Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wrapping up with WoW

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • Games
  • World Of Warcraft
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 6:39:53 AM

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

WoW is certainly a pretty game, I honestly never understood the complaints
about its "cartoonishness", I found it gorgeous. The PvP has great potential
(the kiss-of-death "p" word), although currently it seems a bit pointless.
The crafting system has some great ideas but isn't terribly fun imo. The
combat mechanics, however, are quite fun. I'd say that while my wife and I
played the game, this was the one thing that we enjoyed the most. Coming up
on a pack of mobs, her Rogue would Sap one and start wailing on another. I
would try and pull aggro with my Paladin and heal enough to get some good
ping-pong aggro happening. Backstab seemed weak in comparison to other
abilities but her other positional attacks were quite fun and effective. My
Seals were ok, my stun was fun, but mostly I enjoyed bashing things over the
head and managing Seals, Auras and Judgments, the tactical possibilities
were fabulous. Because the game supported soloing so effectively, we were
able to go through most of our quests and instances as a duo, pulling in
occasional groups for instance completion and other tough challenges. These
are the things I remember most fondly about the WoW experience.

But ultimately it wasn't enough to sustain interest. I won't go into all the
reasons, I think they've been pretty well covered by others and anyway the
discussion would inevitably degenerate into a flamefest and the temptation
will be too strong to respond and get defensive, so I'll just make my
comments and move on. I haven't run into too many posters here who've
reasonably articulated what they liked about the game while avoiding the
name calling and insults, but there are a few and to them I say Thanks for
the discussion and here's to a solid future of updates that continue to
deliver richer content and more stability. If WoW were my only choice for an
MMOG right now, I might very well still be playing. But at level 48 (of 50)
in EQ2, I'm far beyond the point of a meaningful comparison anymore, too
captivated by the challenges of Norrath and its astonishing content, and
unable (and I guess unwilling) to give WoW any more cycles at this time. The
WoW stability issues were a factor in the decision, too, after a while it
became too easy for us to turn a night that was planned for WoW into a
"Let's go finish that EQ2 quest instead" experience, particularly when we
couldn't log on, or had to wait in some bigass queue.

I've said it before and I'll say it this one last time as I wrap up my
involvement with WoW and cancel my two accounts: the biggest downside and
turnoff in my experience was the predominantly kiddie population. I think
without a single exception, every time my wife and I attempted to group with
others we wound up scratching our heads wondering how on earth these players
ever advanced as far as they had. It was truly astonishing the number of
morons, social misfits and just plain selfish brats we ran into on our
server. I suspect we mighthave had a better experience on one of the
roleplaying servers where more adults play; I wish in retrospect we'd done
that instead of trying to play on the server where our son and his friends
play.

When I'm in-game (in either world), I'm amazed at how one-sided each camp
seems to be about its preference. The WoW fanatics usually resort to
name-calling and childish insults when discussing EQ2 and there is
inevitable reliance on WoW's enormous popularity as a validation of its
superiority, while the EQ2 elitists condescendingly reference WoW's
"cartoonishness", shallow quests and legendary server problems. Both sides
overstate their case, and in the end I think the real differences have more
to do with the players going into the game and their expectations for a
community. There's the classic EQ crowd looking for lengthy, substantive,
challenging content, and then there's the action-oriented group that favors
dueling, PvP, quick battles and doesn't want to bother with a death penalty
or too much dialog. Kill-reward, kill-reward, that was actually the mantra
that Bill Roper once used to describe the formula behind Diablo's success,
and his successors have done an excellent job bringing that ethic into the
MMOG world.

My bias is plain and undisguised: I prefer EverQuest. But I also understand
why there are *many* more people who prefer WoW. To use an old analogy I
used during beta, EverQuest II is a classic vintage Bordeaux with depth and
complexity, a little tannic still and a bit of an acquired taste for the
young palette, but I'm dazzled by the complexity and flavor, and delirious
with enthusiasm over what it will become as it ages in the cask. World of
Warcraft is a cool can of Pepsi, refreshing, ice-cold, easy to chug and
sweet. I enjoy both and I think I understand why others enjoy their
preference but I prefer to sit at the wine-tasting table for this one. I
also realize how this comparison comes off sounding, but that's as honest a
comparison as I can make. ;-)

--
Redbeard, the Lore Seeker
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of Qeynos Harbor
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie

More about : wrapping wow

Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 10:45:46 AM

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

I'm coming from the other direction, started in EQ2 and switched to
WoW.
As an impartial guy this is what I like and dislike of each game:
Graphics: Both are great, EQ2 are spectacular, and although before
playing it I thought WoW graphics were too 'cartoonish', after playing
it I've learned to love them, as much as those in EQ2.
Quests: This is what I love about WoW. Quests I can do without
needing anyone, I can connect, advance or finish one or two quests and
disconnect, not having to wait for 5 other people. I think EQ2 took
the wrong approach here, people can solo mobs if they want, but if they
want to complete most quests they need a group. I prefer the contrary,
quests that I can complete, but if I want to kill mobs for faster exp
or for 'uber lewt' then get a group and tackle the bigger and more
dangerous areas
World: WoW wins here big time too. I am free to go (almost) anywhere
I want, whenever I want. If the area is too dangerous for me, that's
for me to decide. I hate EQ2 requiring me to do access quests to get
anywhere I want to go past lvl 20 or so. I'm ok with access quests for
some very dangerous (i.e. uber lewt zones), but EQ2 took it to the
extreme.
Combat: I like EQ2 better, fights in WoW end too quick, at most some
6 seconds. When I group with someone else it's almost a waste of time
as by the time my spell is going, the mob is dead, unless you fight
elite mobs but these are far and between (unless you 'farm' them I
guess)
Grouping: EQ2 hands down. There is almost no reason to group in WoW,
and the few times you do group it's just to finish a particularly tough
quest, in which case, group forms, fight lasts 5 seconds, group
dissolves. Am I contradicting myself? Not really, I like grouping,
but I don't want to need a group to do quests, as these are my
'personal' quests, I should be able do them myself. I think it would
be much better if fights lasted some 20 seconds (yielding 4 times more
exp), so when you group you see a real benefit (faster killing, less
downtime, etc)
Crafting: EQ2 hands down. The actual crafting process in EQ2 can be as
exciting sometimes as a tough fight, instead of the 'click and forget'
approach in WoW. I do like the auction system in WoW, although a good
tradeoff in EQ2 would just be having NPC merchants in your house
Replayability: WoW hands down. I like exploring new characters, I
loved City of Heroes for that, hundreds of possible combinations. EQ2
is really lacking in this regard, sometimes having to do the same 20
levels just to try a different class.
PvP: No comments, I just don't do PvP

So in the end, if not for the stupid access quests, I think I would
prefer EQ2, although WoW is certainly a fun game.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 12:51:11 PM

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

Well so far in my short WoW experience (lvl 17 priest, lvl 10 warlock
and lvl 7 rogue) I haven't found an instanced quest yet. Guess that's
when you use those meeting stones I read about somewhere? Hopefully
you're right and grouping becomes a better experience, but so far I've
considered myself lucky if anyone in the group even responds with a
'hello' when I join and say 'Hey guys!'
Related resources
April 7, 2005 1:57:52 PM

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

On 2005-04-07, Bob Perez <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
> WoW is certainly a pretty game, I honestly never understood the complaints
> about its "cartoonishness", I found it gorgeous. The PvP has great potential
> (the kiss-of-death "p" word), although currently it seems a bit
pointless.

This is the upteenth thread you've started comparing EQ2 to
WoW. You need medication or get a job writing articles for a
games publication.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 4:14:34 PM

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

Thusly "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> Spake
Unto All:

>WoW is certainly a pretty game, I honestly never understood the complaints
>about its "cartoonishness"

http://gamer.no/bilder/spill/world_of_warcraft/31.jpg
http://www.goblinworkshop.com/pics/misc/xmas-orgrimmar....
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/53491...
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/53491...

Looks very cartoonish to me. Or, more accurately, consolish.

>, I found it gorgeous.

I hate it. Truly. It's the reason I wont get WoW. The graphics are
just too kiddie for me to stomach.

>I've said it before and I'll say it this one last time as I wrap up my
>involvement with WoW and cancel my two accounts: the biggest downside and
>turnoff in my experience was the predominantly kiddie population.

Comes with the franchise, IMO. The Diablo and Warcraft crowd aren't
exactly pinnacles of maturity.

>My bias is plain and undisguised: I prefer EverQuest.

And the reason I wont get EQ2 is that it's said not to be soloable. It
seems otherwise interesting, but I'm not interested in socializing.
I've got free broadband and can't find single-player rpg's, so if EQ2
was soloable I'd play it.


--

Avoid cliches like the plague!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 4:57:20 PM

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

"shadows" <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5aik3.1ibq.shadows@helena.whitefang.com...
> On 2005-04-07, Bob Perez <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>> WoW is certainly a pretty game, I honestly never understood the
>> complaints

> This is the upteenth thread you've started comparing EQ2 to
> WoW. You need medication or get a job writing articles for a
> games publication.'

Bob just likes listening to himself talk. Who else can write the 50th EQ vs
WoW thread yet again, and still make it 10 paragraphs long?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 6:56:50 PM

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

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j51a51ltnkn8g215543tam1lqlbasctb0o@4ax.com...
> Thusly "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> Spake
> Unto All:
>
>
> >My bias is plain and undisguised: I prefer EverQuest.
>
> And the reason I wont get EQ2 is that it's said not to be soloable. It
> seems otherwise interesting, but I'm not interested in socializing.
> I've got free broadband and can't find single-player rpg's, so if EQ2
> was soloable I'd play it.

It's not very soloable at the moment, but it is getting more soloable with each
big patch - rearranging the population of zones to make solo mobs easier to get
to, adding more solo quests, increasing the risk v reward for soloers, and so
on.
The hard-core EQ1 crowd are complaining that it's becoming too much like WoW :) 

Rich
April 7, 2005 6:56:51 PM

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

On 2005-04-07, Richard Wingrove <rich@privacy.net> wrote:

> It's not very soloable at the moment, but it is getting more soloable with each
> big patch - rearranging the population of zones to make solo mobs easier to get
> to, adding more solo quests, increasing the risk v reward for soloers, and so
> on.
> The hard-core EQ1 crowd are complaining that it's becoming too much like WoW :) 

SOE did the same to SWG with their combat upgrade. The effect it
has on crafting is turning the excellent SWG crafting system into
the WoW tradeskill system.

Thank you Ralph Koster for your CREATIVE DIRECTION
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 7:05:40 PM

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

wolfing1@yahoo.com once tried to test me with:

> Grouping: EQ2 hands down. There is almost no reason to group in WoW,
> and the few times you do group it's just to finish a particularly tough
> quest, in which case, group forms, fight lasts 5 seconds, group
> dissolves. Am I contradicting myself? Not really, I like grouping,
> but I don't want to need a group to do quests, as these are my
> 'personal' quests, I should be able do them myself. I think it would
> be much better if fights lasted some 20 seconds (yielding 4 times more
> exp), so when you group you see a real benefit (faster killing, less
> downtime, etc)

I disagree. Even as early as level 12 or 15 there are many quests where it
is hard to solo not because any individual mob is hard to kill, but because
they come in groups and those groups are social and when one comes they all
come. If you are a hunter, you can have your pet tank one or two while you
tank the others, but if you're a non-pet class, such as a priest or mage,
you just can't handle that many mobs at one time, so grouping becomes much
more efficient.

On top of that, the more you play the more the game becomes about the
"instance" dungeons, and those require MANDATORY grouping, no matter what
class you are. No one can tank 3 or 4 even-level elite mobs, not even the
hunters. And if you actually want to see the end of an instance, not only
do you need a group, you need a GOOD group, one that can actually work as a
team and use good tactics. And you need a balanced group for maximum
effectiveness. You need some healers, some tanks, and some high-dps
classes.

I'm not saying its impossible to solo in WoW, I'm saying they have given
some good reasons and opportunities to group in WoW, and if you're not
using them that's your own fault not the designers'. The beauty of WoW is
that you can play it how you like, if you like Solo that's doable, and if
you like grouping that's also worthwhile.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 7:17:02 PM

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

I find any complaints about the kids in WoW to be essentially dishonest
in nature and basically fatuous. Every MMOG is overrun with stupid
kids, filtering through them to find the worthwhile people to hang out
with is part of learning the ins and outs of a game. CoH, as an
example, seems to be overrun with idiots who have never heard of the
word "tactics". Every MMOG is filled with idiots who use, for example,
area effects that break crowd control abilities and spells.

The amusing thing I notice most in all the name calling over what game
to play is that the EQ1 crowd seems to place a high value on time spent
not playing the game. They seem to really like long down time between
fights, long waits for a boat and long boat rides, long travel time
getting to where you want to hunt, etc. I play WoW for one reason, it
is fun and there is very little time spent not playing the game (OK,
that is two reasons...). I also play WoW despite what looks to my eyes
as the most moronic looking character models of any game in recent
memory.

I am going to check out the EQ2 trial just so I'll have an informed
opinion on the game (and who knows, maybe I'll like it).
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 9:11:14 PM

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

Man, if you don't write for a living you should really look into it.
Anyway, I agree with you main negatives about WoW. Although, I did get a
dwarf Warrior to 60. And that's where the bottom feel out for me. If you
don't PvP the game basically ends at 60..Instance run after instance run for
a piece of equipment or weapon? I don't think so.

I tried the EQ-2 trial, but my sorry old computer could barely get the game
to move at all.(1.4 gig Athlon, 512mram, GEforce 3) At least running WoW
fairly well wasn't a problem. But having lower system spec's as a drawing
point isn't the best of arguments either.

If I ever can get a good game playing computer up and running I would
certainly like to give EQ-2 a royal try.
I've never played EQ in any of its iterations before so I come un-tainted.

Anyway, I'm just wrapping up my time in WoW. I wont be renewing. I don't
like the direction the game is going as well.
They are gearing up for primarily PvP and battlegrounds..both of which
really don't interest me.

Paul
"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:1159vlv7241l969@news.supernews.com...
> WoW is certainly a pretty game, I honestly never understood the complaints
> about its "cartoonishness", I found it gorgeous. The PvP has great
> potential (the kiss-of-death "p" word), although currently it seems a bit
> pointless. The crafting system has some great ideas but isn't terribly fun
> imo. The combat mechanics, however, are quite fun. I'd say that while my
> wife and I played the game, this was the one thing that we enjoyed the
> most. Coming up on a pack of mobs, her Rogue would Sap one and start
> wailing on another. I would try and pull aggro with my Paladin and heal
> enough to get some good ping-pong aggro happening. Backstab seemed weak in
> comparison to other abilities but her other positional attacks were quite
> fun and effective. My Seals were ok, my stun was fun, but mostly I enjoyed
> bashing things over the head and managing Seals, Auras and Judgments, the
> tactical possibilities were fabulous. Because the game supported soloing
> so effectively, we were able to go through most of our quests and
> instances as a duo, pulling in occasional groups for instance completion
> and other tough challenges. These are the things I remember most fondly
> about the WoW experience.
>
> But ultimately it wasn't enough to sustain interest. I won't go into all
> the reasons, I think they've been pretty well covered by others and anyway
> the discussion would inevitably degenerate into a flamefest and the
> temptation will be too strong to respond and get defensive, so I'll just
> make my comments and move on. I haven't run into too many posters here
> who've reasonably articulated what they liked about the game while
> avoiding the name calling and insults, but there are a few and to them I
> say Thanks for the discussion and here's to a solid future of updates that
> continue to deliver richer content and more stability. If WoW were my only
> choice for an MMOG right now, I might very well still be playing. But at
> level 48 (of 50) in EQ2, I'm far beyond the point of a meaningful
> comparison anymore, too captivated by the challenges of Norrath and its
> astonishing content, and unable (and I guess unwilling) to give WoW any
> more cycles at this time. The WoW stability issues were a factor in the
> decision, too, after a while it became too easy for us to turn a night
> that was planned for WoW into a "Let's go finish that EQ2 quest instead"
> experience, particularly when we couldn't log on, or had to wait in some
> bigass queue.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it this one last time as I wrap up my
> involvement with WoW and cancel my two accounts: the biggest downside and
> turnoff in my experience was the predominantly kiddie population. I think
> without a single exception, every time my wife and I attempted to group
> with others we wound up scratching our heads wondering how on earth these
> players ever advanced as far as they had. It was truly astonishing the
> number of morons, social misfits and just plain selfish brats we ran into
> on our server. I suspect we mighthave had a better experience on one of
> the roleplaying servers where more adults play; I wish in retrospect we'd
> done that instead of trying to play on the server where our son and his
> friends play.
>
> When I'm in-game (in either world), I'm amazed at how one-sided each camp
> seems to be about its preference. The WoW fanatics usually resort to
> name-calling and childish insults when discussing EQ2 and there is
> inevitable reliance on WoW's enormous popularity as a validation of its
> superiority, while the EQ2 elitists condescendingly reference WoW's
> "cartoonishness", shallow quests and legendary server problems. Both sides
> overstate their case, and in the end I think the real differences have
> more to do with the players going into the game and their expectations for
> a community. There's the classic EQ crowd looking for lengthy,
> substantive, challenging content, and then there's the action-oriented
> group that favors dueling, PvP, quick battles and doesn't want to bother
> with a death penalty or too much dialog. Kill-reward, kill-reward, that
> was actually the mantra that Bill Roper once used to describe the formula
> behind Diablo's success, and his successors have done an excellent job
> bringing that ethic into the MMOG world.
>
> My bias is plain and undisguised: I prefer EverQuest. But I also
> understand why there are *many* more people who prefer WoW. To use an old
> analogy I used during beta, EverQuest II is a classic vintage Bordeaux
> with depth and complexity, a little tannic still and a bit of an acquired
> taste for the young palette, but I'm dazzled by the complexity and flavor,
> and delirious with enthusiasm over what it will become as it ages in the
> cask. World of Warcraft is a cool can of Pepsi, refreshing, ice-cold, easy
> to chug and sweet. I enjoy both and I think I understand why others enjoy
> their preference but I prefer to sit at the wine-tasting table for this
> one. I also realize how this comparison comes off sounding, but that's as
> honest a comparison as I can make. ;-)
>
> --
> Redbeard, the Lore Seeker
> <Veritas>
> Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
> Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
> Current resident of Qeynos Harbor
> http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com
>
> Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
> <Resolution, Retired>
> Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
> Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 9:18:39 PM

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

wolfing1@yahoo.com once tried to test me with:

> Well so far in my short WoW experience (lvl 17 priest, lvl 10 warlock
> and lvl 7 rogue) I haven't found an instanced quest yet. Guess that's
> when you use those meeting stones I read about somewhere? Hopefully
> you're right and grouping becomes a better experience, but so far I've
> considered myself lucky if anyone in the group even responds with a
> 'hello' when I join and say 'Hey guys!'

Your level 17 priest should find it very easy to get into groups. Your
first instance will probably be the Deadmines, which is in Westfall. Do all
the Defias quests there and eventually one of them leads to the Deadmines
where you go kill Van Cleef. There is almost always a group or more of
people doing the deadmines on my server. Deadmines is good for level 20-25
ish.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 7, 2005 11:02:44 PM

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

In article <1159vlv7241l969@news.supernews.com>, Bob Perez
<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
> My bias is plain and undisguised: I prefer EverQuest. But I also understand
> why there are *many* more people who prefer WoW. To use an old analogy I
> used during beta, EverQuest II is a classic vintage Bordeaux with depth and
> complexity, a little tannic still and a bit of an acquired taste for the
> young palette, but I'm dazzled by the complexity and flavor, and delirious
> with enthusiasm over what it will become as it ages in the cask. World of
> Warcraft is a cool can of Pepsi, refreshing, ice-cold, easy to chug and
> sweet. I enjoy both and I think I understand why others enjoy their
> preference but I prefer to sit at the wine-tasting table for this one. I
> also realize how this comparison comes off sounding, but that's as honest a
> comparison as I can make. ;-)

Different tastes for different people. I'd just like to point out that
there are two main reasons why I have an active WoW account, and a
cancelled EQ2 account:

1) My friends play WoW.

2) Total /played of ~15 days across all characters. You mentioned a
/played on 40 days on your EQ2 main. Unless EQ2 has a truly amazingly
larger amount of content than WoW, any complexity and flavor that it
may have is locked behind more grind than I'll ever manage to sit
through.

- Damien
April 8, 2005 12:37:28 AM

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

Thus spake "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE>, Thu, 7
Apr 2005 02:39:53 -0700, Anno Domini:

>But ultimately it wasn't enough to sustain interest. I won't go into all the
>reasons, I think they've been pretty well covered by others and anyway the
>discussion would inevitably degenerate into a flamefest and the temptation
>will be too strong to respond and get defensive, so I'll just make my
>comments and move on. I haven't run into too many posters here who've
>reasonably articulated what they liked about the game while avoiding the
>name calling and insults, but there are a few and to them I say Thanks for
>the discussion and here's to a solid future of updates that continue to
>deliver richer content and more stability. If WoW were my only choice for an
>MMOG right now, I might very well still be playing. But at level 48 (of 50)
>in EQ2, I'm far beyond the point of a meaningful comparison anymore, too
>captivated by the challenges of Norrath and its astonishing content, and
>unable (and I guess unwilling) to give WoW any more cycles at this time. The
>WoW stability issues were a factor in the decision, too, after a while it
>became too easy for us to turn a night that was planned for WoW into a
>"Let's go finish that EQ2 quest instead" experience, particularly when we
>couldn't log on, or had to wait in some bigass queue.

Just out of interest Bob, how many months has it taken you to get to 48 in
EQ2 at how many hours per night/week on average would you say? Does it hold
anything of interest to a CoH lover entirely unimpressed with his only 4
hours of EQ1 trial experience? ;-)

--
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 12:37:29 AM

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

In article <ck2a51hqi51gafipsbl457kp15njafedoq@4ax.com>,
nostromo@spamfree.net.au says...
> Just out of interest Bob, how many months has it taken you to get to 48 in
> EQ2 at how many hours per night/week on average would you say? Does it hold
> anything of interest to a CoH lover entirely unimpressed with his only 4
> hours of EQ1 trial experience? ;-)

If you did not like EQ1 and you love CoH, the odds are that you will
*HATE* EQ2. It's a 2nd job and requires a time commitment and grouping.
Instead of CoH's mentality of one person can take on many MOBs, EQ2 is
many people take on 1 MOB. They are not bad games, but they are very
different in their approaches. Both have their merits and both have
their problems, but given your preferences above, I highly doubt that
you would like EQ2.

--
Rob Berryhill
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 12:37:29 AM

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

"Nostromo" <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in message
news:ck2a51hqi51gafipsbl457kp15njafedoq@4ax.com...
>
> Just out of interest Bob, how many months has it taken you to get to 48 in
> EQ2 at how many hours per night/week on average would you say? Does it
> hold
> anything of interest to a CoH lover entirely unimpressed with his only 4
> hours of EQ1 trial experience? ;-)


What I do know is that I find myself compelled to log in every night and
play, play, play, because my wife and I are having a great time. We are both
level 17 with our current Heroes (we re-rolled after taking previous Heroes
to 20) and mostly duo together, roaming the streets in seach of bad guys to
kill and missions for our contacts. We played a mission last night that
introduced us to a new map I'd never seen. We were winding our way through
this deep, three-story office complex, taking elevators to three separate
fighting areas, twisting and turning around corners and ambushes that kept
us white-knuckled throughout. We had to save 7 hostages and free them, and
this required locating them hidden away in all kinds of odd places and
taking out the guards (some of whom were wired with self-explosives). It was
outrageously fun and required all of our best tactics to stay alive. As a
Controller and Defender, we don't have a lot of damage dealing to our
credit, and we were fighting the Tsoo, probably the most difficult mobs to
fight at our level, and the battles were furious and fun. We failed the
mission with 1 hostage to go :(  but wow, what a fun experience. In the end,
we didn't feel cheated, we felt disappointed! We let our contact down. :( 
Tonight we go back and take on the next mission from this contact and
hopefully will redeem ourselves.

--

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
April 8, 2005 12:37:30 AM

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

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

> What I do know is that I find myself compelled to log in every night
> and play, play, play, because my wife and I are having a great time.
> We are both level 17 with our current Heroes (we re-rolled after
> taking previous Heroes to 20) and mostly duo together, roaming the
> streets in seach of bad guys to kill and missions for our contacts.

So you are playing EQ2 and CoH now? And you just stopped your WoW account?
Were you paying for six MMOG accounts prior to killing WoW? :) 

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 1:53:17 AM

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

ROFL, yeah, that comparison was rather pathetic. It's just a video
game, Bob, get the stick out of your ass, no one will think you are
cool for liking EQ2.

I guess the commercial success of WoW makes it the game for kids to
bash if they want to look cool to their friends.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 1:55:57 AM

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

http://everquest2.station.sony.com/

You can download it right from the EQ2 site, or I assume a free
Vileplanet account can get one. I'm going to download it tonight and
try it this weekend.
April 8, 2005 2:45:50 AM

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

Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Thu, 07 Apr
2005 12:14:34 +0200, Anno Domini:

>Thusly "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> Spake
>Unto All:
>
>>WoW is certainly a pretty game, I honestly never understood the complaints
>>about its "cartoonishness"
>
>http://gamer.no/bilder/spill/world_of_warcraft/31.jpg
>http://www.goblinworkshop.com/pics/misc/xmas-orgrimmar....
>http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/53491...
>http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/53491...
>
>Looks very cartoonish to me. Or, more accurately, consolish.
>
>>, I found it gorgeous.
>
>I hate it. Truly. It's the reason I wont get WoW. The graphics are
>just too kiddie for me to stomach.
>
>>I've said it before and I'll say it this one last time as I wrap up my
>>involvement with WoW and cancel my two accounts: the biggest downside and
>>turnoff in my experience was the predominantly kiddie population.
>
>Comes with the franchise, IMO. The Diablo and Warcraft crowd aren't
>exactly pinnacles of maturity.
>
>>My bias is plain and undisguised: I prefer EverQuest.
>
>And the reason I wont get EQ2 is that it's said not to be soloable. It
>seems otherwise interesting, but I'm not interested in socializing.
>I've got free broadband and can't find single-player rpg's, so if EQ2
>was soloable I'd play it.

I'll solo it with you MC! ;-)

(you play Wolf:ET? you'd *hate* that game :) 

--
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 2:45:51 AM

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

Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

>(you play Wolf:ET? you'd *hate* that game :) 

Didn't much care for RtCW, no, so I've never even tried ET.

--

Avoid cliches like the plague!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 3:37:03 AM
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 4:02:01 AM

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

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:1159vlv7241l969@news.supernews.com...
> To use an old analogy I used during beta, EverQuest II is a classic
> vintage Bordeaux with depth and complexity, a little tannic still and a
> bit of an acquired taste for the young palette, but I'm dazzled by the
> complexity and flavor, and delirious with enthusiasm over what it will
> become as it ages in the cask. World of Warcraft is a cool can of Pepsi,
> refreshing, ice-cold, easy to chug and sweet.

You win the "most-pretentious" award of the month. This may be the most
ridiculous analogy of EQ2 I've ever read. If you want to praise EQ2, biased
as you are, don't exagerate so absurdly.

Let me show you how it's done: WoW is like a Big Mac; EQ2 is like a Whopper.

Vintage Bordeaux my ass.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 4:17:22 AM

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

Reg LeCrisp wrote:

> "shadows" <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd5aik3.1ibq.shadows@helena.whitefang.com...
>
>>On 2005-04-07, Bob Perez <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>>
>>>WoW is certainly a pretty game, I honestly never understood the
>>>complaints
>
>
>>This is the upteenth thread you've started comparing EQ2 to
>>WoW. You need medication or get a job writing articles for a
>>games publication.'
>
>
> Bob just likes listening to himself talk. Who else can write the 50th EQ vs
> WoW thread yet again, and still make it 10 paragraphs long?

Reg STFU. While some of use may not agree with him, we post on other
topics and discuss other things. Your only posts are only to flame bob.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 4:24:37 AM

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

So how much did you spend on it in total?

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>WoW is certainly a pretty game, I honestly never understood the complaints
>about its "cartoonishness", I found it gorgeous. The PvP has great potential
>(the kiss-of-death "p" word), although currently it seems a bit pointless.
>The crafting system has some great ideas but isn't terribly fun imo. The
>combat mechanics, however, are quite fun. I'd say that while my wife and I
>played the game, this was the one thing that we enjoyed the most. Coming up
>on a pack of mobs, her Rogue would Sap one and start wailing on another. I
>would try and pull aggro with my Paladin and heal enough to get some good
>ping-pong aggro happening. Backstab seemed weak in comparison to other
>abilities but her other positional attacks were quite fun and effective. My
>Seals were ok, my stun was fun, but mostly I enjoyed bashing things over the
>head and managing Seals, Auras and Judgments, the tactical possibilities
>were fabulous. Because the game supported soloing so effectively, we were
>able to go through most of our quests and instances as a duo, pulling in
>occasional groups for instance completion and other tough challenges. These
>are the things I remember most fondly about the WoW experience.
>
>But ultimately it wasn't enough to sustain interest. I won't go into all the
>reasons, I think they've been pretty well covered by others and anyway the
>discussion would inevitably degenerate into a flamefest and the temptation
>will be too strong to respond and get defensive, so I'll just make my
>comments and move on. I haven't run into too many posters here who've
>reasonably articulated what they liked about the game while avoiding the
>name calling and insults, but there are a few and to them I say Thanks for
>the discussion and here's to a solid future of updates that continue to
>deliver richer content and more stability. If WoW were my only choice for an
>MMOG right now, I might very well still be playing. But at level 48 (of 50)
>in EQ2, I'm far beyond the point of a meaningful comparison anymore, too
>captivated by the challenges of Norrath and its astonishing content, and
>unable (and I guess unwilling) to give WoW any more cycles at this time. The
>WoW stability issues were a factor in the decision, too, after a while it
>became too easy for us to turn a night that was planned for WoW into a
>"Let's go finish that EQ2 quest instead" experience, particularly when we
>couldn't log on, or had to wait in some bigass queue.
>
>I've said it before and I'll say it this one last time as I wrap up my
>involvement with WoW and cancel my two accounts: the biggest downside and
>turnoff in my experience was the predominantly kiddie population. I think
>without a single exception, every time my wife and I attempted to group with
>others we wound up scratching our heads wondering how on earth these players
>ever advanced as far as they had. It was truly astonishing the number of
>morons, social misfits and just plain selfish brats we ran into on our
>server. I suspect we mighthave had a better experience on one of the
>roleplaying servers where more adults play; I wish in retrospect we'd done
>that instead of trying to play on the server where our son and his friends
>play.
>
>When I'm in-game (in either world), I'm amazed at how one-sided each camp
>seems to be about its preference. The WoW fanatics usually resort to
>name-calling and childish insults when discussing EQ2 and there is
>inevitable reliance on WoW's enormous popularity as a validation of its
>superiority, while the EQ2 elitists condescendingly reference WoW's
>"cartoonishness", shallow quests and legendary server problems. Both sides
>overstate their case, and in the end I think the real differences have more
>to do with the players going into the game and their expectations for a
>community. There's the classic EQ crowd looking for lengthy, substantive,
>challenging content, and then there's the action-oriented group that favors
>dueling, PvP, quick battles and doesn't want to bother with a death penalty
>or too much dialog. Kill-reward, kill-reward, that was actually the mantra
>that Bill Roper once used to describe the formula behind Diablo's success,
>and his successors have done an excellent job bringing that ethic into the
>MMOG world.
>
>My bias is plain and undisguised: I prefer EverQuest. But I also understand
>why there are *many* more people who prefer WoW. To use an old analogy I
>used during beta, EverQuest II is a classic vintage Bordeaux with depth and
>complexity, a little tannic still and a bit of an acquired taste for the
>young palette, but I'm dazzled by the complexity and flavor, and delirious
>with enthusiasm over what it will become as it ages in the cask. World of
>Warcraft is a cool can of Pepsi, refreshing, ice-cold, easy to chug and
>sweet. I enjoy both and I think I understand why others enjoy their
>preference but I prefer to sit at the wine-tasting table for this one. I
>also realize how this comparison comes off sounding, but that's as honest a
>comparison as I can make. ;-)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 5:04:07 AM

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

"Alex Mars" <alexmars@aol.com> once tried to test me with:

> I also play WoW despite what looks to my eyes
> as the most moronic looking character models of any game in recent
> memory.
>

I like the graphics. :) 

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 6:19:52 AM

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

In article <Xns9631CC273AF12knight37m@130.133.1.4
>, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>"Alex Mars" <alexmars@aol.com> once tried to test me with:
>
>> I also play WoW despite what looks to my eyes
>> as the most moronic looking character models of any game in recent
>> memory.
>>
>
>I like the graphics. :) 


I love the graphics too, but like Alex I think the character models are the
worst -- compounded by the unexplainable decision to return to the
Stone Age by restricting the ability to customize.

Jim
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 7:53:35 AM

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

>>><rob_berryh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>In article <ck2a51hqi51gafipsbl457kp15njafe...@4ax.com>,
>>>nostr...@spamfree.net.au says...

>>> Just out of interest Bob, how many months has it taken you to get
to 48 in
>>> EQ2 at how many hours per night/week on average would you say? Does
it hold
>>> anything of interest to a CoH lover entirely unimpressed with his
only 4
>>> hours of EQ1 trial experience? ;-)

>>If you did not like EQ1 and you love CoH, the odds are that you will
>>*HATE* EQ2. It's a 2nd job and requires a time commitment and
grouping.
>>Instead of CoH's mentality of one person can take on many MOBs, EQ2
is
>>many people take on 1 MOB. They are not bad games, but they are very
>>different in their approaches. Both have their merits and both have
>>their problems, but given your preferences above, I highly doubt that

>>you would like EQ2.

>I'm a CoH person who disliked EQ2, but for different reasons than you
>mention:

Well I play both COH and EQ2 and like them equally. They are different
games, which compliment each other. CoH is much more of a grouping
action game and EQ2 an in depth RPG. Both type of games I like.

>1. Groups on CoH tend to be a lot more fun. Groups in EQ2 CAN be fun,

>if you are doing non-quest, non-camp type stuff. Once you join a
>quest group, you see that the quest system encourages people to drop
>out of groups once they fill their quota. The problem is caused by
>the fact that people in EQ2 do not actually share goals, but have
>goals that may overlap. In CoH you are actually doing a mission from
>start to finish in order to get the bonus, so that means that people
>are encouraged by the system to stick with a group to accomplish that
>group goal. Most groups are either quest or grind, and grind groups
>are simply too repetitive and reminiscent of the worst parts of EQ1.

Have to agree with this. I play CoH for grouping and EQ2 for solo. I
hate camping groups with a passion! You might be still be pressing the
same old buttons but standing still pressing the same old buttons just
seems boring compared to running around pressing the same old buttons!

I think the reason why grouping works better in CoH is because you have
to group in CoH. My emp defender is hopeless alone. Takes forever to
kill a single mob. In EQ2 you can do both and there is content to do
both. People only seem to group to kill certain mobs, occasionally for
quests but mostly for grinding.

>2. In CoH, most people are there simply to have fun. Yes, there are
>the power gamers, and the power levellers and so on, but most don't
>have that overly serious attitude that tends to steal the life out of
>me. Part of it is the shared debt from deaths. Death is just a lot
>less serious in CoH than it is in EQ2, and that lends itself to rather

>unforgiving joyless people.

People play EQ2 mainly for fun too! Why else would they play it?

Personally I hate dieing in both games but I curse it more in CoH. This
is because it can take a lot longer to work off the debt. You also get
more debt per death as you go along in CoH compared to EQ2. So, at
higher levels dieing often can serious slow down the levelling. Not so
in EQ2.

The only real issue with dieing in EQ2 is if you soul shard ends up in
an unretrievable location. Then it's much worse then CoH.

>3. The combat system in EQ2, and in particular, the Heroic
>Opportunities, feels fairly tacked on as an afterthought. The
>affects are pretty arbitrary. The synchronicities of complimentary
>actions in CoH feels a lot more natural. I feel more like I'm playing

>Whackamole in EQ2, than actually fighting. In CoH, I feel not only
>like I'm fighting, but that I'm a superhero. The immersion factor in
>CoH isn't just in the graphics (like in EQ2) but in everything you do.


I disagree the HO in EQ2 are a great and adds strategy to the game,
especially in groups. The ability to chain attacks together for greater
effect is really good. In groups the possibility is amplified much
more.

Use you powers correctly in EQ2 can vastly increase your effeteness.
Just like in CoH really.

I would say the immersion is better in EQ2. The whole world is much
better realised and convinced. There doesn't seem to any real logic
behind the zones in CoH plus the quest can break the immersion. I.e.
how did they fit the huge base inside a small rock? The ability to
slide mission up and down breaks the feeling you are really a hero. As
does ignoring street crime because the mobs are grey. A real hero
won't do that.

I would say I feel no more a superhero in CoH then I do a mage in EQ2.

>4. The lag in EQ2, even in empty city zones, was absolutely
>horrendous.

You never played EU CoH, which had such bad lag we got 2 free days! Are
you sure you are not confusing lag with performance problems with some
NVIDIA cards EQ2 has. People often mislabel lag as performance
problems. What you are describing sound like know performance problems
to me. (Vermin Syne a no go area for me since the game grinds to a halt
eventually. Lucky to get 1fps after a while in there!!)

>5. I had some horrible experiences with the EQ2 customer service and
>technical support -- I've never had anything but GREAT experiences
>with that for CoH. As someone who has had to work professionally
>dealing with CS peopel from all different companies, NCSoft has some
>of the best CS peopel I've ever had to deal with. SOE ranks pretty
>low. I got ABSOUTELY no help (Zero, Zilch, Nada) when I reported
>bugs, got stuck, etc. except from fellow players. In CoH, I could
>report a broken mission, and get contacted in-game by a GM within 15
>minutes, whether it was prime-time or 3 AM.

Since I've had no reason to talk to other I can personally comment
but I admit I haven't heard anything good about SOE customer support.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 9:28:55 AM

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

<step_y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112942223.386235.161270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> so is wow or eq2 better ?

That's a stupid question. What is your definition of better? Better
Graphics?, Better Loot?, Better pvp? ...

If we go by what the business looks at, the almighty Dollar. Subscription
numbers indicate WoW by a huge margin. At last count over 1 million
subscribers...Sony's cash cow, the original Everquest at its prime was
around the 450k peak subscribers mark.
April 8, 2005 11:18:39 AM

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

Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Thu, 07 Apr
2005 18:20:55 +0200, Anno Domini:

>Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
>
>>(you play Wolf:ET? you'd *hate* that game :) 
>
>Didn't much care for RtCW, no, so I've never even tried ET.

Hey, it's totally free for just 260mb of d/l. Best damn team WWII online fps
ever imo. But it's a team game...

--
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 11:22:58 AM

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

Again, lets use the Wine analogy again shall we? Much more $1.10 wine is
sold than $25.00 wine. Does that mean the buck-10 wine is better?
To you it might be. There is no accounting for taste.
Lets really run rampant with clichés: One man's bread, is another man's
poison. To each his own...6 of one, half-dozen of the other.....you be the
judge.....live and let live.........into every life a little rain must
fall.....you can tell a leopard by its spots....He who laughs last, laughs
loudest......Those who vote Liberal shouldn't be allowed to
vote........Surely you jest..stop calling me Shirley my name is Frank...
"Reg LeCrisp" <x@x.com> wrote in message
news:LN6dnfUKdsgvwcvfRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>
> <step_y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112942223.386235.161270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> so is wow or eq2 better ?
>
> That's a stupid question. What is your definition of better? Better
> Graphics?, Better Loot?, Better pvp? ...
>
> If we go by what the business looks at, the almighty Dollar. Subscription
> numbers indicate WoW by a huge margin. At last count over 1 million
> subscribers...Sony's cash cow, the original Everquest at its prime was
> around the 450k peak subscribers mark.
>
April 8, 2005 11:26:22 AM

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

Thus spake Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com>, Thu, 7 Apr 2005
13:23:36 -0500, Anno Domini:

>In article <ck2a51hqi51gafipsbl457kp15njafedoq@4ax.com>,
>nostromo@spamfree.net.au says...
>> Just out of interest Bob, how many months has it taken you to get to 48 in
>> EQ2 at how many hours per night/week on average would you say? Does it hold
>> anything of interest to a CoH lover entirely unimpressed with his only 4
>> hours of EQ1 trial experience? ;-)
>
>If you did not like EQ1 and you love CoH, the odds are that you will
>*HATE* EQ2. It's a 2nd job and requires a time commitment and grouping.
>Instead of CoH's mentality of one person can take on many MOBs, EQ2 is
>many people take on 1 MOB. They are not bad games, but they are very
>different in their approaches. Both have their merits and both have
>their problems, but given your preferences above, I highly doubt that
>you would like EQ2.

Fair enough, though to be fair I almost exclusively team in CoH these days.
Kinda blows that criteria & theory out of the water ey? ;-)

--
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 11:26:23 AM

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

In article <5a9b51l3tga34fqtq60je0votmunok9hf0@4ax.com>,
nostromo@spamfree.net.au says...
> Thus spake Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com>, Thu, 7 Apr 2005
> 13:23:36 -0500, Anno Domini:
>
> >In article <ck2a51hqi51gafipsbl457kp15njafedoq@4ax.com>,
> >nostromo@spamfree.net.au says...
> >> Just out of interest Bob, how many months has it taken you to get to 48 in
> >> EQ2 at how many hours per night/week on average would you say? Does it hold
> >> anything of interest to a CoH lover entirely unimpressed with his only 4
> >> hours of EQ1 trial experience? ;-)
> >
> >If you did not like EQ1 and you love CoH, the odds are that you will
> >*HATE* EQ2. It's a 2nd job and requires a time commitment and grouping.
> >Instead of CoH's mentality of one person can take on many MOBs, EQ2 is
> >many people take on 1 MOB. They are not bad games, but they are very
> >different in their approaches. Both have their merits and both have
> >their problems, but given your preferences above, I highly doubt that
> >you would like EQ2.
>
> Fair enough, though to be fair I almost exclusively team in CoH these days.
> Kinda blows that criteria & theory out of the water ey? ;-)
>
>

Well, not exactly. Mostly in CoH you have the option, mostly in EQ2 you
don't.

--
Rob Berryhill
April 8, 2005 11:30:31 AM

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

Thus spake Knight37 <knight37m@email.com>, 7 Apr 2005 18:40:23 GMT, Anno
Domini:

>"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> once tried to
>test me with:
>
>> What I do know is that I find myself compelled to log in every night
>> and play, play, play, because my wife and I are having a great time.
>> We are both level 17 with our current Heroes (we re-rolled after
>> taking previous Heroes to 20) and mostly duo together, roaming the
>> streets in seach of bad guys to kill and missions for our contacts.
>
>So you are playing EQ2 and CoH now? And you just stopped your WoW account?
>Were you paying for six MMOG accounts prior to killing WoW? :) 

That was Reg "get-a-life" LeTroll, K. Or Bob has a new stalker or has lost
his sense of humour.

--
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 11:51:06 AM

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

Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>And does one really get to see any of the game up to 6th lvl, which is where
>the trial goes to? How much gameplay is that anyway? 6 months? >;-)

You get to see what the game mechanics are like and how well it runs
on your system. You'll also get some fairly impressive graphics.
The default graphics settings a bit low so you'll want to turn them up
a bit. Don't turn them all the way up, no computer today can handle that.

You don't really a sense of full game, though. The "Isle" is a pretty
small area, and there's only a couple of things you need to team up to do.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 12:24:13 PM

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

Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

>>>(you play Wolf:ET? you'd *hate* that game :) 
>>
>>Didn't much care for RtCW, no, so I've never even tried ET.
>
>Hey, it's totally free for just 260mb of d/l. Best damn team WWII online fps
>ever imo. But it's a team game...

If it's like all other team fps's (like Americas Army or MOH) I've no
problem with it, because there's zero need to be social, and the team
aspect is merely that you don't shoot at the headless chicken with the
same uniform as yours.

--

Avoid cliches like the plague!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 1:33:48 PM

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

Nostromo wrote:

> Back to CoH, Wolf:ET & VTM:B for me :) 

What is Wolf:ET?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 1:33:57 PM

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

Grackle wrote:
> Let me show you how it's done: WoW is like a Big Mac; EQ2 is like a
Whopper.
>

While City of Heroes is like a rib eye steak.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 1:35:12 PM

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

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:23:36 -0500, Rob Berryhill
<rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <ck2a51hqi51gafipsbl457kp15njafedoq@4ax.com>,
>nostromo@spamfree.net.au says...
>> Just out of interest Bob, how many months has it taken you to get to 48 in
>> EQ2 at how many hours per night/week on average would you say? Does it hold
>> anything of interest to a CoH lover entirely unimpressed with his only 4
>> hours of EQ1 trial experience? ;-)
>
>If you did not like EQ1 and you love CoH, the odds are that you will
>*HATE* EQ2. It's a 2nd job and requires a time commitment and grouping.
>Instead of CoH's mentality of one person can take on many MOBs, EQ2 is
>many people take on 1 MOB. They are not bad games, but they are very
>different in their approaches. Both have their merits and both have
>their problems, but given your preferences above, I highly doubt that
>you would like EQ2.
I'm a CoH person who disliked EQ2, but for different reasons than you
mention:

1. Groups on CoH tend to be a lot more fun. Groups in EQ2 CAN be fun,
if you are doing non-quest, non-camp type stuff. Once you join a
quest group, you see that the quest system encourages people to drop
out of groups once they fill their quota. The problem is cuased by
the fact that people in EQ2 do not acutally share goals, but have
goals that may overlap. In CoH you are actually doing a mission from
start to finish in order to get the bonus, so that means that people
are encouraged by the system to stick with a group to accomplish that
group goal. Most groups are either quest or grind, and grind groups
are simply too repetitive and reminiscent of the worst parts of EQ1.

2. In CoH, most people are there simply to have fun. Yes, there are
the power gamers, and the power levellers and so on, but most don't
have that overly serious attitude that tends to steal the life out of
me. Part of it is the shared debt from deaths. Death is just a lot
less serious in CoH than it is in EQ2, and that lends itself to rather
unforgiving joyless people.

3. The combat system in EQ2, and in particular, the Heroic
Opportunities, feels fairly tacked on as an afterthought. The
affects are pretty arbitrary. The synchronicities of complimentary
actions in CoH feels a lot more natural. I feel more like I'm playing
Whackamole in EQ2, than actually fighting. In CoH, I feel not only
like I'm fighting, but that I'm a superhero. The immersion factor in
CoH isn't just in the graphics (like in EQ2) but in everything you do.

4. The lag in EQ2, even in empty city zones, was absolutely
horrendous.

5. I had some horrible experiences with the EQ2 customer service and
technical support -- I've never had anything but GREAT experiences
with that for CoH. As someone who has had to work professionally
dealing with CS peopel from all different companies, NCSoft has some
of the best CS peopel I've ever had to deal with. SOE ranks pretty
low. I got ABSOUTELY no help (Zero, Zilch, Nada) when I reported
bugs, got stuck, etc. except from fellow players. In CoH, I could
report a broken mission, and get contacted in-game by a GM within 15
minutes, whether it was prime-time or 3 AM.

-Graham
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 2:47:25 PM

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

There is almost no reason to group before level 20 or so, when you do the
Deadmines to kill Victor Van Cleef.

From that point on, you will almost always have access to one or more
instances that require a group of anywhere between 5 and 40 people. From
level 40 and up, you will almost always have access to multiple such
instances.

Once you hit 60, there is almost no reason to ever do any content that does
not involve a group. Once you're well equipped and 60, there is almost no
reason to ever do any content that does not involve a group of 40. :-)

<wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112889071.623715.60810@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Well so far in my short WoW experience (lvl 17 priest, lvl 10 warlock
> and lvl 7 rogue) I haven't found an instanced quest yet. Guess that's
> when you use those meeting stones I read about somewhere? Hopefully
> you're right and grouping becomes a better experience, but so far I've
> considered myself lucky if anyone in the group even responds with a
> 'hello' when I join and say 'Hey guys!'
>
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 2:49:08 PM

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

"Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:sI-dnWh0SeEL9MvfRVn-qQ@rogers.com...
> Again, lets use the Wine analogy again shall we? Much more $1.10 wine is
> sold than $25.00 wine. Does that mean the buck-10 wine is better?


So I guess WoW's monthly fee's are over 90 pct cheaper then EQ2's ? ROFL,
idiot
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 4:17:56 PM

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

*Plonk* for the plonker.
"Reg LeCrisp" <x@x.com> wrote in message
news:G-ydnWi-Ff1wOsvfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>
> "Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:sI-dnWh0SeEL9MvfRVn-qQ@rogers.com...
>> Again, lets use the Wine analogy again shall we? Much more $1.10 wine is
>> sold than $25.00 wine. Does that mean the buck-10 wine is better?
>
>
> So I guess WoW's monthly fee's are over 90 pct cheaper then EQ2's ? ROFL,
> idiot
>
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 4:43:27 PM

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

"Paul2" <emperorwoo@nospam.rogers.com> wrote in
news:sI-dnWh0SeEL9MvfRVn-qQ@rogers.com:

> Again, lets use the Wine analogy again shall we? Much more $1.10 wine
> is sold than $25.00 wine. Does that mean the buck-10 wine is better?

False analogy. EQ2 is actually cheaper than WoW (less up front money, same
monthly fee) and people are still flocking to WoW instead of EQ2. ;) 

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 5:13:03 PM

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

Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

>And does one really get to see any of the game up to 6th lvl, which is where
>the trial goes to? How much gameplay is that anyway? 6 months? >;-)

I'm not by any means an experienced mmorpg player, but I'm at level 4
after about two hours play, plus one hour tinkering with settings to
get it to default to mouselook without holding the right mousebutton
depressed (no go). I now also know what people meant by "restricted
view" - the field of view is perhaps 60 degrees, not 90 as is normal.

Incidentally, the WoW people will be thrilled to know that after two
hours of play the server went down, which caused my client to get
corrupted graphics so I had to reset the computer.

Otherwise a fair-looking game, although not playable on my machine at
maximum image quality. "High" quality was borderline acceptable, with
some jerkiness when there were several other players on the screen.
--

Avoid cliches like the plague!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 5:23:42 PM

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

And horizon's is like a Red-Barn hamburger..............

"Scorcho" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112978037.289841.119330@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Grackle wrote:
>> Let me show you how it's done: WoW is like a Big Mac; EQ2 is like a
> Whopper.
>>
>
> While City of Heroes is like a rib eye steak.
>
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 5:23:43 PM

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

Paul2 wrote:
> And horizon's is like a Red-Barn hamburger..............
>
> "Scorcho" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112978037.289841.119330@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Grackle wrote:
>>
>>>Let me show you how it's done: WoW is like a Big Mac; EQ2 is like a
>>
>>Whopper.
>>
>>While City of Heroes is like a rib eye steak.

What's a Red-Barn Hamburger? Is it anything like White Castle?
April 8, 2005 6:25:12 PM

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

Thus spake "Grackle" <nobody@lalaland.ca>, Fri, 8 Apr 2005 00:02:01 -0400,
Anno Domini:

>"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
>news:1159vlv7241l969@news.supernews.com...
>> To use an old analogy I used during beta, EverQuest II is a classic
>> vintage Bordeaux with depth and complexity, a little tannic still and a
>> bit of an acquired taste for the young palette, but I'm dazzled by the
>> complexity and flavor, and delirious with enthusiasm over what it will
>> become as it ages in the cask. World of Warcraft is a cool can of Pepsi,
>> refreshing, ice-cold, easy to chug and sweet.
>
>You win the "most-pretentious" award of the month. This may be the most
>ridiculous analogy of EQ2 I've ever read. If you want to praise EQ2, biased
>as you are, don't exagerate so absurdly.
>
>Let me show you how it's done: WoW is like a Big Mac; EQ2 is like a Whopper.
>
>Vintage Bordeaux my ass.

Well, it has been around for 5 years more, which is like 50 years in wine
terms...plenty time to grow stale & undrinkable if not handled correctly, no
matter what it gets per bottle >8^D

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 9:24:54 PM

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

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:33:48 -0600, James Garvin
<jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:

>Nostromo wrote:
>
>> Back to CoH, Wolf:ET & VTM:B for me :) 
>
>What is Wolf:ET?

Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. It's a free-to-download,
multi-player team-based WWII game and in campaign mode you can develop
your character stats by doing well in your chosen role.

You can download it here
http://www.planetwolfenstein.com/files/files.shtml (links out to
FilePlanet)

The official site has more mirrors,
http://games.activision.com/games/wolfenstein/

--
Alfie
<http://www.delphia.co.uk/&gt;
Windows 95: 32 bit add-on for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit OS coded for a 4 bit CPU, by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 9:24:55 PM

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

Alfie [UK] wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:33:48 -0600, James Garvin
> <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Nostromo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Back to CoH, Wolf:ET & VTM:B for me :) 
>>
>>What is Wolf:ET?
>
>
> Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. It's a free-to-download,
> multi-player team-based WWII game and in campaign mode you can develop
> your character stats by doing well in your chosen role.
>
> You can download it here
> http://www.planetwolfenstein.com/files/files.shtml (links out to
> FilePlanet)
>
> The official site has more mirrors,
> http://games.activision.com/games/wolfenstein/

Wow! Thanks. I'll have to dig RtCW out of the "haven't played this for
a long time" pile.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
April 8, 2005 9:52:57 PM

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

James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote in news:97ydnbumkL5EKMvfRVn-
2g@comcast.com:

> Alfie [UK] wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:33:48 -0600, James Garvin
>> <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nostromo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Back to CoH, Wolf:ET & VTM:B for me :) 
>>>
>>>What is Wolf:ET?
>>
>>
>> Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. It's a free-to-
download,
>> multi-player team-based WWII game and in campaign mode you can develop
>> your character stats by doing well in your chosen role.
>>
>> You can download it here
>> http://www.planetwolfenstein.com/files/files.shtml (links out to
>> FilePlanet)
>>
>> The official site has more mirrors,
>> http://games.activision.com/games/wolfenstein/
>
> Wow! Thanks. I'll have to dig RtCW out of the "haven't played this
for
> a long time" pile.
>

You don't need to own RTCW.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!