Hopefully the Wii will rectify this situation by allow third-party developers to create games that would simply not be possible on any other console. Judging by the comments made so far, it seems like developers are in fact excited about the prospects.
The terms "wee", "wee wee", "weiner" and to a lesser extent "ding dong" and "ding-a-ling" all refer to the same part of a boy that has not yet reached puberty.
You are right on all counts, except for "wee."If I may partake in some etymology, "wee wee" is short for "weiner"; "wee" is another word for "pee,"and does not mean the same thing as "wee wee." If you can come up with a song that uses "wee"to use "weiner,"then you might have a point. However, I doubt you'll find one.
The fact that GC owners, more than the other two consoles (because the other two have more games), have to buy a second console in order to play most third-party games is a bad thing, yet so many Nintendo fans seem to represent it as a badge of honor. It's not.
Yep, the GameCube is not a good first console. However, it's a great second console. If you already own a PS2, there's not much reason to buy an Xbox, or vice versa. However, the GameCube has its share of great, exclusive games, and it is low priced, which makes it a fantastic second console.
As for third-party support, Nintendo is not going to win by competing with Sony and Microsoft for games that are released for all three platforms. Where they will succeed with games that would only be possible on their new console. Look at the Nintendo DS for examples of that. Nintendogs. Brain Age. Nintendo is not looking for the "Which version of Burnout 3 should I buy?"market. They're looking for the "this game would not be possible on any other console" market.
Oh, I fully accept the kiddy aspects of my Magical Purple Lunchbox of Joy (aka GameCube). Real adults actually like being kids again. The denial aspect is instead for the competition, which is actually marketed to teenagers, i. e. mental juveniles that are trying hard to look more "mature" and "adult."
If you're buying video games to support your personal image, aside from being a lost cause, it suggests you're not all that interested in games to begin with.
I just had to quote this again, to reiterate how true it is. People should just learn to have fun, instead of worrying so much about what people think of them.
To be fair, I was fresh out of marketing school when I came up with that name. How was I supposed to know people would react so negatively to it? Sure, everyone is a genius in hindsight....
I learned my lesson years later, when I named the Ford Probe.
While I was all ready to get a Revolution when it comes out, I'm not so sure I'd want to buy a Wii at all and its the SAME THING.
To me, that sounds like you care more about image and less about substance. You don't think it's strange that the name is your deciding factor about whether or not you buy something?
I wish everyone would realize that California is not all like Los Angeles. In Northern California, smog is not an issue, and the traffic isn't nearly as bad either. It's much different up here.
Sorry, but the hyperbole just isn't true. I have a decent- to low-level engineering salary, and my family (single income, by the way) bought a house in the Bay Area maybe three years ago, with nearly no money down. Three years later, its value has increased by about $250,000. Remember, this is all within ten to fifteen minutes of the Apple campus. There are plenty of houses available out here at relatively affordable prices. Sure, it's a little bit of a pinch, but on the profits we've made over the last few years, we could buy a new home pretty much anywhere else in the United States. That's not bad at all.
To summarize: It's not that bad. Stop complaining. Just dive in and buy something.
Do you honestly think that the end-game bosses of a level 70 dungeon will drop lesser items that the end-game bosses of a level 60 dungeon? Your argument is tantamount to saying, "Hey, the drops from these first few enemies aren't as good as the boss from the Stockades. I'm going back there!"
Your argument about superior drops is flawed. If I understand your logic, you are saying that the epic drops on level 60 dungeons are more powerful than the average superior drops on a level 70 dungeon, so why would people play the harder dungeon. This is an idiotic comparison: Of course an epic drop from an end boss is going to be better than an average drop from a higher-level dungeon! But you're completely ignoring the fact that people are going to play the harder level 70 dungeons not for the average drops, but for the epic end-boss drops! No one goes into a dungeon, kills ten monsters, and says, "Oh, these aren't as good as that Arcanite Reaper I got before! I guess I'll go back to that other dungeon!" The epic drops from a level 70 dungeon are going to be better than the current level 60 epic drops, guaranteed.
People who are raiders who are level 60 will reach 70 in under a month. It's a roadbump. It's trivial. There was no reason to increase it.
By that logic, why not just have a level cap at 40? Or 30? Or just leave everyone at level 1? After all, it just takes time and patience to level up, so it's trivial. Why have levels at all?
The answer is: Levels are there as an indicator of increases in abilities, skills, and spells. So, with that in mind, the "arbitrary"and "artificial"level cap increase to 70 is so that current level 60 characters can gain new talents, new spells, and new abilities. Do I really have to explain that to you? Do you really have such a limited understanding of the whole point of RPGs?
My post was to inform people of the various issues with raising the level cap, and why I and some others with the information we have now believe it's a mistake.
You believe it's a mistake because you have taken the idea of a level cap increase, then extrapolated when you think will occur under the assumption that Blizzard won't make any other changes to the end-game logic or item leveling system. That is a foolish assumption.
The expansion players won't be given their own servers; they'll be on the same servers with everybody else. Blizzard don't want everyone to have to reroll new characters, or move their characters to a different server with a different group of friends. In fact, the level cap may not even be exclusive to the expansion. They have already said that some elements of the expansion will be available to everyone. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it's all implemented.
"In the new expansion, defeat the evil arcane demon god Vakkar! He's slightly more difficult to kill than the previous boss, so your level 60 character may have to use one or two potions before defeating him!"
Leveling does not give a sense of accomplishment. Why not? Because leveling in and of itself is not worth accomplishing.
It's as "worth accomplishing"as anything else in the game. What's your purpose in playing the game? Getting loot? Exploring interesting lands? Defeating epic monsters? Raiding fantastic monsters? All of those are made easier by leveling. Leveling allows you to access more of the higher-end content of the game, and in that sense, it is definitely worth accomplishing.
It was never in doubt that I could do it, if I had the patience.
You don't get a sense of accomplishment from achieving a goal? I have no doubt that I could become a concert pianist, given enough patience. That doesn't minimize the accomplishment at all. There is a difference between knowing that you could do something, and actually doing it.
In real life, if a friend buys you dinner does it taste bad? I mean, you didn't earn it.
You don't understand the concept that you appreciate something that is earned more than something that is given?
Do you feel like you failed at Quake when you use a railgun to kill someone- I mean, you didn't ear a railgun, you just picked it up. Of course not, a kill is a kill.
If you get a railgun in Quake, then no, you don't get the same sense of accomplishment as, say, getting an Arcanite Reaper in World of Warcraft. Why? Because you didn't earn it. You just ran over and picked it up. But then again, the two games take completely different routes to get to the goal. In Quake, the goal is to kill as many opponents as possible, using the equipment that is freely available. In World of Warcraft, you have to earn levels and skills and equipment in order complete quests and defeat opponents. So, in World of Warcraft, the levels and equipment are means to an end, because they enable you to do more to progress in the game.
But here, let's follow your Quake example: The goal in Quake is to kill as many opponents as possible. So then, shouldn't id put a button in the game that says, "Kill all opponents"? I mean, if you have fun killing opponents, then wouldn't it be more fun if it were easier to kill more opponents? Of course not, because the challenge is gone. Same thing with World of Warcraft: If everyone started out with a level 60 character (or level 70, or whatever), there would be no sense of accomplishment. "Hey, look at this great weapon I got!" "Oh yeah, everyone gets that for free." People brag about the number of kills in Quake, but they don't go around saying, "Hey, look at this cool railgun I got!"
I didn't pay for a leveling service, but I have paid for gold. Did I feel like I missed out? Nope.
I'm sure you would feel more of a sense of accomplishment if you had actually earned your mount. And hey, why stop there? Why not just pay for someone to level your character to 60? Or 70, for that matter? Because you know that I'm right: Earning it is better than just getting it for free.
You may play to achieve arbitrary goals. I don't.
I don't play to achieve arbitrary goals. If the level indicator was just a number, and didn't have any bearing on gameplay, then I wouldn't care about it. But the level represents improved skills, abilities, equipment...it's not an arbitrary goal. That's like saying the guy who got the gold medal in the Olympics just picked "gold"as an arbitrary color that he wanted. It's not an arbitrary goal: It represents something worth achieving.
Its only the ex-EQ group who thinks like that.
Never played EQ in my life. It sounds like you're the ex-EQ player, though: You just have to keep grinding away to achieve the maximum level. It sounds like you're the one playing to achieve "arbitrary goals."
Nope. I pay so I can play the game when I want, but it makes little sense to feel like I have to play just because I paid for a subscription. There is enough in the game so that I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. Maybe if I get to a point where I'm not playing at all, and don't foresee ever playing again, then I might cancel completely. But as of right now, I've gotten more hours of entertainment out of World of Warcraft, dollar for dollar, then nearly any other game I own.
I disagree completely. Levels are there so that people will get a sense of progress and accomplishment. The developers realize that if you are handed everything on a silver platter, you won't enjoy it as much. The guy who spends hundreds of hours working towards his level 60 character will enjoy it much more than the guy who pays $100 to a levelling service. If everyone had access to everything from day one, what fun would that be? Having goals to work toward is what keeps people playing the game.
Uh, if the game isn't supposed to start at 60 then how come all the raid content requires level 60?
Because there is more to the game than raid content. And if the game is supposed to start at 60, then why are they adding more lower-level raid content? As for the other questions: They are adding more level 60 raid content, and will be adding more level 70 raid dungeons in the expansion, because the content is heavily weighted towards higher-level players. That doesn't make the lower-level game any less fun.
WoW was even advertised and hyped up as the MMO that started when you reached max level.
Really? I'd like to see that quote from Blizzard. If that's their intention, then they did a pretty poor job, because I have had a whole bunch of fun even before level 60, when (according to you) my game hasn't even started yet. Perhaps Blizzard said that World of Warcraft would be the game that doesn't end when you reach max level, and you misinterpreted it.
And again, what is the problem with raising the level cap and adding more content? You can still enjoy the same Level 60 content you've been enjoying already...but now, you also have the added bonus of being able to progress even higher, so you can look forward to Level 70 content. I really don't see the problem here. It's only a hassle if you let it become one. For most of us, it will just be more fun.
Your average blue drop from a level 70 5 man dungeon will be an item level 75 superior item.
Could you provide an example of this? Just name the level 70 dungeon, and one of the level 75 superior drops.
...
What? You can't name one? Oh, you mean there actually aren't any level 70 dungeons yet? So basically, you're making complete speculation, and then using that as the basis for criticism. Hey, maybe a level 70 dungeon will drop level 95 Legendary items. Maybe they'll only drop greens. Maybe each creature will drop 50 runecloth. It's a little too early to be guessing, and then passing judgment based on that guess.
Let me address a few more points while I'm here...
Yes, Blizzard wanted World of Warcraft to be different from your typical level-grind treadmill. However, contrary to popular belief, they did not do this by making everyone grind to level 60, and then declaring that the end of the grind. They did it by making it possible to have fun and progress in the game without being forced to grind. There is a marked difference between "grinding" and "gaining levels." Grinding is repeating the same tedious actions over and over again, for the sole purpose of gaining experience (typically through killing monsters). World of Warcraft alleviates this by providing numerous quests which, although they may have killing monsters as one element, provide the sense of actually working towards the completion of a quest line and the associated rewards. They make it fun to get to level 60, and they have plenty of content so it's fun once you get to level 60.
So what will change when the level cap is raised? Nothing. It will still be fun at level 60, it will be fun working up to level 70, and it will be fun at level 70. I really don't see what the problem is. If you think that when Blizzard said "no grinding,"they meant "no grinding once you reach level 60,"then you are mistaken.
As for the talent points, am I the only one who read the press release? "...every new level will offer meaningful spell, ability, and talent upgrades for each character class." Did it say, "...every new level will offer another talent point to be added to the previous talent tree"? No. Given Blizzard's love for talent trees, and the work they have done to balance them, it seems reasonable to assume that they aren't going to piss that away by allowing 31/0/30 builds. I would presume a completely new talent tree from 60-70. But then again, I don't know. However, I am reserving judgment until we get all the facts.
As for the people who completed quests as level 60 without getting a nudge in their XP bar...so? The level cap was 60 at that point. If I run headfirst into a brick wall, I'm not going to complain if someone puts a doorway there six months later. And besides, isn't having no XP bar part of your vaunted "getting rid of the grind"?
From where I'm standing, your complaints about Blizzard come from a mistaken interpretation of their previous intentions.
EverQuest did not bring the idea of progression to gaming. You may want to look in your history books for a little game called Dungeons and Dragons.
And why the comparisons to EverQuest? You admit that even the raiding game at the level cap was boring. And yet World of Warcraft should be looking to EverQuest as the model to follow? Just because you need to grind to level 60 in EverQuest, that doesn't mean that you have to in World of Warcraft.
And as for PvP, there is plenty of PvPing you can do without being at the level cap. There is always going to be someone more powerful than you, will better skills, better items, and more money. The sooner you accept this, the happier you'll be.
Sincerely, I hope you quit over this. It sounds like you see World of Warcraft as less of a game and more of a burden. You would probably be a lot happier doing something else. Maybe something in the real world, where you can progress to a certain point, and then know that you are at the maximum level possible for that skill...wait, what's that? You mean, life doesn't have a level cap? Wow. I guess you're screwed.
Great, so you enjoy the PvP. So do I. You may find this hard to believe, but I actually have fun in PvP, even when I'm >gasp
And again, I am puzzled by your repeated claims that this is a casual, low-grind game. It is a casual, low-grind game. It's low-grind because you can do quests and play the game and still make progress in levels and abilities, not because you can hurry up and get to level 60 and then forget about experience altogether. That's not low-grind; that's front-loaded grind. That's you saying, "I hate grinding, and I hate games that force you to grind. Therefore, I am going to grind as much as I can, so I can level up quickly and get to a point where I don't have to worry about grinding anymore." It seems like your logic is hopelessly flawed in that respect.
And your attitude about bait-and-switch tactics is priceless. "Hey Blizzard! I expected the game to stay as it is, with only minor content changes, and preferably none at all! But instead, here you are creating new content, new skills, new talents and abilities, new characters, new realms to explore, new quests, new enemies, and new avenues of enjoyment that will satisfy me for years to come! Of course I'm upset!"
If you want a game that will stay the same forever, go buy a standard RPG. Blizzard always advertised World of Warcraft as a world that would be constantly changing and improving and expanding. People have been complaining for ages that Blizzard isn't introducing enough new content quickly enough...and here you are complaining that they are changing it too much? Like I said...priceless.
And if you're not going to enjoy the process of playing the game, then the entire game is a waste of time. If you didn't have fun until you got to level 60, then I honestly don't know how you got that far. You must have a masochistic streak to spend hundreds of hours not having fun, just so you can get to level 60 and start enjoying the game.
And saying, "I now have to get 10 more levels to do anything" is a complete strawman. How does raising the level cap affect one bit the things you can do now? You will have the exact same access to the exact same instances, quests, and PvP that you have now. The only difference is, you'll have this little XP bar that slowly progresses as you're playing. And eventually, when you level up, you will gain access to new skills and abilities that will make you more powerful, and give you more access to more content. So you're getting more content; you're not getting anything taken away.
And for someone who thinks that WoW is a "casual friendly low grind,"you certainly seem to be obsessed with the need to grind! Maybe you should take your own advice.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, there's no problem. I mean, it's not like any other countries refer to it as WWII.
Maybe they were afraid that it would bomb.
Hopefully the Wii will rectify this situation by allow third-party developers to create games that would simply not be possible on any other console. Judging by the comments made so far, it seems like developers are in fact excited about the prospects.
As for the name, all I can say is..."Whee!"
Personally, I like it.
The terms "wee", "wee wee", "weiner" and to a lesser extent "ding dong" and "ding-a-ling" all refer to the same part of a boy that has not yet reached puberty.
You are right on all counts, except for "wee."If I may partake in some etymology, "wee wee" is short for "weiner"; "wee" is another word for "pee,"and does not mean the same thing as "wee wee." If you can come up with a song that uses "wee"to use "weiner,"then you might have a point. However, I doubt you'll find one.
Several points must be made here:
1. In America at least, "wee" is rarely used to talk about going to the bathroom. It's generally "pee."
2. "Wee" is not a term referring to a part of the male anatomy. If your joke requires doubling the name to be funny, then try a different joke.
3. If you think that "wee"is funny, you must have difficulty when people use the first-person-plural pronoun, or when people speak French.
4. Honestly, even grade-schoolers are too old to think that "wee"is funny.
Eight-year-old: "Hee hee...he said 'wee'!"
Another eight-year-old: "Grow up, Billy."
Today's humor tip: If you have to hypothetically change the name of the system to make your joke work, then you probably shouldn't bother.
"Hey, they should call it the WiiNer, and then people would be all, 'Are you playing with your WiiNer?' Ha ha!"
The fact that GC owners, more than the other two consoles (because the other two have more games), have to buy a second console in order to play most third-party games is a bad thing, yet so many Nintendo fans seem to represent it as a badge of honor. It's not.
Yep, the GameCube is not a good first console. However, it's a great second console. If you already own a PS2, there's not much reason to buy an Xbox, or vice versa. However, the GameCube has its share of great, exclusive games, and it is low priced, which makes it a fantastic second console.
As for third-party support, Nintendo is not going to win by competing with Sony and Microsoft for games that are released for all three platforms. Where they will succeed with games that would only be possible on their new console. Look at the Nintendo DS for examples of that. Nintendogs. Brain Age. Nintendo is not looking for the "Which version of Burnout 3 should I buy?"market. They're looking for the "this game would not be possible on any other console" market.
Oh, I fully accept the kiddy aspects of my Magical Purple Lunchbox of Joy (aka GameCube). Real adults actually like being kids again. The denial aspect is instead for the competition, which is actually marketed to teenagers, i. e. mental juveniles that are trying hard to look more "mature" and "adult." If you're buying video games to support your personal image, aside from being a lost cause, it suggests you're not all that interested in games to begin with.
I just had to quote this again, to reiterate how true it is. People should just learn to have fun, instead of worrying so much about what people think of them.
To be fair, I was fresh out of marketing school when I came up with that name. How was I supposed to know people would react so negatively to it? Sure, everyone is a genius in hindsight.... I learned my lesson years later, when I named the Ford Probe.
While I was all ready to get a Revolution when it comes out, I'm not so sure I'd want to buy a Wii at all and its the SAME THING.
To me, that sounds like you care more about image and less about substance. You don't think it's strange that the name is your deciding factor about whether or not you buy something?
Yeah, we all know how bodily-function jokes can affect the sales of a game. I mean, look what it did to Call of Duty. Heh heh..."duty."
I wish everyone would realize that California is not all like Los Angeles. In Northern California, smog is not an issue, and the traffic isn't nearly as bad either. It's much different up here.
Sorry, but the hyperbole just isn't true. I have a decent- to low-level engineering salary, and my family (single income, by the way) bought a house in the Bay Area maybe three years ago, with nearly no money down. Three years later, its value has increased by about $250,000. Remember, this is all within ten to fifteen minutes of the Apple campus. There are plenty of houses available out here at relatively affordable prices. Sure, it's a little bit of a pinch, but on the profits we've made over the last few years, we could buy a new home pretty much anywhere else in the United States. That's not bad at all.
To summarize: It's not that bad. Stop complaining. Just dive in and buy something.
Do you honestly think that the end-game bosses of a level 70 dungeon will drop lesser items that the end-game bosses of a level 60 dungeon? Your argument is tantamount to saying, "Hey, the drops from these first few enemies aren't as good as the boss from the Stockades. I'm going back there!"
Your argument about superior drops is flawed. If I understand your logic, you are saying that the epic drops on level 60 dungeons are more powerful than the average superior drops on a level 70 dungeon, so why would people play the harder dungeon. This is an idiotic comparison: Of course an epic drop from an end boss is going to be better than an average drop from a higher-level dungeon! But you're completely ignoring the fact that people are going to play the harder level 70 dungeons not for the average drops, but for the epic end-boss drops! No one goes into a dungeon, kills ten monsters, and says, "Oh, these aren't as good as that Arcanite Reaper I got before! I guess I'll go back to that other dungeon!" The epic drops from a level 70 dungeon are going to be better than the current level 60 epic drops, guaranteed.
People who are raiders who are level 60 will reach 70 in under a month. It's a roadbump. It's trivial. There was no reason to increase it.
By that logic, why not just have a level cap at 40? Or 30? Or just leave everyone at level 1? After all, it just takes time and patience to level up, so it's trivial. Why have levels at all?
The answer is: Levels are there as an indicator of increases in abilities, skills, and spells. So, with that in mind, the "arbitrary"and "artificial"level cap increase to 70 is so that current level 60 characters can gain new talents, new spells, and new abilities. Do I really have to explain that to you? Do you really have such a limited understanding of the whole point of RPGs?
My post was to inform people of the various issues with raising the level cap, and why I and some others with the information we have now believe it's a mistake.
You believe it's a mistake because you have taken the idea of a level cap increase, then extrapolated when you think will occur under the assumption that Blizzard won't make any other changes to the end-game logic or item leveling system. That is a foolish assumption.
The expansion players won't be given their own servers; they'll be on the same servers with everybody else. Blizzard don't want everyone to have to reroll new characters, or move their characters to a different server with a different group of friends. In fact, the level cap may not even be exclusive to the expansion. They have already said that some elements of the expansion will be available to everyone. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it's all implemented.
"In the new expansion, defeat the evil arcane demon god Vakkar! He's slightly more difficult to kill than the previous boss, so your level 60 character may have to use one or two potions before defeating him!"
Leveling does not give a sense of accomplishment. Why not? Because leveling in and of itself is not worth accomplishing. It's as "worth accomplishing"as anything else in the game. What's your purpose in playing the game? Getting loot? Exploring interesting lands? Defeating epic monsters? Raiding fantastic monsters? All of those are made easier by leveling. Leveling allows you to access more of the higher-end content of the game, and in that sense, it is definitely worth accomplishing. It was never in doubt that I could do it, if I had the patience. You don't get a sense of accomplishment from achieving a goal? I have no doubt that I could become a concert pianist, given enough patience. That doesn't minimize the accomplishment at all. There is a difference between knowing that you could do something, and actually doing it. In real life, if a friend buys you dinner does it taste bad? I mean, you didn't earn it. You don't understand the concept that you appreciate something that is earned more than something that is given? Do you feel like you failed at Quake when you use a railgun to kill someone- I mean, you didn't ear a railgun, you just picked it up. Of course not, a kill is a kill. If you get a railgun in Quake, then no, you don't get the same sense of accomplishment as, say, getting an Arcanite Reaper in World of Warcraft. Why? Because you didn't earn it. You just ran over and picked it up. But then again, the two games take completely different routes to get to the goal. In Quake, the goal is to kill as many opponents as possible, using the equipment that is freely available. In World of Warcraft, you have to earn levels and skills and equipment in order complete quests and defeat opponents. So, in World of Warcraft, the levels and equipment are means to an end, because they enable you to do more to progress in the game. But here, let's follow your Quake example: The goal in Quake is to kill as many opponents as possible. So then, shouldn't id put a button in the game that says, "Kill all opponents"? I mean, if you have fun killing opponents, then wouldn't it be more fun if it were easier to kill more opponents? Of course not, because the challenge is gone. Same thing with World of Warcraft: If everyone started out with a level 60 character (or level 70, or whatever), there would be no sense of accomplishment. "Hey, look at this great weapon I got!" "Oh yeah, everyone gets that for free." People brag about the number of kills in Quake, but they don't go around saying, "Hey, look at this cool railgun I got!" I didn't pay for a leveling service, but I have paid for gold. Did I feel like I missed out? Nope. I'm sure you would feel more of a sense of accomplishment if you had actually earned your mount. And hey, why stop there? Why not just pay for someone to level your character to 60? Or 70, for that matter? Because you know that I'm right: Earning it is better than just getting it for free. You may play to achieve arbitrary goals. I don't. I don't play to achieve arbitrary goals. If the level indicator was just a number, and didn't have any bearing on gameplay, then I wouldn't care about it. But the level represents improved skills, abilities, equipment...it's not an arbitrary goal. That's like saying the guy who got the gold medal in the Olympics just picked "gold"as an arbitrary color that he wanted. It's not an arbitrary goal: It represents something worth achieving. Its only the ex-EQ group who thinks like that. Never played EQ in my life. It sounds like you're the ex-EQ player, though: You just have to keep grinding away to achieve the maximum level. It sounds like you're the one playing to achieve "arbitrary goals."
Nope. I pay so I can play the game when I want, but it makes little sense to feel like I have to play just because I paid for a subscription. There is enough in the game so that I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. Maybe if I get to a point where I'm not playing at all, and don't foresee ever playing again, then I might cancel completely. But as of right now, I've gotten more hours of entertainment out of World of Warcraft, dollar for dollar, then nearly any other game I own.
I disagree completely. Levels are there so that people will get a sense of progress and accomplishment. The developers realize that if you are handed everything on a silver platter, you won't enjoy it as much. The guy who spends hundreds of hours working towards his level 60 character will enjoy it much more than the guy who pays $100 to a levelling service. If everyone had access to everything from day one, what fun would that be? Having goals to work toward is what keeps people playing the game.
Uh, if the game isn't supposed to start at 60 then how come all the raid content requires level 60?
Because there is more to the game than raid content. And if the game is supposed to start at 60, then why are they adding more lower-level raid content? As for the other questions: They are adding more level 60 raid content, and will be adding more level 70 raid dungeons in the expansion, because the content is heavily weighted towards higher-level players. That doesn't make the lower-level game any less fun.
WoW was even advertised and hyped up as the MMO that started when you reached max level.
Really? I'd like to see that quote from Blizzard. If that's their intention, then they did a pretty poor job, because I have had a whole bunch of fun even before level 60, when (according to you) my game hasn't even started yet. Perhaps Blizzard said that World of Warcraft would be the game that doesn't end when you reach max level, and you misinterpreted it.
And again, what is the problem with raising the level cap and adding more content? You can still enjoy the same Level 60 content you've been enjoying already...but now, you also have the added bonus of being able to progress even higher, so you can look forward to Level 70 content. I really don't see the problem here. It's only a hassle if you let it become one. For most of us, it will just be more fun.
Your average blue drop from a level 70 5 man dungeon will be an item level 75 superior item.
...
Could you provide an example of this? Just name the level 70 dungeon, and one of the level 75 superior drops.
What? You can't name one? Oh, you mean there actually aren't any level 70 dungeons yet? So basically, you're making complete speculation, and then using that as the basis for criticism. Hey, maybe a level 70 dungeon will drop level 95 Legendary items. Maybe they'll only drop greens. Maybe each creature will drop 50 runecloth. It's a little too early to be guessing, and then passing judgment based on that guess.
Let me address a few more points while I'm here...
Yes, Blizzard wanted World of Warcraft to be different from your typical level-grind treadmill. However, contrary to popular belief, they did not do this by making everyone grind to level 60, and then declaring that the end of the grind. They did it by making it possible to have fun and progress in the game without being forced to grind. There is a marked difference between "grinding" and "gaining levels." Grinding is repeating the same tedious actions over and over again, for the sole purpose of gaining experience (typically through killing monsters). World of Warcraft alleviates this by providing numerous quests which, although they may have killing monsters as one element, provide the sense of actually working towards the completion of a quest line and the associated rewards. They make it fun to get to level 60, and they have plenty of content so it's fun once you get to level 60.
So what will change when the level cap is raised? Nothing. It will still be fun at level 60, it will be fun working up to level 70, and it will be fun at level 70. I really don't see what the problem is. If you think that when Blizzard said "no grinding,"they meant "no grinding once you reach level 60,"then you are mistaken.
As for the talent points, am I the only one who read the press release? "...every new level will offer meaningful spell, ability, and talent upgrades for each character class." Did it say, "...every new level will offer another talent point to be added to the previous talent tree"? No. Given Blizzard's love for talent trees, and the work they have done to balance them, it seems reasonable to assume that they aren't going to piss that away by allowing 31/0/30 builds. I would presume a completely new talent tree from 60-70. But then again, I don't know. However, I am reserving judgment until we get all the facts.
As for the people who completed quests as level 60 without getting a nudge in their XP bar...so? The level cap was 60 at that point. If I run headfirst into a brick wall, I'm not going to complain if someone puts a doorway there six months later. And besides, isn't having no XP bar part of your vaunted "getting rid of the grind"?
From where I'm standing, your complaints about Blizzard come from a mistaken interpretation of their previous intentions.
EverQuest did not bring the idea of progression to gaming. You may want to look in your history books for a little game called Dungeons and Dragons.
And why the comparisons to EverQuest? You admit that even the raiding game at the level cap was boring. And yet World of Warcraft should be looking to EverQuest as the model to follow? Just because you need to grind to level 60 in EverQuest, that doesn't mean that you have to in World of Warcraft.
And as for PvP, there is plenty of PvPing you can do without being at the level cap. There is always going to be someone more powerful than you, will better skills, better items, and more money. The sooner you accept this, the happier you'll be.
Sincerely, I hope you quit over this. It sounds like you see World of Warcraft as less of a game and more of a burden. You would probably be a lot happier doing something else. Maybe something in the real world, where you can progress to a certain point, and then know that you are at the maximum level possible for that skill...wait, what's that? You mean, life doesn't have a level cap? Wow. I guess you're screwed.
Great, so you enjoy the PvP. So do I. You may find this hard to believe, but I actually have fun in PvP, even when I'm >gasp
And again, I am puzzled by your repeated claims that this is a casual, low-grind game. It is a casual, low-grind game. It's low-grind because you can do quests and play the game and still make progress in levels and abilities, not because you can hurry up and get to level 60 and then forget about experience altogether. That's not low-grind; that's front-loaded grind. That's you saying, "I hate grinding, and I hate games that force you to grind. Therefore, I am going to grind as much as I can, so I can level up quickly and get to a point where I don't have to worry about grinding anymore." It seems like your logic is hopelessly flawed in that respect.
And your attitude about bait-and-switch tactics is priceless. "Hey Blizzard! I expected the game to stay as it is, with only minor content changes, and preferably none at all! But instead, here you are creating new content, new skills, new talents and abilities, new characters, new realms to explore, new quests, new enemies, and new avenues of enjoyment that will satisfy me for years to come! Of course I'm upset!"
If you want a game that will stay the same forever, go buy a standard RPG. Blizzard always advertised World of Warcraft as a world that would be constantly changing and improving and expanding. People have been complaining for ages that Blizzard isn't introducing enough new content quickly enough...and here you are complaining that they are changing it too much? Like I said...priceless.
And if you're not going to enjoy the process of playing the game, then the entire game is a waste of time. If you didn't have fun until you got to level 60, then I honestly don't know how you got that far. You must have a masochistic streak to spend hundreds of hours not having fun, just so you can get to level 60 and start enjoying the game.
And saying, "I now have to get 10 more levels to do anything" is a complete strawman. How does raising the level cap affect one bit the things you can do now? You will have the exact same access to the exact same instances, quests, and PvP that you have now. The only difference is, you'll have this little XP bar that slowly progresses as you're playing. And eventually, when you level up, you will gain access to new skills and abilities that will make you more powerful, and give you more access to more content. So you're getting more content; you're not getting anything taken away.
And for someone who thinks that WoW is a "casual friendly low grind,"you certainly seem to be obsessed with the need to grind! Maybe you should take your own advice.