WoW: Cataclysm still on target for a 2010 release
Are we learning the wrong lessons from WoW?
by Jennie Lees 
Feb 24th 2006 at 9:00AM
Gamasutra has published a
soapbox piece examining what WoW is teaching us about gameplay, and asking whether it's teaching us the right
things.The main points include the much debated "Time over Skill" mindset imbued in the endgame, the push away from self-reliance to group play, and the "You're either with us or against us" guild mentality. Finally, the extensive Terms of Use Agreement and its use in disciplining players is also brought up.
Not all of the lessons learned here are bad--there are real-life echoes of all of these points, and learning to invest substantial amounts of time in a task as well as how to effectively work in a group could be considered positive aspects of WoW. However, these four points are all fairly offputting to casual players, especially when those casual players reach the endgame.
Having played solo for most of 60 levels, suddenly a player learns that they're not going to be able to take part in much of the remaining content without a guild or group. They're competing for places in guilds or raids with those who have invested much more time, and thus have better gear. Bored, they turn to exploring the game world, and suddenly get banned for being in a place they shouldn't have found. Harsh lessons indeed.
Obviously, the "hardcore vs casual" debate has more to it than this; but in terms of the lessons taught by WoW, it seems there are two sides--one for those with lots of time and a popular guild, another for everyone else.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
goochoz Feb 24th 2006 9:34AM
Having a lvl 60, being guildless, and a casual player, wow is pretty much over. There is no reason to even play the game when you your in this situation, as I am in the same boat.
Mike Feb 24th 2006 9:34AM
First of all, I see we're doing stars now. Awesome. I love receiving recognition from strangers. IT gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling deep inside :)
I call B.S. on one of the bloggers also being the top "contributor" with five stars. I'm out for blood Christopher Linton. You have been warned...
Second, WoW can't be all things to all people. At some point "casual gamers"-- myself included-- will have to come to grips with the fact that the hardcore gamers on their server will be better than them because they invest more time, have better gear, etc. I don't know what's so wrong about that. If you find it bothering you, think hard on the fact that these hardcore gamers devote hours and hours to endgame content and, as such, miss out on hours and hours of real life content. Collecting gear in-game carries a certain amount of achievement, but clearly the priorities of the casual gamer lie elsewhere. That shouldn't bother you. It's simply a difference in wiring between the two classes of gamer.
When some level 60 gets off his high horse (literally) to gank me in Hillsbrad, a few things go through my head...
1) !@#$
2) Well, grats to him, he clearly earned all that swag...
3) Oh my god... How long do you have to sit in front of a monitor to earn all that swag?
jake Feb 24th 2006 10:10AM
Very insightful article and very true. The first MMORPG that takes those thoughts to heart will do quite well for themselves.
I've always thought stuff like molten core was a bore. Same boring crap and once you have the basics down it almost feels like it takes no skill. Just stand there and use the one skill button you are allowed to use over and over and over and...
"Hard" at end game should mean you are forced to use every trick in your book extremely well, or die. Not.."every mob is immune to half your attacks so you don't even have to bother knowing how to use them at all, plus you have 39 other people backing you up so really nothing is that hard".
WoW high level is screwy thats for sure. Totally agree that the whole time=rewards is lame. All the wow fanbois that love this are probably the mediorce types that couldn't do anything on their own, so they like the idea that they can grind endlessly without skill and still get a reward. And we all know the root behind the mechanism is not "fun gaming" it's "more months of service paid to blizzard", so don't try to back it up as if it's some brilliant gaming mechanic folks.
Anthony Feb 24th 2006 10:15AM
Guild Wars differs from WoW in a lot of the aspects that the article talked about. Having played both for quite sometime, somehow I enjoy WoW more. Tho I do agree that once I hit level 60, it's pretty much over. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Cort Feb 24th 2006 10:17AM
Last night I had a guildmate quit the guild and the game over this exact reason. He solo'ed most of his way to 60, got there, was there about a week, then quit in frustration.
This actually makes me very sad, because it denies the fact that there is depth to this game beyond the simple "raid or quit" mentality that is prevalent. I've been 60 for almost 6 months I think, and less than a month ago hit UBRS for the first time. I've belonged to a small guild the entire time. When I hit 60, I found myself playing alts more, but ended up realizing that there was plenty to do on my main. I PvP'ed. I gathered materials and gained faction with the Thorium Brotherhood and Timbermaw Hold. I went on occasional instance "raids" into the smaller high-end isntances. I took part in the various ingame holidays that Blizzard has put out.
To me, there's so much that can be done at endgame besides raiding, it's just that raiding is clearly the highest profile endgame activity. But, if you play the game with the mindset that fun is the goal, not loot or level 60 or High Warlord or whatever, you'll be okay.
A couple more things (yes, I know I'm longwinded)... For one, while some things ingame are definitely a "time over skill" sort of thing, I've noticed that the more skill you have, the less time things take. For instance, my guild is a coordinated group, using TS for raiding and having a set leader who helps by handing out orders for what the raiders should do... By having this, each person is able to use their class more effectively, and the better we work together, the more skill we have, the faster we run UBRS.
Finally, my guild does raids, and has found a guild Alliance to facilitate our advancement into MC, ZG and beyond... While most member accounts have 1 level 60, most players that are on day-in, day-out are sub-60 and make up the heart and soul of our guild. I hope this always stays the way it is. Endgame raiding and casual play are not at odds with each other, if you have the right mindset. Yes, raiding takes coordination and focus, but if a casual player can learn to adapt, they can experience raid content once or twice a week, and still maintain their relaxed style of play otherwise.
jake Feb 24th 2006 10:33AM
what's really dumb is there is no need for it. Look at it this way.
If a 40 man raid takes 4 hours to organize and then go get a few epics...
A solo instance could be made that is just as hard (it would actually be harder), takes the same amount of time and rewards an epic.
A 5 man could be made that is more fun (cause its 5 man and not a raid) that takes the same amount of time, is just as hard (harder prolly since it's not a raid) and rewards and epic.
There is no reason they could not do this. Yet they don't. Lord only knows why.
I'd love to see at least 1 trial instance where you have to take yourself through solo. The instance could be the same but with differnt mobs depending on your class. Chosen to force you to make the most of your abilites while solo. So it takes skill and good knowledge of your class. It should reward an epic.
Pete Feb 24th 2006 12:44PM
I concur, it is sad but true. My first character from day one shot to 60 in 2-3 months or so. My accomplishments since include a few MC runs, and that's about all. I've been bouncing around more guilds than i have fingers, and left many because the only way i had/have the opportunity to deck my char out, is to go by their raid schedule.
I don't believe in raid schedules. I play when i have time to. Which is not a steady amount every single week. (and thanks curve-based weekly pvp system, i love competing against full bloodfang/nemesis/warlord etc. it's my favorite.)
I do enjoy item rewards from reputation, for instance stormpike, but they pale in comparison to BWL, endgame, etc.
So, yet again the ritualistic gamers, in which i can no longer afford to be, are slamming their epics into my characters head, as i prick them with whatever i could find, promising myself not devoting my life to the craft.
PS. Player Vs Player should be renamed Player vs Players, you now need a raid to even touch BG's. If you don't roll with the big guns, you and your character are nothing no matter how good you actually are. And farming gets old. Fast. I'm gettin kinda sick of this game.
PodMonkeys Feb 24th 2006 1:28PM
I like jakes idea about the solo instances for lvl 60's and the bit about 5 man raids.
It would be interesting to see if they could make a set of instances that change according to the size of group you send in. ie, If you solo it, it will be different than if you go in with 5. The drops per mob should still be the same, but since the number of mobs change with the number in the raid (or solo), you could still walk out with an epic whether you solo or group.
I think this would not only help with soloers who lose interest in the end game, but also with wait times to go into an instance. You wouldn't have to wait for those last 5 people to show up to make 40, you could just go with 35.
elizabeth Feb 24th 2006 2:12PM
The idea PodMonkeys brings up about dungeons scaling for the number of players is actually something that was very nicely implemented in Blizzard's Diablo games but never made it in to Warcraft.
But it's also a bit more complicated in Warcraft, which is sort of designed around the ability of multiple classes to compliment each other in various ways. Let's look at crowd control as an example - lots of classes have lots of different ways to crowd control, but most of them are limited in some way. Druids can root monsters (but only oudoors), priests can shackle monsters, (but only undead), mages can polymorph (but only humanoids), rogues can sap (but only humanoids, I think?), warlocks can banish (but only demons and elementals), and I'm sure there are several that I haven't thought to mention. So what do you do when trying to design content for a single player? If the area is outdoors, it favors druids, if it's full of humanoids, it favors rogues and mages, if it's full of demons or elementals, it favors warlocks. To make it equally difficult for a single player of any class, you couldn't just tweak the number of spawns and their level (as Diablo did) - you would have to provide completely different types of monsters, and throw every class a challange that they're suited to deal with. And if the monsters are completely different, then the setting has to be completely different (also consider that druids have specific outdoor-only abilities that help them). And if the setting has to be completely different, you practically need a different instance for each class. And once you're at that point, you really can't scale the dungeon up or down for more players or less players. (This is all true unless you really are fond of the generic Diablo dungeon - of course they could make a generic castle setting and fill it with various types of monster depending on the classes entering, and maybe more open courtyard areas if a druid is entering. But then the dungeon can't have any set story or lore, because it's always changing. And if there's no set story or lore, it's difficult to have specific quests for it - especially since the dungeon would have to be vastly different with two players than with just one, and different again with three instead of two.)
The fact that not all characters are archetype fighters (as they were - basically - in the Diablo world) and have differing abilities that are immensely useful in some circumstances and completely unnecessary in others makes the idea of a scaling dungeon immensely complicated, though the idea sounds very appealing on paper. Just a thought (though it's turned into a rather lengthy one).
Spoon Feb 24th 2006 10:49PM
I don't think it would take too much to get rid of the "Time over Skill" mind set. Next time Blizz is making a new instance or whatever they should just stop thinking with such a linear Mmorpg mentality. A little bit of creativity would go a long way. Like, Solo Class-Specific instances as mentioned earlier. Throw in some skill oriented gimmicks and wala, problem solved. Uh, quick examples:
Mage solo instance: While fighting the boss you have to keep some monsters sheep'd in order to prevent them from crossing a line, or something. Every guy who makes it past the line with latch on to the boss and make him stronger.
Warrior solo instance: You have to make it through the whole thing without letting your rage drop to zero. No rage will cause your health to start dropping. Have a mob to build it up, then throw in some platforming. Take too long jumping to the other side and building your rage back up and you're dead.
Throw in some bosses that aren't just "my stats vs. your stats" kinda deals. Give the boss randomly picked weak points. Maybe after doing a certain amount of damage to the boss, he falls down for a second. Giving you barely enough time to run over to a conviently placed cannon and fire it at him.
So maybe those kinda sucked, but you get what I mean. Just make it feel more videogame-ish.
obo Feb 25th 2006 12:15AM
I can't wait until I hit 60. The resources from just soloing things as a 60 can net me enough gold to hold contests, stage races, run an in-game publication. Here's hoping I don't get ripped up too much for doing such carebear crap with my time and level.
jake Feb 25th 2006 5:04AM
Spoon came up in 5 seconds what blizzard couldn't in 5 years. Either that's just sad, or they should hire more people like Spoon.
hkc Feb 28th 2006 11:00PM
First off, let’s get the obvious out of the way – the honor system is broken, and we all know it.
Now, onto the more critical issues with this article. The majority of the objections raised about what the game is teaching are endemic in the genre – especially a massively multi-player game.
The author’s definition of fair is slanted to a game that is one individual against another – not a team game, nor a mainly co-operative game like WoW. All of his objections are based on a single individual picking up the game with no saved information about his progress. This is anathematic to the RPG genre, which is all about character development and the acquisition of wealth. Fighting games, platformers and first person shooters are all “stateless”, i.e., everyone starts out the same. My only caveat on this is that it is possible to have some advantage because your machine is more powerful or your connection is faster, etc. This is not the case in his example (I assume) because they are using identical consoles. So, if we use his definitions of fair, there is no fair way to play an RPG.
1,2 Time Vs Skill.
This is another misunderstanding of the basic genre. A role playing game is designed to remove the skill from the activities, and allow the player to take on a fantastic role. The very point of the game is to spend time gaining rewards – the only skill is optimizing your time to get these rewards, and learning how to use them effectively. Now, perhaps the author is placing undue value on the acquisition of the rewards as the value of the game. WoW is a pastime, a way to while away hours, not to generate value. The only value generated by WoW is entertainment – to let people derive pleasure from skills they do not have. By his measure, a 90-minute movie is better than a 2-hour movie, because you get the “reward” sooner.
The lesson to be learned from this is that hard work pays off. While this may not always be true in the real world, it is just as true that being naturally talented (because apparently skill does not come from hard work?) will bring success.
3,4 Group Vs. Solo
Now, while I agree you cannot get really far all by yourself, you do not need a big guild to get fairly far. The only instances that really need a big guild to be successful are the 20+ man raids like ZG, MC and BWL. And on many servers, guild hold "Open" raids for these large instance in which anyone can partcipate. I ran my warrior to 60 (and got half of my class set) without a guild. Pick up groups can handle any of the lesser instances. It will demand some co-operation, but the way most role-playing games work is that no class is self-sufficient. Playing the game “alone” is of course a valid way to play – but encouraging people to group to run various instances is part of the multi-player aspect.
On another note, I would like to point out that while 40 so-so physicist may not have come up with the theory of relativity, a number of so-so physicist did check the theory, came up with experiments and validated the math. Thousands of so-so physicists designed and implemented the CERN installation – even Einstein admitted he stood on the shoulders of giants. I would argue that if little Johnny in Idaho is a genius, his genius will come. Maybe with some hard work and a lot of time.
The lesson that this teaches is that co-operation and mutually supporting roles can bring great rewards. One man cannot build the Empire State Building – or even a modern car.
5 – Guilds
I half agree here, in that a player should be able to participate in many guilds and communities. I would argue, however, that any guild that was as isolationist and insular as the ones he describes (and fears) would reject anyone who was the member of another guild. And remember, there is no limit to the number of characters you can play.
6 – Terms Of Service
This is a mix, because the ToS bans things that I think are detrimental to the game (stupid casinos, e-baying items, harassment) I do think they go to far. However, I have been in online games that are not moderated, and they are terrible.
The one this that I do agree with is what WoW is teaching – however, I think he is spinning the lessons because he does not appreciate them.
Lesson 1 – Hard work generally provides tangible rewards. Commitment and drive are important traits.
Lesson 2 – Great accomplishments often require co-operation.
As a purely pragmatic note, most people do not find spending a lot of time for little or no reward entertaining. Finding people with (or somehow teaching people) esoteric joystick waving skills is harder than finding people who can make the 1 through 0 keys works every 1.5 seconds. More people means more money for Blizzard. Of course, they don’t care how much you play, just that you pay their fees – in fact, it is most efficient for them if you play as little as possible so they don’t have to buy hundreds of servers.
So, in conclusion, I think that what the author really wants is a skill based online game with a chat room. I believe there are a number of the – maybe Battlefield II? Criticizing WoW for the “Lessons” it teaches is like criticizing an English teacher (in an English class) for teaching grammar and not trigonometry.
After reading his article, I do have a hard time figuring out what the author does play WoW for. I find that when you try to make something all things to all people, you generally fail – WoW is what it is, a co-operative multi-player role playing game that in general deprecates skill until the very end game (try taking out Baron Rivendare without a skilled healer and tank and you will see what I mean – I don’t care about their gear). I guess one of the things that sums it up best is a comment I read on these very boards –
“I like WoW because I don’t have to be the hero.”