Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

World of Warcraft seems to be a great success.

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 16, 2005 8:10:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

It may not appeal to self-appointed "purists", but it sure appeals to
lots of people. And they are apparently not quitting after the first
couple of paid subscriptions.......... Seems as if it is joining
Everquest (1) amongst the MMO classics.

See:-

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9562


As for Everquest 2, seems as if it may go the way of Asheron's Call 2.
Might take just a little longer...

John Lewis
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 16, 2005 8:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:
> As for Everquest 2, seems as if it may go the way of Asheron's Call 2.
> Might take just a little longer...

Sony lost a lot of people when they announced that trading service
where they take a cut on item sales for real cash. I know I have
friends who had EQ2 accounts and they canceled the very same day Sony
made that announcement. That was a pretty bone-headed move.

Knight37
http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 16, 2005 8:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I've noticed that many of the people who don't like WoW have that
opinion because they seem to view sitting around camping the same
monsters for hours on end as an "accomplishment" (as opposed to
"sitting around playing a video game") and they seem to resent anyone
playing a game that doesn't involve that sort of activity.

While looking over the Vanguard forums I noticed a lot of people
slamming WoW and comparing it to old style EQ1. The parts of the game
they seemed to value are the times spent not playing the game; waiting
for a boat for half an hour, long downtime between fights,
non-spellcasters having to beg for binds when they get to a new city,
running for an hour or more to get to where you actually want to play,
going on corpse recovery runs, etc. There was also a commonly
expressed but rather pathetic sentiment that playing a game that wastes
a lot of their time makes them a better person somehow.

I enjoy WoW because the majority of my time is actually spent playing
the game, with the quest system I never have to keep going back to the
same spot to hunt (I seldom ever hunt in WoW, I just keep doing quests
and seeing new areas and this strategy has seen me up to level 43), and
with the travel options I can move quickly to a destination or take the
time to wander the backroads to see the sights as I see fit. The game
suits my casual play style, I can advance and see new parts of the
world at a comfortable pace without having to play for hours every
night. I think WoW succeeds because they removed most of the time
wasting aspects of old games while keeping the fun parts. I don't need
to keep a book by my side or a second game running on another computer
to fill the down time like I did in EQ. I just wish that WoW would
ditch the stupid looking character models for more realitistic ones.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 16, 2005 8:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>There was also a commonly
>expressed but rather pathetic sentiment that playing a game that wastes
>a lot of their time makes them a better person somehow

Yes, the "Downtime is Good" crowd. Hopefully they will all migrate to
this Vanguard and have a masochistic orgy there.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 16, 2005 8:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

The success of WoW is simple. It's an easy game that allows you to
play from lvl 1 to 60 without too much effort and without ever grouping
with anyone else.
Another good point it has, many classes with very different playstyles
(except for maybe the hunter and warlock that play pretty much the
same), allowing you to replay the game several times.
Something rather strange happened to me. I like playing healers in the
other games where grouping is really encouraged/required, as I always
am in a group. When I started WoW I created a priest, and retired him
at 23 as the few groups I joined lasted like 3 minutes, long enough to
kill the boss for the quest. Now I play a warlock, much better for
this solo-oriented game.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 16, 2005 8:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

> (Still, after five months of WoW, I bought two new games this month, so my interest in wanning ... >still, even if I stopped playing now, I'd have gotten more than my money's worth out of the >experience.)

I never play just one game, I enjoy too many genres. I am always
taking a break from MMO gaming for a strat game or SP game or to work
on some game editor project.

>Just something's lacking later on

I always am interested in more classes than I can usually play in a
MMOG, but with WoW I can play alts to level 20 or 30 and see how other
classes work while keeping my main on track. When my warlock hits 60
I'll switch to another class and over to the other side as well.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 16, 2005 8:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Michael Vondung wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2005 14:23:41 -0700, wolfing wrote:
>
> > It's an easy game that allows you to
> > play from lvl 1 to 60 without too much effort and without ever grouping
> > with anyone else.
>
> And at 60 you can't do anything without grouping.
>

There are some things to do:

- Creating other classes. They really do play very differently.

- Trying out the other faction on a different server. 100% new content
up to level 20, and 50% different content for another 10-15 levels or
so. All new flight paths, cities, and different guilds to join.

- PvP'ing in the Battlegrounds. Warsong Gulch has definitely become a
"1 night a week" ritual for me, and I rarely go with guildmates. It's
just plain fun, and earning/keeping the trinket is gravy.

- Completely Re-Tooling your professions to become the ultimate
Mechanical Dragonling using Discombobulator weilding Engineer (and all
the cash/material farming that entails).

Granted, I know what you're saying. But there's far from *nothing* to
do without a group. You do need a group if *all* you are ever going to
do is Molten Core and Onyxia runs to gear-up with Epics.

And even then there's groups and there's groups. My own guild just
implemented a dreaded "DKP" (dragon kill point) system for the 60's
that are hardcore MC runners. The 60's that aren't into DKP are having
just as much fun helping the 50-somethings with Dire Maul, etc.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 12:27:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>"Despite appearances, this game is not solo-oriented". You'll find that out once you start getting close >to level 60.

So, if we take level 55 as the cutoff for soloing, your statement only
applies to about 08% of the game. That means it is 92% solo-friendly
(I don't think the game is really solo-oriented), which from where I
stand looks like the majority of the game.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 2:28:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>Hey I picked EQ2 over WoW cause of all the DT I'd been reading >about in WoW a couple mths back

I meant downtime between fights, not server downtime.

I didn't start playing until late January, and from what I saw the
server problems (which I hear were pretty heavy at the beginning) were
a thing of the past. I took a break and was not playing a few weeks
ago when BGs came online so I don't know about that period of time.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 4:11:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 16 Jun 2005 14:23:41 -0700, wolfing wrote:

> It's an easy game that allows you to
> play from lvl 1 to 60 without too much effort and without ever grouping
> with anyone else.

And at 60 you can't do anything without grouping.

> When I started WoW I created a priest, and retired him
> at 23 as the few groups I joined lasted like 3 minutes, long enough to
> kill the boss for the quest. Now I play a warlock, much better for
> this solo-oriented game.

Priests are essential at higher levels and the game will *not* be
solo-oriented at higher levels. In fact, it will be extremely group-focused
then ... and perhaps too much so. It's true that at 1-40, certainly nobody
needs a priest. But that's why most priests go the shadow/solo route until
50-60, then switch to Discipline/Holy.

Well, WoW is great for 3-5 months, and the success is well-deserved. Just
something's lacking later on, but Blizzard's working on that. (Still, after
five months of WoW, I bought two new games this month, so my interest in
wanning ... still, even if I stopped playing now, I'd have gotten more than
my money's worth out of the experience.)

M.
--
ClamWin, an open source antivirus software for Windows:
http://www.clamwin.com/
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 4:18:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 16 Jun 2005 12:38:36 -0700, pauls2272@yahoo.com wrote:

>>There was also a commonly
>>expressed but rather pathetic sentiment that playing a game that wastes
>>a lot of their time makes them a better person somehow
>
>Yes, the "Downtime is Good" crowd. Hopefully they will all migrate to
>this Vanguard and have a masochistic orgy there.
>

LOL !!!

John Lewis
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 6:03:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) Spake Unto All:

>It may not appeal to self-appointed "purists", but it sure appeals to
>lots of people. And they are apparently not quitting after the first
>couple of paid subscriptions.......... Seems as if it is joining
>Everquest (1) amongst the MMO classics.

Yeah. Too bad the graphics are so damn ugly.



--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 7:16:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>>I didn't start playing until late January, and from what I saw the
>>server problems (which I hear were pretty heavy at the beginning) were
>>a thing of the past. I took a break and was not playing a few weeks
>>ago when BGs came online so I don't know about that period of time.

>Is it super-saturated again then? I'd love to have a demo of WoW for a week
>or two - I really don't want to fork out AU$90 to discover it's not my
>cuppa. And the problem with coming in late (as per EQ2) is that you're kinda
>on your own for gameplay for a while, which is probably better in WoW than
>in EQ2 I imagine...?

I only got it recently and the only problem I had was on patch day.
Apart from that it's been fine. There are loads of new people joining
so you are not running around newbies areas on your own. Just don't
pick a high population/mature server. Go for the ones with medium load.
A fair few of the highly loaded EU servers have queues but the medium
or low loaded never do.
June 17, 2005 12:19:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-06-16, Alex Mars <demiurge@alexmars.com> wrote:

> I enjoy WoW because the majority of my time is actually spent playing
> the game, with the quest system I never have to keep going back to the
> same spot to hunt (I seldom ever hunt in WoW, I just keep doing quests
> and seeing new areas and this strategy has seen me up to level 43), and
> with the travel options I can move quickly to a destination or
> take the

I would say travelling isn't very quick even when mounted. I
spend about 20-30 minutes in prep time travelling to Ironforge
and back to Kalimidor later for my quests in Tanaris. I also
found some quests involve going to multiple areas which is time
consuming. SWG had a quicker system where transports landed every
5 minutes and just picked you up and it was an instant port. WoW
could use some portals. Especially between Menethil and
Theramore/Aburdine.

> time to wander the backroads to see the sights as I see fit. The game
> suits my casual play style, I can advance and see new parts of the
> world at a comfortable pace without having to play for hours every
> night.

What level did you hit? 40-50 is the slowest with things picking
up at 50.
June 17, 2005 12:21:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-06-17, Alex Mars <demiurge@alexmars.com> wrote:
>>"Despite appearances, this game is not solo-oriented". You'll find that out once you start getting close >to level 60.
>
> So, if we take level 55 as the cutoff for soloing, your statement only
> applies to about 08% of the game. That means it is 92% solo-friendly
> (I don't think the game is really solo-oriented), which from where I
> stand looks like the majority of the game.

When you hit 60 the game becomes a huge raid or pvp time
sink. Some raids take upwards of 6 hours because the dungeon is
huge and putting together a raid group takes time.

After about 25 quests pop up which are no soloable and they are
not elite. There's at least one quest in Stranglethorn where you
get hit with waves and waves of gorillas.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 12:57:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>I can see how that would appeal. But why play a MMORPG, >then? You might be better off with a single-player game - no >monthly fee and no dependence on connection quality. Is the >experience so different from, say, a SP game with regular online >content updates?

I like the ability to solo in a MMOG because it offers the option to do
what you want. If I want to solo then I can, if I want to group then I
can (if you don't have the option to solo then you are always dependent
on finding a group). Also, even when you are soloing you interact with
people by trading with them, stopping to help them, or just chatting
for a moment. Even when soloing you are part of the world, you are
just not grouped with anyone.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 2:33:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

wolfing wrote:
> The success of WoW is simple. It's an easy game that allows you to
> play from lvl 1 to 60 without too much effort and without ever grouping
> with anyone else.
> Another good point it has, many classes with very different playstyles
> (except for maybe the hunter and warlock that play pretty much the
> same), allowing you to replay the game several times.
> Something rather strange happened to me. I like playing healers in the
> other games where grouping is really encouraged/required, as I always
> am in a group. When I started WoW I created a priest, and retired him
> at 23 as the few groups I joined lasted like 3 minutes, long enough to
> kill the boss for the quest. Now I play a warlock, much better for
> this solo-oriented game.

LOL They should put a warning on the box "Despite appearances, this game
is not solo-oriented". You'll find that out once you start getting close
to level 60. I do agree that WoW doesn't place enough emphasis on
grouping early on, simply by making most of the pre-60 content soloable
(although I've found that even pairing up with a guildie or RL friend
makes things *significantly* easier). It's not that you aren't rewarded
for grouping so much as you're not punished for going solo... perhaps a
deliberate attempt by Blizzard to draw in (for better or worse) the
group-averse demographic.

BTW, Priests can solo just fine, too... just make sure you're
shadow-specced until level 60 :) 

--
Remove the mess to reply.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 5:17:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

wolfing wrote:
> The success of WoW is simple. It's an easy game that allows you to
> play from lvl 1 to 60 without too much effort and without ever grouping
> with anyone else.

I can see how that would appeal. But why play a MMORPG, then? You might
be better off with a single-player game - no monthly fee and no
dependence on connection quality. Is the experience so different from,
say, a SP game with regular online content updates?

Werner
June 17, 2005 5:44:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake "Alex Mars" <demiurge@alexmars.com>, 16 Jun 2005 12:04:23 -0700,
Anno Domini:

<snip>

>I enjoy WoW because the majority of my time is actually spent playing
>the game, with the quest system I never have to keep going back to the
>same spot to hunt (I seldom ever hunt in WoW, I just keep doing quests
>and seeing new areas and this strategy has seen me up to level 43), and
>with the travel options I can move quickly to a destination or take the
>time to wander the backroads to see the sights as I see fit. The game
>suits my casual play style, I can advance and see new parts of the
>world at a comfortable pace without having to play for hours every
>night. I think WoW succeeds because they removed most of the time
>wasting aspects of old games while keeping the fun parts. I don't need
>to keep a book by my side or a second game running on another computer
>to fill the down time like I did in EQ. I just wish that WoW would
>ditch the stupid looking character models for more realitistic ones.

Hey I picked EQ2 over WoW cause of all the DT I'd been reading about in WoW
a couple mths back. Except those SOE f#$kers didn't say anything about
nightly DT from 9pm (my prime time!), lasting from 30mins to 2hrs+, EVERY
SINGLE NIGHT! GRRR!@#$%!!!! In fact, I was just about to quit (as many
Aussies/Asians have already) when they just this week announced DT limited
to patches only & have moved it to 7am PST (my midnight). I'm in a great
Aussie guild, which has been its only saving grace so far, but the slow
progress post 20th level is gettin to me. In fact, because of the DT, I've
switched to crafting almost exclusively, which is ok if there's ppl to chat
to, a pita otherwise. How is WoW's stability at the mo?

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
June 17, 2005 5:47:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com>, 16 Jun 2005 14:23:41 -0700, Anno
Domini:

>The success of WoW is simple. It's an easy game that allows you to
>play from lvl 1 to 60 without too much effort and without ever grouping
>with anyone else.
>Another good point it has, many classes with very different playstyles
>(except for maybe the hunter and warlock that play pretty much the
>same), allowing you to replay the game several times.
>Something rather strange happened to me. I like playing healers in the
>other games where grouping is really encouraged/required, as I always
>am in a group. When I started WoW I created a priest, and retired him
>at 23 as the few groups I joined lasted like 3 minutes, long enough to
>kill the boss for the quest. Now I play a warlock, much better for
>this solo-oriented game.

What's the Necromancer like (assuming there is one)? That was my fave in D2
by far. EQ2 only has 1 pet summons which really bites & destroys the
immersion for me. It's kinda like you've got a shadow of yourself as a meat
shield - you never really feel like you're a master of the undead able to
raise an army of them, which D2 had in spades.

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 6:12:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

The graphics in WoW are generally good, but the art stylings on
character models are cartoon-like (the undead remind me of the ghouls
in the WWII bomber segment of Heavy Metal) and the banana-eared elves
just look stupid.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 8:02:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Alex Mars wrote:
>>"Despite appearances, this game is not solo-oriented". You'll find that out once you start getting close >to level 60.
>
> So, if we take level 55 as the cutoff for soloing, your statement only
> applies to about 08% of the game. That means it is 92% solo-friendly
> (I don't think the game is really solo-oriented), which from where I
> stand looks like the majority of the game.

My statement, as I made it, applies to the whole game. WoW is 0%
solo-oriented (the only exception, as far as I'm aware, is the epic
hunter quest... so maybe 0.1% solo-oriented for hunters, 0% for other
classes).

My statement, as *you* made it, does not apply to at all. WoW is, using
your own metric, 100% solo-friendly. You can get all the way to level 60
without grouping at all. It'd be hard work in places, and you'd miss a
fair bit of content, but getting to level 60 just by soloing is quite
doable (and even fun) nevertheless.

That's assuming you stop playing at level 60, of course. Unless you want
a cross-race mount, or enjoy faction-grinding in Battlegrounds, the solo
content basically dries up at level 60., and Blizzard has expressed only
a little interest in doing anything about that. Certainly nothing
concerete has emerged so far. Anyone who goes into WoW thinking the game
is designed for solo players may well feel justified up to level 60...
but will definitely be sorely disappointed thereafter.

Hence my suggested caveat.

--
Remove the mess to reply.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 8:09:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Nostromo wrote:
>
> What's the Necromancer like (assuming there is one)? That was my fave in D2
> by far. EQ2 only has 1 pet summons which really bites & destroys the
> immersion for me. It's kinda like you've got a shadow of yourself as a meat
> shield - you never really feel like you're a master of the undead able to
> raise an army of them, which D2 had in spades.

Alas, there is no necromancer class, or any other kind of multi-minion
summoner. There *are* *mobs* which can summon multiple minions, so
there's an in-game precedent... maybe one of the hero or expansion-pack
classes will be a D2-style necromancer (I can dream, can't I? :)  ).

--
Remove the mess to reply.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 8:20:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Nostromo wrote:
>
> Hey I picked EQ2 over WoW cause of all the DT I'd been reading about in WoW
> a couple mths back. Except those SOE f#$kers didn't say anything about
> nightly DT from 9pm (my prime time!), lasting from 30mins to 2hrs+, EVERY
> SINGLE NIGHT! GRRR!@#$%!!!! In fact, I was just about to quit (as many
> Aussies/Asians have already) when they just this week announced DT limited
> to patches only & have moved it to 7am PST (my midnight). I'm in a great
> Aussie guild, which has been its only saving grace so far, but the slow
> progress post 20th level is gettin to me. In fact, because of the DT, I've
> switched to crafting almost exclusively, which is ok if there's ppl to chat
> to, a pita otherwise. How is WoW's stability at the mo?

Bad time to ask :)  The Battlegrounds patch just came out, so there have
been the inevitable resource-leaks leading to 'unscheduled shutdowns'...
I've seen two since the 1.5, but fortunately wasn't in an instance at
either time. No doubt their grunts are working on the problem...

Currently, DT is on Tuesdays from from 5am to 11am PDT. ISTR that it
used to start at 3am, but Blizzard shifted it forward 2 hours to let us
southern-hemisphere types play a bit longer :)  It still slices into
aussie primetime, particularly if you're in WA, but at least it's only
once a week.

Moderators have uttered placatory statements to the effect that the
weekly 6-hour downtime will be shortened at some stage, but, in
compliance with Blizzard's eternally annoying policy of not giving any
details unless they absolutely have to, no timeline has been forthcoming.

--
Remove the mess to reply.
June 17, 2005 9:17:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:02:39 +1200, Cataleptic
<cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> dared speak in front of ME:

>Alex Mars wrote:
>>>"Despite appearances, this game is not solo-oriented". You'll find that out once you start getting close >to level 60.
>>
>> So, if we take level 55 as the cutoff for soloing, your statement only
>> applies to about 08% of the game. That means it is 92% solo-friendly
>> (I don't think the game is really solo-oriented), which from where I
>> stand looks like the majority of the game.
>
>My statement, as I made it, applies to the whole game. WoW is 0%
>solo-oriented (the only exception, as far as I'm aware, is the epic
>hunter quest... so maybe 0.1% solo-oriented for hunters, 0% for other
>classes).
>
>My statement, as *you* made it, does not apply to at all. WoW is, using
>your own metric, 100% solo-friendly. You can get all the way to level 60
>without grouping at all. It'd be hard work in places, and you'd miss a
>fair bit of content, but getting to level 60 just by soloing is quite
>doable (and even fun) nevertheless.
>
>That's assuming you stop playing at level 60, of course. Unless you want
>a cross-race mount, or enjoy faction-grinding in Battlegrounds, the solo
>content basically dries up at level 60., and Blizzard has expressed only
>a little interest in doing anything about that. Certainly nothing
>concerete has emerged so far. Anyone who goes into WoW thinking the game
>is designed for solo players may well feel justified up to level 60...

Or rather, won't have their illusions shattered until about that time.
Which is, perhaps, a bit too kind.

The game is not 'designed for solo players.' It is, however, not
unfriendly to them in comparison to other games.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
June 17, 2005 9:17:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 17 Jun 2005 08:57:06 -0700, "Alex Mars" <demiurge@alexmars.com>
dared speak in front of ME:

>>I can see how that would appeal. But why play a MMORPG, >then? You might be better off with a single-player game - no >monthly fee and no dependence on connection quality. Is the >experience so different from, say, a SP game with regular online >content updates?
>
>I like the ability to solo in a MMOG because it offers the option to do
>what you want. If I want to solo then I can, if I want to group then I
>can (if you don't have the option to solo then you are always dependent
>on finding a group). Also, even when you are soloing you interact with
>people by trading with them, stopping to help them, or just chatting
>for a moment. Even when soloing you are part of the world, you are
>just not grouped with anyone.

<aol>me too</aol>

And yes, I'm aware that tagging it as such does not increase the
quality of the post. But really, there's not much else to say.

That was one of the things I liked about UO. There was no requirement
to group, which meant that when I *did* group it was always with
people I wanted to be around with.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
June 17, 2005 11:34:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz>, Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:09:03
+1200, Anno Domini:

>Nostromo wrote:
> >
>> What's the Necromancer like (assuming there is one)? That was my fave in D2
>> by far. EQ2 only has 1 pet summons which really bites & destroys the
>> immersion for me. It's kinda like you've got a shadow of yourself as a meat
>> shield - you never really feel like you're a master of the undead able to
>> raise an army of them, which D2 had in spades.
>
>Alas, there is no necromancer class, or any other kind of multi-minion
>summoner. There *are* *mobs* which can summon multiple minions, so
>there's an in-game precedent... maybe one of the hero or expansion-pack
>classes will be a D2-style necromancer (I can dream, can't I? :)  ).

Dang. *sniff*. Don't they know necros rule? :( ((

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
June 17, 2005 11:36:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz>, Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:20:20
+1200, Anno Domini:

>Nostromo wrote:
>>
>> Hey I picked EQ2 over WoW cause of all the DT I'd been reading about in WoW
>> a couple mths back. Except those SOE f#$kers didn't say anything about
>> nightly DT from 9pm (my prime time!), lasting from 30mins to 2hrs+, EVERY
>> SINGLE NIGHT! GRRR!@#$%!!!! In fact, I was just about to quit (as many
>> Aussies/Asians have already) when they just this week announced DT limited
>> to patches only & have moved it to 7am PST (my midnight). I'm in a great
>> Aussie guild, which has been its only saving grace so far, but the slow
>> progress post 20th level is gettin to me. In fact, because of the DT, I've
>> switched to crafting almost exclusively, which is ok if there's ppl to chat
>> to, a pita otherwise. How is WoW's stability at the mo?
>
>Bad time to ask :)  The Battlegrounds patch just came out, so there have
>been the inevitable resource-leaks leading to 'unscheduled shutdowns'...
> I've seen two since the 1.5, but fortunately wasn't in an instance at
>either time. No doubt their grunts are working on the problem...
>
>Currently, DT is on Tuesdays from from 5am to 11am PDT. ISTR that it
>used to start at 3am, but Blizzard shifted it forward 2 hours to let us
>southern-hemisphere types play a bit longer :)  It still slices into
>aussie primetime, particularly if you're in WA, but at least it's only
>once a week.
>
>Moderators have uttered placatory statements to the effect that the
>weekly 6-hour downtime will be shortened at some stage, but, in
>compliance with Blizzard's eternally annoying policy of not giving any
>details unless they absolutely have to, no timeline has been forthcoming.

So 6 one, 1/2 dozen the other, ey? Might as well stick it out with EQ2 for
some higher level content I guess. Must start grouping more, but as a recent
arrival there just doesn't seem to be a lot of chars (relatively speaking)
around adventure lvl 20 that want to group *sigh*...

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 11:49:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com> writes:

> And at 60 you can't do anything without grouping.

Sure you can: You can quit and play some other game, like you would if
WoW was a single-player game.

It's really quite easy.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 11:50:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Werner Arend <nefar@arcor.de> writes:

> I can see how that would appeal. But why play a MMORPG, then?

Because there are other ways of interacting than by grouping.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 17, 2005 11:51:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Yeah. Too bad the graphics are so damn ugly.

You mean "have a distinct look instead of looking like every stinking
3DSMax/Renderware/whatever models people make".
June 17, 2005 11:58:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake "Alex Mars" <demiurge@alexmars.com>, 16 Jun 2005 22:28:44 -0700,
Anno Domini:

>>Hey I picked EQ2 over WoW cause of all the DT I'd been reading >about in WoW a couple mths back
>
>I meant downtime between fights, not server downtime.

And I was replying in general - didn't even realise you'd said that ;-)

>I didn't start playing until late January, and from what I saw the
>server problems (which I hear were pretty heavy at the beginning) were
>a thing of the past. I took a break and was not playing a few weeks
>ago when BGs came online so I don't know about that period of time.

Is it super-saturated again then? I'd love to have a demo of WoW for a week
or two - I really don't want to fork out AU$90 to discover it's not my
cuppa. And the problem with coming in late (as per EQ2) is that you're kinda
on your own for gameplay for a while, which is probably better in WoW than
in EQ2 I imagine...?

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
June 18, 2005 1:16:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake "BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk>, 17 Jun 2005 03:16:30
-0700, Anno Domini:

>>Is it super-saturated again then? I'd love to have a demo of WoW for a week
>>or two - I really don't want to fork out AU$90 to discover it's not my
>>cuppa. And the problem with coming in late (as per EQ2) is that you're kinda
>>on your own for gameplay for a while, which is probably better in WoW than
>>in EQ2 I imagine...?
>
>I only got it recently and the only problem I had was on patch day.
>Apart from that it's been fine. There are loads of new people joining
>so you are not running around newbies areas on your own. Just don't
>pick a high population/mature server. Go for the ones with medium load.
>A fair few of the highly loaded EU servers have queues but the medium
>or low loaded never do.

Cool, tx Bomb. Maybe I can pick it up on ebay cheaper than the retail
extortion happening in the stores.

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
June 18, 2005 1:41:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake Werner Arend <nefar@arcor.de>, Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:17:58 +0200,
Anno Domini:

>wolfing wrote:
>> The success of WoW is simple. It's an easy game that allows you to
>> play from lvl 1 to 60 without too much effort and without ever grouping
>> with anyone else.
>
>I can see how that would appeal. But why play a MMORPG, then? You might
>be better off with a single-player game - no monthly fee and no
>dependence on connection quality. Is the experience so different from,
>say, a SP game with regular online content updates?
>
>Werner

Hmmm...such as Werner?

It's a shame they don't provide an offline SP option for mmogs - just patch
& play on your own, without a monthly fee. With AI NPCs. Yeah, I can dream,
ey? ;-)

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 18, 2005 1:41:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Nostromo wrote:
> Thus spake Werner Arend <nefar@arcor.de>, Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:17:58 +0200,
> Anno Domini:
>
>
>>wolfing wrote:
>>
>>>The success of WoW is simple. It's an easy game that allows you to
>>>play from lvl 1 to 60 without too much effort and without ever grouping
>>>with anyone else.
>>
>>I can see how that would appeal. But why play a MMORPG, then? You might
>>be better off with a single-player game - no monthly fee and no
>>dependence on connection quality. Is the experience so different from,
>>say, a SP game with regular online content updates?
>>
>>Werner
>
>
> Hmmm...such as Werner?

Unfortunately, no "such as"? I was going in the same direction as you
when you wrote:

> It's a shame they don't provide an offline SP option for mmogs - just patch
> & play on your own, without a monthly fee. With AI NPCs. Yeah, I can dream,
> ey? ;-)

On the strategy game front IIRC GalCiv 2 does this. But I've heard of no
RPG yet.

Werner
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 18, 2005 1:41:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

>>dependence on connection quality. Is the experience so different from,
>>say, a SP game with regular online content updates?
>
>Hmmm...such as Werner?

Guild Wars.

>It's a shame they don't provide an offline SP option for mmogs - just patch
>& play on your own, without a monthly fee. With AI NPCs. Yeah, I can dream,
>ey? ;-)

Guild Wars. Although online, not offline.

--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
June 18, 2005 1:41:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:41:56 +1000, Nostromo
<nostromo@spamfree.net.au> dared speak in front of ME:

>Thus spake Werner Arend <nefar@arcor.de>, Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:17:58 +0200,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>wolfing wrote:
>>> The success of WoW is simple. It's an easy game that allows you to
>>> play from lvl 1 to 60 without too much effort and without ever grouping
>>> with anyone else.
>>
>>I can see how that would appeal. But why play a MMORPG, then? You might
>>be better off with a single-player game - no monthly fee and no
>>dependence on connection quality. Is the experience so different from,
>>say, a SP game with regular online content updates?
>>
>>Werner
>
>Hmmm...such as Werner?

Neverwinter Nights.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 18, 2005 6:27:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <jadedgamer@hotmail.com> Spake Unto All:

>Werner Arend <nefar@arcor.de> writes:
>
>> I can see how that would appeal. But why play a MMORPG, then?
>
>Because there are other ways of interacting than by grouping.

/nods
Yeah, like ganking.*




* Fun things to do while playing MMORPGs:
1) use terminology incorrectly. E.g. "Hey you motherganker! Don't
twink my rez, you guildie!"
2) Claim that you're a hardcore rôle-player role-playing a battle-net
1337-muchkin. Demand to know "what is my motivation WTF LOLZ OMG?" if
someone in your group (which you insist on calling "teh yuor group")
does anything not directly EXP/LOOT related.
3) Make up an obscure MMORPG, e.g. "Clanworld", and compare the game
you're playing unfavorably to it in chat. Accuse anyone who disagrees
of being 'noobs', and demand to know how many hours of Clanworld
they've logged since they have the gall to disagree. Play straight for
obnoxious snob-points, or combine with 1) for chaos-comedy.
4) Write essays named things like "Farming for Fun and Profit", "The
Zen of Grind", or "Confessions of a ganker" and post on teh yuor
website. Sounds dull? You'll be surprised. PS; don't do this if you
pay for bandwidth.

--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 18, 2005 11:14:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Nostromo wrote:

> Seriously, I want a game just like the one I describe above. GW doesn't have
> an offline mode ;-p

True, it doesn't. I have broadband and sometimes forget that not
everyone does.
Other than that it's exactly what you described, right down to the
8-people-parties-in-their-own-instanced-world,
ability-to-solo-with-bot-teammates, and no monthly cost.

Staying in character as fanboi, I must also say that the game is
amazingly bug free, servers have been rock solid, lag is manageable,
and the devs usually respond to even minor complaints (like that there
was nowhere to buy beer (yes, really)) within a week through seamlessly
streamed patches. I've never seen devs so on the ball as these guys.

The downsides of the game are basically that the battle-net kiddies
have adopted it, so bring your own friends if you don't suffer fools
gladly, and that the exploration is of the heavily railroaded variety.

Personally, coming from a FPS background, I'd also have liked if the
combat was more of the eye-hand-coordination/twitch type than
click-on-the-right-button-when-the-meter-times-out type, but I know
that would've turned many off.

I view it as a decent singleplayer/cooperative rpg which despite the
railroading reminds me of Morrowind, and I've so far got two months
worth of play out of it, which makes it much better value than e.g.
KOTOR2.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 18, 2005 1:07:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:17:28 -0600, Kaos wrote:

> That was one of the things I liked about UO. There was no requirement
> to group, which meant that when I *did* group it was always with
> people I wanted to be around with.

Ah, good old times .. UO did so many things right, it's such a shame that
instead of its philosophy the EQ-style became the standard.

Then again, perhaps that's good. I have much more spare time this way.

M.
--
ClamWin, an open source antivirus software for Windows:
http://www.clamwin.com/
June 18, 2005 2:45:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <jadedgamer@hotmail.com>, 17 Jun 2005
19:50:27 +0200, Anno Domini:

>Werner Arend <nefar@arcor.de> writes:
>
>> I can see how that would appeal. But why play a MMORPG, then?
>
>Because there are other ways of interacting than by grouping.

Outstanding answer Tor! ;-)

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 18, 2005 5:30:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) Spake Unto All:

>>http://www.guildwars.com/images/jpeg/screenshots/gwscre...
>
>Fuzzy images...would need my eyes tested every day... at least at
>your chosen settings.

Well, with all 3D graphics you have a choice: crisp with jaggies, or
fuzzy and anti-aliased. Although it gets better at higher resolutions.

>>http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/screenshots/images/sc...
>
>Lower polygon count - clearer images...
>
>So what ??

Ugly graphics. I'm just saying it's a shame WoW, which by most
accounts is a good game, has such retro console-style graphics.


--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 18, 2005 8:54:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:30:44 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) Spake Unto All:
>
>>>http://www.guildwars.com/images/jpeg/screenshots/gwscre...
>>
>>Fuzzy images...would need my eyes tested every day... at least at
>>your chosen settings.
>
>Well, with all 3D graphics you have a choice: crisp with jaggies, or
>fuzzy and anti-aliased. Although it gets better at higher resolutions.
>
>>>http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/screenshots/images/sc...
>>
>>Lower polygon count - clearer images...
>>
>>So what ??
>
>Ugly graphics. I'm just saying it's a shame WoW, which by most
>accounts is a good game, has such retro console-style graphics.
>

OK, thanks. It does seem a pity that graphics can keep you away from
a good game. There are many past titles that I love to replay because

of their superb game-play --- wiith heavenly frame-rate on a modern
CPU/GPU---but the graphics, while perfectly usable are certainly not
up to today's "standards". The frame-rate boost totally transforms
play, especially if the game is first-person style with shooter
elements.

John Lewis

>
>--
>"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
> - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
>by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
>innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
June 19, 2005 4:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk, 18 Jun 2005 07:14:52 -0700, Anno
Domini:

>Nostromo wrote:
>
>> Seriously, I want a game just like the one I describe above. GW doesn't have
>> an offline mode ;-p
>
>True, it doesn't. I have broadband and sometimes forget that not
>everyone does.
>Other than that it's exactly what you described, right down to the
>8-people-parties-in-their-own-instanced-world,
>ability-to-solo-with-bot-teammates, and no monthly cost.

Yeah, I know, but from what I've read, those levels have no where near the
complexity or depth of the areas in, say, Gothic 2, & it seems to me they
are just pretty instanced zones for xp grinding at the end of the day. Most
of the quests are of the fedex/kill x foozles type, right?

>Staying in character as fanboi, I must also say that the game is
>amazingly bug free, servers have been rock solid, lag is manageable,
>and the devs usually respond to even minor complaints (like that there
>was nowhere to buy beer (yes, really)) within a week through seamlessly
>streamed patches. I've never seen devs so on the ball as these guys.

High praise indeed! ;-)

>The downsides of the game are basically that the battle-net kiddies
>have adopted it, so bring your own friends if you don't suffer fools
>gladly, and that the exploration is of the heavily railroaded variety.

I played D2 for close to 5 years on BNet. It can't be as bad as the pking,
tpking, griefing, stoopidity & kiddies found there. Private games always got
around that fairly easily anyway. I assume you can have passworded games in
GW?

>Personally, coming from a FPS background, I'd also have liked if the
>combat was more of the eye-hand-coordination/twitch type than
>click-on-the-right-button-when-the-meter-times-out type, but I know
>that would've turned many off.

I like it both ways. Really depends on my mood :) 

>I view it as a decent singleplayer/cooperative rpg which despite the
>railroading reminds me of Morrowind, and I've so far got two months
>worth of play out of it, which makes it much better value than e.g.
>KOTOR2.

Hmmm...might see what it's going for on ebay - I assume there's a unique
cd-key, so that can always be a problem with purchasing existing accounts.
When's the next expansion due?

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 20, 2005 2:33:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
with:

> Ugly graphics. I'm just saying it's a shame WoW, which by most
> accounts is a good game, has such retro console-style graphics.

It is a great game. And it has very good graphics, IMHO. It's a shame you
can't appreciate it, but your opinions about them are not universal.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 20, 2005 12:47:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

WoW graphics are uneven in quality. Some areas have great looking,
realistic textures and other areas, usually town buildings, look like
the texture was quickly spray-painted on with no attempt to make it
look good. I'm not a graphics whore so all that takes a back seat to
the fun gameplay.

As to the BGs, anyone who takes MMOG PvP seriously is a fool. PvP in
WoW or DAoC is a game for the rank smelling catasses who can grind
endlessly for the cool gear. When I want to PvP I'll play a shooter
where the only advantage for playing longer is more practice at the
game, not material advantages.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 20, 2005 2:08:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

>>Other than that it's exactly what you described, right down to the
>>8-people-parties-in-their-own-instanced-world,
>>ability-to-solo-with-bot-teammates, and no monthly cost.
>
>Yeah, I know, but from what I've read, those levels have no where near the
>complexity or depth of the areas in, say, Gothic 2, & it seems to me they
>are just pretty instanced zones for xp grinding at the end of the day. Most
>of the quests are of the fedex/kill x foozles type, right?

Weeell... I don't know what to say. Objectively they are of course
just pretty instanced zones for xp grinding, but not really more so
than any other rpg.
There's a story, and although a bit vague it's reasonable.

All major quests have an optional bonus goal, which requires problem
solving (but most of the time there's of course someone in your group
who's farmed the quest umpteen times, and know exactly where the Charr
Flamebearers are headed, or how to work those teleports - problem
solving doesn't really work in multiplayer games, IMO), while the main
goal is usually straightforward.

(There are, I'm sorry to say, a couple of timed missions. I hate timed
missions. Designers that say "hey, let's up the difficulty by forcing
the player to complete the quest in 30 minutes!" should be severely
told off and sent to bed without their supper.)

The minor quests are pretty standard rpg fare, with a small amount of
problem solving and vast amounts of monster-slaying. They're OK.

Really my biggest gripe is the map design. Most maps are basically a
system of canyons with mobs at every choke point. I realize it's
because otherwise some players would run past every group of monsters,
complete the final mission in a week _and complain about it_, but I'd
still like to see more variation.

>>streamed patches. I've never seen devs so on the ball as these guys.
>
>High praise indeed! ;-)

It certainly makes a refreshing change from how it usually is with PC
games.
Personally I wonder how they manage it. As I understand it ArenaNet's
a quite small operation.

>>The downsides of the game are basically that the battle-net kiddies
>>have adopted it, so bring your own friends if you don't suffer fools
>>gladly, and that the exploration is of the heavily railroaded variety.
>
>I played D2 for close to 5 years on BNet. It can't be as bad as the pking,
>tpking, griefing, stoopidity & kiddies found there. Private games always got
>around that fairly easily anyway. I assume you can have passworded games in
>GW?

The sillinesses consist of people refusing to play and refusing to
leave the group, people running around aggroing mobs, spamming
obscenities in chat or drawing obscenities on the tactical map. Stupid
& pointless stuff.
There's no need to password protect games - players join a party on a
per-invitation basis (but there's no kick function, so problems arise
if you let anyone join).

>>I view it as a decent singleplayer/cooperative rpg which despite the
>>railroading reminds me of Morrowind, and I've so far got two months
>>worth of play out of it, which makes it much better value than e.g.
>>KOTOR2.
>
>Hmmm...might see what it's going for on ebay - I assume there's a unique
>cd-key, so that can always be a problem with purchasing existing accounts.
>When's the next expansion due?

1) Yes.
2) Not sure. There's a couple of map-expansions due for release this
summer.

"We also found that for university students, total time spent in the recent past
on video games has a potential detrimental effect on grades."
-- Anderson & Dill makes a Discovery, in 'Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts,
Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life'. 2004.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 20, 2005 2:08:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:

>> Ugly graphics. I'm just saying it's a shame WoW, which by most
>> accounts is a good game, has such retro console-style graphics.
>
>It is a great game. And it has very good graphics, IMHO.

For some values of "very good graphics" perhaps.

>It's a shame you
>can't appreciate it, but your opinions about them are not universal.

Well, the polygon counts are low, and the textures are low-res and
stretched and blurred, compared to most contemporary PC games is
objective.

That the models are reminiscent of, and the color scheme is as bright
& cheerful as in, a kiddie console platformer of the late nineties,
that is my opinion, but not one I can really see people object to.

That the whole thing put together is *ugly* is definitely my personal
opinion, and one which afficionados of retro console-style graphics
will strongly disagree with.

"We also found that for university students, total time spent in the recent past
on video games has a potential detrimental effect on grades."
-- Anderson & Dill makes a Discovery, in 'Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts,
Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life'. 2004.
June 20, 2005 4:13:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-06-20, Alex Mars <demiurge@alexmars.com> wrote:

> As to the BGs, anyone who takes MMOG PvP seriously is a fool. PvP in
> WoW or DAoC is a game for the rank smelling catasses who can grind
> endlessly for the cool gear. When I want to PvP I'll play a shooter
> where the only advantage for playing longer is more practice at the
> game, not material advantages.

You get uber gear for PvPing in WoW. It also beats the pants off
DAoC in terms of PvP.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 20, 2005 6:34:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, the polygon counts are low, and the textures are low-res and
>stretched and blurred, compared to most contemporary PC games is
>objective.

Except that your "objective" observerations of games, often only based on
screenshots, have shown that you're a very poor judge of the techinical
merits of game's graphics. World of Warcraft's graphics are quite
detailed and are not lacking in comparison contemporary PC games.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
!