I played both AoC and WAR.  WAR easily is the answer.  AoC doesn't even have half the content and real PvP content (Last time I played it)

 Which is more fun? I think that really comes down to which half of "MMORPG" you prefer...

If you like MMO then WAR is definitely your bag - it's Massive, it's Multiplayer and it's Online, and it's pretty easily and quickly accessible to just about anyone. That means mass battles (long as you don't mind waiting forever in queues if you're Destruction, and being grossly outnumbered if you're Order) and a general feeling that you're a small piece of a much larger picture, very much like an individual Warhammer tabletop figurine. In that sense it doesn't feel like you're making much of an individual impact on the world, or that your quests, gear, skills and everything about you either matters or is significantly different from everyone else.

If you like RPG then AoC is more likely to make you happy (at least until you near the upper level limit and run out of content). The setting, the quests, the artwork, the combat system are all far more immersive than WAR. The tradeoff is huge system requirements which mean that (a) many people who would have liked to play couldn't because their system didn't meet the specs, and (b) even those who could play found themselves separated from everyone else by shards, instances, walls and every other conceivable means. Attempts at being "Massive" (eg. fortress sieges, if you can even call the pitiful player limits 'massive') were bugged and broken, and still struggle months later.

It's sad that this genre appears to be fragmenting rather than progressing even as constantly improving tech and internet specs should be making it easier to create a game that presents both MMO and RPG elements together. Personally I found the complete lack of immersion in Warhammer to be a total turnoff, so in that sense I got more hours of enjoyment out of Conan. Still waiting for someone to make a decent new MMORPG rather than just a part of the picture, though.

And no, before anyone suggests it, I don't think Darkfall will be that game even if they ever do release the thing.

mind you this is merely my opinion but it is in fact based on my experiences with both.

I played AOC since beta into launch, but left for 2 months, came back when the big PVP patch was introduced. although there is in fact less people, the PVP patch has brought back a significant amount that i noticed a different from the former week before the patch was introduced. On gameplay,graphics, animations, combat, Lore, AOC wins hands down.

the game looks good, plays and performs well (though there is quite a few set up configs that dont play nice, namely people with ATI cards) the combat system is very interactive.it is a very refreshing change to the general MMO combat systems being used currently. i think that is one of parts of the game where it truly shines.

I find it hard to go back to any MMO e.g. WOW, Eq2, lineage2 where I do auto attack, 1,2,3,4 in succession lather rinse repeat until that player is beat.

I have played with AOC where your position to another player is crucial to maximize your damage output. it requires good use of positional tactics such as timing your combo just right or utilizing a specific combo to debuff their defenses, stun them, snare them, or bleed them, throat slash them to keep them from invoking a spell.(silence). the fatalities are almost a game unto themselves as they are truly impressive and gory when they are proc'd. yet the crux of the game is the bugs, lack of overall launch content as well as slow influx of patches.

the pvp patch has helped but there has to be a steady flow of patches big or small on a regular basis to keep the consumer/subscriber happy and feel like somethign is being done. another positive note is that Craig Morrison is finally acting as Game director. which is has recieved positive acceptence by almost everyone in the forums. He has done great work in AO. Buyt I feel he has to be Johnny on the spot if he and funcom wants to retain what subscribers they have left. so its all on them now to produce content, fixes and patches to this game to truly bring out of the fog it is in now, cause the game has great potential.

Onto Warhammer, THough I have not purchased warhammer, I doid play up until launch but have my reasons. I feel the game has great potential but alot of things bog it down at least for me and what I have experienced. the game felt static, the game wasnt all that great looking to me, though has some artistic merit. but felt very 2005ish. yet still suffers from stuttering, lag, and other framerate anamolies despite looking as if it shouldnt drain your resources in that fashion. (client, engine, network cluster programming optimizations issues? >shrugs<)

So although Im not crazy about the graphics from a tech standpoint I do in fact like them from an artistic standpoint. I feel they are above par when compared to WoW. now this of course allows alot of players to be on screen at once which is obviously understandable as you dont want the graphical load to hinder your framerates. but the issues prop their ugly head despite this.

One thing i really didnt like at all was the animations, though I can only hope they improved from the static, stiff swinging animations of my ORc tank was doing. the animation quality was pretty ugly to say the least, even up til launch.

PQ"s were alright, but felt repetitive after a while, and though not forced, you almost feel a need to use a PQ to enhance the rate of your status within an area to get access to newer better gear. At least I found if i did a PQ multiple times I could enhance the rate in which I recieved status/favor in that area gaining access to healpots, strength pots, a better armor, or weapon from the residing NPC in that area. I was getting the idea that alot of this game is going to be heavily gear centric. the morale, and tactics skills though interesting, felt wierd and not really crucial though it gave the impression of some level of customization to your character.

QUests felt more like I was being walked/my hand held to the quest (big red contoured line drawn in the given area)       **I guess this isall par for the course when dealng with MMO's now as AOC does this as well but mainly with an X or a big orange circle for the relative area your suposed to look.

Scenerio's though easy to pick up, felt more like BG's from WOW. but this allows you more easiuly to get into PVP so in some ways this is a good thing.

the main thing that is different is that due to it being a RVR/PVP based game in WAR your actions effect the area whether doing PQ's quests or early pvp; it will effect how your faction overtakes or gets taken in the region.

overall I felt the PVP was good, but overall the experience was lackluster, I found it hard to get enveloped in the game, feel like i was part of a greater whole. that my actions made a difference even just a little. game had me feeling distant, feeling like I was watching the game rather than playing it.

Warhammer just doesnt have if you will pardon the pun; "WOW" factor.

despite the bugs, lack of some launch features. my vote goes to AOC due to innovative, interactive combat system more so than anything,  fun pvp,good lore, great graphics and amazing soundtrack and combat music

but this merely my opinion nothing more, so all you war fanboies, dont troll me, keep it mature, intelligent just as I did.

Unfortunately, you can't put the bugs aside. Nor can you put the lack of repercussions for PVP ganking and griefing. They should have thought of this at the beginning and not released it until these features were ready.

I have had a gem in AoC that I bought from someone that I can't stick in the appropriate slot in a fauld. When I petition the GM tells me "try it next patch". Guess what they still haven't fixed it and it is 4-5 patches ago! I have already outgrown the armor.

In Warhammer the Public Quests, RvR, constant fighting for keeps, and the bonuses that you get for them. Reknown Points. All of these things are novel and new (to me and my experiences in MMOs anyways).

As a Witch Elf  I don't have the same DPS issues as a tank. So my contribution and potential loot rate increase doing the PQs - but I definitely understand their complaint. I am sure that will be rectified in very short order (maybe adding a damage taken into the equation somehow?)

All my gear comes from RvR drops anyways.

What is not fun about crushing the enemy in RvR? Um, the people/tactics are different and varied. Monotonous -- not to me, regardless if the objectives are the same.

To the OP -- Did you travel to other lands and try those RvR scenarios? I would think that RvR scenarios would be one of the first thing to add to by creating more maps/objective types. I have played lots of Halo 2 and I never got bored of those CTFs or King of the Hill scenarios.

As it stands now, my vote is for Warhammer and I just cancelled my sub to AoC. At least for now; only the test of time will truly tell though.

p.s. fixed a typo on edit.

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

 Which is more fun? I think that really comes down to which half of "MMORPG" you prefer...

If you like MMO then WAR is definitely your bag - it's Massive, it's Multiplayer and it's Online, and it's pretty easily and quickly accessible to just about anyone. That means mass battles (long as you don't mind waiting forever in queues if you're Destruction, and being grossly outnumbered if you're Order) and a general feeling that you're a small piece of a much larger picture, very much like an individual Warhammer tabletop figurine. In that sense it doesn't feel like you're making much of an individual impact on the world, or that your quests, gear, skills and everything about you either matters or is significantly different from everyone else.

If you like RPG then AoC is more likely to make you happy (at least until you near the upper level limit and run out of content). The setting, the quests, the artwork, the combat system are all far more immersive than WAR. The tradeoff is huge system requirements which mean that (a) many people who would have liked to play couldn't because their system didn't meet the specs, and (b) even those who could play found themselves separated from everyone else by shards, instances, walls and every other conceivable means. Attempts at being "Massive" (eg. fortress sieges, if you can even call the pitiful player limits 'massive') were bugged and broken, and still struggle months later.

It's sad that this genre appears to be fragmenting rather than progressing even as constantly improving tech and internet specs should be making it easier to create a game that presents both MMO and RPG elements together. Personally I found the complete lack of immersion in Warhammer to be a total turnoff, so in that sense I got more hours of enjoyment out of Conan. Still waiting for someone to make a decent new MMORPG rather than just a part of the picture, though.

And no, before anyone suggests it, I don't think Darkfall will be that game even if they ever do release the thing.

Kinda Funny I thought WAR was more of an RPG and AoC was more of a MMO.

I would say both were equally shallow and boring.

I dont know how I am suppose to answer for you as to which one will be more fun for you, but I played both AoC and WAR.  WAR hands down is more fun for me.

Its a nonsensical question.

Its like comparing two bananas with the question: 'Leaving taste aside, which banana is more enjoyable to eat?'

I suppose if you narrow the term 'bugs' to only include slight technical hitches then you could make this comparison. However, with AOC, it wasn't just filled with bugs in that narrow sense, entire sections of the game didnt work or didnt exist in the first place. You have all seen the lists: No pvp system, shit itemisation, talents that didnt work, stats that didnt work, 'skill's' that didnt work etc etc. Are these bugs? I dont think they are.

A more accurate and interesting question would be 'In 1 year's time when AOC is actually in a state fit for release, is it as fun as Warhammer Online?' Unfortunately that question can't really be answered at the moment. I would state, however, that Warhammer on release is a more fun game now than AOC was 8 weeks after release, and it has the added benefit of not making you feel like you have been swindled by a group of incompetent cowboys who released and had you pay for an unfinished product.

There were so many things that I liked about AoC but there was just so much missing/broken on launch that I'm easily going to say WAR is more fun. And believe me I never thought I would say that. I'm a self-professed WoW hater and IMO WAR has fixed many of the problems I had with WoW.

I vote Age of Conan.

AoC has some issues, #1 being that PvP-centric games tend to be difficult to make using complex and interesting characters.  AoC had bad teaming mechanics... 'nough said.  I lasted about a month or perhaps a little longer.

War is terrible.  It is an old game in a new box.  It has clunky movement derived from making the game playable on poor, low end systems.  It is an arena game, sure the arena is a few hundred people, but to que for the world... pathetic.  Its characters are a joke.  Its playstyle something from a game in the 1990's.

After beta finished, I lasted in War for under two weeks; and even that was only a few days worth of playing.  I just found that sitting out back on the veranda, going out, playing chess, reading or doing anything else I can think of was far more fun than ever logging in to the terrible game.

---

Originally posted by WiccanCircle
I vote Age of Conan.
AoC has some issues, #1 being that PvP-centric games tend to be difficult to make using complex and interesting characters.  AoC had bad teaming mechanics... 'nough said.  I lasted about a month or perhaps a little longer.
War is terrible.  It is an old game in a new box.  It has clunky movement derived from making the game playable on poor, low end systems.  It is an arena game, sure the arena is a few hundred people, but to que for the world... pathetic.  Its characters are a joke.  Its playstyle something from a game in the 1990's.
After beta finished, I lasted in War for under two weeks; and even that was only a few days worth of playing.  I just found that sitting out back on the veranda, going out, playing chess, reading or doing anything else I can think of was far more fun than ever logging in to the terrible game.
 

---

I disagree with you but if you ever want to play some chess pm me :P

Originally posted by WiccanCircle

I vote Age of Conan.

AoC has some issues, #1 being that PvP-centric games tend to be difficult to make using complex and interesting characters.  AoC had bad teaming mechanics... 'nough said.  I lasted about a month or perhaps a little longer.

War is terrible.  It is an old game in a new box.  It has clunky movement derived from making the game playable on poor, low end systems.  It is an arena game, sure the arena is a few hundred people, but to que for the world... pathetic.  Its characters are a joke.  Its playstyle something from a game in the 1990's.

After beta finished, I lasted in War for under two weeks; and even that was only a few days worth of playing.  I just found that sitting out back on the veranda, going out, playing chess, reading or doing anything else I can think of was far more fun than ever logging in to the terrible game.

 

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you seem WAY too bitter. It's a little worrying, actually. You can't stand to play either of these games for too long, that's fine. What MMOs do you enjoy then?

Im going to have to choose War since AoC is just a tech demo.  No reason to group + instance kills it as a pve game and the pvp well lets just say there not called failcom cause its catchy.

hello kitty online adventures >war and aoc combined.

 War hands down.  I got a lot more bored with AOC.  Never got out of Tortage, lvl 16 because I just got bored and stopped playing.

AoC barely lasted me 2 weeks before I just got bored out of my mind and realized I was actually about to pay a monthly fee to sleep through a game. Even played casually the content dried up in such a short amount of time, and the combat system was little beyond repetitive mindless button mashing, nothing like advertised.

WAR on the other hand, if I count time spent during closed beta, I have been playing and having fun for well over 8 months. Release I've been playing just about as long as I had been for AoC, only with WAR I never have run out of content, never run into game breaking bugs, never felt bored or the game was incomplete or that the devs were leading me on with fake promises that stuff printed on the box would soon be implemented.

WAR is more fun, no doubt in my mind. they aren't even in the same league.

Maybe ... and it's a long maybe ... if Funcom were an ethical company I'd say AoC.  Conceptually AoC had a lot going for it. 

Whatever you say about WAR, personally it's 'ok' in my book, at least EA/Mythic delivered as advertised.

I played WAR but had to let it go due to crash and lag. Those issues aside I would say AoC and WAR are both fun games. Right now I play AoC and have immense fun in Siegeing. I will however try WAR again sometime later when performance has been addressed. 

I hate to say it, but I think I had more fun playing AoC. I'm really not having all that great a time with WAR.

Lol!  I can't believe somebody would even ask that question.  Clearly, it's WAR.