So how much did Blizzard pay Kasavin?

[LionelThompson]

Seriously, just wondering.

[Sockpuppet]

This is a stunning achievement that will make you feel privileged to be a game player.

I'll admit, the review got me somewhat excited about the game - which I'm intending to avoid simply because of the huge stack of unplayed games building in my home. But that closing sentence was just a bit much.

[LionelThompson]

I really liked, and I paraphrase: the only real drawback to the game is that you cannot spend more time playing it.

[McCrank]

Obviously a huge amount, cause I was already starting to feel the grind 15 minutes after logging into the beta...

[Jason McMaster]

It is a bit much I guess, but hey, he really likes it.

[Reed]

But that closing sentence was just a bit much.
While I agree w/ his review (though I wouldn't quite give it a 9.5), that sentence is a bit overboard, "This is a stunning achievement that will make you feel privileged to be a game player."

I'd maybe say that IF WoW was really innovative and pushed the genre into the next generation, while retaining the awesome level of polish and production values. Or if WoW had been released 5yrs ago.

[Jim Preston]

I played the WoW beta up to about level 16 and I've played EQ2 up to about level 10. They both feel like the exact same experience to me. EQ2 has some annoying interface issues and WoW has better art IMO, but on the whole they strike me as remarkably similar. Perhaps I haven't gotten to some sort of depth of PvP experience, or gone on some amazing siege or gotten involved in some guild war that the other doesn't have. But the first 10 - 20 hours feels almost interchangeable to me.

[Jason McMaster]

Really? I thought they were pretty different in the experience department.

[Jim Preston]

Really? I thought they were pretty different in the experience department.

How so? I feel that I go get quests, run around and complete them, come back and get my XP/money/item bonus and repeat. Granted, I haven't gotten to a lot of the sub-classes where apparently things become more nuanced, but in the early hours the social and grouping feels the same, the same monster camping, the same auction shouting, etc. The only thing that really stands out in my mind from the WoW beta was the griffin rides to other zones -- which is just awesome.

[Jason McMaster]

With me it was the quests themselves, the WoW ones were much better than the EQ ones. More fleshed out and entertaining and not so vague.

[J.theYellow]

When has Blizzard ever done anything really "innovative"? Every game they've ever done has been based on a trail blazed by someone else. They just polish-polish-polish everything.

[LionelThompson]

With me it was the quests themselves, the WoW ones were much better than the EQ ones. More fleshed out and entertaining and not so vague.

I cannot speak for the depth of WoW quests, but I have found that as I got out of the city, the quests seem to have a respectable amount of depth. There are still more than a few 'kill 8 foozles, return to me' type stuff, but their presentation is better done. A few examples:

- Quests starting from random loot (examine the loot, say an axe handle), kill x foozles, examine the handle again and it becomes a melee weapon
- Catalog various creatures in a zone. Find a dozen or so specific creature types and catalog them (a separate action from attacking)
- Find various requisition orders in a dungeon. After finding enough of them, you learn the language in which it was written (in this case, orc)
- Access quests. Quests that are generally kill x, but upon completion, give access to a new part of the world (certain dungeons, raid encounters, and dungeon subsections fall into this)
- City tasks. Very much a kill x quest, but completing these gives you status, rather than xp. Status can be used for furniture, foofy type accessories, or discounts on high ticket items (horses for example)
- Exploration quests. For discovering various landmarks both in and out of the cities, you gain xp. On top of that, at least one quest has you looking for three different specific locations in a dungeon. Go to those spots and return to the giver for xp.

Quests are by essence limited in nature because we have only a limited number of ways to interact with the world. UO would have had the best shot of breaking this mold because of the interactivity of its objects (imagine finding a book in the woods that tells you to take 21 candles, arrange them in a circle on the ground, and upon doing so, you get ported to an instanced adventure zone!). Since you cannot do that many things within the world itself, the quests are also woefully limited.

[TheWombat]

At least WoW runs like a dream on normal hardware....

[John Reynolds]

Does Kasavin's review even mention the launch issues WoW had?

[extarbags]

At least WoW runs like a dream on normal hardware....

What passes for normal hardware these days?

[Talisker]

Does Kasavin's review even mention the launch issues WoW had?
Is that really as pertinent for someone who's considering buying today, now that we're past the initial launch hiccups?

[LionelThompson]

Does Kasavin's review even mention the launch issues WoW had?
Is that really as pertinent for someone who's considering buying today, now that we're past the initial launch hiccups?

Are the hiccups gone? I only ask because I had a guildmate or two show up to join us on EQ2 after they said WoW crashed on them last night.

[Lokust]

Is that really as pertinent for someone who's considering buying today, now that we're past the initial launch hiccups?

We are? My server was dead in the water all night last night. After waiting through the queue I got stuck at the character select screen for a couple hours and then when I finally got into the game there were no NPC's. I wasted from 6pm-10pm trying to get into the game and ended up not getting to play at all. No word on a fix by the time I gave up.

At least I got to paint some of my WH40k minis while I was waiting to see if Blizzard would get their shit together.

[mutt]

When has Blizzard ever done anything really "innovative"? Every game they've ever done has been based on a trail blazed by someone else. They just polish-polish-polish everything.

This isn't true. Diablo was significantly different than anything else out there at the time it was developed/released. Sure, it had its RPG aspect and its action aspect and etc., but it was considered an innovative design at the time. (I say this as one who is not particularly a fan of Blizzard's games, btw. But the truth's the truth.)

Having said that, I played the WoW stress test beta and was completely unimpressed. I found nothing new in it whatsoever, and frankly I can't imagine what all the cheering over it is about. The game is just as boring as every other game like it.

[Reed]

Haven't had any hiccups since the night of release. But have only been playing on low and medium pop servers.

[Mehrunes]

This isn't true. Diablo was significantly different than anything else out there at the time it was developed/released. Sure, it had its RPG aspect and its action aspect and etc., but it was considered an innovative design at the time. (I say this as one who is not particularly a fan of Blizzard's games, btw. But the truth's the truth.)

Rogue, Nethack, Moria, Angbad, Adom etc... had been doing the randomly generated dungeon crawl thing before Blizzard even existed. They just converted it to the isometric action style done previously by more games (like Crusader) then I can possibly remember, let alone list.

[malphigian]

Which is exactly why Blizzard is a great example of how far great execution will get you. They don't break any boundaries, really, they just do the genre games better than anyone else. Not the folks to look to for the revolutionary.

That said, WoW is the first MMO I've liked, specifically because they removed so much of the pointless downtime and it has remarkably good pacing.

[Hump]

I have a new copy of Eq2 sitting on my desk just waiting for me to finish up a couple of games to clear out HD space. After the review I'm wondering if I made the right choice. I played both betas and i just enjoyed EQ2 more. Maybe I didn' spend enough time in WoW.

I'm confused.

[J.theYellow]

This isn't true. Diablo was significantly different than anything else out there at the time it was developed/released. Sure, it had its RPG aspect and its action aspect and etc., but it was considered an innovative design at the time.

http://www.hut.fi/~eye/roguelike/

[stusser]

This turkey club is a stunning sandwich which makes me feel privileged to have a tongue.

What a tool.

[mutt]

Rogue, Nethack, Moria, Angbad, Adom etc... had been doing the randomly generated dungeon crawl thing before Blizzard even existed. They just converted it to the isometric action style done previously by more games (like Crusader) then I can possibly remember, let alone list.

Well, if you really want to dance that dance, then there are no games after Pong that are original, since Pong did the graphics thing first. <Insert whichever developer you happen to love> are just a bunch of crass plagiarists.

However, I'll grant you the Rogue/Nethack/Whatever point. I wasn't aware of those games at the time (and I still only know them by reputation), so I didn't make the connection, and I don't remember reviewers at the time mentioning them, either. To my mind Diablo was doing something fairly original, but maybe it actually wasn't.

[jafd]

I agree with the sentiment behind that closing sentence, but the presentation of it there is way, way over the top.

Also:


Dear Everyone On A Crowded Server,

MOVE.

love, jafd.

[FlamingSheep]

Didn't Starcraft pretty much pioneer the "3 totally different races that were all balanced" thing?

[Jakub]

Didn't Starcraft pretty much pioneer the "3 totally different races that were all balanced" thing?
Well... they weren't that balanced, really.

Zerg were dominant up until 1.04. But yeah, for 3 wildly different races, the balance was impressive. Right now, Terrans are probably the best but they're f'in hard and boring to use.

[Moore]

Rogue, Nethack, Moria, Angbad, Adom etc... had been doing the randomly generated dungeon crawl thing before Blizzard even existed. They just converted it to the isometric action style done previously by more games (like Crusader) then I can possibly remember, let alone list.

Well, if you really want to dance that dance, then there are no games after Pong that are original, since Pong did the graphics thing first. <Insert whichever developer you happen to love> are just a bunch of crass plagiarists.

However, I'll grant you the Rogue/Nethack/Whatever point. I wasn't aware of those games at the time (and I still only know them by reputation), so I didn't make the connection, and I don't remember reviewers at the time mentioning them, either. To my mind Diablo was doing something fairly original, but maybe it actually wasn't.


Diablo seriously IS a roguealike though. It's "strikers 1945" to nethack's "1942"

It actually has far far less of *everything* than most roguealike games, except graphics and sound.

[Rob O'Boston]

I just watched Greg's video review. It was like he was practically begging me to play this game, and that I should throw out all my other poor experiences with massively multiplayer rpgs because this game gets it all right and is perfect. He actually pretty much says this exactly. As a matter of fact he didn't mention a single negative thing about it. Not one.

That sucks, there goes 50 bucks, at a minimum.

[mutt]

I just watched Greg's video review. It was like he was practically begging me to play this game, and that I should throw out all my other poor experiences with massively multiplayer rpgs because this game gets it all right and is perfect. He actually pretty much says this exactly. As a matter of fact he didn't mention a single negative thing about it. Not one.

That sucks, there goes 50 bucks, at a minimum.

I don't understand. You mean you're buying it?

[Kevin Grey]

I just watched Greg's video review. It was like he was practically begging me to play this game, and that I should throw out all my other poor experiences with massively multiplayer rpgs because this game gets it all right and is perfect. He actually pretty much says this exactly. As a matter of fact he didn't mention a single negative thing about it. Not one.

That sucks, there goes 50 bucks, at a minimum.

I don't understand. You mean you're buying it?

Personally, I'm just happy to see Greg get excited about a game again. Its been a while since I've seen Greg give an actual enthusiastic review for a game, especially those that score in the 8's and 9's.

Edit- to clarify, even those games he scores in the 8s and 9s he ends up sounding ho-hum about.

[mutt]

I don't understand. You mean you're buying it?

Just to make sure I'm not being misunderstood, that was a serious question, not a criticism. I really didn't understand whether Rob means he's going to go buy the game now or what.

In re the interview, I'm all for enthusiasm as well. However, having played the game (a little), I just can't figure out where it's all coming from. The whole thing came across to me like it was written by a guy who just played DOOM and flipped out over the fact that you can actually--get this--run around in 3D space. I mean, yeah, it's cool and all, but it's been done, Greg. A little spit and polish here and there doesn't make it a whole new creature or anything.

This just confirms me in my opinion that most reviewers these days base their ratings on polish first and originality/fun second. If a game has up-to-the-minute, whizzo graphics and sound--if it has the look and feel of something hot off the Hollywood presses, so to speak--it scores high. If it doesn't, then it matters little how good the actual game is; it gets dinged for not having had the necessary millions of dollars to be worthy of these snootmeisters' time.

[Rob O'Boston]

I don't understand. You mean you're buying it?

Just to make sure I'm not being misunderstood, that was a serious question, not a criticism. I really didn't understand whether Rob means he's going to go buy the game now or what.

In re the interview, I'm all for enthusiasm as well. However, having played the game (a little), I just can't figure out where it's all coming from. The whole thing came across to me like it was written by a guy who just played DOOM and flipped out over the fact that you can actually--get this--run around in 3D space. I mean, yeah, it's cool and all, but it's been done, Greg. A little spit and polish here and there doesn't make it a whole new creature or anything.

This just confirms me in my opinion that most reviewers these days base their ratings on polish first and originality/fun second. If a game has up-to-the-minute, whizzo graphics and sound--if it has the look and feel of something hot off the Hollywood presses, so to speak--it scores high. If it doesn't, then it matters little how good the actual game is; it gets dinged for not having had the necessary millions of dollars to be worthy of these snootmeisters' time.

Yes, at this point I'll probably buy it. I'd prefer to wait 6 months for the fileplanet free 7 day trial period, but basically I'm a sucker for games. I admit it.

I tend to trust Greg Kasavin's opinion on games, and although he's been fooled by games with flashy graphics and lots of hype (see Black and White 9.3 - but hey, we were all fooled ), he does tend to give well spoken, even handed reviews. The fact that he's just so exuberant over WOW makes me think that maybe this time I'll find the game to be 'fun'(I found DOAC, AC2, CoH, Horizons, and AO to be void of fun after a few days). In his review, he doesn't rave so much about the graphics or that the game is particularly new. He seems to focus on how well they made the playing experience (faster and friendlier, with less obstacles to enjoying the gameplay). I think that makes a pretty solid review/endorsement.

Actually, CoH might have had me if there had just been more raw stuff in the game. Maybe WOW, with its abundance of stuff, and hopefully somewhat enjoyable combat, will be something I enjoy.

I also think Bruce Geryk playing a game with actual elves in it speaks mountains about how good the game could be.

But in the end, I'm just a sucker for games.

[TheWombat]

What passes for normal hardware these days?

I'd say a 2GHz class CPU, 512MB RAM, and a 9600/5500 or so class video card, maybe? I'm guessing.

[Cold Blooded]

[quote=muttbunch]
This just confirms me in my opinion that most reviewers these days base their ratings on polish first and originality/fun second.

Don't think that's a fair or even accurate assessment, especially since you lump "originality" and "fun" together, like they're somehow the same thing. Frankly, if some of the overrated junk we've seen in past years is any indication, "originality" and "fun" are mutually exclusive.

Would imagine that most reviewers would rate games on execution first and originality second. Are they reviewing games or innovations? "I give this innovation 4 stars out of 5"? If you were faced with the choice of paying $50 for a game that was fun (its design was executed well) but not innovative, or a game that was innovative but not fun (the game didn't come together as an actual fun game), which would you choose? Figured that's what reviews were for?

Might've been "hip" in my younger days to support developers who were "out there" and made games that were different if not necessarily great, but these days, if I'm not enjoying my $50 purchase, it either collects dust on my shelf, or more commonly, goes right back to the store. Don't have time or money to be stuck with a turkey, however "original" it might be.

[mouselock]

Does Kasavin's review even mention the launch issues WoW had?
Is that really as pertinent for someone who's considering buying today, now that we're past the initial launch hiccups?

Are the hiccups gone? I only ask because I had a guildmate or two show up to join us on EQ2 after they said WoW crashed on them last night.

No, they're not.

[mouselock]

Actually, CoH might have had me if there had just been more raw stuff in the game. Maybe WOW, with its abundance of stuff, and hopefully somewhat enjoyable combat, will be something I enjoy.


I think the WoW combat (once you get to level 10 or above so you have some in-combat choices regardless of class) is close to as good as CoH's.

And it totally trashes CoH in terms of stuff. And gives it a good run for it's money in terms of coherent world presentation.

So if you liked CoH except for the fact that you felt like if you got tired of just killing enemies over and over, WoW may make you happy. In amongst the "Kill these X things and bring me Y bits" are "Go to this place and get me these things" and "Go find X of these things and bring them to me" (those aren't the same type of quest, BTW, often quite different feeling) and "Go talk to this person about this (followed by the inevitable 'Okay, now go talk to this person about this')"

It's still the same gameplay of pushing buttons in a pseudo-timed environment to make exp bars go up, but it seems to be really good at distracting you from that point.

[Euri]

What passes for normal hardware these days?

I'd say a 2GHz class CPU, 512MB RAM, and a 9600/5500 or so class video card, maybe? I'm guessing.

My downstairs computer is just a little better than this and runs fine at max everything and 1152x864.

The computer I normally use (one I'm on now) is a bit better than that, max everything and 1152x864 and I've *never* had a bit of slowdown other than when logging into the world for the first time and having to load things into memory.