Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ...
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post

    I'm not saying you're not right, I'm not saying Blizzard shouldn't be in it for the money... But games, the best ones, are works of art. When you do it for money, rather than the love of it or the hope you'll inspire people, you start doing it for the wrong reasons and the product suffers.
    And that is exactly why Cataclysm failed. Everything felt half arsed. As if they had just given up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Maybe the expansions will be smaller and with less new graphics.
    I actually prefer that. Small, monthly upgrades with some content, rather than big patches in which you play for a month, and then unsub for five because of boredom.

  2. #162
    why does wow have to end at 100? because its an even number? i like numbers too but i dont think wow would be bad at 120, i know this is a mind blow that some things go above 100 but i mean there are lot of end bosses left and i dont think 2 expansions could even come close. 150 sounds more epic anyway and would make an item crunch much less undesirable.
    Last edited by Begrudge; 2013-10-17 at 12:49 AM.

  3. #163
    Legendary! Aviemore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland.
    Quote Originally Posted by dryankem View Post
    That's a point of view though (some people may like MOP far more than vanilla or BC) and it's hard to tie subscriptions down to anything really, it could be age of the game, it could be the economy, it could be no interest in asia and realistically it could be Kalaxxi (they didn't have Kalaxxi when there were 12M subscribers).
    Of course, I'm not suggesting that the game is categorically worse than before; that's just not a tenable position to take.

    But it's the design decisions that continually treat the effects of a problem, rather than the cause of it, that's led to this. Look at the changes to the raid format, dungeon format, PvP format or Vengeance when it all more or less worked perfectly in WotLK. Rather than just regressing to what the developers know worked fine, with some adjustments for modernity, they keep tacking on solutions for problems they could outright remove (like Vengeance).

    That's why I call them less talented. They've, so far, been unable to fix a single problem they've invariably caused themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharein View Post
    And that is exactly why Cataclysm failed. Everything felt half arsed. As if they had just given up.
    Exactly. They only did what they thought they'd get away with. MoP feels like one big apology for Cataclysm in many ways, and when I suggested that to Zarhym on Twitter, he gave me a (presumably knowing) wink.
    'This community deserves an apology'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    No, the obvious fact is that this tweet supports the other evidence that Blizzard has no intention of ever implementing this class [demon hunter].
    Aye, I have an ever-growing canon of misery and negativity. Like this, this, this, this, this and this.

  4. #164
    imo 3 or maybe 4(dont think so).

    there is probably a lot of villains to fight with but not so many new things to implement. We got already too many classes and a lot of races. I doubt that Blizzard is able to add 2 or 3 new professions. As well as it would be difficult to add new exciting content. Underwater expansion would be something new, maybe BL invasion exp also + some underworld. But other continents/lands would be just copy paste from those we all know from Kalimdor, Eastern Kingdoms, Northrend, Outland or Pandaria just another well known tropical/snowy/desert/green/rocky zones to explore with some random races.

    and improving graphics and engine in every expansion will finally be not enough for 15 y/o(after more 3 exps ) game.

  5. #165
    oh hello one of these threads

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Titan has nothing to do with Wow. They are meant for two entirely different markets using two entirely different payment models. One has nothing to do with the other and this is something else Blizzard has said repeatedly yet you people won't stop perpetuating this nonsense.
    You don't read very well, never said they are connected but they are going to wan't to keep wow alive until it is out and it WILL NOT be out for a good 6-8 years, so wow has a long life ahead of it.
    “If you don't believe me that is too damn bad!”

  7. #167
    The Undying Winter Blossom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    “Winter is here”
    No one you talk to knows anything about future WoW xpacs....Let's just end it there.

  8. #168
    Okay, about level 100 being the "End". The original, and I mean original well before WoW was in beta, concept was to have 100 be the cap with 4 expansions total. Meaning that MoP was suppose to be the last one (as continuing the trend of 10 lvls per expansion). But given its' explosive popularity and well profitability, plans changed. WoW will continue so long as it is profitable.

  9. #169
    Merely a Setback Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    The Netherlands
    I heard next expansion will go to level 200 and Hogger is the end-boss.
    Don't believe everything that people say, nobody knows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharein View Post
    And that is exactly why Cataclysm failed. Everything felt half arsed. As if they had just given up.
    Are you sure?
    I would call "redoing all content from 1-60 even though that is not a big selling point" the opposite of 'doing it for the money'.
    To me 'Selling out' is when you ignore things that have to be done when they don't bring in enough cash.

Posting Permissions

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