Originally posted by ChuckNorris I think everyone knows by now is garbage. So I say let the 10 fanbois left playign continue to play and lets head somewhere else
So you speak for everyone?
He speaks for about 90% of how gamers feel about this crap. As I recall didnt the muffin man feel this game is dying and did a poll on your archlord forum? Bingo!
He speaks for about 90% of how gamers feel about this crap. As I recall didnt the muffin man feel this game is dying and did a poll on your archlord forum? Bingo!
Actually he speaks for himself....who knows maybe he is playing the Hello Kitty MMORPG or Toon Town and resents that no one else likes his type of MMORPG...Bingo!
Originally posted by Vanguarde When lineage 2 launched in the U.S It was polished and complete, which Archlord doesn't. Its incomplete with lack of options to players. Its destined to fail. And you wonder why lineage 2 was launched with success then this pile of dung. Not just in U.S but worldwide. Yes weeks prior to c2 siege began before c2 was updated. Because L2 is an eastern market game, I compare this to L2. Which i think its reasonable and western mmorpg playstyle is different then asian style gameplay i will not compare them both. By the way, You want a really really really hardcore open pvp where anything goes? Try shadowbane where you lose all your equipment when you die against player killers. I actually had fun grieving players in that game. Hence why Shadowbane isnt really really popular its pk heaven in that game, few players survive at low levels. Now thats what i call "HARDCORE" PVP western game. If i were to compare a western pvp game versus archlord and lineage 2 pvpv system. Shadowbane PVP is the most harsh system ever implemented in all of mmorpg to date. Shadowbane really tests your skill to survive to the highest level, you die from a pk you loose all your equipment, equipments can be looted at anytime and anyday in that game. Compare that Pvp system that L2 and archlord combined ,Shadowbane's pvp system is truely The ultimate pvp GVG system to date bar none, theres no mercy or forgiving, or even compromise in SB.
See my Sig. I played SB in both closed and open beta and then for about 9 months after retail launch. Want to talk about a pile of coding dog doo? WP had no clue how to code their client or server and it showed. There is a reason that Ubisoft dropped the title and it's now F2P.
That game could have been a pvp contender, but it was all marketing hype. The lore was incredible but it took them years to realize that they need to enforce things in the Western market. Face it, our culture supports rule breaking, not compliance, as long as you don't get caught.
There is no end game to SB. You spend months to build your city. You war and defend static resources. But you never "win".
You define hardcore pvp as being how much griefing you can get away with. I define hardcore as having high accountability while respecting your enemy. The East gets that. The West doesn't.
Dec 20,1999: AC1(DT).Since then:DAoC,SB,AC2,L2,EvE,WoW,SoR ==================== Currently playing: ArchLord - L58 Knight LoTRo - L13 Dwarf Guardian
So what? I see only 2 people defending this dung called Archlord. You see, My guild was in closed beta for this game. It was fun and all, but CM ignored all of our feedbacks from closed beta before they pushed it out to retail.
So its Codemaster's fault for releasing this piece of crap out to compete with the rest of MMO market. My guild voted to go back playing Lineage2, and so we did quit Archlord when it was close to launching into retail.
I have beta playtested almost all the mmorpg out there, and that there is a lesson learned here folks. Developers must fix major bugs, and listen to beta testers feedback before prematurely releasing a product out into retail channel.
Archlord may die, but all of gamers and if a developer is reading this, he/she should definately learn from this.
Gamers are the ones who judges which games will make a profit and which will not. You try to push out a crappy MMORPG product out the door aka ( dark & light, Archlord, DDO) your all going to fail.
Lineage 2 by far was the most successful eastern game launch then this crap, which is true by the way.
There is a reason why L2 was successful when it launched comparing that to Archlord. L2 offers many many many options to players, while this game doesn't. I'm not just talking about customization, I'm talking about everything.
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.
The point I think you're missing is that at the heart of the review, what the reviewer is saying is - Archlord is nothing new. It brings nothing new or different to the genre.
You think Archlord is the only game that starts off PvE centric and then gets into PvP? You think the only way someone can know what that setup is like is to have played Archlord? You'd be wrong if you did... Shadowbane has that same setup and it's been out for.. what.. 5 years now? What people think of it doesn't change the fact that it did what Archlord is doing now several years ago. And that's just one example.
Regardless, even if it's a PvP-centric game.. again.. that's nothing new. There are many PvP-centric games... you still have to grind on PvE type content to level your character and get better gear so you can fare better at PvP. Lineage II has this same setup and that's been out for a few years now.
So.. no.. if someone has played enough MMOs with the type of setup as Archlord.. no, they really don't have to experience all of it to get the idea.
It's the same old thing, regurgitated and packaged in a different wrapper.
"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
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.
wth. Its a commercial product, they are out to earn money, not save humanity.
Seriously what kind of backwars argument is that? EVERYTHING in a industry of any kind is made by someone else, objects just dont appear out nowhere. What do you say to the people that waste money on this game? They too nedeed to work to get their money & somehow the companys money is more important for you.
Well if you can only stand a game for a week that usually means the game is crap the weeks after the first anyway. Also the "its fun later on" just means the developers took the easy way out ny only focusing on endgame & its not really an argument that addresses the issue: NOT FUN.
To all the people that "wasted" money on this game, all I really have to say is tough luck. There were about 2 months of open beta + its easy as pie to get a free trial for the game. You could have easily learn what the first 2 weeks of gameplay would be like if you put a little effort in it. You can fully agree that a game is crap, but being HAPPY and getting joy about a bad rating is just downright sad.
Its also pretty obvious that the reviewer either had a bad day or just had to give AL a bad rating just to keep the good-bad scores balanced. for example, look at the sound score. a 3. Good job Gamespot, you just insulted the London Symphony Orchestra (for more info, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Symphony_Orchestra)
Also look at the graphic ratings. a 4. while at the same time, RF Online gets a 7. i'm sorry, but imo, you can't say Al deservers a 4 in graphics and RFO a 7 with a straigth face (with all the respect to RFO ofcourse)
Know what's even more sad? That you're here making excuses for the reviewer... he gave it a bad score because he must have been having a bad day? Right.. couldn't be just because he simply didn't like the game. No.. must have been something tainting his judgement that day. Certainly, if he were in a better frame of mind - maybe if he'd gotten laid the night before - he would see Archlord for the fantastic game it really is!
Riiiight.
Alot of people don't like the game. Deal with it. Give up the crusade already.
You are dismissing the review, and any who don't like the game, with your own personal opinions of it. That's a bit hypocritical and quite arrogant. They don't like it - their opinion. You do like it - your opinion.
How about you just accept it, agree to disagree and get over it already. You enjoy the game, then great! Play it and have a blast. But at the same time understand that nothing is for everyone.
"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
Gameloading, why are you defending the game, besides the fact that you're a moderator on the ArchLord forums still, when you quit two days after the game was released because, "Somehow the latest patch caused me to have Technical problems when play ArchLord, Hence I can't play anymore"?
You couldn't wait for a fix, another patch, or anything else? I spoke with Ktat (the community manager for ArchLord for those of you that don't already know) via messenger and at that time he had no idea why you suddenly upped and quit the game, also pulling the trigger on a guild of 50+ players that all had high hopes. So I just find it odd that you leave the game before it even really begins, and yet still come here telling people that they're wrong for thinking the game is unoriginal, flawed, or just plain sucks.
Originally posted by Gameloading Because it would lose all feeling of accomplishment. if it would be like that, it would turn into shadowbane. no matter how many city's you can take over in shadowbane, its all pointless. its one big FPS-like game.
The first 20 levels of SB are PvE, allowing the player the opportunity to develop and learn their character before they're thrown into the fray. So it's not PvP from the start... though it does get into it much sooner than AL seems to.
And, you're contradicting yourself across these threads.
First, you knock a game reviewer's opinions on the game and state that they only tried the PvE part which isn't what the game is about - that it's all about PvP.
Then, someone asks a very valid question: if it's all about PvP why do they make you PvE grind so many levels before you can participate? You come back in defense of it bringing a sense of accomplishment to the game. If there are 50 or 80 or whatever levels of PvE type grinding before you get to the PvP part... it would seem to me perhaps the game is more PvE than you would like to admit. If the PvP really comes into play so late in the game, then it would certainly seem that it really *isn't* "all about PvP".
In Lineage II, it's PvP/PvE from the start. There is nothing stopping anyone from PvP'ing or PvE'ing from level 1 if they so wish. Yet, most of the game's features, all the way up, are based around PvP'ing (castle sieges, most prominently). So, if one wants to see a game built around PvP but with PvE elements thrown in, Lineage II would be a much better option than what you and others describe AL as being. And heck.. I can't stand Lineage II.
"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
Originally posted by WSIMike Originally posted by Gameloading Because it would lose all feeling of accomplishment. if it would be like that, it would turn into shadowbane. no matter how many city's you can take over in shadowbane, its all pointless. its one big FPS-like game.
The first 20 levels of SB are PvE, allowing the player the opportunity to develop and learn their character before they're thrown into the fray. So it's not PvP from the start... though it does get into it much sooner than AL seems to.
And, you're contradicting yourself across these threads.
First, you knock a game reviewer's opinions on the game and state that they only tried the PvE part which isn't what the game is about - that it's all about PvP.
Then, someone asks a very valid question: if it's all about PvP why do they make you PvE grind so many levels before you can participate? You come back in defense of it bringing a sense of accomplishment to the game. If there are 50 or 80 or whatever levels of PvE type grinding before you get to the PvP part... it would seem to me perhaps the game is more PvE than you would like to admit. If the PvP really comes into play so late in the game, then it would certainly seem that it really *isn't* "all about PvP".
In Lineage II, it's PvP/PvE from the start. There is nothing stopping anyone from PvP'ing or PvE'ing from level 1 if they so wish. Yet, most of the game's features, all the way up, are based around PvP'ing (castle sieges, most prominently). So, if one wants to see a game built around PvP but with PvE elements thrown in, Lineage II would be a much better option than what you and others describe AL as being. And heck.. I can't stand Lineage II.
Mike, you are neglecting the fact that MMOs really are made up of two elements. The game code and the community. The L2 community was destroyed early in retail by the currency farmers. They were not fought aggressively enough by the publisher resulting in their obtaining a solid foothold. Once people started buying in game currency with real life money to compete, it spiralled out of control. The L2 of today requires you to bot and purchase adena to keep up competetively. Sad fact, but true.
So the concept of L2 was great. Implementation was great, but community management and control lacked.
AL has a very similar concept to L2 but differs. 1 guild rules each server for 3 weeks of every month. 1 player is the supreme ruler of the game world for that time. Now AL is not nearly as mature and is not nearly finished.
MMO yes, PvP centric yes, differs in pvp end game from L2 and thus brings something new to the table, yes.
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 Gameloading Because it would lose all feeling of accomplishment. if it would be like that, it would turn into shadowbane. no matter how many city's you can take over in shadowbane, its all pointless. its one big FPS-like game.
The first 20 levels of SB are PvE, allowing the player the opportunity to develop and learn their character before they're thrown into the fray. So it's not PvP from the start... though it does get into it much sooner than AL seems to.
And, you're contradicting yourself across these threads.
First, you knock a game reviewer's opinions on the game and state that they only tried the PvE part which isn't what the game is about - that it's all about PvP.
Then, someone asks a very valid question: if it's all about PvP why do they make you PvE grind so many levels before you can participate? You come back in defense of it bringing a sense of accomplishment to the game. If there are 50 or 80 or whatever levels of PvE type grinding before you get to the PvP part... it would seem to me perhaps the game is more PvE than you would like to admit. If the PvP really comes into play so late in the game, then it would certainly seem that it really *isn't* "all about PvP".
In Lineage II, it's PvP/PvE from the start. There is nothing stopping anyone from PvP'ing or PvE'ing from level 1 if they so wish. Yet, most of the game's features, all the way up, are based around PvP'ing (castle sieges, most prominently). So, if one wants to see a game built around PvP but with PvE elements thrown in, Lineage II would be a much better option than what you and others describe AL as being. And heck.. I can't stand Lineage II.
Mike, you are neglecting the fact that MMOs really are made up of two elements. The game code and the community. The L2 community was destroyed early in retail by the currency farmers. They were not fought aggressively enough by the publisher resulting in their obtaining a solid foothold. Once people started buying in game currency with real life money to compete, it spiralled out of control. The L2 of today requires you to bot and purchase adena to keep up competetively. Sad fact, but true.
So the concept of L2 was great. Implementation was great, but community management and control lacked.
AL has a very similar concept to L2 but differs. 1 guild rules each server for 3 weeks of every month. 1 player is the supreme ruler of the game world for that time. Now AL is not nearly as mature and is not nearly finished.
MMO yes, PvP centric yes, differs in pvp end game from L2 and thus brings something new to the table, yes.
If it were true L2 should have died a long time ago, your comment is nothing but speculation of L2.
Archlord is bleeding from the start. We told CM its not ready for launch they didnt listen, o well thats their fault.
I and other 95% of the population will watch Archlord bleed to death each month.
Originally posted by Ake_Gamer Originally posted by WSIMike Originally posted by Gameloading Because it would lose all feeling of accomplishment. if it would be like that, it would turn into shadowbane. no matter how many city's you can take over in shadowbane, its all pointless. its one big FPS-like game.
The first 20 levels of SB are PvE, allowing the player the opportunity to develop and learn their character before they're thrown into the fray. So it's not PvP from the start... though it does get into it much sooner than AL seems to.
And, you're contradicting yourself across these threads.
First, you knock a game reviewer's opinions on the game and state that they only tried the PvE part which isn't what the game is about - that it's all about PvP.
Then, someone asks a very valid question: if it's all about PvP why do they make you PvE grind so many levels before you can participate? You come back in defense of it bringing a sense of accomplishment to the game. If there are 50 or 80 or whatever levels of PvE type grinding before you get to the PvP part... it would seem to me perhaps the game is more PvE than you would like to admit. If the PvP really comes into play so late in the game, then it would certainly seem that it really *isn't* "all about PvP".
In Lineage II, it's PvP/PvE from the start. There is nothing stopping anyone from PvP'ing or PvE'ing from level 1 if they so wish. Yet, most of the game's features, all the way up, are based around PvP'ing (castle sieges, most prominently). So, if one wants to see a game built around PvP but with PvE elements thrown in, Lineage II would be a much better option than what you and others describe AL as being. And heck.. I can't stand Lineage II.
Mike, you are neglecting the fact that MMOs really are made up of two elements. The game code and the community. The L2 community was destroyed early in retail by the currency farmers. They were not fought aggressively enough by the publisher resulting in their obtaining a solid foothold. Once people started buying in game currency with real life money to compete, it spiralled out of control. The L2 of today requires you to bot and purchase adena to keep up competetively. Sad fact, but true.
So the concept of L2 was great. Implementation was great, but community management and control lacked.
AL has a very similar concept to L2 but differs. 1 guild rules each server for 3 weeks of every month. 1 player is the supreme ruler of the game world for that time. Now AL is not nearly as mature and is not nearly finished.
MMO yes, PvP centric yes, differs in pvp end game from L2 and thus brings something new to the table, yes.
Well first, I played LII in open Beta, played it a bit on and off over the next several months (at each Chronicle) and then finally settled in and played it consistently for over a year. Was a member of one of the server's oldest and longest-running alliances, etc. I did my fair share of PK'ing botters/RMTers, clearing out Cat/Nec rooms of them, etc. So I'm very familiar with LII, its RMT problems and how NC does next to squat about it.
Though I don't see how it's at all relevant to the balance of PvE/PvP in the game's design, to say that it's impossible to play LII without buying money is false. false. false. I got myself into a full Tallum Heavy set (A-Grade) and top B-grade duals (played a Bladedancer) and didn't RMT for a single piece of it - helm included (the hardest and most expensive piece to get). Took a long time and alot of farming and working the market, but it was accomplished. Many of my friends and guild/ally-mates did the same. The means are there if you put the effort into it. People use the "botters made it necessary" as a weak excuse to take the easy way out by buying their adena. It is not necessary and I get sick of hearing that rationale because I, and many others, have proven it false. Lazy people RMT. Plain and simple. If you're gonna play the game - play the damn game and stop looking for work-arounds. And regardless of all that.. the point remains... Gameloading states, on one hand, how a reviewer's opinions are irrelevant because they didn't experience the PvP in the game which they deem as what AL is all about. Yet on the other hand, they explain away the fact that there are many levels of PvE grind before you get to the PvP because it's "for a sense of accomplishment". It seems to me that if you have 80 levels of grind (or however many levels there are) before PvP becomes a major part of the gameplay, then you are not playing a game built primarily around PvP.
In Lineage II you really can't effectively siege a castle 'til your guild/ally is at least in the upper half of the level range. However, the PvP doesn't start there.. there is PvP from level 1 on up to 75. *That* is a game built around PvP. Unless it's being misrepresented, it sounds like AL is all PvE until you reach the end levels and *then* PvP becomes prominent.
"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
Originally posted by IdesofMarch Gameloading, why are you defending the game, besides the fact that you're a moderator on the ArchLord forums still, when you quit two days after the game was released because, "Somehow the latest patch caused me to have Technical problems when play ArchLord, Hence I can't play anymore"? You couldn't wait for a fix, another patch, or anything else? I spoke with Ktat (the community manager for ArchLord for those of you that don't already know) via messenger and at that time he had no idea why you suddenly upped and quit the game, also pulling the trigger on a guild of 50+ players that all had high hopes. So I just find it odd that you leave the game before it even really begins, and yet still come here telling people that they're wrong for thinking the game is unoriginal, flawed, or just plain sucks.
Actually I purchased a new computer after that shortly, Which was unexpected, as I did not expect to geat a loan from the bank. Ktat did know about this,he probably forgot when he had that conversation with you.
It might be better, when you talk about people, if you really know what is going on instead of making assumptions, just a word of advice.
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.
wth. Its a commercial product, they are out to earn money, not save humanity.
Seriously what kind of backwars argument is that? EVERYTHING in a industry of any kind is made by someone else, objects just dont appear out nowhere. What do you say to the people that waste money on this game? They too nedeed to work to get their money & somehow the companys money is more important for you.
Well if you can only stand a game for a week that usually means the game is crap the weeks after the first anyway. Also the "its fun later on" just means the developers took the easy way out ny only focusing on endgame & its not really an argument that addresses the issue: NOT FUN.
To all the people that "wasted" money on this game, all I really have to say is tough luck. There were about 2 months of open beta + its easy as pie to get a free trial for the game. You could have easily learn what the first 2 weeks of gameplay would be like if you put a little effort in it. You can fully agree that a game is crap, but being HAPPY and getting joy about a bad rating is just downright sad.
Its also pretty obvious that the reviewer either had a bad day or just had to give AL a bad rating just to keep the good-bad scores balanced. for example, look at the sound score. a 3. Good job Gamespot, you just insulted the London Symphony Orchestra (for more info, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Symphony_Orchestra)
Also look at the graphic ratings. a 4. while at the same time, RF Online gets a 7. i'm sorry, but imo, you can't say Al deservers a 4 in graphics and RFO a 7 with a straigth face (with all the respect to RFO ofcourse)
Know what's even more sad? That you're here making excuses for the reviewer... he gave it a bad score because he must have been having a bad day? Right.. couldn't be just because he simply didn't like the game. No.. must have been something tainting his judgement that day. Certainly, if he were in a better frame of mind - maybe if he'd gotten laid the night before - he would see Archlord for the fantastic game it really is!
Riiiight.
Alot of people don't like the game. Deal with it. Give up the crusade already.
You are dismissing the review, and any who don't like the game, with your own personal opinions of it. That's a bit hypocritical and quite arrogant. They don't like it - their opinion. You do like it - your opinion.
How about you just accept it, agree to disagree and get over it already. You enjoy the game, then great! Play it and have a blast. But at the same time understand that nothing is for everyone.
Do you actually even read my posts, or do you just always mouth off like that? Because if anybody has been saying that the game is not for everyone, then its been me.
And yes, I think saying that the London Symphony Orchestra makes bad music for the game is reason enough to dismiss the reason
Also, is giving your opinion hypocritical and arrogant? If you think so, then maybe its better if you don't come to forums, because thats what forums are all about.
I'm not holding any kind of crusade. People who only have negative things to say are free to spam the board here as much as they please, but as soon as someone says something positive about the game then "they need to stop the crusade" Please... as long as people keep making these threads, I'll reply on them, its simple as that. As soon as you people who don't like the game get out of here and leave this section for discussion about the game, then I'll stop. Keep in mind that you haven't seen one single "ArchLord rocks!" topic made by me.
Here, look at the thread below this one, the " Episode 2: season of siege" thread. made by a poster trying to get a debate by the game, yet he is immidiatly jumped by people who don't like the game. its impossible to get any normal topic in this section, because people who don't like the game pretend like AL killed their wife.
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.
The point I think you're missing is that at the heart of the review, what the reviewer is saying is - Archlord is nothing new. It brings nothing new or different to the genre.
You think Archlord is the only game that starts off PvE centric and then gets into PvP? You think the only way someone can know what that setup is like is to have played Archlord? You'd be wrong if you did... Shadowbane has that same setup and it's been out for.. what.. 5 years now? What people think of it doesn't change the fact that it did what Archlord is doing now several years ago. And that's just one example.
Bringing nothing new to the table says nothing about quality, and WoW is the living proof of this.
Regardless, even if it's a PvP-centric game.. again.. that's nothing new. There are many PvP-centric games... you still have to grind on PvE type content to level your character and get better gear so you can fare better at PvP. Lineage II has this same setup and that's been out for a few years now.
So.. no.. if someone has played enough MMOs with the type of setup as Archlord.. no, they really don't have to experience all of it to get the idea.
If the reviewer really had experience, then he would have wrote about the pvp part of the game, and not a review fully based on the PVE part.
It's the same old thing, regurgitated and packaged in a different wrapper.
Originally posted by Gameloading Originally posted by WSIMike
Do you actually even read my posts, or do you just always mouth off like that? Because if anybody has been saying that the game is not for everyone, then its been me.
And yes, I think saying that the London Symphony Orchestra makes bad music for the game is reason enough to dismiss the reason
Also, is giving your opinion hypocritical and arrogant? If you think so, then maybe its better if you don't come to forums, because thats what forums are all about.
I'm not holding any kind of crusade. People who only have negative things to say are free to spam the board here as much as they please, but as soon as someone says something positive about the game then "they need to stop the crusade" Please... as long as people keep making these threads, I'll reply on them, its simple as that. As soon as you people who don't like the game get out of here and leave this section for discussion about the game, then I'll stop. Keep in mind that you haven't seen one single "ArchLord rocks!" topic made by me.
Here, look at the thread below this one, the " Episode 2: season of siege" thread. made by a poster trying to get a debate by the game, yet he is immidiatly jumped by people who don't like the game. its impossible to get any normal topic in this section, because people who don't like the game pretend like AL killed their wife.
Way to completely misconstrue everything I said.
First - if the reviewer didn't care for the music - it doesn't matter *who* performed it. They're not knocking the orchestra.. they're knocking the music - which was likely not scored by the orchestra. In case you didn't know, Orchestra's tend to perform music *others* have scored, not themselves. In the reviewer's opinion, it wasn't to their taste and they found it annoying. There is no reason to dismiss their opinion, however strongly you disagree with it.
And, no giving your opinion of a game does not make you hypocritical and arrogant - please go back and actually *read* what I wrote. Then respond.
What I said is that you are dismissing someone else's opinions by putting forth what are ultimately your own opinions. Their view doesn't matter because they, in your opinion, didn't play long enough to get the gist of it. Their opinion of the music doesn't matter because they obviously - in your *assumption* - didn't realize it was performed by the London Symphony.. which, in your opinion, makes their opinion moot. Who are you to place standards on what makes a person's opinion valid? Your view is no better or more right than anyone else's, yet, you use these standards (didn't play long enough, didn't realize it was the symphony...) as a way to dismiss and invalidate someone else's views that don't fit yours. Yes.. that is arrogant and hypocritical.
Next point, which you made right in your very rebuttal that *further* proves your arrogance: " As soon as you people who don't like the game get out of here and leave this section for discussion about the game, then I'll stop."
Who ever said these threads were only for people who like the game to discuss it? You? Who are you to make that kind of statement? You are a reader/poster on these forums, just like everyone else. Anyone who has played the game has a right to voice their opinions, whether positive, negative or otherwise. Right there - you are showing an intolerance for any view of the game that doesn't match your own. Thank you for proving my point - yes, you are arrogant and you are on a crusade to negate all negative commentary on the game.
As for people acting like AL killed their wife.. is it any different than you bringing this self-appointed hammer of justice down on anyone who dares nay-say the game? No. On either side of the fence.. there is always the option to ignore those comments and respond to the topic at hand. If you choose or allow yourself to get drawn in, it's your own problem no one else's. Oh that's right.. you can't let it be.. because otherwise people might realize there's a *negative* view of the game as well and might not play it! And you just can't allow that.
Please.. your agenda is very clear and you betrayed it right in your response to me. You are a self-righteous forum-nazi who, by your own say-so, won't rest 'til only people who like the game exist on these threads. Good luck with that.
You only respect the opinions of those who agree with you.
"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
Originally posted by IdesofMarch Gameloading, why are you defending the game, besides the fact that you're a moderator on the ArchLord forums still, when you quit two days after the game was released because, "Somehow the latest patch caused me to have Technical problems when play ArchLord, Hence I can't play anymore"? You couldn't wait for a fix, another patch, or anything else? I spoke with Ktat (the community manager for ArchLord for those of you that don't already know) via messenger and at that time he had no idea why you suddenly upped and quit the game, also pulling the trigger on a guild of 50+ players that all had high hopes. So I just find it odd that you leave the game before it even really begins, and yet still come here telling people that they're wrong for thinking the game is unoriginal, flawed, or just plain sucks.
Actually I purchased a new computer after that shortly, Which was unexpected, as I did not expect to geat a loan from the bank. Ktat did know about this,he probably forgot when he had that conversation with you.
It might be better, when you talk about people, if you really know what is going on instead of making assumptions, just a word of advice.
I didn't really assume anything, moreso going with the facts I had since I talked to Ktat about two or three weeks after you left, and he had absolutely no clue but said he would ask you about it. I simply asked here because I found it awfully odd that you publicly announced you're leaving the game two days in, totally abandon a guild that you created and advertised for months, yet defend it like it's the second coming. Sorry for being curious. I know you were invited to the Codemasters event and such to help out, but c'mon. The game is FAR from perfect.
Originally posted by Gameloading Originally posted by WSIMike 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.
The point I think you're missing is that at the heart of the review, what the reviewer is saying is - Archlord is nothing new. It brings nothing new or different to the genre.
You think Archlord is the only game that starts off PvE centric and then gets into PvP? You think the only way someone can know what that setup is like is to have played Archlord? You'd be wrong if you did... Shadowbane has that same setup and it's been out for.. what.. 5 years now? What people think of it doesn't change the fact that it did what Archlord is doing now several years ago. And that's just one example.
Bringing nothing new to the table says nothing about quality, and WoW is the living proof of this.
Annnd....? My comment was in response to someone mentioning how AL brings something new to the genre. I was saying it doesn't because other games before it have had similar gameplay setups. Please respond to what I have said.. not to what I haven't. Makes the conversation a whole lot more coherent.
Regardless, even if it's a PvP-centric game.. again.. that's nothing new. There are many PvP-centric games... you still have to grind on PvE type content to level your character and get better gear so you can fare better at PvP. Lineage II has this same setup and that's been out for a few years now.
So.. no.. if someone has played enough MMOs with the type of setup as Archlord.. no, they really don't have to experience all of it to get the idea.
If the reviewer really had experience, then he would have wrote about the pvp part of the game, and not a review fully based on the PVE part.
So now you are an authority on what an experienced reviewer is? Good grief. Got news for you... if the reviewer - or any player - is bored to tears and finds the game to be poor before getting far enough into the game experience what is supposed to be the "main part" of it, perhaps it's a sign that the developer should have put more emphasis on PvP earlier in the game.
Again.. how can a game be mainly geared toward PvP if a player, from how it's explained, has to get to the end-game before they can even experience it? That is completely counter-intuitive. Perhaps you're the one who's misunderstanding, or over-emphasizing what the developer's goal was for the game?
It's the same old thing, regurgitated and packaged in a different wrapper.
"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
Originally posted by RyuukoGo Originally posted by Vanguarde
He speaks for about 90% of how gamers feel about this crap. As I recall didnt the muffin man feel this game is dying and did a poll on your archlord forum? Bingo! Actually he speaks for himself....who knows maybe he is playing the Hello Kitty MMORPG or Toon Town and resents that no one else likes his type of MMORPG...Bingo! Well... anyone is really only speaking for themself.... and individually an opinion isn't exactly "overwhelming" to a larger number of people. However, I have seen many, many, many negative reviews on this game.. in magazines, on websites, in forums, by real-life word-of-mouth. They're all speaking for themselves - yet they share the same opinion. When there's that many people who all have a negative opinion of the game, you can't just dismiss every one of them, or come up with these cute little hypotheticals about them playing toon-town, because you happen to disagree.
If so many people are finding the game unsatisfactory.. it would tend to indicate that the game isn't very widely enjoyed. Kinda what the whole idea behind popular opinion is.
"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
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.
The point I think you're missing is that at the heart of the review, what the reviewer is saying is - Archlord is nothing new. It brings nothing new or different to the genre.
You think Archlord is the only game that starts off PvE centric and then gets into PvP? You think the only way someone can know what that setup is like is to have played Archlord? You'd be wrong if you did... Shadowbane has that same setup and it's been out for.. what.. 5 years now? What people think of it doesn't change the fact that it did what Archlord is doing now several years ago. And that's just one example.
Bringing nothing new to the table says nothing about quality, and WoW is the living proof of this.
Annnd....? My comment was in response to someone mentioning how AL brings something new to the genre. I was saying it doesn't because other games before it have had similar gameplay setups. Please respond to what I have said.. not to what I haven't. Makes the conversation a whole lot more coherent.
If it was in response to someone else's comments, then why are you quoting me for? You might want to quote the right person next time.
Regardless, even if it's a PvP-centric game.. again.. that's nothing new. There are many PvP-centric games... you still have to grind on PvE type content to level your character and get better gear so you can fare better at PvP. Lineage II has this same setup and that's been out for a few years now.
So.. no.. if someone has played enough MMOs with the type of setup as Archlord.. no, they really don't have to experience all of it to get the idea.
If the reviewer really had experience, then he would have wrote about the pvp part of the game, and not a review fully based on the PVE part.
So now you are an authority on what an experienced reviewer is? Good grief. Got news for you... if the reviewer - or any player - is bored to tears and finds the game to be poor before getting far enough into the game experience what is supposed to be the "main part" of it, perhaps it's a sign that the developer should have put more emphasis on PvP earlier in the game.
Again.. how can a game be mainly geared toward PvP if a player, from how it's explained, has to get to the end-game before they can even experience it? That is completely counter-intuitive. Perhaps you're the one who's misunderstanding, or over-emphasizing what the developer's goal was for the game?
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.
It's the same old thing, regurgitated and packaged in a different wrapper.
Anything published by Codemasters you might as well throw in the trash cause it is trash!
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
Originally posted by IdesofMarch Gameloading, why are you defending the game, besides the fact that you're a moderator on the ArchLord forums still, when you quit two days after the game was released because, "Somehow the latest patch caused me to have Technical problems when play ArchLord, Hence I can't play anymore"? You couldn't wait for a fix, another patch, or anything else? I spoke with Ktat (the community manager for ArchLord for those of you that don't already know) via messenger and at that time he had no idea why you suddenly upped and quit the game, also pulling the trigger on a guild of 50+ players that all had high hopes. So I just find it odd that you leave the game before it even really begins, and yet still come here telling people that they're wrong for thinking the game is unoriginal, flawed, or just plain sucks.
Actually I purchased a new computer after that shortly, Which was unexpected, as I did not expect to geat a loan from the bank. Ktat did know about this,he probably forgot when he had that conversation with you.
It might be better, when you talk about people, if you really know what is going on instead of making assumptions, just a word of advice.
I didn't really assume anything, moreso going with the facts I had since I talked to Ktat about two or three weeks after you left, and he had absolutely no clue but said he would ask you about it. I simply asked here because I found it awfully odd that you publicly announced you're leaving the game two days in, totally abandon a guild that you created and advertised for months, yet defend it like it's the second coming. Sorry for being curious. I know you were invited to the Codemasters event and such to help out, but c'mon. The game is FAR from perfect.
Like I said, Ktat obviously forgot, Because he was the first person I told so. I also don't defend it like the second comming, and I never claimed the game was perfect.
Why play this when you can bore yourself to death with L2 and RFO? I really hate these asian grind pvp games. Why do I have to suffer weeks of grind to have any fun? I paid money for a game that was suppose to be fun from the start, now I have to pay time and sanity? Archlord has to be the worst commercial MMORPG I have ever played.
Comments
He speaks for about 90% of how gamers feel about this crap. As I recall didnt the muffin man feel this game is dying and did a poll on your archlord forum? Bingo!
Actually he speaks for himself....who knows maybe he is playing the Hello Kitty MMORPG or Toon Town
See my Sig. I played SB in both closed and open beta and then for about 9 months after retail launch. Want to talk about a pile of coding dog doo? WP had no clue how to code their client or server and it showed. There is a reason that Ubisoft dropped the title and it's now F2P.
That game could have been a pvp contender, but it was all marketing hype. The lore was incredible but it took them years to realize that they need to enforce things in the Western market. Face it, our culture supports rule breaking, not compliance, as long as you don't get caught.
There is no end game to SB. You spend months to build your city. You war and defend static resources. But you never "win".
You define hardcore pvp as being how much griefing you can get away with. I define hardcore as having high accountability while respecting your enemy. The East gets that. The West doesn't.
Dec 20,1999: AC1(DT).Since then:DAoC,SB,AC2,L2,EvE,WoW,SoR
====================
Currently playing: ArchLord - L58 Knight
LoTRo - L13 Dwarf Guardian
So what? I see only 2 people defending this dung called Archlord. You see, My guild was in closed beta for this game. It was fun and all, but CM ignored all of our feedbacks from closed beta before they pushed it out to retail.
So its Codemaster's fault for releasing this piece of crap out to compete with the rest of MMO market. My guild voted to go back playing Lineage2, and so we did quit Archlord when it was close to launching into retail.
I have beta playtested almost all the mmorpg out there, and that there is a lesson learned here folks. Developers must fix major bugs, and listen to beta testers feedback before prematurely releasing a product out into retail channel.
Archlord may die, but all of gamers and if a developer is reading this, he/she should definately learn from this.
Gamers are the ones who judges which games will make a profit and which will not. You try to push out a crappy MMORPG product out the door aka ( dark & light, Archlord, DDO) your all going to fail.
Lineage 2 by far was the most successful eastern game launch then this crap, which is true by the way.
There is a reason why L2 was successful when it launched comparing that to Archlord. L2 offers many many many options to players, while this game doesn't. I'm not just talking about customization, I'm talking about everything.
You think Archlord is the only game that starts off PvE centric and then gets into PvP? You think the only way someone can know what that setup is like is to have played Archlord? You'd be wrong if you did... Shadowbane has that same setup and it's been out for.. what.. 5 years now? What people think of it doesn't change the fact that it did what Archlord is doing now several years ago. And that's just one example.
Regardless, even if it's a PvP-centric game.. again.. that's nothing new. There are many PvP-centric games... you still have to grind on PvE type content to level your character and get better gear so you can fare better at PvP. Lineage II has this same setup and that's been out for a few years now.
So.. no.. if someone has played enough MMOs with the type of setup as Archlord.. no, they really don't have to experience all of it to get the idea.
It's the same old thing, regurgitated and packaged in a different wrapper.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Riiiight.
Alot of people don't like the game. Deal with it. Give up the crusade already.
You are dismissing the review, and any who don't like the game, with your own personal opinions of it. That's a bit hypocritical and quite arrogant. They don't like it - their opinion. You do like it - your opinion.
How about you just accept it, agree to disagree and get over it already. You enjoy the game, then great! Play it and have a blast. But at the same time understand that nothing is for everyone.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Gameloading, why are you defending the game, besides the fact that you're a moderator on the ArchLord forums still, when you quit two days after the game was released because, "Somehow the latest patch caused me to have Technical problems when play ArchLord, Hence I can't play anymore"?
You couldn't wait for a fix, another patch, or anything else? I spoke with Ktat (the community manager for ArchLord for those of you that don't already know) via messenger and at that time he had no idea why you suddenly upped and quit the game, also pulling the trigger on a guild of 50+ players that all had high hopes. So I just find it odd that you leave the game before it even really begins, and yet still come here telling people that they're wrong for thinking the game is unoriginal, flawed, or just plain sucks.
And, you're contradicting yourself across these threads.
First, you knock a game reviewer's opinions on the game and state that they only tried the PvE part which isn't what the game is about - that it's all about PvP.
Then, someone asks a very valid question: if it's all about PvP why do they make you PvE grind so many levels before you can participate? You come back in defense of it bringing a sense of accomplishment to the game. If there are 50 or 80 or whatever levels of PvE type grinding before you get to the PvP part... it would seem to me perhaps the game is more PvE than you would like to admit. If the PvP really comes into play so late in the game, then it would certainly seem that it really *isn't* "all about PvP".
In Lineage II, it's PvP/PvE from the start. There is nothing stopping anyone from PvP'ing or PvE'ing from level 1 if they so wish. Yet, most of the game's features, all the way up, are based around PvP'ing (castle sieges, most prominently). So, if one wants to see a game built around PvP but with PvE elements thrown in, Lineage II would be a much better option than what you and others describe AL as being. And heck.. I can't stand Lineage II.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
And, you're contradicting yourself across these threads.
First, you knock a game reviewer's opinions on the game and state that they only tried the PvE part which isn't what the game is about - that it's all about PvP.
Then, someone asks a very valid question: if it's all about PvP why do they make you PvE grind so many levels before you can participate? You come back in defense of it bringing a sense of accomplishment to the game. If there are 50 or 80 or whatever levels of PvE type grinding before you get to the PvP part... it would seem to me perhaps the game is more PvE than you would like to admit. If the PvP really comes into play so late in the game, then it would certainly seem that it really *isn't* "all about PvP".
In Lineage II, it's PvP/PvE from the start. There is nothing stopping anyone from PvP'ing or PvE'ing from level 1 if they so wish. Yet, most of the game's features, all the way up, are based around PvP'ing (castle sieges, most prominently). So, if one wants to see a game built around PvP but with PvE elements thrown in, Lineage II would be a much better option than what you and others describe AL as being. And heck.. I can't stand Lineage II.
Mike, you are neglecting the fact that MMOs really are made up of two elements. The game code and the community. The L2 community was destroyed early in retail by the currency farmers. They were not fought aggressively enough by the publisher resulting in their obtaining a solid foothold. Once people started buying in game currency with real life money to compete, it spiralled out of control. The L2 of today requires you to bot and purchase adena to keep up competetively. Sad fact, but true.
So the concept of L2 was great. Implementation was great, but community management and control lacked.
AL has a very similar concept to L2 but differs. 1 guild rules each server for 3 weeks of every month. 1 player is the supreme ruler of the game world for that time. Now AL is not nearly as mature and is not nearly finished.
MMO yes, PvP centric yes, differs in pvp end game from L2 and thus brings something new to the table, yes.
Dec 20,1999: AC1(DT).Since then:DAoC,SB,AC2,L2,EvE,WoW,SoR
====================
Currently playing: ArchLord - L58 Knight
LoTRo - L13 Dwarf Guardian
And, you're contradicting yourself across these threads.
First, you knock a game reviewer's opinions on the game and state that they only tried the PvE part which isn't what the game is about - that it's all about PvP.
Then, someone asks a very valid question: if it's all about PvP why do they make you PvE grind so many levels before you can participate? You come back in defense of it bringing a sense of accomplishment to the game. If there are 50 or 80 or whatever levels of PvE type grinding before you get to the PvP part... it would seem to me perhaps the game is more PvE than you would like to admit. If the PvP really comes into play so late in the game, then it would certainly seem that it really *isn't* "all about PvP".
In Lineage II, it's PvP/PvE from the start. There is nothing stopping anyone from PvP'ing or PvE'ing from level 1 if they so wish. Yet, most of the game's features, all the way up, are based around PvP'ing (castle sieges, most prominently). So, if one wants to see a game built around PvP but with PvE elements thrown in, Lineage II would be a much better option than what you and others describe AL as being. And heck.. I can't stand Lineage II.
Mike, you are neglecting the fact that MMOs really are made up of two elements. The game code and the community. The L2 community was destroyed early in retail by the currency farmers. They were not fought aggressively enough by the publisher resulting in their obtaining a solid foothold. Once people started buying in game currency with real life money to compete, it spiralled out of control. The L2 of today requires you to bot and purchase adena to keep up competetively. Sad fact, but true.
So the concept of L2 was great. Implementation was great, but community management and control lacked.
AL has a very similar concept to L2 but differs. 1 guild rules each server for 3 weeks of every month. 1 player is the supreme ruler of the game world for that time. Now AL is not nearly as mature and is not nearly finished.
MMO yes, PvP centric yes, differs in pvp end game from L2 and thus brings something new to the table, yes.
If it were true L2 should have died a long time ago, your comment is nothing but speculation of L2.
Archlord is bleeding from the start. We told CM its not ready for launch they didnt listen, o well thats their fault.
I and other 95% of the population will watch Archlord bleed to death each month.
The first 20 levels of SB are PvE, allowing the player the opportunity to develop and learn their character before they're thrown into the fray. So it's not PvP from the start... though it does get into it much sooner than AL seems to.
And, you're contradicting yourself across these threads.
First, you knock a game reviewer's opinions on the game and state that they only tried the PvE part which isn't what the game is about - that it's all about PvP.
Then, someone asks a very valid question: if it's all about PvP why do they make you PvE grind so many levels before you can participate? You come back in defense of it bringing a sense of accomplishment to the game. If there are 50 or 80 or whatever levels of PvE type grinding before you get to the PvP part... it would seem to me perhaps the game is more PvE than you would like to admit. If the PvP really comes into play so late in the game, then it would certainly seem that it really *isn't* "all about PvP".
In Lineage II, it's PvP/PvE from the start. There is nothing stopping anyone from PvP'ing or PvE'ing from level 1 if they so wish. Yet, most of the game's features, all the way up, are based around PvP'ing (castle sieges, most prominently). So, if one wants to see a game built around PvP but with PvE elements thrown in, Lineage II would be a much better option than what you and others describe AL as being. And heck.. I can't stand Lineage II.
Mike, you are neglecting the fact that MMOs really are made up of two elements. The game code and the community. The L2 community was destroyed early in retail by the currency farmers. They were not fought aggressively enough by the publisher resulting in their obtaining a solid foothold. Once people started buying in game currency with real life money to compete, it spiralled out of control. The L2 of today requires you to bot and purchase adena to keep up competetively. Sad fact, but true.
So the concept of L2 was great. Implementation was great, but community management and control lacked.
AL has a very similar concept to L2 but differs. 1 guild rules each server for 3 weeks of every month. 1 player is the supreme ruler of the game world for that time. Now AL is not nearly as mature and is not nearly finished.
MMO yes, PvP centric yes, differs in pvp end game from L2 and thus brings something new to the table, yes.
Well first, I played LII in open Beta, played it a bit on and off over the next several months (at each Chronicle) and then finally settled in and played it consistently for over a year. Was a member of one of the server's oldest and longest-running alliances, etc. I did my fair share of PK'ing botters/RMTers, clearing out Cat/Nec rooms of them, etc. So I'm very familiar with LII, its RMT problems and how NC does next to squat about it.
Though I don't see how it's at all relevant to the balance of PvE/PvP in the game's design, to say that it's impossible to play LII without buying money is false. false. false. I got myself into a full Tallum Heavy set (A-Grade) and top B-grade duals (played a Bladedancer) and didn't RMT for a single piece of it - helm included (the hardest and most expensive piece to get). Took a long time and alot of farming and working the market, but it was accomplished. Many of my friends and guild/ally-mates did the same. The means are there if you put the effort into it. People use the "botters made it necessary" as a weak excuse to take the easy way out by buying their adena. It is not necessary and I get sick of hearing that rationale because I, and many others, have proven it false. Lazy people RMT. Plain and simple. If you're gonna play the game - play the damn game and stop looking for work-arounds.
And regardless of all that.. the point remains... Gameloading states, on one hand, how a reviewer's opinions are irrelevant because they didn't experience the PvP in the game which they deem as what AL is all about. Yet on the other hand, they explain away the fact that there are many levels of PvE grind before you get to the PvP because it's "for a sense of accomplishment". It seems to me that if you have 80 levels of grind (or however many levels there are) before PvP becomes a major part of the gameplay, then you are not playing a game built primarily around PvP.
In Lineage II you really can't effectively siege a castle 'til your guild/ally is at least in the upper half of the level range. However, the PvP doesn't start there.. there is PvP from level 1 on up to 75. *That* is a game built around PvP. Unless it's being misrepresented, it sounds like AL is all PvE until you reach the end levels and *then* PvP becomes prominent.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Actually I purchased a new computer after that shortly, Which was unexpected, as I did not expect to geat a loan from the bank. Ktat did know about this,he probably forgot when he had that conversation with you.
It might be better, when you talk about people, if you really know what is going on instead of making assumptions, just a word of advice.
wth. Its a commercial product, they are out to earn money, not save humanity.
Seriously what kind of backwars argument is that? EVERYTHING in a industry of any kind is made by someone else, objects just dont appear out nowhere. What do you say to the people that waste money on this game? They too nedeed to work to get their money & somehow the companys money is more important for you.
Well if you can only stand a game for a week that usually means the game is crap the weeks after the first anyway. Also the "its fun later on" just means the developers took the easy way out ny only focusing on endgame & its not really an argument that addresses the issue: NOT FUN.
To all the people that "wasted" money on this game, all I really have to say is tough luck. There were about 2 months of open beta + its easy as pie to get a free trial for the game. You could have easily learn what the first 2 weeks of gameplay would be like if you put a little effort in it. You can fully agree that a game is crap, but being HAPPY and getting joy about a bad rating is just downright sad.
Its also pretty obvious that the reviewer either had a bad day or just had to give AL a bad rating just to keep the good-bad scores balanced. for example, look at the sound score. a 3. Good job Gamespot, you just insulted the London Symphony Orchestra (for more info, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Symphony_Orchestra)
Also look at the graphic ratings. a 4. while at the same time, RF Online gets a 7. i'm sorry, but imo, you can't say Al deservers a 4 in graphics and RFO a 7 with a straigth face (with all the respect to RFO ofcourse)
Know what's even more sad? That you're here making excuses for the reviewer... he gave it a bad score because he must have been having a bad day? Right.. couldn't be just because he simply didn't like the game. No.. must have been something tainting his judgement that day. Certainly, if he were in a better frame of mind - maybe if he'd gotten laid the night before - he would see Archlord for the fantastic game it really is!
Riiiight.
Alot of people don't like the game. Deal with it. Give up the crusade already.
You are dismissing the review, and any who don't like the game, with your own personal opinions of it. That's a bit hypocritical and quite arrogant. They don't like it - their opinion. You do like it - your opinion.
How about you just accept it, agree to disagree and get over it already. You enjoy the game, then great! Play it and have a blast. But at the same time understand that nothing is for everyone.
Do you actually even read my posts, or do you just always mouth off like that? Because if anybody has been saying that the game is not for everyone, then its been me.
And yes, I think saying that the London Symphony Orchestra makes bad music for the game is reason enough to dismiss the reason
Also, is giving your opinion hypocritical and arrogant? If you think so, then maybe its better if you don't come to forums, because thats what forums are all about.
I'm not holding any kind of crusade. People who only have negative things to say are free to spam the board here as much as they please, but as soon as someone says something positive about the game then "they need to stop the crusade" Please... as long as people keep making these threads, I'll reply on them, its simple as that. As soon as you people who don't like the game get out of here and leave this section for discussion about the game, then I'll stop. Keep in mind that you haven't seen one single "ArchLord rocks!" topic made by me.
Here, look at the thread below this one, the " Episode 2: season of siege" thread. made by a poster trying to get a debate by the game, yet he is immidiatly jumped by people who don't like the game. its impossible to get any normal topic in this section, because people who don't like the game pretend like AL killed their wife.
The point I think you're missing is that at the heart of the review, what the reviewer is saying is - Archlord is nothing new. It brings nothing new or different to the genre.
You think Archlord is the only game that starts off PvE centric and then gets into PvP? You think the only way someone can know what that setup is like is to have played Archlord? You'd be wrong if you did... Shadowbane has that same setup and it's been out for.. what.. 5 years now? What people think of it doesn't change the fact that it did what Archlord is doing now several years ago. And that's just one example.
Bringing nothing new to the table says nothing about quality, and WoW is the living proof of this.
Regardless, even if it's a PvP-centric game.. again.. that's nothing new. There are many PvP-centric games... you still have to grind on PvE type content to level your character and get better gear so you can fare better at PvP. Lineage II has this same setup and that's been out for a few years now.
So.. no.. if someone has played enough MMOs with the type of setup as Archlord.. no, they really don't have to experience all of it to get the idea.
If the reviewer really had experience, then he would have wrote about the pvp part of the game, and not a review fully based on the PVE part.
It's the same old thing, regurgitated and packaged in a different wrapper.
Do you actually even read my posts, or do you just always mouth off like that? Because if anybody has been saying that the game is not for everyone, then its been me.
And yes, I think saying that the London Symphony Orchestra makes bad music for the game is reason enough to dismiss the reason
Also, is giving your opinion hypocritical and arrogant? If you think so, then maybe its better if you don't come to forums, because thats what forums are all about.
I'm not holding any kind of crusade. People who only have negative things to say are free to spam the board here as much as they please, but as soon as someone says something positive about the game then "they need to stop the crusade" Please... as long as people keep making these threads, I'll reply on them, its simple as that. As soon as you people who don't like the game get out of here and leave this section for discussion about the game, then I'll stop. Keep in mind that you haven't seen one single "ArchLord rocks!" topic made by me.
Here, look at the thread below this one, the " Episode 2: season of siege" thread. made by a poster trying to get a debate by the game, yet he is immidiatly jumped by people who don't like the game. its impossible to get any normal topic in this section, because people who don't like the game pretend like AL killed their wife.
Way to completely misconstrue everything I said.
First - if the reviewer didn't care for the music - it doesn't matter *who* performed it. They're not knocking the orchestra.. they're knocking the music - which was likely not scored by the orchestra. In case you didn't know, Orchestra's tend to perform music *others* have scored, not themselves. In the reviewer's opinion, it wasn't to their taste and they found it annoying. There is no reason to dismiss their opinion, however strongly you disagree with it.
And, no giving your opinion of a game does not make you hypocritical and arrogant - please go back and actually *read* what I wrote. Then respond.
What I said is that you are dismissing someone else's opinions by putting forth what are ultimately your own opinions. Their view doesn't matter because they, in your opinion, didn't play long enough to get the gist of it. Their opinion of the music doesn't matter because they obviously - in your *assumption* - didn't realize it was performed by the London Symphony.. which, in your opinion, makes their opinion moot. Who are you to place standards on what makes a person's opinion valid? Your view is no better or more right than anyone else's, yet, you use these standards (didn't play long enough, didn't realize it was the symphony...) as a way to dismiss and invalidate someone else's views that don't fit yours. Yes.. that is arrogant and hypocritical.
Next point, which you made right in your very rebuttal that *further* proves your arrogance:
" As soon as you people who don't like the game get out of here and leave this section for discussion about the game, then I'll stop."
Who ever said these threads were only for people who like the game to discuss it? You? Who are you to make that kind of statement? You are a reader/poster on these forums, just like everyone else. Anyone who has played the game has a right to voice their opinions, whether positive, negative or otherwise. Right there - you are showing an intolerance for any view of the game that doesn't match your own. Thank you for proving my point - yes, you are arrogant and you are on a crusade to negate all negative commentary on the game.
As for people acting like AL killed their wife.. is it any different than you bringing this self-appointed hammer of justice down on anyone who dares nay-say the game? No. On either side of the fence.. there is always the option to ignore those comments and respond to the topic at hand. If you choose or allow yourself to get drawn in, it's your own problem no one else's. Oh that's right.. you can't let it be.. because otherwise people might realize there's a *negative* view of the game as well and might not play it! And you just can't allow that.
Please.. your agenda is very clear and you betrayed it right in your response to me. You are a self-righteous forum-nazi who, by your own say-so, won't rest 'til only people who like the game exist on these threads. Good luck with that.
You only respect the opinions of those who agree with you.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Actually I purchased a new computer after that shortly, Which was unexpected, as I did not expect to geat a loan from the bank. Ktat did know about this,he probably forgot when he had that conversation with you.
It might be better, when you talk about people, if you really know what is going on instead of making assumptions, just a word of advice.
I didn't really assume anything, moreso going with the facts I had since I talked to Ktat about two or three weeks after you left, and he had absolutely no clue but said he would ask you about it. I simply asked here because I found it awfully odd that you publicly announced you're leaving the game two days in, totally abandon a guild that you created and advertised for months, yet defend it like it's the second coming. Sorry for being curious. I know you were invited to the Codemasters event and such to help out, but c'mon. The game is FAR from perfect.
The point I think you're missing is that at the heart of the review, what the reviewer is saying is - Archlord is nothing new. It brings nothing new or different to the genre.
You think Archlord is the only game that starts off PvE centric and then gets into PvP? You think the only way someone can know what that setup is like is to have played Archlord? You'd be wrong if you did... Shadowbane has that same setup and it's been out for.. what.. 5 years now? What people think of it doesn't change the fact that it did what Archlord is doing now several years ago. And that's just one example.
Bringing nothing new to the table says nothing about quality, and WoW is the living proof of this.
Annnd....? My comment was in response to someone mentioning how AL brings something new to the genre. I was saying it doesn't because other games before it have had similar gameplay setups. Please respond to what I have said.. not to what I haven't. Makes the conversation a whole lot more coherent.
Regardless, even if it's a PvP-centric game.. again.. that's nothing new. There are many PvP-centric games... you still have to grind on PvE type content to level your character and get better gear so you can fare better at PvP. Lineage II has this same setup and that's been out for a few years now.
So.. no.. if someone has played enough MMOs with the type of setup as Archlord.. no, they really don't have to experience all of it to get the idea.
If the reviewer really had experience, then he would have wrote about the pvp part of the game, and not a review fully based on the PVE part.
So now you are an authority on what an experienced reviewer is? Good grief. Got news for you... if the reviewer - or any player - is bored to tears and finds the game to be poor before getting far enough into the game experience what is supposed to be the "main part" of it, perhaps it's a sign that the developer should have put more emphasis on PvP earlier in the game.
Again.. how can a game be mainly geared toward PvP if a player, from how it's explained, has to get to the end-game before they can even experience it? That is completely counter-intuitive. Perhaps you're the one who's misunderstanding, or over-emphasizing what the developer's goal was for the game?
It's the same old thing, regurgitated and packaged in a different wrapper.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Actually he speaks for himself....who knows maybe he is playing the Hello Kitty MMORPG or Toon Town
Well... anyone is really only speaking for themself.... and individually an opinion isn't exactly "overwhelming" to a larger number of people. However, I have seen many, many, many negative reviews on this game.. in magazines, on websites, in forums, by real-life word-of-mouth. They're all speaking for themselves - yet they share the same opinion. When there's that many people who all have a negative opinion of the game, you can't just dismiss every one of them, or come up with these cute little hypotheticals about them playing toon-town, because you happen to disagree.
If so many people are finding the game unsatisfactory.. it would tend to indicate that the game isn't very widely enjoyed. Kinda what the whole idea behind popular opinion is.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The point I think you're missing is that at the heart of the review, what the reviewer is saying is - Archlord is nothing new. It brings nothing new or different to the genre.
You think Archlord is the only game that starts off PvE centric and then gets into PvP? You think the only way someone can know what that setup is like is to have played Archlord? You'd be wrong if you did... Shadowbane has that same setup and it's been out for.. what.. 5 years now? What people think of it doesn't change the fact that it did what Archlord is doing now several years ago. And that's just one example.
Bringing nothing new to the table says nothing about quality, and WoW is the living proof of this.
Annnd....? My comment was in response to someone mentioning how AL brings something new to the genre. I was saying it doesn't because other games before it have had similar gameplay setups. Please respond to what I have said.. not to what I haven't. Makes the conversation a whole lot more coherent.
If it was in response to someone else's comments, then why are you quoting me for? You might want to quote the right person next time.
Regardless, even if it's a PvP-centric game.. again.. that's nothing new. There are many PvP-centric games... you still have to grind on PvE type content to level your character and get better gear so you can fare better at PvP. Lineage II has this same setup and that's been out for a few years now.
So.. no.. if someone has played enough MMOs with the type of setup as Archlord.. no, they really don't have to experience all of it to get the idea.
If the reviewer really had experience, then he would have wrote about the pvp part of the game, and not a review fully based on the PVE part.
So now you are an authority on what an experienced reviewer is? Good grief. Got news for you... if the reviewer - or any player - is bored to tears and finds the game to be poor before getting far enough into the game experience what is supposed to be the "main part" of it, perhaps it's a sign that the developer should have put more emphasis on PvP earlier in the game.
Again.. how can a game be mainly geared toward PvP if a player, from how it's explained, has to get to the end-game before they can even experience it? That is completely counter-intuitive. Perhaps you're the one who's misunderstanding, or over-emphasizing what the developer's goal was for the game?
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.
It's the same old thing, regurgitated and packaged in a different wrapper.
We'll just see Archlord bleed itself to death in the upcomming month, You can become the archlord of the population of 40 in chandra.
Anything published by Codemasters you might as well throw in the trash cause it is trash!
Actually I purchased a new computer after that shortly, Which was unexpected, as I did not expect to geat a loan from the bank. Ktat did know about this,he probably forgot when he had that conversation with you.
It might be better, when you talk about people, if you really know what is going on instead of making assumptions, just a word of advice.
I didn't really assume anything, moreso going with the facts I had since I talked to Ktat about two or three weeks after you left, and he had absolutely no clue but said he would ask you about it. I simply asked here because I found it awfully odd that you publicly announced you're leaving the game two days in, totally abandon a guild that you created and advertised for months, yet defend it like it's the second coming. Sorry for being curious. I know you were invited to the Codemasters event and such to help out, but c'mon. The game is FAR from perfect.
Like I said, Ktat obviously forgot, Because he was the first person I told so. I also don't defend it like the second comming, and I never claimed the game was perfect.
Wow Gameloading, it must be hard defending this game on so many forums
Amen...
Why play this when you can bore yourself to death with L2 and RFO? I really hate these asian grind pvp games. Why do I have to suffer weeks of grind to have any fun? I paid money for a game that was suppose to be fun from the start, now I have to pay time and sanity? Archlord has to be the worst commercial MMORPG I have ever played.
NGE Refugee.