Talk:Criticism of World of Warcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
MMOG logo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the the assessment scale.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Warcraft task force.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] NPOV Dispute

Since I don't see a section for the NPOV dispute already here, I will initiate one myself. As a WoW player and one who has quit and returned twice already, I feel my views are partial and are completely fair to Blizzard Entertainment. With that said, after reviewing this article I have to agree with the user disputing this for NPOV violations. For instance, the original author states lag as a negative point of the game but does not offer contrasting argument that Blizzard has a dedicated team working on upgrading and purchasing new software. IFurthermore, the article does not include any counter-arguments that Blizzard CM's have included on the general forums regarding issues like overpopulation with upcoming paid server transfers. Perhaps adding the aforementioned will help alleviate the NPOV issue. --Novaprospekt 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to start removing lots of information, because this article is a huge pile of POV. Only a few have citations. If this article dosn't bocome more then what it is at this stage I will add a VfD to it (which I don't want to). Havok (T/C/c) 20:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed everything that was lacking citation. This article was a pile of POV, and I decided I would remove everything instead of AFDing it. Feel free to re-add the information which was removed if you have a source for it. Remember, wikipedia does not condone original research Havok (T/C/c) 08:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I think we should put back most of what was deleted in this edit--because most of what was removed is good material which anyone can verify by visiting the cyberworld themselves. So it is not original research; it is common knowledge of anyone who has visited that world. An equivalent page lacking "sources" is Tokyo subway. Anyone can verify what is on that page by visiting the world described.

Similarly, anyone that has played World of Warcraft for very long has encountered the Lag, Population problems, Lopsidedness, ..., and Twinking that goes on there. And the deleted text provides good explanations of what is easily seen in these phenomena in a very NPOV manner and even-handed manner, neither blasting Blizzard, nor blasting Blizzard critics. And, surely, it would be good to find citations; the citations exist. And here is an inspiring story about a young guy who wrote a guide on how to conquer World of Warcraft and won a lawsuit against Blizzard. But in the outcome of the lawsuit, the young guy had to remove most of the links to the "cheats" in the game.  :(( I recommend that the deleted text be restored so that we can in the next few months add links to good sources as we find them. --Rednblu 00:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Without sources the information has to go. It doesn't matter if it is considered "common knowledge". Find the good sources, and then bring back the material. --Hetar 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, we need the whole text dragged out of the history file so that we can work on it. So I am creating a section below with the whole deleted text copied from the history file. --Rednblu 03:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Rednblu, the sections that were removed, that he pasted below definately belong in this article. While they may be difficult to cite, they make up the bulk of the criticisms against WoW. I was surprised to not see them in the main article at all, and now I know why.Xenocidic 20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Without citations, they cannot be included. Simple as that. --Hetar 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The citations have to be good citations that relevantly connect World of Warcraft specifically to the criticisms involved otherwise the sections should be removed and put into an article called Criticisms of MMORPGs or something like that. The mere fact that there is only an article called "Criticsm of World of Warcraft" and not such articles called Criticism of EverQuest, Criticism of Everquest, Criticism of MMORPGs, etc. shows some obvious POV issues. There is a Criticism of Ultima Online, but it shares much less similarity than Everquest to World of Warcraft and if you read it, the criticisms are specific to Ultima Online and generally not shared by other MMOs. --Intenitonally unsigned
I added NPOV tag back at the top based on what's said above. --Intenitonally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gay rights

First of all, instead of immediatly jumping to a admin page, these pages are to discuss stuff.

Second, as a gay person myself, I do not see the problem with the text of User:144.35.254.12 although some fine tuning can be done.

Finaly, both of you are close to three reverts cool down. KimvdLinde 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Some finetuning has been done now. KimvdLinde 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • THat gay criticism they would not allow a KKK or Nazi guild either so I dont know why anyone cares.

Greetings and just a few comments. I didn't like this section at all because it seemed too pro-gay. What the section fails to mention is that there is no allowance made for any guild formed for the sole purpose of selectively recruiting certain players based on religion, race, ethnic group, sexual orientation etc etc. The guild was "actively recruiting itself and stating itself as GAY or BiSexual. A guild doing something similiar for Whites Only, English Speakers only, Americans Only, Catholics Only would be found in the same violation. Had the guild existed and not PROMOTED ITSELF as being in essence exclusionary or formed for a specific group it would have been left alone. In the same vein as being Anti-Gay is repulsive to some, being Pro-Gay is repugnant to others creating the same intrusion of Real World Issues and Divisions into a Fantasy world getaway. Blizzard cannot allow a Outspoken "Join Us based one being one of Us" LBGA Type Guild anymore than it can a guild formed for a specific Race, Culture, Ethnic Group etc etc. the guild was only brought into question because of what it promoted itself to be and not for what it was. We all know there are guilds who want Whites Only or Blacks or Asians or Hispanice or English Speakers or Spanish Speakers or Muslims or Christians and they exist the same as Gay or Bi-Sexual Guilds exist. It wasn't the existance. It was the outward promotion.

That was not Blizzard's reported problem. They stated it was for the guild's own good--to protect them from harassment and reduce the conflict. They backed down due to various pressures viewing the decision as homophobic. Pro-sexuality groups are now allowed. Sailoralea (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This article needs more citations, as it is now, it's a work of POV. Havok (T/C/c) 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone today, Nov 5th 06, added a whole new section, and from what I can tell, it appears to be lacking any and all citations to it's sources either in the article or in the accompanying comments when it was added. Poster needs to add his sources for those issues. I can guarentee Havok or someone else will pull it when he sees it if you don't. EDIT: I went ahead and pulled it myself. Again I -DO- think that stuff belongs here, but as alot of it is opinion/PoV based currently, it supposed to have an outside source to stay up. Find just ONE link related to that stuff and you're all good. [Sunday, 2006-11-05 T 11:35 UTC]

The majority of this article is still POV, speculation or hearsay. I'm not saying that it's not true, or that most players wouldn't agree with it, but that's not the standard required by Wikipedia. I've just added about twenty requests for citations; I could easily have added twice that. If I bother to come back here, it'll be to remove everything that's lacking a citation, which means about half of the article in its current state. -- Rogerborg 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted text needing citations follows

[edit] ****** BEGIN Container for working on citations ******=

  • Lag: The popularity of the game means that at times, so many people are on-line that the servers become overloaded and very slow. Serious lag — or slow operation — often occurs on weekend nights, and in the central cities of the Warcraft world, such as Ironforge and Orgrimmar (sometimes nicknamed "Lagforge", "Ironlag" and "Lagrimmar"), where large concentrations of players congregate. This is still a serious problem, even though changes were made to the Auction House. The Auction House, the trade channel, and the group channel are now linked with every capital city since the patch 1.9. The idea was that people would be spread among these cities instead of lagging one correspondent area. During the server world events corresponding with the opening of the Gates of Ahn'Qiraj, many servers experienced extremely high lag and multiple crashes, possibly resulting from high concentrations of player characters in the gate area.
  • Population: Some World of Warcraft players created characters on servers with medium to low populations. Certain low population servers are experiencing a vast number of players leaving the servers, making it harder for people to find groups, and affecting the in-game economy. Blizzard has taken certain measures to alleviate this problem by allowing character transfers on certain servers, but it is still something of a problem. The opposite of this is also true; some servers are too overpopulated and are hard to play on because of server load and long queues to log in.
  • "Lopsided" Horde to Alliance ratio: Many of the servers are becoming outnumbered, with many PvE and RP servers suffering a 2:1 ratio of Alliance to Horde. This affects PvP and the quality of gameplay for some players. Generally on servers following a PvP ruleset, the ratio is less exaggerated and in some cases even swings in the Horde's favor[1]. This issue will possibly be addressed in the expansion, The Burning Crusade, where it has been announced that the Blood Elves will be a new playable race for the Horde. This will provide the Horde with a so-called "pretty race," which is one of the previous reasons a player might choose Alliance over the Horde races. This issue seems to be being addressed by Blizzard by enabling server transfers among specific realms. The realms that are designated for server transfers are notified beforehand, and have leveled out the "lopsided" nature of many realms.
  • Unbalanced classes: Many people tend to believe that certain classes or races are over- or underpowered. Blizzard periodically releases patches (downloaded with the Blizzard Downloader) which, along with adding features or fixing bugs, also attempt to balance gameplay by updating the class skill trees and spells. This balancing action is sometimes called 'buffing', 'nerfing' or 'revamp', depending on whether the change strengthened, weakened, or just reconfigured the features of the class.
  • Lore: The Warcraft Universe was previously developed in three major games with two expansion packs, and its history is periodically expanded with new books. As a result fans have occasionally found inconsistencies or inexplicable occurences in the Warcraft storyline. The most controversial and recent of these centered around the expansion's new races, the Blood Elves and Draenei. The Blood Elves' alliance with the Horde, though puzzling, can be explained in part by shared history with The Forsaken. More serious is an unintentional anachronism written by Blizzard Entertainment's writers; the Eredar race, ancestor to the Draenei, was recently described as having been demonically corrupted by Sargeras in the expansion's announcement, but previous writtings had described the Eredar as a demonic race before having met Sargeras. Another criticism regarding the history of the Warcraft Universe notes the heavily derivative nature of certain aspects of the game (particularly races such as Dwarves and Elves resembling those created by J.R.R. Tolkein and found in other fantasy games/writings), although introduction of "World of Warcraft" allowed.
  • Role-playing: On "RP" servers, which focus on role-playing, story-telling, and immersion in the game world, Blizzard is occasionally unable to effectively prevent or punish excessive out of character behavior. When character names and communication that refer too much to the real world or the "game" become common, it becomes difficult for dedicated role-players to stay in character, damaging what is for many players a substantially important aspect of gameplay.
  • Long time online required at high level: High-level dungeons can take many hours of party finding, strategy discussion, and battles. The Molten Core (a commonly run, high-level instance usually referred to as 'MC') can usually take as long as six hours to complete. However, Blizzard has made it so that the instance does not have to be done in one, large chunk. Once a group of players kill the first boss, their future progress is saved and stored for one week from the first boss kill, or to when the weekly server maintenance takes place, whichever happens first. This means that none of the bosses will spawn again until after that time period is up and the entire instance resets itself.
  • Twinking: In PvP environments, certain players engage in a practice known as "twinking". In twinking, a high-level character provides money or equipment to relatively low-level "alternate" characters. This can provide an overwhelming advantage in PvP, because the superior gear enables the lower-level characters to survive far longer and to dish out enormous damage. Many people feel that the advantage is grossly unfair.
  • There is also a dramatic shift in the game style when reaching the final levels. This has been off-putting to players. Content from levels 1 to roughly 54 is geared towards solo and small group players. At level 55 the content shifts dramatically to large group raids and instances requiring groups of 10 to 40 players. Many players are forced to find a new larger guild to find enough players to form these groups. Casual players often feel they do not have enough time to play anymore as they have to now spend a lot more time searching for a group, or participating in raid that can take more than 4 hours to complete. In order to address these problems, Blizzard announced that in patch 1.10 experience accrued after the maximum level cap will be converted to gold. It is hoped that this will increase the number of players participating in end game quests apart from simply raiding with their guilds.

[edit] ****** END Container for working on citations ******

[edit] Frost Shock

Was its own article but was about to be deleted. Seems to have some value so merged into this article. However it might make sense to put under Criticism or Exploits headings--Esemono 05:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the value of having this in the article. Also, it doesn't have a citation or source. --Hetar 17:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I was very surprised that I didn't find Shamen even mentioned in the criticism page... Granted, such criticisms may be somewhat irrational, but they still exist. I constantly hear (in-game) complaints about how rigged shaman are, and I have to agree [2]. Oh well. --HantaVirus 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A criticism that I have often heard is that Blizz engineers must all roll Shamen, which is why that class is so often able to avoid being nerfed in patches. ...*I kill a shaman*...*Self-rez*...*Frost shock*...*I begin to cast BLINK (yes, the "instant cast")*...*Windfurry tripple crit for 1300, 1900, 900*...*I die.* --HantaVirus 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't meen to be rude. What does "blizz engineers must all roll shamen" mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riphal (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
It suggests that shamans are the class most played by the game developers, that supposedly being their motivation to make the class extra powerful; to give themselves an edge over other players. It is usually said more tongue-in-cheek when referring to how powerful shamans are, than as a literal criticism. Much as I personally recognize this though, I'll have to agree that a citation is needed to mention this as serious criticism. Invariably, any competitive game will have people on both sides claiming that the other has an unfair advantage after they loose, and this is most certainly not limited to shamans (or even to World of Warcraft as a whole) with other classes/races, like hunters, warlocks, paladins, undead etc. all having been mentioned as being "overpowered" at some point or another. So if shamans being overpowered is to be mentioned as a serious criticism, I'd agree it needs a source. Frostlion 09:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winterspring

Hey guys, why isn't there a section on the Funeral Bombing in the PVP territory of Winter spring? There was a real life funeral there and an Alliance guild called Serenity Now attacked all the Horde members, but it's disputed, so I don't know. --D-hyo 15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

zOMG! [3] However, this is not a criticism of WoW, since the funeral was not sponsored by Blizz. --HantaVirus 13:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious though it is, Hanta is right in that it can't be a direct criticism of WoW. Unless you're trying to prove that assholes are good at WoW, too. --Almighty WALKER 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
People were holding a real life funeral on WoW? I guess if you don't have citations, it can't go in the article, but, for my own curiousity, could you tell me the situation that arised in which they decided to do a funeral in an online game? Riphal 09:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
See here. Cribcage 02:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Adding to my earlier statement, why were they holding a funeral in a PVP area? That is another question. Riphal 09:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't played WoW, but i'm framiliar with the term pvp, sorry to keep going on about this, but why on earth in a pvp area, couldn't they have held the funeral in an area where people couldn't jump in and kill them? Riphal 09:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, they were Horde but decided to hold the funeral in an alliance region, probably for asthetics. (It was a beautiful lakeside, snow-covered area, so i can understand why they liked it)Avalanche Knight 05:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I can certainly understand that, but did the Horde members notify everyone on the realm forums before they actually held the funeral? If so, it only serves to reinforce my hatred of the Alliance in general on the realms I play on. (Although I do acknowledge that there ARE some Alliance players who are actually honorable in-game and aren't even remotely attracted to the female jug-jugs!) But unlike most other people, I do see both sides of the situation, and it is (slightly) likely when the Alliance guild saw this gathering of Horde players intheir realm, they must have thought that this group of Horde were gearing up for a massive raid or something. Tacitus666 03:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
notified on forums... not everyone reads the forums, and even at that, there is absolutely no defendable reasoning behind holding a serious event in a pvp area in my mind. no matter how nice the pvp area's environment looked.

[edit] South Park

Can someone find a citation for the critisism that "Several points in the show poke fun at how World of Warcraft players have no lives, eat junk food, and are overweight." If non can be found, I'm removing this from the article as it adds nothing, is WP:OR, and almost sounds like an insult to anyone who plays WoW. Havok (T/C/c) 07:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw the episode and the references are obvious. If you provide a dilog transscript anyone with half a brain could point of the references.--68.192.188.142 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this should have been REWORDED not REMOVED. The theme of the post was accurate as S.P. did take a tongue in cheek jab at World of Warcraft and MMORPG players in general and to some extent and to some individuals those views ARE correct as shown under the addicition articles both on WoW and EQs pages. The show in no way attempts to insult all WoW players or MMORPG players it simply pokes fun at the people who take it too far just like it's made fun of drug addicts and the like in previous episodes. [Sunday, 2006-11-19 T 23:42 UTC]

[edit] Unmentioned topic

What about the very common criticism(more common than any on the page) that World of Warcraft contributes to video game addiction? Am I the only one who think's this is missing? i kan reed 16:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for it, sure add it. It is a common problem, but us saying it is one dosn't help this article I'm afraid. Havok (T/C/c) 18:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about it, including references to articles on lawsuits involving it, and a study done on the issue, as well as one about game addiction in general. An additional source was... http://gamasutra.com/features/20060822/clark_02.shtml ... series of articles which delve into research and reasons for the game addiction. I didn't have enough time to read them all though to see if they should be linked. (oct 21/06)

I added some things from articles I found on the internet. I, too, believe gaming addiction is one of the most overlooked factors in game criticism. Both my brother and my uncle are addicted to MMORPG's so I know what dealing with that problem is like.

[edit] Queue times for the PvP Battlegrounds

This section looks entirely written from an in-universe perspective. I have no clue what this means. Somone needs to explain how WoW works so the battlegrounds bit makes sense. Also, the second-person should be cut out as well. Hbdragon88 04:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That is explained in the main WoW page, and shouldn't be repeated on the critism page as it would be Off-Topic there. In fact if you don't play WoW, you really should read the main page before jumping to critism since it really is hard to understand why things aren't working or are being constantly improved if you don't understand how they are intended to work and where Blizzard is focusing it's improvement efforts. {oct 21, 06}
Ideally, articles need to make sense to someone unfamiliar to the topic. It wouldn't be off-topic. Even a sentence or two would make it easier to understand. Hbdragon88 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Arent't people not supposed to repost stuff like that on stub articles like this one? This isn't really a full article is it, it's a sub section of a larger article that already explains it. If they are then if the OP doesn't update maybe another player or I can... but the OP was correct in that all that is already talked about and maintained on the main page. 2006-10-25 T 23:26 UTC

Are you guys still sure this exists? I have had no waits over one minute since cross-realm battlegrounds. -Ryanbomber 13:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes very sure, to the point Blizzard has made official stickies on it's forums in recent history sure, Blizz still tries to manage how new servers get added to needed clusters sure, and topics still spring up on the official forums semi-regularly and are discussed with the Blues in regards to one day fixing the problem sure. Again this isn't like it's a problem Blizzard denies, they openly admit it exists and they want to one day fix it. But it is not fixed now, and thus is an existing problem, and thus falls under critism. Especially since criticism has to be in context, and in context many other games have worked out these issues (including Blizzard in past MP games). Also to you personally, what server/cluster are you, and what level are you at? The topic is mainly related to Alterac Valley (though on some clusters in the 60+ bracket it applies to AB and WSG as well), on clusters with either slanted Horde/Alliance population or low overall numbers. If you're not a level 50+ yet you won't fully appreciate the issue as you cannot go there until 50, and if you're on one of the larger clusters your times are SIGNIFIGNATLY better then on smaller ones. In my own experiance, I play on three clusters. None have Alterac Valley waits better then 35-40 minutes (30 minutes on the AV weekend once every 4 weeks). The worst averages over an hour and fourty mintue wait (about an hour and ten minutes on the AV weekend once a month). Still look at that... on the average the larger cluster will enjoy a ONE HOUR SHORTER WAIT per entry. I do think Blizzard is trying to fix this with the new expansion due out in January or Febuary of '07, and once all clusters get below the half hour Blizzard originally was shooting for this really won't be a fair critism. Until then, it's still a valid issue about the game. [Friday, 2006-11-03 T 17:25 UTC]

[edit] Game addiction

The quote from the good Dr. was removed from World of Warcraft due to not being reliable. Even with the sources. Thoughts about this? Seems it was re-added by someone, and now it's all good. :P Havok (T/C/c) 21:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this section is here. Game Addiction itself is marked as controversial on its page. The person who originally made the quote about 40% subsequently retracted it, and another person with similar credentials at the same institution further deprecates it. If there is no data, and merely speculation by a single source, why keep the section? RickManion 16:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Since noone who's watching this page has issued an opinion, I'm going to change this page in about a week or two. I think I'm going to move this section to the "other criticisms" section, and put in something like: "Like many other Online Games, some psychologist are concerned that many World of Warcraft players may suffer from game adiction." I won't use either of the statistics from Dr. Orzak, and I will try to find a citation that doesn't even reference her work. Hopefully a more moderate and similarly prominate psychologist has weighed in on this. Richard Manion 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think addiction should be part of this page as one, it got it's own page, two, it's not a critisism of World of Warcraft, but of the whole genre and also the whole gaming industry.81.225.4.84 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If we could find some information that backs up the idea that WoW creates more addictions than other similar games, it would be great to add. It backs up my personal experience - I've got a handful of friends who are pretty much out of commission (no college, job, etc.) due to WoW addiction.128.187.0.164 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PvP and Grinding

I think it should be noted the amount of Critisism of WOw's PvP, and how it is very poorly done and fore the msot part a joke. I think it is also important to say that though Blizzard has tried to make the game fun for casuel players, it really is not past level 30 and is from around that point on based mostly on grinding and farming.

Those are more opinions then criticisms by the definition many of the editors here will use (in specific and especially Havok), and that view isn't entirely inaccurate with what you're proposing to put up with this. However if you can find a valid source article or study or comparison for those feel free to add a section. Just keep in mind when adding it in your own words you need to use it from the source and not add unsupported opinions/views. I would think given the wealth of WoW sites both positive and negative out there you'll be able to find something somewhere. [Sunday, 2006-11-19 T 23:42 UTC]

Plesase take a look at the Guild Wars article. The critasism section is full of horrible insults of the game, and whenever anyone trys to add notes of soultions Anet has made to fix these problems they are shot down. On this article however, every peice of critism has a note saying "Blizzard had fixed this problem" or "these comments are unfounded" and the like. Either the Guild Wars article needs to be allowed to contain the same type of notes or those notes in this article need to be removed. It is majorly biased.--68.192.188.142 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To the original poster, this is simply your opinion (and a poorly-supported one at that), and is not a common criticism of the game. TheyCallMeGeorge 05:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The PvP is really mostly opinion, and the grinding could be a critisism of all MMORPGs, not WoW specifically.81.225.4.84 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

At first, I thing all things that a man do, have to be addictive. These type of games must have a non-addict role. They should have a routine that helps people not to consume all his time for these games. 05:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.167.100 (talk)

In this PvP section, something was mentioned along the lines of that PvP content is subpar considering that the alliance and horde are currently at war. This is not true, the alliance and horde are actually at a sort of stalemate, which I personally think is similar to the Cold War. The two factions are most certainly not at war. To quote the official website (link: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/hordevalliance.html) "In years past, they fought brutal wars against each other, but today, they have settled into a tenuous stalemate. Occasional skirmishes still erupt between the two sides, but open warfare is no longer raging across the continents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.138.111 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to assert that there is no controversy over WOW's implementation of PVP, as there are literally hundreds of threads from both subscribers and blizzard employees in the official forums that have discussed these issues, not to mention the fact that Blizzard has implemented specific patches and changes in order to address these criticisms. The section is well-cited, and would therefore appear to be a worthwhile contribution, especially given the title of this article. Simply not liking the fact that controversy exists does not make it any less true nor is grounds to remove it from WP (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Mjharrison (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the section about honor grinding in BGs and arena points should be reworked. Since last patch, Blizzard has made a huge change in arena points that were being sold and from my experience, reporting people AFK in BGs has been extremely efficient too. So the "mixed" efficiency depends surely on the experience on the author about it since the given link is only the patch description of Blizzard. Zandalia (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MMO addiction

I recon that a new article is required, which looks at mmorpg addiction in more detail. i think it should include information on

  • the ever quest/'evercrack subject
  • urban myths
  • university students

etc. what do you think Evildoctorbluetooth 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game Design

I added a new section called "Game Design", since I can't believe no one discussed the core game design issues. I've been playing since the original launch and played UO for years, so I understand most of the common MMORPG issues. 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the game design section. In its current form it is completely unsourced and reads like a post that would best be posted in the feedback forums of world of warcraft. Maybe we can try to find a more suitable formulation for some of the problems including citations, as this article is a bit shaky regarding NPOV already. --tomst | talk 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How long have you played WoW, tom?
How many games have you designed and/or worked on?
Are you going to listen to an expert -- someone who has actual experience, or ignore it because you can't find anyone who has actually taken the time to publish their experiences? Unfortunately, you are not going to find a source at this time, as there have been no critical analysis of WoW (yet). The ONLY references you WILL find are going to be, guess what, subjective! Its the classic chicken-and-egg problem, anytime there is a "new" field of [knowledge.] Would you feel better if I published my work? I already have a book 'Fundamentals of Game Design', maybe you would feel better if am "published" with A Criticial Analysis of WoW Game Design' ?
A lot of the core design issues are "common knowledge" to both players and designers and obvious to anyone who has played the game for any length of time. The section SHOULD stand, since it will be quickly confirmed (or denied) based on feedack from:
a) other players, and
b) other designers
Lastly, please learn some game design language. Just because you are ignorant of terminology (no offense), doesn't mean you need to be intimidated when someone succintly summarizes an analysis. I would argue WoW is not a good game. Extremely popular, yes, but not a great game, and I gave/can list reasons why. If you disagree, you should be able to list why; not censor those who disagree with you. Ignoring the facts aren't going to make them go away, even if you can't find someone "published." Michael.Pohoreski 16:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I played WoW since release, and no I have not designed nor have I worked in a game project yet, but that is not the topic of this discussion. The Game Design section did include objective points (quest diversity), others were based on opinion (inconsistent world interaction, limited guild support, limited world exploration) - flasks disappearing magically in a fantasy world is as bad design as vendors giving you gold for rotting bear carcasses, of which you can magically carry 300. The latter are simple rules imposed by the game mechanics and do not count as bad design, but I do not want to have a discussion on what is good / bad design here. If the section is shortened down I do not object to including some points.
Overall, we should be careful not to include original research or unsourced statements as this article was up for AfD already, which is my point. I will listen to an expert, but the article should only contain criticism, that can be sourced. --tomst | talk 08:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well said, tomst. Toby Douglass 12:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I am still not happy with the Game Design section. Can anybody find some source for the claims or should it be removed as Original Research? tomst | talk 06:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole concept of "good game/bad game" is too subjective for an article. While one player may consider games that heavily punish failure (experience penalties, long corpse runs, drawn out methods of resurrection) to be good, another would consider that poor game design. Neither party is right, but neither party is wrong, because it's an opinion. That is why articles discussing "faults" must focus on actual faults in implementation (bugged systems, etc) rather than perceived faults in design (class system versus freeform skill system, weight-based inventory system versus slot-based inventory system, etc.). --Brendan 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm. I'm a game design student at a university in California. Things like perma-death ARE considered bad game design. In fact, "punishing players for failure" is bad game design, because it takes away from the fun experience. Experienced industry professional Raph Koster, who worked on UO and SWG and has also spoken at many conferences on Game Design, has said this several times in his official blog. Good game design isn't a matter of opinion-- that's laughable! The only reason people say that is because they consider things like WoW's game design a good design because it's a hit-- but the fact is that it's not a good design. It's not designed to be fun, it's designed brilliantly to bring in the money by hooking the player in.

I find it shocking that no section is dedicating to criticizing WoW's game design. It is DEFINITELY one of the game's common, universal criticisms that the game encourages large amounts of grinding. The level-based system in combination with the monthly subscription payment plan, the competitive relationships with other players, and the gear-oriented motivational factor nurture a gameplay style that requires the user to participate in repetitive grinding just to keep up with others. Rather than making the game fun through traditional means of immersion, strategy, and skill, the game provides fun through a sense of accomplishment, especially in how a character's gear makes such a huge power difference in comparison to other characters of the same level with less spectacular equips (high gear also allows bragging rights). And we can't ignore the fact that many goals of the game require a huge gold investment as well (mounts), much higher than the amount that a player typically saves up while casually playing.

Can anyone really argue that it's common practice among players in WoW to completely skip most quests and just grind instead? Isn't it also obvious that most people don't bother reading the story or anything?

The grinding criticism is specifically important as an issue within the industry, as many developers are creating what critics call "WoW-clones" using the same formula to require huge grinding and time investment costs on the players (which some members of the industry have seen as detrimental to the other aspects of online gaming worlds, such as community development and role-playing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.134.83 (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So basicly you are saying it is only good game deisgn if blizzard makes everyone start with all the best of everything? It is faster to level with quests then to grind. And the mounts which you point out are so expensive are so expensive so you lose money if they removed high priced stuff then everyone would have thousands of gold and nothing would have much of a value so you would get bored of a lack of challange. Joeking16 13:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Armory

I have seen and heard many people complaining about the new armory feature. Particularly regarding the PvP advantage. Should this be on here? Derfy 20:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the armory has been largely well received, and although some people might not like it, the overall leaning on it has been towards a plus and not a minus? I personally find it very usefull for looking up info on guilds to see if there's on that has lots of members around my level that I could group with and stuff.
This is not an issue, because nobody is given a PvP "advantage". Everybody has access to the same resources, and as such the playing field remains level. In fact, a player who owns two accounts could create a character from each faction on the same PvP server and inspect the gear of nearly anybody that he or she chooses. If anything, this makes the game more fair to players on PvP servers and only one account. TheyCallMeGeorge 05:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment of Players

This paragraph was removed on the basis that the event was not mistreatment;

"A well-known example of this comes from CmdrTaco, founder of the well-known Internet news site, Slashdot. After playing the game for over a year, and reaching level 46 out of 60, a GM decided his player name ("CmdrTaco") violated the game rules regarding player names, which state that no rank-type prefixes can be used (e.g. Captain, Admiral, etc). When CmdrTaco next logged in, he found he was forced to change his name - no warning, no explanation. Upon emailing support, the reply explained the reason and explained that an appeal was not possible."

I beg to differ. The player's name was clearly not an attempt to fool other players into thinking the player in question possessed a PvP honour title which he did not in fact possess, and the no-notice enforced change, with no explanation and the lack of appeal all combined for this to be improper behaviour on the part of the GMs/Blizzard and so is relevant material.

As such, I wish to reinstate the material.

Toby Douglass 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The naming policy existed long before the honor system- it has nothing to do with "fooling" other players (to be honest, only someone really stupid would fall for it). His name violated the naming policy, which he agreed to. Someone got pissed off at him for some reason and pointed that out to a GM. He was in no way mistreated. Sazielt c 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that his name is so clearly *NOT* a title that the policy was not violated. (Certainly there was no intentional violation, since that nom de plume had been in use by that person for many years before joining WoW.) Moreover, even if the policy had been violated, applying it to a level 46 character is problematic, since it destroys the relationships that character had, since the character name is the means by which a player is known. Finally, the application of the policy was disrespectiful and inconsiderate - no explanation, no appeal; and an appeal process is important since in cases like this where the decision is at least questionable and the consequences significant. Toby Douglass 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not very problematic because if someone in your friends list gets their name changed they will remain in your friends list. Especially at level 46. Moreover, even if it was, it doesn't matter since it violates the naming policy. Finally, if your name was changed, there's no need for an explanation because there's only one possibility. A lot of people have had name changes, receiving the exact same treatment. Also, Blizzard rarely allows appeals. There have been cases where people were permabanned with no appeal when they had done nothing wrong. That should be noted instead of a name change. I don't have the link, but someone was banned for botting when he was simply watching TV and leveling his wand skills. Others were banned on suspicions because they ran WoW under Wine on Linux. I just think a name change is not notable enough compared to other mistreatments. Also, why do you say his name was clearly not a title? Looks like a title to me (Commander). It may be intended to be something else, but for someone that doesn't know what he means by it, it would probably look like a title. Sazielt c 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It is problematic because you meet lots of people while you play who you don't add to your friends list (in fact, I never used mine while I played) and they remember your name. This point was one of the main points made by CmdrTaco himself when he wrote about what happened; it was one of the issues he felt most keenly.
It is also problematic because it is a violation of the players character. Players pick their names and it is part of their choice and the thousands of hours they spend playing is with *their* character. To enforce a change to a players character is necessarily significiant under *any* circumstances; to do so improperly, without consideration or decency is appalling. CmdrTaco changed his player name to "Violated", because it represented how he felt.
I utterly disagree that the namely policy was violated since his name is NOT "Commander Taco" or "General Taco" but "CmdrTaco" which firstly is borderline for a title and secondly is the name he has used on-line for many years. Had the GM who banned his name taken the time to enquire (which especially should have happened given the player had reached level 46 at that point and so a name change would have a huge affect on his in-game presence) he would have found this to be so; and the lack of such an enquiry is symptomic of player mistreatment.
Finally, your point that other player mistreatment is far worse, so this player mistreatment is inconsequential is fundamentally wrong because the fact that other GMs have done terrible things doesn't make a bit of difference to the consequences of this particular act, which are plenty enough to have made a serious impact on this player. You do not look at a man who has had his wallet stolen and tell him his suffering is inconsequential because another man has been murdered.
In summary, I think you've made a valid point that the name is borderline. I would concur then that the GM should have contacted the player prior to making the change. This did not happen, there is no appeals process and the player was level 46 which made the change drastic. The fact worse things happen is irrelevant. Accordingly, I suggest I put the material back in with some additions to properly describe naming policy and so explain the original cause of the action.
Toby Douglass 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Cmdr is not only a violation of the rank-type prefixes rule, but also the leet rule, and the rule baning the use of peoples names. 62.232.65.170 15:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Communist Robots

If you search "Giant Communist Robots", it sends you to this page. Is there any reason for this? I can see nothing related to giant communist robots on the page. 211.28.214.169 04:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask... *why* were you searching for Giant Communist Robots? Toby Douglass 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Giant Communist Robots was a guild on Mal'Ganis. A GM decided their name violated the TOS, and were renamed Giant Censored Robots for obvious reasons. Barrakketh 11:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The page "Giant communist robots" has been deleted. Haha to whoever wrote it, lol.

Yoda921 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

[edit] Credentials

Have any of the moderators actually worked on, or shipped any games? Can we get some real experts here who understand game design? There are many valid points, but most of them have been censored by people who don't understand game design, and the reasons why the points are presented.

The biggest complaint I have about this page is that when people state facts about the game, someone complains about references, and then the facts are removed. There are no published references, because the game is still too new. It is a chicken and egg problem, and one must start somewhere. Sad to see Wikipedia failing to take the initiative here, like almost every other criticism page. Michael.Pohoreski 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy. If something is important, information will be published about it. If there hasn't been any information published about it yet, then it's probably not important.
It does have to start somewhere, but not on Wikipedia. If you want this to change, go take it to the WP:OR page. I'm sure they're used to arguing the point by now. Raistlin11325 18:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually i do work as a professional game programmer and the criticism section you added had a few decent points, but overall sounded very "childish", and not the kind of feedback i'd expect from one of our game designers. It certainly didn't belong in an encyclopedia without a source. No offense.--Helixdq 08:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "Game Mechanics"

I believe this article should stay on real-world issues. This section, like the already-removed "Game Design" section, merely states a negative opinion about an in-game aspect, namely that effort is rewarded more than skill. Opinions differ about this, and many players certainly find this enjoyable.

The title of this article is "Criticism of World of Warcraft", it should not be confused with "Why people do not like this game". To explain the difference, in the article on Rap, you can write "Various politicians, journalists, and religious leaders have accused rappers of fostering a culture of violence" (and that sentence is indeed there). You should NOT write "Various people think rap is bad because there is no melody".

For instance, you could mention the fact effort is rewarded more than skill IF you link it to the addictive aspect of the game, i.e., "Time spent is rewarded => people play too much for better rewards". In that case, you put it (with a citation) in the section "Game addiction", because addiction is bad, and it concerns society as a whole, so it is encyclopedic. The game mechanics themselves are off-topic, as whether they are bad or not is a matter of opinion. Ratfox (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Selling/Spamming

Apologies, I'm new here. I was following advice from Atama after posting this on the talk page of the main WoW entry. Is it worth putting in an entry about the amount of spam that was generated after free trial accounts were launched and about the community solutions that were put together to reduce these problems (spam filter addons etc)?

Is it also worth including a note on the legal action that Blizzard started in May 2007 and completed in February 2008 against In Game Dollar in an effort to reduce the amount of in-game spam? The injunction can be found at http://virtuallyblind.com/files/Peons_Injunction.pdf. Gazimoff (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Gold Selling/Spamming occurring on WoW is a legitimate criticism of WoW itself. I thnik it should be removed until it can specifically be tied to WoW. This is a general criticism of most MMORPGs, not WoW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph on Dr. Dragusin Lazar Mihai

The following text was added under Game Addiction. I know I'm not the best at grammar/spelling, but this needs some rework. It also needs citations or links to source material.

Dr. Dragusin Lazar Mihai, psychologist from Municipal Hospital of Craiova, Romania has a different personal oppinion regarding game addiction. In his view, a major part plays the poor competition in the MMO niche and its not related at all to the game addiction and Warcraft. "World of Warcraft is simply the best game in this market segment, so obviously players are attracted to the best product existent so far. I made several psychic researchs regarding World of Warcraft players, and so far from 47 cases I found only 1 case of severe addiction and psychic trauma, a player who calls himself "Weirdo" and has symptoms of acute dissociated consciousness and dual personality (homo duplex) combined with extreme violence, subject in crysis moments is able punch walls untill his knuckles heavy bleeds, break different surrounding items and manifest seriously violent behaviour towards almost anything. But I cannot say that these type of problems are common regarding the mass of players, so we should look at it like an isolated incident."

If some references can be found, I'm happy to help reworking the language to make it workable.Gazimoff (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I've been thinking, Gazimoff, after you noted the lack of images, and I think the image (screenshot) from Make Love, Not Warcraft qualifies as a good fair use image to use here. User:Krator (t c) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a couple of images, both of living people. Both got removed. I was told to either take my own pics of them or ask them for a free use picture. Oh well...Gazimoff (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
As I'm reading the article, nothing in it requires any imagery to make it understandable to readers (see WP:NFCC); if free imagery is available and would be appropriate, feel free to include it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be for illustrative more than explanatory purposes to show the people involved with the article. Having said that, the original biographies would also probably need images as well. Gazimoff (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VG Project Assessment

Went ahead and gave the article B class. The information is cited well and handled correctly, and split into smooth subsections. You should probably tweak a few of the areas of the page in terms of wording but nothing major stands out at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm upping the importance. This is a key topic to one of our top importance game articles, so I'm changing importance to high. Overall its a good job, but I would ask if there has been any response on Blizzard's part to much of this criticism. -- Sabre (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain there has been. I'll have a look through over the next few days to see if I can add some balance to the article Gazimoff (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How much of this article is WoW specific?

It seems like most of this article is about problems in MMORPGs and not WoW-specifically. Someone should probably create an article Criticism of MMORPGs and put most of the stuff there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As the lead of the article states, although these criticisms may affect multiple MMOs, WoW has been singled out and identified for particular criticism. The detail of those criticisms, as well as Blizzard's response, is unique to WoW. That;s why everything is sourced and referened to ensure that WoW specifically is mentioned. I did my homework :) --Gazimoff (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning a connection to World of Warcraft does not make the criticism legitimately unique to World of Warcraft. For example, there is nothing specific to World of Warcraft pertaining to Gold Selling/Spamming besides the fact that Blizzard made a response against it. Some would say this is a positive and shouldn't be included as a criticism. The link between gold selling/spamming and WoW specifically is weak at best. It's inlcusion among some other section reflects non-NPOV of the article and authors more than any criticism of WoW specifically. --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope the stuff below wasn't part of your "homework". If so, it was shoddy. --Intentionally unsigned
Hey, no personal attacks please. Gazimoff WriteRead 08:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh wiki-lawyering. Ok, correction, the content sucks. --Intentionally unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The accusation in context of Gaz's comment in amusing.
As for "Some would say this is a positive and shouldn't be included as a criticism," criticism is defined, among other things, as "a critical observation or detailed examination and review". Now, that does not say whether items of "criticism" are positive or negative, only that they have been examined in detail. Really truly, we're going to be working to get rid of this article as soon as we can, merging the proper items into the main article; for now, we're stuck with it. Please, you can either help us or go away; I would rather have you working to help us (i.e. making a proper account and signing up for the task force) than working against us. If you continue these personal attacks, I'm afraid that we would have to ask an administrator to intervene. --Izno (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why paragraph 1 of the Gold Selling Spamming section should be removed - point by point

  1. As with many MMORPGs, companies emerged offering to sell virtual gold and other associated services to players. After Blizzard started offering free trial gameplay accounts, players started receiving increasing numbers of spam sent by bots in the virtual mailboxes of their characters, advertising these services.
    • Citation: cite web |url=http://gigaom.com/2006/11/26/world-of-warcraft-gold-farmers/ |title=Inside World of Warcraft Gold Farm, Future of Work |accessdate=2008-03-03 |author=Wagner James Au |date=2006-11-26 |publisher=gigaom.com
    • Why citation is not relevant: Just because the gold farmers farm in World of Warcraft does not explain the link to trial accounts or World of Warcraft specifically. Also if you read this article it is very short and also mentions Second Life outsourcing, but no mention of Blizzard's trial accounts.
  2. One study shows that this problem is particularly prevalent on the European realms, with gold being over 14 times more expensive to buy on US realms than their European counterparts
    • Citation: cite web |url=http://www.gamerprice.com/wow-gold-study.html |title=WoW Gold Price research: A World of Warcraft economic study |accessdate=2008-03-03 |coauthor=University of Sheffield |publisher=gamerprice.com
    • Why citation is not relevant: Follow the link and this study is created and financed by a gold seller company and cites no sources, but merely says "Together with some students from the University of Sheffield, we’ve done some research into World of Warcraft Gold USA..." This is not a sound scientific study and the citation could be considered to be defaming University of Sheffield which had no official role in this.

I'm not sure I will spend the time to rip down this whole article, but as you can see by this example, it should be examined much more closely and there is definite evidence of POV and an agenda rather than legitimate criticism. Also think about this example when reading lots of Wikipedia articles. The uncontroversial ones probably don't need such close examination, but many of the others... --Intentionally unsigned

I'd also like to point out the irony that depending on the issue it takes an anal-retentive, rigorous refutation to get some stuff removed when it comes to supposed "criticism" of World of Warcraft, but sweeping purges of World of Warcraft content have been otherwise made on Wikipedia with very little evidence or reasoning, but merely based on a sort of vague popularity contest like vote. Hence... --Intentionally unsigned
I think it's a shame that you don't sign your posts, and I'd be interested to know your reasons why. However, in response to your comments, you have cited concerns with two sources relating to one part of the section. The fact that blizzard has taken direct action against goldsellers, as well as issuing information directly to it's customers regarding their use, makes the subject notable in that context. They have even announced the amount of accounts they've closed and gold that has been removed from circulation in press releases, so the topic is definately relevant in Warcraft.
Longer term though, the Warcraft taskforce is looking at cleaning up all warcraft-related articles. As criticism sections and articles are generally dscouraged, we'll be looking to integrate this with other appropriate articles in order to demonstrate a more balanced view. You're welcome to join us and help out, if you like.Gazimoff WriteRead 08:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll believe it when I see it. Wikipedia's history with Warcraft related articles vs. other fan stuff like Star Wars and others does not bode well. As to why I intentionally don't sign things, it's because when I use a real account all that happens is I get harassed by Wikipedia zealots. --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I also notice that my analysis seems to have fallen on deaf ears and the offending paragraph has not been removed or any explanation given to explain the bogus references. It would be nice to see someone address the issues I brought up directly rather than BSing around about blah, blah, blah in context and some dubious future project of only general relevance when it happens, but not right now apparently. --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. So fix it. Either find a better citation or remove it. Just because you're using an IP rather than a user name doesn't mean you get to complain about it; this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that everyone can edit (provided your name starts with S, ends with V, and only on every other day starting with T).
  2. as for the second, I think I'ma have to agree with that one (with the fact it is not a reliable secondary source. However, I would still advise you go hunting for a more correct url to cite from rather than straight out delete it; it leaves the interpretation with us that you are willing to work with the program rather than against it (is this starting to sound like the same message to you?). --Izno (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)