look down at the sig, the big red thing, this is how i feal toward articles like that at this moment
|
|
|
|
\/
Edited, Sun Jun 20 01:17:50 2004 by VampyreKnight
·Theme
- Forums
- World of Warcraft
- General Discussion
- FFXI vs. WoW
FFXI vs. WoWFollow
5 posts
Quote:
Yeah, you bring a good point in the fact that blizzard is three times the game company that SOE will ever be, even if the later is way richer.
hahaha you obviously dont remember the broken release dates of many of their games including, but not limited to, Diablo II. SOE the child company of a little company called Sony...which has another little something called a Playstation 2, only the most popular and successfull gaming console EVER. What does Blizzard have other than it's Diablo's and its Warcraft's. Honestly i dont think any of you can have an opinion one way or the other till you've played it
tharnorn wrote:
hahaha you obviously dont remember the broken release dates of many of their games including, but not limited to, Diablo II. SOE the child company of a little company called Sony...which has another little something called a Playstation 2, only the most popular and successfull gaming console EVER. What does Blizzard have other than it's Diablo's and its Warcraft's. Honestly i dont think any of you can have an opinion one way or the other till you've played it
Heh, do I even have to say anything? Oh yeah, pssst... Starcraft.
Quote:
hahaha you obviously dont remember the broken release dates of many of their games including, but not limited to, Diablo II. SOE the child company of a little company called Sony...which has another little something called a Playstation 2, only the most popular and successfull gaming console EVER. What does Blizzard have other than it's Diablo's and its Warcraft's. Honestly i dont think any of you can have an opinion one way or the other till you've played it
Oh boy, as a gamer, I HAVE to reply to this. Now before I begin, I wanna say hello again to everybody here and ask why in the world is this topic back up again? Look, FFXI has their own set content and WoW has theirs. Same goes with EQ 2. What will attract people to those respected games will be what they offer. You want hardcore, party focused role playing? Pick FFXI. You want a MMO that focuses on yet not limited to the casual gamer while offering faction vs faction action? Pick WoW. You want old school roleplaying with a classic, familiar setting and realistic graphics? Pick EQ2. There, that sums it up. Please, for the love of god, no more comparing. It seriously gets old.
Now on to the quote that I have provided above. Let me just say this one little thing: TALENTS WITH CONSOLES AND TALENTS WITH GAMES ARE 2 VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!
Now let me offer some history when it comes to Sony's console success. You see, back in the Super Nintendo days, Nintendo and Sony were *gasp* business partners that discussed plans of a upgrade to the Super Nintendo which was a cd rom add on codenamed "Playstation". Sounds familiar? Anyways, after Sony caught Nintendo having discussions with Panasonic and decided to break away from the deal they had with Nintendo. Scrapping the project, Sony took what was supposed to a add on and made it into a stand alone system to compete with Nintendo's upcoming "Ultra 64" which was the Nintendo 64.
During the years of 94 to 95 (forgot the year) Sony released the Playstation, aiming it towards the older walkmen carrying crowd. This is where sony began their dominance. You see, during this time, Nintendo tried extending the life of the Super Nintendo by offering new ways to use its hardware in order to work more on the Ultra 64, which games like Killer Instinct displayed in the arcades. Using this to their advantage, Sony slowly took developers away from Nintendo's roster one by one, who were frustrated with the amount of time Nintendo was taking on their Ultra 64. Well, to keep a long story short, Nintendo actually helped Sony succeed by taking too much time on what they called their greatest system. By the time Nintendo was done, all of their developers were singing the tone of Sony. If Nintendo wasn't driven by blind faith, Nintendo would be ahead by now.
What does this have to do with Sony as a game company? I'll explain. You see, everything that was offered on a competing system, Sony took that idea. Remember the rumble pack Nintendo introduced? Sony took that idea and put it into their duel shock controller. Remember the N64 Anaolog stick? Sony now uses them on their controllers. How about gaming? Remember Mario 64? Sony answered with Crash Bandicoot. I still remember the old Sony commercials that had a guy dressed as the Bandicoot, bashing Nintendo from the company's parking lot. Online play? Sony took that idea from Sega, who introduced this with their ill-fated Dreamcast. The only reason they are stepping up their online plans is basically because Microsoft's X-Box live is becoming insanely popular. Eyetoy is nothing more then a rip off of the old Gameboy camera. It's a wonder why I'm not going to flock to Sony, eh? If anything, only 3 games actually make Sony stand out at all: Everquest, Ico, and Grand Turismo. The only game that wasn't successful was Ico, which I thought was a game of pure genius.
But, if anything, Sony made their success by copying and marketing. The greatest way Sony had their console succeed was basically the mentality of the general public. "Sony, maker of the sexy Walkman making a game console? Where can I sign up?" was what most people said to themselves when they tried to break away from the "kiddish" Nintendo and Sega in favor of a company that most "cool" kids wouldn't be caught dead without their CD players. Simple as that.
Now on to Blizzard. They KNOW how to make games. They were not founded on any hardware company, they were founded as a game company. As of currently, Blizzard has been responsible for 7 #1 selling games, some closing in at the 7 million copy mark. The only game even near this success in Sony's side was Grand Turismo. Not even Everquest reached those numbers. People flock to Blizzard Games not because it's from a "hip" and "cool" company that makes games which has you smacking hoes and killing in classic mafia style like so many games are doing now. The reason is because their games are simply fun. They are simple games to learn, yet complex games to master. Their games are just as enjoyable now as they were years ago. People around the world still compete in Starcraft tournies and that game was released in 1998! This is why people are excited with World of Warcraft. They expect a game similiar to Blizzard's old games, whic are still being enjoyed today.
By the way, Tharnorn, you are wrong about the Playstation 2 being the best selling game console ever. As of so far, Playstation 2 sold over 60 million units world wide. Nintendo Gameboy has sold over 150 million units worldwide. Also, the Super Nintendo has sold over 65 million units with the NES selling as much as the Playstation 2. Just wanted to show you facts ^^. Well, thats my hellishly off topic rant. Time to get lost... *jumps through a window*
One more thing, Blizzard also has Blackthrone and Lost Vikings as finely represented examples of their game designs. I can only pray for sequels in the near future ^^
Edited, Thu Jul 29 23:13:46 2004 by Redmoonxl
Edited, Thu Jul 29 23:23:36 2004 by Redmoonxl
The ability to solo in WoW is a welcome relief and a hindrance to the game. there are positive and negatives to being able to do this. At least you have the option but the reality is noone has seen how soloing really plays out in WoW yet because the game has not been released. I cannot imagine soloing for the amount of time I have partied in FFXI. I absolutely enjoy getting an uber party going, when everything is in sync, skillchains, massive XP chains and such. If I had to do even a fraction of that solo I would lose my mind guys. Basically what I am saying is I hope the party system takes off in WoW. It needs to be there and people should be urged to party, believe that is where the magic is in MMORPG. Having people there, group dynamics, arguments, victories, all as a team, it is wonderful. FFXI does this very very well. LFP does suck, but eventually you get to know people and you will find groups. I hear beastmasters complain about not being part of the party scene and they solo, although they still enjoy beastmaster as a job. We all want what we cant have, its kinda how human beings work.
Viniferis, I'm tying to figure out how the ability to solo could be a "hindrance" to or negatively impact the game. Alot of the quests are soloed because they can be. However, if you want to party, and some quests you have to party for, you can. Thankfully, WoW at this point in the beta does not require you to sit in town for 3 hours looking for a party to gain experience. If forced partying is what you are looking for, FFXI is the perfect game for you.
The Lost Vikings was made...well, published anyway...by Interplay. Blackthorne was the first game I ever remember seeing the name Blizzard on, with Warcraft 1 shortly thereafter.
Having grown up in the glory days of the NES and SNES, I have no particular love for Sony. I have a PS2 nowadays, but my one console system for years was the N64. I could say all kinds of good and bad for the PS2. But that's hardware.
Where it comes to software, Sony doesn't have a whole lot in their back pocket worth mentioning. They didn't even make Everquest, only bought the rights to it and took over, at which point the game took on a completely different face.
Blizzard has a much better track record in my opinion. If I knew nothing of the individual MMORPGs, the only major company I would really consider to be in league with them at the ability to make a game with RPG elements is Square. (Yes, there are smaller developers with dedicated fanbases.) However, based on what I've heard alone, I have very little interest in playing FFXI, despite respecting Square a lot.
The most important thing about Sony here though is that while they have a huge fanbase of "Everquest" alone, which counts for a lot, they have also estranged a lot of their players that have vowed never to touch EQ2 with a 10 foot pole. I'm not going to compare them; I'm not going to say which I think is better until I try EQ2; I'm only going to say that Blizzard definitely has the advantage if they both have the respect of their players and have also been in beta for 6 months rather than 3 weeks.
Having grown up in the glory days of the NES and SNES, I have no particular love for Sony. I have a PS2 nowadays, but my one console system for years was the N64. I could say all kinds of good and bad for the PS2. But that's hardware.
Where it comes to software, Sony doesn't have a whole lot in their back pocket worth mentioning. They didn't even make Everquest, only bought the rights to it and took over, at which point the game took on a completely different face.
Blizzard has a much better track record in my opinion. If I knew nothing of the individual MMORPGs, the only major company I would really consider to be in league with them at the ability to make a game with RPG elements is Square. (Yes, there are smaller developers with dedicated fanbases.) However, based on what I've heard alone, I have very little interest in playing FFXI, despite respecting Square a lot.
The most important thing about Sony here though is that while they have a huge fanbase of "Everquest" alone, which counts for a lot, they have also estranged a lot of their players that have vowed never to touch EQ2 with a 10 foot pole. I'm not going to compare them; I'm not going to say which I think is better until I try EQ2; I'm only going to say that Blizzard definitely has the advantage if they both have the respect of their players and have also been in beta for 6 months rather than 3 weeks.
Only the exceptions can be exceptional.
Blizzard developed Lost Vikings for PC and The Lost Vikings II for the SNES. Interplay developed Norse by Norsewest: The Return of the Lost Vikings. All three titles were published by Interplay.
And #!&@ SoE.
And #!&@ SoE.
I am still tossing and turning between them both. A friend is saying that WoW is getting much beter reviews than FF11 But I have had sooo much time into FF11 :( But if they give a free trial of it then I will be trying it out and make my personal decision from there.
We will see, hope for the best.. I keep hoping that FF11 will get thier **** together and make the game a little more than going out and xp bashing for hours on end.... eventually it looses its fun and becomes to repetative for it all.
Ahh well.... we will see :)
Laters CX
We will see, hope for the best.. I keep hoping that FF11 will get thier **** together and make the game a little more than going out and xp bashing for hours on end.... eventually it looses its fun and becomes to repetative for it all.
Ahh well.... we will see :)
Laters CX
Having just broken into WoW this weekend, here's my take:
While I still love FFXI, a single day of playing Warcraft has taken away an enormous chunk of my ambition and desire to load up FFXI. It's obviously too early to say "WoW IS THE BEST GAME EVER, I'M QUITTING FFXI RIGHT NOW!" but I must say, I really love how this game is coming along so far in my experience. Nothing has smacked of irritation right out of the gate. By the time I had achieved the same level in FFXI, I already had a mild list of complaints and concerns.
I'm a huge Final Fantasy geek, so I don't want to give up on FFXI, but playing it is becoming something like a job. It's a major time investment each time you want to progress in anything. Granted, duh, it's an MMO, that's what these things are all about, but I think FFXI may be taking it a bit too far for my tastes. It's borderline obsessive. Reaching that plateu you've been striving for for god know's how long (be it hitting a new level, achieving a new Rank, unlocking a new job, completing a huge quest) really gives you a sense of satisfaction. Unfortunately, this satisfaction is something I've come to equate with the satisfaction of removing a metal shaving from my eye, or smiling in misty-eyed glee as the in-laws drive down the street after a week long visit. I've come to enjoy these moments simply because I've worked so hard at achieving them, more so than the actual payoff for what I've accomplished. This may just be my own personal view, but I know I'm not alone in this ideal. I will likely continue playing FFXI until I just have absolutely no desire to load it up anymore. And I do hope that isn't for a while. Maybe something will change for me and I'll get back into it full swing, but remain pessemistic at best.
Warcraft, completely on the other hand, has done nothing short of throwing rose petals at my feet thus far. The level advancement system is a pleasure to partake in. Completing quests gives you huge ammounts of experience, often up to 10 times the ammount you would receive from killing a same-level monster. Insofar, I've reached a level 10 Night-Elf Priest, and compelted all but three quests available for me all on my own. This isn't to say "thank god I don't have to party" but it is refreshing to feel that a good portion of the quests are welcome for solo playing if so desired. The skill system is actually useful, where the FFXI crafting system is pretty much reserved for the masochistic player. Money issues are not debilitating in WoW, and ways to accrue funds are not coveted like government secrets. I am also very pleased over the freedom of customization present thus far. I don't feel restricted to the ladder mentality of items and equipment that FFXI is rife with. Granted, this may change as I go further on, but by this point in FFXI, you are either double checking to make sure all your gear is the best it can be, or you suffer eternal LFG for being "gimped" and continuously getting murdered.
I'm sure my opinions will evolve and change with time, just as they have with FFXI. I hope that in a year, I'm not as disappointed with my gaming experience.
While I still love FFXI, a single day of playing Warcraft has taken away an enormous chunk of my ambition and desire to load up FFXI. It's obviously too early to say "WoW IS THE BEST GAME EVER, I'M QUITTING FFXI RIGHT NOW!" but I must say, I really love how this game is coming along so far in my experience. Nothing has smacked of irritation right out of the gate. By the time I had achieved the same level in FFXI, I already had a mild list of complaints and concerns.
I'm a huge Final Fantasy geek, so I don't want to give up on FFXI, but playing it is becoming something like a job. It's a major time investment each time you want to progress in anything. Granted, duh, it's an MMO, that's what these things are all about, but I think FFXI may be taking it a bit too far for my tastes. It's borderline obsessive. Reaching that plateu you've been striving for for god know's how long (be it hitting a new level, achieving a new Rank, unlocking a new job, completing a huge quest) really gives you a sense of satisfaction. Unfortunately, this satisfaction is something I've come to equate with the satisfaction of removing a metal shaving from my eye, or smiling in misty-eyed glee as the in-laws drive down the street after a week long visit. I've come to enjoy these moments simply because I've worked so hard at achieving them, more so than the actual payoff for what I've accomplished. This may just be my own personal view, but I know I'm not alone in this ideal. I will likely continue playing FFXI until I just have absolutely no desire to load it up anymore. And I do hope that isn't for a while. Maybe something will change for me and I'll get back into it full swing, but remain pessemistic at best.
Warcraft, completely on the other hand, has done nothing short of throwing rose petals at my feet thus far. The level advancement system is a pleasure to partake in. Completing quests gives you huge ammounts of experience, often up to 10 times the ammount you would receive from killing a same-level monster. Insofar, I've reached a level 10 Night-Elf Priest, and compelted all but three quests available for me all on my own. This isn't to say "thank god I don't have to party" but it is refreshing to feel that a good portion of the quests are welcome for solo playing if so desired. The skill system is actually useful, where the FFXI crafting system is pretty much reserved for the masochistic player. Money issues are not debilitating in WoW, and ways to accrue funds are not coveted like government secrets. I am also very pleased over the freedom of customization present thus far. I don't feel restricted to the ladder mentality of items and equipment that FFXI is rife with. Granted, this may change as I go further on, but by this point in FFXI, you are either double checking to make sure all your gear is the best it can be, or you suffer eternal LFG for being "gimped" and continuously getting murdered.
I'm sure my opinions will evolve and change with time, just as they have with FFXI. I hope that in a year, I'm not as disappointed with my gaming experience.
Ive been playing FFXI almost since the NA release. It's a fun game, and I enjoy it, but it is most definitely not for everyone, least of all the casual gamer. What I plan on doing when WoW comes out is pretty simple: I will keep my FFXI subscription but start going into WoW too. If I find myself playing one much more than the other I will drop the one I dont play and continue on with the other. Its looking right now like WoW will win out, but I'm also going to be factoring in how long it looks like the game will keep my interest. FFXI could keep me going long after I'm dead, but from what Ive heard of WoW I could be done with it inside a year.
As for Blizzards track record, they did indeed make The Lost Vikings along with Blackthorne and Rock & Roll Racing, although at the time they were under the Silicone Synapse title. I havent played R&R R or Blackthorne, but I can attest that TLV is a classic game, as is it's sequel. As for their later games, they have yet to make anything approaching a failure. You can still go out to stores and buy Warcraft II, a game released in 1996!
As for Sony, well, both Planetside and Galaxies bombed, and most of their other games are forgetable. I must admit that I dont know much about EQ 1 or 2, and while nothing about EQ2 has really caught my eye (their earlier screenshots were horrible), the recent movie they released was somewhat interesting.
That supposedly "unbiased" review: I read that a few months back, and in my opionion it is so biased its not even funny. He starts out right away with "EQ is better than WoW." He says that, basically, more = better. I think most people will agree with me that this is far from the truth. If you have hundreds of choices but there is little difference between most it ends up being worse off. EQ wins in classes and races simply because it has more, but the writer doesnt go into how much your choice will affect gameplay. He also pulls the hero classes out of thin air. Tutorial ... this will be making how much of a difference after the first 30 minutes? And evidently WoW's intuitive design counts for nothing in this area. Perhaps it has less tutorial because it simply doesnt need as much. Graphics: I guess ripples and swaying of plants counts for more than the horrendous plastic look of every character. Last he goes into Overall Immersiveness (something I consider to be one of the most important parts of any game) and somehow he ends up just comparing mounts in WoW to guilds in EQ2. These have little to do with immersiveness at all. What about a living world? Believable plots, characters, and quests? I want to feel like a hero, not guild member #135.
As for Blizzards track record, they did indeed make The Lost Vikings along with Blackthorne and Rock & Roll Racing, although at the time they were under the Silicone Synapse title. I havent played R&R R or Blackthorne, but I can attest that TLV is a classic game, as is it's sequel. As for their later games, they have yet to make anything approaching a failure. You can still go out to stores and buy Warcraft II, a game released in 1996!
As for Sony, well, both Planetside and Galaxies bombed, and most of their other games are forgetable. I must admit that I dont know much about EQ 1 or 2, and while nothing about EQ2 has really caught my eye (their earlier screenshots were horrible), the recent movie they released was somewhat interesting.
That supposedly "unbiased" review: I read that a few months back, and in my opionion it is so biased its not even funny. He starts out right away with "EQ is better than WoW." He says that, basically, more = better. I think most people will agree with me that this is far from the truth. If you have hundreds of choices but there is little difference between most it ends up being worse off. EQ wins in classes and races simply because it has more, but the writer doesnt go into how much your choice will affect gameplay. He also pulls the hero classes out of thin air. Tutorial ... this will be making how much of a difference after the first 30 minutes? And evidently WoW's intuitive design counts for nothing in this area. Perhaps it has less tutorial because it simply doesnt need as much. Graphics: I guess ripples and swaying of plants counts for more than the horrendous plastic look of every character. Last he goes into Overall Immersiveness (something I consider to be one of the most important parts of any game) and somehow he ends up just comparing mounts in WoW to guilds in EQ2. These have little to do with immersiveness at all. What about a living world? Believable plots, characters, and quests? I want to feel like a hero, not guild member #135.
ff11 owns and WoW sucks to me i will still play ff11 even when it comes out cuz where else can you play with ps2 and have fun getting maried while doing it???????????
As for FFXI THF class: 1-15 they are gimp (better if you level as your second job, with WAR as subjob) 15-30 they do kick *** damage.
30-60 they don't only do damage (although in your 40s other classes catch up, although ranger has always been there) they also help control hate. During this time they are not the best damage dealers, but my parsing in my 50s has shown me I don't suck either.
60+ people have differing opinions whether or not someone with a subjob of thief can do a better job than a thief.
As for WoW vs. FFXI. One of my LS mates in FFXI has played WoW. He didn't like it. Its too easy to level. But then again he is a high 60s low 70s WHM intending on doing Dynamis.
So I really think FFXI is for people who like the grouping more, and not really into games where everyone can solo.
30-60 they don't only do damage (although in your 40s other classes catch up, although ranger has always been there) they also help control hate. During this time they are not the best damage dealers, but my parsing in my 50s has shown me I don't suck either.
60+ people have differing opinions whether or not someone with a subjob of thief can do a better job than a thief.
As for WoW vs. FFXI. One of my LS mates in FFXI has played WoW. He didn't like it. Its too easy to level. But then again he is a high 60s low 70s WHM intending on doing Dynamis.
So I really think FFXI is for people who like the grouping more, and not really into games where everyone can solo.
well if u play ff wow will prolly seem much easier, i personally am looking forward to it so i wont have to be a beastmaster like on ff if i want to solo. cause in ff u spend weeks leveling then hrs farming gil for new equip since its nearly impossible to get the good nms due to botting programs becoming more and more available on japanese sites and some american sites, eventually more as more of us get them and create them. so im lookin forward to wow.
Blizzard has stated they know leveling is too easy in the beta and it will be addressed. The majority of the people I have talked to and played with in the beta assume Bliz did this to test the higher level content. Since play time in any beta is limited, toons must be able to level faster or "upper level" content couldn't be thoroughly tested.
As it has been stated before, trying to compare a game in phase three of beta to a game that is over two years old is impossible to do. WoW has been a joy to play in the beta, but there are major and minor problems Bliz is still fixing.
As it has been stated before, trying to compare a game in phase three of beta to a game that is over two years old is impossible to do. WoW has been a joy to play in the beta, but there are major and minor problems Bliz is still fixing.
Okay here is my 2 cents/plat/gil/blah.....
Varent > all http://www.vanguardsoh.com
This will undoubtidly be the greatest online RPG ever as these people started the whole mmorpg genre (i dont care what games were before, varent revolutionized). Oh and yay for dragonlance and the D&D team who inspired varent.
Varent > all http://www.vanguardsoh.com
This will undoubtidly be the greatest online RPG ever as these people started the whole mmorpg genre (i dont care what games were before, varent revolutionized). Oh and yay for dragonlance and the D&D team who inspired varent.
Not to nitpick, but it's Verant.
Only the exceptions can be exceptional.
Azuarc wrote:
Not to nitpick, but it's Garbage.
Fixed.
Oh no, some mysterious game that won't be out for a long long time will crush all other MMORPGs! Run for the hills!
JAEFo wrote:
Azuarc wrote:
Not to nitpick, but it's Garbage.
couldn't have fixed it better myself. Verant is complete garbage. even though i liked some of the games they helped support, they are the worst. They are by far the most money grubbing mmo makers in the market. something just feels wrong anytime you have to interact with Verant, ask those that played EQ. imo, Verant < all. like i said, i liked some of the games they were a part of, but seriously, if there was an mmo maker out there that i trusted the least, it would be Verant.
Varent is anything but money-grubbing. Yes they made the origional everquest, ruins of kunark, and scars of velous (spelling is prolly wrong). If any of you ever played EQ then you know those are the BEST expansions that were ever released. After that Sony bought the licensing and without the help of varent released all the crappy expansions after that. Varent = good , sony = bad
Ixthontus wrote:
Stuff and things
ugh. You have it backwards. Maybe it was pressure from sony, but Verant sucked. I'm guessing you never had to deal with them directly?
Quote:
|Originally posted by: Chahi Scholar
That supposedly "unbiased" review: I read that a few months back, and in my opionion it is so biased its not even funny. He starts out right away with "EQ is better than WoW." He says that, basically, more = better. I think most people will agree with me that this is far from the truth. If you have hundreds of choices but there is little difference between most it ends up being worse off. EQ wins in classes and races simply because it has more, but the writer doesnt go into how much your choice will affect gameplay. He also pulls the hero classes out of thin air. Tutorial ... this will be making how much of a difference after the first 30 minutes? And evidently WoW's intuitive design counts for nothing in this area. Perhaps it has less tutorial because it simply doesnt need as much. Graphics: I guess ripples and swaying of plants counts for more than the horrendous plastic look of every character. Last he goes into Overall Immersiveness (something I consider to be one of the most important parts of any game) and somehow he ends up just comparing mounts in WoW to guilds in EQ2. These have little to do with immersiveness at all. What about a living world? Believable plots, characters, and quests? I want to feel like a hero, not guild member #135.
That supposedly "unbiased" review: I read that a few months back, and in my opionion it is so biased its not even funny. He starts out right away with "EQ is better than WoW." He says that, basically, more = better. I think most people will agree with me that this is far from the truth. If you have hundreds of choices but there is little difference between most it ends up being worse off. EQ wins in classes and races simply because it has more, but the writer doesnt go into how much your choice will affect gameplay. He also pulls the hero classes out of thin air. Tutorial ... this will be making how much of a difference after the first 30 minutes? And evidently WoW's intuitive design counts for nothing in this area. Perhaps it has less tutorial because it simply doesnt need as much. Graphics: I guess ripples and swaying of plants counts for more than the horrendous plastic look of every character. Last he goes into Overall Immersiveness (something I consider to be one of the most important parts of any game) and somehow he ends up just comparing mounts in WoW to guilds in EQ2. These have little to do with immersiveness at all. What about a living world? Believable plots, characters, and quests? I want to feel like a hero, not guild member #135.
Bravo.
That was truly.. amazing. I sent that "dethstryker" kid an email, and, strangely enough, added about half of this post, without even reading it. Then, when I read it.. I was blown away. I could not have done better myself. You rock.
As for the how WoW could be done inside a year, ack, I must disagree, even though I have not tested, even Diablo II: LoD kept me going for a good 2-3 years. And, Starcraft, around 5-6 years. With an MMORPG.. Ouch.. I am gonna be 60 before I finish it o.O, aw well, ::rolleyes::!
P.S. Look at the title, and the entire theme of the site for the supposedly "unbiased" review. All EQ2 themed.
Edited, Sun Aug 15 01:26:25 2004 by Creamed
SoE is really destroying EQ.
LoY expansion is horrible. A new race, a new and totally worthless item slot, and 5 or so new zones that are mostly empty...
LDoN expansion, while not horrible, but totally lacking in content. 5 "themes" marketed as "48 zones" tells me that company is just horrible.
And just when you think SoE can't make worse expansion, here comes the dreadful GoD. marketed as 20 zones expansion. 4 instanced super tiny single purpose "sewers" that counted as 4. Plus 2 equally tiny and "almost" pointless "mountain trails". And even with such almost non existant amount of content they feel the need block player progression for months, directly or indirectly forcing many uber guild to quit.
Without great and meaningful expansions like SoV and RoK and to a much lesser extend Luclin, I may suck up those SoE made expansion as the standard, but I have seen great zones that is designed with -=EFFORT=-, like the home town of the giants/dwarf/dragons, Seb/Howling Stone/etc... Compare those real zones to the ultra crap in SoE expansions... And how can anyone says Verant is worse?
Edited, Sun Aug 29 22:40:39 2004 by Gobio
Edited, Sun Aug 29 22:43:58 2004 by Gobio
LoY expansion is horrible. A new race, a new and totally worthless item slot, and 5 or so new zones that are mostly empty...
LDoN expansion, while not horrible, but totally lacking in content. 5 "themes" marketed as "48 zones" tells me that company is just horrible.
And just when you think SoE can't make worse expansion, here comes the dreadful GoD. marketed as 20 zones expansion. 4 instanced super tiny single purpose "sewers" that counted as 4. Plus 2 equally tiny and "almost" pointless "mountain trails". And even with such almost non existant amount of content they feel the need block player progression for months, directly or indirectly forcing many uber guild to quit.
Without great and meaningful expansions like SoV and RoK and to a much lesser extend Luclin, I may suck up those SoE made expansion as the standard, but I have seen great zones that is designed with -=EFFORT=-, like the home town of the giants/dwarf/dragons, Seb/Howling Stone/etc... Compare those real zones to the ultra crap in SoE expansions... And how can anyone says Verant is worse?
Edited, Sun Aug 29 22:40:39 2004 by Gobio
Edited, Sun Aug 29 22:43:58 2004 by Gobio
Recent Visitors: 200
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (200)
- Forums
- World of Warcraft
- General Discussion
- FFXI vs. WoW
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC