What other MMORPGs do you guys and gals play?
Jamie Kahn Genet
Collection) and sadly discovered you can never go home again, or at
least that far back. It's UI was worse than I ever remembered. Uggg - I
couldn't stand the backpack. Yuck. Even back in the day most RPGs had a
better UI.
Still, it was great fun in it's day, but between the awful UI and
serious lack of players and community it's dead to me now :-\
Soooo... what else is worth playing nowadays? Has EQ still got a decent
player base, or is it as barren as UO?
How about EQ2? It was released at the same time as WoW, but you never
hear about it now. Still worth playing?
I tried EVE last year, but it turned out to have really bad beginner
tutorials, a help system I couldn't figure out how to access on my own,
awful story writing that was full of spelling and grammatical errors,
shockingly bad looking player models, stupid limitations that make no
in-game sense and yank you out of suspension of belief - e.g. having to
manually jump to avoid delays at jump points, and a combat mechanic that
has to be seen to be believed so bloody boring.
Anyway, I'd better not degenerate into more EVE bashing, though god
knows it's a ripe target (they couldn't hire a proofreader? Or at
_least_ use a spellchecker?). So what other MMORPGs are worth my time?
Has WoW truly crushed all opposition and bankrupted other player
communities? While I love WoW, I hope not.
TIA,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
1iu24es.hpjs0q18xp0g3N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz :
> Soooo... what else is worth playing nowadays?
I'm enjoying Warhammer Online.
Taking your time in the leveling process, and simply playing through
all the content, doing everything you can, and not rushing towards
the level cap, is definately a nice experience in that game.
And for a game touted as focused on PvP, the atmosphere and
background (basically the PvE experience) is very nice. The
setting definately benefits from not being made up for just
this game. You can tell there's a lot of backstory behind it
all.
Lord of the Rings has some of the same qualities going for it.
It's even less crowded than Warhammer Online, but that's okay,
since it really is a PvE-centered game. And it really works
well on those terms.
Both games also benefit from the Tome/Achievement systems,
ensuring that you constantly feel rewarded for the actions
you take.
City of Heroes/City of Villains, AKA CoX also deserves a
mention, although I mostly spend my time creating new alts.
- That game simply has the best character creation process
of any game. Ever.
> Has WoW truly crushed all opposition and bankrupted other player
> communities? While I love WoW, I hope not.
There's plenty of fun stuff out there, even some that can live
on it's own terms, without gaining the popularity levels of WoW.
So hardly crushed. Although a few have succumbed (Tabula Rasa
most recently - with about 1 month left to live, it is now
free to play).
--
Permanently behind me: SWG & Age Of Conan.
Currently playing: WoW, LOTRO, WAR, GW & Spellborn
Waiting for: Aion, Mytheon & Darkfall
Robert
"Jamie Kahn Genet" <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote in message
news:1iu24es.hpjs0q18xp0g3N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz...
I too use to play UO, I quit right after the 3rd upgrade when everyone
started making tye-dye house's with the new housing upgrade.
I was one of the lucky few that got to beta EVE and I thought at the time
the interface was too much, and awhile back I tried the 14 day free trial,
and found that it only got worst, at least to me it seemed that way.
There was one game I that I LOVED playing, but the high heads at EA pulled
the plug on it so they could put all of their people on the Final Fantasy
online game that I think is still going, but you never hear anything about.
oh the game was Earth & Beyond, there is a small group of people that
are/where trying to bring it back on a private server, I was also lucky to
beta it and keep the char at the release of the game.
thank you
Robert
Rob Wynne
> Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> declared in:
> 1iu24es.hpjs0q18xp0g3N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz :
>
>> Soooo... what else is worth playing nowadays?
>
> I'm enjoying Warhammer Online.
> Taking your time in the leveling process, and simply playing through
> all the content, doing everything you can, and not rushing towards
> the level cap, is definately a nice experience in that game.
>
> And for a game touted as focused on PvP, the atmosphere and
> background (basically the PvE experience) is very nice. The
> setting definately benefits from not being made up for just
> this game. You can tell there's a lot of backstory behind it
> all.
>
Which is proof that in all things, your milage may vary. I hated WO, and
the specific things I hated about are things you're praising. :)
> City of Heroes/City of Villains, AKA CoX also deserves a
> mention, although I mostly spend my time creating new alts.
> - That game simply has the best character creation process
> of any game. Ever.
>
I played CoH/CoV for 3 years, and it is a fun game, but it gets a big
bogged down towards the last 10 levels, and has no endgame to speak of.
>> Has WoW truly crushed all opposition and bankrupted other player
>> communities? While I love WoW, I hope not.
>
> There's plenty of fun stuff out there, even some that can live
> on it's own terms, without gaining the popularity levels of WoW.
> So hardly crushed. Although a few have succumbed (Tabula Rasa
> most recently - with about 1 month left to live, it is now
> free to play).
>
What WoW has mostly done is skewed the perception of what is "successful".
It's really in a class by itself.
A lot of MMOs chug along quite happily with 200k-500k players, make their
bit of cash and have their loyal fanbases. I think they're all successful
in their own right, and shouldn't be discounted just because they don't
have the ability to pull in 12 million people.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
MadManMoo
> In alt.games.warcraft Thomas Hejl Pilgaard <pilga...@tele2adsl.dk.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jamie Kahn Genet <jami...@wizardling.geek.nz> declared in:
> > 1iu24es.hpjs0q18xp0g3N%jami...@wizardling.geek.nz :
> Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA -http://www.gafilk.org/
> Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 -http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not sure I follow your line of thought about "successful".
Blizzard has created a game that soft and hardcore players love. I
think in any medium, you can term this MMO successful. The only thing
that is hasn't succeeded in doing is shutting down EVERY MMO out
there.
The number of people playing WoW is testament to that fact. Yes,
other MMO's have a loyal fanbase and may make good games, but noone
has done it like Blizzard. The numbers speak for themselves. I can't
wait for Blizzard to up the ante on themselves. When you're the best,
you can only improve upon yourself.
JohnR
"MadManMoo" <scottha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:069859ac-454b-4d2c...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
----------
If the measure is simply number of people paying - the game and players that
made WoW the huge success it now is are largely gone and those who remember
vanilla and played it from the start know that in so many ways the game has
lost substance and gained far more fluff.
Technical quality and end game content are reduced every expansion.
Rob Wynne
> I'm not sure I follow your line of thought about "successful".
> Blizzard has created a game that soft and hardcore players love. I
> think in any medium, you can term this MMO successful. The only thing
> that is hasn't succeeded in doing is shutting down EVERY MMO out
> there.
>
I'm not suggesting WoW isn't successful. It's *wildly* successful. I'm
merely saying that WoW is not the benchmark of success. It's an extreme
outlier, and there are a number of viable MMOs with much smaller audiences
that can rightly be called "successful" even with a fraction the number of
subscribers.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Miss Elaine Eos
Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
> I'm not suggesting WoW isn't successful. It's *wildly* successful. I'm
> merely saying that WoW is not the benchmark of success. It's an extreme
> outlier, and there are a number of viable MMOs with much smaller audiences
> that can rightly be called "successful" even with a fraction the number of
> subscribers.
Examples:
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> "MadManMoo" <scottha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:069859ac-454b-4d2c...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 11:40 am, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
> > In alt.games.warcraft Thomas Hejl Pilgaard <pilga...@tele2adsl.dk.dk>
> > wrote:
[snip]
> > What WoW has mostly done is skewed the perception of what is "successful".
> > It's really in a class by itself.
> >
> > A lot of MMOs chug along quite happily with 200k-500k players, make their
> > bit of cash and have their loyal fanbases. I think they're all successful
> > in their own right, and shouldn't be discounted just because they don't
> > have the ability to pull in 12 million people.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I follow your line of thought about "successful".
> Blizzard has created a game that soft and hardcore players love. I
> think in any medium, you can term this MMO successful. The only thing
> that is hasn't succeeded in doing is shutting down EVERY MMO out
> there.
>
> The number of people playing WoW is testament to that fact. Yes,
> other MMO's have a loyal fanbase and may make good games, but noone
> has done it like Blizzard. The numbers speak for themselves. I can't
> wait for Blizzard to up the ante on themselves. When you're the best,
> you can only improve upon yourself.
>
> ----------
>
> If the measure is simply number of people paying - the game and players that
> made WoW the huge success it now is are largely gone and those who remember
> vanilla and played it from the start know that in so many ways the game has
> lost substance and gained far more fluff.
>
> Technical quality and end game content are reduced every expansion.
Your quoting makes it very hard to tell quoted text from your reply. Why
do so many OE users post like this? :-(
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In alt.games.warcraft MadManMoo <scottha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure I follow your line of thought about "successful".
> > Blizzard has created a game that soft and hardcore players love. I
> > think in any medium, you can term this MMO successful. The only thing
> > that is hasn't succeeded in doing is shutting down EVERY MMO out
> > there.
> >
>
> I'm not suggesting WoW isn't successful. It's *wildly* successful. I'm
> merely saying that WoW is not the benchmark of success. It's an extreme
> outlier, and there are a number of viable MMOs with much smaller audiences
> that can rightly be called "successful" even with a fraction the number of
> subscribers.
All I care about in this respect is not being in an empty ghost town of
a server. I don't care if there are only 1,000 players, so long as you
can find them to play WITH. The great advantage of WoW's super large
community is I'm never alone.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <%tOel.137$Ts....@eagle.america.net>,
> Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting WoW isn't successful. It's *wildly* successful. I'm
> > merely saying that WoW is not the benchmark of success. It's an extreme
> > outlier, and there are a number of viable MMOs with much smaller audiences
> > that can rightly be called "successful" even with a fraction the number of
> > subscribers.
>
> Examples:
>
> <http://www.mmorpg.com>
Yeah, great site. I've spent a lot of time there.
Mister T
Getting back to the subject at hand :)
I've started playing DDO a few weeks ago and I like it. It takes a bit
of getting used to after playing WoW for almost a year but, once I got
the hang of it, it was quite easy.
Michael
Jamie Kahn Genet
Mister T
Kahn Genet) wrote:
>Mister T <m...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> Getting back to the subject at hand :)
>>
>> I've started playing DDO a few weeks ago and I like it. It takes a bit
>> of getting used to after playing WoW for almost a year but, once I got
>> the hang of it, it was quite easy.
>>
>> Michael
>
>DDO?
Sorry, Dungeons & Dragons online.
Jamie Kahn Genet
Ah, okay :-) What's the population like? Plenty to play with? What are
the main differences from WoW (cause the differences - at least the
positive ones - are what I'm after :-) )?
Mister T
Kahn Genet) wrote:
>> >DDO?
>>
>> Sorry, Dungeons & Dragons online.
>
>Ah, okay :-) What's the population like? Plenty to play with? What are
>the main differences from WoW (cause the differences - at least the
>positive ones - are what I'm after :-) )?
No idea what the population is. The server I play on seems to have
quite a few. There's always more than enough for groups, chat,
whatever. And pretty much every group uses voice chat.
The UI is obviously a major difference: things like icons, text, etc.
Hard to explain so I'll just post a link to a screenshot.
http://i610.photobucket.com/albums/tt186/mjtokarski/ScreenShot00000.jpg
you don't use the mouse to move, only to look around and attack, which
can be a bit annoying at first but, you get used to it.
Visually, it is much better than WoW. It looks more 'realistic'
whereas WoW has that sort of cartoon look to it.
Obviously it uses the D&D rules and levels, so no power levelling to
be had. You can also multi-class.
Don't know what else to say really.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:38:29 +1300, jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
> Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> >> >DDO?
> >>
> >> Sorry, Dungeons & Dragons online.
> >
> >Ah, okay :-) What's the population like? Plenty to play with? What are
> >the main differences from WoW (cause the differences - at least the
> >positive ones - are what I'm after :-) )?
>
> No idea what the population is. The server I play on seems to have
> quite a few. There's always more than enough for groups, chat,
> whatever. And pretty much every group uses voice chat.
Uh oh, I'm not sure I sound my best during the hours I typically play
:-D
> The UI is obviously a major difference: things like icons, text, etc.
> Hard to explain so I'll just post a link to a screenshot.
>
> http://i610.photobucket.com/albums/tt186/mjtokarski/ScreenShot00000.jpg
>
> you don't use the mouse to move, only to look around and attack, which
> can be a bit annoying at first but, you get used to it.
How do you mean? I only use WASD in WoW anyway. Is it not just something
like that in D&D Online?
> Visually, it is much better than WoW. It looks more 'realistic'
> whereas WoW has that sort of cartoon look to it.
>
> Obviously it uses the D&D rules and levels, so no power levelling to
> be had. You can also multi-class.
>
> Don't know what else to say really.
Thanks for the info :-)