PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
World of Warcraft
September 2nd 2001, 20:40 CEST by Morn

Unless you've been living on some strange alien planet, you've certainly already heard of Blizzard's new game, World of Warcraft, a massively multiplayer online RPG set in the Warcraft universe.

Not much to discuss here, but what the heck. Here's a collection of related material:

» <a href="http://www.blizzard.com/wow/">Blizzard's WoW website</a>
» <a href="http://www.blizzard.com/press/010902wow.shtml">WoW press release</a>
» <a href="http://www.fileplanet.com/index.asp?file=64229">WoW cinematic trailer</a> (<a href="http://bonusweb.cz/download/trailery/worldofwarcraftectst.html">DivX version</a>)
» <a href="http://www.fileplanet.com/index.asp?file=64234">WoW gameplay movie</a>
» <a href="http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2809173,00.html">Preview @ GameSpot</a>
» <a href="http://www.gamespot.co.uk/stories/news/0,2160,2094391,00.html">WoW first impressions @ GameSpot UK</a>

Thanks to <a href="http://www.bluesnews.com">Blue's News</a> for the links. So, World of Warcraft -- what do you think?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: World of Warcraft

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Anonymous"
2001-09-01 14:59:54
buya
#2 by "szcx codemonkey, PhD."
2001-09-02 20:57:06
http://www.leslienassar.com/
Morn, I think you got the title wrong.  It's World of Warhammer.
#3 by "Desiato"
2001-09-02 20:57:27
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com http://www.spew2.com/
It should be an impressive collection of levelers and cheats.

Any bets on how fast it all goes to hell?


Desiato
#4 by "Jeremy Witt"
2001-09-02 21:18:17
kimsbitch@succubae.com
I called it!
#5 by "Creole Ned"
2001-09-02 21:46:33
cned@telus.net
The *fourth* game based on Warcraft and yet *another* fantasy MMORPG (or whichever acronym you prefer). This is something I can honestly say I could not give a flying fig about. It could make Blizzard a good bit of cash, though. :)
#6 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-09-02 21:59:17
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
I dunno, the screenshots on the shack look cool.  This may be one I actually play.  I can't play EverQuest because of the ridiculous graphics.
#7 by "Sgt_Hulka"
2001-09-02 22:32:09
rwaring@teamevolve.com http://www.teamevolve.com
I was a Warcraft I and II addict, but I hate MMORPG.  I wonder if they can convert me over to the dark side..  Only time will tell.  For now I'll continue to work on my 0lsen Twin FPS.
#8 by "Preacher"
2001-09-02 22:46:27
preacher@unreality.org http://www.unreality.org
The pics look amazing.. They are the kind you print out and take home to meet your parents.
I wanna play this game.. and I want it NOW! But knowing Blizzard, it will probably be another 11 years before it is released.
#9 by "llamasex"
2001-09-02 22:50:27
llamasex@yahoo.com www.drunkenlosers.com
I was unimpressed with the vid. Plus paying a monthly fee. Count me out.
#10 by "Creole Ned"
2001-09-02 22:50:51
cned@telus.net
Warren:

I dunno, the screenshots on the shack look cool. This may be one I actually play. I can't play EverQuest because of the ridiculous graphics.

It would take a hell of a lot more than even completely sumptious graphics to convince me to devote the huge blocks of time necessary to get "enjoyment" out of an MMORPG. :)
#11 by "Jeremy Witt"
2001-09-02 23:22:11
kimsbitch@succubae.com
I loved Warcraft 2 (and RPGs), but I fall into the "couldn't give a rat's ass about MMORPG" crowd. If Blizzard was going to keep a previous world going, I would've appreciated another Starcraft game; not that this game precludes that. Mmmmm...Starcraft universe + Blizzard quality + 3D Total Annihilation gameplay/graphics == happy Jeremy. Maybe someday.
#12 by "Rambar"
2001-09-02 23:38:20
http://www.opencrap.org
#3 Desiato
It should be an impressive collection of levelers and cheats.

Any bets on how fast it all goes to hell?

The day the first beta CD arrives in a testers hand.  It'll have gone to hell long before that but the public won't know :)

This game will be exactly like the others.  Buggy, unstable, poor servers, and poor customer service.  Oops I just described Diablo2.  The new one has a monthly fee.

die
#13 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-09-03 00:07:47
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
Except that you forget that Blizzard has been running massively multiplayer games for years now ... BattleNet.  And while it may not be perfect, they HAVE experience in this area.  They know what they're walking into.  I'm confident they'll have the resources in place when they launch ...
#14 by "Morn"
2001-09-03 00:24:11
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
Well, the games that you can play over Battle.net today are hardly *massively* multiplayer games (with up to 8 players per game, doh!), but yes, of course Blizzard do have some experience in this sector. At least more than Funcom had when they started development on AO, I suppose. :)

Personally, I'm looking forward to WoW a lot. I expect a MMORPG that is a bit simpler (in all regards) than the other MMORPGs out there, but much more solid and polished. You know, it's the way of the Blizzard. ;-)

- Morn
#15 by "shaithis"
2001-09-03 01:16:26
chrisb@gamespy.com http://www.shaithis.com
I would far prefer it if they had set the game in the Starcraft universe, but this is still the first MMORPG I've found even vaguely appealing since I became tired of AC.

-shai
#16 by "aivars"
2001-09-03 02:05:49
yeah I am looking forward to this one as well. i never got into the 3D mmorpg's because of the horrid graphics as Warren stated, though I did play UO quite a bit... I only wish WoW would be in the top down 3rd person 3D perspective like Warcraft 3 but oh well...

aivars
#17 by "Rambar"
2001-09-03 02:16:06
http://www.opencrap.org
#13 Warren Marshall
Except that you forget that Blizzard has been running massively multiplayer games for years now ... BattleNet.  And while it may not be perfect, they HAVE experience in this area.  They know what they're walking into.  I'm confident they'll have the resources in place when they launch ...

I've had years of "experience" playing battle.net games.  My experience tells me exactly the opposite.

die
#18 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-09-03 02:26:32
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
I've had years of "experience" playing battle.net games. My experience tells me exactly the opposite.

Well, this might sound cold, but I could care less about one users opinion of BattleNet.  It's like talking about the netcode in any random FPS ... some people will say it rules, others will say it sucks.  Asking individual people is worthless feedback.  You have to go with larger numbers if you want to get an accurate take on it.

Blizzard has experience in running servers and maintaining thousands of people connected at any given time (yes, only 8 per game, but there isn't only one game running on their server).  Period.
#19 by "Rambar"
2001-09-03 02:32:30
http://www.opencrap.org
#18 Warren Marshall
Well, this might sound cold, but I could care less about one users opinion of BattleNet.

I could care less about one non-users opinion of b.net. (or do you play?)  

die
#20 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-09-03 02:35:28
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
I could care less about one non-users opinion of b.net. (or do you play?)

Nope, I don't play on it.  However, thousands of other people do.  Hence, it works.
#21 by "Sgt.Seb"
2001-09-03 02:44:48
I wish they had used the SC universe instead :(  Maybe its because they have other plans for the Starcraft franchise?  (Probably needs a few more sequels before it gets to Warcraft's 'age' if you like).

Of course the SC universe would have been much harder - trying to do multiple worlds and its not quite so suited to roleplaying.

Oh well.
#22 by "None-1a"
2001-09-03 02:54:10
none1a@home.com
Nope, I don't play on it. However, thousands of other people do. Hence, it works.


Say 100 out of every 1000 people can't get onto the servers now. That's 1 out of every 10 (or more usefull 1 out of every 10 days where it's likly I'm not going to be able to login). For a free service I'd be willing to put up with not being able to get in 3 days a month, but if I'm paying for it it had better work reliably every day.
#23 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-09-03 03:01:27
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
Say 100 out of every 1000 people can't get onto the servers now. That's 1 out of every 10 (or more usefull 1 out of every 10 days where it's likly I'm not going to be able to login). For a free service I'd be willing to put up with not being able to get in 3 days a month, but if I'm paying for it it had better work reliably every day.

What's hard to understand about what I'm saying?  Blizzard has been running BattleNet for years.  Thus, they have experience in these types of affairs.

Will it be perfect on day one?  Beats me.  How would I know?  All I'm saying is that Blizzard is walking into this thing with experience under their belts, which is more than some of the companies starting up these MMORPG's can say.
#24 by "fyrewolf"
2001-09-03 03:28:49
World of Warcraft takes place four years following the aftermath of Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos™...


And to add to the realism, Blizzard is going to make players actually wait that four years.  Seeya in 2006.
#25 by "Sgt_Hulka"
2001-09-03 03:50:10
rwaring@teamevolve.com http://www.teamevolve.com
Off topic.

The new Ozzy song is pretty damn good!  

And now, back to your regularly scheduled bickering..
#26 by "Seemlar"
2001-09-03 04:12:50
Bah, more fantasy?

Not interested at all. And that goes for Warcraft 3 as well.
#27 by "Quicken"
2001-09-03 04:14:02
geoffrey@access.com.au http://www.warmage.com
It wasn't a huge surprise. But I'm not even slightly interested in MMORPG. Mostly I'm turned off by the monthly fee. There's going to be some months when I just don't have the time and I'd rather not pay just to stop my character being erased. Can't I get assigned leave like I do in real life? Must I go killing hoards every single bloody month?

*sigh*

Blizzard I think know where they can get some money. They've seen enough people stubling around with these PIGs that they think they can do it better. And they're probably right.

Multiplayer first-person starcraft would rock. Even without the "massive" prefix. Must every role playing game have orks and elves?
#28 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-09-03 04:20:34
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
I see that fantasy is this weeks whipping boy.  :)
#29 by "HoseWater"
2001-09-03 04:26:54
http://refracted.com/opencrap
Well, give it a smack for me too then.  Not even a smidgen in interest here.

I am jonesing for a go at Red Faction though.
#30 by "szcx codemonkey, PhD."
2001-09-03 04:31:43
http://www.leslienassar.com/
I see that fantasy is this weeks whipping boy. :)

Next week it's the "Post-Apocalyptic Wasteland" theme followed by "Edgy, In-Your-Face Cartoon".
#31 by "Quicken"
2001-09-03 04:38:06
geoffrey@access.com.au http://www.warmage.com
#28 Warren Marshall
I see that fantasy is this weeks whipping boy.  :)


It's not so much that. I love fantasy. But it dominates these mmorpg's so much that it's getting repetive and boring. I think that's why people had such high hopes for WW2 and Anarchy Online. Anything different is a relief at the moment.
#32 by "m0nty"
2001-09-03 04:39:54
paul.montgomery@delphigroup.com.au http://www.delphigroup.com.au
Since we're talking about fantasy, I bought Arcanum on the weekend, and I have to say that despite the scandalously plagiarised interface and game design direct from Fallout, and the presence of the ubiquitous elves, orcs and dwarves, I am finding it pleasantly refreshing to play in a well-realised steampunk milieu.

I think the boring thing about fantasy is that they all steal from the same handful of source texts - theft is de rigeur in fantasy circles, but if you want to invest your RPG with a little bit of freshness, at least pilfer from something a bit different! As suggestions:

The Difference Engine, by Bruce Sterling & William Gibson
Feersum Endjinn, by Iain Banks
the Endymion series by Dan Simmons
the Neverness series by David Zindell
#33 by "None-1a"
2001-09-03 04:50:53
none1a@yahoo.com http://www.opencrap.org
#23 Warren Marshall
What's hard to understand about what I'm saying?  Blizzard has been running BattleNet for years.  Thus, they have experience in these types of affairs.


Yes and so far that experience has show they don't keep the server reliable enough for every one to give me enough confidence in their ability to do that enough to pay for access on a monthly bases. With an unknown I have at least some hope that they've studied others problems and taken steps to fix them, with Blizzard I see little being done to fix the problem of a small but not insignificant number of people (considering the need to pay).

It's ass not arse, irregardless your a arse
#34 by "JMCDaveL"
2001-09-03 04:59:07
jmcdavel@mailandnews.com http://www.cosmicrift.com
Blizzard sucks. No I will not play your "new" game at 640x480 on my 21" and no I will not spend 35 bucks on the expansion just to play it at 800x600. I will instead spend 5.50 at Office Depot for a boxed copy of Nox that gives me high resolution and a much more enjoyable experience.

Oh and also:

Blizzard sucks. No I will not play your archaeic "control only 6 units at once" interface. Nor will I applaud you for including nothing innovative or learning anything from far superior rts (Total Annihilation).  Please continue spending your entire development budgets on fancy cinemas and fanboi stroking. k thx

--jmc
~Give me Fallout Online.~
#35 by "some random lurker"
2001-09-03 05:11:45
#32:

FTR the "Endymion" series is actually the Hyperion series; there were two books (Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion) before Endymion. IMO, Endymion is actually the low point of the entire series.
#36 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-09-03 05:18:39
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
Since we're talking about fantasy, I bought Arcanum on the weekend, and I have to say that despite the scandalously plagiarised interface and game design direct from Fallout, and the presence of the ubiquitous elves, orcs and dwarves, I am finding it pleasantly refreshing to play in a well-realised steampunk milieu.

You know that it's made by the guys who made Fallout, right?  :)
#37 by "curst"
2001-09-03 05:22:36
curst@zombieworld.com
#32 - I hate to say this because I know that graphics are supposed to be the least important thing in an RPG (see Nethack, although even then, I find myself only playing graphics-based versions of it now) - but Arcanum's very bland world is starting to wear on my eyes.  It's not the fact that it takes place in an Industrial Revolution-esque era, as that's allowing for some unique twists on fantasy RPG-ing, which frankly has started to feel a bit rehashed time and time again.  But there's nothing that's really fascinating or out of the ordinary so far.

That's not to slag the game by any means - I'm horribly nerdy enough to enjoy constructing my own firearms from parts, I quickly discovered that there's no point in playing in real-time mode, it's well-written (although I despise the prose found in the manual, can't really explain why but DAMN it's off-the-charts fruity), you progress at just a rapid enough pace that you never really feel like you've hit a brick wall, I'm definitely going to play it a second time witha  vastly different character just because I CAN.  But I wish it's artwork was a bit more, um, inspired.

And when you mention the interface looking/feeling like Fallout's - well, I think (don't quote me) that that is partly due to the fact that some Fallout programmers actually helped write Arcanum.  (I could just be really fucked up in the head, too...but I swear I read that somewhere.)  But never mind the interface - the entire freaking game manages to look exactly like Fallout, except there's no evidence of nuclear holocaust.  And Fallout's another game that I think does a great job of realistically presenting its world to you, and yeah it's godlike in its awesomeness and all of that - but it doesn't take long for it to look pretty damn boring.

Still, Arcanum is really cool.  Diablo 2 is just a vague memory now...
#38 by "curst"
2001-09-03 05:24:41
curst@zombieworld.com
Argh, stupid inability to see other posts as I'm typing mine and someone else brings up the same point I had first...

At least I know I'm not suffering bizarre after-effects of alcohol when I say Arcanum was programmed by the same people.  :)
#39 by "curst"
2001-09-03 05:39:40
curst@zombieworld.com
As far as a Warcraft MMORPG goes - no thanks.  No matter how good it looks, A: I have the feeling Dungeon Siege is still going to look better, call me crazy - and B: I'm very curious to see how Blizzard can make WoW feel any different from Diablo 2 on Battle.net.

I say this because, while I've never owned Everquest, AC, UO, etc..., I have seen them in action for a short while.  And the overwhelming impression I got was "huh...this is just like Diablo 2, except in 3D".  Pretty mindless action where your only real quest is to keep raising those stats and hopefully get a better weapon from that really tough monster.  And it's not that I disdain that style of play entirely - after all, Diablo 2 certainly lasted longer on my hard drive than many other games.  I'm probably being inherently unfair, not owning any of these games - but it's hard to look past that initial impression.

So if WoW doesn't do anything different but just raises the bar for graphics somewhat - well, sorry, I still have my eyes are firmly fixated on Dungeon Siege.  Never mind the screenshots which have me shaking in anticipation, but there are people already working on Ultima 5 and U6 total conversions for it!  I mean, sweet fucking Jesus that's incredible (if they pull it off).

I do think that if anyone can be counted on to release an MMORPG that won't be terrifically fucked on Day 1, it's Blizzard.  I thought that D2's Battle.net experience was pretty shoddy at first, but they improved it, and compared to what people are saying about AO, they improved it in lightning-quick fashion!  And their other games (which were very likely as widely played as anything outside of Quake or Halflife online when they first came out) always seemed to enjoy fantastic performance on Bnet.  I'd say that the one thing you shouldn't worry about is how stable their servers will be.
#40 by "shaithis"
2001-09-03 05:58:28
chrisb@gamespy.com http://www.shaithis.com
I'm also currently playing Arcanum, and really enjoying it. I had high hopes for it, given how much I liked the original Fallout, and how frustrated I was with the sequel (which lacked the input from the guys who had left to form Troika).

Yes, the graphics aren't top of the line... but then, I never played any of Interplay's post-fallout2 RPGs (BG, IWD, etc), so they still look nice to me. Beyond that, the gameplay is great. I hate games where quests take twelve hours to finish. Give me lots and lots of *little* subquests, instead of just a bunch of big, stupid ones.

That's why Fallout was better than its sequel. Quicker, more gratifiying... it clipped along, and kept me interested. Arcanum does that. There's a billion different ways I get a sense of accomplishment, very few of them even involving my experience points.

Which makes it better than Fallout2 - which was "Fallout, only with longer, more boring quests, absolutely no graphical improvement, and a mediocre theme".

Oh, also, just for the record - I'm not slagging fantasy, Warren (though it's never been at the top of my list of genres). I just like the Starcraft story a lot, and want to see it continued. =)

-shai
#41 by "m0nty"
2001-09-03 06:28:44
paul.montgomery@delphigroup.com.au http://www.delphigroup.com.au
#35: Hyperion, yes. /me tries to remember to do research next time.

#36: No Warren, I wasn't aware of that, but it's all falling into place like a game of Tetris now that you mention it.

#37, #40: First of all curst, have you tried cranking up the brightness in the in-game video options? For some reason, Arcanum starts out on the lowest brightness setting, but the look improves markedly once you increase it.

I would rather a game developer concentrate on good gameplay than develop a whole new graphical engine with advanced particle effects to correctly model the fluid motion of my character pissing in the wind. Anachronox is another arguably successful example of gameplay over tech wizardry. At a lesser level, this is also why the Might & Magic series continues to sell well. The BG series managed to do what it could within the design limitations of its Infinity engine - it implemented pseudo-sprites on pre-rendered 2D backgrounds better than Fallout/Arcanum has managed, but neither is going to wow you with graphical pyrotechnics.

Having said that, why is is that no matter what genre or milieu a game is set in, every game HAS to have spiders, sewers and/or crates? Admittedly, the Time To Crate (t2C) of Arcanum is reasonably high, as IIRC you have to get to the second location to find a crate, but if you ignored everything else I think you could probably cut the t2C down to less than a minute of gametime.
#42 by "Whisp"
2001-09-03 06:44:17
Another interesting fantasy world is the one Gregory Keyes develops in his series "The Age of Unreason,"  Newton's Cannon, A Calculus of Angels, Empire of Unreason, and The Shadows of God.  Basically alchemy replaces calculus as Newton's great development.  The French thinkers of the time, Ben Franklin, the Russians, and many others all get into the act, with wars all around!  Best of all, the British Isles get slagged by a huge "wandering moon" (asteroid).  Bye-bye England!

-Whisp
#43 by "Anonymous"
2001-09-03 06:52:42
"I ATE A BA-BY! An' I'VE SEEN BIGGER HUNKS O' CORN IN MY CRAP!"
#44 by "Paul"
2001-09-03 07:08:38
deleted deleted
Warren Marshall:

 I could care less about one non-users opinion of b.net. (or do you play?)

Nope, I don't play on it. However, thousands of other people do. Hence, it works.


That's not the best argument. Instead, it's best to see how they have corrected problems in the past.

If this thing is 3 years down the line, those pics are useless.

By the time this thing is out, I don't know how I'll feel, but at this point, I can certainly not support a per month charge. Its just not the way I like to play games. Now if it's free, or of very low charge(9 bucks) with a per month charge, I may try it out for a month. But then again, the business model may turn me off.

Right now I'm still into Half Life, and by the time this is released, hopefully I will be into Duke Forever, or the New Doom.

- Paul
#45 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-09-03 07:12:29
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
Oh, also, just for the record - I'm not slagging fantasy, Warren (though it's never been at the top of my list of genres). I just like the Starcraft story a lot, and want to see it continued. =)

Bash fantasy all you want.  You're much further in the dog house for your blaspheming of Fallout2.  Die heathen!  :)
#46 by "TheToadWarrior"
2001-09-03 07:31:57
toadwarrior@hotmail.com http://jove.prohosting.com/~toadw/
I won't pay per month to play a game. Maybe if they always worked, weren't full of wankers and looked good, I may but there's yet to be a game that charges and matches those requirements.
#47 by "shaithis"
2001-09-03 08:00:48
chrisb@gamespy.com http://www.shaithis.com
I like Fallout2. Just not as much as Fallout 1. And since the first was, without question, my favorite RPG of all time, it was a disappointment to not like the sequel *more* (let alone that I didn't even like it as much).

I haven't been able to finish Fallout2, despite at least eight attempts (the last two of which I even used a character editor to just "power through it", but I found that to be incredibly boring). I beat Fallout1 over a long weekend during which I barely slept. Couldn't leave the computer. =)

W/ Fallout2, every time I get to the enclave base, I get bored. Dunno what it is, exactly, that makes this happen. :\

-shai
#48 by "JMCDaveL"
2001-09-03 08:17:43
jmcdavel@mailandnews.com http://www.cosmicrift.com
Just gotta play with the right characters, I took Sulik and Cassidy along and never used anyone else except just to mess around with. Sulik would alternate between being the worst thing ever in a battle (give him a mega power fist, let him run out of ammo, watch him make the reloading gesture 50x his turn is over! give him anything ranged except a SMG and watch him not be able to use it! even better let him turn burst on and put more holes in you than the enemy!) to being a lifesaver (watch Sulik knock an enemy all the way to the edge of the screen with the super sledge! watch Sulik suck up all the damage while you pick off the mutants!).  Cassidy was pretty unreliable though, but he rarely got hurt and he would do at least 20 damage a round when outfitted properly, thats all I cared about.

--jmc
#49 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-09-03 08:36:19
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
Yeah, Sulik can be cool.  He really hits 'em with that hammer.  I'm actually playing Fallout2 sporadically at the moment and right now I've got Sulik and Vic.  Vic is fucking useless.  :)
#50 by "shaithis"
2001-09-03 08:38:48
chrisb@gamespy.com http://www.shaithis.com
Nah, it's not that I can't beat it. I can and have, legitimately, using Sulik, Cassidy, Vic and the Deathclaw (and also, of course, non-legitimately both of the times I used the character editor).

It's just that I lose interest in the game. I'm honestly not sure why, but it's always right around that point.

-shai
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: World of Warcraft

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]