Mourn said:
Warcraft 3 outsold Diablo 2.
Diablo 2 set a sales record in 2000, by selling 1 million copies in 1 week. By the six-month mark, it had sold 2.75 million copies.
Warcraft 3, on the other hand, sold 4.5 million preorders, and another million in the month that followed. Warcraft 3 alone pushed the Warcraft franchise ahead of the Diablo franchise, since Warcraft 1 and 2 didn't sell nearly as well as any of them.
The Diablo series, including Diablo 2, has sold 17 million copies. That's considerably more than any combination of Warcraft figures that I'm aware of. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II
Mourn said:
This means nothing. The same crowd harped out City of Villains would kill WoW, how Vanguard would smash it, and how Guild Wars would suck away all the PvPers. None of those games came even close to what these people predicted, and I guarantee that their predictions for Warhammer are equally wrong.
No it means you're not capable of understanding basic English. I never said that they were "right" or that WAR would "kill WoW" (I mean wtf are you talking about?). I said that they were "aware" of it and that this could potentially help it.
Mourn said:
WAR is not casual-friendly. It's designed for more hardcore players, which the developers have made clear in their podcasts and interviews.
This is an OUTRIGHT LIE. There is not a single podcast or interview which says ANYTHING AT ALL like that. I don't know where you heard this, but unless you point to what you're claiming, you're just a liar. They have REPEATEDLY GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to STRESS that it's a casual-friendly game. There is really no basis for your claims in the least.
Mourn said:
Also... PvP is not what draws most casual gamers, which is why a lot of successful casual games put you in an environment more based around cooperation than competition.
So clueless! RVR is ALL ABOUT COOPERATION! Did you ever play Dark Age of Camelot? It's about cooperating with the rest of your Realm to defeat the other Realm. WoW vaguely simulates this from time to time, but with WAR the COOPERATION is the focus. That you're competing with enemy players in your cooperation makes it more complex and interesting and stops it being "mean bastard"-type PvP. It's not PvP, indeed, it's RvR.
Mourn said:
Ummm... not really.
Skirmishes - Random World PvP. No different than PvPing in any open world zone in WoW.
Battlefields - World PvP objectives. No different than fighting over Halaa or the towers in Terokkar Forest.
Scenarios - Instanced PvP objectives + NPCs. Wow, sounds just like a Battleground.
Campaigns - Invading Enemy Lands. This is the only really different thing in this, since WoW allows city raids, but doesn't place any reward on it.
Are you intentionally spreading misinformation, or are you just wrong a lot?
Skirmishes - No, in WoW there are NO REWARDS for World PvP. In WAR, there is XP and renown (which is much more meaningful than the tiny amounts of honor one gets from killing someone in WoW).
Battlefields - No different? Hahahahaha. Uh, yeah, pretty different. Similar ideas, far better implementation. They're in EVERY ZONE IN THE GAME, not a few high-end zones, and they're worth VICTORY POINTS, not just some lame PvE bonus.
Scenarios - Yeah, BGs are a good comparison, only with 40 different ones instead of 4 (literally), with a semi-universal faction system and none of this "I need tokens from X!" idiocy, and they GIVE XP as well as renown and the quasi-faction. The XP alone is a pretty huge difference.
There are no NPCs in the Scenarios, you're working on outdated information there.
Campaigns are HUGELY DIFFERENT to city raids. City raids are simply little things anyone can do, just run in with 40-odd people, kills the boss mobs, run out. Campaigns require to build up VICTORY POINTS from the battlefields, scenarios, and skirmishes, and use win SPECIFIC battlefield objectives and scenarios in order to progress, and ultimately you get to sack the city and run away with stuff - this is indeed the game's most "rewarding" form of PvP (but there are alleged to be very rewarding forms of PvE too).
Mourn said:
Until the game actually comes out, this statement cannot be fully verified. I played during the early Beta, and it wasn't very casual-friendly. But then again, WoW wasn't very casual friendly at first, either. It's possible, but given the precedent set by Mythic's first PvP game, Dark Age of Camelot, I don't think so.
I'm afraid I don't believe your beta claims at all, because you seem utterly ill-informed about so much of the game. Did you log in once and have a look round and then log out or something? Maybe one of your friends has a beta account, but I have difficulty believing you do.
Mourn said:
WAR has no indications of growing the market, and plenty of indications of doing what other MMOs do: shuffle around pre-existing MMO players.
Uh, did I say otherwise? No. MMORPGs that shuffle players around instead of growing the market are the ones developers need to be leery of, aren't they? Ones that grow the market benefit everyone and are thus not so much of a threat. Ones that shuffle players around are when you need to be careful.
Mourn said:
And are you honestly saying that there's no way to argue with the hype that the developers are laying on thick? The WAR hype seems to be about as bad as the Daikatana hype was back in the 90s.
Wow, that's just childish nonsense. The devs are talking about a game that they're actually making, and not "hyping it" in the least. Comparing to Daikatana is just silly trolling, frankly. If you are trolling, btw, as I suspect, good job.
