Mists of Pandaria could make or break another generation of WoW playing for me, if it's a silly/botch job in my opinion then I'll be dropping WoW and moving on.
What would it take to tople WoW from its throne?
- Thread starter RJ 17
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While it may get people who don't want to pay a subscription, it's not going to topple WoW.iBagel said:
I think it's really naive to expect a Warcraft killer. This is literally WoW's game to lose. They have all the cards.
And this is not spoken as a fan. Or even as someone who plays the game, even casually.
Something new - a game which cannot be directly compared to WoW's gameplay (and thus cannot be held accountable for the ways in which the two-year-old product fails to live up to its ten-year-old brother; a game which is equally compelling, has marketing penetration to reach an equivalent group or to wow people by word-of-mouth, and doesn't directly compete with the gorilla. WoW will not fall to a competitor unless it dies first - it will take a game the equivalent of Apple's iPhone to Nintendo's DS dominance to wrest the market away.
As many have already said, another game "defeating" World of Warcraft is not going to happen; it's built up too large a steady playerbase, cemented itself with more than a half a decade worth of content, and requires too much an investment to be easily given up to ever be knocked over. The best a game could hope to do is be released (or be prevalent enough) to claim the MMORPG throne when WoW inevitably collapses under its own weight.
Speaking of which, WoW certainly isn't going to be a permanent facet of the MMORPG genre (unless the genre goes away completely with it's demise... which I would honestly prefer to see happen); Blizzard's juggernaut will eventually fall, it's just a matter of when and what will be the final straw. The cracks are already showing, a significant portion of the playerbase left during the most recent expansion (dropped from ~12 million to ~10 million subscribers). For a game which made it's initial foothold on the genre by being much more accessible than previous MMORPGs, the ever-advancing progression ladder means it simply takes longer and longer for any new players (or even returning old ones) to "catch up". The game is a "massively multiplayer" experience, but that particular aspect only exists at the level cap; new players are brought into a world which is effectively empty, which certainly doesn't help them deal with the tedium of the game's grind-heavy nature (speaking of which, the ability to play solo all the way to the level cap might actually be counter-productive).
Then there's the endgame, a monster of another magnitude altogether; the real abomination in my opinion, the thing which turns the game from a fun time-waster into something far less benign. All that time spent levelling does very little to prepare the player for what the endgame entails, and breaking into it requires the player to do some research of all things; it's bloody game, for crying out loud! Anyhow, the accessibility mentioned earlier, the key to WoW's initial success? The endgame isn't anywhere near as accessible, and that's mostly on behalf of the community rather than the game's developpers. Not to mention endgame breeds a culture of elitism which drives away many players who would like to actually do the content; no matter how fun the game itself is, being surrounded by jerks is not worth it (nor is spending the time to find a group of people you enjoy playing with). Did I mention that this culture gets more elitist as time goes on?
---
I have no idea what other MMORPGs have planned, be they current or future releases. In fact, I have no plans to even find out; if the above bits didn't imply it enough, I certainly have a few issues with the genre. Fine idea in principle, but it's rife with problems. Specifically, ethical ones; not that the the lacklustre (if functional) gameplay is helping either.
Nevertheless... if any MMORPG wants to take over the throne after WoW's demise, it will have to address some fundamental issues with the genre's design. WoW, if not the entire MMORPG genre, leave a many embittered players in their wake. By sticking to the tried and true, you will not re-ignite the spark which made them start playing; you're more likely to rekindle the less than fond memories and hatred they had when they left the game.
Speaking of which, WoW certainly isn't going to be a permanent facet of the MMORPG genre (unless the genre goes away completely with it's demise... which I would honestly prefer to see happen); Blizzard's juggernaut will eventually fall, it's just a matter of when and what will be the final straw. The cracks are already showing, a significant portion of the playerbase left during the most recent expansion (dropped from ~12 million to ~10 million subscribers). For a game which made it's initial foothold on the genre by being much more accessible than previous MMORPGs, the ever-advancing progression ladder means it simply takes longer and longer for any new players (or even returning old ones) to "catch up". The game is a "massively multiplayer" experience, but that particular aspect only exists at the level cap; new players are brought into a world which is effectively empty, which certainly doesn't help them deal with the tedium of the game's grind-heavy nature (speaking of which, the ability to play solo all the way to the level cap might actually be counter-productive).
Then there's the endgame, a monster of another magnitude altogether; the real abomination in my opinion, the thing which turns the game from a fun time-waster into something far less benign. All that time spent levelling does very little to prepare the player for what the endgame entails, and breaking into it requires the player to do some research of all things; it's bloody game, for crying out loud! Anyhow, the accessibility mentioned earlier, the key to WoW's initial success? The endgame isn't anywhere near as accessible, and that's mostly on behalf of the community rather than the game's developpers. Not to mention endgame breeds a culture of elitism which drives away many players who would like to actually do the content; no matter how fun the game itself is, being surrounded by jerks is not worth it (nor is spending the time to find a group of people you enjoy playing with). Did I mention that this culture gets more elitist as time goes on?
---
I have no idea what other MMORPGs have planned, be they current or future releases. In fact, I have no plans to even find out; if the above bits didn't imply it enough, I certainly have a few issues with the genre. Fine idea in principle, but it's rife with problems. Specifically, ethical ones; not that the the lacklustre (if functional) gameplay is helping either.
Nevertheless... if any MMORPG wants to take over the throne after WoW's demise, it will have to address some fundamental issues with the genre's design. WoW, if not the entire MMORPG genre, leave a many embittered players in their wake. By sticking to the tried and true, you will not re-ignite the spark which made them start playing; you're more likely to rekindle the less than fond memories and hatred they had when they left the game.
A slow dwindling of their fan base due to apathy or a sudden mass migration. One of the things that keeps WoW on top is the community. Everyone plays WoW, therefore, your friends play WoW, therefore to play with friends, you play WoW. If the community become less cohesive their would be less to draw them back and more incentive to play other MMOs that friends might play.
Exactly what throne are we trying to topple it from? The massive time sink? The second job you have to pay for? Why exactly would a game thrive to become as mundane as WoW so that it could take it's place?
I'll never understand the MMO genre.
I'll never understand the MMO genre.
A shitload of marketing backed up by an actual fun game that isn't just a carbon copy of WoW and reasonable subscriptions.
Isn't LoL free? Not sure you can compare them that easily, people generally only want to pay for one subscription game at a time.Bobic said:
I forgot the genre I was going for with the Civ metaphor, and I'm still at a loss. RTS wasn't meant to be put there but like a robot I just inserted it when I though "that will do".direkiller said:
Anyways. What is the definition of a MMO? This is where we go onto one of your original arguments, which revolved around the thought that a MMO is only a MMO if it has a persistent world. Which simply isn't true, its just a header for something with a heavy Multiplayer focus. League of Legends is a MMO as much as Alan Wake is third person. Also, on the 10 people question, your talking out of yours ass. Like stated before, its a massive multiplayer online game and 10 people is not massive.
MMO is a very broad term, bird is not, sure you can put little sub-sections underneath it for certain birds that each have their own characteristics, but you wouldn't call a T-rex in the same family as a bird, would you. In the term of MMO thats exactly what happens, we can call any game that comes out that has a following at least 1,000 online an MMO.
Your using very bad arguments, very bad analogies and metaphors, quit while your ahead and all that jazz, there is nothing to win here. I've stated my whole point at least twice now, and your not going to throw out the window if you keep up with the metaphors and strawmans.
MMO Games have characteristics, but these do not change the base definition of a MMO.
Probably around the time they release the Starcraft MMO I suppose. And decide to just switch off WoW and give all the players incentives to move to Starcraft.
I am not missrepsenting you in anyway. I am saying your defntion of a MMO is too broad and covers any game with a multiplayer and basically makes it pointless to classify any game as such. The bad metaphor thing il give you but i am not strawmaning you.Aprilgold said:
yes there are games that get around the persist world thing that are still mmo.
You still need interaction with a playerbase that can be considered massive as a core aspect of the game.
as I said LOL only has interaction with 10 people at a time(and if it was only those 9 outer people the game play would not be effected). The popularity of the game is irreverent to the core of the game and should not be consider in classifying unless it has a outcome effect on game play. So lol is not a MMO.
If it has a player run economy,AH or something i would say it fits losely but right now LOL is not a MMO.
Hold on a second, its a subjective definition then, well then my hardrive is actually a rhino, and my house is made of zebras. What? Definitions are apparently subjective according to you.direkiller said:
You failed to grasp me past anything here, since you failed at the start gate, with saying my definition is to broad.
Heres the defintion of MMORPG, of course you can guess what MMO stands for by now.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+MMORPG&qpvt=mmorpg+definition&FORM=DTPDIA
Once again, quit while your ahead, your attaching terms to a word then saying that your attached terms HAVE to be there for that word to be correct, which is false. I could say that all fish have to taste delicious to be fish, and I would be incorrect because if a fish that is technically a fish, and fits the regular definition, yet isn't tasty then I am incorrect when I say "Thats not a fish, thats a thing."
Good thing I didn't say that, and you actually quoted a portion of my post that explains why, then.iBagel said:
All things have their time. Assuming that it will be a specific game is still ridiculous. Especially with WoW at a massive height and so many already locked in currently. I'm not sure you understand the sheer logistics of taking down WoW, but that's pretty much why MMOs don't succeed in it.