Originally Posted by Yeesh
Let me address a broader point.
People here on this forum aren't all that fond of Blizzard games. That's cool. I mean, people don't even all like the same kinds of sex. Surely we don't expect everyone to like the same kinds of games.
But, despite the wise and intelligent nature of the CRPG crowd, I feel that some of us tend to mistake our dislike for certain types of games, or certain game mechanics, as a failing of the qualities of the games, as opposed to a personal preference. To me, that's what's going on when I hear you say Blizzard games are not hardcore, or Blizzard games have "very simple mechanics."
Because those two statements are not true. You've taken your opinion of the game and you've turned it into an empirical-sounding fact based on nothing.
Explain how the games you like have more complex mechanics than WoW, with its 9 or 10 classes, each with myriad builds, with its interrupts, silences, and school lockouts, its buffs and debuffs, its cool-down timers, its different classes of resistances. With its customizable interface, with its raids requiring 25 people to coordinate their actions and learn a different set of tactics for each of dozens of raid bosses.
As a former DPSer, I can point you to spreadsheets for weighing the pros and cons of your equipment and attack patterns for different types of fights in WoW. Here's one: http://rogue.raidcal.com/RogueDPS_2_4_2_2.xls
What game are you thinking of with enough complexity to make that "very simple" by comparison? Arcanum? IE games? Ultima? Geneforge? Gothic? Like I said, I'd love to hear examples.
My point: something isn't simplistic just because it's not your cup of tea.
Explain your definition of simple. Explain your definition of hardcore, admittedly a pliable concept. Do we disparage games that are easy for people to start playing?
Is Starcraft simplistic?
Is chess simplistic?