Same as everyone else, would like a key

eu.aiononline.com/uk/

Right side of the screen, under the heading 'Launch Schedule'.

Originally posted by Gestankfaust

Originally posted by Gkarr

In all the games I have ever played with GameGuard I haven't had a problem once. I actually think the hackers are behind most of the complaints about GameGuard. This way they get there way and GameGuard is removed allowing them to hack.

 

This

 

Or the fact that anyone who would have problems knows nothing about their computer...or computers at all

Even more likely is that NCSoft acknowledged the Ineffectualness of GG because the link on how to disable it was widely distributed on practically every Aion board in existence, including almost every GG thread on the official beta forums. Where before game companies could keep up appearances that GG was a proper anti-cheat program (even though most who wanted to, knew their way around it), it has now been proven that even the most computer illiterate person can disable it. As such it has probably completely lost its 'appeal', at least here in the western MMO market, until the company behind GG finds a way for it to not be disabled so easily.

Originally posted by Yunbei

*sob* I don't understand any of this computer stuff. I just want to download something... after days and hours of trying I am at the end with my nerves. *__*

One thing I can recommend if you're not very computer minded is to look around with family or friends and see if someone can help you out with such an issue. Reading through the thread it seems that there may be a bit more to your issue than initially may seem the case. The suggestion regarding file size limits due to your hard drive being FAT32 is one possible issue, but not something you may want to resolve yourself if you're not very computer savvy.

Another thing you may want to look in to (if it may turn out to be a network issue, some ISPs are like that) is that someone else downloads the required file(s) for you and helps you out on how to place them on your computer. Once there you should be able to install the game, and any future updates to the games should be small enough to not cause any issues.

Good luck.

Originally posted by zathos8724

or see if they have a wiki for the game. :)

There is: http://powerwiki.na.aiononline.com/aion

Guess the OP now has enough info to compile the requested info for himself

Your ping time (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping) has nothing to do with your graphics card and seeing that the servers are supposed to be located in Europe, neither will your Internet connection help much. It is just a fact that over larger distances you will get an increase in ping time...

Also note that your Funcom account login and password may not be the same as your Age of Conan login and password. Mine for example isn't, due to my Funcom account also being used for Anarchy Online and it wouldn't accept the same login name for Age of Conan as I have for Anarchy Online.

Originally posted by FE|Tachyon

2. Have you honestly looked at the newest screenshots?  Looks better then WoW, Warhammer, Runes of Magic, and a dozen of other MMOs that are alive and kicking, and/ or under production.

For once I'd like to join in what is one of my favorite sources of comic relief in these sad times, the MMORPG Darkfall forums. The reason: the part quoted above. Why?: I have honestly looked at the screenshots and in my humble opinion, they are worse than bad. Reasoning:

Lets first start that it looks like the game doesn't do very well to convert screens to JPG format, or that an external program was used, probably mspaint in that case. Which is why I won't comment on the abysmal state the sky and clouds are in on the 'Welcome' screenshot. I'm also assuming that anti aliasing was not available, so I'll also not count that against it.

So, first screenshot: beta.thenoobcomic.com/df_preview/screenshots/welcome.jpg

Immediate impression: Are they using some sort of cell-shading engine? Or do a lot of the textures used just have an added black outline?

Textures: I know that WoW for example uses somewhat the same technique, large textures pasted on structures to create an impression. But at least Blizzard designers have the decency to vary their textures in colour tone, gradients, etc... And they match up to each other...

Integration of objects: WTF are those spikes that are all over the scene? They look like cardboard cutouts pasted on by a 3yr old. The large braziers look out of place, the dragon statue looks painted into the scene at a later time and the stall visible just above the W in the sign looks even worse. And these are just a few abnormalities.

Lighting/shadows: Looks like shadows are created by just one source, yet do not continue onto the street texture. Both sides visible of the background structure and the large spikey pillar thingy are equally lighted. The side of the dragon statue turned to the viewer looks better lit than the rest of the scene. This could be imagined to come from the brazier, yet the colour of the light is of and nowhere else in the scene is there evidence that this could be the case. And again these are just a few of the abnormalities.

One last funny thing: They cannot even get their version of the moon, or whatever it is, to look round.

Seriously, if I was shown this without knowing any background I would have labelled it as a quite nice attempt made in some painting program. As it is now I have a very hard time to imagine how the world will look in 3D.

Second screenshot: beta.thenoobcomic.com/df_preview/screenshots/sun-big.jpg

I'm going to ignore everything regarding the sun set, or whatever it is, so that means most of the top half of the screenshot. The human mind is a sucker for these kind of scenes and is automatically drawn to the light in exclusion of almost everything else. So do what I did and blot out the top half.

First impressions: Is this the same game as in the first screenshot? Or did they use a different paint program?

The character: Clothed in 2D textures. Again, Wow does the same thing, but at least in most cases it does a better job of it. Lighting and shadows are again way off, or there is a second light source behind the character which magically doesn't light the back of his shoulders, arms, etc, nor creates a shadow of the character itself.

Shrubbery: Difficult to comment as the quality of the JPG is quite abysmal, yet the when looking at the one next to the frontmost tree on the left, it again looks painted.

Background: What are those shadowy trees and boulders in the background? Looks like the world has stopped there and we're looking at a projection on canvas, or something.

Sky/ground texture, trees: Nothing to comment there, looks mostly ok (the trees may look off, but the quality of the JPG and lighting source are probably the cause, cannot be sure)

And again they managed to make a not round moon thingy.

Now I'm not going to give a side by side comparison to the other games mentioned in the quote. What I wanted is to show how off these pictures are to anyone who is willing to just look with their own eyes. There are undoubtedly screenshots from those other games which are quite unflattering. But the trick is to look at the whole picture and how stuff fits. And stuff just doesn't fit with these screenshots.

If you look through the galleries at this site: www.darkfallonline.eu/darkfall-bilder/main.php it looks remarkably like a reverse progression on the graphics front. The further you get from dec 2008, the better the images look (up until early 2006 or somewhere around there).

Edit: Ahahahaha!!! I just noticed that all the fires the Welcome screenshot are one and the same, now I'm very suspicious of a mspaint job...

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

 

There's no reason you can't design Solo play MMORPGs, and Group play MMORPGs.

Heck, it is even possible to do it all in one. What about a game that has 'group servers' and 'solo/duo servers' all with the same content (just like there are seperate RP and PvP/PvE servers for example), but adjusted in difficulty. 'Group servers' will have the sociable environment and challenge for those craving the group experience. Solo players will have the opportunity to still enjoy all the content, but catered to their own needs on the 'solo servers'. A duo option on a 'solo server' would add the possibility to be somewhat more social and achieve your goals a bit earlier than the soloer.

But you see what the difficulty here is. Even though the servers would be completely seperate, those who advocate strongly for the group only option would still complain about the soloer being able to get exactly the same as them. Which again points in the direction that it is not the group social experience that is important for them, but being able to 'be better', by having 'better equipment' than someone else.

Does it remove MM from MMORPG? It depends on how you look at it and what your opinion is. On a 'solo server' you can still have a strong community and you still get a persistent world environment that is being regulary expanded, that is the MM that most of these people are looking for. Those who want more MM can get it by playing on their 'group server'...

Wait for it: incoming vesavius rant...

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by klapdoor

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by klapdoor

...something that isn't an opinion, but fact: The current genre called MMORPGs evolved from its predecessor called MUD's. For those of you who weren't even born at the height of its popularity: MUDs were text based online adventure RPG's. The world was build up out of small sections/chambers, each with its own description, possible occupants/enemies and directions/exits. The whole goal of the game was to be able to have a fun adventure in an environment that would constantly be updated and expanded. It was a hobby and a passion, designed by and for people who craved the style of those early dungeon crawling games (like Zork for example), but would like to play in an (nearly) endless world and meet other like minded adventurers on your path. A few facts on MUDs related to this 'discussion':

- Grouping essentially did not exist. Most MUDs were not designed with grouping in mind and the technology at the time did not encourage it. You could 'band' together, but that was meant as a sociable and mostly roleplaying option. It was not a requirement.

- Adventure and story line were the key words. The most successful MUDs were those who had the best designed environment and quests (remember, still text only).

- Min/max-ing was something essentially unheard of. In most MUDs you could allocate your basic stat points, and you could sure 'gimp' yourself if you allocated wrongly, but in almost all cases you could still adventure through the world without any issues. In fact, a lot of people 'gimped' their characters on purpouse as it was a lot of fun to do (oh damn, again that word 'fun'), in true pen and paper D&D style.

- Unfortunately most of this changed in the latest generations of MUDs onward.

Eh? What are you banging on about? When were we talking about MUDs? Why the unasked for history lesson in what we all know?

May as well talk about D&D... or Chainmail even...

One builds on the other, sure, but you are ludicrous to talk about the MUD model when we are discussing MMORPGs.

They are a very different animal, so everything you bothered to type here is irrellevant in the discussion.

Gotta love psuedo intellectuals eh?

I'm truly sorry that my 'unasked-for history lesson' so thoroughly confused you, but I cannot be bothered to put it all in simpeler terms. Yet if you realy want to make the argument of it being a different animal, then you should start considering that games like WoW are the next step in the evolution of the MMO genre...

As should have been obvious from what I wrote, It wasnt what you wrote the confused me, just why you wrote it.

Simpler terms are really not necessary, I promise, but a I am still confused by your need to give an unasked for history lesson... That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand... Bewildering.

It isn't as bewildering as you think if you understand why I wrote that. But it seems that your own opinion on how the MMO genre should suit your own needs, makes you unable to grasp the argument made by that 'bewildering history lesson'.

(Hmmm, running out of colours if this continues)

 

I am starting to think maybe English isnt your first language? If it isnt, then thats cool, and I apologise. It's just that you seem to have comprehension issues.

It is an easy step to check my profile, as I did with yours btw. As you played the 'native English incomprehension card' twice, please proofread and check your own posts first, before trying it out on other people...

There is no comprehension issue here. It is just that you are trying to force your own opinion on others, using a few simple semantic issues here and there. This is a sign of weak argumentation as you are unable to see the general picture and have to resort to belittlement.

 

And I do blame this on the current crop of MMO players. But essentially they cannot help it though. They grew up with the games that are all about competition and missed those earlier games that were still about the adventure of the game (it is no coincidence that the whole genre of old style adventure games like Zork, Monkey island, Sam & Max, etc. has completely died out).

Erm... friend, they havent.

Point'n'Click adventures are still made, and Sam and Max are still selling...

Just because you have stopped looking, it dosent mean they stopped existing.

Who are you blaming now?

Ah yes, I concede to you this one. The financial success of adventure games is still huge these days. No wonder there are still countless numbers of these games produced every year. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term 'died out', I can see where it has confused you.

And btw, I don't think we'll ever be able to be friends.

Thank you, I accept your admission of being wrong.

But, actually, you said completely died out. This is a clear and definitive statement being presented as fact.

See, here is a great example of latching on to one word while ignoring the rest. So to help you out, here is my revised sentence:

(it is no coincidence that the whole genre of old style adventure games like Zork, Monkey island, Sam & Max, etc. has almost disappeared from the gaming scene in general in such a way that Vesavius is able to understand that it has become a small niche market. This with the purpose to show Vesavius that although some people still play the genre (myself included), it is no way comparable anymore to its heydays in the 80's and early 90's)

 

You see, you 'confuse' people when you make definitive statements that are incorrect. They tend to think you mean what you are typing. I guess thats their fault though, and not yours.

Never friends though? awww..... For real?  :(

 

Now to those who are saying that because MM-ORPG stands for Massive Multiplayer you need to group and otherwise just sod off, read again from which genre the current MMORPG evolved.

And read again how irrellevant that whole verbal gush was that you posted above is to discussing MMORPGs.

Oh, and then sod off?

Why should I sod off? Cannot take an argument? I also see that you conveniently glossed over the whole RP part of the post, guess that didn't fit in with your personal view after all...

And why should anyone else sod off, but you don't seem to have a problem telling them to...

Ah, talking about comprehension issues...

 

Cannot you take an argument?

My post was in direct response to yours after all, as is obvious right?

Hypocrite much?

And again you're glossing over the RP part, very interesting you know.

 

And a few last things, funny quotes:

Originally posted by vesavius

My, arnt you a rude little man?

MMORPGs were designed for co-op play.

Yes you can solo, but it should never be preferable to group.

As soon as you build a game that enforces solo play then you destroy what made these games special in the first.

Community.

/sigh... who am I kidding..? As if your ever gonna get it.... From your attitude of post here I doubt very much much that you are capable of social co-op play.

 

Funny how you think that 'Community' can only be achieved by forced grouping. And no, originally the genre was not designed for co-op play. That is like saying that FPS was originally designed for co-op play.

Read what I wrote again.

and again if you need to.

To help you, what I wrote means that a game that ENFORCES soloing, as the current generation does by removing group content, or at least marganalising it to the point where it is worthless, will never have a community worth spit.

You see, this is where I do not understand people.

Yes, your right, you blatantly don't understand people. 

You guys are blubbering tears because you feel that the whole 'effort' of putting together a group should entitle you to some special treat.

No, we are making the point that we enjoy co-op social gameplay.

I really do't know how to paint this clearer for you. 

You don't have to. But what is holding you back from enjoying your social gameplay? Other people soloing?

 

As you clearly are not a fan of 'history lessons'

Actually, I am when they are from an informed source and relevant. 

I'll keep it short and simple for you:

Thanks!

Do you group for the 'community feel' and the fun of grouping? Or do you group because you will then be able to get that special treat?

I group for the enjoyment of achieveing a shared goal with friends (both new and old). I group for chats, for laughs, to share the experience of exploring a new world.

Oh, and I also play MMORPGs to develop and imporve my character, which in your simplistic terms would those 'special treats' I guess.

So, both.

Again, what is holding you back from your envisioned experience?

 

I have never called for enforced grouping.

I have only ever stated that enforced soloing in these games destroys community. Whether you take that as opinion or fact, I don't really care tbh.

Point me in the direction of those games that enforces soloing? (and please do not come with some obscure f2p garbage example)

AoC enforced soloing for 90% of it's content at launch.

You mean Tortage? Maybe you have never played the game, but it is certainly possible to group up, even for quite a bit in the 10-20 levels. Although most people who have only read about the game think otherwise though...

 

I have soloed when I have needed or wanted to in MMORPGs since 1999, and it should always be there as an option. I have stated this already in this thread. Read it again.

Good boy!! So you do know how to solo...

 Yep! I am sooo proud!

If you havent got a point, pleae dont invent one by putting words in my mouth to suit whatever it is you are obviously so desperate to say.

There is nothing desperate in my previous post, unless you call a civil grown-up way of argumentation 'desperate'. Although I admit that I have lowered my standard considerably in this reply, much to my regret I must say.

 Just calling it as I am reading it.

Was the only way to get 'face to face' with you unfortunately. Ah, how I love these little jibes on a saturday afternoon.

 

Seeing as you think MMORPGs as a genre started with the MUDs, which is just plain silly, it's like saying that cars are the same as wagons

Gee, let me see: Four wheels, used for carrying cargo from point A to point B and powered by horsepower. Ah how wrong I have been!!!

hehe this is my favourite bit!

If you can't see why, I really havent the energy to point it out :)

By the way, what I will say, is that a car isnt actually powered by 'horsepower'... y'know? They don't actually have horses inside them... It's just a term to measure power borrowed from wagons... y'know?

Again here you go, not able to see the whole picture just to make it suit your own needs.

 

What you do here is actually prove my point though, so thanks.

You see, cars have borrowed terms from wagons (horsepower in this case), the same way that MMORPGs borrowed from MUDs, but they...

Funny thing is, you prove my point, but use the wrong word. Now I could do the same as you did and dismiss your argument on the word 'borrowed' (should be derived), yet I'm able to see the whole picture.

 

Ahh no matter lol. Anyone who actually says what you said won't get it.

You mean anyone like you?

 

and you obviously cannot comprehend basic English yet still attempt to ridicule what is said with some kind of false superiority complex, forgive me if I just leave you now and don't bother replying to you anymore.

Ah yes, the obligatory mudslinging... Thanks for the laughs 'friend'...

A pleasure :)

It's so fun talking to you, I can't help but reply, so I take that back! :)

 

Well, it is never a good sign to see someone come back on a promise, no matter how many smilies you put behind it.

A shame realy that you won't reply to me anymore, because I'm going to quote you and make you look very silly:

If you havent got a point, pleae dont invent one by putting words in my mouth to suit whatever it is you are obviously so desperate to say.

Read what I wrote again.

and again if you need to.

Originally posted by vesavius

I remember that actually, though it seems so long ago now heh.
 

I havent argued that the systems (in this case the code maybe) havent been moved (stolen?) from MUDs to MMORPGs, but I am saying that the play style, aims, and objectives that defines the genre of MMORPGs are a totally different animal then a MUD.

I truly doubt that you have ever played a MUD.

 

Much in the same way I stated that the  D&D or Chainmail relationship with MUDs existed in the most basic of senses.

I mean, it was posted by Klapdoor that MMORPGs, and by this I mean the MMORPGs that defined the genre, wernt designed to be co-op simply because MUDs wernt co-op...

Ah, I feel the need to quote you:

pleae dont invent one by putting words in my mouth to suit whatever it is you are obviously so desperate to say.

Read what I wrote again.

and again if you need to.

 

and thats just crazy. After all, taking it back to where MUDs themselves drew inspirations and sytems from, D&D is a openly co-op game...

He just took the whole thing back to the point that suited him and stopped that suited him, to prove the point that suited him.

And here we go again:

Read what I wrote again.

and again if you need to.

 

Silly.

Oh my, something we agree upon...

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by klapdoor

...something that isn't an opinion, but fact: The current genre called MMORPGs evolved from its predecessor called MUD's. For those of you who weren't even born at the height of its popularity: MUDs were text based online adventure RPG's. The world was build up out of small sections/chambers, each with its own description, possible occupants/enemies and directions/exits. The whole goal of the game was to be able to have a fun adventure in an environment that would constantly be updated and expanded. It was a hobby and a passion, designed by and for people who craved the style of those early dungeon crawling games (like Zork for example), but would like to play in an (nearly) endless world and meet other like minded adventurers on your path. A few facts on MUDs related to this 'discussion':

- Grouping essentially did not exist. Most MUDs were not designed with grouping in mind and the technology at the time did not encourage it. You could 'band' together, but that was meant as a sociable and mostly roleplaying option. It was not a requirement.

- Adventure and story line were the key words. The most successful MUDs were those who had the best designed environment and quests (remember, still text only).

- Min/max-ing was something essentially unheard of. In most MUDs you could allocate your basic stat points, and you could sure 'gimp' yourself if you allocated wrongly, but in almost all cases you could still adventure through the world without any issues. In fact, a lot of people 'gimped' their characters on purpouse as it was a lot of fun to do (oh damn, again that word 'fun'), in true pen and paper D&D style.

- Unfortunately most of this changed in the latest generations of MUDs onward.

Eh? What are you banging on about? When were we talking about MUDs? Why the unasked for history lesson in what we all know?

May as well talk about D&D... or Chainmail even...

One builds on the other, sure, but you are ludicrous to talk about the MUD model when we are discussing MMORPGs.

They are a very different animal, so everything you bothered to type here is irrellevant in the discussion.

Gotta love psuedo intellectuals eh?

I'm truly sorry that my 'unasked-for history lesson' so thoroughly confused you, but I cannot be bothered to put it all in simpeler terms. Yet if you realy want to make the argument of it being a different animal, then you should start considering that games like WoW are the next step in the evolution of the MMO genre...

 

And I do blame this on the current crop of MMO players. But essentially they cannot help it though. They grew up with the games that are all about competition and missed those earlier games that were still about the adventure of the game (it is no coincidence that the whole genre of old style adventure games like Zork, Monkey island, Sam & Max, etc. has completely died out).

Erm... friend, they havent.

Point'n'Click adventures are still made, and Sam and Max are still selling...

Just because you have stopped looking, it dosent mean they stopped existing.

Who are you blaming now?

Ah yes, I concede to you this one. The financial success of adventure games is still huge these days. No wonder there are still countless numbers of these games produced every year. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term 'died out', I can see where it has confused you.

And btw, I don't think we'll ever be able to be friends.

 

Now to those who are saying that because MM-ORPG stands for Massive Multiplayer you need to group and otherwise just sod off, read again from which genre the current MMORPG evolved.

And read again how irrellevant that whole verbal gush was that you posted above is to discussing MMORPGs.

Oh, and then sod off?

Why should I sod off? Cannot take an argument? I also see that you conveniently glossed over the whole RP part of the post, guess that didn't fit in with your personal view after all...

 

And a few last things, funny quotes:

Originally posted by vesavius

My, arnt you a rude little man?

MMORPGs were designed for co-op play.

Yes you can solo, but it should never be preferable to group.

As soon as you build a game that enforces solo play then you destroy what made these games special in the first.

Community.

/sigh... who am I kidding..? As if your ever gonna get it.... From your attitude of post here I doubt very much much that you are capable of social co-op play.

 

Funny how you think that 'Community' can only be achieved by forced grouping. And no, originally the genre was not designed for co-op play. That is like saying that FPS was originally designed for co-op play.

Read what I wrote again.

and again if you need to.

To help you, what I wrote means that a game that ENFORCES soloing, as the current generation does by removing group content, or at least marganalising it to the point where it is worthless, will never have a community worth spit.

You see, this is where I do not understand people. You guys are blubbering tears because you feel that the whole 'effort' of putting together a group should entitle you to some special treat. As you clearly are not a fan of 'history lessons' I'll keep it short and simple for you: Do you group for the 'community feel' and the fun of grouping? Or do you group because you will then be able to get that special treat?

 

I have never called for enforced grouping.

I have only ever stated that enforced soloing in these games destroys community. Whether you take that as opinion or fact, I don't really care tbh.

Point me in the direction of those games that enforces soloing? (and please do not come with some obscure f2p garbage example)

 

I have soloed when I have needed or wanted to in MMORPGs since 1999, and it should always be there as an option. I have stated this already in this thread. Read it again.

Good boy!! So you do know how to solo...

 

If you havent got a point, pleae dont invent one by putting words in my mouth to suit whatever it is you are obviously so desperate to say.

There is nothing desperate in my previous post, unless you call a civil grown-up way of argumentation 'desperate'. Although I admit that I have lowered my standard considerably in this reply, much to my regret I must say.

 

Seeing as you think MMORPGs as a genre started with the MUDs, which is just plain silly, it's like saying that cars are the same as wagons

Gee, let me see: Four wheels, used for carrying cargo from point A to point B and powered by horsepower. Ah how wrong I have been!!!

 

and you obviously cannot comprehend basic English yet still attempt to ridicule what is said with some kind of false superiority complex, forgive me if I just leave you now and don't bother replying to you anymore.

Ah yes, the obligatory mudslinging... Thanks for the laughs 'friend'...

 

Now this is a funny discussion. Where the OP started with a lament on how the current crop of players sees the genre as a min-max, 'job-like' environment (as opposed to a fantasy, escape like hobby), it has now again deteriorated in to the stale and almost age old solo vs. grouping bashing. Sounds like fun! So lets add my own opinion (when replying to my post, please keep that word in mind) to the mix.

To start, something that isn't an opinion, but fact: The current genre called MMORPGs evolved from its predecessor called MUD's. For those of you who weren't even born at the height of its popularity: MUDs were text based online adventure RPG's. The world was build up out of small sections/chambers, each with its own description, possible occupants/enemies and directions/exits. The whole goal of the game was to be able to have a fun adventure in an environment that would constantly be updated and expanded. It was a hobby and a passion, designed by and for people who craved the style of those early dungeon crawling games (like Zork for example), but would like to play in an (nearly) endless world and meet other like minded adventurers on your path. A few facts on MUDs related to this 'discussion':

- Grouping essentially did not exist. Most MUDs were not designed with grouping in mind and the technology at the time did not encourage it. You could 'band' together, but that was meant as a sociable and mostly roleplaying option. It was not a requirement.

- Adventure and story line were the key words. The most successful MUDs were those who had the best designed environment and quests (remember, still text only).

- Min/max-ing was something essentially unheard of. In most MUDs you could allocate your basic stat points, and you could sure 'gimp' yourself if you allocated wrongly, but in almost all cases you could still adventure through the world without any issues. In fact, a lot of people 'gimped' their characters on purpouse as it was a lot of fun to do (oh damn, again that word 'fun'), in true pen and paper D&D style.

- Unfortunately most of this changed in the latest generations of MUDs onward.

Now on to the part of my opinion:

First in regards to the OP. I have to agree with you, MMORPGs these days is all about competition, not the adventure/immersion/fun it used to be. It is about competition on who levels the fastest, has the best equipment, is the best in PvP, etc, etc... The whole original idea of starting up the game with the anticipation of getting to enjoy an adventure is gone. And I do blame this on the current crop of MMO players. But essentially they cannot help it though. They grew up with the games that are all about competition and missed those earlier games that were still about the adventure of the game (it is no coincidence that the whole genre of old style adventure games like Zork, Monkey island, Sam & Max, etc. has completely died out). We can only hope that somewhere in the future some developer will recognize that currently the MMO genre is going in the wrong direction, for at least a good portion of their player base, and try to create a game based on those great values of adventure, immersion and fun.

Now to those who are saying that because MM-ORPG stands for Massive Multiplayer you need to group and otherwise just sod off, read again from which genre the current MMORPG evolved. The whole idea behind the genre was to have an ever evolving persistent online world in which you could share your adventures with others. Unfortunately what we have these days is a non-evolving persistent online world, which once in a blue moon suddenly gets new content, where if you want to enjoy all the content you need to get rid of the principles of fun and adventure. The whole requirement of grouping to be even able to gain access to certain content was only added in the EQ era, by a group of loons who thought they had a great idea. The reason of its success was because it was the only 3D online RPG available at that point. If a game like The Saga of Ryzom would have been the first instead of EQ, I am quite sure that the genre would look totally different right now.

Oh and another thing to those throwing the Massive Multiplayer around whenever they can and try to adhere to the strictest interpretation possible: you do know what the RP part stands for? I'll help you out, Role-Playing. This is not the kind of role-playing of  'I play someone who wants to always group and get the best loot'. Nope, true role-playing is totally different kind of thing. So please, if you think that the MM stands for only grouping and nothing else, you should also make sure that you are role-playing your character to true standards. Otherwise you're not realy playing an MMORPG...

And a few last things, funny quotes:

Originally posted by vesavius

My, arnt you a rude little man?

MMORPGs were designed for co-op play.

Yes you can solo, but it should never be preferable to group.

As soon as you build a game that enforces solo play then you destroy what made these games special in the first.

Community.

/sigh... who am I kidding..? As if your ever gonna get it.... From your attitude of post here I doubt very much much that you are capable of social co-op play.

Funny how you think that 'Community' can only be achieved by forced grouping. And no, originally the genre was not designed for co-op play. That is like saying that FPS was originally designed for co-op play.

Originally posted by Ravanos

does something really have to spell it out for you ... serioulsy are you like one of those types that would sue Mcdonalds because it didnt have "Warning HOT" on the side and you dumped it on yourself.

sorry i guess i just see mulitplayer and i see playing together not Player alone with other people sharing the same area as me.

its like saying Solitaire is a Multiplayer game because everyones playing at the same table.

Sounds like an opinion to me. Fact is that most of the original multiplayer games did not have a forced grouping style of gameplay. You could play together yes, but that is not the same. Oh, and see the RP comment I made above, I wonder how you role-play your character...

I really have to laugh at the 'it looks cartoony' discussion in regards to TCoS. The art direction was set from the very beginning by Romano Molenaar. Have a look at his website to get an idea what his profession is: www.romanomolenaar.com/gallery.html 

The following should make clear my viewpoint in regards to the OP's question: When you spend most of your time looking at the scenery and continuously discover new sights (and sounds btw) that truly delight and inspires, it may dawn on you that you are running around in a 3D piece of art...

Regarding the graphics, this game has to be experienced first hand and cannot be judged by watching screenshots or a few limited videos.

Originally posted by grimboj

Oh look

GOA took longer than they said

didn't see that coming

Oh please... Very easy to overlook the issues US had yesterday isn't it? And the fact that they waited for it to be fixed in the US before even thinking about patching. Yet you complain about an hour or two extra on patching, in beta?

Personally I cannot care what some half-arsed 'reviewer' thinks of the game after 'playing' it for a few minutes. I know what I think of the game after being for days in the open beta. It will take a while after release before the rest will catch on though, as most still are in their 'is it like WoW?' mode.

Originally posted by daemon

I personally dont see it possible with their slow working crew, limited work force and money.

You'll get a lot of pundits pouncing on the ability to bash GOA in a thread like this, congratulations. But I'm just curious where you got the impression from on that part that I quoted...

Originally posted by grimboj

GOA have not confirmed an EU beta. Although the d2d people may be letting the cat out of the bag I doubt you will receive a beta login before they have even confirmed the beta start date.

GOA has confirmed that the EU open beta will start at the same time as the US open beta, September 7th. Do not spread misinformation. Regarding D2D, see the following and set your mind at ease:

www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php

To quote the important part:

I can confirm that both the EA Store and D2D are preferred partners and so those of you who have already placed an order need not worry that you won't get what you were offered

Originally posted by Nadia

Originally posted by klapdoor

Anyways, did you notice that the EA page now states: Pre-Release Beta Access: 06/09/08

Wonder how long that will take to sort out

 

Edit: Link to EA UK page:

eastore.ea.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet

the dates are worded differently

Status: Pre-Release Beta Access: 06/09/08
Full release: 18/09/08;

 

means 09/06/08

              09/18/08

 

I'm European, so I'm used to the correct way of showing dates dd/mm/yy

But it is what daylight01 said: OB starts on September 7th according to all sources, yet the EA UK website states September 6th. So I think it is quite fair to say that EA is really messing things up...

Nice, thank you Jessian. Guess that EA and D2D have gone behind the back on GOA regarding this issue and probably never bothered to communicate it to them.

Anyways, did you notice that the EA page now states: Pre-Release Beta Access: 06/09/08

Wonder how long that will take to sort out

Edit: Link to EA UK page:

eastore.ea.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet