it did not meet WoW's standard.
In conclusion: WoW is the industry standard for a huge success, but not the industry standard for a pass/fail or even success. It once was, but is clearly no longer a technical standard.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/industry-standard.html
WAR suffered from a colossal lack of foresight, the problem was it was based largely around the World Quests, you remember right? The ever repeating quests with the random loot drops? It didn't occur to them somehow that there is never a 'constant' amount of players in every zone, so that means that as players level up, one of their games' main attractions becomes a practice in irritation as they constantly look for someone to help them finish the frakking quest. There were other problems but that was a pretty major one
There's really no point in arguing what an industry standard is. You, as a single person, do not make the determination of the industry standard. You can have an opinion as to what you feel the industry standard should be, but in reality it ends there. While there is not an in-depth oxford dictionary style of definition the de facto understanding is that it is the most widely accepted, successful, and consumed or used "thing" in its industry. Also a commonly/widely used practice inside of an industry, i.e. programming and whitespace.
For example, the current industry standard for tablets is the iPad2. The Xoom may be more powerful, or more innovative, and the DynaBook may have been the very first but neither make the grade for the title of "industry standard" by an stretch of the imagination. Another example could be that Steam is the industry standard for LAN center software, or that indenting is the industry standard for practicing a wise use of white space in Python or other programming languages.
So, in essence, industry standards are not subjective per person. The majority in most cases makes the determination of what is, and what is not. Everquest could be the most successful at its time, or what your personal standard for excellence is, however as far as a global industry standard, it is not.
You can have your personal standard, and that is fine we all have our bars of which we measure the world to. However, if you wish to speak in terms of an entire industry, please be familiar with the industry and its current trends and standards so that you do not vehemently defend being wrong ad nauseum.
For example, the current industry standard for tablets is the iPad2. The Xoom may be more powerful, or more innovative, and the DynaBook may have been the very first but neither make the grade for the title of "industry standard" by an stretch of the imagination. Another example could be that Steam is the industry standard for LAN center software, or that indenting is the industry standard for practicing a wise use of white space in Python or other programming languages.
So, in essence, industry standards are not subjective per person. The majority in most cases makes the determination of what is, and what is not. Everquest could be the most successful at its time, or what your personal standard for excellence is, however as far as a global industry standard, it is not.
You can have your personal standard, and that is fine we all have our bars of which we measure the world to. However, if you wish to speak in terms of an entire industry, please be familiar with the industry and its current trends and standards so that you do not vehemently defend being wrong ad nauseum.
Dulcinea, all MMO's these days are in some way compared to WoW by the vast majority of people. Wheter it's good or not are both perfectly valid oppinions. However, it's still the game that you'll be competing with the most for subscriptions.
Let me put it this way: Was James Cameron's "Titanic" a good movie? Yes and no are subjective oppinions here, and thus both can be equally "right" or "wrong".
Was James Cameron's "Titanic" the highest grossing film of all time until "Avatar" was released? Here, yes and no are no longer subjective, but rather objective, and no would be the factualy wrong answer.
Same thing with WoW. Is it good? Yes or no, up to you personaly. Is it the industry standard, i.e. the most subscribed, and thus, the one with the largest share of the MMO cake? Yes. This is objective fact. Saying otherwise is factualy wrong, no matter how often you state otherwise.
Let me put it this way: Was James Cameron's "Titanic" a good movie? Yes and no are subjective oppinions here, and thus both can be equally "right" or "wrong".
Was James Cameron's "Titanic" the highest grossing film of all time until "Avatar" was released? Here, yes and no are no longer subjective, but rather objective, and no would be the factualy wrong answer.
Same thing with WoW. Is it good? Yes or no, up to you personaly. Is it the industry standard, i.e. the most subscribed, and thus, the one with the largest share of the MMO cake? Yes. This is objective fact. Saying otherwise is factualy wrong, no matter how often you state otherwise.
I just wanted to say i have very much enjoyed the conversation you've been having, might i recommend a buisness card, a suit and to take up residence in maybe Tower bridge in london or some other extremely important bridge, you've earned it, because you sir are a professional. Well played.Dulcinea said:
Also a little more on topic to respond to OP, the simple reason why i stopped playing WAR was it lacked enough content, pvp was fun but once you've raided the enemy capital 5 or 6 times your done with the game and it loses anything new to show you.
Also whatever code that checked whether you were in range for your attacks was a pile of rubbish on a stick, you should not have an animation play and hit an enemy and then be told you were out of range it made mobile combat a nightmare for any melee class.
I played it for the free month. They hyped it up way more then it turned out to be (as always). The thing I disliked greatly about it was that there was hardly any World PvP until you got to the Capital sieges. They should have completely removed Battlegrounds, and let the two factions duke it out in the zones themselves, rather then most of the fighting occurring in instanced sections of the game world. In my opinion, anyway.
That, and it never seemed like the population was high enough to support the crazy huge fights they touted. It always seemed like I was the only one wandering through zones with all the Battleground fights going on.
That, and it never seemed like the population was high enough to support the crazy huge fights they touted. It always seemed like I was the only one wandering through zones with all the Battleground fights going on.
Sorry to break this to you, but you really are acting like a smartassed teenager with issues who thinks he knows better than anybody else because he's edgy, alternative and can argue semantics and the definition of subjective versus objective.Dulcinea said:
This isn't philosophy class mate, you can argue whether the game is good or not or whether you like it, but you can't really dispute that its pretty much setting the standard for MMOs today, for good or for ill.
he cant because its not an industry standard, if you look at game mechanics everquest and dark age of camelot are industry standards since they just keep taking ideas from them. World of Warcraft just had a huge marketing budget and has years of updates and polish. Im not going to state my opinion on WoW either way but i played W.A.R. on launch day and the game was nicely built but it was shallow despite the rather cool public quests and PVP, its lack came from there being little real color too it and the world just felt like running from 1 town to the next. They could have fixed it but EA as was stated just kept slashing it over and over again.Dulcinea said: