Talk:World of Warcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article World of Warcraft was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Blizzard task force.
 
Note icon
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Spock of Vulcan, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 25 January 2011. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

Goals

  1. Achieve GA status
  2. To edit as necessary in order to improve the article,

See the Warcraft task force talk page on preceding in this venture.

Removed source and statement - restored[edit]

"The game was designed to be an open environment where players are allowed to do what they please." was removed along with its source. While it is informal and quite broad, it does seem both accurate and a decent summation of that the article says. Perhaps the interested editor would be interested in proposing new wording, rather than deletion. I have looked at the sentence several times and would love to see a more formal statement of the "open world" rather than "pathed world" popular in many games. But I can't come up with a sourced, clear, short, way to say it that I like any better. Unfriend13 (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The linked article doesn't say that at all. The linked article, written in 2001, based only on an early, pre-release Blizz demo, is also - by necessity - full of conjecture and inaccuracies (eg "Blizzard did not disclose how the game would deal with multiple player characters attempting to take the same quests, but did make it clear that World of Warcraft would not involve players having to compete for quests or wait in line for them, or wait around for monsters like Ironbranch to respawn..." Er, that feature clearly did not make it into the final product, and has only just begun to be introduced - in a limited fashion - on the Timeless Isle in the MoP expac!)
The phrase that follows in the Wikipedia article ("Quests are optional and were designed to help guide players, allow character development, and to spread characters across different zones to try to avoid what developers called player collision") is also very misleading and does not represent its cited source. The source actually says the opposite: ""All of our systems are designed to avoid what we call 'player collision' -- when players fight over limited content or generate their own grief-oriented fun for lack of anything better to do. World of Warcraft is rules-oriented and goal-oriented." He quickly moved to clarify, "We don't put players on rails or anything -- players are entirely free to play World of Warcraft any way they want. What we've done, though, is created systems, guides, and rules that make it more fun and easier to play around our attractions rather than trying to figure out ways to grief other players." That's why the majority of player actions in the game will revolve around quests" (my emphasis.) The current way that these sources are being represented implies that this is a truly open world, a nonlinear sandbox game, that allows emergent gameplay (think Eve Online.) This might appear at first glance to be a question of semantics, but I think it is quite important that the game isn't described in a way that implies it is something which it quite clearly is not, supported by a reference which has been subjected to a dose of WP:SYNTH.
The original phrase used ("The game was designed to be a open environment where players were allowed to do what they please alongside optional quests that players can complete to advance further in the game") was added on 4 November 2007 (diff). It was - appropriately - tagged as {{citation needed}} on March 2008 (diff). The citation was then added by a subsequent editor diff who clearly skimmed or failed to comprehend that which was written: it absolutely does not say that quests are optional, it does not state that this is an open world nor does it say that there are nonlinear options available. It does, however, describe in great detail a very linear quest chain that pathed a player from a starting NPC to a miniboss/elite kill (and clearly states the linearity: "a general sense of clarity and purpose--no nonsense, no fumbling around.") BlackberrySorbet 09:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Decent article ("The Merits of "Sand Box" versus "Theme Park" MMO's") describing exactly how WoW is a theme park world rather than an open world here: "The “Theme park” MMO’s focus on creating an exciting thrill ride for players that will take them to see all the exciting sights of the game world and ensure that they are constantly provided with assignments to complete, so they are never bored or confused as to what they should be doing next. It really is very much like a real life theme park, where the planners have thought about the path through the park that visitors are going to take and ensured that they are constantly presented with cool rides for them to try out. The premier theme park MMO is of course the almighty World of Warcraft... Further refinements and developments have been added in the following expansions, and it's hard to argue that WoW is not the most polished MMO out there in terms of providing a playing experience that is constantly guiding the player and keeping a great flow in the game... The strengths of the theme park MMO's are fairly evident. They provide gamers with things to do in the game and a sense of purpose for doing them. In a good theme park MMO you are taken from one interesting experience to the next and you are always seeing new surroundings and trying new things. It's a great ride. Until the end. And that is the major problem with theme park MMO's. By design they are fairly linear in nature. You provide a string of fun and enjoyable experiences to the player, but eventually the player is going to come to the end of that string and then what?... It's a problem that no theme park MMO has managed to crack so far. WoW provides a fair amount of different activities to do once you hit the maximum level, with daily quests, PvP battlegrounds, raiding and instancing, but there is no escaping that this is still just forcing the player into repeating the same activity over and over again while they wait for the next expansion pack." BlackberrySorbet 09:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
wp:TLDR. I see "players are entirely free to play World of Warcraft any way they want"... which... seems to be exactly what the text says.Unfriend13 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
And yet...it isn't. Well done for repeating the same fail as the original editor who added the ref: WP:CHERRY. BlackberrySorbet 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll let some other editor pursue this. Removal of sourced statement, merits a warning, IMO.Unfriend13 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear: There are 2 ways to build MMOGs... free and pathed. WoW, like most modern games follows the "free to do whatever you want"... if you want to follow a quest path, you can... or you can just zoom around killing things that present themselves, mining, skinning, herbing, crafting, standing in town buying/selling/crafting/yacking. Within the world, generally one can simply run/fly wherever one wants... one need not follow a specific path through the world from town "a" to town "b". There are notable exceptions. In no-fly areas, one must follow defined paths... in dungeons, generally, also. Before flight, one must follow defined paths between zones... and generally be restricted to roads. Between expansions and continents, there are specific paths that must be followed. Thus: I have not been ready to attack the "do whatever you want" statement that was removed by the editor above. The short form is correct. The long form is ... llloooong and pointless.Unfriend13 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(reset indent) The "source" you keep mentioning says absolutely nothing of the sort, as explained in the discussion you insisted upon above but then couldn't be arsed to read. A source for a subsequent statement (that quests are "optional") - the bit you cherrypicked above - is being misrepresented. It is actually Blizz designer Jeff Kaplan explaining that the "majority of player actions revolve around quests", and that this was done in order to guide players rather than allowing them to generate their own content which might result in griefing. I'm open to a rewording of the section, but the short version describes a sandbox game, which this isn't. BlackberrySorbet 15:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See straw man fallacy. The editor has constructed a straw man "it claims this is a sandbox game!", attacked the strawman that exists only in the editor's mind, then removed sourced content. The content should be restored. Adding an the opinion the editor holds might be appropriate, with sourcing.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Warcrafts decline[edit]

Shouldn't there be at least a part of this article that illustrates the massive losses WoW has taken in the last year or two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.223.103 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No, because the game still maintains the highest market share of users in the MMORPG genre. Whilst it doesn't have the same number of subscriptions that it did in 2009, its position as the largest is still accurate. Calling the loss of subscribers over the last few years 'massive' is not a Wikipedia:NPOV which is what the wiki operates on. If one wanted to present a decline in subscriptions, that is fine, but describing it as 'massive losses' is simply incorrect and biased. Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that perhaps simply 'decline' considering it still holds the most subscribers of any subscription based MMO, is a more neutral way of putting it than 'massive decline'. I wouldn't say that the term 'massive' is incorrect or biased as falling from 12million to eight million in two years is a subscriber loss of one third. I would call that substantial at the very least.
Perhaps an section outlining the loss of subscribers in recent years and the potential consequences of being a subscription based MMO considering the recent trend toward free mmos/buy to play mmos would be more neutral and arguably relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.223.103 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That's the thing - YOU don't get to call it substantial or not, and neither do I. That's Wikipedia:Original_research and wikipedians don't make the call on that. That's why we use sources with Wikipedia:Verifiability and have a whole Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch so we can avoid weasel words like 'massive'. A neutral statement like those mentioned earlier are the way to go. Justin.Parallax (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The topic has been written about extensively and recently in RS:
Clearly, WoW isn't dead and it isn't dying - but it is changing - dramatically, some would argue - as a result of declining subscriptions. BlackberrySorbet 10:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
WoW, and everything else that "lives", is "dying". Moving on from this philosophical truism which certainly needs no mention, it makes sense to include, I should think, something like... a peak of "x million in q x of year y subscriptions now stand at..." in the lead. The massive size and rising-and-falling nature of subscriptions is very telling for the industry. As mentioned, this is widely mentioned in the trade press and perhaps somewhat in the mainstream press. At some point it seems likely that traditional subscription games will fade away or transform into the newer forms. This probably deserves covering in the body... which is required if it is to be added to the lead... wp:LEADUnfriend13 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Fix link rot of citation #107, HHOSR Roundup: March, 2007[edit]

The link on citation 107 has rotted. The HREF needs to be changed from http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2007/04/hhosr_roundup_march_1007.html to http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/hhosr-roundup-march-2007

Citation 107: Ron Bowes (April 18, 2007). "HHOSR Roundup: March, 2007". Symantec. Presteel Pour (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Sing 08:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor™ Beta Test Begins![edit]

The page says this is still in alpha. When it's been in Beta for over a week. I suspect no one cares, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:254E:7469:D169:5459:4B8F:4CB1 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)