WoW Beta is up (albiet very unstable) [Archive] - Tactics Arena Community Forums

Wurtil

03-27-2004, 08:31 AM

The Dark One will attempt to clarify. This screenshot is not from THE WoW beta, but rather . . .well . . . A WoW beta. Think about it friends.

LondonJack - From what is being reported, yes, the real beta is extremely stable and polished. However, this version that is not the same as the one you mention, is very much bugged.

Killer_kev - Good to see you back to General Discussion, however, to answer your non-existant question, the Dark One did not need luck, simply quality searching skills to find the appropriate channels and some decent programming skills.

ll BattleGod ll

03-27-2004, 09:06 AM

Hello from France!

Hey guys on vacation and typing this from an internet cafe.

Now that I have said that...

What exactly goes into become a beta tester and what exactly do you do/have to know?

drakonfire

03-27-2004, 09:41 AM

*drools* blast u wurtil!!! that game is going to be sweet, *note to self, must get job to pay for MMORPG* ahhh!!!!! i wants it yes i wants it!!!

okay i'm done now... my machine probably wouldnt run it anyway, lol... getting a new one over the summer

Ark Knight

03-27-2004, 11:29 AM

Wurtil looks funny in the game...

Shuichi

03-27-2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Killer_kev
dam you wurtil, dam you and your luck

its random you noob, your just unlucky

No shit? I wouldn't of realised it since they stated it several times in several different places regarding beta sign-ups. Idiot :rolleyes: .

Wurtil, so you don't have beta, you have the leaked alpha?

Drakonfire, if you can run Warcraft III you can run WOW. I have heard of it running well on a 1gHz machine and a Gforce 2. Blizzard has some amazing technical pogramers who write very efficiant engines.

Wurtil

03-27-2004, 01:17 PM

Oh no no no no no Suichi, I wouldn't post here if I had the leaked ALPHA, that's been out for ages. Now the upgraded BETA on the other hand, that just came out last night around 30 minutes before I made that post.

Shuichi

03-27-2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Wurtil
Oh no no no no no Suichi, I wouldn't post here if I had the leaked ALPHA, that's been out for ages. Now the upgraded BETA on the other hand, that just came out last night around 30 minutes before I made that post.

I don't understand, journalists have been oogling over WoW beta. The same one you speak of, not the patch that came 30 minutes after your post.

I think I remember Penny Arcade saying that if this was just beta they didn't know if they were going to get it, because it is just sick how cool it is right now, and they don't think they will ever be able to stop playing lol.

drakonfire

03-27-2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Shuichi
Drakonfire, if you can run Warcraft III you can run WOW. I have heard of it running well on a 1gHz machine and a Gforce 2. Blizzard has some amazing technical pogramers who write very efficiant engines.

uh yeah, i can run WarIII without to much difficulty, life is good then... still need that job though... anyone kno how much the monthly cost is gonna be on WoW? i've heard that FFXI is only like 8 a month, and i kno SW Galaxies is 15... soo... 15 i need a job, 8 and i could probably pull it off, even with TAO

Ri'Orius

03-27-2004, 06:52 PM

On the subject of MMORPG's, anyone looking at City of Heroes? That's one I'm looking forward to: it looks to have a nifty theme, it's supposed to have an excellent battle system, and could be a lot of fun.

I'd like to try WoW, although just looking at it it looks to be an upgraded Everquest. I played some EQ, and was... not impressed in the slightest.

drakonfire

03-27-2004, 07:08 PM

yeah city of heros looks interesting...

WoW will NOT be an EQ rip-off, if all the sneak-peaks i've heard about r even half-way true WoW will eat EQ for an appetizer... before breakfast! lol... WoW is really, really quest driven, not random monster slaying, so it should be REALLY good

LondonJack

03-27-2004, 07:23 PM

EQ? where did you learn such filthy language young man, you should have your mouth washed out with soap.

Yeah CoH looks really interesting, anyone that actually wants to play it should hurry up and preorder. Reason i say that is because they are letting anyone that preorders into the Beta (which is only running for about another month i believe), and on top of that anyone that preorders gets a 3 day head start on the launch.

Ri'Orius

03-27-2004, 07:28 PM

I considered preordering it, but decided not to risk it. I followed SWG really heavily when it was being developed, and they made all the classic promises: multi-person vehicles, great PvP, no treadmill, etc., and, of course, didn't come through with them. So I've become a bit skeptical when another game is making promises they may not be able to keep (such as exciting combat, no loot-based gameplay, etc.).

I'll probably wait a month after launch to decide whether they've kept their promises.

Shuichi

03-27-2004, 07:45 PM

I almost hate you for comparing EQ to WoW. Just so you know, the same development team responsible for EverShit is also responsible for StarwarsSuck.

Ri'Orius

03-27-2004, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Shuichi
I almost hate you for comparing EQ to WoW. Just so you know, the same development team responsible for EverShit is also responsible for StarwarsSuck.

Yeah, and they said that, since they had experienced MMORPG developers, they'd know what mistakes were made and thus how to fix them. :rolleyes:

Finally, don't get so touchy about a game you haven't even played, mkay? It's not good for your blood pressure.

sOOisiDal

03-27-2004, 08:41 PM

have any of u heard of matrix online? its supposed 2 be really cool but thats what they also said about Enter The Matrix...and i think its safe 2 say that game was waaaaay not cool.

Ark Knight

03-27-2004, 08:49 PM

Matrix? Nah... The movies are good, but the games arent that good...

Krazikarl

03-28-2004, 03:03 AM

I guarantee that WoW will be a horrible game. I also guarantee that it will be hugely successful.

And of course its going to be a EQ clone. Pretty much every MMORPG has been an EQ clone. Remember that Blizzard does absolutely nothing that is inventive. SC/WC3 are horrible ripoffs of earlier RTSs that set back the genre for years (Companies realized that they could make tons of money selling SC clones to the hordes of idiots while great gameplay pioneered by the Myths and TAs of the world fell by the wayside). The Diablos...yeah.

Anyway, the things that Blizzard is good at is making games that are simple and appeal to gamers who dont want to think that much. If you are looking for a simple RPG that does nothing new (but the somewhat limited things that it does do it does pretty well), then WoW will be fun for you. If you are looking for something new, inventive, or intellectually interesting look elsewhere.

CoH does look interesting but lots of games look interesting in development. Have to wait and see on that one.

MokoToko

03-28-2004, 03:35 AM

im not going to waste my money on that......i think that wouldnt be too fun to run around being a orc or somehting along those lines. id rather be in a big futuristic war like that one gaem....well the name escapes me but i shall return

Hashish_Scout

03-28-2004, 02:22 PM

Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com) Link! (http://www.thematrixonline.com)

EDIT: I don't see how anyone can think of a better subject for an MMPORG than the Matrix, as long as it's executed correctly. It's being made by Ubi, not some bozo Shiny like for EtM, so hopefully it'll be slick. THAT is MY dream MMPORG.

Shuichi

03-28-2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Krazikarl
I guarantee that WoW will be a horrible game. I also guarantee that it will be hugely successful.

And of course its going to be a EQ clone. Pretty much every MMORPG has been an EQ clone. Remember that Blizzard does absolutely nothing that is inventive. SC/WC3 are horrible ripoffs of earlier RTSs that set back the genre for years (Companies realized that they could make tons of money selling SC clones to the hordes of idiots while great gameplay pioneered by the Myths and TAs of the world fell by the wayside). The Diablos...yeah.

Anyway, the things that Blizzard is good at is making games that are simple and appeal to gamers who dont want to think that much. If you are looking for a simple RPG that does nothing new (but the somewhat limited things that it does do it does pretty well), then WoW will be fun for you. If you are looking for something new, inventive, or intellectually interesting look elsewhere.

CoH does look interesting but lots of games look interesting in development. Have to wait and see on that one.

:rolleyes: Yes, that's why they make so much money and get rave reviews/awards for their mindless dribble and uncreative games. lol. You obviously have very little experience with MMORPG's.

Ri' the same goes for you, how can you judge a game before you've played it. It is simply just an insult to any game still in development to call it an upgraded EverQuest.

Aro23r

03-28-2004, 09:59 PM

When is Matrix Online due to come out? That game ought to be really cool. I mean, the movies are based around a MMORPG (the matrix itself). You log yourself in and WHAM you're in. The same thing should be put in the game, done correctly, it should kick ass.

Krazikarl

03-29-2004, 01:30 AM

Blizzard games make huge bucks because most people are idiots and dont want to be challenged that much. They dont want thinking, they want up tempo excitement. Clickfests always sell very well. All that doesnt mean that its a good game though.

Reviews are also stupid. Look at one of the largest gaming mags out there: PC Gamer. They have games like Black and White all time high ratings. Right. You can also look at other fields. For example, one of the most respected movie reviewers, Roger Ebert, gave Star Wars Episode I 4 stars and Episode II 3.5 stars. Uh huh.

(BTW, Blizzard games dont get THAT high of ratings. Dungeon Siege received higher marks in PC Gamer than Diablo II. They are basically the same game yet Dungeon Siege was rated higher. TA and Myth were also rated higher than SC in most gaming sources. I dont remember what they got in PC Gamer. WC3 didnt receive high marks in lots of sources)

The bottom line is that Blizzard games require little or no thought to play and do NOTHING in terms of inventive gameplay. For example, compare SC to TA (TA was released a year earlier). TA is superior in every measurable way (full 3d graphics, more units, better resource system, more terrain types, more maps, better MOD community, inventive/great building system...), yet SC is prefered by most people. The biggest reason is often that its a Blizzard game so people gave it a chance.

Your paragraph also doesnt really make sense since you say that I dont know much about MMORPGs because you dont agree with me on Blizzard. Thats nonsense since Blizzard has never made a MMORPG before. I've also played almost every MMORPG out there for at least some time (biggest exception now is the latest final fantasy: just hearing about how the gameplay was constructed made my stomache turn).

Wurtil

03-29-2004, 08:26 AM

Good evening Krazikarl. This here is the Dark Lord Wurtil, and the same person just introduced to you shall be your very own post critiquer for today. Now, let us commence.

Blizzard games make huge bucks because most people are idiots and dont want to be challenged that much. They dont want thinking, they want up tempo excitement. Clickfests always sell very well. All that doesnt mean that its a good game though.

You begin by claiming that people are idiots. Well, beside the point of being a broad overstatement, the fact of the matter is that statistically only half of the people in the world qualify to be categorized until the banner of idiocy.

Main Entry: id·i·o·cy
Pronunciation: 'i-dE-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 usually offensive : extreme mental retardation
2 : something notably stupid or foolish

Note description 1, extreme mental retardation. Now extreme is a word that can be used to varying degrees by each individual user, so at the very most you could argue it to be any person whose IQ falls under 100 (the median score). That leaves half the people idiots and half non-idiots, and since you generalize that people are idiots and quantitative analysis shows that at least half are not idiots, any further discussion about the lack of intellegence of people being a factor in game sales becomes moot by you. (continued on next post)

Wurtil

03-29-2004, 08:27 AM

Now, on to your second paragraph.

Reviews are also stupid. Look at one of the largest gaming mags out there: PC Gamer. They have games like Black and White all time high ratings. Right. You can also look at other fields. For example, one of the most respected movie reviewers, Roger Ebert, gave Star Wars Episode I 4 stars and Episode II 3.5 stars. Uh huh.

Well, you start with the claim that reviews are stupid. You attempt to back up your claim with evidence, starting with Black and White's review by PC Gamer. Now, I don't know if you played Black and White when it first came out, but for about 2 weeks after getting the game, it was seriously one of the best experiences ever. It was the God simulator of God simulators. PC Gamer did not have months to test the game, otherwise they would have seen that it lacked a driving force to keep gamers coming back. Using the few weeks that they had to review it, and the fact that Black and White is a fantastic game for a few weeks, they were forced to give it their highest honors. CGW did the same, as did almost every magazine because BaW was a great game. . .for a few weeks. If you simply want to judge on how much a game entertains people over time, then arguing against Blizzard is a very bad idea.

Ok now, the Dark Lord is going to go right back to your original claim in this paragraph, that reviews are stupid. Now, here is the question posed from the Dark One to you: Why say something that discriminates against the very point you are trying to make? Your claim that reviews are stupid can be argued against the same way the claim people are stupid can be argued against. And yet, do you not fall under the category of people and under the category of reviewer? If what you say is completely true, then there is no need for you to be here, because you, and indeed everyone, would be unknowing idiots who think ourselves geniuses because we are not far less stupid than the next person. However, there is one last part I wish to address...
(continued)

Wurtil

03-29-2004, 08:40 AM

The biggest reason is often that its a Blizzard game so people gave it a chance.

From this, you imply that because a game is from Blizzard, then people will at the very least try it out. Now, the flaw in trying to use this to support your thesis is that it is still up to the person as to whether or not they will enjoy the game and keep playing it, or give up and throw it away. In addition, there had to be some game that originally made people want to go out and try every Blizzard game (I'll give you a hint - The Lost Vikings was good, but it sure didn't make anyone pee their pants when they heard Diablo was made by the same people).

Now, there is also a very subtle second part of this phrase that you seem to imply. You claimed people were stupid, and thus also implied with it that you wished to be separted from this category of "people" for the remained of your arguement. Now, further down the road, you state that "people" are the category of which Blizzard takes its money from. Again, further in the statement, you imply that "people" are the ones that try Blizzard games. Now, I'm sure you've tried every Blizzard game and are in the beta, because what honest retard would post this if they hadn't played everything from Rock 'n Roll Racing to the just recently created beta for World of Warcraft? However, from your post you have implied that you have not given Blizzard's games a chance. If that is so the case (and by "given a chance", that does not mean installing the game on your hard drive, playing the tutorial mission, and then uninstalling), then I do believe it is quite fair of the Dark Lord to say that your opinion in the matter of WoW is quite skewed. I do hope you have not been offended by any of this, for it is not a flame or an attempt at your personal respect, but merely an observance of differing definitions of quality games.

Your friendly neighborhood Dark Lord,
Wurtil

Shuichi

03-29-2004, 03:52 PM

# Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot
# Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data
# Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS)
# Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World
# Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award
# Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay
# Game of the Year -- Gamesmania
# Best Game of the Year -- PCFan
# Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China)
# Hall of Fame -- Gamespy
# Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus
# Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS)
# Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer
# Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot
# Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain
# Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania
# Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla
# Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla
# Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter
# Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine
# Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan

# Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards
# Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter
# Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net
# Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan
# Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards
# Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com

# Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine
# Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot
# Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot
# Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com
# #1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer
# Best Depth -- PC Accelerator

# 5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World
# 5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter
# 9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review
# 92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer
# 4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus
# 5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action
# 9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot
# A+ -- Gameweek
# 4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today

Lol, that is just StarCraft. :rolleyes: Your PC Gamer gave it RTS of the year. *shrugs*.

StarCraft is a great game, Diablo was never a strategy but still requires thinking, and has incredible depth as well as shallow gameplay for the people who don't care, backed by an epic storyline. Overall a great game.

You are just plain mistaken sir.

P.S. Show me an RTS that predates, has hero's, and works as well as they do in WarCraft III. No, nothing inovative there. As a matter of fact numerous people complained because Blizzard was doing something extremely different. Untill they got to try it of course.

Snarr

03-29-2004, 04:59 PM

As much as I love Blizzard games (I've played every single one of them a fair bit excluding warcraft 2, which I never owned). Its a bit true that the quests aren't usually more then fetching item quests. While htey may be startegically challenging I wish they would be a nit more intellectually challenging as well. But besides that I think he is wrong wrong and wrong, I enjoyed very much all of Blizzard's games.

By the way who here finished the last mission in The Frozen Throne under 23 minutes? No one? I didn't think so... Damn that was the hardest Blizzard mission I have ever done - under 23 minutes hos awesome is that?!

The trick was using what I was given to start with, without estblishing a base I managed to conquer all the obelisks. And thats DAMN hard considering Ilidan is level 10 and they have lots of Naga Royal, but with my SUPER micromanaging I did it!

Johnny Chimpo

03-29-2004, 07:49 PM

PC Gamer. They have games like Black and White all time high ratings.

You say this like it shouldn't be there. Black & White (at the time of its release) was one of the most original and enjoyable games on the Market. It deserves every piece of praise that has ever been written about it (and there are many).

You might know something about MMORPG's but if you think Black & White doesn't belong on a list of all-time top games then you have a lot to learn about gaming in general. :D

xyxaxyz2

03-29-2004, 07:52 PM

Starcraft is a superb game, I still play it. Warcraft (all 3) is boring and I stopped after a week or so.

drakonfire

03-29-2004, 08:22 PM

side note about SC and TA... gamespy not to long ago did their top 40 RTS's of all time... TA was #1 and SC was #2

personally, i like TA better, but it never caught on... it was kinda like the dreamcast, to advanced for its time... though i've heard rumors of a TA2? one can only hope

Krazikarl

03-29-2004, 09:57 PM

"Show me an RTS that predates, has hero's, and works as well as they do in WarCraft III."

Myth II. Not even hard. MUCH MUCH more innovative too. It also received higher ratings in nearly every source (do a quick check on gamespot).

This response clearly shows that you have little experience with RTSs. Until you have experienced RTSs not made by Blizzard or Westwood you probably shouldnt comment.

BTW greatest is not the same as best. Greatest implies things like it sells a lot of copies. Take two games that are exactly identical. One sells a million copies one sells 58 copies. Which one is greater?

I wouldnt necessarily argue that SC isnt the greatest game of all time simply because it sold so many copies and remains so copies. I strongly reject the hypothesis that its the best game of all time though.

I'll take care of the wordy idiot next.

Wurtil

03-29-2004, 10:11 PM

Myth II. Not even hard. MUCH MUCH more innovative too. It also received higher ratings in nearly every source (do a quick check on gamespot).

Early you stated that ratings and reviews are stupid. Now you praise the review system saying that it has benefited you personally. Counter-pointing yourself immediately nullifies the quote in statement, which in turn nullifies. . .

This response clearly shows that you have little experience with RTSs. Until you have experienced RTSs not made by Blizzard or Westwood you probably shouldnt comment.

this, due to the fact that it is based off needing the support of your previous paragraph, which you so furiously debated against yourself in previously.

BTW greatest is not the same as best. Greatest implies things like it sells a lot of copies. Take two games that are exactly identical. One sells a million copies one sells 58 copies. Which one is greater?

What is the sound of one hand clapping? Yes, that is a deep question, but it doesn't prove anything.

I wouldnt necessarily argue that SC isnt the greatest game of all time simply because it sold so many copies and remains so copies. I strongly reject the hypothesis that its the best game of all time though.

Remains so copies? I strongly reject the hypothesis that English is your first language. But anyway, the subject is not SC being greatest or best, but rather how WoW will be a good game because Blizzard is a good company. You will need more proof than the fact that SC is not the best ever.

I'll take care of the wordy idiot next.

I hope you mean the Dark Lord Wurtil :D .

Your friendly neighborhood Dark Lord,
Wurtil

Krazikarl

03-29-2004, 10:12 PM

Your discussion of the word idiots is somewhat ironically idiotic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idiot

"A foolish or stupid person."

Using this definition any percentage of people could be an idiot. I claim that most people are idiots. This isnt really provable, but it can be supported by evidence. I wont do any kind of long list here, but a good example is the indisputable fact that most Americans believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

"Well, you start with the claim that reviews are stupid."

Good point. It should read "Reviewers can be stupid."

"Now, the flaw in trying to use this to support your thesis is that it is still up to the person as to whether or not they will enjoy the game and keep playing it, or give up and throw it away."

Please try thinking before you respond to me in the future.

Good is a relative term. People believe that games like SC are good often because they have not given other games a chance. For example, in the post I just made a couple of minutes ago, the person I was responding to made a statement that was clearly ignorant of other RTS games. Thus, people claim that SC is a good game on the basis that its better than other poor games. They have either not heard of or not given other games a chance, so they cant make a valid comparison.

"However, from your post you have implied that you have not given Blizzard's games a chance."

Nope. I have given them a chance. Your entire arguments falls apart.

I never said that people are stupid. I said MOST people are idiots. That means that I can not be an idiot yet still be a person. Thus, you cannot infer that I did not give Blizzard games a chance. Thus your argument falls apart.

Krazikarl

03-29-2004, 10:15 PM

"Remains so copies? I strongly reject the hypothesis that English is your first language."

Shrug, I made a typo. It happens. I could come to the same conclusion about you since you repeatedly make mistakes in your posts. For example, look up the word "argument" in the dictionary and note how it is not spelled the way you spell it.

Krazikarl

03-29-2004, 10:16 PM

"Now you praise the review system saying that it has benefited you personally."

No I'm not. I'm using it as evidence against the claim that SC is the greatest game because it is highly rated. Once again, your argument crumbles.

Thinking: good

"but it doesn't prove anything."

Um, it clearly shows that how great something is is at least partially a function of how popular it was. For example, I can argue that Memento is a better movie than Star Wars, but would be forced to admit that Star Wars is a greater movie than Memento just because it has influenced popular culture and the world as a whole to a much greater degree.

Wurtil

03-29-2004, 10:31 PM

Wow, this is amazing. . .

Nope. I have given them a chance. Your entire arguments falls apart.

You've played Rock 'n Roll Racing. That's a big +500 respect points from the Dark Lord himself. I want to tell you that I used the webster's definition of idiot and evolved it with the scale of IQ to gain my reasoning for terms of idiocy, but you've played Rock 'n Roll Racing. I want to tell you that my point in arguing (and nice catch by the way) that people have a choice in determining whether they like a game or hate it bases itself on the fact that if a game is crappy, they will not play it and move on to something else, but you've played Rock 'n Roll Racing. I would love to tell you how badly you misinterpreted the part about the rating system, because you claimed Myth 2 was a highly rated game by gamespot (and by the way, using degrading remarks such as "thinking: good" in an arguement (see, I did it!), are not a good way to score brownie points. Keep the flames out and the arguement in), but you played Rock 'n Roll Racing.

Wow, somebody else played Rock 'n Roll Racing. I'm sorry, but I can not continue this internet debate. If you so wish, you win by default for being the second person I know that has played that game.

Your friendly neighborhood Dark Lord,
Wurtil

Shuichi

03-30-2004, 12:03 AM

Just so you know Myth II is trash. I said pulled off a Hero in an RTS successfully. Also unfortunately I have played many RTS's not made by Blizzard. Many of them no more than a rock-paper-scissors game with a pretty graphical encasing. Just because Blizzard doesn’t re-write history with every game it makes, doesn’t mean they are mindless and crappy. Blizzard sets out to accomplish something with each game, and they do it well. Also to say that something that is a total piece of shit yet turns around and sells as well as Blizzard’s games, is just plain asinine. Trying to attain perfection is just as innovative as throwing some cheap ass gimmick in. You are simply arguing against Blizzard for the same reason people argue against Microsoft. To be different, go against the grain, and argue, even if they are the best at what they do. You contradict yourself in your own posts, and make absolutely no sense with baseless accusations.

Blizzard is a great company and has brought much to the world of videogames. To not recognize this is just plain idiocy.

World Of WarCraft will be a great game, and far from an EverQuest clone. Mark my words.

S_K_O_F

03-30-2004, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Johnny Chimpo
You say this like it shouldn't be there. Black & White (at the time of its release) was one of the most original and enjoyable games on the Market. It deserves every piece of praise that has ever been written about it (and there are many).

You might know something about MMORPG's but if you think Black & White doesn't belong on a list of all-time top games then you have a lot to learn about gaming in general. :D

I play a very large assortment of games...mostly action adventure, some real time strats, quite a few RPG's

I bought black and White when it was released...I played it for a week and got bored...the only real entertainment I got out of that game was beating the shit out of my monkey

it was very very innovative, I agree...but it was very repetitive...once you established yourself as a god you had to take care of too much...I had a lot of fun with that game for about 25 hours...now it just sits on my shelf