Quote:
It also sickens me to see that many of you use the term WOW is for kids and claim no mature player is on that game.
My comment is not completely uninformed. I have played WoW. It struck me as a "cartoony" game. That screams kids to me. Sorry, that's how I see it. I never claimed that zero adults play it. Even I enjoy watching cartoons from time to time. I also never mentioned "bnetkiddies." You invoked that term yourself.
I disliked WoW for two reasons. One was the afforementioned "cartoony" look. The second was that I saw nothing new or innovative in the game at all. It had the exact same elements, and only those elements, of every other MMORPG I have ever played. They didn't come up with anything new. In fact the only thing I found was that rogues could stun from the front, allowing them to run around and backstab for insane damage. Interesting idea.
Here's something that may surprise you too. I trust SoE about as far as I could throw them. I played an enchanter in EQ1. SoE totally destroyed the enchanter class with PoP and every expansion that followed. Yet I picked EQ2 to play. Why? Because it looked more enjoyable and innovative to me. When I played it, I had fun, I did new things...WoW felt like a mix between EQ1 and FFXI with Warcraft III graphics.
Quote:
would you have said the same thing if EQ2 was winning in popularity in those sites? I think not.
No....but is EQ2 winning in popularity on those sites? Obviously not. So what exactly is your point?
In fact, since we're asking rhetorical questions, allow me to ask one of my own. If WoW came out in the exact same form as it is now, only under the name of an unknown producer instead of "Blizzard," do you think it would be nearly as popular as it is?
Edited, Wed Dec 1 09:32:02 2004 by DEDefiler