Any one want WOW to fail

[Odin]

Well 1 hour isn't enough for offline rpgs, "normal" games why should it be enough for a MMORPG?

Sure I'm looking at it from my point of view. I've seen things which I like and a lot of things I hate, so...

There's nothing wrong with a game catering to the easy, instant-crowd but there is something really really wrong if ALL games trieing to do this.

as for fun:

Your fun doesn't need to by my fun.

End-Game:

Highend-raiding isn't for everyone, it's as simple as that. Wheter you have the time, skill, like or hate it...In order to be longterm succesful you need the highend-players too.

I'm sick of hearing catering to the majority, majority != quality, look at wow and its community.

If you want a game of player skill, why don't you play something like counterstrike or quake?

If you want a game with instant fun, low skill why don't you play it yourself? I'm looking for something different and MO could be this game. So in no way I'm willing to play the braindead BS called counterstrike.

I would be pissed and never play that game again.

And other's wouldn't be pissed because games like that are something the mmorpg-genre is lacking since WoW's incredible success...

Its very simple:
Find your audience and stick to it don't look at WoW's numbers aso...

[Unomat]

Zoulz, it's a pity you never enjoyed games like Nomic where the rules of the game can actually be changed by the players themselves.

Originally Posted by Peter Suber

Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed.

Because the rules are always changing, there is no absolute set of rules to Nomic. There is only the starting or initial set of rules. There are 29 numbered rules in the Initial Set. Most are "procedural" and govern the process of changing the rules or the facts of life in a game where the rules are always changing. The chief exception is Initial Rule 202, which should be read first. Rule 202 is practically the only "substantive" rule in the Initial Set. It tells how to earn points to win. The mechanism is as simple as possible: one throws a die or makes a calculation. The substantive portion of the game is deliberately simple so that the players can decide, through rule-changes, what kind of game they want to play. If they make no decision here, they will be fully occupied in what I call a "procedural" game, which many players choose deliberately. In a substantive game, players aim to score points and win. In a procedural game, players try to tie the rules into the most interesting knots imaginable and to win not by points (Rule 208) but by paradox (Rule 213).

Heads-up for Traceur: there's a reference to a Ronald Dworkin in in the article in regards to rules and principles

As long as a game has a goal (win-condition if you like), I'd hesitate to call it a simulation. To me, the goal of a simulation is representing a(n abstract) system with a certain degree of success; in that sense the Sims as well as Second Life is a simulation whereas a sandbox, either available from the start or only in end-game, is not. If there ever would be a sandbox released that actually allowed the players to change the rules, adding to the immersive factors of the game, allowing for evolution of the in-game world so to speak on a level even going beyond what MUDs used to offer, I think a lot of people would be sold on the concept and never yearn for another game again.

PS Zoulz, you only mention the casual player who is looking for a fight in an MMO. What ever happened to the needs of the Explorers and the Socializers? Aren't Crafters entitled to their share of love, or people who want to play a Trader / Tavern Keep aso? What happened to the people adding to the flavor of the world? Or do we accept nowadays an MMO is only about quick gratification of the player's ego?

[Zoulz]

Originally Posted by Unomat

PS Zoulz, you only mention the casual player who is looking for a fight in an MMO. What ever happened to the needs of the Explorers and the Socializers? Aren't Crafters entitled to their share of love, or people who want to play a Trader / Tavern Keep aso? What happened to the people adding to the flavor of the world? Or do we accept nowadays an MMO is only about quick gratification of the player's ego?

You can't make a game that everybody will like. You must have a main focus in the game. Otherwise you might end up with something nobody likes. I'm not saying any of you are wrong. You have your own taste and I applaud you for that. I'm just trying to get you to see this from the developers perspective. They are a business and they want all the customers they can get. What would you do if that business was yours?

Would you create a game that just a small share of the gamer audience (including yourself) will appreciate? Or would you aim for everyone?

Good luck finding a company that will create a game just for you. You'd have to make it yourself.

I would never play a game where the rules can be bent in favor of a few. I play games to escape reality for awhile, not to experience it in a digital format. Do you honestly think people wouldn't exploit the freedoms they would be given?

[Odin]

Not every game needs to be for the same crowd. Thats the great advance IF you have the freedom to chosse. If you want it fast paced, instant and carebear-style, there might be other games for you.

From what I've read MO seems to be the long awaited fresh breath in the genre, with some nice OLDSCHOOL taste in it (full lootable playercorpse aso =) ).

I would never play a game where the rules can be bent in favor of a few. I play games to escape reality for awhile, not to experience it in a digital format. Do you honestly think people wouldn't exploit the freedoms they would be given?

As you said before, you can't make a game, that everyone likes. Maybe you hate it, but others like it =)

[Zoulz]

Thank god there are some companies that actually push gaming forward and make games for the masses rather then conservative elitists. Why not look to the future rather then trying to go back and repeat the mistakes of old?

Don't worry about wow, if anything it has encouraged more people to play MMORPGs. Which is a good thing, right?

[Odin]

Ok so you have no arguements beside "masses, masses and masses"

Guess what? No one holds a gun on your head, you don't have to play these type of games if you don't like them.

But please accept the fact that there are people that don't like the carebear way.

Some (myself included) want something more challenging, rewarding than the current mmorpgs..

And no more people playing isn't always a good think. Especially if they come to other mmorpgs with this "I want it as simple as wow was" behaviour.

My opinion will ever be:
Different games for different people.

If MO can reach 200 or 400k it will be a big big success!

[Zoulz]

lol, I only wanted you to try and see things from a different perspective than your own. But I can see now that you are not even going to try. As I started of by saying, if you can't even acknowledge wow as a good game simply because it's very well made at least. The you are in denial, or too full of yourself to appreciate anything else but things that interest you.

And no, I don't intend to play anything I don't like. Why should I? And yes, I have already accepted the fact that you have a different taste. That was never the issue.

I couldn't care less what games you play. I don't care if you hate wow with a fury hotter than hell itself. The only thing I was interested in was to know why people hate it so. What is the point, other than spreading hatred? I mean, look at the title of this thread.. "Anyone want WOW to fail"... why would I? I might not like the game, but tons of people do.

[Unomat]

Like I explained before, I don't hate WoW, just the anti-social behaviour it breeds through its defective design. In the day and age where we expect companies to behave responsibly, I'd hesitate to dub it a game 'very well made at least'.

Looking at it from another angle: A lot of people want to earn more money; if you were to ask any kid between 6 and 18 what they want to be when they grow up, the most probable answer would be 'Rich' (instead of policeman for the 6-year old all the way up to lawyer for the 18-year old). Does that make earning a lot of money a good thing? Does it make them happy in the end? If I think it would convince you I could go and look up the study that revealed happiness grows linearly with earning money up to the point someone makes $15,000 a year and beyond that point, money doesn't significantly add to a person's well being.

MMOs have the potential to be the gaming equivalent of so called training-on-the-job, much like television had the potential to become a tool to inform large scale audiences in a more friendly manner than through text-with-few-pictures. I'd hate to see the genre eventually succumb and become something of a blend between your regular sitcom and gameshow-for-the-not-yet-mentally-retarded. As long as large scale in-game advertising and marketing hasn't cornered the MMO market, I think we still have a chance to let the genre bloom.

Call that elitist, but I don't understand why every medium eventually has to give in to the bland tastes of the masses that won't protest as they don't understand what else the medium may have to offer because a big marketing machine has effectively steered them into the direction of the most hype-compliant offering. And although I applaud your persistance Zoulz, I have yet to see you give a compelling reason why the current state of affairs is fine as it is.

NB By the same reasoning, we might as well stop funding all scientific efforts; after all, there is a majority to be found in any corner of society science might have an impact on and as they are not complaining, why try and change it through scientific progress?

Originally Posted by Places to go, People to be

At the end of the seventies, AD&D had stood on almost equal footing with its few competitors such as Tunnells and Trolls, and RuneQuest. In less than a decade, AD&D had become the richest, most popular and most powerful game in the world, while the others had all effectively vanished. This was because TSR always ran itself as a corporation, treating their games as merchandisable product. TSR proved that gaming could involve big money - even huge money - if it was done right. They set the path to success that future games were quick to follow.

Though some cast aspersions on the effect this corporate mindset had on the quality of the output, AD&D continued to be immensely popular, so they must have been doing something right. TSR also used their money and power to take gaming to new levels of fame and fortune, and thus are responsible for bringing RPGs to more people than all the other games put together. Thus AD&D wrote itself into the history books for the second time: as not just the first ever role-playing game, but the biggest and best as well.

Without AD&D, role-playing would not be where it is today; the two have existed in almost a symbiotic relationship since the very beginning. If any game ever epitomised and encompassed the hobby, this was it, and this was its greatest hour.

But the rest of the gaming industry was not slow to follow, nor were they far behind. For on the crest of this commercial tidal wave, the quality of design and expression that RPGs offered would reach higher and higher levels, until it became not just a game, but something approaching an artform.

l'Histoire ce repète ^^

TSR was doing something right as a business, well enough to be taken over by WotC in another decade. That doesn't mean they made a superior product, just that they were better at getting across the unique selling points of their product to their audience. You might want to read up on their history, and the PnP RPG genre in general. The same goes for Microsoft monetizing their software by funding the BSA (amongst other activities to elbow their way into markets).

Note: RuneQuest was skill-based and that mechanic turned out to be the most successful for combining elements from fantasy all the way to SF. The main reason TSR became the 800 pund gorilla is because they realised what the USP of the franchise systems (e.g. Star Wars) was and they reacted swiftly to give their system a comparable backdrop through the Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms campaign settings.

From this trip down memory lane, I'd guess the money of WoW is in the lore and as soon as that lore becomes 'depleted' to the stage where people have just had enough of it / 'have seen it all before', WoW will crumble. The biggest question is how long Blizzard will have to cry all the way to the bank Tbh, I doubt whether WoW would have had the audience it has today if it hadn't launched right after the movie trilogy Lord of the Rings (2001/2002/2003)

Meanwhile, I'll be aiming for the artform now I've already lend my euros to the commercial tidal wave, tyvm ^^

Originally Posted by Places to go, People to be

Unfortunately, Metagaming went bust, but inspired by Champions, Steve Jackson wanted to use ideas from both it and The Fantasy Trip to make the ultimate RPG. While designing such notable things as Car Wars and Illuminati, he and friends discussed at length what they really wanted from a game, and began to put to paper what was then jokingly called GURPS: the Great Unnamed Role-Playing System. It was released five years later by Jackson's new company, Steve Jackson Games, and it was still called GURPS. Only now it stood for Generic Universal Role-Playing System.

And generic it was, which caused many misgivings. As we shall see, the industry at the time was entrenched in a mindset which put a heavy emphasis on a specific and detailed setting. Making a game with no specific ethos in mind was risky. This game went beyond that, creating something that was deliberately devoid of any association to any game setting or style, something designed to be used no matter what you played. Some called it brilliant. Others called it completely insane.

But it worked. GURPS steadily grew in popularity, and today [article year is 1998-Unomat] is a close second behind AD&D just in terms of sheer volume of published material. And with the sad demise of TSR, Steve Jackson Games is now arguably the most successful RPG company ever. This long term success is due to many things: its sensible design and intelligent presentation, its strong support line and respect for its audience, but mostly because of its universality. RPGs are supposed to only be limited by our imagination, but too often they are also limited by the tools we have at hand. GURPS transcended this problem, allowing gamers the luxury of always having a system, no matter what game they want to play. And while universal games have been sometimes criticised for lacking evocation, the removal of this constraint remains a very important gift to the gaming industry.

<snip>

Of course, this shift away from the single domination of TSR to a shared industry also changed the whole nature of the games we played. As mentioned at the beginning, the loss of the TSR monopoly caused a corresponding drop in the focus on fantasy. People were losing interest in the same old dungeon crawls in the same old pseudo-Tolkienish world. The new generation of gamer wanted to emulate heroes of an entirely different calibre. They wanted to be Wolverine, Batman or Luke Skywalker - larger-than-life superheroes, bursting straight from the screen or comic book. They also wanted this comic-style in their adventures too - loads of explosions, punch ups and cinematic, fast-paced action. Players began to give up chasing orcs down holes with 1D8 swords in favour of exploding 60' mechs with their 6D6 Psi-powered energy beams. The principle was the same, only the budget had increased!

But there was another side to the industry. People who thought that gaming should be so much more than just wham, bam, more experience. People who thought that gaming could be something akin to an art form. And people who thought that the new corporate mindset was destructive to these ideals. However, this mindset had been the driving force behind the golden age, the source of gaming's new strength. And it was this strength that made the industry more and more open for experimentation, and thus allowed their ideas to become reality. And slowly, in the background of the golden age, they were changing role-playing into something new and amazing.

Role-playing is an intrinsically creative hobby, and it is constantly evolving. As such, it is hard to label any one era as revolutionary. But in the mid-eighties, there came a spate of games in quick succession, each of which not only added an unprecedented amount of new ideas but also threw away much of established tradition. Each was revolutionary in its own right, and each formed an important step in transforming roleplaying into what it is today.

But as well as being revolutionary, each of these games was also brilliant. In fact, they include some of the greatest examples of the hobby ever made, games that represent the epitome of design, and evoke the most powerful fantasies. It was here that the pinnacle of the gaming art was flourishing, and that is why this era can be called a true Golden Age.

The best example, and indeed one of the best examples of roleplaying, is the legendary Call of Cthulhu. Released in 1981, its genius and importance in the history of roleplaying cannot be over-emphasised.

The world of Cthulhu comes from a series of deeply horrifying short stories written by H.P. Lovecraft at the beginning of this century. These stories center around the Old Ones, ancient and god-like aliens (of which Cthulhu is one) who exist just beyond the scientific world of post-Victorian New England. Lovecraft developed his ideas into a detailed and frighteningly realistic universe, now called the Cthulhu Mythos.

It was a fantastic setting for an RPG, but in the early eighties, the idea was ridiculous. Most RPGs at that time involved players chasing down monsters or supervillians, and then disposing of them in bloody combat. But if the game was to be true to the stories, it would need to ask players to shift their activities from monster hunts to investigation and research, and to face horrific monsters that were invincible no matter how many hit points you had. Such a revolutionary story paradigm required a revolutionary system, not just another AD&D clone.

In 1979, RuneQuest had set new standards in game design, and on its strength of sales, the game's creators formed the company Chaosium. It was later Chaosium staff member Sandy Petersen who decided to tackle turning Cthulhu into a game.
They used RuneQuest as a basis, but they took it further. Being made in 1979, RuneQuest's rules suffered from too much detail and being dice-heavy, particularly in combat. In retooling it for the less violent Cthulhu, much of this complexity was removed. This simplification was applied throughout, with everything skimmed down to a uniform percentile system. These new rules retained RuneQuest's charm and realism, but were now far easier to learn and use, yet still robust enough to handle a variety of complex actions. CoC's rules balance the needs of both game and story in a way that has arguably never been beaten.

<snip>

Such changes may not seem so revolutionary now, but it should be remembered that roleplaying was very different then. After the growth spurt of the 70's, the hobby had acquired a niche, and as its commercial power grew, no-one was willing to step out of this mindset for fear of losing sales. Six years after the release of CoC, Avalon Hill made the addition of halflings to the RuneQuest world a condition on their publishing the third edition of the game, simply because halflings made money. In its time, CoC broke every rule in the book.

I want that! I want to play an MMO that does to the genre what Call of Cthulhu did to RPGs, by taking away the combat-fluff not necessary to play a game. And be honest Zoulz: a lot of casual players would like that too ^^

[Zoulz]

Originally Posted by Unomat

Like I explained before, I don't hate WoW, just the anti-social behaviour it breeds through its defective design. In the day and age where we expect companies to behave responsibly, I'd hesitate to dub it a game 'very well made at least'.

Looking at it from another angle: A lot of people want to earn more money; if you were to ask any kid between 6 and 18 what they want to be when they grow up, the most probable answer would be 'Rich' (instead of policeman for the 6-year old all the way up to lawyer for the 18-year old). Does that make earning a lot of money a good thing? Does it make them happy in the end? If I think it would convince you I could go and look up the study that revealed happiness grows linearly with earning money up to the point someone makes $15,000 a year and beyond that point, money doesn't significantly add to a person's well being.

MMOs have the potential to be the gaming equivalent of so called training-on-the-job, much like television had the potential to become a tool to inform large scale audiences in a more friendly manner than through text-with-few-pictures. I'd hate to see the genre eventually succumb and become something of a blend between your regular sitcom and gameshow-for-the-not-yet-mentally-retarded. As long as large scale in-game advertising and marketing hasn't cornered the MMO market, I think we still have a chance to let the genre bloom.

Call that elitist, but I don't understand why every medium eventually has to give in to the bland tastes of the masses that won't protest as they don't understand what else the medium may have to offer because a big marketing machine has effectively steered them into the direction of the most hype-compliant offering. And although I applaud your persistance Zoulz, I have yet to see you give a compelling reason why the current state of affairs is fine as it is.

NB By the same reasoning, we might as well stop funding all scientific efforts; after all, there is a majority to be found in any corner of society science might have an impact on and as they are not complaining, why try and change it through scientific progress?

I think your digging too deep and reading to much into this. It's a GAME. It's suppose to be recreational, not the cure for AIDS. The things your discussing now are social matters and society is whole different story. I totally agree society has flaws, but to say that anyone who enjoys watching TV or playing wow is a mindless, bland zombie is just ignorant beyond words. You don't believe people can think for themselves at all, do you? Big brother is everywhere and their out to get you so they can plug you into the matrix and make you their slave. You are right, and everyone else is wrong. Anything that a larger audience can appreciate is bad.

You really do think your better than everyone else, don't you?

I didn't start this to talk about society and the issues it might have. That is a different topic. If you think Blizzard is part of societies problems, then your just paranoid. Society has much larger problems.

[Unomat]

Zoulz, I have tried to explain to you why people want WoW to fail and I don't know why you keep returning to taunt the people who disagree with your point that it's only a game and good enough as it is. I think I've come up with more than enough material to try and let you see another side of the discussion, whether you want to use that material is up to you.

You have convinced me though that discussing this topic with you is pointless from here on out, so I won't bother you again except for this: every species on the planet starts out playing games while they've not grown into adulthood, as a means of preparing themselves for the hardships that'll befall them once they're adults. Humans are about the only species that have effectively eliminated most of those hardships, allowing them to continue playing games for basically the rest of their lives; the scientific moniker for that trait is psychological neoteny. This trait is a two-edged sword: it can help us as a species to train our minds and be more prepared and flexible to act in an ever changing world or it can lock us into a specific mindset, not wanting to let go of a rigid simplification of that same world.

Please keep that in mind the next time you play a game

PS It suddenly dawned on me: the only measurement you accept for a game being a good one is whether people have a good time with it. If I understand that correctly then yes, by that token WoW is a good game. I hope I've been able to convince you there are better games still to be developed though, that serve more purposes than pure hedonism as well.

[Zoulz]

Your just answering me with a lot of mumbo-jumbo fluff and fancy words. You don't actual answer my questions or discuss the arguments I give. You haven't supplied me with anything concreate.

And that part about juvenilization, what the heck is that all about? Don't paint up games to be more than what they are. A game is entertainment.

PS It suddenly dawned on me: the only measurement you accept for a game being a good one is whether people have a good time with it. If I understand that correctly then yes, by that token WoW is a good game. I hope I've been able to convince you there are better games still to be developed though, that serve more purposes than pure hedonism as well.

Yes, that's it! Thank you. It doesn't mean that I personally like that game, but I can appreciate that most people playing it do.

It's not like wow is it. No more games, everyone is playing wow. All other developers shut down and Blizzard takes over the world. Games come and go. It has always been that way. And people are smarter than you give them credit for. I don't believe for one second that everyone is playing wow because it's the latest thing and everyone who is anyone is playing it. If Blizzard makes one bad decision, it will cost them their crown.

I don't believe games have any other purpose than pure hedonism. At least, they don't for me.

[Lachrymose]

Originally Posted by Zoulz

Your just answering me with a lot of mumbo-jumbo fluff and fancy words. You don't actual answer my questions or discuss the arguments I give. You haven't supplied me with anything concreate.

And that part about juvenilization, what the heck is that all about? Don't paint up games to be more than what they are. A game is entertainment.

Yes, that's it! Thank you. It doesn't mean that I personally like that game, but I can appreciate that most people playing it do.

It's not like wow is it. No more games, everyone is playing wow. All other developers shut down and Blizzard takes over the world. Games come and go. It has always been that way. And people are smarter than you give them credit for. I don't believe for one second that everyone is playing wow because it's the latest thing and everyone who is anyone is playing it. If Blizzard makes one bad decision, it will cost them their crown.

I don't believe games have any other purpose than pure hedonism. At least, they don't for me.

you're assuming that just b/c people play the game, they must like the game. then you justify it's being a good game with the fact that people like it. now, that would seem like a logical assumption, and normally i would agree, but in this case it's really not.

here's a similar example. there's tons of smokers who smoke, but desperately want to quit. there's also those who smoke, but don't really like it, nor are they trying to quit, it's just a habit they mindlessly stick with. and then there's those who technically want to smoke, but b/c it makes them look cool or something, so although they may say they like smoking, they really don't, they just like the "consequences" of smoking (being cool, looking older, getting cancer, etc).

you could argue that wow isn't necessarily an addiction, but you'd be wrong. i played wow for 3 years, and at first, sure, i liked it, but eventually the game became very repetitive, and i felt more like i was working than playing a game (and plenty of people i've talked to agree with this). blizzard does a very good job at getting you hooked, by rewarding you every so often, like giving you a new spell, getting a mount, epic gear, etc. the old carrot on a stick ploy, you know how it goes.

so now, you hear a lot of people criticizing wow, creating threads longing to see it fail, etc. the proof that people don't actually like the game lies in the overwhelming number of people that vehemently criticize it (typically people that spent a lot of time playing it).

if i spend a lot of money on a delicious meal, i don't resent it after i'm done (assuming i enjoyed the meal), despite not having anything to show for it. so when you see former wow players bashing wow, no doubt resenting all the time/effort/money they put into it, it's b/c they actually weren't enjoying themselves, and now that they've quit, they have nothing to show for it.

[Odin]

ZoulZ:

I know that some might have different taste and thats ok. Personally I just don't think that every MMORPG needs to be fast paced, instant "wow styled".

Why should I hate WoW? I only hate the "wow bois" with their "dump everything down till its as easy as wow behaviour". The raiding stuff is nice, so are the UI tools (beside Omen aso..). Also the open world is well done in my mind it could be more but well a whole lot better than the lotro, eq2 and aoc instancing.

Even if "we" as community want it to fail? Would it really matter. No a game with 8 - 9 mio. subs AND growing can't fail at this state. Blizzard has the money, menpower to pull out polished content in a way, that no other company can do it.

Wow did some things right no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean, that others can't make things better. Slower, harder lvling ->more time for new content. Force people to work together -->better community.

Stick to your goals -->a loyal, trustworthy longtime community

Companies that try to copy wow will fail it's as simple as that. Warhammer is too cartoonly, soft pvp based. Despite all the "great & epic" hype about this game in fact it will lack PvE and endgame content beside the RvR.

So in my opinion is: that MO has a great chance to bring up some fresh breath to this currently monotonic genre.

[Zoulz]

Originally Posted by Lachrymose

you're assuming that just b/c people play the game, they must like the game. then you justify it's being a good game with the fact that people like it. now, that would seem like a logical assumption, and normally i would agree, but in this case it's really not.

here's a similar example. there's tons of smokers who smoke, but desperately want to quit. there's also those who smoke, but don't really like it, nor are they trying to quit, it's just a habit they mindlessly stick with. and then there's those who technically want to smoke, but b/c it makes them look cool or something, so although they may say they like smoking, they really don't, they just like the "consequences" of smoking (being cool, looking older, getting cancer, etc).

you could argue that wow isn't necessarily an addiction, but you'd be wrong. i played wow for 3 years, and at first, sure, i liked it, but eventually the game became very repetitive, and i felt more like i was working than playing a game (and plenty of people i've talked to agree with this). blizzard does a very good job at getting you hooked, by rewarding you every so often, like giving you a new spell, getting a mount, epic gear, etc. the old carrot on a stick ploy, you know how it goes.

so now, you hear a lot of people criticizing wow, creating threads longing to see it fail, etc. the proof that people don't actually like the game lies in the overwhelming number of people that vehemently criticize it (typically people that spent a lot of time playing it).

if i spend a lot of money on a delicious meal, i don't resent it after i'm done (assuming i enjoyed the meal), despite not having anything to show for it. so when you see former wow players bashing wow, no doubt resenting all the time/effort/money they put into it, it's b/c they actually weren't enjoying themselves, and now that they've quit, they have nothing to show for it.

So what should we do? Should we ban all addicting games? Anything can be addicting. People must take responsibility for their own lives.

[Lachrymose]

Originally Posted by Zoulz

So what should we do? Should we ban all addicting games? Anything can be addicting. People must take responsibility for their own lives.

the point wasn't that it's addicting. and i never said anything about banning it.

the point was, it's the fact that it's addicting that people play, not necessarily b/c they like the game. since you were saying that it must be a good game b/c so many people like it.

some games are addicting AND fun. wow just isn't one of them imo.

[Zoulz]

When a hardcore gamer looks at a hardcore game, he sees sophistication, magnificence, and, most important, art as if it were a mirror image facing him. When a hardcore gamer looks as a casual game, he sees simplicity, non-art, easiness, and, in sum, a retardation of gaming. Hardcore view casual games not as progress in gaming but as games tailor made for gaming retards.

The reason why hardcore gamers’ hearts sink when a company says they will make the game include ‘casuals’ is because they know that all the edge, difficulty, and passion will be ripped out to make a generic, easy, and soul-less game.

Blizzard studied MMORPGs like Everquest and realized there were too many barriers in the game that kept many people from ‘kicking ass’. “How do we fix this?” the Blizzard developers asked. The market did not need World of Warcraft until Blizzard created it. Then, the market could not live without it.

Some excepts from an excellent article that can be found here: http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html

[Zoulz]

Originally Posted by Lachrymose

the point wasn't that it's addicting. and i never said anything about banning it.

the point was, it's the fact that it's addicting that people play, not necessarily b/c they like the game. since you were saying that it must be a good game b/c so many people like it.

some games are addicting AND fun. wow just isn't one of them imo.

Addiction has to be triggered by something. You just don't get addicted for no reason. Wow is addicting because it is fun. Your logic doesn't make any sense. People play because it's addicting and not because it's fun? It's like saying sex addicts can't stop having sex because they are addicted, and not because they are enjoying having sex. Or drunks can't stop drinking because they are addicted, and not because it takes away their pains and problems. You get addicted for a reason. Addictions are born when you over-use something you like until it becomes unbearable to live without it.

[Unomat]

No Zoulz, addictions are born when the pleasure centre in your brain is tickled at the right pace by an external stimulus and no other stimuli can get through to you at a frequency comparable to the stimulus you're addicted to. All other 'reasons' to justify the addiction are figments of people's imagination drawn up after the fact.

Lachrymose hits the nail on the head when he uses smoking as an analogy though: the people who do it because they want to be associated with it (lifestyle factors) but don't get their stimulus at the right frequency for their brain will have the easiest time quitting ('I tried WoW, but it's too cartoony for my taste'). However the people who know how to 'please' themselves the best, i.e. the pathological addict, will figure out the right dosage and frequency fast enough ('I need the next Tier gear-set completed, to have the set advantages as well as the better stats' ad nauseam / infitum).

The trouble with most addictions though is that the high tends to wear off faster with every new dosage administered, so the only way to keep getting high is either up the dosage (more nicotine / more kickass gear / getting to the top of the kill charts) or upping the frequency. WoW entices its players to do just that by making progress (even in end-game) progressively harder, up to the point people are quitting faster than new meat arrives at the scene; then Blizzard dumbs it down to make sure the (end-game) player-base retains enough critical mass, for risk of toppling the player-base pyramid if they wouldn't.

I think the main reason a lot of people lash out at WoW is that when they quit cold turkey (I doubt there's any other way) they suddenly realize they have very little to show for all their time invested: very little of their achievements carry over IRL and barely any friends they made in-game continue to be friends when they quit as those people are still absorbed in playing WoW. I call myself lucky to still be in regular contact with 5 of my PvP pals, but I rarely talk to any of the people of the PvE guild I was in anymore. Of those 5 friends, 4 have quit WoW as well and the 5th is considering it, and all of them have cited the reasons in one guise or another I've already given you on the previous 2 pages.

And yes, you cannot blame the game for the addiction a number of people have picked up (as far as you can call the human need to do stuff with other humans in a 'meaningful manner' an addiction), any more than you can blame alcoholic beverages for the fact some people become alcoholics. However, we can blame the cigarette industry for spiking cigarettes with ammonia as a way to lower the blood-brain barrier in order to let the addictive subtance nicotine interact with the pleasure centre more effectively.

In the same manner, we can blame Blizzard for continuously fiddling with the rules of their game in order to provide people with the delusion they are actually acomplishing anything, other than turning Blizzard into a rich company. God forbid other development companies will use their model as the end all and be all of MMOs; the trouble is venture capitalists would rather invest in 10 development companies that copy that model, hoping one of them will succeed, than invest in 10 companies who have a different model and run the risk of losing it all for lack of (potential) market share.

As an entry level game, there's nothing wrong with WoW. I just hope it will serve as an inspiration to develop better games and the simple fact a lot of people are currently venting their frustration with WoW after playing it for a number of years clearly shows the time is right for such a game to enter the market. As long as those people keep kicking a fuss, chances are some gutsy VC will pick up on the buzz and finance the right game to catapult the genre into its next evolutionary phase because (let's face it) developing an MMO requires a LOT of up front investing.

TLDR version: People are communicating their distaste for WoW because they think it's time for something different, please don't take it personally as it isn't meant that way. Exciting times are ahead, rejoice!

[Zoulz]

Originally Posted by Unomat

No Zoulz, addictions are born when the pleasure centre in your brain is tickled at the right pace by an external stimulus and no other stimuli can get through to you at a frequency comparable to the stimulus you're addicted to. All other 'reasons' to justify the addiction are figments of people's imagination drawn up after the fact.

Isn't that what I said, but without the fancy wording? So what is the stimulus that makes wow addictive?

we can blame Blizzard for continuously fiddling with the rules of their game in order to provide people with the delusion they are actually acomplishing anything, other than turning Blizzard into a rich company.

No, you can't. You are accomplishing something. Even if it's only a virtual accomplishment, you have still accomplished something. Blizzard is only offering you a game, mate. I'm sorry, but if your looking for more than virtual accomplishments when playing MMOs you are looking in the wrong place. Go try larping (live action role-playing games) or something.

TLDR version: People are communicating their distaste for WoW because they think it's time for something different, please don't take it personally as it isn't meant that way. Exciting times are ahead, rejoice!

Expressing hate for wow won't get you a new game faster. It's the 'I'm better than those wow fan bois' attitude I don't like. It just stirs more hate and is just as bad.

I agree, exciting times are ahead indeed.

EDIT: My intention has never been to trash MO in any way, shape or form. I'm all for innovation in games. I don't see how a community based on hate can change anything though.