--- Every game in existence has some form of repetition. It depends on the game developer as to how entertaining that repetition really is. --- Sandbox >= Single Player Games >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theme Park --- If you think Time Spent == Skill, then this game is for you: www.ProgressQuest.com
Originally posted by Gameloading How somebody can become so happy over a bad rating of someone else's hard work is downright sad. I feel sorry for you. and it doesn't hit the nail on the head, for the reasons I mentioned above. the reviewer played only the first part of the game. its NOT a game that you can review in 1 week.
If the piece of work that someone worked on for so long is so flawed that any attempt to market it outside it's original market can simply view as a cynical attempt to generate revenue regardless of the games quality, then it deserves every piece of abuse it gets.
So my question is should I buy this game to play? I've played many games in my days like EQ2, EQ, DAOC, WoW, Anarchy Online, Guild Wars, and COH/COV. I see that it is free to play now and I don't mind if a game has some grinding in it as long as it has some sort of small story to it. I did try RF Online which I thought was really a bad game created by Codemasters. If it is like that then I don't want to play it at all. I also played Lineage II as well. If that game ever went to free to play I would probably play it in a heartbeat. I really didn't like Guild wars because it seemed like I was forced to play through some story and didn't have a choice in where I could go. So if a game has a massive world that builds up like EQ and has some sort of Realm VS Realm in it then I'd play it.
So back to the right questions at hand and why a forum is here... "Is the game worth 50 bucks to play?"
Originally posted by Gameloading And your completely correct, It is a bad thing that there are little pvp experiences at the start of the game, and that is something that should cost them points, however, that is no reason to judge the entire game on the experience of the first few days.Also, keep in mind that I never mentioned the word end-game.
Are you trying to turn my words against me again, here? You never mentioned the word "end-game"... Again.. Annnnnnd....? I never said or otherwise implied that you did.
Others have mentioned how the real gist of the game, the real PvP aspects of it, do not kick in 'til you've grinded to the end-game. And in response to that, I posed a simple question - how can you say a game is mainly about PvP when, if all the accounts I've read are correct, the PvP only comes at the tail end of hours upon hours upon levels upon levels of PvE grinding?
Second - you're still on this kick that hte reviewer can't give a fair review without playing more of the game. I disagree. First, reviewers don't have the *time* to spend weeks or months on a single game. They have to play it enough to get an idea of what the game is like, what it offers, etc.. and then write their review. *Every* MMORPG gets this treatment - not just AL. For some, they'll come back and write a follow-up review after they've spent more time in the game (assuming they found it entertaining enough to continue playing in the first place).
A game - like any other form of entertainment - has to capture someone early on, or they get bored and lose interest. A person does not need to read to the end of a book to know that it's not engrossing them. A movie-goer does not need to wait for the end-credits to roll to realize they think it stinks. Similiarly, if a game is a yawner to someone from the start - a reviewer or otherwise - they do not need to continuously play it to realize they are not enjoying themselves.
I think it's safe to say a game reviewer - this one or anyone - reviews many, many, many games. They judge them all on the same criteria and, when you play so many games back to back, certain elements become familiar and mundane while something truly new and unique will stand out. Apparently, to this reviewer, nothing about AL stood out as unique or interesting enough to keep them playing.
Just acknowledge already, will you, that AL is obviously not a rising star, but rather another derivative title floating in a sea of mediocrity, where it seems to have more and more company lately.
You love it.. great! Have at it - play it 'til your fingers fall off. Anyone else who loves it.. great! Play to your heart's content! But acknowledge that many many others do not like the game and, just like you, they have the right to voice those opinions here, or anywhere else - up to and including feeling like it's a waste of money. You want to disagree.. then great! Post some of your specific counter-points.. exactly what is it about AL that you feel is well-done, unique, interesting, engaging, etc. That's a heck of alot more respectable than running behind people doing damage control, trying to stifle others' opinions.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I was gonna give an honest try to this game but after hearing from peopel that played it and mostly reding GameSpot review that is OFTEN accurate. I'm not even gonna dare to touch it !
ArchLord can be summed up with two words: "dull" and "repetitive."
It's possible that players who have very little experience with this sort of game might find the treadmill-like game of killing, looting, and buying better stuff to be somewhat addictive, but there are more-compelling, more-enjoyable games out there by now that offer more. Yes, the game has halfhearted quest and crafting systems, but the quest system just gives you some bland missions that boil down to killing monsters or delivering items as one-off tasks that don't seem connected to each other with any kind of context or story, and the crafting system is simplistic and not all that interesting. What you're left with when playing ArchLord is a whole lot of grinding away, repeatedly fighting off both monsters and the urge to stop playing ArchLord. There are already plenty of other decent massively multiplayer games out there that offer a better experience, and you'd probably be better off playing one of those right now." Beautiful. Finally some justice getting done to this game, it died in korea and looks like it's about to do no better in the western world.
Funny how gamespot reviews a game like this so low yet gives games like world of warcraft such high marks. The tedium of the treadmill is present in every single mmo game released, that I know of. Every one of them is replete with quests to go kill x number of y, to pick up so many of such and such and return or take to someone else that wants you to go kill c number of d. Apart from SWG and EQ2 prenerf eras there are no deep and rewarding crafting systems. I would be willing to wager had blizzard slapped their name on archlord the tools at gamespot would be salivating over it and singing its praises. Just more proof that the media surrounding games is nothing more than additional marketing departments for big ticket games.
note- this is not an argument against the low score of archlord, but an argument against gamespot and other "review" sites that consider themselves the "source".
ArchLord can be summed up with two words: "dull" and "repetitive."
It's possible that players who have very little experience with this sort of game might find the treadmill-like game of killing, looting, and buying better stuff to be somewhat addictive, but there are more-compelling, more-enjoyable games out there by now that offer more. Yes, the game has halfhearted quest and crafting systems, but the quest system just gives you some bland missions that boil down to killing monsters or delivering items as one-off tasks that don't seem connected to each other with any kind of context or story, and the crafting system is simplistic and not all that interesting. What you're left with when playing ArchLord is a whole lot of grinding away, repeatedly fighting off both monsters and the urge to stop playing ArchLord. There are already plenty of other decent massively multiplayer games out there that offer a better experience, and you'd probably be better off playing one of those right now." Beautiful. Finally some justice getting done to this game, it died in korea and looks like it's about to do no better in the western world.
Funny how gamespot reviews a game like this so low yet gives games like world of warcraft such high marks. The tedium of the treadmill is present in every single mmo game released, that I know of. Every one of them is replete with quests to go kill x number of y, to pick up so many of such and such and return or take to someone else that wants you to go kill c number of d. Apart from SWG and EQ2 prenerf eras there are no deep and rewarding crafting systems. I would be willing to wager had blizzard slapped their name on archlord the tools at gamespot would be salivating over it and singing its praises. Just more proof that the media surrounding games is nothing more than additional marketing departments for big ticket games.
note- this is not an argument against the low score of archlord, but an argument against gamespot and other "review" sites that consider themselves the "source". Well, first thing...
People need to remember that - though they do it for a living and the fact that literally hundreds of games will cross their desk in the course of their career and they do have certain criteria they review by - what a reviewer puts out is ultimately their opinion of it. Many will agree, many will disagree. Find the reviewer whose opinions seem most consistently in line with your own and you'll probably have a good gauge of whether you'll like a given game or not.
There is merit in what you say about what people's reaction would be if Blizzard had their name on AL (or any other MMO), but I think you're over-estimating a bit. A sub-standard game is a sub-standard game. While it might get them higher box sales initially, it won't carry them for long if what's inside it isn't up to snuff - especially for Blizzard who has, even before WoW, a history of producing consistently high quality games.
Another example is Square-Enix. With the following they have with the Final FAntasy series - one might almost expect the same reaction any time they put out a new game - simply because Square-Enix is on the box. Yet, despite that, and despite having Final Fantasy VII on the cover... Dirge of Cerberus got mediocre reviews (at least on the street.. I haven't ready many of the reviews). Despite it being a Final Fantasy title, FFXI is at around the same subscriber numbers it has been for a few years now. It doesn't have WoW's numbers - largely because the game is *not* nearly as casual friendly as WoW and thus doesn't attract as many players. Many people dismiss it outright of even deserving the Final Fantasy name because it doesn't feel, to them, however they think an online FF game should. So, while in my opinion, FFXI is a much deeper, more interesting and more rewarding MMO than WoW, there are obviously several million who would disagree - and that's fine. Nothing is for everyone, and I certainly don't need anyone else's approval or agreement to enjoy the game. So in the end, a company's name on the box will only take it so far. Players still know a good game from a bad one and are still able to make up their own mind and form their own opinions about it.
What WoW gets praised for is its "casual-friendly" accessibility (at least at first), its ease-of-play, performance and especially its polish. Whatever you think of its graphics (whether one likes the cartoony look or not), WoW is *very* polished. Everything is consistently well-animated, there are little nuances everywhere, the controls are quick and responsive and so forth. I say all this - and I'm not particularly a fan of the game. I'm bored by level 20 no matter what race/class I play.
That so many people are panning AL - besides the reviewers - should not be ignored.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Of course the Gamespot review for WoW is good. They played for a few days and what you experience at L1 in WoW is what you experience at L59. The real question is whether they played at L60 and reviewed it as such. They didn't and that is a disservice to their readers who buy the game and then get bored at L60.
Reviewing an MMO is not the same as reviewing as a single person experience game. MMO content is dynamic and the game itself is affected by the community. To do a fair review you need to experience low end - middle - and high end content. When you put the review to the readers, you qualify it as to what stage you are reviewing.
Gamespot would have been more fair to readers having someone play on the Chinese or Korean servers and then experience the low end content on the two new US/EU servers. Then they could comment on the community and say they reviewed the game. To this date they have reviewed PvE starting content.
And WSIMike, PvP doesn't start at end game. You can start to pvp at L15 which is effectively your very start of the game. Day 1 for fast levellers. Sieging effectively requires L60 in a game with 99 levels. Give a quick look at an experience curve and you'll see that we are all lowbies until we reach the 80s.
The end game in AL is about controlling the server both militarily and economically. Everyone can begin to impact who controls it once they get into their 60s. Guilds are already jostling for position when the average level on the servers in around the mid 40s.
PvP MMO ! = FPS. You don't play this genre of game to jump in and start fragging. You play to develop a character over time that can impact the game world and resort to pvp if/when needed. Too many people want PvP games to be FPS like and I'm glad there are options like AL out there.
I agree with you that it's not for everyone and that some posters are more marketing oriented than analytical, but the hostility is developing over those posters who just can't accept someone elses opinion. Some will love and some will hate but we need to moderate the crusaders on both sides that feel it's the end of the world if their view of the game is not accepted. I think we have enough hate in the world over religion, let's keep it out of the domain of games.
Dec 20,1999: AC1(DT).Since then:DAoC,SB,AC2,L2,EvE,WoW,SoR ==================== Currently playing: ArchLord - L58 Knight LoTRo - L13 Dwarf Guardian
Originally posted by Ake_Gamer [quote]Originally posted by Vanguarde Played lineage 2 up to level 76 and when that game came out it was "Polished", Archlord is unpolished no end content either just grind grind grind. Hell, lineage 2 was 10x more enjoyable then this piece of dung. Castle siege is funner then this unfinished beta product that was implemented in 2 month after release (lineage 2) Customization is nowhere to be found while lineage 2 offers both facial, female and male for each different races, even hairs and such. Archlord offers female mages Only, while i can understand elementalist female only race, others are just forcing you to choose female mages, males only archers, knights berserkers. While Lineage 2 had antharas, archlord has none to offer besides grind grind grind then pk and more pk and then theres the bounty system which again is broken. And here is the funny part, when you pk and camp them you get warned by the gm. For a game to be touted as a pure pvp game it sure as hell doesnt feel like one. Where as in lineage 2 you can pk the people over and over and the gm wouldn't care since it is also a pvp game. And dont think I would consider myself to be a newbie in mmorpg ive played EQ,EQ2,WOW,FFXI, UO, LINEAGE 2, HERO ONLINE, CONQUER ONLINE, CITY OF HEROS, CITY OF VILLIANS, GUILD WARS, SHADOWBANE, with all extremely high level characters on all the games mentioned. Ive played enough mmorpg to know this is a pile of dung. While lineage 2 has many skill sets for each classes, Archlord offers very limited class skill sets per classes. Lineage 2 offers class advancement branching path example: A warrior can advance into either gladiator or paladin. Archlord does not offer class advancement option, basically your just a knight is a knight period. Oh by the way this game is dark & light 2. And do you really want to wonder why Lineage 2 is successful in the western market, then this? Both game can be considered as pvp game. Which is why I am comparing the two games. Already in Lineage 2 is working on toward new expansions, while Archlord is struggling to gain western audience and failed at doing it. In the end, Lineage 2 is much much better then this crap. Lineage 2 gives players tons of options right from the start, while Archlord limits players options as mentioned reasons above. [/b][/quote] Thanks for offering your perspective, but again you offer no argument as to why you feel the way you do other than saying that you have extensive experience with MMOs. I believe many of us in this community do. I too played L2 from open beta through the launch of C2. Were sieges in C1? I don't think so, but I may have forgotten.L2 was polished in C1? What about the myriad of bugs, class imbalances, exploits? There were never GMs around to help and botting/farming started to affect the economy + pvp culture from day 1. From what I read now, the economy has never recovered and the RTM industry thrives in L2, albeit with some temporary setbacks from bannings.It wasn't complete either. It being C1. But I will agree that it was more feature complete than AL is at the same point in the lifecycle which is retail + 2 months.I take the argument part back a bit. Just hard to read your writing style. Seems like character customization is very important for you. I'd say the Korean developed MMOs offer the least in terms of character cutomization. That's a known and is partially due to their culture of uniformity. I find the standardization of character models has tremendous performance impact in PvP. When the server can tell your client to load in 100 other characters with no lag, then you appreciate the lack of customization. I suggest you look at Western MMOs like the CoX series if you really enjoy it.You mention Antharas, which I think is a PvE raid boss? A dragon? AL is not a PvE game. While there are a myriad of named mobs throughout the world that take concerted efforts to take out, that's not the focus of the game. If you are looking for end game PvE raiding, I suggest the EQ series of games with WoW as a second choice.GM warnings are issued in PvP situations when players do not follow the In Game Combat rules. They include things like training, camping starter city exits and forms of griefing. GMs are VERY accessbile in AL and they do investigate reports enthusiastically. PK is not against the rules, but there are rules of engagement to follow.The bounty system is working as intended. The community is still feeling it out and getting used to it. In the US/EU market, the penalties associated with bounties are very light compared to the Korean marketplace. XP loss is harsh and people have been complaining because some players bounty extremely liberally. That doesn't mean it's broken. Just means people in this marketplace like to bounty. That will change in time as people learn to hate the xp loss. Tough lesson, but many are slow to learn.Lineage 2 is on it's 5th retail expansion, I believe, and has been in retail for over 2 years. Trying to compare the class progressions between it and AL right now doesn't make sense. Now if you looked at C1 at retail + 2 months and compared it to AL in terms of class development, I'd argue that. Currently L2 is much more mature and SHOULD be superior.Where L2 has failed AL has yet to be tested. I gave up on L2 due to the publisher's (NC) lackadaisical approach to handling the RTM industry in their game. Botting and farming to this day are rampant and adversely affect the daily playing experience. The game has drastically changed due to that culture both economically and in PvP. I don't want to have to buy adena and bot to "play" a game. I find it rediculous.So while L2 is superior in terms of it's completeness and it's maturity I choose to invest my money with the game that has a lot more potential. Potential for PvP and politics though the Archlord System, potential for economics without the destructive RTM industry participating."A rich man's garbage is a poor man's fortune."
I have to respond to this. It sounds to me like you've done very little actual research into what LII actually is. Or you've forgotten.
First, let me preface this by saying that I played Lineage 2 and am thoroughly over it; having quite the rant to go along with it.
However, you are misrepresenting - whether deliberately or otherwise I won't presume - what L2 is. By giving one example - Antharas being a PvE boss as an indirect example of L2 being a PvE game, while AL isn't is completely disingenuous. Antharas and Valakas and all the raid bosses are all PvE elements in what is, at its core, a PvP-centric game. The key draw to Lineage II is not raiding mobs, it's sieging castles - which entails mass PvP between 2 or, often, more clans/alliances that can stretch on for hours. There are constantly wars being declared between clans/alliances. You always have your "renegade" types who like to go out and prey on other players, often becoming the hunted themself. Lineage II is - very much so - a PvP game. The PvE content is in there to give players ways to work on their characters or to try for some nice loot drops - most commonly to make them better in PvP. So, to imply in any way that Lineage II is not a PvP game while AL is is complete false representation of it.
Next, I played Lineage II in beta, and at launch and on and off for some time after that, before finally sticking to it for a little over a year, around the time of Chronicle 3's launch. The game had its bugs, yes - which all MMOs have at launch. Every single one of them. So that is also not a reason to knock the game - as though its somehow an anomaly in a genre with otherwise flawless launches.
Also, you mention it having "retail expansions'. None of Lineage II's expansions have been retail. They have all been free for paying subscribers. Every single one of them, up to and including the most recent, Chronicle 5.
It's an interesting angle to play on the "benefits" of limited customization for your characters based on server performance - but it doesn't hold water. Look at WoW. How much customization is there in that game? I can go into any of the major cities in that game, IF around the AH being an obvious one, and the lag is extremely minimal, beyond a couple hiccups as it's first loading up all the other players, etc. As for the Eastern markets being accustom to a culture of uniformity, as you put it, well, that's all well and good, if they were only targeting an Eastern Market. The Western market is, decidedly, quite different. We like individuality, we want to be able to make our characters stand out as much as possible. So, while I understand the nature of the limitation - you need to understand that if they're going to play the Western market, they're going to be subject to Western criticisms.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Fantastic game for gankers, worst pve elements ever.
"I will never get tired of walking 40 minutes to fetch a plant from a glowing rock. I love fetching plants from a glowing rock!"
Spend 2 days levelling moon elf mage to level 22. Spend 7 days ganking lowbies. Spend 3 more days to level 30. Spend 7 days ganking lowbies. Spend 5 days to level 50. Spend 7 days ganking more lowbies. Spend XY days to level 75+ Spend ABC days ganking lowbies.
Villany points: 3000+ (thanks lowbies)
Thanks for playing. Join this game in F2P so i can look forward to making more lowbies miserable!
Originally posted by seePyou I refuse to play any game that includes the "potion spamming" game mechanic.People are supposed to DIE when 5 others hit them... not potion spamm and run away...
Doesn't quite work that way. Potions are heal over time. Opponent spike damage > tick of your health pot = death. People do DIE when 5 others hit them.
Dec 20,1999: AC1(DT).Since then:DAoC,SB,AC2,L2,EvE,WoW,SoR ==================== Currently playing: ArchLord - L58 Knight LoTRo - L13 Dwarf Guardian
Comments
---
Every game in existence has some form of repetition. It depends on the game developer as to how entertaining that repetition really is.
---
Sandbox >= Single Player Games >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theme Park
---
If you think Time Spent == Skill, then this game is for you:
www.ProgressQuest.com
Yes every type of korean mmo is a hardcore grind.
If the piece of work that someone worked on for so long is so flawed that any attempt to market it outside it's original market can simply view as a cynical attempt to generate revenue regardless of the games quality, then it deserves every piece of abuse it gets.
So my question is should I buy this game to play? I've played many games in my days like EQ2, EQ, DAOC, WoW, Anarchy Online, Guild Wars, and COH/COV. I see that it is free to play now and I don't mind if a game has some grinding in it as long as it has some sort of small story to it. I did try RF Online which I thought was really a bad game created by Codemasters. If it is like that then I don't want to play it at all. I also played Lineage II as well. If that game ever went to free to play I would probably play it in a heartbeat. I really didn't like Guild wars because it seemed like I was forced to play through some story and didn't have a choice in where I could go. So if a game has a massive world that builds up like EQ and has some sort of Realm VS Realm in it then I'd play it.
So back to the right questions at hand and why a forum is here... "Is the game worth 50 bucks to play?"
Metalkicker
Are you trying to turn my words against me again, here? You never mentioned the word "end-game"... Again.. Annnnnnd....? I never said or otherwise implied that you did.
Others have mentioned how the real gist of the game, the real PvP aspects of it, do not kick in 'til you've grinded to the end-game. And in response to that, I posed a simple question - how can you say a game is mainly about PvP when, if all the accounts I've read are correct, the PvP only comes at the tail end of hours upon hours upon levels upon levels of PvE grinding?
Second - you're still on this kick that hte reviewer can't give a fair review without playing more of the game. I disagree. First, reviewers don't have the *time* to spend weeks or months on a single game. They have to play it enough to get an idea of what the game is like, what it offers, etc.. and then write their review. *Every* MMORPG gets this treatment - not just AL. For some, they'll come back and write a follow-up review after they've spent more time in the game (assuming they found it entertaining enough to continue playing in the first place).
A game - like any other form of entertainment - has to capture someone early on, or they get bored and lose interest. A person does not need to read to the end of a book to know that it's not engrossing them. A movie-goer does not need to wait for the end-credits to roll to realize they think it stinks. Similiarly, if a game is a yawner to someone from the start - a reviewer or otherwise - they do not need to continuously play it to realize they are not enjoying themselves.
I think it's safe to say a game reviewer - this one or anyone - reviews many, many, many games. They judge them all on the same criteria and, when you play so many games back to back, certain elements become familiar and mundane while something truly new and unique will stand out. Apparently, to this reviewer, nothing about AL stood out as unique or interesting enough to keep them playing.
Just acknowledge already, will you, that AL is obviously not a rising star, but rather another derivative title floating in a sea of mediocrity, where it seems to have more and more company lately.
You love it.. great! Have at it - play it 'til your fingers fall off. Anyone else who loves it.. great! Play to your heart's content! But acknowledge that many many others do not like the game and, just like you, they have the right to voice those opinions here, or anywhere else - up to and including feeling like it's a waste of money. You want to disagree.. then great! Post some of your specific counter-points.. exactly what is it about AL that you feel is well-done, unique, interesting, engaging, etc. That's a heck of alot more respectable than running behind people doing damage control, trying to stifle others' opinions.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
note- this is not an argument against the low score of archlord, but an argument against gamespot and other "review" sites that consider themselves the "source".
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
note- this is not an argument against the low score of archlord, but an argument against gamespot and other "review" sites that consider themselves the "source".
Well, first thing...
People need to remember that - though they do it for a living and the fact that literally hundreds of games will cross their desk in the course of their career and they do have certain criteria they review by - what a reviewer puts out is ultimately their opinion of it. Many will agree, many will disagree. Find the reviewer whose opinions seem most consistently in line with your own and you'll probably have a good gauge of whether you'll like a given game or not.
There is merit in what you say about what people's reaction would be if Blizzard had their name on AL (or any other MMO), but I think you're over-estimating a bit. A sub-standard game is a sub-standard game. While it might get them higher box sales initially, it won't carry them for long if what's inside it isn't up to snuff - especially for Blizzard who has, even before WoW, a history of producing consistently high quality games.
Another example is Square-Enix. With the following they have with the Final FAntasy series - one might almost expect the same reaction any time they put out a new game - simply because Square-Enix is on the box. Yet, despite that, and despite having Final Fantasy VII on the cover... Dirge of Cerberus got mediocre reviews (at least on the street.. I haven't ready many of the reviews). Despite it being a Final Fantasy title, FFXI is at around the same subscriber numbers it has been for a few years now. It doesn't have WoW's numbers - largely because the game is *not* nearly as casual friendly as WoW and thus doesn't attract as many players. Many people dismiss it outright of even deserving the Final Fantasy name because it doesn't feel, to them, however they think an online FF game should. So, while in my opinion, FFXI is a much deeper, more interesting and more rewarding MMO than WoW, there are obviously several million who would disagree - and that's fine. Nothing is for everyone, and I certainly don't need anyone else's approval or agreement to enjoy the game. So in the end, a company's name on the box will only take it so far. Players still know a good game from a bad one and are still able to make up their own mind and form their own opinions about it.
What WoW gets praised for is its "casual-friendly" accessibility (at least at first), its ease-of-play, performance and especially its polish. Whatever you think of its graphics (whether one likes the cartoony look or not), WoW is *very* polished. Everything is consistently well-animated, there are little nuances everywhere, the controls are quick and responsive and so forth. I say all this - and I'm not particularly a fan of the game. I'm bored by level 20 no matter what race/class I play.
That so many people are panning AL - besides the reviewers - should not be ignored.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Of course the Gamespot review for WoW is good. They played for a few days and what you experience at L1 in WoW is what you experience at L59. The real question is whether they played at L60 and reviewed it as such. They didn't and that is a disservice to their readers who buy the game and then get bored at L60.
Reviewing an MMO is not the same as reviewing as a single person experience game. MMO content is dynamic and the game itself is affected by the community. To do a fair review you need to experience low end - middle - and high end content. When you put the review to the readers, you qualify it as to what stage you are reviewing.
Gamespot would have been more fair to readers having someone play on the Chinese or Korean servers and then experience the low end content on the two new US/EU servers. Then they could comment on the community and say they reviewed the game. To this date they have reviewed PvE starting content.
And WSIMike, PvP doesn't start at end game. You can start to pvp at L15 which is effectively your very start of the game. Day 1 for fast levellers. Sieging effectively requires L60 in a game with 99 levels. Give a quick look at an experience curve and you'll see that we are all lowbies until we reach the 80s.
The end game in AL is about controlling the server both militarily and economically. Everyone can begin to impact who controls it once they get into their 60s. Guilds are already jostling for position when the average level on the servers in around the mid 40s.
PvP MMO ! = FPS. You don't play this genre of game to jump in and start fragging. You play to develop a character over time that can impact the game world and resort to pvp if/when needed. Too many people want PvP games to be FPS like and I'm glad there are options like AL out there.
I agree with you that it's not for everyone and that some posters are more marketing oriented than analytical, but the hostility is developing over those posters who just can't accept someone elses opinion. Some will love and some will hate but we need to moderate the crusaders on both sides that feel it's the end of the world if their view of the game is not accepted. I think we have enough hate in the world over religion, let's keep it out of the domain of games.
Dec 20,1999: AC1(DT).Since then:DAoC,SB,AC2,L2,EvE,WoW,SoR
====================
Currently playing: ArchLord - L58 Knight
LoTRo - L13 Dwarf Guardian
First, let me preface this by saying that I played Lineage 2 and am thoroughly over it; having quite the rant to go along with it.
However, you are misrepresenting - whether deliberately or otherwise I won't presume - what L2 is. By giving one example - Antharas being a PvE boss as an indirect example of L2 being a PvE game, while AL isn't is completely disingenuous. Antharas and Valakas and all the raid bosses are all PvE elements in what is, at its core, a PvP-centric game. The key draw to Lineage II is not raiding mobs, it's sieging castles - which entails mass PvP between 2 or, often, more clans/alliances that can stretch on for hours. There are constantly wars being declared between clans/alliances. You always have your "renegade" types who like to go out and prey on other players, often becoming the hunted themself. Lineage II is - very much so - a PvP game. The PvE content is in there to give players ways to work on their characters or to try for some nice loot drops - most commonly to make them better in PvP. So, to imply in any way that Lineage II is not a PvP game while AL is is complete false representation of it.
Next, I played Lineage II in beta, and at launch and on and off for some time after that, before finally sticking to it for a little over a year, around the time of Chronicle 3's launch. The game had its bugs, yes - which all MMOs have at launch. Every single one of them. So that is also not a reason to knock the game - as though its somehow an anomaly in a genre with otherwise flawless launches.
Also, you mention it having "retail expansions'. None of Lineage II's expansions have been retail. They have all been free for paying subscribers. Every single one of them, up to and including the most recent, Chronicle 5.
It's an interesting angle to play on the "benefits" of limited customization for your characters based on server performance - but it doesn't hold water. Look at WoW. How much customization is there in that game? I can go into any of the major cities in that game, IF around the AH being an obvious one, and the lag is extremely minimal, beyond a couple hiccups as it's first loading up all the other players, etc. As for the Eastern markets being accustom to a culture of uniformity, as you put it, well, that's all well and good, if they were only targeting an Eastern Market. The Western market is, decidedly, quite different. We like individuality, we want to be able to make our characters stand out as much as possible. So, while I understand the nature of the limitation - you need to understand that if they're going to play the Western market, they're going to be subject to Western criticisms.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I think we're too late on that... :-/
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
People are supposed to DIE when 5 others hit them... not potion spamm and run away...
------------Sig------------
http://www.seepyou.net/blog
Fantastic game for gankers, worst pve elements ever.
"I will never get tired of walking 40 minutes to fetch a plant from a glowing rock. I love fetching plants from a glowing rock!"
Spend 2 days levelling moon elf mage to level 22.
Spend 7 days ganking lowbies.
Spend 3 more days to level 30.
Spend 7 days ganking lowbies.
Spend 5 days to level 50.
Spend 7 days ganking more lowbies.
Spend XY days to level 75+
Spend ABC days ganking lowbies.
Villany points: 3000+
(thanks lowbies)
Thanks for playing.
Join this game in F2P so i can look forward to making more lowbies miserable!
Doesn't quite work that way. Potions are heal over time. Opponent spike damage > tick of your health pot = death. People do DIE when 5 others hit them.
Dec 20,1999: AC1(DT).Since then:DAoC,SB,AC2,L2,EvE,WoW,SoR
====================
Currently playing: ArchLord - L58 Knight
LoTRo - L13 Dwarf Guardian