Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
please post some of the good multiplayer games
please post some of the good multiplayer games
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
World of Warcraft and Everquest are the two most commercially and
artistically succesful. Wow is much newer and easier.
World of Warcraft and Everquest are the two most commercially and
artistically succesful. Wow is much newer and easier.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
For somthing difrent try Lineage2
Tried all the others but the only one I stick with is Lineage.
Plus all expantions are free...we just had a major one last week
For more info.
http://www.lineage2.com/
"pancakeman55" <pancakeboy55@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116635761.337736.268570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> please post some of the good multiplayer games
>
For somthing difrent try Lineage2
Tried all the others but the only one I stick with is Lineage.
Plus all expantions are free...we just had a major one last week
For more info.
http://www.lineage2.com/
"pancakeman55" <pancakeboy55@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116635761.337736.268570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> please post some of the good multiplayer games
>
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Thusly "Dondo" <tsandrich@aol.com> Spake Unto All:
>World of Warcraft and Everquest are the two most commercially and
>artistically succesful. Wow is much newer and easier.
Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
--
Fun Fact of the Day: In exit polls at the election 2004 the percentage of American
voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern was 22 percent,
continuing a trend of *decreasing* perceived importance of morals: In the 2000
election 35 percent cited morals & ethical values as their prime concern, and in
1996 a whopping 40%, almost twice as many as in 2004.
(Bet you hadn't gotten that impression from the press, had you?)
Thusly "Dondo" <tsandrich@aol.com> Spake Unto All:
>World of Warcraft and Everquest are the two most commercially and
>artistically succesful. Wow is much newer and easier.
Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
--
Fun Fact of the Day: In exit polls at the election 2004 the percentage of American
voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern was 22 percent,
continuing a trend of *decreasing* perceived importance of morals: In the 2000
election 35 percent cited morals & ethical values as their prime concern, and in
1996 a whopping 40%, almost twice as many as in 2004.
(Bet you hadn't gotten that impression from the press, had you?)
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
On Sat, 21 May 2005 10:05:44 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
>monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
On Sat, 21 May 2005 10:05:44 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
>monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>>Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
>>monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
>
>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. This particular prisoner was innocent; it
was just his bad luck that he screamed funny when beaten.
Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>>Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
>>monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
>
>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. This particular prisoner was innocent; it
was just his bad luck that he screamed funny when beaten.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:32:51 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
>
>Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.
No, but the OP specified "massively multiplayer".
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:32:51 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
>
>Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.
No, but the OP specified "massively multiplayer".
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>>>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
>>
>>Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.
>
>No, but the OP specified "massively multiplayer".
Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that he made funny noises when beaten.
Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>>>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
>>
>>Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.
>
>No, but the OP specified "massively multiplayer".
Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that he made funny noises when beaten.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
instance.
That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
the content.
So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
instance.
That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
the content.
So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Thusly Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> Spake
Unto All:
<MMORGP>
>> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
>
>Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
>for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
>map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
>instance.
Which means that when you go on an instanced quest in, say, CoH, it
ceases to be a MMORPG?
>That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
>the content.
In sharp contrast to GW...
>So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
>while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.
Hmmmm...
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that he made funny noises when beaten.
Thusly Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> Spake
Unto All:
<MMORGP>
>> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
>
>Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
>for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
>map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
>instance.
Which means that when you go on an instanced quest in, say, CoH, it
ceases to be a MMORPG?
>That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
>the content.
In sharp contrast to GW...
>So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
>while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.
Hmmmm...
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that he made funny noises when beaten.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote in message
news:u3bsgnwti.fsf@broadpark.no...
> Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
>
> Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
> for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
> map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
> instance.
>
> That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
> the content.
>
> So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
> while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.
But in WoW the server crashfest pos that is it...
Once you are Level 60 90-100% of the content becomes a few of the same
boring instances over and over and over..
Just to dress up your charater in purple.
"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote in message
news:u3bsgnwti.fsf@broadpark.no...
> Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
>
> Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
> for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
> map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
> instance.
>
> That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
> the content.
>
> So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
> while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.
But in WoW the server crashfest pos that is it...
Once you are Level 60 90-100% of the content becomes a few of the same
boring instances over and over and over..
Just to dress up your charater in purple.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
> > ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
> The thing is, IMO, that there are two distinct facets to the game,
> which are almost like complete games in themselves - there's the
> cooperative PvE campaign (which reminds me of Morrowind in its slow
> pace, openness and extremely weak story), and there's the competitive
> side with apparently complex team-based GvG + fairly weak random-team
> PvP (Diablo meets Counterstrike, basically).
It really is two games in one: PvP deathmatchs and PvE mmorpg-lite. I
bought it for the later but decide to try the PvP side and really liked
it. That is when you win, losing gets old fast.
The PvE co-op missions are a break from the norm and what motivated me
to buy it. They are good but it doesn't strike me as having much
replay value. I've never been one to complete the game again with a
different char. Ok, so I got three chars in EQ2 to lvl 20+ but
there's so much content there their routes have been very different
(and I haven't even been to Freeport yet!) That's not the case in
GW. The missions and explore areas are always the same.
> > ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
> The thing is, IMO, that there are two distinct facets to the game,
> which are almost like complete games in themselves - there's the
> cooperative PvE campaign (which reminds me of Morrowind in its slow
> pace, openness and extremely weak story), and there's the competitive
> side with apparently complex team-based GvG + fairly weak random-team
> PvP (Diablo meets Counterstrike, basically).
It really is two games in one: PvP deathmatchs and PvE mmorpg-lite. I
bought it for the later but decide to try the PvP side and really liked
it. That is when you win, losing gets old fast.
The PvE co-op missions are a break from the norm and what motivated me
to buy it. They are good but it doesn't strike me as having much
replay value. I've never been one to complete the game again with a
different char. Ok, so I got three chars in EQ2 to lvl 20+ but
there's so much content there their routes have been very different
(and I haven't even been to Freeport yet!) That's not the case in
GW. The missions and explore areas are always the same.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
>>>monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
>>
>>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
>
> Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.
It is the bastart love-child of a FPS, a MMORPG, and a single player
RPG. ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
>>>monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
>>
>>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
>
> Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.
It is the bastart love-child of a FPS, a MMORPG, and a single player
RPG. ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
City of Heroes is the best one out there
City of Heroes is the best one out there
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Thusly Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> Spake Unto All:
>It is the bastart love-child of a FPS, a MMORPG, and a single player
>RPG.
Yeah, I agree. Being exclusively PvE, I only yesterday realized that
there is a whole additional "game" in there in the PvP (or more
accurately GvG) section. Finally I understood the "it's a game for the
fps crowd" comments. Heck, there's even capture-the-flag.
Possibly (I really dont know as GvG doesn't interest me at all) GvG is
even the real meat of the game, which if so is impressive since I've
got better than 100 hours out of the "single-player" PvE, making it
the longest single-player RPG I've played since Morrowind.
>ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
The thing is, IMO, that there are two distinct facets to the game,
which are almost like complete games in themselves - there's the
cooperative PvE campaign (which reminds me of Morrowind in its slow
pace, openness and extremely weak story), and there's the competitive
side with apparently complex team-based GvG + fairly weak random-team
PvP (Diablo meets Counterstrike, basically).
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
Thusly Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> Spake Unto All:
>It is the bastart love-child of a FPS, a MMORPG, and a single player
>RPG.
Yeah, I agree. Being exclusively PvE, I only yesterday realized that
there is a whole additional "game" in there in the PvP (or more
accurately GvG) section. Finally I understood the "it's a game for the
fps crowd" comments. Heck, there's even capture-the-flag.
Possibly (I really dont know as GvG doesn't interest me at all) GvG is
even the real meat of the game, which if so is impressive since I've
got better than 100 hours out of the "single-player" PvE, making it
the longest single-player RPG I've played since Morrowind.
>ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
The thing is, IMO, that there are two distinct facets to the game,
which are almost like complete games in themselves - there's the
cooperative PvE campaign (which reminds me of Morrowind in its slow
pace, openness and extremely weak story), and there's the competitive
side with apparently complex team-based GvG + fairly weak random-team
PvP (Diablo meets Counterstrike, basically).
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
pancakeman55 wrote:
> please post some of the good multiplayer games
To me, Anarchy Online is still the best of all general MMORPGs flying
in the air. It's not light-weighted though like WoW. EQ2 might be also
a good choice. Or Lineage2. Any of these if you need deeper approach =)
You should of course try WoW and when you lvl 40> you might consider
changing game to above mentioned.
And it depends if you prefer solo or hard grouping. As for me, I'm
soloing.
--
Regards,
gb
pancakeman55 wrote:
> please post some of the good multiplayer games
To me, Anarchy Online is still the best of all general MMORPGs flying
in the air. It's not light-weighted though like WoW. EQ2 might be also
a good choice. Or Lineage2. Any of these if you need deeper approach =)
You should of course try WoW and when you lvl 40> you might consider
changing game to above mentioned.
And it depends if you prefer solo or hard grouping. As for me, I'm
soloing.
--
Regards,
gb
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Thusly Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> Spake Unto All:
>
>>ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
>
> The thing is, IMO, that there are two distinct facets to the game,
> which are almost like complete games in themselves - there's the
> cooperative PvE campaign (which reminds me of Morrowind in its slow
> pace, openness and extremely weak story), and there's the competitive
> side with apparently complex team-based GvG + fairly weak random-team
> PvP (Diablo meets Counterstrike, basically).
The PvE can actually be seen as a large training section for team
based PvP. The monsters work together in small mixed profession
teams, they use the same skills as are available to players, and also
use typical PvP tactics like all attacking the most vulnerable member
of the opposite team (usually the monk). You can use the same tactic
against the monsters, take out their healers and casters, while
protecting you own healers and casters.
BTW: There is a third option for PvP, tomb combat, which is somewhere
between the random arenas and the guild vs. guild.
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Thusly Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> Spake Unto All:
>
>>ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
>
> The thing is, IMO, that there are two distinct facets to the game,
> which are almost like complete games in themselves - there's the
> cooperative PvE campaign (which reminds me of Morrowind in its slow
> pace, openness and extremely weak story), and there's the competitive
> side with apparently complex team-based GvG + fairly weak random-team
> PvP (Diablo meets Counterstrike, basically).
The PvE can actually be seen as a large training section for team
based PvP. The monsters work together in small mixed profession
teams, they use the same skills as are available to players, and also
use typical PvP tactics like all attacking the most vulnerable member
of the opposite team (usually the monk). You can use the same tactic
against the monsters, take out their healers and casters, while
protecting you own healers and casters.
BTW: There is a third option for PvP, tomb combat, which is somewhere
between the random arenas and the guild vs. guild.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
go to www.maidmarian.com for some awsome multiplayer games
go to www.maidmarian.com for some awsome multiplayer games
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
pancakeman55 wrote:
> please post some of the good multiplayer games
Most commerically available MMOs are so similiar to each other
(especially the "high fantasy" titles), that it really doesn't make
much difference. The real question is, IMO:
How much time can I afford to spend playing?
If the answer is "a lot", then you might try Dark Age of Camelot and
Everquest. If the answer is "very little", you might take a look at
GuildWars. If it's somewhere in between, you might take a look at
Worlds of Warcraft or City of Heroes. I'm not sure where Everquest II
fits into the spectrum, but I'd be inclined to place it closer to the
DAoC/EQ end of the scale.
Obviously, each one has their unique bells 'n' whistles, but at the
fundamental level they're all very similiar, if not identical (kill
stuff, level, amass "wealth").
pancakeman55 wrote:
> please post some of the good multiplayer games
Most commerically available MMOs are so similiar to each other
(especially the "high fantasy" titles), that it really doesn't make
much difference. The real question is, IMO:
How much time can I afford to spend playing?
If the answer is "a lot", then you might try Dark Age of Camelot and
Everquest. If the answer is "very little", you might take a look at
GuildWars. If it's somewhere in between, you might take a look at
Worlds of Warcraft or City of Heroes. I'm not sure where Everquest II
fits into the spectrum, but I'd be inclined to place it closer to the
DAoC/EQ end of the scale.
Obviously, each one has their unique bells 'n' whistles, but at the
fundamental level they're all very similiar, if not identical (kill
stuff, level, amass "wealth").
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
"pancakeman55" <pancakeboy55@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:
> please post some of the good multiplayer games
The only one you need to know about is Worl.. wait, you're that runequest
spammer.
The only one YOU need to know about is Everquest 2.
--
Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
"pancakeman55" <pancakeboy55@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:
> please post some of the good multiplayer games
The only one you need to know about is Worl.. wait, you're that runequest
spammer.
The only one YOU need to know about is Everquest 2.
--
Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
with:
> Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
> monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
enough.
--
Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
with:
> Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
> monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
enough.
--
Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
> Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
> you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
> you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
> around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
> _drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
> really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
> desirable.
Because without it it lacks atmosphere. Compared to EQ2 GW seems very
dry. The fact you can bump into other people is a natural thing. Its
also natural to hear other peoples converstaions. These things help to
give a mmog atmosphere. Guild Wars cutting you off makes it a very
insular game. Even the town areas are dry compared to other games.
It's difficult to rationalise but in other mmorpgs it feels much more
like you are chatting to someone standing there. GW seems very insular
and isolated to me. The poor chat system doesn't help much.
> But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.
Then you are missing out on a huge chunk of any mmog. Playing with
other people can make a dull game great fun but if the game is fun to
begin with, dear god it can send it through the roof!!
> Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
> you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
> you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
> around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
> _drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
> really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
> desirable.
Because without it it lacks atmosphere. Compared to EQ2 GW seems very
dry. The fact you can bump into other people is a natural thing. Its
also natural to hear other peoples converstaions. These things help to
give a mmog atmosphere. Guild Wars cutting you off makes it a very
insular game. Even the town areas are dry compared to other games.
It's difficult to rationalise but in other mmorpgs it feels much more
like you are chatting to someone standing there. GW seems very insular
and isolated to me. The poor chat system doesn't help much.
> But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.
Then you are missing out on a huge chunk of any mmog. Playing with
other people can make a dull game great fun but if the game is fun to
begin with, dear god it can send it through the roof!!
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:
>Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
>with:
>
>> Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
>> monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
>
>Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
>if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
>makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
>enough.
Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
_drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
desirable.
The towns in GW are certainly very persistent with hundreds of people
in them, and it's easy to find pick-up groups there for the missions
(slightly harder for the quests, but there's always the Henchmen).
But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:
>Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
>with:
>
>> Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
>> monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
>
>Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
>if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
>makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
>enough.
Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
_drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
desirable.
The towns in GW are certainly very persistent with hundreds of people
in them, and it's easy to find pick-up groups there for the missions
(slightly harder for the quests, but there's always the Henchmen).
But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Thusly "BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk> Spake Unto All:
>and isolated to me. The poor chat system doesn't help much.
That is the truth. That there isn't any way to bind emotes or
sentences to keys is also a problem, it'd be helpful to be able to say
"go left", "wait here", "need backup" and "Oh gods, Alesia the healer
thinks she's a tank again - everyone stop what you're doing and focus
on keeping the silly biyatch alive!" at the press of a button.
Actually, I've been wondering why MMOGs (that I know of) hasn't got
in-built support for voicecomm. Typed real-time one-line communication
is just awkward and slow, and while Teamspeak and similar works, it's
hardly a transparent solution.
>> But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.
>
>Then you are missing out on a huge chunk of any mmog.
Yeah, I know, but I don't like that aspect. I think much of the reason
I like GW is precisely because socializing is optional; I can and do
play it like a single-player game or group with RL friends.
>Playing with
>other people can make a dull game great fun but if the game is fun to
>begin with, dear god it can send it through the roof!!
Sure, but I'd rather gather my friends and some beer than group with
some random guy I have no idea who it is.
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
Thusly "BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk> Spake Unto All:
>and isolated to me. The poor chat system doesn't help much.
That is the truth. That there isn't any way to bind emotes or
sentences to keys is also a problem, it'd be helpful to be able to say
"go left", "wait here", "need backup" and "Oh gods, Alesia the healer
thinks she's a tank again - everyone stop what you're doing and focus
on keeping the silly biyatch alive!" at the press of a button.
Actually, I've been wondering why MMOGs (that I know of) hasn't got
in-built support for voicecomm. Typed real-time one-line communication
is just awkward and slow, and while Teamspeak and similar works, it's
hardly a transparent solution.
>> But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.
>
>Then you are missing out on a huge chunk of any mmog.
Yeah, I know, but I don't like that aspect. I think much of the reason
I like GW is precisely because socializing is optional; I can and do
play it like a single-player game or group with RL friends.
>Playing with
>other people can make a dull game great fun but if the game is fun to
>begin with, dear god it can send it through the roof!!
Sure, but I'd rather gather my friends and some beer than group with
some random guy I have no idea who it is.
--
"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
- Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)
Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:
>>Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
>>if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
>>makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
>>enough.
>
> Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
> you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
> you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
> around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
> _drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
> really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
> desirable.
If you don't like playing with other people, MMORPGs probably aren't the
genre for you.
> But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.
Some people are also into the socializing, THAT'S why they consider
things like that desirable.
Cheers!
David...
Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:
>>Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
>>if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
>>makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
>>enough.
>
> Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
> you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
> you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
> around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
> _drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
> really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
> desirable.
If you don't like playing with other people, MMORPGs probably aren't the
genre for you.
> But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.
Some people are also into the socializing, THAT'S why they consider
things like that desirable.
Cheers!
David...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Buying a used card, what should I look for before purchase?- Started by MatthewJamess
- Replies: 8
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram