A lot of people here use "It's not for everyone" when the other posters are talking about bugs and/or obvious design flaws.
Of course, there are cases when this is true and the poster just wants it his way, but don't you think that there are also cases when this is used as an easy way to escape from a valid concern(especially when coupled with: "This game is innovative")?
Many do, but they shouldn't. It should only be used with successful games that have their own particular style, and as a justification for why a person does not stick with a game. EVE and FFXI are the 2 that pop into my mind. They are both very successful, but they do have styles that will not appeal to large audience. <<< I'm using large as a relative term.
EVE - Unappealing Sci-Fi ship avatar, and slow paced, PvP combat.
Wait so what you're saying is, if someone actually likes a game many don't, they're delusional? How about we look at what really happens shall we?... Now tell me this is not the sum of just about every conversation regarding a recently released MMO?
What's the difference? He's looking at one side of the coin while you're looking at the other. They both happen so not sure what you're trying to argue here.
There is no difference outside of, poster a doesn't usually stalk the forum of game y, the way poster B stalks game z. just look at both posts for a fair view of MMORPG.com....
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Wait so what you're saying is, if someone actually likes a game many don't, they're delusional? How about we look at what really happens shall we?
"shall we"?.. lol, yes please take me by my hand.
Before you get excited here, "delusional" within the context of "to justify buggy, flawed games". That is afterall the question and title of the post. Hey, If YOU like a specific game, and others do not, then great, it's definately NOT for everyone. Have a great time and we move on. Lastly, I would appreciate you not "putting words in my mouth".
But yes.. I do find it somewhat "delusional", that a good deal of players will justify buggy, flawed games, with the excuses I mentioned, including the OP's example simply because they want the game to be successful for what ever reason one would have. Fact is, many new releases as of late have really NO excuse to release at all, much less be placated by its player base.
at any rate.. follow the context of the title, afterall the title isn't. "Do we use "It's not for everyone" to justify games we like that others don't". right?
d
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
"It's not for everyone" usually doesnt start out this way.. it goes through steps, something like this:
"It's BETA folks, this is to be expected"
then progresses into:
"It's just released! Every just released mmo's have these issues"
then graduates into:
"It's a server merge, you should expect problems like this"
and finally evolves into your fine example of:
"It's not for everyone"
the comical evolution here though, is that the frequency for deliberate rushed and unfinished product has become so rampant as of late that most folks now days are simply going directly to the "It's not for everyone" stage of delusion. Oh, I might have left one out past the "everyone" bit.
"It's a FtP model, they have to make thier money somewhere"..
done. d
Great post, but you forgot an alternative path to greatness: "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
"It's not for everyone" usually doesnt start out this way.. it goes through steps, something like this:
"It's BETA folks, this is to be expected"
then progresses into:
"It's just released! Every just released mmo's have these issues"
then graduates into:
"It's a server merge, you should expect problems like this"
and finally evolves into your fine example of:
"It's not for everyone"
the comical evolution here though, is that the frequency for deliberate rushed and unfinished product has become so rampant as of late that most folks now days are simply going directly to the "It's not for everyone" stage of delusion. Oh, I might have left one out past the "everyone" bit.
"It's a FtP model, they have to make thier money somewhere"..
done. d
Great post, but you forgot an alternative path to greatness: "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
lol... true that. my bad.
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
"shall we"?.. lol, yes please take me by my hand. Before you get excited here, "delusional" within the context of "to justify buggy, flawed games". That is afterall the question and title of the post. Hey, If YOU like a specific game, and others do not, then great, it's definately NOT for everyone. Have a great time and we move on. Lastly, I would appreciate you not "putting words in my mouth". But yes.. I do find it somewhat "delusional", that a good deal of players will justify buggy, flawed games, with the excuses I mentioned, including the OP's example simply because they want the game to be successful for what ever reason one would have. Fact is, many new releases as of late have really NO excuse to release at all, much less be placated by its player base.
at any rate.. follow the context of the title, afterall the title isn't. "Do we use "It's not for everyone" to justify games we like that others don't". right? d
The context lay on the eye of the beholder, does the beholder feel it's an overused cop-out? To an extent it could be viewed as such, though with the quality of discussion that you find on any newly released games forum (as we both pointed out), it's hard to really judge where the root causes to such "delusions" (your word for it) come from.
I feel bad for people who like a lot of these games i really do. They're up against a constant bombardment of criticism from their peers, for simply defending what some veiw as indefensible. Is this the case, are these games indefensible (which ever game)? Or, could it be that some just can't accept people are different, that is the true question that should be asked IMO.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The context lay on the eye of the beholder, does the beholder feel it's an overused cop-out? To an extent it could be viewed as such, though with the quality of discussion that you find on any newly released games forum (as we both pointed out), it's hard to really judge where the root causes to such "delusions" (your word for it) come from. I feel bad for people who like a lot of these games i really do. They're up against a constant bombardment of criticism from their peers, for simply defending what some veiw as indefensible. Is this the case, are these games indefensible (which ever game)? Or, could it be that some just can't accept people are different, that is the true question that should be asked IMO.
You make a good point. fair enough. At least without the "shall we" intro. classic.
But if your asking for my opinion on: "Are these games indefensible (which ever game)?" Based on justification of a "buggy and flawed game" as the OP obviously clarified. Then abosolutely not. They are NOT defensible and shouldn't be excused away simply for its name sake. We are paying for the service to begin with, and with that payment there should be a level of integrity. I really don't care how "good" a game has the "potential" to be. If it's buggy, flawed, or obviously lacking of promised features, (I added this of course), then the game shouldn't be defended, nor should it's developer/distributor. It's bad.
Now, on the other hand.. lets say the game is not "buggy, or flawed, or (yes I am adding here again), has features promised pre-release. And, well, its just not what I or you or somebody walking down the street anticipated it would be. Then SURE, by all means, if someone badgers the game or player of said game because they like it while said someone doesn't, then thats a problem. At that point the game is definately defensible. So is the character of the player playing it.
"I feel bad for people who like alot of these games i really do". I will assume you mean the buggy/flawed ones.
I'm not here to fight with you m8. But (In my opinion), it's this laid back forgiveness of poor quality games being released and accepted that is part of the problem.. not saying YOU, just generalizing.
done.
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
I don't know if we use it but do you use the words "It's not for everyone" to justify buggy, flawed games?
hahah. I got what your doing thar..
good wit m8.
d
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
When people are a fan of a game they will use all kinds of arguments to defend it. Some of those arguments make sense, some don't.
The argument "it's not for everyone" can be applied to each game. Though it makes most sense on games targeting a minor audience. Like... uhm... Allods Online is for most people. It's colorful, easy to understand, got cute graphics and F2P. Darkfall or FE are not for most people.
You make a good point. fair enough. At least without the "shall we" intro. classic. But if your asking for my opinion on: "Are these games indefensible (which ever game)?" Based on justification of a "buggy and flawed game" as the OP obviously clarified. Then abosolutely not. They are NOT defensible and shouldn't be excused away simply for its name sake. We are paying for the service to begin with, and with that payment there should be a level of integrity. I really don't care how "good" a game has the "potential" to be. If it's buggy, flawed, or obviously lacking of promised features, (I added this of course), then the game shouldn't be defended, nor should it's developer/distributor. It's bad.
Now, on the other hand.. lets say the game is not "buggy, or flawed, or (yes I am adding here again), has features promised pre-release. And, well, its just not what I or you or somebody walking down the street anticipated it would be. Then SURE, by all means, if someone badgers the game or player of said game because they like it while said someone doesn't, then thats a problem. At that point the game is definately defensible. So is the character of the player playing it.
"I feel bad for people who like alot of these games i really do". I will assume you mean the buggy/flawed ones.
I'm not here to fight with you m8. But (In my opinion), it's this laid back forgiveness of poor quality games being released and accepted that is part of the problem.. not saying YOU, just generalizing.
done.
Sorry about my sarcasm I do it all the time, I don't mean anything by it.
Can't argue against much of anything you said, I'll just give you a /thumbs up.
I was referring to any game that has a large portion of players who berate it or it's fans. Not necessarily just the buggy or flawed ones. WOW would be a good example here actually or even EVE to a lesser extent. I'd say AOC but I'd be asking a bit much .
edit- to shorten the quote, my bad..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You make a good point. fair enough. At least without the "shall we" intro. classic. But if your asking for my opinion on: "Are these games indefensible (which ever game)?" Based on justification of a "buggy and flawed game" as the OP obviously clarified. Then abosolutely not. They are NOT defensible and shouldn't be excused away simply for its name sake. We are paying for the service to begin with, and with that payment there should be a level of integrity. I really don't care how "good" a game has the "potential" to be. If it's buggy, flawed, or obviously lacking of promised features, (I added this of course), then the game shouldn't be defended, nor should it's developer/distributor. It's bad.
Now, on the other hand.. lets say the game is not "buggy, or flawed, or (yes I am adding here again), has features promised pre-release. And, well, its just not what I or you or somebody walking down the street anticipated it would be. Then SURE, by all means, if someone badgers the game or player of said game because they like it while said someone doesn't, then thats a problem. At that point the game is definately defensible. So is the character of the player playing it.
"I feel bad for people who like alot of these games i really do". I will assume you mean the buggy/flawed ones.
I'm not here to fight with you m8. But (In my opinion), it's this laid back forgiveness of poor quality games being released and accepted that is part of the problem.. not saying YOU, just generalizing.
done.
Sorry about my sarcasm I do it all the time, I don't mean anything by it.
Can't argue against much of anything you said, I'll just give you a /thumbs up.
I was referring to any game that has a large portion of players who berate it or it's fans. Not necessarily just the buggy or flawed ones. WOW would be a good example here actually or even EVE to a lesser extent. I'd say AOC but I'd be asking a bit much .
edit- to shorten the quote, my bad..
Oh..
Thank you for the clarication. In that reguards, I completely agree with you. I have played WoW off and on since creation and still play EvE (since beta and can't for the life of me understand why tbh) And your so correct the level of punishment taken by it's own community. LOL.. AoC needs to have a community to begin with, so again I agree here as well. (just jking).
You see for me, those games that you mentioned, or more specificly WoW and EvE definately had thier "issues" from the very beginning indeed. Hell, I remember EvE during beta having nothing but veld on the market because everything else was locked out. hahahha. BUT, never did either of those games release a client devoid of content "promised" as a selling point. Sure the argument could be said about WoW's slow release of BG's, but, back then the market was still "new" enough, that it was easier to forgive such short comings.
Now on the other hand with AoC, this is a wonderfull example of what I was refering to. Funcom made grandios promises of hype and splendor of what would ultimately become mass dissapointment upon release. It wasn't just "oh we ran out of time" it was blatent deception right down to the box features. All along, fans of the IP/Conan world defending it to the end. That IMO, was simply irresponsible both of developer but more importantly consumer. I see many people that have vowed "never to return" (including my own friends) from the time of release, actually RETURN to the game and "give it another shot". I read release posts like "It's beta, It's release, yadda yadda. (the examples i gave from original reply). All I have to say is BS. There was no excuse for the way Funcom handled that release or the respect for it's consumer community, and someone lost a career over it as they should have.
Now days, the consumer is becoming more aware, (albeit painfully through thier wallet), with using descretion before making the leap no matter how wonderfull the idea or IP of the game being developed is. The mmo player is starting to actually reseach and account for distributor/producer/developer history over simple blind faith. And hopefully with that, the "delusion" as I call it, (though maybe not so appropriate), will go away. I guess what I am saying is we as a community need to expect a rationalized and intelligent expectation from the folks that are making these games for us to pay for.
Maybe the "next gen" of mmo isn't about the graphics, or the features, or ground breaking gameplay, but more so a new respect for whats promised to it's players, a deeper understanding of quality first over quantity and money that quantity generates from the hype. A better focus on Customer service and satisfaction, with REAL feedback and timely accountability. More important the respect that SHOULD be given to the customer/consumer/subscriber, out of appreciation for purchasing/subscribing to said product/license.
meh.. just me I suppose. "Thats crazy talk!!".
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
Thank you for the clarication. In that reguards, I completely agree with you. I have played WoW off and on since creation and still play EvE (since beta and can't for the life of me understand why tbh) And your so correct the level of punishment taken by it's own community. LOL.. AoC needs to have a community to begin with, so again I agree here as well. (just jking).
You see for me, those games that you mentioned, or more specificly WoW and EvE definately had thier "issues" from the very beginning indeed. Hell, I remember EvE during beta having nothing but veld on the market because everything else was locked out. hahahha. BUT, never did either of those games release a client devoid of content "promised" as a selling point. Sure the argument could be said about WoW's slow release of BG's, but, back then the market was still "new" enough, that it was easier to forgive such short comings.
Now on the other hand with AoC, this is a wonderfull example of what I was refering to. Funcom made grandios promises of hype and splendor of what would ultimately become mass dissapointment upon release. It wasn't just "oh we ran out of time" it was blatent deception right down to the box features. All along, fans of the IP/Conan world defending it to the end. That IMO, was simply irresponsible both of developer but more importantly consumer. I see many people that have vowed "never to return" (including my own friends) from the time of release, actually RETURN to the game and "give it another shot". I read release posts like "It's beta, It's release, yadda yadda. (the examples i gave from original reply). All I have to say is BS. There was no excuse for the way Funcom handled that release or the respect for it's consumer community, and someone lost a career over it as they should have.
Now days, the consumer is becoming more aware, (albeit painfully through thier wallet), with using descretion before making the leap no matter how wonderfull the idea or IP of the game being developed is. The mmo player is starting to actually reseach and account for distributor/producer/developer history over simple blind faith. And hopefully with that, the "delusion" as I call it, (though maybe not so appropriate), will go away. I guess what I am saying is we as a community need to expect a rationalized and intelligent expectation from the folks that are making these games for us to pay for.
Maybe the "next gen" of mmo isn't about the graphics, or the features, or ground breaking gameplay, but more so a new respect for whats promised to it's players, a deeper understanding of quality first over quantity and money that quantity generates from the hype. A better focus on Customer service and satisfaction, with REAL feedback and timely accountability. More important the respect that SHOULD be given to the customer/consumer/subscriber, out of appreciation for purchasing/subscribing to said product/license.
meh.. just me I suppose. "Thats crazy talk!!".
No problem it's always good to be clear on what you're debating.
Again everything you said I agree with, MMO'S should be judged on more than just bugs, awesomeness or anything else on the surface. Because under the surface they are first and foremost a service. As you pointed out in AOC's case especially, it was false promises that caused the players to not trust in their service, not necessarily the game itself.
It is good someone lost their job over it, it was also a good thing in the end for AOC. As it shows with how the game matured over the last year. Which I would only use the current game in my example above if I had. As today it and it's player-base are subjected to the recourse and fallout from that launch. IMO and it seems others the game has a different face now and should be viewed on such.
Sorry if I got a little off topic, but I guess we can both agree there's more than one answer to the OP's question, depending on the circumstance and angle you're looking at it from.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
naw for a game thats main problems is buggs i would say something like "it has potential". the term "its not for everyone" would go to more unique games like Fallen Earth where there targeting system and setting may be off putting to some one thats more of a Fantasy buff. or game like Darkfall where alot of players won't be into the full loot pvp the game has.
Comments
Many do, but they shouldn't. It should only be used with successful games that have their own particular style, and as a justification for why a person does not stick with a game. EVE and FFXI are the 2 that pop into my mind. They are both very successful, but they do have styles that will not appeal to large audience. <<< I'm using large as a relative term.
EVE - Unappealing Sci-Fi ship avatar, and slow paced, PvP combat.
FFXI - Heavily group based advancement.
What's the difference? He's looking at one side of the coin while you're looking at the other. They both happen so not sure what you're trying to argue here.
There is no difference outside of, poster a doesn't usually stalk the forum of game y, the way poster B stalks game z. just look at both posts for a fair view of MMORPG.com....
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"shall we"?.. lol, yes please take me by my hand.
Before you get excited here, "delusional" within the context of "to justify buggy, flawed games". That is afterall the question and title of the post. Hey, If YOU like a specific game, and others do not, then great, it's definately NOT for everyone. Have a great time and we move on. Lastly, I would appreciate you not "putting words in my mouth".
But yes.. I do find it somewhat "delusional", that a good deal of players will justify buggy, flawed games, with the excuses I mentioned, including the OP's example simply because they want the game to be successful for what ever reason one would have. Fact is, many new releases as of late have really NO excuse to release at all, much less be placated by its player base.
at any rate.. follow the context of the title, afterall the title isn't. "Do we use "It's not for everyone" to justify games we like that others don't". right?
d
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
John Milton 1608-1674
Great post, but you forgot an alternative path to greatness: "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
Great post, but you forgot an alternative path to greatness: "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
lol... true that. my bad.
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
John Milton 1608-1674
The context lay on the eye of the beholder, does the beholder feel it's an overused cop-out? To an extent it could be viewed as such, though with the quality of discussion that you find on any newly released games forum (as we both pointed out), it's hard to really judge where the root causes to such "delusions" (your word for it) come from.
I feel bad for people who like a lot of these games i really do. They're up against a constant bombardment of criticism from their peers, for simply defending what some veiw as indefensible. Is this the case, are these games indefensible (which ever game)? Or, could it be that some just can't accept people are different, that is the true question that should be asked IMO.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't know if we use it but do you use the words "It's not for everyone" to justify buggy, flawed games?
lol... true that. my bad.
What about it's not a feature, it's a bug? (IE: instancing)....
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You make a good point. fair enough. At least without the "shall we" intro.
classic.
But if your asking for my opinion on: "Are these games indefensible (which ever game)?" Based on justification of a "buggy and flawed game" as the OP obviously clarified. Then abosolutely not. They are NOT defensible and shouldn't be excused away simply for its name sake. We are paying for the service to begin with, and with that payment there should be a level of integrity. I really don't care how "good" a game has the "potential" to be. If it's buggy, flawed, or obviously lacking of promised features, (I added this of course), then the game shouldn't be defended, nor should it's developer/distributor. It's bad.
Now, on the other hand.. lets say the game is not "buggy, or flawed, or (yes I am adding here again), has features promised pre-release. And, well, its just not what I or you or somebody walking down the street anticipated it would be. Then SURE, by all means, if someone badgers the game or player of said game because they like it while said someone doesn't, then thats a problem. At that point the game is definately defensible. So is the character of the player playing it.
"I feel bad for people who like alot of these games i really do". I will assume you mean the buggy/flawed ones.
I'm not here to fight with you m8. But (In my opinion), it's this laid back forgiveness of poor quality games being released and accepted that is part of the problem.. not saying YOU, just generalizing.
done.
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
John Milton 1608-1674
hahah. I got what your doing thar..
good wit m8.
d
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
John Milton 1608-1674
When people are a fan of a game they will use all kinds of arguments to defend it. Some of those arguments make sense, some don't.
The argument "it's not for everyone" can be applied to each game.
Though it makes most sense on games targeting a minor audience. Like... uhm... Allods Online is for most people. It's colorful, easy to understand, got cute graphics and F2P. Darkfall or FE are not for most people. 
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
Sorry about my sarcasm I do it all the time, I don't mean anything by it.
Can't argue against much of anything you said, I'll just give you a /thumbs up.
I was referring to any game that has a large portion of players who berate it or it's fans. Not necessarily just the buggy or flawed ones. WOW would be a good example here actually or even EVE to a lesser extent. I'd say AOC but I'd be asking a bit much
.
edit- to shorten the quote, my bad..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sorry about my sarcasm I do it all the time, I don't mean anything by it.
Can't argue against much of anything you said, I'll just give you a /thumbs up.
I was referring to any game that has a large portion of players who berate it or it's fans. Not necessarily just the buggy or flawed ones. WOW would be a good example here actually or even EVE to a lesser extent. I'd say AOC but I'd be asking a bit much
.
edit- to shorten the quote, my bad..
Oh..
Thank you for the clarication. In that reguards, I completely agree with you. I have played WoW off and on since creation and still play EvE (since beta and can't for the life of me understand why tbh) And your so correct the level of punishment taken by it's own community. LOL.. AoC needs to have a community to begin with, so again I agree here as well. (just jking).
You see for me, those games that you mentioned, or more specificly WoW and EvE definately had thier "issues" from the very beginning indeed. Hell, I remember EvE during beta having nothing but veld on the market because everything else was locked out. hahahha. BUT, never did either of those games release a client devoid of content "promised" as a selling point. Sure the argument could be said about WoW's slow release of BG's, but, back then the market was still "new" enough, that it was easier to forgive such short comings.
Now on the other hand with AoC, this is a wonderfull example of what I was refering to. Funcom made grandios promises of hype and splendor of what would ultimately become mass dissapointment upon release. It wasn't just "oh we ran out of time" it was blatent deception right down to the box features. All along, fans of the IP/Conan world defending it to the end. That IMO, was simply irresponsible both of developer but more importantly consumer. I see many people that have vowed "never to return" (including my own friends) from the time of release, actually RETURN to the game and "give it another shot". I read release posts like "It's beta, It's release, yadda yadda. (the examples i gave from original reply). All I have to say is BS. There was no excuse for the way Funcom handled that release or the respect for it's consumer community, and someone lost a career over it as they should have.
Now days, the consumer is becoming more aware, (albeit painfully through thier wallet), with using descretion before making the leap no matter how wonderfull the idea or IP of the game being developed is. The mmo player is starting to actually reseach and account for distributor/producer/developer history over simple blind faith. And hopefully with that, the "delusion" as I call it, (though maybe not so appropriate), will go away. I guess what I am saying is we as a community need to expect a rationalized and intelligent expectation from the folks that are making these games for us to pay for.
Maybe the "next gen" of mmo isn't about the graphics, or the features, or ground breaking gameplay, but more so a new respect for whats promised to it's players, a deeper understanding of quality first over quantity and money that quantity generates from the hype. A better focus on Customer service and satisfaction, with REAL feedback and timely accountability. More important the respect that SHOULD be given to the customer/consumer/subscriber, out of appreciation for purchasing/subscribing to said product/license.
meh.. just me I suppose. "Thats crazy talk!!".
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much argruing, much writting, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
John Milton 1608-1674
Oh..
Thank you for the clarication. In that reguards, I completely agree with you. I have played WoW off and on since creation and still play EvE (since beta and can't for the life of me understand why tbh) And your so correct the level of punishment taken by it's own community. LOL.. AoC needs to have a community to begin with, so again I agree here as well. (just jking).
You see for me, those games that you mentioned, or more specificly WoW and EvE definately had thier "issues" from the very beginning indeed. Hell, I remember EvE during beta having nothing but veld on the market because everything else was locked out. hahahha. BUT, never did either of those games release a client devoid of content "promised" as a selling point. Sure the argument could be said about WoW's slow release of BG's, but, back then the market was still "new" enough, that it was easier to forgive such short comings.
Now on the other hand with AoC, this is a wonderfull example of what I was refering to. Funcom made grandios promises of hype and splendor of what would ultimately become mass dissapointment upon release. It wasn't just "oh we ran out of time" it was blatent deception right down to the box features. All along, fans of the IP/Conan world defending it to the end. That IMO, was simply irresponsible both of developer but more importantly consumer. I see many people that have vowed "never to return" (including my own friends) from the time of release, actually RETURN to the game and "give it another shot". I read release posts like "It's beta, It's release, yadda yadda. (the examples i gave from original reply). All I have to say is BS. There was no excuse for the way Funcom handled that release or the respect for it's consumer community, and someone lost a career over it as they should have.
Now days, the consumer is becoming more aware, (albeit painfully through thier wallet), with using descretion before making the leap no matter how wonderfull the idea or IP of the game being developed is. The mmo player is starting to actually reseach and account for distributor/producer/developer history over simple blind faith. And hopefully with that, the "delusion" as I call it, (though maybe not so appropriate), will go away. I guess what I am saying is we as a community need to expect a rationalized and intelligent expectation from the folks that are making these games for us to pay for.
Maybe the "next gen" of mmo isn't about the graphics, or the features, or ground breaking gameplay, but more so a new respect for whats promised to it's players, a deeper understanding of quality first over quantity and money that quantity generates from the hype. A better focus on Customer service and satisfaction, with REAL feedback and timely accountability. More important the respect that SHOULD be given to the customer/consumer/subscriber, out of appreciation for purchasing/subscribing to said product/license.
meh.. just me I suppose. "Thats crazy talk!!".
No problem it's always good to be clear on what you're debating.
Again everything you said I agree with, MMO'S should be judged on more than just bugs, awesomeness or anything else on the surface. Because under the surface they are first and foremost a service. As you pointed out in AOC's case especially, it was false promises that caused the players to not trust in their service, not necessarily the game itself.
It is good someone lost their job over it, it was also a good thing in the end for AOC. As it shows with how the game matured over the last year. Which I would only use the current game in my example above if I had. As today it and it's player-base are subjected to the recourse and fallout from that launch. IMO and it seems others the game has a different face now and should be viewed on such.
Sorry if I got a little off topic, but I guess we can both agree there's more than one answer to the OP's question, depending on the circumstance and angle you're looking at it from.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I love when people tell me this in Darkfall Online when I have a forum account there from 2002 and they're from 2009.
Q: What can you expect the game just released?
A: What I was promised
I like the car with no wheels analogy.
naw for a game thats main problems is buggs i would say something like "it has potential". the term "its not for everyone" would go to more unique games like Fallen Earth where there targeting system and setting may be off putting to some one thats more of a Fantasy buff. or game like Darkfall where alot of players won't be into the full loot pvp the game has.