| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (4)

Posted: Apr 29th 2008 1:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I believe that the question is dependent on what you value in the things inherent in an MMO environment. The first poster mentioned he felt WoW was inherently more valuable than TR or CoX because the latter has less end game and less random instances however I would argue that CoX is more valuable for the variety of character options (both powersets and costumes) , the frequency of updates/new content as well as the strength of the community. If I was looking for a more PvP oriented experience then yes WoW would be more valuable to me however then you get into the semantics of what is considered fun and that is highly relative.
Reply

Posted: Apr 29th 2008 4:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ImmortalAmazon, really I'm so sick of the curreent CoX developers "saying" they update the game often. In reality what they are doing is just trying to "catch up" the game to the level we would expect of an MMO. The original developers of CoX have even stated that they had no idea what they were doing and they launched with WAY too few features. Something they promise not to do with their next game, Champions Online.

Hey I love playing CoX but doing they same darn thing over and over and over and over even with 100 different classes is a real bummer. You gotta admit, CoX has what ... hmm like 5 or 6 different instanced environments that you must replay ad nauseum for your whole career. Yes they throw in a Task Force mission here and there, but it's not the same as zones in other games. I all reality CoX has 1 zone.. a city map. Think about that for a minute. What if World of Warcraft had 1 zone with 5 instances and that was the only place to go from levels 1 - 70. Yea, thats City of Heroes in a nutshell. Great game, but hardly worth a full monthly price.

Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2008 1:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You've completely missed the main point of my comment which is content is not the only determining factor of the value of a game. Do not get me wrong it is a very large factor but imo it is not the only one. I can not debate on the value of WoW because I do not play the game as it it not to my particular taste. However I could state that based on that alone the game's value is lowered. Again this runs into the relativity of what is fun to different people. So I will respectfully disagree as I have found CoX to be worth the monthly fee I pay to play it.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2008 8:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ImmortalAmazon

I'm sorry but I think you have not caught my point yet. My point is simply this:

No matter how you YOU like it. No matter how much I like it. It doesn't matter. These things are opinions. And we are not dealing with opinions here. We are dealing with raw FACT.

The fact is that game X has this amount of data. Game Y has this amount, which is a great deal less. Why pay the same for both? I'm sure there is someone out there who has a strange, obsessive desire to play pong all day long. Yes, pong is extremely valuable to that weird person. But would you say it's fair for him to pay $15 a month for pong?

Not is it worth it to him, you understand. Because it might be worth it to that guy. But is it fair to him? No it is not.

As players we need to speak up about this. Because if we don't then game developers and publishers will continue to release half finished games with tacked-on systems that are destined to fail.
Reply

Massively Speaking Podcast

Massively Speaking Episode 185: Bree-to-play

Latest episode: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

Engadget

Joystiq

WoW

TUAW