Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

World of Warcraft Beta Dissected 90

Posted by simoniker from the many-thousands-of-words dept.
larsoncc writes "Fatman Games has published an absolutely massive hands-on preview of Blizzard's PC MMO title World of Warcraft, now that the game's NDA has expired with the commencement of the public Beta. Will MMORPG players drool over the chance to control a Succubus? Yeah, I know - obvious answer!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World of Warcraft Beta Dissected More

World of Warcraft Beta Dissected

Comments Filter:

  • Speaking of WoW (Score:2, Informative)

    by Lord Graga ( 696091 )
    My moms once husbands son has tried the alpha, and it's really nice, he says.

    This page [gotwow.net] has an alternative to the alpha/beta server that Blizzard is running. I haven't tried it myself, but I have read that it lacks of content.

  • what i've heard (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rabbot ( 740825 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @01:43PM (#8647490)
    From what i've heard from beta testers so far, its pretty much the same lvling treadmill we've gotten used to over the past few years. It's going to need something revolutionary to make me go out and buy this game, not the Warcraft name alone.

    • Re:what i've heard (Score:2, Insightful)

      by roche ( 135922 )
      From reading that article I have come to the same conclusion. This really does not surprise me though. After constantly hearing about how each new game was going to completely revolutionize the MMORPG genre, I am finding it almost impossible to believe the hype. I think Star Wars is what did it for me. Tales of non static spawns, dynamic content and a non level based system sounded like a dream come true. When everything was said and done though, it was basically just the same ol MMORPG.

      A few months after

      • Re:what i've heard (Score:5, Interesting)

        by *weasel ( 174362 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @02:56PM (#8648264)
        Blizzard has yet to ever revolutionize a genre. They built their name on taking the tried and true, simplifying it a bit, and heaping on the polish. They take a few evolutionary steps, and round off the corners.

        Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo - none of these franchises really did anything 'new' or 'exciting'. What they did, they did well, and they did with a distinctive style.

        The only thing WoW is poised to do - is bitchslap the notion that timesinks are necessary to make MMORPG advancement meaningful. That, and seriously challenge the lack of context that the other quest-light MMORPGs provide.

        Their quests don't do anything mechanically that hasn't already been done. They are just more plentiful, more engaging, more well balanced, offer a choice in rewards, and more convenient to find and complete.

        Their races don't have abilities that haven't been done before. They're not doing dragons or demons or anything way out there. But they've given each race flavor, history, culture, and style.

        Playing an Orc warrior is not the same experience as playing a Dwarf warrior (unless you abstract gameplay to the the level of progress quest). You'll have different quests, the NPCs will have a distinct style and tone, and you will actually notice and experience the various facets of Orcish culture. (Tauren are probably the best example of this, with their wind-centric totemic culture).

        Their classes don't do stuff that hasn't been done before. But they're more well balanced. All classes solo fairly well, and none are absolutely required for a group. You don't need a wizard to take out big mobs, you don't need a primary healer. Sure, they fit their role better than other classes, but nearly any group of 5 can get stuff done. And if you don't want a group? You can actually solo meaningful monsters to gain experience. It won't be the best, but it won't be pointless.

        Their engine isn't pushing the limits of technology. Their models are low poly, and they have comparatively few options for customization (compared to lineage 2, ffxi, ac2, etc). But everything looks and moves fantastic. Everything fits together naturally and seamlessly. The colors and textures of a zone convey something that geologically plausible placement and piles of polygons don't.

        WoW isn't going to change the way MMORPGs work. All it's doing is going to highlight all the broken mechanics everyone has glossed over.

        It's not something you can provably demonstrate in text. The game does the current status quo, but does it right. If you didn't like EverQuest philosophically because you didn't like bashing monsters for fun and profit - then you won't like WoW. If you didn't like Everquest because you found yourself sitting around, punished by the broken rules more often than you were bashing monsters for fun and profit - then WoW will be right up your alley.

        It's a game done very well, even at this state. But it's nothing revolutionary.

        • Re:what i've heard (Score:4, Informative)

          by Paolomania ( 160098 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @03:26PM (#8648582) Homepage
          Blizzard has yet to ever revolutionize a genre. They built their name on taking the tried and true, simplifying it a bit, and heaping on the polish. They take a few evolutionary steps, and round off the corners.

          Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo - none of these franchises really did anything 'new' or 'exciting'. What they did, they did well, and they did with a distinctive style.

          Excuse me? The RTS genre was hardly well established when Blizzard released the original Warcraft - it is only preceded by two games: Herzog Zwei and Dune II, so they most certainly did put a new twist on an genre that was in its infancy. Check your history here [gamespot.com].

          Many people knock Diablo as a dumbed down rogue-like, but it undeniably started off the higly popular genre of action-RPG, which has a play style that is much more adrenalyn-based than the cerebral style of the rogue-like. Prior to Diablo RPGs were stuck somewhere in CRPG Ultima*, or console Final Fantasy* copycats.

          • Er... Maybe I've got my dates and timelines mixed up, but I think action RPG's were around on consoles for quite a while before Diablo came along...

            • Re:what i've heard (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Paolomania ( 160098 )
              Er... Maybe I've got my dates and timelines mixed up, but I think action RPG's were around on consoles for quite a while before Diablo came along...

              I think I see where you are coming from, after all the original Zelda was out in the late 80's. However, I personally make a distinction between these two types of games. The main distinction in my mind is one of control: In Zelda style games, yes you gain stats and items, but the game most certainly lies outside the RPG genre in that it relies on player sk
              • Zelda wasn't exactly the example I was thinking of. I was thinking of games similar to the Mana series from Squaresoft(including Secret of Mana, and the earlier gameboy game that was relabeled 'Final Fantasy Adventure' for the US release). I'm pretty certain the Mana series predates Diablo, and your stats do determine accuracy in those games, as opposed to the Zelda games where players twitch skill plays a mutch larger role.

                Admittedly, this still leaves Diablo as the first action RPG that is heavier on
                • But IIRC timing and aim of attacks were very important in Secret of Mana - e.g. when you held down the attack button to charge up your attack to its highest level you would carefully position yourself and aim so that the axe-wielding pixie would connect with its level 8 technique. Admittedly the spell system felt more RPG like, but the bulk of the gameplay was melee fighting. Especially recall the fight with the boss that is made of three eye-balls: unless you properly timed and aimed a powered-up attack

          • Re:what i've heard (Score:4, Interesting)

            by *weasel ( 174362 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @04:12PM (#8649060)
            Yes, Blizzard put an undeniable stamp on the RTS genre. I'll go ahead and grant you 'warcraft' as revolutionary for the sake of argument. But with every game since: WC2, Dark Portal, SC, Brood War, and WC3 - they didn't do anything to alter the core mechanics of RTS games. Gather resources, rebuild the base each map, upgrade the troops, limit army size with 'farms', etc. All were in place each go-round. Adding heroes in War3 was a formalization of a story-mode gameplay element they'd had since WC2.

            The Diablo comparison is actually pretty much my point. Diablo is to Ultima what WoW is to Everquest -- at least on the 'level of action' front. It's faster, with less downtime and more stuff going on. Combat is more interactive than picking a target and wait. Min/Maxing your party's class mix isn't necessary.

            Some might say it's too fast, or doesn't address the core problems of class/level design. But the change in gameplay between WoW and EQ is similarly as striking as that between Ultima and Diablo.

            The only problem with a general Diablo/Ultima, WoW/EQ comparison is that WoW adds depth in questing back into the MMORPG genre - where it's been sorely lacking.

            I wasn't slamming Blizzard by any stretch, I was simply referring to their focus on refining and gradually improving, rather than going in a shockingly new direction with the entire design.

            Witness Warcraft 3. The original game they displayed at E3 was revolutionary. Resource gathering was gone. The player could only see the map around his Heroes. Units had to be grouped with Heroes to go fight. Army size was thereby limited to number of Heroes.

            Then look at what they ultimately decided to produce: Evolutionary change. They kept the tried and true mechanics that plenty of users don't seem to mind too much. They said screw the design critics - and delivered a polished game that they knew would work.

            I'm not slamming that decision either. All I'm doing is illustrating my point. Blizzard has never been one to throw away the rules and start fresh in a genre. (or at least hasn't done so since the first warcraft)

            Back on topic:
            World of Warcraft will play faster and more convenient - but its underlying design is still fundamentally the same as EQ - which is the same as Diku/Merc - which is the same as tabletop D&D. Anyone who tells you different hasn't played the game.

            Blizzard has not revolutionized MMORPG design with WoW as it stands today. I doubt any change they make between now and release will do so either. What they have done, is damn well near perfected the model that nearly everyone's been using for the last few decades. (with regards to accessibility, usability, polish, and 'fun')

          • Re:what i've heard (Score:2, Informative)

            by Dehumanizer ( 31435 )
            Warcraft 1 was an almost perfect copy of Dune 2. A copy isn't a "revolution".

            They only made a really fun RTS with Warcraft 2, and Starcraft is brilliant.

          • Re:what i've heard (Score:3, Interesting)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
            The fact that you bring up Doom 2 really makes the poster's point for them. Frankly the closest thing to Diablo was Gauntlet, and the two are distinctly different games. I think that Diablo qualifies as revolutionary and not just evolutionary, not least because anyone can play it.

            But Warcraft is just Fantasy Dune 2 with much larger characters. In the end they are both about the same things; securing and exploiting resources, and blowing shit up. So it's evolution only.

            • The fact that you bring up Doom 2 really makes the poster's point for them. Frankly the closest thing to Diablo was Gauntlet, and the two are distinctly different games. I think that Diablo qualifies as revolutionary and not just evolutionary, not least because anyone can play it.

              You are just ignorant. Diablo is a commercial roguelike. Those games are called roguelike, because they all resemble the clasic game "rogue" [www.hut.fi]. In those games you control a character that ihas stats just like in a RPG, but the focu

              • Re:what i've heard (Score:3, Insightful)

                by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
                Interestingly I've played all of those games and more besides, since about 1990. I've gotten to watch some amazing changes in Nethack over that time. Let's not forget larn, and ularn - ularn remains one of the best known roguelike (among those who know anyway.)

                The difference, and it is a huge difference, is that Diablo is realtime and none of those others are. The closest text-based game I can think of off the top of my head is The Kingdom of Kroz, a game which showed up in PC Magazine some time ago as sh


          • Thank you for giving "Herzog Zwei" a name-check -it's often overlooked when people talk about the first RTS type of games. I spent hours and hours playing that game on the Genesis. So good.

            For more info. [fortunecity.com]

            ~jeff
            • Good to hear from another proud, card-carrying member of the Herzog Zwei posse (i.e. those of us who played the game on the actual hardware until either the genesis overheated or the sun came up ;)

        • Blizzard has yet to ever revolutionize a genre.

          For that, you get modded up to 5, interesting? Jeeze. If I'd have seen it while I had mod points, I'd have stuck "Troll" on it. You sound like you've never played any of their games - or you've never played anything but theirs, so assume everything else is just the same.

    • I've heard the same, which is a sad letdown after all the hype.

      The premise Blizzard's been harping on was that we wouldn't have to go through the leveling treadmill killing rats and bunnies for hours until we're able to handle real prey, but in fact, we're still spending our time getting bunnyraped because our n00b characters are stupidly weak.

      Frankly, I'm going to keep playing Ashen Empires. Granted, the level treadmill is pretty steep after level 25 to 30, but by that time (about a month's work for an i
      • I don't agree. New characters aren't stupidly weak (well, right now mages are quite broken and weak but that is something they work on and all agree). ONe can do both interesting and varying quests, right from the start. One always start of in a somewhat isolated smaller area (which one, depends on race) were one do the first few levels. There are a bunch of quests there, some townish building, a cave or two and so on. One can handle it solo or go party. My first time through, I would say I played there bet
        • The more I hear about it, the more I think you're pretty much wrong. A new WoW character can kill fairly impressive LOOKING things like bears, but that's because bears have stat setups just like the bunnies you have to kill at level 1 in any other MMORPG - they just look bigger, which in turn makes the really strong monsters fairly undifferentiated.

    • Re:what i've heard (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @02:49PM (#8648181) Journal
      From what i've heard from beta testers so far, its pretty much the same lvling treadmill we've gotten used to over the past few years. It's going to need something revolutionary to make me go out and buy this game, not the Warcraft name alone.

      The levelling treadmill is a fundamental result of trying to apply the levelling system to MMORPGs. Anything that tries to apply the idea of levelling runs into two fundamentally conflicting forces:
      • 10% of your customer base accounts for 90% of the logged in time, and
      • 90% of your customer base (and by extension, income) doesn't do that.
      You need to make the game fun for both groups, because the first one is loud (and will impact whether anyone buys the game at all disproportionately), and because the second one accounts for the majority of your cash flow.

      Any system that rewards the player for spending time in the game, or, equivalently, requires significant time in the game to advance in skills, will always have the same flaws modern "levelling treadmills" do. Until you do away with the level idea as the central organization of the game, MMORPGs will not advance significantly over what they are now. (I'm not saying they have to go away completely, but they can't be the central number used in every RNG computation.)

      It's not something that can be designed around, it's fundamental to the genre and the technique. Fortunatley, all hope is not lost. I know of at least two systems that eschew the levelling treadmill: Puzzle Pirates, which uses head-to-head puzzle competition as its combat technique, and Planetside, which I've heard is more FPS then level-based. (Could be wrong. I haven't played either.) Until these alternate techniques go mainstream, MMORPGs are going to be stuck in the same rut they've been stuck in since Ultima Online.

      • Re:what i've heard (Score:4, Informative)

        by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @04:41PM (#8649374) Journal
        Slightly OT, but to allow everyone to better educate themselves, do check out Puzzle Pirates. [puzzlepirates.com] Amazing stuff. They give you a nice long free (no-CC) demo too. Spot on with that comment. All the social aspect, but you can participate with anyone at level and still be successful. It even has PvP! Worthy of any MMORPG discussion.
      • It's not something that can be designed around, it's fundamental to the genre and the technique. Fortunatley, all hope is not lost. I know of at least two systems that eschew the levelling treadmill: Puzzle Pirates, which uses head-to-head puzzle competition as its combat technique, and Planetside, which I've heard is more FPS then level-based. (Could be wrong. I haven't played either.)

        I've played both and I agree that they have a better model. In Planetside, you do level up but it happens reasonably qui

        • I recommend you give both Puzzle Pirates and Planetside a try.

          The only reason I haven't is that I am really only interested, even fascinated in the theoretical aspects of MMORPGS, but not terribly interested in playing most of them. The only MMORPG I find interesting is online discussion boards (not being silly, I consider them roughly the same thing in many significant ways), and my interest in the theoretical aspects of MMORPGs parallels my interest in how structure determines the nature of a community.
      • Well the thing about Everquest levels (before they made them a joke) was you could be sure a (early) level 60 was actually a compitent player.

        After they removed that standard by lowering the leveling time, the only way to be safe was by grouping with your friends.

        Time sinks have a purpose. I agree they shouldn't make the game unejoyable for those that don't want to partake (see EQ), but they need to be designed around just as much as the mid level players otherwise you will loose the uber elite (e.g. me)
        • Time sinks have a purpose. I agree they shouldn't make the game unejoyable for those that don't want to partake (see EQ), but they need to be designed around just as much as the mid level players otherwise you will loose the uber elite (e.g. me)

          Uber-eliteness should come from skill, not time. That can happen in both the games I've mentioned; if you're uber-elite, you can be playing at a high level in a matter of hours, instead of just putting in time.

          Time isn't a determinant of eliteness. Skill is.
          • Yes, but time coupled with skill requirments tends to filter out the people who are half baked much better than simply skill.

            How exactly do you propose that people prove their skill without investing time?
            • Have you tried Puzzle Pirates or Planetside?

              How does anyone ever prove skill? By doing things skillfully, of course. People who are half-baked, by definition, aren't skillful and can't do things skillfully.

              Of course it takes time to develop skill, but I program far above some people who have invested as much time as I have, and far below others. I don't get to go up levels in programming just for putting another hour in, or finding some cheat; I develop skill and show it, or not. The same applies in games
              • Right, I understand what your saying about skill being seperate from time, but at the same time it's not entirely unrelated.

                People who have 200+ hours logged are going to (hopefully) understand all of the basic mechanics of the game. That is one thing I can hopefully assume based on level.

                For example, in EverQuest, I expect a level 30 to understand the basics of fighting mechanics for their class, at level 60 I expect them to understand the basics of all classes. Stuff like that can only be learned thro

    • Re:what i've heard (Score:2, Informative)

      by realdpk ( 116490 )
      Yep, same ol', same ol':

      obPennyArcade [penny-arcade.com] link.

      "Gabe's going to cancel his account when he finds out that it takes twice the experience to get from this level to this level, or the materials you worked so hard to get are destroyed because of some arbitrary roll. For you and me, hey, maybe we don't mind that kind of thing. Maybe we hate ourselves already and see the genre as a way to work off spiritual debt, like a karmic gym. Regular people, a definition I don't usually apply to Gabe, but whatever - regular

      • Re:what i've heard (Score:3, Informative)

        by SoVeryWrong ( 576783 )
        Tycho's paragraph was a bit disjointed. That quote you posted was directed at previous MMORPGs, not WoW. He was commenting on how Blizzard's offering is more humane in that respect.

        Full Quote:
        "The word which constantly comes to my mind when considering the game is "humane." I have quite a lot of patience for games of this type, I don't mind going to a town and asking every medieval jackhole I see where I can find the cathedral. Gabe's not going to do that. That sort of thing isn't fun for most people. Gab
        • Hmm. I read that as Gabe won't like *this* game because of the experience to get from level to level.

          The "maybe there's some kind of grind" line does counter that, though.

          Upon further reading in to it, I think you're right. But that paragraph could have made it more clear. ;)
          • If you read the next news post, I think his inbox was very clear on telling him he messed that whole paragraph up, really bad. I know for a fact that in WoW, you don't lose items on a bad roll, that's the only way I knew what he meant for sure.

      • Re:what i've heard (Score:3, Informative)

        by fireduck ( 197000 )
        This is a quote taken a bit out of context. One actually puts it in context and it argues against your point. Consider the first sentence in the paragraph you selectively quote from: The word which constantly comes to my mind when considering the game is "humane.". Then consider the last sentence, after describing all of the painful problems with RPGS and the liklihood of them being encountered in WoW: I doubt it.

        Blizzard has told us that things won't be arbitrary. You collect X consumable to craft Y

    • Re:what i've heard (Score:5, Interesting)

      by truffle ( 37924 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @04:39PM (#8649355) Homepage
      I've been playing WOW for 4 months now (alpha tester). It isn't a leveling treadmill. Leveling treadmill is generally used as a term to refer to killing monsters cyclicly to advance.

      In WOW your focus is quests. I am level 30 (max level) and I have never once done the xp treadmill. All I do is do quests.

      Like any game, WOW is what you make of it. In this case, the mechanics of the game strongly support quest based advancement.
      • You have never, not once, stood around camping something or roaming a small area, just to get xp? ALL your xp is from either quest rewards, or fighting things you had to kill to satisfy a quest, or maybe fighting while travelling? If so, that's very interesting. I'd like to know, though, how long these quests take. If there's a quest to, say, kill fifty ghouls in that cornfield over there, and it takes you three nights to do it, I don't see how it's different from the current camping-for-ghouls-cornfield

        • Re:what i've heard (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sweetooth ( 21075 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @05:51PM (#8650116) Homepage
          It's still a leveling treadmill IMO, they have shifted the xp rewards from killing lots of beasties to finishing lots of quests. Kinda reminds me of AO where you would do as many "missions" as possible. The major differance being that the quests tie into the story line and culture of your racial or character class. This being a focus is a diversion from many other games where you are either treadmilling by killing the critters cyclicly for xp, or are doing quests that only loosly relate to your character or the games story line. The first Asherons Call handled the quest issue fairly well as 90% of the quests you do are tied to the montly story line and those contributed to the major story arcs more than half the time. You still get stuck on the killing the same critters over and over path if you really want to advance though. That's a questing for items system where WoW is more of a questing for everything system. So far after putting in about 60 hours into WoW I don't think that it's any more or less enjoyable than any other MMOG, it's just polished. I hate doing hundreds of quests that don't mean much to my character as much as I hate killing hundreds of critters repeatedly.

          • Re:what i've heard (Score:3, Informative)

            by truffle ( 37924 )

            They haven't shifted anything, you can choose to not do any quests, and instead just kill monsters. That's a valid way to advance. I would say most people prefer doing quests.

            Certainly to advance you do need to either complete quests or farm xp, there is no third option for advancement. If you don't enjoy doing either, you won't enjoy advancement.

            It's not clear to me from your comment exactly what it is you find unenjoyable about WOW questing. You describe the quests as not meaning much to your character.
        • I have never, not once, stood around camping something or roaming a small area, just to get xp.

          The time to finish a quest varies between 30 minutes and 3 hours in general I'd say. There are small quests, and big quests. The hardest are instance dungeon quests, where there is a very real possibility in trying to complete the quest that you will fail and have to start over.

  • Random Comments (Score:5, Interesting)

    by L7_ ( 645377 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @01:45PM (#8647509)
    Someone posted a link to the article in its original form on graffe's forum:

    http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100998&c id=8610851 [slashdot.org]

    It is funner to read than the submitted story because you get all the 'wdupz whizzy poo were u been? ^_^' replies from his guild members. ;-)
  • Isn't this the same article that was linked from the main page a few days back?

    The forum seems different, but the text is the same.
  • this is riddled with jargon that a lay person cannot possibly understand.

    • Re:The writing of this article is horrible... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Which actually makes it useful to those of us who are interested in the mmorpg. If it were a simplistic article then it wouldn't tell me what it did, that is that it's going to turn out exactly like SWG is. Which means we're basically creating a standard 2nd gen MMORPG gameset.

      If you don't understand the article, there's not much reason to. It's a beta of the game, not a review on the release.

    • So? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by BigChigger ( 551094 )
      Maybe he didn't write it for lay persons. Do you expect a physics paper in a scholarly magazine to be written for lay persons? Just because you didn't understand it, does not make it bad.

      FWIW, I did not understand most of it myself.

      BC
      • The jargon that is in it is specific to the game. Just what the hell is an undead push, etc? This gives no insight to the game outside of the people who've already played it.
        • Which is the point of the aritcle. It was written for other players, not for all of us on /. We just happened to snif it out and read it, and a lot of it's babble to us. Just think what a non-slashdotter would think seeing our own posts laden with terms like IANAL, FWIW, RTFA, FWIK, FUD, and so on. A lot of it doesn't make sense in the context unless you know the meaning.

          • Re:So? (Score:1, Troll)

            by sinergy ( 88242 )
            Except IANAL, FWIW, RTFA, etc are standardized and most computer users have been using them for the last 20 years.

        • Re:So? (Score:2, Informative)

          by Marc_Hawke ( 130338 )
          There's this thing called context. There's another thing called 'expediency' or maybe 'need to know.'

          I haven't been following WoW much, and the alpha/beta not all all, but I was able to tell from context that a 'push' was specific testing for those character classes. (The new beta is in a push of the 'good' races. Humans Dwarves Taurens, etc, no orcs or goblins.)

          Also, exactly what is meant by a 'push' is irrelevant to the point of his article. He could have been extra wordy, or explain to much. Or

          • Re:So? (Score:2)

            by Pofy ( 471469 )
            >(The new beta is in a push of the 'good' races.
            >Humans Dwarves Taurens, etc, no orcs or goblins.)

            To be more specific, it is an alliance push, which includes dwarves, gnomes, humans and night elves (somce classes are disabled too).
    • Because I beleive alienation is 'a bad thing' (tm)... here are some terms explained. If I missed anything, post it and someone (maybe me) will help ya out.


      WoW - World of Warcraft [blizzard.com] (the game, duh)
      Push - Phase
      EQ - EverQuest [sony.com]
      D&D - Dungeons & Dragons [wizards.com] (Pen and paper, not MMORPG)
      DAoC - Dark Age of Camelot [darkageofcamelot.com]
      PVP - Player versus Player
      PVE - Player versus Enemy
      MMORPG - Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game
      RTS - Real Time Strategy
      NPC - Non Player Character
      XP - Experience (a measure of prog
      • Dude.

        Good grief.

        "emote" is an actual word, meaning "to express emotion."

        here is the link. [reference.com]

      • PvE is more player vs evironment. Also seen as PvM Player vs MOB.
        Back in the days of diku MUDs most things were called objects in the code to create something the players could attack you created a mobile object or MOB. You still see people use the term MOB for anything in game that can be attacked.
        Also emote is for emotion. It is usally put in a different style so people use it for alot of different stuff.
        DPS is damager per second. It is a way to bring all weapons to a common comparison point. So a
  • My family members somehow managed to not try and sign up for beta until after the beta test sign-ups ended. I'm starting to wonder if I'm adopted.

    You mean members of his family actually think "PC Gaming" means something other than Solitaire? Can we, like, switch or something?

    "Get off that computer!!!"
  • A NON-RPG MMOG?

    I'd like to play with 100's of people, but I really don't care about levels, etc any more.

    Anyone up for a BF1942 map with 500 players? Yes there are problems with such a wide generalization, but hey, not all of us online players are exactly RPGers.

    • One Word (Score:4, Interesting)

      by InfinityWpi ( 175421 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @03:36PM (#8648665)
      Planetside.

      Okay, more than one word, since I have to wait 20 seconds.

      Up to ten people per squad, a number of squads per company, and commanders on top of that... get, say, three commanders together, each managing 30 people, and have them agree on a specific objective... and watch the enemy come a-running as a hundred soldiers, tanks, and bombers invade their continent...
      • Yeah, but I'm thinking about something even simpler. Something that has 100s of people but actually ends perhaps? Something with rounds of games.

        Planetside is good I guess, but it's neverending, no one ever wins.

        I guess I basically want BF or UT with 100's of players instead of 32/64 ::)
        • Yeah, you've got a good point. It slightly bugs me that you just can't win Planetside. On the other hand, if your MMO game lasts only for a round (an evening?) you can't expect to have rich social and command structures in the game.

          Part of the interest in a game like Planetside is the fact that there is a command structure - you do what your squad leader says, he does what the platoon leader says, etc. It goes all the way up to 'high command' level. Also, there are 'outfits', i.e. more social grouping

          • See I think there a lot of people(me) who don't want a rich social and command structure.

            We want it to end in a few hours. And start all over. People will get friends together and play but there will be nutso's running around doing their own thing. Just like BF1942 is now, just on a much larger scale.

            Clans for FPS are quite social and practice on their own etc. This is not an RPG not all of us want all that extra stuff.

        • there was some talk for the while that gamers thought something could be salvaged from Shadowbane that it could move to a "quarterly model" where the servers would get wiped every couple of months. this would then give the players something more substantive to work towards than simply keeping a war going in perpetuity. the idea never really went far with shadowbane since it is centred around RPGing. but i think the concept could work with a game that has a more militaristic theme.
    • I know I read something about a MMO baseball game. You and a bunch of friends could make up a team, each playing individual positions against other players/teams. Sounded somewhat boring, so I didn't try out the trial period, but at least it's something.

      hed.

    • Aces High [hitechcreations.com]
    • something that has the elements of a MMORPG but instead of being set in a fantasy world is set in a futuristic sci-fi world.
      Instead of having wizzards, healers, warriors etc, you could have medics, gunners, pilots, hackers and so on.
      And you could have different species to pick from.
      For example, some species would make better pilots etc.
      All characters would have basic skills in all the key areas but only, say, a medic would be able to use advanced healing skills. Also, for example, you could pick up/buy 1-us
      • If Star Wars: Galaxies isn't what you are looking for (but hey, it fits into all those criteria you listed), try looking at the following:

        Anarchy Online
        Neocron
        Eve Online

        Anarchy Online would probably be the closest to what you are looking for. Though, I must say, the above titles are all set on one planet (unsure about Eve Online).
        • Oh, a thought; Anarchy Online is currently developing a new expansion pack titled "Alien Invasion". Might be some of the space travel you are looking for there (but don't expect to fly something like a Tie Fighter around).

          Earth & Beyond would have been another recommendation, if it wasn't closing in September.
  • What is a undead push?
    • The way the article is written, it seems to follow that individual "pushes" are individual stages inside the beta where all players are focused on that one race. For example, during the dwarfen push, all the players could only create dwarfs, and could only adventure in dwarven lands, as to focus all development on that section of the game for that time period.

      I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

  • Evolutionary (Score:4, Informative)

    by Zonk ( 12082 ) on Tuesday March 23, 2004 @04:59PM (#8649590) Homepage Journal
    To be sure, WoW is not a revolution in MMOGs...it is simply the most fun, most polished, best looking massively multiplayer game I've ever seen.

    First and foremost, it is a game, not a "world". All the attempts at turning MMOGs into worlds have resulted in boring sand-box style spaces where people have nothing to do. Puzzle Pirates and A Tale in the Desert are another two excellent examples of why massively multiplayer games should be games.

    The polish on this game in the Beta stage is better than Star Wars Galaxies was 4 months after launch. By the time it is released for public consumption, it will join Final Fantasy XI in rivaling Everquest for interesting content.

    I don't understand why people are scoffing at WoW for not being revolutionary. Of course not! We're only at the Third Generation of MMOGs here. Hell, Everquest is still the game with the largest player population. World of Warcraft is one really big step in the right direction though.

    Shameless self promotion: Check out my first Beta Journal [mmorpgdot.com] entry at MMORPGDot.

    • Were you holding ATITD up as an example of what to do, or an example of what not to do.

      It sounded like 'what to do' except ATITD is the most 'sandbox' like of all MMORPGs, which you said was bad.

      My problem is that the games lack depth. The games lack detail. The games remove everything that sounds 'boring' and are left with standing around with auto-attack on doing nothing.

      I'm asking for too much. MMORPGs can't be what I want them to. I'm just hoping someone will meet me half way. :)

      • Re:Evolutionary (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rallion ( 711805 )
        I haven't played the game, but from what I understand, "doing nothing" is exactly what Blizzard was avoiding when they made this. No long travel times, and some kind of engagement in combat. Alpha testers were supposed to never for a moment stop asking themselves, "Am I having fun right now?"
  • Can anyone who's more familiar with modern MMORPG jargon/slang provide a translation for some of his terms (mez, DPS, etc.)?

    • Re:Translation (Score:2, Informative)

      by Arkhan ( 240130 )
      I read the article a few days ago (the first time it was posted), so I don't recall all the terms used, but the two you asked about:

      mez = mesmerize (charm/stun/immobilize sort of thing)

      DPS = damage per second (measure of how rapidly you can put the hurt on a monster)

      If you want anything else translated, just list it out and I'll be glad to.
      • Aggro is the other big one I remember that I don't recognize. Huh . . . when I was playing Asheron's Call, we called DPS DoT, for damage over time. AC had other jargon, but it seems that not enough people played it and then played other MMORPGs, so EQ/UO jargon has become "standard" MMORPG slang.

        • Re:Translation (Score:2, Informative)

          by Cosmik ( 730707 )
          Aggro = Aggravation. Essentially, the amount of hate a creature has towards a player. The player with the most hate (hopefully a warrior or similar) will therefore have aggro.

          DoT exists in just about all MMORPGs these days - but usually refers to a damage over time spell or status effect.

          DPS is the damage done over time with a weapon (usually, but can be magic too) and is calculated in seconds. Basically, DPS is calculated by taking a time fram and seeing how much damage you can inflict within that time f
    • If you go to the WOW site (www.worldofwarcraft.com) and look at their beta dictionary you will find most of the terms identified.
  • This is the first time I have ever seen a single preview passed around so much. Certainly it is comprehensive. GJ Dustyboots.

    Does this mean every other WoW tester who was thinking about writing a preview saw this one and decided it would just be easier to keep playing...err, I mean testing?

Slashdot Top Deals

Been Transferred Lately?

Close