Originally Posted by
Snufflupagus
Well... Essentially, and with qualifications... yes.
Nah.
"Anti-player approach"? Don't be ridiculous. WoW development over time has strictly increased player agency and convenience.
Flight. Heroic dungeons so you have something to do at max level if you don't have time for raiding. LFG. Multiple raid sizes and difficulties so people with no friends can still see content. Transmogrification so players can look however they want. Flight in the entire world. LFR. Flexible raiding so it's even easier to form raids and you have even more of your vaunted but misguided quote-unquote "choice". Account-wide this, account-wide that, account-wide the next thing. Choosing which expansion to quest in. Crunching the amount of XP needed to level up every ten minutes. Dual spec. Multispec. Respec from tomes so you don't have to go back to town. Gear that swaps stats with your spec so you don't have to carry multiple sets. Removal of PvP stats so you can swap game mode at will. Scaling so you don't get rekt by people who overgear you. Mythic+ so you don't have to raid at all if you don't want to. Removing scaling so you can rekt undergeared people because you kept getting rekt when there was scaling because you suck and that was awkward.
Every step of every expansion WoW development has done nothing but make the game more convenient and give players more "choice" and more agency. Complaining about some fantasy "anti-player approach" is asinine. Don't be silly.
In point of fact, WoW development was least convenient and limited choice and agency the most in Classic. It continued to do so but a little less in Burning Crusade. In (early) Wrath it was still pretty restrictive. By the end of Wrath and then by Cataclysm, restrictions were dropping pretty fast and since then they've have been going down like flies. I think there's a strong statistical argument to be made that--with a little lag time--WoW loses subscribers as it removes restrictions.
Then play Minecraft. You are not understanding, in this post, the fundamentals of what a game is. Do you whine that Monopoly "restricts your choices" too much? Or Age of Empires II because you can't recruit scouts as the Aztecs? Or Dark Souls because you can't... well, fly? What you are describing is a sandbox game. As we have discussed, all a game is, is a set of rules with graphics. What are rules? Restrictions. You are paying $14.99 a month for Blizzard's restrictions and Blizzard's graphics. Complaining about Blizzard restricting you is puerile. The whole point of World of Warcraft and every other game in the universe is that it restricts you, and you find ways to overcome the challenges it poses within the restrictions it sets.
To demonstrate, again, why your position doesn't make any sense: imagine WoW with no restrictions. Any race can be any class, as people are so happy to bandy around. Anyone can group with anyone. Anyone can attack anyone. Anyone can cast any ability from any class. Anyone can type a slash command and move at whatever multiplier of base speed they want. Anyone can slash-command as much damage as they want. Anyone can slash-command create any item with whatever stats they want. Anyone can slash-command teleport anywhere they want. How much fun would that be? You could get your chores done so fast, and clear every raid in seconds!
It wouldn't be. It would be absurd. It wouldn't be worth playing. You can't seriously think that a no longer "anti-player", restriction-free version of WoW would be the best possible incarnation of the game. Restrictions are the whole point, so arguing this ridiculous line of "well restriction are bad so let me fly becuase muh choice" doesn't make any sense. I would suggest that if you drop it, and come up with an actually worthwhile argument for flying, maybe the devs will listen and make a change to the current model!
(If you can. I suspect you can't, because I'm pretty sure flying is a terrible mechanic that adds nothing and ruins the game, but perhaps you can come up with an argument that demonstrates why flying is good and I'll change my view).
I don't think I need to engage with this point, it's been covered innumerable times.
Well, no, because that's not how logic works. "This bad thing does not completely ruin everything around it, therefore it's actually a good thing!" doesn't make sense.
I would agree that correlation does not equate to causation: flying being in an expansion that is good does not also make flying good. Flying being in an expansion that is bad does not make flying bad.
Flying being bad is not a big enough mechanic to single-handedly ruin an expansion. The effect of flying on the game is subtler than that, like the effect of other small bad features like LFG and built-in quest tracking. It has, however, ruined the game slowly and steadily over the long term.