# How did WoW dethrone Everquest?



## Goodsport (Sep 24, 2006)

A friend of mine who's been playing Wow for the past month or two offered me a 10-day Friend Pass, which I accepted last weekend.  After playing WoW for a few days (but moreso on the weekends than on the weekdays, due to work and such), I can honestly say that I'm having fun playing it. 

But I was curious: for the longest time since its introduction in 1999, Everquest seemed to be the 800 lbs. gorilla of the MMORPG world.  Many MMORPG's came and went while others are still around, but no one MMORPG ever seemed close to toppling EQ from the top-spot until World of Warcraft came along in November 2004.

From what I heard, WoW sold better than Everquest 2 and had become the MMORPG world's new 800 lbs. gorilla.  What is it about WoW that allowed it to take the top-spot, an achievement no other MMORPG was able to accomplish against EQ? 


-G


----------



## Captain Tagon (Sep 24, 2006)

It's much more casual friendly. There is a much smaller death penalty. All in all it is just a much easier game to get into than EQ and EQ2 ever were.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Sep 24, 2006)

It blew out all previous expectations of how many subscribers a MMO could get even before the good news about how much fun it was could get around. That implies that Blizzard's excellent reputation combined with the Warcraft brand brought in a whole bunch of people who had previously not tried MMOs.

Then a bunch of them stuck around and started spreading the word due to the quality.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 24, 2006)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> It blew out all previous expectations of how many subscribers a MMO could get even before the good news about how much fun it was could get around. That implies that Blizzard's excellent reputation combined with the Warcraft brand brought in a whole bunch of people who had previously not tried MMOs.
> 
> Then a bunch of them stuck around and started spreading the word due to the quality.




Yeah, I think a lot of Diablo love helped WoW get off to a fast start and then the fact that it was a lot less tedious than EQ (especially at low levels) really helped sell it.

Chuck


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Sep 25, 2006)

You can't forget the EQ forced you to sit down and do nothing for long periods of time.
I heard they did actual studies of how long they could get a player to camp in a spot.

WoW removes the "sit & wait" for your mana return.


----------



## KenM (Sep 25, 2006)

BlueBlackRed said:
			
		

> WoW removes the "sit & wait" for your mana return.




  You just have to wait when you are in a quewe for a battle ground, or getting a raid together, or having to wait to log in.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 25, 2006)

Oooo and lest we forget... Sony customer service was *such* a joy to deal with too. So polite... never abrupt or uncaring or just plain rude...

Dang... there's so many reasons for WoW's ascendency lol.

Chuck


----------



## werk (Sep 25, 2006)

It's newer and better?


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 25, 2006)

I remember how one of the guys in my gaming group at the time was telling us how he was going to have to rent a beeper, take a few days off from work and never be more than like 5 minutes from his computer for 3 days, so that he could be ready if this one monster spawned that he had to kill as part of this massively convoluted and complicated quest sequence to get the epic weapon for his class in EQ. 

While some of the Raid (Up to 40 character) instances (AKA dungeons) in WOW can be very complicated and take a substantial number of hours to go through, I've not heard or seen anything in WOW that requires anything close to spending 3 days next to your computer, just to BE READY for something.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Sep 25, 2006)

They dumbed it down and removed all the challenge or depth.  Although they did keep the raids, which were the worst part of the EQ endgame.

Less snarkily, WoW attracted a lot more casual players, who recruited their casual-gamer friends.  The longevity of these games depends on the social networks that arise -- the more people who have an attachment to and play with on a regular basis, the less likely you are to stop playing entirely or hop to another game.

Having played pretty much every MMO since Ultima Online to max (or close to it), WoW is probably the one I've liked the least, and even I feel the tug to return occasionally simply because of the friends I have that play it.  

What sucks is that every potential MMO developer now feels that they have to achieve WoW-levels of subscribers to be considered a success, so we're starting to see the same repeition and type of formulaic crap in the MMO market that you see in other forms of mass entertainment.  I suspect my days of hard games with meaningful death penalties, actual travel and exploration, etc., are long gone.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 25, 2006)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> What is it about WoW that allowed it to take the top-spot, an achievement no other MMORPG was able to accomplish against EQ?





WoW did everything that EQ did right, and fixed everything that EQ did wrong.  I think it's really that simple.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 26, 2006)

It's from Blizzard. That's why. 

And EQ2 seems to have been received with very mixed feelings. I have some friends, who play EQ (still ) and who seriously dislike EQ2. Also, WoW snatched the new MMORPGamers from the market, simply because it is the better game (only point where EQ2 can compete is the graphics, I guess), so EQ2 really had a rather small fanbase, and thus became a huge failure.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Sep 26, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I suspect my days of hard games with meaningful death penalties, actual travel and exploration, etc., are long gone.




Have you played Neocron or Neocron 2? Sounds like that could be your kind of game (if you can live through the bugs, maybe they have resolved those issues in the meantime ).

Isn't Guild Wars also very successful?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ashrum the Black (Sep 26, 2006)

Guild wars is successful enough by the company producing its standards. I've been playing off and on for a year now and am having tons of fun. Heck I've just been mostly soloing and having a blast going through the main quest of the orginal game. They've added one add on since and another is due out within the next month. The first addon added a pseudo oriental theme, the next, nightfall, will add a middle eastern theme.

They've really been expanding on the game play options and allowing for more dynamic play. Lots of fun!

-Ashrum


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 26, 2006)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> From what I heard, WoW sold better than Everquest 2 and had become the MMORPG world's new 800 lbs. gorilla.  What is it about WoW that allowed it to take the top-spot, an achievement no other MMORPG was able to accomplish against EQ?




A variety of reasons, IMHO.

First, Blizzard has long had a name associated with quality, and a MMOG based in their most popular property (the Warcraft Universe) certainly held a great deal of appeal.  Of course, Origins had this same reputation, once upon a time.  

Second, the original EQ is a first-generation MMOG, and EQ2 built upon that legacy, including keeping some of the elements that many players had tired of in the first game.  In short, EQ2 had not learned as much as you might expect from its predecessor.

Third, art direction.  While EQ2 featured a reasonably attractive (but somewhat demanding) game engine, a common complaint was the whole hodge-podge nature of the world setting.  It feels slapped together and doesn't have much character to it.  WoW, by contrast, oozes character out it's pores.  The consistent art direction reinforces the game world and it has a style, as opposed to EQ/EQ2's generic 'melting pot' fantasy.

Fourth, and this is a biggie, you don't feel the grind.  The players I know all claim that the levelling process doesn't feel like WORK.  EQ/EQ2 both made you feel like you have to spend significant downtime when you should be adventuring (such as sitting and waiting for mana to recharge in EQ).  

Fifth, from what I've seen (and this point is obviously debatable), WoW sports a much better interface than EQ2.  EQ2's interface is an improvment over EQ1, but WoW is a generation ahead and very intuitive and accessible.  This counts a lot for more casual players.

Sixth, WoW makes casual players feel like they can still get a rewarding session out of the game.  The whole sleep-XP concept makes it easier to keep up, for example.

Seventh, class and race combos are, from what I hear, much more balanced and enjoyable in WoW than in EQ.  In EQ2, most of the races not that significantly different, being more like placeholders for some bonuses and faction memberships.  WoW, of course, has two major factions, but the different races and classes are generally all fun, afaik.

Eighth, Blizzard doesn't hate it's customers.  For reasons few can fathom, Sony Online Entertainment seems to really, really dislike the people who play their games, and they actively show their contempt routinely.  Blizzard may not always thrill some of their customers, but they're generally well regarded.


This is what I've garnered from people who've played both games.  Me, I barely have time for City of Heroes.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 26, 2006)

Oh, and to put things in perspective, here is the latest update of the MMOG subscriber chart.  Note that prior to WoW, the biggest MMOG in the world wasn't EQ or EQ2, but Lineage and then Lineage II, mostly played in Korea and parts of Asia.  MMOGs are taking off like wildfire in China, for example, and may redefine what 'successful' means.

Even in it's heyday, EQ2 failed to match it's predecessor, let alone something like Final Fantasy XI.  Now, many of them are in free-fall.





In this chart, which is 70-700,000 subscribers, we see that success depends a lot on the company making the game.  Games like City of Heroes/Villians and Toontown Online are apparently doing well with their relatively small communities, while even Puzzle Pirates and a Tale in the Desert is thriving with their meager memberships at 35,000 or so.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 26, 2006)

I don't know.  But damn I do loves me some World of Warcraft.


----------



## Brain (Sep 26, 2006)

Speaking personally, WoW was destined to replace EQ because I played EQ with the makers of WoW.  I remember talking to Rob Pardo in 2000 or 2001 on EQ (we were guildmates) and he mentioned plans to make WoW.  I chatted with him about some of the things that make MMORPGS successful in the long run.  The folks at Blizzard did their homework and knew first hand what worked and what didn't in EQ.  They did an excellent job of making WoW an awesome experience.

I only played alpha and beta of WoW and cut myself off before retail because I needed to not get sucked in again.  EQ devoured several years of my life and I wasn't ready for that to happen again.  

Brain 
(once known as Monq from Legacy of Steel on the Nameless or Grumblethorpe from Legions of Darkness on Innoruuk - EQ1)


----------



## TheLe (Sep 26, 2006)

Here's a great interview with Bill Roper, talking about Warcraft III and the World of Warcraft. As you can see, from the very start they were trying to make something much more streamlined that EQ and DAOC.

And they succeeded. I love WoW. I hated EQ. And I was lukewarm to DAOC.

`Le


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 27, 2006)

Essentially, it boils down to one word: Polish.

The art looks like it's done by actual artists, instead of some guys who know how to use a 3D art program. Characters have a purpose in the world beyond killing rats. Blizzard put in fewer game elements but makes them work really, really well instead of promising pie in the sky that never comes as an apology for the half-ass job that's here today (EQ1 is still waiting on its player housing and gambling in High Hold Keep, for instance). And Blizzard's devs are keenly interested in what works in their games (and others) and refining that over time (just look at how the three battlegrounds improved as each was released, with Arath Basin reeking of understanding why the other two are a mixed success at best).

Oh, and for the people who don't like raiding, Burning Crusade has the equivalent of more than 30 dungeons when you count separate wings of a dungeon (like Dire Maul is essentially three dungeons in one) and that's before you add in variable difficulty levels for each, adding replayablity. Blizzard learns from their own games as well.

And with cross-server battlegrounds, no one has to wait more than a few minutes for PvP in Arathi Basin or Warsong Gulch and even Alterac Valley has a reasonable wait now. I never climbed the PvP ladder in the past, because I didn't feel like waiting two hours for a 10 minute match, over and over again all night. Instead, I can log on in the morning before going to work, play a match or two, go to work and even squeeze in gameplay during lunch.

And, yeah, it doesn't hurt that Blizzard guilds have been among the most successful in every MMORPG to date. They know every MMORPG, in and out, both their gems and their warts.

There's a great transcript of a Rob Pardo presentation at Raph Koster's site that explains Blizzard's design philosophy. Even if you don't agree with all of Blizzard's design decisions, the fact that actual logic and analysis is involved is nice and, unfortunately, kind of unusual.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 27, 2006)

It's more than polish, it certainly isn't the art (cartoony art direction in WoW was a smokescreen to reduce system requirements)...

It's about design. WoW is simply a _better designed game _ in every way. 

Blizzard is the only Quadruple A developer. It spends gobs of money on design and gets it right. They keep their eyes on the prize at all times.  Every element of the game is created and polished with one thing and one thing in mind only:

_*How does this make the game more fun?*_

That's it; that's all.  They sometimes make compromises on a design feature that does not pass the fun test (games are, in the end, the art of the possible, even at Blizzard) but they do not choose a feature based on some ideological view of what is consistent or what "should" it be?

They choose a feature because they think it's more fun.  That's the only ideology at work. 

Second to that, they don't tell you how to play.  They let you choose a play style and generally work towards supporting that play style - whatever it is.

So yes there is less grinding. Yes it suports more casual players at lower levels. Yes it suports more individual PvE. Yes it looks campy and kinda cool. Yes it is a stable game.  Yes it has lots of Diabloesque features in its magic items.

But really - all of that ignores the creed behind Blizzard's designers: _make it more fun and then polish it to a sparkling diamond._

Which just goes to show you, in the PC Games business when you get right down to it, there is Blizzard and then there is everyone else...


----------



## Andur (Sep 27, 2006)

Dumb down a game enough to where the average idiot can be successful, make death a minor inconvience, and provide an early rigid framework to "guarantee" success for a beginner.  Then market the heck out of it early, have good graphics quality, and then let word of mouth do its job.

IMHO it succeeds because it feeds upon the overwhelming fear of failure which exists in the world today.  By not offerring failure it makes people more comfortable and thus able to enjoy themselves, which is pretty much the point of a game from a players point of view.

Of course, for those who do not wish to be constrained by dev events, are not risk adverse, and like to be in cool looking ships, there is always EVE ONLINE.


----------



## andargor (Sep 27, 2006)

Andur said:
			
		

> Dumb down a game enough to where the average idiot can be successful, make death a minor inconvience, and provide an early rigid framework to "guarantee" success for a beginner.  Then market the heck out of it early, have good graphics quality, and then let word of mouth do its job.
> 
> IMHO it succeeds because it feeds upon the overwhelming fear of failure which exists in the world today.  By not offerring failure it makes people more comfortable and thus able to enjoy themselves, which is pretty much the point of a game from a players point of view.
> 
> Of course, for those who do not wish to be constrained by dev events, are not risk adverse, and like to be in cool looking ships, there is always EVE ONLINE.




I was going to say something like that, albeit more diplomatically.   

If you go to the Eve Online forums, a common insult is "go back to WoW". This is simply because Eve Online is probably as far opposed to WoW as you can get in an MMORPG. Andur said it correctly: the death penalty is harsh, very harsh. It is so open-ended and full of possibilities that you can easily be overwhelmed into inaction. It is so player-driven, that you can get scammed blind and the developers will not interfere. It's that real.

I'm not saying that Eve Online is a "better" game than WoW, but that it requires a totally different playstyle, so players that really love WoW will probably not like Eve Online. And vice-versa. (Although I'm generalizing)

I have to show my colors and say that Eve Online, IMHO, is one of the most successful MMORPGs I've ever seen. If you define "success" as number of subscribers, then you will disagree. But it's the most rabidly fanatic player base I've ever seen. They like the game so much that they complain and moan about things that need to be fixed, but they keep coming back to the game.

It's truly like a love affair. You have good times and bad, you have blissful moments, you have fights, you get bored, your adrenaline pumps so hard you feel your heart is going to jump out of your ribcage, you go through all states and emotions, you take a break and play other games, and yet you always come back.

To me it's no longer just a game, it's a long term project. To me, that's success.

(Andur: I'm Andargor theWise in-game, join the ENWORLD channel)


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 27, 2006)

WOW is also one of the few MMORGS available for Macs. I know that there was an EQ version with pitiful support that got released and I think is now dead, but if you own a Mac and want to play an MMORG, WOW is pretty much it.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 27, 2006)

> It's more than polish, it certainly isn't the art (cartoony art direction in WoW was a smokescreen to reduce system requirements)...




This is a great idea. I really like the art in WoW but find that it plays smooth as butter on my rig at 1600*1200 24bit color with all options maxed.  That is great, lower system requirements mean people who don't buy "gamer" computers can still play.  I what was once a gamer PC but now it's old.      I need a new Conroe based rig. Anyone want to start up a fund for me?


P.S. MMO elitists are so adorable in thier zeal.  People who play other games are invariable labled as idiots.


----------



## TheLe (Sep 27, 2006)

Andur said:
			
		

> Dumb down a game enough to where the average idiot can be successful, make death a minor inconvience, and provide an early rigid framework to "guarantee" success for a beginner.  Then market the heck out of it early, have good graphics quality, and then let word of mouth do its job.
> 
> IMHO it succeeds because it feeds upon the overwhelming fear of failure which exists in the world today.  By not offerring failure it makes people more comfortable and thus able to enjoy themselves, which is pretty much the point of a game from a players point of view.
> 
> Of course, for those who do not wish to be constrained by dev events, are not risk adverse, and like to be in cool looking ships, there is always EVE ONLINE.




LOL. That seems a bit harsh. It really comes down to the kind of game you want to play. If you like quick and simple play that is fast to learn but has alot of longevity, then WoW is the place to go. It's really not about "fear of failure," as it is a "fear of wasting my time."

In WoW, I can play 20 minutes, die, rez, and take a small penalty. Tomorrow I will be back and ready to rock. For $15 a month this is great. And if I want to get deeper and play 4 hours a day, then there are raid, pvp, crafting, and lots of other things to do.

In Dark Age of Camelot, death had a pretty hefty price. If you die, you lose some major Xp, unless you can find the spot you died and pray for some of that xp back.

In Everquest 2, you can group with a bunch of idiots, and if one of them dies, everyone takes a penalty.

In Eve, well, you all know how Eve is.

So it's not a matter of "fear of failure." It's really a matter of time and energy. I am your typical WoW gamer -- I play a 20 minutes - 1 hour a night. I really don't have the time and energy to take massive losses because of death. Those games are better for other players -- not me.

And many WoW players are the same. It's easy to go in and play just a bit. Heck, if log out at an inn, you gain a "double xp" aura points so that you can level faster when you come back later, allowing you to better keep up with you hardcore friends. You won't get that kind of bonus in other games, but then again those other games are not really targetted a the "I don't have alot of time" gamer like me.

Each MMORPG is suited to a different kind of gamer. It just so happens that WoW is suited for the biggest target audience.

`Le


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 27, 2006)

andargor said:
			
		

> If you go to the Eve Online forums, a common insult is "go back to WoW". This is simply because Eve Online is probably as far opposed to WoW as you can get in an MMORPG. Andur said it correctly: the death penalty is harsh, very harsh. It is so open-ended and full of possibilities that you can easily be overwhelmed into inaction. It is so player-driven, that you can get scammed blind and the developers will not interfere. It's that real.




Well, that sounds an awful lot like you're saying that the game is a success for you because it really discourages casual players, is inaccessible to all but the most fanatical and that it's hostile to newcomers.  Which could be a strength, I suppose, if you're not the newcomer.  That certainly jibes with reviews I've seen of it.



			
				andargor said:
			
		

> I have to show my colors and say that Eve Online, IMHO, is one of the most successful MMORPGs I've ever seen. If you define "success" as number of subscribers, then you will disagree. But it's the most rabidly fanatic player base I've ever seen. They like the game so much that they complain and moan about things that need to be fixed, but they keep coming back to the game.




I can't name a single MMORPG that didn't have fans of that same stripe.  There are still more people playing Ultima Online than Eve Online, for example.  That's no measure of quality...but those are some dedicated fans, right there.  I mean, even with the continual decline, they still have as many subscribers as they did in 1999.  Everquest 1 has plummeted since WoW arrived, but they still command the same number of subscribers as they did in 2000.  And those are some contentious fans right there...thanks to SOE's attitudes, they really have to be.  

My point is, every MMORPG that I've played has a hardcore base that complains and moans but keeps coming back.  Eve Online certainly has carved out a niche for itself that no one has even approached.  But it's approach to gameplay is radically different than other MMORPGs in some respects and many gamers aren't looking for that experience.  They're fundementally different in design and gameplay.  It's a simple fact that fantasy games (whether electronic or otherwise) outsell science fiction games, generally.  There are tons of folks who have no interest in spending hours searching an asteroid belt to mine some minerals in EO who would sit transfixed while looking for herbs while exploring a forest in WoW.


----------



## TheLe (Sep 27, 2006)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> It's more than polish, it certainly isn't the art (cartoony art direction in WoW was a smokescreen to reduce system requirements)...




In one public thread about Everquest2 vs WoW, one person described the art very nicely:

Everquest has more polygons, but WoW has better artists.

And I think that is fairly true. Wow looks fantastic, and on medium graphics setting my $99 AGP GeForce MX 2 has not hiccuped once. (Athlon 1.8ghz, 768mb system RAM). It just runs great all in all.

But like anygame, graphics is only part of the equation. The actual game itself rocks.

HEck if anyone wants a free 10-day trial of WoW, PM me with your email address and I will fire off the free download link and code to you (through my WoW interface).

See is believing. Playing is proof.

`Le


----------



## Andur (Sep 27, 2006)

BTW, just to be clear, I never called nor claimed that those who play WoW are idiots, just that idots can successfully play WoW.  Big difference.      And it is actually a compliment to Blizzrd on making a very easy to use interface and "flow" for a MMO.

TheLe, nice point on different gaming styles.  And just like I hate RTS, others love them.  Doesn't make either "group" right or wrong.  

Andagor, diplomacy gets in the way of pew pew.      Will drop in channel when I have a lil "downtime".

Carry on everyone.


----------



## andargor (Sep 27, 2006)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Well, that sounds an awful lot like you're saying that the game is a success for you because it really discourages casual players, is inaccessible to all but the most fanatical and that it's hostile to newcomers.  Which could be a strength, I suppose, if you're not the newcomer.  That certainly jibes with reviews I've seen of it.




I will not deny that the learning curve is steep. But, as much as there are "very bad" people in Eve that "want your stuff", there is also the other kind that will go above and beyond to help newbs out. You see the depths of depravity and the heights of virtue, all mixed up into one.   

I agree that it all depends on what you are looking for in a game. But to the topic at hand, I would have to just say there are several ways of measuring success. Hopefully for WoW, the candle that burns twice as bright will not last half as long.


----------



## TheLe (Sep 27, 2006)

andargor said:
			
		

> I will not deny that the learning curve is steep. But, as much as there are "very bad" people in Eve that "want your stuff", there is also the other kind that will go above and beyond to help newbs out. You see the depths of depravity and the heights of virtue, all mixed up into one.  .




This is true in _any_ mmorpg, and World of Warcraft is no exception. As much as I *love* WoW, there sure can be jerks in there. Pickup groups are always hit and miss, but finding a guild with good people is very easy.

If you decide to play WoW, I have one recommendation -- play on a RP server. There is very little "role playing" on a Role Playing server, but conversely there is very little l33t d00d talk, and everyone is much nicer. And you don't have to deal with the stress of getting your ass sniped for no reason (on an RP server, the opposing faction cannot attack you unless you both turn your pvp flag on. On a PVP server, pvp is always on).

~Le


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 27, 2006)

TheLe said:
			
		

> This is true in _any_ mmorpg, and World of Warcraft is no exception. As much as I *love* WoW, there sure can be jerks in there. Pickup groups are always hit and miss, but finding a guild with good people is very easy.
> 
> If you decide to play WoW, I have one recommendation -- play on a RP server. There is very little "role playing" on a Role Playing server, but conversely there is very little l33t d00d talk, and everyone is much nicer. And you don't have to deal with the stress of getting your ass sniped for no reason (on an RP server, the opposing faction cannot attack you unless you both turn your pvp flag on. On a PVP server, pvp is always on).
> 
> ~Le




I know.  I'm contemplating moving my toons from Kul Tiras to a RP server for that reason.  I can't take anymore chuck norris chat over the LFG channel.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 27, 2006)

Personally, I admit to being afraid of failure in a computer game--or at least being averse to it.  I'm a straight-A student in real life who works alongside school; I work with disadvantaged children; I used to work for a humane society where our overarching goal was to lower our euthanasia numbers below 50% of the 8,000+ animals coming to the shelter every year.

In real life, I'll face up to the possibility of failure no problem:  it's necessary to risk failure in order to accomplish anything.  But in games, I'm not so interested in failure.  After all, there's no way I can accomplish anything real in the game; why risk failure for a fake accomplishment?

I really appreciate games where you can autosave whenever you want, or where you face a minimal death penalty.  Simulated failure doesn't interest me in my entertainment.

Daniel


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 27, 2006)

There is still a possiblity of failure in WoW.  Imagine spending 3-4 hours working over a dungeon instance only to have the group splinter since 1-2 players are tried of another player screwing up and causing wipes of the party.  Then you have to quit for the day and try again some other time.  That is a lot better for me than losing a bunch of XP and having to spend hours of game time just trying to get back to the point I was at before.  To me that isn't fun and I'm not playing a game to simulate real life.


----------



## Goodsport (Sep 28, 2006)

Considering that I was late to the WoW party but have finally gotten into it, it'd be just my luck for them to soon announce a WoW 2 to come soon. 


-G


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 28, 2006)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> Considering that I was late to the WoW party but have finally gotten into it, it'd be just my luck for them to soon announce a WoW 2 to come soon.




No danger of that. The first expansion for WoW is due out this fall, but it's just bumping up the level cap and adding some new areas/content. Blizzard is talking about making one expansion a year to follow up. So I don't see a WoW 2 for a minimum of 3-5 yrs.


----------



## TheLe (Sep 28, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> No danger of that. The first expansion for WoW is due out this fall, but it's just bumping up the level cap and adding some new areas/content. Blizzard is talking about making one expansion a year to follow up. So I don't see a WoW 2 for a minimum of 3-5 yrs.




That is Correct. And if each expansion increased the cap by on 10, it will take 4 total expansions just to get the max to 100. This game isn't going anywhere anytime soon. WoW is their golden goose right now, and a "Wow-2" announcement would kill that golden goose. 

It is also known that 2 additional games are in development at Blizzard, but we are all pretty sure it is *not* an MMORPG. Most of us feel the games in development are are Starcraft 2 and possibly Diablo 3 (early this year, Blizzard was seeking a developer with RTS experience). 

On that note, I hope Starcraft 2 is better than Warcraft 3, which I thought stunk. And a Diablo 3? Pinch me I'm dreaming...

`The


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 28, 2006)

I'd drop WoW in a minute though if there was a Traveller style Sci-Fi RPG.


----------



## andargor (Sep 28, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I'd drop WoW in a minute though if there was a Traveller style Sci-Fi RPG.




Incidentally, that's what initially attracted me to Eve.   

I used to play Traveller, I still have the books! (High Guard, Striker boxed set, etc.)


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 29, 2006)

TheLe said:
			
		

> On that note, I hope Starcraft 2 is better than Warcraft 3, which I thought stunk.



I just replayed both of them in the past few months, and while I think Warcraft 3 is pretty fun, it's nowhere near the joyful experience that was Starcraft.  If they can maintain the same brilliant quality, I would love love love to play Starcraft 2.

Daniel


----------



## Kaodi (Sep 30, 2006)

*Ugh...*

StarCraft II.... STARCRAFT II... Ugh... Brains... 

*cough, cough*

Anyhow, I hope they go all out with StarCraft II. If they give it the trademark style of graphics, but at the top end, with good maps, it will rock. If you look at some of the games these days like Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander, you can see some of the possibilities for how far advanced SC II will be over the original. Most importantly though, to live up to the original, it will have to be perfectly balanced, and scale up to zillions of units. I am really looking forward to the story of the campaign. Hopefully they will make it a long one.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Sep 30, 2006)

The Gaming Steve Podcast (run by Stephen Glicker, who has a lot of friends at Blizzard) has indeed confirmed that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are being made.  But considering how Blizzard completely scrapped Starcraft: Ghost, nothing is certain.  They're making such a mint on WoW that none of this stuff has to come out until it's perfect.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 30, 2006)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> Anyhow, I hope they go all out with StarCraft II. If they give it the trademark style of graphics, but at the top end, with good maps, it will rock.



Don't count on it--and I'm happy about that.  Blizzard traditionally makes games that are playable on low-end systems.  I hope they'll continue to do so, so that poor gamers like me can join in the fun.

Is Starcraft: Ghost really scrapped?  I thought it was just endlessly delayed, another long Blizzard tradition.

Daniel


----------



## TheLe (Sep 30, 2006)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> The Gaming Steve Podcast (run by Stephen Glicker, who has a lot of friends at Blizzard) has indeed confirmed that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are being made.  But considering how Blizzard completely scrapped Starcraft: Ghost, nothing is certain.  They're making such a mint on WoW that none of this stuff has to come out until it's perfect.




Stracraft 2 and Diablo 3 are really no-brainers. It is highly unlikely that it will be cancelled.

As for Starcraft: Ghost, it is a little less surprising -- Blizzard has not been in the console business for many years, and the new generation is now here (Ps3/Xbox360), which makes releasing their game much more difficult.

I fully epect Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 to finish their development normally. 

Fortunately, Blizzard is know for releasing relatively bug-free and polished games, so it should be good.

Unfortunately, Blizzard is know for releasing relatively bug-free and polished games, so it should be another 2 years before we see these games.

~Le


----------



## Thanee (Oct 10, 2006)

TheLe said:
			
		

> On that note, I hope Starcraft 2 is better than Warcraft 3, which I thought stunk.




Very much so. Too bad, WC3 was/is very successful... I sure hope they realize, that it would have been twice as successful, if it was more like Starcraft. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## TheLe (Oct 10, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Very much so. Too bad, WC3 was/is very successful... I sure hope they realize, that it would have been twice as successful, if it was more like Starcraft.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




Well, it's really a matter of perception. I don't think WC3 would have been as successful if "Blizzard" was not attached to it.

I think as a RPG/RTS hybrid, Warcraft3 very much succeeds. The problem is that WC3 fails as an RPG or RTS seperately. I have always believed that WC3 was designed as a platform to help push World of Warcraft -- essentially Blizzard "sold out" to push WoW.

I am sure this won't happen with Starcraft 3, which I actually hope stays in 2d.

`LE


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 10, 2006)

TheLe said:
			
		

> Well, it's really a matter of perception. I don't think WC3 would have been as successful if "Blizzard" was not attached to it.
> 
> I think as a RPG/RTS hybrid, Warcraft3 very much succeeds. The problem is that WC3 fails as an RPG or RTS seperately. I have always believed that WC3 was designed as a platform to help push World of Warcraft -- essentially Blizzard "sold out" to push WoW.




Considering Blizzard killed a Warcarft adventure game to prevent it from harming the license, I'm not sure that I'd accept that WC3 was simply pushed out the door to sell an MMORPG two and a half years later.  Certainly, it appears that you're in the minority in thinking that WC3 wasn't a very good game.


----------



## TheLe (Oct 11, 2006)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Considering Blizzard killed a Warcarft adventure game to prevent it from harming the license, I'm not sure that I'd accept that WC3 was simply pushed out the door to sell an MMORPG two and a half years later.  Certainly, it appears that you're in the minority in thinking that WC3 wasn't a very good game.




Hey, I think it's a fine game, but I just don't think it was as good as Starcraft or as revolutionary as Warcraft II.

Did I like it? Not really, no. The single player campaign was fun enough, but the multiplayer sucked and the upkeep limit was very anti-starcarft. All all the emphasis on heroes was just blah. I have no idea what the game was like now, but when I played you pretty much lost the game once your heroes died. 

Now don't get me wrong, WC3 was in development for a long time. I believe that it Started out as a true sequel to WC2. However, the overall story arc and feel of the game definitely feels more like a prequel to World of Warcraft than a sequel to Warcraft 2. 

And once again, I don't think it would have sold as well or would have gotten as good reviews if it did not have the "Blizzard" logo on it.

I'll take Warcraft 2 and Starcraft anyday over the hero-fest that is WC3.

Not that it matters... I am mostly playing Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft these days.

`Le


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 11, 2006)

*Graphics*

Well, consider that if StarCraft II had graphics that were top end today, by the time they were released they would be low end. Your point is well taken however. Something Blizzard has been really good at in WarCraft II, StarCraft and WarCraft III (and probably WoW) is making games that have graphics that are still aesthetically pleasing on some level. Yes, they're dated, but they still look good. Anyway, I can't wait until they finally show us the first details and screens for StarCraft II... I wouldn't be surprised if it is the most highly anticipated RTS, ever.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 13, 2006)

Just curious, as I'm not a MMORPG player (somehow, the idea of plunking down money for software followed by monthy fees to play when I have limited play time bothers me) -- why is it that DDO seems to be doing so poorly?  I'd think with the D&D name, it would have a real shot at success?


----------



## TheLe (Oct 13, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Just curious, as I'm not a MMORPG player (somehow, the idea of plunking down money for software followed by monthy fees to play when I have limited play time bothers me) -- why is it that DDO seems to be doing so poorly?  I'd think with the D&D name, it would have a real shot at success?




First off, there is alot of teamwork required in the game. That itself makes the game less accessable to casual games. This is also it's strength however.

Next, it has some mighty stiff competition with Guild Wars, World of Warcraft, and Everquest.

Finally, this review excerpt is probably the most telling reason: 

"Unfortunately, there isn't a lot to do while waiting to get in a group for a dungeon. There's no crafting, no player-versus-player combat, no random monsters to beat up, and no auction house. This is true to D&D -- I won't deny that. But in an MMO environment, it can lead to a lot of thumb twiddling. There really is nothing to do. You can turn in some dungeon drops to collectors (more on that in a minute), repair your gear, sell your spoils of war to a vendor, and look for more quests. Other than that, there isn't really any actual game to play. You can't go into a dungeon on your own, unless it's small and you're at least one level above the requirement. But in this situation, it's over quickly and you don't get a lot of experience points. D&D's party- and dungeon-oriented system just doesn't slide smoothly into the MMO model."

Read the review here:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/697/697669p1.html


----------



## Goodsport (Oct 26, 2006)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> It's more than polish, it certainly isn't the art (cartoony art direction in WoW was a smokescreen to reduce system requirements)...




While I certainly won't argue that WoW's cartoony art direction helps reduce the system requirements on my older system, _Guild Wars_ has very non-cartoony yet still beautiful graphics and runs just as well on my system as WoW does.  

I'm not sure how the latter was done, but it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that Anet correctly took the same path as Blizzard did in regards to the lower system requirements to allow more people to play comfortably.  After all, Jeff Strain, one of Anet's co-founders, was one of WoW's lead designers.  


-G


----------



## Goodsport (Oct 26, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> No danger of that. The first expansion for WoW is due out this fall, but it's just bumping up the level cap and adding some new areas/content. Blizzard is talking about making one expansion a year to follow up. So I don't see a WoW 2 for a minimum of 3-5 yrs.




It turns out that the expansion has just been delayed from November 2006 to January 2007. 


-G


----------



## TheLe (Oct 26, 2006)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> It turns out that the expansion has just been delayed from November 2006 to January 2007.
> 
> -G




They claim it is because they want to release a bug free game, which I would normally agree with, knowing Blizzard's history.

However, it is more than a coincindence that the press release came out right before the release of their WoW card game.

I suspect they didn't want to leech off of card game sales.

`Le


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 26, 2006)

TheLe said:
			
		

> However, it is more than a coincidence that the press release came out right before the release of their WoW card game.
> 
> I suspect they didn't want to leech off of card game sales.




So you believe that Blizzard, who is now more financially secure than they've ever been, would do short-shrift to their runaway blockbuster online game that has nearly 7 million active subscribers across several continents for a licensed TCG product that, while it will certainly proved popular, is several orders of magnitude smaller in customer base, product reach and overall sales?  Considering Blizzard has already killed two games just to protect their licenses, I think it's much more likely they decided the product wasn't ready...especially with the changes they've decided to make to the Blood Elves.  I doubt Upper Deck pressured them into delaying their software for a licensed product, but YMMV.


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 26, 2006)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> So you believe that Blizzard, who is now more financially secure than they've ever been, would do short-shrift to their runaway blockbuster online game that has nearly 7 million active subscribers across several continents for a licensed TCG product that, while it will certainly proved popular, is several orders of magnitude smaller in customer base, product reach and overall sales?  Considering Blizzard has already killed two games just to protect their licenses, I think it's much more likely they decided the product wasn't ready...especially with the changes they've decided to make to the Blood Elves.  I doubt Upper Deck pressured them into delaying their software for a licensed product, but YMMV.




Stop using your logic to deflate peoples intricate and far more interesting conspiracy theories. Next thing you'll be telling us that Aliens weren't behind the Pearl Harbour attack.


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 26, 2006)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Stop using your logic to deflate peoples intricate and far more interesting conspiracy theories. Next thing you'll be telling us that Aliens weren't behind the Pearl Harbour attack.




_Who Sent YOU?!?!  It was them, wasn't it?!?_

[drops phone and runs....]


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 26, 2006)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> It's more than polish, it certainly isn't the art (cartoony art direction in WoW was a smokescreen to reduce system requirements)...



Yeah, it's a smokescreen to have WoW characters look like Warcraft series characters, when clearly, the way to continue a franchise is to jettison the art style of a game series that has sold more than 10 million boxes to date.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 26, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I know.  I'm contemplating moving my toons from Kul Tiras to a RP server for that reason.  I can't take anymore chuck norris chat over the LFG channel.



We get a little of that still on Silver Hand, but as a general rule, if you leave the General channel, life on an RP server is a much better experience than general or PvP servers.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 26, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Very much so. Too bad, WC3 was/is very successful... I sure hope they realize, that it would have been twice as successful, if it was more like Starcraft.



The world has enough StarCraft clones already. Blizzard doesn't need to make one.

Warcraft III -- with a team that started with the Brood War team -- had to be something different, just for the sake of the programmers' sanity.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 26, 2006)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Considering Blizzard killed a Warcarft adventure game to prevent it from harming the license, I'm not sure that I'd accept that WC3 was simply pushed out the door to sell an MMORPG two and a half years later.  Certainly, it appears that you're in the minority in thinking that WC3 wasn't a very good game.



Given how many years they spent on War3, and how many changes the game underwent from the time it was first announced (and previewed!), I think it's difficult to characterize it as being "pushed out" at all, unless it was being pushed by an army of carnivorous snails.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 26, 2006)

TheLe said:
			
		

> They claim it is because they want to release a bug free game, which I would normally agree with, knowing Blizzard's history.
> 
> However, it is more than a coincindence that the press release came out right before the release of their WoW card game.
> 
> I suspect they didn't want to leech off of card game sales.



 

No, it's a coincidence. Blizzard is keeping Vivendi Universal Games afloat _all by themselves_. They have 7 million subscribers worldwide, more than all the other MMORPG games out there combined. And nearly every one of them will be buying the Burning Crusade, instantly making it the best-selling MMORPG expansion of all time.

Even if only a quarter of all WoW players pick up the card game, that's almost 2 million players.

There's not a lot of worry about the card game or the expansion doing poorly.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 26, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The world has enough StarCraft clones already. Blizzard doesn't need to make one.




But Blizzard never does new games. They always use well-proven game concepts. 

And StarCraft has proven very well. 

Also, what game is out there, which is similar enough to StarCraft to be considered a worthy alternative?
I was thinking about getting Armies of Exigo, which looked pretty fun (played the demo version), though it's more like WarCraft than StarCraft, being fantasy and all that.

There certainly are plenty RTS games, but none of those I have seen manage to reach the level of StarCraft. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 26, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Just curious, as I'm not a MMORPG player (somehow, the idea of plunking down money for software followed by monthy fees to play when I have limited play time bothers me) -- why is it that DDO seems to be doing so poorly?  I'd think with the D&D name, it would have a real shot at success?



First, the name doesn't have as much value as it used to and the game doesn't adhere to D&D rules and tropes nearly as well as one would have expected. (NWN is what you want for that.) In a marketplace stuffed to the gills with fantasy MMORPGs (all of them inspired by D&D), the name alone isn't enough to stand out.

Secondly, as was said, it's not really friendly to hopping on and off when you have 30 minutes free. (This is also one of the things that has sunk EQ1 and threatened to sink EQ2.) If an MMORPG's biggest advantage over tabletop gaming is that I can log on for 30 minutes and play before work, there needs to be _something meaningful that I can do during that time_.

Finally, it doesn't offer anything fundementally different than GuildWars does. And GuildWars, while not a "real" MMORPG due to the way the game architecture works, is free. Paying $15/month for something roughly comparable to a free game isn't going to be a compelling argument to a lot of buyers.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 26, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> But Blizzard never does new games. They always use well-proven game concepts.



You wouldn't have known that during the StarCraft beta test. People HOWLED that it wasn't like every other RTS out there and that those differences would be the death of it. (Yes, beta testers predicted SC would be a giant flop.)

I think what Blizzard does is take everything that works in a genre, throw away the stuff that doesn't (no sitting and staring at a spellbook on a screen for 10 minutes while your wizard regains enough mana to do anything, for instance) and then cannibalizes their own ideas that have worked in the past to create a new product. (The Diablo II skill trees were inspired by the StarCraft tech trees, according to Blizzard, and showed up in the final version of talents in the WoW system, which also uses the quest-giving indicators from War3.)

And just because the StarCraft clones didn't prove memorable doesn't mean there weren't a LOT of them out there in the late 1990s and early 21st century before War3 was released.

More importantly, the War3 team had been working non-stop on StarCraft and Brood War and then War3 for something like six years altogether. Changing things up so that they didn't blow their own brains out was kind of inevitable. Companies like EA that require pumping out marginal changes in established franchises in an assembly line fashion have HUGE morale problems and massive turnover far beyond anything ever seen at Blizzard.


----------



## ShadowX (Oct 26, 2006)

Sorry, I got to this party late, but it bears repeating that the Blizzard name probably sold more copies than the actualy quality of WoW.

I say this because that Blizzard name was enough for many people to buy their first MMORPG and we all know the many effective incentives the genre has to keep you playing after that initial purchase.  Then you have the social aspect of the game that feeds off the huge subscriber base.  If all your friends are playing it and pressuring you to play, what do you think will happen?

I have great respect for Blizzard, but I also recognize that they garner a huge traction from their name at this point.  They had one good idea in their existence with Diablo; the game that influenced every other CRPG made since (mostly for the worse).  Warcraft 1 and 2 were derivative RTS games.  Starcraft was the game where Blizzard hit upon its winning formula I like to call the three Ps. Pilfer(from other games), Polish and Playtest.  They used this extensively in Diablo 2 where they followed suit and made a clone of their own game but still found great success.  Warcraft 3 same thing.  Instead of the innovative RPG/RTS it started as, they backtracked to a standard RTS system and borrowed from the rather dull RPG/RTS glut of the time.

Then we get to WoW.  You could seriously point out nearly every mechanism in the game and I could name its origin.  All Blizzard managed to do was 1) have the Blizzard name and 2)do the obvious thing and appeal to the casual player, a market they had tapped with Diablo 2.  In fact, it is amazing nothing like WoW came out sooner, all the ideas were already in place.

So in summary, I respect Blizzard because they bring some fundamentally sound design principles to bear, but they long ago stopped ranking as a truly innovative company.  Now, excuse me, I have to go level my human warlock.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 27, 2006)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> Then we get to WoW.  You could seriously point out nearly every mechanism in the game and I could name its origin.



Questing as a major form of experience, instead of as an afterthought (EQ1) or a way to guide you into endless grinding of mooks (CoX)? (Yes, Blizzard has some of those, but it also has quite a few quests with an obscene amount of XP, even at high levels, and a ton that involve only incidental mook kills on the way to get the McGuffin or whatever.)



> In fact, it is amazing nothing like WoW came out sooner, all the ideas were already in place.



As we can see from the development of CoX, Vanguard, EQ2, whatever they're calling the Lord of the Rings game this week and other examples, people mostly want to do EQ1 "right," which means a handful of small changes. Hell, they're still persisting at this even though EQ1 hasn't worn the crown for quite some time.

There's a certain degree of self-confidence required to be a lead developer of a game. When it comes to MMORPGs, it seems that mostly gets transmuted into bizarre arrogance. (Witness SWG, EQ2 and Vanguard.)



> So in summary, I respect Blizzard because they bring some fundamentally sound design principles to bear, but they long ago stopped ranking as a truly innovative company.



I don't know they were ever "truly innovative." But you never go broke giving the folks what they want in a highly refined and polished manner. Hell, that's the entire business model for five-star hotels.



> Now, excuse me, I have to go level my human warlock.



The anti-dispel talent in the expansion that you guys get is going to be just evil in PVP.


----------



## Pants (Oct 28, 2006)

TheLe said:
			
		

> The single player campaign was fun enough, but the multiplayer sucked and the upkeep limit was very anti-starcarft.



That's because it's *not supposed to be StarCraft*.   
Just like how StarCraft was never just Warcraft II In Space.

Personally, I much prefer WC3 to WC2 which, while revolutionary, is a bit boring to play these days. WC3 and SC are great games, IMO, but they aren't very similar at all and it was pretty obvious from the previews that they were aiming for something different than StarCraft.

Personally, I've had a lot of fun playing with my friends on WC3, but we all dig the hero aspect of it. 



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> There certainly are plenty RTS games, but none of those I have seen manage to reach the level of StarCraft.



Then just play StarCraft.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Oct 29, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> There certainly are plenty RTS games, but none of those I have seen manage to reach the level of StarCraft.




I agree . Starcraft was just great and i would love a SC 2. Played it ot death MP with a bunch of friends.

Never played WoW, played WC 3 a bit, it was ok/good. 

I like guild wars (nitefall expansion installed today, never bought factions), mainly because

A. Its very good
B. no monthly fee. as i will be a somewhat casual player

Very interested as too what NWN2 offers in the MP area

JohnD


----------



## satori01 (Oct 31, 2006)

Re: WoW  I think Steel Wind  and Wizdru have said it best.  There is so much flavor in the game.  I remember getting sucked into the Westfall series of quests and almost wishing it was a single player game so I could see NPCs return to the blighted area.  Wandering through the destroyed Elven lands is a very strange experience, it is the essence of Tolkein Elves, with dim light, strange luminescent glows and stange sounds.

WoW has the best instances.  The instances are fun to play, have a consistent theme, and generally contain a "cut style" scene or two.  WoW ease of play is also deceptive.  Random factors might encourage your victory over certain encounters,  goading you own to dangers you are not prepared for.  Group make up is not so critical in WoW as in EQ, and overall I have had more "by the skin of my teeth" type victories than in EQ, where often the room pop'd or someone overpulled and it is time to cut and run while the monk feigns death.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 1, 2006)

Yeah, the atmosphere, leveraging the lore of three games and two expansions (and uncompleted game that got turned into a novel) before WoW, is really one of the selling points. My wife didn't know why I got sort of choked up the first time we entered the Arathi Highlands and saw the last soldiers of Stromgarde still patroling the roads, in an effort to bring back their country from the apocalyptic events of War3.

The whole game world reeks of such things, and apparently it gets kicked up a notch in the expansion (although that necessarily is mostly a sequel to Beyond the Dark Portal).

In contrast, there were numerous instances in EQ1 where something was clearly intended, it was never implemented (or implemented in a half-assed way by someone not around to know what the original plans were) or, better yet, put in half-heartedly and then jerked away later. See: half the lore dealing with Ak'Anon and the Steamfont Mountains.

In addition, it looks like WoW (and to a lesser extent, EQ2) won't be repeating the mistake of EQ1 in that each expansion gave a new complete set of capital cities that pulled people away from the rest of the world (a process that stopped after five or six expansions in EQ1, but that's still five or six too long). In WoW, even in the expansion, there will be a lot of reasons for players to come back to the old world capital cities on a regular basis, despite the shiny new locations in Outland. Nothing sucked more in EQ1 than being an expansion or more behind the cutting edge and finding everywhere else a barren ghost town.


----------



## Joker (Nov 1, 2006)

The reason why World of Warcraft is so popular is because it spreads cocaine through your speakers.

I swear to God.


----------



## Pants (Nov 1, 2006)

Joker said:
			
		

> The reason why World of Warcraft is so popular is because it spreads cocaine through your speakers.
> 
> I swear to God.



Then why am I not losing weight?


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 2, 2006)

Andur said:
			
		

> Dumb down a game enough to where the average idiot can be successful, make death a minor inconvience, and provide an early rigid framework to "guarantee" success for a beginner.  Then market the heck out of it early, have good graphics quality, and then let word of mouth do its job.
> 
> IMHO it succeeds because it feeds upon the overwhelming fear of failure which exists in the world today.  By not offerring failure it makes people more comfortable and thus able to enjoy themselves, which is pretty much the point of a game from a players point of view.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 4, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Questing as a major form of experience, instead of as an afterthought (EQ1) or a way to guide you into endless grinding of mooks (CoX)? (Yes, Blizzard has some of those, but it also has quite a few quests with an obscene amount of XP, even at high levels, and a ton that involve only incidental mook kills on the way to get the McGuffin or whatever.)




I remember being surprised as heck that the decent XP from quests at lower levels wasn't continued up higher in EQ1.

I also remember spending a lot of time, as a cleric, staring at my spellbook.  So much fun, yeah!

WoW is much more fun.  I'd like a monk class, and for my paladin to actually be able to do something like damage in the game, but hey, those are my only complaints.

Brad


----------



## Goodsport (Dec 19, 2006)

Did EverQuest 2 improve enough in the past year to have caught up with World of Warcraft qualitywise? 


-G


----------



## caudor (Dec 20, 2006)

I've played WoW and had some fun, but the lack of depth caused me to bore quickly.  In contrast, I've enjoyed the heck out of EQ2.  The expansions do alot to help keep things interesting and fresh.

Of course, I enjoy D&D more than any online game.  No comparison there.


----------



## Vigilance (Dec 20, 2006)

I said it before, I'll say it again. EQ could be the world's best game and I still wouldnt play it because of Sony customer service.

I signed up for 3 months in advance, being told by all my friends I'd love the game. I dropped out after about 6 weeks, and basically forgot about it. Then they billed me again.

I'm really pretty mellow about stuff like this, so I wasn't even mad, I just called them and said "hey, I forgot to cancel the rebill, can you help me?" and in a VERY rude voice I was told "no, we have the right to charge you, I can see that you havent been active of late but if you want the charge reversed, take it up with your credit company".

So I did, they removed the charge, but Sony can kiss my you know what. They're never seeing another dime of mine for an MMO.

Chuck


----------



## Tarek (Dec 21, 2006)

Two things:

One: a much faster power curve, allowing more casual players to feel as if they've 'mastered' the game.

Two: A massive, global advertising campaign. Seriously.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 21, 2006)

A third thing:  soloability.  I can play an alt and solo through most of the levels.  I don't have to worry about finding groups.


----------



## BRP2 (Dec 21, 2006)

My personal opinion on it:

Why did WoW get so popular? Brand name and the fact, at least for the first 59 levels, it's easier than even the most basic of offline games.

Everquest came out when the market was young and undeveloped. And, whatever is popular in China rules the market. Get rid of inland Asia and WoW population shrinks to half and LineageI/II disappear. WoW still dominates the market by around 50% still.

Personally I prefer the depth of EQ style games. Which is why I currently play FFXI and only Vanguard interests me in the future.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 21, 2006)

BRP2 said:
			
		

> And, whatever is popular in China rules the market.




WoW already ruled the market before it was even released in asia, though. 

At least IIRC, it was only available in the U.S. and (shortly afterwards) europe at first and topped every expectations, Blizzard had (and those were pretty high already, I'm sure, they are Blizzard after all).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## BRP2 (Dec 22, 2006)

Lineage I/II is likely to have quite a bit of ground on WoW if they had not released in Asia.


----------



## Goodsport (Dec 16, 2008)

I'm bumping this thread back up in honor of my return to WoW last week (with the purchase of Wrath of the Lich King) after a 1 1/2 year hiatus from the game due to having been laid off from work at the time (I'm no longer laid off), though I'd already bought The Burning Crusade beforehand. 

Has everyone's opinions here about WoW and other MMORPG's changed or stayed the same since the release of the game's two expansions?  Has the game itself changed (if so, for the better or for the worse?)?  Is Everquest 2 poised to make a run to recapture the MMORPG throne its franchise once occupied?  Are more recently released MMORPG's such as The Lord of the Rings Online or Warhammer Online instead ready to take the mantle from WoW? 


-G


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 16, 2008)

Goodsport said:


> I'm bumping this thread back up in honor of my return to WoW last week (with the purchase of Wrath of the Lich King) after a 1 1/2 year hiatus from the game due to having been laid off from work at the time (I'm no longer laid off), though I'd already bought The Burning Crusade beforehand.
> 
> Has everyone's opinions here about WoW and other MMORPG's changed or stayed the same since the release of the game's two expansions?  Has the game itself changed (if so, for the better or for the worse?)?  Is Everquest 2 poised to make a run to recapture the MMORPG throne its franchise once occupied?  Are more recently released MMORPG's such as The Lord of the Rings Online or Warhammer Online instead ready to take the mantle from WoW?
> 
> ...



Necro much?

Nobody is taking the mantle from WoW.

DDO could have, but the biggest innovation they had turned against them. The combat in DDO is the best, most fun I have had in an MMO, but it required them to leave the 'turn' based system behind which required many many changes from the D&D rules. Which drove away many of what would have been their largest fan base. Shame. DDO is a fun game.

LotRO probably should have done much better than it has. Not real sure why, seemed like a decent enough game when I beta'd it but I had no desire to play it live.

AoC. IMO if any game should have been able to take a chunk out of WoWs hide it was this monster. The problem is, once downloaded it looks and plays like WoW with adult graphics and while boobies are nice, a King of RPGs they do not make.

Warhammer, I mention this one only because my best friend had this silly notion that it was going to not only damage but _overtake_ WoWs subscription numbers. (Yeah, reality has set in for him, he still likes the game.)

Of course there is always:
EVE Online as someone said upthread two years ago, it is the Anti-WoW. It takes a very different mindset to enjoy the possibility of losing very very expensive ships in interstellar conflict. Never gonna be HUGE but it's an impressivly succsesful game considering the risks involved.


Edit: WoW was very much a matter of the stars being right. It's a good game. (I wouldn't say great but that's just me.) it runs very well on non-gaming PCs, it had a pre-existing fan base from B-net. It catered to both the PvP and the no-PvP crowds. (I'm not sure if it was the first to do this, but it was _one_ of the first.) All these things came together and WoW exploded.

At this point there is no competing with WoW. There is only competing for the number two spot in the market.


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 16, 2008)

I am going to go out on a limb (a very skinny, dry limb), and say that I think that if there is any MMO with the potential to unseat Blizzard, it is LEGO Universe. Of course, a number of things would have to be realized for that to happen, the most basic of which is the game must be good, of course. Really, really good.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 17, 2008)

While shooting to dethrone the most financially successful game in the history of human civilization (and yes, that's what WoW is) is hubris in the extreme, IF there is a title in development that could do it, I think it's BioWare's _*Star Wars: The Old Republic.*_.

Not saying they will do it - but if there is a WoW killer spoiling in the wings, this is it.

http://www.swtor.com/media/vidcasts/viddoc001


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Dec 17, 2008)

I know I'm vastly happier now with WoW than I have been at any point in the past.

At TBC, it took me about 8 months from launch to get into the first 10-man raid.

I was in my first 25-man raid two days after hitting 80, and my small little guild of gold farmers and relentless alt levelers cleared 3/4 of Naxx on 10-man a month after the expansion (i.e. this past weekend).

*And* my ret paladin is useful.  FINALLY.

I'm much happier now.

Brad


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 17, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> WoW was very much a matter of the stars being right. It's a good game. (I wouldn't say great but that's just me.) it runs very well on non-gaming PCs, it had a pre-existing fan base from B-net. It catered to both the PvP and the no-PvP crowds. (I'm not sure if it was the first to do this, but it was _one_ of the first.) All these things came together and WoW exploded.
> 
> At this point there is no competing with WoW. There is only competing for the number two spot in the market.




Funny, that's what folks said about Everquest...once.

WoW was much more than being lucky at the right time.  Quite the opposite, IMHO, and I've never even played the game.  WoW has survived and thrived for several key reasons:

1) Continued a legacy from an established and popular franchise over which they had complete control (and had developed)

2) Provided a unique visual look that emphasized detail over style

3) Dramatically reduced the tedium of the leveling process, based on reports of my friends who have played WoW, CoX, EQ, EQ II, AC, AC II, DAoC, GW and others.

4) Offered free, regular content updates with dramatic storyline updates and considerably new material

5) Offered equally compelling PvE and PvP content

6) Has a Development team that doesn't seem to actively resent the player base

If anything, WoW should have been a second-ran after Everquest II.  But as you can see here, even though EQ started with higher numbers, all EQ II did was leech players from EQ.  WoW started with fewer subscribers, but ramped up FAST.  By late 2005, no other game could even come close to it.  And then it kept going.

There have been plenty of games that could have given it a run from for their money, but only WoW managed to grab the crown.  They didn't luck into it...they worked very hard to get it.

Dark Age of Camelot, for example, offered realm vs. realm combat over two years before WoW arrived...but it never captured the popular imagination.  EQ offered large-scale raids from nearly the beginning.  Ultimate Online had PvP play from day one.  Nothing in WoW is revolutionary...but the whole game is a well-executed package from beginning to end...and that's what's kept players in the game for years, now.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 17, 2008)

WizarDru said:


> Funny, that's what folks said about Everquest...once.




Right, and when did EQ have _10 times_ the subscribers of it's closest competitor?

I mean, c'mon. Really.

As for your points, nothing you listed contradicts what I said. I _have_ played the game. In beta, through the nightmare of a launch and for 6 or 8 months after. It's a good game. It is. I just don't think it is as good as the market indicates.

Obviously, I am in the minority in this. I am strangely OK with that.


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 18, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> They dumbed it down and removed all the challenge or depth.  Although they did keep the raids, which were the worst part of the EQ endgame.
> 
> Less snarkily, WoW attracted a lot more casual players, who recruited their casual-gamer friends.  The longevity of these games depends on the social networks that arise -- the more people who have an attachment to and play with on a regular basis, the less likely you are to stop playing entirely or hop to another game.
> 
> ...



Interesting comment. Just from the perspective of 2 years later dealing with a similiar issue in the tabletop thing, where 4e feels like a much more casual gamer friendly game.  Seeing the endresult of blizzard's design decision, it makes a lot of sense from a business perspective why 4e is what it is.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 18, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Warhammer, I mention this one only because my best friend had this silly notion that it was going to not only damage but _overtake_ WoWs subscription numbers. (Yeah, reality has set in for him, he still likes the game.)



LOL Hammer did not have a chance. Even brightened up from the source material, the setting is too dark, literally. Just looking at screenshots tells me the game is less colourful than WOW. It might seem like a non issue, but bright, cheary and cartoony "_feel good"_ will make folks happier while playing the game. Worldwide, there are lots of people who have legitimatly miserable lives and WOW is the best 'pick me up' they have access to.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Dec 18, 2008)

I played EQ off and on for a couple years and started playing WoW this past summer.

WoW is much more fun with much less down time and minor penalties for minor oopses.
Where with EQ, a small goof could get you killed and set you back several days of "playing" time.

Blizzard did their homework and took the good aspects of many games and cut out what wasn't liked.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 18, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Right, and when did EQ have _10 times_ the subscribers of it's closest competitor?
> 
> I mean, c'mon. Really.




Well, to be technical, the market leader form 1999-2005 was not Everquest, it was Lineage.  Which quite literally did 10 times the subscribers of it's closest comeptitor in 2001.  But we're not counting them in the hypothetical EQ losing it's throne to WoW idea.  But EQ had major mind share in the US, and it was the market leader.  Ultima Online had a plug-in audience, too, for many of the same reasons that WoW did.  But it was surpassed quickly by EQ, (though it never lost nearly as dramatically as all that).

It certainly wasn't a given at the time of launch that WoW was going to become the juggernaut it now is....in fact, with such a disastrous launch, a lot of folks thought it might be a colossal failure.  Obviously, that didn't happen.  I'm not arguing that WoW is or isn't a good game....I don't play it, though several of my players do or used to.  My point was just that it seems unfair to insinuate that the only reason WoW succeeded was by being in the right place at the right time, instead of being the product of a lot of hard work by some pretty talented people (who had a track record of quality work).


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 18, 2008)

WizarDru said:


> My point was just that it seems unfair to insinuate that the only reason WoW succeeded was by being in the right place at the right time, instead of being the product of a lot of hard work by some pretty talented people (who had a track record of quality work).




I didn't say, nor mean to imply that the only reason WoW did (is doing) so well was luck. In fact my points about it running on mediocre systems and optional PvP are due to the very hard work, research and talent you mention. My point was that any number of things could have been done differently and had they been so, WoW might have a fraction of the customer base they do now. Thus, 'the stars were right'.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 19, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Thus, 'the stars were right'.




Ah. My apologies for mischaracterizing your thoughts.  I took that phrase to mean 'they just happened to be in the right place at the right time when the heavens were in alignment just so'.  Spot on, then.


----------



## Goodsport (Jul 2, 2009)

"Sony: Without EverQuest, there would be no Warcraft" (Tuesday, 6/16/09)


-G


----------



## Goodsport (Jul 4, 2009)

Hopefully Blizzard's upcoming new MMO won't take away from WoW's numbers, especially considering that game director Jeffery Kaplan shifted over from WoW to the new game some months back. 


-G


----------



## Blue Sky (Jul 4, 2009)

Goodsport said:


> "Sony: Without EverQuest, there would be no Warcraft" (Tuesday, 6/16/09)
> 
> 
> -G




Heh.  I think the only thing WOW owes EQ is a list of how not to do things.

My pithy customer service example:

At one point, I was trying all the free mmo trials I could find.  I tried CoH and DDO, both with no problems.  I tried to download the EQ trial, and it failed to install.  I deleted the install packet, redownloaded it, and tried again.  Still failed to install.  So, I emailed customer service with my problem.  

The first thing they told me was to uninstall, and try to reinstall.  I responded that, as I said in the first email, it never got to install.  Oh, they say, download it again.  I already tried that as well, I tell them.  No, no, they say, try it again.  I do so, and email them again to say it's still not working.  They reply that they're sending it to tech support, and I should hear back soon.

Two days later I get an email from tech support, saying they were glad they could get the issue resolved.  I reply that it wasn't resolved, and they respond by saying that the trouble ticket was finished out, and so if I still had problems, I'd have to contact customer service again.  :facepalm:


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 6, 2009)

Goodsport said:


> Hopefully Blizzard's upcoming new MMO won't take away from WoW's numbers, especially considering that game director Jeffery Kaplan shifted over from WoW to the new game some months back.




Every new high-profile MMO cannibalizes its competition...the question is whether it can sustain those numbers.  EQ did this largely based on it being the first to successfully implement on a huge scale and having a sufficiently large user base as competition arrived.  When something better came along (say, a game where the devs didn't actively HATE their users), they lost share.  Note that Everquest, Asheron's Call and Ultima Online are still running, albeit with drastically reduced numbers.  

When Dark Age of Camelot came out, people ran to it.  For a while.
When City of Heroes came out, people ran to it.  For a while.
When Dungeons and Dragons online came out.....well, never mind. 

Frankly, I'd be more worried about Bioware's The Old Republic or Star Trek Online taking Wow customers (if I played WoW) more than Blizzard's next game, which is far off at this stage.


----------



## Goodsport (Jul 9, 2009)

Blue Sky said:


> Heh.  I think the only thing WOW owes EQ is a list of how not to do things.
> 
> My pithy customer service example:
> 
> ...




Yikes!   Were you eventually able to get the issue resolved?

Also, how has WoW customer service been by comparison?


-G


----------



## Goodsport (Jul 9, 2009)

WizarDru said:


> Every new high-profile MMO cannibalizes its competition...the question is whether it can sustain those numbers.  EQ did this largely based on it being the first to successfully implement on a huge scale and having a sufficiently large user base as competition arrived.  When something better came along (say, a game where the devs didn't actively HATE their users), they lost share.  Note that Everquest, Asheron's Call and Ultima Online are still running, albeit with drastically reduced numbers.
> 
> When Dark Age of Camelot came out, people ran to it.  For a while.
> When City of Heroes came out, people ran to it.  For a while.
> ...




Wouldn't EVE need to be more worried about losing customers to those games, considering that they're in the sci-fi genre? 


-G


----------



## Goodsport (Jul 9, 2009)

I first posted this in this thread on another forum recently, but it's just as appropriate here as well:



> I played EQ for about 2-3 months shortly after it was released.  Being my first-ever MMO, it certainly provided me with a "first-ever awe feeling" that no other MMO I've tried since has fully given me.  However, my only being able to play off and on in a game that required a nearly 24/7 commitment to truly advance, as well as my taking the aforementioned "RP sandbox" nature of the game to heart rather than truly engaging in the XP leveling that eventually became the game's primary focus, pretty much explain why I really didn't get very far in the game and why I eventually couldn't justify continuing my subscription.
> 
> I had fun while I was there, though.   However, there was a situation that occured when playing WoW yesterday that reminded me of one of the things I _don't_ miss from the EQ days:
> 
> ...





-G


----------



## TheLe (Jul 10, 2009)

Goodsport said:


> What is it about WoW that allowed it to take the top-spot, an achievement no other MMORPG was able to accomplish against EQ?




Former Blizzard programmer Bill Roper gave an interview a few years ago that captured this very answer.

He said that he was playing Everquest (original) and fought a very hard monster. He was full of potions but it was taking over 15 minutes. He decided to leave for dinner so he did so. He came back much later and found out he was dead.

However, he wasn't killed by the monster. Nope. He died because his online character didn't eat.

And those are the kind of mundane things that Blizzard tried to eliminate so that players can simply have fun. He said that the game was built around the idea that you could log in 20 minutes every day and still have fun, rather than being forced to be on 2 hours a day like other games.

Which is also why the death/penalty system is so favorable in World of Warcraft. They don't want it to frustrate players. (In Everquest 2 it's terrible -- if your party teammate dies, EVERYONE gets a penalty).

-The Le


----------



## Goodsport (Jul 12, 2009)

TheLe said:


> Former Blizzard programmer Bill Roper gave an interview a few years ago that captured this very answer.
> 
> He said that he was playing Everquest (original) and fought a very hard monster. He was full of potions but it was taking over 15 minutes. He decided to leave for dinner so he did so. He came back much later and found out he was dead.
> 
> ...




Very interesting. 

Was Everquest kind of like The Sims series in the micromanagment, where (from what I've heard) characters could actually die if the players didn't make them eat, go to the bathroom, exit swimming pools and such? 


-G


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 12, 2009)

Goodsport said:


> Was Everquest kind of like The Sims series in the micromanagment, where (from what I've heard) characters could actually die if the players didn't make them eat, go to the bathroom, exit swimming pools and such?




You had to eat and drink every so often (I think it was at least once per day/night cycle, which was fairly frequent).  I don't recall that you had issues with lack of sleep, but I'm surprised they didn't do that.

No going to the bathroom, though, that I recall.  None of the dungeons had them, anyway.  I imagine you went in the corner if necessary.

Brad


----------



## Goodsport (Jul 13, 2009)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> You had to eat and drink every so often (I think it was at least once per day/night cycle, which was fairly frequent).  I don't recall that you had issues with lack of sleep, but I'm surprised they didn't do that.



What happened if a character didn't eat and drink for a few days? 




cignus_pfaccari said:


> No going to the bathroom, though, that I recall.  None of the dungeons had them, anyway.  I imagine you went in the corner if necessary.



Did that also apply to the dungeons' regular denizens? 



-G


----------



## Asmor (Jul 13, 2009)

Worth noting, to emphasize the anti-grind nature of WoW, is that they're actively speeding up the lower levels of the game (probably because they feel compelled to add high-level content rather than low- and mid-level content).

For example, not too long ago they significantly increased the rate you got XP until level 60.

Recently they let you get mounts (which make travel much faster) at level 30 instead of level 40. In an upcoming patch, they're letting you get mounts at 20, epic mounts at 40, and flying mounts at 60 (formerly epic mounts required 60 and flying mounts required 70).

This takes a lot of the grind and downtime out of a game that already was great for low grind and low downtime.

It also has very modest system requirements. For a long time, my fiancée played on an old laptop with a poor processor, little ram, and no graphics accelerator. Despite that, I love the graphics and art style way. Much more personality than all of the other games that aim for photo-realism.


----------



## TheLe (Jul 13, 2009)

Just to build on Asmor, there are a couple other things.

1) XP boost. In another interview, they talked about how the resting bonus works. Currently, when you are in main city or inn, you accumulate a "resting bonus". This happens if you are logged in (or you log out while in the city or inn). The idea is that you can log out for 8 hours, come back later and get double XP for a while... so that you can catch up to your friends who have been playing all that time.

However, it wasn't intended that way. Originally Blizzard gave players an *XP Penalty* to players the longer they played to prevent them from leveling too quickly. They realized that this was harming the player rather than helping, so they reversed it and implemented the XP boost instead! In the end, they said, the results were the same. 

This was one of the most fascinating game decisions I have seen in WoW, and makes a lot of sense. That's just the kind of thing that puts players first.

2) Everquest 2 has better graphics, polygon count, and  more powerful graphics engine. However, World of Warcraft has the better artists. WoW has less polygons, but the the artists did a fantastic job of making things colorful and bringing everything to life.

Sometimes less is more.

-The Le


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 14, 2009)

Goodsport said:


> What happened if a character didn't eat and drink for a few days?




See your own quote above.



> Did that also apply to the dungeons' regular denizens?




Amusingly, ogres tend to have poop in their areas in WoW.  Everything else seems to have better toilet manners.

And there are quite a few quests that involve poop in some way, shape, or form (digging through, finding, etc).

Brad


----------



## Blue Sky (Jul 14, 2009)

Goodsport said:


> Yikes!   Were you eventually able to get the issue resolved?
> 
> Also, how has WoW customer service been by comparison?
> 
> ...




Heh, forgot about this thread for a few days...

Anyway, no, it never got resolved.  I basically felt that if they were going to give me the run around for a demo, I didn't want to try their game.

WoW, I only had a couple of issues that required customer service, and they were pretty helpful.  Once, my internet went out for a month (after I had bought a time card), and so I couldn't log on.  Once my internet issues were resolved, I emailed them to explain, and they gave a free couple of weeks.

The GM's in WoW are pretty good about getting back to you, even if you aren't online for a couple of days.


----------

