I hadn't really planned to examine the 2004 box art of World of Warcraft so deeply, but take a look at this portion. It's lacking in detail, but I think you'll see the same thing I'm seeing:

When WoW was released, I had a hard time convincing my girlfriend to switch. One of her comments was a lack of classes and in a related note she pointed out that there was a race ("with horns") on the box that wasn't in the game. I looked at this little screenshot on the back and brushed it aside as a helm.

Now hindsight is 20/20, I see a female Draenei casting next to a Tauren. Maybe they were meant to be female Tauren at some point? I don't know, I'm not going to read too much into it other than when the game was released, what was in this image didn't make it into the game.

That's not a critical observation, much the reverse.

Yeah, I'm using this in my leverage against the 'polish' catchphrase. To me, this is what polish actually is, Blizzard cut things from their game as late as the box art going to press. They stuck with what was working and they shelved the rest for a later date.

Is this any different from other games? I don't think so. Blizzard had a smaller audience examining their pre-release, plus their PR team knows how to keep things under wraps. There's this myth that they had no beta NDA, but they segmented concurrent betas for PR: the more public one with no NDA, the closed-beta for real testing and even a friends-and-family server in a state between alpha and beta.

Even WoW's public test servers now are notorious for not so much testing (because invariably, most every mistake on PTR will make it to Live) as advertising upcoming changes.

That's the sort of misdirection that Age of Conan, Warhammer and other upcoming MMORPGs are lacking. Hide what you're working on, trickle out the good info and save the hype for what's actually going into the game.

It's pretty hard to do, because people rarely recognize what it is.

Blizzard wasn't perfect at it either, they had features anticipated that never arrived, but they also didn't have the same massive community of anticipating fans that have followed in WoW's wake.

Sooner or later I was bound to take this snapshot, because it's been nagging at me. This is my 2004 World of Warcraft retail box:

A whole lot of people either have selective memories, or they arrived on the scene later, but the release of WoW was not 'polished'. It had numerous bugs, abysmal server stability, barely passable Endgame and virtually none of the faction-PvP features that were highlighted during pre-release.

Sieges of course, were not included. Nor was the "mighty Dragon of Blackrock Spire", although Nefarian did arrive 7 months later.

It was still a great game.

Accolade it for what it was and what it became, not what it wasn't.

Found a link to Blizzard's forums which led to this:

Sure to be removed quickly, because I don't recall a Blizzard employee that has ever referenced another MMORPG on their forums before. They corporately maintain some kind of fog-of-war over that stuff.

It's perfectly sane and reasonable of course, you can't expect people to play their own game much, if at all, but they've got an interest in these kind of games so there has to be an outlet in competing products. There's a bunch of other normal reasons, too many to list really.

Much of the fanboi trash talk seems so silly when (during the trade-shows especially) it's probably usual for the devs, CMs and employeees of these companies to sit down together over coffee to discuss what they have in common. Many of them have worked together in the past, the talent is related and interwoven this way. You can catch competing devs smiling at each other on discussion panels and they're honest smiles at that.

I've always liked Eyonix, even back when Warlocks saw no love and as the Warlock CM rep he was too busy enjoying his Mage. =P

I found the link for this on the AoC forums in a thread with the sensationalist topic "Even Blizzard employees play AOC", right underneath "AoC is the Ralph Nader of MMOs" and right above "Is Funcom Gutlessly Caving In To The Prudes..?" which just goes to prove that regardless of any differences in the games themselves, the general forums are exactly the same.

All of the examinations over WoW's success gets pretty tedious at times. Some people are still baffled by it, many have mistakenly taken it as everything Blizzard does is golden. It makes me weep for the designs of future games, because the WoW-cloning (and itself a clone of EQ) is going to get tired really fast.

Want to know the real secret? I'm not just rambling here, flat out I'm completely positive this is the very core of WoW's breakthrough mass-market success:

WoW was the first MMORPG that wasn't ugly.

That's it. All of it. Right there. Go ahead, list a bunch of other features, they're important too and some of them no doubt keep people playing, but that reason right above is the only one that matters when it comes to explaining how WoW captured such a huge audience in the first place.

The MMORPG genre was all set to take off, it had since before it's conception, virtual worlds are a blessed idea straight from the gods themselves. It didn't have to be done right, that's bonkers, it just needed to be pretty. I'm painting with broad strokes, there are parts of other MMORPGs that were nice to look at, but they've been horribly inconsistent in their styles until WoW. Blizzard's art direction was notable at a glance.

Never underestimate the ability for screenshots to sell a game.

Presentation is everything.

I didn't come up with these tenets, they've been widely known since the dawn of videogames and probably could have been theorized before they existed. We're a visually obsessed species. Sure, gameplay is king once the game is in the hands of the gamers, but in order for gameplay to sell games a namebrand needs reputation first. Blizzard had that too mind you, but seriously, it wouldn't have sold a tenth as much if it was as ugly as EverQuest.

I'm thinking the same thing with Spore. A few months back, I was wondering if it may flop even after all the hype and press. Then the creature creator came out and there's no doubt to me that Spore will be a runaway success, because you can't make a creature that isn't cute. Even the phallic ones. Damn cute.

It even affects why we leave one game for another. I had all sorts of gameplay beefs with WoW after 3 years of Blizzard's blandification of their best property, but in the end the main reason I left for Age of Conan? I was sick of staring at elves, dwarves and orcs. Evem the best graphics can feel shallow after a long while and I've had my fill of WoW's cartoonish style.

Feel free to keep debating the gameplay features tho. =)

With an audience of 10 million, what's so bad about World of Warcraft?

Last night I defended Richard Bartle's stance that MMORPG games could be so much better. He uses World of Warcraft as his example in a rambling sort of way, but this part is key to me:

Forgetting the specific example of Kharazan for a moment, there's the pissing on the players quote and it's bang on the money. Exact. I don't need to pull a bunch of Tigole faux pas quotes from Blizzard to tell you that there's a hamster wheel grind intentionally inherent to these games and WoW specifically.

When WoW was released, it was heralded as the solution to the grind in MMORPGs. What happened? It wasn't, that's what. Blizzard applied bandaids like removing XP loss on death, but then kept the base model of Everquest with "The Vision" still at its core, refining it even deeper in their Endgame as time went by. They discovered very quickly that it was cheaper to stretch content than provide as much as players wanted.

The defining part of "The Vision" is that the game's progress traps the player in, making them continue playing not just for fun, but for rewards that lead to further rewards.

It's no mistake that these games are often labelled as addictive, because from an outside perspective there's wonder that people will play past their enjoyment. Gordon Walton has summed this up:

Just like Everquest, mark my words, if Blizzard continues to inflict tasks on players without enough corresponding fun, it will slowly move from accolades to vilification. I've become jaded about the game myself and I encounter more and more other players that feel the same way.

Now I'm going to *gasp* say something positive about WAR. Mythic has focused much of their development efforts on reducing the grind. They've specifically catered to those that want satisfying PvP combat from level 1 up. They've improved many of the "oh god, not this again" moments in questing. They are in the good space that Blizzard was 4 years ago. If this stuff bugs you but you still want to play MMORPGs, then WAR may be your best tonic.

But I do wonder, with this push to improve, why are they still on the base model of Everquest? The same goes for Age of Conan, where the attitude at Funcom is that of course you have to start with that, it's the base right? Thank goodness for the awesome combat in AoC.

As much as I'm enjoying these games, I think evolving on the EQ model is an uphill battle against what its core design principles stood on. Standing up and questioning the trappings is something players should do if they truly want to see the grind go away.

The MMORPG playing field has suddenly become very competitive.

I've heard from various friends and acquaintances who've just been invited into the Warhammer Online Beta, plus I suspect Mythic is handing out select invites to bloggers and press. Apparently Blizzard isn't the only one that sees Age of Conan's release window as fair game to kick up some interest.

WAR is looking bright.

Mythic deserves the attention mind you, by most accounts WAR (Warhammer Online) looks slated to kick some ass.

I distinctly recall Marc Jacobs saying in an interview they were shooting for second or third position in the market, but that was before the EA buyout. Now, I'd put good money that they're aiming to dethrone WoW as the top MMORPG. It will take them some time to pick up the steam, but I think WAR can actually do it.

It would be fitting really, given the borrowed look-and-feel of the Warcraft universe.

Age of Conan goes over the top.

Age of Conan has gained a lot more traction than expected, it's definitely a success and I think what Funcom fully intended to be a niche game has broken into the mass-market.

As a player, I'm pleased that Funcom will have significant leverage to improve the game. It has more than its fair share of rough edges to round out, although I think the core gameplay is solid.

Reaction within my own guild is good. There are some grumblings about a few shortcomings, or changed expectations, but each of these is tempered with happy cries of surprise at other details and features better than expected. Mind you, I think we're Funcom's target audience, because WoW has bored us and WAR doesn't seem our thing.

Funcom has Fun in their name, but of course, fun is subjective.

As Age of Conan approaches its release date, I'm noticing the MMO blogosphere is questioning whether it will perform on launch.

Syncaine @ Hardcore Casual outlines the most important part of all this in "Too WoW-like, a positive or negative?": The Fun Factor.

When WoW was released, it had plenty of problems. It wasn't a clean launch by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I'd say WoW was downright messy even compared to most MMOs, but.. and here's an all-important but... it was still a good launch. Why? Because it was clearly and uninhibitedly fun in a mass-market way. It was obvious within the first couple of weeks that WoW was going to be a resounding success, that it was going to surpass just the Blizzard fanbois and EQ migrators, it was going over the top.

Not too many people remember the problems associated with WoW's messy first few months, because why bother dwelling on it when it no longer matters?

Tycho writes eloquently about WoW's state of dominance, better than I could have put it.

This doesn't mean that there isn't room for other games, in fact I think there's plenty of room within WoW's shadow.

It doesn't matter whether there are bugs, or even if the launch is messy, a game.. any game makes or breaks on the fun factor. The question you should ask yourself when you're deciding to buy a game or not, to invest your dollars and your time, is whether you think you'll enjoy yourself.

Just like I'd done with WoW a few years back, I've intentionally skipped the Beta opportunities with Age of Conan. These are two games with so much potential that I don't wish to ruin my experience testing a beta that can be wildly different from the full game.

I've played enough betas (especially MMO betas: Ultima Online, Everquest, Guild Wars, etc.) to expect frustrations and disappointments that can all be avoided with a bit of patience for the actual game.

As expected, I'm seeing a variety of first impressions from the current 'Open' Beta of Age of Conan, that's very reminiscent of beta info leaked from World of Warcraft before its initial release. None of those reviews are fair of course, whether glowing praise or doom and gloom. You just cannot rate a game based upon its beta, no matter how close to release it is. At the most, you can get a general impression of gameplay.

The WoW comparison:

If WoW had to survive on the merits of its release (let alone beta), it would have failed miserably. Penny Arcade actually withdrew their 2004 Game of the Year award due to WoW's lack of server stability. The real test that Blizzard passed was in halting the game sales (yeah, they did that), refunding time to players and addressing the stability issue, although it took them months. At the time, WoW had sold just over 600,000 copies of the game, which was a great achievement but a far cry from the millions they have now.

As a player in 2004, I was thrilled to be playing WoW. I rarely commented on the bugs & problems (first day: fell out of the world, got stuck numerously in flower-picking pose, disconnected from server continuously) since I had expected them. I expect Age of Conan to have its share of issues too, in fact I'd assume more, it's designed to a much higher standard of visuals compared to WoW (which was hardly state of the art in 2004, let alone now).

The real test for any MMORPG if you ask me, is twofold:

• Is the gameplay fun? This is subjective of course. What's fun for me isn't necessarily for you, but there are some commonalities to mass-market fun. WoW certainly meets most player's standards, otherwise it wouldn't be so popular. Age of Conan's PvP beta gained some glowing reviews, though personally I'm more interested in PvE fun so I'll just have to wait to see, but what I've seen during development looks good and the RPG world certainly suits me.
• Are they a standup company? If there are problems, will they fix it? Or will they just cave, count their losses and dump the whole thing? I don't think I need to give examples of companies that are not what I'd consider standup in the MMORPG field, some of them are notorious and have either outright mismanaged their game developments or have let good games die on the vine.

  Blizzard is clearly a standup MMORPG company, they pulled their socks up when they needed to. I'd say Funcom's experience with Anarchy Online shows they are legit and worthy of faith too.

Funcom doesn't want a repeat of their nearly disastrous Anarchy Online launch. Proof that they're working to avoid that is in their current beta, which is clearly a stress test complete with heavy-duty debugging software. The downside is the impression they're leaving on the beta-testers while they try to push the client and servers to the breaking point, because as expected, things are breaking. That's the nature of the beast.

I'm pretty stoked with the pending release of Age of Conan, from what I've seen this game will suit me better than any that have come previously. I'm really looking forward to watching the game mature as it goes along.

Hell, I'll just be thrilled to play a fantasy MMORPG with no elves!

I woke up this morning with an urge to play a typical MMORPG encounter. Specifically, that moment of initial aggro with a monster as you approach it.

I haven't been playing any MMOs since December, but over the years I've logged a great deal of hours in these games, so it's bound to invade my dreaming subconscious now and then.

It is telling that the urge was for a solo PvE experience. I'm one of those rare people that others view with disdain on this particular point: I don't mind the "grind", or to clarify I think repetitive gameplay is good as long as it's entertaining. IE: Shooting baddies in an FPS (first person shooter) is repetitive, but it's also fun.

To further clarify, I dislike level disparity and other elements of The Vision, where grinding for advancement is forced in order to keep pace with your friends. IMHO this method of entrapment is why Blizzard didn't institute "Sidekick" style level mechanics or instant-advancements to endgame. Although I think Blizz will eventually shortcut players to capped levels as they move their grind further into dungeon raiding progress.

In other words, I don't mind grinding for some reward or another, or even for the pure sake of repetitive fun, but I'd also like to team up with my buddies without them having to grind equally to match me.

~Ahem~

--Back on the waking dream topic, I suppose I'm ready to jump into the fray again. I've been anticipating Age of Conan in a very relaxed way, not bothering to apply for betas (and taking a lax approach to updating our guild site, which I'll soon change gears). But I'm ready to play now, I just have to wait a few weeks.

This old story never seems to stop. Wired has revived Corrupted Blood once more, with a new spin from even more researchers, this time with a Terrorism angle. My original post was written while the unusual event was in progress, then I followed up again about it last year as it bounced back into the news.

I'm not sure if people ever fully understand this a few years later, but the Corrupted Blood plague that hit WoW servers in 2005 was an unscripted, unplanned accidental event that took on a life of its own. It was only meant to be a short debuff as part of an encounter in the Zul'Gurub instance, but it spread out across to the most populated areas of the game and lasted for days, killing unsuspecting players in its path.

I wonder how much information any new researchers have to go on? Although most players at the time experienced it over the course of a few days, few witnessed the first accidental outbreaks which occurred in the wee hours of the night. Of course, there were many intentional recurrences that followed.

It really was the most interesting thing that has ever happened within WoW. Or any MMO for that matter.