I played daoc for over 4 years. I know exactly how mythic runs, more particularly the senior dev team which is tasked with Warhammer right now. and in all honesty, mythic does not deserve another chance. Anyone that got over rr5 in daoc and has at least half a brain would agree on that.
Then why do you think that FunCom deserves a second chance? Anarchy isn't exactly a fan favorite either, nor is it anything revolutionary, or for that matter, good.
I seriously hate it when people go and bash the developing companies because they made a mistake and therefore they dont deserve a second chance or now they should go out of bussines because they didnt add enough recipes to leathercrafting (ok sarcasm).
If anyone doesnt deserve a chance is SOE due to their continuous screwups but seriously there isnt a single game developer out there who hasnt made a mistake, or done something that some gamers dont agree, so therefore now no one should buy their games because they let a coupple of people down. The point here is did they learn from their mistakes or will they screw up again? I guess the only way to find out is to try their upcoming product.
I may not know exactly what FunCom did but they seem to have a good respectable crew working on Age of Conan and it seems like they are all about the game and want to do it right. Give them a chance, play the retail version, not the beta but the retail, you cant judge a game from playing in Beta only or watching a coupple of videos or screenshots.
A man dies daily, only to be reborn in the morning, bigger, better and wiser.
-Playing AoC -Playing WoW -Retired- SWG -Retired- EVE -Retired- LotR
Computer (- Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.81 Ghz (Quad Core CPU)- Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 - 4 Gigs of PC 8500 ram (1066)- EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express 2.0 - WD 500GB 7500RPM - Zalman CPU cooler (air cooled) - 24" Widescreen 1080P HD display).
I seriously hate it when people go and bash the developing companies because they made a mistake and therefore they dont deserve a second chance or now they should go out of bussines because they didnt add enough recipes to leathercrafting (ok sarcasm).
If anyone doesnt deserve a chance is SOE due to their continuous screwups but seriously there isnt a single game developer out there who hasnt made a mistake, or done something that some gamers dont agree, so therefore now no one should buy their games because they let a coupple of people down. The point here is did they learn from their mistakes or will they screw up again? I guess the only way to find out is to try their upcoming product. I may not know exactly what FunCom did but they seem to have a good respectable crew working on Age of Conan and it seems like they are all about the game and want to do it right. Give them a chance, play the retail version, not the beta but the retail, you cant judge a game from playing in Beta only or watching a coupple of videos or screenshots.
I wasn't bashing FunCom , I was simply pointing out how flawed Spankaroo 's statement was, because both FunCom and Mythic have made major mistakes, and if you're not going to trust one, you might as well trust neither.
As for judging a game that's in beta, why not? Why should I pay the company 50$ to try a game I'm certain will fail if I had played it a week before launch? Sure, bashing the game for certain flaws at this point is pointless because it's still in early closed beta and some things can change, but when it comes to late closed/open beta/stress tests, the game is pretty much done.
A fanboi is someone who will hype their game no matter the evidence one way or the other to make sure their game grabs population.
Also It does seem odd as far as the hype, I mean after all WAR does seem to = WOW2 with constant zergs.
Wow, pot, meet kettle. Before calling other people "fanbois" I suggest you reread what you said. What evidence is there AT ALL that WAR will be anything like WoW, or that there will be "constant zerging"? None? Pretty much.
Don't be an idiot. AoC addicts make just as many fanboy-ish remarks (if not MORE) than WAR addicts. The AoC forums always seem to have someone putting down WAR, always. Every minute of the day. Yet, I belong to multiple WAR sites (WHA, Warcry, etc.) where AoC is rarely maliciously brought up. I guess that goes to show who actually is pulling in the mature crowd.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Darkhellfire
Originally posted by vizer1
A fanboi is someone who will hype their game no matter the evidence one way or the other to make sure their game grabs population.
Also It does seem odd as far as the hype, I mean after all WAR does seem to = WOW2 with constant zergs.
Wow, pot, meet kettle. Before calling other people "fanbois" I suggest you reread what you said. What evidence is there AT ALL that WAR will be anything like WoW, or that there will be "constant zerging"? None? Pretty much.
Don't be an idiot. AoC addicts make just as many fanboy-ish remarks (if not MORE) than WAR addicts. The AoC forums always seem to have someone putting down WAR, always. Every minute of the day. Yet, I belong to multiple WAR sites (WHA, Warcry, etc.) where AoC is rarely maliciously brought up. I guess that goes to show who actually is pulling in the mature crowd.
Actually my friend the AoC forums are full of WAR fanbois who pop over sign up just to advertise their game in some snakey post.
Its the same on these forums.
Im really sorry to burst your bubble but all over the internet, at all major gaming sites people mention WAR and WoW in the same paragraph - just like you did. Everytime someone does that another person comes along and does the same thing, so on and so on. So what you have is whole threads just debating it.
Firstly get over yourself if you can't see or except obvious comparisons between those games. When you have characters like these: http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7281/warvswow6te.jpg people will compare in all sorts of ways.
There are quite a few mature people who post here who follow AoC without feeling the need to go over to the war part of the forums and stick a knife in, just because the AoC part has obvious WAR fans posting nonsense because it turns them on. I take it from your activeness in the last 3 years you prefer to post elsewhere, so do I
Either you are into AoC or you aren't - If your not then why the hell do you go to the official AoC forums? If your interested then why do you let a few bad eggs spoil your enjoyment on an otherwise very good forum? The bad stuff isn't singled out to one type of fan you know.
Just speaking for myself here but I hope both AoC and WAR turn out to be kickass games and there are those who would try and label me a LoTRO fanbois. I 's even give Gods and Heros a try if it gets good enough reviews.
There are some asses who just like to try and go around bashing games for the same reasons little sadists burn ants with a magnifying glass, it makes them feel important and big. Then there are some who are viral marketers trying to sway opinion because that is their job, like anyone would buy or not buy based on what they read on these forums. My opinion of those people are they should find a job they could be proud to tell their mother about, like cleaning the restrooms down at the bus station or anything more dignified than a professional liar.
Warhammer games have always been kind of ignored in the past... they have their popularity from tabletop gaming. I just look at their past and all I can say is I'm not ready to beleive WAR will be a good game when there really hasn't been a good video game based on the Warhammer license.
Funcom had Anarchy Online, which was truthfully a great MMO, it wasn't hugely popular but it gave them the experience. I have faith AoC will be a good game like AO was, and I think more people are interested this time around.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Jackdog
Just speaking for myself here but I hope both AoC and WAR turn out to be kickass games and there are those who would try and label me a LoTRO fanbois. I 's even give Gods and Heros a try if it gets good enough reviews. There are some asses who just like to try and go around bashing games for the same reasons little sadists burn ants with a magnifying glass, it makes them feel important and big. Then there are some who are viral marketers trying to sway opinion because that is their job, like anyone would buy or not buy based on what they read on these forums. My opinion of those people are they should find a job they could be proud to tell their mother about, like cleaning the restrooms down at the bus station or anything more dignified than a professional liar.
I agree, I hope that all mmorpg's that get released in the foreseeable future are successfull. There is plenty of people to go around to achieve that. This can only be a good thing for the industry as a whole and in turn for us the consumer. When you get tongue in cheek posts like the OP made - its all fun - or supposed to be, sometimes I think people forget that. Its like or supposed to be (in my opinion) friendly banter. Like you would get at a soccer match for eg.
I seriously hate it when people go and bash the developing companies because they made a mistake and therefore they dont deserve a second chance or now they should go out of bussines because they didnt add enough recipes to leathercrafting (ok sarcasm).
If anyone doesnt deserve a chance is SOE due to their continuous screwups but seriously there isnt a single game developer out there who hasnt made a mistake, or done something that some gamers dont agree, so therefore now no one should buy their games because they let a coupple of people down. The point here is did they learn from their mistakes or will they screw up again? I guess the only way to find out is to try their upcoming product. I may not know exactly what FunCom did but they seem to have a good respectable crew working on Age of Conan and it seems like they are all about the game and want to do it right. Give them a chance, play the retail version, not the beta but the retail, you cant judge a game from playing in Beta only or watching a coupple of videos or screenshots.
I wasn't bashing FunCom , I was simply pointing out how flawed Spankaroo 's statement was, because both FunCom and Mythic have made major mistakes, and if you're not going to trust one, you might as well trust neither.
As for judging a game that's in beta, why not? Why should I pay the company 50$ to try a game I'm certain will fail if I had played it a week before launch? Sure, bashing the game for certain flaws at this point is pointless because it's still in early closed beta and some things can change, but when it comes to late closed/open beta/stress tests, the game is pretty much done.
What I posted above isnt aimed at you DD but just in general, I keep hearing people bring up developing companies and why no one should play their games.
As far as beta goes I think it gives a good view about what the game is about and how it works I guess but the whole point of the beta is for the people to test it and for the developers to change it so that it is ready to hit the shelves of the stores. You arent going to see gaming sites rate a game on the beta phase, the actual "Review" of the game comes after the game has been released, and I wouldnt judge a game until I play the retail version.
Hell I have seen people talk trash about AoC who havent even played beta, they watch a 1 min video and say the game sucks and its awful the combat laks proper animation etc. The combat in AoC is different from any MMO we have played and if you compare it to other MMOs it looks out of place because you see it at that point of view but it actually works totally different.
A man dies daily, only to be reborn in the morning, bigger, better and wiser.
-Playing AoC -Playing WoW -Retired- SWG -Retired- EVE -Retired- LotR
Computer (- Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.81 Ghz (Quad Core CPU)- Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 - 4 Gigs of PC 8500 ram (1066)- EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express 2.0 - WD 500GB 7500RPM - Zalman CPU cooler (air cooled) - 24" Widescreen 1080P HD display).
I played daoc for over 4 years. I know exactly how mythic runs, more particularly the senior dev team which is tasked with Warhammer right now. and in all honesty, mythic does not deserve another chance. Anyone that got over rr5 in daoc and has at least half a brain would agree on that.
Er.... I got over rr5, have a full brain, and really enjoyed the game actually.... had some faults of course, but overall was best PVP fun I ever enjoyed....
And I have a bunch of guildmates (about 40 or so) that agree and you'll see us playing WAR in a theatre near you......
But this was about AOC, and our guild is going to take a good look at this game as well, wouldn't want to overlook a good game should it turn out well.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Warhammer games have always been kind of ignored in the past... they have their popularity from tabletop gaming. I just look at their past and all I can say is I'm not ready to beleive WAR will be a good game when there really hasn't been a good video game based on the Warhammer license. Funcom had Anarchy Online, which was truthfully a great MMO, it wasn't hugely popular but it gave them the experience. I have faith AoC will be a good game like AO was, and I think more people are interested this time around.
Anarchy Online took a long long time before it could even be concerned 'decent'. With the exception of Vanguard, it was the most horrible mmorpg launch I have ever been a part of. Many feature promises were not met, core game functionality was severely bugged, many issues known during beta were never addressed for years after release. Community relationship was horrible and there were many compaints about their customer service. Its only the last 4-5 years that they have managed to pick themselves up.
I have my doubts whether many of the people that think funcom is a great developer were around when AO first came out. Its hard for me to justify the die-hard, eyes-closed, fingers in your ears fanaticism I see every day for funcom having seen how the company handled themselves in the past. But maybe its just the new generation of gamer coming in with a clean experience slate and getting wowed by the pretty graphics.
In my opinion I have to disagree with the original poster. I am a defender of LOTRO against the evil trolls that seem to consistantly throw boulders at it. you can call that a fanboi if ya like.
That being said I am looking forward to and will be trying out AoC. I used to collect all the Conan books and comics. I have a Conan the Barbarian number 1 framed in mint condition on my wall. Still, I am not a fanboi of the AoC game yet as I have not been able to experience it outside of some game movies and stuff.
I also really want WAR and Gods and Heroes to be great but fear I will have to make some choices about where to spend my hard earned dollars.
play the games you like and everyone else should play the games they like. this way we all dont have a problem with one another. but unfortunately we as humans always have problems with different things.
You should only feel threatened by AoC if your pay check depends on the success of a different game. The fact that fans want other games to do poorly is ridiculous.
Make love to me.
But seriously, for some reason, I have never been able to state that without losing my temper. Well done.
As for why fans of other games may seem to react most strongly to the mention of Age of Conan, I believe it is due to several things:
The setting. It is likely that the very mention of Conan sets certain (hopefully false) expectations in thier minds if they have only been exposed to the films or comics.
It seemed low-budget and difficult to take seriously in its early days. This is not the case now, but first impressions can hurt.
Its debatable status as an MMO.
The perception of PvP-focused games as attracting 'kiddies' and other, more undesirable personality types. I blame this on Shadowbane, though I am pained to say it.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
As for why fans of other games may seem to react most strongly to the mention of Age of Conan, I believe it is due to several things:
The setting. It is likely that the very mention of Conan sets certain (hopefully false) expectations in thier minds if they have only been exposed to the films or comics. It seemed low-budget and difficult to take seriously in its early days. This is not the case now, but first impressions can hurt. Its debatable status as an MMO. The perception of PvP-focused games as attracting 'kiddies' and other, more undesirable personality types. I blame this on Shadowbane, though I am pained to say it.
Well I never wrote any Hate-Spam against AoC, but here are my Reasons for not liking AoC:
1. The Setting. Meaning: Only Human Races playable. I don't like the wannabe-realistic look either, since it does not look realistic.
2. can't say anything about it.
3. That the first Levels must be solved as a Single-Player Game...it seems as if the Devs KNOW that their M-Rating will be avoided and broken, why would you need a Single-Player introduction if only People of 18+ years are playing it?
4. Well, since I await WAR, I have nothing against PvP Focused Games. However, I do think that the fact that AoC will be rated M, have excessive Gore and Nudity will attract MANY MANY Kids of 14-18 years, where Nudity and Gore in a Game are actual reasons to play it, no matter the Gameplay, whereas older People stand above that and ultimately need good Gameplay, maybe with Gore/Nudity as a "Bonus".
What I also dislike currently (but that could be because I'm fairly uninformed, that's just my theory I tailored together from the bits and pieces of Info I read somewhere):
You gather Ressources (without PvP as necessity, so PvE/simple Gathering without any enemies at all) to build a Fort, Fortress or whatever. A bigger Guild zergs your Fort, it gets destroyed, you collect Ressources again, to build another Fort, which is again razed...
In the end this sounds to me like many Guild Members will basically be forced to continously gather ressources, I see no fun in that. (But then again, feel free to correct me on that issue if you got official Info)
Understandable. Yet in games with non-human races, the humans tend to lack diversity, which is made up for by the addition of non-human races. In a human-only game (like EVE Online, for example), you can get something closer to the full diversity of the human face and body, which I think is more beneficial than locking humans into one appearance and making up for that narrowness with horned/furred/scaled/winged/tailed races.
Originally posted by Elgareth
I don't like the wannabe-realistic look either, since it does not look realistic.
True, but if we're not going to try to be realistic until we can do it perfectly, then it will never happen. You can't get there without the stepping stones, and we've been laying them down for many years.
Originally posted by Elgareth
That the first Levels must be solved as a Single-Player Game...it seems as if the Devs KNOW that their M-Rating will be avoided and broken, why would you need a Single-Player introduction if only People of 18+ years are playing it?
I'm not sure I follow. What does the rating have to do with the single-player introduction?
I understand not liking the single-player introduction, though. I remain skeptical. Uru Online tried something similar.
Originally posted by Elgareth
Well, since I await WAR, I have nothing against PvP Focused Games. However, I do think that the fact that AoC will be rated M, have excessive Gore and Nudity will attract MANY MANY Kids of 14-18 years, where Nudity and Gore in a Game are actual reasons to play it, no matter the Gameplay, whereas older People stand above that and ultimately need good Gameplay, maybe with Gore/Nudity as a "Bonus".
I'm not sure there's any sign that Age of Conan's gore is 'excessive'. The earlier videos gave me the impression that the blood was way over the top, but the recent stuff seems more realistic to me.
As for the nudity, I also don't know. We haven't really been given any examples aside from the rather anachronistically-clothed temptress NPC in the depths of a dungeon.
Originally posted by Elgareth
What I also dislike currently (but that could be because I'm fairly uninformed, that's just my theory I tailored together from the bits and pieces of Info I read somewhere):
You gather Ressources (without PvP as necessity, so PvE/simple Gathering without any enemies at all) to build a Fort, Fortress or whatever. A bigger Guild zergs your Fort, it gets destroyed, you collect Ressources again, to build another Fort, which is again razed...
In the end this sounds to me like many Guild Members will basically be forced to continously gather ressources, I see no fun in that. (But then again, feel free to correct me on that issue if you got official Info)
I have that worry as well, in the same way that Shadowbane's perpetual rebuilding was absurd, and Dark Age of Camelot's perpetual reclamation, which I'm afraid will also be Warhammer Online's problem.
I have no alternative to propose, though, in the context of an MMO.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Elgareth
Originally posted by Saerain
As for why fans of other games may seem to react most strongly to the mention of Age of Conan, I believe it is due to several things:
The setting. It is likely that the very mention of Conan sets certain (hopefully false) expectations in thier minds if they have only been exposed to the films or comics. It seemed low-budget and difficult to take seriously in its early days. This is not the case now, but first impressions can hurt. Its debatable status as an MMO. The perception of PvP-focused games as attracting 'kiddies' and other, more undesirable personality types. I blame this on Shadowbane, though I am pained to say it.
Well I never wrote any Hate-Spam against AoC, but here are my Reasons for not liking AoC:
1. The Setting. Meaning: Only Human Races playable. I don't like the wannabe-realistic look either, since it does not look realistic.
2. can't say anything about it.
3. That the first Levels must be solved as a Single-Player Game...it seems as if the Devs KNOW that their M-Rating will be avoided and broken, why would you need a Single-Player introduction if only People of 18+ years are playing it?
4. Well, since I await WAR, I have nothing against PvP Focused Games. However, I do think that the fact that AoC will be rated M, have excessive Gore and Nudity will attract MANY MANY Kids of 14-18 years, where Nudity and Gore in a Game are actual reasons to play it, no matter the Gameplay, whereas older People stand above that and ultimately need good Gameplay, maybe with Gore/Nudity as a "Bonus".
What I also dislike currently (but that could be because I'm fairly uninformed, that's just my theory I tailored together from the bits and pieces of Info I read somewhere):
You gather Ressources (without PvP as necessity, so PvE/simple Gathering without any enemies at all) to build a Fort, Fortress or whatever. A bigger Guild zergs your Fort, it gets destroyed, you collect Ressources again, to build another Fort, which is again razed...
In the end this sounds to me like many Guild Members will basically be forced to continously gather ressources, I see no fun in that. (But then again, feel free to correct me on that issue if you got official Info)
1. Its all within the lore, I think it looksmore realistic than anything else out there and I give it credit for trying. So we determined that Elgareth prefers the softer line of say a games character like WAR maybe?
2. First impressions only hurt if you havent got the capacity to look forward to the bigger picture, and also if your first impressions turn out true, only way your going to find out is if you play the game.
3. Read Athelans posts on the first few levels of the game - scattered amongst the first few pages of these forums or search his posts. If you are interested instead of making vast unproven unfactual assumptions than I ask what is the point of that? Its status as a mmorpg is not called into question, never has been, well maybe amongst the less informed. mmorpg status = try guild wars. Btw the first few levels CAN be co-op.
4. I laugh at the response that because its a mature rating kids will flock to it. Do you not think or have not even questioned the fact that Warhammer table top game has more people under the age of 17 doing it as a hobby and that this is ONE of the most likely population fillers for WAR online? No matter the gameplay WAR will be full of children all eager the personalise their online version of their table top little painted figures. All that advertising for the game in Game Workshops and in their magazine promoting and pushing the WAR game to the GW community. The fact that WoW and WAR have characters that look the same might pull more of the younger WoW crowd to WAR, regardless of them being two completely different game granted, on the face of it you can't say that WoW if you had to pick another game out there right now that kinda looked the same it would be WAR. Gore can be turned off in AoC if you so wish.
Without enemies in PvE whilst collecting resources?? huh.....
Its called Guild City in PvE and Battlekeep in PvP area called the Border Kingdoms. Other players cannot attack your PvE city only NPC can, who form their own outposts to attack it. The stronger your supplies for your PvE city the more resources you have for your PvP Battlekeep. I suggest you check out some of the developer diaries and video posts - plenty put in first 3 pages of the forums here.
You fight for your Battlekeep to sustain it, to tactically be superior via player skill and mounted formation combat for example. You dont even have to have a battlekeep to play the game. Your not forced into it unlike WAR from my perception is an RvR environment.
AoC brings:
Items never before seen in other MMOs:
-spellweaving
-soul corruption
-semi to exceptionally realistic mounted combat
-true collision detection, including characters getting the crap trampled out of them by aforementioned cavalry.
-formation combat that actually means something tactically, and doesn't leave players screaming at their leaders to turn it off so they don't all die (Shadowbane anyone?)
-crafting levels advanced by quests, not grinding.
-First DX10 MMO
Items that have been used only rarely, and are usually ignored by the average developer:
-skill/level hybrid system, properly done, this embodies the best of both worlds.
-overarching storyline that is constantly and consistantly in motion
-guild city sieges, both PvE and PvP
-customizable equipment
It’s got no freaking fairies, elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins and other high fantasy silliness.
It has a combat system that doesn't appear to be EXACTLY like every other MMO ever made.
There are the options for players to raid, but doesn't force raid haters to raid to get the best stuff.
WAR = Factional AoC =GvG
In a factional system you have built-in friends and enemies. It's just the way the game is designed. People on your faction are your friends (you typically can't attack them at all except in a /duel), and people on the other faction are your enemies. It's a very black and white situation.
In a guild-based or non-factional system the line is not so clear. The guy that helped you out yesterday might take your head off today. Politics and guild drama run rampant. People in your guild today might splinter off and be your sworn enemies tomorrow. Your enemies today might ask to ally with you to take on a bigger foe. You never know what the game will hold for you. It's a much more chaotic/exciting environment.
I want the freedom to choose my own friends and enemies. GvG gives that to me.
There is little to no accountability for behavior in RvR; punks, gankers, and smack talkers can fade into the anominity and safety of their faction. Not to mention leechers and people there for the ride doing nothing to help in a battle… Often such behavior is encouraged in RvR because the enemy is faceless and the consequences are few. No RvR for me. I want to choose who my enemies are and not have the game choose them for me. GvG offers more freedom. RvR is repetitive really unless there are more than 2 facets. Once a certain time has passed, the entire regions are reset. There is no long-lasting effect. It just starts all over.
In comparison, in a GvG type game, guilds can hold their assets as long as they can hold their assets. They are able to make a permanent impact on the game world itself, shaping it, forming it, contributing to it. This is AoC’s border kingdoms.
In an RvR system, I am stuck with idiots. I cannot throw them out of my faction. I cannot kill them, and they are free to annoy me with their childish behaviour. I don’t even get to chose who my "friends and allies" are. The Computer decides for me. And in return I get an ever repeating, yet senseless struggle on a never changing world map.
Now you have to wonder how long anyone will play the game when nothing they accomplish means anything because the world resets all by itself. How repetitive is WAR going to be? How different AoC battlekeeps be, when the lay of the land has impact tactically in your fight. Please don't come with the game is made by Mythic who made DAoC and therefore RvR, WAR is different 2 sides which already look unbalanced in my opinion.
The two games are fundamentally different in their design. I honestly don't see them appealing to the same audience.
Its the new innovative / different approach that Funcom have taken with AoC that rattles the cages of fanboys of other games and causes them to come to the AoC forum and post nonsense, unfactual really worried posts.
This looks realistic to me: exactly how I want my characters to look - no green skin, excessive ears or hairy feet none of that bollox!
As for why fans of other games may seem to react most strongly to the mention of Age of Conan, I believe it is due to several things:
[*]The setting. It is likely that the very mention of Conan sets certain (hopefully false) expectations in thier minds if they have only been exposed to the films or comics. [*]It seemed low-budget and difficult to take seriously in its early days. This is not the case now, but first impressions can hurt. Its debatable status as an MMO.
The perception of PvP-focused games as attracting 'kiddies' and other, more undesirable personality types. I blame this on Shadowbane, though I am pained to say it.
Well I never wrote any Hate-Spam against AoC, but here are my Reasons for not liking AoC: 1. The Setting. Meaning: Only Human Races playable. I don't like the wannabe-realistic look either, since it does not look realistic. 2. can't say anything about it. 3. That the first Levels must be solved as a Single-Player Game...it seems as if the Devs KNOW that their M-Rating will be avoided and broken, why would you need a Single-Player introduction if only People of 18+ years are playing it? 4. Well, since I await WAR, I have nothing against PvP Focused Games. However, I do think that the fact that AoC will be rated M, have excessive Gore and Nudity will attract MANY MANY Kids of 14-18 years, where Nudity and Gore in a Game are actual reasons to play it, no matter the Gameplay, whereas older People stand above that and ultimately need good Gameplay, maybe with Gore/Nudity as a "Bonus". What I also dislike currently (but that could be because I'm fairly uninformed, that's just my theory I tailored together from the bits and pieces of Info I read somewhere): You gather Ressources (without PvP as necessity, so PvE/simple Gathering without any enemies at all) to build a Fort, Fortress or whatever. A bigger Guild zergs your Fort, it gets destroyed, you collect Ressources again, to build another Fort, which is again razed... In the end this sounds to me like many Guild Members will basically be forced to continously gather ressources, I see no fun in that. (But then again, feel free to correct me on that issue if you got official Info)
As I respond to this, let me first say that I'm not doing it with any ill-will. I understand and respect where you are coming from, and that it's simply just a different perspective.
1) You've just described an Uncanny Valley, where the more realisitc things look, the easier it is to pick out why it's not realistic, simply because as a human, you have years of experience knowing exactly what and how humans move so you notice the littlest things. I love the low fantasy setting, because the stories in essence are a variation of Earth, 10,000 years ago, and instead of elves, orcs, and other high fantasy elements, I've got cultures. For myself the setting makes for a very large appeal.
3) You are posting a misconception. Level 1-5 is single player, that's about 1 hour, and it serves as a tutorial. You'll get a little storyline, but you'll also learn the new, and different controls that AoC features. Is it worth 1 hour to do that? Personally I think so. Additionally, it's been repeated over and over, but the overall 1-20 newbie experience gives Funcom a chance to involve you deeper in the story line, and help with your overall immersion. This is a brief part of the game, especially considering how much time people will be spending in game post 20.
4) I think the M rating will keep a certain part of the youngin's out of the game, but in some cases I think it also acts like a light to a moth, and will drag in even more kids, so I too share that concern. However, I think the darker, grittier, more adult theme to the world is appreciated by adult gamers, who will be the foundation of the AoC community.
Resources- Yes you do gather them, but you gather them in the Border Kingdoms, which are the PvP areas. Those who belong to guilds that own Battlekeeps and Towers have the advantage in gathering those items.
As far as getting zerged, if you lose a battlekeep, you dont just gather items to rebuild, you need to retake that ground. With the utilization of formations and siege combat, I think that makes the end game style combat more valuable, and more likely to provide me with enjoyment, because the dynamic is so different. It's to each his own really on what they prefer, I tend to scoff at the WAR model, where after a certain time of capture of a capital, the server esssentially re-sets who holds what, so the combat can begin again. To me, that is the epitome of meaningless. However, to each his own, I've got friends who love that model, and as such, I'll probably give it a whirl as well. There are hundreds of thousands who prefer that to GvG, and the same amount who prefer GvG to RvR, doesnt make either of 'em right or wrong, just what they like.
What I really dont understand is why to like one game, means that everything else is bad. Your post was was of the few honest, and open posts that I've seen disucssing the two, and I appreciate it. The more good games, the more choices for gamers, and that's a good thing. Frankly, I hope they both do exceptionally well.
Understandable. Yet in games with non-human races, the humans tend to lack diversity, which is made up for by the addition of non-human races. In a human-only game (like EVE Online, for example), you can get something closer to the full diversity of the human face and body, which I think is more beneficial than locking humans into one appearance and making up for that narrowness with horned/furred/scaled/winged/tailed races.
True, but if we're not going to try to be realistic until we can do it perfectly, then it will never happen. You can't get there without the stepping stones, and we've been laying them down for many years.
I'm not sure I follow. What does the rating have to do with the single-player introduction? I understand not liking the single-player introduction, though. I remain skeptical. Uru Online tried something similar.
I'm not sure there's any sign that Age of Conan's gore is 'excessive'. The earlier videos gave me the impression that the blood was way over the top, but the recent stuff seems more realistic to me. As for the nudity, I also don't know. We haven't really been given any examples aside from the rather anachronistically-clothed temptress NPC in the depths of a dungeon.
)Well I always hate Human races in just about every game. Wether it's Humans in RTS Games, Terrans in Starcraft, Marines in AvP and so on and so forth... as long as I can be something different, I don't choose Human, I find 'em always boring, I am a Human in RL, I don't want to be one in Games as well ^_^ (Besides, I love slimy evil creatures like Zerg for example...the more un-human, the better )
)Well, wether you become more realistic gradually, or you wait until you can create a really realistic look in a "laboratory" before you put it in a Game... Well I understand that the IP suggests an as realistic-as-possible Graphics Style, it's just not my cup of tea. (For example, I like Fantasy Movies in full CGI-Render-Graphics more than ones with real actors as well, it's just fantasy should stay fantasy for me or something...)
)Well, what I meant about the single-player introduction: I don't see the sense in it. In a mature community, there shouldn't be a need for such a "safe start"... I mean even WoW could very well live without it... well I just don't see any sense in it. You can do everything with other players around anyway... if I buy a MMORPG, I want many players around me, I don't want to rush through the single-player content until I can finally interact with other Players...
)Well, what I read about AoC was nudity and gore as hacking off your enemie's limbs or head, for example. And if this is made even closely realistic, which the general graphics style would suggest, this does mean rather extreme gore... If they don't include cutting of limbs, they could simply remove nudity with skimpy clothing, and they'd be fine with a T rating and a much broader (legal) audience, along with more advertising options and so on...
(I just saw that I started every Paragraph with "Well"... o_O)
It's to each his own really on what they prefer, I tend to scoff at the WAR model, where after a certain time of capture of a capital, the server esssentially re-sets who holds what, so the combat can begin again. What I really dont understand is why to like one game, means that everything else is bad. Your post was was of the few honest, and open posts that I've seen disucssing the two, and I appreciate it. The more good games, the more choices for gamers, and that's a good thing. Frankly, I hope they both do exceptionally well.
Well, in WAR, nothing resets after a certain set time. It's up to the defending Players to retake the city (no NPCs will help them, but they'll be continously buffed slightly, more and more as time goes on, to enable even small numbers to take down a much larger invading force after much time, so that no Race is stuck without a capitol for days or even weeks).
But yeah, I'm kinda with you on that "Why must all other games be horrible if I wait for another game?"-Issue, and it makes me really sad (and a tad angry) when I read through the WAR Hype-Review Section, where at least every second Post is one single Sentence, saying something like "Bah, WAR is just a WoW clone, it sucks", while everyone who just read through a basic feature List of WAR will instantly see that this is NOT the case, not even the Graphics look like WoW...similar, yes, they both origined from the Warhammer IP, but not alike...
The biggest Problem with AoC I have as of yet is extreme scepticism (does that word exist? I'M sceptical, in other words ) towards the "revolutionary Combat system", because to me it sounds like it could become very glitchy, full of possible abuses and bugs and a very unbalanced Melee-Ranged-Spell System... If they manage to pull it off properly, great, I love Rakion for it's direct Controls, and AoC sounds somewhat similar to that, but I also see a huge risk in it.
A couple months back I went into my roomy's bedroom and saw him looking at screenshots from WAR. At the time I wasn't well informed on it, and asked (this is for real) " So what is that? An update for WoW or something?"
Yeah, they look similiar. I bet you could match-up screens in WoW with those of WAR... and even find similiar backdrops to do it in. I would like to see one of you guys do something like that and post it.
The worst part is, I used to play WoW pre-BC, level 60 and all that... so... the fact that I thought WAR was just a graphics update to WoW speaks for itself.
A couple months back I went into my roomy's bedroom and saw him looking at screenshots from WAR. At the time I wasn't well informed on it, and asked (this is for real) " So what is that? An update for WoW or something?" Yeah, they look similiar. I bet you could match-up screens in WoW with those of WAR... and even find similiar backdrops to do it in. I would like to see one of you guys do something like that and post it. The worst part is, I used to play WoW pre-BC, level 60 and all that... so... the fact that I thought WAR was just a graphics update to WoW speaks for itself.
It's not graphics that make it look similar it's the artwork. That's what gets me angry the most is that people can't realize that difference. Go back and look at the post with the link that shows the WoW figures and the WAR figures. Yes the artwork is quite similar but the graphics aren't. The WoW graphics are very crude and a little sharper than WAR's. WAR's graphics doesn't give the look that everything is just plastered on to your characters body too. And when you realize that it's the artwork that's similar you have to think which one has been around longer? Warhammer or Warcraft?
Warhammer games have always been kind of ignored in the past... they have their popularity from tabletop gaming. I just look at their past and all I can say is I'm not ready to beleive WAR will be a good game when there really hasn't been a good video game based on the Warhammer license. Funcom had Anarchy Online, which was truthfully a great MMO, it wasn't hugely popular but it gave them the experience. I have faith AoC will be a good game like AO was, and I think more people are interested this time around.
Anarchy Online took a long long time before it could even be concerned 'decent'. With the exception of Vanguard, it was the most horrible mmorpg launch I have ever been a part of. Many feature promises were not met, core game functionality was severely bugged, many issues known during beta were never addressed for years after release. Community relationship was horrible and there were many compaints about their customer service. Its only the last 4-5 years that they have managed to pick themselves up.
I have my doubts whether many of the people that think funcom is a great developer were around when AO first came out. Its hard for me to justify the die-hard, eyes-closed, fingers in your ears fanaticism I see every day for funcom having seen how the company handled themselves in the past. But maybe its just the new generation of gamer coming in with a clean experience slate and getting wowed by the pretty graphics.
AO had a bad launch, but that's what I meant by experience--they dealt with the launch and most likely figured out how to handle things better this time around. AO became a great MMO and that gave them experience of having a good game, too. Plus investors aren't bailing out of AoC, they're giving more money! Things are looking up for funcom, aside from all the new videos that have everyone crying over what they know nothing about...
OP sounds like a retarded fanboi by just making this thread. I think most people want all games to be good. Why would anyone who doesn't work inthe industry feel threatened by a game?
Well, in WAR, nothing resets after a certain set time. It's up to the defending Players to retake the city (no NPCs will help them, but they'll be continously buffed slightly, more and more as time goes on, to enable even small numbers to take down a much larger invading force after much time, so that no Race is stuck without a capitol for days or even weeks). But yeah, I'm kinda with you on that "Why must all other games be horrible if I wait for another game?"-Issue, and it makes me really sad (and a tad angry) when I read through the WAR Hype-Review Section, where at least every second Post is one single Sentence, saying something like "Bah, WAR is just a WoW clone, it sucks", while everyone who just read through a basic feature List of WAR will instantly see that this is NOT the case, not even the Graphics look like WoW...similar, yes, they both origined from the Warhammer IP, but not alike... The biggest Problem with AoC I have as of yet is extreme scepticism (does that word exist? I'M sceptical, in other words ) towards the "revolutionary Combat system", because to me it sounds like it could become very glitchy, full of possible abuses and bugs and a very unbalanced Melee-Ranged-Spell System... If they manage to pull it off properly, great, I love Rakion for it's direct Controls, and AoC sounds somewhat similar to that, but I also see a huge risk in it.
Okay, help me out there because I'm obviously not understanding, and I'd really like to. From watching the podcast "battlefronts" I took from that that "there are systems in place that will prevent one side from holding a capital city indefinitely, and eventually it will be returned to it's owner, thus restarting the battle." I understand it does not reset the 1-4 battlefronts, but arent we kind of talking semantics here? It doesnt just reset, but the mechanics in place make it impossible to hold. Isnt that really the same thing when you boil it down? If I'm understanding that correctly, (and I may not be, which is why I'm asking) that spells if not meaningless, then less meaning to me than the GvG style conflict where you hold a keep until it's physically taken from you. Neither is right, neither is wrong, it's just how you play the game, and what you like.
For me, I dont bother much with the hype meter, but I do tend to agree that if WAR has anything in common with WoW, it's just a graphical style that WoW took from WAR originally. How you feel for it is up to you, but that certainly does NOT make it a WoW clone, and if you are judging it simply based on that, then I think you miss the heart of what makes WAR, WAR.
As far as the AoC combat style, I'm enthused simply because I'm tired of whack-a-mole, where I just hit buttons and see what happens, as opposed to actively try to attack an opponents weakpoint. It's worked well in other style games, so I'd wager the system works, I'm just waiting to see how it all applies in an MMO, because I'm just not sure how it'll work. Sure it's a risk, but that's how the genre evolves, when people start taking chances on bringing something new to it, I dont expect all changes to work out, but I do support someone who's trying to change it.
We'll have to see how it all plays out, because I think there are some questions about each, and plenty of reasons to like each. I've picked out what I felt was important to me, and that's why I'm enthused about what I'm enthused about, but I'm not going to step on anyone elses toes, play what's fun for you. Doesnt make it better or worse, just means we've got different tastes. Jessica Biel or Jessica Alba, both are hot, does it matter which one you think looks hotter? Would you be any worse off for having one and not the other? Hell no!
Either or, thanks for the civilized conversation. It's good to discss both, and still have some respect for each others taste in games. Gives us both some perspective, and a chance to ask some questions and learn a bit about the other game.
Comments
Then why do you think that FunCom deserves a second chance? Anarchy isn't exactly a fan favorite either, nor is it anything revolutionary, or for that matter, good.
I seriously hate it when people go and bash the developing companies because they made a mistake and therefore they dont deserve a second chance or now they should go out of bussines because they didnt add enough recipes to leathercrafting (ok sarcasm).If anyone doesnt deserve a chance is SOE due to their continuous screwups but seriously there isnt a single game developer out there who hasnt made a mistake, or done something that some gamers dont agree, so therefore now no one should buy their games because they let a coupple of people down. The point here is did they learn from their mistakes or will they screw up again? I guess the only way to find out is to try their upcoming product.
I may not know exactly what FunCom did but they seem to have a good respectable crew working on Age of Conan and it seems like they are all about the game and want to do it right. Give them a chance, play the retail version, not the beta but the retail, you cant judge a game from playing in Beta only or watching a coupple of videos or screenshots.
A man dies daily, only to be reborn in the morning, bigger, better and wiser.
-Playing AoC
-Playing WoW
-Retired- SWG
-Retired- EVE
-Retired- LotR
Computer (- Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.81 Ghz (Quad Core CPU)- Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 - 4 Gigs of PC 8500 ram (1066)- EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express 2.0 - WD 500GB 7500RPM - Zalman CPU cooler (air cooled)
- 24" Widescreen 1080P HD display).
As for judging a game that's in beta, why not? Why should I pay the company 50$ to try a game I'm certain will fail if I had played it a week before launch? Sure, bashing the game for certain flaws at this point is pointless because it's still in early closed beta and some things can change, but when it comes to late closed/open beta/stress tests, the game is pretty much done.
Don't be an idiot. AoC addicts make just as many fanboy-ish remarks (if not MORE) than WAR addicts. The AoC forums always seem to have someone putting down WAR, always. Every minute of the day. Yet, I belong to multiple WAR sites (WHA, Warcry, etc.) where AoC is rarely maliciously brought up. I guess that goes to show who actually is pulling in the mature crowd.
Don't be an idiot. AoC addicts make just as many fanboy-ish remarks (if not MORE) than WAR addicts. The AoC forums always seem to have someone putting down WAR, always. Every minute of the day. Yet, I belong to multiple WAR sites (WHA, Warcry, etc.) where AoC is rarely maliciously brought up. I guess that goes to show who actually is pulling in the mature crowd.
Actually my friend the AoC forums are full of WAR fanbois who pop over sign up just to advertise their game in some snakey post.
Its the same on these forums.
Im really sorry to burst your bubble but all over the internet, at all major gaming sites people mention WAR and WoW in the same paragraph - just like you did. Everytime someone does that another person comes along and does the same thing, so on and so on. So what you have is whole threads just debating it.
Firstly get over yourself if you can't see or except obvious comparisons between those games. When you have characters like these: http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7281/warvswow6te.jpg people will compare in all sorts of ways.
There are quite a few mature people who post here who follow AoC without feeling the need to go over to the war part of the forums and stick a knife in, just because the AoC part has obvious WAR fans posting nonsense because it turns them on. I take it from your activeness in the last 3 years you prefer to post elsewhere, so do I
Either you are into AoC or you aren't - If your not then why the hell do you go to the official AoC forums? If your interested then why do you let a few bad eggs spoil your enjoyment on an otherwise very good forum? The bad stuff isn't singled out to one type of fan you know.
Just speaking for myself here but I hope both AoC and WAR turn out to be kickass games and there are those who would try and label me a LoTRO fanbois. I 's even give Gods and Heros a try if it gets good enough reviews.
There are some asses who just like to try and go around bashing games for the same reasons little sadists burn ants with a magnifying glass, it makes them feel important and big. Then there are some who are viral marketers trying to sway opinion because that is their job, like anyone would buy or not buy based on what they read on these forums. My opinion of those people are they should find a job they could be proud to tell their mother about, like cleaning the restrooms down at the bus station or anything more dignified than a professional liar.
I miss DAoC
Warhammer games have always been kind of ignored in the past... they have their popularity from tabletop gaming. I just look at their past and all I can say is I'm not ready to beleive WAR will be a good game when there really hasn't been a good video game based on the Warhammer license.
Funcom had Anarchy Online, which was truthfully a great MMO, it wasn't hugely popular but it gave them the experience. I have faith AoC will be a good game like AO was, and I think more people are interested this time around.
I agree, I hope that all mmorpg's that get released in the foreseeable future are successfull. There is plenty of people to go around to achieve that. This can only be a good thing for the industry as a whole and in turn for us the consumer. When you get tongue in cheek posts like the OP made - its all fun - or supposed to be, sometimes I think people forget that. Its like or supposed to be (in my opinion) friendly banter. Like you would get at a soccer match for eg.
As for judging a game that's in beta, why not? Why should I pay the company 50$ to try a game I'm certain will fail if I had played it a week before launch? Sure, bashing the game for certain flaws at this point is pointless because it's still in early closed beta and some things can change, but when it comes to late closed/open beta/stress tests, the game is pretty much done.
What I posted above isnt aimed at you DD but just in general, I keep hearing people bring up developing companies and why no one should play their games.
As far as beta goes I think it gives a good view about what the game is about and how it works I guess but the whole point of the beta is for the people to test it and for the developers to change it so that it is ready to hit the shelves of the stores. You arent going to see gaming sites rate a game on the beta phase, the actual "Review" of the game comes after the game has been released, and I wouldnt judge a game until I play the retail version.
Hell I have seen people talk trash about AoC who havent even played beta, they watch a 1 min video and say the game sucks and its awful the combat laks proper animation etc. The combat in AoC is different from any MMO we have played and if you compare it to other MMOs it looks out of place because you see it at that point of view but it actually works totally different.
A man dies daily, only to be reborn in the morning, bigger, better and wiser.
-Playing AoC
-Playing WoW
-Retired- SWG
-Retired- EVE
-Retired- LotR
Computer (- Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.81 Ghz (Quad Core CPU)- Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 - 4 Gigs of PC 8500 ram (1066)- EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express 2.0 - WD 500GB 7500RPM - Zalman CPU cooler (air cooled)
- 24" Widescreen 1080P HD display).
And I have a bunch of guildmates (about 40 or so) that agree and you'll see us playing WAR in a theatre near you......
But this was about AOC, and our guild is going to take a good look at this game as well, wouldn't want to overlook a good game should it turn out well.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Anarchy Online took a long long time before it could even be concerned 'decent'. With the exception of Vanguard, it was the most horrible mmorpg launch I have ever been a part of. Many feature promises were not met, core game functionality was severely bugged, many issues known during beta were never addressed for years after release. Community relationship was horrible and there were many compaints about their customer service. Its only the last 4-5 years that they have managed to pick themselves up.
I have my doubts whether many of the people that think funcom is a great developer were around when AO first came out. Its hard for me to justify the die-hard, eyes-closed, fingers in your ears fanaticism I see every day for funcom having seen how the company handled themselves in the past. But maybe its just the new generation of gamer coming in with a clean experience slate and getting wowed by the pretty graphics.
In my opinion I have to disagree with the original poster. I am a defender of LOTRO against the evil trolls that seem to consistantly throw boulders at it. you can call that a fanboi if ya like.
That being said I am looking forward to and will be trying out AoC. I used to collect all the Conan books and comics. I have a Conan the Barbarian number 1 framed in mint condition on my wall. Still, I am not a fanboi of the AoC game yet as I have not been able to experience it outside of some game movies and stuff.
I also really want WAR and Gods and Heroes to be great but fear I will have to make some choices about where to spend my hard earned dollars.
play the games you like and everyone else should play the games they like. this way we all dont have a problem with one another. but unfortunately we as humans always have problems with different things.
But seriously, for some reason, I have never been able to state that without losing my temper. Well done.
As for why fans of other games may seem to react most strongly to the mention of Age of Conan, I believe it is due to several things:
Well I never wrote any Hate-Spam against AoC, but here are my Reasons for not liking AoC:
1. The Setting. Meaning: Only Human Races playable. I don't like the wannabe-realistic look either, since it does not look realistic.
2. can't say anything about it.
3. That the first Levels must be solved as a Single-Player Game...it seems as if the Devs KNOW that their M-Rating will be avoided and broken, why would you need a Single-Player introduction if only People of 18+ years are playing it?
4. Well, since I await WAR, I have nothing against PvP Focused Games. However, I do think that the fact that AoC will be rated M, have excessive Gore and Nudity will attract MANY MANY Kids of 14-18 years, where Nudity and Gore in a Game are actual reasons to play it, no matter the Gameplay, whereas older People stand above that and ultimately need good Gameplay, maybe with Gore/Nudity as a "Bonus".
What I also dislike currently (but that could be because I'm fairly uninformed, that's just my theory I tailored together from the bits and pieces of Info I read somewhere):
You gather Ressources (without PvP as necessity, so PvE/simple Gathering without any enemies at all) to build a Fort, Fortress or whatever. A bigger Guild zergs your Fort, it gets destroyed, you collect Ressources again, to build another Fort, which is again razed...
In the end this sounds to me like many Guild Members will basically be forced to continously gather ressources, I see no fun in that. (But then again, feel free to correct me on that issue if you got official Info)
Understandable. Yet in games with non-human races, the humans tend to lack diversity, which is made up for by the addition of non-human races. In a human-only game (like EVE Online, for example), you can get something closer to the full diversity of the human face and body, which I think is more beneficial than locking humans into one appearance and making up for that narrowness with horned/furred/scaled/winged/tailed races.
True, but if we're not going to try to be realistic until we can do it perfectly, then it will never happen. You can't get there without the stepping stones, and we've been laying them down for many years.
I'm not sure I follow. What does the rating have to do with the single-player introduction?
I understand not liking the single-player introduction, though. I remain skeptical. Uru Online tried something similar.
I'm not sure there's any sign that Age of Conan's gore is 'excessive'. The earlier videos gave me the impression that the blood was way over the top, but the recent stuff seems more realistic to me.
As for the nudity, I also don't know. We haven't really been given any examples aside from the rather anachronistically-clothed temptress NPC in the depths of a dungeon.
I have that worry as well, in the same way that Shadowbane's perpetual rebuilding was absurd, and Dark Age of Camelot's perpetual reclamation, which I'm afraid will also be Warhammer Online's problem.
I have no alternative to propose, though, in the context of an MMO.
Well I never wrote any Hate-Spam against AoC, but here are my Reasons for not liking AoC:
1. The Setting. Meaning: Only Human Races playable. I don't like the wannabe-realistic look either, since it does not look realistic.
2. can't say anything about it.
3. That the first Levels must be solved as a Single-Player Game...it seems as if the Devs KNOW that their M-Rating will be avoided and broken, why would you need a Single-Player introduction if only People of 18+ years are playing it?
4. Well, since I await WAR, I have nothing against PvP Focused Games. However, I do think that the fact that AoC will be rated M, have excessive Gore and Nudity will attract MANY MANY Kids of 14-18 years, where Nudity and Gore in a Game are actual reasons to play it, no matter the Gameplay, whereas older People stand above that and ultimately need good Gameplay, maybe with Gore/Nudity as a "Bonus".
What I also dislike currently (but that could be because I'm fairly uninformed, that's just my theory I tailored together from the bits and pieces of Info I read somewhere):
You gather Ressources (without PvP as necessity, so PvE/simple Gathering without any enemies at all) to build a Fort, Fortress or whatever. A bigger Guild zergs your Fort, it gets destroyed, you collect Ressources again, to build another Fort, which is again razed...
In the end this sounds to me like many Guild Members will basically be forced to continously gather ressources, I see no fun in that. (But then again, feel free to correct me on that issue if you got official Info)
1. Its all within the lore, I think it looksmore realistic than anything else out there and I give it credit for trying. So we determined that Elgareth prefers the softer line of say a games character like WAR maybe?
2. First impressions only hurt if you havent got the capacity to look forward to the bigger picture, and also if your first impressions turn out true, only way your going to find out is if you play the game.
3. Read Athelans posts on the first few levels of the game - scattered amongst the first few pages of these forums or search his posts. If you are interested instead of making vast unproven unfactual assumptions than I ask what is the point of that? Its status as a mmorpg is not called into question, never has been, well maybe amongst the less informed. mmorpg status = try guild wars. Btw the first few levels CAN be co-op.
4. I laugh at the response that because its a mature rating kids will flock to it. Do you not think or have not even questioned the fact that Warhammer table top game has more people under the age of 17 doing it as a hobby and that this is ONE of the most likely population fillers for WAR online? No matter the gameplay WAR will be full of children all eager the personalise their online version of their table top little painted figures. All that advertising for the game in Game Workshops and in their magazine promoting and pushing the WAR game to the GW community. The fact that WoW and WAR have characters that look the same might pull more of the younger WoW crowd to WAR, regardless of them being two completely different game granted, on the face of it you can't say that WoW if you had to pick another game out there right now that kinda looked the same it would be WAR. Gore can be turned off in AoC if you so wish.
Without enemies in PvE whilst collecting resources?? huh.....
Its called Guild City in PvE and Battlekeep in PvP area called the Border Kingdoms. Other players cannot attack your PvE city only NPC can, who form their own outposts to attack it. The stronger your supplies for your PvE city the more resources you have for your PvP Battlekeep. I suggest you check out some of the developer diaries and video posts - plenty put in first 3 pages of the forums here.
You fight for your Battlekeep to sustain it, to tactically be superior via player skill and mounted formation combat for example. You dont even have to have a battlekeep to play the game. Your not forced into it unlike WAR from my perception is an RvR environment.
AoC brings:
Items never before seen in other MMOs:
-spellweaving
-soul corruption
-semi to exceptionally realistic mounted combat
-true collision detection, including characters getting the crap trampled out of them by aforementioned cavalry.
-formation combat that actually means something tactically, and doesn't leave players screaming at their leaders to turn it off so they don't all die (Shadowbane anyone?)
-crafting levels advanced by quests, not grinding.
-First DX10 MMO
Items that have been used only rarely, and are usually ignored by the average developer:
-skill/level hybrid system, properly done, this embodies the best of both worlds.
-overarching storyline that is constantly and consistantly in motion
-guild city sieges, both PvE and PvP
-customizable equipment
It’s got no freaking fairies, elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins and other high fantasy silliness.
It has a combat system that doesn't appear to be EXACTLY like every other MMO ever made.
There are the options for players to raid, but doesn't force raid haters to raid to get the best stuff.
WAR = Factional AoC =GvG
There is little to no accountability for behavior in RvR; punks, gankers, and smack talkers can fade into the anominity and safety of their faction. Not to mention leechers and people there for the ride doing nothing to help in a battle… Often such behavior is encouraged in RvR because the enemy is faceless and the consequences are few. No RvR for me. I want to choose who my enemies are and not have the game choose them for me. GvG offers more freedom. RvR is repetitive really unless there are more than 2 facets. Once a certain time has passed, the entire regions are reset. There is no long-lasting effect. It just starts all over.
In comparison, in a GvG type game, guilds can hold their assets as long as they can hold their assets. They are able to make a permanent impact on the game world itself, shaping it, forming it, contributing to it. This is AoC’s border kingdoms.
The two games are fundamentally different in their design. I honestly don't see them appealing to the same audience.
Its the new innovative / different approach that Funcom have taken with AoC that rattles the cages of fanboys of other games and causes them to come to the AoC forum and post nonsense, unfactual really worried posts.
This looks realistic to me: exactly how I want my characters to look - no green skin, excessive ears or hairy feet none of that bollox!
Nothing like this: http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7281/warvswow6te.jpg no oversized weapons or crap tyvm
As I respond to this, let me first say that I'm not doing it with any ill-will. I understand and respect where you are coming from, and that it's simply just a different perspective.
1) You've just described an Uncanny Valley, where the more realisitc things look, the easier it is to pick out why it's not realistic, simply because as a human, you have years of experience knowing exactly what and how humans move so you notice the littlest things. I love the low fantasy setting, because the stories in essence are a variation of Earth, 10,000 years ago, and instead of elves, orcs, and other high fantasy elements, I've got cultures. For myself the setting makes for a very large appeal.
3) You are posting a misconception. Level 1-5 is single player, that's about 1 hour, and it serves as a tutorial. You'll get a little storyline, but you'll also learn the new, and different controls that AoC features. Is it worth 1 hour to do that? Personally I think so. Additionally, it's been repeated over and over, but the overall 1-20 newbie experience gives Funcom a chance to involve you deeper in the story line, and help with your overall immersion. This is a brief part of the game, especially considering how much time people will be spending in game post 20.
4) I think the M rating will keep a certain part of the youngin's out of the game, but in some cases I think it also acts like a light to a moth, and will drag in even more kids, so I too share that concern. However, I think the darker, grittier, more adult theme to the world is appreciated by adult gamers, who will be the foundation of the AoC community.
Resources- Yes you do gather them, but you gather them in the Border Kingdoms, which are the PvP areas. Those who belong to guilds that own Battlekeeps and Towers have the advantage in gathering those items.
As far as getting zerged, if you lose a battlekeep, you dont just gather items to rebuild, you need to retake that ground. With the utilization of formations and siege combat, I think that makes the end game style combat more valuable, and more likely to provide me with enjoyment, because the dynamic is so different. It's to each his own really on what they prefer, I tend to scoff at the WAR model, where after a certain time of capture of a capital, the server esssentially re-sets who holds what, so the combat can begin again. To me, that is the epitome of meaningless. However, to each his own, I've got friends who love that model, and as such, I'll probably give it a whirl as well. There are hundreds of thousands who prefer that to GvG, and the same amount who prefer GvG to RvR, doesnt make either of 'em right or wrong, just what they like.
What I really dont understand is why to like one game, means that everything else is bad. Your post was was of the few honest, and open posts that I've seen disucssing the two, and I appreciate it. The more good games, the more choices for gamers, and that's a good thing. Frankly, I hope they both do exceptionally well.
)Well I always hate Human races in just about every game. Wether it's Humans in RTS Games, Terrans in Starcraft, Marines in AvP and so on and so forth... as long as I can be something different, I don't choose Human, I find 'em always boring, I am a Human in RL, I don't want to be one in Games as well ^_^ (Besides, I love slimy evil creatures like Zerg for example...the more un-human, the better
)
)Well, wether you become more realistic gradually, or you wait until you can create a really realistic look in a "laboratory" before you put it in a Game... Well I understand that the IP suggests an as realistic-as-possible Graphics Style, it's just not my cup of tea. (For example, I like Fantasy Movies in full CGI-Render-Graphics more than ones with real actors as well, it's just fantasy should stay fantasy for me or something...)
)Well, what I meant about the single-player introduction: I don't see the sense in it. In a mature community, there shouldn't be a need for such a "safe start"... I mean even WoW could very well live without it... well I just don't see any sense in it. You can do everything with other players around anyway... if I buy a MMORPG, I want many players around me, I don't want to rush through the single-player content until I can finally interact with other Players...
)Well, what I read about AoC was nudity and gore as hacking off your enemie's limbs or head, for example. And if this is made even closely realistic, which the general graphics style would suggest, this does mean rather extreme gore... If they don't include cutting of limbs, they could simply remove nudity with skimpy clothing, and they'd be fine with a T rating and a much broader (legal) audience, along with more advertising options and so on...
(I just saw that I started every Paragraph with "Well"... o_O)
Well, in WAR, nothing resets after a certain set time. It's up to the defending Players to retake the city (no NPCs will help them, but they'll be continously buffed slightly, more and more as time goes on, to enable even small numbers to take down a much larger invading force after much time, so that no Race is stuck without a capitol for days or even weeks).
But yeah, I'm kinda with you on that "Why must all other games be horrible if I wait for another game?"-Issue, and it makes me really sad (and a tad angry) when I read through the WAR Hype-Review Section, where at least every second Post is one single Sentence, saying something like "Bah, WAR is just a WoW clone, it sucks", while everyone who just read through a basic feature List of WAR will instantly see that this is NOT the case, not even the Graphics look like WoW...similar, yes, they both origined from the Warhammer IP, but not alike...
The biggest Problem with AoC I have as of yet is extreme scepticism (does that word exist?
I'M sceptical, in other words 
) towards the "revolutionary Combat system", because to me it sounds like it could become very glitchy, full of possible abuses and bugs and a very unbalanced Melee-Ranged-Spell System... If they manage to pull it off properly, great, I love Rakion for it's direct Controls, and AoC sounds somewhat similar to that, but I also see a huge risk in it.
Add:
@AmazingAvery:
See? That is the "We try to be realistic, but we aren't"-Problematic I spoke about. I just don't like that Half-Realisitc look
A couple months back I went into my roomy's bedroom and saw him looking at screenshots from WAR. At the time I wasn't well informed on it, and asked (this is for real) " So what is that? An update for WoW or something?"
Yeah, they look similiar. I bet you could match-up screens in WoW with those of WAR... and even find similiar backdrops to do it in. I would like to see one of you guys do something like that and post it.
The worst part is, I used to play WoW pre-BC, level 60 and all that... so... the fact that I thought WAR was just a graphics update to WoW speaks for itself.
HEADHUNTERS See the Recruitment Video!Site
It's not graphics that make it look similar it's the artwork. That's what gets me angry the most is that people can't realize that difference. Go back and look at the post with the link that shows the WoW figures and the WAR figures. Yes the artwork is quite similar but the graphics aren't. The WoW graphics are very crude and a little sharper than WAR's. WAR's graphics doesn't give the look that everything is just plastered on to your characters body too. And when you realize that it's the artwork that's similar you have to think which one has been around longer? Warhammer or Warcraft?
Anarchy Online took a long long time before it could even be concerned 'decent'. With the exception of Vanguard, it was the most horrible mmorpg launch I have ever been a part of. Many feature promises were not met, core game functionality was severely bugged, many issues known during beta were never addressed for years after release. Community relationship was horrible and there were many compaints about their customer service. Its only the last 4-5 years that they have managed to pick themselves up.
I have my doubts whether many of the people that think funcom is a great developer were around when AO first came out. Its hard for me to justify the die-hard, eyes-closed, fingers in your ears fanaticism I see every day for funcom having seen how the company handled themselves in the past. But maybe its just the new generation of gamer coming in with a clean experience slate and getting wowed by the pretty graphics.
AO had a bad launch, but that's what I meant by experience--they dealt with the launch and most likely figured out how to handle things better this time around. AO became a great MMO and that gave them experience of having a good game, too. Plus investors aren't bailing out of AoC, they're giving more money! Things are looking up for funcom, aside from all the new videos that have everyone crying over what they know nothing about...
OP sounds like a retarded fanboi by just making this thread. I think most people want all games to be good. Why would anyone who doesn't work inthe industry feel threatened by a game?
Okay, help me out there because I'm obviously not understanding, and I'd really like to. From watching the podcast "battlefronts" I took from that that "there are systems in place that will prevent one side from holding a capital city indefinitely, and eventually it will be returned to it's owner, thus restarting the battle." I understand it does not reset the 1-4 battlefronts, but arent we kind of talking semantics here? It doesnt just reset, but the mechanics in place make it impossible to hold. Isnt that really the same thing when you boil it down? If I'm understanding that correctly, (and I may not be, which is why I'm asking) that spells if not meaningless, then less meaning to me than the GvG style conflict where you hold a keep until it's physically taken from you. Neither is right, neither is wrong, it's just how you play the game, and what you like.
For me, I dont bother much with the hype meter, but I do tend to agree that if WAR has anything in common with WoW, it's just a graphical style that WoW took from WAR originally. How you feel for it is up to you, but that certainly does NOT make it a WoW clone, and if you are judging it simply based on that, then I think you miss the heart of what makes WAR, WAR.
As far as the AoC combat style, I'm enthused simply because I'm tired of whack-a-mole, where I just hit buttons and see what happens, as opposed to actively try to attack an opponents weakpoint. It's worked well in other style games, so I'd wager the system works, I'm just waiting to see how it all applies in an MMO, because I'm just not sure how it'll work. Sure it's a risk, but that's how the genre evolves, when people start taking chances on bringing something new to it, I dont expect all changes to work out, but I do support someone who's trying to change it.
We'll have to see how it all plays out, because I think there are some questions about each, and plenty of reasons to like each. I've picked out what I felt was important to me, and that's why I'm enthused about what I'm enthused about, but I'm not going to step on anyone elses toes, play what's fun for you. Doesnt make it better or worse, just means we've got different tastes. Jessica Biel or Jessica Alba, both are hot, does it matter which one you think looks hotter? Would you be any worse off for having one and not the other? Hell no!
Either or, thanks for the civilized conversation. It's good to discss both, and still have some respect for each others taste in games. Gives us both some perspective, and a chance to ask some questions and learn a bit about the other game.
Cheers!
Your post is childish and stupid.
"Don't corpse-camp that idea. Its never gonna rez"
Bladezz (The Guild)