World of Warcraft Gamespot GOTY 2004

Gamespot's annual awards have drawn to a close, with the Reader's choice awards finishing up tomorrow. Announced on Wednesday, Gamespot's Game of the Year for 2004 is World of Warcraft. Relatedly, there is an interview with the WoW composer at World of Warcraft Guru, and a piece on Wired.com about Virtual Trade and Blizzard's efforts to combat the trend. Finally, Blizzard's annual holiday festivities have resulted in a hilarious holiday mp3 being made available on the official World of Warcraft site.

Comments

oh well.

[jokumuu]

I suppose that given the on average quite bland year of games (most being second, third or so on parts of precious games) WOW would have a change. I so hope we could get some orginal and good games on top at some point.

Re:oh well.

[dnoyeb]

As much as I love Blizzard, for WOW to get game of the year, coming out at the end of the year just smacks of payola.

Re:oh well.

[Phosphor3k]

The public has been playing the beta for the better of the year. Granted, the open beta only started 6 or 8 months ago.

Re:oh well.

[raodin]

No, the open beta was only a couple weeks before release. You may be thinking of the first stress test, which was only for a week or two earlier this year.

I thought that would be HL2...

[Lisandro]

The game has it's up and downs, and i hate Steam with passion, but IMHO it's by far the best game released this year, and a worthy sucessor of the original Half-life.

WOW is good in its genre, but MMORPGs have become stagnant lately; theres a dozen of them coming each month and most are pretty much the same with different graphics. Publishers love them for the monthly fee thing though.

Re:I thought that would be HL2...

[CDRuzin]

Whenever I get a new game, the fun and excitement of the game usually lasts for a week or so. After that, the fun kind of wears off and I gradually lose all interest in the game, eventually uninstalling it. It's been that way for every single shooter game I've played (America's Army, Doom Series, Unreal Series, Wolfenstein, Tom Clancy games, etc.) The only shooter that was better than average was Halo. Oni is another classic.

With WoW though, I have yet to lose that inital level of excitement and new discovery. Every day I play it, I discover a new cool place, new people, new interesting and challenging quests and so on. It never gets old. The graphics aren't the best I've ever seen (HL2 holds that distinction), but you can't expect worlds as large as those in WoW to be rendered in as much detail as HL2 without having the mother of all graphics cards. That said, the graphics are still amazing. I find myself taking at least several screenshots every time I play it. I've even setup a picture gallery on my site with my screenshots.

The music and sound are superb. Even better is that you have control over them. Don't like the music? Disable it. Really love it? Set it on continuous loop versus every now and then. With a nice set of headphones, the sound effects are amazing.

I could go on and on about all the great features of the game, but I won't. Hey! No clapping back there! It's safe to say this is my favorite game of all time, so far. When they release the LoTR MMORPG in 2005 (I hope), I will give it a try. If it's anywhere near as good as WoW, it should be an excellent game.

Re:I thought that would be HL2...

[Cecil]

B.S. Aside from Steam which is nearly universally reviled, the game had a much-vaunted physics engine that turned out to be only a hair better than what Deus Ex had several years ago, the story was trite and unexplained, the game was short, the puzzles would barely challenge a retarded monkey, the AI was abysmal and insulting especially in comparison to the original Half-life, and although the graphics were reasonably good, they were still a step below Doom 3 and certainly not worthy of excessive praise.

The game brought nothing new to the table, it overhyped and underdelivered (late, might I add)

Re:I thought that would be HL2...

[Aeiri]

Exactly... EVERY game I've played I've gotten bored of pretty fast, with one exception, Morrowind. So far I have played that game for probably a total of 18 months, with 6 added on/off months as well. It was by far the most extensive, fun game I've ever played, and nothing has been created to live up to it.

The only game that looks as promising as Morrowind is "Oblivion", which is it's sequal ;)

Re:I thought that would be HL2...

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

You mean Havok? Deus Ex 2 had the exact same engine, so I'd even be dubious of the "hair better" claims.

Re:I thought that would be HL2...

[hibiki_r]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but Oblivion will be way, way samller than Morrowind. The developers made it pretty clear in a couple of interviews: The new, shiny graphics makes adding new game content very, very expensive. Since there's no way they'll risk increasing their budget 4x, the game world will be smaller, and will have way fewer available quests.

I for one would rather sacrifice graphics than pretty much anything else. Add to all of this the fact that they are going to be Microsoft's big launch game for their new console, with all the time constraints this will put on the developers, and it is hard to expect much fro Oblivion.

Re:I thought that would be HL2...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was talking about Deus Ex 1.

Re:I thought that would be HL2...

[wernercd]

I personally have no issues with Steam. Couple bugs when initally started up but I actually find it alot more convient than any other model. And considering it let me purchase and download the game while I'm not in an area where I can buy it from a store, it has something I can't get elsewhere - Legal purchase of a new game Yay for me.

Those who have issues with steam need to realize nothing new ever runs smoothly. And something as awsome as HL2 is well worth a couple bugs.

As always... my 2 cents.

Re:I thought that would be HL2...

[Aeiri]

So it's going to be another Fable? A 10 hour game that is fun, but worthless after you beat it?

/me breaks window

Trade is interesting

[useosx]

The Virtual Trading is one of the most interesting aspects of online gaming. I'm sure books have been written about it, but it sort of points to the economic cancer of modern industrial societies. Killing that could kill a large part of the interest people have in it.

Re:Trade is interesting

[mordors9]

It's a sign of our modern culture. Instant gratification. Too many people don't want to work for what they get, they want everything handed to them. They think, I have money so I shouldn't have to spend the time building my own character up.

Re:Trade is interesting

[lordsilence]

Directly from eBay(TM)..
The latest pricing for virtual money to a few games:

(As with all games , you can always squeeze down per batch-price if you buy loads of it)
10million in-game gold [Ultima Online] : $75
10million ISK in-game ISK [EVE-Online] : $5
10million credits [Anarchy Online] : 3$
10 gold pieces [Everquest 2] : $1

Re:Trade is interesting

[luvirini]

it is not about only instant gratification. It is how you use your time. I happen to enjoy games, but I do not have the time to play full time like some people seem to. Since too many of these online games seem to ge catering to the "allways logged in" crowd, I do not think I would advance in a speed I found fast enough, because they have to build it for "slow" advancement. My solution is to not play them, but if I did play, I might be intrested in some "reasonably" priced things to help me along, as they would help my enjoyment. It is basically the same reason I pay a maid to clean the house instead of doing it myself.

Re:Trade is interesting

[cvas]

Is it "instant gratification" if you had to go to a job for 40+ hours a week to earn the money used to buy the virtual items?

Re:Trade is interesting

[TheGavster]

The majority of people generate income by exchanging time for money. There's no real reason why the inverse shouldn't be true (indeed, a business owner is essentially trading his money in exchange for employees' time, so that s/he doesn't have to do the work)

Re:Trade is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Very insightful comments all around. It has been my experience that busy bodies like to protest how others' spend their money, but it is as you say - if you've the money and you enjoy the game even more by buying the item.

Re:Trade is interesting

[Dachannien]

Yes, it is, because the rules for acquiring the virtual items (in the case of World of Warcraft, anyway) specify that you aren't allowed to use your hard-earned cash to purchase those items. You're supposed to put effort into the game itself in order to reap the rewards, and it certainly does qualify as "instant gratification" to use external means to acquire the rewards without the requisite effort.

Besides, it doesn't make any sense to say that it's not instant gratification for somebody with a job to buy in-game items, but if they inherited or won their money and spend it on the exact same thing, then it is instant gratification. Winning or inheriting your wealth by itself may be instant gratification, but there's no difference between that and earned money when it comes to spending it.

Re:Trade is interesting

[droleary]

Too many people don't want to work for what they get, they want everything handed to them.

Is someone handing out real cash to these people? If so, where's this happening because I'd sure like to get in on the "free money" action!

They think, I have money so I shouldn't have to spend the time building my own character up.

Look, they're already paying for the game and then paying monthly fees to play it. There is no isolated game economy where you can build up people from birth without spending a dime. If you're already paying to get a character at a certain state in the world, what's the big deal with paying even more to get an even more advanced character?

Re:Trade is interesting

[cvas]

I was pretty much trying to play devil's advocate here, but I have to disagree with you.

First, the game rules say you can't buy virtual items with real money, but it does not automatically follow that doing so equates to "instant gratification". If you want to qualify your remark and say that it is instant gratification for your character, that is one thing, but we don't live in a vacuum and you cannot always seperate the player from the character. The player did work for that money (I'm assuming no lottery/inheritance here), so in the overall scope of a person's life, there is no instant gratification for buying these items. Break the rules of the game, yes. Make the game easier for that player/character, yes. And as I said before; instant gratification for the character, yes. But again, that is not the whole picture.

Second, while all money spends the same, I defy you to honestly give some thought to your last statment and still tell me you are right. You are saying that if I win $30,000 dollars from a lottery and buy a car with it, that is the same if I go to work 5-6 days a week, 8-12 hours a day, save my money, take out a loan, and then buy the car? Remember, we are talking in terms of gratification, not whether your money is the same color either way.

Re:Trade is interesting

[Uhlek]

It's an interesting concept, but it's one that can get game developers in a hotbed of legal problems. Basically, it means that the in-game data constitues something of value to the players. If a game company encouraged virtual trading using real-world dollars, it is conceivable that the game company could be held liable to maintain that value for the customer.

Take that to the ultimate extension. You're a player with enough in-game assets to constitue hundreds of thousands of dollars were it to be liquidated, and potentially hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month in income from the regular sale of those items.

Then, the game developer cancels the game, or there is a massive data loss, or the developer makes an arbitrary change to the game which shifts the economy and results in a total loss to you. In essense, you've just lost your total net worth, your income, etc. Logical people would say "well, too bad, so sad, shouldn't have relied on a game" Lawyers, on the other hand, are not always logical people. When something becomes someone's job, it's no longer a game to them. It's their life. Sanctioning virtual trades builds the expectation that that is a valid use of the game environment, and puts additional responsibility on the game company.

No amount of warnings and EULA could insulate a company from that kind of litigation. It's far easier, and safer, for the game company to toe the line, cancel a few accounts here and there and send out a few cease-and-desist letters.

Re:Trade is interesting

[Cabriel]

It's an advantage not built into the game. It's circumventing the balance of the game because you feel it's not worth the time to kill and loot.

Let's assume you work 40+ hours a week, anyways. If you weren't playing WoW, would you quit your job because it was only a means to advance your character? No, you wouldn't. You'd be working your job and spending the money elsewhere. You can call it hard work when referring to outfitting your character in the game, but then you're probably obsessed with addiction and behavioral problems.

The majority of players don't have the option of using RL (real life) money to outfit their IG (in-game) characters, and the game was built with that in mind. By using RL money, the balance is broken because someone didn't have to put time and effort into the game to get equal rewards - they put in far less time and effort to reap equal rewards. When referring to balance, this is often called "broken". It is something that should be nerfed... oh, wait. They did nerf it; they said we aren't allowed to use RL money to advance IG factors. Thus, it is cheating.

Re:Trade is interesting

[droleary]

It's an advantage not built into the game. It's circumventing the balance of the game because you feel it's not worth the time to kill and loot.

You are wrong on so many level. It's definitely built into the game inasmuch as someone is playing the game to collect the resources. If the game allows them to just give me the stuff, why should it matter if I give them something back in the game or out?

The majority of players don't have the option of using RL (real life) money to outfit their IG (in-game) characters, and the game was built with that in mind.

Again, so very wrong. Players only have the option of spending money to outfit their characters. As I pointed out, there is no way they can build up anything for free. The real issue is whether or not, in addition to the money, they must also spend time to outfit their characters. I say they don't. The trivial demonstration is that someone can hire a person specifically to play their character. Why is buying excess inventory from another (actual) player any worse than that?

By using RL money, the balance is broken because someone didn't have to put time and effort into the game to get equal rewards - they put in far less time and effort to reap equal rewards.

Then you simply don't understand what "balance" means. Nothing in game is out of balance. Things merely shift from one player to the other, regardless of any RL compensation. Is like you're saying life itself is out of balance because money is exchanged for goods and services. You're just deluding yourself if you think the game isn't part of the real-world economy.

Thus, it is cheating.

No, it isn't. If anything, it's anti-cheating. What it results in is weak characters with a lot of powerful items they have no real idea how to use. Easy pickings, as I see it. And once you kill and loot them, they may even be willing to buy the stuff back again!

Re:Trade is interesting

[Breakfast Pants]

But what do you get in exchange? If you are level 30 in the game and it's so non-fun that you would pay money to advance, what are you advancing to? You hit things for bigger numbers and they hit you for bigger numbers--its still going to be non-fun.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

bravo! You sir are truly a committed ./ reader. I recommend you, you have a great future
</sarcasm>

Time is Money

[ignipotentis]

In its announcement on the World of Warcraft community site, Blizzard stated its policy against the buying or selling of the game's objects for real-world money. Its goal, which many MMO developers share, is keeping the game pure from an inflated economy and from players who buy game attributes rather than earning them. And they often claim that such objects have no real-world economic value.

The old saying "Time is Money" works well here. These objects cary real-world economic value if they are required to get to the next level, and the individual playing the game doesn't have the time to find them, but would like to "level-up." In this case, the real world price he pays for said item would have to be worth less than the time it would take him to find said item. In some of these games, the time to level starts to expand exponetialy. This is what I think draws the secondary economy to the game.

Re:Time is Money

[Tooxs]

Seems to me if they really do want you to EARN your items, you wouldn't be able to obtain them in any other way. When the user gets creative I guess its easier to make policy than to fix programs. The newly released game doesn't work as desired, but it's the customers fault. Par for the course these days.

Re:Time is Money

[cowscows]

I don't think it's that as much as trying to keep the playing field level. Being able to trade items in general is pretty important to the game, especially the social aspect, which is the sort of the whole point to a game like this.

Keeping it fair is part of keeping the social interactions civil. Allowing people to further their in the game character by actions outside of the game can be unfair, because the developers don't have any control over individual's resources outside of the game.

An example is if I go around being a dick to everyone, my character should suffer in the game, because noone will be interested in helping me, and parts of the game are designed to require teamwork. So I can't progress as well as the more sociable people, and therefore the amount of damage I can do to the game is lessened. But if I can just go onto ebay and buy all the powerful weapons because my dad is a rich brain surgeon and I have a $200 per week allowance, I can gain a bunch of stuff in world that I didn't earn.

The more freedom you give the players, the more potentials for abuse there will be. Too much freedom can create an environment that's complete chaos, and might not be as much fun. There's definitely a balance to be reached.

It's not like real life, where you have basic rights that the developer should just cope with. You're not forced into the game, so if you don't like it, cancel your subscription. If you think the developers are blaming you for the game's problems, then tell them to get bent. A lot of the rest of us think they made a heck of a game, and we appreciate that they're trying to keep it as fun as possible for as many people as possible.

Re:Time is Money

[Dachannien]

Well, that quote gives a horrible explanation of why selling items/accounts is bad. Why is it bad?

One, people who sell items or accounts tend to try to farm them incessantly. This leads to perpetually-camped spawns dominated by one person, along with unfair play tactics against others who want to come in and take their turn. Now, this is much reduced in WoW because of the way loot occurs in the game, but in many other games (EQ, for example) it can be a pretty severe problem.

Two, there is a great potential for fraud when items/accounts are sold, because there is no secure transaction between the exchange of money and the exchange of the account, and because the seller can usually keep themselves anonymous. Admittedly, this lends some support for these transactions taking place at large sites like eBay or IGE, where their reputation is at stake whenever a fraudulent transaction takes place, but "for-sale-by-owner" accounts are still not uncommon.

Three, inexperienced players driving experienced characters leads to grief and annoyance within the high-level community. The level and gear of a character are supposed to be a reflection on a person's experience at playing the game, not just some number which affects the character's abilities. Sometimes, eBayed characters stick out like sore thumbs as they ask stupid questions (e.g., 57th level night elf druid yells, 'omg how do i get 2 teh boat in darnasuss!!!'), but in other cases, it takes several bad play experiences for the eBayed character to build up a reputation as being played by an inexperienced player and thus get blacklisted.

Four, some eBayed characters already *have* a reputation as a bad apple. Somebody with no consideration for other people - but with some skill at the game mechanics - levels up a character, but then can't get a group in the high-level instances to save their life. So, they sell the account and start over, pocketing some money in the process. The problem is, the unsuspecting buyer logs in for the first time and is greeted by rude tells and harassment because the character has a reputation of being a complete ass. What's more, nobody will believe them when they say they bought the character (choosing instead to think it's the original owner trying to lie his way out of the situation), and the admission of being eBayed brings down one's reputation further.

By the way, there are other reasons related more to fairness that I'm not really going into detail on here (such as the concept that every player should put equivalent effort into the game, or that success should not be based on one's RL means, since this is a game).

Re:Time is Money

[Lord_Dweomer]

And that is why I will never play this game. I know opinions may differ, but any game that comes down to figuring out the most efficient way to level or gain items or gold and coming up with equations and all that to figure it out kills the game for me.

Its why I quit Kingdom of Loathing, EQ, WoW, etc. I want a game that is FUN. Where all you care about is gameplay and not how much time it takes to do something and whether that is the best use of that time.

Re:Time is Money

[damiam]

the individual playing the game doesn't have the time to find them

If the process of acquiring these items isn't fun, then the game is a crappy game and the individual shouldn't be playing it. If earning items is fun, then the person is pretty much paying to avoid having fun. Either way, it doesn't make much sense.

Re:Time is Money

[Ryan Amos]

Yes, but also keep in mind that blizzard can nerf items that people who sell them for real world cash will farm by making them more common. They have no real world economic value because Blizzard can at any time make that +50 sword of asskicking that you paid $50 on ebay for attainable through an easy quest or make it commonly drop from monsters. The value of the item is wholly dependent on how hard Blizzard makes it to get, and they can (and do) arbitrarily change this. It has value, but that value may be much, much less tomorrow, without increasing the work anyone has done.

Re:Time is Money

[Anonymous Custard]

And that is why I will never play this game. I know opinions may differ, but any game that comes down to figuring out the most efficient way to level or gain items or gold and coming up with equations and all that to figure it out kills the game for me.

If you're not into roleplaying, then all that's left is a grind and item hunt. Maybe some PvP'ing, but you'd probably enjoy Jedi Academy or Counterstrike where everyone's equal and it's your own skill that determines your success.

But if you are into roleplaying, then WoW is VERY satisfying. Quests make sense and there are many many plotlines, character development opportunities, and all sorts of immersive experiences.

While I haven't found as good a RP'ing guild as SWG's SRA on Sunrunner, the WoW game itself is much more immersive, and even a little linear. I'm curious to see how the endgame (final level 60) turns out from an RP'ing point of view.

Re:Time is Money

[wdr1]

No longer on the gold standard, how is this different from the U.S. government deciding to just print more money?

-Bill

Re:Time is Money

[iolaus]

Ah,

But it is completely fair that a 13 year old with no real responsibilities in life can play for 8 hours a day and out level other players?

Welcome to the world of MMORPG! After 2-3 years of UO and about 500+ hours of MMORPG design and concept discussion and musing I've come to the sad conclusion that MMORPG just isn't that great of a game genre. Without an incredible community MMORPGs eventually turn into a cycle of leveling up or acquiring goods; and when you allow the general public to play a game it pretty much rules out an incredibly community! Basically, if I can't have a true large-scale and long-lasting effect on the world or outcome of the game, and I can't immerse myself in the world because of a bunch of Yahoos who enjoy annoying others, then the game is bound to get old.

I've decided that I much prefer the short-term (relative to a MMORPG) fun of a great game like HL2 to the fun-with-impending-monotony of a MMORPG.

Blizzard is known for it's festivity!

[ShallowThroat]

Blizzard's annual holiday festivities have resulted in a hilarious holiday mp3 being made available

Not only that, Blizzard has also made avaliable many in-game festivities, such as snowmen and snowballs. Perfect for whiping at the neighbouring horde villages. :)

Re:Blizzard is known for it's festivity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. Right. Blizzard is definitely known for its festivity.

I've seen World of Warcraft. It looks good. It looks enjoyable.

But until and unless Blizzard withdraws the bnetd case, I will never purchase another Blizzard game.

Re:Blizzard is known for it's festivity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad that MP3 was not at all hilarious. It was lengthy, though, I gotta give 'em that.

Re:Blizzard is known for it's festivity!

[Decimal]

Snowballs. Yeah, I remember that upgrade patch. There were so many snowballs flying around in the game that the servers couldn't keep track of all the projectiles and the whole game went down hard.

This idea had to have come from management.

Re:Blizzard is known for it's festivity!

[Krusty_Klown]

Snowballs. Yeah, I remember that upgrade patch. There were so many snowballs flying around in the game that the servers couldn't keep track of all the projectiles and the whole game went down hard.

This idea had to have come from management.

You make it sound like it was so long ago. It was less than a week.

Re:Blizzard is known for it's festivity!

[Khaotix]

haha

my guild raided Ogri last night for a snowball fight. Writeup on the Shadow Moon server board ;) It was a blast. Went through 500 snowballs in the blink of an eye.

Re:Blizzard is known for it's festivity!

[falcon5768]

FFXI has celebrated major holidays since before the NA's joined.

They just got off their Christmas celebration as well as did a halloween, Summer (complete with fireworks overhead) and easter egg hunt.

WOW did nothing no other MMORPG has done, do you even realize there is not one thing WOW has done other than take the Multiplayer out of MMORPG to make it inovative? The only reason everyone loves WOW is because you dont have to party with people so its not nearly as time consuming as other mmorpgs. But thats about it, WOW is like MMORPG lite.

"from the for-gnomeregon! dept."

[Phosphor3k]

It's spelled "Gnomeregan".

Re:"from the for-gnomeregon! dept."

[Anonymous Coward]

To those moderating funny, it actually is spelled "Gnomeregan". Nancy unavailable for comment.

Re:"from the for-gnomeregon! dept."

[Wtcher]

May as well be "Gnome-be-gone", considering what happened to the city.

WoW is excellent

[grasshoppa]

I am not an avid gamer, by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I was playing xcom2 right up and to the point I bought WoW.

It is truly an excellent game. The graphics are very consistent ( instead of blah here, WOW here, blah here ) and look great. On top of that, my old(ish) system can usually push 30-40 fps where ever I am. More than smooth enough for me.

Beyond the graphics ( which aren't all that important beyond the immersion factor ), the audio is excellent. Very well done score. But what really grabs you and holds you tight is the gameplay. Very addictive. Blizzard must have spent months working on the questing system, which is unbelievably detailed.

Re:WoW is excellent

[Tridus]

Well of course, because the entire quality of a game is measured by how expensive a video card it takes to play it.

Re:WoW is excellent

[DAldredge]

If it sucks so much why are 200,000+ people playing it?

Re:WoW is excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

even mediocre games have an audience, see doom 3.

Re:WoW is excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

If Pearl Harbor sucked so much, how come 200,000+ people saw it!!??? The answer: Because there are easily 200,000+ idiots between North America and Europe.

Re:WoW is excellent

[Khaotix]

I'm not crying that you aren't playing WoW.

I like it. It looks ok to me. Considering the previous MMO I played was Asheron's Call I can say without hesitation that WoW is a step forward.

Re:WoW is excellent

[Negatyfus]

WoW certainly beats most other current games in style. Many people seem to agree, but of course some people just don't know how to spot quality. Polygon count is a bit low, but I don't mind that. Everquest, with its monstrous system requirements, certainly doesn't reach the quality Blizzard managed to put out. Not by a long shot.

Re:WoW is excellent

[Vermifax]

"I couldn't get past the shitty graphics long enough to enjoy WoW"

The graphics are the best done artistically of any MMORPG yet.

Disagree, HL2 was way too disappointing.

[Viewsonic]

The enemy and team-mate AI was terrible, and the physics were completely annoying and gimmicky. You got stuck way too much, or were upside down in your vehicals. The graphics were also pretty sub-par compared to games like Doom3 and Far Cry. And the ending was the worst i'd ever experienced in any FPS to date. The level design was pretty lazily done as well .. Ravenholm? I mean, c'mon, it didn't even fit the theme of the game, it's like they went on some dumb horror tangent because they got bored with the Sci-Fi thing. It had its moments, but overall it was way more disppointing than any game out this year, Doom3 included.

WoW on the otherhand. Great humor, great graphics, more quests than both Everquests combined, and a lot of innovative additions to the MMORPG genre. There is nothing stagnant about it. Perhaps you should try playing it.

Re:Disagree, HL2 was way too disappointing.

[Lisandro]

Agreed about the ending. I'd venture to say it's the worst ending in a game ever: i mean, what the fuck was the rest of the game about? You just wandered arround random locations shooting things, with no explanation of why whatosever. I thought the ending would explain this, but no.

As for the game, i played half of it, but it was overall pretty good. The parts evading snipers, Ravenholm, or the battle in the city under siege were great, while others were downright boring - it's not the most fun i've had with an FPS but when you look at the whole picture, it's a damn fine game. The only reason i didn't purchase it was because of Steam.

I've given up on MMORPGs. I tried several times to like them, wanting to like them, but i find they turn themselves into chores instead of games in no time. I've seen little of WOW, i confess, but i'll be trying it soon. But if the game mechanics didn't change drastically from previous MMORPG offerings, i think it will be more of the same, with more polish.
Hope i'm wrong. I really like Blizzard.

Re:Disagree, HL2 was way too disappointing.

[LiquidCoooled]

When I finished HL2 it was like when I watched the second Matrix film.

I'm going to see it as an expensive way to play half a game, with the real finale in half life 3.

There were many moments in the original HL where I felt I was at the end, and that I had finally made it - for instance, driving the little train outside, and the music starting, or getting past the big evil talen thing that came out of a hole in the ground (from memory however many years ago).
The ending of this second installment made me feel the same, like an end of level nasty, it definately doesn't feel over. We have removed the Earthly iconic leader, but not got rid of the actual alien invaders.

They are just milking it, and unfortunately, I've fallen into the trap, and will probably get any further installments.

Re:Disagree, HL2 was way too disappointing.

[Anonymous Coward]

WoW is a MMORPG with training wheels. It is easy to get into but lacking any real challenge or depth. WoW made no innovative additions to the MMORPG genre. Perhaps this is your first MMORPG. Even Gamespot and Gamespy agree that WoW did not add anything to the genre. It just took existing game mechanics and made them more polished and appealing to the average gamer. At this it WoW has been an amazing success.

Re:Disagree, HL2 was way too disappointing.

[r3001]

I'd say that the majority of people would disagree with you http://www.gamestats.com/objects/492/492830/?ui=ga mefinder.

Re:Disagree, HL2 was way too disappointing.

[Schemat1c]

WoW is a MMORPG with training wheels. It is easy to get into but lacking any real challenge or depth. WoW made no innovative additions to the MMORPG genre. Perhaps this is your first MMORPG. Even Gamespot and Gamespy agree that WoW did not add anything to the genre. It just took existing game mechanics and made them more polished and appealing to the average gamer. At this it WoW has been an amazing success.

All I keep hearing since WoW came out officially is how unoriginal it is. Isn't this always the argument when Blizzard puts out a new game? I remember people complaining about Starcraft in the same way.

Blizzard has always put out solid, enjoyable games, and for me that is what it is all about. Yes, originality is nice but craftmanship and playability score much higher.

When the new model cars come out people don't complain because it has a steering wheel and gas pedal just like all the other cars before. They judge it on the quality of design and how well it drives.

I have tried a few MMPOG's in the past and they never held my interest for more then a couple of days. I have been hooked in WoW since it's gone retail. You might consider it too simple, but I like the fact that I can enjoy this game without devoting my life to it.

I for one think it deserves the award.

Re:Disagree, HL2 was way too disappointing.

[wernercd]

I guess I'm in the minority... I liked the ending. It left me hungry for 3. More than 1 left me for 2. I'm hoping they do the same for 3. But then again... like I said, I'm in the Minority here by my guestamate.

As for game of the year, In my eyes it's Half-Life 2 hands down. Then again, I know alot of people still piss and moan about late release, problems with valve, blah blah. I'd like to see someone do a better job instead of crying about it personally.

I'm in Iraq atm and I haven't quite had a chance to play WoW yet. But I have heard alot of good things about it. From what i've heard alone I would have to agree that these have to be the two best games out this year, amoung many good games (definetly not counting Doom 3. Lets hope the expansion fixes that crap-tacular game)

That's just my 2 cents. I love computer games and HL2 was Definitely worth the wait, as I'm sure WoW will be.

Chris

On restricting out-of-game trade

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting Wired article. I know a lot of game developers frown vehemently on trading real-world money for in-game goods, but I still don't understand why. Who cares if some people want to buy their way to the top?

To me, this seems like logical evolution of a service-based economy.

Anyone care to enlighten me otherwise?

Re:On restricting out-of-game trade

[jokumuu]

When people pay money for something, things happen like ownership, real or imagined. Thus I buy an item in a game, few days later that item is nerfed, I get mad and sue the seller, the seller drags in the game provider...

If it is oficially forbidden to sell those.. well.. neither party will be able to pin it (so easy) on the provider...

Re:On restricting out-of-game trade

[lachlan76]

It kinda defeats the whole purpose of the game if you can just buy your way up.

Would you like it if Doom 3 had a version selling for say, $500, which had a difficulty level where all the enemies would just stand with their backs to you and their hands up?

Re:On restricting out-of-game trade

[Neoncow]

But if you could beat Doom 3 and some guy was willing to pay you to copy the save files and delete them from your computer, would you accept the money?

Apparently there are enough people who are willing to pay you to ruin the game for them. After all, one man's trash...

Re:On restricting out-of-game trade

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just like any collectible card game. $ = power.

That's basically why I stopped playing M:TG. Not enough power.

Re:On restricting out-of-game trade

[Rakishi]

Yes and no. If somehow you got a version of Doom 3 with all the really annoying parts taken and with all the good parts lengthened AND you had the money wouldn't you like it? In essence that is what people are buying. Time is limited for a person so they would rather spend it on having fun (like killing things or whatever they think is fun) than or doing the same thing 50 times to get enough gold to buy an item they want.

Re:On restricting out-of-game trade

[gclef]

There are two main reasons I can think of:

On selling characters, there's an expectation that the higher-level characters will serve an important social role in the game. High-level folks are assumed to be Guild leaders, key members of raids, etc. Folks who have just bought their way to the top will not be able to fill that role, since they'll have very little idea of what they're doing or how they got to the point they're at.

If you're trying to build a real community around the game, people buying their way to the top rungs can be very disruptive.

As for selling items, I suspect that's more of a self-protection and fraud prevention issue. The GM's have no way of handling the situation where an EBay auction goes bad, and both sides are claiming the other's lying. If they ban all outside sales, they can at least have audits in-game to be able to tell if someone did make the promise that was claimed and can take appropriate action. Without that, I can totally understand them not wanting to be in the middle of disputes about auctioned goods.

Re:On restricting out-of-game trade

[Catnapster]

By my understanding, it isn't the actual selling of goods that is the big problem. The problem is that selling goods starts to tie real-world money gain to the game, and naturally greedy people will then go to any length to maximise their profits: cheating, hacking, griefing.

Aside from that, selling in-game goods kind of defeats the purpose of having an in-game economy. Acquiring items through the game economy is supposed to be part of the game; when you can just buy whatever weapons you want, the MMORPG starts looking like an imbalanced FPS.

Re:On restricting out-of-game trade

[lachlan76]

While those who don't have as much money in real life are still doing the annoying parts, and you can just skip past them? In a MULTIPLAYER scenario?

Re:On restricting out-of-game trade

[Cabriel]

It's just like any collectible card game. $ = power.

That's basically why I stopped playing M:TG. Not enough power.

This looks similar to an equation I was shown in High School:

In Physics, we have the equation "Work = Power * Time". We can rearrange the formula for Time to get "Time = Work / Power". Now, if Time is Money ($$) and Knowledge (IQ) is Power, then we get the equivalent formula "$$ = Work / IQ". If everyone does the same work (Work = 1), then more IQ leads to less $$. If the colloquialisms are true, then the equation is supported by science.

This equation makes it pretty clear that the idiots are the ones with the money, so it will be the idiots who try to force the extra economy into the game. It seems to follow observations pretty well to me.

I guess price doesn't factor in...

[bl4nk]

Considering that Half-Life 2 is a one-time fee with huge mod support and the best single-player game in it's genre ever (IMO, of course) while WoW requires a monthly leeching of your wallet and therefore is only accessible to those who can take the hit.

I know of a few other game reviewers that actually take price in to consideration when rating games.. X-Play does this, for example. It probably wouldn't matter to gamespot if Half-Life 2 was $5.

Is Gamespot run by SpikeTV?

IGN and Gamespy GOTY

[WizardRahl]

Gamespy GOTY 2004 was Halo2 and IGN PC GOTY was HalfLife2. You've got to thank slashdot for their impartiality... >:E Flame: Gaypot blows compared to ign and gamespy, and to think they make you pay to download compared to free fileplanet is laughable.

Re:IGN and Gamespy GOTY

[Pluvius]

Pfft. Gamespot is far less of a corporate whore than either IGN or Gamespy, though I'm still boggled as to how they gave WoW GOTY honors over all of the other great games that came out this holiday season.

Rob

Re:IGN and Gamespy GOTY

[mrxenon]

Gamespy declared Total Anhillation the best RTS ever not last Feb. Given that it barley belongs on the top 10 AND they left Warcraft 2 off the list, I find it hard to give them too much credibility.

Re:IGN and Gamespy GOTY

[WizardRahl]

It all depends on what they have a boner for, PC Gamer for example has a big boner for WW2 games. Nearly every review they have has some nazi/ww2 reference and every ww2 game they review gets at least 95 percent no matter how much it sucks. Gamespy has a big boner for new stuff, they get all worked up about stuff in their previews, nearly every preview claiming that it will be the "next big thing" and the most popular blah blah... like black and white 2, they think it's the cat's ass and don't think anything could possibly be wrong with it. They don't take into account that even though molyneux is a genius, every game he's ever made after populous was a spectacular failure and didn't live up the half the expectations people gave them. (ie B&W 1, fable) Game reviewers suck basically :) Triumph could write better reviews about games (http://www.triumphtheinsultcomicdog.com/). If I had to give an mmorpg the GOTY award it would be UO no question, and starcraft for RTS. rant rant rant

Re:IGN and Gamespy GOTY

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't normally post on /. but when I saw this I felt obligated. Total Annihilation IS the best RTS strategy game ever. I'd argue it's even better than WC3, but I do think WC3 is really good. I've been playing TA ever since it came out and it never gets old. It's open ended architecture keeps it from dying. If you care to have a debate about it I'd be more than happy to talk about it. Just post back.

Re:IGN and Gamespy GOTY

[Morlark]

But TA is the greatest RTS evar! :P
I know many people who will go on and on about how great TA is. And these are people who are really into gaming, they really do think deeply when they are evaluating these games. I still play TA quite often these days.

Re:IGN and Gamespy GOTY

[pudding7]

TA is the best RTS ever. Hands down, no questions asked. Absolutely the best.

Blizzard did it right

[Holdstrong]

For years I have been playing MMORPGs.... and I come away from every single one of them (Ultima Online, EQ, and SWG were the ones I played) saying to myself, "jeez, ya know this game would be sooo much better if they just did X, Y, Z." Well, Blizzard actually DID the X, Y, and Z. It is almost like they were eaves dropping on the conversations of all of us gamers over the past 5 years. Everything we have been saying about these massive online games over the years they have addressed in one way or another. They took the bad parts and either dropped them, or made them good. They then went ahead and added all of the obvious features we have all been asking for and wondering why they havent been around. Its a gamers game. One that if I had the ability to make my perfect game... it would have been this. It really is fantastic. Blizzard might not have put out a groundbreaking new genre game here... but they did somethng even better. They took an already existing genre and finally did it right.

Re:Blizzard did it right

[Vexinator]

Let's face it though, that is exactly what Blizzard does best: rehash an existing type of game and polish it to the point of brilliance. None of their games have anything really innovative about them.

They are implemented extremely well however, and that is their charm.

Re:Blizzard did it right

[code-e255]

World of Warcraft has innovation - and lots. By just looking at the surface of things, you can always say "yeah, this game's really just a different version of this other game".

Re:Blizzard did it right

[CCelebornn]

Totally agree with you here. Blizzard.... (1) Takes an existing genre (2) Creates an excellent and immersive game world for that game (3) Spends ages (and goes over projected finish dates by a long margin) making the game (4) Game comes out, and requires tons of patches to iron out the many many bugs (5) People don't care and buy it in their droves, coz the game itself is polished to perfection for pure FUN, which a lot of developers seems to lose sight of.

Re:Blizzard did it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you care to back up the statement that WoW has "innovation -- and lots?"

I am interested in playing, but the previous group of popular games (UO and EQ primarily) were not very interesting to me.

What exactly is so innovative? So far it just sounds to me like Blizzard worked hard to implement a game that did not have many of the weaknesses its predecessors had. That's not what I would call innovative.

I'm also concerned about innovative game functionality that actually hurts gameplay instead of improving it. Innovation is not always a good thing!

Double You Tee Eff?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell can I game that charges what.. $12 a month, be game of the year? How many people did they get to sign up the first week? If I remember it was something like 150,000. So for $50 a game, that's $7,500,000 spent on just the product. To subscribe to the product, people spend another $12 per month, so $1,800,000 per month direct to Blizzard, and it's probably way past exceeded that. All this game is going to do is cause a bunch of undergrads to fail and drop out to pursue a life working graveyard for $9/hr in a plastic factory. Man I wish I had stock in Blizzard.

Quests are same old courier/corpsepile stuff

[leftie]

I was really looking forward to WoW until I got to play the beta. It became obvious in the beta that WoW was almost the same crud as every other MMORPG. There's still no overarching plot that MMORPG players can participate in and affect. I certainly wouldn't give out Game of the Year honors to a game with only some refinement on previous games and nothing innovative in it.

Re:Quests are same old courier/corpsepile stuff

[Minwee]

When you write an overarching plot that 3000 players can all participate in and affect at the same time, let us know.

Re:Quests are same old courier/corpsepile stuff

[makisupa]

I agree wholeheartedly.

I've done 2 months of WoW (1 beta, 1 live) and it has left me unimpressed. No innovation, nothing new, lame graphics (even if you buy the whole 'style' thing), an atrocious patch download process, and at least 10% downtime in prime time hours (not counting the first few days).

Gamespot:
"The worst thing about World of Warcraft is that you can't just play it all the time."

No, I'd say the worst thing about it is the fact that I haven't been able to play it because of server outages and 39MB-over-6-hour patch downloads.

Gamespot:
"Warcraft features an overall level of quality that's typically reserved for the best offline games..."

Hm, well, if 'overall level of quality' is directly proportional to crash frequency you're dead on Gamespot! Why, my copy crashed 4 times just yesterday!

This might be the most anticipated game of the year (which would be saying something this year). It might be the most arousing game for you blizzard fetishists. But it's not the best all around game by a long shot.

Re:Quests are same old courier/corpsepile stuff

[Krusty_Klown]

No, I'd say the worst thing about it is the fact that I haven't been able to play it because of server outages and 39MB-over-6-hour patch downloads. I went from lvl 1 to 21 in less than a week (hey holiday free time). I did not see these server outages. I have had my world crash once or twice a day but it is back up within 5 minutes. Oh and you can direct download the patches. Took me a few minutes. The best thing about this game is nothing is a chore. I enjoy it and I have played just about all the MMORPGs of late. But hey, that is me.

It's coming from Gamespot, what do you expect?

[The Foo]

Honestly. It's a good game, but Half Life 2 deserves the award.

Oh, it's coming from Gamespot. Can't blame them too much then.

WoW

[Commorragh]

As someone who's played WoW religiously (2 lvl16 characters on Shattered Hand), I think it's a truly awesome game. It's gigantic, first off, and it's extendable. I like most of the stuff Blizzard comes out with so that may be a bit of a bias. MMORPG's are fun, some of them...I'm really excited about Matrix Online but this is the same thing that happened when SWG came out...Can we have *one* good Sci-Fi MMORPG please?!?

Re:WoW

[Teckla]

As someone who's played WoW religiously (2 lvl16 characters on Shattered Hand), I think it's a truly awesome game. It's gigantic, first off, and it's extendable. I like most of the stuff Blizzard comes out with so that may be a bit of a bias. MMORPG's are fun, some of them...I'm really excited about Matrix Online but this is the same thing that happened when SWG came out...Can we have *one* good Sci-Fi MMORPG please?!?

You might want to check out Anarchy Online. It's a sci-fi based MMORPG, and they're currently offering a free client download and free year worth of online play. You don't even have to give them a credit card number.

Re:WoW

[pair-a-noyd]

"You might want to check out Anarchy Online [anarchy-online.com]. It's a sci-fi based MMORPG, and they're currently offering a free client download and free year worth of online play. You don't even have to give them a credit card number."

Looks neat. Does it run on Linux? Can't find any system requirements, read all through the faqs..

Re:WoW

[Fizzog]

Has anyone actually managed to download it?

I tried a few days ago and after about an hour it had managed about 8MB out of 800+MB

Re:WoW

[Anonymous Coward]

"As someone who's played WoW religiously (2 lvl16 characters on Shattered Hand) ... "

How long have you been playing? It takes all of 20 hours to get a character to level 20 ...

Re:WoW

[Anonymous Coward]

He said "good Sci-Fi MMORPG"...

Re:WoW

[grumbel]

The Bittorrent download worked fine for me, not super fast, but I got my 20-30kb/s. The non-torrent download via their own download tool and ftp however didn't managed to download more then 30kb in half an hour for me.

Re:WoW

[Brutulf]

Yep, it does (at least for some): http://www.csh.rit.edu/~marius/aolinux/

Re:WoW

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Re:WoW

[FryGuy1013]

Religously? Hardly.. I got the game around December 3rd and have a level 36 and level 12 on Burning Blade. :)

Re:WoW

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who's played WoW religiously (2 lvl16 characters on Shattered Hand),

Dude, seriously. You suck if you consider playing religiously having TWO level 16 characters. I've deleted about half dozen level 16 characters already and I'm NOT a religious player. Agnostic at best..

Re:WoW

[Cabriel]

Different people have different schedules for their religions. ;)

Re:WoW

[loopback_127001]

It takes almost no time at all to get to level 16. Are you suggesting that by playing WoW "religiously", you only do it for an hour every sunday, and don't think about it the rest of the week?

I agree on the drop out part

[Mustang Matt]

I have no doubts this game will cause some people to fail school. (Probably any game can do that, but this one is so addicting.) Blizzard has really loaded it up with quests. I can't stop playing!

Re:I agree on the drop out part

[Gandalfar]

That's modern evolution for you :)

Re:I agree on the drop out part

[cowscows]

Amen to that. I thank Counter Strike for a lot of my time management skills. Fitting in 3 hours a day of CS while at the same time trying to earn an architecture degree really taught me how to get things done efficiently.

Re:I agree on the drop out part

[Minna Kirai]

3 hours a day of CS while at the same time trying to earn an architecture degree

But now the only buildings you can draw are dusty adobes and railroad yards.

Re:I agree on the drop out part

[Rakishi]

It's not hard to make people fail school; the trick is to prevent their parents from stopping them. For example, putting Quake 2 on the school network of a school where cutting classes is easy.

Re:I agree on the drop out part

[rampant mac]

"Fitting in 3 hour a day of CS while at the same time trying to earn an architecture degree really taught me how to get things done efficiently."

I'm certain that time you spent gaming will help your career immensely.

"Why is there no door to the bathroom?"

"OMFG w4llhax f4g0tz!"

Doom 3 isn't in the FPS section...

[Dreadlord]

... WTF? I mean why is PainKiller there and Doom 3 is not?

I can understand having HL2, FarCry, and UT2K4, but PainKiller doesn't really offer the revolutionary gameplay to deserve being there, while Doom 3 doesn't.

Re:Doom 3 isn't in the FPS section...

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people found PainKiller to simply be more fun.

Re:Doom 3 isn't in the FPS section...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Doom 3 sucks ass.

Re:Doom 3 isn't in the FPS section...

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely enough, Painkiller was more like Doom than Doom 3 was. Doom 3 was very pretty, but Painkiller kicked ass.

Re:Doom 3 isn't in the FPS section...

[damiam]

Doom 3 was a tech demo, not a game. The only revolutionary thing about it was the lack of duct tape.

Re:Doom 3 isn't in the FPS section...

[Sentry21]

Doom 3 is a terrible, terrible game. It's pitch black 99% of the time so you can't see what's going on or what's attacking you, the suspense is poorly manufactured, and after about 20 minutes, you'll be pointing to spots on the wall and saying 'a monster is going to jump out of there' with 100% accuracy.

id software says they lost millions to piracy of Doom 3. The reason they did is because everyone realized it was terrible before it hit the shelves. I know I played a pirated copy, but only for about 10 minutes. My roommate stuck with it for two hours before he gave up on it.

Nice engine, flop game.

Re:Doom 3 isn't in the FPS section...

[Cabriel]

I must say, my legally purchased copy was nothing like your pirated copy. Yes, it was before it hit the shelves. Are you sure you got the whole final release code? I mean, for my system, default gamma correction made the environment seem like a science lab in an alien environment.

The lighting was bright enough to see all of the details except in the (admittedly many) dark areas, but there were only a comparable handful of pitch-black areas where I had to whip out my flashlight to see, and only twice was I attacked when I had it out.

Sure, the game lacked a lot of story, but it seemed like a damned good horror to me. If the marine was scripted, it could have done well as a horror movie. Seems to me that your response is just an overreaction to something you expected to hate.

Re:Doom 3 isn't in the FPS section...

[Lisandro]

Painkiller was a hoot, and the most fun i've had with a FPS since Quake 2. It's a great game, and from what i've seen, sadly unappreciated.

I *DID* love Doom 3, but in a different way. Painkiller is simply more fun to play.

Half Life 2

[Castaa]

WoW over Half Life 2? I'm not so sure about that. HL2 is more ground breaking than WoW, IMO. WoW is a very polished MMO. But what is new about it?

HL2 is breaks new ground of because the environments are more than pretty window dressing. One is constantly challenged to look at the world and think about what is available to allow the objective to be accomplished more efficiently. This in addition to HL2 being a very polished FPS.

Re:Half Life 2

[cowscows]

I'm all for innovation, but really, "breaking new ground" is not the most important part of making a fun game. Not to take away from HL2, cause I know lots of people are having lots of fun playing with it, but even if you think it has more new ideas than WOW, that doesn't mean it has to be a better game.

I could design an new, innovative racing game that you control with your computer's microphone by yelling TURN LEFT when you want to go left, or BRAKES! BRAKES BRAKES! when you want to stop. I doubt anyone's done that before. Of course, no one's done it before because it's a stupid idea.

Innovation is vital to the game industry, but gameplay is even more important. And gameplay can sometimes take a lot of iterations to get right. WoW is an impressive example of learning from previous attempts and really getting a lot of it right. And that's what makes a fun game. The word "polish" I don't think helps, because gameplay is more fundamental then all the details.

Re:Half Life 2

[100lbHand]

Back Seat Driver: The Game

sounds good to me, should sell well to mother-in-laws and wives.

Re:Half Life 2

[LiquidCoooled]

Why not?

You *COULD* make something of it you know!

Call it "Back Seat Driver", stick it in a box, include a mic and sell it for 39.99 a pop.

Team fun for all the family. Let you all take out your rage shouting stuff at the computer.

Make it respond better the louder you shout.

Theres enough people out there who will buy it ;)

Re:Half Life 2

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but besides graphics a game like Half-Life 2, or any other shooter, can hardly be groundbreaking in any sense. Yet another first person shooter as the saying goes... Half-life 2 is a good game I'm not saying it's not but WoW is much more expandable and gives gamers much more value. I've played pretty much non-stop since it came out and I have not explorered even a quarter of the world and have not experience even half of what I can. On top of all this, since it's an online community many more features are added constantly. (Can't wait for battlegrounds =) .)

Good job Blizzard, you truly are one of the (if not THE) best game developers.

Re:Half Life 2

[Minna Kirai]

One is constantly challenged to look at the world and think about what is available to allow the objective to be accomplished more efficiently.

And if you find an alternative solution, and go do it... the game magically prevents you from straying from the official path. For example, there are many situations where you can see the next area across a low fence between buildings. Stack up a few cans, and you can build a staircase to get over. But, AFTER you do all that work collecting physics objects, you are met atop the fence with an invisible force-field.

Anyway, as others have posted, the gameplay mechanism about stacking random objects to get over stuff has been done before in Deus Ex and JP Trespasser. Half-Life's physics is a lot better, but they'd almost have been wiser to make a $19.95 "family-friendly" game focused only on construction.

Re:Half Life 2

[Anonymous Coward]

"HL2 is breaks new ground of because the environments are more than pretty window dressing"

Unless they're not for a puzzle, then they're pretty window dressing.

Re:Half Life 2

[Dachannien]

There was a game called Echelon that was released for the C-64 which included a headset microphone. Whenever you shouted something into it (and an outdoor voice was indeed required), it effectively pushed the button on the second joystick.

Now *that's* innovation.

Re:Half Life 2

[FuzzzyLogik]

That's odd because I felt the environment in HL2 was what made it so innovative. There's a lot of very very interesting puzzles to solve using the environment. You get to use the environment around you and that is very very cool. Oh, and I don't have to pay a monthly fee to continue to play it. This online subscription model is never going to fly for me. In fact.. even with half-life 2, i still miss the old 2d games that were so easy to jump right into and play... all this 3d crap is annoying.. i want my lucas arts adventure games back too..

Re:Half Life 2

[Lord_Dweomer]

"I could design an new, innovative racing game that you control with your computer's microphone by yelling TURN LEFT when you want to go left, or BRAKES! BRAKES BRAKES! when you want to stop. I doubt anyone's done that before. Of course, no one's done it before because it's a stupid idea."

They could call it "Back Seat Driver". My Jewish mother would LOVE it!

Re:Half Life 2

[cowscows]

Well, there's nothing wrong with being innovative, my point was that I don't that innovation should be the most important criteria in deciding the quality of a game.

I don't mind paying monthly for a game as long as new content is constantly being added. I do hate the fact that WoW requires you to spend $50 up front just to have the right to send them $15 per month. That's why I haven't bought the game yet, despite having a blast during the open beta.

And I hear ya on the lucas arts adventure stuff. Day of the Tentacle is definately one of my all time favorites.

Re:Half Life 2

[lewp]

HL2 hasn't been touched since I started playing WoW. Neither have my copies of GTA:SA, Metroid Prime 2, Doom 3 (which doesn't even belong in the same breath as the rest of these, sorry id...), Halo 2 (ditto), or any of the other supposed blockbusters this year. "Ground breaking" doesn't mean anything to me when I'm choosing what game to play. WoW is a better game than any of them by a mile.

Now if only they could keep the servers up.

I wouldn't think anything short of the extinguishing of all life on earth could kill a game as good as WoW, but they seem to be making a go of it with their shoddy handling of technical issues (both in how they actually deal with them, and especially how they communicate with their customers about them).

Blizzard still has a lot of work to do on that front, and nobody should try to minimize how much it harms the experience, but the game itself? It's beyond reproach. The few really showstopping bugs (Orc Rouges, anyone?) have apparently been squashed in the latest patch, and there are virtually no class balance issues (Shamans and Paladins are fine, IMHO, as are Druids, Warriors, Priests, and Mages). There are a few annoyances left -- bugged quests, mainly -- but with so many quests available they're easily abandoned and forgotten quickly once you start the next one. Best of all, and blasphemy for a MMORPG, the game is fast-paced, ridiculously easy to get into, and completely lacks "grind".

Those of you who are silly enough to complain about the lack of bells and whistles in its graphics engine must be off the deep end. It may not tax my system at all -- even at 1600x1200 with all settings maxed -- but the signature Blizzard artwork makes the game as stunning as anything else I've seen this year.
I've just stopped and stared on a few occasions when cresting a hill and seeing the gorgeous landscape stretch out in front of me in all directions. The character, item, and monster artwork are all as polished and full of personality. What's more, it runs on my 12" Powerbook as well and still looks good.

And no, I'm not a Blizzard fanboy. Neither are the many non-gamer friends of mine who have been playing WoW with the fervor of EQ addicts. We've formed a guild, we play together constantly, and I think each of us finds something new to appreciate about the game we never noticed before on a daily basis. I can think of few, if any, games that can make a claim like that. Certainly nothing else published this year.

Re:Half Life 2

[Sentry21]

Perhaps, but after you've used the gravity gun to pick something up and throw it, you've pretty much explored the entirety of the environment. After I was finished with that, I went back to regular weapons to beat the game, and didn't notice any usefulness of the environment afterwards.

HL2 is certainly a very polished FPS, but does that really break new ground? If you take away the fact that you can lift and move things, it's basically HL1 with new weapons and textures, and lifting and moving things got old for me before I left Ravenholm.

Re:Half Life 2

[hkmwbz]

I haven't played WoW, but I don't think Half-Life 2 deserves an award. The physics thing was a nice idea, but in reality, you are bound to a single path. You can't use the physics to proceed down different paths depending on how you choose to solve a puzzle.

Next is the fact that it requires online activation for offline play. That really killed it for me. If you don't have an Internet connection, you can't install the game. I know a couple of guys who got burned. They returned the game, and chose to get someone to burn them a pirated version instead. No Internet connection needed.

Re:Half Life 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on guys, you all know Half Life 2 was just another boring FPS. Whoa.. shit man, you can lift up crates.. OMG OMG! While HL2 might have innovation I can say in my opinion it is a fairly dull game.
Even though I am not a big fan of FPS I found Halo 2 much more interesting and I was a lot more keen to get things done in the game.

Now, World of Warcraft. A brilliant game, I commend blizzard for making this masterpiece. :D.
It is just downright FUN.

both or in the game actually

[DrunkClam]

n/t

Not bad, not good, just over-hyped

[canofbutter]

Games like HL2 and Doom 3 were not what I would call "bad" games (though, I was really disppointed in Doom 3 especially), the main problem is that they were all overhyped (and this is what I feel is the reason for the disappointment on many people's part). How many years had we been hearing about Doom3 and how revolutionary it would be only to get something that really lacked gameplay and had graphics that (although good) didn't live up to the hype? WoW on the other hand was IMO as good as advertised and deserves this.

Re:Not bad, not good, just over-hyped

[LurkerXXX]

The graphics did live up to the hype. Your flashlight just wasn't powerful enough to see them.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

I really feel sorry for all you ugly nerds who spend this special evening alone in front of your Athlon 64 AMD Win Ex Pee machines instead of having a good lickfest with your girlfriend while watching the newest stolen^Wshared movies.

However, I wish you all the best.

eeeh...

[Zangief]

I remember playing a game called Warcraft 3...

Yeah, that was a RTS, an this is an MMORPG (gotta love the acronyms), but new content is not.

Pay for game then pay to play?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

You might as well award Vasoline the award of Greatest Asset to Prison Life.

Come on!!!

weak site...

[curtbanner]

gamespot is really just a weak website. its difficult to navigate, and i've never found any useful information that wasn't easier to find somewhere else. if we all quit going, maybe they'll free up a little bandwidth for worthwhile endeavors.

What no pitfall?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am stunned.

Best multiplayer game?

[Ice_Balrog]

What really boggles my mind is how Halo 2 won the "Best Multiplayer Game" catagory over Unreal Tournament 2004. Yes, Halo 2 does have good multiplayer, but I have yet to see a game that can touch UT2K4 - especially when you factor mods in. UT2K4 simply has better weapons, better vehicles, and better gameplay modes (Onslaught owns all!).

Re:Best multiplayer game?

[space_jake]

Yeah that one didn't settle with me too well either.

Off by an order of magnitude

[Anonymous Pundit]

From the second paragraph of the Wired article on virtual trade:

...the secondary market for virtual goods is estimated at $880 million annually.

Don't you love how the reporter slips that in without offering any source or supportive information?

Let's see, a look at mmogchart.com shows that there are barely 8.8 million total MMOG subscribers. Are we to believe that MMOG subscribers spend an average of $100 annually on virtual trade after the cost of the subscriptions themselves? No way.

Perhaps 10 percent of subscribers play intensely enough in games with viable virtual markets to spend $100 annually on virtual trade, which works out to $88 million annually.

The quoted estimate is junk, off by an order of magnitude. When such obvious garbage is highlighted at the top of an article it's a good sign that there's little point in reading the rest of the piece.

Re:orcs are the best

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Steam made quite sure of that.
OT: Orcs are so gay. Fucking orcs.

blah blah blah easy solution

[null-sRc]

allow players to deposit extra $$ in their user acount...

LET THEM trade for real $$$ IN GAME, and take a 15% commision.

voila, game company wins, and buyers win (since it's more safe than buying over ebay etc.) :D Happy Days!

First person to level 60

[Anonymous Coward]

The first person to level 60 did it in 9 days. The average player with a full time job, wife and kids will do it in 1 month. WoW might be the least challenging game I have ever played.

Re:First person to level 60

[crazyfreakid]

The average player with a full time job, wife and kids will do it in 1 month. What about the average player with a full time job, wife, kids, and a life?

Re:First person to level 60

[archivis]

full time job, wife, kids == life

Re:First person to level 60

[code-e255]

It's been about a month since WoW got released and the average players aren't level 60.

I'm a fairly average gamer (unless I've got hollidays, I only play around 10 hours a week) and I've been playing WoW since the start of the European closed beta. At the moment I've got a level 21 and a level 39 character. I could've made a level 60 in the time, but I can't be arsed to powerlevel.

So... what games do you define as challenging, Mr. anon-troll?

Btw, once the battlegrounds are live, this game will be challenging for years.

Re:First person to level 60

[Neoncow]

Not all people equate MAX_LEVEL to "I beat the game".

There are other things to do.

Re:First person to level 60

[MMaestro]

I'm a fairly average gamer [...] At the moment I've got a level 21 and a level 39 character.

I don't have any statistics but I'm pretty sure the 'average gamer' does not level up 2 characters at the same time, beyond short-term role playing purposes. I'm sure there are 'average' players who are level 60, you just don't hear about them due to the way video games are tiered, especially MMORPGs. The few elites (or high level players) will generally gather and stick by themselves while the masses (lower levelers) will generally fail to organize and significant gatherings. If you look online, clan/guild websites are quite developed far enough to rival small businesses. I've seen clan/guild websites with rosters, rules and regulations, a clear hierarchy or chain-of-command, and even requiring all members to nominate and vote for new people to be accepted in.

"Reader's Choice" correction

[crazyfreakid]

The /. article implies (intentionally or no? I cannot say) that the Reader's Choice vote ends tomorrow. I believe the vote began only yesterday, and the schedule on Gamespot's website (I can't seem to find it at the moment) gave January 17th as the closing date for the polls, or perhaps the date when the votes will be counted and released.

Everquest II or WoW?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not enough hours in the day for both....or one for that matter.

Re:Must be a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

This mod down done by a pre-pube child who is sore over the servers being down thus interupting the only important thing in their life. When reality mods them accordingly in the real world then they shall know true soreness.

Re:No, it would bring back some integrity

[symbolic]

What good is a game where you can simply buy your way to the top? It's pointless. There's nothing to distinguish the players from the poseurs, and that makes it a game not worth playing.

Take Lineage2 for example. I was totally drawn in by the artwork and the breadth of the overall environment. It's one of my favorite games in this regard. However, it's a game I no longer play, because I don't think it's fair. Anyone who has played Lineage2 knows about excruciatingly long hours required to level up a character, and equip it with newer and better items. And yet, as someone who put in the time (and paid NCSoft to do it no less), what's the difference between my effort, and the minimal effort from someone who buys their way up? NONE. I'll not waste my time, thank you. I see enough of that crap in real life.

Re:fp

[Thrahd]

Thank you.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I wish you all the best.

Thanks. Did you take a break from your licking just to tell us this? Don't smell your fingers in public.

How can a MMORPG be GOTY?

[__aailob1448]

MMORPGs are a seemingly great concept on paper but then again, so is communism. Neither works well in the harsh, unforgiving real world we live in.

"How could this be?" You ask. A massive virtual world where a player can live out a fantasy. Be a Tolkien Wizard or Camelot knight or a Marvel superhero. A world where every character is intelligent , A world where you can form parties, fight epic battles and duels, explore and interact with beautiful and surreal locales. A world constantly changing and evolving where you can make friends and enemies, A world where you can ride Dragons, fly or teleport to distant places. It's like a dream come true.

Two reasons:

1- These games are made by companies who want to make money.

2- These games are populated by humans.

A few major issues with each:

I- Company side

Because the companies want to make money, they have to ensure that a majority of players will play their game as long as possible. This inevitably leads to "THE GRIND".

No matter what mmorpg you are playing, you will end up spending more and more time performing repetitive, unrewarding tasks to accumulate "points". Points can be Exp, Gold, Traits, Armor, Abilities, Completing certain quests,etc. Whether it's fishing moat carps in FFXI or making potions in WoW or defeating 10 Thugs in City of Heroes.

The Grind is usually not very apparent at first, But as the months go by, You will end up spending the HUGE majority of your time performing these menial tasks (or if you figure out how, scripting them). Out of 8 hours of play, you might spend an hour doing something new, exciting and fun. This is a fact.

II- Player side

Because the world is populated by humans, your fantasy world will be a dump. I'm not just talking about beggars, griefers, cheaters and assholes. Those are but the tip of the iceberg.

I'm talking about people who talk and shout Out Of Character AOLspeak/leetspeak, about people who think there is fun in the race to get to Lvl 99, people who inadvertently start WORKING in the game instead of having fun. I'm also talking about the idiots. The huge number of idiots populating the world. Allakhazam forums are ripe with complaints about this or that class of idiots. Many of those who complain are idiots themselves.

The same way communism ideals did not survive to greedy politians, powerhungry generals, lazy coworkers and overall human selfishness, MMORPGs ideals do not survive to companies and players.

Gozu, former MMORPG player of FFXI, CoH and WoW fame.

NOTE: None of what I said necessarily applies to text mmorpgs (MUDs).

Re:How can a MMORPG be GOTY?

[DarkZero]

Because the companies want to make money, they have to ensure that a majority of players will play their game as long as possible. This inevitably leads to "THE GRIND".

So far, I've only seriously played two characters in World of Warcraft, one Undead Warlock and one Troll Hunter. So far, I've managed to spend over fifty hours with EACH character without spending any real amount of time in the same area with one character that I did with another character. That's already more unique gameplay than I've gotten out of any other game outside of Nippon Ichi's strategy games, and I'm not done with the games yet. On the contrary, my highest level character is only level 27.

If a horrendous grind suddenly kicks in after that 100 hours of fun, that's fine. The game's already more than met my expectations for a $50 game. And if I can get just a few more hours out of that next $15, then that's worth it, too.

Re:How can a MMORPG be GOTY?

[__aailob1448]

Maybe the 3 of you who answered understood me wrong. I'm pointing out the fact that the GRIND becomes unacceptable after 1000 hours of play or so. Depending on how much you play, that's somewhere from around 2-3 months to a little less than a year. If you plan on playing less time than that before dumping the game, you'll probably get your money's worth. But a vast amount of people stay much past that. Because they are attached to their character, their guild and their ingame friends. Don't forget that the lifespan of an MMORPG with all its extensions can easily exceed 6 years. Logging in 100 hours of play is nothing.

Re:How can a MMORPG be GOTY?

[Viking Coder]

Nice try.

1 - Greedy company. Well, Blizzard is refunding days when their servers are crapping all over the place. They're actually giving up money, when they do a poor job.

Every game ever is a "grind" game, when you come down to it. Frogger - you had to keep making this frog jump across a street. Pac Man - keep making this weird yellow circle eat these dots. Doom 3 - keep opening doors and shooting zombies. The whole point is: is it fun? If you're having fun, then play the game - if you're not, then don't. I think as the sophistication of gamers goes up, they recognize more and more that a game doesn't really become fun again, once it becomes boring to them. So, they migrate to a new game (or maybe make a new character.)

Tell me what life is like for a professional football player. Practice, practice, practice, right? Well, I suspect that a lot of them still love the game. Why? Because they don't mind the things they have to do to play it, and they love parts of what they get to do.

2 - Players. This is kind of like blaming ping pong for the fact that most of the players don't speak English and it's hard to chat with them. Or blaming checkers for the fact that most of the players are not smart enough to play chess.

Yes - there are idiots who like to play games. Maybe the lesson to learn is that if you were smart, you wouldn't waste time with games. Maybe another lesson to learn is - is it possible you're an idiot, too?

I'm still having fun at World of Warcraft - and I don't believe I'm harming anyone to do it. In fact, I stopped watching my new Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - Extended Edition DVD a few nights ago, because I felt like I'd rather play in a mythical world than passively watch one. I think that says volumes about how much fun I'm having. I also don't remember any executives from Blizzard pounding their shoes on the table at the U.N. and screaming something about "we will bury City of Heroes!"

I also find it kind of amusing that you're attacking communism - but then also attacking people who compete in World of Warcraft. Why is it bad to rush to the highest level? Why is it bad to compete with tradeskills in a game? And, just like a democracy, why is it bad that people vent their frustrations about how stupid everyone is being?

In short - if you don't like it, find something better to do with your time.

WoW - love it or leave it.

Re:How can a MMORPG be GOTY?

[Viking Coder]

And for those people, I argue that this game is far better than any previous MMORPG.

Which one do you think is better than World of Warcraft?

Re:First person to level loser

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame on the moderator who modded this up you drooling brainless twit.

Other things to do, like what the same thing you have been doing for the past 13 hours straight?

What does it say about the game...

[bob670]

"industry" when a title that will cost me $200 a year to play is GOTY? It's truly a big business now, which explains why so much marginal content fills the shelves and innovative games get ignored.

I didn't realize WARS were such a trade secret.

[leftie]

Last I saw, thousands of people have fought thousands on battlefields almost continuously since the birth of human consciousness.

Re:I didn't realize WARS were such a trade secret.

[NeoSkandranon]

Your comment has nothing to do with making it work in a game. It is impossible for each character to influence the plot of the game, because you need a nearly infinite number of quests, because once a given one is completed, it wont be available to the next player and a new one will have to appear somewhere in order for the next player in line to have a fair chance at completing something "important" ---its simply not do-able. Yet.

Re:I didn't realize WARS were such a trade secret.

[leftie]

Are you THAT locked into their paradigm of thinking?

What do you need all those quests for anyway? You just need at least two opposing forces and an experience reward for defeating an opponent.

Maybe you have a few quests for special items, but regular conflict should resemble real conflicts.

Re:I didn't realize WARS were such a trade secret.

[WhiteWolf666]

Here's the problem:

You could make an over-arching plot for the game, but then it be boring for the players who aren't at the headlines.

Sure, the story would be amazing for the generals, or for this hero or that hero, but grunt joe schmoe, who's role it is to die at the first skirmish of the war, would not have the best of times.

Also, I'm guessing that WoW will have regular war style conflicts. I'm guessing that at some point, gnomeregan will attempt to be retaken, and on some servers it will be, and on others it won't be.

Tarren Mill/Southshore will probably have it out, too, and one of them will be burned.

I think that Blizzard just hasn't gotten round to that, and any kind of 'war' event will have to have active GM support.

Re:I didn't realize WARS were such a trade secret.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always DAOC for this. Although usually it's at most 100 vs 100. Or 80 vs 40. There are people who seek out 8 vs. 8 fights, but that's really just a circle jerk for people out to prove their worth.

Anyway, it's a fun game although population differences can be critical, although I personally like playing an underdog realm. Unfortunately not all of my compatriots feel the same way and periodically we have a bunch of people bail on us. More people eventually come and some of the originals come back, so things sort of ebb and flow.

Really the game is only as good as the people who are on at any given time. So sometimes it's great sometimes it gets pretty bad.

WoW Christmas Carol

[AntonVoyl]

You know a game's good when people are inspired to adapt Dickens to it.

My Pick

[wobedraggled]

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes Great atmosphere, good tough game, and a visual feast to top it off. Too bad hating Nintendo is "cool" right now, and everyone was playing the overhyped peice of junk that is Halo2. Happy holidays anyway, and if your smart you'll pick up this game and a cube if you dont have one. to see what your missing

Re:Why I won't play WoW - CONTROL

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of the MMOG is for there to be hundreds if not thousands of players online in the same world at the same time. I don't see the purpose of allowing some other people to try to set up their own server and maintain it. In all likelihood, it's not particulalry easy to put together a WOW server not to mention maintain it.

You've already got Diablo II so play it. WOW is for those people who want to interact with hundreds to thousands of others.

Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, my friends and I go to college at VTC and played the open beta which interesting enough only really works in my dorm (the others getting about 10000 ms latency compared to my 136ms) and we were hooked. So when it cme out that night we ended up driving about 50 miles to the only open Walmart in the area (thank you Vermont) to pick it up. Needless to say as future computer engineers and also hardcore gamers we got no sleep the night for our 8am classes.
The one thing I have noticed though is that it really brings groups together and you have alot of fun with the guilds and stuff. I don't relaly know how the others compare having this be my real first MMORPG besides a few betas but I think the immersion and everything just makes this a great game and worthy of the award.

Re:Dead Platforms & you

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...lets invest in a dead platform with no online games and next to no worthwhile stand alone games.

If you had the mental capacity to spare, you would have advised to get an XBox and mod it out and then get Metroid, that way you are not stuck with a worthless console after you play the 2 games in the entire library that don't make you wish for a lobotomy. In the meantime are you interested in some beautiful real estate in Iraq going cheap?

Re:Why I won't play WoW - CONTROL

[Anonymous Coward]

You imply your addiction is the only one capable of generating those numbers.

WoW is for people too dense to get the whole picture even when sombody paints it out clearly for you and explains the details you overlook as you try to build a fantasy life you are too pathetic to get in reality or understand the differences.

-1 Searing reality check

Somewhere...

[peeon]

a Halflife 2 player is crying.

Re:Why I won't play WoW - CONTROL

[abe ferlman]

Right- I think Blizzard should run a server... but also allow alternate servers that don't interact with theirs. I want thousands of players online at the same time in the same world because it's the best, not b/c it's the only, one.

I think you're right, setting up such a server is probably very hard, and if only Blizzard has the skill and will to run a decent one, fine. So long as I'm not *required* to use their server to play at all.

A quest for you.

[Decimal]

You're seeking a quest, you say? Well, I have been having some problems with Slashdot trolls. Go out to the nearest section and kill 10 trolls, and bring me back their first posts as proof of your deed. As a reward, you will recieve one of the following:

1) OOG's mallet 2) Karma stew

Would you like to accept this quest?

(X) Accept (X) Cancel

Blizzard == badly interfering purists.

[sethstorm]

-Well, Blizzard actually DID the X, Y, and Z
and
-They took the bad parts and either dropped them, or made them good.

The problem is, that their intepretation of that comes up overly purist(and not in the good way). In other words, Blizzard interfers with conventional gameplay.

First of all, the geographical limitation to accounts - if removed, would have sharply reduced the wait times (and possibly have removed the need for a queue). Next, disallowing PvP to the point where there's potential for unchecked, unsolvable griefing - I'll decide who culls the herd ingame, and if someone is farming, I'll take care of it outside of town however and whenever. Also, nerfing just to stem farming is more harmful to the economy than the "IGE inflation" myth - it just gives godly weapons to the same types of people in a different manner.

Blizzard (anything) might be Manhattan, and Lineage II the Bronx, but mind that if you come prepared to Lineage II, you wont have the problems that Blizzard fanboys harp on. That also includes not having to deal with a company unable to allow criticism in its own forums.

Re:Why I won't play WoW - CONTROL

[sethstorm]

Well, if you're willing to be a bit flexible, there are options for nonpurist gaming.

And the majority of people are wrong about HL2

[DeadScreenSky]

When the massive power of hype and other peer pressures are in effect, the majority of people are oftentimes wrong. When a game has poor AI, bad level design, boring weapons, nonexistent challenge, repetitive enemies, and a sketchy storyline it is a disappointment. I could care less that a whole bunch of videogaming 'journalists' have decided that they absolutely love a newly released game they have already been publicly worshipping for almost two years now (and all without a moment of playtime, either).

Online Poker - GOTY

[Hash Browns]

I would have though Online Poker would be game of the year.

*dunno*

You don't understand

[Polarism]

MMOs aren't supposed to run on unofficial servers.

Sure, UO and a bunch of others have been emulated to do it, but the only reason to even play the game is to be on the OFFICIAL servers, otherwise what sense of progress/accomplishment will you have had? I know I wouldn't have any. It would be pointless not playing with the exposure to thousands of people.

Re:You don't understand

[abe ferlman]

No, I understand very well.

I have this problem with MMORPG's in general, but in principle there's no reason that unofficial servers couldn't exist.

What makes me sad is that the warcraft franchise is moving from a standalone model to a subscription model.

It's simple, but advanced too

[Polarism]

Just run through some instances (while at the appropriate level for 'em)..

Means to an end

[Anonymous Coward]

My first MMO burnout being City of Heroes (it also being my first remotely conventional MMO...) I shared a lot of sentiment with you. I bought WoW, and I knew even if ended the same way I'd still have gotten my money's worth (entertainment-wise). Then I ran through the Scarlet Monastary, for all intents and purposes a dungeon (that, for all intents requires a party).

More fun than one could shake a stick at. Despite being very heavily a Barlett Achiever, I actually played the hour or two until we stopped our run without EVER LOOKING AT MY XP BAR.

I'm now looking forward to "grinding" my way up to the final levels of the game, and then, with my buddies, doing the occaisonal dungeon crawl.. and I think that'll be my money's worth every month. Oh, sure, we'll do the ones with the nice equipment drops as we're able, so there's technically a carrot at the end, but... that's what totally beats out CoH for me - there's something that's really just an ends unto itself when you're "done" with the grind (Sorry, but Hammidon doesn't count - contrast him or the more similar Storm Palace task force against Scarlet Monastary - except there's more than just one).

I found myself enjoying the game a lot more with that perspective, too. WoW is GOTY.

Grind doesn't feel like such

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

The only WoW "grind" experience that I've felt is when my Cooking was sub-par due to the fact that night elves didn't have a lot of opportunities to practice, and I found myself returning to earlier areas just to get Small Spider Legs, but Blizz fixed this in the recent patch and made those more frequent drops.

Pretty much the whole rest of the game, though, is designed for you to be able to practice your other abilities WHILE you are on a quest.

Troll?

[abe ferlman]

Um, whoever rated this troll needs to go a little easy on the mod finger. I'm really quite serious.

Re:Troll?

[Vermifax]

So all that means is you were a troll without intending to be.

MMORPGs are all intended to be played on the company's servers.

Re:Troll?

[abe ferlman]

Um, planeshift perhaps?

You're right in a sense though- I feel this way about all mmorpg's, and I am sad when franchises that I like move in that direction.

A troll is just trying to get a reaction by saying something inflammatorily incorrect or irrelevant. I was trying to raise an important issue directly related to the topic.

Typo; Missing word.

[Cabriel]

Forgive me. in the second sentence, I meant to write "Yes, it was pirated before it hit the shelves." I should read my whole message more clearly when I preview.

Re:Dead Platforms & you

[space_jake]

I definately regretted buying a Gamecube for Metriod Prime, then Metriod Prime 2 came out.... now I'm waiting for Starcraft: Ghost

Plenty of reasons

[Polarism]

#1 being the legitimacy of characters on official vs unofficial.

The main reason people pay the subscription fee is because in having their character stored on an OFFICIAL database, it means that all mainstream people will have a chance at seeing them, this applies especially to powergamers.

If you play on an unofficial server, the general masses never hear about your adventures, you being the first to do this or that, because it's just a shadow of what they are in.

Re:No, it would bring back some integrity

[Hassman]

What good is a game where you can simply buy your way to the top? It's pointless. There's nothing to distinguish the players from the poseurs, and that makes it a game not worth playing.

Yeah cuz you can't buy your way to the top in real life.

Or should it be AAAAUUGH?

[The-Bus]

Aaaaahhh... Trespasser!

Oh, how even now, years later, my skin rankles with cold chills at that awful, awful game. I was trying to talk about it a few weeks ago (perhaps even here) and I had completely blocked the name of the game in my mind. I looked for it online but could only find links to Turok.

For people who don't remember the game, you play the part of a pale disembodied arm which is either drunk or suffering from a loss of coordination caused by earlier methamphetamine abuse. Your goal is to push around crates. To call this a "hand sim" is being kind. (See OMM for more info).

You allow yourself to buy into the hype

[Goosey]

Every game is going to go out of it's way to generate hype. Hype generates sales. If you buy into the hype you can only blame yourself.

Re:You allow yourself to buy into the hype

[canofbutter]

I disagree: Doom 3 hyped the graphics beyond belief and they lived up in that area at least enough to be satisfied (i.e. not feel they completely lied about it), however they hyped a new game play experience which was completely false. WoW however hyped its massive quests and challenging game play online, and it did live up to it and in many areas exceeded my expectations. To imply that no game lives up to its hype is not at all true, though I'll admit that it is more often the case than not. My original post merely meant that games receiving lower ratings/bad reviews may be receiving that as a result of being over-hyped (not just hyped in general) and not living up to it. In the long run, this over-hype hurts sales as word of mouth and reviews will say "this game was over-hyped" and people will associate that as "this game wasn't that good". If id had said "Classic FPS game play with revolutionary new graphics engine" the sales would likely still be as high (since it was playing off the Doom name) and there would be different expectations for those writing the review.

It's called LifeLine (PS2-Headset).

[ClioCJS]

They do. It's called "LifeLine" for the PS2, and it's completely voice controlled. "Shoot. Shoot high. Run. Turn around." It's surprisingly hard. You play with the same PS2 headset used for Karaoke Revolution and Manhunt.