Feb 18th 2010 10:54AM Not entirely by itself. Still, it's definitely a baseline prerequisite.
Feb 17th 2010 8:23PM It's funny, but I think people would have been less turned off if WoW.com had simply discontinued a certain lamented Feature Which Shall Not Be Named. But resurrecting its two-thirds of filler that so many readers never liked and wished would go away ... it seemed like A) adding mild insult to mild injury, and B) a nigh-supernatural cluelessness about what people were coming for.
No offense to the columnist, who's doing the best she can with what was assigned, but I return to this feature to check for any developments, and find little that improves on a blank monitor stared at for the same length of time. Part of the hostile reactions this whole episode elicited was simply a normal Internet feeding frenzy. But an awful lot of it was worsened by the high-handed and revealing reactions of certain highers-up, and still more came from an unpleasant realization that hit us: now that certain personnel and features have moved on, what DOES this site still do that some other site doesn't do considerably better? Some of us are mulling that one over, and looking at the "WoW.com" on our bookmark menus with increasing doubt.
Feb 17th 2010 6:25PM The pro-gankers have a point about the nature of PvP realms--they're packed to the gills with horrible people and are DESIGNED for horrible people. If you knowingly roll a toon on a PvP realm, the chances are overwhelming that you and your servermates deserve each other. And if you enter a BG, you know the Marquess of Queensbury won't be there and your experience is essentially at the mercy of the worst human being whose toon happens to be near you.
Still, even on PvE realms it's sometimes extraordinarily handicapping NOT to flag yourself, however unwillingly. For example, outside of WG eternals are scarce enough that you could call them borderline unfarmable. A PvEer who's determined not to be gank fodder has to go to some pretty severe contortions, trouble, or expense, and most of us would be grateful if Blizzard made it easier not to associate with Mr. Christian, or with anyone like him.
Jan 28th 2010 11:51AM Frank:
You can't say you haven't gotten your way; obviously, the highers-up at WoW.com also subscribe to the "eat your vegetables" school of subject choice, reader opinion be damned. An outside observer is tempted to conclude that discussions on content run roughly as follows:
10:00-10:05--Inspect reader feedback
10:05-10:45--Discuss how to uplift the misguided groundlings who provide such feedback
10:45-10:50--Resolve that "inane and compelling" must give way to "inane" wherever possible
10:50-11:00--Admire own positivity and determination to uplift
Regardless, we're largely done trying to persuade the new management, or fool ourselves that they give a thin poot about our our opinions. Wish I had the Web skills to do it myself, but I urge anyone who's got the tools, the time, and the persistence to go out and create a regularly updated site dedicated to WoW drama--we'll visit in droves. Quit pestering the staff here, and leave them to prepare next week's dose of vague positivity and eye-glazing "news items" that I'm sure the newsmakers' mothers care about, at least.
Jan 24th 2010 11:45AM News flash:
In the Olympic competitions you cite, the OBJECT of the game is to get there fastest, which makes the extra seconds entirely relevant. The goal of a heroic is to kill the guy at the end, at whatever speed or at whatever rate of damage.
Your shiny numbers are as relevant to a heroic's goals as an Olympic athlete's shiny, eye-catching uniform or six-pack abs are to his competition. And an Olympic athlete who acted as if his gear or muscle tone were 9/10ths of the game would rightly earn the contempt of his peers who actually understand what the competition's about.
Jan 24th 2010 11:36AM Concordia:
Good luck at your clinic appointment next week! And accept this mage's fond wishes that you find all the menthol cigarette butts, that the vomit stains come off your basement couch, and that the rugburn on your legs goes away soon!
Jan 13th 2010 8:35PM Ms. Poisso:
I'm kind of sorry about this--it can't be nice to be handed a column, publish its maiden installment, and immediately reap this kind of uproar. In addition, I think there's an excellent chance that the decision to lose the much-beloved Guildwatch drama came from above you, and you might not be at liberty to address these comments honestly.
If this is so, then not only do I hope the highers-up fix their regrettable editorial decision, I hope they at least address the reader firestorm ASAP, so that you aren't left taking the heat for it and unable to answer it adequately.
Jan 13th 2010 5:07PM Yeah, you hang onto that, Gnosh.
Jan 13th 2010 4:29PM And nothing against WoW.com, but the sort of players who track progression & firsts obsessively never came HERE for those data in the first place. Entertainment site, know thyself!
Jan 13th 2010 4:16PM Wow. So Guildwatch's final two-thirds of filler that I skimmed past religiously ... is now the whole feature?
If WoW.com ran 20th Century Fox:
"One thing you might notice missing in the Blu-Ray release of "Avatar" is the CGI and other special visual effects. In the interest of fostering the movie's highly literate screenplay and intricately realized characters, we're checking the action and spectacle at the door."