Slashdot Mirror
World of Warcraft Beta Dissected
larsoncc writes "Fatman Games has published an absolutely massive hands-on preview of Blizzard's PC MMO title World of Warcraft, now that the game's NDA has expired with the commencement of the public Beta. Will MMORPG players drool over the chance to control a Succubus? Yeah, I know - obvious answer!"
Someone posted a link to the article in its original form on graffe's forum:
c id=8610851
;-)
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100998&
It is funner to read than the submitted story because you get all the 'wdupz whizzy poo were u been? ^_^' replies from his guild members.
Blizzard has yet to ever revolutionize a genre. They built their name on taking the tried and true, simplifying it a bit, and heaping on the polish. They take a few evolutionary steps, and round off the corners.
Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo - none of these franchises really did anything 'new' or 'exciting'. What they did, they did well, and they did with a distinctive style.
The only thing WoW is poised to do - is bitchslap the notion that timesinks are necessary to make MMORPG advancement meaningful. That, and seriously challenge the lack of context that the other quest-light MMORPGs provide.
Their quests don't do anything mechanically that hasn't already been done. They are just more plentiful, more engaging, more well balanced, offer a choice in rewards, and more convenient to find and complete.
Their races don't have abilities that haven't been done before. They're not doing dragons or demons or anything way out there. But they've given each race flavor, history, culture, and style.
Playing an Orc warrior is not the same experience as playing a Dwarf warrior (unless you abstract gameplay to the the level of progress quest). You'll have different quests, the NPCs will have a distinct style and tone, and you will actually notice and experience the various facets of Orcish culture. (Tauren are probably the best example of this, with their wind-centric totemic culture).
Their classes don't do stuff that hasn't been done before. But they're more well balanced. All classes solo fairly well, and none are absolutely required for a group. You don't need a wizard to take out big mobs, you don't need a primary healer. Sure, they fit their role better than other classes, but nearly any group of 5 can get stuff done. And if you don't want a group? You can actually solo meaningful monsters to gain experience. It won't be the best, but it won't be pointless.
Their engine isn't pushing the limits of technology. Their models are low poly, and they have comparatively few options for customization (compared to lineage 2, ffxi, ac2, etc). But everything looks and moves fantastic. Everything fits together naturally and seamlessly. The colors and textures of a zone convey something that geologically plausible placement and piles of polygons don't.
WoW isn't going to change the way MMORPGs work. All it's doing is going to highlight all the broken mechanics everyone has glossed over.
It's not something you can provably demonstrate in text. The game does the current status quo, but does it right. If you didn't like EverQuest philosophically because you didn't like bashing monsters for fun and profit - then you won't like WoW. If you didn't like Everquest because you found yourself sitting around, punished by the broken rules more often than you were bashing monsters for fun and profit - then WoW will be right up your alley.
It's a game done very well, even at this state. But it's nothing revolutionary.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Planetside.
Okay, more than one word, since I have to wait 20 seconds.
Up to ten people per squad, a number of squads per company, and commanders on top of that... get, say, three commanders together, each managing 30 people, and have them agree on a specific objective... and watch the enemy come a-running as a hundred soldiers, tanks, and bombers invade their continent...
Yes, Blizzard put an undeniable stamp on the RTS genre. I'll go ahead and grant you 'warcraft' as revolutionary for the sake of argument. But with every game since: WC2, Dark Portal, SC, Brood War, and WC3 - they didn't do anything to alter the core mechanics of RTS games. Gather resources, rebuild the base each map, upgrade the troops, limit army size with 'farms', etc. All were in place each go-round. Adding heroes in War3 was a formalization of a story-mode gameplay element they'd had since WC2.
The Diablo comparison is actually pretty much my point. Diablo is to Ultima what WoW is to Everquest -- at least on the 'level of action' front. It's faster, with less downtime and more stuff going on. Combat is more interactive than picking a target and wait. Min/Maxing your party's class mix isn't necessary.
Some might say it's too fast, or doesn't address the core problems of class/level design. But the change in gameplay between WoW and EQ is similarly as striking as that between Ultima and Diablo.
The only problem with a general Diablo/Ultima, WoW/EQ comparison is that WoW adds depth in questing back into the MMORPG genre - where it's been sorely lacking.
I wasn't slamming Blizzard by any stretch, I was simply referring to their focus on refining and gradually improving, rather than going in a shockingly new direction with the entire design.
Witness Warcraft 3. The original game they displayed at E3 was revolutionary. Resource gathering was gone. The player could only see the map around his Heroes. Units had to be grouped with Heroes to go fight. Army size was thereby limited to number of Heroes.
Then look at what they ultimately decided to produce: Evolutionary change. They kept the tried and true mechanics that plenty of users don't seem to mind too much. They said screw the design critics - and delivered a polished game that they knew would work.
I'm not slamming that decision either. All I'm doing is illustrating my point. Blizzard has never been one to throw away the rules and start fresh in a genre. (or at least hasn't done so since the first warcraft)
Back on topic:
World of Warcraft will play faster and more convenient - but its underlying design is still fundamentally the same as EQ - which is the same as Diku/Merc - which is the same as tabletop D&D. Anyone who tells you different hasn't played the game.
Blizzard has not revolutionized MMORPG design with WoW as it stands today. I doubt any change they make between now and release will do so either. What they have done, is damn well near perfected the model that nearly everyone's been using for the last few decades. (with regards to accessibility, usability, polish, and 'fun')
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
I've been playing WOW for 4 months now (alpha tester). It isn't a leveling treadmill. Leveling treadmill is generally used as a term to refer to killing monsters cyclicly to advance.
In WOW your focus is quests. I am level 30 (max level) and I have never once done the xp treadmill. All I do is do quests.
Like any game, WOW is what you make of it. In this case, the mechanics of the game strongly support quest based advancement.
---
I support spreading santorum
But Warcraft is just Fantasy Dune 2 with much larger characters. In the end they are both about the same things; securing and exploiting resources, and blowing shit up. So it's evolution only.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"