MMORPG.com Warhammer Online Correspondent Asaf Yonsian writes this interesting piece about Mythic's use of the Warhammer IP in an MMO compared to both Turbine and Funcom's handling of their IPs.

In 2006, Turbine launched Lord of the Rings Online – The MMORPG that was destined to topple WoW using Tolkein's Intellectual Property (IP). The world was beautiful, the settings were as grand as Tolkein's books, but not all was well in Middle Earth.

Lord of the Rings launched with 7 classes, none of them wielding real magic due to lore restrictions (a mistake Turbine will fix in their next expansion release – Mines of Moria). Turbine was also bound by various laws and prohibitions to keep the original lore of the game, thus hampering the ability a player had to feel really epic and like a unique character in the world.

Read the article here.

I liked the article and I think Warhammer is a rich and interesting IP, regardless of what I think of the game. I don't think they could ever run out of stuff to build off of as Warhammer has been around for 20+ years. I think it is up to 25 years now?

Yet, I do not agree.

WAR was boring and still repetitive.

Right now the genre as a whole has no new ideas. So, the fact that such a clone of WoW could be considered so "innovative" due to changing some mechanics really shows how far we have sunk for entertainment.

The reason Mythic got it right is they took no bold steps, no major moves to try and be different. But, as a whole they do capture the IP's visual style, though slightly muddy and gritty, and not very hi-res.

But mechanically, it is still the same grind gameplay underneath a new "slightly different" shell

Just an alternate view of a game that does not suck, yet does nothing to excite either.

----------- 

Originally posted by openedge1

Yet, I do not agree.

WAR was boring and still repetitive.

Right now the genre as a whole has no new ideas. So, the fact that such a clone of WoW could be considered so "innovative" due to changing some mechanics really shows how far we have sunk for entertainment.

The reason Mythic got it right is they took no bold steps, no major moves to try and be different. But, as a whole they do capture the IP's visual style, though slightly muddy and gritty, and not very hi-res.

But mechanically, it is still the same grind gameplay underneath a new "slightly different" shell

Just an alternate view of a game that does not suck, yet does nothing to excite either.

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

There are no WoW clones. There are only Ultima Online and EverQuest 1 clones.

It becomes tiresome that everyone nowadays bashes down games of being WoW clones.

That's simply not true! WoW was nothing new either. Blizzard just took the right bits from previous MMO's and used that as foundation for their MMO. Nothing more, nothing less.

And WoW isn't perfect either! There are plenty of flaws in WoW as well. Especially today.

No game is perfect! Just like WAR isn't perfect either!

Cheers
 

To the OP: Well said and well written. I totally agree.

There are so many MMO's to chose from, and they all try to use the "best" features that make the top MMO's great. Therefore, they're all similiar in some ways in that they have a quest journal, factions at war, the archetypical classes, etc.

Therefore I pick my MMO's by the IP, or "which world do I want to be a part of?". I thoroughly enjoy the Warhammer IP so I relish the chance to live in that world, even in its early stages.

For those familiar with Warhammer, they've only implemented about 30% of the actual content of the IP. Give this game time to grow, and it'll have FAR more content than WoW.

Plus it doesn't look like a #$% $#^& cartoon haha.

That's what good about this game you don't feel like somebodies sidekick, you do really feel more powerful as it goes on and if you learn and read up on the lore you start gaining alot from it, ofcourse I play on an RP server so I look at the world different and not just endgame but a process. I saw a video where Paul says it's more than just an mmo it's entire hobby the way you get into it and what they are aiming for and I'm finding this to be true and fun more and more everyday.

Originally posted by openedge1

Yet, I do not agree.

WAR was boring and still repetitive.

Right now the genre as a whole has no new ideas. So, the fact that such a clone of WoW could be considered so "innovative" due to changing some mechanics really shows how far we have sunk for entertainment.

The reason Mythic got it right is they took no bold steps, no major moves to try and be different. But, as a whole they do capture the IP's visual style, though slightly muddy and gritty, and not very hi-res.

But mechanically, it is still the same grind gameplay underneath a new "slightly different" shell

Just an alternate view of a game that does not suck, yet does nothing to excite either.

There are no huge things left to innovate. Only small things.

Much of that is handled through addons the community provides. If they prove good enough, or necessary, the next MMO implements them.

Zoning and Scenarios are perhaps the next barriar... but if you want accessible battlegrounds from anywhere in the world... you will keep those instances and scenarios.

WoW is seamless, but at a cost of detail. AoC is high detail, but at a cost of seamlessness.

Even being seamless isn't true in WoW's case. Zones are still loaded as needed, and a whole world isn't actaully made ready. Loading a whole world into Ram/Vram would be handy I imagine.

The innovations in MMOs have pushed up to, and even past what our current hardware can handle.

I think, without new technology, we won't see too many changes. All of that will be code, and even that will be slow as they need to do a test-fail-test-fail process. An MMO will try something, fail, then the next MMO will get it right... or fail... then the next....

Don't expect any new innovations in our lifetime...

Unless technology gets improved out of necessity... like a major war.
The gears of progress are greased by blood, sweat, and tears.

There is far too much "Fanboy" in this particular article for me to give it any credence whatsoever.

Anyone who tries to talk about IP and suggests in the first few paragraphs that sticking to the IP is a bad idea is well off base.

I played LotRO - I quit because there was very little to do once you'd completed the leveling process (it's the only game where I've heard fans say the best way to play it is to not play as much).  I however did greatly respect the choice to make the world "feel" authentic.  The mistake Turbine is making is compromising their product with the introduction of a generic lightning-bolting wizard class into the game - all to try and entice the "oooh shiny particles" crowd.

I play WAR now - I keep playing because the game is feature complete from start to finish.  There is an end-game that I am working towards, whereas with LotRO there was nothing past the top level.  WAR left some things out - sure, but what's there appears to work correctly and has many things to do at all levels.  What's there suits the IP - particles and all.

Oh - and epic?  Because you can change the world?  What MMO is this?  I'm pretty sure Arthas (or whoever) is still standing in the same place as when you were last there.  MMOs by definition cannot have epic stories in the vein of high fantasy books or movies.  Everyone has to go through the same gates.

In many respects, LotRO's use of instanced storytelling gets a lot closer to granting an epic feel than any other game before it.  The sporadic chapter instances (though poorly laid out in terms of progression) did certainly succeed in bringing the experience into a more personal realm than most other games I've played - WAR included.

Originally posted by jakin

There is far too much "Fanboy" in this particular article for me to give it any credence whatsoever.

MMORPG.com Warhammer Online Correspondent Asaf Yonsian writes this interesting piece about Mythic's use of the Warhammer IP in an MMO compared to both Turbine and Funcom's handling of their IPs.

It's the Warhammer Correspondent. Of COURSE it is going to biased.

You don't send a Sony fanatic to review an Xbox event...

The correspondents are going to advocate their game.

You should realise this.

Good writeup.

meh, not worth it discussing, its grown old already.

Considering Warhammer has 25 yrs of personalized, customized figures the game was a huge let down in this area. Everyone looks the same. limitations in colours, physical apperance and character creation. Nothing like the table top. What would of been neat is using different shades of colour for example. That is a failure to not use the full potential of the IP. I remember painting a figure when I was 10. I could choose how they looked. In warhammer its pretty limiting in this area. I have all the fighting fantasy books by Steve Jackson and Ian livingstone - when Games Workshop got up and running proper, there were some great idea's floating around, when i think back to the descriptive narratives to the lore and compare them with my bulk, 5 frame character online in 2008 can't help but be dissapointed..

The worst thing is that neither Lotro nor AoC have the world reset on them. Static objects (keeps) in the same place all the time.

The author clearly thinks that to play AoC for example is to be King. It's not, your playing during a specific time frame of the lore. Its not built on him himself, it's built on the world / lore, so judging it from the correct perspective is different from the author's, and therefore falls flat face down.

Age of Conan has over 75 yrs of lore to draw from and many of the quests reflect situations throughout all that timeline. Lotro has similar aspects. In tabletop warhammer, you don't quest. Lotro and AoC's lore is based around literature and not a game. It's literature is what made the IP of those games and that it draws from this in more ways that warhammer due to the richness of it but of its extensivity.

The Author says in regards to AoC: "mostly due to lack content issues, repetitive content and a few other general content oriented problems."
 

Are you telling me that you don't find warhammer repetitive? Would be nice to specify other general content oriented problems?

The number one thing for me is that AoC and LOTRO both have persistant and dynamic worlds that are always evolving using their individual IP's. Warhammer Online comes to a stop at some point then the whole thing starts again.

If there is one thing the world of videogames has taught us, it's that a good story can make a great game. What do you remember from games like Knights of the Old Republic or Baldur's Gate? Is it the simple combat mechanics, the UI, or the well written characters and compelling plot? There is no price you can place on drawing in your audience to a fictional world they feel a part of and bringing life to pixelated creations. This in its basic form is lacking in warhammer for me.

AoC and LOTRO also offer a decent RP experience, with a lot of emotes, area's and mechanics to enhance this. Right now War is lacking in this area. Where can I go to soak it all up? If I stand around I am not really playing the game as intended. AoC and LOTRO have taverns for example.

How many people do you know in games like EQ2 and LOTRO that just click right thru the quest dialogue? If you are mainly motivated by achievements such as levels, skills, or gear then extensive lore actually becomes a hindrance to playing and causes dissatisfaction. Warhammer throws some of these things at the player right off the bat.

Those who do read lore, looking at the amount of time spent in gameplay, how much is actually spent exploring and reading? How often are areas sought out or stories pondered on in the course of an adventure? Are even the most devout of players really concerned with the meager tale of a farmer attacked by bandits? Do we really have an option of not stopping an invading army and does it matter why they are invading?  When I played warhammer it was all about things trying to be accessible, which has its downside too. You wonder into a PQ and pick it up part way through, you just do it and move on with the goods. If it gives you good exp then you repeat it, not many are there for the lore and thats a shame.

I'd like to preface this by saying I am a fan and paying subscriber of WAR. With that aside, I am worried about the future I might have in WAR for one reason: War is everywhere.

One might ask, "Gee...what is so bad about war being everywhere?" Well, if you are a part-time gamer who logs in an hour or two to advance your character, probably nothing. However, if you spend many hours a day or week in the world, or you have done all there is to do at max level or are bored with the RvR, there is no place to just "relax".

In real life, no one wants to live in a war torn nation. We like the tranquil plains, hills, and mountains. We love nature or perhaps the action of a bustling city. The point I'm making is that without an end to conflict, the game remains in a perpetual state of war, which means the players character can never relax.

The only solution to this is to actually have an end to the war or to release non-war torn areas in expansions that players can adventure, explore and make seperate lives in. I guess the difference between me and other gamers is why we PvP. I PvP to help my side achieve victory. If victory is nowhere in sight, fighting becomes dull and depressing. People not like me PvP, because they love the action. They don't care about the social aspects of a game really as I do.

Only time will tell how the game being in a constant war setting will effect the longevity of a player's subscription. The one thing I loved about DAoC is that the game was a world to live in. You could seperate the conflict of the war between the three realms and your characters' individual life. I could explore the Highlands one day, which are peaceful, but not without their own adventures and threats; the next, I could go into the frontiers to support my realm in the ongoing struggle. Every zone in WAR that I've encountered was full of war against your opposing faction. If not in PvE, it was warring in PvP. No where was it really safe to just adventure and let loose.

Originally posted by openedge1

Yet, I do not agree.

WAR was boring and still repetitive.

Right now the genre as a whole has no new ideas. So, the fact that such a clone of WoW could be considered so "innovative" due to changing some mechanics really shows how far we have sunk for entertainment.

The reason Mythic got it right is they took no bold steps, no major moves to try and be different. But, as a whole they do capture the IP's visual style, though slightly muddy and gritty, and not very hi-res.

But mechanically, it is still the same grind gameplay underneath a new "slightly different" shell

Just an alternate view of a game that does not suck, yet does nothing to excite either.

You're obviously burnt out on MMORPGs, because it shows all throughout your post. First your opinions are the same as those criticizing other games that are successful, who are known to be burnt out on MMORPGs. Next, some of your 'facts' are incorrect. Mythic did introduce new features in WAR and if you're too blind to see them, well whatever.

Is it really appropriate for one correspondent to attack another correspondent's writing?  It doesn't seem professional to have employees for the same company at each others throats.

Originally posted by Cibaj

Is it really appropriate for one correspondent to attack another correspondent's writing?  It doesn't seem professional to have employees for the same company at each others throats.

We don't work for mmorpg.com. You seem to think each were attacking each other. All I see is a difference of opinon with reasons on a forum which lets you do this. Our opinions are our own and so long as you back them up there is nothing wrong with that. I felt there were several area's of the article which had some really good points and others which made me scratch my head in trying to understand. Sorry if you felt either came across bad.

A good article but there is one important point that seemed to be missed. Warhammer was an IP *created* to support a game. In this case, GamesWorkshop’s table-top miniature battles. All the Warhammer art, novels, comics and such were produced for one purpose - to promote a setting that would allow GW to sell more lead figures.

The brilliance of GW was making sure all that Warhammer art and novels and comics were cool and well-done and not just cheap junk drummed out for marketing purposes.

Conan and Lord of the Rings were novels and they had only one purpose – to tell a story. Turbine and Funcom failed to understand how these IP’s would restrict their games. They just got all excited, like so many on these forums, about how great those stories were and they, along with so many on these forums, mistakenly assumed that a great story would have to make a great game.

I agree with AmazingAvery that there have been incredible stories told through video games.  But those stories were *created* for their games.   Knights of the Old Republic's storyline was made specifically for Bioware's RPG.   It had one purpose, to help the game tell the story.     Having an IP designed for a game makes it far more likely for the game and story to end up working well together.  

Translating a novel into something else, whether a game or comic book or a movie, is a much, much riskier process and it tends to fail far more than it succeeds.     You see the same problem when people try to translate stories made for video games into movies.    

Since the Warhammer IP was designed to support a game, GW allowed Mythic to make divergences in the lore (female dwarfs running around, inability of any Destruction races to betray each other etc). Mythic just had to convince GW that the changes were needed to make a better game and GW understood that.

Warhammer did what it has always done, provide a fun setting for gamers whether computer or tabletop. Mythic’s single smartest move was picking this IP to make a MMORPG. The rest of their smart moves involved all the decisions that go into making a decent game.  

We've seen far too few MMORPG developers that seem capable of making smart decisions recently. 
 

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

I am gonna have to blow hole in your little write up here my AoC fanboy friend.

Considering Warhammer has 25 yrs of personalized, customized figures the game was a huge let down in this area. Everyone looks the same. limitations in colours, physical apperance and character creation. Nothing like the table top. What would of been neat is using different shades of colour for example. That is a failure to not use the full potential of the IP. I remember painting a figure when I was 10. I could choose how they looked. In warhammer its pretty limiting in this area. I have all the fighting fantasy books by Steve Jackson and Ian livingstone - when Games Workshop got up and running proper, there were some great idea's floating around, when i think back to the descriptive narratives to the lore and compare them with my bulk, 5 frame character online in 2008 can't help but be dissapointed..

I really doubt that you involved much with miniature painting. There are certain freedom to the painter while building their army but there are still guild line you have to follow to fit with the lore and the IP. The whole idea of Warhammer miniature painting beside building an army so you can play with is to make the miniature look alive. It has nothing to do with what color theme you pick. You see, it has little to do with physical appearance too because there are only limited amount of model you can have. If you go gung ho in converting, of course you may have something looks relatively different but still there are guild lines you cannot break.

Go back to Warhammer Online. Can you list for me my AoC Fanboy friend how many dyes there are in WAR? Or do you know how many shades of colors existed? I can tell you that they follow the Citadel paint line of Game Workshop pretty closely. From scarab red, fortress grey, to chainmail,.. using the same name with the actual paint. So if you want you could actually dye your character to look just like the model you paint. Many many of these dyes are not available in shop you know. You have to create them or get them to drop from monsters. So while you may not see them, it does not mean that they don't exist.

So, when I say every armor in AoC look the same, same old brown shade, same kind of realistic, boring chainmail type or armor, would you agree with me? No, you gonna go and say, there are other type of armors out there that I have not see or there will be more PvP armors comming and things like that. Well, right back at you. WAR has just been release, you are not gonna see a lot of unique armors set until people actually get to do dungeon, get loots, kill RvR bosses more to get even more loot, no King loot yet...

I can tell you with certain that I have seen more armor varieties in WAR during these first few weeks than I have seen in my time in AoC ( I have a couple 80 in AoC btw). The amount of generic looking armors in AoC are just staggering and you have the gut to go and bash WAR about the limited color you can dye while you can't even do that in AoC in the first place?

The worst thing is that neither Lotro nor AoC have the world reset on them. Static objects (keeps) in the same place all the time.

And you make it sounds like it's different in AoC. After you successfully siege other guild keep what happen? They go back to grinding their ass off to build it back, you go back with absolutely nothing on your hand waiting to schedule another siege with another guild. How is that different from a reset? You talk about static keeps in the same place all the time, I gotta ask you in what game can you move your keep around? A keep whether you build it or it has been pre-built will always be there it just like real world, you occupie the keep/castle, you can't move it. And how do you know if they won't allow you to build your own keep later on?

The author clearly thinks that to play AoC for example is to be King. It's not, your playing during a specific time frame of the lore. Its not built on him himself, it's built on the world / lore, so judging it from the correct perspective is different from the author's, and therefore falls flat face down.

That world did build around Conan. The majority of lore evolve around him. He is the center piece of that world. People knowing the world of Conan will always want to be like him. Why do you think people playing MMORPG with name mimic Aragon, Drizzt, Legolas...?

Age of Conan has over 75 yrs of lore to draw from and many of the quests reflect situations throughout all that timeline. Lotro has similar aspects. In tabletop warhammer, you don't quest. Lotro and AoC's lore is based around literature and not a game. It's literature is what made the IP of those games and that it draws from this in more ways that warhammer due to the richness of it but of its extensivity.

The Author says in regards to AoC: "mostly due to lack content issues, repetitive content and a few other general content oriented problems."

 Are you telling me that you don't find warhammer repetitive? Would be nice to specify other general content oriented problems?

Like doing the few Villa quests again, again, and again, and again, and sit in Keshatta killing the same stuff over and over and over and over and over again. That is a content oriented problem.

The number one thing for me is that AoC and LOTRO both have persistant and dynamic worlds that are always evolving using their individual IP's. Warhammer Online comes to a stop at some point then the whole thing starts again.

Are  you really confused between the world evolve and a certain content setup or you just try to do that and hope nobody would notice? You said Warhammer Online comes to a stop at some point and the whole thing starts again, you are seriously confused between an end-game content setup and the way the world of Warhammer Online evolve around the IP. The capital city siege is a major end-game contents, it's not the way WAR will evolve using the Warhammer IP. Undead, tomb king, skaven, ogre, vampire, wood elf... you can't even imagine what it could evolve into.

If there is one thing the world of videogames has taught us, it's that a good story can make a great game. What do you remember from games like Knights of the Old Republic or Baldur's Gate? Is it the simple combat mechanics, the UI, or the well written characters and compelling plot? There is no price you can place on drawing in your audience to a fictional world they feel a part of and bringing life to pixelated creations. This in its basic form is warhammer for me.

AoC and LOTRO also offer a decent RP experience, with a lot of emotes, area's and mechanics to enhance this. Right now War is lacking in this area.

Correction, a good story can make a great single player game. A good theme/background make a great MMORPG. Both AoC, LOTRO, and WAR have great background that could draw people in. But you know one thing different? People join AoC, LOTRO to be like Conan, Aragon, Legolas, Gandalf. You will always see clone of these heroes because people know about them through the IP and trying to be like them. In WAR, you don't have these, you have to build your own. That's what I think the write of this article really meant.

How many people do you know in games like EQ2 and LOTRO that just click right thru the quest dialogue? If you are mainly motivated by achievements such as levels, skills, or gear then extensive lore actually becomes a hindrance to playing and causes dissatisfaction. Warhammer throws some of these things at the player right off the bat.

Those who do read lore, looking at the amount of time spent in gameplay, how much is actually spent exploring and reading? How often are areas sought out or stories pondered on in the course of an adventure? Are even the most devout of players really concerned with the meager tale of a farmer attacked by bandits? Do we really have an option of not stopping an invading army and does it matter why they are invading?  When I played warhammer it was all about things trying to be accessible, which has its downside too. You wonder into a PQ and pick it up part way through, you just do it and move on with the goods. If it gives you good exp then you repeat it, not many are there for the lore and thats a shame.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but do you know the different in other game and WAR is? In WAR, if you just click through because you don't have time or not interested at that time, you can always come back and read about them in your Tome of Knowledge in a much organized format, much easier to follow and presented to you like a book.

After you done all those quests in AoC, you sit down and want to remember what you did, what piece of lore you read throught the first time and you want to know more about it, you want to read it again, how do you do that?

Sure, in WAR you can wander into a PQ do it for the good reward, but then in the reset time, you can open it out in your Tome and read more about it, you see, WAR give whoever like to know about lore an option. You want to read about lore, good, it's in your tome, you don't want to read about it, no problem, you don't have to. See. Having more options is a good thing.

Originally posted by Alienovrlord

Conan and Lord of the Rings were novels and they had only one purpose – to tell a story. Turbine and Funcom failed to understand how these IP’s would restrict their games. They just got all excited, like so many on these forums, about how great those stories were and they, along with so many on these forums, mistakenly assumed that a great story would have to make a great game.

I agree with AmazingAvery that there have been incredible stories told through video games.  But those stories were *created* for their games.   Knights of the Old Republic's storyline was made specifically for Bioware's RPG.   It had one purpose, to help the game tell the story.     Having an IP designed for a game makes it far more likely for the game and story to end up working well together.  

Translating a novel into something else, whether a game or comic book or a movie, is a much, much riskier process and it tends to fail far more than it succeeds.     You see the same problem when people try to translate stories made for video games into movies.    

Since the Warhammer IP was designed to support a game, GW allowed Mythic to make divergences in the lore (female dwarfs running around, inability of any Destruction races to betray each other etc). Mythic just had to convince GW that the changes were needed to make a better game and GW understood that.

Warhammer did what it has always done, provide a fun setting for gamers whether computer or tabletop. Mythic’s single smartest move was picking this IP to make a MMORPG. The rest of their smart moves involved all the decisions that go into making a decent game.  

We've seen far too few MMORPG developers that seem capable of making smart decisions recently. 
 

I reply to AA post before seeing this post. I agree with you totally. Couldn't have said it any better.

Originally posted by Thachsanh

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

I am gonna have to blow hole in your little write up here my AoC fanboy friend.

Considering Warhammer has 25 yrs of personalized, customized figures the game was a huge let down in this area. Everyone looks the same. limitations in colours, physical apperance and character creation. Nothing like the table top. What would of been neat is using different shades of colour for example. That is a failure to not use the full potential of the IP. I remember painting a figure when I was 10. I could choose how they looked. In warhammer its pretty limiting in this area. I have all the fighting fantasy books by Steve Jackson and Ian livingstone - when Games Workshop got up and running proper, there were some great idea's floating around, when i think back to the descriptive narratives to the lore and compare them with my bulk, 5 frame character online in 2008 can't help but be dissapointed..

I really doubt that you involved much with miniature painting. There are certain freedom to the painter while building their army but there are still guild line you have to follow to fit with the lore and the IP. The whole idea of Warhammer miniature painting beside building an army so you can play with is to make the miniature look alive. It has nothing to do with what color theme you pick. You see, it has little to do with physical appearance too because there are only limited amount of model you can have. If you go gung ho in converting, of course you may have something looks relatively different but still there are guild lines you cannot break.

Go back to Warhammer Online. Can you list for me my AoC Fanboy friend how many dyes there are in WAR? Or do you know how many shades of colors existed? I can tell you that they follow the Citadel paint line of Game Workshop pretty closely. From scarab red, fortress grey, to chainmail,.. using the same name with the actual paint. So if you want you could actually dye your character to look just like the model you paint. Many many of these dyes are not available in shop you know. You have to create them or get them to drop from monsters. So while you may not see them, it does not mean that they don't exist.

So, when I say every armor in AoC look the same, same old brown shade, same kind of realistic, boring chainmail type or armor, would you agree with me? No, you gonna go and say, there are other type of armors out there that I have not see or there will be more PvP armors comming and things like that. Well, right back at you. WAR has just been release, you are not gonna see a lot of unique armors set until people actually get to do dungeon, get loots, kill RvR bosses more to get even more loot, no King loot yet...

I can tell you with certain that I have seen more armor varieties in WAR during these first few weeks than I have seen in my time in AoC ( I have a couple 80 in AoC btw). The amount of generic looking armors in AoC are just staggering and you have the gut to go and bash WAR about the limited color you can dye while you can't even do that in AoC in the first place?

The worst thing is that neither Lotro nor AoC have the world reset on them. Static objects (keeps) in the same place all the time.

And you make it sounds like it's different in AoC. After you successfully siege other guild keep what happen? They go back to grinding their ass off to build it back, you go back with absolutely nothing on your hand waiting to schedule another siege with another guild. How is that different from a reset? You talk about static keeps in the same place all the time, I gotta ask you in what game can you move your keep around? A keep whether you build it or it has been pre-built will always be there it just like real world, you occupie the keep/castle, you can't move it. And how do you know if they won't allow you to build your own keep later on?

The author clearly thinks that to play AoC for example is to be King. It's not, your playing during a specific time frame of the lore. Its not built on him himself, it's built on the world / lore, so judging it from the correct perspective is different from the author's, and therefore falls flat face down.

That world did build around Conan. The majority of lore evolve around him. He is the center piece of that world. People knowing the world of Conan will always want to be like him. Why do you think people playing MMORPG with name mimic Aragon, Drizzt, Legolas...?

Age of Conan has over 75 yrs of lore to draw from and many of the quests reflect situations throughout all that timeline. Lotro has similar aspects. In tabletop warhammer, you don't quest. Lotro and AoC's lore is based around literature and not a game. It's literature is what made the IP of those games and that it draws from this in more ways that warhammer due to the richness of it but of its extensivity.

The Author says in regards to AoC: "mostly due to lack content issues, repetitive content and a few other general content oriented problems."

 Are you telling me that you don't find warhammer repetitive? Would be nice to specify other general content oriented problems?

Like doing the few Villa quests again, again, and again, and again, and sit in Keshatta killing the same stuff over and over and over and over and over again. That is a content oriented problem.

The number one thing for me is that AoC and LOTRO both have persistant and dynamic worlds that are always evolving using their individual IP's. Warhammer Online comes to a stop at some point then the whole thing starts again.

Are  you really confused between the world evolve and a certain content setup or you just try to do that and hope nobody would notice? You said Warhammer Online comes to a stop at some point and the whole thing starts again, you are seriously confused between an end-game content setup and the way the world of Warhammer Online evolve around the IP. The capital city siege is a major end-game contents, it's not the way WAR will evolve using the Warhammer IP. Undead, tomb king, skaven, ogre, vampire, wood elf... you can't even imagine what it could evolve into.

If there is one thing the world of videogames has taught us, it's that a good story can make a great game. What do you remember from games like Knights of the Old Republic or Baldur's Gate? Is it the simple combat mechanics, the UI, or the well written characters and compelling plot? There is no price you can place on drawing in your audience to a fictional world they feel a part of and bringing life to pixelated creations. This in its basic form is warhammer for me.

AoC and LOTRO also offer a decent RP experience, with a lot of emotes, area's and mechanics to enhance this. Right now War is lacking in this area.

Correction, a good story can make a great single player game. A good theme/background make a great MMORPG. Both AoC, LOTRO, and WAR have great background that could draw people in. But you know one thing different? People join AoC, LOTRO to be like Conan, Aragon, Legolas, Gandalf. You will always see clone of these heroes because people know about them through the IP and trying to be like them. In WAR, you don't have these, you have to build your own. That's what I think the write of this article really meant.

How many people do you know in games like EQ2 and LOTRO that just click right thru the quest dialogue? If you are mainly motivated by achievements such as levels, skills, or gear then extensive lore actually becomes a hindrance to playing and causes dissatisfaction. Warhammer throws some of these things at the player right off the bat.

Those who do read lore, looking at the amount of time spent in gameplay, how much is actually spent exploring and reading? How often are areas sought out or stories pondered on in the course of an adventure? Are even the most devout of players really concerned with the meager tale of a farmer attacked by bandits? Do we really have an option of not stopping an invading army and does it matter why they are invading?  When I played warhammer it was all about things trying to be accessible, which has its downside too. You wonder into a PQ and pick it up part way through, you just do it and move on with the goods. If it gives you good exp then you repeat it, not many are there for the lore and thats a shame.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but do you know the different in other game and WAR is? In WAR, if you just click through because you don't have time or not interested at that time, you can always come back and read about them in your Tome of Knowledge in a much organized format, much easier to follow and presented to you like a book.

After you done all those quests in AoC, you sit down and want to remember what you did, what piece of lore you read throught the first time and you want to know more about it, you want to read it again, how do you do that?

Sure, in WAR you can wander into a PQ do it for the good reward, but then in the reset time, you can open it out in your Tome and read more about it, you see, WAR give whoever like to know about lore an option. You want to read about lore, good, it's in your tome, you don't want to read about it, no problem, you don't have to. See. Having more options is a good thing.

All I have to say is sorry I hurt your feeling and you felt the need to patronize.

1. I did have some experience with the models at an early age. The point I am making is every class looks the basic same  to that class, when much more could be done. Dying clothes in war is limited to certain area's on the specific piece itself, and not the whole. It lacks in the area of real life decoration in freedom of choosing where especially at the start of the game. In AoC for example or even lotro you get a set amount of choices but they are more extensive.  I got up to level 15 on one guy and found 1 green and 1 grey dye int he world. On the tabletop game you don't lay your guys out naked do you.. When I create a character fresh in war I feel let down considering the relation to the IP. Its all about personalization and it's lacking at the start. The level of detail lacks. Thats how I feel from experience.

2. It doesn't matter later on what they do, the game is how it is right now in terms of sieges. In AoC I have plots, I can move buildings around, In war it is static. I never build it, it destroys, it appears out of the ashes brand new again the next day. Considering the IP in Warhammer is all about being hands on in design - this area fails for me. Do you not buy your GW mag and it has write ups on constructing all sorts of things for the tabe top game? Where is this in line with the lore in War - its good but it could of been a lot more. It's about knowing what to do each and everytime for a keep, there is no flexibility in war. Table top maps are hand crafted, in warhammer....  You do what you have to do in the game, eventually it resets, I don't know whats so hard to understand here, and the cycle begins again.

3. WAR still lacks area's to RP in. Lacks emotes, lacks chat etc etc. When you want to embrace the lore its quite hard to do on the battlefield.

4. In AoC I open quest tab and read all the previous quests I have done summary :) Doing those a lot of those quests is about the lore, or taken directly from. If I want to know more because in AoC it was displayed to me in a more captivating way then I would go pick a book up from the creator of swords and sorcery..

I am here with a difference of an opinion in some area's not to argue or belittle. Thanks.

Ultimately the article is a "my game is better because..." but never fleshes out things for the other games to the level of detail to the particular game in question.