For us veterans it might be a bit redundant, but for newbies in particular kids who are used to colorful and quirky games like Fortnite, I think is perfect.
It has lots of skins (probably more than Fortnite), It's challenging enough but casual at the same time, it requires a group of 5, and it has an Artstyle that easily appeal to kids and grown ups.
They wouldn't like Classic though, just stick with retail.
To me Wow is a worse version of EQ2 that is why i would go EQ2 over Wow any day.
EQ2 also can be played 90% for free without having to buy the game.Blizzard still wants a lot of money up front.I have played both and would never consider Wow over EQ2 other than 2 reasons.
1 Your friends are playing Wow 2 You just need to see other players hanging around but this is a double edged.You won't see many people aside from your group in a auto dungeon finder.
In reality,games like these Wow/EQ2 games can be soloed most of the time which defeats the purpose of a mmorpg and having your family in there,eq2 just reinforces the group idea a bit mroe than Wow.
WoW was so much worse than EQ2, that SOE revamped the entire early game and a lot of the overland to be like WoW, because players complained and wanted it that way. You make literally no sense whatsoever. WoW was a better MMO than EQ2, I just preferred the raiding in EQ2 because I prefer raiding with more "guild problem solving" and less "Addon watching." Raiding without addons there was just... better... than WoW's wall of instructions. That's totally personal preference, though. But the game was a better game. That's why WoW won. It wasn't marketing, because EQ2 had EQ's pedigree to prop it up. It was EQ2 launching a subpar product that performed awfully and basically made solo play in overland zones a PITA.
However, there are some areas of EQ2 that I think should have been adopted in WoW, but weren't because of the way WoW's gear treadmill works (vs. EQ2's):
1. Public Dungeons (ESO snagged this) 2. Raids that aren't designed for Add-On users 3. I like the way mounts functioned in EQ2. You were always on your mount (and could even hide it while on the ground) and auto dismounted/auto-mounted when you entered/left combat. Different Mounts gave different stat bonuses. 4. Sister Classes and Betrayal 5. Epic Weapons that gave great, class defining bonuses (later turned into Buffs when the items themselves became inviable) - The general idea of a class-defining epic questline (comes from EverQuest).
Besides that, EQ2's engine and game client were and are terrible, and not even approaching efficient. It doesn't run well, and I'd say GW2 isn't much different. It's engine is pretty shite, as well.
I think ESO is a better MMO than GW2, which feels more like an MMO-ARPG. If Path of Exile had Overland Zones (and not just town hubs), then it would feel like GW2. Diablo IV is likely to feel similar to GW2, except Blizzard is going to code a decent engine for it. Can't wait (Path of Exile's engine is pretty terrible, as well).
ESO has better MMO mechanics.
1. Trinity is a thing, and GW2 has not proven to us that not having a trinity is better than having it. Quite the contrary, IMO, which is why the group content there is pretty iffy (not that great, and very zergy). 2. They have legit dungeons (don't wanna hear about fractals), and in two difficulties. 3. Champion Points > Mastery System. 4. Their DLC are simply better than Living World, and so are their expansions - IMHO. 5. Combat "Feel" in GW2 is generally better, but combat "balance" in GW2 is not as good. ESO isn't nearly the dodge fest that GW2 is, especially in what group content exists there. It doesn't have arbitrary and badly balanced HP values distributed across the classes, either, as GW2 does (this severely limits accessibility for a lot of people, for no logical reason). 6. I also like the class and weapon skill system in ESO better than GW2. You have far better build customization there (never mind each class can serve as a Tank, Healer, or Damage). Classes in GW2 feel more homogenized, despite being quite different, due to how the meta works and hwo most armor in that game is absilutely worthless. 7. Character Progression in ESO is much better than in GW2. There isn't much for progression in GW2. Gear is worthless and Ascended/Legendary is literally not worth the time needed to get it. 8. Better leveling options in ESO: You can level up on MOBs or with Quests. GW2 really makes the Quests so superior that it's basically WoW, except even more on rails. 9. Group and Raid content in ESO is 1,000x better than GW2. it isn't even a comparison. 10. ESO's client performs better, especially if any of the OP's family plays on a Mac.
The only other MMO that I'd recommend is Final Fantasy XIV. But, you'd need a subscription for each person and platform - though you can use the cheaper $12.99 subscription since one character can have every class on it. People used to faster paced combat in BRs and FPS are likely going to be bored by the pacing of FFXIV's combat, though.
The benefit of FFXIV is that you can have people with PlayStation 4's play the game with PC/Mac users and get "predictable" playable performance without spending money on expensive PCs. The Mac Client is really terrible, though... So if anyone plays on macs, I'd get them a PS4 to play this game.
-----
Frankly, for MMORPGs, I think that it's slim pickings these days. They aren't developed the way they were in the mid-late 2000's, so you don't have the wealth of "fresh" choices you used to. A lot of the older games are basically zombie MMORPGs. The playerbases are such that it doesn't feel that great to play them. Playing with family can alleviate much of that, but you're still going to struggle in many of those MMOs when it comes to community factor.
GW2 has a Free Base Game, so despite what I say, the OP should try it. ESO's base game + Morrowind Expansion is cheap, however gettign the DLC and Expansions for 3-5 people is going to be expensive (Living World Episodes for everyone in GW2 can be expensive, as well, since you won't have any of the earlier ones on fresh accounts). However, there is better and more base game + Morrowind content in ESO than in GW2 and its two expansions (minus Living World).
I'd get ESO.
WoW and FFXIV are both going to be sizeable buy-ins + Subscription. At least $50 each person to start + $12.99-14.99/mo. ea. in subscription costs. And you have to buy expansions that release afterwards, naturally.
I don't think the expansions are optional, because these games have all been out for a while and playing without them really just leaves you with a vapid experience as you will be cut out from partaking in the more recent content packs. For ESO, I'd get at least the first 4 DLC when crowns go on sale.
I don't think either of these games are "Amazing," but I do think ESO is the better choice.
Have your kids played an single player RPGs? And, if so, did they like them?
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
WoW Retail, ESO maybe, if they are playing Fortnite then WOW most likely as it's non stop combat comparatively to ESO, also they may find ESO boring af with all the voice acting.
Do the free wow trial.
My faith is my shield! - Turalyon 2022
Your legend ends here and now! - (Battles Won Long Ago)
Comments
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
However, there are some areas of EQ2 that I think should have been adopted in WoW, but weren't because of the way WoW's gear treadmill works (vs. EQ2's):
1. Public Dungeons (ESO snagged this)
2. Raids that aren't designed for Add-On users
3. I like the way mounts functioned in EQ2. You were always on your mount (and could even hide it while on the ground) and auto dismounted/auto-mounted when you entered/left combat. Different Mounts gave different stat bonuses.
4. Sister Classes and Betrayal
5. Epic Weapons that gave great, class defining bonuses (later turned into Buffs when the items themselves became inviable) - The general idea of a class-defining epic questline (comes from EverQuest).
Besides that, EQ2's engine and game client were and are terrible, and not even approaching efficient. It doesn't run well, and I'd say GW2 isn't much different. It's engine is pretty shite, as well.
I think ESO is a better MMO than GW2, which feels more like an MMO-ARPG. If Path of Exile had Overland Zones (and not just town hubs), then it would feel like GW2. Diablo IV is likely to feel similar to GW2, except Blizzard is going to code a decent engine for it. Can't wait (Path of Exile's engine is pretty terrible, as well).
ESO has better MMO mechanics.
1. Trinity is a thing, and GW2 has not proven to us that not having a trinity is better than having it. Quite the contrary, IMO, which is why the group content there is pretty iffy (not that great, and very zergy).
2. They have legit dungeons (don't wanna hear about fractals), and in two difficulties.
3. Champion Points > Mastery System.
4. Their DLC are simply better than Living World, and so are their expansions - IMHO.
5. Combat "Feel" in GW2 is generally better, but combat "balance" in GW2 is not as good. ESO isn't nearly the dodge fest that GW2 is, especially in what group content exists there. It doesn't have arbitrary and badly balanced HP values distributed across the classes, either, as GW2 does (this severely limits accessibility for a lot of people, for no logical reason).
6. I also like the class and weapon skill system in ESO better than GW2. You have far better build customization there (never mind each class can serve as a Tank, Healer, or Damage). Classes in GW2 feel more homogenized, despite being quite different, due to how the meta works and hwo most armor in that game is absilutely worthless.
7. Character Progression in ESO is much better than in GW2. There isn't much for progression in GW2. Gear is worthless and Ascended/Legendary is literally not worth the time needed to get it.
8. Better leveling options in ESO: You can level up on MOBs or with Quests. GW2 really makes the Quests so superior that it's basically WoW, except even more on rails.
9. Group and Raid content in ESO is 1,000x better than GW2. it isn't even a comparison.
10. ESO's client performs better, especially if any of the OP's family plays on a Mac.
The only other MMO that I'd recommend is Final Fantasy XIV. But, you'd need a subscription for each person and platform - though you can use the cheaper $12.99 subscription since one character can have every class on it. People used to faster paced combat in BRs and FPS are likely going to be bored by the pacing of FFXIV's combat, though.
The benefit of FFXIV is that you can have people with PlayStation 4's play the game with PC/Mac users and get "predictable" playable performance without spending money on expensive PCs. The Mac Client is really terrible, though... So if anyone plays on macs, I'd get them a PS4 to play this game.
-----
Frankly, for MMORPGs, I think that it's slim pickings these days. They aren't developed the way they were in the mid-late 2000's, so you don't have the wealth of "fresh" choices you used to. A lot of the older games are basically zombie MMORPGs. The playerbases are such that it doesn't feel that great to play them. Playing with family can alleviate much of that, but you're still going to struggle in many of those MMOs when it comes to community factor.
GW2 has a Free Base Game, so despite what I say, the OP should try it. ESO's base game + Morrowind Expansion is cheap, however gettign the DLC and Expansions for 3-5 people is going to be expensive (Living World Episodes for everyone in GW2 can be expensive, as well, since you won't have any of the earlier ones on fresh accounts). However, there is better and more base game + Morrowind content in ESO than in GW2 and its two expansions (minus Living World).
I'd get ESO.
WoW and FFXIV are both going to be sizeable buy-ins + Subscription. At least $50 each person to start + $12.99-14.99/mo. ea. in subscription costs. And you have to buy expansions that release afterwards, naturally.
I don't think the expansions are optional, because these games have all been out for a while and playing without them really just leaves you with a vapid experience as you will be cut out from partaking in the more recent content packs. For ESO, I'd get at least the first 4 DLC when crowns go on sale.
I don't think either of these games are "Amazing," but I do think ESO is the better choice.