Comments on: WoW in 3.2 – more game, less MMO

By: Stabs

Stabs — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:56:23 +0000

Afterthought: of course the precedent is Lady Sylvanas Windrunner. Night Elf to Forsaken faction change before WoW even released. Wonder if it cost her $15.

By: Rurjaos

Rurjaos — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:53:43 +0000

I’d like to see a betrayer-quest! Maybe started by an very rare epic drop (BoU) to prevent mixing up factions too much.

By: spinks

spinks — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:38:45 +0000

That’s the nice thing about threaded replies, Stabs

By: Zachary Pruckowski

Zachary Pruckowski — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:22:25 +0000

This is very true. WoW appeals to casual and hardcore, PvP and PvE. It appeals to people who like chatting, and people who are borderline sociopathic. It is all things to all people.

When Blizzard announces its next-gen MMO (the unannounced one they’re working on), they’ll position this NGMMO and WOW somehow to different market niches, so WoW will stop being all things to all people and instead be primarily for one or two market segments.

My suspicion is that WoW is going to be the “casual” MMO, for a number of reasons. The main reason is its brand recognition among non-traditional gamers. I also think the casuals are gonna be harder to move to a new game than the hardcores, so Blizzard is likely to position their new MMO for hardcore and semi-hardcore players.

This is years off (I don’t expect the unannounced MMO to be announced for at least another year, and then it’s a while after that before it’s even in beta), but Blizzard is slowly pushing WoW in this direction starting now.

By: Stabs

Stabs — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:45:05 +0000

Nice catch Tesh.

Sorry Spinks for derailing the conversation into a discussion of my typos!

By: spinks

spinks — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:39:04 +0000

No, I don’t think choices have to be permanent although that probably adds extra weight. To be meaningful in game imo you have to actually play through some aspect of the experience.

So if WoW had a betrayal quest like EQ2, then I think switching factions would have more meaning. (I don’t think they should do a betrayal quest, mind.)

By: Tesh

Tesh — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:25:18 +0000

Yeah, that was more of a response to the generic “you”, as you (specific) do make good points. I’m just increasingly unsympathetic to those who fuss about changes because it’s not the way that things used to be. If these MMO things are to even come close to approximating virtual worlds, change will be the backbone of the experience. If we can’t handle these sorts of simple changes (that are better for the game overall), how in the world will we ever handle a dynamic world where even more can change?

Tangentially, do choices have to be permanent to be meaningful?

By: spinks

spinks — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:12:28 +0000

It won’t change how anyone plays their character, but it does change what it means to be Horde. There’s an element of shared experience that will be lacking. People can do what they want obv (and I did say that I thought it was a good thing and would benefit a lot of people — be fair), but something that was a meaningful permanent choice becomes less so.

By: Tesh

Tesh — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:11:34 +0000

While we’re on typos, “polyglut” is a fun Freudian slip for “polyglot”. Well, that, or a clever twist. Either way, it’s good.

By: Tesh

Tesh — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:08:31 +0000

I'll ask, as I so often do, what difference does it make how other people play the game? Just because the option of changing exists, what difference is that to how you play your character? If *you* want to be Horde for life, what is stopping you?