Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is it about WOW........

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 6:22:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

....... which has enthused apparently so many ?

After I played CoH for a couple weeks before deep-sixing it [ I thought
it was a mindless pos ], I figured I was just burned out on MMORPG's,
or they ain't what they used to be.

I returned to UO, AO, EQ, The Realm, and others hoping to recapture what
was so great at the time, but fizzzzzzzzzzle.

Is WOW good ? I looked at some screen shots, and I swear I was seeing
little folks from EQ or DAoC.

Jim

More about : wow

Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 6:22:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <K1bUd.517212$Xk.230582@pd7tw3no>, bombelly@wahs.ac says...
> ...... which has enthused apparently so many ?
>
> After I played CoH for a couple weeks before deep-sixing it [ I thought
> it was a mindless pos ], I figured I was just burned out on MMORPG's,
> or they ain't what they used to be.
>
> I returned to UO, AO, EQ, The Realm, and others hoping to recapture what
> was so great at the time, but fizzzzzzzzzzle.
>
> Is WOW good ? I looked at some screen shots, and I swear I was seeing
> little folks from EQ or DAoC.
>
> Jim
>


The huge difference between WoW and the others is that leveling comes as
a side effect of PLAYING the game. The other games you are busy grinding
so you can get to the next level, in WoW you are playing the game and go
"Cool, I'm about to level..."

--
Rob Berryhill
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 7:21:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) once tried to test me with:

> ...... which has enthused apparently so many ?
>
> After I played CoH for a couple weeks before deep-sixing it [ I thought
> it was a mindless pos ], I figured I was just burned out on MMORPG's,
> or they ain't what they used to be.
>
> I returned to UO, AO, EQ, The Realm, and others hoping to recapture what
> was so great at the time, but fizzzzzzzzzzle.
>
> Is WOW good ? I looked at some screen shots, and I swear I was seeing
> little folks from EQ or DAoC.

I'm betting you won't like WoW either. Sounds like you're just burned on
the genre, dude.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 7:54:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Nope, I don't buy the "WoW isn't about leveling statement". I've been
playing it since release and like all MMORPG's, once the initial "WOW"
factor wears off its the same old same old underneath.

Nothing new, innovative or special about WoW. Unless you're a complete
Blizzard fanboy and are enthralled with the Warcraft world.

The "brick wall" is alive and well in WoW..its just covered a little
better..but most certainly reveals itself eventually.


"Rob Berryhill" <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8b319913a101f9896a0@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <K1bUd.517212$Xk.230582@pd7tw3no>, bombelly@wahs.ac says...
> > ...... which has enthused apparently so many ?
> >
> > After I played CoH for a couple weeks before deep-sixing it [ I thought
> > it was a mindless pos ], I figured I was just burned out on MMORPG's,
> > or they ain't what they used to be.
> >
> > I returned to UO, AO, EQ, The Realm, and others hoping to recapture what
> > was so great at the time, but fizzzzzzzzzzle.
> >
> > Is WOW good ? I looked at some screen shots, and I swear I was seeing
> > little folks from EQ or DAoC.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
>
> The huge difference between WoW and the others is that leveling comes as
> a side effect of PLAYING the game. The other games you are busy grinding
> so you can get to the next level, in WoW you are playing the game and go
> "Cool, I'm about to level..."
>
> --
> Rob Berryhill
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 8:57:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <Xns9609E363A7B1Eknight37m@130.133.1.4>,
Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>I'm betting you won't like WoW either. Sounds like you're just burned on
>the genre, dude.

You could be right Knight, but I hope not. I've never been a power gamer,
I like to smell the flowers. I'd hate to think each release is nothing more
than a copy of what went before with better graphics.

To this day I believe the games got off the track with the release of EQ.
No MMORPG came close to UO then or now. Can you imagine UO taken
to what it could have been ?

Jim
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 8:57:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:
>In article <Xns9609E363A7B1Eknight37m@130.133.1.4>,
>Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm betting you won't like WoW either. Sounds like you're just burned on
>>the genre, dude.
>
>You could be right Knight, but I hope not. I've never been a power gamer,
>I like to smell the flowers. I'd hate to think each release is nothing more
>than a copy of what went before with better graphics.
>
>To this day I believe the games got off the track with the release of EQ.
>No MMORPG came close to UO then or now. Can you imagine UO taken
>to what it could have been ?
>

Hah! Games got off the track with the release of UO.

Gemstone 3 is still the pinnacle. Graphics are for children.

-David
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 9:32:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:57:04 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:

>To this day I believe the games got off the track with the release of EQ.
>No MMORPG came close to UO then or now. Can you imagine UO taken
>to what it could have been ?

I can definitely understand where you're coming from. The one
suggestion I can make it: have you tried any private UO shards?
Players have long since decoded the UO client and its protocols and
have written server emulators on which you can play instead of using
EA's commercial servers. While EA has spent the past several years
trying to turn UO into a second-rate EQ clone, there are a lot of
shards based on what made UO great in the first place, being a true
virtual world.

A good place to start looking for private UO shards is:
http://www.gamesites200.com/ultimaonline/

There are hundreds of shards available (many really bad, just as fair
warning, but there's lots of good ones, too) and the come in just
about and flavor you might desire. If you can stand UO's outdated
graphics and want a fun online game, give some of them a try.
February 27, 2005 12:14:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-27, Joiner <joiner@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have since left it for City of Heroes (going back after leaving last july
> it is a better game now) and also I went to EQ2

I resubbed to CoH and found blasters are just as squishy as they
were before if not more. I'm going to give it another try tonight
but in all seriousness I'm really not into another round of
nerfs by Statesman while he tells me I'm going to have more fun
getting pounded on.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 2:29:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> writes:

> Nope, I don't buy the "WoW isn't about leveling statement". I've been
> playing it since release and like all MMORPG's, once the initial "WOW"
> factor wears off its the same old same old underneath.

Then don't look underneath, but enjoy the crafted world, the quests
and storylines they reveal.

Would you avoid buying a new car because it's just a vehicle with four
wheels and an engine like your last one?

> Nothing new, innovative or special about WoW.

Yes, there is in the approacability/simplicity, the reduction of
killstealing, the lack of mob training (basically mobs run back to
where they were if they lose interest in someone)...

> Unless you're a complete Blizzard fanboy and are enthralled with the
> Warcraft world.

Or like the MMORPG genre and consider WoW to be one of the better
implementations thereof.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 4:34:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Rob Berryhill" <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8b319913a101f9896a0@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <K1bUd.517212$Xk.230582@pd7tw3no>, bombelly@wahs.ac says...
>> ...... which has enthused apparently so many ?
> The huge difference between WoW and the others is that leveling comes as
> a side effect of PLAYING the game. The other games you are busy grinding
> so you can get to the next level, in WoW you are playing the game and go
> "Cool, I'm about to level..."

You can do that in CoH and EQ2 as well.

Unless of course you havent even bothered to play EQ2 in the past month,
during which time they have released more content than Blizzard has in 3
months, which is ZERO

http://patchtimer.org/
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 4:34:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Why the hell do you need content, the world is massive and the game is new.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 10:05:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote in
news:slrnd23oun.4nk.shadows@helena.whitefang.com:

> On 2005-02-27, Joiner <joiner@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have since left it for City of Heroes (going back after leaving
>> last july it is a better game now) and also I went to EQ2
>
> I resubbed to CoH and found blasters are just as squishy as they
> were before if not more. I'm going to give it another try tonight
> but in all seriousness I'm really not into another round of
> nerfs by Statesman while he tells me I'm going to have more fun
> getting pounded on.

Blasters are supposed to be squishy. That hasn't changed at all since CoH
first came out. Hence why they are called (along with defenders and
controllers) squishies. If you want to play an AT that is not going to get
one- or two-shotted, try a tank or (to a lesser extent) a scrapper.


--
Marcel and Moogli
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 10:46:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

David Bilek <dtbilek@comcast.net> once tried to test me with:

> Gemstone 3 is still the pinnacle. Graphics are for children.

Yeah, and beautiful women are for shallow guys who just think with their
cock.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 10:50:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> once tried to test me with:

> Nothing new, innovative or special about WoW. Unless you're a complete
> Blizzard fanboy and are enthralled with the Warcraft world.

ROFL. Whatever. That's the funny thing about Blizzard. Their games are so
good some people just can't seem to stand it and have to try and belittle
the game and the people that like the game. You don't see many other games
or game companies get this kind of attention. It must be a weird type of
complement in a way.

Like the poeple that hate celbrities because they are successful.

Envy is an ugly emotion.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 10:54:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Joiner" <joiner@hotmail.com> once tried to test me with:

>
> "Rob Berryhill" <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c8b319913a101f9896a0@news.central.cox.net...
>> In article <K1bUd.517212$Xk.230582@pd7tw3no>, bombelly@wahs.ac says...
>>> ...... which has enthused apparently so many ?
>> The huge difference between WoW and the others is that leveling comes as
>> a side effect of PLAYING the game. The other games you are busy grinding
>> so you can get to the next level, in WoW you are playing the game and go
>> "Cool, I'm about to level..."
>
> You can do that in CoH and EQ2 as well.
>
> Unless of course you havent even bothered to play EQ2 in the past month,
> during which time they have released more content than Blizzard has in 3
> months, which is ZERO

Yah, EQ2 is so good they're lowering the price on it just to be friendly.
And CoH is $10 now at Best Buy.

BTW, I haven't even come close to finishing the content that was released
on day 1 of WoW, so why would I care if they had more of it? I am GLAD they
aren't pumping out more content, they need to be focused on fixing the
technical issues. That's WAY more important than adding a new instance.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 11:49:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <59q221lh08it1dhi3j2buj0k1e6pkuo3f2@4ax.com
>, drocket <drocket@hotmail.com> wrote:

< snipped >

>A good place to start looking for private UO shards is:
>http://www.gamesites200.com/ultimaonline/
>
>There are hundreds of shards available (many really bad, just as fair
>warning, but there's lots of good ones, too) and the come in just
>about and flavor you might desire. If you can stand UO's outdated
>graphics and want a fun online game, give some of them a try.


Thanks for the link, I never did try any of the private shards. I should.

I think I'm probably a bit strange, I like UO's graphics. lol

Jim
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 27, 2005 11:54:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Joiner" <joiner@hotmail.com> writes:

> You can do that in CoH and EQ2 as well.

Except when you run into the "mission drought" periods (level 4, level
8, etc.) where you need to whack street trash until you get to a
"security level" where a contact wants to give you something to do.

In WoW, just find a quest-giving NPC in a different zone. There is
none of that "waiting for a current contact to refer you to someone"
stuff - the quest NPCs are all over the place, eager to get you to do
something.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 12:26:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:

>That's the funny thing about Blizzard. Their games are so
>good some people just can't seem to stand it

Jesus jumping jehovah, I thought I was a Planescape fanboi, but I'm
starting to realize that I've got *nothing* on the Blizzard crowd.


--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 12:27:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
with:

> Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>That's the funny thing about Blizzard. Their games are so
>>good some people just can't seem to stand it
>
> Jesus jumping jehovah, I thought I was a Planescape fanboi, but I'm
> starting to realize that I've got *nothing* on the Blizzard crowd.

Search your feelings, Mean, you KNOW it to be TRUE.

You don't know the POWER of the Blizzard.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 1:32:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:49:27 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:

>Thanks for the link, I never did try any of the private shards. I should.
>
>I think I'm probably a bit strange, I like UO's graphics. lol
>
>Jim

I don't think its strange at all. The third-person view makes UO far
more of a social game than EQ & company. The way that chat text
appears over character's heads makes conversations feel more 'real'
(for lack of a better word) and makes it much easier to get involved
in a discussion than with the now-standard chat window method,
especially when you have multiple people talking at once. UO was
built from the ground up to be a social game, and it shows.

In addition, the way items work just feels far more natural than
anything anyone else has done. The backpack interface is far more
natural and intuitive than the the artificial 'each item takes up a
block' interface of other games. The fact that you can simply pick up
items and put them anywhere you want is far more realistic than
anything any other game has done.

UO's graphics are definitely rather dated, but you're far from alone
in liking them better than anything else on the market. The fact that
UO is still alive and going strong shows that, and the fact that
there's THOUSANDS of private shards, many of them having been around
for years, provides even more evidence.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 2:33:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

drocket <drocket@hotmail.com> once tried to test me with:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:49:27 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the link, I never did try any of the private shards. I should.
>>
>>I think I'm probably a bit strange, I like UO's graphics. lol
>>
>>Jim
>
> I don't think its strange at all. The third-person view makes UO far
> more of a social game than EQ & company.

Define "& company".

A lot of games nowadays are using 3rd person viewpoints.

> The way that chat text
> appears over character's heads makes conversations feel more 'real'

See CoH. Personally, I think it fits CoH very well but I'm glad it doesn't
do that in WoW.

> (for lack of a better word) and makes it much easier to get involved
> in a discussion than with the now-standard chat window method,
> especially when you have multiple people talking at once.

Pretty hard to follow the conversation if you miss a few bubbles though.

> UO was built from the ground up to be a social game, and it shows.

EQ was the very definition of social game.

One might argue that UO, as originally designed, with its Mandatory PK, was
the "antisocial" game.

> In addition, the way items work just feels far more natural than
> anything anyone else has done. The backpack interface is far more
> natural and intuitive than the the artificial 'each item takes up a
> block' interface of other games.

I didn't like it in UO and I didn't like it in U7. I prefer the "blocks"
method of Diablo, WoW, EQ, etc. I prefer to keep track of blocks rather
than keep track of weight. I can see how the UO method is more REALISTIC,
but I don't see how it is more FUN.

> UO's graphics are definitely rather dated, but you're far from alone
> in liking them better than anything else on the market. The fact that
> UO is still alive and going strong shows that, and the fact that
> there's THOUSANDS of private shards, many of them having been around
> for years, provides even more evidence.

The shards prove that the game is fun enough not to have to pay for.
There are still people who play text MUDs too.

I'm not knocking UO, though, if other people like it, fine. More power to
'em. It's good that it can still put out expansions and make a profit.

I just don't think it is in any way superior to the latest offerings.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 3:34:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <Xns960AB29759265knight37m@130.133.1.4>,
Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>One might argue that UO, as originally designed, with its Mandatory PK, was
>the "antisocial" game.

I played from Day1 for quite awhile, and then on and off, and I could
count the number of times I got whacked on one hand. Although I wasn't
interested in PK'ing, or any form of PvP, I liked the fact the threat existed,
they were just another monster to avoid, or a reason to travel with company.
Once I learned the game and got more skilled the pk's became nothing
more than a diversion to laugh at. Then they divided the world, and it became
moot.

>The shards prove that the game is fun enough not to have to pay for.
>There are still people who play text MUDs too.

Heh, I don't think that's logical. People would flock to play your WOW
for free too. :-)


>I'm not knocking UO, though, if other people like it, fine. More power to
>'em. It's good that it can still put out expansions and make a profit.
>
>I just don't think it is in any way superior to the latest offerings.


I think you have to un-blanket that statement. UO still has many things
which are vastly superior to anything else out there. There is no game
with allows for the degree of interaction with the environment as UO.
Just think how amazing it is that as one example, you could step into
the world, brand new, use your starting weapon and kill a bird, take it's
feathers, use your axe and chop down a tree, make a bow and shafts,
fletch arrows, use you bow to kill some animals, skin them and make
armor and clothing, and tame a horse to ride in just one afternoon.

It's why I often thought it would be great to see the game with just monsters,
no npc's in shops etc. Just plop people into the world and see what develops
where human players have to supply everything, build everything and police
everything.

Jim
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 3:34:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>I played from Day1 for quite awhile, and then on and off, and I could
>count the number of times I got whacked on one hand. Although I wasn't
>interested in PK'ing, or any form of PvP, I liked the fact the threat existed,
>they were just another monster to avoid, or a reason to travel with company.
>Once I learned the game and got more skilled the pk's became nothing
>more than a diversion to laugh at.

Yes, and it didn't take long to figure out how to avoid being PK'ed.
On the outdoor map, it usually reduced to "just don't stop and gawk."

C//
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 5:30:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) once tried to test me with:

> In article <Xns960AB29759265knight37m@130.133.1.4>,
> Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>>One might argue that UO, as originally designed, with its Mandatory
>>PK, was the "antisocial" game.
>
> I played from Day1 for quite awhile, and then on and off, and I could
> count the number of times I got whacked on one hand.

I can count the number of times I got ganked on one hand too. And then
that's about the time I decided UO was not fun, and quit. :) 

UO created the very definition of "Griefer". I don't have to try and prove
my point. Just go back and read some web sites from that time and there
will be tons and tons of testimony to support my argument. If any of that
is still online.

>>The shards prove that the game is fun enough not to have to pay for.
>>There are still people who play text MUDs too.
>
> Heh, I don't think that's logical. People would flock to play your WOW
> for free too. :-)

Sure, no doubt. But trying to say UO is popular because it has tons of free
shards...

>>I'm not knocking UO, though, if other people like it, fine. More power
>>to 'em. It's good that it can still put out expansions and make a
>>profit.
>>
>>I just don't think it is in any way superior to the latest offerings.
>
> I think you have to un-blanket that statement. UO still has many
> things which are vastly superior to anything else out there.

> There is
> no game with allows for the degree of interaction with the environment
> as UO. Just think how amazing it is that as one example, you could
> step into the world, brand new, use your starting weapon and kill a
> bird, take it's feathers, use your axe and chop down a tree, make a
> bow and shafts, fletch arrows, use you bow to kill some animals, skin
> them and make armor and clothing, and tame a horse to ride in just one
> afternoon.

And all of that bores me to tears. That is not "Superior" it's just
"different."

BTW, just about everything you kill in WoW produces something you can use
in crafting. And there are resources scattered around that you can collect
also. The only thing it doesn't have is wood, but then, there's no need for
wood because there's nothing in the game (so far) that requires wood to
make.

> It's why I often thought it would be great to see the game with just
> monsters, no npc's in shops etc. Just plop people into the world and
> see what develops where human players have to supply everything, build
> everything and police everything.

That didn't work out so well for AC2...

In WoW, the only thing you NEED vendors for are:

1. Repair of gear. Not sure why the hell they didn't make this a player
skill, would have made perfect sense.

2. A way to sell stuff that is "vendor trash" to get more money.

3. A place to buy consumables when there aren't any players around who can
sell it, like food, ammo, etc. This stuff can be bought from players but
usually it's easier to get it from a vendor if no one is selling nearby.

4. Some tradeskill supplies, like bottles for potions, or dye for
leatherworking, etc. These things can not be crafted by other players (at
least, not so far).

5. Some reagents for certain spellcasters.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 5:39:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 28 Feb 2005 02:17:56 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>Most games let you rotate the camera and put it pretty much whereever.
>Frankly I find that behind shoulder the camera, but not RIGHT behind, is
>the most friendly for me.
I would have to agree/confess that, ideally, a game should have a
rotatable camera so you can pick whatever viewpoint you want. UO's 2D
graphic engine is badly out-of-date at this point. What I like about
it, though, is the viewpoint. You can sorta-kinda set up an overhead
view in EQ and others with movable cameras, but its always clear that
the option was just something thrown together quickly and with as
little work as possible - your always wind up not being able to see
your character because buildings and trees are in the way.

My own ideal vision of a MMORPG would have high-quality 3D graphics
with a camera system able to do an overhead 3/4 perspective at least
as well as UO's (but with other camera options that would be available
because the 3d-ness of the world.)

>The only major difference between CoH and EQ is that you run around in
>tights instead of armor. ;) 

I'll take the armor over the tights, thank you very much :p 

>? the difference?

Heh, sorry. Must have spaced out there or something :p  The
difference is that its not the only option (or even the best one.)

>Umm.... Okay. So what "reasons" are there in UO to talk to other players,
>that aren't there in EQ?

A big one used to be crafting. At this point, though, OSI has moved
on to an EQ-style uber-loot system in which crafted items are utterly
worthless because anyone who's played more than a month has 5 sets of
armor that are far better than anything players can make.

>You are aware of the high-level of banter that typically went on in EQ
>totally unrelated to grouping, are you not?

Yep. Actually, that was one of the reasons I hated the game: 90% of
the players were jerks and idiots that I wanted nothing to do with.
UO's 2D graphics do have one major advantage: the filter out a whole
lot of 14 year olds.

>Riiiiiight. Except that's not at all how it works. In EQ you can filter out
>stuff you don't need to see for one thing,
Most of it is stuff that you do need to see, or at least should see.
And its all information that you CAN see in UO with much less stress
because UO's presentation of the information is much better. You can
easily see where all the monsters are, where all your fellow players
are, what monsters are casting what spells (or taking other special
actions), how much life several different monsters and players have at
the moment and more - all with one glance. The information that's
easy to digest in UO becomes an overwhelming flood of spam in EQ and
most other similar games.

> but for another, you don't sit
>there and have an idle conversation during the middle of battle!
I know I didn't give a good example there, but there are a lot of
conversation topics that need to go on during battle. I won't even
get into downtime, which UO virtually doesn't have :p 

>Oh really? So combat was so simplistic that you can just sit there and type
>away oblivious to what is happening?
What's so complicated about EQ? For warriors, you turn on auto-attack
and occasionally click the 'kick' button. For spellcasters, you
root/debuff and sit until the monster is mostly dead and then nuke.
For healers, you sit until someone is seriously hurt, stand up and
throw a heal and sit back down.

>No, there were free shards as soon as someone invented the UO server
>emulator program, which was maybe 6-12 months after it launched. The reason
>for the shards entire existance is so that people could play and not pay.
>There are shards that are nothing more than exact clones to the pay
>servers. Or at least, there were, back when I actually looked into this.

True. Personally, I'm not terribly fond of most of those shards
because they're usually run by someone on a power trip (often who only
plays on private shards because they were banned on OSI for some
reason or another.) Still, though, there's a lot of shards that
differ significantly from the OSI experience. Actually, I think the
number of shards that try to emulate OSI in all ways is probably at an
all-time low: a lot of shards that used to emulate OSI have broken
off on their own since AOS.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 5:57:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <Xns960ACE7F7F7knight37m@130.133.1.4>,
Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>Umm.... Okay. So what "reasons" are there in UO to talk to other players,
>that aren't there in EQ?

I think one reason is because UO is a skill based system, and there's more
likelihood of encountering and sharing activities with other players regardless
of how long they've been playing or where they are in the world.

That's rather clumsy wording but in the other games, you'll have areas
populated by specific level players much more than UO. Any newb can
really go anywhere in UO. It's not unusual to see veteran players standing
side by side and chatting with newbs as they both are chopping down trees,
or mining, or in dungeons even if the player can't whack anything, but he/she
can experience it and collect some loot. Activities in other games are much
more level-specific imo.

Jim
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 7:16:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <Xns960AD6FDC2662knight37m@130.133.1.4>,
Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>EQ's crafting is pretty sad. But you CAN trade crafted things with other
>players, its just that you don't HAVE to, there's usually a way to get
>stuff from looting or quests.

You didn't / don't HAVE to in UO either. The difference being you _could_
create high quality trade items if you were so disposed. Just another option
UO offered superior to the others. :-)

>This is exactly opposite my experience. In UO I had to deal with l337 d3wdz
>that wanted to PK me and take my stuff. And then brag about it. There were
>tons of 14-yo's in UO when it was first launched. And they all were little
>antisocial freaks.

Never encountered one of them. I think so much of what you experienced
was a product of where you started and how you played. [ not blaming the
victim here <g> ] I started in Yew, it didn't even have a bank at the time, we
heard the road to Britannia was dangerous, so a group formed to make the
journey to shop. I bought a dye tub and some dye and scooted my scared
butt back to Yew. Standing outside the bow shop where newbs spawned, I
thought I died and went to heaven when I could dye newbie pants and shirts
for 5 gold each. Nothing in my gaming experience can ever match that. I was
totally blown away. Talking and playing with the nicest people from all over
the continent in real time--it truly was amazing.

Jim
February 28, 2005 10:36:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake shadows <shadows@whitefang.com>, Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:14:11 -0600,
Anno Domini:

>On 2005-02-27, Joiner <joiner@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have since left it for City of Heroes (going back after leaving last july
>> it is a better game now) and also I went to EQ2
>
>I resubbed to CoH and found blasters are just as squishy as they
>were before if not more. I'm going to give it another try tonight
>but in all seriousness I'm really not into another round of
>nerfs by Statesman while he tells me I'm going to have more fun
>getting pounded on.

OMFG! Smoke-boy is back! Head for the hills heroes!

Good class to play for you: moocher or begger - you can stand around w/o
doin anything & get heaps of xp/inf in total safety. ;-p

Seriously, what server shady? . o O (please God, don't let me say Virtue,
please, please, PLEASE - arggghhhhhhhh!@#$%$^*&&!!!)



--
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 1:22:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

WoW and EQ2 are boring. Stay with EQ1 or DAOC.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 3:26:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:32:24 GMT, drocket <drocket@hotmail.com> wrote:

>A good place to start looking for private UO shards is:
>http://www.gamesites200.com/ultimaonline/

Ok how does this work? I just buy the client and play the game for
free from month to month by choosing one of these private servers
instead of the official ones?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 3:38:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 28 Feb 2005 02:30:37 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>1. Repair of gear. Not sure why the hell they didn't make this a player
>skill, would have made perfect sense.

Repairing of gear is in the game to act as a money sink. Giving
players the ability to repair items removes that money sink.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 5:20:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:9bCdnRzxMoZcBbzfRVn-vQ@rogers.com...

> Nothing new, innovative or special about WoW. Unless you're a complete
> Blizzard fanboy

In case you didn't realize it, you just met Blizzard fanboy #1 in Mr.
Berryhill, so your instincts are correct. ;->

Not that WoW isn't a good game deserving of its attention and success (leave
me alone, fanboys, I like the game just fine)!

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 6:04:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:

>>I thought I was a Planescape fanboi, but I'm
>> starting to realize that I've got *nothing* on the Blizzard crowd.
>
>Search your feelings, Mean, you KNOW it to be TRUE.
>
>You don't know the POWER of the Blizzard.

<scratches head> No, I guess I don't. Perhaps I should try WoW after
all, despite the graphics.


--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 6:04:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:04:19 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>I thought I was a Planescape fanboi, but I'm
>>> starting to realize that I've got *nothing* on the Blizzard crowd.
>>
>>Search your feelings, Mean, you KNOW it to be TRUE.
>>
>>You don't know the POWER of the Blizzard.
>
><scratches head> No, I guess I don't. Perhaps I should try WoW after
>all, despite the graphics.

Be sure to ask everyone you meet if they have a spare "Godly plate of the
whale" for you.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 8:00:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <112760qfg9h9p06@news.supernews.com>,
myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE says...
>
> "Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:9bCdnRzxMoZcBbzfRVn-vQ@rogers.com...
>
> > Nothing new, innovative or special about WoW. Unless you're a complete
> > Blizzard fanboy
>
> In case you didn't realize it, you just met Blizzard fanboy #1 in Mr.
> Berryhill, so your instincts are correct. ;->

Sigh. You just don't get it, Bob. I have no vested interest in Blizzard
at all and am as far from a "fanboy" as you can be. I'm extremely
critical of games when there are problems, but my main priority in a
game is for it to be, /boggle, FUN. It just happens that WoW is fun and
that Blizzard makes it.

Warcraft 3 and Starcraft, on the other hand . . . well, let's just say
I'll keep my opinion to myself to avoid an all out flamefest coming my
way.

--
Rob Berryhill
February 28, 2005 9:32:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake drocket <drocket@hotmail.com>, Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:39:45 GMT,
Anno Domini:

>My own ideal vision of a MMORPG would have high-quality 3D graphics
>with a camera system able to do an overhead 3/4 perspective at least
>as well as UO's (but with other camera options that would be available
>because the 3d-ness of the world.)

Already exists: CoH. You won't find a better implementation of the camera on
or offline, period.

--
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 10:26:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:
>
[snip]
> Is WOW good ? I looked at some screen shots, and I swear I was seeing
> little folks from EQ or DAoC.

The artwork is very much different then in those two games. But the
gameplay? There are elements of each in WoW.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 10:33:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:26:52 -0500, Mike S. <mike@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Ok how does this work? I just buy the client and play the game for
>free from month to month by choosing one of these private servers
>instead of the official ones?

Actually, you don't even need to buy the client: EA has it available
for free as part of their 15 day free trial at FilePlanet. It doesn't
include the latest expansion pack, but most free shards haven't caught
up to including that yet anyway (and most won't absolutely require it
even when they do.)

One you have the UO client installed, all you have to do is find a
shard that you like the looks of (it'll probably take you a few tries
before you find a shard that you feel comfortable with. Don't expect
to be perfectly happy with your first pick. Try a few and see which
one you like best.) Some shards simply let anyone join, while others
have a strict application process to screen out 'undesirables'
(personally, I usually prefer the later type of shards because they
usually are more strict about enforcing rules, but the former type
usually have a lot more players. Its a personal preference thing,
really.)

There's usually 2 main methods used to connect to a private shards
(instead of OSI):
1) You download some custom files and stick them in your UO
directory. Most shards just use a custom executable program and
login.cfg to tell the client to connect to the private shard instead
of EA's servers, while others go whole-hog and replace data files.
That means custom maps, custom houses, custom graphics, and more.
2) You download UOGateway and run it instead of the client. You tell
UOGateway the address of the shard you want to play on. It then
starts the client for you and 'tweaks' it so that it connects to the
new server instead of EA's.

The UOGateway method is the newer one and is usually a bit simpler
(especially if you're going to be doing a lot of shard-hopping, since
you don't need to worry about swapping files), but the tried-and-true
first method is pretty simple too. There's really nothing complicated
about playing on private shards.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 28, 2005 10:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:QidUd.519520$6l.98038@pd7tw2no...
> In article <Xns9609E363A7B1Eknight37m@130.133.1.4>,
> To this day I believe the games got off the track with the release of EQ.
> No MMORPG came close to UO then or now. Can you imagine UO taken
> to what it could have been ?

It's called SW:G.
Have fun. =p

--
Simond
"I ask for so little. Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your
slave." - Jareth the Goblin King, Labyrinth
February 28, 2005 10:42:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-28, Simond <apocalypsecow@spamfilterdeletemeplease.dsl.pipex.net> wrote:
>
> "foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
> news:QidUd.519520$6l.98038@pd7tw2no...
>> In article <Xns9609E363A7B1Eknight37m@130.133.1.4>,
>> To this day I believe the games got off the track with the release of EQ.
>> No MMORPG came close to UO then or now. Can you imagine UO taken
>> to what it could have been ?
>
> It's called SW:G.
> Have fun. =p

Not anymore. The last two updates began the long road on killing
the in-game economy, removing the wordliness, and increasing
mobs, spawns, and bringing in combat balance. It's becoming a
WoW.

In fact in about a year I predict all MMOs wil be the mad
kill/loot type and not the worldly type UO and SWG tried to be.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 1:04:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <uWwUd.522411$Xk.400219@pd7tw3no>, bombelly@wahs.ac says...

> Never encountered one of them. I think so much of what you experienced
> was a product of where you started and how you played. [ not blaming the
> victim here <g> ] I started in Yew, it didn't even have a bank at the time, we
> heard the road to Britannia was dangerous, so a group formed to make the
> journey to shop. I bought a dye tub and some dye and scooted my scared
> butt back to Yew. Standing outside the bow shop where newbs spawned, I
> thought I died and went to heaven when I could dye newbie pants and shirts
> for 5 gold each. Nothing in my gaming experience can ever match that. I was
> totally blown away. Talking and playing with the nicest people from all over
> the continent in real time--it truly was amazing.

I just want to say one thing:

I don't think UO was designed as a game. Rather, I believe UO was
designed as a world. It followed Origin's motto at the time.
--
-==[UDIC]==-
http://www.fictionpress.com/~wtcher
Note: This post is composed of 100% post-consumer material.
This birdy likes no spam. :>
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 4:30:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> once tried to test me with:

> Thus spake drocket <drocket@hotmail.com>, Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:39:45
> GMT, Anno Domini:
>
>>My own ideal vision of a MMORPG would have high-quality 3D graphics
>>with a camera system able to do an overhead 3/4 perspective at least
>>as well as UO's (but with other camera options that would be available
>>because the 3d-ness of the world.)
>
> Already exists: CoH. You won't find a better implementation of the
> camera on or offline, period.

You can't really use the camera in CoH to something weird while controlling
your character, it's too hard to steer. At least, I found myself unable to
drive correctly unless the camera is behind my character. When I got it off
a bit to the side it made the driving controls to weird. And I didn't see a
way to do an Ultima Online style view so I'm pretty sure it's not going to
satisfy Drocket in that manner.

But it is very flexible for taking screenshots or just looking around at
things while not trying to move (or while on auto-run).

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 5:03:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Ixe-13" <Ixe-13@hahaha.ha> once tried to test me with:

> WoW and EQ2 are boring. Stay with EQ1 or DAOC.

Riiight. DAOC. The only MMOG I ever bought and didn't even finish playing
out the free month.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 5:17:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <Xns960BCBDB94935knight37m@130.133.1.4
>, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

<snipped>

>I'm also on Thunderhorn (normal) and have a character Rez there (horde). I
>don't play there often though. It's low-pop. I use it for when AD is down
>(but it rarely is). It is difficult to find groups on TH, and it is almost
>devoid of any chatter. I literally played for 2 hours the other night and
>did not see a single message come across the general chat channel. But
>there is zero lag. :)  Also I am Horde there, the Alliance may be
>different. So on a low-pop server, and maybe 1/4 of the Alliance pop. Most
>likely this is the one of the least-populated places you can play the game.
>
>Knight37

OK, OK, OK. ENOUGH ! I'm convinced. <G>

I'm going to upgrade my video card tomorrow and try and find a copy.
If it isn't good, I'm coming for ya ! :-)

Jim
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 5:20:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

drocket <drocket@hotmail.com> once tried to test me with:

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:26:52 -0500, Mike S. <mike@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Ok how does this work? I just buy the client and play the game for
>>free from month to month by choosing one of these private servers
>>instead of the official ones?
>
> Actually, you don't even need to buy the client: EA has it available
> for free as part of their 15 day free trial at FilePlanet. It doesn't

<snip detailed instructions>

Well this thread has inspired me (not to mention the price is right) to
give UO another try, once my free COH time is over that is.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 5:22:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mike S. <mike@nowhere.com> once tried to test me with:

> On 28 Feb 2005 02:30:37 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>>1. Repair of gear. Not sure why the hell they didn't make this a player
>>skill, would have made perfect sense.
>
> Repairing of gear is in the game to act as a money sink. Giving
> players the ability to repair items removes that money sink.

You could have costs involved in doing it though. That would be the money
sink, the repairing itself then becomes a comodity like the other
tradeskills are. The costs for doing repair could be cheaper than having a
vendor do it, and room for a little wiggle, so that players could fluctuate
their prices up to but not over the vendor repair prices.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 5:24:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> once tried to test me with:

> In fact in about a year I predict all MMOs wil be the mad
> kill/loot type and not the worldly type UO and SWG tried to be.

Or maybe someone realizes that this is a niche market that can still be
profitable and makes a game that services that market but doesn't try to be
a mass market success.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 5:25:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> once tried to
test me with:

>
> "Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:9bCdnRzxMoZcBbzfRVn-vQ@rogers.com...
>
>> Nothing new, innovative or special about WoW. Unless you're a
>> complete Blizzard fanboy
>
> In case you didn't realize it, you just met Blizzard fanboy #1 in Mr.
> Berryhill, so your instincts are correct. ;->
>
> Not that WoW isn't a good game deserving of its attention and success
> (leave me alone, fanboys, I like the game just fine)!

No way D00d!

*I'M* the Blizzard fanboy around HERE!!!

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 5:52:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) once tried to test me with:

> I'm going to upgrade my video card tomorrow and try and find a copy.
> If it isn't good, I'm coming for ya ! :-)

I hope you are not disappointed. What video card do you have now, btw? Also
your other specs?



--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 1, 2005 6:58:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <Xns960BD46CF5A67knight37m@130.133.1.4>
, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) once tried to test me with:
>
>> I'm going to upgrade my video card tomorrow and try and find a copy.
>> If it isn't good, I'm coming for ya ! :-)
>
>I hope you are not disappointed. What video card do you have now, btw? Also
>your other specs?


I have a Geforce 2 but I'm looking at picking up an ATI Radeon 9600XT-256MB--
I can pick it up here in Vancouver for 200 bucks CAN. I've got an overclocked
2600 Barton with a gig of RAM, so I should be OK ?

Except I phoned every chain and individual store I could think of within 50
miles and they're all sold out. :-( Any online outlets you know of have it
and ship pronto to Canada ?

Jim
!