What a well-written article! This is so very true, I believe that this is where the whole "Go back to WoW!" phrase originated from of course. I don't see why people would use World of Warcraft as a measuring stick, I mean it is truly the dynamo of MMORPGs, judging by subscribers not opinion, but there is much more potential out there. There will, someday, be a game that rises above WoW and becomes a measuring stick itself, until that day we'll just have to stick to our favorites and put up with the fact that there is nothing that we can do, individually, about how popular a game becomes. (I mean, if someone likes it, they like it.) I hope to someday make that game, the one that rises above the rest, myself.  Though I do indeed think that there should not be a measuring stick for MMOs but rather people need to pick the one that is most fun (yes, fun) to them.  Fun is something many gamers forget.

Originally posted by girlgeek

I think it is YOU that is being hard headed and unable to have a discussion, because you think that the people that spend their money to PLAY these games are so entirely ignorant that they cannot say what, to THEM, is a good game, and what is not.  It's not up to YOU to decide that for another person, regardless of what YOU THINK something is "quality" or not....in the exact same sense that some people like Picasso and others like Renoir.  You're not qualified (no one is) to determine what another person sees as quality.  But the people in the industry who design the games.....perhaps THEY are qualified to judge the technical work of their peers, which is WHY I linked to the Academy of Interactive ARTS and Sciences. Now why are you so damn determined to argue about it all?  I don't understand your vehemence in arguing that game design is not an art form.  It's not only misinformed, it's a very STRANGE thing to argue about.

 

  I wouldn't let ppl like that get to you too much girlgeek,  what is considered 'art' has been debated and argued upon for ages. Some are more open-minded to new arenas and direction, and some are firmly set in concrete about the ideology of what art SHOULD be and stand for, and cannot fathom the expansion of creativity. Art for them HAS to fit in that perfect, idealistic box they invented themselves so that they may feel competent about what they like, not what's out there.

They may not like the direction creativity has gone, but to deny it as being part of the whole movement is very narrow-minded and self-defeating, as they'll never enjoy anything not fitting their restrained views on it. Art is not the only subject that has this failing.

It is more due to the attitude of the debater than the topic at hand. Even if I do not agree with that mentality, I understand what they are saying and mean. I simply walk away from the argument since it can only go one way...down.

I believe you do not need to be a dictionary of art and all its techniques in order to be appreciative and understand greater artists, and those who do tend to like the sound of their voice rather than  those with opinions other than theirs.

---

Originally posted by DaX.9
True artist have shared their art with the world freely, non selfishly, all of todays "artist" only are interesed in money.

---

Reality check: if you're not being paid to do it, you're not an artist, you're a hobbyist - this was as true a thousand years ago as it is now.

No "True artist" shares freely like that, they produce work to sell; the tradgedy of Van Gogh is no-one worked out his genius until it was far too late for him to profit from it, he was desperate to sell his work.

All high-art from before the 20th century: sculpture, paintings, was made to commission, for money; up until people decided that real artists were only those interested in 'self expression' all artists were commericial artists.

Oh and art = entertainment; why else would you buy a huge painting? Big gold-frameed oil paintings were the Hollywood blockbusters of their day.

Originally posted by Teilo

 

---

Originally posted by DaX.9
True artist have shared their art with the world freely, non selfishly, all of todays "artist" only are interesed in money.

---

 

Reality check: if you're not being paid to do it, you're not an artist, you're a hobbyist - this was as true a thousand years ago as it is now.

 

This is not true, do some reserach and do not limmit youself to paintings only. If you consider games to be an art that how do you explain Idni and free games market. Than by your statement everything that is free is not art and person which has done it is not artist. There are tons of people on devianarat, which share their art for free, how do you explain that? How do you explain people who share their stock photo on free stockphoto web sites?

Originally posted by DaX.9

Originally posted by Teilo

 

---

Originally posted by DaX.9
True artist have shared their art with the world freely, non selfishly, all of todays "artist" only are interesed in money.

---

 

Reality check: if you're not being paid to do it, you're not an artist, you're a hobbyist - this was as true a thousand years ago as it is now.

 

 

This is not true, do some reserach and do not limmit youself to paintings only. If you consider games to be an art that how do you explain Idni and free games market. Than by your statement everything that is free is not art and person which has done it is not artist. There are tons of people on devianarat, which share their art for free, how do you explain that? How do you explain people who share their stock photo on free stockphoto web sites?

I already answered that; they're hobbyists.

I'm not disputing whether hobbyists can create 'art', I was questioning your assertion that 'True artists' only do it for love, as though 'True art'  is simply art for art's sake; this is patently absurd.

Ask any of the people you just mentioned if they'd prefer to be paid for what they do, I'm sure they'd all say "no". /sarcasm

Originally posted by Teilo

Originally posted by DaX.9

Originally posted by Teilo

 

---

Originally posted by DaX.9
True artist have shared their art with the world freely, non selfishly, all of todays "artist" only are interesed in money.

---

 

Reality check: if you're not being paid to do it, you're not an artist, you're a hobbyist - this was as true a thousand years ago as it is now.

 

 

This is not true, do some reserach and do not limmit youself to paintings only. If you consider games to be an art that how do you explain Idni and free games market. Than by your statement everything that is free is not art and person which has done it is not artist. There are tons of people on devianarat, which share their art for free, how do you explain that? How do you explain people who share their stock photo on free stockphoto web sites?

 

I already answered that; they're hobbyists.

I'm not disputing whether hobbyists can create 'art', I was questioning your assertion that 'True artists' only do it for love, as though 'True art'  is simply art for art's sake; this is patently absurd.

Ask any of the people you just mentioned if they'd prefer to be paid for what they do, I'm sure they'd all say "no". /sarcasm

Of course they would like to be paid for. But if hobbyst can create ART, does that not makes him artist? I mean he is not maybe professional artist, but he is artist. I think you are mistaking job with art. I have a friend which has finnished painting university and he sells his paints for money, but he also sculpts a lot which he does not sell, he shares his work with his friends, is he artist now? Yes he is. Is he professional sculptor, no he is not.

I think there is difference between proffesion and art. Just cause you do not earn money from your creation does not need to mean anything. What if someone has finnished academy of arts and then he chooses to sell gas for money and create art for himself. There are a lot of music bands out there for example which have daily jobs but play music in spare time, some of them are educated in music fields as well. The reason why they are doing that are their own, but that does not mean that they are not artist.

I must say and stay at my point. Artist create art from their soul and then they are displaying it for people to see it. If someone buys it great. Why do you think painters for example have a non stop display of their work, they do not have target audience, they just paint, display their work and if someone wants to buy it, they sell it. Slowly they will build their buyers based on their work. But primmary, creation was made out of their soul. I have been and still am surrounded by tons of painters and sculptors and artist of anykind, they are going to artist collonies all the time but none of them focuses primary on getting tons of money. I do not promote starving artist routine here, do not get me wrong, I am simply saying that art is made out of love. Making art out of need for money has gotten us here where we are today, in era of mass production with little or no quality.

To have money from your art is great thing, one every artist dream of but here is the exact catch. They want to people buy their work and acknowledge them as they are, not how many they earn. True artist will not change his art style just to earn a ton of money, one thing we unfortunatlly see on daily basis by people claimming to be artist. If succesfull artist is rich artist that I must say Britney Spears is one of greatest artist of all time, right? I think we all know answer to this.

My favorite arguement for WoW is when a fanboi wraps his head around this idealist notion that just because his game has a ton of subscribers, it must be great.

I prompty respond with something along the lines of: "Yeah, and a lot of people loved Hitler, too."

Flame gogo!

Originally posted by DubaVampe

My favorite arguement for WoW is when a fanboi wraps his head around this idealist notion that just because his game has a ton of subscribers, it must be great.

 

I prompty respond with something along the lines of: "Yeah, and a lot of people loved Hitler, too."

 

Flame gogo!

Lol, I'll have to use that one, I've been trying to use ratios to number of people who actually own an account and play it like an mmo to the number of gold farmers, inactive subscribers, people who use 25 accounts at a single time and the number of people who use bots still.

Originally posted by Tharkis

Good article, but I have to disagree with you. I have played a number of MMOs, everything from DAOC to SWG to WoW. I still compare any game I play to WoW in many respects. To me, WoW has a lot going for it. It's so simple and to the point that you can figure it out within 10 minutes of playing and actually have a decent chance of being good. The graphics are nice, but don't kill older machines. The sound is fairly well done. The fact that it allows addons is a huge plus.

I liked other games for different reasons. I loved DAOC (my first mmo), but in the end the playability of WoW won me over. I hated WoW when it came out, I actually didn't start playing it regularly until about 4 months before wrath came out.

Like it or not, WoW is THE gold standard to which other games NEED to be measured in things like playability, aesthetics, compatibility and customization. Not only measured on, but all these things need to be improved on as well. I see many games that focus on one or two of these issues, but none have captured all 4 of these very basic reasons why WoW is such a success.

Your missing completely the whole point of this discussion your an obvious product of WoW brainwashed machine by all those millions who play that crappy game how can you comepare other games with WoW is beyond me?

You eather like a game or not stick with a formula your use to is so limited so narrowminded.

Come OUT of the box open your mind there are so many more games that offer far more fun and pleasure then WoW if your willing to accept more variation and different kind of gameplay instead stick your head in sand and comeout when you see similar gameplay/style like WoW thats sad real sad.

Really nice article :)

WoW and McDonalds... talk about a Stale Comparison.

This tired anology doesn't work if for no other reason than the entire point of McDonalds is that it's cheap and convenient not that it's good and that is why it has as many customers as it does. WoW is clearly not cheaper that competing MMOs so it can't be attracting it's wide customer base in the same way McDonalds does.

A better analogy would be to compare let say a place like The Olive Garden to the neighborhood Ma' and Pa' Pizzaria. In fact I'm going to use specific actual example: There's a local spot here in town called Monte Carlo owned by a guy named Filipo. Great guy. Anyway, there's this awesome thing they do there where you order a Cesar salad and Filipo's grandfather who's like in his nineties pushing this little cart to your table and I shit you not makes Cesar dressing by hand FROM SCRATCH right at your table, and it tastes AMAZING.

Now, all those folks that like The Olive Garden (and even though Monte Carlo is a local legend, it's much easier to get a table there than at The Olive Garden on a Friday night) probably don't even care too much about Caser Salad, thier regular salad isn't much to speak of, but it is free and ulimited. In fact having a ninety year old man stir up Anchovies and Raw egg yolk (oh you didn't know that about Cesar Salad?) at their table is probably a bit ...dare I say it... "Hardcore" for them. Futhermore: Filipo's homemade lasagna may be fucking amazing (and it is, believe me) but at The Olive Garden you can get lasagna, chicken parmigiana (spelling nazis can eat me) and Fettachini Alfredo on ONE PLATE, which you can't do at Monte Carlo.

So yes. Somebody who expects all italian restaraunts to be like The Olive Garden are very likely to be put off by Monte Carlo. But that works both ways. What about the guy that expects and demands that his italian food comes with a hand made Cesar Salad? Is he judging The Olive Garden fairly? I can tell you that the Olive Garden here in town has a line into the parking lot every Friday and Saturday night, but Monte Carlo has been a local favorite since long before The Olive Garden came along... and everybody who lives in a town with an Olive Garden know exactly how the in-the-know locals talk about it... sounds a lot like people on MMORPG.com talking about WoW doesn't it?

My point is the Stale Comparison works both ways, esspecially on these boards. If anything your far more apt to see someone complain that WoW lacks open PvP and uses instancing and level based progression than you are to see someone complaining that Aion is fail because hunters don't have pets. This begs the question, "Who exactly are you preaching to?"

It also begs the question, "Who's hungry for Italian?"
 

Originally posted by Airphel

I do use WOW as a measuring stick. A stick to measure how much wow sucks.

 

Good usage of comparing McDonalds to WoW. McDonalds is crap, compared to an acutal gourmet resturant, even though it (the gourmet restaurant) dosen't and never will have as many patrons or as much profit as McD's, its still better.

I was all prepared to read through a throng of WoW lover's whining and supporting why they are playing another game and posting how it sucks. That always got me, if they love WoW so much, piss off and stay playing WoW and leave us to our new games!!!!

I' still waiting for something as much fun as NWN (Neverwinter Nights) honestly. Yet I don't compare each new MMO to it and never will. The reason would be as if I compared NWN with the Witcher then apply that to War or WoW. Makes no sense as each has different pieces that define it.

What I do hate though is the lack of Devs with Balls telling their investors to stay out of it and wait for their paychecks later on. This for me is the other side of why we have so many games failing to break the throng and add diversity. MMO's have become a fight between the investors and WoW lovers that ditract from having fun.

So what if I don't have a mount, can't do this, or do that. What I wanna have is a bit of experimentation, a bit of awe of finding something small and unique that everyone wants to know how I found it and so on. Just sick of playing MMO's and still waiting for something that I can sink my teeth into and grow with it.

For that to happen though, it would be like waiting for D&D Online to be more like D&D. Or having a more genre specific style that I want like Hârn or maybe the Witcher Online or even waiting for Dragon Age to be turned into an MMO. I want something dark, gritty, has teeth that bites me and is fair enough to allow me to run (very fast) rather than being some uber cartoon-like god dickstacle.

I guess the Devs are making new MMO's, pity it's something I don't wanna play which would be like me being forced to each McDonalds I would do anything than eat that shit!

Originally posted by DubaVampe

I prompty respond with something along the lines of: "Yeah, and a lot of people loved Hitler, too."

My response would be: YEA, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE LOVED GANDHI, TOO.

Originally posted by DubaVampe

My favorite arguement for WoW is when a fanboi wraps his head around this idealist notion that just because his game has a ton of subscribers, it must be great.

 

I prompty respond with something along the lines of: "Yeah, and a lot of people loved Hitler, too."

 

Flame gogo!

How about we just laugh at such an off the wall attempt at association? 

Sorry all we heard was a dull thud. 

 Good article! A lot of deep discussion. I completely agree, we need more niche MMOs. I'm one of those people who needs one. A zombie survival MMO to be specific. I don't think I'd ever have to touch another MMO in my life, if I could just have my zombie MMO based on survival instead of being purely combat driven.

It doesn't even need to be a great game. Just based on survival with maybe a player housing system, of sorts, to maintain as a hold out. I'm trying to make it myself, but I'm unsure how far I'll get. I've learned a lot about MMO development and I have a great game engine (that I DO know how to use) to get me there. I'm also an aspiring 3D artist, so my chances are maybe 50/50. Maybe higher?

Originally posted by Tharkis

Good article, but I have to disagree with you. I have played a number of MMOs, everything from DAOC to SWG to WoW. I still compare any game I play to WoW in many respects. To me, WoW has a lot going for it. It's so simple and to the point that you can figure it out within 10 minutes of playing and actually have a decent chance of being good. The graphics are nice, but don't kill older machines. The sound is fairly well done. The fact that it allows addons is a huge plus.

I liked other games for different reasons. I loved DAOC (my first mmo), but in the end the playability of WoW won me over. I hated WoW when it came out, I actually didn't start playing it regularly until about 4 months before wrath came out.

Like it or not, WoW is THE gold standard to which other games NEED to be measured in things like playability, aesthetics, compatibility and customization. Not only measured on, but all these things need to be improved on as well. I see many games that focus on one or two of these issues, but none have captured all 4 of these very basic reasons why WoW is such a success.

lol I agree WOW sucks...

but it is like mC D's, made for kiddies and people who do not know any better....