Doppelganger, although I must commend you for at least attempting to use a cited argument, it only suits to destroy itself. None of the sources you provided directly stated, or even mentioned that Warcraft 3 was an MMORPG. They all say it was an RTS with RPG elements. And the sources prove that what they meant by a change in direction was a balancing of genre elements, because there were too many RPG elements in an RTS game. I would cite everything you stated, but I've got more interesting and pertinent things to do than listen to your idle banter.
The point wich you are failing to see is that WoW and Warcraft 3 where the same game, this is fact, dont dispute it cause it makes you look ignorant.
At first I didn't give a shit about this, nor did I even really address they're "dual-identity", but since you're wrong, I'll attack that theory just to spite you.
Quote from "mobygames.com" »
WarCraft III originally debuted at ECTS 1999 as a much different game than the final product. The original idea was to make it a RPS, Role Playing Strategy game, incorporating both RTS and RPG elements together. Although some RPG elements are still present, many were cut. Originally you exclusively controlled heroes, with your extra units being "attached" to them. The game was in more of a 3rd-person perspective (which you can see if you zoom the camera in all the way), and you would explore with your hero (camera fixed on him), completing quests and defeating your opponents. However, due to various reasons (one being that the game was turning out to be very similar to their MMORPG, World of WarCraft which was being worked on as well), the camera angle was scaled back and the game was turned into more of a traditional RTS with some RPG elements.
This implies that these were two separate projects being developed simultaneously. It's not that they're the same game at all, as they are not.
This article is the oldest one on Gamespot I could find and based on the kind of game elements they're talking about, they're obviously referring to an RTS. Not an MMORPG. World of Warcraft was announced a year later after the huge success of the RTS.
And by the way, if you really think it's so true, then how come I cannot find it anywhere? It seems to me that you're just speculating bullshit.
Is there something wrong with ladies?
Or do you just want to prove your masculinity? (not much of a man if you need to make sexists remarks to prove it IMO)
I was implying that you lack balls. Get with the program, you punk bitch.
I take it you wont debate me on this one mutton?
So there really was no point in what you said.
Yea your a good debater :rolleyes:
How fucking stupid can you be? That was one out of several paragraphs and just because one of them doesn't revolve around you that means you win? Sounds like you've got some self-confidence issues.
Whats the difference between that and a normal game? woops i got you there didnt I?
You didn't get me on anything. What is supposed to classify as a normal game, as this is new terminology in this thread. Way to put words in my mouth, jackass.
Are you trying to lecture me about games? Just look it up, Warcraft 3 was going way to much rpg so they remade the game into Warcraft 3 and WoW. (so that they could go even further in the rpg aspect with WoW)
Just look at graphics, dont they seem awfully the same?
They said it had too many RPG elements. That's not the same as an MMORPG. That means that there was too much RPG and not enough RTS, as it was originally intended to be an RTS with a few RPG elements. And last I checked, it was an RTS, not an MMORTS, so this whole MMORPG implication is bullshit.
But anyways, nice cop-out. The way you tried to forget why we were talking about franchises really covered up the fact that you lost that argument. Except we all know you were wrong.
It doesnt cover anything, believe what you must believe, whatever, your just to stubborn to see my points, arguments and facts.
Facts? You just pulled a titling formula out of your ass and confused genre for franchise. You're ignorant as hell.
No i'm treating them like franchises, your treating them like a story or a name or a setting.
Oh my god. You're so horrible at this. You're saying that WoW can't be part of the Warcraft franchise because it's an MMORPG and not an RTS. Thus, you're classifying them by genre. Therefore, you couldn't possibly be talking in terms of franchises.
No they dont you dumbass, you think they wouldv named WoW Warcraft 3 if they wanted too? (your still not getting WoW WAS Warcraft 3)
Obviously not, as there is a Warcraft 3, and it is the RTS, as opposed to World of Warcraft. I don't give a shit if WC3 was originally slated to be an MMORPG. That's not what I'm talking about.
Thats not the point, stop being dumb.
Ladies first. *that's you doppel*
WTF are you talking about? THATS NOT THE POINT, dumbass.
(but it is as of today the standard of Blizzards MMORPG's, or do you want to debate that? lol)
If you weren't the dumbass, you would have noticed that I wasn't saying that in reference to anything you said in particular. I was addressing something that was urking me. Way to go, dumbass.
You think your some kind of filosophical genius? LOL, give me a brake, or better yet give yourself a brake because your filosophical thinking SUCKS.
For the record, not only did you spell philosophical wrong, but you used the wrong word for "break". "Brake" is what is in your car.
Anyways, it's not a philosophy you dumbass. It's common sense. Why would they make a sequel to a game they can release expansions and patches for to update and improve the game? Not only that, but considering that the game is continuous, there is no ultimate goal to be achieved, thus there is no ending.
I never said both games cant tie in with eachother, fact remains Warcraft is Warcraft, WoW is WoW.
If WoW isn't Warcraft. It wouldn't be in the title.
So if I'm not addressing any of your points, then you should take care to clarify your points. Although I doubt you'd get anywhere with that, as it wouldn't make any sense, anyways.
Quote from name="dictionary "franchise"" »
A brand name under which a series of products is released.
Warcraft is in the name, World of Warcraft, therefore, it has the brand name, thus making it part of the series of products. Therefore, it's part of the franchise.
(For the record, Doppel threw the first punch. Just saying that in case someone tries to point the finger at me.)
I have a wireless DSL connection and I get the same kind of connection as any wired person would. Apple Airports are pretty stable for that kind of stuff. Even if you use a PC in that network. But would you should be worrying about more is internet leechs. Protect your connection with a password so assholes can't leech your bandwidth.
No your not understanding, Warcraft or Diablo arent just a name or story or setting, its a total package.
Correction, they're franchises. You're treating them more like genres than franchises.
One of these things in the total package is the rts formula of Warcraft and the hack&slash (single/multiplayer) formula of Diablo.
WoW isnt part of that Warcraft formula, WoW is part of the WoW formula (wich may or may not share things with Warcraft) and subsequently a "Diablo MMO" would be WoD or part of the WoD formula, not Diablo formula thus not a Diablo game but a WoD game. (there is a difference in name for a reason)
Okay, listen: Blizzard's naming process is not an equation of any sort. They name it as they see fit. Don't oversimplify it like that.
Besides, World of Diablo is a horrible name. Just so everyone knows, World of ___ is not a standard title for MMORPGs. Don't let this guy mislead you, as he is very wrong.
Yes WoW 2, part of the WoW franchise.
You didn't even read the whole sentence did you? How can you make a sequel to a game that doesn't end? Especially when it is part of a larger plot (you know, the one that ties into entire Warcraft franchise, as it is part of it).
World of Warcraft is not a franchise in itself. It is part of a franchise.
People complained of lag in 8 player games with one necro's minions...
Given the different vision perspectives of D2 vs WOW, you would hardly be able to see anything on the screen with 2-3 necros plus 90 minions running around you.
Its pretty obvious "mechanics wise" there would be issues with that many minions in a diablo MMO...
I may only have a small understanding of how game coding works, but I do know something about how it's processed.
At that point it's graphics processing. If the graphics in the game are upgraded by a reasonable amount, then the average computer would be able to handle it. And that's also programming. Depending on how much of the game information is stored on the computer and how much is sent through the internet. The less that has to be exchanged through that series of tubes, the less of a chance of lag there will be.
Besides, who's to say that D2 is comparable to WoW. Two completely different games at two different periods of time.
But the fact remains that you can't know something if it hasn't been proven.
For example, a necromancer can have 10-30 minions. That amount has never been used in an MMO. So would a necro be somehow "limited" to 1 skeleton??? That pretty much ruins the class.
How would you know if it works if it has never been used? What works in a game depends on the game mechanics, and since we know nothing of the game mechanics of this so-called world of diablo, no one can make that judgement.
Playing D2 on Battle.net was very close to being MMO quality. If it were to be an MMO, all you would have to do is scrap the join game screen and make the diablo world one big one. But the world would have to be larger of course. Establish a flexible in-game economy and all that good stuff that has become standard in an MMO.
Nope its not, i already explained to you why (if WoW would be Warcraft it wouldv been Warcraft 3, but if you payed attention you will notice there is a Warcraft 3 and it isnt WoW)
That's a horrible line of thinking. It doesn't have to be sequenced by number to be a part of the franchise. Warcraft 1, 2, and 3 are the RTS games. And to dub WoW as Warcraft 4 would not be logical. Plus, that would mean that there could be a sequel to the MMORPG, which is essentially without end.
In case Blizzard decides to annex this website, I think the reservation of the diabloiii.com domain is in order. After all, this seems to be the trend for Blizzard game fansites, and it seems logical to keep this up. Just throwing it out there.
It's a lot easier to make sweeping generalizations about things and people. And that's why people do it. Because they don't bother to think beyond what they want to believe.
So how about the updated races? After looking at the Protoss units, I was disappointed to see that they scrapped the dragoon. Now I have to cope with two fairly similar units instead.
Although I consider Protoss to be the beastliest race, and I think they should end up on top at the end of SC2, the Terran are my second favorite. With all this extra balancing that's going on, I find solace in being able to say that zerg rushing will not be an end-all of a battle.
There's been a lot of this stuff popping up. But as likely as it sounds, there is always the slight chance that it isn't in the making and they're making some sort of side-project. But I like to believe it's Diablo 3
0
0
0
He keeps arguing I keep thrashing. That's how I roll.
0
This implies that these were two separate projects being developed simultaneously. It's not that they're the same game at all, as they are not.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warcraft3reignofchaos/news.html?sid=2569124&mode=previews
This article is the oldest one on Gamespot I could find and based on the kind of game elements they're talking about, they're obviously referring to an RTS. Not an MMORPG. World of Warcraft was announced a year later after the huge success of the RTS.
And by the way, if you really think it's so true, then how come I cannot find it anywhere? It seems to me that you're just speculating bullshit.
I was implying that you lack balls. Get with the program, you punk bitch.
How fucking stupid can you be? That was one out of several paragraphs and just because one of them doesn't revolve around you that means you win? Sounds like you've got some self-confidence issues.
You didn't get me on anything. What is supposed to classify as a normal game, as this is new terminology in this thread. Way to put words in my mouth, jackass.
They said it had too many RPG elements. That's not the same as an MMORPG. That means that there was too much RPG and not enough RTS, as it was originally intended to be an RTS with a few RPG elements. And last I checked, it was an RTS, not an MMORTS, so this whole MMORPG implication is bullshit.
But anyways, nice cop-out. The way you tried to forget why we were talking about franchises really covered up the fact that you lost that argument. Except we all know you were wrong.
1
Facts? You just pulled a titling formula out of your ass and confused genre for franchise. You're ignorant as hell.
Oh my god. You're so horrible at this. You're saying that WoW can't be part of the Warcraft franchise because it's an MMORPG and not an RTS. Thus, you're classifying them by genre. Therefore, you couldn't possibly be talking in terms of franchises.
Obviously not, as there is a Warcraft 3, and it is the RTS, as opposed to World of Warcraft. I don't give a shit if WC3 was originally slated to be an MMORPG. That's not what I'm talking about.
Ladies first. *that's you doppel*
If you weren't the dumbass, you would have noticed that I wasn't saying that in reference to anything you said in particular. I was addressing something that was urking me. Way to go, dumbass.
For the record, not only did you spell philosophical wrong, but you used the wrong word for "break". "Brake" is what is in your car.
Anyways, it's not a philosophy you dumbass. It's common sense. Why would they make a sequel to a game they can release expansions and patches for to update and improve the game? Not only that, but considering that the game is continuous, there is no ultimate goal to be achieved, thus there is no ending.
If WoW isn't Warcraft. It wouldn't be in the title.
So if I'm not addressing any of your points, then you should take care to clarify your points. Although I doubt you'd get anywhere with that, as it wouldn't make any sense, anyways.
Warcraft is in the name, World of Warcraft, therefore, it has the brand name, thus making it part of the series of products. Therefore, it's part of the franchise.
(For the record, Doppel threw the first punch. Just saying that in case someone tries to point the finger at me.)
0
0
Correction, they're franchises. You're treating them more like genres than franchises.
Okay, listen: Blizzard's naming process is not an equation of any sort. They name it as they see fit. Don't oversimplify it like that.
Besides, World of Diablo is a horrible name. Just so everyone knows, World of ___ is not a standard title for MMORPGs. Don't let this guy mislead you, as he is very wrong.
You didn't even read the whole sentence did you? How can you make a sequel to a game that doesn't end? Especially when it is part of a larger plot (you know, the one that ties into entire Warcraft franchise, as it is part of it).
World of Warcraft is not a franchise in itself. It is part of a franchise.
0
I may only have a small understanding of how game coding works, but I do know something about how it's processed.
At that point it's graphics processing. If the graphics in the game are upgraded by a reasonable amount, then the average computer would be able to handle it. And that's also programming. Depending on how much of the game information is stored on the computer and how much is sent through the internet. The less that has to be exchanged through that series of tubes, the less of a chance of lag there will be.
Besides, who's to say that D2 is comparable to WoW. Two completely different games at two different periods of time.
But the fact remains that you can't know something if it hasn't been proven.
0
How would you know if it works if it has never been used? What works in a game depends on the game mechanics, and since we know nothing of the game mechanics of this so-called world of diablo, no one can make that judgement.
Playing D2 on Battle.net was very close to being MMO quality. If it were to be an MMO, all you would have to do is scrap the join game screen and make the diablo world one big one. But the world would have to be larger of course. Establish a flexible in-game economy and all that good stuff that has become standard in an MMO.
0
0
Great joke by the way...because racists are classified as a group of people of a certain color.
0
0
0
0
Although I consider Protoss to be the beastliest race, and I think they should end up on top at the end of SC2, the Terran are my second favorite. With all this extra balancing that's going on, I find solace in being able to say that zerg rushing will not be an end-all of a battle.