Theory: Players dont know why they dislike or like an expansion anymore

[Gavll]

I think it's rubbish. It certainly is in my case

TBC - great (more of the same, fixed a lot of class issues)
WotLK - good (more of the same but did introduce some cancer like LFG and achievements)
Cata - cancer (ruined all classes and the world. Quit WoW for 4 years as a result)
MoP - decent (decent levelling content in retrospect but Pandas. Didn't play it at all when it was current)
WoD - poor (Garrosh died, which is good. Everything else was meh. Didn't play it more than 2 months though)
Legion - decent (didn't play it more than 3 months though)

There's my reasons for everything

In the times I wasn't playing retail, I played 4 years of Classic PServers. So, the same old game is in fact preferable to me.

[Re4leader1]

People dont like change. And the video game community as a whole are the absolute biggest hypocrites. When a sequal to a game comes out they say they want new and innovative features. But when they get them they bitch and complain about how it's not like the old game and they wanted a game just like that. But if a game comes out and doesnt have many changes people complain about lazy design and nothing is new and it's boring. It's always a loose loose on the devs side

[Ozzyorcborne]

People dont like change. And the video game community as a whole are the absolute biggest hypocrites. When a sequal to a game comes out they say they want new and innovative features. But when they get them they bitch and complain about how it's not like the old game and they wanted a game just like that. But if a game comes out and doesnt have many changes people complain about lazy design and nothing is new and it's boring. It's always a loose loose on the devs side

I agree with this as well. It doesn't help much that most of the people that bitch have the same bullshit argument that "TBC was the best" and everything after was downhill.

[Deleted]

Class diversity and design.
WoD was the first "class fantasy"-expac that pruned a lot of abilities, MoP was pretty much perfect combo of accessibility and depth in abilities and talents (imho).
Also, it had the greatest "modern" raid in ToT - and it still had 10 man HC raiding which meant you could raid reasonably competitively without having to live with the 20-man roster recruitment stress.

But are those things enough to make one person dislike an entire expansion?

Yes i believe they are enough. Anything is enough to make a person dislike one expansion.

But in the grand scheme of things (generalizing here) when you see a bandwagon of hate is not because of those....simple little things.
Its because they are tired of the same game.

I would love to see the reply of @Daetur

Because maybe it wasnt about "there is no content for non raiders" because there never was.(Vanilla, TBC, Wrath)
Maybe he just started realizing the flaws of the same old game because he lost his friends and no longer raided. So he started realizing the flaws in the "base game".

[Daetur]

But why did you like MoP and disliked WoD?
By what i am reading is all "subjective" stuff like "story" and "personal preference" and "the beauty of the world"

In WoD there were still dailies. There were still catch up mechanics.

AH, an inportant factor.
You were no longer raiding in WOD

That is huge

Maybe WoD was the expansion where you relized the game was almost all "raid or die"?
The rest of the things you pointed out seem to be very subjective like "story" and "world"

And ofcourse, another huge thing, you had your friends in MoP.
That is also huge in comparison to the expansion (WoD) where you had no friends.

TLDR: What im trying to say is:
Maybe, just maybe, isnt it possible that the reason why you hated WoD compared to MoP was all subjective and maybe you just started realizing the flaws of the base game (the same old game)?
Because you lost your friends in WoD and you stopped raiding...so you started realizing that the game for a "non raider" was not "fun enough".
What is the difference between MoP and WoD for a non raider?
MoP had Timeless Isle.
Isnt it all the difference?
Maybe the problem is that MoP and WoD were very similiar.

Maybe

I'm a little confused- isn't anything a player likes or dislikes about the game going to be inherently subjective? One person may really love pet battles, and another doesn't. Someone may have really loved the Rhyolith fight in Firelands because it had a unique mechanic that required constant raid communication, and another person may have dreaded it every week because they hated that kind of micromanagement.

Classic was fun for a non-raider. Mists was still fun while I wasn't raiding, because there were things to do that I enjoyed, like progressing the Shado-pan storyline, for example. Progressing the Krasarang warfront storyline. WoD didn't really have that- for the majority of the expansion, I didn't feel like I could log on and go do something that I gave a shit about when my friends weren't also online.

Legion brought back that feeling- I could go do World Quests whenever, and being able to go work on the Suramar storyline was fantastic.

[Armourboy]

I see where are you pointing to - your are all about supporting Blizzard. Personally, I dont care about support, whether they benefit or not. I am not emotionally involved like you, I just see myself as customer. If WoW dies tomorrow, I wouldnt blink an eye. Next day I would find some other fun for me.

Might want to work on your reading comprehension, my point is the exact opposite. If you think you aren't supporting Blizzard by using gold, you might want to reevaluate that.

[Deleted]

I'm a little confused- isn't anything a player likes or dislikes about the game going to be inherently subjective? One person may really love pet battles, and another doesn't. Someone may have really loved the Rhyolith fight in Firelands because it had a unique mechanic that required constant raid communication, and another person may have dreaded it every week because they hated that kind of micromanagement.

Classic was fun for a non-raider. Mists was still fun while I wasn't raiding, because there were things to do that I enjoyed, like progressing the Shado-pan storyline, for example. Progressing the Krasarang warfront storyline. WoD didn't really have that- for the majority of the expansion, I didn't feel like I could log on and go do something that I gave a shit about when my friends weren't also online.

Legion brought back that feeling- I could go do World Quests whenever, and being able to go work on the Suramar storyline was fantastic.

Dammit. I dont know how to explain myself.
I will try.

Stuff like "story", "transmog quality", "art", "theme", "music" etc are..............ok, it can make you dislike one entire expansion. But is so petty to dislike one entire expansion just because of that.

The core elements of gameplay are still there.

WoD had similar stuff for "non raiders" as MoP did.
Maybe WoD wasnt as much fun because it didnt have Timeless Isle, the best thing ever created...but still....the difference to MoP and WoD are small...no?

TLDR: Im asking you to ignore the "art, story, tmogs, theme, etc" and try to figure out how was WoD so much different to MoP...
But maybe is impossible for you to ignore those things because its what makes the entire game for you. IDK

[Deleted]

Stuff like "story", "transmog quality", "art", "theme", "music" etc are..............ok, it can make you dislike one entire expansion. But is so petty to dislike one entire expansion just because of that.

Still so much negativity from you...

People like and dislike different things for different reasons. You don’t have to understand or even accept their reasons, but they’re valid nevertheless.

And going by your own words: it’s petty to think otherwise.

[Deleted]

Still so much negativity from you...

People like and dislike different things for different reasons. You don’t have to understand or even accept their reasons, but they’re valid nevertheless.

And going by your own words: it’s petty to think otherwise.

Its not negativity.
If im being negative towards someone is the players claiming an expansion is "bad"
Im not being negative towards Blizzard.
I said Blizzard never created a bad expansion. Ever.

[BlueRemedy]

I like content and fun classes. I want anything that moves away from raiding, so I like things like M+.

Everyone has their own wants and needs, they usually aren't that complicated.

[Daetur]

Dammit. I dont know how to explain myself.
I will try.

Stuff like "story", "transmog quality", "art", "theme", "music" etc are..............ok, it can make you dislike one entire expansion. But is so petty to dislike one entire expansion just because of that.

The core elements of gameplay are still there.

WoD had similar stuff for "non raiders" as MoP did.
Maybe WoD wasnt as much fun because it didnt have Timeless Isle, the best thing ever created...but still....the difference to MoP and WoD are small...no?

TLDR: Im asking you to ignore the "art, story, tmogs, theme, etc" and try to figure out how was WoD so much different to MoP...
But maybe is impossible for you to ignore those things because its what makes the entire game for you. IDK

The framing of the game is a huge part of what makes it for me- I just don't think you can ignore that, and I don't think it's petty at all- the way things are presented to us is such a huge part of how we experience games, and movies, and stories. It matters.

For example- take a series like Fire Emblem, or the 'Tales of' series, right? Those games all have the same basic gameplay, and have for over a decade, as long as WoW. But because of their story, some of them are more enjoyable to play than others- even if some had better or worse combat. And, even if some people think that the combat in a particular game was worse, other people really enjoyed it. That's why, if we're talking about why people like something, even mechanics and gameplay become subjective.

I just didn't care about the same things WoD had that Mists did- because the framing was boring. I was already sick to death of orcs after SoO, I thought the framework of the story was stupid, most of the villains were killed off in questing or 5-man dungeons, the players didn't get the satisfaction of defeating Garrosh themselves- that was left to Thrall in a cutscene.

Add to that the fact that WoD has less of what Mists did- fewer factions, fewer dailies, and a greater focus on the Garrison, a bloated version of the Farm- and I don't think it's any wonder that I liked Mists better. WoD was a frustrating, boring expansion for me. It wasn't fun.

[McFuu]

Dammit. I dont know how to explain myself.
I will try.

Stuff like "story", "transmog quality", "art", "theme", "music" etc are..............ok, it can make you dislike one entire expansion. But is so petty to dislike one entire expansion just because of that.

The core elements of gameplay are still there.

WoD had similar stuff for "non raiders" as MoP did.
Maybe WoD wasnt as much fun because it didnt have Timeless Isle, the best thing ever created...but still....the difference to MoP and WoD are small...no?

TLDR: Im asking you to ignore the "art, story, tmogs, theme, etc" and try to figure out how was WoD so much different to MoP...
But maybe is impossible for you to ignore those things because its what makes the entire game for you. IDK

There is such a thing as engagement though. If a person doesn't "care" then does it really matter how good a game is?

Both Cata and MoP lacked from serious engagement issues stemming from the story. Even though it was for different reasons; Cata's story was shit (problem you'll encounter when the final boss is a world destroyer but is instead acting like a toddler knocking down alphabet blocks) and MoP had a good story, but a big portion of the player base didn't think an entire expansion should be made out of a Cow Level. Doesn't change that MoP was actually quite good. The initial reception really hurt it.

WoD on the other hand had massive interest in the expansion, and it was the content and gameplay following the initial patch that murdered the game. There was simply nothing to do, and what there was to do was crap. Unless you were raiding, the raids were good, great even. The problem was there being 8 months of gameplay in a 2 1/2 year expansion.

On to an expansion being "good or bad". A good expansion stands above it's criticism, a bad expansion wallows in it's criticism. I think it's safe to say Cata and WoD were bad. MoP would have been much better if it weren't for it's reception... I mean fucking Pandas, what was Blizz thinking? In retrospect MoP was good though. Legion again is good.

[BlueRemedy]

WoD's only issue was lack of content, what was present was usually pretty damn great.

IMO the only bad expansion was Cataclysm. Cata was pure fucking shit and the worst product Blizzard has ever released.

[Deleted]

Its not negativity.
If im being negative towards someone is the players claiming an expansion is "bad"

Okay then. So you aren’t but you are? Make up your damn mind, will ya?

Im not being negative towards Blizzard.
I said Blizzard never created a bad expansion. Ever.

I don’t remember anyone in this thread saying that. Except yourself, of course.

[Deleted]

It's like music taste. Some like Metallica and some like Justin Bieber. These two probably dislike what the other style represents, but the core elements of instruments and music is still there.

You're saying it's petty to not like Justin Bieber if you happen to be a metal fan.
It doesn't work like that. It's always going to be subjective.

You can sure appreciate some things (production value, the effort in marketing or a beat of a song) - but really, that still doesn't make you a Justin Bieber fan. That still doesn't make you *like* his music and I doubt either side wants to sit down and discuss the merits of "notes" or "sheet music" at length.
Even if you scale away all those things - you're still trying to discuss things that are inherently subjective, no matter how you look at them.

The framing of the game is a huge part of what makes it for me- I just don't think you can ignore that, and I don't think it's petty at all- the way things are presented to us is such a huge part of how we experience games, and movies, and stories. It matters.

For example- take a series like Fire Emblem, or the 'Tales of' series, right? Those games all have the same basic gameplay, and have for over a decade, as long as WoW. But because of their story, some of them are more enjoyable to play than others- even if some had better or worse combat. And, even if some people think that the combat in a particular game was worse, other people really enjoyed it. That's why, if we're talking about why people like something, even mechanics and gameplay become subjective.

I just didn't care about the same things WoD had that Mists did- because the framing was boring. I was already sick to death of orcs after SoO, I thought the framework of the story was stupid, most of the villains were killed off in questing or 5-man dungeons, the players didn't get the satisfaction of defeating Garrosh themselves- that was left to Thrall in a cutscene.

Add to that the fact that WoD has less of what Mists did- fewer factions, fewer dailies, and a greater focus on the Garrison, a bloated version of the Farm- and I don't think it's any wonder that I liked Mists better. WoD was a frustrating, boring expansion for me. It wasn't fun.

Oh...

But we cant "bash" one entire expansion because of "art", "theme", "music", "transmogs".
Because is entirely subjective.
One person may find it a "masterpiece" and other might find it "garbage"

Do you think a "professional reviewer of games" is going to give a rating to this things based on personal preference?
He must be neutral on this things, because is the most subjective thing in the universe, the "art" part.

But this is not really the problem i see in posts.
When people say they hate WoD they give many different "technical reasons" and not "art choices" reasons.

[Nutrition]

Im just trying to understand why is MoP different to WoD.
What did MoP had that WoD didnt.

Because in my eyes it had all the exact same things...less timeless isle.

MoP had harder to get gear...there was lfr as much as that pains me to say it. The mind of a bad is a curious thing. It isnt like most traditional players who derive enjoyment from improving as a player but rather from having "better" gear then others. You see this mentality in those depending in ap as well.

Wods problem was twofold. First lfr was the closest it's ever been in history in terms of risk vs rewards. Given that a bad player was left grinding out apexsis and while the rewards were powerful they were cut off from their freebie gear. Since a bad thinks not in terms of progression nor content but simply rewards they saw the biweekly garrison mission as the only "content" it's why when you hear someone complain about wods lack of content they tend to have no idea what content the expac had since in their minds without massive rewards it isnt content.

[Armourboy]

Dammit. I dont know how to explain myself.
I will try.

Stuff like "story", "transmog quality", "art", "theme", "music" etc are..............ok, it can make you dislike one entire expansion. But is so petty to dislike one entire expansion just because of that.

The core elements of gameplay are still there.

WoD had similar stuff for "non raiders" as MoP did.
Maybe WoD wasnt as much fun because it didnt have Timeless Isle, the best thing ever created...but still....the difference to MoP and WoD are small...no?

TLDR: Im asking you to ignore the "art, story, tmogs, theme, etc" and try to figure out how was WoD so much different to MoP...
But maybe is impossible for you to ignore those things because its what makes the entire game for you. IDK

It's not petty, people have different things they like and expect from any game. You dont get to choose what is important to an individual player.

WoD may have had raids, dailies, etc. but what it lacked was a reason to do those things day after day.
- Dailies were there, but the gear they offered was nearly worthless by the time you collected enough crystals until TJ came out and by then the exodus had started.
- Raiding was there, but in the case of LFR they tried to minimize it and reduced it rewards by giving it a generic set and no tier which killed any reason to play it. The gear was weak and it didn't look good.
- Reps for the most part didnt offer any real incentive to do them outside of the TJ reps. Even Blizzard stated they debated til the end whether to have them or not because they were so poorly done. The only reason they added them is because things would have felt even more empty so they said the heck with it and tossed them in.
- 5 man dungeons had almost no replay value until they added mythic level and even then most stopped after they got their trinkets. It was an early attempt at the current model.
People always kind of poke at tmother players for it only being about rewards, but MMO's have always been driven by progression and rewards are a big part of that. There are very few people that would stick around for a game in which you aren't rewarded for playing.

The difference between MoP and WoD is that they had the reward structure in a pretty good spot.

[Daetur]

Oh...

But we cant "bash" one entire expansion because of "art", "theme", "music", "transmogs".
Because is entirely subjective.
One person may find it a "masterpiece" and other might find it "garbage"

Do you think a "professional reviewer of games" is going to give a rating to this things based on personal preference?
He must be neutral on this things, because is the most subjective thing in the universe, the "art" part.

But this is not really the problem i see in posts.
When people say they hate WoD they give many different "technical reasons" and not "art choices" reasons.

I don't think this is about 'professional review,' though, is it? This is about whether a player knows why they didn't like an expansion- and that can very easily be those subjective things.

[vsb]

Wotlk was new for me, but I didn't like it. Legion was kind of new for me, because I returned after 5-year break, but I didn't like it either. There's very few interesting things in Legion for me. The only compelling feature is M+ dungeons. That's what I would remember. Other things are either insignificant or plain bad for me. Legendaries have their personal place in the hell.

[Deleted]

I don't think this is about 'professional review,' though, is it? This is about whether a player knows why they didn't like an expansion- and that can very easily be those subjective things.

Just saying we cant take many conclusion from those people...what can we do when someone says "i dont like this transmog"?
Well...all the artist can do is do something different...and hope for the best.

But is so rare for people to blame the "art" of WoD.

What you see is what @Armourboy and @Nutrition did in their posts above.
Blame little technical things.

And im not sure if they were the cause for such backlash...or if it was just people being bored with the game.