Just saving this for later

Posted on October 23, 2011 by SynCaine

It is only by ignoring the looks of WoW and concentrating on a very minor part of the game that people can keep up the illusion that World of Warcraft ever was meant to be a “serious” game. – Tobold

About SynCaine

Former hardcore raider turned casual gamer.
This entry was posted in World of Warcraft. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Just saving this for later

  1. Stabs says:
    October 23, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Yet oddly enough if you play with a carefree attitude expect to get a ton of verbal abuse from other players if something goes wrong.

  2. Nils says:
    October 23, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Tobold would say anything to not lose an argument. I wouldn’t give much weight to this.

    • Rammstein says:
      October 24, 2011 at 6:31 pm

      “Tobold would say anything.”

      FTFY

      I don’t understand your comment about not giving this much weight. This is exactly the kind of thing Tobold is always saying.

  3. bhagpuss says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Given that no two of us will ever agree on a definition of “serious”, this is totally meaningless.

  4. Verdisian says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    I can’t believe people think a game with bipedal cows running around making choo choo noises was serious.

  5. Azuriel says:
    October 23, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Leper gnomes, mechanical chickens, Savory Deviate Delights, steampunk tanks, gnome warriors, Tauren paladins, male Night Elf death animations, balloon pets, gyrocopters, “You no take candle!” kobolds, murlocks, etc etc etc.

    I will say that the raiding game is designed to be taken seriously, but that is from a systems point of view. The game as a whole is basically Warcraft 3 made into an MMO, which is about as far from “standard” fantasy as you can get.

  6. Ordinairy says:
    October 23, 2011 at 10:23 pm

    In my opinion… a “serious” game isn’t a game.. .it’s just another form of work.

    I play games to have fun… If it’s a ‘serious’ game then why play?

    (that’s for MY definition of serious)

  7. Esteban says:
    October 24, 2011 at 6:26 am

    Unfortunately, this is one of those fracture points where book/movie/theatre/etc is not analogous to game. A book can be thematically serious, but it usually has no system to be serious about. If I’m going to be serious about Shakespeare, I’m going to become a Shakespeare scholar, and that’s work. Conversely, one can take a rigorous approach to the oeuvre of say, Tom Robbins, as unserious a good writer as ever wrote.

    I look forward to SynCaine’s definition, but I agree with Ordinairy, broadly speaking. A game can have a dark mood or setting, and perhaps evoke some deep thinking, but the moment it becomes ‘work’, it’s not a game. And any MMO community that is hardcore and serious tends to miss a point, and frequently end up an odious congregation of humourless zero-sum cutthroat douchebags.

    • Nils says:
      October 24, 2011 at 6:31 am

      A game being serious and being ‘work’ are really two completely different things.

    • Rammstein says:
      October 24, 2011 at 6:27 pm

      “And any MMO community that is hardcore and serious tends to miss a point,…”

      Which point do they miss? Kinda ruins your point to omit the climax like this.

      ” and frequently end up an odious congregation of humourless zero-sum cutthroat douchebags.”

      Not to worry, this totally ruins your point anyway.

      • Esteban says:
        October 25, 2011 at 1:15 am

        Nils:

        Unless I misunderstood your point, the underlying blogosphere assumption of the panda debacle is that they’re related. Pandas and pretties attract tweens et al who are then identified as core audience and supported with carebear mechanics. Realism and grit attract srsfayse MMO tough guys, who are similarly catered to.

        I don’t know to what extent that’s true, though it sounds reasonable on the surface. I’m just agreeing with Ordinairy’s original point about games. A serious novel is still a novel. A game designed to be taken seriously is a mistake.

        Rammstein:

        “Not to worry, this totally ruins your point anyway.”

        Pity. I stand by it. Though in fairness it’s not the BoB/Goons/Nihilums/Methods/SKs/Hydramists of this world who are primarily to blame for this outcome. They often turn out to be surprisingly decent guys. It’s mostly nerdraging aspirants feeding off the climate.

  8. Rammstein says:
    October 27, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    “A serious novel is still a novel.”

    Yes, and at one point novels were considered crude, even filthy. Over time they became seen as a genre in which serious artworks could be created, even though trashier novels have continued to be written. Going to the theater/opera used to be considered a socially unacceptable behavior as well.

    “A game can have a dark mood or setting, and perhaps evoke some deep thinking, but the moment it becomes ‘work’, it’s not a game.”

    A. Cultural definitions shift over time.

    B. You’re being very argumentative and aggressive, but your key points all hinge on these definitional issues as above, purely semantic and not worth any emotion whatsoever.

    Being honest, the thrust of your argument is that it’s foolish to get emotional over a game, but you’re getting emotional over arguing over whether something is a game or not. Thanks, but no thanks.

Comments are closed.