If you reply with yet another attempt to use the popularity argument in an unrelated field I will be forced to kill you with my mind.
It’s as invalid an argument in this field as in any other, and, what’s worse, it brings all discussion to a thundering halt. “I don’t like this game.” “Well, 10 million other people do, SO THERE!” Bo-ring.
WoW is on its face a more popular game than EQ, but that doesn’t mean it’s a “better” game than EQ. That’s one of them there subjective judgment-call thingies, which depends on the criteria one initially values, followed by an examination of whether X or Y game meets said criteria and to what extent, yada yada.
I can’t think of a single thing that’s better in the original EQ rather than WoW, so that would be a pretty simple comparison to make. There are a few things in the EQ sequel I liked, but overall WoW is still a much better game.
JM1
5943
That’s just plain daft. The argument is specifically about WoW. It is insanely popular because of every way it is better than DAOC & EQ. Its popularity is indeed proof of its superiority.
I just don’t think that saying because something is more popular it is better is universially applicable.
I agree. I wasn’t making that point. I am saying that in this case it’s actually true.
WoW is “nicer” to play. DAOC and EQ both bring things to the table that people miss, but there’s also a hundred and one frustrations and incredibly tedious elements that WoW either sidelined, improved, or flat out removed. It took from everything that came before it and turned the package into something user-friendly, a game worthy of being called entertainment.
It’s all well and good saying “just because it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s good” as if that argument hasn’t been trotted out a hundred times on this board, but why don’t you ask yourself why WoW is so popular, and if there’s any correlation between the quality of the game and the subscription numbers?
I don’t think anyone is saying that WoW is better because it has more subscribers. I think people are saying that WoW has more subscribers because it is better.
Right, it is popular because it is good, it’s not good because it is popular. Popularity is a side affect of quality (in some cases, not all). But things that are not good can also be popular. For this reason you cannot use popularity as a metric for quality.
Becuase popularity is so inconsistantly tied to quality it isn’t a very good statement of quality.
Lorini
5946
BUT if no one is on in a game that is supposed to be multi-player and is built on multi-player than that makes it a worse game. Vanguard, case in point. Vanguard may indeed now be ‘better’ but no one plays it so it’s not better.
Okay, so I was wrong when I said people weren’t arguing over which game is better here. Sheesh.
merryprankster, my opinion is that if you don’t like the grind of collecting 10 yeti asses over and over, then WoW probably isn’t for you. It doesn’t really go away. It does, however, eventually become so second nature that you are able to kill monsters while you are appreciating other aspects of the game. Exploring areas, for example, or experimenting with new spells.
I’d stick with it until you’ve at least done the following:
- Explored a few zones, to appreciate the character of different areas than just your starting zone.
- Done at least one dungeon instance with other players
- Done a PVP battleground.
After that, you’ll have a better idea of whether the grind is worth it for the other fun stuff in the game.
Actually that’s exactly what Balasarius said.
JM1
5950
Can you, like, go back and read what it was that I said in the first place, merryprankster?
In WoW’s case, it came after DAOC and EQ, it had one thing “out of game” going for it - Blizzard/Warcraft - and even then it was considered to be a massive gamble and a likely failure. EQ and DAOC had carved out their niches and yet here we are, with WoW having immense popularity and those two games being a tiny specks of dust. Nothing else since has come close to matching WoW, either.
So in this situation, yes, I feel that the sheer popularity of the game compared to the games that came before it does tell you something about the quality compared to the games that came before it. Clear enough?
(I hate the McDonalds comparison, because there’s so many other factors to take into account, too many to list here. In the world of MMOs, however, it’s much easier to look at the factors that lead to the success and failure of games.)
Ah…Intersting. I have to concede that point, well articulated.
I did go back and read what Balisarius wrote (which you agreed with). I could continue to make anologies but since you simply cannot see the fault in the logic and I want to go for I bike ride I’m not gonna bother.
Lorini actually made the the real point of the “how more is better in the MMO space” anyway.
JM1
5953
The logic being that given that choice between EQ (requiring groups for even simple quests) or a game a hell of a lot like EQ, only far more solo-friendly, most people preferred the game that wasn’t EQ? Right, yeah. I can see how saying “EQ’s method for quests had nowhere near the mass appeal of WoW’s method for quests” is really a flat-out “this game is better because it’s more popular”. Also if you take my response where I say “Balasarius is right” and then squint really really hard so you ignore the rest of it where I provide the context, then you are completely correct.
Fucking hell.
What I said:
Balasarius is right - EQ requiring groups for the simplest of quests may be something that appealed to a certain group of people, but it sure as hell isn’t attractive to the majority.
What you think I said:
Balasarius is right - WoW is a better game because it’s more popular.
Look, Ultrazen was saying how he felt that allowing people to play so easily solo was hurting the genre a bit (in response to the intese dullness I experienced with WoW over the weekend).
Balasarius didn’t say “well it’s what the people want” he said that ultrazen was wrong and that WoW’s not forcing you to group was better, because more people play it.
My reply was that more people playing something does not make it better.
You r statement has two parts. 1-agreement with balisarius that more people playing something makes a game concept better and 2-WoW is more popular since it is more accessible.
I do agree with point 2 you made, however I do not agree with point one. I do not agree that accessability and or popularity constitute a better game.
I guess I’m now confused as to your position. Is it that you feel WoW gained more popularity due to it’s format. Or that since WoW is more popular it has been proven to be the better game? Or both?
JM1
5955
It’s all one sentence dude - the two points don’t exist in isolation.
Blizzard’s decision to make the game solo-friendly proved to be a massive hit and it’s one of the major selling points. So many people play it virtually as a single player game. My point, which I’ve stated several times, is that it’s wildly popular primarily because of the design decisions and you can point to its utter dominance in terms of numbers over competitors from before, after, and during WoW’s launch as proof that those design decisions were far more palatable for the majority of the people. Which is a roundabout way of saying it’s a better game, because aside from that WoW is a “more of the same” game that doesn’t have much else going for it beyond amazing polish and accessibility. It’s just that a shit-ton of people tried it and liked it enough to play it and recommend it to their friends, and keep playing it for years. So many WoW players play virtually nothing else. It’s almost unique in this regard (perhaps truly “casual” games are the only other example of this - Farmville et al).
You can’t pretend that subscription numbers are useless when determining quality in the MMO space. Indeed, we get plenty of people predicting (with some accuracy) exactly what the numbers will do at launch and post-launch for pretty much every MMO that is released.
Oh that’s just crap and you know it.
First, population does not affect the quality of a game. It may affect the experience you have while playing, but more isn’t necessarily better. See: WoW. Bigger crowds = larger audience for immaturity and easier exploitation of anonymity.
Second, the extent population affects the quality of a gameplay experience begins and ends with the minimum number of people required to enjoy content. Vanguard may be rocking 500 people on peak times, but there’s still enough on to experience the content as intended. Which, by the way, is fantastic if you’re into the more non-linear or exploration oriented aspects of the genre.
JM1
5957
Yeah, I agree with that. Population on a server only matters when you get to a critical level - it’s not the same as subscription numbers. Plus there’s the manner in which the game servers work - single shard, on the fly instancing, or discrete servers.
Ok, JM I see where you’re coming from here. And I agree, WoW made great design decisions in order to create an experience that works on a lot of different levels for a lot of different people. I suppose if we use that as a definition of better, than yeah WoW is better since more people play it.
JM1
5959
As you said, “better” is so subjective in some ways that either you concede that it’s impossible to claim one game is better, or you try and look at the design and the appeal, and compare it to its peers.
It still amazes me how bad people are at making MMOs :(
I don’t think it’s that amazing. It seems to be quite tricky to do correctly, or else we’d be loaded with awesome MMOs. There are certain aspects of a lot of MMOs that do make you wonder if the developers have been paying attention to any game preceding theirs, however. DCUO’s terrible, terrible social interface is a great example. I haven’t played it for a while now, but there were little or no improvements made to any of it 2 months after release. Making it difficult to interact with people in an MMO is just mind-boggling.
