WoW: Warlords of Draenor

[Lord Revan]

I dunno about other battlegroups but with our battlegroup if got a semi-decent LFR group it was possible to 1 shot Garrosh (at least towards the end of MOP) but I think with LFR it's less about the difficulty and more that in Normal or above you can rely that most of your party is that least semi-decent and will at least try to do the job they're in the group for.

With LFR however you get the "wannabe elitists" that have no skills what so ever but too much ego to actually improve or sometimes these people will actually be detriment to the party as they queue as tanks or healers but DPS cause they think they're so much better at it that they don't need to do their job, so if you get semi-hard fights like Garrosh or looks like Archimond they end up being a millstone on the group but won't ever admit that the problem was they weren't doing their job.

[Darmalus]

I finished Archimond LFR twice (once Horde once Ally), one group with 3 wipes the other I lost count after 10 stacks of determination. Biggest issue was the tank phasing which was a "do it right or wipe" mechanic. Main difference was one group clearly had a core of people who knew each other and had done it before, I assume they were raiders on their alts for whatever reason.

No appreciable difference between the factions other than the Kirin Tor mages holding the go home portals being friendly as Ally and neutral as Horde.

At any rate, this brings a close to LFR for me for the rest of the expansion. There's really nothing I need stronger gear for in WOD and I'm overpowered in earlier expansions as is.

[Lord Revan]

I finished Archimond LFR twice (once Horde once Ally), one group with 3 wipes the other I lost count after 10 stacks of determination. Biggest issue was the tank phasing which was a "do it right or wipe" mechanic. Main difference was one group clearly had a core of people who knew each other and had done it before, I assume they were raiders on their alts for whatever reason.

No appreciable difference between the factions other than the Kirin Tor mages holding the go home portals being friendly as Ally and neutral as Horde.

At any rate, this brings a close to LFR for me for the rest of the expansion. There's really nothing I need stronger gear for in WOD and I'm overpowered in earlier expansions as is.

With LFR it dice roll as to how good the group will be, if you get a core of semi decent people, it can be easy, however if you get most of the group consisting of people who don't know what they're doing or are actively being detrimental to the group to boost their ego(it's sometimes hard to tell which one they are) even Mythic might seem like a cakewalk compared to LFR.

[Grumman]

Blizzard continues to tell players what they should enjoy while losing subs.

And to be honest, flying is just a gimmick right now. Blizzard used the playerbases last straw expertly: They now dangle that straw just out of reach. "We'll give it back, just make sure not to take your eye off it." A shiny coin taken from the playerbase and being offered back on a timetable when they should be working on other shit. It's the same thing as the new character models: this is not AAA development shit. I don't need constant updates about 2006 models being made in 2014. No company like Blizzard should be taking months to "get ready" for something so stupidly easy to do. That's because it was a ruse: content that isn't content. New player models wouldn't keep subs. People don't mind ugly and dated graphics (look at Minecraft). What they do mind is being patronized that Blizzard really needed that much time and effort to make this.

Blizzard is just tapping into a new type of grind that Korean MMOs can't even break into: the grind of "do busy work while we prepare to offer you content in the form of no content or content we already took away."

You could probably throw the same accusation at the Hearthstone branch of Blizzard. There the "Dumb Decision Nobody Likes" is the choice to only allow people to make nine decks. Since there are Daily Quests that might require that you win multiple games with any one of the nine classes, the lack of spare slots means people are less likely to experiment with new archetypes, since doing so requires that they delete a deck that actually works and is necessary to complete quests. Fixing this problem should be as simple as changing a variable and adding a third page to the deck selection page for custom decks 10-18, but Blizzard has been dragging their feet over this for far longer than is justifiable.

[TheFeniX]

You could probably throw the same accusation at the Hearthstone branch of Blizzard. There the "Dumb Decision Nobody Likes" is the choice to only allow people to make nine decks. Since there are Daily Quests that might require that you win multiple games with any one of the nine classes, the lack of spare slots means people are less likely to experiment with new archetypes, since doing so requires that they delete a deck that actually works and is necessary to complete quests. Fixing this problem should be as simple as changing a variable and adding a third page to the deck selection page for custom decks 10-18, but Blizzard has been dragging their feet over this for far longer than is justifiable.

There's people who actually want no flying. They want to relive the early days of the MMO. Not even true, they want to think they're going back to the original design of MMOs (which WoW most certainly was not) and no flying (like screaming about dungeon finder etc) is their way to do that. I mean, if they actually got what they wanted, they'd quit in disgust 5 minutes later, but whatever.

It's become a polarizing issue, which is fucking hilarious. And I give Blizzard credit (intentional or not) by fostering that polarization. Players are still bitching at Blizzard, but they are more than willing to tear each other apart over the issue since Blizzard has made it their focal point.

It's like this old comic I saw in the Political Cartoons thread in N&P: there's all these people with legitimate claims about why shit sucks, and the reporter looks at this clown and says "Let's interview this guy." By focusing on flying, Blizzard can have it both ways. And honestly, actually releasing flying on a time-table is the worst choice for them at this point because flying isn't going to fix what's wrong with WoW. They have to know that. Stringing people along seems to be the SOP for the forseeable future. I'm worried because FFXIV seems to be shifting to the same philosophy and I'm about ready to just hang it up for a few months.

Hearthstone is a F2P game living off nostalgia and having a ridiculously low skill ceiling. It's basically fee money. I'd bitch about it, but the Dungeon Keeper fiasco (and the fact that game has made EA millions) really put the nail in the coffin that gaming is dead.

[Darmalus]

Hearthstone is a F2P game living off nostalgia and having a ridiculously low skill ceiling. It's basically fee money. I'd bitch about it, but the Dungeon Keeper fiasco (and the fact that game has made EA millions) really put the nail in the coffin that gaming is dead.

Big (and small) developers pumping out money grabs means gaming is dead the same way McDonalds means cooking is dead.

[TheFeniX]

Hearthstone is a F2P game living off nostalgia and having a ridiculously low skill ceiling. It's basically fee money. I'd bitch about it, but the Dungeon Keeper fiasco (and the fact that game has made EA millions) really put the nail in the coffin that gaming is dead.

Big (and small) developers pumping out money grabs means gaming is dead the same way McDonalds means cooking is dead.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume your analogy is "some cheap products being pushed don't affect the rest of the market."

This fails for three reasons:
1. F2P games would usually be more cost effective to the consumer if just sold at a set price. The analogy would only hold if McDonalds charged you for napkins, shorter cook times, the ability to use the drive-thru, the bathroom, etc. For the myriad of PvP F2P games out there, imagine being able to pay money to slow down another persons cook-time, steal their food, or have them kicked out of the store (we used to call that: cheating). The current F2P market reads more like a Libertopia than any other relevant industry because said industries usually have consumer protection laws in place. At least in the US, they can just gouge the shit out of you because video games are entertainment. And entertainment that doesn't involve some kind of ball being thrown, kicked, or hit doesn't matter to them.

2. I cook a mean steak and burger (not exactly high level stuff). My wife cooks a mean.... everything else, ranging in options from healthy to "my heart stopped beating." A master chef is one thing, but any person could be expected to create a decent meal with a little bit of time and Google (what is used now instead of cookbooks). No person can realistically make a game in their spare time without a much large time and technical investment. If I could, I'd have made it just for me and my buddies. We're all looking for an actual co-op RPG (like Fable 3, but not utter shit) that's NOT an MMO. No company is going to touch that shit besides bullshit cutdown co-op like the Baulder's Gate remake.

3. McDonalds is already is the "cheap product" business. They are going to start selling high-dollar T-Bones. But, let's just say they did one day, and the profits for less work (just say steaks are cheaper, or whatever) were just as good or even better. You'd see a lot more McD's steakhouses. As they phase out the cheap stuff, they also push out their original customers. The big guys, the old hat guys, they're really just copy-catting what other start-ups cashed in on years ago.

I only have guesses where Blizzard is going with Overwatch, considering it's mostly re-used assets from a failed development. But Hearthstone, while not nearly as obtuse as some other games, still greatly benefit players in a PvP environment by spending money. I like Hearthstone, it's pretty fun, but I'm not convinced the model is all that great for the consumer when you factor in grinding vs buying.

I could go on a huge off-topic rant, but no one is immune to this shit. Only a huge backlash made them think this was a bad idea. And to be honest, it's not really a bad idea, profit-wise. We've already seen this with WoW in the cosmetic stuff. You used to grind for cool shit like the Argent Charger. If that were released in WoD, it would be in the mount store for $25 and I'd be stuck with some shitty reskin for hours of grinding. The message is clear: money > grind. The grind is only left for shit they've intentionally cut out of the game and try to repackage to you and make you feel thankful for letting them do so and those grinds they can't remove because at the end of the day: WoW has a certain gameplay elements dating back they need to observe (They can't just let people buy full Mythic gear, that would cause a riot).

The whole F2P and DLC system has affected the entire market since every one of the big boys pretty much has at least some content in that vein and have usually made a shit-load more net profits than they did with a stand-alone $60 release.

[Darmalus]

Actually my analogy, which admittedly could have been better phrased, is that cheap junk made widely available and convenient and priced low enough for good-enough quality will prosper. That is the niche of EA, McDonalds, Blizzard and many others.

But that also doesn't kill off the separate niche of various good restaurants and game making companies. They may charge more, or be less famous, or have their own weird quirks and aggravations but they are very much not dead.

I honestly have no idea what games EA makes anymore because I dismissed them from any consideration a long time ago. If it has an EA logo I just ignore it, same with McDonalds. If a game demands extra money to do basic functions, I just shrug my shoulders and walk away. I wouldn't even be playing WoW right now if it hadn't gone "F2P" with the game time token.

[TheFeniX]

Actually my analogy, which admittedly could have been better phrased, is that cheap junk made widely available and convenient and priced low enough for good-enough quality will prosper. That is the niche of EA, McDonalds, Blizzard and many others.

Fair enough. Sorry for misreading your analogy. My problem is that everyone "knows" what McDonald's is and what it offers. I'm sure these people exist, but I've never met anyone who would claim it's generally of a high-quality. With video games, the exact opposite holds true. Holy shit, the amount of people who will get angry (even though gaming is just a bullshit hobby for them and they claim it's not worth getting worked up about) when you point out they're basically paying money to not even play a game. It's like paying a Grandmaster to beat your drinking buddies at Chess.

But those guys (and gals) spend a fuckton of money. More than stupid assholes like me ever would. So, what we're left with is a group of business men who don't exactly respect gaming. Why would they: people will drop thousands of dollars on Facebook games.

I can't come up with a good analogy for my feelings, so I'll use a bad one: Music. Late in my "everything I care about must be awesome" days, this band called "Nickelback" came out and was exceedingly popular. It's because it's pretty fucking bland music but it doesn't offend you. I remember one weekend we were on my buddy's boat, he had one of their CDs on repeat and I didn't even notice. It was like listening to white noise: it's just there. I love Queen, have for years. But there are some Queen songs I cannot stand (Bicycle for just one). But that's the thing about stuff you love, you probably revile certain aspects of it.

But lately, video games is like Nickelback to me: white noise. Gaming is dead.

But that also doesn't kill off the separate niche of various good restaurants and game making companies. They may charge more, or be less famous, or have their own weird quirks and aggravations but they are very much not dead.

To be fair, I've also done a poor job explaining what I mean by "gaming is dead." It's not that the business is dieing or that different/fun games don't exist, it's that we've been in a continual push over the past... 15 years or so to distill video games into "max profit > everything else." And we, at least in my experience, as a matter of course in entertainment just continue to do this for everything. Jesus, is there one movie genre that doesn't have a set blueprint? Romantic Comedies have to be the worst and they still rake in millions. Anything mildly original was either a book or comic book. But man, imagine you could choose what actors wear or, even worse, unlock the real ending by paying a few extra bucks.

When Blizzard, who was basically a bunch of guys who really liked Warhammer and 40k and ripped it off wholesale, are now more worried about offering more content by releasing expansion quicker, it's easy to see the bullshit lines. They really want to release less content at a quicker rate with a $60 upcharge on top of your sub. You wait around for months doing just about nothing because they can count on a subscriber jump for an expansion release, rather than relying on consistent sub numbers. That huge jump also looks good in a quarterly report because that's what's really important in this day. WoW is so fucking dead.

I honestly have no idea what games EA makes anymore because I dismissed them from any consideration a long time ago. If it has an EA logo I just ignore it, same with McDonalds. If a game demands extra money to do basic functions, I just shrug my shoulders and walk away. I wouldn't even be playing WoW right now if it hadn't gone "F2P" with the game time token.

Your last part is my main point: if Blizzard (and Activision) didn't have so much else to fall back on, they couldn't afford to have you say that. Instead, they found a way to keep money coming in without offering any actual content. It's the same thing with transfers and paid mounts. I include mounts because they would have originally been gated behind grinds or gold. They can afford for you to leave, you don't matter, so "fuck off, you'll be back for Legion."

The only real difference now is that Twitter has really lead to Blizzard being a lot more upfront about their bullshit, since anyone can post to Twitter at any time.

[Darmalus]

To be fair, I've also done a poor job explaining what I mean by "gaming is dead." It's not that the business is dieing or that different/fun games don't exist, it's that we've been in a continual push over the past... 15 years or so to distill video games into "max profit > everything else." And we, at least in my experience, as a matter of course in entertainment just continue to do this for everything. Jesus, is there one movie genre that doesn't have a set blueprint? Romantic Comedies have to be the worst and they still rake in millions. Anything mildly original was either a book or comic book. But man, imagine you could choose what actors wear or, even worse, unlock the real ending by paying a few extra bucks.

When Blizzard, who was basically a bunch of guys who really liked Warhammer and 40k and ripped it off wholesale, are now more worried about offering more content by releasing expansion quicker, it's easy to see the bullshit lines. They really want to release less content at a quicker rate with a $60 upcharge on top of your sub. You wait around for months doing just about nothing because they can count on a subscriber jump for an expansion release, rather than relying on consistent sub numbers. That huge jump also looks good in a quarterly report because that's what's really important in this day. WoW is so fucking dead.

I think this is normal for an maturing market. It starts small and fairly intimate, and grows to the point that the businessmen take notice. I think that causes a shock to the system when people who "don't care" get involved and start making ruthless, rational decisions about how to extract money with maximum efficiency. I figure there will eventually be an equilibrium, unlike cars games don't have to deal with upfront costs of safety regulations or manufacturing to really limit the number of participants so the number of "minimum profit" branches aren't really limited.

As far as movies, I recommend "Save the Cat" by Blake Snyder for insights as to why all movies feel the same. The short answer is we have been telling the same 10 stories over and over again and every movie has been an effort (success or failure) at tweaking the details until it looks new.

Honestly, you sound kinda burned out man. Maybe take a break from games for a while? I know I have to step away from hobbies for a bit when I find myself more angry than happy with them.

[TheFeniX]

I think this is normal for an maturing market. It starts small and fairly intimate, and grows to the point that the businessmen take notice. I think that causes a shock to the system when people who "don't care" get involved and start making ruthless, rational decisions about how to extract money with maximum efficiency. I figure there will eventually be an equilibrium, unlike cars games don't have to deal with upfront costs of safety regulations or manufacturing to really limit the number of participants so the number of "minimum profit" branches aren't really limited.

My problem is that we're past the "maturing" part. Been that way for almost 10 years, maybe even more. The video game market matured years ago. The only arguments against it are that games aren't more like movies, which is dumb and those people are dumb (Order 1886 for just one example). And that the market isn't as inclusive to women and minorities as it should be..... just like movies and TV and no one is going to claim those aren't mature mediums.

As far as movies, I recommend "Save the Cat" by Blake Snyder for insights as to why all movies feel the same. The short answer is we have been telling the same 10 stories over and over again and every movie has been an effort (success or failure) at tweaking the details until it looks new.

Tweaking the details is what makes things interesting and we don't factor in other details like acting. Read: Why was Kenneth Branagh's performance as Hamlet a snooze-fest and Mel Gibson's wasn't? Obviously: IMO. It's not about them being bland though, it's that putting 2 attractive people in front of a camera and having them fall in love "hilariously" like the last two Hollywood hotties did makes millions over and over and over again.

Pretty sure this is because they don't mind watching the same shit over and over again. Most people like confirmation of how they thinks things should go. To quote the scholar Philip J. Fry: "But that's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared." And this isn't even a bad thing in of itself: look at Counter-Strike.

We've just got enough people playing video games now that this same mentality pervades video games: popcorn content. They want to poke away on some stuff for a while, feel like a badass (or skilled) with no effort, and move on to the next big thing.

Honestly, you sound kinda burned out man. Maybe take a break from games for a while? I know I have to step away from hobbies for a bit when I find myself more angry than happy with them.

The sad part is: I'm not. I still have loads of fun with certain games. Even something as easy as a Castle Crashers beat-em up can be incredibly fun for me.

But, I'm constantly bombarded by mediocre games trying to be passed off as gold. I mean, to hear people crow about the combat in Shadow of Mordor was hilarious. The game has multiple interesting concepts that fall flat because the core combat mechanic is fundamentally brain-dead and easily broken if you have functioning fingers. Playing Tomb Raider, a lot of the early tension is lost because I can ninja my way up are shear climb by mashing A and D and I'm given a prompt, slow-mo, AND the correct flashing answer when a rock is falling at me. This makes me focus on prompts, not the actual action because these are at heart brain-dead console games pandering to a group of people that most certainly are not me. And those QTEs aren't going anywhere because it makes the player feel skilled when they aren't. It's an easy gimmick that sells extremely well, so games in those genres that rely on twitch skills continue to get rarer. That's just two example recently.

So yes, I am burned out: but on the market, not the games. Back in the 90s and even early 2000s, a lot of games pandered to my playstyle. Today, not so much. So maybe I'm a bit salty. Although I have to admit, this tangent was well worth it because, while thinking about it, it made me realize why I like Payday 2 so much: because it's the closest I'm ever going to get to playing a true Shadowrun game.

WoW is kind of a microcosm for this. There's a lot of elements in the gaming market that piss me off today and Blizzard really seems to be hitting them all. And I really enjoyed that game. So... yea, sour.