Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard's World of Warcraft Beta Goes Live
craenor writes "Perhaps the most anticipated entry into the increasingly crowded PC MMORPG market, Blizzard's World of Warcraft, has just reached the live Beta stage, for those select players lucky enough to be picked. In a distinct change from the existing trend in Beta tests, they are not going to require NDAs for participating players, and everyone will have read access to the official Beta forums while testing takes place." The WoW site includes a basic game FAQ for beginners, and BitTorrent is now live as Blizzard's Beta distribution method of choice, as the mentioned earlier on Slashdot Games.
...among geeks, is WoW the most anticipated MMORPG, but the most anticipated MMO among the general populace was Star Wars: Galaxies, and we all know how that turned out. But, then again, Lucasarts and Sony are pretty hit-or-miss, but Blizzard has a flawless record. Still, beware the overhyped crap.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
...Is precisely the reason why the best thing to do whenever a game like this is released is to wait a few months before buying it. In addition to the advantage of seeing how the hype meshes with reality, there's the added advantage of having the later version patches available. Let other people find the bugs for you. The prestige one gets as an early adopter just isn't worth the monetary price or less-refined level of quality that comes with it (IMO).
Sono koro, bokura wa, sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjite ita.
Another thing that seems rather inventive is the death system, where upon your death you become a ghost and wander/go resurrect yourself.
I haven't seen the videos yet, but the way you describe it doesn't seem that inventive. In Ultima Online, when you die, you become a ghost and have to wonder around and look for a healer to bring you back to life. Once brought back to life, you can go back to your corpse and grab your stuff, assuming someone else hasn't looted it.
Or at least that's the way it was when I played a few years ago.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Yes, this is usually how it's done. It would be unmanagable with a million beta testers.
Blizzard themselves admitted this problem though and said it was because they had anticipated more players to go single player first. (remember it was released when analog modems were still most common) Instead, an overwhelming amount of players went online.
They won't have this problem this time around, since they know everyone will play online from the start and should be able to dimension the server capacity easier.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I for one was never at war with them, they create awesome games.
People need to stop thinking of Slashdot as one big collective with the same thoughts and goals. Its a website full of unique people, they think differently.
Some of them are upset over bnetd, others couldn't care less.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Oh, please. Most games companies would quite happily sell their proverbial grandmother's kideneys or daughters into slavery rather than do the right thing. Blizzard, however, is an exception.
Time after time, Blizzard has chosen to let a product launch date slide rather than release an incomplete or buggy game. And time after time, when those products have finally been finished they've turned out to be masterpieces.
Can you name one bad game that Blizzard has made? Can you name another developer that has released three games that have free online multiplayer play that are as popular as Warcraft III, Diablo II and Starcraft? Heck, Starcraft is almost six years old now and Blizzard still supports it! There are even people playing the first Diablo online at Battle.net and how old is that game now?
Blizzard objected to bnetd because it allowed people to play online without CD key verification (ie, without needing to buy a copy of the games concerned). When you consider that the initial purchase of those games (and the almost unnoticeable banner ads on Battle.net whilst you chat) are the only source of income that Blizzard has, it's hardly surprising that they weren't too keen on an online service that directly threatened their existance.
If Blizzard has big $ signs permanently on its collective mind as you suggest then perhaps you can explain why it lets people play its games online for free rather than charging a single penny for the privelege?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
you may remember them as the company that used the DMCA to kill bnetd and tried to kill freecraft?
Unlike MMORPGs, Blizzard only has the sale of their games to provide revenue. They provide BattleNet free of charge, and it is superb. While bNetd was great and all, it DID make it so people didn't have to buy their game and have a unique cd-key. Having played D2 for a couple of months now (and getting thoroughly addicted to online play on BattleNet), I'm certainly in Blizzard's corner...their games are superb and people should pay what they're worth.
Could the bnet thing been handled better? I dunno, I didn't hear all the inside info, but I seriously doubt that Blizzard wants to release their cd-key algorithm, and since that's the only way I can see them being happy with bnet, I don't see another way they could have handled it.
--trb
The "heros" aspect was newish, but I think it detracted from the game, really. If I want to play an RPG I'll play an RPG.
What bothers me is that after all these years of RTS games they still don't have the improvements I was looking for after playing my first. Specifically, ways to avoid micromanagement. I want
- User definable attack priority lists. I want to be able to tell each unit, or unit type, or group what priority to assign to which enemy types.
- User alterable aggression levels.
- The ability to set the level at which my damaged units will retreat and get healing.
- User definable "response zones" so that I can establish a rapid reaction force and order it to aid any attacked unit inside its response zone, or to ignore attacks in certain areas.
- The ability to order units with special attacks to bloody use the damn attacks so I don't have to fricking micromanage each damn unit's special attack. WC3 at least gave you the ability to set *some* specials to work automatically, but it wasn't very specific. I'd like to be able to order my special units to use X amount of their mana/energy/whatever for defense, Y for offense, and Z for support. Again, on either an individual basis, a unit type basis, or a group basis.
None of this requires true AI, none of this is impossible for today's programmers. Some of what I want existed in the game Dark Reign (aggression levels, for example). Why has the actual mechanic of playing RTS games been left unimproved since day one? If I want a game where I have to be twitchy I'll play an FPS game. I don't want to micromanage anything. That isn't strategy.I figure that its much more important in a *strategy* game to set proper "standing orders" than it is to individually tell each and every grunt specifically what to attack. The commander should be thinking about the big picture, where to expand, what unit mix to use, the broad strokes of the attack, where to put forward staging areas, where to place support units (repair bays, etc), not focusing on individual units.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003