Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
... LastLast
  1. #221
    Mechagnome Thulyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Somewhere in Norway.
    Posts
    532
    The game itself got easier, with Cataclysm. The gearing, the LFR... It was the downhill, where as alot of hardcore's / Veterans, left. The Dailie quests was Un-rewarding. The zones, weren't new. No, just revamped...
    Wotlk <3
    MoP <3
    TBC <3
    Vanilla <3
    Cataclysm <--- F*** You

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Florena View Post
    It was before WC 3, the point at which Warcraft evolved beyond simplistic 'humans good orcs bad' storytelling, and years before Deathwing appeared in WoW.
    Maybe I'm old but I just don't feel like 1 year prior to WC3 is such a long time ago :P

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-07 at 07:23 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Panszer View Post
    The game itself got easier, with Cataclysm. The gearing, the LFR... It was the downhill, where as alot of hardcore's / Veterans, left. The Dailie quests was Un-rewarding.
    Easier? That's what everyone said about Wrath. And gearing got HARDER. Remember how you could buy your entire tier with VP in Wrath? Cata put a stop to that. Not to mention the difficulty of early heroics, and then ZA/ZG. Also the shoulder enchant... no more buying it on your main and sending it to your alts, you had to do all of Deepholm on every damn character to get it.

    Daily quests unrewarding? There were a handful of reputation ones you could do but they were pretty useless since you had tabards for that. Maybe you meant Molten Front? That had plenty of rewards.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  3. #223
    For me personally Cataclysm was a failure of biblical proportions. It started out well, i like hard content and for me it started with being somewhat challenging. I raided up til dragonsoul, where my guild who raided 3 days a week(my definition of being casual) cleared the entire instance as soon as the bosses where available. The entire guild quit the game after that, realizing it was too easy and not fun anymore.
    twitch.tv/draahl - Watch me suck at virtually every game!

  4. #224
    I don't see Cataclysm as a failure of an expansion. What I do see it as is the expansion with the most wasted potential.

    They re-did Kalimdor and EK but failed to make it relevant to max levels other than Archaeology. When you speculate on what they could've done with those zones, it just makes you think where Blizzard's head was during the drawing board of the expansion.

    Cataclysm also failed to really establish the elemental planes. They did a good job with Deepholm, but it lacked a raid (which should've been where our end expansion raid was) and while Firelands had a raid, all we did was a couple of dailies. Vashj'ir story was amazing, but incomplete and it should've at least had some areas of land so that you had a break from being underwater all the damn time. The air elemental storyline was horrible, along with the Tol'vir and HoO storylines.

    4.1 is the worst patch in WoW history. I rank it even below voice chat patch. For shame Blizz. Destroying two amazing raids, and while we're on that topic, they REALLY need to stop rehashing old dungeons. Deadmines was RUINED.



    Oh. And Go'el.

    Does anyone still remember that Nordrassil was supposed to be blessed?

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Syferite View Post
    I don't see Cataclysm as a failure of an expansion. What I do see it as is the expansion with the most wasted potential.

    They re-did Kalimdor and EK but failed to make it relevant to max levels other than Archaeology. When you speculate on what they could've done with those zones, it just makes you think where Blizzard's head was during the drawing board of the expansion.

    Cataclysm also failed to really establish the elemental planes. They did a good job with Deepholm, but it lacked a raid (which should've been where our end expansion raid was) and while Firelands had a raid, all we did was a couple of dailies. Vashj'ir story was amazing, but incomplete and it should've at least had some areas of land so that you had a break from being underwater all the damn time. The air elemental storyline was horrible, along with the Tol'vir and HoO storylines.

    4.1 is the worst patch in WoW history. I rank it even below voice chat patch. For shame Blizz. Destroying two amazing raids, and while we're on that topic, they REALLY need to stop rehashing old dungeons. Deadmines was RUINED.



    Oh. And Go'el.

    Does anyone still remember that Nordrassil was supposed to be blessed?
    They need to stop rehashing old content in general. Honestly, I loved the original quests in WoW. The stories in each zone were perfect. The only thing they truly needed to do was change the old zones to match the new zones in detail/scope (i.e. make flying mounts work for them) and to also change the level requirements of each zone. There shouldn't have been a cataclysm. I hated that concept from the start. Don't blow up something you worked so hard to build.

    Edit: Another disconnect for me is that Northrend and Pandaria are completely intact after the cataclysm...
    Last edited by Phasma; 2013-05-07 at 10:34 AM.

  6. #226
    The Lightbringer Ciddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,972
    While Cataclysm is my least favorite expansion, I wouldn't go so far as to say it failed. I actually enjoyed it, just not as much as the other expansions. I think Dragon Soul was my biggest complaint. Aside from a couple of cool fight mechanics (Spine/Madness of Deathwing), DS was really boring to me. Also it lasted WAY too long.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Phasma View Post
    They need to stop rehashing old content in general. Honestly, I loved the original quests in WoW. The stories in each zone were perfect. The only thing they truly needed to do was change the old zones to match the new zones in detail/scope (i.e. make flying mounts work for them) and to also change the level requirements of each zone. There shouldn't have been a cataclysm. I hated that concept from the start. Don't blow up something you worked so hard to build.

    Edit: Another disconnect for me is that Northrend and Pandaria are completely intact after the cataclysm...
    Northrend might have been hit by it, but they're not going to go back and redo Northrend so soon after Wrath's release, especially when it already has solid questing content. As for Pandaria, if the mists could protect it from the Sundering, why not the Cataclysm?

  8. #228
    i liked the first two raid tiers. I wish they wouldnt have dwelled so much on the thrall love story, and DS didnt feel much like a raid. essentially ToC but flying to different platforms.

  9. #229
    Honestly I liked Cata, probably because I still raided back then, if I were a casual like now I would have had really not enough content to run.
    MOP has probably even too much content, instead. The only complaints i have with Cata lie in the storyline, it could have really been delivered much better. A bigger Toft4W raid (instead of the boring Blackwing Descent), an Abissal Maw raid in 4.2, a final showoff with N'zoth in 4.3 and in general more emphasis on Deathwing. Instead it felt quite disjointed. From a gameplay POV I was satisfied with the game, expecially from launch heroics.

  10. #230
    Cata just made the game boring. WOTLK did have it right; the reason the heroics were a joke was people outgeared the crap out of them, THE WAY CONTENT SHOULD BE. Yes they became AoE grindfests and you did need them to cap badges, the fact remains that once you overgeared it one heroic took about, 20 minutes? Roughly depending on which one you did. The Arthas stories also closed a chapter on WCIII lore much like Illidan did in BC; there's a reason those two xpacs are loved and it's because of the people who played WC, WCII and WCIII: We finally got closure on what happened in WCIII. Cataclysm was literally like.... oh okay. Deathwings back, someone who hasn't been around since WCII (which jesus if we're going by Warcraft logic was at least a decade ago) and while he was super badass in WCII, he wasn't unbeatable.

  11. #231
    Warchief 1ns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    tdb
    Posts
    2,038
    Quote Originally Posted by PlatedPriest View Post
    I honestly love Mop

    85-90 quest are fun and not as linear!
    hahaha, have you played the game?


    ont: Released too late / announced too early.

  12. #232
    The biggest problem with Cataclysm was definitely the story of Deathwing.

    There was just not enough effort into painting him as the bad guy. I love dragon fights, I really do love them, but they ruined his intro. This is the Aspect of Death the Great Destroyer. And in the raid where you fight him, you fight his hands, wings and head. Just sickening. As mentioned before he wasn't scary. He was just "HURR BURN STUFFZ!" not even showing the incredible cunning and intelligence that he possess in lore.

    Deathwing killed Cataclysm.

  13. #233
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lisbon
    Posts
    267
    Cataclysm was a cataclysm.

    Zones were boring ,but i really loved Vashj'ir good lore there.

    ARCHEOLOGY KILLED ME. i farmed farmed farmed and never got rewarded , i wanted that sword to help start raiding. stupidest profession ever.

    overall it was too disperse.

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    -WotLK added 2 million players and ppl said "numbers don't count, the game is dead in spirit"
    -WotLK added 2 million players and ppl said "but TBC added 5 million, so WotLK is a failure"
    For folks not familiar with Det, it is worth knowing that he presents erroneous claims as if they were facts. whether it be including chinese subs for wow and ignoring other chinese mmo's in his comparisons, or inventing sub number growth, you can count on him to have a good chance of having made grossly erroneous statements.

    at no point in the wotlk (west) release period did the game have an increase of 2 million from the known subs at release. it probably (based on comment from vivendi ceo in early 2009) had a maxincrease of 1 million from nov. 2008, and that was within a few months of release. Furthermore, a strong case can be made (from blizzard comments and filings) that western subs bled the rest of the expansion until the pre-cat spike, and were compensated for in the total sub number by growth in china. (this in great part fueled by the switch from the9 to netease in mid2009, and netease's ongoing geographic access expansion)

    TBC (western dates) saw an increase of 4 million in the worldwide sub number based on public statements from blizzard. Even special math cannot turn "7 million to 11 million' into an increase of 5 million.

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-07 at 03:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    You can. People can justify anything. You can justify it ESPECIALLY when every single one of your contenders who set out to beat you because they have fresher graphics, a bigger franchise AND the advantage of watching your product over 8 years lost 50% and more of their subs.

    So...when 2 games set out to "kill" WoW (or at least bite a massive Chunk out of your subs) and Cata is apparently "fail" as stated by quite a few people here - when at the end of the day everybody bleeds, but the contenders literally hemorrage - then at the end of the day WoW emerged with a few scratches and everybody else slinks off with their tail between their legs. If I may be so poetic.

    Blizzard aren't clairvoyant. They hoped for 800 000 people to play Classic. Yes...under that light, the game continues to be a massive success.
    Ironic, but I do tend to agree with you when you avoid using/misusing/inventing/etc. sub numbers to try to make points.

    Wow has been what I speculate to have been the most successful single video game ever (donkey-kong related products in aggregate are more as I understand it). It has been bringing over half a billion bucks a year in INCOME to its parent company for over 6 years. It truly is the golden goose. As I understand it, blizzard was likely hoping to poach everquest players and maybe bring in some new folks, but as you suggest, getting a million players would have been considered huge success.

    I think competing mmo products in the west are being designed around much less ambitious plans (no matter what their owners say publicly), e.g. lets spend 200m (? what is a realistic number here?) building and promoting this thing and hope to recoup cost and show xxx profit over the first 12 months from release, and whatever sub base we retain from there is gravy. Whether recent mmo releases have been net profitable overall to their parent companies I don't know. In some cases it might be hard to get a good idea, and in others the companies are private. The one I am most interested in with regard to this is swtor.

    I don't believe anyone seriously is thinking they are going to repeat the 4-5m western sub range wow had/has (if it is still over 4m in the west) for most of its life. It is quite possible that, for desktop pc's, wow is a singular phenomenon.

    it is somewhat ironic that if blizzard's game had performed more or less as they had hoped, that 1) the activision merger likely never would have happened - blizzard and its cash flow was the big draw there and 2) the game today, with whatever surviving sub base, might very well be much more similar to how the game worked in terms of tuning and the effort/reward ratio in 2006/2007/2008.
    Last edited by Deficineiron; 2013-05-07 at 04:02 PM.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, John Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Agatha Christie, Steven Erikson & Ian Esslemont, Stephen R Donaldon, and recently Jack L Chalker.

  15. #235
    The Patient Leandros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illium
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnosk View Post
    Cata didn't fail. MoP is the failure since that's where the players have left in big numbers. The only bad thing about cata was how long we had to raid DS for before MoP came out.

    MoP is the failure.
    I haven't played MoP for too long, (3-4 months), but I can tell its no where near the garbage that was Cataclysm. Cataclysm was so bad, that it made me reconsider everything I liked about the game. LK had been easy, yeah, but he sums up why it was so fun in this video pretty well. My guild fell apart, and all of my friends who had spent years playing the game quit for good.

    It was pretty terrible.
    Proud Conservative and lover of guns, freedom and the Constitution.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Leandros View Post
    I haven't played MoP for too long, (3-4 months), but I can tell its no where near the garbage that was Cataclysm. Cataclysm was so bad, that it made me reconsider everything I liked about the game. LK had been easy, yeah, but he sums up why it was so fun in this video pretty well. My guild fell apart, and all of my friends who had spent years playing the game quit for good.

    It was pretty terrible.
    blizzard made game decisions in cat that I am not sure I will ever understand (possibly because they were bad decisions and folks on the inside were saying so too). this includes topics like the 10/25 lockout change, linear questing as a mandatory leveling experience if you don't just do bg/instances, trying to notably increase dungeon content difficulty after 2 years of increasingly faceroll wrath 5-mans, and other things. I understand that mistakes are part of design, but some of these things I cannot help but think that blizzard had lots of folks on the inside saying some of these were ideas of dubious value, yet they were implemented anyway.

    how they thought 10/25 change in particular was a winning plan for sub retention is beyond me. break the need for 25-man guilds and watch the social domino effect, especially among players with longer established guild relationships who are in part in the game for that very social reason.

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-07 at 04:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Solmyr13 View Post
    Cata just made the game boring. WOTLK did have it right; the reason the heroics were a joke was people outgeared the crap out of them, THE WAY CONTENT SHOULD BE. Yes they became AoE grindfests and you did need them to cap badges, the fact remains that once you overgeared it one heroic took about, 20 minutes? Roughly depending on which one you did. The Arthas stories also closed a chapter on WCIII lore much like Illidan did in BC; there's a reason those two xpacs are loved and it's because of the people who played WC, WCII and WCIII: We finally got closure on what happened in WCIII. Cataclysm was literally like.... oh okay. Deathwings back, someone who hasn't been around since WCII (which jesus if we're going by Warcraft logic was at least a decade ago) and while he was super badass in WCII, he wasn't unbeatable.
    Wrath heroics were a joke at release in sub ilvl200. no cc was needed. boss mechanics could oftenjust be ignored. the only boss that consistently gave problems to this approach was the lightning disp. boss in one of the ulduar instances.

    I even said so in 3.0.8. the thread is interesting, no one says they are hard, just arguments over whether they should have been hard or not. also, interestingly, this was right after tbc and no one was claiming tbc heroic were easy, which has, over the years, become an increasingly common claim.

    http://www.wowhead.com/forums&topic=...g-heroic-5-man
    Last edited by Deficineiron; 2013-05-07 at 04:19 PM.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, John Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Agatha Christie, Steven Erikson & Ian Esslemont, Stephen R Donaldon, and recently Jack L Chalker.

  17. #237
    Personally, the reason I know Cataclysm failed (for me) was because I unsubbed for half of it, and have absolutely no regrets for having done so.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom." -- Ghostcrawler
    I hate these casual Fridays ruining it for real Fridays.

  18. #238
    I am Murloc! Anjerith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The apotheosis of all Deserts
    Posts
    5,033
    The far more interesting question here is "When will all the expert designers that play games instead of actually making them decide to make their own game and actually get it released?".
    Quote Originally Posted by melodramocracy View Post
    Gold and the 'need' for it in-game is easily one of the most overblown mindsets in this community.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Anjerith View Post
    The far more interesting question here is "When will all the expert designers that play games instead of actually making them decide to make their own game and actually get it released?".
    there was an interview with brian reynolds a few months back (the name to his credit I know best is civ2, but there is a long list). the impression I took away from it is that 1) MONEY (meaning that which buys top talent and names) is behind games for non-gamers now, e.g. games with no hard corners, etc. I guess either tablet or social media games (he had just left zenga). 2) he didn't say this at all but I am not sure what public co. is going to put money into a game targetted at such a small % of their potential market.

    this translates into me saying I think the days top-line titles being geared towards GAMERS is long over. it is a paradigm shift IN DESIGN comparable to the coin-op days when we went from 'GAME OVER - INSERT COIN' to "INSERT COIN TO CONTINUE?", though the changes are in the opposite direction.
    Last edited by Deficineiron; 2013-05-07 at 07:56 PM.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, John Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Agatha Christie, Steven Erikson & Ian Esslemont, Stephen R Donaldon, and recently Jack L Chalker.

  20. #240
    While Cata is the weakest xpac blizz have released it still had some shining moments and amazing additions to the game. RealID and cross realm raiding has completely been a game changer.

    Failure can be attributed squarely on the DS patch.

    - Dumbed down the game even more the wotlk. While cata raiding started out nice and hard they freaked out and pulled a complete 180 mid expansion. DS was completely faceroll... even heroics :/
    - Lengthy patch cycles and overall less content then any other expansion. DS dragged on for a ludicrous amount of time.
    - Recycled content. DS was set in an old wotlk quest zone that was full of reused boss models.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •