World of Warcraft Beta Dissected

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World of Warcraft Beta Dissected

Posted by simoniker on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @06:31AM from the many-thousands-of-words dept.

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!"

30 of 90 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Speaking of WoW by Lord+Graga · 2004-03-23 06:34 · Score: 2, Informative

My moms once husbands son has tried the alpha, and it's really nice, he says.

This page has an alternative to the alpha/beta server that Blizzard is running. I haven't tried it myself, but I have read that it lacks of content.
what i've heard by rabbot · 2004-03-23 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

From what i've heard from beta testers so far, its pretty much the same lvling treadmill we've gotten used to over the past few years. It's going to need something revolutionary to make me go out and buy this game, not the Warcraft name alone.
1. Re:what i've heard by roche · 2004-03-23 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  From reading that article I have come to the same conclusion. This really does not surprise me though. After constantly hearing about how each new game was going to completely revolutionize the MMORPG genre, I am finding it almost impossible to believe the hype. I think Star Wars is what did it for me. Tales of non static spawns, dynamic content and a non level based system sounded like a dream come true. When everything was said and done though, it was basically just the same ol MMORPG.
  
  A few months after SWG came out, I kept hearing whispers of how WOW was going to completely change everything everyone thought about how a MMORPG operates. After reading this article, I can see that the hype machine was/is in full effect again.
  
  --
  
  roche
  Bah Humbug!
2. Re:what i've heard by Jerf · 2004-03-23 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  From what i've heard from beta testers so far, its pretty much the same lvling treadmill we've gotten used to over the past few years. It's going to need something revolutionary to make me go out and buy this game, not the Warcraft name alone.
  
  The levelling treadmill is a fundamental result of trying to apply the levelling system to MMORPGs. Anything that tries to apply the idea of levelling runs into two fundamentally conflicting forces:
  
  10% of your customer base accounts for 90% of the logged in time, and
  
  90% of your customer base (and by extension, income) doesn't do that.
  
  You need to make the game fun for both groups, because the first one is loud (and will impact whether anyone buys the game at all disproportionately), and because the second one accounts for the majority of your cash flow.
  
  Any system that rewards the player for spending time in the game, or, equivalently, requires significant time in the game to advance in skills, will always have the same flaws modern "levelling treadmills" do. Until you do away with the level idea as the central organization of the game, MMORPGs will not advance significantly over what they are now. (I'm not saying they have to go away completely, but they can't be the central number used in every RNG computation.)
  
  It's not something that can be designed around, it's fundamental to the genre and the technique. Fortunatley, all hope is not lost. I know of at least two systems that eschew the levelling treadmill: Puzzle Pirates, which uses head-to-head puzzle competition as its combat technique, and Planetside, which I've heard is more FPS then level-based. (Could be wrong. I haven't played either.) Until these alternate techniques go mainstream, MMORPGs are going to be stuck in the same rut they've been stuck in since Ultima Online.
3. Re:what i've heard by *weasel · 2004-03-23 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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?"
4. Re:what i've heard by Paolomania · 2004-03-23 08:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  Excuse me? The RTS genre was hardly well established when Blizzard released the original Warcraft - it is only preceded by two games: Herzog Zwei and Dune II, so they most certainly did put a new twist on an genre that was in its infancy. Check your history here.
  
  Many people knock Diablo as a dumbed down rogue-like, but it undeniably started off the higly popular genre of action-RPG, which has a play style that is much more adrenalyn-based than the cerebral style of the rogue-like. Prior to Diablo RPGs were stuck somewhere in CRPG Ultima*, or console Final Fantasy* copycats.
5. Re:what i've heard by SoVeryWrong · 2004-03-23 08:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Tycho's paragraph was a bit disjointed. That quote you posted was directed at previous MMORPGs, not WoW. He was commenting on how Blizzard's offering is more humane in that respect.
  
  Full Quote:
  "The word which constantly comes to my mind when considering the game is "humane." I have quite a lot of patience for games of this type, I don't mind going to a town and asking every medieval jackhole I see where I can find the cathedral. Gabe's not going to do that. That sort of thing isn't fun for most people. Gabe's going to cancel his account when he finds out that it takes twice the experience to get from this level to this level, or the materials you worked so hard to get are destroyed because of some arbitrary roll. For you and me, hey, maybe we don't mind that kind of thing. Maybe we hate ourselves already and see the genre as a way to work off spiritual debt, like a karmic gym. Regular people, a definition I don't usually apply to Gabe, but whatever - regular people know that things like that are bullshit. So why do we consent to them? What's more, why do developers assail us with these notions? Part of it is, I think, a twisted sense of tradition - the games before did it. Part of it is that is keeps a person - a certain kind of person, at least - onboard for more suffering. Maybe there's some kind of grind in the upper levels I haven't reached yet. Maybe at level 30, you start losing experience when you die or some other antique convention of the genre. I doubt it."
6. Re:what i've heard by CaptMonkeyDLuffy · 2004-03-23 08:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Er... Maybe I've got my dates and timelines mixed up, but I think action RPG's were around on consoles for quite a while before Diablo came along...
7. Re:what i've heard by fireduck · 2004-03-23 08:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This is a quote taken a bit out of context. One actually puts it in context and it argues against your point. Consider the first sentence in the paragraph you selectively quote from: The word which constantly comes to my mind when considering the game is "humane.". Then consider the last sentence, after describing all of the painful problems with RPGS and the liklihood of them being encountered in WoW: I doubt it.
  
  Blizzard has told us that things won't be arbitrary. You collect X consumable to craft Y item and it works everytime, the same. They've pointed out that help is around the corner (from bright exclamation points over people heads who want to talk to you, to minimaps that show the way). So, while it may be a MMORPG (with all that entails), it'll be one of the most polished and user friendly games out there...
8. Re:what i've heard by *weasel · 2004-03-23 09:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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?"
9. Re:what i've heard by truffle · 2004-03-23 09:39 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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
10. Re:what i've heard by Mike+Hawk · 2004-03-23 09:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Slightly OT, but to allow everyone to better educate themselves, do check out Puzzle Pirates. Amazing stuff. They give you a nice long free (no-CC) demo too. Spot on with that comment. All the social aspect, but you can participate with anyone at level and still be successful. It even has PvP! Worthy of any MMORPG discussion.
11. Re:what i've heard by Dehumanizer · 2004-03-23 10:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Warcraft 1 was an almost perfect copy of Dune 2. A copy isn't a "revolution".
  
  They only made a really fun RTS with Warcraft 2, and Starcraft is brilliant.
  
  --
  The Tlog - a technology blog
12. Re:what i've heard by Dehumanizer · 2004-03-23 10:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  And it runs on Linux, too!
  
  --
  The Tlog - a technology blog
13. Re:what i've heard by drinkypoo · 2004-03-23 10:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The fact that you bring up Doom 2 really makes the poster's point for them. Frankly the closest thing to Diablo was Gauntlet, and the two are distinctly different games. I think that Diablo qualifies as revolutionary and not just evolutionary, not least because anyone can play it.
  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.'"
14. Re:what i've heard by AuMatar · 2004-03-23 10:20 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There's also A Tale in the Desert. Which also runs on linux.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
15. Re:what i've heard by sweetooth · 2004-03-23 10:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's still a leveling treadmill IMO, they have shifted the xp rewards from killing lots of beasties to finishing lots of quests. Kinda reminds me of AO where you would do as many "missions" as possible. The major differance being that the quests tie into the story line and culture of your racial or character class. This being a focus is a diversion from many other games where you are either treadmilling by killing the critters cyclicly for xp, or are doing quests that only loosly relate to your character or the games story line. The first Asherons Call handled the quest issue fairly well as 90% of the quests you do are tied to the montly story line and those contributed to the major story arcs more than half the time. You still get stuck on the killing the same critters over and over path if you really want to advance though. That's a questing for items system where WoW is more of a questing for everything system. So far after putting in about 60 hours into WoW I don't think that it's any more or less enjoyable than any other MMOG, it's just polished. I hate doing hundreds of quests that don't mean much to my character as much as I hate killing hundreds of critters repeatedly.
16. Re:what i've heard by Paolomania · 2004-03-23 12:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Er... Maybe I've got my dates and timelines mixed up, but I think action RPG's were around on consoles for quite a while before Diablo came along...
  
  I think I see where you are coming from, after all the original Zelda was out in the late 80's. However, I personally make a distinction between these two types of games. The main distinction in my mind is one of control: In Zelda style games, yes you gain stats and items, but the game most certainly lies outside the RPG genre in that it relies on player skill in executing individual actions - moving in and timing your sword strike, aiming your boomerang, etc. In Diablo style games, you gain stats and items as well, but your control is abstracted up one level into the tactics domain - you may control which moves to execute, but it is your character's stats and game mechanics which determine the success of the individual attacks.
17. Re:what i've heard by drinkypoo · 2004-03-24 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Interestingly I've played all of those games and more besides, since about 1990. I've gotten to watch some amazing changes in Nethack over that time. Let's not forget larn, and ularn - ularn remains one of the best known roguelike (among those who know anyway.)
  The difference, and it is a huge difference, is that Diablo is realtime and none of those others are. The closest text-based game I can think of off the top of my head is The Kingdom of Kroz, a game which showed up in PC Magazine some time ago as shareware, in which you run your little text-based guy around the map in realtime, whipping monsters and solving little puzzles. Kroz is the link between rogue and diablo, which are members of different genres.
  
  Graphics are not the deciding factor because they do not necessarily alter the style of play - though they do. Nethack has a player-centric input method, everything you do acts on you. Even shooting something is not to the enemy, it's from you. Otherwise, you could shoot arrows at monsters not in line with you. Diablo is object-centric, where you move toward an object (or a mouse click, which is arguably an object) or you attack towards a specific enemy, not just in a given direction.
  
  True the background is more or less the same shit, but since it's all stolen from dungeons and dragons, which primarily comes from white european mythology, at some point you have to draw lines. And I personally would draw a big fat one between rogue and diablo.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
18. Re:what i've heard by CaptMonkeyDLuffy · 2004-03-24 03:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Zelda wasn't exactly the example I was thinking of. I was thinking of games similar to the Mana series from Squaresoft(including Secret of Mana, and the earlier gameboy game that was relabeled 'Final Fantasy Adventure' for the US release). I'm pretty certain the Mana series predates Diablo, and your stats do determine accuracy in those games, as opposed to the Zelda games where players twitch skill plays a mutch larger role.
  
  Admittedly, this still leaves Diablo as the first action RPG that is heavier on the RPG side of the scale and uses randomly generated levels...
19. Re:what i've heard by truffle · 2004-03-24 04:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They haven't shifted anything, you can choose to not do any quests, and instead just kill monsters. That's a valid way to advance. I would say most people prefer doing quests.
  
  Certainly to advance you do need to either complete quests or farm xp, there is no third option for advancement. If you don't enjoy doing either, you won't enjoy advancement.
  
  It's not clear to me from your comment exactly what it is you find unenjoyable about WOW questing. You describe the quests as not meaning much to your character. The quests definitely are race and locale specific, they tell stories, they have plot lines. I would say the quests are mostly well written and meaningful. I'm not sure how exactly how an MMO quest could be made fundamentally more meaningful.
  
  --
  
  ---
  I support spreading santorum
Random Comments by L7_ · 2004-03-23 06:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Someone posted a link to the article in its original form on graffe's forum:

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100998&c id=8610851

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. ;-)
So? by BigChigger · 2004-03-23 07:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe he didn't write it for lay persons. Do you expect a physics paper in a scholarly magazine to be written for lay persons? Just because you didn't understand it, does not make it bad.

FWIW, I did not understand most of it myself.

BC
1. Re:So? by Marc_Hawke · 2004-03-23 09:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There's this thing called context. There's another thing called 'expediency' or maybe 'need to know.'
  
  I haven't been following WoW much, and the alpha/beta not all all, but I was able to tell from context that a 'push' was specific testing for those character classes. (The new beta is in a push of the 'good' races. Humans Dwarves Taurens, etc, no orcs or goblins.)
  
  Also, exactly what is meant by a 'push' is irrelevant to the point of his article. He could have been extra wordy, or explain to much. Or he could just leave it as 'not important' as it is.
  
  Sure, it's not going to win him any Pulitzers, but his point was to give out information, not entertain anyone with his prose. For what it's worth, he could have just given an outline that was entirely jargon and it would have accomplished his goals.
  
  --
  --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
One Word by InfinityWpi · 2004-03-23 08:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...
Evolutionary by Zonk · 2004-03-23 09:59 · Score: 3, Informative

To be sure, WoW is not a revolution in MMOGs...it is simply the most fun, most polished, best looking massively multiplayer game I've ever seen.
First and foremost, it is a game, not a "world". All the attempts at turning MMOGs into worlds have resulted in boring sand-box style spaces where people have nothing to do. Puzzle Pirates and A Tale in the Desert are another two excellent examples of why massively multiplayer games should be games.
The polish on this game in the Beta stage is better than Star Wars Galaxies was 4 months after launch. By the time it is released for public consumption, it will join Final Fantasy XI in rivaling Everquest for interesting content.
I don't understand why people are scoffing at WoW for not being revolutionary. Of course not! We're only at the Third Generation of MMOGs here. Hell, Everquest is still the game with the largest player population. World of Warcraft is one really big step in the right direction though.
Shameless self promotion: Check out my first Beta Journal entry at MMORPGDot.
1. Re:Evolutionary by Rallion · 2004-03-23 13:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I haven't played the game, but from what I understand, "doing nothing" is exactly what Blizzard was avoiding when they made this. No long travel times, and some kind of engagement in combat. Alpha testers were supposed to never for a moment stop asking themselves, "Am I having fun right now?"
Re:Translation by Arkhan · 2004-03-23 15:08 · Score: 2, Informative

I read the article a few days ago (the first time it was posted), so I don't recall all the terms used, but the two you asked about:

mez = mesmerize (charm/stun/immobilize sort of thing)

DPS = damage per second (measure of how rapidly you can put the hurt on a monster)

If you want anything else translated, just list it out and I'll be glad to.
Re:Translation by Cosmik · 2004-03-23 15:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Aggro = Aggravation. Essentially, the amount of hate a creature has towards a player. The player with the most hate (hopefully a warrior or similar) will therefore have aggro.

DoT exists in just about all MMORPGs these days - but usually refers to a damage over time spell or status effect.

DPS is the damage done over time with a weapon (usually, but can be magic too) and is calculated in seconds. Basically, DPS is calculated by taking a time fram and seeing how much damage you can inflict within that time frame, and then rounding it down to a few seconds. It doesn't necessarily mean one spell going the whole duration (like a DoT).
Clearing some terms up by MachDelta · 2004-03-23 17:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Because I beleive alienation is 'a bad thing' (tm)... here are some terms explained. If I missed anything, post it and someone (maybe me) will help ya out.

WoW - World of Warcraft (the game, duh)
Push - Phase
EQ - EverQuest
D&D - Dungeons & Dragons (Pen and paper, not MMORPG)
DAoC - Dark Age of Camelot
PVP - Player versus Player
PVE - Player versus Enemy
MMORPG - Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game
RTS - Real Time Strategy
NPC - Non Player Character
XP - Experience (a measure of progress between character levels)
RP - Role Playing
Aggro - Aggression (when an enemy is focused on attacking you)
DPS - Damage Per Swing
AoE - Area of Effect
Root - An immobilization spell (not admin :P)
Mangina - Derogitory slang for a male playing a female character (in this context anyways)
Mez - Mesmerize (stuns target for a set time, or until it is attacked)
HP - Hit Points
AC - Armour Class
emote - (electronic-motion ?) A special command that causes your character to perform an animation (like waving, cheering, bowing, etc)

Happy, er.. reading!