Originally posted by Bardock42
I think your major problem is that you hold an MMORPG to the same standards as a Single Player RPG. That makes little sense, they have very different standards. You seem to like Single Player Styled RPGs, fair enough, so do I, but it doesn't make WoW a horrible game. I am sure there are better reasons to objectively crticize WoW, but holding it by those standards is a bit ridiculous.
Not at all. Whether the RPG is single player or multi player doesn't change the fact that at its core, it is still an RPG. It needs a story to drive you, it needs a setting you can escape into, and it needs character that you find engaging. Without that, the RPG holds no purpose, there is simply no way to escape into the role of the character.
Originally posted by TavenNo, they really do not. You are delusional. And your arguments are at best subjective, more often very weak or flat out wrong though. You don't like WoW, that's fair enough, but you are one of the few people that would measure it by Single Player Computer RPGs...it's a different genre. It's just as dumb as judging Computer RPGs by Pen and Paper standards.
Yes they do, and Morridini especially does.
Originally posted by Taven
Not at all. Whether the RPG is single player or multi player doesn't change the fact that at its core, it is still an RPG. It needs a story to drive you, it needs a setting you can escape into, and it needs character that you find engaging. Without that, the RPG holds no purpose, there is simply no way to escape into the role of the character.
No, you really are just hung up on the RPG part of MMORPG. The focus of MMOs is different to that of Single Player RPGs, that is just a fact, for someone priding themselves on not having opinions and only stating facts, you miss this fact quite blatantly.
Yes he does, and as I said, subjectivity is a myth. That you don't possess the capabilities to reach a definitive conclusion doesn't mean that others cannot. And no, they're different subgenres; at their core, they're part of the very same genre, and whether or not the game is just single player or contains multi player interaction is immaterial when it comes to how engaging the story and the setting and the characters are intended to be for you to escape into the role of your character.
And I've already pointed out numerous faults of the game that aren't even specific to the genre: the dated graphics, terrible battle visuals, repetitive command based gameplay, pointless random gameplay items, lame and cheesy in-world celebrations. The game only succeeds in one area: quantity. That's it. The sheer number of things you can do/number of quests you can do/size of the game world is highly impressive. That's it.
Originally posted by Taven
Yes he does, and as I said, subjectivity is a myth. That you don't possess the capabilities to reach a definitive conclusion doesn't mean that others cannot. And no, they're different subgenres; at their core, they're part of the very same genre, and whether or not the game is just single player or contains multi player interaction is immaterial when it comes to how engaging the story and the setting and the characters are intended to be for you to escape into the role of your character.
That is nonsense. There are things which are merely down to opinion as well as there are things only rooted in fact. To know the difference is something many people can't seem to achieve. And again, you speak of things that you like about RPGs, but that's not what draws people in that play MMOs. You say it is a shit game because it doesn't deliver what you find important. That's like me knocking Gran Turismo cause I can't play football in it. Very silly.
Originally posted by Taven
And I've already pointed out numerous faults of the game that aren't even specific to the genre: the dated graphics, terrible battle visuals, repetitive command based gameplay, pointless random gameplay items, lame and cheesy in-world celebrations. The game only succeeds in one area: quantity. That's it. The sheer number of things you can do/number of quests you can do/size of the game world is highly impressive. That's it.
The game is 4 years old, that doesn't make it a bad game. And you don't like the inworld celebrations and gimmicks, that's, again, not fact. We have established that you don't like it. That it is a bad game, you have failed to prove.
Originally posted by Taven
That's right, back down fool.
Contrary to you, I have all the time in the world to reply...
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is nonsense. There are things which are merely down to opinion as well as there are things only rooted in fact. To know the difference is something many people can't seem to achieve.
Balderdashg!¬
Everything is rooted in fact, whether or not you can see that matters not.
And again, you speak of things that you like about RPGs,
You realise that is what WoW actually is?
but that's not what draws people in that play MMOs.
You say it is a shit game because it doesn't deliver what you find important.
It doesn't deliver what is the very purpose of the genre. It's not what I find important, it's what is important.
That's like me knocking Gran Turismo cause I can't play football in it. Very silly.
LOL. Out of all of the false analogies I've ever come across, this is definitely one of the more hilarious ones. The difference between the standard RPG and the MMORPG: the multiplayer aspect of it, is completely immaterial as to how story/character driven it is supposed to be, and how captivating the player is supposed to find it (the criteria I've been basing my comparisons off of, and the criteria that the genre at its core is set to achieve). While Gram Turismo and, let's say for example, a Fifa game can both be classified under the sports genre (which is far too diverse and wide ranging by nature to be compared to an RPG anyway, automatically making your comparison void), if the aspect you like about the Fifa game is the football element, than that's a very material difference between the two games that will directly affect how you enjoy the game.
The game is 4 years old, that doesn't make it a bad game.
So they couldn't have updated the graphics via a patch? It may have been originally developed four years ago, but they have been expanding upon it ever since up until this very day. It's expected that the graphics at least be comparable to those of the other modern games out there, as it's clearly a continuous development project. And age is never an excuse when pointing out the graphical capabilities of a game.
And you don't like the inworld celebrations and gimmicks, that's, again, not fact.
Wait are you arguing whether or not I like it is a fact? Because it is, as is the fact that it's very lame and cheesy, and adds nothing original or creating to the game.
We have established that you don't like it. That it is a bad game, you have failed to prove.
Yes I have. It couldn't fail at achieving WHAT IT IS INTENDED TO BY THE VERY GENRE ITSELF any more miserably. It completely lacks quality in many other aspects of the game on top of that. Evaluating the [few] strengths and [many] weaknesses of the game, it can be definitively concluded to be a -- relatively speaking -- very lacking game.
Contrary to you, I have all the time in the world to reply...
👆
Originally posted by Taven
Balderdashg!¬Everything is rooted in fact, whether or not you can see that matters not.
Opinions exist. That is a fact. Whether you think Apples taste good is your opinion. That they taste good to you, is maybe a fact, but that is a different thought altogether.
Originally posted by Taven
You realise that is what WoW actually is?
It is an MMORPG...it is not a Single Player Computer RPG, it is not a Pen and Paper RPG, it is not a LARP...they all have different standards.
Originally posted by Taven
It doesn't deliver what is the very purpose of the genre. It's not what I find important, it's what is important.
No, it delivers what people look for in MMORPG. It might not deliver what people look for in SP RPGs, but then you can just go play Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights, can't you?
Originally posted by Taven
LOL. Out of all of the false analogies I've ever come across, this is definitely one of the more hilarious ones. The difference between the standard RPG and the MMORPG: the multiplayer aspect of it, is completely immaterial as to how story/character driven it is supposed to be, and how captivating the player is supposed to find it (the criteria I've been basing my comparisons off of, and the criteria that the genre at its core is set to achieve). While Gram Turismo and, let's say for example, a Fifa game can both be classified under the sports genre (which is far too diverse and wide ranging by nature to be compared to an RPG anyway, automatically making your comparison void), if the aspect you like about the Fifa game is the football element, than that's a very material difference between the two games that will directly affect how you enjoy the game.
Actually, it being Massively Multiplayer is very central. It changes what type of RP people are looking for. Which you fail to realize. There are many different ways people enjoy Role Playing, what is traditionally considereg good in Single Player RPGs does not need to apply to Multiplayer ones at all. Again, you don't like it, for your reasons.
Originally posted by Taven
So they couldn't have updated the graphics via a patch? It may have been originally developed four years ago, but they have been expanding upon it ever since up until this very day. It's expected that the graphics at least be comparable to those of the other modern games out there, as it's clearly a continuous development project. And age is never an excuse when pointing out the graphical capabilities of a game.
You are being silly again. It was released 4 years ago, and of course it is not going to be as single player games, it is meant for a different demographic. And yes, age is very important when judging graphics (on the other hand judging graphics, should be hardly of any importance)...Doom 1 is a god game, even though the graphics, by todays standards, are severly lacking...
Originally posted by Taven
Wait are you arguing whether or not I like it is a fact? Because it is, as is the fact that it's very lame and cheesy, and adds nothing original or creating to the game.
You not liking it is fact. It being lame and cheesy is but your opinion. Those things are also hardly defined, very silly.
Originally posted by Taven
Yes I have. It couldn't fail at achieving [b]WHAT IT IS INTENDED TO BY THE VERY GENRE ITSELF any more miserably. It completely lacks quality in many other aspects of the game on top of that. Evaluating the [few] strengths and [many] weaknesses of the game, it can be definitively concluded to be a -- relatively speaking -- very lacking game.
[/B]
What you think the genre intends, is obviously not what it actually does. There's not really much point in talking to you, your whole approach has been holding your hands over your ears and yelling "la la la, I'm right".
I like how his entire argument was "it should be this" "it's expected to be this".
When really, it's all "I THINK it should be this, I expect it to be this".
An MMO is not the same as a singleplayer RPG. It is not comparable to a game like Final Fantasy. The biggest part of an MMO is, with few exceptions, not the plot, but rather character progression and social interaction. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who play a game like WoW don't even realize that it has a plot.
So, basically - just because you do not like something does not factually make it a bad game. That's really all it comes down to.