Anyone think they might not have gone all out with the graphics for a reason? Unless you spend over 50% of your free time on the CPU, chances are you dont have a computer that is decked out and top of the line. Remember what happened to Vanguard? Therefore, by toning the graphics down some (btw that video still looked VERY nice to mee, especially the detail in the armor) they are allowing ALOT more people a chance to play thier game. This is partially the same strategy WoW too and look where that got them (largest player base ever)
I'm looking forward to WAR because of the features I've learned about. If it's next gen or not, I could care less. Next gen is one of those things that can be interpreted many different ways and over the years it's been used so much it means very little.
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24580.html THIS is a 'next gen' mmo with a hype of 7.3? The future of MMO's may be in danger lol not hating on the fans of the game it just looks like a WEAK mmo to me... and... well could someone please explain the hype because frankly it's beyond me? It's not the tabletop game... but it sure ain't no 'next gen' sweetness either...
Geezus! One can only hope this is very early alpha. I am much over the fence with WAR. The idea and the concept behind it sounds pretty good, following the many explanatory videos. But my biggest turn-off is still the graphics. In that video it looks more like Warcraft 0.5 tbh. But what WOW had, the factor of cuteness and a comical elegance is what I havent yet seen in WAR visuals. It all cries for immature 16 yo nerd boys! Scantly dressed elves, uber ugly orcs, its all stereotypes brought to the utmost extreme, which never was my pair of shoes, as it kills a lot of individuality in appearance. Essentially in that design dwarfs, elves or orcs are more looking like a very generic mass of ppl that the highly individualized characters games like CoH or SWG have. Its all a big "?" upon the game for me. Maybe its a blast, but chance still are it may end up as a niche game. WOWs susccess was by catering many different kind of players, and I got the feeling WAR has a much more narrow target audience, but only time will tell.
But looking at the graphics, the extremely simplistic trees and very generic character models... it really isnt Next Gen in terms of graphics.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I am not quite sure why everyone is pointing at the graphics and shaking their heads in disgust...Warhammer Online was never billed as a game that would employ "modern" graphics, and certainly not "cutting-edge" ones. If you are just now disappointed, well...they made this clear over a year ago.
Making a game with sweet graphics has its place and its merits, but, as WoW has shown, its place is not always a mainstream MMORPG. One reason why WoW was and is so successful is that almost any computer can run it, even crappy pre-built ones with integrated graphics, since its graphics were 3+ years outdated at release. You cannot get a subscription if the person cannot play the game, and the average person is not going to drop $500+ on computer upgrades to play a game.
The focus is on mechanics and RvR. If they made a game that looked like BioShock (awesome game, playing it right now) then RvR would not work unless we all had $2000+ machines purchased at release. They want to bring in as many WAR fans as possible, and you do not do that by making the specs current.
The only importance graphics have to me is if they effectively convey the mood of the game and what is going on - I do not need DirectX 10 features and high-res textures. If the gameplay is solid, I am sold. Then again, I grew up on Atari and NES and play older systems to this day, so my standards may be low.
As for the sound, I agree that it was quite bad - I am hoping it is temporary, as sound is often one of the last things done, and that come release the real stuff will be in. Usually I have sounds all but off due to Ventrilo and music, but that still does not excuse them.
P.S. I also find it funny that people are rating the entire game based upon its graphics...and from one video to boot. Do these same people get hypnotized by shiny things floating in the wind, too? There is a lot more to a game than how pimped its graphics are.
Warhammer with its graphics currently seems to support very large RvR encounters. Which makes sense because the game is all about RvR. AoC in its current build can't seem to handle anything beyond 3v3 matches. Which might make sense with GvG environments but doesn't make for very exciting or epic battles. Why do you think they haven't demoed large numbers of live players with AoC yet? Because they are finding out their graphics make pvp unplayable. So they cut down the number of players at these events so that people won't notice the problem... until after they buy it of course $$$
I'll take huge battles with lower graphics over small arena matches with good graphics any day of the week.
Next gen does not mean a pretty coating of paint covering a rotten foundation.
Warhammer with its graphics currently seems to support very large RvR encounters. Which makes sense because the game is all about RvR. AoC in its current build can't seem to handle anything beyond 3v3 matches. Which might make sense with GvG environments but doesn't make for very exciting or epic battles. Why do you think they haven't demoed large numbers of live players with AoC yet? Because they are finding out their graphics make pvp unplayable. So they cut down the number of players at these events so that people won't notice the problem... until after they buy it of course $$$ I'll take huge battles with lower graphics over small arena matches with good graphics any day of the week. Next gen does not mean a pretty coating of paint covering a rotten foundation.
I don't see why you continue to throw shots at AoC all the time lol. *Sigh* . We listed many reasons for you why they haven't shown major battles besides the scripted one. One could be the amount of computers at the event, one could be the internet at the events, one could be the fact that none of those players knew how to play, they got a 15 minute tutorial run of the basic buttons. That build, for one, was not meant to have mass amounts of players on that build. Claiming that they couldn't have big battles because of graphics without proof is somewhat laughable. But then again, you just continue to bash AoC without fact, so I guess that would be a normal response from you.
No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
Warhammer with its graphics currently seems to support very large RvR encounters. Which makes sense because the game is all about RvR. AoC in its current build can't seem to handle anything beyond 3v3 matches. Which might make sense with GvG environments but doesn't make for very exciting or epic battles. Why do you think they haven't demoed large numbers of live players with AoC yet? Because they are finding out their graphics make pvp unplayable. So they cut down the number of players at these events so that people won't notice the problem... until after they buy it of course $$$ I'll take huge battles with lower graphics over small arena matches with good graphics any day of the week. Next gen does not mean a pretty coating of paint covering a rotten foundation.
I don't see why you continue to throw shots at AoC all the time lol. *Sigh* . We listed many reasons for you why they haven't shown major battles besides the scripted one. One could be the amount of computers at the event, one could be the internet at the events, one could be the fact that none of those players knew how to play, they got a 15 minute tutorial run of the basic buttons. That build, for one, was not meant to have mass amounts of players on that build. Claiming that they couldn't have big battles because of graphics without proof is somewhat laughable. But then again, you just continue to bash AoC without fact, so I guess that would be a normal response from you.
No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
You gave many reasons but none of them were valid and easily disproved. Not to mention, all of them are based on Funcom faith and not any real proof to back it up.
You can blame space, computers at the event, the network connection etc. but why is it that funcom was the only one there that seemed to suffer from these limitations? Mythic had no problem settings up several dozon pcs. At just about every event. Funcom always has an excuse. Only 3v3 matches. Only bot sieges. But naturally its always someone else's fault.
I should have known anything negative said about AoC would entice you out of your troll cave. You just can't resist sallying forth to protect your precious little baby boomer. You've really earned that Acolytes merit badge! I think I liked it better when you were claiming (which was apparently false) to ignore my posts. Have a little follow through for cryin out loud.
You are right about one thing - WAR can and should be showing off larger battles. 12v12 is pretty big for an event, but a larger one taken from beta footage would be nice.
Warhammer with its graphics currently seems to support very large RvR encounters. Which makes sense because the game is all about RvR. AoC in its current build can't seem to handle anything beyond 3v3 matches. Which might make sense with GvG environments but doesn't make for very exciting or epic battles. Why do you think they haven't demoed large numbers of live players with AoC yet? Because they are finding out their graphics make pvp unplayable. So they cut down the number of players at these events so that people won't notice the problem... until after they buy it of course $$$ I'll take huge battles with lower graphics over small arena matches with good graphics any day of the week. Next gen does not mean a pretty coating of paint covering a rotten foundation.
I don't see why you continue to throw shots at AoC all the time lol. *Sigh* . We listed many reasons for you why they haven't shown major battles besides the scripted one. One could be the amount of computers at the event, one could be the internet at the events, one could be the fact that none of those players knew how to play, they got a 15 minute tutorial run of the basic buttons. That build, for one, was not meant to have mass amounts of players on that build. Claiming that they couldn't have big battles because of graphics without proof is somewhat laughable. But then again, you just continue to bash AoC without fact, so I guess that would be a normal response from you.
No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
You gave many reasons but none of them were valid and easily disproved. Not to mention, all of them are based on Funcom faith and not any real proof to back it up.
You can blame space, computers at the event, the network connection etc. but why is it that funcom was the only one there that seemed to suffer from these limitations? Mythic had no problem settings up several dozon pcs. At just about every event. Funcom always has an excuse. Only 3v3 matches. Only bot sieges. But naturally its always someone else's fault.
I should have known anything negative said about AoC would entice you out of your troll cave. You just can't resist sallying forth to protect your precious little baby boomer. You've really earned that Acolytes merit badge! I think I liked it better when you were claiming (which was apparently false) to ignore my posts. Have a little follow through for cryin out loud.
You crack me up lol. How can I be a troll without saying anything negative about WAR? I think you need to take a look in the mirror. Not all games there were offered the same amount of space on the floor, or computers. Quit being ignorant. If you would like me to be negative about WAR then explain how Age of Conan beat out WAR for Best PvP experience. How come at Dragon Con it was AoC turning people away because there were too many there, not WAR? How come Age of Conan won Best Online game at the Games Convention and not WAR?
I have proven more times than not that I enjoy all games for what they are worth, I make post like this when posters like you post ignorant things or try to TURN EVERYTHING INTO WAR vs AOC. You can talk good about one game without putting another down. I have been thanked on both the DarkFall forums and these very WAR forums for being unbiased and not being a AoC fanboy while posting. I think the majority of the users here know this and will understand why I am posting this to you.
Warhammer with its graphics currently seems to support very large RvR encounters. Which makes sense because the game is all about RvR. AoC in its current build can't seem to handle anything beyond 3v3 matches. Which might make sense with GvG environments but doesn't make for very exciting or epic battles. Why do you think they haven't demoed large numbers of live players with AoC yet? Because they are finding out their graphics make pvp unplayable. So they cut down the number of players at these events so that people won't notice the problem... until after they buy it of course $$$ I'll take huge battles with lower graphics over small arena matches with good graphics any day of the week. Next gen does not mean a pretty coating of paint covering a rotten foundation.
I don't see why you continue to throw shots at AoC all the time lol. *Sigh* . We listed many reasons for you why they haven't shown major battles besides the scripted one. One could be the amount of computers at the event, one could be the internet at the events, one could be the fact that none of those players knew how to play, they got a 15 minute tutorial run of the basic buttons. That build, for one, was not meant to have mass amounts of players on that build. Claiming that they couldn't have big battles because of graphics without proof is somewhat laughable. But then again, you just continue to bash AoC without fact, so I guess that would be a normal response from you.
No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
You gave many reasons but none of them were valid and easily disproved. Not to mention, all of them are based on Funcom faith and not any real proof to back it up.
You can blame space, computers at the event, the network connection etc. but why is it that funcom was the only one there that seemed to suffer from these limitations? Mythic had no problem settings up several dozon pcs. At just about every event. Funcom always has an excuse. Only 3v3 matches. Only bot sieges. But naturally its always someone else's fault.
I should have known anything negative said about AoC would entice you out of your troll cave. You just can't resist sallying forth to protect your precious little baby boomer. You've really earned that Acolytes merit badge! I think I liked it better when you were claiming (which was apparently false) to ignore my posts. Have a little follow through for cryin out loud.
You crack me up lol. How can I be a troll without saying anything negative about WAR? I think you need to take a look in the mirror. Not all games there were offered the same amount of space on the floor, or computers. Quit being ignorant. If you would like me to be negative about WAR then explain how Age of Conan beat out WAR for Best PvP experience. How come at Dragon Con it was AoC turning people away because there were too many there, not WAR? How come Age of Conan won Best Online game at the Games Convention and not WAR?
Ok, you are half way there. Now do AoC , that is if you are unbiased.
I have proven more times than not that I enjoy all games for what they are worth, I make post like this when posters like you post ignorant things or try to TURN EVERYTHING INTO WAR vs AOC. You can talk good about one game without putting another down. I have been thanked on both the DarkFall forums and these very WAR forums for being unbiased and not being a AoC fanboy while posting. I think the majority of the users here know this and will understand why I am posting this to you.
My post was not the first that mentioned AoC. Nor the first that mentioned its graphics. People have already compared these two titles in regards to the term 'next gen' long before I showed up.
I don't believe I posted anything ignorant. Quite the contrary, I believe that blindly believing anything a company tells you is quite ignorant, which is definitely what I am not doing. You are putting your full trust in Funcom. You are taking their word for it. Which is entirely your decision. But when I see two competing companies go to the same event, right across from eachother, and one has all these 'troubles' and one doesn't, when I see those same companies go to other events, and one always has all these 'troubles' and one doesn't, when I see lots of claims being made about what their game can handle, and I see one showing it and the other not showing it.... well I think any REASONABLE human being would go 'hmmm'. To do anything otherwise would be quite biased.
A jury is supposed to be unbiased. Does that mean that they never think or say anything bad about the defendent if the evidence might suggest it? No of course not, if they only said the positive and stayed away from the negative... they would hardly make a good jury. A message board with only positive isn't a message board.. it is an advertising board.
Warhammer with its graphics currently seems to support very large RvR encounters. Which makes sense because the game is all about RvR. AoC in its current build can't seem to handle anything beyond 3v3 matches. Which might make sense with GvG environments but doesn't make for very exciting or epic battles. Why do you think they haven't demoed large numbers of live players with AoC yet? Because they are finding out their graphics make pvp unplayable. So they cut down the number of players at these events so that people won't notice the problem... until after they buy it of course $$$ I'll take huge battles with lower graphics over small arena matches with good graphics any day of the week. Next gen does not mean a pretty coating of paint covering a rotten foundation.
I don't see why you continue to throw shots at AoC all the time lol. *Sigh* . We listed many reasons for you why they haven't shown major battles besides the scripted one. One could be the amount of computers at the event, one could be the internet at the events, one could be the fact that none of those players knew how to play, they got a 15 minute tutorial run of the basic buttons. That build, for one, was not meant to have mass amounts of players on that build. Claiming that they couldn't have big battles because of graphics without proof is somewhat laughable. But then again, you just continue to bash AoC without fact, so I guess that would be a normal response from you.
No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
You gave many reasons but none of them were valid and easily disproved. Not to mention, all of them are based on Funcom faith and not any real proof to back it up.
You can blame space, computers at the event, the network connection etc. but why is it that funcom was the only one there that seemed to suffer from these limitations? Mythic had no problem settings up several dozon pcs. At just about every event. Funcom always has an excuse. Only 3v3 matches. Only bot sieges. But naturally its always someone else's fault.
I should have known anything negative said about AoC would entice you out of your troll cave. You just can't resist sallying forth to protect your precious little baby boomer. You've really earned that Acolytes merit badge! I think I liked it better when you were claiming (which was apparently false) to ignore my posts. Have a little follow through for cryin out loud.
You crack me up lol. How can I be a troll without saying anything negative about WAR? I think you need to take a look in the mirror. Not all games there were offered the same amount of space on the floor, or computers. Quit being ignorant. If you would like me to be negative about WAR then explain how Age of Conan beat out WAR for Best PvP experience. How come at Dragon Con it was AoC turning people away because there were too many there, not WAR? How come Age of Conan won Best Online game at the Games Convention and not WAR?
Ok, you are half way there. Now do AoC , that is if you are unbiased.
I have proven more times than not that I enjoy all games for what they are worth, I make post like this when posters like you post ignorant things or try to TURN EVERYTHING INTO WAR vs AOC. You can talk good about one game without putting another down. I have been thanked on both the DarkFall forums and these very WAR forums for being unbiased and not being a AoC fanboy while posting. I think the majority of the users here know this and will understand why I am posting this to you.
My post was not the first that mentioned AoC. Nor the first that mentioned its graphics. People have already compared these two titles in regards to the term 'next gen' long before I showed up.
I don't believe I posted anything ignorant. Quite the contrary, I believe that blindly believing anything a company tells you is quite ignorant, which is definitely what I am not doing. You are putting your full trust in Funcom. You are taking their word for it. Which is entirely your decision. But when I see two competing companies go to the same event, right across from eachother, and one has all these 'troubles' and one doesn't, when I see those same companies go to other events, and one always has all these 'troubles' and one doesn't, when I see lots of claims being made about what their game can handle, and I see one showing it and the other not showing it.... well I think any REASONABLE human being would go 'hmmm'. To do anything otherwise would be quite biased.
A jury is supposed to be unbiased. Does that mean that they never think or say anything bad about the defendent if the evidence might suggest it? No of course not, if they only said the positive and stayed away from the negative... they would hardly make a good jury. A message board with only positive isn't a message board.. it is an advertising board.
I am also putting my faith into Mythic. I am going to play both games, and want both games to do well. There is no reason for me to bash either game at all. None. Rooting for a game to fail does nothing. The industry itself won't advance if all new ideas or anything new tried becomes bashed or shunned by the community. When people get out of hand about either game than I jump in. And you are correct, you are not the first person to post these things, but like I said, I normally leave these topics alone. Also, you are incorrect. You are claiming they are always having problems which is far from true. WAR had a much bigger showing at the Gen Con. They were provided with far more space and they were provided with more computers. On the other hand, at Dragon Con it was quite the opposite. War had a nice showing but AoC had a far better one. To the point where so many people were there to see AoC is became a fire hazard and the police had to come escort people out.
Also I never claimed you had to be positive all the time, just when you post negative, be constructive about it. You just claimed that AoC attacked WAR but must have forgot about all the times the WAR forum users have come to the Age of Conan boards and done the exact same.
I am also putting my faith into Mythic. I am going to play both games, and want both games to do well. There is no reason for me to bash either game at all. None. Rooting for a game to fail does nothing. The industry itself won't advance if all new ideas or anything new tried becomes bashed or shunned by the community. When people get out of hand about either game than I jump in. And you are correct, you are not the first person to post these things, but like I said, I normally leave these topics alone. Also, you are incorrect. You are claiming they are always having problems which is far from true. WAR had a much bigger showing at the Gen Con. They were provided with far more space and they were provided with more computers. On the other hand, at Dragon Con it was quite the opposite. War had a nice showing but AoC had a far better one. To the point where so many people were there to see AoC is became a fire hazard and the police had to come escort people out.
Also I never claimed you had to be positive all the time, just when you post negative, be constructive about it. You just claimed that AoC attacked WAR but must have forgot about all the times the WAR forum users have come to the Age of Conan boards and done the exact same.
I was waiting to hear something negative about AoC to show unbias and you just came at me with more positives, heh. Ah well, I guess i really shouldn't have gotten my hopes up anyway.
I too want each game to succeed, brilliantly even - but NOT by any means possible. There are things I am not willing to sacrifice to make sure a game succeeds. The end does not justify every mean, so to speak. What means you and I find acceptable might be different, or maybe they are the same and we just disagree on whether they might have taken place.
Like you, I believe that the industry must advance. It must evolve and grow. I'm with you on that one. But I feel that if certain behaviors result in a successful game, that doesn't necessarily mean they are good for the playerbase, the genre, or the industry. For example, WoW was a huge success financially, but does that mean that all of its systems were a step forward? Was its pvp better than the pvp that came before it? Not necessarily. Many consider it a step back.
Lets pretend for a moment that you and I somehow have access to the ultimate truth of things. We know the exact state of WAR and AoC, what currently works, what doesn't, even better than the devs themselves. And we know the 'other version' that the community is told about. Because I think you will agree (well, i hope), both Mythic, funcom, no business on earth tells the community every single detail, particularly the negative stuff.
Hypothetically speaking, if something were not working, and they told the community it was, would you feel that was acceptible? Would the fact that they could or couldn't get the problem fixed by launch time influence your opinion on whether such a 'lie' was justifiable or not? Would you keep all this to yourself or would you feel the community should know the state of things?
My point with all this WD is this..., there are certain qualities I think should be encouraged, and some that should be discouraged, if we want to advance. This has never ever been about 'bashing a game' as you put it. At least not with me. I want the genre to move forward and developers to earn exactly what they deserve for their work. Good or bad. If they are doing things 'right', I want them to be rewarded for that. If they aren't, I want them to be discouraged from doing it further.
Dragon Con... the AoC booth... did they have any playable pcs setup? More than a 3v3?
If not, then just ask yourself - Why are you willing to believe the game can support more than 6 player pvp when you haven't seen it? Why is it ok to believe positive things about AoC without having seen them, but not negative things? The trouble with seeing the negative is obviously, they have total control over what you see. So they can just cut the negative parts out of the demo and you would never see it. However, they wouldn't hide the good (wouldn't make sense), and they can't make good appear unless they actually have it. So there is only so much stock you can put in what they decide to show you, but you can put a whole lot more stock in what they don't.
Under that notion though, you make it sound like you would believe that WAR doesn't have playable raids or any end game pvp content such as taking over somebody elses territory.
If you want negatives about AoC I can give you many, but for the most part I voice my concerns about that game on the official forums, where it will be heard. Posting anything positive or negative here about AoC will do nothing. If you have a real concern for the game, you would post it at ageofconan.com or warhammeralliance.com. Not here, because the developers do not show up here often.
I understand where you are coming from but at the same time just because we haven't seen something doesn't mean it isn't working. I don't think players on a screen or mobs on a screen is an issue. If you want real issues for Age of Conan look at the casting and ask why spellweaving wasn't in that build just yet for those conventions, or why haven't we seen anything on the Ranger, Lich, Scion, ect.
Thats not an official video, no game company in their right mind would put out a promo video like that. The audio totally goes out at one point, and at other points is choppy as hell. Theres no telling when in the game's development those clips are even from. Not to mention there are 7 more months till the game is even released.
But anyway, the gameplay in parts of the video looks great to me. You can see the mechanics are heavily influenced by DAOC, which only makes sense. As a DAOC vet, its looking perfect to me. For those who think its too slow or people arent jumping and flipping around enough, you wont be missed.
I'm looking forward to WAR because of the features I've learned about. If it's next gen or not, I could care less. Next gen is one of those things that can be interpreted many different ways and over the years it's been used so much it means very little.
Excellent point. There was even a quote from someone at Mythic a few months back, probably Mark, about how we aren't going to see revolutionary advancements in MMORPGs from big companies with lots of money. We'll see them from smaller upstarts. WAR has never claimed to be revolutionary or "next gen." Read their official website, check out interviews on sites like this one, or watch the podcasts. The devs are pretty straightforward about what they hope to deliver and it's something that's appealing to me and hundreds of thousands of MMORPG enthusiasts. And people who huff and puff about how its gonna be "the same old thing" really need to do their homework. I'm not quite sure what the OP has his panties in a bunch about. It looks like WAR is going to have some innovative elements, but the game's basics seem firmly rooted in updated DAoC-style RvR with a great IP behind it. News flash, but big companies don't like risk. Revolutionary filmmaking doesn't come from Hollywood, revolutionary music doesn't come from manufactured top 40 record labels. The same goes for games. This being said, that doesn't mean that some Hollywood big budget films or major label music isn't ENTERTAINING. It's just that big companies like to play it safe and make money without too much risk. They follow the lead of the little guys. Fortunately, in terms of the RvR stuff, EA/Mythic seems to be following the lead of themselves when they WERE the little guy. DAoC revolutionized PvP in MMORPGs half a decade ago and this is the foundation they're building WAR upon. A game that redefines the MMORPG industry isn't going to come from a crusty old veteran of the gaming industry like EA/Mythic as it exists today, especially when a powerful IP like Warhammer is attached to it. The greatest risks aren't going to be taken with a valuable cash cow of an IP. They'll try to make a game that's faithful enough to the franchise to satiate fans of the property but that's accessible enough to bring in new folks too. This is basically all SOE was trying to do with SWG (albeit in a misguided way) when they ended up alienating an angry legion of sandboxers. From what I've seen so far, EA/Mythic is doing an absolutely stellar job with Warhammer, "next gen" or not--and no one is going to be dissuaded by curmudgeonly rants on fan forums. The proof will be in the pudding come Q1 2008. But IMHO, based on what I've seen so far--from graphics to game play to PvP--I can't wait to get my hands on this title.
Under that notion though, you make it sound like you would believe that WAR doesn't have playable raids or any end game pvp content such as taking over somebody elses territory. I would definitely be skeptical of territory control if they said it was in but couldn't show a sample. Raids are really just a larger group on a larger quest, a modification of existing group systems, so I wouldn't have as much reason to question it. That and I'm not a big fan of raids anyway. The trouble with those things are that they are mostly end game stuff. Personally, I hardly ever reach end-game, and they aren't even on my radar until months after playing. So its hard to feel they are important. AoC, players on screen is a big thing, i expect to hit that as soon as you get out of the newbie area. So naturally its a pretty important and fundamental system that I want to know is working. If you want negatives about AoC I can give you many, but for the most part I voice my concerns about that game on the official forums, where it will be heard. Posting anything positive or negative here about AoC will do nothing. If you have a real concern for the game, you would post it at ageofconan.com or warhammeralliance.com. Not here, because the developers do not show up here often. Fair enough. Due to time and other factors, I am only willing to spend time in one message board. Since this one covers a variety of games I'm interested in, it just made sense for me to pick this one and not a game specific one. I'm sure the AoC board is sorry for its loss *smirk* I understand where you are coming from but at the same time just because we haven't seen something doesn't mean it isn't working. I don't think players on a screen or mobs on a screen is an issue. If you want real issues for Age of Conan look at the casting and ask why spellweaving wasn't in that build just yet for those conventions, or why haven't we seen anything on the Ranger, Lich, Scion, ect. I agree, it does not necessarily mean it isn't working. Personally I think it suggests it as a possibility, enough to at least question. As I tried to touch on earlier, its a catch 22. You want 100% definitive proof that something isn't working before you believe it or want others talking about it. Well what company who is hyping a game would voluntarily release100% definitive proof something of theirs isn't working? The only way to get it out of them really is to give them the impression that more damage can be done by hiding it than by revealing it. Or if there is nothing to hide.. to just show it. Casting, etc. yes is an issue but I guess I still never felt like it was more important than performance with number of players/characters on screen, just on the basis that I could (albeit painfully) completely avoid the magic system and those classes if i had to, in the case that they didn't work properly. However I could never hope to avoid players in an mmorpg, so it was top priority for that system to work well. Moreso than games of the past, due to the graphics.
"When people get out of hand about either game than I jump in. " (sorry, not sure how to quote)
I'm sorry but you say you jump in and defend either game when things get out of hand, yet you come to the war forums, completely ignore the negitive being said about it, but jump in at the first person who says something bad about AoC.
"When people get out of hand about either game than I jump in. " (sorry, not sure how to quote) I'm sorry but you say you jump in and defend either game when things get out of hand, yet you come to the war forums, completely ignore the negitive being said about it, but jump in at the first person who says something bad about AoC.
Like I said, when people want real information about a game they go to warhammeralliance or ageofconan.com . I defend WAR on the AoC boards, and I have defended WAR on these boards in many threads, such as the whole graphics issue, other similarities to WoW, trusting mythic, I really don't think I need to continue on how many times I have defended this game. Look at how many threads I haven't jumped in on when it comes to AoC. I don't participate in every single bash the other game thread, sorry. You obviously don't do your research though otherwise you would know this.
"I too want each game to succeed, brilliantly even - but NOT by any means possible. There are things I am not willing to sacrifice to make sure a game succeeds. The end does not justify every mean, so to speak. What means you and I find acceptable might be different, or maybe they are the same and we just disagree on whether they might have taken place."
...maybe just wait and play the games...
...might just be kinda fun....
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
"Next gen" lol, what the hell does it even mean? New ideas and new gameplay? But you don't play because a game has new ideas, you might try it because of that, but you don't subsrcibe to it because it's "next gen" you subscribe to it because you enjoy playing it.
Besides, "next gen" is nothign but a marketing tool at this point in time, just a catch phrase a company would use to claim that their game is better than the ones before it. Eve is completely different than eq1, but it's not next generation mmo because, well, it's only one game, there isn't any kind of "generation" to follow it. So is auto assault (which died I think) so is ATITD, but I don't see anyone screaming how that game is so awesome and all.
Most of the other games aren't really different enaugh, but they have enaugh differences to cater to different play styles. EQ1 and daoc aren't that different, but obviously, people who played daoc generally did so because it had rvr, where as those playing eq1 did so because it had good pve, very different, but still shared many things in common.
So is war, it's very different from other mmos, rvr can only be experienced in daoc, and war has a different take on that, some of the other ideas (like public quests and tome of knowledge) will also add something new to pve (and rvr)
But war is not so totally different from other mmos that when you play it you go "wtf do i do?" for the first 2 hours, like you do in eve where you sit through a 2 hour long tutorial and then ask the followign question in noob chat: "How do I use my weapons?"
In the end, it's not about new ideas or weather or not game company uses catch phrases like next gen mmo (how the heck was vanguard supposed to be a next gen mmo anyway?) But about weather or not the game is fun and is stable enaugh to actually be played.
Next Gen to me would be playing in the living room wearing an interactive shock-suit( to feel the hits) and swinging my sword at holographic images with the background/landscape plastered all over my walls.
or something like that.
heck..even a wii controller...something
------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ <insert gloat of ubar toon here> <insert random game here> <insert gloat of ubar toon here> <insert gloat of ubar toon here> <insert random game here> --------------------------- <insert witty anecdote here> <political/religious agenda here>
Next Gen doesn't mean cutting edge graphics anyways. It means new ideas. So I wouldn't consider any of the MMOs out "third generation" Nor would I consider any of the ones coming out soon to be third generation.
oh yes! and... where are the new ideas, click and hit? hit number to use a skill? never seen a race like the elfs! or dark elfs! o no! never seen an orc running around fighting with dwarfs!! dont be blind...
We must wait to see the game finished, but its true marketing and "fan" makes the hype go too high, this game must be ready in near 6 month (if it dont suffer a new delay...) so there is time enought for them to put new things on. Besides, I dont like the animations, I dont like the concept of this mmorpg, cause if it dont have "warhammer" in his name and remembers wow a lot, probably, without the marketing it have, it will pass throught the history. No one talks about Chronicles of spellborn or other games that are coming, everybody is talking about aoc and war, and, this is just my opinion, think that war is bringing nothing new to mmorpg market.
We already got rvr, already got guild battles, pve, raids, griding, multiclass, did you play any nwn? you got more customization that in all this games? did you play cox, you got more things new than this games, also, you can fly and teleport wohooo! ... so, seems there is a "bubble" in mmorpg that someday will explode: They are bringing anything new, just trying to get a piece of that market with marketing and more of the same.
This sums it up for me. I really don't see anything WAR is going to add to mmo's out there. So far in the clips (not commenting on graghics) I see nothing but a bunch of mediocre toons hacking and slashing. Skill anyone? Seriously this will become another mmo out there that has all PvP victories decided by who has the most people. So Guilds will be spamming channels and trying to recruit hundreds of noobs to go hack and slash another bunch of noobs. Negative I know but nothing in the clips suggests otherwise. They really shouldnt call it Warhammer either since there is no unit combat or strategy. It should be called Warhammer Heroes or something. I am a massive fan of the table top game but the only way I will try this game will be through a demo or trial.
Humm, when you say 'NextGen' what exactly do you mean? DX10 obviously falls under next gen and prehaps flying around with angle wings as a queer fairy? or swinging your mouse around chopping up people and raping woman? but does 'Nextgen' instantly = fun??
you see thats what Warhammer is and has always been about bringing back FUN into MMO's you look at the Devs and feel there passion for the game, if that radiates out into what we play well im sold.... WAR has never tryed to be 'nextgen' and for that I am gratefull.
Comments
WaR is not a next gen game. The only next gen mmorpg that is coming out soon is Age of Conan.
Anyone think they might not have gone all out with the graphics for a reason? Unless you spend over 50% of your free time on the CPU, chances are you dont have a computer that is decked out and top of the line. Remember what happened to Vanguard? Therefore, by toning the graphics down some (btw that video still looked VERY nice to mee, especially the detail in the armor) they are allowing ALOT more people a chance to play thier game. This is partially the same strategy WoW too and look where that got them (largest player base ever)
I'm looking forward to WAR because of the features I've learned about. If it's next gen or not, I could care less. Next gen is one of those things that can be interpreted many different ways and over the years it's been used so much it means very little.
so...
But looking at the graphics, the extremely simplistic trees and very generic character models... it really isnt Next Gen in terms of graphics.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I am not quite sure why everyone is pointing at the graphics and shaking their heads in disgust...Warhammer Online was never billed as a game that would employ "modern" graphics, and certainly not "cutting-edge" ones. If you are just now disappointed, well...they made this clear over a year ago.
Making a game with sweet graphics has its place and its merits, but, as WoW has shown, its place is not always a mainstream MMORPG. One reason why WoW was and is so successful is that almost any computer can run it, even crappy pre-built ones with integrated graphics, since its graphics were 3+ years outdated at release. You cannot get a subscription if the person cannot play the game, and the average person is not going to drop $500+ on computer upgrades to play a game.
The focus is on mechanics and RvR. If they made a game that looked like BioShock (awesome game, playing it right now) then RvR would not work unless we all had $2000+ machines purchased at release. They want to bring in as many WAR fans as possible, and you do not do that by making the specs current.
The only importance graphics have to me is if they effectively convey the mood of the game and what is going on - I do not need DirectX 10 features and high-res textures. If the gameplay is solid, I am sold. Then again, I grew up on Atari and NES and play older systems to this day, so my standards may be low.
As for the sound, I agree that it was quite bad - I am hoping it is temporary, as sound is often one of the last things done, and that come release the real stuff will be in. Usually I have sounds all but off due to Ventrilo and music, but that still does not excuse them.
P.S. I also find it funny that people are rating the entire game based upon its graphics...and from one video to boot. Do these same people get hypnotized by shiny things floating in the wind, too? There is a lot more to a game than how pimped its graphics are.
Warhammer with its graphics currently seems to support very large RvR encounters. Which makes sense because the game is all about RvR. AoC in its current build can't seem to handle anything beyond 3v3 matches. Which might make sense with GvG environments but doesn't make for very exciting or epic battles. Why do you think they haven't demoed large numbers of live players with AoC yet? Because they are finding out their graphics make pvp unplayable. So they cut down the number of players at these events so that people won't notice the problem... until after they buy it of course $$$
I'll take huge battles with lower graphics over small arena matches with good graphics any day of the week.
Next gen does not mean a pretty coating of paint covering a rotten foundation.
No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
I don't see why you continue to throw shots at AoC all the time lol. *Sigh* . We listed many reasons for you why they haven't shown major battles besides the scripted one. One could be the amount of computers at the event, one could be the internet at the events, one could be the fact that none of those players knew how to play, they got a 15 minute tutorial run of the basic buttons. That build, for one, was not meant to have mass amounts of players on that build. Claiming that they couldn't have big battles because of graphics without proof is somewhat laughable. But then again, you just continue to bash AoC without fact, so I guess that would be a normal response from you.No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
You gave many reasons but none of them were valid and easily disproved. Not to mention, all of them are based on Funcom faith and not any real proof to back it up.
You can blame space, computers at the event, the network connection etc. but why is it that funcom was the only one there that seemed to suffer from these limitations? Mythic had no problem settings up several dozon pcs. At just about every event. Funcom always has an excuse. Only 3v3 matches. Only bot sieges. But naturally its always someone else's fault.
I should have known anything negative said about AoC would entice you out of your troll cave. You just can't resist sallying forth to protect your precious little baby boomer. You've really earned that Acolytes merit badge! I think I liked it better when you were claiming (which was apparently false) to ignore my posts. Have a little follow through for cryin out loud.
You are right about one thing - WAR can and should be showing off larger battles. 12v12 is pretty big for an event, but a larger one taken from beta footage would be nice.
No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
You gave many reasons but none of them were valid and easily disproved. Not to mention, all of them are based on Funcom faith and not any real proof to back it up.You can blame space, computers at the event, the network connection etc. but why is it that funcom was the only one there that seemed to suffer from these limitations? Mythic had no problem settings up several dozon pcs. At just about every event. Funcom always has an excuse. Only 3v3 matches. Only bot sieges. But naturally its always someone else's fault.
I should have known anything negative said about AoC would entice you out of your troll cave. You just can't resist sallying forth to protect your precious little baby boomer. You've really earned that Acolytes merit badge! I think I liked it better when you were claiming (which was apparently false) to ignore my posts. Have a little follow through for cryin out loud.
You crack me up lol. How can I be a troll without saying anything negative about WAR? I think you need to take a look in the mirror. Not all games there were offered the same amount of space on the floor, or computers. Quit being ignorant. If you would like me to be negative about WAR then explain how Age of Conan beat out WAR for Best PvP experience. How come at Dragon Con it was AoC turning people away because there were too many there, not WAR? How come Age of Conan won Best Online game at the Games Convention and not WAR?I have proven more times than not that I enjoy all games for what they are worth, I make post like this when posters like you post ignorant things or try to TURN EVERYTHING INTO WAR vs AOC. You can talk good about one game without putting another down. I have been thanked on both the DarkFall forums and these very WAR forums for being unbiased and not being a AoC fanboy while posting. I think the majority of the users here know this and will understand why I am posting this to you.
No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
You gave many reasons but none of them were valid and easily disproved. Not to mention, all of them are based on Funcom faith and not any real proof to back it up.You can blame space, computers at the event, the network connection etc. but why is it that funcom was the only one there that seemed to suffer from these limitations? Mythic had no problem settings up several dozon pcs. At just about every event. Funcom always has an excuse. Only 3v3 matches. Only bot sieges. But naturally its always someone else's fault.
I should have known anything negative said about AoC would entice you out of your troll cave. You just can't resist sallying forth to protect your precious little baby boomer. You've really earned that Acolytes merit badge! I think I liked it better when you were claiming (which was apparently false) to ignore my posts. Have a little follow through for cryin out loud.
You crack me up lol. How can I be a troll without saying anything negative about WAR? I think you need to take a look in the mirror. Not all games there were offered the same amount of space on the floor, or computers. Quit being ignorant. If you would like me to be negative about WAR then explain how Age of Conan beat out WAR for Best PvP experience. How come at Dragon Con it was AoC turning people away because there were too many there, not WAR? How come Age of Conan won Best Online game at the Games Convention and not WAR?Ok, you are half way there. Now do AoC
I have proven more times than not that I enjoy all games for what they are worth, I make post like this when posters like you post ignorant things or try to TURN EVERYTHING INTO WAR vs AOC. You can talk good about one game without putting another down. I have been thanked on both the DarkFall forums and these very WAR forums for being unbiased and not being a AoC fanboy while posting. I think the majority of the users here know this and will understand why I am posting this to you.
My post was not the first that mentioned AoC. Nor the first that mentioned its graphics. People have already compared these two titles in regards to the term 'next gen' long before I showed up.
I don't believe I posted anything ignorant. Quite the contrary, I believe that blindly believing anything a company tells you is quite ignorant, which is definitely what I am not doing. You are putting your full trust in Funcom. You are taking their word for it. Which is entirely your decision. But when I see two competing companies go to the same event, right across from eachother, and one has all these 'troubles' and one doesn't, when I see those same companies go to other events, and one always has all these 'troubles' and one doesn't, when I see lots of claims being made about what their game can handle, and I see one showing it and the other not showing it.... well I think any REASONABLE human being would go 'hmmm'. To do anything otherwise would be quite biased.
A jury is supposed to be unbiased. Does that mean that they never think or say anything bad about the defendent if the evidence might suggest it? No of course not, if they only said the positive and stayed away from the negative... they would hardly make a good jury. A message board with only positive isn't a message board.. it is an advertising board.
No, graphics do not make an mmorpg, but if it compliments the setting, they are good. Also, it isn't like WAR showed off mass amounts of players at the events either.
You gave many reasons but none of them were valid and easily disproved. Not to mention, all of them are based on Funcom faith and not any real proof to back it up.You can blame space, computers at the event, the network connection etc. but why is it that funcom was the only one there that seemed to suffer from these limitations? Mythic had no problem settings up several dozon pcs. At just about every event. Funcom always has an excuse. Only 3v3 matches. Only bot sieges. But naturally its always someone else's fault.
I should have known anything negative said about AoC would entice you out of your troll cave. You just can't resist sallying forth to protect your precious little baby boomer. You've really earned that Acolytes merit badge! I think I liked it better when you were claiming (which was apparently false) to ignore my posts. Have a little follow through for cryin out loud.
You crack me up lol. How can I be a troll without saying anything negative about WAR? I think you need to take a look in the mirror. Not all games there were offered the same amount of space on the floor, or computers. Quit being ignorant. If you would like me to be negative about WAR then explain how Age of Conan beat out WAR for Best PvP experience. How come at Dragon Con it was AoC turning people away because there were too many there, not WAR? How come Age of Conan won Best Online game at the Games Convention and not WAR?Ok, you are half way there. Now do AoC
I have proven more times than not that I enjoy all games for what they are worth, I make post like this when posters like you post ignorant things or try to TURN EVERYTHING INTO WAR vs AOC. You can talk good about one game without putting another down. I have been thanked on both the DarkFall forums and these very WAR forums for being unbiased and not being a AoC fanboy while posting. I think the majority of the users here know this and will understand why I am posting this to you.
My post was not the first that mentioned AoC. Nor the first that mentioned its graphics. People have already compared these two titles in regards to the term 'next gen' long before I showed up.
I don't believe I posted anything ignorant. Quite the contrary, I believe that blindly believing anything a company tells you is quite ignorant, which is definitely what I am not doing. You are putting your full trust in Funcom. You are taking their word for it. Which is entirely your decision. But when I see two competing companies go to the same event, right across from eachother, and one has all these 'troubles' and one doesn't, when I see those same companies go to other events, and one always has all these 'troubles' and one doesn't, when I see lots of claims being made about what their game can handle, and I see one showing it and the other not showing it.... well I think any REASONABLE human being would go 'hmmm'. To do anything otherwise would be quite biased.
A jury is supposed to be unbiased. Does that mean that they never think or say anything bad about the defendent if the evidence might suggest it? No of course not, if they only said the positive and stayed away from the negative... they would hardly make a good jury. A message board with only positive isn't a message board.. it is an advertising board.
I am also putting my faith into Mythic. I am going to play both games, and want both games to do well. There is no reason for me to bash either game at all. None. Rooting for a game to fail does nothing. The industry itself won't advance if all new ideas or anything new tried becomes bashed or shunned by the community. When people get out of hand about either game than I jump in. And you are correct, you are not the first person to post these things, but like I said, I normally leave these topics alone. Also, you are incorrect. You are claiming they are always having problems which is far from true. WAR had a much bigger showing at the Gen Con. They were provided with far more space and they were provided with more computers. On the other hand, at Dragon Con it was quite the opposite. War had a nice showing but AoC had a far better one. To the point where so many people were there to see AoC is became a fire hazard and the police had to come escort people out.Also I never claimed you had to be positive all the time, just when you post negative, be constructive about it. You just claimed that AoC attacked WAR but must have forgot about all the times the WAR forum users have come to the Age of Conan boards and done the exact same.
I was waiting to hear something negative about AoC to show unbias and you just came at me with more positives, heh. Ah well, I guess i really shouldn't have gotten my hopes up anyway.
I too want each game to succeed, brilliantly even - but NOT by any means possible. There are things I am not willing to sacrifice to make sure a game succeeds. The end does not justify every mean, so to speak. What means you and I find acceptable might be different, or maybe they are the same and we just disagree on whether they might have taken place.
Like you, I believe that the industry must advance. It must evolve and grow. I'm with you on that one. But I feel that if certain behaviors result in a successful game, that doesn't necessarily mean they are good for the playerbase, the genre, or the industry. For example, WoW was a huge success financially, but does that mean that all of its systems were a step forward? Was its pvp better than the pvp that came before it? Not necessarily. Many consider it a step back.
Lets pretend for a moment that you and I somehow have access to the ultimate truth of things. We know the exact state of WAR and AoC, what currently works, what doesn't, even better than the devs themselves. And we know the 'other version' that the community is told about. Because I think you will agree (well, i hope), both Mythic, funcom, no business on earth tells the community every single detail, particularly the negative stuff.
Hypothetically speaking, if something were not working, and they told the community it was, would you feel that was acceptible? Would the fact that they could or couldn't get the problem fixed by launch time influence your opinion on whether such a 'lie' was justifiable or not? Would you keep all this to yourself or would you feel the community should know the state of things?
My point with all this WD is this..., there are certain qualities I think should be encouraged, and some that should be discouraged, if we want to advance. This has never ever been about 'bashing a game' as you put it. At least not with me. I want the genre to move forward and developers to earn exactly what they deserve for their work. Good or bad. If they are doing things 'right', I want them to be rewarded for that. If they aren't, I want them to be discouraged from doing it further.
Dragon Con... the AoC booth... did they have any playable pcs setup? More than a 3v3?
If not, then just ask yourself - Why are you willing to believe the game can support more than 6 player pvp when you haven't seen it? Why is it ok to believe positive things about AoC without having seen them, but not negative things? The trouble with seeing the negative is obviously, they have total control over what you see. So they can just cut the negative parts out of the demo and you would never see it. However, they wouldn't hide the good (wouldn't make sense), and they can't make good appear unless they actually have it. So there is only so much stock you can put in what they decide to show you, but you can put a whole lot more stock in what they don't.
Under that notion though, you make it sound like you would believe that WAR doesn't have playable raids or any end game pvp content such as taking over somebody elses territory.
If you want negatives about AoC I can give you many, but for the most part I voice my concerns about that game on the official forums, where it will be heard. Posting anything positive or negative here about AoC will do nothing. If you have a real concern for the game, you would post it at ageofconan.com or warhammeralliance.com. Not here, because the developers do not show up here often.
I understand where you are coming from but at the same time just because we haven't seen something doesn't mean it isn't working. I don't think players on a screen or mobs on a screen is an issue. If you want real issues for Age of Conan look at the casting and ask why spellweaving wasn't in that build just yet for those conventions, or why haven't we seen anything on the Ranger, Lich, Scion, ect.
Thats not an official video, no game company in their right mind would put out a promo video like that. The audio totally goes out at one point, and at other points is choppy as hell. Theres no telling when in the game's development those clips are even from. Not to mention there are 7 more months till the game is even released.
But anyway, the gameplay in parts of the video looks great to me. You can see the mechanics are heavily influenced by DAOC, which only makes sense. As a DAOC vet, its looking perfect to me. For those who think its too slow or people arent jumping and flipping around enough, you wont be missed.
Excellent point. There was even a quote from someone at Mythic a few months back, probably Mark, about how we aren't going to see revolutionary advancements in MMORPGs from big companies with lots of money. We'll see them from smaller upstarts. WAR has never claimed to be revolutionary or "next gen." Read their official website, check out interviews on sites like this one, or watch the podcasts. The devs are pretty straightforward about what they hope to deliver and it's something that's appealing to me and hundreds of thousands of MMORPG enthusiasts. And people who huff and puff about how its gonna be "the same old thing" really need to do their homework. I'm not quite sure what the OP has his panties in a bunch about. It looks like WAR is going to have some innovative elements, but the game's basics seem firmly rooted in updated DAoC-style RvR with a great IP behind it. News flash, but big companies don't like risk. Revolutionary filmmaking doesn't come from Hollywood, revolutionary music doesn't come from manufactured top 40 record labels. The same goes for games. This being said, that doesn't mean that some Hollywood big budget films or major label music isn't ENTERTAINING. It's just that big companies like to play it safe and make money without too much risk. They follow the lead of the little guys. Fortunately, in terms of the RvR stuff, EA/Mythic seems to be following the lead of themselves when they WERE the little guy. DAoC revolutionized PvP in MMORPGs half a decade ago and this is the foundation they're building WAR upon. A game that redefines the MMORPG industry isn't going to come from a crusty old veteran of the gaming industry like EA/Mythic as it exists today, especially when a powerful IP like Warhammer is attached to it. The greatest risks aren't going to be taken with a valuable cash cow of an IP. They'll try to make a game that's faithful enough to the franchise to satiate fans of the property but that's accessible enough to bring in new folks too. This is basically all SOE was trying to do with SWG (albeit in a misguided way) when they ended up alienating an angry legion of sandboxers. From what I've seen so far, EA/Mythic is doing an absolutely stellar job with Warhammer, "next gen" or not--and no one is going to be dissuaded by curmudgeonly rants on fan forums. The proof will be in the pudding come Q1 2008. But IMHO, based on what I've seen so far--from graphics to game play to PvP--I can't wait to get my hands on this title.
"When people get out of hand about either game than I jump in. " (sorry, not sure how to quote)
I'm sorry but you say you jump in and defend either game when things get out of hand, yet you come to the war forums, completely ignore the negitive being said about it, but jump in at the first person who says something bad about AoC.
Like I said, when people want real information about a game they go to warhammeralliance or ageofconan.com . I defend WAR on the AoC boards, and I have defended WAR on these boards in many threads, such as the whole graphics issue, other similarities to WoW, trusting mythic, I really don't think I need to continue on how many times I have defended this game. Look at how many threads I haven't jumped in on when it comes to AoC. I don't participate in every single bash the other game thread, sorry. You obviously don't do your research though otherwise you would know this.
"I too want each game to succeed, brilliantly even - but NOT by any means possible. There are things I am not willing to sacrifice to make sure a game succeeds. The end does not justify every mean, so to speak. What means you and I find acceptable might be different, or maybe they are the same and we just disagree on whether they might have taken place."
...maybe just wait and play the games...
...might just be kinda fun....
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
"Next gen" lol, what the hell does it even mean? New ideas and new gameplay? But you don't play because a game has new ideas, you might try it because of that, but you don't subsrcibe to it because it's "next gen" you subscribe to it because you enjoy playing it.
Besides, "next gen" is nothign but a marketing tool at this point in time, just a catch phrase a company would use to claim that their game is better than the ones before it. Eve is completely different than eq1, but it's not next generation mmo because, well, it's only one game, there isn't any kind of "generation" to follow it. So is auto assault (which died I think) so is ATITD, but I don't see anyone screaming how that game is so awesome and all.
Most of the other games aren't really different enaugh, but they have enaugh differences to cater to different play styles. EQ1 and daoc aren't that different, but obviously, people who played daoc generally did so because it had rvr, where as those playing eq1 did so because it had good pve, very different, but still shared many things in common.
So is war, it's very different from other mmos, rvr can only be experienced in daoc, and war has a different take on that, some of the other ideas (like public quests and tome of knowledge) will also add something new to pve (and rvr)
But war is not so totally different from other mmos that when you play it you go "wtf do i do?" for the first 2 hours, like you do in eve where you sit through a 2 hour long tutorial and then ask the followign question in noob chat: "How do I use my weapons?"
In the end, it's not about new ideas or weather or not game company uses catch phrases like next gen mmo (how the heck was vanguard supposed to be a next gen mmo anyway?) But about weather or not the game is fun and is stable enaugh to actually be played.
I kind of agree
Next Gen to me would be playing in the living room wearing an interactive shock-suit( to feel the hits) and swinging my sword at holographic images with the background/landscape plastered all over my walls.
or something like that.
heck..even a wii controller...something
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
<insert gloat of ubar toon here>
<insert random game here>
<insert gloat of ubar toon here>
<insert gloat of ubar toon here>
<insert random game here>
---------------------------
<insert witty anecdote here>
<political/religious agenda here>
oh yes! and... where are the new ideas, click and hit? hit number to use a skill? never seen a race like the elfs! or dark elfs! o no! never seen an orc running around fighting with dwarfs!! dont be blind...
We must wait to see the game finished, but its true marketing and "fan" makes the hype go too high, this game must be ready in near 6 month (if it dont suffer a new delay...) so there is time enought for them to put new things on. Besides, I dont like the animations, I dont like the concept of this mmorpg, cause if it dont have "warhammer" in his name and remembers wow a lot, probably, without the marketing it have, it will pass throught the history. No one talks about Chronicles of spellborn or other games that are coming, everybody is talking about aoc and war, and, this is just my opinion, think that war is bringing nothing new to mmorpg market.
We already got rvr, already got guild battles, pve, raids, griding, multiclass, did you play any nwn? you got more customization that in all this games? did you play cox, you got more things new than this games, also, you can fly and teleport wohooo! ... so, seems there is a "bubble" in mmorpg that someday will explode: They are bringing anything new, just trying to get a piece of that market with marketing and more of the same.
This sums it up for me. I really don't see anything WAR is going to add to mmo's out there. So far in the clips (not commenting on graghics) I see nothing but a bunch of mediocre toons hacking and slashing. Skill anyone? Seriously this will become another mmo out there that has all PvP victories decided by who has the most people. So Guilds will be spamming channels and trying to recruit hundreds of noobs to go hack and slash another bunch of noobs. Negative I know but nothing in the clips suggests otherwise. They really shouldnt call it Warhammer either since there is no unit combat or strategy. It should be called Warhammer Heroes or something. I am a massive fan of the table top game but the only way I will try this game will be through a demo or trial.
Humm, when you say 'NextGen' what exactly do you mean? DX10 obviously falls under next gen and prehaps flying around with angle wings as a queer fairy? or swinging your mouse around chopping up people and raping woman? but does 'Nextgen' instantly = fun??
you see thats what Warhammer is and has always been about bringing back FUN into MMO's you look at the Devs and feel there passion for the game, if that radiates out into what we play well im sold.... WAR has never tryed to be 'nextgen' and for that I am gratefull.