Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

To "WoW" or not...

So here's a question.  Should game companies not try to "take down" Warcraft by creating something similar (in all of the different activities that can be had in Warcraft) yet better?  You have games out there that use pvp only and others using pve mainly (I can't think of an mmo that didn't have some form of pvp).  Some games have raids against ai while others it's against other players.

Should game companies create games with a smaller focus?  Should they make games that just deal with one facet and ignore the others or should they always try to have both?  A good number of people play Warcraft, but not everyone does both pvp and pve.  Could either aspect have been done better had they only had one part of that game?  At the same time, that could make balancing classes a little easier if they didn't have to consider the ramifications on the pvp side if they game paladins holy eye lazors of justice.  Would a game created at this time with just pve be considered incomplete?

I know there are people out there who love pvp and would say deffinitely yes; it would be an incomplete game since that's what they play mmo's for.  However, if you put aside the blood lust, and saw some company not going for the some-odd-million subscriptions and settling for maybe a fraction of what Warcraft has making a smaller in scope game, would you still consider them to be succesful?

Reading over this, it seems more rhetorical, but I figured I just share my thoughts on the subject.

Comments

  • gamespamgamespam Member Posts: 456

    Well, when I see people make threads on a game in developement titled "WOW Killaz" or anything similar, I automatically ignore any further info on said game. It's going to be a piece of shit. Wjhen has this not been the case? Never, so I'll stick with my system of weeding out crap from good.

  • AilingforaleAilingforale Member Posts: 87

    You know, I dig Rift.  I think it's fun to play, but I'm not going to be playing it.  I wish them all the luck though.  However, I wonder if they felt that they needed to add in that "We're not in Azeroth anymore" line.  I wonder if a game just came out with the purpose of winning the subscriptions, but not saying it, if that would do better.  Kind of... letting the game win over the audience, not saying that it will overcome.

    However, even if the developers didn't say "Warcraft killer", that's what the forums are for right?

  • skyexileskyexile Member CommonPosts: 692

    I dont see why players would leave a well polished PVE game they have invested alot of time in for another well polished pve game.

    SKYeXile
    TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
    Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.

  • TotecTotec Member Posts: 220

    Originally posted by Robokapp

    However, even if the developers didn't say "Warcraft killer", that's what the forums are for right?

     they said "we're not in Azeroth anymore". and that's suicidal to do.

     

    I have a feeling a couple of WoW players will say "orly. I'll show you". ad do the typical voting 1 1 1 1 1 in rating/hype, and write bad reviews etc as an act of revenge.

    I'm indifferent about the whole "we're not in Azeroth anymore" line that Rift is using in it's advertisements. On one hand I can see why it will potentially backfire... If there's one thing wrong with the game, then the sharks will smell blood in the water. 

    However, they are getting a lot of attention, good and bad, because of this line.  They are getting people to talk about it.  Metaphorically they have just walked into the ring with WoW and landed the first punch to let them know that they are out for their title.  There's an element of courage in their ads that I can't help but root for. Maybe I just like rooting for the underdog, or maybe I have a fools hope and really think that Rift can win...

    I do know one thing, that if you are going to get wow's subs you have to make the transition between games rather seamless, and let the current WoW subs aware that there is a better game out there.  Rift has done both of these through the beta and their ads respectively. The question still remains, do they have what it takes to go 9 rounds with Rift?  The stage is set and the fight has started, all we have to do is stand back and see.

    The end result may be devastating to Rift for pulling the first punch, but at least they have peoples attention, and who knows maybe after years of battle they will emerge the champion... Time will tell.  

  • iddmitriiddmitri Member UncommonPosts: 671


    Originally posted by skyexile
    I dont see why players would leave a well polished PVE game they have invested alot of time in for another well polished pve game.

    Unless another well polished pve game lets you fly ships, explore galaxies and enjoy far superior graphics.

  • pierthpierth Member UncommonPosts: 1,494

    Originally posted by Ailingforale

    So here's a question.  Should game companies not try to "take down" Warcraft by creating something similar (in all of the different activities that can be had in Warcraft) yet better?  You have games out there that use pvp only and others using pve mainly (I can't think of an mmo that didn't have some form of pvp).  Some games have raids against ai while others it's against other players.

    Should game companies create games with a smaller focus?  Should they make games that just deal with one facet and ignore the others or should they always try to have both?  A good number of people play Warcraft, but not everyone does both pvp and pve.  Could either aspect have been done better had they only had one part of that game?  At the same time, that could make balancing classes a little easier if they didn't have to consider the ramifications on the pvp side if they game paladins holy eye lazors of justice.  Would a game created at this time with just pve be considered incomplete?

    I know there are people out there who love pvp and would say deffinitely yes; it would be an incomplete game since that's what they play mmo's for.  However, if you put aside the blood lust, and saw some company not going for the some-odd-million subscriptions and settling for maybe a fraction of what Warcraft has making a smaller in scope game, would you still consider them to be succesful?

    Reading over this, it seems more rhetorical, but I figured I just share my thoughts on the subject.

     

    I would prefer they just zero in on what aspect the game is truly meant for and do that really well instead of trying to cater to everyone, however it seems doing that would pretty much block a MMORPG from hitting subscription numbers like WoW's so no matter how great, deep, and fun a game that focuses on just PvE or PvP (for instance), I don't see publishers willing to go for it.

Sign In or Register to comment.