If your logic was sound it would work wherever it’s applied. It *easy* to demonstrate this isn’t the case. Instead of fixing your logic you waste our time complaining and insisting no one ever demonstrate that the basic logic is flawed. Please stop doing this, it’s annoying, your logic is flawed face this fact and move on.
The whole bug up your *** is that WoW isn’t at the top of the reviews. Therefore you are saying that because WoW topes some reviews it must top all reviews. This is every bit as flawed as your previous “logic”.
Lets take a look at your arguments, shall we?
Your first post, you make several claims about WoW and its population. This is the logical fallacy of Presupposition. The claims you make are certainly not mutually agreed upon or generally accepted as fact.
In your second post, you claim that because a food connoisseur rates something as better, that it is. This is the logical fallacy of Appealing to Misleading Authority. A food connoisseur has no more credentials to judge food than any other human being on the planet, since taste (in this case, its literal sense) is most certainly subjective.
Also in your second post, you try to make the claim that something being described as best, due to its popularity, is a logical fallacy. This is incorrect. The logical fallacy of Popularity, is that an idea is right because it is popular. Those two concepts are profoundly different. A product being the most popular because it is the best is most certainly a logical assumption. The idea that abortion being "wrong" because many people feel it is wrong is illogical. If one were to believe your train of though, the best product would be the least popular. In that case, Horizons would be the best MMORPG on the market.
What you don't seem to understand, is that you can't try to show show flaws in another persons argument if your own arguments are based solely on your own interpretation of logic, with rules that only apply to you.
I think Age of Conan being available on the Xbox 360 may be a bigger innovation than many realize. Being first to the mark with good game ie not even a great game in this fledgling field may well be all thats necessary to garner a fan base that could easily dwarf what WOW has now or ever will have.
I think its very likely Blizzard will come up with a competitive expansion, and it will come out stategically meaning it will bear Age of Conan and Warhammer in mind. They maybe little game in comparison but only a foolish company would pay no attention to their competition.
They actually are going to..instead of putting the other continent or emerald dream or anything they're going to make 4-7 other worlds..that is total bull and going to be the reason WoW will get even less suscribers and will have to rely on Starcraft 2.
They actually are going to..instead of putting the other continent or emerald dream or anything they're going to make 4-7 other worlds..that is total bull and going to be the reason WoW will get even less suscribers and will have to rely on Starcraft 2.
Even though you are speculating, that would be awesome!
I think the only MMO project that could take on more than a million gamers at this time with all the competition out there , would be a Star Wars Galaxies 2 or KOTOR MMO , something on the lines of that . It will have to be a huge name with the top graphic engines and developer ideas to compete with the so many titles out there right now.
Gameloading you've made some damn good arguments but you are dealing with someone who I fear has a entrenched and unmovable negative opinion toward WoW. Logic and reasoning will not work here. It's like arguing with a religious fanatic. The mere fact that you are coming up with facts and well reasoned factual arguments won't mean a damn thing to this person because they are not going to listen at all.
They've made up their mind already to them WoW sucks no matter what you may say and the world is flat no matter how many pictures you take from outer space that show otherwise. Everything else which proves that they might be wrong is either a "evil" conspiracy designed to destroy their world view of things or subjective in meaning no matter how concrete the word you or the industry reviewers may use.
Actually WoW fanboy I don't dislike WoW, what I disagree is its the best because I don't see it as the 'best'. I see every game as different. I don't think of what is the best rts, what is the best racer, what is the best fps. People may say to me, Unreal Tournament is the best fps there is. I'll disagree as my opinion of what is the best is not the same, its subjective.
Eh? So are you going to tell us what the best MMO is? The fact, is WoW is the only MMO that can be quantitively judged to be the best, overall. Of course people have different opinions, and some will not consider it the best - but this is true for all things. If history had to choose 'the best' MMO, right now, what do you think it would be? it would be WoW for a variety of factors, and not just popularity.
If it were just popularity that people judged WoW on, then yes, it would be a very poor way of saying "this is the best game". Yet even if you don't like it, it is not such a giant leap of faith to consider WoW to be the best MMO, when you consider things like - subscriptions, growth, awards, reviews, impact on culture, quality of the client, 3D realization of the world, control fluidity, widespread appeal to many different playstyles.
This train of thought will be unpopular here, on MMORPG.com, because people come here mostly to bitch about MMOs, and boy, do you guys like to bitch about WoW. So yeah, it's unpopular to regard WoW highly around here, but it would take a very close-minded individual to discount the wealth of critical accolades, sales figures, market share, growth, culture... it just blasts everything else away.
How else could you determine a game to be the best? By having the fewest jaded burnout cases troll about it? Because that's all that happens here when people bash WoW. No MMO will be liked by everyone. And claiming one MMO to be "better" than all the rest in all other aspects is foolish. But if you have to pick "the best" using the only reliable indicators we have, instead of opinions or emotions of a bitter forum minority, there is only one choice.
Some people reckon the Beatles are the best band ever. They're not my favourite band, I think the Rolling Stones are overall, a better band (not to mention the fact they're still actually making music). BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GET UPPITY JUST BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE THINK THE BEATLES ARE THE BEST BAND EVER!
Don't get uppity when people claim that WoW is the best, it doesn't make your favourite games suddenly crap, and it doesn't mean you will enjoy WoW more than those games, it's simply what the majority of MMO gamers think, and they have voted with their wallets.
So firstly you go by objective means to determine best then you go subjective at the end with Beatles and Rolling Stones. Which is it? Is Beatles actually the best band ever? Because they got the most sales?
lets take it one step further. Gears of War is arguably the best Xbox360 game avaible. It received many awards, high scores on reviews. And what do you know, Gears of War is most succesful Xbox360 game. Same thing with Halo.
Oblivion is the best game on the Xbox360. Also testimonial by reviews.
www.gamerankings.com
1. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion X360 2K Games 102 9.2 94.1% 2. Gears of War X360 Microsoft Game Studios 105 8.7 93.8%
Much of this is dispute about the term 'best'. There are, for instance, two ways in which it maybe used. Subjectively or objectively. To expand on this, if you were to be asked the best film, you wouldn't go looking by stats to find what is the best film, you would answer what you thought was the best film you've seen. So people answering the question, what is the best MMO? They will go subjectively rather than going by stats. The problem here is many people who jumping on the bandwagon of best mmo are being fuelled by their own desires. If they didn't like WoW, would they be here saying it is the best mmo? Probably not. It is the reason why for other genres these people are reluctant to name the best because how they're arguing this is flawed in the first place.
lets take it one step further. Gears of War is arguably the best Xbox360 game avaible. It received many awards, high scores on reviews. And what do you know, Gears of War is most succesful Xbox360 game. Same thing with Halo.
Oblivion is the best game on the Xbox360. Also testimonial by reviews.
www.gamerankings.com
1. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion X360 2K Games 102 9.2 94.1%
2. Gears of War X360 Microsoft Game Studios 105 8.7 93.8%
Besides stats, I have never understood how people can compare 2 totally different games when saying which is better. Like GoW and ESIV. Its a shooter and an rpg.... This also happened to me awhile back when I said to a friend "WoW is a pretty fun game" only to get the response "F.E.A.R. is better" I just did not know what to say. Because in my eyes if your going to compare 2 games to decide which is better, they should be the same type of game.
Most MMOs have a peak life of about 2-3 years. Then they slowly (or quickly) decline and at about 8 years (from most of the MMOs out there) they eitehr move to a new version or shut down the servers completely.
WoW will most likely be around for a good decade the way it's going now, given that the internet doesn't shut down, the company doesn't go bankrupt, the market doesn't crash, and they keep putting in new content.
However, that doesn't mean WoW is the best game. Successful, yes. But finacial success does not equate to quality.
Look at Britney Spears. Nsync. Myspace. John Mayor's "continuum". Dr. Phil. FOX News. The Fantasitc 4. Spiderman 3. Dell Computers. EMachines.
All of these 'products' are extremely popular due to word of mouth, good advertising, and a good hook. But when you get past those three things, they are basically a low quality product by and large. They lack substance. They lack subtlety. They lack replay value. They make you wish you hadn't spent money to see them or purchase them, or that someone else had spent less money to blare them on the radio/TV.
And yet they make legions of people billions of dollars a year. So they are successful products, but they are low quality.
WoW is a less extreme example of this. It had a HUGE fanbase long before it became an MMO. It is easily accessable. It is almost completely uncontroversial. It is filled with loads of "fluff" of the same value that let NEOPETS stay a successful website/game for as long as IT did. It is addicting at first, and right up till max level, it promises more and more STUFF to the player. And above all, the game is stable and mostly balanced.
It does the carrot on the stick thing REALLY well, and the large fanbase prior to release and it's ease of accessablity means that most of the people who are playing WoW right now are MMO NOOBS.
Meaning most of them haven't quite got wise to the carrot on the stick thing. They aren't cynical yet. So of course Blizzard rakes in the cash.
But in the end, its the same frickin donkey, the same frickin stick, and the same frickin carrot. Nothing new. Nothing better than before (and in some cases of the game dynamics, actually worse than before).
How can you really call that "the best?"
[Begin Sarcasm]
Girls don't use the internet unless theres a webcam involved....its a physical impossibility.
They also don't play them thar vidya gaymes, mmorpg = most men online role play girls...even in ventrillo.
Besides stats, I have never understood how people can compare 2 totally different games when saying which is better. Like GoW and ESIV. Its a shooter and an rpg.... This also happened to me awhile back when I said to a friend "WoW is a pretty fun game" only to get the response "F.E.A.R. is better" I just did not know what to say. Because in my eyes if your going to compare 2 games to decide which is better, they should be the same type of game.
Even 'same types of game' are different. Two Rts' could be appealling in two different ways. Could a labelling of best rts be revealed? Ok lets take ratings:
Best Rts'
1. Company of Heroes User rating 7.9 Reviewers rating 94.1% 2. Warcraft 3 User rating 8.6 Reviewers rating 93.0% 3. Rome: Total War User rating 8.5 Reviewers rating 91.6%
Which is the best Rts then? Players of each will tell you different. WC3 is my personal favourite. Am I going to turn around and say, it got the highest user reviews, it probably got the most sales therefore it is the best rts? Nope, can't say that I will.
I think I've stated this before and I'll state it again, WoW will never go away in the respect of being taken down by another MMO. Why? Because the MMO market isn't like what it was in 2000-1, which we actually saw a "shrink-age" in player population due to the Dot Com Bubble and then the worsening of it due to fears propagated by the 9/11 attacks. It's been six years since then (from 2001), and the markets have recovered and even exceeded many expectations. We've see the steep drop in price of memory chips and storage devices, and we've seen the general price drop of powerful processors, thus making it easier for PC manufacturers to make the same product cheaper. That's why WoW was successful. People had more money to spend in 2004 than they did in 2001 and most importantly their money went further due to hardware prices dropping than in any year prior. And it doesn't look like it's going to stop any time soon. Expect WoW to finally reach its peak sometime in the future, whenever that might be, but don't expect it to suddenly have an SWG/NGE sort of loss. Unless Blizzard jumps the shark on their game, this will never happen. Get use to it. And in fact be thankful for WoW, it's made the capital money for investing in new MMOs as well as existing MMOs more easy to be obtained. And it's even spurring people to develop F/OSS platforms of MMOs, thus setting up the next generation of MUDs (or multi-user environments owned and operated by independent developers and game geeks). Economically, WoW is/was a good thing, even if it was terrible on the inspiration/ideas part of game development "culture."
DDO was going to be the downfall of WoW, then Vanguard, then LOTRO and now AoC and WAR. Seen it before, heard it before, got the T-shirt before but WoW is still standing and still dominating the MMO market.
Some of those games have crashed and burned horribly, some have managed to carve out a respectable player base(not one that compares to WoW's though. I hear people say 'But WAR/AoC/Generic MMO X is going to be a whole new ball game".... Well, everyone thought some of those games i've mentioned and others I haven't were going to be a whole new ball game as well.
The simple fact is that nothing truely new or innovative has come to the fantasy MMO genre for a long time, and I don't exclude WoW from that as most of it's design was influences heavily by older MMO's like EQ and DAoC. What WoW did was collect all the best bits of MMO's add a few new things and deliver them all in one big package backed by a development budget that was unheard of at the time.
Will WAR/AoC change the playing field? Nope and here's why
- Players hoping for a whole new MMO experience will be disappointed. Both games will have some neat new novelty stuff, I agree with that, but they will be as different from WoW as WoW is from EQ, DAoC, etc... In other words, not a lot just a bit more updated. Disappointed players are rarely loyal players
- Many players simple won't have systems powerful enough to play these games and that will hurt subscriber numbers. WoW was very smart in having such low system specs as it opened them up to the non hardcore PC gamers with space age systems. Vanguard is an example of how using the latest technology can backfire.
- The MMO market as a whole is stagnant. When WoW hit it was all new and exciting to the more casual gamer but since then nothing has moved on. WoW will 'die' one day as all things do but I don't think it will die at the hands of 'more of the same' games like WAR and AoC. WoW's real trouble will probably come a bit further down the line when some of the more adventurous MMO's hit which are currently regarded as vapourware and offer something really new.
WAR and AoC may nibble away at subscriber numbers a bit but let's be realisitc, Blizzard have a massive 'war fund' of dollars thanks to it's dominance over the last few years. If WAr and AoC really do cause any worries, Blizz will just use that war fund to get all the best develeopers and game designers from those two companies with better pay and put them to work on WoW 2 or a Diablo MMO or a Starcraft MMO or something completely new.
Love them or hate them, Blizzard have firmly established themselves as the Microsoft of teh MMO world and that sort of money and experience is going to be almost impossible for anyone to overcome.
Every past MMO has had it's time and then the downfall. Probably WoW will take more time considering it has the market of Asia (Remember, Warcraft I is one of the most important games there and it has what? 10 years?. It's popularity will fall first in Europe that's for sure.
...If WAr and AoC really do cause any worries, Blizz will just use that war fund to get all the best develeopers and game designers from those two companies with better pay and put them to work on WoW 2 or a Diablo MMO or a Starcraft MMO or something completely new.
...
I would be genuinely surprised if Blizzard puts "something new" on the table. Bigger and Better? No doubt. New? Not likely.
I perfectly agree with KinslayerX. And as regards people leaving WoW and others joining, well after some disintoxication people return too. Happened to me after two months playing only LotRO and C&C3. Now I am back and cannot believ I am enjoying leveling a new alt preivously a bank. I firmly believe Blizzard can deploy something breathtakingly new any moment leaving competiton staring. But why do it now when things are going so well for them. Business wise it is better if they wait. Clientwise I prefer if they don't rush.
To wannabe or not to wannabe? Hey I know the answer and it is not 42!
I'm not the one comparing it to another market, you are.
And here, I shall explain it in greater detail.
WoW: received the most awards and best review and has a large playerbase. Those things are often (not always ofcourse, exceptions make the rule) connected, its that simple.
If your logic was sound it would work wherever it’s applied. It *easy* to demonstrate this isn’t the case. Instead of fixing your logic you waste our time complaining and insisting no one ever demonstrate that the basic logic is flawed. Please stop doing this, it’s annoying, your logic is flawed face this fact and move on.
The whole bug up your *** is that WoW isn’t at the top of the reviews. Therefore you are saying that because WoW topes some reviews it must top all reviews. This is every bit as flawed as your previous “logic”.
Ofcourse there are exceptions to the rule, it like that with everything.
I haven't seen you prove me wrong in any way or form, so how about you stop making these garbage post and actually come up with something thats worth reading instead of this garbage "No, no no! its not true because I say so!".
Also, WoW isn't at the top of the reviews? In what world do you live in, because in the real world, WoW IS at the top of the reviews..
I'd love to hear what you consider to be "Best" then.
And no, things like "Well its Best when I say its Best" is not going going to cut it. And yes, there is such a thing as best.
i have played the trial of this.. i was a bit shocked by the graphics at the start because i honestly expected better but it was a bit addicting. after the trial was finished i bought another and made a new account then finaly realized that i was waisting my time its just so repetative
Also, WoW isn't at the top of the reviews? In what world do you live in, because in the real world, WoW IS at the top of the reviews..
The problem with those reviews is that they're mostly done by people who have played the game not much longer than a couple of weeks.
If I would give World of Warcraft a score for the first month playing it I would give it a 9, or even a 10. But if I would re-review the game after reaching the end-game content I would probably give it no more than a 7, due to lack of variety in the things to do.
Also, WoW isn't at the top of the reviews? In what world do you live in, because in the real world, WoW IS at the top of the reviews..
The problem with those reviews is that they're mostly done by people who have played the game not much longer than a couple of weeks.
If I would give World of Warcraft a score for the first month playing it I would give it a 9, or even a 10. But if I would re-review the game after reaching the end-game content I would probably give it no more than a 7, due to lack of variety in the things to do. There are two things you have to take into consideration
1: The endgame is NOT the full game, despite popular belief. You are not forced to stick to one character and do raids over and over again.
Comments
Your first post, you make several claims about WoW and its population. This is the logical fallacy of Presupposition. The claims you make are certainly not mutually agreed upon or generally accepted as fact.
In your second post, you claim that because a food connoisseur rates something as better, that it is. This is the logical fallacy of Appealing to Misleading Authority. A food connoisseur has no more credentials to judge food than any other human being on the planet, since taste (in this case, its literal sense) is most certainly subjective.
Also in your second post, you try to make the claim that something being described as best, due to its popularity, is a logical fallacy. This is incorrect. The logical fallacy of Popularity, is that an idea is right because it is popular. Those two concepts are profoundly different. A product being the most popular because it is the best is most certainly a logical assumption. The idea that abortion being "wrong" because many people feel it is wrong is illogical. If one were to believe your train of though, the best product would be the least popular. In that case, Horizons would be the best MMORPG on the market.
What you don't seem to understand, is that you can't try to show show flaws in another persons argument if your own arguments are based solely on your own interpretation of logic, with rules that only apply to you.
Perception is Reality.
r
Good idea!
As for the continued pronouncements of WoW's imminent downfall, it will happen eventually, but probably not as drastically as everyone predicts.
I think the only MMO project that could take on more than a million gamers at this time with all the competition out there , would be a Star Wars Galaxies 2 or KOTOR MMO , something on the lines of that . It will have to be a huge name with the top graphic engines and developer ideas to compete with the so many titles out there right now.
Jakatta Tentoo
So firstly you go by objective means to determine best then you go subjective at the end with Beatles and Rolling Stones. Which is it? Is Beatles actually the best band ever? Because they got the most sales?
Oblivion is the best game on the Xbox360. Also testimonial by reviews.
www.gamerankings.com
1. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion X360 2K Games 102 9.2 94.1%
2. Gears of War X360 Microsoft Game Studios 105 8.7 93.8%
Much of this is dispute about the term 'best'. There are, for instance, two ways in which it maybe used. Subjectively or objectively. To expand on this, if you were to be asked the best film, you wouldn't go looking by stats to find what is the best film, you would answer what you thought was the best film you've seen. So people answering the question, what is the best MMO? They will go subjectively rather than going by stats. The problem here is many people who jumping on the bandwagon of best mmo are being fuelled by their own desires. If they didn't like WoW, would they be here saying it is the best mmo? Probably not. It is the reason why for other genres these people are reluctant to name the best because how they're arguing this is flawed in the first place.
Oblivion is the best game on the Xbox360. Also testimonial by reviews.
www.gamerankings.com
1. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion X360 2K Games 102 9.2 94.1%
2. Gears of War X360 Microsoft Game Studios 105 8.7 93.8%
Besides stats, I have never understood how people can compare 2 totally different games when saying which is better. Like GoW and ESIV. Its a shooter and an rpg.... This also happened to me awhile back when I said to a friend "WoW is a pretty fun game" only to get the response "F.E.A.R. is better" I just did not know what to say. Because in my eyes if your going to compare 2 games to decide which is better, they should be the same type of game.
Most MMOs have a peak life of about 2-3 years. Then they slowly (or quickly) decline and at about 8 years (from most of the MMOs out there) they eitehr move to a new version or shut down the servers completely.
WoW will most likely be around for a good decade the way it's going now, given that the internet doesn't shut down, the company doesn't go bankrupt, the market doesn't crash, and they keep putting in new content.
However, that doesn't mean WoW is the best game. Successful, yes. But finacial success does not equate to quality.
Look at Britney Spears. Nsync. Myspace. John Mayor's "continuum". Dr. Phil. FOX News. The Fantasitc 4. Spiderman 3. Dell Computers. EMachines.
All of these 'products' are extremely popular due to word of mouth, good advertising, and a good hook. But when you get past those three things, they are basically a low quality product by and large. They lack substance. They lack subtlety. They lack replay value. They make you wish you hadn't spent money to see them or purchase them, or that someone else had spent less money to blare them on the radio/TV.
And yet they make legions of people billions of dollars a year. So they are successful products, but they are low quality.
WoW is a less extreme example of this. It had a HUGE fanbase long before it became an MMO. It is easily accessable. It is almost completely uncontroversial. It is filled with loads of "fluff" of the same value that let NEOPETS stay a successful website/game for as long as IT did. It is addicting at first, and right up till max level, it promises more and more STUFF to the player. And above all, the game is stable and mostly balanced.
It does the carrot on the stick thing REALLY well, and the large fanbase prior to release and it's ease of accessablity means that most of the people who are playing WoW right now are MMO NOOBS.
Meaning most of them haven't quite got wise to the carrot on the stick thing. They aren't cynical yet. So of course Blizzard rakes in the cash.
But in the end, its the same frickin donkey, the same frickin stick, and the same frickin carrot. Nothing new. Nothing better than before (and in some cases of the game dynamics, actually worse than before).
How can you really call that "the best?"
[Begin Sarcasm]
Girls don't use the internet unless theres a webcam involved....its a physical impossibility.
They also don't play them thar vidya gaymes, mmorpg = most men online role play girls...even in ventrillo.
-kyte317
Ok lets take ratings:
Best Rts'
1. Company of Heroes User rating 7.9 Reviewers rating 94.1%
2. Warcraft 3 User rating 8.6 Reviewers rating 93.0%
3. Rome: Total War User rating 8.5 Reviewers rating 91.6%
Which is the best Rts then? Players of each will tell you different. WC3 is my personal favourite. Am I going to turn around and say, it got the highest user reviews, it probably got the most sales therefore it is the best rts? Nope, can't say that I will.
I think I've stated this before and I'll state it again, WoW will never go away in the respect of being taken down by another MMO. Why? Because the MMO market isn't like what it was in 2000-1, which we actually saw a "shrink-age" in player population due to the Dot Com Bubble and then the worsening of it due to fears propagated by the 9/11 attacks. It's been six years since then (from 2001), and the markets have recovered and even exceeded many expectations. We've see the steep drop in price of memory chips and storage devices, and we've seen the general price drop of powerful processors, thus making it easier for PC manufacturers to make the same product cheaper. That's why WoW was successful. People had more money to spend in 2004 than they did in 2001 and most importantly their money went further due to hardware prices dropping than in any year prior. And it doesn't look like it's going to stop any time soon. Expect WoW to finally reach its peak sometime in the future, whenever that might be, but don't expect it to suddenly have an SWG/NGE sort of loss. Unless Blizzard jumps the shark on their game, this will never happen. Get use to it. And in fact be thankful for WoW, it's made the capital money for investing in new MMOs as well as existing MMOs more easy to be obtained. And it's even spurring people to develop F/OSS platforms of MMOs, thus setting up the next generation of MUDs (or multi-user environments owned and operated by independent developers and game geeks). Economically, WoW is/was a good thing, even if it was terrible on the inspiration/ideas part of game development "culture."
DDO was going to be the downfall of WoW, then Vanguard, then LOTRO and now AoC and WAR. Seen it before, heard it before, got the T-shirt before but WoW is still standing and still dominating the MMO market.
Some of those games have crashed and burned horribly, some have managed to carve out a respectable player base(not one that compares to WoW's though. I hear people say 'But WAR/AoC/Generic MMO X is going to be a whole new ball game".... Well, everyone thought some of those games i've mentioned and others I haven't were going to be a whole new ball game as well.
The simple fact is that nothing truely new or innovative has come to the fantasy MMO genre for a long time, and I don't exclude WoW from that as most of it's design was influences heavily by older MMO's like EQ and DAoC. What WoW did was collect all the best bits of MMO's add a few new things and deliver them all in one big package backed by a development budget that was unheard of at the time.
Will WAR/AoC change the playing field? Nope and here's why
- Players hoping for a whole new MMO experience will be disappointed. Both games will have some neat new novelty stuff, I agree with that, but they will be as different from WoW as WoW is from EQ, DAoC, etc... In other words, not a lot just a bit more updated. Disappointed players are rarely loyal players
- Many players simple won't have systems powerful enough to play these games and that will hurt subscriber numbers. WoW was very smart in having such low system specs as it opened them up to the non hardcore PC gamers with space age systems. Vanguard is an example of how using the latest technology can backfire.
- The MMO market as a whole is stagnant. When WoW hit it was all new and exciting to the more casual gamer but since then nothing has moved on. WoW will 'die' one day as all things do but I don't think it will die at the hands of 'more of the same' games like WAR and AoC. WoW's real trouble will probably come a bit further down the line when some of the more adventurous MMO's hit which are currently regarded as vapourware and offer something really new.
WAR and AoC may nibble away at subscriber numbers a bit but let's be realisitc, Blizzard have a massive 'war fund' of dollars thanks to it's dominance over the last few years. If WAr and AoC really do cause any worries, Blizz will just use that war fund to get all the best develeopers and game designers from those two companies with better pay and put them to work on WoW 2 or a Diablo MMO or a Starcraft MMO or something completely new.
Love them or hate them, Blizzard have firmly established themselves as the Microsoft of teh MMO world and that sort of money and experience is going to be almost impossible for anyone to overcome.
CoH/CoV - D-Zol/Kinslayer
Auto Assault - Slayer
WoW, LOTRO, DDO - Kinsul
Matrix Online - Tempest
To wannabe or not to wannabe? Hey I know the answer and it is not 42!
Ofcourse there are exceptions to the rule, it like that with everything.
I haven't seen you prove me wrong in any way or form, so how about you stop making these garbage post and actually come up with something thats worth reading instead of this garbage "No, no no! its not true because I say so!".
Also, WoW isn't at the top of the reviews? In what world do you live in, because in the real world, WoW IS at the top of the reviews..
I'd love to hear what you consider to be "Best" then.
And no, things like "Well its Best when I say its Best" is not going going to cut it. And yes, there is such a thing as best.
AcAntman
The problem with those reviews is that they're mostly done by people who have played the game not much longer than a couple of weeks.
If I would give World of Warcraft a score for the first month playing it I would give it a 9, or even a 10. But if I would re-review the game after reaching the end-game content I would probably give it no more than a 7, due to lack of variety in the things to do.
The problem with those reviews is that they're mostly done by people who have played the game not much longer than a couple of weeks.
If I would give World of Warcraft a score for the first month playing it I would give it a 9, or even a 10. But if I would re-review the game after reaching the end-game content I would probably give it no more than a 7, due to lack of variety in the things to do. There are two things you have to take into consideration
1: The endgame is NOT the full game, despite popular belief. You are not forced to stick to one character and do raids over and over again.
2: Its a problem most MMO's are fighting with.