Which expansion was the absolute worst?

[Kaver]

I know, but since WoD and BFA are without a doubt the two worst expansions, I just explained why WoD pulled ahead as the worst.

But when we evaluate the individual expansions we need to look at what they specifically contributed to the game. I agree that it was more fun to play WoW during BFA because of M+ etc but BFA is not to be credited for that. BFA is island expeditions, warfronts and shit gear systems.

[Nak88]

Can't believe the worst expansion ever is the longest. Why does Blizzard love to cause pain and suffering to its dwindling player base?

[Acelius]

But when we evaluate the individual expansions we need to look at what they specifically contributed to the game. I agree that it was more fun to play WoW during BFA because of M+ etc but BFA is not to be credited for that. BFA is island expeditions, warfronts and shit gear systems.

Still wins out then. What did WoD offer as end-game besides raids? Warfronts and Islands are still better than nothing.

[MrFawlty]

I suggest you have the cause and effect reversed. The game saturated the market, and the devs, looking to retain the players who were quitting, and who were overwhelmingly casual, made the game more like what those players wanted (and less like what the devs, being hardcores themselves, wanted.)

The notion that most players have been hardcore flies in the face of all evidence, from completion stats, from what happened when the devs tried to go back to hardcore (in Cataclysm), and from the experience in other MMOs that tried to be hardcore.

There is no evidence at all that suggests making the game easier increases subs. They built the subscriptions out performing all expectations when the game was based around the so-called elitist model - an undeniable fact. They could not have known they had reached saturation point - there was no indication of it. Even if that was the reason for it making it easier it didnt work as growth stopped as people started to leave as fast as people joined.

Realising their mistake, they tried to reverse it - it was a disaster because the game had loads of new players wanted easy content. Now they have a game model that’s broken as the raids - the end of the PvE journey gets completed too quickly.

[Xilurm]

Was BFA really that bad? Surely it can't be as bad as WoD? I mean, my reason for hating on WoD is lore reasons, but as far as gameplay goes BFA had more stuff to do right? After WoD I skipped Legion and BFA until very recently so I don't really know.

[Jshadowhunter]

Definitely WoD, but BFA is not far behind.

[Soimu]

So WoD's time travel and MoP's Pandas are perfectly fine for the lore. Oooooook.

No, but at least i liked the theme and zones in those two expansions. And MOP is my favorite expansion and the story was at least making sense and was connected to all zones and raids unlike BFA WOD and Legion which was a clusterfck.

[Dacia Ultan]

I had to unsubscribe in WoD for financial reasons. Legion and BfA, from what I've heard, had plenty of potential material but ended up half-assing it. Cataclysm definitely had plenty of potential material and ended up half-assing it. (Seriously: they should have saved worgen until such point as they could properly implement them, rather than putting out the glitchy mess that we got at launch. I really wanted to like the worgen—there were only two Alliance races that I actively liked at the time—but they kept giving me reasons not to. But I digress.)

So, all-in-all? While I've heard plenty of criticism of WoD, Legion, and BfA: I'm going to have to say that Cataclysm was the most disappointing xpack that I personally played through. What I've seen of Shadowlands so far, however, gives me hope; as finances are no longer a major concern, I may just pick the game up again for it if my situation improves in other regards.

[Gonder]

Objectively speaking, it's between WoD and Cata for me, but I have to go with WoD at the end of the day. Only one major-sized patch with the other being pitifully small. Not to mention the beautiful world they created was utterly wasted from a lack of content. Raiding was definitely the highlight of this expansion, but I've always been too lazy to really get into it.

Funnily enough, I thoroughly enjoyed my time in WoD due to the theme, world, guild, and RP experiences, but the vast majority of people wouldn't have had this same experience. Draenei are my favourite race and Draenor has always fascinated me, which gave the expansion a tonne of bonus points for me, but for someone who's into races other than orcs and draenei, the theme must have been a lot less interesting.

[Osmeric]

There is no evidence at all that suggests making the game easier increases subs.

And there's no evidence that it hurts, either. Indeed, the idea that making the game hardcore is good for it flies in the face of all evidence and logic. It requires that casual players are retained by content that is too hard for them.

They built the subscriptions out performing all expectations when the game was based around the so-called elitist model - an undeniable fact.

That doesn't mean it grew BECAUSE it was elitist. A more rational conclusion is that it attracted an audience (tapping a vast population of casual MMO newbies) for other reasons, and then lost most of that audience when the game wasn't casual enough to retain them.

They could not have known they had reached saturation point - there was no indication of it.

Of course they could tell. They know exactly how many new accounts are being created.

Even if that was the reason for it making it easier it didnt work as growth stopped as people started to leave as fast as people joined.

The game was flat in Wrath, and only started collapsing in Cataclysm -- when they tried to go back to a hardcore mode. I'd say their mistake was not going casual enough. They should have told the hardcores -- like yourself -- to stuff it.

[oblakoff]

No, but at least i liked the theme and zones in those two expansions. And MOP is my favorite expansion and the story was at least making sense and was connected to all zones and raids unlike BFA WOD and Legion which was a clusterfck.

While I agree for WoD since half of the expansion was scrapped, Legion raids and Dungeons was perfectly connected to the zones and expansion lore if you’ve paid attention.

BfA too, but there is a fair point that .2 and .3 patches was rushed storywise.

[Babadoo]

Lol Wrath has less votes then TBC? I think some people need a big cock up their ass.

[Nerovar]

I will simply say this. BfA is garbage but at least you have shit to do if you're not a raider. WoD had absolutely nothing for you if you didn't raid.

Not true. PvP was fine during WoD.

[Kallor]

BFA is laughably bad in nearly every aspect. It almost feels like they want fans to unsubscribe. As bad as WoD was, at least it had some redeeming features.

[Nerovar]

Was BFA really that bad? Surely it can't be as bad as WoD? I mean, my reason for hating on WoD is lore reasons, but as far as gameplay goes BFA had more stuff to do right? After WoD I skipped Legion and BFA until very recently so I don't really know.

The "stuff to do" you had in BfA was worse than nothing. It was repetetive, insulting garbage like Warfronts, Island Expeditions and World Quests - content designed for literal lobotomites.

The lore also wasn't better than WoD. Think about all the retcons and storylines that were completely wasted. Kul Tiras is now somehow a heathen kingdom (and Jaina becomes the leader of its monarchy even though a male heir exists), humans ""reclaim"" one of their biggest and most important kingdoms and the cradle of their civilisation... in a pre-patch scenario (and it gets gassed), Nazjatar was turned into a daily hub with less effort and originality than Vashj'ir a cata leveling zone that should be infinitely smaller than Nazjatar but is actually much bigger in the game, N'zoth and the Black Empire were wasted in a single raid when it could have been an entire expansion theme... and that's just a few points.

BfA blew through so many stories without bringing a satsifying conclusion to a single one of them. It's actually incredible.

[Xilurm]

The "stuff to do" you had in BfA was worse than nothing. It was repetetive, insulting garbage like Warfronts, Island Expeditions and World Quests - content designed for literal lobotomites.

The lore also wasn't better than WoD. Think about all the retcons and storylines that were completely wasted. Kul Tiras is now somehow a heathen kingdom (and Jaina becomes the leader of its monarchy even though a male heir exists), humans ""reclaim"" one of their biggest and most important kingdoms and the cradle of their civilisation... in a pre-patch scenario (and it gets gassed), Nazjatar was turned into a daily hub with less effort and originality than Vashj'ir a cata leveling zone that should be infinitely smaller than Nazjatar but is actually much bigger in the game, N'zoth and the Black Empire were wasted in a single raid when it could have been an entire expansion theme... and that's just a few points.

BfA blew through so many stories without bringing a satsifying conclusion to a single one of them. It's actually incredible.

Yeah they really wasted 2 expansions there. If not N'Zoth atleast for for Azshara.

[MrFawlty]

And there's no evidence that it hurts, either. Indeed, the idea that making the game hardcore is good for it flies in the face of all evidence and logic. It requires that casual players are retained by content that is too hard for them.



That doesn't mean it grew BECAUSE it was elitist. A more rational conclusion is that it attracted an audience (tapping a vast population of casual MMO newbies) for other reasons, and then lost most of that audience when the game wasn't casual enough to retain them.



Of course they could tell. They know exactly how many new accounts are being created.



The game was flat in Wrath, and only started collapsing in Cataclysm -- when they tried to go back to a hardcore mode. I'd say their mistake was not going casual enough. They should have told the hardcores -- like yourself -- to stuff it.

The game has never grown under the more assessable model it has only shrunk. It allows people to blast through the patch content and leave until the next patch something Blizzard has admitted happens. So yeah it does hurt.

You can guess all you like as why you think the game grew originally but you can’t get round the fact it was when the previous model was used.

Why do you think a more "hardcore model” flies in the face of all evidence and logic? Growth stopped when they moved away from it, it provides a more meaningful progression system, makes content last longer, the game grew whilst it was in place, private servers have sprung up offering a version of the game that feature it, Blizzard themselves have brought a version of that game back, people play and even PAY for these versions even without any new content, Blizzard tried to move back to it in the main game . What evidence or logic suggests that assessable works any better?

[Harbour]

I have to choose between WoD and BFA.

BFA had more content but WoD had better classes, and the class is the prism through which we do content.

BFA is the worst era. Content it has is half-assed and not even that enjoyable and classes are mostly shit.

[Osmeric]

The game has never grown under the more assessable model it has only shrunk.

Your logic would be valid if that were the only thing that had changed. But you are making the classic error of confusing correlation with causation. As I explained, and as apparently went over your head, the inference you are trying to draw makes no sense. Go back and read for comprehension, mkay?

[TheRevenantHero]

BFA is laughably bad in nearly every aspect. It almost feels like they want fans to unsubscribe. As bad as WoD was, at least it had some redeeming features.

It had ONE redeeming feature. Raids. Everything else about the expansion was either absolute trash or mindless. I disagree that everything about BfA was bad. It wasn't a particularly GOOD expansion but it was still far better than Warlords of Removed Content.