I do not understand why anyone would want to play a game that feels like work that you should be paid for...

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Goatgod76

I play all kinds of games. EMPIRE: Total War (RTS), PAYDAY: The Heist (FPS), Cities XL (SIM), Skyrim (RPG)...and so on and so on. The difference between me and you is, I know the differences between the genre's. HOW they function, and how they are meant to entertain and keep the players attention....you apprently do not. You seem to think they are all suppose to have infinite and instant fun non-stop. Well...let me let you in on a little secret....they all do, just in different ways, hence, why they are different genre's...to appeal to a certain audiences. All MMORPG's have timesinks...some just disguise them better than others. Even your precious WoW.

I understand what you mean by game play so you can quit trying to drive that point home. Where you are off with it is stated above. MMORPG's have only gone the route they have because of fanboys of WoW such as you. Whine and spam to be heard and change one genre to another selfishly to meet your needs....who care about those that have kept it going so you could even experience them. As long as it becomes more like whatever genre you came from (Betting console gaming) you don't care what else happens.

I am done wasting breath on you, because you will never get it. Maybe had you given EQ a chance instead of being shallow and ignorant and just going on what others said you could see what they were, and the bucket of crap they have become, and understand what sets them apart from all other genre's. Enjoy your hamster wheel MMO's with the rest of the sheep.

The difference between us is I observe reality while you seem to want to impose your sense of entitlement on the genre.

I don't get it?  There's nothing to get.  I observe what people like, with most players enjoying "pure" games (including me) and a niche preferring simulations.  I observe that this inherently influences game design; much like natural selection: good ideas thrive while bad ones die out.  I observe that you have no clue about PC gaming, to use the term "console gaming" with such vitriol, when even back when I played C64 games players preferred games over simulations.  I observe that early MMORPGs had a lot of fatty features, and that later MMORPGs which cut away the fat produced lean, successful games that smashed expectations.

So there's really nothing left to get.

 

How is wanting an open world  free to explore with more emphasis on the journey and not the destination, creative quests, death penalty,  a good mix of solo and group content, and a worthy crafting system to promote some sense of an economy and some community a simulation? Explain this to me.

All you observe is easy mode for every game, with no variation to keep it interesting to a person with a brain.

And again, I use console gaming to describe the garbage you want to turn every game into. Instant gratification garbage, you and this ADD society. I guess a bit of challenge (Which in itself creates a sense of accomplishment and excitment when beaten) and having to use that soft tissue between your ears is long gone, and on comes mindless bland straight forward happy happy joy joy hamster wheels you can be bored of in a month for people like you.

To each his own.

I'll continue to lend assistance with this title due in 2013. Hopefully, they stay the course and won't listen to the WoW generation. So far, it shows lots of promise, but I am skeptical about the distance they envision going with it. We will see. Which BTW...I have done more alphas and betas than I can count, and have been playing games since 1982 when you were still crapping your diapers as my brother your age was. Not that 3 years is a huge difference. So don't tell me I don't know games. We just have different outlooks and tastes.

 

Originally posted by Goatgod76

How is wanting an open world  free to explore with more emphasis on the journey and not the destination, creative quests, death penalty,  a good mix of solo and group content, and a worthy crafting system to promote some sense of an economy and some community a simulation? Explain this to me.

All you observe is easy mode for every game, with no variation to keep it interesting to a person with a brain.

And again, I use console gaming to describe the garbage you want to turn every game into. Instant gratification garbage, you and this ADD society. I guess a bit of challenge (Which in itself creates a sense of accomplishment and excitment when beaten) and having to use that soft tissue between your ears is long gone, and on comes mindless bland straight forward happy happy joy joy hamster wheels you can be bored of in a month for people like you.

To each his own.

I'll continue to lend assistance with this title due in 2013. Hopefully, they stay the course and won't listen to the WoW generation. So far, it shows lots of promise, but I am skeptical about the distance they envision going with it. We will see. Which BTW...I have done more alphas and betas than I can count, and have been playing games since 1982 when you were still crapping your diapers as my brother your age was. Not that 3 years is a huge difference. So don't tell me I don't know games. We just have different outlooks and tastes.

The emphasis isn't on the destination.  It's all journey.  The only thing all players care about is journey. "Endgame" is journey, because you're still playing the game.  The destination is the very end of the game when you have best-in-slot everything, which virtually nobody reaches.  Everyone else is still journeying.

If you're not chasing a simulation, you're certainly chasing niche-appeal mechanics like death penalty which don't really add to the depth of games.  They usually don't add to challenge either (or add a tedious type of challenge which is less fun than typical gameplay.)  And it's so unnecessary, given that a cost is already paid simply by failing an encounter and having things reset.

For the 100th time, easy mode is not what players want.  They want a challenge suited to their skill, where skilled play feels rewarded.  They want decision-making (and if it's too easy, there isn't decision-making.)  But game depth needs to come from quality interactions between simple systems -- obtuse, overcomplicated, or unnecessarily time-consuming game systems are just bad game design.  If you actually played games prior to MMORPGs, then remember the myriad of games which were fun without the need to be obtuse, overcomplicated, or time-consuming!  Remember when you played well-designed games!

For the 100th time, the point of games is gratification.  Entertainment.  People want games to serve their purpose efficiently.  Suggesting this is somehow a bad thing for people to want is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Goatgod76

How is wanting an open world  free to explore with more emphasis on the journey and not the destination, creative quests, death penalty,  a good mix of solo and group content, and a worthy crafting system to promote some sense of an economy and some community a simulation? Explain this to me.

All you observe is easy mode for every game, with no variation to keep it interesting to a person with a brain.

And again, I use console gaming to describe the garbage you want to turn every game into. Instant gratification garbage, you and this ADD society. I guess a bit of challenge (Which in itself creates a sense of accomplishment and excitment when beaten) and having to use that soft tissue between your ears is long gone, and on comes mindless bland straight forward happy happy joy joy hamster wheels you can be bored of in a month for people like you.

To each his own.

I'll continue to lend assistance with this title due in 2013. Hopefully, they stay the course and won't listen to the WoW generation. So far, it shows lots of promise, but I am skeptical about the distance they envision going with it. We will see. Which BTW...I have done more alphas and betas than I can count, and have been playing games since 1982 when you were still crapping your diapers as my brother your age was. Not that 3 years is a huge difference. So don't tell me I don't know games. We just have different outlooks and tastes.

The emphasis isn't on the destination.  It's all journey.  The only thing all players care about is journey. "Endgame" is journey, because you're still playing the game.  The destination is the very end of the game when you have best-in-slot everything, which virtually nobody reaches.  Everyone else is still journeying.

If you're not chasing a simulation, you're certainly chasing niche-appeal mechanics like death penalty which don't really add to the depth of games.  They usually don't add to challenge either (or add a tedious type of challenge which is less fun than typical gameplay.)  And it's so unnecessary, given that a cost is already paid simply by failing an encounter and having things reset.

For the 100th time, easy mode is not what players want.  They want a challenge suited to their skill, where skilled play feels rewarded.  They want decision-making (and if it's too easy, there isn't decision-making.)  But game depth needs to come from quality interactions between simple systems -- obtuse, overcomplicated, or unnecessarily time-consuming game systems are just bad game design.  If you actually played games prior to MMORPGs, then remember the myriad of games which were fun without the need to be obtuse, overcomplicated, or time-consuming!  Remember when you played well-designed games!

For the 100th time, the point of games is gratification.  Entertainment.  People want games to serve their purpose efficiently.  Suggesting this is somehow a bad thing for people to want is ridiculous.

What?!?

Journey is starting out at lvl 1...the journey is gaining those other levels towards cap, learning the class you are and how to use it well, do some crafting, questing, and sharing the experience with others in a persistent world.

End game consists of (In almost all cases) several big dungeons and some sub bosses and bosses...then repeating those same dunegeons over and over and over again until everyone is geared out. How is that still journey? That is a new gamer mentality.

If easymode isn't what everyone wants, then why don't you tell me why WoW keeps making things...easier? Why does every other MMO releasing  follow suit? Instant travel out the ying yang, map GPS to everything, ability to solo to cap, instance heavy,  outrageously OP'ed gear and weapons, safe respawn with no reprocussions for acting like a retard, level to cap in a month or less in most MMO's....but it isn't what most want? YOUR majority?

I am not saying every game has to be the way I want it...as you seem to think everyone wants what you want. Your just one in a majority of loud mouths that don't stop until eveyone sees ti your way. So fine....hamster wheels continue to spin. Sigh...

Going to guess now SWTOR goes f2p within a year.

---

Originally posted by AdamTM
I do not understand why anyone would want to play a game that feels like work that you should be paid for...

---

People define "work" as differently as they define "fun", I have noticed. Some people think running a marathon is fun. Others find crossword puzzles fun. Some people think that driving for more than an hour is work. Some people even find spreadsheet studies enjoyable. Others think solving mysteries is work. Some people work at jobs they think are fun and the pay is just a bonus :)

In gaming terms, there are lots of ways people find fun that I do not, and vice versa. The trouble is that there are not a lot of choices now, even though there are MMOs in numbers never before seen. There are no longer any distinctions between mmoRPG, mmoRTS, mmoFPS, mmoACTION and the many other play styles people enjoy. They have become blended and morphed into a pale shadow of any of their former distinctive games. With the exception of "themepark" and "sandbox" MMOs, if you play one MMO, you have pretty much played them all.

And people pay and play them by the droves...

Originally posted by Goatgod76

What?!?

Journey is starting out at lvl 1...the journey is gaining those other levels towards cap, learning the class you are and how to use it well, do some crafting, questing, and sharing the experience with others in a persistent world.

End game consists of (In almost all cases) several big dungeons and some sub bosses and bosses...then repeating those same dunegeons over and over and over again until everyone is geared out. How is that still journey? That is a new gamer mentality.

If easymode isn't what everyone wants, then why don't you tell me why WoW keeps making things...easier? Why does every other MMO releasing  follow suit? Instant travel out the ying yang, map GPS to everything, ability to solo to cap, instance heavy,  outrageously OP'ed gear and weapons, safe respawn with no reprocussions for acting like a retard, level to cap in a month or less in most MMO's....but it isn't what most want? YOUR majority?

I am not saying every game has to be the way I want it...as you seem to think everyone wants what you want. Your just one in a majority of loud mouths that don't stop until eveyone sees ti your way. So fine....hamster wheels continue to spin. Sigh...

Going to guess now SWTOR goes f2p within a year.

The only thing that stops at "endgame" is leveling and (mostly) questing.  Which is why it's a logical assumption that you're completely fixated on leveling if you believe journey stops at endgame.  I don't know if you've actually played a MMORPG at endgame, if you think those players don't have a lot of learning their class left to do.  I assure you: most do.

None of the things you list are true difficulty.

Instant travel is predominantly convenience, and at worst changes a challenge from something shallow ("avoid tough mobs") to a game system with a little more depth ("beat difficult mobs in combat").  

Soloing doesn't change the individual skill requirement of a game (which is all that matters to players) -- if I have 0.2 sec to interrupt a spellcast to survive a solo fight, and 3 seconds to interrupt one to save the 5-man group from a wipe, clearly the solo fight is harder (even though the group fight requires a group.)  True difficulty is measured on an individual basis.

Similarly, true difficulty is the challenge itself -- death penalty is not difficulty, it's inconvenience.

Map GPS is like instant travel: a shallow challenge (where am I going?) vs. an interesting one.  Although I prefer WAR's vague area markers over specific location dots (unless the fiction supports knowing the precise location.)  The point of "searching" in many quests is lost if you have a specific dot -- but if you lack a specific area, the act of searching for that specific location can be excessively time-consuming without being all that interesting (and inevitably you'd just look it up online if it passed that difficulty threshold, which is why "find thing thing" quests are dubious to begin with unless they're more dynamic)

Outrageously OP gear?  No clue what you're even going on about here.  Gear is lategame progression, and a great mechanic for being able to logically distribute rewards players care about when they beat a tough challenge.

Leveling to cap in a month has nothing to do with difficulty.  In fact, it's a little more difficult when your progression in a game is completely reliant on the skill of you and your group to beat dungeon and raid bosses -- compared to the constant always-rewarded experience of XP and levels.  A skilled player will gear up quickly, while an unskilled one will get their group wiped and receive nothing.

(That said, I could don't care about whether leveling is fast or slow. Doubt most players do.  And since there is a niche group like yourself extremely fixated on earning the next level for their hit of dopamine, I think it probably makes more sense to let leveling work like old games.  I also think the ability for players to tackle weaker challenges for slow-but-steady XP is a great mechanic for a game to have, which token systems kinda get at but XP is slightly better at.)

Sure, not everyone wants what I want.  I never claimed that.  I use the term "most" because most gamers like the gameplay-focused hassle-lite games I enjoy.  It's clear by which games are successful.

Axehilt, im not gonna respond point by point because frankly it would be a waste of time.  But your main argument throughout has been that the success of the games on the market is determinate of what players want.

What many of us are trying to explain to you is that we feel that WOW was representative of wht is normally called a fad.  Its one of those things that for some psychological reason becomes apeshit popular, sells like gang busters, and then 5 years later people wonder WTF they were thinking.

In a perfectly logical world, yes, your argument would be valid.  The reality is though that human psychology plays a large role, and human psychology is fickle and inconsistent and will randomly make weird decisions about what is good.

I can give tons of examples of things that the vast majority of society realizes was completely retarded and useless that sold like gangbusters that completely negates your "popularity/success defined as by number of sales/subscriptions = quality" argument.

Also, assuming your argument is valid, then it actually defends our point,  because thus far no game based on the WOW model has been even remotely as succesful.  Rift has done well, SWTOR appears to be one that will do well, but the problem with both is longevity.  Are people only playing it because its the only polished MMO content out there worth playing, or because they actually enjoy that style of MMO.  Only time will tell.

Originally posted by Hrimnir

Axehilt, im not gonna respond point by point because frankly it would be a waste of time.  But your main argument throughout has been that the success of the games on the market is determinate of what players want.

What many of us are trying to explain to you is that we feel that WOW was representative of wht is normally called a fad.  Its one of those things that for some psychological reason becomes apeshit popular, sells like gang busters, and then 5 years later people wonder WTF they were thinking.

In a perfectly logical world, yes, your argument would be valid.  The reality is though that human psychology plays a large role, and human psychology is fickle and inconsistent and will randomly make weird decisions about what is good.

I can give tons of examples of things that the vast majority of society realizes was completely retarded and useless that sold like gangbusters that completely negates your "popularity/success defined as by number of sales/subscriptions = quality" argument.

Also, assuming your argument is valid, then it actually defends our point,  because thus far no game based on the WOW model has been even remotely as succesful.  Rift has done well, SWTOR appears to be one that will do well, but the problem with both is longevity.  Are people only playing it because its the only polished MMO content out there worth playing, or because they actually enjoy that style of MMO.  Only time will tell.

What? Did you just imply that the most succesful MMORPG of all time is a fluke? Stroke of luck? Listen, I don't care about WoW, but even I think that that is crazy.

You automatically take a stand that WoW is bad, and games like it are also bad. There is no reason to look down on those games. Many of those games were succesful: Rift, LotRO, AoC (after the launch dismal launch) etc. Your post is trickling with bias and you're trying to belittle that success.

The world is evenly split between those who pursue only the popular (Bieber) and those who pursue the ecclectic (terrible no-name indy bands) just for the sake of being "unique" rugged individualists.  One is a conformist, the other a poseur.  As "sins", I'd rate them approximately equal.

There's no right or wrong, there's just games.  Play what you enjoy and stop preaching.

Incidentally, argumentum ad numerum is a primary fallacy in either direction.

Originally posted by Icewhite

The world is evenly split between those who pursue only the popular (Bieber) and those who pursue the ecclectic (terrible no-name indy bands) just for the sake of being "unique" rugged individualists.  One is a conformist, the other a poseur.

There's no right or wrong, there's just games.  Play what you enjoy and stop preaching.

Incidentally, argumentum ad numerum is a primary fallacy in either direction.

C'mon. Did you have to use Bieber as an example?

Originally posted by Quirhid

C'mon. Did you have to use Bieber as an example?

You'd prefer GaGa?  Miley Cyrus maybe?

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Quirhid

C'mon. Did you have to use Bieber as an example?

You'd prefer GaGa?  Miley Cyrus maybe?

Why not Katy Perry, Rihanna, Foo Fighters, Eminem or other best sellers of this year? Miley is definitely not one.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Why not Katy Perry, Rihanna, Foo Fighters, Eminem or other best sellers of this year? Miley is definitely not one.

Hmm, last I heard she was still the highest grossing tour in the world.

Shrug, makes no difference to the point.  Sometimes people like what's popular.  Others instantly hate it because it's popular.  That's been the music world for at least the last 40 years.  (Looking at you, Donny Osmond)

One thing that I find interesting about these types of posts is that they seem to feel that it is the companies, the dev's that have changed the genre and not the desire of the players to change the genre. It was why Blizzard hired a few guys who had been hardcore Everquest players to oversee development of WoW and they decided to remove what most consider the heart of early MMO gaming, harsh death penalties, long travel times, forced grouping (Everquest), FFA PVP (UO) etc... and add in what they considered improvements, instancing, mounts, flight paths, instance travel, non FFA PVP etc... My personal feelings are that the genre has changed due to the desire of the playerbase to not want to camp for hours to bring down a boss, travel an hour on foot to get to the actual gameplay, be forced to LFG for an hour just to play the bloody game, thats no fun at all.... all the things that were put in the early games was all great on paper but once out in the hands of gamers many rejected these conventions and made their voice heard and the genre started to evolve into what we have today.

 

So now we have vets looking back thinking that the genre has been evolved by the games companies forcing this new world order upon us but I say no that is not true, Everquest started to break down the early conventions way before Blizzards WoW was known to exist. I read many many posts of Everquest, UO and AC vets bemoan that such and such expansion pack ruined their precious game, it was these things that started the genre evolving towards what we have today and the games did not really suffer they actually, in the case of Everquest and UO (after the Renaissance xpac), grew their player base. The modern day conventions or wiki's, third party add ons, AA and Talent calculators etc.. started way before WoW was released, Alakazam was started up when? 2000? you can not keep blaming what you see as the woo's of the MMO industry on a company and game that just made what they thought would be a fun MMORPG. Blizzard looked at all the previous games and how they were evolving and made their version, basically Diablo with a Warcraft skin, all their single player games had cartoon graphics and were easy to run on any PC's so no big conspiracy there, all their games are accessable so again no big conspirarcy there just a game company making an MMO version of what they had been doing in the single player arena.

 

A year or so ago I put up a thread that earned me the spotlight poster tag and it asked... "What made older MMO's harder than modern MMO's" and the answers that came out of that thread, presented by many a seasoned vet, were that the older MMO's were no more harder or deeper in gameplay than modern ones they were just more tedious to play, it is all in the minds of some vets that believe the opposite to be true and I'm afraid you have to really open up your memories and see that at the end of the day its was always the desires of the playerbase that changed the MMO landscape, it was the players that made and used quest trackers, better maps, threat & damage metres, gearscore calculators before even WoW was released and not these evil money grabbing dev's you so want it to be. 

 

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Quirhid

Why not Katy Perry, Rihanna, Foo Fighters, Eminem or other best sellers of this year? Miley is definitely not one.

Hmm, last I heard she was still the highest grossing tour in the world.

Shrug, makes no difference to the point.  Sometimes people like what's popular.  Others instantly hate it because it's popular.  That's been the music world for at least the last 40 years.  (Looking at you, Donny Osmond)

Yeah. I would love to say that people like competence artists but I had more than one girlfriend who asked me how I could know if I liked an artist first them I hear him/her, some people need to hear stuff 20 times on the radio to like it.

Still, Miley at least write her own songs and that is more than Rhianna and Gaga.

Myself, I prefer Rob Zombie & Tori Amos...

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Hrimnir

 

 

I think you've been pretty clear at driving home the premise that you're the "One True MMORPGer" and that anyone who races in a comfy seat isn't actually racing even though they're racing.

Your views on WOW grouping are pretty outdated, as all of my fastest leveling (and best-geared-while-leveling) characters predominantly group.  In fact my fastest levelled character spent like 95% of his time grouping.

 

This is exactly how I played WoW I grouped up far more than solo'd then when my small guild imploded and I was forced to solo I left the game shortly after as I became bored stiff with the game. Its such a falacy that WoW killed grouping.

In the days before MMO's, there was a wide selection of genre's to choose from in single-player games. There were hugely successfull games in each genre. However, the average Civilization fan was not automatically a huge supporter of Quake, BUT those Civ fans were not forced to play Quake because the Civ franchise had died...

 

I guess the gameplay of the "early" MMO's suited the people that liked simulation games better. But a they were also played by a vast number of players who hated the "virtual world" aspects like travel time and harsh death penalties. They played within those rules because they had no choice, there were no alternatives in the early days. Then WoW came along...

 

The complaints by the UO and EQ vets are mostly because the gaming industry has abandoned their preferred playstyle. They are the ones who have no choice in the current MMO market. Due to the huge cost of developing modern AAA MMO's, developers go for the biggest possible target audience, and that audience doesn't like "virtual world simulation" features. They want MAX GAME ACTION !

 

There is no "right and wrong" comparison between the classic MMO style and the modern "casual friendly" style. It's only a matter of personal taste. It is, however, patently clear which style makes more money. And that's where the development-dollar will be spent...

Originally posted by Hrimnir

Axehilt, im not gonna respond point by point because frankly it would be a waste of time.  But your main argument throughout has been that the success of the games on the market is determinate of what players want.

What many of us are trying to explain to you is that we feel that WOW was representative of wht is normally called a fad.  Its one of those things that for some psychological reason becomes apeshit popular, sells like gang busters, and then 5 years later people wonder WTF they were thinking.

In a perfectly logical world, yes, your argument would be valid.  The reality is though that human psychology plays a large role, and human psychology is fickle and inconsistent and will randomly make weird decisions about what is good.

I can give tons of examples of things that the vast majority of society realizes was completely retarded and useless that sold like gangbusters that completely negates your "popularity/success defined as by number of sales/subscriptions = quality" argument.

Also, assuming your argument is valid, then it actually defends our point,  because thus far no game based on the WOW model has been even remotely as succesful.  Rift has done well, SWTOR appears to be one that will do well, but the problem with both is longevity.  Are people only playing it because its the only polished MMO content out there worth playing, or because they actually enjoy that style of MMO.  Only time will tell.

You confuse the skin-deep featureset of WOW with why WOW was actually successful.

Blizzard next games are likely to be considerably different from WOW's playstyle, yet adhere to the same underlying design tenets which caused it's ridiculous success.  More than anything I say here, they'll prove to you that these tenets (including a focus on gameplay and eradicating player inconvenience or time-wasting) are the reason for Blizzard's rampant success. 

Blizzard chases after the fundamental way people have fun in games.  This isn't some passing fad, which is why they've been consistently successful.  The specific genres people have played over the years has changed, but the fundamental reasons they have fun in those games have remained constant, because they're psychological fundamentals.

Originally posted by Axehilt

I think you've been pretty clear at driving home the premise that you're the "One True MMORPGer" and that anyone who races in a comfy seat isn't actually racing even though they're racing.

Your views on WOW grouping are pretty outdated, as all of my fastest leveling (and best-geared-while-leveling) characters predominantly group.  In fact my fastest levelled character spent like 95% of his time grouping.

If you were measureing "fastest leveled" with /played, you should take in account that in WoW time spent in instances doesn't add to your /played time. (At least didn't when i played some year ago).

Originally posted by Axehilt

...

Blizzard next games are likely to be considerably different from WOW's playstyle, yet adhere to the same underlying design tenets which caused it's ridiculous success.  More than anything I say here, they'll prove to you that these tenets (including a focus on gameplay and eradicating player inconvenience or time-wasting) are the reason for Blizzard's rampant success. 

Blizzard chases after the fundamental way people have fun in games.  This isn't some passing fad, which is why they've been consistently successful.  The specific genres people have played over the years has changed, but the fundamental reasons they have fun in those games have remained constant, because they're psychological fundamentals.

If "Blizzard chases after the fundamental way people have fun in games", they've obviously missed the bus entirely, lol. That  bus was caught by Zynga long ago, and they now own the whole bus fleet. The reported 54 million regular users of Farmville apparently generate more revenue than the paltry 10-12 million WoW subscribers...

 

But then again, Farmville "is not a game", and the horde of users are not "fundamentally having fun in a game", amirite ?

 

If Blizzard are TRULY pursuing "the fundamental way people have fun in games", then their next "MMO" will have some heavy Facebook tie-ins, might even be browser-based (HTML5) and could most likely be played on tablets and smartphones... Watch this space for announcements of: "Angry Birds - The MMO" !

 

I'm sure EA-Blizzard would love to knock Zynga off their pedestal :D