All Posts by Talin

Originally posted by DemonicGod
I don't know what type of bugs you were having, but I have had none. The game isn't even in beta anymore. (Post 2 FTW That is right 2 posts in 3 years. Both in this topic!!)

While I did not experience any bugs per se, I wasn't happy with this game in Beta and it did not improve as I had hoped post-beta.

The camera system is simply awful. You have very limited options on camera (and UI) manipulations, and the high textures (such as tree leaves) do not handle transperancy well at all. I found it hard to keep a consistent view where I could see where I was going in the first dungeon (the second dungeon wasn't quite as bad).

The revised, openended skill system seems like a good idea, but the excessive price of training makes it rather difficult for new players to train anything at all. The tooltips were improved since beta, containins Diablo 2-ish information.

After playing around with Fate (which is single-player), I have to wonder why DR couldn't be more like a multi-played Fate (which will by Mythos, I know). DR's sense of humor is great, but the engine, gameplay, and environment just feel too limited and too generic.

Don't get me wrong, I think DR is a great game to pick up and play for a bit to try, but I don't think many people will stick with it for any length of time. To those that do enjoy it, I wish you the best of luck with it, and hope the dev team continue to improve the game.

Originally posted by Elgareth

Hellgate: London is where the action's at.
It's made by former Diablo 2 Programmers, it's planned to be the "unofficial sequel"...sort of, in a new IP of course.

The Devs looked into what made Diablo 2 so great, improved those Points, smacked some neat DX10 Graphics on it, an voila, it'll be great ;)

I have been watching HGL for a while now with much anticipation. I'm normally not a fan of the whole post-apocalyptic setting, but the engine and features of the game really have me hooked.

My largest concern with HGL is the difference between the "free" version (after buying the retail box, of course) and the "monthly fee" version. I have no problem shelling out $10-$15/ a month for a game I enjoy, and that continues to offer expanding content, bug fixes, and the like, but they have to be very careful how they separate features to not alienate the playerbase.

I've also been watching Mythos, which appears to be an upgrade "Fate" designed as a basic MMO to test the network infrastructure that HGL will use. An interesting concept (I've applied for the alpha/beta with no luck thus far), but I wonder: when HGL comes out, does Mythos go away?

As an addition to my original post, has anyone ever tried Cronous? It seems to be a "Diablo-ish" MMO.

Since I think most members of this forum agree Diablo I/II wasn't a true MMO, due to the lack of a graphical interaction between thousands of players, I'm using the name as a reference only.

I liked Diablo 2 for what it was, a fast-paced hack'n'slash adventure. I was curious if anyone in the community has played a MMO with these characteristics? I've seen Dungeon Runners (and beta'ed it briefly) and will try that again post-launch, but I'm sure there must be others out there. Any recommendations to try?

Thanks!

There's nothing wrong with the titles at face value; all it does is provide another way to get people hooked on the grind. If someone is dedicated (pathetic?) enough to keep trying to max out their level without dying once, why not reward them with a custom title?

However, if the same person is in a group and runs at the first sign of trouble (abandoning the group when things get difficult), the quest for the title is a detriment. Ultimately, the title wouldn't be the problem, it would be the player behind the character anyhow.

Originally posted by Omega3
To the OP: didnt you ever notice that most MMORPGs are about e-peen? Showing off what you won? Bragging about beating that pve encounter first or defeating that pvP team? The main point of playing on the internet is called competition.

You can't blame on WAR specifically something you can blame on all other MMOGs.

I think you would get a more "useful" response to the poll if you compared a specific facet of the games, ie:

Which game has better PVE?
Which game has better PVP?
Which game has better crafting?

etc, etc....

Most people have a strong opinion of each game as a whole, which takes away from what they feel about the individual components of the game. Most people's opinions also mean nothing to the next person, as we all see and experience things differently ;).

Originally posted by sctt888
WoW truely didnt copy off anything. WoW was the first great MMORPG. Of course there were mmos before that such as EQ was a good mmo, UO was a good MMO, asherons call was a good MMO matter of fact all mmos before WoW were "GOOD" mmos. Blizzard was the first company to make a GREAT mmo which shattered sales records beyond anything. Dont say it was the warcraft name, because everquest was way more popular interms of mmo standards to blizzard and WoW mopped the floor with EQ2.

Originally posted by Recant
People use the term WoW clone because WoW is a game everyone on the planet has heard about.  It has nothing to do with being inexperienced with MMOs - I certainly don't think CCP are inexperienced.

Everquest is fairly successful and well known but compared to Blizzard's behemoth debut MMO, which is synonymous with  MMORPG right now, it is somewhat dwarfed.

You can use the term AC clone, or EQ clone, if you really want.  But why bother, when more people have heard of WoW?

I had played Dungeon Runners in early-mid Beta and I wasn't impressed. The camera angles were very awkward (and limited on customization); the gameplay felt very redundant, and the classes somewhat boring.

I understand that they have now gone to a "classless" system, which makes me willing to at least give the game one more try. It kind of reminds me of Diablo 1, where even though there were three classes in the game, they could all fight/use magic/etc.

I like that a game that most people will end up playing for free is still committed to updates. I Will be downloading and trying it over the weekend. Cheers!

well war will do the same thing only on a wider scale pluss mythic already has 5 years of know how in game ballance between seperate but equal classes.

-Hasani-

Originally posted by airborne519

Originally posted by kraiden

"DPS" is a wow term.... when it is used as an adjective, verb or noun.

IM RANGED DPS!!!

translates into normal daoc speak as .  "I deal damage from range"

"Im gonna DPS your face" translates into Im going to DD you in the face. DD for all you who where born in the wow era insted of prior to that means Direct Damage. (single target nukes, Aimed shots)

Im a DPS'er!!! translates into "Im a damage dealer"

Charachters with burst damage (low normal damage and then front load damage at a singular outburst) are not "dps" because there are too many seconds in which light to moderate damage is being done. (fyi D.P.S translates into damage per seconds.

"I dps'd him down with my dots" is an innaccurate phrase. Since Damage over time is not fast, its over time, hence being called a dot.

In daoc DPS was a score on your weapon. If you where DPS melee, that was the understanding that you would use fast weapons that hit for less damage insted of using hard heavy hitting weapons. DPS and UO players at no time was used to replace the word Damage just because we had a mod that recorded how much damage we did in an 11 sec timeframe.

Certain terms migrate from game to game, this one is a pet peeve of mine and it kills me to see people use it incorrectly to replace another word thats already used for the act.... sorry about venting back to work I go

My sentiments exactly... people using acronyms and words, without researching what they really mean before they are incorporated into their gaming vocabulary. 

Originally posted by Brenelael

Knights of the Old Republic definately! Fantasy MMO's have been done to death and we really need something to replace the disaster that was SWG. If anyone could pull off a good Star Wars MMO it would be Bioware.

Bren

In all the MMOs I have played, I enjoyed the PvP in DAOC the most. This was before you could gain experience for PvPing, and even before the Realm Abilities were fully implemented. It was just plain fun, a great rush, and teamwork really did pay off. This isn't to say that there weren't massive class/realm imbalances or other issues, but no game's PvP since has really captivated me the same way.

That being said, I don't expect PvP in WAR to be the same as DAOC. I expect it to be better. I expect that the development and design staff learned a lot from what worked, and what didn't , from DAOC. I expect that they have learned how artificial WoW's PvP feels, how messy Shadowbane's was, how limited LotRO's is. I'm not taking anythign away from those games, but I did not/do not care for their concept of PvP the way I did for DACO's (LotRO isn't really about PvP anyhow ).

Instead of condemning a system that is still in development, why not analyze what could be good and bad about it, and offer some constructive discussion?

The Vanguard community needs to find someone, anyone, who can post the benefits of the game without resorting to "your video card sucks" or "WoW blows" comments. There seem to be a group of fans of the game (I refuse to use the term "fanboi") who are trying to win people over, but they lack both the eloquence and posting skills to drive their point home in a constructive and anti-flammatory fashion.

Sadly, OP, your post does not make me any more interested in trying Vanguard again. Post again when a demo of the game comes out so people can go back and try for free, as at least then they can experience the game through their eyes, not yours.

Can anyone elaborate on how dungeons work in VG?

Are they fully instanced (ala WoW), or allow general admittance (EQ1/DAOC)?  Are there enhanced rewards for fighting/grinding in dungeons?


Thanks in advance!

Does anyone know if SOE has actually committed to sinking additional money into VG? It seems at this stage they either need to announce some serious changes/investment, or let VG go. I'd love to see the former - I had high hopes for VG.

I think the issue most people have with others calling themselves a 'vet' is that it seems to imply a sense of superiority or seniority. In most cases, I don't think that is what the original poster is trying to convey, but that is how it is perceived.

There is no reason to not list the MMOs that you have played when posting; knowing a person's background with the genre can help to identify what experiences have "colored their glasses" so to speak, or to influence/affect their opinions. Some people might place less stock in a PvP review coming from a person who has only played WoW, and has missed the alternate PvP systems used in DAOC, Shadowbane, etc.

Longstanding members of communities may also refer to themselves as 'vets', in the sense that they have seen games come and gone, weathered the experience, and are still here, waiting for the next game to be released. In this fashion they are actually justified, as the term veteran implies experience, which many people in these forums have. Note: this does not make their opinions any more valid or objective; opinions are just that. So if someone states this is an opinion from a vet, they are really only stating that this is the biased, subjective feelings from someone who has played other games in the past.

Originally posted by vingvega

Originally posted by lx300

1- GW isnt based on infinite grinding, is based in completing missions

2-GW have the best PVP sistem you`ll find in any other mmorpg

3-Only 1 pay and infinite game time

4-The AWSOME graphics

5-events every weekend

I know it's your opinion but here is mine.  I thought the game shouldn't even be classified as an MMO.  Everything is instanced except the towns where you meet up with people.  PVP is boring.  The graphics suck.  I seen some free asian point/click crap that has better graphics.  I give it a thumbs down.  Should be in a different section than MMO.

Some people find all instanced combat a benefit to a MMO, to others it is a hassle. It's pure individual preference. I've never found the PVP to be boring, when done in moderation. Due to the "flavor of the month" builds that seem to pass through, playing for long stretches does seem to yield the same matchups. I admit to enjoying WSG in WoW over GW's PvP, although I have no idea why.

Comparing WoW's and GW's graphics is a uselss endeavor as they are completely different styles. It is, once again, a matter of personal preference. I do find both games to be excessively lacking in character customization, but at least GW allows armor dying.

MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online. GW has thousands of players online at the same time, able to interact with each other in towns. Diablo 2, while having thousands of players online at the same time, could not directly interact in that fashion (they had to start a game to do so). The instanced towns of GW are comparable to EQ2s in a way., and are a way to conserve your system's resources really.