Originally posted by Coldmeat Originally posted by zollen Why all Pro-WOWers simply just come to the conclusion that WoW is better than GW without any explainations/reasons to back their arguments, or worse... they just give many invalid reasons and pretend their points are valid........
Probably for the same reason an obviously Pro-GW fanboi camps threads in the WoW forum.
Anyhow, if all you care about is the graphics, I'd suggest getting a dvd player, and an HD tv, and getting out of gaming. Or go outside. Real life has pretty realistic graphics, I hear. As to WoW, and GWs graphics. WoW's are very stylized, and looks pretty much exactly like WC3. It has a lower poly count to allow decent performance on lower end machines. The world is very well put together, the zones are all very nice, and it is a seamless world, other than dungeon entrances, and when you switch continents.
GW's graphics have a higher poly count, and have a noticable asian mmorpg influence to the look of the characters. If you find the bondage elves in Lineage 2 to your liking, then GWs look should be right up your alley.
As far as gameplay goes, they're basically the same, other than GW's heavier reliance on strategic planning, as you can only have 8 skills slotted at a time. The quests are also similar. Kill x of mob y, return for reward. Etc.
The communities, as noted previously, are both attrocious in the general areas. Having a decent guild is damn near a must for either game. GW has a slight edge in this regard, as you can form a party of NPCs that are as intelligent, if not moreso, than your average pick up group.
WoW costs 29.99 for the box, and 14.99 a month. They sell prepaid gamecards, so no CC# needed. GW has no monthly fee, and last I checked the main box is 29.99, with 1, possibly 2, expansions(not sure if Nightfall is out yet, or no). The 1st expansion is 39.99 now, though at some places is still 49.99. The new expansion is/will be 49.99 also.
Yeah GW art has an interesting fusion of both eastern and western influences. I have always liked the more realistic style of some anime. Fortunately it avoids the gigantic eyes and stupid ass long pointy ears of a lot of anime.
The art is interesting. I would not say GW's art is better than WoW or vice versa they both some real good artists. But I do llike GW's more myself.
I would say that EQ2 (and Vanguard ) really do lack as high a caliber artisits comparitively. I see people use the style argument but GW looks both better and more realistic and technically has worse graphics quality. Both WoW and GW look better, art wise, than EQ2 in my opinion (although I like the light effects in EQ2 pvp and i think its a better game than WoW in general). EQ2 vs these two games is a pretty good example of just how much good artistists matter no matter the technical specs. The EQ2 stuff isn't bad, but its just lacking in the small little things that a really high quality artisits make sure doesn't mess up the whole experience.
To my mind the art is GW and WoW are equivalent (oir as equivalent as something that is half subjectove can be), and its mostly personal taste. Although there are some nice lighting effects that GW can do that doesn't exist in WoW. That is probably the biggest failing in the look of WoW, the lighting it really doesn't exist either in a fake, but very nice looking, way like GW or a more truly simulated way like EQ2(ie. you have nightime with real darkness and torchs actually do something). But then again Neocron has real lighting with flashlights and everything and its graphics are awful and it was realesed 2 years before WoW. Its a crazy MMO world.
Yeah, the effects in GW are nicely done. There are some really nice looking spots in the game.
Maybe it's just me, but there's something about WoW's look, and feel that's very grandiose, as well, which I never really got with GW. The first time I ran up the hill to Ironforge, I was floored at the scale of it. It was the closest I've come to when I first made the run from Neriak, to Qeynos Hills in EQ, back in the pre-Kunark days. I actually had the shakes I was so tense when I finally made the attempt. When I ran into the bridge between EK and NK, I almost fell out of the chair. Of all the mmos I've played since, WoW is the first time I've come close to that feeling.
And yeah, I don't care much for the EQ2/V:SoH "realistic" look. Everything looks muddied, and washed out in EQ2, and Vanguard just looks off, in some way. Though, the current rumor making the rounds is that Vanguard will be moving from their current graphics engine, to the Unreal 3 engine. I'm having a hard time buying that, as it would require an almost total overhaul of the graphics assets.
I started playing WoW a year ago and 6 months later I tied a free 14-days trial of GW. Let me tell you that I didn't even play more than 2 days at GW and I was back on WoW. I know some will say that 2 days is not enough to enjoy GW I guess but it was enough for me! It was total crap, so boring, horrible graphics, UI is bad... I didn't like it at all!
On the other hand, WoW is an amazing game in my opinion. There's tones of stuff to do, the community is pretty good, and you can enjoy it if you are PvP or PvE. My favorite game of all time to be honnest.
Listen, your best bet is to try both game... I know there is free 14/10 days trial for both WoW and GW. Just research like "wow free trial" or "guild wars free trial" on internet and you should find something. I know that there's also a DVD 14-days World of Warcraft trial on sale in any PC games store and it's only $2! I know that WoW is only $20 for the full game in store with a "free" month of playing included so it's a pretty good deal.
So I'd say get WoW, it's way better than GW but you should try both...
Originally posted by ConFusionize im working on making my computer better to play WoW, but my friend told me about GW and how its free. I dont know which game to play because i played WoW before and i was blown away. i also know more about WoW and nothing about GW. i really dont know what to do...pay 15 bucks a month for great game...or pay nothing a month a good game. a lil help plz?
Well, youve already played WOW....it is good. I would not recommend GW unless you cant afford 15 dollars a month for WOW. Personally I never got that massive feeling with GW. But if you cant afford 15 bucks...GW is probably one of the better free games around.
Someone said he tried GW and thought it was boring. I tried WoW and thought it was boring. Both games have quests and most low lvl quests are boring, so you can't judge a game by your 2 day experience.
I'll try something different here:
If you liked Diablo better than Ultima Online, go GW. If you liked UO better than Diablo, go WoW.
They are 2 completely different games and comparing them is a total timewaste.
I play GW because I can log off one day and come back 2 months later and still kill that other lvl 20 guy who plays everyday. I got social life and I like taking care of it.
If I had more time to spare, I'd surely play World of Warcraft, for its complexity and "massive" feeling.
The only thing I will say definitively about Guild Wars is the 8 skill primary/secondary profession system is better than WoW's class sytem. Just plain superior.
Everything else is personal taste and can go either way and they quite different games and are trying to accomplish quite different things.
Originally posted by xqflint Someone said he tried GW and thought it was boring. I tried WoW and thought it was boring. Both games have quests and most low lvl quests are boring, so you can't judge a game by your 2 day experience. I'll try something different here: If you liked Diablo better than Ultima Online, go GW. If you liked UO better than Diablo, go WoW. They are 2 completely different games and comparing them is a total timewaste. I play GW because I can log off one day and come back 2 months later and still kill that other lvl 20 guy who plays everyday. I got social life and I like taking care of it. If I had more time to spare, I'd surely play World of Warcraft, for its complexity and "massive" feeling. Guildwars skill > WoW skill WoW features > Guildwars Features.
I can't agree with your last statement. GW has some pretty amazing features that no other game can even come close too. Observer mode is amazing and was thrown in completely free. Its like having TV of the competitive play. The Heroes are shaping up to be pretty darn nice too.
Not saying one is better than the other, but I think that satement is like saying Pete Sampras is a better athelete than David Beckham or whatever.
Sorry dude but I don't think you actually understood it. I never said GW had shitty features, Im just saying that World of Warcraft has much more like crafting, rides, party system, the true mmorpg feeling, simple things like mailing and the chat system.
the ">" implies it's "better", not that the other game has nothing to offer.
I won't comment your "pete sampras x beckham" thing because it has nothing to do with my post. I said those games were completely different.
Considering you useless post I'll stop participating in this conversation because I don't have time to argue with people who doesn't pay attention to the text and just want to make themselves noticed. Wasted a whole fucking page discussing the difference between art and graphics, now this.
Maybe thats how you got your 999 posts and maybe you're just aiming 1000 with some crap like that.
Anyways.. enough said. Im out.
Play whatever you want, I couldn't care less right now lol.
Originally posted by xqflint Sorry dude but I don't think you actually understood it. I never said GW had shitty features, Im just saying that World of Warcraft has much more like crafting, rides, party system, the true mmorpg feeling, simple things like mailing and the chat system. the ">" implies it's "better", not that the other game has nothing to offer. I won't comment your "pete sampras x beckham" thing because it has nothing to do with my post. I said those games were completely different. Considering you useless post I'll stop participating in this conversation because I don't have time to argue with people who doesn't pay attention to the text and just want to make themselves noticed. Wasted a whole fucking page discussing the difference between art and graphics, now this. Maybe thats how you got your 999 posts and maybe you're just aiming 1000 with some crap like that. Anyways.. enough said. Im out. Play whatever you want, I couldn't care less right now lol.
No I understood fine, and I think feature wise GW and WoW line up pretty even. But they wind up being very different lists.
Originally posted by geemanjr Neither cause both games suck play real mmo's. Guild wars is a bunch of horny runescape kids and WoW is a bunch of Guild wars knockoffs trust me BOTH GAMES SUCK!!!!
GW dosen't have bad graphix, WoW just had animated graphix witch someplease MISTAKE FOR MORE CARTOONY. i persoanly like WoW graphix better. Its also filled with anoying people and text-box spammers.
I have put 40 hours into GW and 2000 hours into WoW, so my opinion will slightly weighed in WoW's favour.
2 things bothered me right off in GW. Invisible walls and no jump button. WoW doesn't really have walls, just areas that lead off from where the programmers don't want you to go they kill your alt. Fatigue in the oceans. I personally felt more intune with my character in WoW because its more responsive to my button mashing.
Graphics have to be given to GW. The world and characters are more realistic and Character adaptation is better in GW. The World size WoW gives you a better feel of spaciousness.
Interface is WoW's forte. Written in XML, the interface is one of the most adaptable I have ever run across.
GW is a character strategy where WoW is a button masher.
Comunity is based on chat interface and WoW adaptability makes it a better chat option.
I think character development is in WoWs favour too. A rogue isn't a warlock. They are completely different. Where a Necromancer/Priest isn't that far off a Paladin/Ranger.
Cost is hands down GW biggest asset. You buy one pack you can play it as long as you like. You don't need the expansions when they come out.
WoW is completely dependent on equipment. You have to get good equipment to compete in PVP in WoW. Which means you have to be guilded and put some serious time into it.
Originally posted by Ghist I have put 40 hours into GW and 2000 hours into WoW, so my opinion will slightly weighed in WoW's favour.
2 things bothered me right off in GW. Invisible walls and no jump button. WoW doesn't really have walls, just areas that lead off from where the programmers don't want you to go they kill your alt. Fatigue in the oceans. I personally felt more intune with my character in WoW because its more responsive to my button mashing.
Graphics have to be given to GW. The world and characters are more realistic and Character adaptation is better in GW. The World size WoW gives you a better feel of spaciousness.
Interface is WoW's forte. Written in XML, the interface is one of the most adaptable I have ever run across.
GW is a character strategy where WoW is a button masher.
Comunity is based on chat interface and WoW adaptability makes it a better chat option.
I think character development is in WoWs favour too. A rogue isn't a warlock. They are completely different. Where a Necromancer/Priest isn't that far off a Paladin/Ranger.
Cost is hands down GW biggest asset. You buy one pack you can play it as long as you like. You don't need the expansions when they come out.
WoW is completely dependent on equipment. You have to get good equipment to compete in PVP in WoW. Which means you have to be guilded and put some serious time into it.
I pretty much agree with everything you said except this statement which was a little off:
I think character development is in WoWs favour too. A rogue isn't a warlock. They are completely different. Where a Necromancer/Priest isn't that far off a Paladin/Ranger.
There is no such things a paladin in GW except in regard to a Warrior/Monk combo. A paladin/Ranger is impossible. Perhaps you mean Monk/ranger in which case thise makes more sense. But it has a counterpoint. While a (general caster class)/monk is almost as good a healer, and in some cases a better healer in certain ways, something like a Warrior/Ranger is completly different than a [caster class]/monk. A warrior primary will always make an awful caster, they may take certain things to shore things up. So while a Mesmer/Monk is a great pinch healer due to the mesmer Fast Casting attribute, but a weaker protection healer than a Monk/mesmer due to the monk Divine FAvor healing on Monk spell cast, a warrior/monk is quite crappy at both. And a Warrior/ranger has no spells at all.
GW does have many shades of gray, yes that is true, but it also has extremes too. But I think that you will find while there are multiple combinations capable of filling a role there are also quite distinct deliniations. Trying to be a front line fighter as any of the caster class primaries is usually a very dangerous proposition. And trying to be a caster as Ranger or Warrior primary is usually rather gimped, although Monk is always useful as a secondary.
This is something Rob Pardo has mentioned in an intentional design of WoW they want distinctive classes that feel different from each. Keep in mind this philosophy is also part of why BC has no new classes.
It may be that pyschologically not allowing any shades of gray makes people feel that classes are more distinct. I personally prefer freedom. I much prefer a skill system and therefore like GW's non-restrictive feat system much more. There has always been a division in RPGs between the more and less constrained systems. D&D vs. GURPS etc.
Like I said GW's system does have shades of gray, no doubt about it, but I think it manages to keep a lot of distinctiveness of a class system too. No matter what a Warrior primary always has certain hallmarks that have huge effects, their low regen makes them mediocre casters and their huge armor means they can literally take half the damage a casting class does. The casters tend to bleed together a bit more and it is a essentially a case of runes and the primaries main attribute. However Divine Favor can have a very large effect, so not taking monk as primary can be important. But yes essentially you can't be sure if the Elementalist/Monk on the other team is a less efficient healer with a huge mana pool to make up for it or a nuker.
Or I suppose what I am saying is that it keeps some distinctions between the major "roles", ie. caster/hybrid/frontline. A Monk/Warrior is very much differnt than a Warrior/Monk, a necro/monk is not that far off a monk/necro. The funny thing is that the same old stereotypes still apply in GW anyway, many people just won't go without a primary monk . Even though GW's class system is pretty much a spectrum (I guess with two axis, protection vs. energy and healing vs. damage or somethign like that) with certain combos never be able to go past certain thresholds yet people still want to see it as a restricted class system. For them praimary monk = WoW priest and everything else is gimp.
I guess for some this means the caster classes seem to lose flavor compared to more restricted systems like WoW. Certainly the differences are much more obvious in such systems. You would have to an idiot to not see the differences in classes in WoW. Whereas the differences between a Minion Master Necro/ritualist and ritualist/necro are fairly subtle and you would actually have to do some math. However they are important differences. Personally I like to create my own flavor.
I am uncertain as to how this all plays out. It seems that people often say they like free systems especially skill systems like old UO etc. But class systems seem to be what is around the most. Perhaps it is merely a matter of individual distinctiveness versus group distinctiveness. Which is what this turns into for GW vs. WoW.
A monk/necro vs necro/monk can potentially run very similar builds. Whereas a WoW preist is always quite differnt than WoW warlock. However two differnt monk/necro can play the same combo completely and utterly differnt fomr one another, even if they are both only using monk skills. Whereas two priest in WoW are always almost clones of each other, even with different talent builds.
In the end I suppose it depends on which direction you are coming from. I do not really like the cloning effect of WoW but at the same time you are right the distinctiveness does get lost in teh sahdes of gray.
Pardo consicously went for inter-class distinctiveness in his design and not intra-class distinctiveness. I have a suspicion that is probably a safer bet. I prefer the GW approach, but that is just me. I have always preferred it that way since before MMOs existed. But I am a bit of an individualist and tend to look at it from that direction.
Pardo consicously went for inter-class distinctiveness in his design and not intra-class distinctiveness. I have a suspicion that is probably a safer bet. I prefer the GW approach, but that is just me. I have always preferred it that way since before MMOs existed. But I am a bit of an individualist and tend to look at it from that direction.
I personally think intra-class distinctivness approach offers a lot more variation to the class system, than inter-class distinctiveness. It is the shade of grey that gives us the freedom we need to create our own favor. As I point out before, it is the variation and complexitiy of classes/combat system that appeals me.
Dual-professions are a common sight in a real world. Why not reflect this reality in a game world? More skills workers are often get ahead of more experiences others. Why not reflect this reality in a game world? There is no uber clothes that I could wear to turn me into a super brainy/skilled worker. Why not reflect this reality in a game world?
Well I have never played GW's but alot of people ive talked to have said its more "shallow" than WoW which means too easy to level and limited in gameplay abilities compared to WoW. To me it sounds like a generic game whereas WoW is a fun unique game with great gameplay. Ive never played Gw's but from my WoW experiences id say it takes the cake.
I've played both and my vote goes to GW. I've played a lot of WoW and the system and mechanics of the game are so damn broken. Adding new content in WoW is adding new raid instances for better gear. To balance the new gear they have to nerf the warrior because of how the rage system works. They just keep throwing in new equipment and new skills. What would it be like in 5 years? I bet you'd need 7 rows of skill bars. It has no scalability. However, the plus side of WoW is that the game is more responsive, because there is 0 collision detection. You can walk through 100 foot tall dinosaurs no problem. It's very dumb.
Whatever it is, I really don't understand why WoW is so popular. Perhaps because it's made by blizzard who have the Midas's Touch. It's honestly crap turn into gold. I played it because all my friends were playing it. The more I played it the more frustrating it got. It's fun yet vexing.
GW on the other hand was made by ex-blizzard staff. However, apparently the better team went to do GW and left the garbage to do WoW. I don't know why people say WoW is stable. It crashes on my PC all the time. It's the only game on my machine that does that. Not to mention server screw ups which create really weird bugs.
I could go on, but WoW is okay. It's a crap game, but it's okay. If you have alot of friends playing WoW, you would probably have fun. If you want a good game, with great game mechanics, good stability, can play with ANY player in the world and not just your server, high scalability, good PvE and good PvP, no travel time, large selection of skills, high scalability, no uber imba equipment, no Legolas elves, no shadowbolts which crit one shot you for 4k damage, no being ganked while farming or questing, no 40 man raids, no useless crafting skills, no 12 year old griefers using feign death in towns, no dps paladins, a game where the warrior rage system isn't totally broken, or where paladins can heal themselves through divine shield then get GW. Even though everything is instanced, the way it's done is very elegant and makes a lot of sense as to why it's instanced. It's worth a try in my opinion.
Originally posted by xiaozhu I'm strongly suggesting you play World of Warcraft.
Firstly, Graphics comparison.
Guild Wars TOTALLY SUCKS in animation and graphics. It is totally unable to be compared to WoW in anyway. Actually the grqaphics are up to date as the graphics are updated every month even the engine is farly new compared to wow which is all cartoony to hide the terrable textures.
The textures do let WoW down I think. They really don't stand up to scrutiny.
I would have tried GW if there was a free trial. I usually don't buy games I can't try first. And I've already looked a few MMORPGs and not liked them. WoW is my favourite so far. I'll buy it when my trial is up if there's nothing else I find better.
Originally posted by Mahlo Originally posted by LordSlater Originally posted by xiaozhu I'm strongly suggesting you play World of Warcraft.
Firstly, Graphics comparison.
Guild Wars TOTALLY SUCKS in animation and graphics. It is totally unable to be compared to WoW in anyway. Actually the grqaphics are up to date as the graphics are updated every month even the engine is farly new compared to wow which is all cartoony to hide the terrable textures.
The textures do let WoW down I think. They really don't stand up to scrutiny.
I would have tried GW if there was a free trial. I usually don't buy games I can't try first. And I've already looked a few MMORPGs and not liked them. WoW is my favourite so far. I'll buy it when my trial is up if there's nothing else I find better.
Your only options for GW are to either play one of the Beta Test preivew weekends, which are free for anyone. Or to get a trial key from a someone who bought a boxed game. I think those come with any GW campaign. I do not lthink there is a generic 14 days free trial. And I bleive the non-beta keys limit you to like ten hours.
There trial philosophy is different since they have no subs I guess.
Nubzi, I have no clueee what you are talking about, Guild Wars and WoW have pretty much the same graphics. Your graphics just must be set on low or something. But back to WoW, I personally think WoW is way funner than Guild Wars. It has way more stuff to do in it, and also, one thing that I thought kind of sucked on Guild Wars is that you can only get to level 20. To make it worse, it is easy to get to level 20 if you have factions. I personally like games where you can get to a pretty high level and it is hard to level, because it shows other people that you have been playing the game long and that you are experienced. I have met so many people in Guild Wars that are level 20 and are noobs still. Well thats pretty much all I have to say, please no one say a bunch of crap to me, this is my opinion of the two games.
Originally posted by XeroKnight Nubzi, I have no clueee what you are talking about, Guild Wars and WoW have pretty much the same graphics. Your graphics just must be set on low or something. But back to WoW, I personally think WoW is way funner than Guild Wars. It has way more stuff to do in it, and also, one thing that I thought kind of sucked on Guild Wars is that you can only get to level 20. To make it worse, it is easy to get to level 20 if you have factions. I personally like games where you can get to a pretty high level and it is hard to level, because it shows other people that you have been playing the game long and that you are experienced. I have met so many people in Guild Wars that are level 20 and are noobs still. Well thats pretty much all I have to say, please no one say a bunch of crap to me, this is my opinion of the two games.
But at the same time a level 12 who knows what they are doing can do way more than those level 20 noobs, which is not true in EQ clones like WoW.
I was killing lvl 22 Ice Imps and lvl 24 Alpinesouls at lvl 12 with an Assassin/Monk because I knew what I was doing. Whereas some level 20 idiots can barely not die with some other people holding their hands. But in WoW no matter how much I know at level 30 any level 60 idiot, and I think we both know there are plenty of idiots at max level in WoW as well, can do more than I could no matter what I tried.
That longer level curve may weed some more idiots, I'm not convinced of that, but its also highly restrictive in other ways.
In some ways you can tell the good players easier in Guild Wars by asking them just a few questions, not that many actually make an effrot to do so.
Comments
Probably for the same reason an obviously Pro-GW fanboi camps threads in the WoW forum.
Anyhow, if all you care about is the graphics, I'd suggest getting a dvd player, and an HD tv, and getting out of gaming. Or go outside. Real life has pretty realistic graphics, I hear. As to WoW, and GWs graphics. WoW's are very stylized, and looks pretty much exactly like WC3. It has a lower poly count to allow decent performance on lower end machines. The world is very well put together, the zones are all very nice, and it is a seamless world, other than dungeon entrances, and when you switch continents.
GW's graphics have a higher poly count, and have a noticable asian mmorpg influence to the look of the characters. If you find the bondage elves in Lineage 2 to your liking, then GWs look should be right up your alley.
As far as gameplay goes, they're basically the same, other than GW's heavier reliance on strategic planning, as you can only have 8 skills slotted at a time. The quests are also similar. Kill x of mob y, return for reward. Etc.
The communities, as noted previously, are both attrocious in the general areas. Having a decent guild is damn near a must for either game. GW has a slight edge in this regard, as you can form a party of NPCs that are as intelligent, if not moreso, than your average pick up group.
WoW costs 29.99 for the box, and 14.99 a month. They sell prepaid gamecards, so no CC# needed. GW has no monthly fee, and last I checked the main box is 29.99, with 1, possibly 2, expansions(not sure if Nightfall is out yet, or no). The 1st expansion is 39.99 now, though at some places is still 49.99. The new expansion is/will be 49.99 also.
Yeah GW art has an interesting fusion of both eastern and western influences. I have always liked the more realistic style of some anime. Fortunately it avoids the gigantic eyes and stupid ass long pointy ears of a lot of anime.
The art is interesting. I would not say GW's art is better than WoW or vice versa they both some real good artists. But I do llike GW's more myself.
I would say that EQ2 (and Vanguard ) really do lack as high a caliber artisits comparitively. I see people use the style argument but GW looks both better and more realistic and technically has worse graphics quality. Both WoW and GW look better, art wise, than EQ2 in my opinion (although I like the light effects in EQ2 pvp and i think its a better game than WoW in general). EQ2 vs these two games is a pretty good example of just how much good artistists matter no matter the technical specs. The EQ2 stuff isn't bad, but its just lacking in the small little things that a really high quality artisits make sure doesn't mess up the whole experience.
To my mind the art is GW and WoW are equivalent (oir as equivalent as something that is half subjectove can be), and its mostly personal taste. Although there are some nice lighting effects that GW can do that doesn't exist in WoW. That is probably the biggest failing in the look of WoW, the lighting it really doesn't exist either in a fake, but very nice looking, way like GW or a more truly simulated way like EQ2(ie. you have nightime with real darkness and torchs actually do something). But then again Neocron has real lighting with flashlights and everything and its graphics are awful and it was realesed 2 years before WoW. Its a crazy MMO world.
Yeah, the effects in GW are nicely done. There are some really nice looking spots in the game.
Maybe it's just me, but there's something about WoW's look, and feel that's very grandiose, as well, which I never really got with GW. The first time I ran up the hill to Ironforge, I was floored at the scale of it. It was the closest I've come to when I first made the run from Neriak, to Qeynos Hills in EQ, back in the pre-Kunark days. I actually had the shakes I was so tense when I finally made the attempt. When I ran into the bridge between EK and NK, I almost fell out of the chair. Of all the mmos I've played since, WoW is the first time I've come close to that feeling.
And yeah, I don't care much for the EQ2/V:SoH "realistic" look. Everything looks muddied, and washed out in EQ2, and Vanguard just looks off, in some way. Though, the current rumor making the rounds is that Vanguard will be moving from their current graphics engine, to the Unreal 3 engine. I'm having a hard time buying that, as it would require an almost total overhaul of the graphics assets.
On the other hand, WoW is an amazing game in my opinion. There's tones of stuff to do, the community is pretty good, and you can enjoy it if you are PvP or PvE. My favorite game of all time to be honnest.
Listen, your best bet is to try both game... I know there is free 14/10 days trial for both WoW and GW. Just research like "wow free trial" or "guild wars free trial" on internet and you should find something. I know that there's also a DVD 14-days World of Warcraft trial on sale in any PC games store and it's only $2! I know that WoW is only $20 for the full game in store with a "free" month of playing included so it's a pretty good deal.
So I'd say get WoW, it's way better than GW but you should try both...
Have fun!
Neither cause both games suck play real mmo's. Guild wars is a bunch of horny runescape kids and WoW is a bunch of Guild wars knockoffs trust me
BOTH GAMES SUCK!!!!
[url=http://profile.xfire.com/geemanjr101][img]http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/os/type/0/geemanjr101.png[/img][/url]
<a href="http://www.l33tsig.net/"; title="L33TSig"><img src="http://www.l33tsig.net/sig/geemanjr.png"; alt="geemanjr's L33TSig" /></a>
Someone said he tried GW and thought it was boring. I tried WoW and thought it was boring. Both games have quests and most low lvl quests are boring, so you can't judge a game by your 2 day experience.
I'll try something different here:
If you liked Diablo better than Ultima Online, go GW. If you liked UO better than Diablo, go WoW.
They are 2 completely different games and comparing them is a total timewaste.
I play GW because I can log off one day and come back 2 months later and still kill that other lvl 20 guy who plays everyday. I got social life and I like taking care of it.
If I had more time to spare, I'd surely play World of Warcraft, for its complexity and "massive" feeling.
Guildwars skill > WoW skill
WoW features > Guildwars Features.
Everything else is personal taste and can go either way and they quite different games and are trying to accomplish quite different things.
Not saying one is better than the other, but I think that satement is like saying Pete Sampras is a better athelete than David Beckham or whatever.
Sorry dude but I don't think you actually understood it. I never said GW had shitty features, Im just saying that World of Warcraft has much more like crafting, rides, party system, the true mmorpg feeling, simple things like mailing and the chat system.
the ">" implies it's "better", not that the other game has nothing to offer.
I won't comment your "pete sampras x beckham" thing because it has nothing to do with my post. I said those games were completely different.
Considering you useless post I'll stop participating in this conversation because I don't have time to argue with people who doesn't pay attention to the text and just want to make themselves noticed. Wasted a whole fucking page discussing the difference between art and graphics, now this.
Maybe thats how you got your 999 posts and maybe you're just aiming 1000 with some crap like that.
Anyways.. enough said. Im out.
Play whatever you want, I couldn't care less right now lol.
GW dosen't have bad graphix, WoW just had animated graphix witch someplease MISTAKE FOR MORE CARTOONY. i persoanly like WoW graphix better. Its also filled with anoying people and text-box spammers.
LAMO! your right!
i just got WoW yesterday, before that i played GW before that i played runescape. cep im not horny, and im 13+ BUT YOUR RIGHT LAMO THAT WAS FUNNY!
2 things bothered me right off in GW. Invisible walls and no jump button. WoW doesn't really have walls, just areas that lead off from where the programmers don't want you to go they kill your alt. Fatigue in the oceans.
I personally felt more intune with my character in WoW because its more responsive to my button mashing.
Graphics have to be given to GW. The world and characters are more realistic and Character adaptation is better in GW. The World size WoW gives you a better feel of spaciousness.
Interface is WoW's forte. Written in XML, the interface is one of the most adaptable I have ever run across.
GW is a character strategy where WoW is a button masher.
Comunity is based on chat interface and WoW adaptability makes it a better chat option.
I think character development is in WoWs favour too. A rogue isn't a warlock. They are completely different. Where a Necromancer/Priest isn't that far off a Paladin/Ranger.
Cost is hands down GW biggest asset. You buy one pack you can play it as long as you like. You don't need the expansions when they come out.
WoW is completely dependent on equipment. You have to get good equipment to compete in PVP in WoW. Which means you have to be guilded and put some serious time into it.
Waiting for the next thing
I think character development is in WoWs favour too. A rogue isn't a warlock. They are completely different. Where a Necromancer/Priest isn't that far off a Paladin/Ranger.
There is no such things a paladin in GW except in regard to a Warrior/Monk combo. A paladin/Ranger is impossible. Perhaps you mean Monk/ranger in which case thise makes more sense. But it has a counterpoint. While a (general caster class)/monk is almost as good a healer, and in some cases a better healer in certain ways, something like a Warrior/Ranger is completly different than a [caster class]/monk. A warrior primary will always make an awful caster, they may take certain things to shore things up. So while a Mesmer/Monk is a great pinch healer due to the mesmer Fast Casting attribute, but a weaker protection healer than a Monk/mesmer due to the monk Divine FAvor healing on Monk spell cast, a warrior/monk is quite crappy at both. And a Warrior/ranger has no spells at all.
GW does have many shades of gray, yes that is true, but it also has extremes too. But I think that you will find while there are multiple combinations capable of filling a role there are also quite distinct deliniations. Trying to be a front line fighter as any of the caster class primaries is usually a very dangerous proposition. And trying to be a caster as Ranger or Warrior primary is usually rather gimped, although Monk is always useful as a secondary.
This is something Rob Pardo has mentioned in an intentional design of WoW they want distinctive classes that feel different from each. Keep in mind this philosophy is also part of why BC has no new classes.
It may be that pyschologically not allowing any shades of gray makes people feel that classes are more distinct. I personally prefer freedom. I much prefer a skill system and therefore like GW's non-restrictive feat system much more. There has always been a division in RPGs between the more and less constrained systems. D&D vs. GURPS etc.
Like I said GW's system does have shades of gray, no doubt about it, but I think it manages to keep a lot of distinctiveness of a class system too. No matter what a Warrior primary always has certain hallmarks that have huge effects, their low regen makes them mediocre casters and their huge armor means they can literally take half the damage a casting class does. The casters tend to bleed together a bit more and it is a essentially a case of runes and the primaries main attribute. However Divine Favor can have a very large effect, so not taking monk as primary can be important. But yes essentially you can't be sure if the Elementalist/Monk on the other team is a less efficient healer with a huge mana pool to make up for it or a nuker.
Or I suppose what I am saying is that it keeps some distinctions between the major "roles", ie. caster/hybrid/frontline. A Monk/Warrior is very much differnt than a Warrior/Monk, a necro/monk is not that far off a monk/necro. The funny thing is that the same old stereotypes still apply in GW anyway, many people just won't go without a primary monk
I guess for some this means the caster classes seem to lose flavor compared to more restricted systems like WoW. Certainly the differences are much more obvious in such systems. You would have to an idiot to not see the differences in classes in WoW. Whereas the differences between a Minion Master Necro/ritualist and ritualist/necro are fairly subtle and you would actually have to do some math. However they are important differences. Personally I like to create my own flavor.
I am uncertain as to how this all plays out. It seems that people often say they like free systems especially skill systems like old UO etc. But class systems seem to be what is around the most. Perhaps it is merely a matter of individual distinctiveness versus group distinctiveness. Which is what this turns into for GW vs. WoW.
A monk/necro vs necro/monk can potentially run very similar builds. Whereas a WoW preist is always quite differnt than WoW warlock. However two differnt monk/necro can play the same combo completely and utterly differnt fomr one another, even if they are both only using monk skills. Whereas two priest in WoW are always almost clones of each other, even with different talent builds.
In the end I suppose it depends on which direction you are coming from. I do not really like the cloning effect of WoW but at the same time you are right the distinctiveness does get lost in teh sahdes of gray.
Pardo consicously went for inter-class distinctiveness in his design and not intra-class distinctiveness. I have a suspicion that is probably a safer bet. I prefer the GW approach, but that is just me. I have always preferred it that way since before MMOs existed. But I am a bit of an individualist and tend to look at it from that direction.
I personally think intra-class distinctivness approach offers a lot more variation to the class system, than inter-class distinctiveness. It is the shade of grey that gives us the freedom we need to create our own favor. As I point out before, it is the variation and complexitiy of classes/combat system that appeals me.
Dual-professions are a common sight in a real world. Why not reflect this reality in a game world? More skills workers are often get ahead of more experiences others. Why not reflect this reality in a game world? There is no uber clothes that I could wear to turn me into a super brainy/skilled worker. Why not reflect this reality in a game world?
Whatever it is, I really don't understand why WoW is so popular. Perhaps because it's made by blizzard who have the Midas's Touch. It's honestly crap turn into gold. I played it because all my friends were playing it. The more I played it the more frustrating it got. It's fun yet vexing.
GW on the other hand was made by ex-blizzard staff. However, apparently the better team went to do GW and left the garbage to do WoW. I don't know why people say WoW is stable. It crashes on my PC all the time. It's the only game on my machine that does that. Not to mention server screw ups which create really weird bugs.
I could go on, but WoW is okay. It's a crap game, but it's okay. If you have alot of friends playing WoW, you would probably have fun. If you want a good game, with great game mechanics, good stability, can play with ANY player in the world and not just your server, high scalability, good PvE and good PvP, no travel time, large selection of skills, high scalability, no uber imba equipment, no Legolas elves, no shadowbolts which crit one shot you for 4k damage, no being ganked while farming or questing, no 40 man raids, no useless crafting skills, no 12 year old griefers using feign death in towns, no dps paladins, a game where the warrior rage system isn't totally broken, or where paladins can heal themselves through divine shield then get GW. Even though everything is instanced, the way it's done is very elegant and makes a lot of sense as to why it's instanced. It's worth a try in my opinion.
The textures do let WoW down I think. They really don't stand up to scrutiny.
I would have tried GW if there was a free trial. I usually don't buy games I can't try first. And I've already looked a few MMORPGs and not liked them. WoW is my favourite so far. I'll buy it when my trial is up if there's nothing else I find better.
The textures do let WoW down I think. They really don't stand up to scrutiny.
I would have tried GW if there was a free trial. I usually don't buy games I can't try first. And I've already looked a few MMORPGs and not liked them. WoW is my favourite so far. I'll buy it when my trial is up if there's nothing else I find better.
Your only options for GW are to either play one of the Beta Test preivew weekends, which are free for anyone. Or to get a trial key from a someone who bought a boxed game. I think those come with any GW campaign. I do not lthink there is a generic 14 days free trial. And I bleive the non-beta keys limit you to like ten hours.
There trial philosophy is different since they have no subs I guess.
Nubzi, I have no clueee what you are talking about, Guild Wars and WoW have pretty much the same graphics. Your graphics just must be set on low or something. But back to WoW, I personally think WoW is way funner than Guild Wars. It has way more stuff to do in it, and also, one thing that I thought kind of sucked on Guild Wars is that you can only get to level 20. To make it worse, it is easy to get to level 20 if you have factions. I personally like games where you can get to a pretty high level and it is hard to level, because it shows other people that you have been playing the game long and that you are experienced. I have met so many people in Guild Wars that are level 20 and are noobs still. Well thats pretty much all I have to say, please no one say a bunch of crap to me, this is my opinion of the two games.
But at the same time a level 12 who knows what they are doing can do way more than those level 20 noobs, which is not true in EQ clones like WoW.
I was killing lvl 22 Ice Imps and lvl 24 Alpinesouls at lvl 12 with an Assassin/Monk because I knew what I was doing. Whereas some level 20 idiots can barely not die with some other people holding their hands. But in WoW no matter how much I know at level 30 any level 60 idiot, and I think we both know there are plenty of idiots at max level in WoW as well, can do more than I could no matter what I tried.
That longer level curve may weed some more idiots, I'm not convinced of that, but its also highly restrictive in other ways.
In some ways you can tell the good players easier in Guild Wars by asking them just a few questions, not that many actually make an effrot to do so.