General Discussion

Yeah perhaps everyone should just wait and see eh ?. It astounds me the number of people who hav'nt even played WAR that talk so much crap ! 

i am playing war

Originally posted by kishe

Do you like...

 

A) DAoC/Shadowbane

Large open combat areas, massive keep warfare with dynamic pvp. Alot of large scale pvp to happen, meaning lag, lag, crashing, but fun.

B)WoW/Guildwars

 Relies on instances for PvP with little to no large scale PvP happening. Meaning a little lag but pvp always in same areas with fixed amount of enemies/allies.

...the best?

 

if you picked A, AoC is for you, if you picked B, WAR is for you.

 

The end.

WAR is Led Zeppelin

AoC is Abba

/THREAD

Its all going to dependant on what we, the gamers, prefer.I for one like the way AoC sounds better than WAR. Notice im not talking like I have experience with either. I have watched all the videos available as well as read all the interviews and it just seems AoC is more my style...but of coarse, i'll have to wait and see for myslef... I will definetly try both.

It never fails that the AoC vs WAR debates start coming. WAR doesn't look that impressive at all, but I loved DAoC and what Mythic did with their RvR. Some of the finest PVP battles was from DAOC (other than UO), but then I love Conan and the lore aspect of that. I'm leaning towards Conan more just from a gameplay and graphics standpoint from the videos.

Animations needs a little work though.

From the bits of footage I've seen of AoC, I don't see how skill is going to be any more significant than in WoW. It has nothing to do with Unreal Tournament; the character isn't fast or nimble enough to evade anything so fights will surely come down to finding the combo of swings that deals the highest DPS.

Also, I dislike the animations and art style of AoC. The terrain is lovely but the characters fall into the Uncanny Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley). Pro tip: Don't try to make a photo-realistic looking game, it doesn't work.

And finally, Vista can suck my life out (and I'm not going to play some half-assed version of the game), as said by a mate before me. I'm not too thrilled about paying 500+ euros for an OS that only allows me to pay some more for a game that only runs on said OS. If MS allowed us to update our XPs so they are compatible with all the new techno-babble in Vista for a very low price, nobody would even bother with that highway robbery they call Vista.


WAR I've been following more closely and while some things about it concern me somewhat, it's probably currently the strongest contender for my attention.

"War is for people who just like to play casually with friends and have no problem with the lack of interaction or skill it takes to play.  Kids, old people, and people with slow reflex or some form of ineptness should like War the best I would think."

This attitude is the exact reason why i won't touch AOC with a 10 foot pole.  Will be full of elitists thinking there shit don't stink

u are a bit wrong about aoc supporting DX10

u DONT need vista to play AoC at all  , since it works ok with dx9

u NEED vista if u want to take full advantage of aoc's DX10 layer support

in both cases is works perfectly, but if u dont have vista, u cannot use aoc's DX10 features

i would like to remind u  that DX10 is gonna be obsolete as soon as microsoft releases DX10.1 which is not backwards compatible and does not work with actual DX10 compliance hardware

Lol Battlekruse, photo-realism doesn't work. Tell that to Bethesta, or Epic, both their most recent games sold millions based almost solely around the fact that their games looked very realistic.

I think both games have their strong points. I personally think if your looking for really strong PvP that isn't all that carebear, and can have a meaningful impact on the world, AoC is a solid choice. The combat system, while still needing some fine tuning (that being part of the reason why the game is now 8 months from release, not 2,) the fact that it's real time and fully dynamic makes the games PvP significantly different then the auto-target, whack-a-mole of the standard MMOG scene.

I also don't think zerging is going to play that huge factor, because of formation combat and the full collision detection the game sports. Unless it's a zerg made up for cavalry, then it'll just run over anyone not also on a horse. Unless that anyone is a formation with pikeman in it, cause they'll just kill most of the horses in the cavalry. Yes, your mounts can die. You don't perma-loose them. But you can't use a mount again for a set period of time. This brings quite a lot of strategy to the table. An enemy sieging your battle keep? Their War Mammoths wrecking your walls? Have your archers rain down fiery death and your mages bring about hellish doom on them, kill them off, and the attackers loose their Mammoths for the fight.

On the other side of the field you have WAR. I agree, WAR is going to appeal to casuals a fair bit more, partly because it's combat system is much easier to learn (from those that've played it, it appears if you've got some WoW experience, it takes all but 30 seconds to learn the controls, as they are identical.) But at the same time they have some cool features, like the Tome of Knowledge, and zone-wide quests.

In the end, I think both will be successful. AoC will draw the 'I'm sick of generic fantasy MMOGs' crowd, and WAR will draw the 'I want to experience good RvR again,' as well as IMHO draw a significant portion of the WoW PvP crowd away from WoW.