Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 3861778" data-attributes="member: 10095">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.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.WAR is not casual-friendly. It's designed for more hardcore players, which the developers have made clear in their podcasts and interviews.As for superior PvP design... not really... the only thing that differentiates from WoW, in terms of PvP mechanics, is collision detection.I didn't knock it. I pointed out that the claims of revolutionary PvP gameplay are seriously overhyped. It has the same basic combat system, composed of the same elements. It isn't a real-time system, it doesn't use per-pixel targeting, it doesn't require you to do much more than stand still and fight, like WoW.If it isn't appealing to the hardcore market, then why is it all of the "Waiting on Warhammer" people harp on about how it's going to be the hardcore gamers' PvP MMO?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.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.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.If it was more casual-friendly than WoW, it would beat WoW. WoW won because it provided the most casual-friendly MMO on the market and merged it with a very pleasant and consistent art style. WoW grew the genre in a way that no other game had done. WAR has no indications of growing the market, and plenty of indications of doing what other MMOs do: shuffle around pre-existing MMO players.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.A KoTOR MMO would probably succeed much more than the original SWG.</blockquote>

Verification