11-30-2004, 05:27 PM
"Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays." -- Friedrich von Schiller
|
GameSpot WOW Review
|
|
11-30-2004, 10:31 PM
For a little comparison (these are average gamespot user reviews, not gamespot 'official' scores)
9.1 World of Warcraft 7.9 Dark Age of Camelot 7.8 Final Fantasy XI 6.9 Everquest II 6.4 Asheron's Call II I imagine there are some irritated people at Sony right now. 
11-30-2004, 11:50 PM
apandapion,Nov 30 2004, 10:31 PM Wrote:For a little comparison (these are average gamespot user reviews, not gamespot 'official' scores)Well, it does make a difference if you have a nicely designed fantasy world with a story and a strong art direction (WOW), or if you have just some (partly loveless) random fantasy elements to offer (EQ2) :)
"Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays." -- Friedrich von Schiller
12-02-2004, 01:09 AM
Quote:However, the fullest potential of the game's PvP elements has yet to be realized. The idea is that those who engage in PvP competition will earn honor points, which can be redeemed for certain benefits and bonuses, while those who just go around bullying low-level players may earn dishonor, resulting in penalties that ought to discourage such behavior. Furthermore, special battleground zones expressly suited for large-scale PvP competition will give further incentive for you to square off against the opposing faction. This all sounds great, but it's not prevalent in the game immediately postlaunch. It's apparent that World of Warcraft is a player-versus-environment game first and foremost, but the building blocks are there to make it a very interesting competitive game as well. In addition to taking on some epic encounters (suitable for massive raiding parties comprising dozens of players) and the ability to purchase and ride a variety of fast-moving mounts, the PvP combat is presumably what will keep many players coming back after they've already invested the hundreds of hours necessary to max out their character's experience. Not to threadcrap, but I found it interesting that they'd be giving a grade to a game with things like this - evaluations of gameplay that is not in the game yet. That would be like including Guild Halls in your judgement of Diablo II, no? You have to evaluate a game based on what it has, not what it could have some point in the future. And it's clear that the reviewer did not play far on a PvP server, because they refer to contested zones as "higher level fringe zones," when in fact the vast majority of zones are contested or hostile. Right now, I'd imagine the PvP server is pretty tame - there aren't hordes of level 60 gankers running around ruining low levels' fun. Critical mass for that should be attained in January, and it'll be fun reading the Blizzard WoW forums at that time unless they have an honor system in... Okay, I'm beating a dead horse, but this IS one of the primary reasons I have not purchased WoW, and I find it funny that reviewers gloss over it. Again, you may not notice the lack of honor system now, but wait a few weeks and see. -Bolty Quote:Considering the mods here are generally liberals who seem to have a soft spot for fascism and white supremacy (despite them saying otherwise), me being perma-banned at some point is probably not out of the question. 
12-02-2004, 01:45 AM
nobbie,Nov 30 2004, 11:27 AM Wrote:GameSpot have just posted their WOW Review, which can be read here. Consider the difference between hype and critical review. Gamespot is a game rag. Funny, don't game rags sell advertising pages to companies such as Sony, EA, Vivendi, Valve, Blizzard, et al? The grain of salt added to the hype stew, I have found a few of the game reviews I have read in PC Gamer and other game rags to at least attempt to base their reviews on standards. In my critical eye, however, that is the exception, not the rule. PS: Is the game grading scale Richter, or Linear? :wacko: Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz-- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum John 11:35 - consider why. In Memory of Pete 
12-02-2004, 01:59 AM
Bolty,Dec 1 2004, 06:09 PM Wrote:You have to evaluate a game based on what it has, not what it could have some point in the future. And it's clear that the reviewer did not play far on a PvP server, because they refer to contested zones as "higher level fringe zones," when in fact the vast majority of zones are contested or hostile. I think you misread the article. The "higher level fringe zones" line happens before the mention of PvP servers, as you can see: Quote:But there's also some full-on gang-style warfare to partake in if you so choose. There are certain higher-level fringe territories in Azeroth that are considered neutral or contested, and it's here where the alliance and the horde may attack each other. In PvP realms, these attacks may happen indiscriminately, much to your chagrin if you're just minding your own business and questing alone. My take was that he was referring to the arena areas that are considered neutral or contested even on PvE servers, and "high level fringe zones" seemed like an appropriate description for them. As far as whether it was appropriate for him to mention the yet-to-be-implemented aspects of PvP, I think it's clear from his comments where he's coming from: Quote:It's apparent that World of Warcraft is a player-versus-environment game first and foremost, but the building blocks are there to make it a very interesting competitive game as well. That is, he's reviewing the game as a PvE game *as is*, but for completeness sake, in one paragraph on page 4, he'll discuss some aspects of PvP that are in the works and yet clearly state that these are not included in the game at the present time. You might disagree and say that PvP, or the lack of a good PvP system, should have played a bigger role in the review. But in that case, you're saying that a review should be based not on what a game is, but what it is not. That is, it'd be like downgrading a sim game, because it doesn't have enough fast-paced action. The reviewer is reviewing what the game is *now*, i.e. a primarily PvE game, and in a paragraph on page 4, he also mentions that a more advanced PvP system may be added in the future and that the "building blocks" for it are already there (and they are). You might disagree with the conclusions of the review, but it seems to me that he's doing his job.
12-02-2004, 02:57 PM
Occhidiangela,Dec 2 2004, 01:45 AM Wrote:Consider the difference between hype and critical review. ...Occhi, I'm playing PC games for over a decade now (since Zak McKracken, Maniac Mansion, Monkey Island etc), have read hundreds of commercial game magazines (print + web) since then, and know well to read between the lines ;) With the event of WOW - the most anticipated MMOG ever - being released this year, every game magazine of course wants to review it while the cake is hot. I bet you won't find a commercial magazine anywhere in the world during the upcoming months where WOW will not get max. scores in almost all areas, and which will not have truck-loads of WOW strategy guides and tipps. An exception may be a few magazines which maintain a close relationship to Sony (EverQuest II). Look at "Half-Life 2": although it lacks true multiplayer, which I'd personally consider a vital part of a complex FPS game these days, it gets best total scores in all magazines just because of some fancy physics and such, and it's moreover celebrated as best FPS game ever, sometimes even as best game. So much about "hype" about games in general, which was and is made about every major title that is expected to become a million-seller. If game magazine reviewers wouldn't be naturally limited to a 100% score, I bet we would have reached the 200% mark already after the last decade of computer gaming ;) Point in case: Most (early) commercial game magazine "reviews" are often hardly worth the paper they are printed on, from an objective standpoint. How good WOW and its support - especially in the "2nd class" Europe - actually are, and how stable and cheat/hack-safe its very important (item) economy is, can be said by the end of next year in winter 2005. Anything else is nothing but pure speculation. All hype about WOW aside, I do believe that the current noise is justified, because WOW is special and a milestone for the future of PC gaming. Blizzard establishes with WOW the "pay-per-play" concept for the first time among a very broad audience, ranging from casual to hardcore gamers, even kids (for which the parents will pay the fees), and they will certainly do everything possible to satisfy their customers, so that this multiplayer concept can be expanded on future titles as well. The until today cost-free "Battle.net" platform will most likely be the last free multiplayer-platform of such a scale. The downside of this development is that gaming on large-scale multiplayer-platforms will probably generally not be cost-free anymore, resulting in a kind of 2-class gaming society: those who can afford to play subscription games, and those who can not. The upside is that those who can afford the fees will get much better support and cheat-/hack-control through a 24/7 online-team of GM's, resulting in an online gaming experience that is actually worth the label "enjoyable". The phrase "You get what you pay for" will be true for PC gaming as it is already in every other market segment. Blizzard might have plans to further support their free multiplayer gaming platform "Battle.net", for example for upcoming "StarCraft" and "WarCraft" RTS titles, and finance those extra costs with their income from subscription games and RTS event sponsors, but they might as well drop Battle.net support completely during the next years. The huge popularity of the commercial, world-wide sponsored "StarCraft" and "WarCraft" RTS competitions these days speak rather against than for a free Battle.net support in the future. The upcoming "Diablo III", which is most likely Blizzard's next big title, will probably be a subscription game, too. The remaining "single player" Blizzard titles, which we all like so much, will likely be just their console games a la "StarCraft: Ghost". At the moment, this is of course all speculation on my part, but I have the strong feeling that it's the future of gaming. "Single player" games (with free, large-scale multiplayer support), I'm sure, will soon become dinosaurs because of their low ROI (Return On Investment) value. Welcome to the 21st century of global capitalistic computer gaming ;) About the PvP portion of the GameSpot WOW "review": Like MongoJerry said already, the GameSpot reporter is reviewing the game as a PvE game as is, but for completeness sake, he discusses some aspects of PvP that are in the works. In fact, the brief mention of PvP already indicates which role this flavor of WOW will actually play in the near future: A rather minor one for those who like to play PvP from time to time, but nothing more. Blizzard will refine PvP to an acceptable level to satisfy that portion of their audience as well, but the focus is clearly on PvE with frequent content updates to keep the main portion of their subscribers interested. If I were a true PvP fan, I wouldn't play WOW for that anyway, but buy a multiplayer FPS game instead.
"Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays." -- Friedrich von Schiller
12-03-2004, 12:14 AM
nobbie,Dec 2 2004, 09:57 AM Wrote:All hype about WOW aside, I do believe that the current noise is justified, because WOW is special and a milestone for the future of PC gaming. Blizzard establishes with WOW the "pay-per-play" concept for the first time among a very broad audience, ranging from casual to hardcore gamers, even kids (for which the parents will pay the fees), and they will certainly do everything possible to satisfy their customers, so that this multiplayer concept can be expanded on future titles as well. The until today cost-free "Battle.net" platform will most likely be the last free multiplayer-platform of such a scale. Until Guild Wars is released, anyway! The extent to which the MMO/subscription trend can carry is uncertain, in my opinion. There is headroom in the market right now, because more and more people are getting broadband internet (or at least flat rates on telephone use). But, how many subscriptions are people going to carry at once? How many internet connections will each family get to support kids whose games can only be played online? There are not going to be dozens of successful subscription titles every year. The companies with the "hot" MMOs will make a fortune (as they already do), but I think other companies will go bust trying to enter a very competitive market and getting locked into a losing commitment. As for battle.net though, I think it is pretty much dead in terms of new titles or improved capabilities. It's not for lack of demand, but Blizzard isn't going to provide a revolutionary free service that will threaten their own subscription base.
12-03-2004, 01:26 AM
For nobbie and Nystul: Enjoyed both of your posts just now, Nystul beat me to the punch in re Guild Wars. :D The prediction that PC gaming on line is going to change is well made, and I suspect, nobbie, that all of the PC game companies are taking very hard looks at their fanbase/audience base, and making predictions on "what will play in Peoria." If Battle.net goes into vapor lock one day, will BNET D then be OK for folks to play Starcraft on? :wacko: *Ducks the book Foxbat throws at him . . .* Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz-- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum John 11:35 - consider why. In Memory of Pete
12-03-2004, 02:22 AM
Occhidiangela,Dec 2 2004, 08:26 PM Wrote:If Battle.net goes into vapor lock one day, will BNET D then be OK for folks to play Starcraft on? :wacko: Oh, no. *prepares for 175-post thread* :w00t: -Bolty Quote:Considering the mods here are generally liberals who seem to have a soft spot for fascism and white supremacy (despite them saying otherwise), me being perma-banned at some point is probably not out of the question.
12-03-2004, 03:05 AM
Bolty,Dec 2 2004, 08:22 PM Wrote:Oh, no. Blame it on the caffeine, or on my bad judgement . . . ;) Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz-- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum John 11:35 - consider why. In Memory of Pete
12-03-2004, 12:21 PM
"Guild Wars", and other upcoming free multiplayer online games, are certainly an alternative to the future "pay-per-play" concept, but the old phrase still remains: "You get what you pay for" ;) It's very unlikely that the company behind "Guild Wars" will be able to provide the same support, maintenance and security as Blizzard with WOW. It's the same as if you would compare a Mercedes or Porsche car with a Ford or Volkswagen. The Mercedes and Porsche look better (in my opinion), run faster and smoother, and offer better comfort.
Regarding BNETD, well, now you know why the Vivendi lawyers were after that free multiplayer platform: Once the "pay-per-play" concept has been widely accepted by the gaming community, and Battle.net is dead, then BNETD would be a very unwelcome competitor :) The cancellation of BNETD is actually a good example that shows Vivendi's/Blizzard's long-term strategy of establishing "pay-per-play" in the near future.
"Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays." -- Friedrich von Schiller
12-03-2004, 01:58 PM
nobbie,Dec 3 2004, 06:21 AM Wrote:"Guild Wars", and other upcoming free multiplayer online games, are certainly an alternative to the future "pay-per-play" concept, but the old phrase still remains: "You get what you pay for" ;) It's very unlikely that the company behind "Guild Wars" will be able to provide the same support, maintenance and security as Blizzard with WOW. It's the same as if you would compare a Mercedes or Porsche car with a Ford or Volkswagen. The Mercedes and Porsche look better (in my opinion), run faster and smoother, and offer better comfort. At the risk of going out on a limb, I'd venture to say that Guild Wars will have for sale "expansion packs" about a year after the game debuts, perhaps earlier. One does need a revenue stream, though I'll admit that NCSOFT is a nice Sugar Daddy if your game sells pretty well. Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz-- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum John 11:35 - consider why. In Memory of Pete
The next batch of WOW Reviews ;)
Yahoo! Games: 9/10 Telefragged: 92% Game Arena: 10/10 My Gamer: 9/10 Apple.com World of Warcraft Coverage GameSpy WoW-A-Minute Blog WarCry Review - 9.6/10 ActionTrip Review - Editors' Choice Award
"Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays." -- Friedrich von Schiller
12-04-2004, 03:46 AM
Occhidiangela,Dec 3 2004, 05:58 AM Wrote:At the risk of going out on a limb, I'd venture to say that Guild Wars will have for sale "expansion packs" about a year after the game debuts, perhaps earlier. One does need a revenue stream, though I'll admit that NCSOFT is a nice Sugar Daddy if your game sells pretty well. The info they've released indicates that they'll be releasing new "chapters" of Guild Wars about every six months or so. Each additional chapter will have new content and features. You can play any and all of the chapters you've purchased indefinitely, and you can play with people who've bought other chapters as long as you have at least one in common. Seems like a very novel business plan, and it's one that I think I'll be much more able to support than the traditional MMO model. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)