WoW is far cheaper than the MMO's that preceded it, in terms of personal investment and skill needed to advance.
Needed to advance? Sure.
Needed to advance to the top? No, it's about the same.
You're basically claiming chess is crap because a 5-year old can learn it, ignoring the fact that a 50-year old could still be working on mastering it.
A low barrier to entry makes a game better, not worse. A game still needs barriers imposing enough to reward true mastery, but WOW has that. In fact so far in the thread WOW is the only MMORPG with evidence showing that it has that depth. Until we start seeing evidence of other games which are at least as deep, any claim that WOW is a low-quality product is going to ring hollow.
Someone pointed out recently that it's Tall Poppy Syndrome, which is apparently a pejorative used in some countries to refer to making attacks against people of genuine merit. Except in this case it's a game of genuine merit.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by shalissar well y'see grandpa it costs money to make these things, they aim to copy the top grossing because aiming for a minority is unlikely to return your investment. You're welcome for the insight.
It is a bit more complicated then that, when everyone is aiming for the exact same players (casual PvE players who love fantasy and simple levelbased trinity combat games) it is actually easier to earn money if you choose the second or third largest group which have very few games to choose from.
I am not saying that you should go super hardcore FFA full loot PvP, that group is pretty small but you could go for people who like doing dungeons and want a bit higher difficulty, RvR fans or similar groups. Those groups are still pretty large even if they are nowhere near the casual crowd but the competition is way easier to beat and a good game focused on them could get most of the players it is aiming for.
Another factor is that the casual PvE players are without a doubt the group that changes game most often, 500K players who stay for years still generate more income than 3 million players where 75% is gone after 6 weeks.
It is easier with movies, people don't mind going to an Avengers movie just because the saw X-men last week. MMOs needs cutomers to spend a long time in the game to be truly successful.
The realization I've had is that time's up for the old-timers.
Games have changed and they are not going back to 1998.
It's like saying music today sucks and Justin Bieber is a crime against music. Why back when I first got into music I listened to Led Zeppelin and that's before the Rolling Stones sold out, etc.
It's like thinking you can make a difference by voting with your wallet. You won't, because you're not the target audience.
If you stop buying new music and concert tickets, guess what? No one cares. There will be tens of thousands of people lining up to buy Bieber tickets or whatever. It's just that way.
And guess what people thought about Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix? Why back in the day we had Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. And you could actually understand the words of the song.
It's just the cycle of life.
We had our day when it was nerd-edgy to play online games. Those days are over. Time to move on.
I agree 100% with this ^^
Then why are Chess and Texas Hold'em still around after centuries and centuries?
Fact is the things that are mostly made of fluff, yeah sure, they come and go according to the whims of fashion. But the good stuff, that stands the test of time. And to some extent these two things also get mixed together
Bieber will be a fart in the wind no matter how much money he is making now. Zeppelin is already standing the test of time. And that is not just stuff on the Radio like Stairway to Heaven. The stuff that really stand the test of time, are other less popular things like Bring It on Home or No Quarter. Its nor for everyone, and Plant's vocals just irritate some people, but it will be and is regarded as good stuff and will continue to be so. Led Zeppelin is a good example of the both fahsion and quality gettting mixed together and as time burns away the bullshit of fashion we start to get a better idea of where the real quality was. Sometimes this results in us realizing there wasn't much base quality.
I still listen to Muddy Waters and half that stuff was recorded before I was born. No one who should be taken seriously thinks Bieber will be this way. In fact people very much anticipate when the fart that he is get dispersed by the winds of fashion.
Lol wow hasn't got depth, everythingvis deliberatky shallow. Even in raiding to be one of the the best raiders in the world all you need a fast connection, the ability to embed your rotation into muscle memory such that you can get to low ms reactions, and rote memorisation of fight patterns - so sustained repetition or 60+ wipes a week in big time blocks. That's not depth, especially with the kiddie skill trees.
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
The big problem is that you can't really define "the best" at least when it comes to games.
For person A maybe the best game is one with full loot PvP everywhere and wouldn't consider a game to be "the best" unless it has those characteristics... for person B for a game to be considered "the best" it needs to have items you can't achieve without years of dedication and hard working, and having it makes you stronger and more powerful than anyone that doesn't have it... person C thinks that for a game to be "the best" it needs you to group for everything and that you shouldn't be able to do anything solo.... Person D wants all of the above or it won't be "the best"... while person E (me, for example), would consider any of the above a deal breaker for a game to even be considered "good" (again, for me).
Gross earnings are a set number, which is easily quantifiable, you can say "game A grossed more than game B because it earnt 31 millions Vs. 20 millions of game B"... you can't say "game A is better because it has 175.4 qualitonions while game B only has 170.7 qualitonions" (qualitonion is trademarked by me just in case someone finds a way to measure how good a game is, BTW).. .
All we can say is whether a game is the best FOR ME, just like with any artistic expression... and to use the evil game as an example, I can't say it's the best for me (I CAN say it was the best for me at one particular point in time, though), OP obviously can't say it's the best for him/her either... but there are people that CAN and ARE saying that WoW is the best game currently available for them, for whatever reason (even if it's just that it's what friends are playing... that was a big reason of why it was the best for me at the time), and they say it by paying money for it instead of other game... so we can say that more people think WoW is the best for them right now than other games based on gross alone.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Lol wow hasn't got depth, everythingvis deliberatky shallow. Even in raiding to be one of the the best raiders in the world all you need a fast connection, the ability to embed your rotation into muscle memory such that you can get to low ms reactions, and rote memorisation of fight patterns - so sustained repetition or 60+ wipes a week in big time blocks. That's not depth, especially with the kiddie skill trees.
So you do have an example of a game guide or video which shows an MMORPG's combat to be deeper than WOW's!
Great, let's see it! Post up the evidence!
Keep in mind you'll have to provide many such videos/guides to actually build any sort of serious case against WOW's depth since you're claiming WOW is shallow.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When will YOU figure it out, as many of us already have?
When will the Devs?
A movie isn't good just because some snobs voted for it either.
I didn't vote with my wallet for Birdman, neither did I for Transformers.
I'm a big fan of multiple-oscar winners Lawrence of Arabia, Rainman, Dances with wolves, Silence of the lambs, Shindler's List, Forrest Gump, Bravehart, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, and many more.
But for instance in 2009, along with many other times, I voted 3 times with my wallet for "Avatar". Not for the story, mind you. But all the three times, I had a total blast being immersed in that world. Avatar didn't win the best movie oscars either, but is still the highest grossing movie of all times.
What's my message? Pretty simple, I don't give a shit about what snobs voted for a movie or about how much money it made to enjoy it.
Same for video games. I'm definitely not playing WoW because it's "top grossing", or whatever bullshit I see posted here daily by haters. I play it because I have fun doing do. Same goes for the other, less popular games I play.
And fun is the name of the game. As this thread states, Top grossing is a factual element, its objective and finite, best is subjective and open to debate. (or on here, ridicule) Eq1 is far deeper than Wow as far as gameplay. Especially now though I haven't played it in years. What one has to do to get keyed just to go into certain areas just to get keyed to get into higher tier areas, just to key to get into the tier after that, is pretty fricking amazing and time-consuming. I mean its really nuts even with the convenience add-ins and such. Wow has their treasure island and the ability to start at a high level I think? But I don't think it's nearly as deep as where EQ1 is today.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Since my phone doesn't play well with MMORPG.com's forums, I cannot properly quote.
However, referencing Axeholt's last post:
While I really don't have an argument regarding the complexity of WoW's combat (being good or bad), many MMORPGs have had combat with at least as complex mechanics: Warhammer Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online (take, for instance, this "rookie" guide to PvP in EVE). However, mere complexity doesn't prove or disprove the overall merit of a combat system.
When will YOU figure it out, as many of us already have?
When will the Devs?
Why do people even make movies that aren't aimed at being the highest grossing film? The answer is YOU WOULDN'T, but I would.
You like McDonalds, I don't.
Your in the wrong genre, I AM NOT!
Yeah Birdman was by far better then all those on the list. interstellar was especially cringe worthy and the best of the Transformers movies were barely average, let alone the crapshoot that was Age of Extinction.
That said, some people still have some dignity in this world. Many are willing to make less in order to stay true to themselves and make something they are proud of. It's too bad the MMO world lack devs with this type of self respect.
I would go for eve, eso, gw2,gw1 axe Basically any game that offers skill complexity where gameplay is not just about rotation and offers more complexity over time - not less. Take ESO, as a sorcerer I have a huge pot of skills to mix and match, can wear any armour, any weapon - choice is depth.
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
McDonalds was a good example. Most people eat there because it is fast, cheap and convenient. Very few people would say they have the best tasting food around. If you polled 1000 people and asked them what place they ate at the most in the past year and also what place had the best food, you would get two very different looking results.
It is the same reason D3 has more players than PoE and that LoL has more players than DOTA 2.
The most popular thing is almost by definition not the best, it is just made in a way that it appeals to the largest number of people. It is generally aimed at the lowest common denominator or as you hear so often about MMORPG, it is probably dumbed down.
Originally posted by Bladestrom I would go for eve, eso, gw2,gw1 axe Basically any game that offers skill complexity where gameplay is not just about rotation and offers more complexity over time - not less. Take ESO, as a sorcerer I have a huge pot of skills to mix and match, can wear any armour, any weapon - choice is depth.
Alright you have something else other than skill rotations... How does Eve fit into that? -Combat in that game is practically just toggling auto attack on/off. It has a lot less going for it than any of the other games on your list.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
McDonalds was a good example. Most people eat there because it is fast, cheap and convenient. Very few people would say they have the best tasting food around. If you polled 1000 people and asked them what place they ate at the most in the past year and also what place had the best food, you would get two very different looking results.
It is the same reason D3 has more players than PoE and that LoL has more players than DOTA 2.
The most popular thing is almost by definition not the best, it is just made in a way that it appeals to the largest number of people. It is generally aimed at the lowest common denominator or as you hear so often about MMORPG, it is probably dumbed down.
You're funny. Look at you, you want to be a game snob? -Or a game hipster?
We had our day when it was nerd-edgy to play online games. Those days are over. Time to move on.
THIS...sort of.
We're dealing with the maturation of a previously niche medium.
Back in the day, the nerds WERE the ones who played the AAA titles.
But now, the AAA titles require an investment whose return can only be matched by popularity with a mainstream audience.
Look at films. Who loves the "art" films that do well at academy awards?
Film "nerds"
Give the indie groups time and game quality in niche areas will rise, "nerds" will be attracted and we'll see an inversion where the highest "game academy" ratings go not to the AAA games, but to a realm of quality content indie games while AAA games get high payouts from mainstream crowds but fail to make the critics' rating.
we're in a transition phase right now where its easy to gripe about everything.
I haven't seen a AAA MMO I liked since pre-Cata WOW. Have I whined about it? No. I've kept my eye open on the independent developer horizon and been increasingly pleased with what I've found.
I have faith someone out there will make something I like and I'll find it. I accept that my tastes are not mainstream and that the product that meets my tastes won't have a mainstream budget.
Originally posted by MadFrenchie Since my phone doesn't play well with MMORPG.com's forums, I cannot properly quote. However, referencing Axeholt's last post: While I really don't have an argument regarding the complexity of WoW's combat (being good or bad), many MMORPGs have had combat with at least as complex mechanics: Warhammer Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online (take, for instance, this "rookie" guide to PvP in EVE). However, mere complexity doesn't prove or disprove the overall merit of a combat system.
EVE is the one game I could believe. Unfortunately it's so diluted by non-skill factors that PVP is really just a joke in the game. Ultra casual. There are too many advantages to be gained by population and progression, so any depth to the underlying combat system is rarely relevant.
If that doesn't make sense, imagine chess. Now imagine it where playtime accumulates an advantage (every 100 hours played you start with another queen). Now imagine it where you can bring friends into your game and they bring their pieces with them. You started with a very deep game where skill mastery was highly rewarded, but you ended up with a game where non-skill trump cards invalidated that depth.
Now if you could strip away those trump cards, taking EVE's combat/fitting gameplay but removing all the progression and population advantages involved, then I do think there's probably potential there. But you'd have to basically dismantle the entire game to get at it.
WAR and DAOC I definitely don't believe. In both cases their rotations were very poorly designed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Doesn't it kind of depend on where you are looking at "whatever it is" from?
From a business viewpoint, there is no better then "top grossing."
From an "artistic" viewpoint, rarely do "top grossing" and "good" coincide. However, not many of "us consumers" are artists
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Look at films. Who loves the "art" films that do well at academy awards?
Film "nerds"
Give the indie groups time and game quality in niche areas will rise, "nerds" will be attracted and we'll see an inversion where the highest "game academy" ratings go not to the AAA games, but to a realm of quality content indie games while AAA games get high payouts from mainstream crowds but fail to make the critics' rating.
we're in a transition phase right now where its easy to gripe about everything.
I haven't seen a AAA MMO I liked since pre-Cata WOW. Have I whined about it? No. I've kept my eye open on the independent developer horizon and been increasingly pleased with what I've found.
I have faith someone out there will make something I like and I'll find it. I accept that my tastes are not mainstream and that the product that meets my tastes won't have a mainstream budget.
The indie developers writing the tools that allow for both rapid and low-cost creation of game worlds will be the tipping point. With the tools to create immersive worlds quickly and cheaply, indie developers will start to shine. Eventually one of them will produce the next generation's WoW or EQ. Others will develop niche titles catering to small but well defined market segments.
The market segments looking for an updated EQ or DAOC may not be the largest, but they are well defined with little competing for their attention. Indie developers are starting to take notice and target these segments, and they are using some incredible toolboxes to keep development costs down.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Originally posted by MadFrenchie Since my phone doesn't play well with MMORPG.com's forums, I cannot properly quote. However, referencing Axeholt's last post: While I really don't have an argument regarding the complexity of WoW's combat (being good or bad), many MMORPGs have had combat with at least as complex mechanics: Warhammer Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online (take, for instance, this "rookie" guide to PvP in EVE). However, mere complexity doesn't prove or disprove the overall merit of a combat system.
EVE is the one game I could believe. Unfortunately it's so diluted by non-skill factors that PVP is really just a joke in the game. Ultra casual. There are too many advantages to be gained by population and progression, so any depth to the underlying combat system is rarely relevant.
If that doesn't make sense, imagine chess. Now imagine it where playtime accumulates an advantage (every 100 hours played you start with another queen). Now imagine it where you can bring friends into your game and they bring their pieces with them. You started with a very deep game where skill mastery was highly rewarded, but you ended up with a game where non-skill trump cards invalidated that depth.
Now if you could strip away those trump cards, taking EVE's combat/fitting gameplay but removing all the progression and population advantages involved, then I do think there's probably potential there. But you'd have to basically dismantle the entire game to get at it.
WAR and DAOC I definitely don't believe. In both cases their rotations were very poorly designed.
Not sure what you mean by diluting it with non-skill factors; EVE is all about fitting the right ship with the right equipment for the right job. Then, doing that job. You act as if a player character will constantly have an advantage over any younger characters, but that shows a very limited knowledge of EVE itself. If you've maxed out the Rifter skills as a player who's been around for 5 years, you still won't have any advantage in flying that craft over a 6 month old character who rushed those same skills. Age in EVE provided options, not advantages, as you could only use a small subset of all your skills in any one fit. Expertise in mining and exploration won't help you warp away when being hit with disruptors.
As for your offhanded dismissal of WAR and DAoC, I can only assume you, again, have limited knowledge. DAoC was one of the first MMOs to make melee characters engaging by inventing "styles", combos and chains (many of which could only be started as a result of a specific combat condition being met). Many of those styles provided either to-hit bonuses, stuns, cripples, or other short-term debuffs (and, in some cases, self-buffs). Plug that into a class like the Paladin (back when chant twisting existed). You were an off-tank who twisted up to four chants based upon the situation (magical damage, physical damage, squishies taking damage, etc.) While also positioning and reacting to combat conditions that enabled you to perform as many as 5 different style combos. Oh, and this back before a handy dandy 100% taunt on short-duration cooldowns wwas widely available and data blocks were created for mobs showing when you were causing too much aggro as a DPSer.
WAR had many great concepts for classes that went beyond "throw out your DPS as fast as possible." Warrior Priests created healing pool resources using damage. Bright Wizards increased DPS potential while simultaneously increasing chance to damage themselves with their own spells. Pet classes that depended upon interaction to provide buffs and target debuffs. Where is WoW showing to be so much obviously more complex than these situations? And even if it were, why would that, by definition, make that complexity objectively "better"?
What best we talking about. Best Value, Best gameplay, Best graphics, Best classes, etc....I bet even McDonalds has a "Best ___" some where....oh wait fries....mmmmmm....McD fries.....drooling.....
Originally posted by MadFrenchie Since my phone doesn't play well with MMORPG.com's forums, I cannot properly quote. However, referencing Axeholt's last post: While I really don't have an argument regarding the complexity of WoW's combat (being good or bad), many MMORPGs have had combat with at least as complex mechanics: Warhammer Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online (take, for instance, this "rookie" guide to PvP in EVE). However, mere complexity doesn't prove or disprove the overall merit of a combat system.
EVE is the one game I could believe. Unfortunately it's so diluted by non-skill factors that PVP is really just a joke in the game. Ultra casual. There are too many advantages to be gained by population and progression, so any depth to the underlying combat system is rarely relevant.
If that doesn't make sense, imagine chess. Now imagine it where playtime accumulates an advantage (every 100 hours played you start with another queen). Now imagine it where you can bring friends into your game and they bring their pieces with them. You started with a very deep game where skill mastery was highly rewarded, but you ended up with a game where non-skill trump cards invalidated that depth.
Now if you could strip away those trump cards, taking EVE's combat/fitting gameplay but removing all the progression and population advantages involved, then I do think there's probably potential there. But you'd have to basically dismantle the entire game to get at it.
WAR and DAOC I definitely don't believe. In both cases their rotations were very poorly designed.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
There is no best on a large scale. Every swinging richard has a 'best,' and the reason for it. Top grossing is much simpler. I wholeheartedly agree though that they are not the same thing.
Not sure what you mean by diluting it with non-skill factors
[...]
Anything that diminishes your skill as a player is a "non-skill factor". Population, time zone, skill level, RNG...
The difference in competitive and open world PvP is that you don't have to be good in order to win in open world PvP. You can just have more guys on your side, higher level, better gear etc. Some guy might win just because they are more skilled than you, but because they spent more time grinding something, for example. That is why some people (and some devs) refer to it as "casual PvP".
It gives the low skilled players a chance to win every now and again.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Ahh, if that's the case, I would suggest Axehilt move to old-school FPSs, where there aren't any progression unlocks.
Otherwise, it seems talking about those things as "diluting" PvP is onlt a step removed from saying that the player with TVs 50 inches or larger should be separated from those playing on smaller screens, as the bigger screen obviously makes it easier to spot other players on the distant horizon.
Comments
Needed to advance? Sure.
Needed to advance to the top? No, it's about the same.
You're basically claiming chess is crap because a 5-year old can learn it, ignoring the fact that a 50-year old could still be working on mastering it.
A low barrier to entry makes a game better, not worse. A game still needs barriers imposing enough to reward true mastery, but WOW has that. In fact so far in the thread WOW is the only MMORPG with evidence showing that it has that depth. Until we start seeing evidence of other games which are at least as deep, any claim that WOW is a low-quality product is going to ring hollow.
Someone pointed out recently that it's Tall Poppy Syndrome, which is apparently a pejorative used in some countries to refer to making attacks against people of genuine merit. Except in this case it's a game of genuine merit.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It is a bit more complicated then that, when everyone is aiming for the exact same players (casual PvE players who love fantasy and simple levelbased trinity combat games) it is actually easier to earn money if you choose the second or third largest group which have very few games to choose from.
I am not saying that you should go super hardcore FFA full loot PvP, that group is pretty small but you could go for people who like doing dungeons and want a bit higher difficulty, RvR fans or similar groups. Those groups are still pretty large even if they are nowhere near the casual crowd but the competition is way easier to beat and a good game focused on them could get most of the players it is aiming for.
Another factor is that the casual PvE players are without a doubt the group that changes game most often, 500K players who stay for years still generate more income than 3 million players where 75% is gone after 6 weeks.
It is easier with movies, people don't mind going to an Avengers movie just because the saw X-men last week. MMOs needs cutomers to spend a long time in the game to be truly successful.
This is actually the opposite of the truth. Understandably: the more casual you are, the less effort you're putting into trying new games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Then why are Chess and Texas Hold'em still around after centuries and centuries?
Fact is the things that are mostly made of fluff, yeah sure, they come and go according to the whims of fashion. But the good stuff, that stands the test of time. And to some extent these two things also get mixed together
Bieber will be a fart in the wind no matter how much money he is making now. Zeppelin is already standing the test of time. And that is not just stuff on the Radio like Stairway to Heaven. The stuff that really stand the test of time, are other less popular things like Bring It on Home or No Quarter. Its nor for everyone, and Plant's vocals just irritate some people, but it will be and is regarded as good stuff and will continue to be so. Led Zeppelin is a good example of the both fahsion and quality gettting mixed together and as time burns away the bullshit of fashion we start to get a better idea of where the real quality was. Sometimes this results in us realizing there wasn't much base quality.
I still listen to Muddy Waters and half that stuff was recorded before I was born. No one who should be taken seriously thinks Bieber will be this way. In fact people very much anticipate when the fart that he is get dispersed by the winds of fashion.
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
The big problem is that you can't really define "the best" at least when it comes to games.
For person A maybe the best game is one with full loot PvP everywhere and wouldn't consider a game to be "the best" unless it has those characteristics... for person B for a game to be considered "the best" it needs to have items you can't achieve without years of dedication and hard working, and having it makes you stronger and more powerful than anyone that doesn't have it... person C thinks that for a game to be "the best" it needs you to group for everything and that you shouldn't be able to do anything solo.... Person D wants all of the above or it won't be "the best"... while person E (me, for example), would consider any of the above a deal breaker for a game to even be considered "good" (again, for me).
Gross earnings are a set number, which is easily quantifiable, you can say "game A grossed more than game B because it earnt 31 millions Vs. 20 millions of game B"... you can't say "game A is better because it has 175.4 qualitonions while game B only has 170.7 qualitonions" (qualitonion is trademarked by me just in case someone finds a way to measure how good a game is, BTW)..
.
All we can say is whether a game is the best FOR ME, just like with any artistic expression... and to use the evil game as an example, I can't say it's the best for me (I CAN say it was the best for me at one particular point in time, though), OP obviously can't say it's the best for him/her either... but there are people that CAN and ARE saying that WoW is the best game currently available for them, for whatever reason (even if it's just that it's what friends are playing... that was a big reason of why it was the best for me at the time), and they say it by paying money for it instead of other game... so we can say that more people think WoW is the best for them right now than other games based on gross alone.
What can men do against such reckless hate?
So you do have an example of a game guide or video which shows an MMORPG's combat to be deeper than WOW's!
Great, let's see it! Post up the evidence!
Keep in mind you'll have to provide many such videos/guides to actually build any sort of serious case against WOW's depth since you're claiming WOW is shallow.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And fun is the name of the game. As this thread states, Top grossing is a factual element, its objective and finite, best is subjective and open to debate. (or on here, ridicule) Eq1 is far deeper than Wow as far as gameplay. Especially now though I haven't played it in years. What one has to do to get keyed just to go into certain areas just to get keyed to get into higher tier areas, just to key to get into the tier after that, is pretty fricking amazing and time-consuming. I mean its really nuts even with the convenience add-ins and such. Wow has their treasure island and the ability to start at a high level I think? But I don't think it's nearly as deep as where EQ1 is today.First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
However, referencing Axeholt's last post:
While I really don't have an argument regarding the complexity of WoW's combat (being good or bad), many MMORPGs have had combat with at least as complex mechanics: Warhammer Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online (take, for instance, this "rookie" guide to PvP in EVE). However, mere complexity doesn't prove or disprove the overall merit of a combat system.
Yeah Birdman was by far better then all those on the list. interstellar was especially cringe worthy and the best of the Transformers movies were barely average, let alone the crapshoot that was Age of Extinction.
That said, some people still have some dignity in this world. Many are willing to make less in order to stay true to themselves and make something they are proud of. It's too bad the MMO world lack devs with this type of self respect.
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
McDonalds was a good example. Most people eat there because it is fast, cheap and convenient. Very few people would say they have the best tasting food around. If you polled 1000 people and asked them what place they ate at the most in the past year and also what place had the best food, you would get two very different looking results.
It is the same reason D3 has more players than PoE and that LoL has more players than DOTA 2.
The most popular thing is almost by definition not the best, it is just made in a way that it appeals to the largest number of people. It is generally aimed at the lowest common denominator or as you hear so often about MMORPG, it is probably dumbed down.
Alright you have something else other than skill rotations... How does Eve fit into that? -Combat in that game is practically just toggling auto attack on/off. It has a lot less going for it than any of the other games on your list.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You stay sassy!
You're funny. Look at you, you want to be a game snob? -Or a game hipster?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qa6QXBxxWw
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
THIS...sort of.
We're dealing with the maturation of a previously niche medium.
Back in the day, the nerds WERE the ones who played the AAA titles.
But now, the AAA titles require an investment whose return can only be matched by popularity with a mainstream audience.
Look at films. Who loves the "art" films that do well at academy awards?
Film "nerds"
Give the indie groups time and game quality in niche areas will rise, "nerds" will be attracted and we'll see an inversion where the highest "game academy" ratings go not to the AAA games, but to a realm of quality content indie games while AAA games get high payouts from mainstream crowds but fail to make the critics' rating.
we're in a transition phase right now where its easy to gripe about everything.
I haven't seen a AAA MMO I liked since pre-Cata WOW. Have I whined about it? No. I've kept my eye open on the independent developer horizon and been increasingly pleased with what I've found.
I have faith someone out there will make something I like and I'll find it. I accept that my tastes are not mainstream and that the product that meets my tastes won't have a mainstream budget.
EVE is the one game I could believe. Unfortunately it's so diluted by non-skill factors that PVP is really just a joke in the game. Ultra casual. There are too many advantages to be gained by population and progression, so any depth to the underlying combat system is rarely relevant.
If that doesn't make sense, imagine chess. Now imagine it where playtime accumulates an advantage (every 100 hours played you start with another queen). Now imagine it where you can bring friends into your game and they bring their pieces with them. You started with a very deep game where skill mastery was highly rewarded, but you ended up with a game where non-skill trump cards invalidated that depth.
Now if you could strip away those trump cards, taking EVE's combat/fitting gameplay but removing all the progression and population advantages involved, then I do think there's probably potential there. But you'd have to basically dismantle the entire game to get at it.
WAR and DAOC I definitely don't believe. In both cases their rotations were very poorly designed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Doesn't it kind of depend on where you are looking at "whatever it is" from?
From a business viewpoint, there is no better then "top grossing."
From an "artistic" viewpoint, rarely do "top grossing" and "good" coincide. However, not many of "us consumers" are artists
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The indie developers writing the tools that allow for both rapid and low-cost creation of game worlds will be the tipping point. With the tools to create immersive worlds quickly and cheaply, indie developers will start to shine. Eventually one of them will produce the next generation's WoW or EQ. Others will develop niche titles catering to small but well defined market segments.
The market segments looking for an updated EQ or DAOC may not be the largest, but they are well defined with little competing for their attention. Indie developers are starting to take notice and target these segments, and they are using some incredible toolboxes to keep development costs down.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
EVE is the one game I could believe. Unfortunately it's so diluted by non-skill factors that PVP is really just a joke in the game. Ultra casual. There are too many advantages to be gained by population and progression, so any depth to the underlying combat system is rarely relevant.
If that doesn't make sense, imagine chess. Now imagine it where playtime accumulates an advantage (every 100 hours played you start with another queen). Now imagine it where you can bring friends into your game and they bring their pieces with them. You started with a very deep game where skill mastery was highly rewarded, but you ended up with a game where non-skill trump cards invalidated that depth.
Now if you could strip away those trump cards, taking EVE's combat/fitting gameplay but removing all the progression and population advantages involved, then I do think there's probably potential there. But you'd have to basically dismantle the entire game to get at it.
WAR and DAOC I definitely don't believe. In both cases their rotations were very poorly designed.
Not sure what you mean by diluting it with non-skill factors; EVE is all about fitting the right ship with the right equipment for the right job. Then, doing that job. You act as if a player character will constantly have an advantage over any younger characters, but that shows a very limited knowledge of EVE itself. If you've maxed out the Rifter skills as a player who's been around for 5 years, you still won't have any advantage in flying that craft over a 6 month old character who rushed those same skills. Age in EVE provided options, not advantages, as you could only use a small subset of all your skills in any one fit. Expertise in mining and exploration won't help you warp away when being hit with disruptors.
As for your offhanded dismissal of WAR and DAoC, I can only assume you, again, have limited knowledge. DAoC was one of the first MMOs to make melee characters engaging by inventing "styles", combos and chains (many of which could only be started as a result of a specific combat condition being met). Many of those styles provided either to-hit bonuses, stuns, cripples, or other short-term debuffs (and, in some cases, self-buffs). Plug that into a class like the Paladin (back when chant twisting existed). You were an off-tank who twisted up to four chants based upon the situation (magical damage, physical damage, squishies taking damage, etc.) While also positioning and reacting to combat conditions that enabled you to perform as many as 5 different style combos. Oh, and this back before a handy dandy 100% taunt on short-duration cooldowns wwas widely available and data blocks were created for mobs showing when you were causing too much aggro as a DPSer.
WAR had many great concepts for classes that went beyond "throw out your DPS as fast as possible." Warrior Priests created healing pool resources using damage. Bright Wizards increased DPS potential while simultaneously increasing chance to damage themselves with their own spells. Pet classes that depended upon interaction to provide buffs and target debuffs. Where is WoW showing to be so much obviously more complex than these situations? And even if it were, why would that, by definition, make that complexity objectively "better"?
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I self identify as a monkey.
Anything that diminishes your skill as a player is a "non-skill factor". Population, time zone, skill level, RNG...
The difference in competitive and open world PvP is that you don't have to be good in order to win in open world PvP. You can just have more guys on your side, higher level, better gear etc. Some guy might win just because they are more skilled than you, but because they spent more time grinding something, for example. That is why some people (and some devs) refer to it as "casual PvP".
It gives the low skilled players a chance to win every now and again.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Otherwise, it seems talking about those things as "diluting" PvP is onlt a step removed from saying that the player with TVs 50 inches or larger should be separated from those playing on smaller screens, as the bigger screen obviously makes it easier to spot other players on the distant horizon.