All Posts by Effect

True FFXI is a group heavy game but it's also very difficult in getting an actually group in a timely manner there. Learned that when I played when it first came out. Wasn't a welcoming experience. Made EQ1 more fun by comparison is what i felt at the time.

Does anyone know which game is best in terms of ease of getting groups at the lower level up till the endgame?

---

Originally posted by mrcalhou
Disclaimer, personal thoughts follow:
I started off as a wizard, and found that for solo play I was a bit too squishy. Which presented me with a problem. I wanted to enjoy the dungeons and story elements of the game, but in order for me to advance, I found that I needed to party. Finding a party was difficult, and when I did find one, they would rush through the dungeons so quick, that I couldn't keep up, which really turned me off of the game, though it was no fault of the game, but the players' mentality. With that being said, I believe the new module is supposed to address the partying issues by incorporating a henchman system like Guild Wars. If that is indeed true, then I will most likely try it again.
Bottom line of my thoughts: DDO isn't a bad game. If you have the patience wait til they open the trial again.

---

This is a massive problem with DDO. Questing is the main source of advancement in the game. However current players have done material so many times that whenever a new player gets into a group they'll find that players will want to rush through quest. They've done it so many times there is almost no talking at all. Everyone knows where the hidden areas are, where the traps are, etc.

Now if one just wants to rush through the content that might not be an issue but for new players or even casual players that want to be social or follow the story and events of a quest that isn't possible.

Also be sure to be even more limited in terms of groups if you don't use voice chat. It's optional and you might be able to get groups but it will be as if you are playing by yourself since you WILL be ignored or simply forgotten. I found this to be a huge turn off.

I'm a huge fan of the Eberron setting. I love reading the novels but I'm not able to play D&D in a real life group setting. So DDO was the next best thing. However it's been a disappointing experience. I've tried going back a few times hoping things might be different. After the last time a few months ago I simply packed the CD away as I doubt I'll be giving it another try.

On that note I will say Funcom did a very good thing. They created a great first impression which is extremely important. The nature of the ever evolving game that a MMORPG gives them some room to work with if the end game isn't 100% there. No game has ever come out perfect, World of Warcraft is a rare example instead of the norm and we should all know this. It's a rare situation in a lot of things and that has to do with Blizzard as a company. A first impression is an important thing and that is something Funcom learned from Anarchy Online.

Now the lack of content I think can't 100% be put at their foot. What mmorpg out there has full end game content at release? Why is it when some of the hardcore players blow through everything in a matter of weeks (content that most likely took months or years to created) Funcom or any other company catches the blame and hate as a result?

Lack of unplayability of the game, bugs, lack of content all together, horrible first impression etc are things I'd agree one should go after them before. I hate the lack of content argument at the high level. If one were to go through things at a sane pace I'm sure that would give them time to add more stuff. I'd even go so far to say the normal player (not the hardcore) hasn't maxed out on content) and won't for a while since the game came out recently.

Subscription drop offs is a common thing. What game has kept most of it's initially buyers? 800K down to 400K or even a little less then that (only have their word until one can prove otherwise) is still good. Everyone would love more but really how many active subscribers do other successful MMORPGs have that are not World of Warcraft? People seem to act as if the game dropped to only a few thousand and stable nature of the game doesn't even make that possible I think. A lot of people always want to try out the new thing. Some say and others don't. With so many games to pick from not everyone can play them all even if they want to.

Not trying to blindly defend the game (only just signed back up today), just trying to present a different picture here.

---

Originally posted by Ghist
Read the reviews on EQ2.  By no means were most players happy with it out of the gate.  SWG was a solid game destroyed by an expansion/patch.

---

Referring to the current rankings on Xfire. Not about when they came out.

Is Xfire really a good thing to go by? I mean Star Wars Galaxies on that thing outranks Everquest 2!!!. I've had my issues with SOE and Everquest over the years but no way in hell is SWG more popular in general. By Xfire users maybe. You can't just by that that alone.

---

Originally posted by tapeworm00
If they had given it awful scores, you wouldn't be turning this issue up, and you know why? Because reviews are subjective too - I bet there's not few people who agree with those reviews. People who, if Conan would've been given a low score, would be "calling them out" just like you think you are.
No offense, but this post reflects your bias, not theirs.
 
Besides, most reviews concentrate on two things: gameplay and stability. The gameplay in Conan is cool, and the game works... most of the time. They don't cover things like endgame content (in Conan's case, mid-game-on content ), class balance, and so on. That's why the reviews were mostly positive. They give you an impression of what it's like to play the game, not a detailed, full experience of it (another story it would've been... low scores aplenty!).
Warning: rambling now, but I do think that MMO reviews should be handled in an entirely different way than normal games. They should tend to describe the full experience. I think MMORPG.com went the right direction by reviewing the first twenty levels of this game only, because more attention to detail was paid. Of course, we're missing the next 60, but until they decide to do it, we'll have to see. In any case Conan's relevance is about to fade with the release of WAR.

---

I think this is the case. The actual experience one has is very subjective and a hard thing to reviews as "fact". Stability, graphics, presentation, and what the gameplay (combat for example) is like on the other hand is easier to review and something can be given a score. In that regard the reviewers did a good and reasonable job.

Those are the aspects one can hit initially. There is no end to mmorpg and as a result one can not review it like a non-mmorpg game. Look at the reviews of so many other mmorpgs and check out what they cover. You won't see one that covers end game content or even mid-level content unless they go back and do additional reviews on the game and focus on the game world itself. It's the mechanics of the game that get reviewed.

The problem with the game is that it it's too quest based. It's really the only way to level and since everything is tied into the quest books there really is one path to go down. For me it got boring really quick. Which is sad since I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings and loved the lore.

Had the game been more open and more of a sand box area where you could just get a group together and go around to different places it wouldn't be so bad. You can do that to a certain degree but if you want to progress there really is only one path to go down.

Maybe it was just bad luck with the start of the game. I think there is such as a thing as to much questing though. It's just as bad as forced grouping. In a lot of ways LOTRO is a single player game in it's presentation. I would be an epic game if it was meant to be that way with you controlling NPCs or playing with friends locally. However for someone without a set group that will progress at the same pace together the game isn't much fun I felt. Perhaps things are different once you get into later areas of the game but it's hard to get to that if you aren't having much fun before that.

Not being able to group is the reason why I stopped playing the game. It was fun a while but once I reach Bree things just slowed down and became boring because I was constantly by myself. I could find groups for a few quest but that was only because they were hard and required one. Everything else was solo based.

Problem I felt was that unlike Everquest 1 there wasn't like you could get a group together and rerun areas or camp out a spot. Since everything is quest and story based if you end up at a spot where others have done things they like to move on and not do a old quest again. At least that's what I found.

He says in his post he's playing a Monk.

Anyone?

Can anyone that is playing provide a break down of the ingame communication?

Last time I played it was horrible and all kinds of screwed up. There didn't seem to be any type of channels one could talk in with other players. I spent more time ignoring gold/credit spammers outside of ports. I don't actually need players nearby when I play a game but I would at least like to see a city wide, planet wide, or server wide (faction based) channel so I know there are others playing.

Is there any decent communication in the game now?

---

Originally posted by TauCetiIII
How the heck can they update content on a console system? 

---

I think with a console MMORPG the developers know they can't get away with large patches all the time or rewriting the game. So extra care will be spent on getting bugs, exploits, etc out of the game I feel.

One thing I was concerned about when I first heard the game was how ships were going to be handled. I'm glad that each player will be commanding their own ship. It's going to be a bit weird though to a degree but I think this was the only logical way this type of game could have been pulled off. Same with Star Wars Galaxies in that everyone was able to get their own ship. Still reading up on Star Trek Online but being a trek fan and being a fan of City of Heroes/Villains (though I don't play anymore but it was well done) I have faith Cryptic will do a decent job.

I wonder though what ships people will be able to start off with and what happens if it's destroyed.

Anyone know?

When you go from the trial to the full game do you have to pay the full price of the game or just the monthly price?

What's the population like now?

How many servers are their currently?

Thanks.

Same here if you have anymore keys. I sent you a PM with my e-mail address.

Congrats. I hope I'm able to get into the game soon as well. Would hate to have to wait until the day my preorder decides to ships.

I got my e-mail today from Amazon.com. I was given the date window of 09/29/2008 - 10/03/2008. I opted for the free shipping though. Perhaps the shipping determines the date you are sent. However Amazon's shipping and arrival dates don't always match though. I've gotten items in the mail that were set to ship three days after I got them. They are only estimates after all. Sometimes they can be really off depending where your items are shipped from and where you are.

Could I get a key as well? Would like to try the game again.

neostar9@gmail.com

Thanks.