It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Imagine the genre without WoW's success. When I played FFXI for the first time I was literally blown away and knew the future of gaming was MMORPG's. Then I started playing more and more MMORPG's I quickly realized FFXI was one of a kind.
If I see people riding mounts through clusters of enemies that follow for 5 seconds and turn back I can't play that particular game, it tells me too much. Seems everything except FFXI was like this.
WoW made mediocrity acceptable and expected in the MMORPG genre and now it's the standard.
I dont hate WoW for what it is
I hate WoW for what it has become, its practically like that "Free Realms" mmo now
"It has potential"-Second most used phrase on existence"It sucks"-Most used phrase on existence
Yea and WoW has yet to update there outdated graphics and i did play wow but than it got boring for me so i decided to play other and better mmos and who cares if some mmos look like wow (if yall think its becuase some mmos use the same type of graphics) but i do know that wow is crap
Originally posted by jbombard Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Consensus I haven't played very much UO or WoW, but in my small experience the two are nothing alike really. I can't see how WoW could have built on ideas in UO. Sure "WoW clone" is a compliment if you like WoW, or judge games purely on their success, but personally I do neither. And its not so much an insult as a description of a genre of mmorpg's. Since a huge proportion of mmorpg's have near identicle gameplay to WoW, such a term is useful to those who did not enjoy WoW. The term mmorpg has become a dirty word that some developers avoid to escape wrong assumptions being made about their games. to the vast majority who don't play many mmo's the term mmorpg literally means "WoW with different graphics".
Yes very much this. Calling a game a wow clone very concisely sums up how the game is going to be played. In general it's going to have quest hubs, instanced dungeons, level-based zones, gear grinds, etc. Sure each game will have some inconsequential unique mechanic that they throw in so they have something to talk about in interviews, but the features I listed are what is going to dictate how you're playing that game.
As for the term being an insult: some people do, others don't. If people use it as an insult, it's because they don't like wow or at least don't like the games that are trying to ride on wow's coat tails. I'm not really sure what the problem is or where the confusion is coming from. Is being called a wow clone an insult? Not if you like wow enough to play a game that is extremely similar but probably with a different skin/graphics and almost definitely less content.
The thing is while WoW has tons of stuff in it, when you look at it from the amount of play time offered WoW doesn't offer that much more than anyone else. All of the old content has been sped up so fast that it won't keep you busy very long, and old content is done once you blow past it. So add up time played until you hit max with any new game and they aren't that far apart, and the new game actually may even have more. With the free 90 it will offer even less play time.
As far as calling game WoW clones goes, most of the things people associate with WoW aren't WoW inventions. They took the formula and made it accessible but they didn't add anything really new except maybe quest hubs, and I am not entirely sure WoW was the first game to have them. But I suppose even though WoW wasn't the first they are the biggest so the mistake is understandable.
It really doesn't matter that WoW wasn't the first to have many of these features. The point is it popularized them and streamlined them. The point of calling something a WoW clone is to concisely summarize what you're getting into. WoW is by far the most popular game with all of these features; it may be the first game with all of these features; and WoW is the reason these "WoW clones" exist. They're copying WoW, not whatever game(s) WoW may be copying.
"Pet collections, mount collections, achievements, farms, gear acquisition, raiding at higher difficulties, exploration…"
Out of all of those, I am only interested in gear acquisition and raiding (not necessarily older content made harder, either). Exploration is a minor interest.
The main reason why I will not go back to WoW is that there is TOO MUCH stuff thrown in there to see what sticks. If I wanted to play Pokemon I would play Pokemon, not Pokemon WoW. I also enjoy both aspects of MMOs: leveling and endgame. WoW makes leveling a joke. So all of that plus the dumbing down of content to get more casual players makes WoW very unappealing to me.
Wildstar all the way!
People are only tired of WoW clones because no attempt has really lived up to the original.
Still a reason WoW holds more subs in the West than many other MMO combined, in an era of F2P and B2P.
I've played them all, Rift, AoC, WAR, GW2, TR, EQ2, LotR, ToR, TSW, FFXIV... and I've played the major sandboxes like EvE, FFXI, SWG, etc.
I started in this genre with UO, and I HATED EQ - thought it was an awful, awful game compared to the glory that was UO.
Still, to this day, believe fully that WoW continues to be strong and hold my interest (with breaks here and there of course) after all of these years due to the fact that it is still one hell of a game, and truly unique in this now crowded genre of imitators.
WoW has changed a LOT over the last 9+ years, and continues to lead the genre. That is amazing.
I spent 3 years in UO and 3 years in EQ. Nothing I've played since has spiked my interest for long.
During those adventures it was more about the journey than the so called 'endgame' until Verant plugged in something for bored players at max level. That was copied by Blizzard and the rest is history.
I believe that from that point onward massive profits became the only reason for a mmo so you copied the wow formula, plugged in endless carrots for the gamers to chase and games that required little except to follow the 'paint by the numbers' progression system that leads to that promised land of 'endgame'. All today's gamers require is a status-filled environment, the masses, and a framework they know so well that brings to the table all the conventions they need to feel at home.
Once the masses move on everyone must follow so they can continue their performance of ego in front of a crowd. No longer do we have a game world we can get lost in and adventure in.
I don't believe mmo's are dead though but more to be just slumbering until the day the profit mongers move on and game lovers start creating again. It's love for a product that should come first and not a business plan first with only one goal: mega-profits.
Originally posted by MrG8 It is a bad thing... because when I feel a game is a wow-clone I feel like "Bah, why dont game-developers try to come up with something new?
Why did Microsoft put the Start Button back in Windows?
Just because developers do something new, doesn't mean it's better.
1. Yes, Blizzard did some things right. WoW, for a period of time, set the gold standard for hotbar MMOs. However, the launch was subpar and the game really wasn't consistently playable for the first 6 months. I had to reroll because my original server was shutdown for 5 days and unstable for the next two months in '04. Too often, Blizzard gets a free pass for that.
2. The game went from moderately challenging to /faceroll. Now, this was good business and Blizzard makes good business decisions (More players = more $$). However, grinding content to get gear became a time = accomplishment game design. That's on par with farmville, which is not good. BC was moderately challenging despite the buggy end game content. WotLK was great for story telling, but the content was far too easy and it's gotten worse over time.
Did Blizzard originally progress the genre? Sure. Did the game evolve into a cash cow and promote the worst game design in the market? Also true.
As a society, we accept the lowest common denominator (lcd) in order to be inclusive of everyone. Generally, that means the lcd continues to get lower over time. I just wish that instead, we would challenge people to get better and raise them up instead. Over time, WoW promoted the worst people in our society and that's why I look back on the game with fondness and disapointment.
If you don't worry about it, it's not a problem.
I love WoW if for nothing else it polarizes so much of the gaming community, making people addicted and overflowing with praise or incredulous and filled with venom.
WoW has been a boon to online gaming. People need resources to create games, the biggest resource is MONEY. WoW / Blizzard has proven that there is an appetite for a continuous and sustained universe for people to socialize, game, compete, craft and just sink time and have fun.
People will pay for this, year after year. This says to other companies "Make something fun, involving and dedicated to progressive development and people will come and play".
It's your right...your obligation to vote up or down with you money but all this "If I built a game it would be SOOO much better than WoW...WoW ruined MMO's,,,etc..etc..." is just so much Monday morning quarterbacking it falls on the side of absurd.
Good on you WOW and Blizzard....I wait for your next project....and to other companies that hope to extend the MMO market with other flavors and play styles...Im rooting for you and lots of people have money to spend if you make it fun.
Originally posted by HurricanePip 1. Yes, Blizzard did some things right. WoW, for a period of time, set the gold standard for hotbar MMOs. However, the launch was subpar and the game really wasn't consistently playable for the first 6 months. I had to reroll because my original server was shutdown for 5 days and unstable for the next two months in '04. Too often, Blizzard gets a free pass for that. 2. The game went from moderately challenging to /faceroll. Now, this was good business and Blizzard makes good business decisions (More players = more $$). However, grinding content to get gear became a time = accomplishment game design. That's on par with farmville, which is not good. BC was moderately challenging despite the buggy end game content. WotLK was great for story telling, but the content was far too easy and it's gotten worse over time. ----- Did Blizzard originally progress the genre? Sure. Did the game evolve into a cash cow and promote the worst game design in the market? Also true. As a society, we accept the lowest common denominator (lcd) in order to be inclusive of everyone. Generally, that means the lcd continues to get lower over time. I just wish that instead, we would challenge people to get better and raise them up instead. Over time, WoW promoted the worst people in our society and that's why I look back on the game with fondness and disapointment.
I agree with most of that except for 1.
I started playing about a month after launch, so I can't speak about the first month but I never had a problem on any of the servers I played on (around 5 I think). Granted I am sure some people did, but people always do after launch, I am just not sure it was a huge issue.
WoW isn't even a "clone" of itself anymore. It's an entirely different game than it was when it originally released.
The "End Game" is the most atrocious concept to ever come out of the gaming industry. There should be no reason for an "end game," there should just be a "game." One of the great things about MMOs is that they are developed to be played for extended periods of time, and continued expansion and development is built right in to the monetization systems and game design. There is no reason for an MMO to "end" and there is no reason for an "end game." Once developers can grasp that concept and just develop games, maybe the MMO genre can have a little life injected back in to it.
There are only two survivors in business - leaders and fast followers. Making a WoW clone would hardly be a fast follower after 8 years.
Being a WoW clone is bad, not because WoW is bad, but because it's a sure sign of failure. As a WoW clone your only real potential customer base are people who want a game just like WoW but for whatever reason don't want to play WoW.... which is why they always fail.
Age of conan for example is still a themepark, but not a wow clone and it's good and managed to be apart in his own way.
Many other games are just way too much like wow and when i see a wow clone, i'm like: If i must play a wow clone, than i might as well go play wow since what wow started is doing it the best way except for the flying mounts that i hate so damn much.
Originally posted by Realbigdeal Age of conan for example is still a themepark, but not a wow clone and it's good and managed to be apart in his own way. Many other games are just way too much like wow and when i see a wow clone, i'm like: If i must play a wow clone, than i might as well go play wow since what wow started is doing it the best way except for the flying mounts that i hate so damn much.
To a degree WoW invented themepark, even though it was not the first such game. It defined so many of the elements that were picked by subsequent themepark games that it is clearly the template so many MMOs are based on. As you say though, the degree that a themepark MMo is built on WoW does vary.
So I would say that Rift is built more on WoW than AoC for example. This is recognised in the industry, you will always hear interviews asking about what is innovative in a new game. Unfortunately it tends to be something like wings in Aion. Going too far from the template is rarely done, so alternatives are hard to compare.
You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P
Originally posted by GeezerGamer Harm? To what? What has WoW harmed? Seems to me, they made a good game. Blizzard didn't release all those lesser quality games.
Imo, WoW stimulated the exploitation of the weaker minds by getting them addicted by going on a epic grind craze, and I have seen it happen to RL friends of mine throwing their marriage/relationships/job employments away in order to satisfy their addictions.
This already happened in EQ1 and the likes ofc, but WoW had the most subscribers.
Then again, those players who suffered from this were already in a poor mental state, but nonetheless, easy victims.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Originally posted by Bladestrom The average wow player is not a child. I'm assuming when you say child's play you refer to lfr and not the stuff requiring skill?
Probably talking about the graphics and or theme of MoP. Whether or not you agree it should not be surprising that this association is made. If you are were to ask a layman to name an asian themed video game with kung fu and pandas, the average response would probably be kung fu panda. Kung fu panda is a movie and video game for children. While MoP may not be kung fu panda, you cannot bring an asian themed game with kung fu and pandas to market and be surprised when people associate it with kung fu panda and thus also with children.
Originally posted by ThomasN7 Pretty ironic that this article gets written right around the time Wildstar should be releasing soon. For years everyone has been saying WoW clones are not good but Wildstar is an exception ? I think not... WoW clones are horrible and should be outlawed from the mmo genre.
Except Wildstar isn't really a WoW clone. There are similarities that are common to most recent MMORPGs, and it has a similar art style but that is about it. Games like Rift and SWTOR I can understand being called clones because they hold true to most of the formula including combat mechanics. Granted the difference between Wildstar and WoW are not revolutionary, but they are certainly many evolutionary changes that differentiate from being just another clone.
Another "WoW" - yes, no doubt.
Another "Blizzard" - no, I doubt it
42 is the answer