WoW and 4e - where's the beef?

[Hereticus]

Define video game. ET for the 2600 was a video game.

Start with WoW, which seems to be the most popular one.

It also seems to be the one demonized most by players who do not care for the new edition.

Regarding "ET for the 2600", I have not yet seem anyone compare 4.0E to it... but I could be wrong.

In fact, your post was the first mention of it I have ever seen.

And no, 4E is not a poorly put together exercise in mindless tedium that frustrated thousands into tears.

I do not think that either, and I am glad I did not see anyone else say anything that.

Have you?

I also don't think it caused the producing company to bury truckloads of the product either.

Darn, I would like to know where they dumped it.

 

[Hereticus]

Ok, why? And what solution would you suggest? Would you prefer that 4E feature some way for all classes to fill each different role, or just allow a number of other roles? What problems do you think that might cause?

In my opinion, 4.0E handles the situation very well, by encouraging role playing by the players.

My Wizard has even functioned as a leader.

No, he can't inspire or heal, but he can lead.

And before I forget, how would you say the situation was different in prior editions?

No, they had role playing also.

 

[tmatk]

WoW is the most popular RPG on the planet by a long shot; heck I think it's the most popular anything. Wouldn't any game designer be a fool not to take some ideas from it?

 

[Bumbles]

Start with WoW, which seems to be the most popular one.

I'd say I'm a bit miffed by how you moved the goal posts on me, but I'm not, I'm actually miffed at how you didn't acknowledge that the question you asked was way too ambiguous to answer. Sorry, but "video game" is something you're going to have to define, or others will, and their definitions will come up so many different ways that it's kind of pointless to ask.

Best to avoid that problem in the first place.

In fact, your post was the first mention of it I have ever seen.

For shame! Your ignorance will be your downfall! You must learn the history!

I do not think that either, and I am glad I did not see anyone else say anything that.

Have you?

Sadly, yes. I usually take it as a sign to ignore them though, since they're usually full of hot air.

Darn, I would like to know where they dumped it.

Alamogordowas the site of the ET dumping. No, you don't want to bother looking for copies. If you want to play it, there are far easier ways.

In my opinion, 4.0E handles the situation very well, by encouraging role playing by the players.

My Wizard has even functioned as a leader.

No, he can't inspire or heal, but he can lead.

No, they had role playing also.

I respect that you're trying to answer the questions I asked, but they weren't general ones, but specific ones to somebody else, and so your responses aren't exactly helpful. Sometimes you can respond for somebody, I know I have, but I don't think it really worked so much in this case.

 

[Hereticus]

WoW is the most popular RPG on the planet by a long shot; heck I think it's the most popular anything. Wouldn't any game designer be a fool not to take some ideas from it?

Of course not, but we were not discussing the financial impact of the decision.

The topic seems to be... from the perspective of a player, do you like the new direction of D&D?

In recently joining a 3.5 game, I missed my at-will attack spells and cantrips.

However Silent Illusion and Rope Trick save the entire party from certain death a few times, and Expeditious Retreat saved my butt (Longstrider saved the Cleric).

The perfect game would've saved all the good stuff from 3.5 and added it to all the good stuff added to 4.0.

However this is an imperfect world... so I do my best to survive with what I have.

 

[Hereticus]

I'd say I'm a bit miffed by how you moved the goal posts on me, but I'm not, I'm actually miffed at how you didn't acknowledge that the question you asked was way too ambiguous to answer. Sorry, but "video game" is something you're going to have to define, or others will, and their definitions will come up so many different ways that it's kind of pointless to ask.

I believe that I have been fairly consistent in generalizing all video games under the demonized term WoW, and in stating that I have no experience with video games. Realizing that those that are not video game players probably have very little exposure to those games on the whole, it would be logical to keep the questioning to only the most popular and well known games.

I respect that you're trying to answer the questions I asked, but they weren't general ones, but specific ones to somebody else, and so your responses aren't exactly helpful. Sometimes you can respond for somebody, I know I have, but I don't think it really worked so much in this case.

The terms Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller have game-specific meanings, based on the combat role of the character. The classes were designed in a specific way, and that is what they do best. An AD&D Thief would not make a good Tank, and a 4.0 Wizard would not make a good Defender or Leader. However he could lead, defend or strike.

 

[Bumbles]

I believe that I have been fairly consistent in generalizing all video games under the demonized term WoW, and in stating that I have no experience with video games.

Which makes your decision to try to frame things in those terms all the more bewildering. What does a video game feel like to you? Me? I know there are way too many different video games with way too many different feels for that question to be meaningful. Even the same game can be looked at in different ways by different people. I know this is true of WOW, for example.

So I gave you an example of a video game, and I really don't see how 4E feels like ET for the Atari 2600. To somebody else, well, it might feel that way. And heck, there may be some deluded soul out there who thinks it's the pinnacle of game design.

Poor thing.

The terms Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller have game-specific meanings, based on the combat role of the character. The classes were designed in a specific way, and that is what they do best. An AD&D Thief would not make a good Tank, and a 4.0 Wizard would not make a good Defender or Leader. However he could lead, defend or strike.

Again, you're really no closer to addressing the questions I asked than you were in the first place. Since you didn't even posit an opinion on what I was responding to, I'm not even sure what your answers mean. Maybe you should just leave it be, and let the person I originally asked answer or not. I think it'd be less confusing.

 

[Iron Sky]

I've played a bit of wow, enough to get an 80, a 70, random alts in the various 10s of digits. Mechanically, there are similarities to wow, mainly in that they tried to balance the classes so they are all roughly comparable to each other at the same level and in the class/role delineation.

I'm totally burned out on WoW and have no real desire to play it again, but that doesn't change my opinion of 4e since PnP RPGs are so different from MMOs that there's no comparison in my book. Nothing like being "just another greatest hero in the world."

I think the changes between 3.5 and 4.0 were for the better; I'm enjoying playing and DMing 4e far more than I was 3.5, even at higher level - no, especially at higher level.

 

[Hereticus]

Which makes your decision to try to frame things in those terms all the more bewildering.

Poor thing.

Again, you're really no closer to addressing the questions I asked than you were in the first place.

OK, you win.

 

[Hereticus]

I've played a bit of wow, enough to get an 80, a 70, random alts in the various 10s of digits.

Wow, I have absolutely no idea what this means...

Mechanically, there are similarities to wow, mainly in that they tried to balance the classes so they are all roughly comparable to each other at the same level and in the class/role delineation.

Which agrees with my first point, on the drive for balance.

Both good and bad... and different.