Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MMORPG comparison/recommendation?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 12:44:29 AM

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

Hello all,

I didn't expect this to happen, but lately I've been getting this itch
to try an MMORPG, so I'm looking for recommendations. Also, can anyone
recommend a site that compares the available MMORPGs in terms of pros,
cons and available features?

What I'm looking for in particular:

1) The game should be reasonably accessible -- at any given level, I'd
like to be able log on, play solo for an hour or so and then log off
knowing I've accomplished something. That's not to say that I wouldn't
dedicate long sessions to a MMORPG if it grabs me, but it shouldn't be a
requirement to get anywhere.
2) Roleplaying servers. This is an absolute must.
3) Quests, quests, quests. I love quests. The concept of "grinding"
sounds hideously boring, I'd like to have some kind of reason for
fightin' and lootin'. ;)  I want racial quests, class quests, crafting
quests, long epic quest strings, and so on.
4) Good character customization, both in terms of appearance and in
terms of skills/feats/talents/whatever.
5) A good crafting system.

An additional concern is the portrayal of female characters. From what
I've heard, many /emotes and outfits in WoW for example make women look
like trash whores or complete ditzes. *Way* to go. Not!

It would also be nice to have something to do other than fighting.
Fishing, mini-games of skill or chance, buying or building a house and
decorating it in the character's personal style, whatever.

Still, WoW is the one I've done the most research on lately, aside from
UO, which still seems to be a breed of its own if you can find a good
private server. As an old Ultima-lover, UO has long held a certain
appeal, even if it might be partly to blame for the desaster that was
U9. :p  WoW seems to fulfill requirements 1-3 nicely, but not offer much
with regards to 4 and 5.

Comments?


--
Sarah Jaernecke
Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
"If a tree falls in the forest... I'll kill the bastard what done it!"
- Jaheira, Baldur's Gate
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 12:44:30 AM

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

http://www.mmorpg.com is a good site for info about
the various mmorpg's that are out and are going to
be out. It has forums for each game, so you might
get some insight from them.

Good luck,



"Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfire.udic@web.de> wrote in message
news:ekuuf15auke41arenhm9pfk4qkm416nhec@4ax.com...
> Hello all,
>
> I didn't expect this to happen, but lately I've been getting this itch
> to try an MMORPG, so I'm looking for recommendations. Also, can anyone
> recommend a site that compares the available MMORPGs in terms of pros,
> cons and available features?
>
> What I'm looking for in particular:
>
> 1) The game should be reasonably accessible -- at any given level, I'd
> like to be able log on, play solo for an hour or so and then log off
> knowing I've accomplished something. That's not to say that I wouldn't
> dedicate long sessions to a MMORPG if it grabs me, but it shouldn't be a
> requirement to get anywhere.
> 2) Roleplaying servers. This is an absolute must.
> 3) Quests, quests, quests. I love quests. The concept of "grinding"
> sounds hideously boring, I'd like to have some kind of reason for
> fightin' and lootin'. ;)  I want racial quests, class quests, crafting
> quests, long epic quest strings, and so on.
> 4) Good character customization, both in terms of appearance and in
> terms of skills/feats/talents/whatever.
> 5) A good crafting system.
>
> An additional concern is the portrayal of female characters. From what
> I've heard, many /emotes and outfits in WoW for example make women look
> like trash whores or complete ditzes. *Way* to go. Not!
>
> It would also be nice to have something to do other than fighting.
> Fishing, mini-games of skill or chance, buying or building a house and
> decorating it in the character's personal style, whatever.
>
> Still, WoW is the one I've done the most research on lately, aside from
> UO, which still seems to be a breed of its own if you can find a good
> private server. As an old Ultima-lover, UO has long held a certain
> appeal, even if it might be partly to blame for the desaster that was
> U9. :p  WoW seems to fulfill requirements 1-3 nicely, but not offer much
> with regards to 4 and 5.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> --
> Sarah Jaernecke
> Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
> Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
> "If a tree falls in the forest... I'll kill the bastard what done it!"
> - Jaheira, Baldur's Gate
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 12:44:30 AM

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

Sarah Jaernecke wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I didn't expect this to happen, but lately I've been getting this itch
> to try an MMORPG, so I'm looking for recommendations. Also, can anyone
> recommend a site that compares the available MMORPGs in terms of pros,
> cons and available features?
>
> What I'm looking for in particular:
>
> 1) The game should be reasonably accessible -- at any given level, I'd
> like to be able log on, play solo for an hour or so and then log off
> knowing I've accomplished something. That's not to say that I wouldn't
> dedicate long sessions to a MMORPG if it grabs me, but it shouldn't
> be a requirement to get anywhere.
> 2) Roleplaying servers. This is an absolute must.
> 3) Quests, quests, quests. I love quests. The concept of "grinding"
> sounds hideously boring, I'd like to have some kind of reason for
> fightin' and lootin'. ;)  I want racial quests, class quests, crafting
> quests, long epic quest strings, and so on.
> 4) Good character customization, both in terms of appearance and in
> terms of skills/feats/talents/whatever.
> 5) A good crafting system.
>
> An additional concern is the portrayal of female characters. From what
> I've heard, many /emotes and outfits in WoW for example make women
> look like trash whores or complete ditzes. *Way* to go. Not!
>
> It would also be nice to have something to do other than fighting.
> Fishing, mini-games of skill or chance, buying or building a house and
> decorating it in the character's personal style, whatever.
>
> Still, WoW is the one I've done the most research on lately, aside
> from UO, which still seems to be a breed of its own if you can find a
> good private server. As an old Ultima-lover, UO has long held a
> certain appeal, even if it might be partly to blame for the desaster
> that was U9. :p  WoW seems to fulfill requirements 1-3 nicely, but not
> offer much with regards to 4 and 5.
>
> Comments?

My initial impulse is to agree with MV, but . . .

EQ2 would probably come closer to filling the bill than WoW. It's going to
at least match WoW in terms of 1 and 3, is probably a bit ahead on 4 and a
lot ahead on 5. Some might say Wow is way ahead for solo play, but I've just
come off my second EQ2 stint, and while that might have been true when both
games were new, EQ2 has made some recent changes that just about make it as
playable solo as WoW. And life on an EQ2 RP server is, umm . . . well,
you'd just have to see. :-) I couldn't take the whole thing quite as
seriously as even some of the less-serious folks, so my characters on an EQ2
RP server (and WoW too, for that matter) just didn't last that long. (It's
pretty hard for me to carry on a typed dialogue howling tears of laughter,
hehe.)

You're going to grind in any MMORPG, but if you happen to enjoy everything
else, and enjoy the gameplay/gameworld for it's own sake, then it's not
going to seem like it that much, I guess. And it's problematical as to how
much you'll accomplish in *any* MMORPG that I've played in in random time
periods of less than an hour. You *can* accomplish stuff in that amount of
time, but you'll probably have to set yourself up for it each time you log
out, and that's true for every MMORPG I've played--and it's even mostly true
for Guild Wars, which is another kind of animal altogether. (It's easy to
get plenty started in GW in an hour, but not that easy to finish it, and
that's why I've mostly quit playing that game.)

The only online game I've ever played where I know I can just sit down and
make some hay in a hurry every single time is Diablo 2 and some of its
closer cousins. :-)
--
chainbreaker
Related resources
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:01:16 AM

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:44:29 +0200, Sarah Jaernecke wrote:

> Comments?

Initial thought: "Forget it." :) 

WoW meets some of your criteria (quests, ability to solo), but horribly
fails at others (crafting system, customization, sophisticated skill
system). Ultima Online also only partially meets your expectations (ability
to solo, sophisticated skill system, pretty good crafting system), but not
all of them (quests, visual customization).

WoW is fairly accessible and might still be your best bet, but if you're
looking a SP-style roleplaying experience, you're unlikely to find it in
WoW. It's fairly limited in that regard (no player-run establishments, no
player-owned houses, no real impact of your actions on the environment), as
are most MMORPGs. UO offered more (player-owned houses, even towns), but
it's much more of a "real world" to live in, and focuses on a "make your
own adventure" philosophy. To illustrate what I am trying to say: I played
UO for over five years, had a great time, and still miss it. I played WoW
for five months, had a great time, but don't feel like I am missing
something.

Since you like Morrowind, you'll like the "by use" skill system of UO, too,
and you probably won't like the much more simplistic system of WoW (though
you can reset your talents. which prevents you from permanently screwing up
your character, which is more than other MMORPGs offer). Morrowind and UO
belong both to the small number of games with a skill system I actually
like.

If you approach WoW as a "lightweight" game that will keep you occupied for
a few weeks, it's worth trying out. It's the most fun if you play together
with others, but it will let you play and do quests by yourself also.
Quests and plotlines are not always the best, or very complex, but some of
trhem are actually well-written and entertaining. Just keep in mind that
your actions make no difference to the static world in a MMORPG. That nasty
orc chief you just killed, he'll be back and terrorize the same area again,
minutes after you left, so that the next player can kill him, too.

Have you considered Neverwinter Nights and one of the RP-centered
persistant worlds? There will be only a few dozens of players instead of
thousands, but I actually did find some of them (when I played) more
immersive than WoW.

M.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 3:10:03 AM

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

"Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfire.udic@web.de> wrote in message
news:ekuuf15auke41arenhm9pfk4qkm416nhec@4ax.com...
> Hello all,
>
> I didn't expect this to happen, but lately I've been getting this itch
> to try an MMORPG, so I'm looking for recommendations. Also, can anyone
> recommend a site that compares the available MMORPGs in terms of pros,
> cons and available features?

NO MMORPG is roleplaying, so forget it

your best bet is the Neverwinter Nights Community
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 10:14:44 AM

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:35 -0400, chainbreaker wrote:

> EQ2 would probably come closer to filling the bill than WoW.

Sarah mentioned that she wants to be able to solo and just log in for an
hour and feel like she's accomplished something. If this is important, I
think EQ2 is completely out. I haven't played it yet, so I might be wrong,
but it's for this reason. EQ1, which I did play for a while, did strike me
as a complete grind fest, far worse than WoW.

M.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 10:26:08 AM

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

>>> EQ2 would probably come closer to filling the bill than WoW.
>> Sarah mentioned that she wants to be able to solo and just log in for
>> an hour and feel like she's accomplished something. If this is
>> important, I think EQ2 is completely out. I haven't played it yet, so
>> I might be wrong, but it's for this reason. EQ1, which I did play for
>> a while, did strike me as a complete grind fest, far worse than WoW.

>Uh, Mike--I've played both WoW and EQ2, remember? EQ2 isn't quite as
>solo-friendly as WoW for sure, but isn't far lagging. What's more, solo
>play in EQ2 is less "tedious" for lack of a better word, because there's a
>bit more variety in the game, especially in the crafting arena.

Having played both my first thoughts was EQ2 also. It very solo
friendly now and perfectly possible to logon for an hour and do
something meaningful.

It has large link quests that require a greater variety of taskes, ie
collecting, harvesting and times runs across zone etc. Of course the
vast majority are simply kill this, collect x of token y. But it's
done in away, which seem to add more variety to then game.

Mind you WoW dungeon's and mobs have varity which EQ2 lacks.

EQ2 portrayal of women isn't any problem. Apart from the obvious
looks there no difference between male and females toons. Much like
WoW. Wouldn't agree with the person who said WoW treats women like
"Whores" at all. A lot of the male players do, but the game
doesn't. The same offence could be directed at CoH too.

GW probably got the worst offender in the Elementist. Very dodgy outfit
and /dance emote but then again I reckon the GW Mesmer is the most
original and best dressed female toon in any mmog.

EQ2 has large scope for a Sims 2 type decorate a house.

EQ2 only falls down in char customisation. One race/class toon looks
pretty much like another race/classe toon. WoW has the best scope for
this. Loads of skill and outfit options. CoH has a lot of toon outfits
but not so hot on the skills. GW pretty much on rails as far as toon
looks. Has a huge amount of skills but arguably a lot of them are
gimmick skills and there's only a small set of any real use.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 10:34:22 AM

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

>EQ2: not soloable (yes you can solo, but most quests require you to be
>in full groups), no RP servers (at least none when I played)... Fail

Totally wrong. EQ2 very soloable and now has far more solo content then
you can possibly do. Yes there is alot of group content but won't find
yourself running short of solo quests at all. And it has very mature
well used RP servers.

>City of Heroes: Very fun and simple game. Extremely well done
>character customization. Don't remember if it had RP servers. No
>crafting whatsoever. I think it had RP servers but not sure... Pass or
>fail (depending on importance of crafting)

It has unofficial RP server. It fails on quest variety (very repetitive
and dull stories) and apart for a few builds is very unsoloable.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 11:21:07 AM

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

Michael Vondung wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:35 -0400, chainbreaker wrote:
>
>> EQ2 would probably come closer to filling the bill than WoW.
>
> Sarah mentioned that she wants to be able to solo and just log in for
> an hour and feel like she's accomplished something. If this is
> important, I think EQ2 is completely out. I haven't played it yet, so
> I might be wrong, but it's for this reason. EQ1, which I did play for
> a while, did strike me as a complete grind fest, far worse than WoW.
>
> M.

Uh, Mike--I've played both WoW and EQ2, remember? EQ2 isn't quite as
solo-friendly as WoW for sure, but isn't far lagging. What's more, solo
play in EQ2 is less "tedious" for lack of a better word, because there's a
bit more variety in the game, especially in the crafting arena.

It's my understanding EQ2 is worlds different from its predecessor,
particularly as it was during its "prime".
--
chainbreaker
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 11:40:43 AM

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

I do not recommend any MMORPG. None of them will be able to stand up to
your criteria. Plus these games are meant to be played in groups, even
WoW which is highly soloable for the most part you'll find yourself
needing groups to do certain quests and also for the instanced
dungeons. So if you don't want to group, my recommendation is to stick
with single player RPGs.

If you want to know which MMORPG is the best, it's World of Warcraft.
None of the others are even close. But even WoW isn't going to live up
to your demands.

Knight37
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 11:50:33 AM

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

It has unofficial RP server. It fails on quest variety (very repetitive
and dull stories) and apart for a few builds is very unsoloable.
>>>
Ok you lost me here. I don't know but when I played, many builds were
soloable. All blasters (20% of all builds right there). All scrappers
(another 20%). Some tankers (say, 7%). Some defenders(say, 7%) and a
few controllers (say, 3%). So, about 57% of the builds are soloable
(mind you, this is when I played, before you could add the new powers
they added that were supposed to make it even easier, and I heard the
keldans were soloable too, so it is definitely more than 'a few
builds').

About EQ2, maybe they changed it, but when I played it:
- All the lvl 20 quests required you to be in full groups (except
maybe the first 1 or 2 steps)
- All the access quests required you to be in full groups (which most
of the time failed doing it several times too)
I think I heard they removed the stupid access quests, kudos to them,
those access quests were the single stupidest feature in any MMORPG
I've played. It divided my guild in like 5 sections, and each section
started losing members till I left too because of this.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 12:19:13 PM

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

>> Not exactly. I'm not playing something that allows you to spend an
>> hour or two working your way through a mission, then sends a shitstorm
>> of a "gotcha" at you at the very end of it that requires you to do the
>> ENTIRE damned thing all over again. Uhuh. Not fun in my book.

>Just curious (and I am not trying to be a smartass or anything), but don't
>EQ, EQ2 and WoW (I am assuming based on posts I have read, I have never
>played any of them extensively) have raids and bosses who have a trick at
>the end that you have to figure out before you can beat them?

WoW yes, EQ2 no. EQ2 Doesn't have bosses the that sense. Plus in WoW
you can regroup and try again. You are not forced to redo the dungeon
if you fail.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 12:50:11 PM

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

>>All the lvl 20 quests required you to be in full groups (except
>>maybe the first 1 or 2 steps)

>Not like that at all now. You can solo effectively past level 20 now.
>Most overland creatures are soloable. Dungeons and bosses still require
>groups.

Oh yeah, just remembered SOE have added solo instanced dungeons. There
are two versions of theses, full group or solo. You select the right
one on entry.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:19:18 PM

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

Again, you're all ignoring Star Wars Galaxies.
- RP server: don't remember if it had
- Ability to hop in for one hour and do something: check
- Character customization: Big check
- Crafting: Huge check
- Other things to do other than crafting: Extra huge check
- Quests: check
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 3:44:11 PM

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

>1) The game should be reasonably accessible -- at any given level, I'd
>like to be able log on, play solo for an hour or so and then log off
>knowing I've accomplished something. That's not to say that I wouldn't
>dedicate long sessions to a MMORPG if it grabs me, but it shouldn't be a
>requirement to get anywhere.

This one requirement pretty much rules out every MMRPG out there. Sure
some are better than others, but sooner or later you will reach a point
where anything you do will take a longer period of time than it did at
lower levels.

Having played Asherons Call, Anarchy Online, Shadowbane, Horizons,
DaoC, Eve and WoW my vote would have to go to Wow, as the one that
allowed me to play for the longest period of time (read : levels) and
still be able to accomplish things without devoting 6 hours to the
simplest task. I did not reach level 60 tho and have heard complaints
from those that have, so take out of that what you will. (Eve doesnt
have levels, but in my opinion grinding for Isk replaces the grinding
for Exp. that other games have)

Good luck in your search!
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 5:04:53 PM

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

Ross Ridge wrote:
> wolfing <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Again, you're all ignoring Star Wars Galaxies.
>
> Probably becasue we haven't played it, so can't really comment on it.

Since when has that been a requirement?
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 5:19:26 PM

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

What do you mean no RP server in EQ2? There's 2 of them, Antonia Bayle
and Lucan D'Lere. And they were both launched pretty much the same time
when the game was launched.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 6:08:19 PM

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

"Nostromo" <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in message
news:udp0g19r53l3ule9o9aaf1kgcdg6gku3u0@4ax.com...
> Thus spake Sarah Jaernecke <nightfire.udic@web.de>, Sun, 14 Aug 2005
> 20:44:29 +0200, Anno Domini:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I didn't expect this to happen, but lately I've been getting this itch
>>to try an MMORPG, so I'm looking for recommendations. Also, can anyone
>>recommend a site that compares the available MMORPGs in terms of pros,
>>cons and available features?
>>
>>What I'm looking for in particular:
>>
>>1) The game should be reasonably accessible -- at any given level, I'd
>>like to be able log on, play solo for an hour or so and then log off
>>knowing I've accomplished something. That's not to say that I wouldn't
>>dedicate long sessions to a MMORPG if it grabs me, but it shouldn't be a
>>requirement to get anywhere.
>>2) Roleplaying servers. This is an absolute must.
>>3) Quests, quests, quests. I love quests. The concept of "grinding"
>>sounds hideously boring, I'd like to have some kind of reason for
>>fightin' and lootin'. ;)  I want racial quests, class quests, crafting
>>quests, long epic quest strings, and so on.
>>4) Good character customization, both in terms of appearance and in
>>terms of skills/feats/talents/whatever.
>>5) A good crafting system.
>
> From what you've described so far, I could only recommend Guild Wars (no
> mthly fee) or City of Heroes. Except for the crafting. If you're really
> hung
<snip>

Besides not having crafting, Guild Wars has zero roleplaying. It does okay
for 1&3 though.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 6:12:02 PM

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

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

>From what you've described so far, I could only recommend Guild Wars (no
>mthly fee) or City of Heroes. Except for the crafting. If you're really hung
>up on that part, all I can say is enjoy the level treadmill ;-p

Much as I like GW, I think what he's describing is Star Wars Galaxies.


--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 7:17:05 PM

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

tonij67@hotmail.com wrote:
>> 1) The game should be reasonably accessible -- at any given level,
>> I'd like to be able log on, play solo for an hour or so and then log
>> off knowing I've accomplished something. That's not to say that I
>> wouldn't dedicate long sessions to a MMORPG if it grabs me, but it
>> shouldn't be a requirement to get anywhere.
>
> This one requirement pretty much rules out every MMRPG out there.
> Sure some are better than others, but sooner or later you will reach
> a point where anything you do will take a longer period of time than
> it did at lower levels.
>

Yep, I have to agree with this. Whether playing solo or in a group, in
every MMORPG I've played, you're not going to do much by and large without
devoting a hefty time chunk to it each session. Unless for instance, you're
the kind of person who can take pleasure in simply traveling from one
location to another that first time in an hour. And to the original poster,
yes, there are places it'll take you that long to get to, at
least--sometimes it'll take you even longer. And that's if you really hoof
it, too. :-)

--
chainbreaker
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 8:04:14 PM

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

In article <ddptr40284c@news2.newsguy.com>, noone@nowhere.com says...
> Michael Vondung wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:35 -0400, chainbreaker wrote:
> >
> >> EQ2 would probably come closer to filling the bill than WoW.
> >
> > Sarah mentioned that she wants to be able to solo and just log in for
> > an hour and feel like she's accomplished something. If this is
> > important, I think EQ2 is completely out. I haven't played it yet, so
> > I might be wrong, but it's for this reason. EQ1, which I did play for
> > a while, did strike me as a complete grind fest, far worse than WoW.
> >
> > M.
>
> Uh, Mike--I've played both WoW and EQ2, remember? EQ2 isn't quite as
> solo-friendly as WoW for sure, but isn't far lagging. What's more, solo
> play in EQ2 is less "tedious" for lack of a better word, because there's a
> bit more variety in the game, especially in the crafting arena.
>
> It's my understanding EQ2 is worlds different from its predecessor,
> particularly as it was during its "prime".
>

I played both too and I have to say if you think EQ2 just "isn't quite
as solo-friendly" then you must not have gotten past level 10 or so,
because it's FAR, FAR less solo friendly than WoW. Soloing to 60 in WoW
is absolutely no problem, soloing to the cap in EQ2 is impossible.

--
Rob Berryhill
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 9:06:14 PM

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

Sarah Jaernecke <nightfire.udic@web.de> wrote:
>1) The game should be reasonably accessible -- at any given level, I'd
>like to be able log on, play solo for an hour or so and then log off
>knowing I've accomplished something.

I think with any MMORPG you're going to need to spend two to three hours
at a time to get a feeling of accomplishment.

>3) Quests, quests, quests. I love quests. The concept of "grinding"
>sounds hideously boring, I'd like to have some kind of reason for
>fightin' and lootin'. ;)  I want racial quests, class quests, crafting
>quests, long epic quest strings, and so on.

EverQuest II has the edge here over World of Warcraft, but not by a lot.
Both offer more quests than you can do with a single character without
out leveling them.

>4) Good character customization, both in terms of appearance and in
>terms of skills/feats/talents/whatever.

I'd say City of Heroes offers the best customization of the three
MMORPGs I've played. Both in appearance, which it clearly excels and
in character customization. With EverQuest II and World of Warcraft
there isn't much to distinguish members of the same class.

>5) A good crafting system.

EverQuest II has more depth to it's crafting system, but it requires
more work. Not something the very casual player can get into.

>An additional concern is the portrayal of female characters. From what
>I've heard, many /emotes and outfits in WoW for example make women look
>like trash whores or complete ditzes. *Way* to go. Not!

Well, I basically ignore emotes, I find them all kinda dumb, but there's
certainly no requirement that you dress or act in a demeaning manner in
any of these MMORPGs. I don't think you'll find much of a problem with
other players behaving that way, people like that are easily ignored.

>It would also be nice to have something to do other than fighting.
>Fishing, mini-games of skill or chance, buying or building a house and
>decorating it in the character's personal style, whatever.

There's various kinds harvesting in World of Warcraft and EverQuest II.
You can rent and decorate rooms/houses in EverQuest II, but it's not
something you'll spend hours on. The closest I can think to mini-games,
would be PVP combat in World of Warcraft.

Strictly according to you criteria, I don't think you'ld really enjoy
any MMORPG. But, I suspect you might come to enjoy just about any one
of the current MMORPGs regardless. If you have money and time to spend
to try one of them, I'd say go for it.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 9:35:24 PM

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

wolfing <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Again, you're all ignoring Star Wars Galaxies.

Probably becasue we haven't played it, so can't really comment on it.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 9:50:08 PM

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

"Knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124116843.693426.88730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I do not recommend any MMORPG. None of them will be able to stand up to
> your criteria. Plus these games are meant to be played in groups, even
> WoW which is highly soloable for the most part you'll find yourself
> needing groups to do certain quests and also for the instanced
> dungeons. So if you don't want to group, my recommendation is to stick
> with single player RPGs.
>
> If you want to know which MMORPG is the best, it's World of Warcraft.
> None of the others are even close. But even WoW isn't going to live up
> to your demands.

The "best" is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Of the 4 games I've
even played a little bit of, WoW comes in fourth, behind CoH, DAoC, and AO.
It didn't feel like it had a real world to it, and the "quests" at
low-levels were mostly "kill x of y".

It may be most popular, but that doesn't mean that it's indisputably the
best.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 10:07:31 PM

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

"Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfire.udic@web.de> wrote in message
news:ekuuf15auke41arenhm9pfk4qkm416nhec@4ax.com...
> Hello all,
>
> I didn't expect this to happen, but lately I've been getting this itch
> to try an MMORPG, so I'm looking for recommendations. Also, can anyone
> recommend a site that compares the available MMORPGs in terms of pros,
> cons and available features?
>
> What I'm looking for in particular:

I'm going to comment based on the only three I've tried for any length of
time: City of Heroes, Dark Age of Camelot, and World of Warcraft.

>
> 1) The game should be reasonably accessible -- at any given level, I'd
> like to be able log on, play solo for an hour or so and then log off
> knowing I've accomplished something. That's not to say that I wouldn't
> dedicate long sessions to a MMORPG if it grabs me, but it shouldn't be a
> requirement to get anywhere.

This is going to depend on what you mean by "accomplished something". A
mission in CoH normally takes at most about 1 - 1.5 hours, and can give you
a feeling of accomplishment, but at higher levels it may not pay off in
terms of level advancement, if that's what you mean by accomplishment. I've
heard that WoW does this well, but CoH is wonderful at this because of the
fully instanced missions. Even though their goals and layouts can be
repetitive, it is very easy to finish a few missions or a half a story arc
in a couple of hours. Dark Age of Camelot USED to be bad at this, but the
new instances and missions in them have helped a lot.

As for soloing, I soloed a paladin for a while, and so it's doable --
especially with the instances. It's slow, though.

> 2) Roleplaying servers. This is an absolute must.

WoW has them, but they get flooded by non-RPers when queues on the PvP and
PvE servers are down or queued (so I've heard, anyway). DAoC also has them.
CoH has an unofficial one.

> 3) Quests, quests, quests. I love quests. The concept of "grinding"
> sounds hideously boring, I'd like to have some kind of reason for
> fightin' and lootin'. ;)  I want racial quests, class quests, crafting
> quests, long epic quest strings, and so on.

Note that quests can equal grinding, if the quests are "kill x of y".

CoH has the best missions of the three games. Even at low levels, it has
missions that feel more like actual missions or an attempt to better the
society by accomplishing actual goals. The story arcs -- interconnected
missions against one villain group -- and task forces (same sort of thing,
only taking a lot more time) add to this.

WoW's low level missions were all variations of "kill x of y" or "gather x
things". Some of the layouts added to the missions, but at low levels they
were just too boring and too much grinding as a quest to be really
interesting.

DAoC was terrible for not having enough quests before, but quests got added
when they added instances so it isn't that bad anymore. I was running much
more interesting missions at level 6 than I was in WoW.

> 4) Good character customization, both in terms of appearance and in
> terms of skills/feats/talents/whatever.

CoH is the king of appearance customization. Less so in terms of skills.

WoW has fairly poor appearance customization and good skill customization (a
lot of skill trees are regarded as being broken).

DAoC has good appearance and good skill customization.

> 5) A good crafting system.

CoH has no crafting system.
WoW's is supposedly quite good.
DAoC's is similar to WoW's.

>
> An additional concern is the portrayal of female characters. From what
> I've heard, many /emotes and outfits in WoW for example make women look
> like trash whores or complete ditzes. *Way* to go. Not!

CoH's is as bad as you want to make it.
You know about WoW.
DAoC treats all characters reasonably alike in that regard, and even has
female-only classes that aren't just eye candy classes.

>
> It would also be nice to have something to do other than fighting.
> Fishing, mini-games of skill or chance, buying or building a house and
> decorating it in the character's personal style, whatever.

CoH has nothing of this sort, except for player run things.
WoW you know about, which is not much beyond tradeskills.
DAoC has housing and tradeskills.

From my perspective, DAoC MIGHT be the best one for you to play, except that
it is older and thus likely less populated. CoH is probably the best
"beginners" MMORPG, but it is nothing more than fighting. I hated WoW and
quit at low levels, so I can't recommend it.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 10:36:30 PM

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

Thusly "BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk> Spake Unto All:

>GW probably got the worst offender in the Elementist. Very dodgy outfit
>and /dance emote but then again I reckon the GW Mesmer is the most
>original and best dressed female toon in any mmog.

Ah, an opportunity to show off my Mesmer:
http://mikes-machine.mine.nu/temp/screens/noreason/mesm...
That's starter armor.

Mesmers look great, and although not the most uber class, IMO the most
fun class to play.

Elementalists have a bit of manga/bimbo thing going in the looks
department, but female eles dance the hula nice and wobbly, and that's
fine by me.

--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
August 16, 2005 12:12:15 AM

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

Thus spake "chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com>, Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:35
-0400, Anno Domini:

>You're going to grind in any MMORPG, but if you happen to enjoy everything
>else, and enjoy the gameplay/gameworld for it's own sake, then it's not
>going to seem like it that much, I guess. And it's problematical as to how
>much you'll accomplish in *any* MMORPG that I've played in in random time
>periods of less than an hour. You *can* accomplish stuff in that amount of
>time, but you'll probably have to set yourself up for it each time you log
>out, and that's true for every MMORPG I've played--and it's even mostly true
>for Guild Wars, which is another kind of animal altogether. (It's easy to
>get plenty started in GW in an hour, but not that easy to finish it, and
>that's why I've mostly quit playing that game.)

Wuss! Hey, did you even get one char to 20th in the end? What happened to
our weekly bash mate? I've just hit Kryta, but will certainly finish the
game once. It's almost inevitable - if henchies can't quite copy with one of
the 5% really tough missions, you just grab a pick up group (carefully -
chat with them first, he, he) & you should be able to progress. No grind (so
far), no perma-death or death penalty to speak of, no monthly fee - what's
there not to love? ;-)

>The only online game I've ever played where I know I can just sit down and
>make some hay in a hurry every single time is Diablo 2 and some of its
>closer cousins. :-)

Errr...like Guild Wars? ;-p

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:12:16 AM

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

Nostromo wrote:

>> The only online game I've ever played where I know I can just sit
>> down and make some hay in a hurry every single time is Diablo 2 and
>> some of its closer cousins. :-)
>
> Errr...like Guild Wars? ;-p

Not exactly. I'm not playing something that allows you to spend an hour or
two working your way through a mission, then sends a shitstorm of a "gotcha"
at you at the very end of it that requires you to do the ENTIRE damned thing
all over again. Uhuh. Not fun in my book.

--
chainbreaker
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:12:17 AM

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

Thusly "chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com> Spake Unto All:

>Not exactly. I'm not playing something that allows you to spend an hour or
>two working your way through a mission, then sends a shitstorm of a "gotcha"
>at you at the very end of it that requires you to do the ENTIRE damned thing
>all over again. Uhuh. Not fun in my book.

If the party gets wiped in a mission, you're out of the mission, even
if you get wiped at the last minute, that's true.

However, you can't really have in-mission save/restore in a MMORPG.

Besides, the storyline missions are optional, and if you could
save/restore your way through them, the game would be awfully short.
Most of them are about one hour long, only a few (like Ruins of
Surmia) reaches two hours.


--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:12:17 AM

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

"chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:D dpu2402880@news2.newsguy.com:

> Nostromo wrote:
>
>>> The only online game I've ever played where I know I can just sit
>>> down and make some hay in a hurry every single time is Diablo 2 and
>>> some of its closer cousins. :-)
>>
>> Errr...like Guild Wars? ;-p
>
> Not exactly. I'm not playing something that allows you to spend an
> hour or two working your way through a mission, then sends a shitstorm
> of a "gotcha" at you at the very end of it that requires you to do the
> ENTIRE damned thing all over again. Uhuh. Not fun in my book.

Just curious (and I am not trying to be a smartass or anything), but don't
EQ, EQ2 and WoW (I am assuming based on posts I have read, I have never
played any of them extensively) have raids and bosses who have a trick at
the end that you have to figure out before you can beat them?

--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:12:17 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:24:54 -0400, chainbreaker wrote:

> I'm not playing something that allows you to spend an hour or
> two working your way through a mission, then sends a shitstorm of a "gotcha"
> at you at the very end of it that requires you to do the ENTIRE damned thing
> all over again.

Is this what Guild Wars is like?

M.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:12:18 AM

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

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> Thusly "chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>> Not exactly. I'm not playing something that allows you to spend an
>> hour or two working your way through a mission, then sends a
>> shitstorm of a "gotcha" at you at the very end of it that requires
>> you to do the ENTIRE damned thing all over again. Uhuh. Not fun in
>> my book.
>
> If the party gets wiped in a mission, you're out of the mission, even
> if you get wiped at the last minute, that's true.
>
> However, you can't really have in-mission save/restore in a MMORPG.
>
> Besides, the storyline missions are optional, and if you could
> save/restore your way through them, the game would be awfully short.
> Most of them are about one hour long, only a few (like Ruins of
> Surmia) reaches two hours.

As far as I'm concerned, artificially lengthening the game with BS like that
simply accents its weaknesses, anyway, sort of like the obligatory mazes in
the early generation CRPGs. It also reminds me of the end bosses in Descent
that all had some "trick" to figure out before you could beat them. Those
weren't a lot of fun, either . . . more aggravating than anything else, but
at least you didn't have to repeat an entire level to deal with them.

Besides, I hate contrived BS mightily--a fault of mine I suppose, but I'm
the one who has to live with it. :-)
--
chainbreaker
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:12:18 AM

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

Michael Vondung wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:24:54 -0400, chainbreaker wrote:
>
>> I'm not playing something that allows you to spend an hour or
>> two working your way through a mission, then sends a shitstorm of a
>> "gotcha" at you at the very end of it that requires you to do the
>> ENTIRE damned thing all over again.
>
> Is this what Guild Wars is like?
>
> M.

Well, most of the "regular" missions/quests aren't exactly like that (but
some are), but a big part of the game is the Co-op missions, and every one I
played--five or six of them as I recall--is like that at least to a degree.
In most cases the "trick" isn't a real biggie, being something fairly easy
to see that you can deal with next time, but more than once or twice for
that in any game is about all I'm prepared to tolerate.
--
chainbreaker
August 16, 2005 12:20:03 AM

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

Thus spake Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com>, Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:14:44
+0200, Anno Domini:

>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:17:35 -0400, chainbreaker wrote:
>
>> EQ2 would probably come closer to filling the bill than WoW.
>
>Sarah mentioned that she wants to be able to solo and just log in for an
>hour and feel like she's accomplished something. If this is important, I
>think EQ2 is completely out. I haven't played it yet, so I might be wrong,
>but it's for this reason. EQ1, which I did play for a while, did strike me
>as a complete grind fest, far worse than WoW.
>
>M.

It was doable (especially during the infamous server downtime in our Aussie
prime time every night) - but all I did was craft on weeknights in the end,
because you couldn't achieve anything adventuring in an hour & then get
kicked off for 20mins-2hrs (roll the dice) & then get back on after
9:30-10pm - all too hard. Pissed me off so much that by the time they
relaxed the nightly maintenance I was over it.

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:20:04 AM

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

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


>It was doable (especially during the infamous server downtime in our Aussie
>prime time every night) - but all I did was craft on weeknights in the end,
>because you couldn't achieve anything adventuring in an hour & then get
>kicked off for 20mins-2hrs (roll the dice) & then get back on after
>9:30-10pm - all too hard. Pissed me off so much that by the time they
>relaxed the nightly maintenance I was over it.

I faced that problem too, and I'm in Sweden. I usually play nights and
the service downtime was smack in my gaming window of opportunity. I
experienced a couple of server crashes too.
I liked EQ2, I loved the way one could customize ones avatar, but the
game itself didn't grab me - I don't like socializing, and the actual
gameplay was all hack & slash against infinite waves of respawning
mobs, and I've always hated respawning mobs.

All in all a nice game with a good crowd, but I'd not spend $50 + $15
per month for it. Personally I think GW beats it on every level.

--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:18:32 AM

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

Michael Vondung scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg:

> Initial thought: "Forget it." :) 

Ha! That's what I feared. :p  I do know that the chance of finding my
"ideal" MMORPG is even smaller than the one of finding my "ideal"
single-player CRPG.

> WoW meets some of your criteria (quests, ability to solo), but
> horribly fails at others (crafting system, customization,
> sophisticated skill system). Ultima Online also only partially meets
> your expectations (ability to solo, sophisticated skill system,
> pretty good crafting system), but not all of them (quests, visual
> customization).

<snip>

That's pretty much what I gathered from my research, yeah. Guess I'll
just wait and see what happens to WoW in the next few months -- if the
new content will be "endgame" raids and PvP all the way I'll give it a
pass.

> Have you considered Neverwinter Nights and one of the RP-centered
> persistant worlds? There will be only a few dozens of players instead of
> thousands, but I actually did find some of them (when I played) more
> immersive than WoW.

I do own NWN and both expansions, but I just can't stomach the game --
both the engine and the fact that it's D&D (though some of the
player-made modules were fun). I also doubt that the NWN engine could
ever create an actual "world" since you can't climb hills and marvel at
the sun setting on the plains below, jump down cliffs or go for a swim.

Thanks for the input. If I do go with UO, can you (or anyone) recommend
a good server?


--
Sarah Jaernecke
Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
"If a tree falls in the forest... I'll kill the bastard what done it!"
- Jaheira, Baldur's Gate
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:18:33 AM

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

chainbreaker scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg:

> My initial impulse is to agree with MV, but . . .
>
> EQ2 would probably come closer to filling the bill than WoW.

Bloody official website doesn't agree with my Opera.

Going by what little I know about EQ2, the crafting system definitely
beats WoW's hands down. Can you actually make a profit from crafting in
EQ2 (for some crazy reason, crafted items in WoW often seem to be worth
significantly less than their components).

I also like the fact that you can apparently switch sides in EQ2,
whereas WoW's Alliance/Horde division is utterly fixed. Can you learn
new languages, too? And does the game manage to give each race a
distinct "feel", given that there only seem to be two towns?

On the other hand, there's nothing I know about EQ2 that jumps up and
"grabs" me. I became interested in WoW because I've played and enjoyed
WC2 and especially WC3 so I know the world, the races etc., and looking
at the class descriptions for WoW there were several I'd love to play.
EQ2's sound ... bland in comparison.


--
Sarah Jaernecke
Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
"If a tree falls in the forest... I'll kill the bastard what done it!"
- Jaheira, Baldur's Gate
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:18:34 AM

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

"Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfire.udic@web.de> wrote in message
news:n7p1g192ojkt38afp4oob761qvub2b33to@4ax.com...
> On the other hand, there's nothing I know about EQ2 that jumps up and
> "grabs" me. I became interested in WoW because I've played and enjoyed
> WC2 and especially WC3 so I know the world, the races etc., and looking
> at the class descriptions for WoW there were several I'd love to play.
> EQ2's sound ... bland in comparison.

I'm amazed that you found that much interest in WoW's races and classes,
because that was what really bothered me at first about WoW, in that
comparing its classes to DAoC's or even CoH's there was much less to choose
from in WoW. The only benefit it had was that race meant more than just
class restrictions and attributes, but there were fewer classes than DAoC,
CoH, and even what I'd heard in EQ2.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:42:22 AM

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

Sarah Jaernecke wrote:
> chainbreaker scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg:
>
>> My initial impulse is to agree with MV, but . . .
>>
>> EQ2 would probably come closer to filling the bill than WoW.
>
> Bloody official website doesn't agree with my Opera.
>
> Going by what little I know about EQ2, the crafting system definitely
> beats WoW's hands down. Can you actually make a profit from crafting
> in EQ2 (for some crazy reason, crafted items in WoW often seem to be
> worth significantly less than their components).
>

Yes, from selling to other players, although a profit isn't guaranteed. And
it'll take a while before that happens. The good thing is that raw
materials are pretty common and there's lots of different routes you can go
with your crafting. The bad thing is that it takes *lots* of raw materials.

> I also like the fact that you can apparently switch sides in EQ2,
> whereas WoW's Alliance/Horde division is utterly fixed. Can you learn
> new languages, too? And does the game manage to give each race a
> distinct "feel", given that there only seem to be two towns?
>
Yes, each racial type has a language you can learn, and most if not all of
the various enemy races do too. There are only two towns, but each has a
"district" populated mostly by one or two of the various races.
Architecture is somewhater varied in each district, too--a bit more varied
in Qeynos.

> On the other hand, there's nothing I know about EQ2 that jumps up and
> "grabs" me. I became interested in WoW because I've played and enjoyed
> WC2 and especially WC3 so I know the world, the races etc., and
> looking at the class descriptions for WoW there were several I'd love
> to play. EQ2's sound ... bland in comparison.

Well, I've signed up for two different stints of EQ2--two months initially
right after the game's release, and another couple of months after a few
months layoff--and will probably sign up for another month or two in a month
or two, hehe. OTOH, I have no desire whatever to ever play WoW again after
my initial 3 months' run. Make of that what you will.

--
chainbreaker
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:48:13 AM

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

Rob Berryhill wrote:
> I played both too and I have to say if you think EQ2 just "isn't quite
> as solo-friendly" then you must not have gotten past level 10 or so,
> because it's FAR, FAR less solo friendly than WoW. Soloing to 60 in
> WoW is absolutely no problem, soloing to the cap in EQ2 is impossible.

Um, a couple of characters around level 20. Have you played EQ2 lately?
It's worlds different now regarding solo playability than it was right after
its release.

Leveling to the cap in either one isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned,
and probably not an issue to someone who's evidently going to be fairly
time-limited as the OP seems to be, either.
--
chainbreaker
August 16, 2005 1:59:13 AM

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

Thus spake "chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com>, Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:24:54
-0400, Anno Domini:

>Nostromo wrote:
>
>>> The only online game I've ever played where I know I can just sit
>>> down and make some hay in a hurry every single time is Diablo 2 and
>>> some of its closer cousins. :-)
>>
>> Errr...like Guild Wars? ;-p
>
>Not exactly. I'm not playing something that allows you to spend an hour or
>two working your way through a mission, then sends a shitstorm of a "gotcha"
>at you at the very end of it that requires you to do the ENTIRE damned thing
>all over again. Uhuh. Not fun in my book.

D/l & read the Prima Guide before each mission - works for me ;-)

(hey, I paid for the EQ2 one...I figure that's fair! >;-)

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
August 16, 2005 3:42:24 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:18:33 +0200, Sarah Jaernecke
<nightfire.udic@web.de> wrote:

>Bloody official website doesn't agree with my Opera.

Yet another reason to see the light and use Firefox :-)
--
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.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:08:21 AM

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

On 15 Aug 2005 07:40:43 -0700, Knight37 wrote:

> If you want to know which MMORPG is the best, it's World of Warcraft.

Best for...? The crafting system of WoW is ridiculous and might as well
not be there at all. You can't really interact with the world, either ...
like, chop wood or dig at every mountain side. Only at very specific
"nodes", which ruined any kind of immersion to me. I enjoyed WoW for five
months, but it's a soft-washer MMORPG that lacks real depth. Still, it's a
fun game, but it's just that: a game. It isn't an experience.

All IMO of coutse. :) 

M. (UO ruined me for all other MMORPGs, though!)
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:08:22 AM

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

Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com> once tried to test me with:

> On 15 Aug 2005 07:40:43 -0700, Knight37 wrote:
>
>> If you want to know which MMORPG is the best, it's World of Warcraft.
>
> Best for...?

Best overall. Mostest Funnest.

> depth. Still, it's a fun game, but it's just that: a game. It isn't an
> experience.

Well I am still playing it. So it must be pretty good. ;) 


--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
August 16, 2005 4:08:22 AM

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:08:21 +0200, Michael Vondung
<mvondung@gmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>On 15 Aug 2005 07:40:43 -0700, Knight37 wrote:
>
>> If you want to know which MMORPG is the best, it's World of Warcraft.
>
>Best for...? The crafting system of WoW is ridiculous and might as well
>not be there at all. You can't really interact with the world, either ...
>like, chop wood or dig at every mountain side. Only at very specific
>"nodes", which ruined any kind of immersion to me. I enjoyed WoW for five
>months, but it's a soft-washer MMORPG that lacks real depth. Still, it's a
>fun game, but it's just that: a game. It isn't an experience.
>
>All IMO of coutse. :) 


My RL friends are all harassing me to join them in WoW.
I feat I'll be facing the same fate you did...

> (UO ruined me for all other MMORPGs, though!)

....and that's why.
It really is too bad (for us) that the market wants a game, not an
experience.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:10:55 AM

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

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> once tried to test me
with:

> The "best" is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Of the 4 games
> I've even played a little bit of, WoW comes in fourth, behind CoH,
> DAoC, and AO. It didn't feel like it had a real world to it, and the
> "quests" at low-levels were mostly "kill x of y".

Well I thought CoH was pretty neat and all, but it was no WoW. Still, had
WoW not existed, I could definitely see myself subscribing to CoH for
several months. I'm actually a bit miffed that I didn't take advantage of
playing CoH when it was pretty much the only game running back when it
launched.

And AO and DAOC couldn't hold a candle to WoW, IMHO. DAoC was so horribly
un-fun that I didn't even bother subscribing to it after my first free
month that I bought during launch week. AO lasted quite a bit longer, where
I spent a good 3 or 4 months playing it, but in the end, there were too
many technical headaches, and I was pretty tired of running the instances
just to get new gear so I canceled it. If I were dirt poor and couldn't
afford to pay for WoW I could see myself going back to AO and playing in
the ad-supported world. It was at least fun, which is far more than I can
say about DAoC.

> It may be most popular, but that doesn't mean that it's indisputably
> the best.

In the World According to Knight37, it is. :) 

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:11:37 AM

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

On 15 Aug 2005 10:19:18 -0700, wolfing wrote:

> Again, you're all ignoring Star Wars Galaxies.

Not ignoring it, but scifi themes don't usually appeal to me, so I never
tried it out. If I recall past messages from Sarah correctly, she is more
of a fanatasy fan, too. Might be wrong, though.

M.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 5:02:46 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:07:31 -0400, Allan C Cybulskie wrote:

>> 5) A good crafting system.
> WoW's is supposedly quite good.

I'd disagree. For one, there is only a very limited number of craft skills.
Most people take one plus a matching gathering skills. Regardless of what
you take, most items you can make are worthless because practically nobody
needs them. For the few items that there is a demand for, you either have
to spend many boring hours collecting the raw materials or pay more for the
incredients than the finished product will yield. Additionally, in case of
smithing and tailoring, monster drops are far superior to nearly anything
you can craft. Alchemy is perhaps the only viable end-game crafting skill,
and unless you play during off hours, you'll have a heck of a time getting
the herbs for the very few potions that sell. Actually making the items
takes zero "real" skill. For most items there isn't even a failure chance
(you don't lose incredients).

Compared to UO's crafting system (and presumably SWG's), WoW's crafting
system is just a fancy gimmick, but not an essential part of the game. Case
in point: Most experienced players have two gathering skills per character,
and no skill to actually craft anything. There's no traditional wear&tear
(reduced durability after repairing something) and you lose nothing at
death, which further reduces the value of crafted items. Monster drops from
instances are almost always superior to player-made equipment.

The "killer", to me, is that your crafting skill level is tied to your
character level. You need to have xx character level to advance to the next
level of your crafting skill in most cases. Playing a pacifist crafter is
not really possible, unlike in UO where you could do exactly that.

M.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 5:02:47 AM

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

Michael Vondung wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:07:31 -0400, Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>
>>> 5) A good crafting system.
>> WoW's is supposedly quite good.
>
> I'd disagree.

Heh, yeah, me too. WoW's crafting system essentially *is* no crafting
system--mostly just a gimmick, as you say. :-) Beyond that, about the only
thing I ever made that I actually got any use from was a few bags.

--
chainbreaker
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 9:56:26 AM

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

Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I played both too and I have to say if you think EQ2 just "isn't quite
>as solo-friendly" then you must not have gotten past level 10 or so,
>because it's FAR, FAR less solo friendly than WoW. Soloing to 60 in WoW
>is absolutely no problem, soloing to the cap in EQ2 is impossible.

You're not going to reach the level cap in EverQuest II anywhere near
as quickly as in World of Warcraft no matter what you do, but they've
made soloing a lot more practical and it's far from impossible at
higher levels.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
!