Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:31:25 -0400, Ryan <r701e@rogers.com> wrote:
>What is this newsgroups thoughts?
Wel...you don't pay for Guild Wars for a reason...
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:31:25 -0400, Ryan <r701e@rogers.com> wrote:
>What is this newsgroups thoughts?
Wel...you don't pay for Guild Wars for a reason...
Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
Ryan schreef:
> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
Judging from the movies I saw, WoW is more fun. Guildwars also lacks
other races than human. A big miss I think. It probably looks better,
but has worse gameplay.
I also fear that the owners of Guildwars drop maintainance of the
servers if sales get sloppy, while you can probably play WoW for the
next five or ten years with still new things being added to it!
But be sure to download GW_Intro_720x400.wmv, it is one of the best
movies I ever saw.
Regs,
Thomas
--
Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
Ryan schreef:
> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
Judging from the movies I saw, WoW is more fun. Guildwars also lacks
other races than human. A big miss I think. It probably looks better,
but has worse gameplay.
I also fear that the owners of Guildwars drop maintainance of the
servers if sales get sloppy, while you can probably play WoW for the
next five or ten years with still new things being added to it!
But be sure to download GW_Intro_720x400.wmv, it is one of the best
movies I ever saw.
Regs,
Thomas
--
Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
"Ryan" <r701e@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:io6dnRKXQMr0_FjfRVn-iw@rogers.com...
> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
The graphics in GW are better in my opinion. But after a little while of
playing the game gets boring. You can team up with people to do the
missions but when it's done they all split. Besides that you don't run into
anyone out in the world, you can only meet people in a city. The only one's
you see out exploring are the ones that came with you in a group. It's hard
to meet any people that you actually play with more than one time in GW. It
has alot of plus aspects to it but just as many downs. I only played for a
month when I came to WoW.
"Ryan" <r701e@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:io6dnRKXQMr0_FjfRVn-iw@rogers.com...
> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
The graphics in GW are better in my opinion. But after a little while of
playing the game gets boring. You can team up with people to do the
missions but when it's done they all split. Besides that you don't run into
anyone out in the world, you can only meet people in a city. The only one's
you see out exploring are the ones that came with you in a group. It's hard
to meet any people that you actually play with more than one time in GW. It
has alot of plus aspects to it but just as many downs. I only played for a
month when I came to WoW.
unkn2232324
Distinguished
- Apr 9, 2004
- 337
- 0
- 18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
Guild Wars is not an MMORPG like WoW (or EQ or many others), so you can't
really compare
GW is more like a Diablo/Dungon Siege Clone with a central meeting place
(thats why it has no monthly fee, because they don't have to have hundreds
of server clusters running multiple worlds).
It kinda irks me that people go "wow an MMO with no mothly fee", when they
don't understand that its not MMO at all, with none of the associated server
costs or aspects that make a game massively multiplayer (a seemless world
where any player in that world can go and interact anywhere at anytime with
anyone else).
Anyway,
/rant off.
Guild Wars is not an MMORPG like WoW (or EQ or many others), so you can't
really compare
GW is more like a Diablo/Dungon Siege Clone with a central meeting place
(thats why it has no monthly fee, because they don't have to have hundreds
of server clusters running multiple worlds).
It kinda irks me that people go "wow an MMO with no mothly fee", when they
don't understand that its not MMO at all, with none of the associated server
costs or aspects that make a game massively multiplayer (a seemless world
where any player in that world can go and interact anywhere at anytime with
anyone else).
Anyway,
/rant off.
Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
Diaboyos wrote:
> "Ryan" <r701e@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:io6dnRKXQMr0_FjfRVn-iw@rogers.com...
>> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
>
>
> The graphics in GW are better in my opinion. But after a little
> while of playing the game gets boring. You can team up with people
> to do the missions but when it's done they all split. Besides that
> you don't run into anyone out in the world, you can only meet people
> in a city. The only one's you see out exploring are the ones that
> came with you in a group. It's hard to meet any people that you
> actually play with more than one time in GW. It has alot of plus
> aspects to it but just as many downs. I only played for a month when
> I came to WoW.
Supposedly, that changes after you hit your mid-point. That, however, shows
some of the problems with NCsoft's way of building games. They seem to have
adopted L2's style (I believe they imported and localized L2) of making you
wait forever to get the first carrot, beating you with the stick all the way
there. Fortunately, they did get past L2's major drawback (other than the
fact that the game is as buggy as a beta), which is the complete inability
to customize the interface and reassign keys. Bone-headed move. Esepcially
for those of us who don't like moving Starcraft style (like Ragnarok
Online), but don't like the WASD movmement keys (I prever the numeric pad).
Diaboyos wrote:
> "Ryan" <r701e@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:io6dnRKXQMr0_FjfRVn-iw@rogers.com...
>> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
>
>
> The graphics in GW are better in my opinion. But after a little
> while of playing the game gets boring. You can team up with people
> to do the missions but when it's done they all split. Besides that
> you don't run into anyone out in the world, you can only meet people
> in a city. The only one's you see out exploring are the ones that
> came with you in a group. It's hard to meet any people that you
> actually play with more than one time in GW. It has alot of plus
> aspects to it but just as many downs. I only played for a month when
> I came to WoW.
Supposedly, that changes after you hit your mid-point. That, however, shows
some of the problems with NCsoft's way of building games. They seem to have
adopted L2's style (I believe they imported and localized L2) of making you
wait forever to get the first carrot, beating you with the stick all the way
there. Fortunately, they did get past L2's major drawback (other than the
fact that the game is as buggy as a beta), which is the complete inability
to customize the interface and reassign keys. Bone-headed move. Esepcially
for those of us who don't like moving Starcraft style (like Ragnarok
Online), but don't like the WASD movmement keys (I prever the numeric pad).
Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
G wrote:
> Guild Wars is not an MMORPG like WoW (or EQ or many others), so you
> can't really compare
>
> GW is more like a Diablo/Dungon Siege Clone with a central meeting
> place (thats why it has no monthly fee, because they don't have to
> have hundreds of server clusters running multiple worlds).
>
> It kinda irks me that people go "wow an MMO with no mothly fee", when
> they don't understand that its not MMO at all, with none of the
> associated server costs or aspects that make a game massively
> multiplayer (a seemless world where any player in that world can go
> and interact anywhere at anytime with anyone else).
Sounds a bit more like Phantasy Star Online, in that respect.
I just wonder how those who think it's a no-fee MMORPG expect the finances
and logistics to work out. If I hadn't known the catch, I would have
skipped it simply because I didn't expect it to last very long before it
went under, instead of skipping it because I'm already working on two games.
The truely naive simply say "Well, they're making enough money on their
other games, and this is bound to be popular..." Ok, setting aside the fact
that companies don't just create money sinks, simply because they're making
enough money on other lines, there's still the fact that the only thing
worse than a monthly money pit is a very popular monthly money pit.
G wrote:
> Guild Wars is not an MMORPG like WoW (or EQ or many others), so you
> can't really compare
>
> GW is more like a Diablo/Dungon Siege Clone with a central meeting
> place (thats why it has no monthly fee, because they don't have to
> have hundreds of server clusters running multiple worlds).
>
> It kinda irks me that people go "wow an MMO with no mothly fee", when
> they don't understand that its not MMO at all, with none of the
> associated server costs or aspects that make a game massively
> multiplayer (a seemless world where any player in that world can go
> and interact anywhere at anytime with anyone else).
Sounds a bit more like Phantasy Star Online, in that respect.
I just wonder how those who think it's a no-fee MMORPG expect the finances
and logistics to work out. If I hadn't known the catch, I would have
skipped it simply because I didn't expect it to last very long before it
went under, instead of skipping it because I'm already working on two games.
The truely naive simply say "Well, they're making enough money on their
other games, and this is bound to be popular..." Ok, setting aside the fact
that companies don't just create money sinks, simply because they're making
enough money on other lines, there's still the fact that the only thing
worse than a monthly money pit is a very popular monthly money pit.
Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 08:04:12 GMT, "G" <i.have.too@much.spam.com>
wrote:
>
>Guild Wars is not an MMORPG like WoW (or EQ or many others), so you can't
>really compare
>
>GW is more like a Diablo/Dungon Siege Clone with a central meeting place
>(thats why it has no monthly fee, because they don't have to have hundreds
>of server clusters running multiple worlds).
>
>It kinda irks me that people go "wow an MMO with no mothly fee", when they
>don't understand that its not MMO at all, with none of the associated server
>costs or aspects that make a game massively multiplayer (a seemless world
>where any player in that world can go and interact anywhere at anytime with
>anyone else).
>
>Anyway,
>
>/rant off.
>
There is no real comparison. GW is like Diablo with a nicer chatroom,
and whilst it does have nice graphics, it lacks character.
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 08:04:12 GMT, "G" <i.have.too@much.spam.com>
wrote:
>
>Guild Wars is not an MMORPG like WoW (or EQ or many others), so you can't
>really compare
>
>GW is more like a Diablo/Dungon Siege Clone with a central meeting place
>(thats why it has no monthly fee, because they don't have to have hundreds
>of server clusters running multiple worlds).
>
>It kinda irks me that people go "wow an MMO with no mothly fee", when they
>don't understand that its not MMO at all, with none of the associated server
>costs or aspects that make a game massively multiplayer (a seemless world
>where any player in that world can go and interact anywhere at anytime with
>anyone else).
>
>Anyway,
>
>/rant off.
>
There is no real comparison. GW is like Diablo with a nicer chatroom,
and whilst it does have nice graphics, it lacks character.
Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
"Ryan" <r701e@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:io6dnRKXQMr0_FjfRVn-iw@rogers.com...
> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
www.gamerankings.com
"Ryan" <r701e@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:io6dnRKXQMr0_FjfRVn-iw@rogers.com...
> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
www.gamerankings.com
Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
what would you expect people to say in the WoW group?
goto the GW group and ask there and most if not everyone will say GW is
better.
"Ryan" <r701e@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:io6dnRKXQMr0_FjfRVn-iw@rogers.com...
> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
what would you expect people to say in the WoW group?
goto the GW group and ask there and most if not everyone will say GW is
better.
"Ryan" <r701e@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:io6dnRKXQMr0_FjfRVn-iw@rogers.com...
> What is this newsgroups thoughts?
Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)
yes very true indeed, WHen GEW had its open beta for a week, i played it for
all of about 2 hours, didn't care for it at all, not because its not an mmo.
there was nothing appealing to it for me.
"Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam> wrote in message
news:daf6uh$84i$0@pita.alt.net...
> Lance Ballantyne wrote:
>> what would you expect people to say in the WoW group?
>> goto the GW group and ask there and most if not everyone will say GW
>> is better.
>
> It's apples and oranges anyway. It's like asking if Quake 2 is better
> than System Shock 2 - both may be FPS games, but their design is so
> dissimilar as to rebut all comparisons. In the end, both are great games
> for different reasons, and so are WoW and GW.
>
> Most of the people I've seen bash GW around here were expecting something
> like WoW, so their criticisms are more a reflection of their expectations
> and not of the game itself. GW is an excellent game, but it is not
> designed anything like WoW. If you love RPGs, you will love GW, but if
> you love RPGs only in an MMO context, GW is probably not your thing.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
>
> Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
> Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
yes very true indeed, WHen GEW had its open beta for a week, i played it for
all of about 2 hours, didn't care for it at all, not because its not an mmo.
there was nothing appealing to it for me.
"Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam> wrote in message
news:daf6uh$84i$0@pita.alt.net...
> Lance Ballantyne wrote:
>> what would you expect people to say in the WoW group?
>> goto the GW group and ask there and most if not everyone will say GW
>> is better.
>
> It's apples and oranges anyway. It's like asking if Quake 2 is better
> than System Shock 2 - both may be FPS games, but their design is so
> dissimilar as to rebut all comparisons. In the end, both are great games
> for different reasons, and so are WoW and GW.
>
> Most of the people I've seen bash GW around here were expecting something
> like WoW, so their criticisms are more a reflection of their expectations
> and not of the game itself. GW is an excellent game, but it is not
> designed anything like WoW. If you love RPGs, you will love GW, but if
> you love RPGs only in an MMO context, GW is probably not your thing.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
>
> Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
> Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Help in troubleshooting possible graphics card issue?
- Started by nort99
- Replies: 3
-
Question RX 6600 visual glitches right after upgrading to it- Started by Wamek
- Replies: 4
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram