Nov 23rd 2010 5:59PM After 6 years Blizzard finally did it. They gave us a long time out *expectation* for downtime, ( 5 PM PST, on the 2nd update, but whatever) and then got it done before that time.
Well done Bliz. You finally learned.
Now I have to finish eating so I can go log in. (don't want pizza grease on my keyboard.)
Nov 23rd 2010 2:11PM Pick me! Pick me!
In all seriousness, awesome contest!
Nov 18th 2010 11:06AM While I'm not terribly impressed with the trailer, I'll withhold judgment until I get a chance to see it in it's entirety. The trailer does convey what every good trailer should: theme, urgency, and a basic introduction to the story. Even those who didn't 'like' it have a strong feeling about it. That means the trailer wins, in my opinion.
What bothers me more is that every time I see something about gamers we have a cadre of people who cry out against the creation because they are afraid that it will reinforce 'the gamer stereotype' and turn people against 'us'. Maybe I'm antagonistic, but I never wanted 'them' anyway. I've spent most of my life on the so-called fringe; RPG and console gamer in my youth, more RPGs, LARP, PC/console gamer in my teens and early 20s. Punk and Goth in dress in my late teens and 20s. When I was a kid and someone said 'gamer' they weren't talking about Nintendo, they were talking about RPGs. Invariably, if it was someone who wasn't a gamer, it was said in a tone of disgust and derision.
People tried to beat me up because I was a 'gamer-nerd', skinny, poor, with glasses. So, I put on a leather jacket and learned martial arts. I had a lot of friends and acquaintances who meet or beat the stereotype one way or another. Most of them were great people, some of them had serious social issues, but all of them were clearly not part of the 'in-crowd' at school. But, none of us wanted to be. Those people were invariably small minded, prejudiced, and honestly: they were usually stupid. I mean, 'go buy blinker fluid' stupid.
I don't want to embrace that stupidity, just like I don't want to play Farmville. I don't need the approval of other people to make myself feel okay about what I choose to do in my spare time. My friends, my family, those are the people who matter. The only time I get 'up-in-arms' is when 'they' try to create uninspired and unintelligible laws prohibiting something they don't even understand. Or when I think that there's something important I need to say.
When I was a kid, you could get beaten up or shoved in a locker/dumpster for being a 'gamer-nerd.' Now, the bully who beats you up is probably playing Black Ops with his friends after school and making crude and crass comments over his headset. Is this the type of universal acceptance we were going for?
Because I'll take the stereotypical pimply, over-weight, socially maladjusted gamer over the people on Xbox Live any day. He/She's a nice guy who actually cares about his/her friends and family. Probably has pets. By now, many of us have kids of our own.
Closing statement: If anybody is giving us a bad name, it's the 'jerk squad' of funsucking asshats whom the rest of society sees when they try out a multi-player game for the first time, not some artist creating a book/tv series/movie.
P.S. The Guild portrays gamers terribly, (children in cages, anyone?) but people pile on the praise because it's funny. (I like The Guild, btw, but fair's fair.)
Nov 6th 2010 10:54AM DO WANT! That sounds like the most fun and best solution to date. The only real problem would be the mobs of Lowbies attacking every high level player in sight. Once someone got a price on their head, they'd then switch to their Main and collect the price.
So, I like the idea, but feel it would have to be based on who attacked first. If the High level initiates combat, it counts towards their total, if the lowbie initiates combat, it doesn't. Something like that. (I'm sure then you'd have something equivalent to hunters sending their pet in to cities and feigning death to get the guards attacking the person who attacks the pet.)
Hmm.. Now I see why they don't institute this stuff.
Nov 6th 2010 10:47AM @missemilyblack
If dying 'ruins' your fun in the game, methinks you are taking it too seriously. Without the threat of death and the MEAGER penalties for death (durability and a corpse run) this game would be less fun for me. To each his or her own.
I'll go back to what Swifteye said, if you are flagged you are either on a PvP server (no pity, you know the rules) or got flagged and that's rarely by accident.
So, your argument doesn't really 'hold water' with me.
Nov 3rd 2010 10:15PM This is SOOOOO Awesome!
The closest I ever came to this was dualboxing dungeons pre-4.0.1. (with two computers, not with addons and multiple instances of WoW.)
I would take my 2 troll team, Warrior and Priest through instances at appropriate levels. Not the 'lowest level' but I started RFC at 12. (Didn't know you could get in before that and didn't try.) I used BoAs for shoulders only, because that's all I had. While it took FOREVER, it was fun, exciting, and an interesting way to 'learn' tanking. I wiped a lot the first times I tried every instance and later I'd still wipe from a bad pull.
I was eventually able to beat every mechanic thrown at me except one, partially because I didn't limit my level. My goal was always to win well before the mobs went gray. Arugal was the only boss I couldn't beat with my 2 man team. If I survived the Mind Control, then the Void Bolts wiped my little party. I just couldn't heal through it with 2 toons. I did make it past that part once, but then- just like they mention, Mind control again and bam- Dead priest, then dead Warrior.
So, I gave up and skipped to the Scarlet Monastery, wanting to hit that before I out-leveled it. I was able to do the Graveyard easily after a couple tries before I decided I didn't want to pay for that second account for a while.
Hearing how they beat Arugal inspires me to try 2 manning again, but I think it would be more fun if the second toon wasn't a 'Priest-on-a-leash.' (on follow)
Oct 27th 2010 1:23AM the dreaded reply fail rears it's ugly head.
Oct 27th 2010 1:23AM While I honestly agree with most of the points of your post, I have to mention one thing: A lot of people throw 'Mary-Sue' and 'fan fiction' around when talking about characters in this game or it's books. So, this isn't so much about you as the use of those terms to explain why you don't like something.
It's established in this 'Universe' that there are incredibly powerful magical beings, living embodiments of 'the light', demons, 'Old Gods', Undead, ... the list goes on. Thrall has been established as one of the 'most powerful living shaman' at least. In Cataclysm, we get to see HOW bad ass he is as a shaman.
It's not like Thrall doesn't have his flaws. Garrosh(depending on your opinion), Sylvanas (when was she not evil- right, before she died.), allowing slavery in the horde (Gladiators anyone?), I'm sure there's more... but...
My main point isn't about 'mary-sue'ism. it's about Warcraft's universe. We have an EPIC story, with fantastical characters. (not purples, story type, like the Illiad or the Odyssey) To make it more 'epic and meaningful' every expansion, they have to up the stakes and make it more powerful. If they didn't this game would get boring, real quick. To do so this time, they had to nearly break the world.
That is the nature of storytelling, that doesn't make it 'fanfiction'. Not to mention, Stickney is espousing her opinion, not 'lore law'. We don't really know what happens until we get there.
Mostly, I think it's lazy to use 'mary-sue' and 'fanfiction'. That's my opinion, as a crazy writer. I don't think that 'World of Warcraft' should be taken so seriously. I mean, Haris Pilton... et al. It's a game, it's lore is meant to be EPIC and Dramatic to move the story and game forward. It's not perfect, but it has some wonderful moments.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Like I said, I liked your post but the paragraph containing those two terms. Warcraft was made to be like this, if that's Mary-sue and fan fiction... well... there's a heck of a lot worse examples out there. We'll start with Star Wars.
We take this game way too seriously as it is. Which means it's doing it's job.
Oct 24th 2010 3:07AM It all has to do with this guy named Murphy.
Oct 24th 2010 3:03AM We'd all love for some love to be given the Vanilla models, but who can blame them for being slow to change them when they get the horrible backlash nearly every time they DO change a model? (New Tree of Life, anyone? That's just the most recent example.)
That, and a model change means they have to re-rig how all the armor, mounts, and animations work for each race/sex. Anybody looked at how your character looks on a DK Skeletal mount since the patch? That likely had to do with rigging for Goblins and Worgens.
It's a lot more work than most people know or consider and a truly low priority, which means it's like dance studios. 'Something for the animators to do when they don't have more pressing work.' (That's a paraphrase/best recollection of one of those interviews/Q & A's that popped up here.)
My point? They just upped the graphical quality of a lot of things, maybe we'll see it (racial model changes) soon. Learn patience, be less spoiled.
As for all the time they spent on the female worgen? How much QQ did we get/are we still getting because it's 'too cute' 'not feral enough'? People are bitching about the Mastiff, a DOG which looks like a DOG- OMG! How long did people ask for a dog that looks like a dog? And now it's not 'bad ass' enough.
I'm so glad I'm not a game designer. I'd probably rage-quit, then wait for the next Blizzcon and paintball people waiting in line.