Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Blizzard Announces New Warcraft MMORPG 160

Posted by CmdrTaco from the wouldn't-it-be-nice dept.
An anonymous reader wrote in to say that "Blizzard Entertainment makers of the enormously popular Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo series, have announced their next game: World of Warcraft, a massively-multiplayer online role-playing game set in the famous Warcraft universe. Gamespot has an extensive preview available complete with screens and loads of info on the game." It looks very pretty. I still want the Star Wars MMORPG to rock my world tho.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blizzard Announces New Warcraft MMORPG More

Blizzard Announces New Warcraft MMORPG

Comments Filter:
  • Will this be released in the same time frame as Warcraft Adventres?

  • I'm waiting for Sporcraft (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So I can kill all the stupid Sporks. Stupid, confused trans-utensil twits. Get the operation and pick a team already.

  • Fads ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BiggestPOS ( 139071 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @02:10PM (#2245788) Homepage
    Remember when everyone was bitching because it seemed like every new game that came out was a FPS? Then for a while they were RTS, and now it seems every time I turn around, a new MMORPG is announced. The fight for the control of THAT market is going to be ugly. Most people will buy multiple $50 titles, but not when each title also requires a subscription. Sure SOME people will buy every one, and play them, but I'm playing the odds here. Most people will probably pick ONE they like and stick with it.

    • Re:Fads ? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CBNobi ( 141146 )
      "The fight for the control of THAT market is going to be ugly."

      And I think that's a very good thing - it gives better quality, and only the good ones can survive.

      Oh wait - Everquest is still alive.

    • Re:Fads ? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by crashdavis ( 69986 )
      My theory about why it's the new fad is because they HAVE to.

      With the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox/etc., the capabilities of these consoles have gotten better and better. Their graphics and sound are better than on PCs, and for the most part they are played on bigger, more immersive screens. If you want a FPS, play it on a console.

      So what kinds of games can't be played on consoles? PCs have better connectivity and more versatile input devices (keyboards) and that's about it. Therefore as a PC game designer, you need to make a game which uses the keyboard in a meaningful way, which means "talking" which implies some kind of roleplay.

      Who do you talk to? You can talk to NPCs, but that gets really repetitive and stupid. You also can't charge $10/month to talk to NPCs. Let people talk to other people, and all of a sudden people spend 200 hrs a month playing the game. That phenomenon is real and every game development company sees it.

      The MMPORPG is just a way to keep the PC relevant in gaming, while giving them annuity revenue models.

      • "With the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox/etc., the capabilities of these consoles have gotten better and better. Their graphics and sound are better than on PCs, and for the most part they are played on bigger, more immersive screens. If you want a FPS, play it on a console."

        Ummmmm yeah....I think I'm gonna have to go ahead and DISAGREE. sound is better on console? I dunno what kinda tin cans YOU use on your computer, but unless the game company really screwed up, computers sound much better.

        As for graphics it all depends on what kinda machine you're using...sure a PS2 will almost always look better than a 386 w/ an ega card in it, but what about in a year when the gf4 is out, ram is really cheap, P4s hit the 3+ ghz mark, etc...etc... Then the PC'll look better than the ps2. As for bigger immerssive screens...ok, I can see that...except for the resolution. Unless you have an HDTV or something...(but hell, why not just spring for a good LCD projector instead?)

        I think the PC'll always be relevent in gaming...and as voice comm gains a foothold, you'll now have 3 unique inputs over the consoles: a mouse, a keyboard, and a headset. I haven't bought a console since the old sega genesis way back when, and from playing friends consoles, I can see I haven't missed much (aka anything) by sticking with a computer.

        --Jubedgy

  • Considering the maturity(or lack thereof), sore loserness, and utter whining a lot of people on Battle.net, I am thinking twice to even consider getting this when it's out(And knowing Blizzard's release times, most likely be another 2+ years.).

    Don't get me wrong, I like Diablo II and the expansion, I just normally play alone

    -Henry
  • what Sam Latigna is working on these days. :)

  • Cost (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I wonder if Blizzard will stick with their policy of not having a monthly charge for games, or if they will charge the de facto $10/mo like every other company.
    • According to the Gamespot article, Blizzard is going to drop their standard free battle.net support. Instead they will charge approximately the standard $10 charge of the industry.


      Gamespot says that it makes sense since they plan on having 10-15 people continuing to work on the game after release increasing the story and such. But basically the answer is it will cost money.

  • Unless they plan to release a linux version of the client (something Blizzard hasn't ever expressed interest in). I won't be playing this MMORPG. Same goes for the Star Wars RPG, which I am more interested in.

    Maybe Sam can change this, how about it?

  • possible linux support! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by virion ( 461888 )
    Sam Lantinga, author of SDL, was hired by blizzard. Is he working on this title? is new warcraft will be sdl based? if so linux port should be piece of cake.

  • Shattered Galaxy (Score:3, Informative)

    by tangent3 ( 449222 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @02:21PM (#2245819)
    http://www.sgalaxy.com

    I believe it's the first graphical MMORPG.

    Shattered Galaxy just came out of beta and is in commercial release since 21st August. Looks pretty good, won quite a few awards at shows.

    Blizzard will have its hands full playing catch-up, but it'll probably win the Warcraft fans over just like Ultima Online did and Star Wars Galaxy will when (hahahahaaa) it is released.

    I just hope Blizzard won't be like the idiots Electronic Arts were when they forced the Origin developers to drop the Ultima 9: Ascension project for Ultima Online. Can you imagine them putting aside Warcraft 3 for the MMORPG version?

    • "I believe it's the first graphical MMORPG. "
      I don't understand your statement.

      In addition, while you can call it an MMORPG, it uses a different viewpoint (isometric 3D) and a different system (closer to an RTS than a RPG) compared to the usual first-person-kill-stuff-and-get-loot format of the usual MMORPGs.

  • I'll believe it when I see it... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous DWord ( 466154 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @02:27PM (#2245834) Homepage

    "Though Blizzard Entertainment is still hard at work polishing up its highly anticipated real-time strategy game, Warcraft III, for an early 2002 release..."

    Uh huh. "Highly anticipated" is right. Oh look! The vapourware awards [wired.com] from 2000! [wired] Coming in at Number 6, Warcraft III. I love Blizzard (mostly), and I think they do some great stuff, but until it's shipped, it doesn't exist.
    • Oh look! The vapourware awards [wired.com] from 2000! [wired] Coming in at Number 6, Warcraft III. I love Blizzard (mostly), and I think they do some great stuff, but until it's shipped, it doesn't exist.


      More disappointing to me are the apparent changes it's gone through as I've followed all the prevews and whatnot over the dev time. Seeing the more individual aspects and the widely-employed role-playing elements get sucked out so they can make another RTS kinda blows, in my mind.


    • If you watch the video, the guys talking about WoW say that it won't come out until after Warcraft III, which they state "probably won't ship next year".


      Cryptnotic

    • I'll believe it when I DON'T see it. Half the items on this list were released shortly after it was compiled. Blizzard is known for delays but usually it results in a quality product.
    • Wow you're a smart one, have you not seen all the gameplay videos of WC3? Do you think they 'faked them'? Even the one shown at ETCS? Bah. Whatever.

      Everyone who complains about Blizzard delaying their games is an idiot. First you guys complain about games coming out with too many bugs, then you complain when companies want to hold the games until they're up to their standards.

      YOU CANT HAVE BOTH YOU IDIOTS.

  • More like... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by szcx ( 81006 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @02:32PM (#2245850)
    World of Warhammer.

    First Blizzard were "inspired" by the Warhammer Fantasy universe for Warcraft, then they were "inspired" by the Warhammer 40,000 universe for Starcraft.

    Were Blizzard once again "inspired" by Games Workshops announcement [climax.co.uk] of a Warhammer MMORPG? It's been said that Blizzard have been working on Warcraft Online for a year. Warhammer Online was announced in April 2000. You do the math.

    • Re:More like... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bodero ( 136806 )
      Blizzard has been working on World of Warcraft since 1999. Check the whois database on worldofwarcraft.com for proof.
    • The worldofwarcraft.com domain was registered in August 1999.
      So I think Blizzard got the edge here. However, the similarities between Warhammer and Warcraft are indeed striking...
    • OTOH most of the "authorized by GW" computer versions of their table top versions have pretty much sucked.

      Granted however that there was a squad FPS version of 40k which was supposed to be pretty good.

      The Bloodbowl game sucked, the Epic game was really-really tragic. The Warhammer Fantasy was so-so, but I only think that hardcore fans bothered with completing it.

      It's tragic really, because at least I would love to see a /good/ computer version of Epic and Bloodbowl. (Perhaps Necromunda and 40k as well.)

      Even if Blizzard was inspired by Warhammer in [war|star]craft they did manage to do one thing right. They did good computer versions of them. (I know that GW didn't do the computer versions of the above mentioned games.)

      • Re:More like... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by szcx ( 81006 )
        Agreed.

        I'll probably get World of Warcraft (just like I did Warcraft and Starcraft before it) for the pure fact that they do PC Warhammer gamers better than Games Workshop :-)


      • I would sell a kidney for a good, modern tactical combat game like X-COM. The GW properties would be great candidates... but we are still dealing with a plague of real-time strategy games.

        Hell, even the Warzone computer game will be real-time instead of turn-based, and that is a MINIATURES GAME LICENSE. Am I the only person interested in turn-based tactics? Sheesh.

    • Way back in the original Warcraft days, Blizzard and Games Workshop (I think they were GW at the time) were in negotiations for Warhammer rights. It fell through and thus Warcraft was born.

      Scott.

    • If I recall correctly, Blizzard hired the artists who did the art for the Games Workshop books and magazines to do the art for Warcraft.


      I'm really suprised that GW didn't sue Blizzard way back when they had the chance. Perhaps Blizzard paid them off.


      Cryptnotic

    • Come on... of course Warcraft was inspired by WFB, but Starcraft? Well, maybe the way Marines behave, but races seem to me inspired rather by Alien vs. Predator comic series.
  • I am sure that it will be lots of fun, but I was hoping for something new! With the hints over the last couple of days, I wanted it to be a LOTR game. That would have been very cool! But I am sure I will loose lots of sleep over this new game anyway.

  • could be fun... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Computer suck! ( 455504 )
    esp if it's Warcraft-style game, with an AI to take over when you leave...

    • Re:could be fun... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If the AI is as smart as the units' pathfinding in Warcraft 2, I'll be playing 24/7. Don't want my character to wander into a pool of lava, or into a huge battle, or off a cliff, or some other bad place while I'm sleeping.
  • If any of you are looking for a non-3D MMORPG, you should check out http://www.redmoon-online.com :) 3D just isn't my thing for an MMORPG. Too many blind spots that people can attack me in. Redmoon is a 2D game with overhead graphics but it has 3D buildings and whatnot. It's got some really cool features such as armies, a Battle Dimension, 9 characters to play, and about 6 skills for each character. It's being developed constantly and updates to the game are free (as well as the game itself). You do however have to pay a subscription fee on a monthly, quarterly, or bi-annual basis.
    • A number of my friends got hooked on Redmoon, then stopped and convinced me not to start. Apparently, there are horrendous problems with gameplay and game balance. Leveling up involves killing thousands upon thousands of the same creatures for hours. And once you finally get to the high levels, there's nothing to do but pick on lowel leveled players, who are basically defenseless.

      And these kinds of criticisms came from the game's fans. I recognize that these problems might get fixed eventually, but why pay for a game that's only half done?
      • Well, it's true there is little to do for lower level players. However, you can easily get to level 200 using the Canon character in less than a week. The game is in developement, but I'm playing now, so I can enjoy the new benefits of the next patch (being released on September 18th) as a high level player.
  • I remember submitting this. :op


    2001-09-02 16:02:16 Blizzard announces another Warcraft (articles,news) (rejected)

  • Hmm. Wonder if this will go to the same fate as Warcraft Adventures.

    Still patiently waiting on Warcraft III....

  • Movies available... (Score:3, Informative)

    by crt ( 44106 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @03:02PM (#2245932)
    There's already an awesome CG trailer here [fileplanet.com], and an movie of in-game footage here [fileplanet.com].


    The gameplay footage looks good, but the CG movie is simply amazing. I wonder how many years until the games look that good.

  • Am I the only one with Online-Gaming issues? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kypper ( 446750 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @03:15PM (#2245968)
    I find that the big trend these days is to move towards online-only gaming. Look at Final Fantasy XI. Look at Ultima. Look at the new 'Warcraft'.


    I think video game companies need to realize something:

    Not all of us can guarantee having enough time available to warrant a monthly service fee for a game.

    Some of us like playing on our own.

    We don't all have Cable or DSL! LAG.

    High graphics and bandwidth just don't work well, and it's always slow and irritating. Even Diablo 2 has this problem on Battle.net

    • Some of us don't play games all the time, but only once and a while.

      I don't like getting my ass kicked by young punks who play video games 10 hours a day, every day, and then being called {lame|loser|suck|asswipe} or what have you.

      Sometimes I just like setting the difficultly level down as low as possible, and just kicking butt. Nothing more fun than stomping through a village in Warcraft destroying all buildings and peons in the way.

    • I find that the big trend these days is to move towards online-only gaming. Look at Final Fantasy XI. Look at Ultima. Look at the new 'Warcraft'.


      Except it isn't Warcraft, it's an RPG. Warcraft I-III are RTS. Not that I wouldn't mind MM strategy games, but RPGs seem to be the popular form for MM games. And most of these are fantasy - why couldn't Blizzard have been just a *tiny* bit more original and based it on Starcraft?
    • Amen to that. I play mostly strategy games, and I have a feeling the single-player component of RTS games is slowly dying. Companies seem to invest way more time in multiplayer balancing/tweaking than in creating compelling single-player missions with interesting storylines.

      I've been hanging out on various AOE/AOK forums for a couple of years, and as good as nobody there is talking about how to create good, playable scenarios - it's all about build orders and practicing your multiplayer skills for several hours a day. It's a frickin' game, goddammit!

      (needless to say, I almost completely quit playing FPS because almost every FPS game recently released was multiplayer only)

      • Check out "Max Payne". It's a great single-player-only game. No multiplayer aspect at all. Great plot, great graphics, and a totally fun time. Highly recommended.

        • I agree. Max Payne was really really fun to play.
          • For 1 week. But I beat it, so why play it again? It took them 2 years to develop a game that I conquered in 1 week? I paid $50 for 1 week of entertainment? Ok, I played almost 15 hours, but that still translates to $3.34 per hour.

            I'm sorry, but MMORPGs are a far better value for the customer, and make more money for the developers and producers. Although the Diablos and Pac-Mans and Contras and Unreals will survive, the MMORPGs are better, deeper, more meaningful games.
            • ...MMORPGs are better, deeper, more meaningful games.

              Better is certainly a subjective sort of thing. What's better, steak or ice cream?

              Deeper? More meaningful? You must be in an EQ guild, and all the damn virtual hugs have addled your brain.

              A bat tries to bite you but misses!
              You crush a bat for 2 points of damage.

              You have slain a bat!
              You gain experience.
              You have lost faction with Brown Flying Rats. You gain faction with the Awkwardly-Animated Elves.

              Posingasagirl shouts, "Anyone have some platinum to spare?"

              13yearold says, "SoW?"
              13yearold says, "SoW me??"
              13yearold says, "Screw you"

              Whiner tells the guild, "G'nite"

              Crybaby tells the guild, "HUGS! KISSES! HUGGLES! MEGASUPERKISSES!"

              You think you are facing North.
              You have become better at Sense Direction! (13)
              ----

              Despite the totally ridiculous amount of "huggles" thrown around by grown men in EQ, and all the bat-slaying that goes on, I think that the MMORPG genre has a lot of potential and I look forward to future games. I just hope that the Blizzard guys don't consider any of the crap on the market now to be their inspiration. EQ is a MUD with a 3d GUI. Spare me. I'd rather play Pac Man. (and I tried to like EQ, I really really did, but it's not the right kind of crack for me at least.)

    • High graphics and bandwidth just don't work well, and it's always slow and irritating. Even Diablo 2 has this problem on Battle.net

      I almost never have problems with Battle.Net. I hear other people complain about all the problems they have.

      I guess one's milage may very as such, but for the most part, Battle.Net works better for me than having someone else host the game.

      True, LAN play works best, but I HATE opened characters. There's no thrill in trading because if you didn't hack the stuff you're trading, the other person probably did.

      Battle.Net is as close to a cheat free environment as I've seen (ignoring the exploits that pop up now and then - kudos to Blizzard for being on top of them, though...)

    • try www.planetarion.com a game entiely in your browse, its cool and has a (compared to other games) rather mature community. No need to install any sotware at all
    • Another poster mentioned Max Payne, a recent game that has no multiplayer aspect at all.

      I don't know the sales figures for Max Payne, but Starcraft (which is at heart a multiplayer game) sold millions world wide. Imagine if Blizzard had charged even a tiny amount for what they gave away for free -- that's what they're hoping for here.

      You might like single player games, but subscription games are much, much more profitable. They're also much harder to copy. Max Payne had all sorts of fancy CD-copy protection, but was cracked and released quite quickly. Starcraft, however, is practically worthless without a legitimate CD-key for Battle.net.

      Game companies don't care that they're not serving you and the few people like you. If a small handful of people don't like their game, that's OK, because a lot of people do, and collectively they'll shell out more money than you will. There will always be a place for games like Max Payne, made whenever a market segment goes unexplored, but they're just not the safe bet that multiplayer games are.
      • Starcraft, however, is practically worthless without a legitimate CD-key for Battle.net.

        Not really worthless. I play it with some friends alot on LAN, all you need is a nice keycracker (the internet servers usually notices that this is not a legimit key and threw you out). And i play it alot at home too, kinda like to when i get home go a round of starcraft against the computer(s).

      • I actually used to be a RTS game designer (for a real game, at a real publisher, from a real studio). The figures we got from the publisher on multiplayer were fascinating. According to their expensive research, only a few percent of all players used multiplayer at ALL. Now, this was a few years ago, but still... Everyone still put multiplayer code in because if you didn't the reviews would DESTROY you, of course.

        I guess times are a-changin' though, there's about sixteen billion people playing CS right this second, and EQ has 400k subscribers or so.

  • The MMORPG Swarm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by discore ( 80674 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @03:16PM (#2245970) Homepage
    Everyone wants to release an MMORPG. The fact of the matter is, most companies don't know how to successfully build and support an online game. They have become too used to releasing it, and that is the end of development. Expansion packs not included.

    The things that all successful MMORPGs have in common are, decent customer service, a stable client/world/communication setup, and a "world" rich with content and/or things to do, items to gain, monsters to challenge.

    We saw Anarchy Online pretty much crash and burn on release. It was horribly unstable. I had been playing AO since the first public beta. When I heard they shipped version 12.1 in a box I couldn't believe it.

    Then we saw them crash and burn again on Customer Service. Do GMs exist in that game? As far as I know there is no phone based support what so ever.

    My point is, a publishing company better get it's act together if they want to release an MMORPG. It's a very long term investment. With so many companies producing them, there are going to be a lot of sub-par products, with a few games that actually meet the standards a successful MMORPG has.
  • At this rate, there timeframe in this is going to be during Starcraft :)

    (If your lost, check the homepage, they say it takes four years after WC3.)

  • Grab the DivX file for video gameplay! (Score:3, Redundant)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @03:25PM (#2245993) Homepage Journal
    This is the trailer from ETCS: Download here [bonusweb.cz]. You need DivX codec to view the AVI file. :)

    I have to say WoW for this game! :)

  • MMORPG (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sandalwood ( 196527 )
    MMORPG is a silly and unnecessarily complicated acronym which will serve to turn off people who don't know what one is. I suggest at the very least simplifying it to MRPG, with the M for Metaverse-like, or some such.

  • Masssively multiplayer online *what*? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by prizog ( 42097 ) <(gro.silavon) (ta) (todhsals-silavon)> on Sunday September 02, 2001 @03:44PM (#2246043) Homepage
    "Great characters"? No mention of it.
    "Fascinating stories"? Not mentioned.
    "Player-driven plot"? Yeah right.

    So, where's the role-playing? As far as I can tell from the article, there isn't any. The trailer didn't show any talking. So, maybe MMOH with an H for Hackfest would be a better name.
    • Yeah or it could be the fact that it has only been in development for roughly 8 months. Most of the time has been getting the _technology_ in place. They don't start building the storyline in until it is actually feasible to play the game on a technology level. Blizzard knows how to make games.
      • They have also developed a substantial amount of art. You can't have art and story completely separate - they need to be intertwined. And their example "quest" was so hack-and-slash typical...

        I understand that Blizzard knows how to make violence-oriented games. I loved Starcraft, and woulld love to play SC2, if they ever build it. This doesn't mean they know how to make RPGs. As far as I can tell, nobody has successfully made a MMORPG which features any significant amount of RPing for the majority of players.

        This trailer is an advertising move for Blizzard. So, looking at what Blizzard is emphasizing in its ads is a good way to learn what they think is important in building a game. Clearly, they see good technology and lots of violence as more important than a good player-driven story and good characters. So, they should be making RTS games, instead of trying to make RPGs.
  • All the MMORPGS or whatever the hell you call them are just GRAPHICAL MUDS. Actually they're something a bit less than MUDS as far as game play is concerned. Until you have a game that is as complex as the best MUDS, its really a waste of stime. So far, i've heard that WoW will PvP protection and you wont loose anything when you die. sound like any other hack and slash games they've made (cough diablo1 diablo2 cough)
    • EQ *was* original. Not good, but original. It was the first 3d graphical MUD of any quality - and so, original.

      Of course, whether it's a waste of time (compared to MUDs) or not depends on what you want out of a game. Good MUDs (usually actually MUSHes or MOOs) feature good stories, intense player participation, etc. Good MMOHs feature lots of blowing shit up. Which one you chose to play depends on what you want.

      My sole point is that it's not accurate to call WoW a MMORPG, because there's *no role-playing*.
  • Oddly enough, I'd almost put money on it that we see the Warcraft MMORPG released before Warcraft III. Actually, I'd pretty much wager on anything out there being released before Warcraft III.

    • I'll take you on :) Last I heard, Warcraft III is nearing code-completion, all that remains is play-balance and the final UI art. The core engine and network code has been done for almost a year.

      Beta testing is supposed to start in late October, but I'll bet that's just for signups and the beta won't begin until late November.
    • It can't possibly end up any later than Team Fortress 2 (if you don't know don't worry, but it was originally supposed to come out as a mod for quake2).

  • When do I have the time? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@sbcglo[ ].net ['bal' in gap]> on Sunday September 02, 2001 @04:41PM (#2246165) Homepage Journal
    Maybe I'm not part of Blizzard's intended audience, but although this looks damn cool, when am I supposed to find the time to play all these great games?

    It seems the only worthwhile games on the PC any more are these whiz-bang immersive-world internet-enabled games that require 20 hours a week to enjoy, or 40 if you really want to get the most out of them. Where am I supposed to find the time to play these?

    Back in the past, there were dozens of great games that didn't take so much time. They were fast, furious, and you could get a lot of fun out of them in a five-minute coffee break. Like Pac-Man, Galaga, and the like. There aren't many "hop on and have fun for a bit" games like that any more. Nowadays, games need commitment.

    So I spend most of my time on the PC playing games like MAME.

    Am I the only person who has this problem? Am I the only one here who between job and friends doesn't have all evening to chase down the old man who'll tell him to say "syzygy" to get past the rabid monkey guarding the gate to the blue unicorn?

    • There aren't many "hop on and have fun for a bit" games like that any more. Nowadays, games need commitment.

      Oh, I see now. I thought my level 87 Barb had something special with your level 78 Amazon. What are you saying, are you saying you would like to play other games? I thought we had something special...power leveling for 20 hours a day...

      I bet it is that Quake3 game, it is such a slut... just there when you are lonely and want to blow some stuff up, in and out huh? No long term commitment... your such a typical gamer.

      So you just want to be freinds? If you ever see me power lvling around Hell/Hell Act 4, give me a party invite ok? ok?

      I have to go, there is a rumor that some guy is trading SOJs for Prefect Skulls on USEast and have to check it out... hope to see you around.

      Love,
      Barb_Kill_Joo
      Level 87 WW Lance Barb
      USEast

    • I agree with you. In the days of programming for <em>hours</em> on end, where my job seems like an endless RPG, it's nice to have a quick break from all the stress....something exciting enough to take your mind of problem-solving, and just be.

      I've found Quake to be the best solution for me.

      You're not alone! ;)
  • For anyone who plays a lot of Diablo.. Do you find it amusing that the characters are either:

    1) Standing Still
    2) Fighting
    3) RUNNING!

    A lot like Diablo II...

    Doesn't anyone walk anymore?
  • Does anyone know if John Cash [shugashack.com] (ex-id) is working on this title?
  • The most wildly popular MMORPG has to be Ultima Online, or the most addicting. With all it's flaws it still was one of the best games in the world. The game lacked any advanced graphics possible, all 2D. The game had the best gameplay ever. It's not about the graphics with a game that has so much interaction with the world around it. These companies are trying to build 3D worlds that still don't compare to the UO world. I'd play UO again, but then I'd be out of a job and lock myself in a room all day.
  • Ultima Online, Everquest, Asherons Call... and now more fantasy?

    Why?

    Why not something science fiction, whether full on sci-fi or even near future settings?
  • Who else thought of NetHack when they saw the acronym for that title?

    You zap the Wand of Wishing. You may wish for an object.--More--
    For what do you wish? Box of World of Warcraft
    l - World of Warcraft box
    a
    What do you want to use or apply? l
    You start playing World of Warcraft...
    Oh wow! Great stuff!
  • Does anyone else find it amusing that Blizzard is already announcing a sequel to a game that they haven't released yet?!?
  • I still want the Star Wars MMORPG to rock my world tho.

    The official Star Wars MMORPG FAQ [sony.com] is updated from time to time. (I like this FAQ: [sony.com] "2.13 Will I cast twin shadows on Tatooine?" "We are remaining true to the continuity of the movies, so only one shadow is cast on Tatooine.")

    They're saying "second half of 2002"; patient, a Jedi must be.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ..Warcraft Adventures ?
    After WC 2 came out, there was a game called "warcraft adventures" in development at blizzard; there was a lot of marketing hype around, too (of course). The basic idea was to create an "interactive adventure" in the warcraft universe. It should have had a kind of "comic look and feel", as all characters + the gaming environment looked comic style (no polygons inside).
    It was silently axed some time later, cant remember the reason though.
    Maybe they couldnt get over that, because basically its the same idea transferred to todays standards (3D, MMORPG).

  • The concept is made all the more exciting when applied to the Warcraft setting--one of the richest settings ever made for a computer game.

    What the hell are they talking about? Warcraft and Warcraft II were brilliant games, but what storyline and immersive world are these guys thinking of?

    The "story" of Warcraft (and Warcraft II) was dead simple: somebody ripped the fabric o' the universe a new one and orcs poured out from the hole eager to kick human ass. Now it's up to these humans to kick orcish ass before the orcs can kick human ass. Either the humans seal the hole, or the orcs kill the humans.

    What immersive setting did I miss here?

  • The WoW FAQ [blizzard.com] is somewhat less than informative...
    For what platforms will the game be available?
    The game will initially be available for PCs.
     Wow, that helps. They do forget that not all the world's a Windows box, don't they? Where's the (Linux/BeOS/*BSD/QNX/other-fave-thing-that-runs-on -PC-hardware) port?
  • ...that worked on a quest-based CRPG set in the Warcraft world (now, I guess, it's the "World of Warcraft") for a couple years before abandoning the project because they couldn't meet their own standards.

    Don't expect them to release this unless they can do it right. (This is a good thing.) So don't get your hopes too high. If it doesn't come to fruition, it will be because they couldn't make it as fun as they thought it should be. If it is released, it will probably be late. (Blizzard has a reputation for taking the extra time to do things right.)

    It will probably also be very good.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close