I am noticing three different types of reviews and each of them having similarities.  The negative ones tend to compare it to WoW and WoW was obviously their first MMO.  So obviously these people are WoW fanboys.  The average to slightly above average review tend to be players that started with UO or EQ.  These reviews claim that it is a good game it just doesn't do anything new and is the same as the genre ever was.  But usually think its better than whats on the market atm.  Last there are the extremely positive reviews which contend that this game is the best thing to ever happen and these people are usually mythic or war fanboys.  So my guess would be the second review being closest to the truth.

Of course.

Let me ask you, as far as "not bringing anything new"...would you rather have a revolutionary, crappy, incompelete game or a stable, not quite as revolutionary but still very fun game?

I'm sick of people who just care about having something new and then slamming the company that tries it if they fail. You asked for it, so why don't you play it? How about AoC's revolutionary combat?

Okay, that was a little off-topic but still. I'd rather we take baby steps at advancing the genre so that it's slow but secure. For instance, I expect Public Quests to become a staple of all new MMOs after WAR - that's advancing the genre, whether it's revolutionary or not.

In almost every review (except the first category of course) I've seen the game been called fun. No matter what bad points the reveiwer presents, he says at least one part of the game (but normally more than one) is fun. That's really what counts. Plus, as people experience the whole game, they'll see the motivation and want to do things that they might not do in other games - like doing that extra quest so that you can help your realm advance. That'll be another of WAR's advantages.

I agree with you completely.  I'm going to play this game for the long term purpose of RvR just because its currently the most fun on market IMO.  My other choice for PvP is repeating the same 4 battlegrounds over and over again.  At least with the PvP in this game you can build siege weapons and knock down some walls to make this interesting and a different experience each time around. 

Yea pretty much as soon as I see someone complain it doesn't revolutionize or innovate anything I stop reading. Those people have just exhausted the genre for themselves. MMO's are what they are. Try playing some different genres and come back in a year or so, you'll miss it.

I view the MMORPG community of players to be the princesses of gamers.

You don't wanna sound like a princess do you?

But I look pretty in pink.

---

Originally posted by xblast5000
The negative ones tend to compare it to WoW and WoW was obviously their first MMO.  So obviously these people are WoW fanboys.

---

Not all of the people comparing it to WoW are doing so because they WANT it to be like WoW. Some of them do it to make a point and show just how NOT different it really is.

 I will start off by saying yes I am WAR fanboi. The fact that I have 3 different TT armies on my home office shelf staring at me makes me one by default I guess.  What gets me is that people seem to expect some great revelation out of game, WAR is not earth shattering for the MMO world it does bring in some new play standards with PQ and RVR but it is not the Messiah of all games neither is WOW as I might add. I have been able to played WOW from Closed Beta through BC and I'm sorry that it has gotten to the point it is at now. But I am glad it has brought more people into the MMO world which I feel to many old time players think it should be some it of private club. If they did not have the 10million X players then 80% of the games out now would never have gotten off the ground.

Originally posted by xblast5000

I am noticing three different types of reviews and each of them having similarities.  The negative ones tend to compare it to WoW and WoW was obviously their first MMO. 

You do realize that if you're correct in assuming wow fans won't like this game that it poses a huge problem for war. It's obvious from the features and podcasts that they are targeting wow players with the pvp focus and new features that seem to be improvements of wow's as well as omission of others they think we didn't like. This game is basically an upgraded first-gen mmo, with some features and look borrowed from wow, attempting to improve features and with pvp focus. It's like some mmo thinktank took a long hard look at wow with he question, "what are wow players looking for in a new game that will get them to switch" and built a game primarily around the results of the study. The number one complaint about wow is limited pvp and so you have war.

So sure, if you've been hiding under a rock for the last 4 or so years and this is your first mmo since playing one of the first then you should love this game. I don't think EA/Mythic was just going after you guys tho.

I'm cancelling my preorder today. Art is amatuerish. I mean they couldn't even find a professional enough designer to make sure words don't wander off of their button's boundaries and use proper text allignment for quest tracking? This kind of amatuerism seeps through the whole game. Now of course this is a minor issue and you get past it quickly. Then you realize this pvp-centric game has boring combat and pvp scenarios. That's what ended it for me. It's just unending zergs and stalemates at choke points. No point to it at all.

Originally posted by Bruticus_XI

How about AoC's revolutionary combat?

I very strongly disagree. AoC's combat system was not revolutionary  rather it took was a huge backward step.  Rather than using a standard choose an ability AoC decided to have one press an abilioty followed by 3-5 gighlighted directional arrows.  the net effect of this is besides being extremely tedious is it removes any thought or decision making from combat.  hit the key hit 5-6 directional arrows.  Their combat system was a huge step back and made for the 15-25 year old kiddies who do not have an attention span longer than 1 second, simply for those that do not want skill or thought in their games.

Originally posted by xblast5000

I am noticing three different types of reviews and each of them having similarities.  The negative ones tend to compare it to WoW and WoW was obviously their first MMO.  So obviously these people are WoW fanboys.  The average to slightly above average review tend to be players that started with UO or EQ.  These reviews claim that it is a good game it just doesn't do anything new and is the same as the genre ever was.  But usually think its better than whats on the market atm.  Last there are the extremely positive reviews which contend that this game is the best thing to ever happen and these people are usually mythic or war fanboys.  So my guess would be the second review being closest to the truth.

true that :)

Originally posted by Zippy

Originally posted by Bruticus_XI

How about AoC's revolutionary combat?

 

I very strongly disagree. AoC's combat system was not revolutionary  rather it took was a huge backward step.  Rather than using a standard choose an ability AoC decided to have one press an abilioty followed by 3-5 gighlighted directional arrows.  the net effect of this is besides being extremely tedious is it removes any thought or decision making from combat.  hit the key hit 5-6 directional arrows.  Their combat system was a huge step back and made for the 15-25 year old kiddies who do not have an attention span longer than 1 second, simply for those that do not want skill or thought in their games.

I have to disagree
 

AoC's combat is faster and more involved than alot of these standard type of MMO games with auto attack or auto aim. 

These stagnant systems that all you do is target and click attack once are holding the MMO genre back.

Originally posted by Bruticus_XI

Of course.

Let me ask you, as far as "not bringing anything new"...would you rather have a revolutionary, crappy, incompelete game or a stable, not quite as revolutionary but still very fun game?

I'm sick of people who just care about having something new and then slamming the company that tries it if they fail. You asked for it, so why don't you play it? How about AoC's revolutionary combat?

• Tabula Rasa was something new with their combat.  Failed.
• Age of Conan's combat was new for the genre. Failed.
• Auto Assault was something new. Failed.
• Pirates of the Burning Sea was innovative too. Failed.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. 

Originally posted by observer

Originally posted by Bruticus_XI

Of course.

Let me ask you, as far as "not bringing anything new"...would you rather have a revolutionary, crappy, incompelete game or a stable, not quite as revolutionary but still very fun game?

I'm sick of people who just care about having something new and then slamming the company that tries it if they fail. You asked for it, so why don't you play it? How about AoC's revolutionary combat?

 

• Tabula Rasa was something new with their combat.  Failed.
• Age of Conan's combat was new for the genre. Failed.
• Auto Assault was something new. Failed.
• Pirates of the Burning Sea was innovative too. Failed.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. 

This day and age I think most MMO's are going to have a hard time.

I have yet to see a game come out in the last 4 years that actually pleased everyone :D

So I guess it comes down to what you like and sticking with the game through thick and thin.

Otherwise wed all be playing WoW forever ;)

Originally posted by xblast5000

I am noticing three different types of reviews and each of them having similarities.  The negative ones tend to compare it to WoW and WoW was obviously their first MMO.  So obviously these people are WoW fanboys.  The average to slightly above average review tend to be players that started with UO or EQ.  These reviews claim that it is a good game it just doesn't do anything new and is the same as the genre ever was.  But usually think its better than whats on the market atm.  Last there are the extremely positive reviews which contend that this game is the best thing to ever happen and these people are usually mythic or war fanboys.  So my guess would be the second review being closest to the truth.

The thing about reviews is, ITS ALL bullshit. Every person in the world has a different opinion about a certain game. I mean come on Metal gear solid 4 gets a solid 10 from a lot of people while its the most easiest, overcinematic, splinter cell game I have ever seen.

But thats my opinion. The best thing to get out of a review is info on the game and not the opinion.

If you want to know if the game is good. Just wait for it to release and play it yourself.

Originally posted by UberKnot

Originally posted by observer

Originally posted by Bruticus_XI

Of course.

Let me ask you, as far as "not bringing anything new"...would you rather have a revolutionary, crappy, incompelete game or a stable, not quite as revolutionary but still very fun game?

I'm sick of people who just care about having something new and then slamming the company that tries it if they fail. You asked for it, so why don't you play it? How about AoC's revolutionary combat?

 

• Tabula Rasa was something new with their combat.  Failed.
• Age of Conan's combat was new for the genre. Failed.
• Auto Assault was something new. Failed.
• Pirates of the Burning Sea was innovative too. Failed.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. 

 

This day and age I think most MMO's are going to have a hard time.

I have yet to see a game come out in the last 4 years that actually pleased everyone :D

So I guess it comes down to what you like and sticking with the game through thick and thin.

Otherwise wed all be playing WoW forever ;)

Its always been hard.

Even for wow, most hardcore mmo players don't even consider wow anymore cause its basicly not the standard mmo anymore. Its way to casual, I mean come on, to get epic items is really easy. The dungeons are not even a challange for a hardcore mmo player. I mean ok the game has alot of subscribers, but most of those people are just people that have no idea what an mmo really is. Ok there are some but tbh most of them never even heard of ultima online or everquest for that matter. They are just casual people that happen to stumble on wow.
 

Originally posted by xblast5000

I am noticing three different types of reviews and each of them having similarities.  The negative ones tend to compare it to WoW and WoW was obviously their first MMO.  So obviously these people are WoW fanboys.  The average to slightly above average review tend to be players that started with UO or EQ.  These reviews claim that it is a good game it just doesn't do anything new and is the same as the genre ever was.  But usually think its better than whats on the market atm.  Last there are the extremely positive reviews which contend that this game is the best thing to ever happen and these people are usually mythic or war fanboys.  So my guess would be the second review being closest to the truth.

Wow, talk about running everyone over the same curb? No, people don't compare it to WoW 'because it was their first MMO'. People compare it to WoW because it's the most well known MMO and one of the same genre, sharing many similarities with WAR Online. Secondly, those who compare it to WoW do not give it exclusively poor feedback.

I for one played MUDs way before Ultima and EQ was out, played EQ for a long while, then EVE Online and WoW. Does that make me more pro? Can I have a larger e-peen now and say "OH LOEL U ONLEH PLAY WOW U NO KNOW GOOD GAME"? Please...?

Seriously, put a sock in it. But in any case, most of the reviews seem to reflect my own opinion. It's a good game, not as polished as WoW was on release but not as bad as MMO launches have been in the past, yet considerably better than AoC. It's nothing radical, a typical fantasy MMO with a healthy focus on PvP and with a slightly more slow paced combat than what we've grown used to (which necessarily doesn't have to be a bad thing).

- With a good community and continious efforts from Mythic Entertainment WAR Online could succeed in providing an excellent game for those who like PvP, are tired of WoW but who would like a new fantasy MMO to play. If things go well we can expect a solid million subs and if it stays afloat it may very well snatch another million but it won't kill WoW and noone expected it to.

My only big gripe with the game is how they murder the lore... =/

Originally posted by xblast5000

I am noticing three different types of reviews and each of them having similarities.  The negative ones tend to compare it to WoW and WoW was obviously their first MMO.  So obviously these people are WoW fanboys.  The average to slightly above average review tend to be players that started with UO or EQ.  These reviews claim that it is a good game it just doesn't do anything new and is the same as the genre ever was.  But usually think its better than whats on the market atm.  Last there are the extremely positive reviews which contend that this game is the best thing to ever happen and these people are usually mythic or war fanboys.  So my guess would be the second review being closest to the truth.

I compare it to WoW, and that's because WoW has been the funnest MMO I have played, and I have played almost all of them. After playing a quality game, it's hard to step backward a generation. WAR feels like a step back to 2001. Nuff said.