May 14th 2009 6:21AM I wish that the interviewers would push a bit harder in interviews like this. The 'is there much demand for connect 4 at $10' was a step in the right direction but it is all just a bit too pandering. I want to read interviews that answer the questions that readers of Joystiq want to hear, not just a marketing opportunity for Hasbro and EA.
I don't know about anyone else but I would have liked to see answers to:
"How can you justify charging 800 points ($10) for such basic games, especially as in most cases you can buy the physical game for less."
"If it is all about the social experience what is the point of making console versions of the games. If all of the players are in the same living room why not just play the actual game. "
I am all for porting board games to consoles if it actually adds to the experience, being able to play Settlers of Catan against the AI or online is great as it isn't that easy to get 4 people together whenever you want to play. But adding a few gimick game modes isn't going to make me shell out 800 points for Connect 4.
It is hard to see who games like this are for, they are marketed to families but I really find it hard to imagine mum, dad and the kids crowding round the tv to play Sorry! with a joypad.
Jul 16th 2008 2:35AM If they are going to add this then it really needs timezone support. It is a pain that the current in-game clock can't be adjusted for daylight saving time so is often an hour long. Too many times I have played for an hour longer than planned!
Jun 20th 2008 7:20AM My issue with the mount changes is that when you have scrimped and saved to scrape together enough money for a mount by level 40 it is a slap in the face when suddenly the price is dropped. I wouldn't have a problem with them lowering the level requirement if they kept the price the same. Or they could drop the training cost and bump up the mount costs, maybe offering cheaper mounts that don't look as impressive.
Adding more mounts at different levels would solve the pain of getting around without having everyone from 30-60 riding the same mounts. They could even drop the level requirement for training completely and give low levels less impressive mounts, donkeys for 1-10 would be pretty funny.
Sep 10th 2007 5:24PM One thing they really need to do is update the manual when they ship new copies of the game. Or at least put an up to date manual on the disc as a pdf. While I have been playing WoW since beta, in the past I have picked up MMOs a good while after release only to find that most of the info in the manual is just plain wrong.
This even happened with WoW at launch, I am sure I wasn't the only one to notice that the manual talks about Tauren plainrunning!
I can only imagine how confusing it is for new players who have only just bought the game to read the manual and then come online and find out that everything is completely different.
I have to admit I haven't bought a copy of WoW recently so maybe they are on top of this, anyone know?
Aug 17th 2007 6:59AM "anyway, they really need to make mounts start at lvl 20, not 40 like it is currently. then make epic mounts at 40, and flying mounts at 60."
Mounts having a high level requirements and cost makes them an achievement and something to work towards, not just something that is handed to you. If they are just handed out at level 20 then you lose all of that and it is just something else that everybody has.
"they also need to double the xp gain rate for your account for all toons lvl 59 and lower."
I hear a lot of people saying that xp should be boosted for 1-59 so that people can 'start the real game' when they hit 60. They don't seem to realise that some people are in it for the journey not just the destination. I enjoy playing the game, doing quests, running instances etc. It is already difficult to complete all the quests before they turn green/grey.
Boosting xp would make this worse as well as making trying to get decent gear before 60 completely meaningless. It is already barely worth getting decent equipment and especially enchants. Why keep running an instance to get that elusive blue when 2 days later and 2 levels higher you will be replacing it with a random green.
It is hardly like it takes a long time to level an alt, and while the content might be the same each time playing a new class makes all the difference.
Aug 16th 2007 10:57AM Other classics that could be added :
"Orc shoulders too small"
"Too much QQ not enough Pew Pew"
Aug 15th 2007 5:52AM @12. "Ganking is a common occurence on PvP servers. The best discription is attacking someone who is not prepaired to fight you."
As a rogue if someone is prepared to fight me then I am immediately at a big disadvantage.
I generally work on the basis that if I am running through STV with my 42 Rogue and see an Alliance then if I don't kill them they will be a danger to members of the Horde who are trying to quest.
I see it as protecting my own side who are trying to quest in the area. That said I do try and make it a fairish fight if possible. If someone is fighting a mob then I will wait (in stealth) for them to finish and heal before I attack. Unless they are higher level than me in which case any advantage I can get over them is fair game in my eyes.
I rolled on a PVP server knowing that it would mean getting ganked every now and again. I have played on a PVE server and it just feels so false. On PVP when you see a member of the opposite faction you have to react, hide, fight, run - which is exciting. On PVE you just wave and run past, why even bother having two factions?
If ganking bothers you move to a PVE server or pay a bodyguard to watch your back as you quest. Or quest in groups, there is nothing better than taking down someone much higher than you do to teamwork when they thought they were getting an easy gank.
Jul 26th 2007 6:37AM Mount me!