Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WOW looks so outdated...wtfbbq

Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 17, 2010 12:54:42 PM

So every few months or so I cant help but to run into a friend or friend of a friend that plays World of Warcraft. The game looks like it was made around the time half-life 1 was released. Models are blocky, textures are plain and effects are...well not arousing.

Why in the blood clot to ppl still play this terrible game...and pay big money to do so? The gameplay is boring and the graphics are just sooo outdated.

So apparently cataclysm comes out soon, but looking at the "graphical improvements" I was severely disappointed.

If every player in the game was still paying $15 a month and their are 11million users. If they don't have alts (alternative characters to play on separate accounts) blizzard is making 165 million/month from these confused noobs?

1. why do they not pwn bill gates yet?
2. why do their games still all look like they were made in the 80's
3. why do people play this g-dam game

More about : wow outdated wtfbbq

August 17, 2010 2:53:54 PM

WoWs graphics were intentionally made to be cartoon like so they would age more slowly. While they are not realistic like many of the newer games out there, Blizzard can still make very nice graphics from an artistic standpoint. You can see very attractive scenes with good graphics throughout the game. Also, WoW does not have 11M users worldwide anymore actively playing. The 11M figure was when WoW was at its peak.

1. Pwn Bill Gates? Bill Gates is a person, not a company. If you mean Microsoft, well Activision and Microsoft operate in two completely different industries.
2. As said before, they intentionally made the game with cartoon like graphics so they would age slower while being able to keep them attractive with scaling settings. Were you even alive in the 80s? Amazing graphics only go so far when it comes to retaining players.
3. Because they enjoy playing it? Most people play WoW because they have made friendships with others through the game and enjoy playing with those people.

While I agree with some of your opinions, they are just that… opinions. What is boring to one person might not be so to another. Though I do enjoy realistic graphics, I think one of the best things Blizzard did with WoW was its graphics. I still think many areas in Northrend look amazing on a fully maxed out graphics card. Sure they don’t look realistic, but from an artistic standpoint, they look fantastic.
m
0
l
August 17, 2010 3:21:46 PM

ya took the points way to literally mr.

1.why are they not rich enough to make a better game yet was #1's point.

2.you can make cartoonish looking character models and landscapes without sacrificing polycount. I mean each char. model looks like maybe 50 polygons. Of course they want ppl with old ass computers to be able to play, but its just getting excessively suck in the graphics department...admit it.

the cartoon like style is far from rare in modern games and they all do it better than WoW

3.obviously any key part of mmo's is the ease of socialization, ganging up and raiding or whatever, but this game just sucks 2 much to enjoy apart from that.

"mmk guys lets go click on that dragon in da dungeon some moar...u know..the purple one that looks strangely like a beaten cardboard box."

"I think one of the best things Blizzard did with WoW was its graphics."

thats absolutely ridiculous.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 17, 2010 6:19:43 PM

Since your argument is based mostly around graphics, I'll just say this.

Gameplay > Graphics

There are way too many people who whine about getting good graphics instead of good gameplay.

Also, I'm not sure you can have everyone running with the latest graphics on an MMO server without stressing the servers too much. Also, less graphics means more people can play the game and more money. The game is also old, so I'm not sure how well they could even update the graphics through expansions.
m
0
l
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 17, 2010 6:49:41 PM

I prefer gameplay over graphics. Of course if the graphics looks like total crap, then it's not even worth playing. As long as the graphics looks "presentable" then that's all that matters.

Does WoW graphics look dated? Sure it does, but it think it looks good enough for most people that they can actually enjoy the game because it is pleasing enough to get into the gameplay aspect of WoW.

Is WoW something I would play? No. Is it because of the graphics? No.

I prefer single person games. I can start and stop anytime I want without having to worry about other people for whatever reasons.

If you don't like how WoW looks, then just don't play it. No single game appeal to 100% of the gaming population.
m
0
l
August 17, 2010 6:50:56 PM

Shirosaki said:
Since your argument is based mostly around graphics, I'll just say this.

Gameplay > Graphics

There are way too many people who whine about getting good graphics instead of good gameplay.

Also, I'm not sure you can have everyone running with the latest graphics on an MMO server without stressing the servers too much. Also, less graphics means more people can play the game and more money. The game is also old, so I'm not sure how well they could even update the graphics through expansions.


+1 all the way here.

One of the reasons I play some games that are older than some of the people on this board.

For example, no one has done 4x as well as Master of Orion 1 & 2...and those are both well over 10 years old.

I still play a ton of Commodore / Apple 2C era games (Bards Tale series, Wasteland, Tetris, etc) and I am still trying to get my hands on working copies of Red Storm Rising, Mail Order Monsters, Legacy of the Ancients, Mars Saga among others.
m
0
l
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 17, 2010 6:59:40 PM

651865,6,10570For example, no one has done 4x as well as Master of Orion 1 & 2...and those are both well over 10 years old.

[/quotemsg said:


Try Galactic Civilization I & II.

They have great A.I. engines. The A.I. does not cheat like in other strategy games.
m
0
l
August 18, 2010 2:28:10 AM

jaguarskx said:
651865,6,10570For example, no one has done 4x as well as Master of Orion 1 & 2...and those are both well over 10 years old.

[/msgquoted said:


Try Galactic Civilization I & II.

They have great A.I. engines. The A.I. does not cheat like in other strategy games.


True...I have GalCiv2...but never was able to really get into it. I should probably try again. It seemed too...slow...I played for a good couple of hours and don't think I had any hostile encounters. IIRC diplomacy is a huge part of that game but I'd like for something to happen.
m
0
l
August 18, 2010 2:00:28 PM

kyle382 said:
1.why are they not rich enough to make a better game yet was #1's point.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. WoW continues to have millions of subscribers, so there's simply no financial reason to make it any better in the graphics department. People want more content, not something that will wow them (pun intended) for 15 minutes before they get prepared for the next raid. Graphics aren't important. Most game developers think the opposite though, which is why most games released in the last half decade or more have simply sucked. Greenpeace has had developers recycling the same old garbage so much that singleplayer campaigns are getting cut short because they've run out of ideas for making the old seem new.
m
0
l
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 18, 2010 4:07:56 PM

jamus34 said:

True...I have GalCiv2...but never was able to really get into it. I should probably try again. It seemed too...slow...I played for a good couple of hours and don't think I had any hostile encounters. IIRC diplomacy is a huge part of that game but I'd like for something to happen.


Depends on the size of your galaxy; the smaller the galaxy, the sooner you will encounter other races. I play the largest possible galaxy size with abundant habital planets. It takes a while for a hostilities to occur.
m
0
l
August 18, 2010 5:05:32 PM

i enjoy playing wow as much as the next guy, but u gatta admit, the graphics and coding are pretty sub par these days, i hate the frame dropsin raid boss fights and
in dalaran on a busy night :-(
m
0
l
August 18, 2010 8:53:26 PM

jaguarskx said:
Depends on the size of your galaxy; the smaller the galaxy, the sooner you will encounter other races. I play the largest possible galaxy size with abundant habital planets. It takes a while for a hostilities to occur.


I'm the same way. I usually play 4x as a techie race (if you have the ability to choose races) and try to build advanced weapons as quickly as possible.

Worked great in MOO1 (Play as Psilons...get graviton beam as quickly as possible and put into fighters...build huge stacks and own everyone.)

MOO2 wasn't quite as easy...losing stacks and Antares attacks change the gameplay by a ton. I had the most success sticking to mid level craft until end game and then pumping out the Dark Stars (or whatever the deathstar like craft were called) to assault Antares. Strategy and more so building specialized craft to counter what you were facing were the orders of the day.

Sins is another good one although it is technically an RTS is plays slowly enough that unless you are completely out matched strategy plays a strong hand.
m
0
l
August 19, 2010 11:27:58 AM

Is the OP trolling here?

WoW is fun (for those who DO enjoy it) because of the gameplay and the social element.

The graphics are functional, stylised and attractive. Yes, some of the player models could do with an update (check the more recent additions and compare to the old ones), but the GAME still works, and the visuals aren't in any way bad, just older.

I personally wouldn't object if WoW got a visual overhaul, but I sure as heck don't see it as a necessity. I find it hard to belive that anyone with as little understanding of the point of WoW as the OP apparently has would care enough to post about it.

In other news, Civ 2 still regularly consumes entire weekend for me, and that looks like a donkey's bum smeared in poo.
m
0
l
August 19, 2010 12:50:32 PM

well my friend alot of people think its boring but serously if you play the game i think its worth it

its graphics isnt bad but its an rpg type of graphics (like dragon ball on ps2 its an anime graphics type but it isnt bad hope you got that)

and if you think its outdated i dont think so cuz

1-its an online game so aslong as thiers a 1 player playin then its workin

2-its an rpg game and rpg games take a long time to be outdated like warcraft 3 ppl is still playin at the moment

3-an expansion is comin world of warcraft cataclysm it wil improve graphics and alot of stuff...
so the game is still goin

and the money you pay every month or 2 i think its worth cuz they are workin on the game and they will help you whenever you need help (i mean a gamemaster)

:) 

m
0
l
August 22, 2010 3:17:18 PM

xaero1ne said:
i enjoy playing wow as much as the next guy, but u gatta admit, the graphics and coding are pretty sub par these days, i hate the frame dropsin raid boss fights and
in dalaran on a busy night :-(


haha glad to see some of you folks agreeing with me. I'm not saying the game looks like a sh!tstorm, but it could do with an update. Many games today allow extreme scalability of graphics. For example arma2 or star trek online. If you turn STO all the way down...it will look mighty similar to WoW in terms of cartoonish style and polygon count. HOWEVER...it is also made to satisfy those of us who bought a new computer in the past 5 years....those of us who want to test our equipment and see some neato FX.

so what I'm saying here is you don't have to loose potential subscribers because of graphics as some have said. There should be a wide variety of acceptable settings, not just one that looks a decade outdated.

as for the genius' who noticed that game play is greater than graphics...nobody made a point to the contrary, so ya...I agree. The reason I posted this thread is not to simply rage pointlessly. I actually gave the game a chance and played with 2 good friends up to lvl 20 where the trial account is cap'd. While playing I noticed that it was ludicrously outdated in the graphics department is all. I'm a big multiplayer and mmo fan so it was easy for me to enjoy grindin around with my n3gros, but just wanted more in the end and with the money they are making...why the f not.
m
0
l
August 22, 2010 3:25:12 PM

randomizer said:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. WoW continues to have millions of subscribers, so there's simply no financial reason to make it any better in the graphics department. People want more content, not something that will wow them (pun intended) for 15 minutes before they get prepared for the next raid. Graphics aren't important. Most game developers think the opposite though, which is why most games released in the last half decade or more have simply sucked. Greenpeace has had developers recycling the same old garbage so much that singleplayer campaigns are getting cut short because they've run out of ideas for making the old seem new.


thanks much billy bob wilcox, but thats just not true. Moar like...if your loosin subscribers and its kinda broked. Aint you gon need some fixins?

market success depends on adaptation....not staying the same when people demand more...hence the countless WoW addon's and content expansion.

examples of games that take gameplay and graphics to the next level:

oblivion
fallout
bfbc2
eve online (look at screenshots from 6 years ago. If they had not updated...don't think many people would enjoy playing today)
m
0
l
August 22, 2010 3:30:22 PM

also, I will admit to being a fan of realism over the cliche cartoony style seen rising in popularity these recent years. The bright colors and over simplified models just scream: "developer COP OUT" to me.

Just saw some screens of the new "witcher 2" pc game. Can u folks imagine what might happen if WoW was capable of being cranked up to that level of detail? The world may yet implode upon itself.
m
0
l
August 22, 2010 5:35:55 PM

You basically inferred that because the graphics suck the gameplay sucks. Maybe you didn't mean that. Or maybe you're saying the gameplay is already terrible and with improved graphics, you could play it.

And while the developers are "copping out" to improving graphics, they are fitting more and more content into the expansion and also making sure it runs more smoothly (less bugs), which is better.

There is just way too much emphasis on graphics these days, and people need to realize the more time developers spend on those the less it's on gameplay. Probably the main reason in FF13 that you can only control 1 party member instead of all 3. Would have been much better if you could control all 3 in battle, but it took so much time to develop and they put so many pretty cutscenes in the game.

There are plenty of games for you to play with excellent graphics and average or mediocre gameplay.
m
0
l
August 22, 2010 5:57:26 PM

haha yes of course there are games out there that I enjoy. I made a list of em previously.

I think its a long shot to say that you MUST sacrifice graphic power for gameplay. It is in some cases MORE difficult to make a simplified character or npc model that looks decent and still has only 20 polygons or whatever Wow's average is. Texturing environments and models of high quality is not much more difficult than those of lower quality. Coding/scripting difficulty probably doesnt change much at all as the quality of graphics increases.

The real time spent making good graphic system is making graphic scaling possible. I'm talking about the process which i described before where you can run arma2 for example with Half life 1 quality models or crank it up and you get the same gameplay with much prettier unreal tournament 3 style graphics.

so my point is that with the time and money blizzard entertainment has...there really is no excuse not to make the game graphically scalable so that ppl with 7 yr old noob pc's can play and enjoy as well as us FX enthusiasts.

I was also displeased with Starcraft 2. Really fun campaign and all, but damn...take a hint from supreme commander 1, 1.5 and 2 already...so much better.

m
0
l
August 23, 2010 12:55:44 AM

kyle382 said:
examples of games that take gameplay and graphics to the next level:

oblivion
fallout
bfbc2
eve online (look at screenshots from 6 years ago. If they had not updated...don't think many people would enjoy playing today)


Oblivion: Buggy to this day. Really odd physics too.
Fallout (I assume you mean fallout 3 since you're mostly talking about semi-recent games here): Incredibly buggy, which is not surprising since it is also a Bethesda botch-up. It also needs texture replacement mods to really look any good. The atmosphere was done well for an old engine but the textures are horrible.

BC2: looks ok but it's little more than another generic shooter (something I've come to expect from that genre).

Eve online: Never played it so I can't comment on that.

I'm kind of surprised you didn't mention Crysis, but I suppose it doesn't excel enough in the gameplay area to count.
m
0
l
August 23, 2010 2:53:22 AM

WoW keeps more players because the younger crowd that is still dependant on their parents can play the game on the "family pc"

The dev team thinks that keeping the graphical requirements low lets them keep their player base.

However, the graphics are not all terrible in this game, especially if you play on ultra high settings. When you get into 25 man raiding, the game actually does start to put stress on your rig.

Youtube Algalon the Observer 25M - the fight is rediculously stressful on machines and the "stuff going on" is really graphically well done.
Also, unless you play it and really get good at it, you are unlikely to really understand the gameplay.
m
0
l
August 23, 2010 1:31:42 PM

kyle382 said:

so my point is that with the time and money blizzard entertainment has...there really is no excuse not to make the game graphically scalable so that ppl with 7 yr old noob pc's can play and enjoy as well as us FX enthusiasts.


Of course there is, and the term is, “publically traded.”

And when I say that the best thing Blizzard did with WoW was it's graphics, I meant from a marketing and sales standpoint. They focused on gameplay, which when it was released was quite fun and entertaining, over graphics. Look at all the other games that were going to be "WoW killers." AoC came and went. Warhammer came and went. Aeon came and went. Why? Because they tried to make WoW with graphics > gameplay. Granted it was also because casual gamers are spoiled with the fact that most of them came to play WoW years after release and started with a polished and finished game, and dind't have to sit through down servers the first months.

You list games you play as "take gameplay and graphics" to the next level. FO3, Oblivion and BFBC2 were all released years after the original WoW was released and while good games, they all have their issues. Oblivion, to me, looks more dated to WoW and it was released after it. Not to mention the fact that if you get invisibility spell, you have no problem winning the game. The things that made the game awesome, also made the game easy (creating spells to stack –resistances). FO3 is so buggy, with the fact that if your computer even hiccups, you get crash to desktop. I'll take a stable game over one that looks cool when I can play it. Gameplay is awesome, and so were graphics, but it also came out much later than WoW. BFBC2 is awesome, but it doesn’t really offer that much more than any other shooter does. Okay, sure, you get vehicles and the way upgrades work sure.

The real issue comes down to ROI. A game with cartoonish graphics ages slower and is playable by a larger audience.
m
0
l
August 23, 2010 2:28:53 PM

randomizer said:
Oblivion: Buggy to this day. Really odd physics too.
Fallout (I assume you mean fallout 3 since you're mostly talking about semi-recent games here): Incredibly buggy, which is not surprising since it is also a Bethesda botch-up. It also needs texture replacement mods to really look any good. The atmosphere was done well for an old engine but the textures are horrible.

BC2: looks ok but it's little more than another generic shooter (something I've come to expect from that genre).

Eve online: Never played it so I can't comment on that.

I'm kind of surprised you didn't mention Crysis, but I suppose it doesn't excel enough in the gameplay area to count.


lol, I love how all 3 of you completely over looked the main point and immediately hated on my choice of decent games. I agree with all of your criticisms of these games, but thats not going to make WoW look any better. You folks argument revolves around the fact that gameplay is greater than graphics. That idea was never contested, but I would argue that visuals are a really important part of gameplay, which can't be separated out to say so simply gameplay>graphics. A good modern game needs both. Something like Just Cause 2, or to stay in the mmo department....eve online I guess.


I actually never had a crashing issue with oblivion but fallout 3 was a complete joke. I routinely hate on fallout 3 as well and feel free to give it a search...its just a terrible game really, but most people love it. YA shoot ogres in slow motion that look like they belong in warcraft...somehow these huge things are everywhere and the slow motion camera aims for you making for a really unexciting romp around the terrible looking game environment...not to mention the bugs.

bfbc2 is a sad excuse for what should have been battlefield 3, but whatever its still the most fun fps out right now.

Their are so many reasons WoW clones failed to stick around. Lets look at them individually.

Age of Conan-never tried it so I cant say...do you all have to be conan? that would be a drag..lol

Aion- Really fun to fly around for a bit until you realize the game is 1/2 done and you hear that sorcerer make the same spell creation grunt 5000 times and its annoying as hell. graphics are slllliightly better than WoW and gameplay is exactly the same or worse. BUT U CAN HAZ A FLY!....fail

Warhammer-the whole theme behind warhammer just seems rediculous to me...mixing up marines and ogres, catapults and siege tanks, but whatever. Hardcore rpg fans probably love it.

I wasnt around when WoW was initially released, but I don't recall it having any competition except everquest or that other game exactly like it. Those were obviously a joke next to WoW and since then WoW has been able to build a healthy customer base of addicts. Recent wow clones as described, like most mmos, released instantaneously as if it twas a greasy turd unfit for further development.


i said it twice, and now ill say it a 3rd time...and put it in italics to highlight its importantness.

Graphics can b e scalable so as not to exclude anyone from the player base. To get the point through, lets just imagine a little example of what that might be like. Imagine one guy playing the game as it appears now on his moms 8 year old computer in the basement....hes absolutely loving it just like all you fellows. Now you got me, who has this supercomputer and wants to see some fancier models and FX, so I crank it up. By crank it up I mean turn the graphics up to a higher setting thus resulting in a more stimulating visual experience. Both parties are loving the game, blizzard looses no customers...its win win win...win

Additionally I have also mentioned once or twice that I don't completely HATE WoW. I mentioned playing and enjoying it to an extent up until lvl 20. I am merely unsatisfied with the graphics and surprised that 10 million others don't mind that much about level of detail. Every game has its flaws and this one is in the visual department...admit it.


m
0
l
August 23, 2010 2:50:39 PM

Luckily this year brings hearty competition in the hack and slash mmo department. The new final fantasy, blade and soul and that other game that looks exactly like B&S. Lets just hope their combat systems dont suck the nards.
m
0
l
August 23, 2010 5:55:48 PM

As far as the scaling graphics, I can’t really comment. I’ve never done any graphic rendering nor have I been part of the game development process. I can’t say if it is harder or easier to create more detailed graphics, but logic tells me it is. If someone came to you and said, “You can invest $100 and I will give you $1000 in a year’s time or you can invest $400 and I will give you $1200 in a year’s time,” it is safe to assume you will choose the first option. Sure Blizzard might have returned slightly higher with better graphics over the entire lifespan of the product, but that is all just speculation. Most gamers, be it hardcore or casual, would be happy to sacrifice gameplay for graphics and that is what Blizzard focused on. Look at Crisis. Awesome graphics, boring gameplay, never caught on with the masses (the casual masses). Blizzard has TONS of capital now, but that is largely due to the success of WoW.

I’m looking forward to some of this year’s releases, but I really don’t see anything on the horizon that I think will be able to draw anywhere near the attention that WoW did. The sad truth is, there is more money in the casual market. It is a bigger audience, easier to cater to and they are easier to hook with switching costs (I have 3 80s and 10k gold in WoW… I’m not going somewhere else where I have to start over).

m
0
l
August 28, 2010 5:21:35 PM

bamslang said:
As far as the scaling graphics, I can’t really comment. I’ve never done any graphic rendering nor have I been part of the game development process. I can’t say if it is harder or easier to create more detailed graphics, but logic tells me it is. If someone came to you and said, “You can invest $100 and I will give you $1000 in a year’s time or you can invest $400 and I will give you $1200 in a year’s time,” it is safe to assume you will choose the first option. Sure Blizzard might have returned slightly higher with better graphics over the entire lifespan of the product, but that is all just speculation. Most gamers, be it hardcore or casual, would be happy to sacrifice gameplay for graphics and that is what Blizzard focused on. Look at Crisis. Awesome graphics, boring gameplay, never caught on with the masses (the casual masses). Blizzard has TONS of capital now, but that is largely due to the success of WoW.

I’m looking forward to some of this year’s releases, but I really don’t see anything on the horizon that I think will be able to draw anywhere near the attention that WoW did. The sad truth is, there is more money in the casual market. It is a bigger audience, easier to cater to and they are easier to hook with switching costs (I have 3 80s and 10k gold in WoW… I’m not going somewhere else where I have to start over).




This reply right here makes zero sense. Additionally, like every post I have seen of yours mr. bam....you completely voided the subject of the thread simply to flame on about whatever it is that im supporting.

in another thread you mentioned not playing WoW...yet here you mention having 3 level 80 characters. embarassed much?

ya spell crysis with a "y" and to say that it never caught on with the masses is also ridiculous. Obviously your mmo masses value completely different things in a game than those who play crysis. No idea what your talking about in the rest of the reply, but it has nothing to do with my original question. please kindly gtfo and go cast some spelllz.


m
0
l
August 29, 2010 1:50:44 AM

Late post but....
WoW did release in 2005 and on a low end rig the graphics are playable, maybe not as graphically enjoyable as ultra, but still playable. However, if the graphics are cranked the game shows a whole new side the graphics engine; the spell detail, highlights, texturing and rendering on every weapon and piece of armor shows its prime in ultra. Considering you are in an environment that is live 24/7 with thousands of other players simultaneously the graphics are phenomenal, even considering the age of the game. While WoW is starting to show its age graphically, Blizzard continues to up the graphic engines in the new content to try to please the masses. Most people do not own high end rigs, so Blizzard takes that into consideration for bottom end graphical effects so that those 5 million or so subscribers can continue to enjoy the game, while those who are compulsive up graders can max the graphics out and enjoy. You might not find any appeal in WoW, but there are millions who do. Honestly, your post is based solely on what you have looked at and not played (much like a virgin commenting on porn) ultimately making you look like a forum troll. But, I digress.. So to answer your questions simply...

Quote:
Why in the blood clot to ppl still play this terrible game...and pay big money to do so? The gameplay is boring and the graphics are just sooo outdated.
Your opinion is the game is "terrible" but you don't have much backing your argument. Since you don't even play your opinion is based on the graphics alone, without consideration for game play and the networking environment. Maybe learn to play and you will understand, but I think your close minded approach has ruled this out as a consideration.

Quote:
If every player in the game was still paying $15 a month and there are 11million users. If they don't have alts (alternative characters to play on separate accounts) blizzard is making 165 million/month from these confused noobs?


$15 a month is small change for most people who play an MMO to begin with. Considering the amount of servers and routine maintenance that is conducted to include content updates and patching, WoW continues to be the cheapest/reliable fun you can have in an MMO. You don't need separate accounts to run alts, you can have up to 10 per server and 50 total. Not sure what you are saying about confused noobs...

Quote:
1. why do they not pwn bill gates yet?

What? All I know is bears are attracted to the menstruation...

Quote:
2. why do their games still all look like they were made in the 80's

Perhaps try and play a game made in 2005...Were you even alive that year? You clearly did not play the original nintendo (NES for those of us alive in the 80's) if you think WoW looks like it is from the 80's.

Quote:
why do people play this g-dam game

Your mind is too shallow to even begin to understand why so many people play WoW. Please go back to your FPS (first person shoooters..) that are so graphically amazing that they have lasted over 5 years of constant subscription....oh wait....there are none.... perhaps try to open that sealed can of tuna you are currently calling your brain and let the "stank" out.

With all of that being said, you will most likely continue ranting and trolling on games you don't play to end up looking like an ignorant child who chases every shiny new object that hits the shelf.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 30, 2010 1:34:34 PM

People play WoW because it gives them instant gratification for little to no effort.
I played WoW for 4 weeks this summer.

In that time I reached level cap, had all triumph epic slots filled. Capped my tailoring, capped my enchanting, capped my cooking, capped my first aid, and capped my disappointment in a game that offered me no sense of accomplishment.

I will say this...WoW is an amazing game! I give blizzard mad props for a well marketed MMO that pleases folks who have probably nothing else to compare it too. All the rest just like feeling special that everything is handed to them for no real meaningful effort. But hey, I liked playing with my cheat codes on when I was a kid too.

"But Paul, you never fought the Lich king!"
You do realize that having 1% of a game as a valid experience isn't exactly a selling point right? But honestly, "deadly boss mods"....I mean how tough can it be when you have that and dozens of other third party apps telling you exactly what to do.If not actually doing it for you.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 30, 2010 1:44:39 PM

k2bordr03 said:

Your opinion is the game is "terrible" but you don't have much backing your argument. Since you don't even play your opinion is based on the graphics alone, without consideration for game play and the networking environment.

Networking environment? You mean the cross server party system?
The system that has pretty much killed any social aspect this game at one time had?
Top it off with the fact that it thoroughly encourages people to be complete priks in that game since they are interacting with folks they will never have to deal with again.

The WoW community is hands down the worst of ANY mmo I've ever played.
All your left with is guild mates.
And that is a severely watered down experience from what it was when this game first launched.

Seriously though, I am glad you enjoy it.
As much as I hate the game, I feel that there are many folks out there who are totally validated in the pleasure it gives them.
Im just not one of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpmy7Ze18NY
m
0
l
August 30, 2010 8:27:22 PM

kyle382 said:
So every few months or so I cant help but to run into a friend or friend of a friend that plays World of Warcraft. The game looks like it was made around the time half-life 1 was released. Models are blocky, textures are plain and effects are...well not arousing.

Why in the blood clot to ppl still play this terrible game...and pay big money to do so? The gameplay is boring and the graphics are just sooo outdated.

So apparently cataclysm comes out soon, but looking at the "graphical improvements" I was severely disappointed.

If every player in the game was still paying $15 a month and their are 11million users. If they don't have alts (alternative characters to play on separate accounts) blizzard is making 165 million/month from these confused noobs?

1. why do they not pwn bill gates yet?
2. why do their games still all look like they were made in the 80's
3. why do people play this g-dam game


4. Why do you care?

Think about it, IMO you're complaining for the sake of complaining. I tried WoW years ago and my first impression was that it was a very slow paced 3D version of Diablo 2. And really, that's what it is, except the "best" weapons formula is modified to do almost nothing with luck but instead more of a time investment (which works well in the name of MMOs for obvious reasons). So eventually everyone is "uber" so who really cares?
m
0
l
August 31, 2010 2:22:26 AM

Quote:
Networking environment? You mean the cross server party system?
The system that has pretty much killed any social aspect this game at one time had?
Top it off with the fact that it thoroughly encourages people to be complete priks in that game since they are interacting with folks they will never have to deal with again


I couldn't agree with you more on the cross server partying, but I have played with people for about 6 years and got some perks for being known on a particular server. Not everyone is a prick and the social groups in WoW are harder to get into but the more people you know in real life the better the experience. (In my opinion) As for new folks, the lack of the social aspect and having to learn the dynamics of the game while trying to find a place in the community can put people off from playing. Blizzard is attempting to have more perks for guilds, but really an MMO is really about the community, and so far my experience has been good. Seems like you had a bad experience pheinzing but as said before this won't be everyone’s game and the world, especially those behind the veil anonymity, is full of douche-bags.
m
0
l
August 31, 2010 9:56:00 PM

bildo123 said:
4. Why do you care?

Think about it, IMO you're complaining for the sake of complaining. I tried WoW years ago and my first impression was that it was a very slow paced 3D version of Diablo 2. And really, that's what it is, except the "best" weapons formula is modified to do almost nothing with luck but instead more of a time investment (which works well in the name of MMOs for obvious reasons). So eventually everyone is "uber" so who really cares?


if you read the thread you will see that im asking a legitimate question...not just complaining. The question was related to graphics, but has turned out mostly to be wow players flaming on about game play and FPS referrals. I also had the feeling of it being a "very slow paced 3d version of diablo 2" at times.


m
0
l
August 31, 2010 10:13:01 PM

k2bordr03 said:
Quote:
Networking environment? You mean the cross server party system?
The system that has pretty much killed any social aspect this game at one time had?
Top it off with the fact that it thoroughly encourages people to be complete priks in that game since they are interacting with folks they will never have to deal with again


I couldn't agree with you more on the cross server partying, but I have played with people for about 6 years and got some perks for being known on a particular server. Not everyone is a prick and the social groups in WoW are harder to get into but the more people you know in real life the better the experience. (In my opinion) As for new folks, the lack of the social aspect and having to learn the dynamics of the game while trying to find a place in the community can put people off from playing. Blizzard is attempting to have more perks for guilds, but really an MMO is really about the community, and so far my experience has been good. Seems like you had a bad experience pheinzing but as said before this won't be everyone’s game and the world, especially those behind the veil anonymity, is full of douche-bags.


Well I can't comment much on this as the trial account does not even allow you to join a guild. I agree that any mmo or multiplayer game is better played with folks you know in the real world.

k2border, you have done an impressive amount of flaming on here, but failed to address any of the issues I had of the game. No, obviously WoW doesnt literally look like it was made in the 80's. The exaggeration is valid as the first games ever were made in the 80's...get it?


m
0
l
August 31, 2010 10:28:20 PM

Quote:
Networking environment? You mean the cross server party system?
The system that has pretty much killed any social aspect this game at one time had?
Top it off with the fact that it thoroughly encourages people to be complete priks in that game since they are interacting with folks they will never have to deal with again.

The WoW community is hands down the worst of ANY mmo I've ever played.
All your left with is guild mates.
And that is a severely watered down experience from what it was when this game first launched.

Seriously though, I am glad you enjoy it.
As much as I hate the game, I feel that there are many folks out there who are totally validated in the pleasure it gives them.
Im just not one of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpmy7Ze18NY


rofl @ tha video.
m
0
l
September 1, 2010 3:09:11 PM

kyle382 said:
if you read the thread you will see that im asking a legitimate question...not just complaining. The question was related to graphics, but has turned out mostly to be wow players flaming on about game play and FPS referrals. I also had the feeling of it being a "very slow paced 3d version of diablo 2" at times.


So these are serious, non-trolling, "legitimate" questions?:
1. why do they not pwn bill gates yet?
2. why do their games still all look like they were made in the 80's
3. why do people play this g-dam game

I'll try to tackle these with "legitimate" answers:

1. Because of falcon?
2. As mentioned before, lower sys req. means opening the availability of a larger customer base.
3. Because...they enjoy...grinding the same boss using pre scripted skill rotations on cookie cutter builds and "mods" that basically do the fighting for you?...because I guess thats fun for some people... IMHO the L4D series (had to bring up a FPS referrel :kaola:  ) offers much more co-operation and communication and teamwork, and thats 4 vs 25. More isn't always better (which is probably why they knocked raids from 40 to 25, basically less of the same exact thing happening anyways, with less lag).
m
0
l
September 1, 2010 4:33:58 PM

the bullet points were side questions. Mainly concerned with why the game looks so outdated as stated in the title of the thread.

1. falcon?
2. see entire thread discussion about graphics scaling
3. omg the 1st actual theory that didn't involve flaming on about nothing. yes i think ur on to something.
m
0
l
September 2, 2010 2:19:02 PM

kyle382 said:
This reply right here makes zero sense. Additionally, like every post I have seen of yours mr. bam....you completely voided the subject of the thread simply to flame on about whatever it is that im supporting.

in another thread you mentioned not playing WoW...yet here you mention having 3 level 80 characters. embarassed much?

ya spell crysis with a "y" and to say that it never caught on with the masses is also ridiculous. Obviously your mmo masses value completely different things in a game than those who play crysis. No idea what your talking about in the rest of the reply, but it has nothing to do with my original question. please kindly gtfo and go cast some spelllz.


As it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about, I'll just leave the masses to seeing how much of a moron you are and stop wasting my time.

In the other thread, you said something about, "see you on the WoW forums". This isn't WoW forums, this is a thread about WoW. Embarrassed much? This is the main problem, you think any term is interchangeable and that people will know what you're talking about.

You think FO3 is a FPS and BFBC2 is a RPG. I do find it funny that you mention that I misspelled Crysis, yet your posts are riddled with misspellings, poor grammar, inconsistent capitalization and half the time, almost completely unreadable. I’ll assume you’re not a native English speaker/writer, so I can’t really fault you. However, if you’re going to post on topics, you should at least know the correct terms when referring to things.
m
0
l
September 2, 2010 8:27:24 PM

my favorites include the long pause "......" and run on sentences.

again slang, all you have done here is rage on about nonesense...picking apart everything except the topic at hand. Bye now please...n luv u long time.
m
0
l
!