Wrapping up with WoW

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
76 answers Last reply
More about wrapping
  1. 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.
  2. 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!'
  3. 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.
  4. 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.jpg
    http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/534914_20041129_screen001.jpg
    http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/534914_20041129_screen009.jpg

    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!
  5. 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?
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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).
  10. 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.jpg
    >http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/534914_20041129_screen001.jpg
    >http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/534914_20041129_screen009.jpg
    >
    >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.
  20. 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!
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    so is wow or eq2 better ?


    Cowly the Game player
    Games I support

    http://www.gamestotal.com
    http://www.spacefederation.net
    http://uc.gamestotal.com
    http://aw.gamestotal.com
    http://gc.gamestotal.com
    http://mmorpg.gamestotal.com
    http://3700ad.gamestotal.com
    http://ballmonster.gamestotal.com
    http://free_mmorpg.gamestotal.com
    http://strategy_games.gamestotal.com
    http://free_strategy_games.gamestotal.com
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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. ;-)
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
    >
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. 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.
  34. 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 //
  35. 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!
  36. 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?
  37. 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.
  38. 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
  39. 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!'
    >
  40. 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
  41. 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
    >
  42. 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.
  43. 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!
  44. 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.
    >
  45. 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?
  46. 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.
  47. 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/>
    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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games World Of Warcraft Video Games