My oppinion: AOC will be the better overall game, with reality limbs chopped. Epic battles with clan involvement and territory control. Most Lineage 2 players will go AOC. Warhammer is an awesome game still but just not as good as AOC. Warhammer will pull more subs from wow then AOC since its so similiar. Once the gaming scene figures which is better, they will bandwagon the best of the two.
Yeh because the majority of gamers are gonna go out and splash 2-3k on a new comp just for AoC
One of the reasons WoW has so many subscribers is because of the low system require,ents meaning it can be played on almost any set-up. WAR has not gone for AoC style graphics because the game is about RvR (PvP fused with PvE but more emphasis on the PvP) you can't have 250 v 250 city sieges with AoC graphics without an absolute beast of a computer. AoC's PvP is so draining on your system it has to be seperate from the game world like LoTRO. Most PvP'ers will go to WAR because it is designed from the ground up for RvR and looks really fun. AoC is a PvE centric game with added PvP, there are 20 levels for PvP and 80 for PvE and their will be the mass dungeon raiding aswell. AoC's PvP has no consequences on the majority of the game world, only in the one area. In WAR the PvP affects everything as you can lose zones and eventually you city can be sacked. WAR from what we've seen so far just offers so much more AoC and yes WAR looks more polished at the moment even though it will be released later. Don't mistake me for a rampant fanboi, i will be playing AoC on release and same with Warhammer.
All i can do like the rest of you is give my opinion, once both games are out we will see which is better.
^^^
Someone that clearly hasn't looked into the game that much if they think AoC is a PvE game with PvP thrown in. That or that you need a 3k computer to play the game.
Little hint, if you can play Oblivion, you can play AoC. Oh and read the FAQ on PvP, you'll find it blows away the instanced, auto-balanced, carebear PvP the 'other' guys are doing.
I have looked into the game alot and in my opinion if you want to play AoC with nice graphics you will need a beast. Saying if you can play Oblivion you can play AoC is extremely vague, i mean play it at low medium or high. Don't fool yourself by thinking AoC is gonna be the PvP grand daddy. AoC's PvP takes place inside one instanced area called the Border Kingdoms, even your player fortresses in this place are instanced. Anything that happens in the Border Kingdoms has no effect on the rest of the game world.
AoC is PvE centric, it has 80 levels and most of the game world dedicated to PvE with groups instances and high end raiding for loot. For PvP however there are 20 levels and only that one area. Now that tells me that far more time and work has gone into the PvE side of things. AoC's PvP will not blow away the "other" guys PvP and here is why AoC is built mostly around PvE whereas the "other" guys MMO is built from the ground up for PvP/RvR. These "other" guys that you dislike so much are aiming for city sieges of around 250v250, 150 PvP scenarios on release and zone capture which effects the whole game world. In this "other" MMO when you kill a player you can loot him (although you can't take his gear) and gain levels and skills whereas AoC give you blood-money tokens so who's more carebear there?....
I suggest you do some reserach before letting you rabid fanboism be blurted out. Oh and if you try paying AoC with a mid range comp i hope you like playing with PS1 style graphics. Neither of the games have been released and you have already staed that AoC's PvP blows the competition away, you haven't played it and i haven't played it so lets wait till both games are out before saying which is better.
maybe you can quit spreading speculations an lies, AoC will run fine with a medium range comp, and there may be world PvP on the FFA servers, so quit speculating please
To be fair, how do you really know how AOC will run on a medium computer...Vanguard said it would and look what happened (yeah i know AOC isn't Vanguard, but you don't expect Funcom to be saying 'Yeah you're going to be needing a supercomputer or it'll run like crap')
Anyone here that claims they know how it will run on any pc, good or bad, is lying. Period.
However, there is a golden rule - better graphics will always require a better rig. How much better of a rig remains to be seen. It stands to reason that it is more likely that AoC will require a high end rig than not require a high end rig, if you want the graphics they have been showing.
My oppinion: AOC will be the better overall game, with reality limbs chopped. Epic battles with clan involvement and territory control. Most Lineage 2 players will go AOC. Warhammer is an awesome game still but just not as good as AOC. Warhammer will pull more subs from wow then AOC since its so similiar. Once the gaming scene figures which is better, they will bandwagon the best of the two.
Yeh because the majority of gamers are gonna go out and splash 2-3k on a new comp just for AoC
One of the reasons WoW has so many subscribers is because of the low system require,ents meaning it can be played on almost any set-up. WAR has not gone for AoC style graphics because the game is about RvR (PvP fused with PvE but more emphasis on the PvP) you can't have 250 v 250 city sieges with AoC graphics without an absolute beast of a computer. AoC's PvP is so draining on your system it has to be seperate from the game world like LoTRO. Most PvP'ers will go to WAR because it is designed from the ground up for RvR and looks really fun. AoC is a PvE centric game with added PvP, there are 20 levels for PvP and 80 for PvE and their will be the mass dungeon raiding aswell. AoC's PvP has no consequences on the majority of the game world, only in the one area. In WAR the PvP affects everything as you can lose zones and eventually you city can be sacked. WAR from what we've seen so far just offers so much more AoC and yes WAR looks more polished at the moment even though it will be released later. Don't mistake me for a rampant fanboi, i will be playing AoC on release and same with Warhammer.
All i can do like the rest of you is give my opinion, once both games are out we will see which is better.
^^^
Someone that clearly hasn't looked into the game that much if they think AoC is a PvE game with PvP thrown in. That or that you need a 3k computer to play the game.
Little hint, if you can play Oblivion, you can play AoC. Oh and read the FAQ on PvP, you'll find it blows away the instanced, auto-balanced, carebear PvP the 'other' guys are doing.
I have looked into the game alot and in my opinion if you want to play AoC with nice graphics you will need a beast. Saying if you can play Oblivion you can play AoC is extremely vague, i mean play it at low medium or high. Don't fool yourself by thinking AoC is gonna be the PvP grand daddy. AoC's PvP takes place inside one instanced area called the Border Kingdoms, even your player fortresses in this place are instanced. Anything that happens in the Border Kingdoms has no effect on the rest of the game world.
AoC is PvE centric, it has 80 levels and most of the game world dedicated to PvE with groups instances and high end raiding for loot. For PvP however there are 20 levels and only that one area. Now that tells me that far more time and work has gone into the PvE side of things. AoC's PvP will not blow away the "other" guys PvP and here is why AoC is built mostly around PvE whereas the "other" guys MMO is built from the ground up for PvP/RvR. These "other" guys that you dislike so much are aiming for city sieges of around 250v250, 150 PvP scenarios on release and zone capture which effects the whole game world. In this "other" MMO when you kill a player you can loot him (although you can't take his gear) and gain levels and skills whereas AoC give you blood-money tokens so who's more carebear there?....
I suggest you do some reserach before letting you rabid fanboism be blurted out. Oh and if you try paying AoC with a mid range comp i hope you like playing with PS1 style graphics. Neither of the games have been released and you have already staed that AoC's PvP blows the competition away, you haven't played it and i haven't played it so lets wait till both games are out before saying which is better.
maybe you can quit spreading speculations an lies, AoC will run fine with a medium range comp, and there may be world PvP on the FFA servers, so quit speculating please
To be fair, how do you really know how AOC will run on a medium computer...Vanguard said it would and look what happened (yeah i know AOC isn't Vanguard, but you don't expect Funcom to be saying 'Yeah you're going to be needing a supercomputer or it'll run like crap')
this is nothing like vanguard so quit comparing, and why would they not tell you that the grapics will be needing a supercomputer, if it did and they didnt tellyou they would loose a massive amount of money and THEN maybe could be compared to vanguard
this is nothing like vanguard so quit comparing, and why would they not tell you that the grapics will be needing a supercomputer, if it did and they didnt tellyou they would loose a massive amount of money and THEN maybe could be compared to vanguard
I'm not saying it's going to turn out like Vanguard.
I'm saying theres a risk that it might, and that you can't say that AOC is going to run on a medium computer unless you've played it yourself. It might run smooth, or it might have performance issues. No one knows yet....
I think the PvP RvR will be more developed and far more balanced and varied in WAR based on the fact that they are having multiple "Types" of PvP. Not just world generica PvP or zone v. Zone. But also Quests where PvP is involved and of course the epic battles for the cities. Not to mention the 4 tiered system. These differenct types allow different experiences. It also allows for one or two of them to be tweaked if balance or fun is out of wack for some reason. AOC will have big battles, but it seems all jumbled together and balance could be a big problem. Just a feeling, I hope I'm wrong and it's the greatest thing ever, really. Becuase that will raise the bar for other games. But ask yourself how many times you have been dissappointed. Or how many games actually totally delivered on the hype? Not too many. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope that I'm completely misunderstanding your interpretation of balanced PvP. If by balanced PvP you mean one class is as equally as strong as another thats retarded. Theres nothing I hate more then those 12 year old kids who sit outside of their City to duel others and show off their e-peen. The real PvP is out in the world when your slicing and chopping off bear heads for a quest and then all of a sudden your being mobbed by a bunch of dudes that have nothing better to do then mess with you.
Screw instanced combat it sucks, when is the last time in warfare have you seen the leaders ask each other "How many people do you want to fight with 40?" It's stupid bring your friends and hope you have more then the other people you run across. World PvP is where its at. Completely random and you never know how its gonna turn out.Why is it that developers today think all PvP has to be objective based? Do you ever have a bad day where you just want to log on and take out some of your anger by inserting your huge axe right in some unsuspecting persons back who you never met before.
this is nothing like vanguard so quit comparing, and why would they not tell you that the grapics will be needing a supercomputer, if it did and they didnt tellyou they would loose a massive amount of money and THEN maybe could be compared to vanguard
I'm not saying it's going to turn out like Vanguard.
I'm saying theres a risk that it might, and that you can't say that AOC is going to run on a medium computer unless you've played it yourself. It might run smooth, or it might have performance issues. No one knows yet....
but still, your saying it might turn out like vanguard, so your comparing it to vanguard, and there have been system requirememnts for beta found and medium range cmps measure up fine.
It doesn't matter...WoW is better than both of them put together with one elf tied behind it's back. AoC and WAR are fighting for crumbs and WoW is enjoying the main course. Muhahahahaha!
I have looked into the game alot and in my opinion if you want to play AoC with nice graphics you will need a beast. Saying if you can play Oblivion you can play AoC is extremely vague, i mean play it at low medium or high. Don't fool yourself by thinking AoC is gonna be the PvP grand daddy. AoC's PvP takes place inside one instanced area called the Border Kingdoms, even your player fortresses in this place are instanced. Anything that happens in the Border Kingdoms has no effect on the rest of the game world.
So, post me the link, where it says, that player keeps/towers will be instanced within the BK!
Cause what will be instanced is the player city, which has nothing to do with keeps/towers.
Please leave VG's graphics out of this. They never said it would run well on mid range computers. They specifically said, they are making this game for the next generation of computers in mind, meaning to be able to play you need at least 2 gigs of ram and a 7800+ and a core 2 duo
Please leave VG's graphics out of this. They never said it would run well on mid range computers. They specifically said, they are making this game for the next generation of computers in mind, meaning to be able to play you need at least 2 gigs of ram and a 7800+ and a core 2 duo
Hmm beens you are so quick to ask people to prove thier info.Why dont you link me the info where its says you need 2gig and a 7800+ and 2 duo lol.Dont you think the devs would be cutting there own throats if this is true.Last i heard it was simlar to oblivion and i can play that on top settings and i dont have dual core or a 7800+ card.
Age of Conan is showing off its best graphics, EQ2 and pretty much every other good looking game did the same thing during development press releases. There wouldnt be much hype if they showed terrible graphics. But im sure there will be scaled down graphics for low end computers.
Please leave VG's graphics out of this. They never said it would run well on mid range computers. They specifically said, they are making this game for the next generation of computers in mind, meaning to be able to play you need at least 2 gigs of ram and a 7800+ and a core 2 duo
Hmm beens you are so quick to ask people to prove thier info.Why dont you link me the info where its says you need 2gig and a 7800+ and 2 duo lol.Dont you think the devs would be cutting there own throats if this is true.Last i heard it was simlar to oblivion and i can play that on top settings and i dont have dual core or a 7800+ card.
Show me where it says this..word for word please.
Hehey! Anubisss, I missed ya!
You need to learn to comprehend a bit better. Once you fully understood, what I wrote, I shall reply.
And adding my personal thought i have a core 2 duo at 2.13 ghz, 2gigs, 8600 gt tdh and VG runs very poorly on high settings.
But I know, I know! AoC is not a real PvP game, and AoC will be a flop like VG ... etc etc etc.
Hmm beens you are so quick to ask people to prove thier info.Why dont you link me the info where its says you need 2gig and a 7800+ and 2 duo lol.Dont you think the devs would be cutting there own throats if this is true.Last i heard it was simlar to oblivion and i can play that on top settings and i dont have dual core or a 7800+ card.
Show me where it says this..word for word please.
And by the way, VG developers DID cut each other's throats. Management cut the developers' to be more exact.
anyway they are both mmo's. they both look good. they are both tryin to take down wow. both of them have good pvp stuff in them. lets face it these games have some common stuff in them. people are gonna talk about them. people compare gw with wow but gw is a corpg and wow is a mmorpg. yet we find common stuff in them.
Ok, setting aside that I am a WAR fan, this my honest opinion on both AoC and WAR and what will come of them in the future:
Warhammer:
Will attract more subs due to the 'look' and performance of it. Many WoW players will most likely go here because of the similairities and for the PvP that they always wanted. Also, seeing how the graphics are obviously not state of the art but are still high quality, it will most likely be home to a younger audience and also for those who dont own a heavy duty rig. The maturity level of the audience will not be known until release.
More geared toward the PvP crowd, although many PvEers will probably be very surprised to see the PvE content that will take place.
Public Quests will be interesting. May be the future of MMOG's depending on how ' well done' this feature will be
RvR offers new innovations to the classic PvP. City seiging, and the other methods of RvR, will be the key aspects of this game that will attract many people.
Tome of Knowledge seems like a very unique feature, monitoring the life of your character as you progress through the Warhammer world
The many careers will also be an advantage point, giving players more selection in order to play what the choose
Age of Conan:
Will probably attract an older audience due to the graphics and some of the content in the game. I believe players from everywhere will try this to get a taste of a more realistic MMO.
System requirements may be a roadblock, although they offer DX9 support so this will be a relief to many people.
New combat system will defenitely be a major advantage point for this game. Many people are sick of the old 'hack and slash' type of combat so this will be a great new start
I feel this is both for PvEers and PvPers (although I could be wrong). A balance of both will also play an important role in their success
Player built cities is another interesting feature that many people will be anxious to try. Could also sprout a new future for MMO's
Overall, both of them will have their advantages and disadvantages. The game that you choose to play is entirely based on opinion and taste. So lets stop these pointless arguements of which is better because the truth is, they will both be great games.
Originally posted by Phynyte I hope that I'm completely misunderstanding your interpretation of balanced PvP. If by balanced PvP you mean one class is as equally as strong as another thats retarded. Theres nothing I hate more then those 12 year old kids who sit outside of their City to duel others and show off their e-peen. The real PvP is out in the world when your slicing and chopping off bear heads for a quest and then all of a sudden your being mobbed by a bunch of dudes that have nothing better to do then mess with you. Screw instanced combat it sucks, when is the last time in warfare have you seen the leaders ask each other "How many people do you want to fight with 40?" It's stupid bring your friends and hope you have more then the other people you run across. World PvP is where its at. Completely random and you never know how its gonna turn out.Why is it that developers today think all PvP has to be objective based? Do you ever have a bad day where you just want to log on and take out some of your anger by inserting your huge axe right in some unsuspecting persons back who you never met before.
Look at history... generals used to talk with each other all the time. Some even had parties the night before the battle and were quite sociable. At the very least battles were organized at the start. They lined everyone up and marched forward... once battle started it was chaos but leading up to that point was all about order and discipline.
World PvP is more akin to raids and brigand encounters. Chaotic thieves roaming at random taking advantage on the weak. Instanced encounters are more like traditional battles between nations. If they took away number balance for sides it would be the closest thing to traditional war we can get in an MMO.
What most of the self labeled "hardcore" gamers want is anarchy. That is fair enough... just don't try to justify it by claiming it is more accurate to past history.
To answer your last question... no. I would rather face a player that comes with some risk. Ganking unsuspecting people is rather lame.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
Hmm beens you are so quick to ask people to prove thier info.Why dont you link me the info where its says you need 2gig and a 7800+ and 2 duo lol.Dont you think the devs would be cutting there own throats if this is true.Last i heard it was simlar to oblivion and i can play that on top settings and i dont have dual core or a 7800+ card.
Show me where it says this..word for word please.
And by the way, VG developers DID cut each other's throats. Management cut the developers' to be more exact.
I did`nt mention Vanguard did?All i am saying is you are quick to denounce someone else with your knowlege.Lets look at what you said...
random11.......They specifically said, they are making this game for the next generation of computers in mind, meaning to be able to play you need at least 2 gigs of ram and a 7800+ and a core 2 duo
All i am asking is you link us this info because i have followed AOC from the start. Even though i have my doubts about the game i have never come across this comment.You accuse people of spreading false info but you cant prove anything you say.
All you have to do is link it and shut me up,i would say its a golden opportunity.
There never was a fair war before. No such things as 50v50. Fairness is not a factor, when the game is about the survival of your race or nation. No instances at all, no start and end dates. It was a battle of wits, and wits alone. Just guess what would have happened if the allied forces warned the germans about normandy. Or the Japanese about Pearl Harbor.
You are right on the discipline part, discipline is VERY important, but it is there only so the great minds of conquest could get their strategy across to the last foot soldier as effectively as possible.
Hypothetical: So when in Conan I am going to gank you, while you are dancing with some bears, I don't want my soldiers questioning my direct orders, I want them done! That there is discipline. You are right, there won't be much honor in killing you, but there will be a lot of blood money. And that there is how conquerors thought as well.
I saw it in a vid, quite a while ago and if you expect me to go searching for the vid im not going to. Why should i do something for you that you easily do yourself.
Alrighty, I'll spare you the work. Keeps and towers are not instanced. BK is seamless.
Comments
One of the reasons WoW has so many subscribers is because of the low system require,ents meaning it can be played on almost any set-up. WAR has not gone for AoC style graphics because the game is about RvR (PvP fused with PvE but more emphasis on the PvP) you can't have 250 v 250 city sieges with AoC graphics without an absolute beast of a computer. AoC's PvP is so draining on your system it has to be seperate from the game world like LoTRO. Most PvP'ers will go to WAR because it is designed from the ground up for RvR and looks really fun. AoC is a PvE centric game with added PvP, there are 20 levels for PvP and 80 for PvE and their will be the mass dungeon raiding aswell. AoC's PvP has no consequences on the majority of the game world, only in the one area. In WAR the PvP affects everything as you can lose zones and eventually you city can be sacked. WAR from what we've seen so far just offers so much more AoC and yes WAR looks more polished at the moment even though it will be released later. Don't mistake me for a rampant fanboi, i will be playing AoC on release and same with Warhammer.
All i can do like the rest of you is give my opinion, once both games are out we will see which is better.
^^^
Someone that clearly hasn't looked into the game that much if they think AoC is a PvE game with PvP thrown in. That or that you need a 3k computer to play the game.
Little hint, if you can play Oblivion, you can play AoC. Oh and read the FAQ on PvP, you'll find it blows away the instanced, auto-balanced, carebear PvP the 'other' guys are doing.
I have looked into the game alot and in my opinion if you want to play AoC with nice graphics you will need a beast. Saying if you can play Oblivion you can play AoC is extremely vague, i mean play it at low medium or high. Don't fool yourself by thinking AoC is gonna be the PvP grand daddy. AoC's PvP takes place inside one instanced area called the Border Kingdoms, even your player fortresses in this place are instanced. Anything that happens in the Border Kingdoms has no effect on the rest of the game world.
AoC is PvE centric, it has 80 levels and most of the game world dedicated to PvE with groups instances and high end raiding for loot. For PvP however there are 20 levels and only that one area. Now that tells me that far more time and work has gone into the PvE side of things. AoC's PvP will not blow away the "other" guys PvP and here is why AoC is built mostly around PvE whereas the "other" guys MMO is built from the ground up for PvP/RvR. These "other" guys that you dislike so much are aiming for city sieges of around 250v250, 150 PvP scenarios on release and zone capture which effects the whole game world. In this "other" MMO when you kill a player you can loot him (although you can't take his gear) and gain levels and skills whereas AoC give you blood-money tokens so who's more carebear there?....
I suggest you do some reserach before letting you rabid fanboism be blurted out. Oh and if you try paying AoC with a mid range comp i hope you like playing with PS1 style graphics. Neither of the games have been released and you have already staed that AoC's PvP blows the competition away, you haven't played it and i haven't played it so lets wait till both games are out before saying which is better.
maybe you can quit spreading speculations an lies, AoC will run fine with a medium range comp, and there may be world PvP on the FFA servers, so quit speculating please
To be fair, how do you really know how AOC will run on a medium computer...Vanguard said it would and look what happened (yeah i know AOC isn't Vanguard, but you don't expect Funcom to be saying 'Yeah you're going to be needing a supercomputer or it'll run like crap')
Anyone here that claims they know how it will run on any pc, good or bad, is lying. Period.
However, there is a golden rule - better graphics will always require a better rig. How much better of a rig remains to be seen. It stands to reason that it is more likely that AoC will require a high end rig than not require a high end rig, if you want the graphics they have been showing.
Note I said more likely, and not definite.
One of the reasons WoW has so many subscribers is because of the low system require,ents meaning it can be played on almost any set-up. WAR has not gone for AoC style graphics because the game is about RvR (PvP fused with PvE but more emphasis on the PvP) you can't have 250 v 250 city sieges with AoC graphics without an absolute beast of a computer. AoC's PvP is so draining on your system it has to be seperate from the game world like LoTRO. Most PvP'ers will go to WAR because it is designed from the ground up for RvR and looks really fun. AoC is a PvE centric game with added PvP, there are 20 levels for PvP and 80 for PvE and their will be the mass dungeon raiding aswell. AoC's PvP has no consequences on the majority of the game world, only in the one area. In WAR the PvP affects everything as you can lose zones and eventually you city can be sacked. WAR from what we've seen so far just offers so much more AoC and yes WAR looks more polished at the moment even though it will be released later. Don't mistake me for a rampant fanboi, i will be playing AoC on release and same with Warhammer.
All i can do like the rest of you is give my opinion, once both games are out we will see which is better.
^^^
Someone that clearly hasn't looked into the game that much if they think AoC is a PvE game with PvP thrown in. That or that you need a 3k computer to play the game.
Little hint, if you can play Oblivion, you can play AoC. Oh and read the FAQ on PvP, you'll find it blows away the instanced, auto-balanced, carebear PvP the 'other' guys are doing.
I have looked into the game alot and in my opinion if you want to play AoC with nice graphics you will need a beast. Saying if you can play Oblivion you can play AoC is extremely vague, i mean play it at low medium or high. Don't fool yourself by thinking AoC is gonna be the PvP grand daddy. AoC's PvP takes place inside one instanced area called the Border Kingdoms, even your player fortresses in this place are instanced. Anything that happens in the Border Kingdoms has no effect on the rest of the game world.
AoC is PvE centric, it has 80 levels and most of the game world dedicated to PvE with groups instances and high end raiding for loot. For PvP however there are 20 levels and only that one area. Now that tells me that far more time and work has gone into the PvE side of things. AoC's PvP will not blow away the "other" guys PvP and here is why AoC is built mostly around PvE whereas the "other" guys MMO is built from the ground up for PvP/RvR. These "other" guys that you dislike so much are aiming for city sieges of around 250v250, 150 PvP scenarios on release and zone capture which effects the whole game world. In this "other" MMO when you kill a player you can loot him (although you can't take his gear) and gain levels and skills whereas AoC give you blood-money tokens so who's more carebear there?....
I suggest you do some reserach before letting you rabid fanboism be blurted out. Oh and if you try paying AoC with a mid range comp i hope you like playing with PS1 style graphics. Neither of the games have been released and you have already staed that AoC's PvP blows the competition away, you haven't played it and i haven't played it so lets wait till both games are out before saying which is better.
maybe you can quit spreading speculations an lies, AoC will run fine with a medium range comp, and there may be world PvP on the FFA servers, so quit speculating please
To be fair, how do you really know how AOC will run on a medium computer...Vanguard said it would and look what happened (yeah i know AOC isn't Vanguard, but you don't expect Funcom to be saying 'Yeah you're going to be needing a supercomputer or it'll run like crap')
this is nothing like vanguard so quit comparing, and why would they not tell you that the grapics will be needing a supercomputer, if it did and they didnt tellyou they would loose a massive amount of money and THEN maybe could be compared to vanguard
I'm not saying it's going to turn out like Vanguard.
I'm saying theres a risk that it might, and that you can't say that AOC is going to run on a medium computer unless you've played it yourself. It might run smooth, or it might have performance issues. No one knows yet....
I'm not saying it's going to turn out like Vanguard.
I'm saying theres a risk that it might, and that you can't say that AOC is going to run on a medium computer unless you've played it yourself. It might run smooth, or it might have performance issues. No one knows yet....
but still, your saying it might turn out like vanguard, so your comparing it to vanguard, and there have been system requirememnts for beta found and medium range cmps measure up fine.
It doesn't matter...WoW is better than both of them put together with one elf tied behind it's back. AoC and WAR are fighting for crumbs and WoW is enjoying the main course. Muhahahahaha!
Cause what will be instanced is the player city, which has nothing to do with keeps/towers.
Hope to see you soon with the link, lad!
Please leave VG's graphics out of this. They never said it would run well on mid range computers. They specifically said, they are making this game for the next generation of computers in mind, meaning to be able to play you need at least 2 gigs of ram and a 7800+ and a core 2 duo
Hmm beens you are so quick to ask people to prove thier info.Why dont you link me the info where its says you need 2gig and a 7800+ and 2 duo lol.Dont you think the devs would be cutting there own throats if this is true.Last i heard it was simlar to oblivion and i can play that on top settings and i dont have dual core or a 7800+ card.
Show me where it says this..word for word please.
Age of Conan is showing off its best graphics, EQ2 and pretty much every other good looking game did the same thing during development press releases. There wouldnt be much hype if they showed terrible graphics. But im sure there will be scaled down graphics for low end computers.
Hmm beens you are so quick to ask people to prove thier info.Why dont you link me the info where its says you need 2gig and a 7800+ and 2 duo lol.Dont you think the devs would be cutting there own throats if this is true.Last i heard it was simlar to oblivion and i can play that on top settings and i dont have dual core or a 7800+ card.
Show me where it says this..word for word please.
Hehey! Anubisss, I missed ya!You need to learn to comprehend a bit better. Once you fully understood, what I wrote, I shall reply.
And adding my personal thought i have a core 2 duo at 2.13 ghz, 2gigs, 8600 gt tdh and VG runs very poorly on high settings.
But I know, I know! AoC is not a real PvP game, and AoC will be a flop like VG ... etc etc etc.
And by the way, VG developers DID cut each other's throats. Management cut the developers' to be more exact.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
anyway they are both mmo's. they both look good. they are both tryin to take down wow. both of them have good pvp stuff in them. lets face it these games have some common stuff in them. people are gonna talk about them. people compare gw with wow but gw is a corpg and wow is a mmorpg. yet we find common stuff in them.
bottom line, GET OVER IT.
Ok, setting aside that I am a WAR fan, this my honest opinion on both AoC and WAR and what will come of them in the future:
Warhammer:
Age of Conan:
Overall, both of them will have their advantages and disadvantages. The game that you choose to play is entirely based on opinion and taste. So lets stop these pointless arguements of which is better because the truth is, they will both be great games.
I accept your summarization.
Would add to the AoC side though:
*maturity won't be guaranteed because of the M rating. Kids will play it anyway, and there are a whole lot of grownup idiots.
*nice blend between complex rpg and accessible one.
Look at history... generals used to talk with each other all the time. Some even had parties the night before the battle and were quite sociable. At the very least battles were organized at the start. They lined everyone up and marched forward... once battle started it was chaos but leading up to that point was all about order and discipline.
World PvP is more akin to raids and brigand encounters. Chaotic thieves roaming at random taking advantage on the weak. Instanced encounters are more like traditional battles between nations. If they took away number balance for sides it would be the closest thing to traditional war we can get in an MMO.
What most of the self labeled "hardcore" gamers want is anarchy. That is fair enough... just don't try to justify it by claiming it is more accurate to past history.
To answer your last question... no. I would rather face a player that comes with some risk. Ganking unsuspecting people is rather lame.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
And by the way, VG developers DID cut each other's throats. Management cut the developers' to be more exact.
I did`nt mention Vanguard did?All i am saying is you are quick to denounce someone else with your knowlege.Lets look at what you said...
random11.......They specifically said, they are making this game for the next generation of computers in mind, meaning to be able to play you need at least 2 gigs of ram and a 7800+ and a core 2 duo
All i am asking is you link us this info because i have followed AOC from the start. Even though i have my doubts about the game i have never come across this comment.You accuse people of spreading false info but you cant prove anything you say.
All you have to do is link it and shut me up,i would say its a golden opportunity.
There never was a fair war before. No such things as 50v50. Fairness is not a factor, when the game is about the survival of your race or nation. No instances at all, no start and end dates. It was a battle of wits, and wits alone. Just guess what would have happened if the allied forces warned the germans about normandy. Or the Japanese about Pearl Harbor.
You are right on the discipline part, discipline is VERY important, but it is there only so the great minds of conquest could get their strategy across to the last foot soldier as effectively as possible.
Hypothetical: So when in Conan I am going to gank you, while you are dancing with some bears, I don't want my soldiers questioning my direct orders, I want them done! That there is discipline. You are right, there won't be much honor in killing you, but there will be a lot of blood money. And that there is how conquerors thought as well.
Only PvE cities are instanced.
Kinda curious why these posts were deleted. I didn't violate the form rules so I can't correct what I did wrong for future posts.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
Lets hope the AoC vs WAR calms down now. I mean whats the point when your enjoying playing the game you like soon.
Lets hope the AoC vs WAR calms down now. I mean whats the point when your enjoying playing the game you like soon.
I agree!
I was not trying to derail the thread just making a point. Next time I will make a new thread. Thanks for the quick response.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.