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

Reader Comments (17)

Posted: Feb 9th 2009 5:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Definitely not?

I still can't believe how WoW's subscription numbers validate the quality of the game. Just because something is successful or popular does not mean it's good.

Now, before you get out your red pen, I think WoW is a good game. I'm not even saying it isn't. But using their subscriber base as a validation for anything other than Blizzard's success as a company or the game as a product is a logical fallacy.

By your definition, McDonald's must be the best food, Oprah must be the best TV show, and Puff Daddy must be the best musician. They're all good in their own right, sure, but seriously. Quantity doesn't equal quality. It's just really how it is.

Posted: Feb 9th 2009 10:11PM Jesspiper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

I absolutely agree. The same faulty logic would conclude that NSYNC is a better music group than, say, Dream Theater, which would be an utterly preposterous thing to say.

Well said Lemmo.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2009 4:27AM wjowski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Except that video game quality is alot less subjective than movie or music quality. Objectively terrible games generally get the lambasting they deserve.
Reply

Posted: Feb 9th 2009 5:53PM Graill440 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Lemmo just a side note, AOL is also has a massive following, that doesnt make it great, it just makes it simple to use. WOW is simply AOL in MMO form, simple to play and colorful, no depth, no creativity, and no consequence, like many MMO's out there, nuff said.

As for the article i will disagree on all his choices, with the exception of EVE and Lord of the Rings having arguably the best graphics of the current pool, the gameplay still sucks balls in all of them. The anti wow is simply deleting your toons and your account info, call billing and telling them to physicaly remove all your info (what i did 4 years ago) that way there is NO recovery.

Though i feel the majority of WOW players are to weak minded to do this nor are any folks playing what "they think they like" currently going to force devs to higher standards by not playing anything by removing subs. To bad for the rest of us.

Posted: Feb 10th 2009 12:42PM wjowski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For Christ's sakes it's just game.
Reply

Posted: Feb 9th 2009 7:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ok:

Take Warcraft 3: the game is more than 7 years old and is still in the top 10 of most played PC games on Xfire (150K users constantly on line).

That tells us what ? People like to play Blizzard games.

Period.

People like to play Blizzard games.

Moaning about MacDonalds or "depth" doesn't help shit.

The 70.000 pages of Warcraft LORE on wowwiki.com shows the game has MORE info on NPC's history lines and world design depth than ANY other popular PC franchise.

The difference is that Blizz games are being played by millions WITH the lore, while other games BUY lore and are being played by a few % of Blizzard games.

You can bet you ass Diablo 3 will set some standards (again).

A friend passed by yesterday: I let him show the new Wintergrasp PvP siege (sunday at 08.00PM)
The guy couldn't believe his eyes.

But ... he says .... "those are the catapults of Warcraft3, but NOW I can ride with them" ?

No problem, the guy got off buying Wow again (because he stopped 2 years ago).

The problem is we - the moaners - don't see the obvious things anymore. We are in luck, the general public still sees them....


Posted: Feb 9th 2009 8:31PM TheJackman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
100% agree and to add that Blizzard got there for a complete freedom to do what every they want like its there storyline and not some 3rd party!
Reply

Posted: Feb 9th 2009 7:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You know, game journalists have never been the most respectable lot, but this article takes it to a new laughable low.

Cavalli tries so hard to be cool, with his multiple cocaine references and Blade Runner quotes, that its painfully obvious the guy was tasked with writing a fluff piece and has nothing original to say.

I honestly can't believe Massively even linked to such a crap article, slow news day eh? I mean come on, I'm not going to sit here and say Vanguard is a great game, but I'm also not going to take someone's word on it that can't be bothered to write more than a sentence and a half with absolutely no information to back up his claim that it sucks.

Oh and AoC and Warhammer released at the same time? Um ok, when were May and October even remotely close to one another on the calendar?

What a complete hack.

Posted: Feb 9th 2009 9:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bummer. Looks like I offended some complete stranger in my strenuous efforts to be cooler than he. Next time I'll use only Battlestar Galactica quotes and references to sugar cookies. Here's hoping that won't come off as "trying so hard to be cool."

Then again, since I don't have any sugar cookies in my apartment, I'm probably deeply offending any stereotypical geeks out there whose literalist pedantry drives them into a rage at anything that isn't explicitly verified, then double checked by Wikipedia user "5nap3kill5dumbeldor3".

And since I've only watched like 3 episodes of BSG I'm running the risk of alienating that show's millions of rabid fans!

Wow, "wtfman," thanks a ton for bringing to light my failings. I guess the only way out is suicide.

(Note: Someone make sure to tell him that that also wasn't entirely literal. Hopefully I'll be dead before I have to read his tirade against my obviously trying so hard to be cooler than all those people who actually did commit suicide over his wicked e-barbs.)

Posted: Feb 9th 2009 10:17PM Jesspiper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Massively: Can 11 million people be wrong? The Germans were. Twice. And that was a lot more than 11 million people.

Popularity does not = quality/superiority. I wish people would wake up and realize that. They aren't called "the ignorant masses" for nothing you know.

As for the Earnest Cavalli article, I liked it and think it's good that LOTRO and EVE got some of the praise they deserve.

Posted: Feb 9th 2009 10:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not wicked e-barbs at all bro, lol, just an honest summation of an article that, really, doesn't say anything that hasn't been said a thousand times.

Cheers.

Posted: Feb 10th 2009 12:27AM gemski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So if having the most players means its bad. Having the least must mean its awesome! Only a select few are smart enough to enjoy the game!

'A Tale in the Desert' here I come.

Posted: Feb 10th 2009 11:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I lol'ed
Reply

Posted: Feb 10th 2009 4:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
"Xbox 360-esque Achievements, for example, first appeared in WAR"

----

CoH has had its "badges" in place for years before WAR appeared and LOTRO's "Deeds" system predates WAR, period.

That aside, an interesting article and I agree with it.

Sorry, but the ardent WoW fans have to accept that it's not for everybody. I'm not denying WoW IS a well-crafted, enjoyable, immersive experience. While it lasts. But there comes a time when you just think "is that it?" and for many people it fails to go the full distance. I'm not knocking anybody for playing WoW or being an elitist. But the die-hard WoWers need to understand that WoW isn't the be-all and end-all of MMOs and there are alternatives out there that do some stuff better than WoW...

Posted: Feb 10th 2009 5:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Popularity does indeed have a lot to do with whether something is good or not, but it is by no means the be all and end all.

World of Warcraft is no longer a game. It is a social symbol and a worldwide hobby/fad/culturual pastime the same as, say, listening to music is. A lot of people play it because it's the cool thing to do, as it gets so much hype and publicity these days how could they even notice other MMOs?

I am very glad I quit WoW after playing for a few years, Wrath of the Lich King just proved I was right to do so. Recycling the same old stuff but dumbing it down to ridiculous levels, wrapped in admittedly often gorgeous visuals considering its age and low hardware requirements.

It is in no way a bad game, I'd never lie like that, but its popularity is absolutely not just to do with that. That being said, none of the alternatives are flawless or perfect either, although I am currently enjoying Lord of the Rings Online for its depth and the variety of things to do in it other than farm/grind.

Posted: Feb 10th 2009 11:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think WoW is getting to the point where it's starting to suffer from its own popularity. We're seeing changes made more to appease the baned out, screen-licking guitar hero fans than because it's good game design.

The game is getting prettier and prettier, while becoming shallower and shallower. Players have to actually TRY to get killed in PvE. They don't need to bother learning anything or understanding teamwork, it's all fisher-price corners, eye-candy and cottonwool from here on out.

Sadly that's what the majority of people want today. They want the Fox TV equivalent of a video game and so Blizzard gives it to them. Of course it's going to be popular.

Posted: Feb 10th 2009 12:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm working on a grand project that explains why WOW is so successful in clear non-gamer terms. From my initial analysis It's one part human psychology & one part BDBP (best demonstrated business practices)
I'm looking for peer review on the general Hypothesis(s) I will also be looking for WOW players for data. The grand project is on my site
moonkinmusings.blogspot.com

Featured Stories

Betawatch: October 18 - 24, 2014

Posted on Oct 24th 2014 8:00PM

The Stream Team: Dungeoning in Swordsman

Posted on Oct 24th 2014 7:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW