Age of Conan

What do you think...

I basically do not believe AoC is a "MMO" in the sense of most MMO's today.

It requires more skill than most games today, it is heavily instanced, but allows more players in a field than GW does..

The city hub is similar to GW, but now has quests...

You get mission zones...like GW (you enter an area for specific tasks...) and can stay there as well...

You can get farther and play better in a group setting...than solo (ala GW)

Has an underlying story...like GW

So, I think they took all the MMO boredom out, and turned it into a really good "Coop Online RPG"

Thoughts?

Well isn't hard to judge when you haven't been out into the whole game world yet?

Originally posted by openedge1

What do you think...

I basically do not believe AoC is a "MMO" in the sense of most MMO's today.

It requires more skill than most games today, it is heavily instanced, but allows more players in a field than GW does..

How is this an 'evolution'? 

The city hub is similar to GW, but now has quests...

I think you forget being allowed to leave the city without a group and still be successful.  AoC cities aren't hubs, they are living, breathing parts of the world.  GW feels more like a bunch of rooms with loading times in-between.

You get mission zones...like GW (you enter an area for specific tasks...) and can stay there as well...

Except that areas in AoC are MUCH larger and house a LOT more quests than GW.  You can roam around and you aren't stuck to a straight arrow linear task list. 

You can get farther and play better in a group setting...than solo (ala GW)

What do you mean ala GW?  In what game are you able to do everything or more than what a group could do?  None.  Every single MMO out there rewards organized groups over single players. 

Has an underlying story...like GW

Story.. that's funny.  You compare a world with over 75 years of lore to a hub video game that doesn't even have 5 years under it's belt.  GW's story is a joke.  I've played it, that's my opinion.

So, I think they took all the MMO boredom out, and turned it into a really good "Coop Online RPG"

AoC is more like a mmoRPG.  Which differs from most MMOG's.  It puts meaning in what you're doing.  GW doesn't do that.  It's become nothing more than an items/pvp grind.  Kind of like another game that I'm not going to mention.

Thoughts?

I obviously don't agree with most of your points, I think you are just reaching to try and bash AoC.  Unless of course you actually like GW, however.. I still don't think you're right.  If I compared AoC to something, it would be EQ1-2, but with a real story and meaning to do things in the world.  And that's only because they are both zoned more than most other MMO's.  AoC is bringing meaning back to the MMO genre.  They are trying something new with the combat and spellweaving.  Large sieges, open world PvP, controllable structures (ie. guild cities, battlekeeps, towers).. I mean, I could go on and on why AoC is so vastly different from GW, but that would actually make sense.  If you're going to compare one game to another.. name all of their individual concepts and then look and see what is similar.  I just don't agree that it's one step up from GW, more like one step up from most other MMO's.. and honestly, I would expect nothing less.

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by openedge1

What do you think...

I basically do not believe AoC is a "MMO" in the sense of most MMO's today.

It requires more skill than most games today, it is heavily instanced, but allows more players in a field than GW does..

How is this an 'evolution'? 

The city hub is similar to GW, but now has quests...

I think you forget being allowed to leave the city without a group and still be successful.  AoC cities aren't hubs, they are living, breathing parts of the world.  GW feels more like a bunch of rooms with loading times in-between.

You get mission zones...like GW (you enter an area for specific tasks...) and can stay there as well...

Except that areas in AoC are MUCH larger and house a LOT more quests than GW.  You can roam around and you aren't stuck to a straight arrow linear task list. 

You can get farther and play better in a group setting...than solo (ala GW)

What do you mean ala GW?  In what game are you able to do everything or more than what a group could do?  None.  Every single MMO out there rewards organized groups over single players. 

Has an underlying story...like GW

Story.. that's funny.  You compare a world with over 75 years of lore to a hub video game that doesn't even have 5 years under it's belt.  GW's story is a joke.  I've played it, that's my opinion.

So, I think they took all the MMO boredom out, and turned it into a really good "Coop Online RPG"

AoC is more like a mmoRPG.  Which differs from most MMOG's.  It puts meaning in what you're doing.  GW doesn't do that.  It's become nothing more than an items/pvp grind.  Kind of like another game that I'm not going to mention.

Thoughts?

I obviously don't agree with most of your point, I think you are just reaching to try and bash AoC.  Unless of course you actually like GW, however.. I still don't think you're right.  If I compared AoC to something, it would be EQ1-2, but with a real story and meaning to do things in the world.  And that's only because they are both zoned more than most other MMO's.  AoC is bringing meaning back to the MMO genre.  They are trying something new with the combat and spellweaving.  Large sieges, open world PvP, controllable structures (ie. guild cities, battlekeeps, towers).. I mean, I could go on and on why AoC is so vastly different from GW, but that would actually make sense.  If you're going to compare one game to another.. name all of their individual concepts and then look and see what is similar.  I just don't agree that it's one step up from GW, more like one step up from most other MMO's.. and honestly, I would expect nothing less.

I just felt it took things that "worked" in GW and made them "better"...and as Guild Wars is different than most other MMO's ( a true story line to follow, control of your quests, etc...)...I felt it was an evolution

I can understand your issue...as it seems everybody and their brother is here to bash the game...

I am not, and feel that AoC is an "Evolution" of the MMO, and "Revolutionary" in some respects as well..

And maybe if we just get rid of the MMO moniker (because right now, I do not think it is a good word to use anymore...) and stated it as an Online RPG or something along those lines...I think it would better fit the "difference" of AoC...

As AoC seems to be much more...

Originally posted by openedge1

 

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by openedge1

What do you think...

I basically do not believe AoC is a "MMO" in the sense of most MMO's today.

It requires more skill than most games today, it is heavily instanced, but allows more players in a field than GW does..

How is this an 'evolution'? 

The city hub is similar to GW, but now has quests...

I think you forget being allowed to leave the city without a group and still be successful.  AoC cities aren't hubs, they are living, breathing parts of the world.  GW feels more like a bunch of rooms with loading times in-between.

You get mission zones...like GW (you enter an area for specific tasks...) and can stay there as well...

Except that areas in AoC are MUCH larger and house a LOT more quests than GW.  You can roam around and you aren't stuck to a straight arrow linear task list. 

You can get farther and play better in a group setting...than solo (ala GW)

What do you mean ala GW?  In what game are you able to do everything or more than what a group could do?  None.  Every single MMO out there rewards organized groups over single players. 

Has an underlying story...like GW

Story.. that's funny.  You compare a world with over 75 years of lore to a hub video game that doesn't even have 5 years under it's belt.  GW's story is a joke.  I've played it, that's my opinion.

So, I think they took all the MMO boredom out, and turned it into a really good "Coop Online RPG"

AoC is more like a mmoRPG.  Which differs from most MMOG's.  It puts meaning in what you're doing.  GW doesn't do that.  It's become nothing more than an items/pvp grind.  Kind of like another game that I'm not going to mention.

Thoughts?

I obviously don't agree with most of your point, I think you are just reaching to try and bash AoC.  Unless of course you actually like GW, however.. I still don't think you're right.  If I compared AoC to something, it would be EQ1-2, but with a real story and meaning to do things in the world.  And that's only because they are both zoned more than most other MMO's.  AoC is bringing meaning back to the MMO genre.  They are trying something new with the combat and spellweaving.  Large sieges, open world PvP, controllable structures (ie. guild cities, battlekeeps, towers).. I mean, I could go on and on why AoC is so vastly different from GW, but that would actually make sense.  If you're going to compare one game to another.. name all of their individual concepts and then look and see what is similar.  I just don't agree that it's one step up from GW, more like one step up from most other MMO's.. and honestly, I would expect nothing less.

Love Guild Wars, love EQ2 and love AoC

 

I just felt it took things that "worked" in GW and made them "better"...and as Guild Wars is different than most other MMO's ( a true story line to follow, control of your quests, etc...)...I felt it was an evolution

I can understand your issue...as it seems everybody and their brother is here to bash the game...

I am not, and feel that AoC is an "Evolution" of the MMO, and "Revolutionary" in some respects as well..

And maybe if we just get rid of the MMO moniker (because right now, I do not think it is a good word to use anymore...) and stated it as an Online RPG or something along those lines...I think it would better fit the "difference" of AoC...

As AoC seems to be much more...

I just dont see how you can say the game is heavily instanced,

If it were heavily instanced i dont think half of us would be playing it,

Sure they have zones with a load time, but its completely different from guild wars instancing,

I know your not trying to bash the game, i just found that to be kind of a silly comment.

-Jive

Originally posted by jiveturkey12

 

Originally posted by openedge1

 

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by openedge1

What do you think...

I basically do not believe AoC is a "MMO" in the sense of most MMO's today.

It requires more skill than most games today, it is heavily instanced, but allows more players in a field than GW does..

How is this an 'evolution'? 

The city hub is similar to GW, but now has quests...

I think you forget being allowed to leave the city without a group and still be successful.  AoC cities aren't hubs, they are living, breathing parts of the world.  GW feels more like a bunch of rooms with loading times in-between.

You get mission zones...like GW (you enter an area for specific tasks...) and can stay there as well...

Except that areas in AoC are MUCH larger and house a LOT more quests than GW.  You can roam around and you aren't stuck to a straight arrow linear task list. 

You can get farther and play better in a group setting...than solo (ala GW)

What do you mean ala GW?  In what game are you able to do everything or more than what a group could do?  None.  Every single MMO out there rewards organized groups over single players. 

Has an underlying story...like GW

Story.. that's funny.  You compare a world with over 75 years of lore to a hub video game that doesn't even have 5 years under it's belt.  GW's story is a joke.  I've played it, that's my opinion.

So, I think they took all the MMO boredom out, and turned it into a really good "Coop Online RPG"

AoC is more like a mmoRPG.  Which differs from most MMOG's.  It puts meaning in what you're doing.  GW doesn't do that.  It's become nothing more than an items/pvp grind.  Kind of like another game that I'm not going to mention.

Thoughts?

I obviously don't agree with most of your point, I think you are just reaching to try and bash AoC.  Unless of course you actually like GW, however.. I still don't think you're right.  If I compared AoC to something, it would be EQ1-2, but with a real story and meaning to do things in the world.  And that's only because they are both zoned more than most other MMO's.  AoC is bringing meaning back to the MMO genre.  They are trying something new with the combat and spellweaving.  Large sieges, open world PvP, controllable structures (ie. guild cities, battlekeeps, towers).. I mean, I could go on and on why AoC is so vastly different from GW, but that would actually make sense.  If you're going to compare one game to another.. name all of their individual concepts and then look and see what is similar.  I just don't agree that it's one step up from GW, more like one step up from most other MMO's.. and honestly, I would expect nothing less.

Love Guild Wars, love EQ2 and love AoC

 

I just felt it took things that "worked" in GW and made them "better"...and as Guild Wars is different than most other MMO's ( a true story line to follow, control of your quests, etc...)...I felt it was an evolution

I can understand your issue...as it seems everybody and their brother is here to bash the game...

I am not, and feel that AoC is an "Evolution" of the MMO, and "Revolutionary" in some respects as well..

And maybe if we just get rid of the MMO moniker (because right now, I do not think it is a good word to use anymore...) and stated it as an Online RPG or something along those lines...I think it would better fit the "difference" of AoC...

As AoC seems to be much more...

 

I just dont see how you can say the game is heavily instanced,

 

If it were heavily instanced i dont think half of us would be playing it,

 

Sure they have zones with a load time, but its completely different from guild wars instancing,

 

I know your not trying to bash the game, i just found that to be kind of a silly comment.

 

-Jive

"It is heavily "zoned""

I can see your points

I personally love GuildWars, like EQ2, neutral on AOC under level 13

but I can also see how anyone that does *not like* GW would take issue with this comparison

early birds will be playing the retail client in 9 days soon enough