Is World of Warcraft still hopelessly addictive?

[Gligarman2]

I have heard many things about World of Warcraft. I got horribly addicted to it as a child. I have heard many things about how it uses techniques to get players hooked, even to the point of neglect of family in some circumstances. Thus, I have avoided it. However, I have heard that Cataclysm and Mists of Pandaria have made the game more fun to play, removing grinding elements and adding much of a sense of story to the game. Is the game less time/brainpower sucking as well? Help from fans, please!

[pffh]

It's no more or less addictive than any other game.

[Anteros]

It's no more or less addictive than any other game.

I don't think that's true. There are certainly a lot more people addicted to it than any other game out there.

If we're being literal, then of course it's not actually "addicting" but for the purposes of this conversation...I'd say yes.

It's certainly lost some popularity, but if you were addicted to it before and are worried about relapsing, I would just stay away.

[Hiro Protagonest]

*grumbles*

WoW hasn't been good since vanilla. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2saAgaJ6p54)

[Domochevsky]

"The game is too user friendly to be any fun" ...good stuff. :smallsigh:

(WoW is WoW is WoW. It just has become more... uh, "pop culture", as it were.)

[The Glyphstone]

WoW does not have any sort of secret malevolent addiction-creating protocols to 'get people hooked', and it never has. The tiny handful of people publicized as becoming so addicted their lives or families suffered were sensationalized specifically because they were so rare.

If you were addicted to the game as a child, stay away from it. The game hasn't changed how it functions, that indicates you're just susceptible to becoming addicted to WoW's particular brand of activity-reward conditioning.

[Traab]

It is no more addictive than any other mmo. Honestly, I find the first addiction is the worst. When I first played everquest I was hooked and hooked BAD. Like, 36 hour long marathon sessions bad. Then I had to quit for awhile. When I came back I didnt have anywheres close to the enthusiasm I used to. Same for WoW. I have quit and come back a few times, each time my desire to play has lessened. I still enjoy it, but I honestly dont care much if I miss a few days here and there.

[Gligarman2]

WoW does not have any sort of secret malevolent addiction-creating protocols to 'get people hooked', and it never has. The tiny handful of people publicized as becoming so addicted their lives or families suffered were sensationalized specifically because they were so rare.

If you were addicted to the game as a child, stay away from it. The game hasn't changed how it functions, that indicates you're just susceptible to becoming addicted to WoW's particular brand of activity-reward conditioning.

Honestly, I kind of suspected that. I must be kind of susceptible to it. How come I was never hooked on similar games, such as RuneScape?

[Androgeus]

*grumbles*

WoW hasn't been good since vanilla. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2saAgaJ6p54)

Erm I raided as a non-prot warrior... Not past Onyxia but still.

[Tengu_temp]

Honestly, I kind of suspected that. I must be kind of susceptible to it. How come I was never hooked on similar games, such as RuneScape?

I'd say it's because WoW is a good game, while Runescape is anything but.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'd say it's because WoW is a good game, while Runescape is anything but.
Yeah, any Skinner box (that is to say, most modern MMOs) is only as good as the reward you get for pushing the button.

[tigerusthegreat]

I wouldn't say WOW is any more addictive than any other game....what I would say is the blizzard team is excellent at pushing gear and challenges up in sequence so you feel a strong need to keep playing just to get the next purple.

To quote a certain fast-talking austrailian....its all about numbers, and getting bigger numbers to defeat the enemy numbers.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'd say it's because WoW is a good game, while Runescape is anything but.

Yeah. WoW has fetch-quests. Runescape has fetch-quests that send you across as much area as they can get away with (i.e., the monsters aren't too high level), with lots of backtracking, and the combat and grind is absolutely awful. You're also stuck in isometric view, so don't think you're going to get any pretty landscapes.

I see no redeeming features. Free? It takes time.

[TheSummoner]

WoW only lingers on because of a snowball effect. WoW has a massive playerbase - If your friends play a MMO, they likely play WoW - so any new player to a MMO is likely to pick WoW. It became so big initially part because standards for such games were lower when it was released and mostly because it had a pre-existing fanbase from the RTS games.

What does it do well?

Gameplay? Click a number button and an ability goes off. Minimal need to aim or actively dodge or play an active role whatsoever.

Graphics? Accessable to most people regardless of hardware but nothing special.

Story/Characters? Don't make me laugh. The RTS games could pull off a good story, but now it's just Kung Fu Panda Island Adventure. "We were there. Then we went over there. But SOON we shall be going... OVER THERE. To a land of somewhat offensive asian stereotypes where for no reason whatsoever, the people who live there will join BOTH sides of a war that has nothing to do with them, declaring civil war against themselves."

Blame the MMO format if you like, but I personally believe that there's nothing about a MMO that prevents it from genuinely being a good game on its own merits... Just laziness on the part of the developers who would rather design a good treadmill than a good game.

[Zen Master]

Is World of Warcraft still hopelessly addictive?

As compared to what, exactly? Like - television, maybe? Cigarets?

No. Not at all. Fun, like all sorts of enjoyment, can be habit-forming. This is true of WoW. But calling it 'addiction' is completely without basis in reality.

[The Glyphstone]

Story/Characters? Don't make me laugh. The RTS games could pull off a good story, but now it's just Kung Fu Panda Island Adventure. "We were there. Then we went over there. But SOON we shall be going... OVER THERE. To a land of somewhat offensive asian stereotypes where for no reason whatsoever, the people who live there will join BOTH sides of a war that has nothing to do with them, declaring civil war against themselves."


More like Kung Fu Panda, if it was rewritten by a collaborative effort between Stephen King and HP Lovecraft. I followed the story reveals out of offhand curiosity, and was surprised how dark Happy Panda Land actually is for people who take the time to play the game and explore it.

Wow's gameplay and complexity is quite out of date. It's their writing teams that keep people playing as much as their coders.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Gameplay? Click a number button and an ability goes off. Minimal need to aim or actively dodge or play an active role whatsoever.
Yeah, that really is the sticking point. Totalbiscuit predicts the future of MMORPGs to be like Dark Souls: There's items and levels and stuff, but player skill also plays a role. That is where WoW is really showing its age.

Story/Characters? Don't make me laugh. The RTS games could pull off a good story, but now it's just Kung Fu Panda Island Adventure. "We were there. Then we went over there. But SOON we shall be going... OVER THERE. To a land of somewhat offensive asian stereotypes where for no reason whatsoever, the people who live there will join BOTH sides of a war that has nothing to do with them, declaring civil war against themselves."

Pandarens have been around for a looooong time. Every expansion, there has been a part of the fanbase saying "we want Pandarens!". Now of course, there's a part of it saying "Panda people and martial arts? It's Kung Fu Panda! Come up with something of your own!".

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah, that really is the sticking point. Totalbiscuit predicts the future of MMORPGs to be like Dark Souls: There's items and levels and stuff, but player skill also plays a role. That is where WoW is really showing its age.

Pandarens have been around for a looooong time. Every expansion, there has been a part of the fanbase saying "we want Pandarens!". Now of course, there's a part of it saying "Panda people and martial arts? It's Kung Fu Panda! Come up with something of your own!".

WoW's legendarily Unpleasable Fanbase is another issue entirely.

[Seerow]

Gameplay? Click a number button and an ability goes off. Minimal need to aim or actively dodge or play an active role whatsoever.



Honestly? That's what I like about WoW. I hate the current trend of games towards hybrid action/fighting games. I'll take a traditional RPG over that 9 times out of 10. In fact the reason I resisted trying WoW for the longest time was the fact that everything did happen in real time, and that you had to move and react with your abilities nearly instantly. At the time I was playing a turn-based MMO called Dofus that I enjoyed at least partially because mid fight I could alt tab and do something else while other people took their turns. When I finally did try WoW, I found it slow paced enough for my tastes, but there's no way I'd play something like Devil May Cry-MMO Style.

[TheSummoner]

Wow's gameplay and complexity is quite out of date. It's their writing teams that keep people playing as much as their coders.

Their writing is little more than poor excuses to get the player characters to go to point A and fight enemy B. Usually through "lulinsanity". It's hard to give a lot of depth to player generated characters, but WHY does the player character (or his/her) faction CARE about happy panda land? What possible reason do the happy panda landers have for joining EITHER faction, much less BOTH at the same time. It's a conflict (if you can even call it that with all the teamup then backstab then teamup, backstab, etc) that has nothing to do with them.


Yeah, that really is the sticking point. Totalbiscuit predicts the future of MMORPGs to be like Dark Souls: There's items and levels and stuff, but player skill also plays a role. That is where WoW is really showing its age.

Indeed. While I like RPGs... Stats and itemization and all that... It needs to be more than press button, get muffin. Make the players aim their attacks. Make them time abilities for maximum effect. That sort of thing. Make the gameplay genuinely fun.

Heres something I've always used as a measurement... Multiplayer ALWAYS makes a game better simply because doing a thing with friends is always better than doing it alone. A great game is one that (among other things) is still fun to play on your own.


Pandarens have been around for a looooong time. Every expansion, there has been a part of the fanbase saying "we want Pandarens!". Now of course, there's a part of it saying "Panda people and martial arts? It's Kung Fu Panda! Come up with something of your own!".

And yet the expansion didn't come around until the success of Kung Fu Panda.

I played WC3. I know all about the pandas on Illidan's blades and the secret character during the BE campaign in Frozen Throne and etc. They were around as an easter egg. As something that was there but was never gone into indepth. Something that never played a major role. Tell me with a straight face that Kung Fu Panda didn't have any effect on Blizzard deciding to release Kung Fu Panda Island Adventure... Or have their Pandas do Kung Fu.


Honestly? That's what I like about WoW. I hate the current trend of games towards hybrid action/fighting games. I'll take a traditional RPG over that 9 times out of 10. In fact the reason I resisted trying WoW for the longest time was the fact that everything did happen in real time, and that you had to move and react with your abilities nearly instantly. At the time I was playing a turn-based MMO called Dofus that I enjoyed at least partially because mid fight I could alt tab and do something else while other people took their turns. When I finally did try WoW, I found it slow paced enough for my tastes, but there's no way I'd play something like Devil May Cry-MMO Style.

If you like the traditional RPGs, I'd just play a traditional RPG. Those atleast tend to have stories and characters that you can take seriously.

[Seerow]

If you like the traditional RPGs, I'd just play a traditional RPG. Those atleast tend to have stories and characters that you can take seriously.


Why, when the current MMO model is one that supports a style I like? Why should the genre be transformed fundamentally to fit a game style that you feel is more "modern". I would argue the popularity of the MMO indicates that there are others out there who enjoy that style. I'm sure that there is some group of people playing WoW who would rather a more action oriented game... I'd expect a large segment of the hardcore PVP playerbase is among that group. But it doesn't mean the model is by default wrong or outdated, just not one you enjoy.

[Gligarman2]

Would it be accurate to say that World of Warcraft is a decent game, and if I had trouble not thinking about it when I was younger, it will stay challenging for me to get off it?

[huttj509]

If you like the traditional RPGs, I'd just play a traditional RPG. Those atleast tend to have stories and characters that you can take seriously.

Not sure how he changed in Pandaria, but I've always liked High Overlord Saurfang, the grizzled war veteran who's been there, done that, has an actual clue on tactics, and focuses on the actual goal rather than glory in battle.

[huttj509]

Why, when the current MMO model is one that supports a style I like? Why should the genre be transformed fundamentally to fit a game style that you feel is more "modern". I would argue the popularity of the MMO indicates that there are others out there who enjoy that style. I'm sure that there is some group of people playing WoW who would rather a more action oriented game... I'd expect a large segment of the hardcore PVP playerbase is among that group. But it doesn't mean the model is by default wrong or outdated, just not one you enjoy.

I personally support variety. There should ABSOLUTELY be different style MMOs; Theme Park style, Emergent Gameplay, Active dodging, Spreadsheets, whatever!

I think it is a recognizable issue that WoW (through no fault of its own) has defined aspects of the genre in the headspace of consumers, developers, and publishers. The tendency of any new MMORPG to define itself as "here's how we differ from WoW," while not really differing in fundamental aspects, is understandably frustrating to those folks who do want something different.

Would Ultima Online get publisher backing nowadays? Would it be assumed "that's not what the consumerbase wants"? Would that assumption be right in broad terms?

[The Glyphstone]

And yet the expansion didn't come around until the success of Kung Fu Panda.

I played WC3. I know all about the pandas on Illidan's blades and the secret character during the BE campaign in Frozen Throne and etc. They were around as an easter egg. As something that was there but was never gone into indepth. Something that never played a major role. Tell me with a straight face that Kung Fu Panda didn't have any effect on Blizzard deciding to release Kung Fu Panda Island Adventure... Or have their Pandas do Kung Fu.


Check your timestamps.

Kung Fu Panda came out in 2008.
The Cataclysm expansion was announced in 2009, and came out in 2011.
The Pandaria expansion was announced in 2011, and came out in 2012.

If your theory had merit and Blizzard was just trying to cash in on Kung Fu Panda's popularity, there would not have been 4 years and 2 expansions in between them. Pandaren did kung fu before Kung Fu Panda did - 4 years before, in fact, with Chen Stormstout as a playable bonus hero in The Frozen Throne. If there's anything to the pandamonium, it's that Blizzard finally ran out of serious lore elements to write expansions about and resorted to what had originally been an April Fool's joke. But retreading the 'lol Kung Fu Panda expansion' meme makes you sound like a Blizzard Forum poster, and drowns out the more legitimate issues you're bringing up. It's like insisting that they only made Wrath of the Lich King because they were trying to cash in on the popularity of the Lord of the Rings trilogy with an entire expansion based around defeating the Evil Dark Lord with Spiky Armor and a Cool Helmet.

[Traab]

The storyline is actually fairly impressive and in depth. Every quest hub has a story behind it, and often the entire zone is tied together by an overarching threat or issue you are working towards solving. If all you do is spam the accept quest button as fast as you can, of course to you it will be "LOL Panda Island Adventure" Thats because you are skipping the entire storyline.

I LOVED the azeroth revamp of zones. They not only added in tons of quests, better loot, and better exp, they gave every zone a coherent story to them. Redridge for example kicks about 30 different flavors of ass with the Keeshan story line. I liked westfall and its ongoing investigation storyline at the start, it was just all around BETTER than it was. It gave me a reason to actually read the dialogue instead of skipping it in favor of reading what I had to do to get my exp.

[Gligarman2]

It sounds like a fun game. Do you guys think that it would be too hard to resist thinking about the game for most of my time, or is a simple time limit enough?

[Traab]

Honestly, its not something we can answer for you. Try telling your parents to enforce a time limit of some sort. Or mandatory days off, things like that.

[Gligarman2]

Thank you for the kind and intelligent advice. I am in awe of your deductive skills, as well.

(No sarcasm! I promise)

[Psyren]

WoW does not have any sort of secret malevolent addiction-creating protocols to 'get people hooked', and it never has.

Well, I don't think it has any malevolent designs, but it is definitely engineered around Skinner Box principles to a greater degree than most games.


Honestly, its not something we can answer for you. Try telling your parents to enforce a time limit of some sort. Or mandatory days off, things like that.

Seriously, this.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, I don't think it has any malevolent designs, but it is definitely engineered around Skinner Box principles to a greater degree than most games.



Seriously, this.

Undoubtedly. That's a feature requirement for any sort of MMO or other game with an ongoing subscription fee. It just has a better Skinner Box than its competitors.

[Gligarman2]

I was kind of just asking if the skinner's box is worse than in other so-called "addictive games" such as Civilization; and the level of timesinkery of the Skinner's Box.

[Traab]

Its not nicotine, different players find different games more addictive than others. I know people that will spend months playing minecraft, i cant bear to even look at it. Some will put in 8 hours a day playing WoW, im set with 4 spread out over the entire day, others cant stop playing solitaire! You are really asking the kind of questions that only you can truly answer.

[Gligarman2]

You basically answered my entire question, right there. If the thread was locked, it wouldn't matter. That is great. Good job! :-)

[Psyren]

I was kind of just asking if the skinner's box is worse than in other so-called "addictive games" such as Civilization; and the level of timesinkery of the Skinner's Box.

Skinner Box explained (http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box)

[Zen Master]

Skinner Box explained (http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box)

For all the good points that episode of Extra Credits has, it misses a fairly vital point.

The gaming industy is not about making good games, it's about making money. This applies universally, so where a game will make more money by being a worse game, it will be made worse for the purpose of making more money.

[Psyren]

The gaming industy is not about making good games, it's about making money. This applies universally,

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes :smalltongue:

To the Triple-A world, maybe, and even then there are exceptions. But there are plenty of games created for other reasons - education, artistic expression, even political statements to name a few.

I don't think they missed that point in any event. They're all too painfully aware of the Triple-A world's overall purpose. Their goal is to try to change consumer behavior - our behavior - instead; when the tastes of the market change the money-makers will follow.

[Lord Raziere]

More like Kung Fu Panda, if it was rewritten by a collaborative effort between Stephen King and HP Lovecraft. I followed the story reveals out of offhand curiosity, and was surprised how dark Happy Panda Land actually is for people who take the time to play the game and explore it.

Wow's gameplay and complexity is quite out of date. It's their writing teams that keep people playing as much as their coders.

yeah. the first battle with the Sha of Doubt breaking out and destroying the Jade dragon statue :smalleek: completely cemented that happy panda land was gonna filled with sad pandas.

Valley of Four Winds was a nice break. if you ignore that moment in Stoneplow where the Shado-Pan commander realizes "holy….you're all just….farmers…and children….and….you possibly can't…..defend against this…."

or how Krasarang Wilds where you get a quest from a poisoned paladin who then dies right after you take it, then a tauren dies giving birth while her paladin husband watches helpless…

or lets check Kun-Lai Summit: a bunch of Pandaren getting attacked by evil tauren and all their homes burned down while the Horde and Alliance start coming in and exploiting the situation by going "hey, want revenge on those yaungol? need a new home? JOIN THE HORDE/ALLIANCE TODAY!" turning what was previously a bunch of villagers living normal lives into soldiers to fuel their war by taking advantage of how they have no homes anymore, not to mention why the reason Shado-Pan Monastery is an instance…

oh and then, you go into Townlong Steppes, where the entire beginning questlines are about a pandaren wife getting distraught over her husband being kidnapped then killed, then herself getting possessed by the Sha of Hatred, with creepy investigation into why there are a bunch of yaungol corpses at this area that not your fault for once complete with a bunch of scavenger animals feasting upon the corpses.
and then there is stuff like a little boy trying to find his father…in Niuzao Temple while in the middle of a mantid invasion.

and then there is the Dread Wastes. it lives up to its name. particularly for the quests involving Chen Stormstout in that zone…

while almost/half of Vale of Eternal Blossoms quests are about fighting an endless war against the Mogu. with the slow rep gain on Golden Lotus, it certainly feels endless.

and if you have any doubts left after all that? just look at the Horde and Alliance themselves, particularly Dagger In The Dark scenario….

[Traab]

Yeah, its easy to look at the horde hozen quests with all the silly "ookin those dookers" type chat and pass it off as stupid, (and that stuff really is pretty stupid) but the storyline really is generally great. Also the existence of some genuinely crazy effin pandas like the jade witch.

[The Glyphstone]

So in summary....if anyone tells you Mists of Pandaria is 'WoW for little kids', they either haven't played it or have some very...unconventional...notions of what's appropriate to expose a small child to.


(This also applies to 'dumbed down', 'ruined for casuals', and other such nonsense. But that's a separate argument that should be conducted in the actual WoW thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260258).)

[Psyren]

One thing I don't like about MoP is how surpassingly easy pre-Cataclysm dungeons have gotten. Yeah, it's novel to have a rogue or enhance shaman tank these things - but if they're going to nerf them that far, they should at least allow those classes to actually queue as tanks just so we get in and get through it. And I don't think letting everyone faceroll their way through everything pre-80 is doing them favors later on either - it actually makes instances more boring.

I remember back in BC, how important it was in Hellfire Ramparts to pull the mobs lollygagging near the first boss when his back was turned. I remember how important it was to kill his healers first so that he didn't overwhelm the tank. I remember how harrowing the ZF stairs event used to be, where healers would be scrambling to drink between waves, or how a healer walking at the back of the group in Blood Furnace would get ganked by NPC rogues before he could yell for help. I'm glad this stuff isn't quite as cheap as it was before, just as I'm glad that healers don't have to sit and drink after every pull, but I really do think they went too far in the other direction and the pre-80 dungeons lost a lot of their magic. This is doubly sad since they took the time to revamp so much of it for Dungeon Finder - no unlocking the various parts of Scholo, no spending hours in Sunken Temple, the really cool changes to Ragefire Chasm etc.

[Kish]

This is speaking entirely theoretically and not addressing anything about WoW, specifically.

How would it make sense for a game to become less addictive as a result of being made better?

[Hiro Protagonest]

How would it make sense for a game to become less addictive as a result of being made better?

Because then it'd use more elements that actually make the player want to play, but removes the entire psychological aspect that makes the player currently want to play it a ton beyond the basic storyline.

[Psyren]

As the EC folks point out in the video, "addictive" is a bit of a misnomer. A better term for Skinner Box games is "compulsive." It's something you look back on after you quit and wonder what you spent all that time doing. I'm willing to bet that even those of us that love WoW don't look forward to starting the mining/herbing/skinning circuit all over again on a new alt - never mind the real timesinks like Fishing and Archaeology. (Cooking got much better in this regard at least.)

ME3 uses Skinner Box techniques too; it's the reason the store is randomized packs instead of just letting you buy the gun you want.

[huttj509]

Because then it'd use more elements that actually make the player want to play, but removes the entire psychological aspect that makes the player currently want to play it a ton beyond the basic storyline.

I've seen similar phraseology elsewhere, and while there are game design elements that can definitely be discussed, the vague language tends to come across as the difference between:

"I like this game."
"That's because it's a great game."

Vs.

"I like this game."
"That's what they want you to think."

I've seriously seen in another forum, after posting that I liked a game because of X, Y, and Z specific design elements, where someone replied "you're not having fun, you're just fooled to think you are."

[Hiro Protagonest]

I've seen similar phraseology elsewhere, and while there are game design elements that can definitely be discussed, the vague language tends to come across as the difference between:

"I like this game."
"That's because it's a great game."

Vs.

"I like this game."
"That's what they want you to think."

I've seriously seen in another forum, after posting that I liked a game because of X, Y, and Z specific design elements, where someone replied "you're not having fun, you're just fooled to think you are."

I did word that wrong. It's just that it's quality elements. Take movies. If a movie is mediocre, it's mediocre. If a movie has a great story, great characters, and good special effects, people will watch it. Movies can't use triggers (although there are triggers based around certain actors and genres, to an extent. Like The Last Stand, which I hear isn't very good, but is everything you want from an Arnold Schwarzenegger action-comedy).

[Traab]

I just look on those kinds of lines as an attempt by others to feel superior. "You only like that game because it convinces you to keep playing it! I on the other hand, play QUALITY games, that are just plain good." Feh, a game is good if it makes you want to play it. There are as many ways it can achieve this as there are good games. Does it really matter WHY we enjoy the game if we enjoy it? I play fps, mmos, arcade games, board games, card games. All are great for different reasons, I wouldnt put any on a higher pedestal because of the reason i enjoy it. Its just a matter of which i enjoy playing more.

I am all for deciphering why we enjoy doing what we do, thats a useful thing to know, but it shouldnt be degraded as a lesser form of enjoyment just because it can be quantified.

[The Glyphstone]

I've seen similar phraseology elsewhere, and while there are game design elements that can definitely be discussed, the vague language tends to come across as the difference between:

"I like this game."
"That's because it's a great game."

Vs.

"I like this game."
"That's what they want you to think."

I've seriously seen in another forum, after posting that I liked a game because of X, Y, and Z specific design elements, where someone replied "you're not having fun, you're just fooled to think you are."

Wake up man, stop living the lie and see the truth that the Man is keeping from you! It's all a conspiracy!