All Posts by jy88902

Originally posted by killagoose

Originally posted by Nierro

The OP's review was copied and pasted from this
site.

Hmm....

Well then, dont have enough motivation to write our own reviews do we?  Close thread.

Why would anyone care who actually wrote the review if it's well thought out and contains useful information for people still on the fence?

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

 
No offence but stop talking out your backside, my guild has 200 ppl in and there is maybe 5 people with tech issues and another 5 who thought the game was not what they expected, every one is having a blast.

Its a great game, if people were cancelling all over the place why did they just add 9 new servers today?

You need to come back with a realistic argument, because your viewpoint is way skewed.. just like "freeword"..

Another smart move by Funcom if true.

Spread the population thinner to make it harder for people to realize the zones are capped by only 48 people instead of 100 per instance as some poster here pointed out.

Originally posted by Draconus

I 100% disagree that the bugs are software/hardware issues on the user side.

 

I'm running the game on a AMD 64 +3200, Nvidea 6600, 1 gig ram and XP.

most people would agree the above spec is total crap and out of date.

WELL... guess what?

I get 25-40 FPS anywhere in game and the game runs great for me. I personally have no complaints about the game.

BUT... HUGE amounts of people do and the fan boys are playing it down as if it is everyone elses problem and not FunComs.

 

the truth is "funcom messed up big time."

I'm almost tempted to pay $50 for the game box JUST to read the official forums.

Seems like a riot in there.

Originally posted by ianubisi

I was a beta-tester for Anarchy Online. I was there for its release in 2001.

I have been playing AoC since release.

The two games cannot be more different in my experience. AO was an unmitigated disaster. AoC is smooth as silk for me.

People may be having problems, but comparing the two release is absurd and completely asinine.

The ONLY reason a mmo company does that is when they have something to hide and they aren't finished with milking box sales yet.

See: Hellgate London for a very recent example.

Originally posted by Enigma

 

jy88902

Here's another thing you can do (if you have the game)

Go to a post 20 lvl zone and ask everyone to instanced to the beta instance and meet you all in one particular spot.  Thats another way to tell how many people a zone can hold. We did this yesterday. Kinda confirmed our suspicions.

48 players max per instance per zone might have done it.

Originally posted by Enigma

 

Originally posted by afoaa

 

Originally posted by Enigma

 Its nothing like EQ2 zones.  In EQ2 you can support 350 people in one zone. In AoC it can only support 48 people. 

 

Where do you have this number from? The only time I have seen the 48 number is in the number of people each side can bring into a siege (which btw takes place in zones that cannot be instanced).

Are people confusing info?

if you have access to the offical forums its everywhere and people are sorta pissed by it. Just do a forum search,

 

Here's one of em

forums-us.ageofconan.com/showthread.php

 

Originally posted by Nemeral

The thing is (and i'm not a 12 yo kid, i'm not a wow fanboy, i'm not an AoC hater, so don't even try to counter my arguments with stupid insults) :

Zoning in AoC is really anoying ! Please someone explain me how can this be fun ? I mean, the gameplay will eventually suffers from it.

What about PvP ? You can't even chase someone around without the possibility of him using an easy escape trick... the zoning...

That's true though that the 48 people that guy was referring to is the clan battle and is slightly different... But even there, it's an other point that need to be discussed ! I thought i heard from devs that clan battle would be EPICS...

I don't see how 48 vs 48 will be epic... :
1) Lineage II as much better that this with castle siege.
2) It's almost similar to WoW AV Battleground.
3) Even Eve Online can bring more epic battles in space.

But anyway, this is another matter of discussion...

So whether you believe him or not, he was NOT referring to the 48 vs 48 battles but the maximum amount of players allowed in each instance of each zone.

It helped immensely.

I mean, did anyone actually believe they left the NDA in place all the way up until days before release "in order to preserve the integrity of higher level content"?

Originally posted by Enigma

Originally posted by jy88902

 I'm getting the vibe that some people simply looked at the map, looked at the background, and concluded that the zones are massive without trying to explore.

 

Can someone also confirm that the zones are only capped to 48 players?

yes it is confirmed. You can email AoC support and ask them this question if you wish. This is what they told me and a Developer of the official AoC forums stated the same as well.

Smart of Funcom to not publicly announce this or not correct people when they were claiming each zone can hold up to 100 though.

This will probably make #5 of Funcom box-sales milking strategy on my list (not saying it's a bad thing, because they are in this to make money after all).

Originally posted by Bleri

 

Sorry to butt in here  but personally I think you got it wrong there. WoW is a single player game untill you reach the cap. Very little reason to group and no bonus to doing it. They should bring back Group bonuses to MMO's. I'm not suggesting that it shouldnt be possible to level solo but it should definately be an advantage to group.

This is a matter of playstyle preferences. People who powerlevel to the cap sees very little reason to group. People who play the game for fun can take advantage of the lower lvl instances. One of the most fun and rewarding experience for me in WoW was 3 manning the entire SFK at lvl22 max with paladin/warlock/hunter. So to conclude WoW is a single player game until the cap is a bit misleading.

Originally posted by thamighty213

Originally posted by samueladamsm

 

Originally posted by Xasapis

I believe the OP is being sarcastic.

Bingo.  From starting playing the game, to where i'm at now.  I have ran into a constant stream of players.  And shifting to join a friend takes about 20 seconds.  It's not really a issue.  Don't give me the "different tastes for different people".  It doesn't effect your gameplay unless your new to video games and never had any other issue regarding instances.

 

It's fine to hate aoc, it's not even close to being perfect(but as a release game, it's far better then most others were at release).  But the instancing isn't that detracting to your gameplay.

It is different tastes for different people though Instancing or zone cloning or whatever you call it is for me personally a killer it was the big gripe i had with TR and the same gripe with AOC i dont want to be chasing a player who has killed me through insance clone after instance clone to seek revenge.

Or being forced to give up chasing after a zone boundary/zoning point because he will no doubt get a jump on you now for having finished loading the zone before you.

Originally posted by Fr0z3nSiNx

WoW has 8mil+ subscribers.

 

Blizzard 1 You 0

It's actually 10+ mil, but according to most WoW-haters, only the subs in North America who can afford a $2000+ gaming rig to play other "next gen" MMOs count.

Originally posted by Cyber-Couch

Are all the zones really capped at 48 players? I thought that was just the resource zones?

I don't know, that's what I'm trying to ask because I always thought that zones are capped at 100 players.

Originally posted by Anlar

Another complaint is that there isn't a lot of zones. You have 3 20-38 zones for each region, which is pretty good as they are a pretty big size. However after you get to 40 you have the noble district and field of the dead. And your choices get smaller is you level up. This makes no sense.

 

I understand the game is far from finished, but this is pretty much what happens when  you emphasize graphics over gameplay. You spend so much time trying to make your game look pretty that you end up making poor gameplay decisions.

 

For all you wow bashers who hate the kiddie graphics, it has an excellent art style and direction and their gameplay didn't suffer.

 

I will say that aoc's launch is smoother than blizzards. But the memory leaks and fps drops are extremely irritating. Just seems like this game is unforgiving to any computer more than a year and a half old (mine's 2 and a half with an upgraded video card. I expected 25-30 fps on low-medium settings and they drop pretty frequently in the big zones).

MMOs are completely different and sacrificing gameplay experience for a few more pixels and polygons is like digging your own grave.

Originally posted by mcharj11

 

Originally posted by jy88902

 

Originally posted by Crusher

Most major game review sites are waiting a week or two before reviewing
AOC, to give Funcom some extra time to polish the game after release.

Gamezone is the first one to give a serious review.

pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r26352.htm

So far it's looking good for AOC.

Are you really taking a review posted in a site with AoC ads seriously?

 

Nobody is THAT naive and delusional.

 

Gamespot has Haze ads plastered all over the front page and they still scored it at 6/10.

Are you really taking a review posted in a site with THREE huge AoC banners on every single page regardless of game and platform seriously?

Nobody is THAT naive and delusional.

Originally posted by Vortigon

 

 

What's better?...

1.  Seeing a house in the distance you CAN go to if you want to?

OR

2.  Seeing a house in the distance that you CANNOT go to even if you want to?

 

In short anyone that thinks that 2 is acceptable is clueless about what an MMO is all about.

I'm getting the vibe that some people simply looked at the map, looked at the background, and concluded that the zones are massive without trying to explore.

Can someone also confirm that the zones are only capped to 48 players?

Originally posted by paladinum

Dont blame the game..your problem is windows vista 64 bit..wtf man..why do you have vista installed? its 3 years from stable and ready...if ever...

With that rig you should run the game at max settings anywere from 30 to 100 fps, no drops..

You are insane if you think a 8600GT can handle max settings and get up to 100 fps.

Also, is it too much to ask these days for game developers to make their game compatible with the OS that the VAST MAJORITY of the computer ships with (32 bit version, not 64)?

Your assinine comments regarding vista are sadly what's fueling this poor practice. 90% of the times the only reason people downgrade to xp is because "they heard their friends say that it sucks".

Originally posted by Vendayn

Enigma...I think we got your message from the 100s of posts you made (might be a slight exaggeration) with how much you don't like AoC. Stop trolling the forums, it makes you seem less credible.

 

And my definition of a troll? Someone who makes 100s of posts every day with how much one doesn't like like it and how bad it is...I've seen three threads saying how much you dislike AoC and how you are going to quit...and many more posts. If you are going to quit, quit already...we got your message about how much you dislike AoC.

 

And that goes for AoC AND games in general...no need to make 1000s of posts saying how much it sucks.

For example, are the zones really capped at 48 people or not? Because that's a farcry from the 100 player limit that I've been led to believe in the past.

Originally posted by Enigma

Originally posted by templarga

 

I call bull! Some zones are linear. For example, Conall's Valley is linear. But guess what.....its a valley and what are valleys? Thats right, linear. Most zones are not like that and no they are not small. I have been to zones in the game that are at least TWICE the size of the Barrens and would make most of the zones in Outland look small. There are a couple of zones that I have been too at least 5-10 times and I have yet to see the entire zone. If you consider those small, then by all means please continue to do so.

I dont care how much you whine or stomp your feet. This zones are small. Also, only 48 players can be in any one zone so at the most you'll have 48 people. The /ooc reflects all the instances in that one zone.

I think its cute how everyone compares this game to WoW or when they get made they say "go back to WoW." There are other MMOs other than WoW

The zones also are not empty. I hate zones that are huge and empty. The zones in AOC have content in them and many times I find myself just simply exploring and enjoying the sites.

If those zones are great big vastness of goodness like you say they are and only 48 people are allowed on each zone, yes they are empty. There's just 18 instances per zone because of the severe limitation

The problem with the so-called review is that the so-called reviewer is a known troll and you can see many threads started by the troll through the AOC forums. Every thread ONLY complains (or mainly complains) about the linear aspect. If that is all they got out of the game, then by all means don't play it. The OP is so closed-minded when it comes to what AOC has to offer (and their reviews show it) that it clearly isn't the game for them.

If it hurts your feelings, dont read them. Why aren't you playing the game?

 

The limit is 48? I thought people were saying it's 100 per instance per zone.

Originally posted by UOvet

 

I guess I did..LOL. Itr's true companies pay sites for them to use their advertising space, it doesn't neccesarily mean they have to like the game. Kane & Lynch was everywhere, same with Army of Two, those games didn't get good ratings. You're reaching..

 

 

 

Does Gamezone's approach of having THREE gigantic banners on EVERY SINGLE PAGE of their website regardless of gaming platform and the particular game on the page look like they have an abundant source of advertisement income to you?