Trending Games | Guild Wars 2 | Wizard101 | Diablo 3 | Devilian

    Facebook Twitter YouTube Twitch.tv YouTube.Gaming
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:3,037,694 Users Online:0
Games:848 

Show Blog

Age of Conan and its lack of appeal...

Posted by t0nyd Thursday June 5 2008 at 9:07PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

 

  I will begin with the fact that these statements are my opinions...

Game Play vs Beauty

 I can understand that Funcom wanted to make a beautiful game. Personally, I would like an mmo with graphics above that of Warcraft. With that said, I will not sacrifice game play nor will I sacrifice the word massive, simply to cater to the visual crowd. I believe that over-instancing is a problem. Over-instancing takes the word massive out of mmo. The game simply becomes a multiplayer game.

 Player VS Player

 In no way does Conan resemble a PvP game. Forced leveling through PvE makes this game a PvE focused game that minors in PvP. Forcing people to PvE to attain max level, then creating PvP for end game, makes this a PvE game with the option to PvP. When there is no equipment gain through PvP, when there is no experience gain through PvP, this is not a PvP game.

 I know some of you will moan " but there are PvP levels". 20 PvP levels vs 80 PvE levels is total nonsense. This in and of itself shows the game is PvE focused with minor PvP options.

 Final Thoughts

 In my opinion, AoC differs little from World of Warcraft. AoC is primarily a PvE Quest based game that dabbles in PvP. The melee system is a nice idea wrapped in the same old MMORPG package.

vajuras writes:

could have used a bit more detail... I do agree however I havent taken the time to play AoC much.

I think a pvp based MMO should have ways to gain gear/xp though pvp directly and there are objectives in the world itself. So, looking at their feature list I do not find their game PVP focused at all.

Their border kingdoms, player run city, and siege PVP held much promise but unfortunately the game was kicked ut of the door without Siege pvp.

But before I go on record and toss salt at the game I will proclaim i have not played AoC much at all. Probably never will. So I cant say it sucks, but I can say Im not interested in playing and their feature list doesnt qualify it as a PVP based MMO too me

Thu Jun 05 2008 9:55PM Report
SkullFighter writes:

I agree personally.  I would much rather a game with focus on the gameplay rather than the graphics.  Atleast graphics that are decent but with overall game performance as the priority.  Furthermore, I think any mmo released in this generation needs to have meaningfull pvp like objective based things to fight over in every zone, level range, etc. and progression in pvp, experience and leveling from pvp kills.  it just seems like a natural step in the evolution of MMO's.

Thu Jun 05 2008 9:55PM Report
vajuras writes:

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/184180

This was an interesting thread. Sounds like guilds can at least control some of the resources around the map. I thought the instancing would impede resource control but apprently not.

meh, I would try the game somemore if I had time but right now I'm short on time. I'm mainly interested in the city building to see if they got some of that right.

Anyway like I said I really dont have an opinion on the game since ive had so little time to mess with it

Thu Jun 05 2008 10:05PM Report
tool089 writes:

@vajuras- there are ways to gain gear and levels, they have not yet turned on the pvp system, they're trying to get the base game to run right, from what I can tell.

@SkullFighter- progression and levels from pvp is near impossible with the way gamers are looking at death penalties.  Imagine that you and I want to level.  You kill me a few times to get to level 2, then I kill you to get to level 2 quickly because you are a higher level.  We go through the same mediocre speed of leveling with you kill me, the same level as you, then I catch up quickly killing you.  Nobody can lose anything from death right now because everyone gets upset about it.  The system you think is "evolution" is just another thing to exploit.

@vajures next comment-  city building is ok, I think it will be better when they make the buildings work.  I personally like roleplaying, alas, my guild does not.  So I think guild cities will give more meaning to RP servers because it gives a village to live in.  I thought I read somewhere that mobs will spawn and raid your city or build cities nearby to attack yours.  I have not seen that yet.  And I don't know if I would want to see that, every building costs 2G plus resources.  And every wall section.  Yes. Wall  ~SECTION~.  That would be a ridiculous waste unless you're at end game and have money to waste.

Which brings me to the next subject.  Yes, it's PVE focused atm.  It was released 2 1/2 weeks ago.  And you think that people need to start focusing on the PvP already?  No way, everyone's getting to endgame.  The lvling is super fast so that you get to endgame easier.  Then both PvP and PvE servers have borderlands and siege battles.  Borderlands is a large open area that's open pvp, yes for both server types.  This is good for guild vs guild or group vs group.  I don't think anyone has tested the capacity on these areas since you need to be between 70-80 to get in, from what I understand.  So if these areas are less detailed (less scenery and such), they would be able to hold a better amount and funcom might have the capacity set higher.  Siege battles on the other hand will be a whole new ballpark.  The city will have a high money worth.  This means that two guilds that are at war will be attack each other in the game like normal (I'm from a PvP server), trying to control resources to either slow the building of their city or keep the other guilds from having enough to build a decent city if it gets taken over, and sieging battle keeps to chip away at what the guild has.

Now all of that is fine and dandy, but what will make or break it all is what funcom adds as pvp penalty.  They've said there will some new content in regards to this over the summer.  This could mean a jail system for killing a character much much lower than you.  So all those 80s from the local guild could have trouble controlling a resource if the enemy guild recruits low low lvls to collect resources for them.  If the 80s kill the lowly resource gathers, they could end up jailed for the siege battle.  There is also talk of death penalty.  I don't know if that means gear needing repair (even though gear seems useless right now), or exp loss, or item/money loss.   IF that happens, then there would be more meaning to the guilds killing each other between siege battles, and guilds couldn't throw wave after wave of players in to try and steal the resources.  At the moment pvp seems like chaos because no one cares if they die so they all just kill each other.  With a penalty, everyone will want to live that much more, so the siege battles will be intense will more strategy.  There will be less wave after wave of attackers hitting the defending wall.  The attackers will be losing exp or items as they die, while the defenders are losing 2G and resources for each building/wall.

Fri Jun 06 2008 2:19AM Report
Tron420 writes:

tool089: 2LDR

OP: meh. Fortunately I don't take video games THAT seriously. I have fun with what games have to offer and move on to the next. Get your $50 of gameplay in then move on to the next one; its not like there is a lack of options.

Fri Jun 06 2008 2:53AM Report
lupisenparis writes:

IMO... I should've skipped this article.  It's another short sighted rant (same gibberish pre-beta whine) while the only rational comment seem to come from tool089.  I guess the counterstrike crowd cant even let the game go beyond 2 week without preaching their gospel.

Fri Jun 06 2008 3:24AM Report
t0nyd writes:

As I assumed, Id get a bunch of PvE responses. You may enjoy PvP. You may believe that every game should focus on PvE and PvP should be an end game focus. I believe PvP can and should be the focus of a game from level 1.

Dont we have enough MMORPG clones already. Because honestly, this might as well be shadowbane, yet less expansive, with a nifty melee system...

Lupisparis-

 For one, I dont play counter strike. For two, you may enjoy countless hours killing mentally handicapped mobs with no real challenge what so ever.

Personally I would prefer the option of PvP through all levels of game play with the option of advancing this way.

Fri Jun 06 2008 6:06AM Report
axlezero writes:

A pvp extremist oh yay.  You realize in a pure pvp system as you describe there is no need for 90% of the map.  You need arenas, and battlegrounds, oh wait this sounds like halo.  Or a WoW private server with one hit kills that get you to level 70.

I don't know if you realize it but mmoRPG is first a role playing game, so yes its designed with that in mind.  A game that is pvp oriented means they built classes  that were balanced for pvp from the beginning.  Whether they succeeded or not is another question.  I think the type of games you are looking for are mmofps.

That said I didn't care for conan either, but my issues were just it was kind of a blah game to me.  Nothing great, and the combat system gets real old after about a week.

 

Fri Jun 06 2008 6:36AM Report
zymurgeist writes:

So many constrained minds.  So many derivative games. If a developer had the vision to build a properly integrated PvP/PvE game I'm not sure the public would accept it.  So many people have convinced themselves it can't be done.  I'll give you the cornerstone though. You're all mobs. That means the rewards, penalties and, difficulty of PvP and PvP all have to be exactly the same. No playing whack a mole with fields of brain dead mobs and no meaningless free ride PvP.

Fri Jun 06 2008 7:02AM Report
foxninja writes:

I start playing AoC only at official launch date never enter in beta so my position its about a non beta game that i buy.

Great Positive things: Combat system .... in fact its very good unique at all MMO's that i see and try.

Medium positive things: The fact we can have cap level at 80 at launch, the guild citys system, the grapichs ... still not that convicted that the graphics are that good.

Bad Bad things: The instance parts, the loading screen for everything for good sake at least they should increase the loading time, the npc interactions in full screen that takes out of enviroment (we miss chat, we can be kill whithout any chance of fighting back) the economy .... its a joke, gear and the value thar players should give to gear ..... non existint, travel system .... boring if a friend whants our help in the other side of where we are he gives up waiting before we get there (tons of loadings, crossing intire maps), the chat system ... come on even the worst non profitable mmo game will have a better chat system.

In resume my opinion about the game at moment is AoC is not a MMO game its a multiplayer game i am very disapointed about the game, but i gone give time to see what funcom will do about it. AoC starts to be developed 5 years ago and that i think its what its killing it, funcom dont see what the MMO's game evolve in this last years and they stick at original ideas.

Fri Jun 06 2008 7:59AM Report
Pepsipwnzgod writes:

looks like you just want WoW with better graphics..

Fri Jun 06 2008 8:11AM Report
ApacHeAM writes:

I'm in AoC since CB and I still like this game, but........ I decided to level toons till lvl 50 and then pass to another toon. That's because the game from 50 to 80 has to be done yet.... 0.0 ..... Unbelievable! Most (and when I say most I'm kind with FC) of the istances are bugged. Quests do not exist. Classes are totally unbalanced. The game from 1 to 50 is pretty cool and rolls fine. Let's give em other 3 months then we will decide weather to quit or stay.

Fri Jun 06 2008 9:08AM Report
vajuras writes:

tool89 I thank for your responses. You gave me a good answer I will try to do likewise:

"Which brings me to the next subject.  Yes, it's PVE focused atm.  It was released 2 1/2 weeks ago.  And you think that people need to start focusing on the PvP already?"

Yes, we expect a complete game at launch. They've been promising us on official forums way back years ago they wouldnt give pvpers the shaft but yet here we are there is no Blood money system or any of that. It's great though you are having fun thats really what the bottom line is. But I wont have fun without a well thought out pvp system'

Anyway, it is good the fans of the game are having fun and willing to defend it. I will take your post into consideration 4 sure. Good post

"progression and levels from pvp is near impossible with the way gamers are looking at death penalties.  Imagine that you and I want to level.  You kill me a few times to get to level 2, then I kill you to get to level 2 quickly because you are a higher level. "

Yep not arguing how players can farm each other in a tacky system. But a well thought out one will have "pvp based quests / objectives". Checkout what Mythic proposes for WAR. I'm not really a WAR fanboi but its a good example how a Level based game can offer rewards and allow players to PVP from Level 1 to Level cap

Fri Jun 06 2008 9:14AM Report
Player_420 writes:

Dude if you want any credibility, then I would delete this blog asap.

Fri Jun 06 2008 11:37AM Report
HELL_RISER writes:

i totally agree and i must say i am disapointed with the game system of aoc, i love the grafics and the faalittys and what so evr but the man is right.

 

Fri Jun 06 2008 12:14PM Report
LuckyCurse writes:

Player_420 Wrote:

Dude if you want any credibility, then I would delete this blog asap.

--------------------------------------------------

t0nyd brought up a few good points about AOC and you want them ignored and deleted? How short sighted and pathetic are you? As the OP said, this is not a PVP game, this is a PVE (broken) game with the option for PVP.   And you what? Throw up your hands and say, "Uh, no it's not."  Moron.  Bring the discussion or delete yourself. /wrists

Axlezero - You broke the rules when you said, "What you want is a FPS".  I'm sorry, but you must now be flogged and your dog skinned alive in front of you.  Halo? Small maps? Insta-leveling? Jesus Cristo! You unimaginative, simple-minded moron.  You can't imagine a PVP centric game with vast detail, large maps, and great end-game content? It takes NPCs and mobs to do that? Wow, you really checked your brain at the door.   It all comes down to how you build the game.  Something you should never have a hand in.

As to the comments of, lets give them more time, or wait for the patches, or blah blah blah... I'll repost a response I had earlier on the AOC forums.  I believe it is relevant to this conversation:

We complain for the future.  Let this be a lesson to all who come after.  We, your critics/players/consumers/fanbois/whatever, are not happy to settle for half finished games, missed promises, and poor performance.  Give us the features you list on your box and website.  Don't promise things that you can't deliver at start.  Test those features.  Make sure they work.  Never tell us you are making an MMO and then force us into a single player game.  If you say you've made a PVP centric game, then by all the Norse Gods, deliver us a PVP game with the option to do so from level 1 all the way to level 80, and never have to bloody well touch a single PVE mob.  EVER. 

We're not trolls.  We're the disappointed.  We're the people who paid out 50+ frigg'n bucks and we're standing around with our donkey ropes in our hands wondering where the promised land is.  That's who we are. 

If you think a single patch, or even a series of patches, will make up for the ball that was dropped, then you have obviously wanked off to this game so much you've gone blind.   Don't worry, Funcom will address your blindness in the next patch.  And cure cancer.  It'll be that bloody great.

I say, let's complain until blood spews from our ragged throats and game developers can't help but slip in our reeking bile.  Maybe then they'll do it right the next time. 

Bugger all,

- LC

And that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Fri Jun 06 2008 12:39PM Report
LuckyCurse writes:

Pepsipwnzgod wrote:

looks like you just want WoW with better graphics..

Yeah, because, WoW has err... NONE of the things he mentioned.  Did you even read t0nyd's article? Is this some fanboi auto-response thing you've got going on?

Wait... ARE YOU A BOT? A ROBOT? SWEET.  We all know you can't have x-ray vision, but do you have eye beams? Chainsaw hands? It's too bad you have to be limited to five feet nothing in height... but you can eat chains like candy and tires are like licorice to you!  You rule.

- LC

Fri Jun 06 2008 12:49PM Report
Player_420 writes:

lol Luckycurse, I can just see this funny little 12 year old cartman look alike excited that he just got off school today.

You dont need to be making suicide comments man, not that big of a deal. Maybe the person who did the blog should LEVEL UP and actually get good at the game to realize what hes talking about. at level 40 the combat gets insane, with 3-4 string melle combos and 5-6 directions. at level 50 mages and healers get spellweaving, which is unlike anything you've ever seen. All the while this game shipped with multiple level 70-78, level 80 and also one level 80+ raid, which is more then WoW can say (<--good game thou). All the while you have multiple tiered player cities, the largest open world I have ever seen, and the level 60-80 content really gets fun. The gameplay gets much more difficult, dozens of different build options per class...I could keep going on but im sure you dont care.

Fri Jun 06 2008 12:59PM Report
teraflop122 writes:

From OP: "the game is PvE focused"

I say: Good.

Let PvE vs PvP rants begin!!!

Fri Jun 06 2008 1:16PM Report
LuckyCurse writes:

Player_420:

Maybe you should reread the blog entry and realize that LEVELING UP in PVE isn't what the OP wants to do? Maybe PVP is a viable option to LEVELING UP, and having PVE be the only option to LEVELING UP means that it is not a PVP centric game?

And yeah, 3-4 string melee combos.  If you can get them to stand still long enough.  Who stands around after you get one hit off and let's you hit them again?  You have that problem in the early levels, nevermind later when you have to string together half a dozen moves.

Raids? Seriously... you did read the OP's blog entry, right? Who gives a flying woop about raids? The OP is talking about PVP.  He wants a PVP centric game.  And you talk about raids? And what about spellweaving? Hold on a sec, let me cast this spell that will take a minute to perform.  No, really.  Hold still.  See, you're moving again.  I said hold still.  Bugger.  He left.  Yeah, wonderful.

This game flopped by not delivering on its promises.  Companies should not make them unless they're ready to deliver at launch.  Keep it to yourself and surprise everyone with them later. 

t0nyd made valid points.  I have yet to see anyone successfully argue them.

But hey, just glad to see you can write more than a simple sentence that has no meaning at all.  Way to use your words.

- LC

 

Fri Jun 06 2008 1:38PM Report
Sovrath writes:

Well, it does have appeal. As many posts about "why I hate this", "Why I'm Leaving", "Why it's not a pvp game", etc, you also find as many posts where there are people who love it.

This is "ok" and as it should be.

Fri Jun 06 2008 1:45PM Report
cleve1970 writes:

I see people complain about forking over money for MMOs that are a big disappointment, thei is why I am in full support for a free trial for every MMO game. I will never spend my hard earned money for a MMO that I have not played to see if it is a game I will like. I know they issue buddy keys but not all of us have buddys that play MMOs...shame on them. If AoC has a free trial or I happen to get a buddy key then I'll try it.

Fri Jun 06 2008 3:18PM Report
aparatus writes:

Since its innevitable to compare AoC with WoW i'll tell you some thigns since some of you already do compare it.

I haven't played AoC yet but i have played WoW when it was first released and for 1 year after and i also played a month recently to see how its going.

I believe what OP says, he probably is right because AoC is a new game and it cant be 'complete'.

When they made WoW it was not supposed to have PVP at all but all fanbois cried out and they eventually added PVP realms etc. When it got released PVP was almost non-existant. All the pvp ppl did was world pvp aka go to a enemy town and kill some low levels. It didnt have honor, it didnt have honor points, it didnt have rewards, it had nothing. Battlegrounds didnt exist that time. We only did PVP for the fun. All those pvp goodies (arenas, battlegrounds, honor points, rewards etc etc) got added way after release.

Also a previous poster is angry because according to him AoC is unfinished. Well WoW was unfinished too at the time it got released. For example every single patch and for a year after release, Blizz was adding the so called 'class patches'. Those patches 'fixed' the talents of the class because the talents were unfinished and tbh crap. And because in every patch Blizz was fixing 1-2 classes you ended up with some classes with new improved talents and some others with crap talents. And that led to a unbalanced PVP. I can mention many many more things that got added to WoW months after release but ill stop here.

What im trying to say is that WoW had far less content when it got released than what it has now and many people think that it got released exactly as it is right now, but that is wrong. But you can see that despite its lack of content after release, it had big success. So i say to you why not AoC too? Of course after release it will have some lack of content, some glitches, some bugs. Post your ideas on their forums and you will see that soon the content will become bigger. Unless you want it to stay on beta for ever....

Same thing goes for almost every game out there. So be patient, enjoy the game as it is now and believe when or if it becomes bigger with uber content even if you like that content you gonna miss all those early times (well at least thats what happened with me and WoW)

Thats all from me and here ends my first post. hurray \o/

Fri Jun 06 2008 3:47PM Report
Domandred writes:

Yay another PvE game that doesn't bother with an end game except to say PvP is our end game!.

Getting tired of these stupid developers.  Either make a PvE game with a PvE end game or make a decent PvP game all the way through.  Being forced to PvE to get to a decent competative level is dumb. 

This mix of the two is just lazy.  Any crack smoking monkey development team can slap a bunch of graphics together, give exp for killing stuff, and equipment drops.  That part's been done many many times.  So when that's done is where games really shine. 

Just turning on the PvP and saying "we're done" doesn't cut it.  Have fun with your initial subscribers AoC cause you gonna lose 75% by your first year anniversery.

Fri Jun 06 2008 4:01PM Report
Pepsipwnzgod writes:

@ Domandred --

everyone that wants a game based entirely off pvp is cursed with the fact that either it will be complete scrubs mixed with *since CB*pro's or a game based on pvp ranks which means the same tactics will get over used.. pve is a game mechanic in and of itself, required to teach people their class

Fri Jun 06 2008 5:10PM Report
Pepsipwnzgod writes:

@ Domandred --

everyone that wants a game based entirely off pvp is cursed with the fact that either it will be complete scrubs mixed with *since CB*pro's or a game based on pvp ranks which means the same tactics will get over used.. pve is a game mechanic in and of itself, required to teach people their class but

Fri Jun 06 2008 5:10PM Report
Pepsipwnzgod writes:

@ Domandred --

everyone that wants a game based entirely off pvp is cursed with the fact that either it will be complete scrubs mixed with *since CB*pro's or a game based on pvp ranks which means the same tactics will get over used.. pve is a game mechanic in and of itself, required to teach people their class but not l

Fri Jun 06 2008 5:10PM Report
Pepsipwnzgod writes:

@ Domandred --

everyone that wants a game based entirely off pvp is cursed with the fact that either it will be complete scrubs mixed with *since CB*pro's or a game based on pvp ranks which means the same tactics will get over used.. pve is a game mechanic in and of itself, required to teach people their class but not like i

Fri Jun 06 2008 5:10PM Report
Pepsipwnzgod writes:

wtf? am i the only one that sees 4 of my comments above?

Fri Jun 06 2008 5:11PM Report
Mrlogic writes:

"LuckyCurse- Fri Jun 06 2008 1:38PM

  • This game flopped by not delivering on its promises.  Companies should not make them unless they're ready to deliver at launch.  Keep it to yourself and surprise everyone with them later. 

    - LC"

    I can maybe to a certain extent understand the frustration but to say it flopped is nothing more than bs. AoC is going through what ALL similar games do just after launch, its natural, deal with it or stop playing and go back to WoW or something. Generally it is hillarious to read all the negative bull, its not even criticism aimed for improval, just alot of buhuus and cries. Pathetic fss 

Fri Jun 06 2008 7:01PM Report
Ayaksan writes:

I love to see when the PvP whores weigh in on a new game. The fact is a purley PvP MMMORPG would not be largley successful. This is a business and it is about making money. Lineage 2, EvE, R.Y.L, and a host of F2P MMO's are great for your hardcore PvP player. But compared to your big PvE centered MMO's they do not have as large of a subscriber base.  So if you need to feel L33T by pwning newblets there are your games. WoW is successful by the fact it has mass appeal. So will AoC. The fact that you refer to it as a flop is not accurate. This game is sold out everywhere. I had to buy a CD Key on line and barrow my friends copy.

You complain about the graphics taking away from gameplay. They do not. Just upgrade your dinosaur. Computer prices are as low as they have been in years and you can build a rig that will play this game very well for the cost of a PS3 or less if you just upgrade.

The only bad thing about this game is that it has fairly lengthy load times. But being a 10 year Vet of the origional EQ. It is really not all that bad to deal with. So while it may not have delivered the nub pwning experience you wanted, it does still offer a lot of rich PvP features. You cant level through PvP? In WoW you kinda could before TBC, but I do not know anyone who did.

This game offers everything your hardcore MMORPG fans enjoy. Lots of levels, good plot lines, many areas to explore, a robust number of classes, RADIS<----, Dungeons and a unique and fun NEW combat system and not just the same old thing thats been done since UO. There is also... hold your breath... PvP combat and it is pretty damn good.

For me as well as many other players PvP is the side note of MMORPG's. I enjoy PvP and love testing my skill against other players. But it does not define my gaming experience. I dropped WoW for LoTRO and was glad to see that PvP nerfin took the side line and did not interupt my PvE experience. But when I wanted to PvP it was there.Never having to worry about my character being ruined to balance PvP is always refreshing.

Warrhammer is coming soon, maybe that will be what you are looking for. It is a mostly PvP driven game. I was lucky enough to get in on the closed beta. It is all about PvP and PvE takes the side line. But just becuase this game does not deliver the experience you are looking for, does not make it bad.

Lasty, no game, no matter how long it has been around is bug free. You must not have played AO when it came out. That was bad for bugs. This game is about average. Who remebers having to use teleporters in WoW becuase the boats did not work for a long time? Bugs are a part of of gaming and will always be present. Even in non MMO gamse they are there.

Fri Jun 06 2008 8:09PM Report
ryotian writes:

@Ayaksan "The fact is a purley PvP MMMORPG would not be largley successful."

 

Very stupid comment. never mind Halo, Call of Duty, and such break records with each release. Next you write a wall of text think about a game like EVE which had no advertising at launch. No bigname IP. and its risen to smackdown lame PVE mmos like LOTRO and such.

The day a Halo PVP MMORPG comes out does bad is the day you are right. Until then, stfu

Fri Jun 06 2008 11:04PM Report
ryotian writes:

@Ayaksan, by the way its spelled "pure" not "purl" fool

Fri Jun 06 2008 11:05PM Report
chipsoup writes:

      Ok my 2 pennies :P  I have not got to play Aoc yet, would like to but in middle of upgrading my dionsour... A pure pvp game with no npc mobs to kill for xp?? what would you kill  A pc?? How would that work? how would the game know who to send you to kill and even if it could boy that would suck to get a quest and the guy logs off :P 

Lineage 2 is a good pvp game as soon as you enter the world you can be killed . but there is a risk to being a PKer and that is what most other PVP/PVE games are missing. Like W.O.W there is nothing that stops a group of lvl 70s from going in to a mid lvl zone and killing lvl 30s

@ryotian Very stupid comment. never mind Halo, Call of Duty, and such break records with each release.

Um thats a silly comment ther are not mmorpg's so why compare ?

oh and this one--->  EVE which had no advertising at launch..

Unless i miss all the ads on T.V...WoW is the only game i have ever seen put out ads on the T.V  (oh wait i think LOTRO ran a short Ad). I may be wrong but i think EvE did run a Ad back in the day in a game mag and almost all the game web pages have a EvE banner on it for free 14 days <--- Thats a Ad

   OK well any ways a Pure PVP game i dont think will ever happen there would just not be enough content, but who knows i hear there is a game called darkfalls or some thing along those lines coming out and sounds like its close so who know.

Sat Jun 07 2008 1:29AM Report

MMORPG.com writes:
Login or Register to post a comment