Aion is more hardcore than some people are used to, but it isn't a grinder.

Almost all of the content past 35 is group content. People who pretend group content doesn't exist will have to grind. People who find groups and play together will end up like me, level 47 (two bars to 48) without ever 'grinding' a single damn mob.

Servers are full at peak times, game is full and alive, and most of my complaints about the game are incredibly minor (and even then many are being addressed already). CS is being improved, bots are getting banned (I wish they would get banned faster, but it's incredibly satisfying seeing them disappear all the same), solo quests past 35 are getting an experience boost to make them line up more with the increased experience demand (you'll still have to group some to level -- deal with it -- if you don't like that Aion isn't for you), gold spam is nearly nonexistant (now they just set up shops in major hubs advertising their websites, which I can happily note get banned daily) and the client crash is being addressed.

In short, I'm sick of seeing the horseshit constantly posted on these forums about this game by people who haven't got a clue.

Aion keeps succeeding.

You mad?

Originally posted by spiritoso

If you visit the Aionsource forums, the players are very ticked off. They have an entire section for Reviews and Critiques and the entire section is negative. The one post there that was supposed to be positive on the 5 reasons Aion will dethrone WoW has also turned into a massive flame war and bicker fest. There are a few who do still enjoy it, however there is an overwhelming tone of negativity about the game in general.

 

http://www.aionsource.com/forum/reviews-critiques/

 

Most of the people I know who left WoW to play Aion have returned and can't stand the game (Aion). This is probably one of the better reviews they have there. It's one that is not designed to incite a riot, however it realistically lays out the issues with the game.

 

http://www.aionsource.com/forum/reviews-critiques/86313-my-long-awaited-sarcasam-review-if-youre-looking-buy-read.html

 

Aion had potential. It's release couldn't have been better timed since WoW has some pretty serious content issues going on. However, the game's long term success looks as though it's going to be non existent.

 

discuss...

Reading WoW's forums would give one the notion that WoW was doomed to die and everybody hated the game.

Unsurprisingly, this isn't the case. Those that are dissatisfied are often the most vocal.

The game is still thriving, new content and patches are coming down the line, and overall the game is doing very well.

Edit: You might also notice that multiple of the negative threads in that forum are from the same user.

Originally posted by Malickie

Originally posted by supbro

Here is the IGN article link

A really great quote here;

 

"Although exact figures weren't available, NCsoft executives estimate that Aion has surpassed 700,000 in sales in the U.S. and Europe, and will touch the 1 million mark by the end of the year.

The company started with 12 servers each in the U.S. and Europe at the start of Aion's commercial service last month, but was operating 14 servers in the U.S. and 16 servers in Europe a week later. This indicates that the game was getting as much as 150,000 concurrent users in those markets."

 

Great to see a Korean game like Aion achieving all this worldwide success.

 

 

While that's good news for the company. Quite a few games have reached such in a short time frame in the past couple years. Most recently AOC and WAR both had huge sales. With AOC surpassing 1mil boxes sold, not sure the exact quote on WAR. The problem isn't selling a bunch of boxes, which seems to be normal today. It's keeping a substantial amount of those customers, where most games have failed. We'll see if ncsoft can with aion.

Considering that 150k concurrent users suggests roughly 450k active subscriptions, and this is after the free month has ended, I'd say Aion is doing more than just fine. Servers are very well populated and the game feels very alive.

You are right that it's not truly the box sales as much as it is the retention. A 50% retention is fairly 'normal' for these things. I'm both surprised and pleased that Aion appears to be thriving and improving.

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Tykero 

I won't blame you if you just drop it, but an apology in the form of "you were right, I'm sorry I bought into popular myth" would be lovely.

 

Gah, geez, you are the one telling that people are blind if they don't notice a difference beetween 30fps - 100fps.
There's more into it than that and you provided that information yourself. Read it.

I'm not so shure on how an animation made in 29fps will be better when shown in 100fps though.

 

Yes, there is more to it than that. But there's a very massive and discernible difference between 30 and 100 fps in most media. I was also employing a literary technique called exaggeration. Perhaps you've heard of it. Excuse me for not clarifying that I meant in cases where the source media was recorded or produced in a manner that would make higher frame rates result in an increase in information, rather than multiplied redundant frames. The topic was gaming, so I assumed it didn't need to be stated.

It's also important to note that I never claimed that showing an animation that was created at 29 fps at 100 fps would improve the quality. A fundamental understanding of how a computer display works makes this issue irrelevant.

In short, quit attempting to make corrections that aren't necessary, thanks.

This is actually my last post on this MMORPG.com account as I can't post any more, and I think this is certainly a worthy enough subject.

Aion PVP is the first time in a long while that a video game has gotten my heart racing with excitement. It feels good.

Zones need to be direct and concentrated in order to facilitate contact between enemies.

It would absolutely terrible to attempt to find anybody in the Abyss or while rifting if the zones were any more open. Zones are already massive.

Apparently all the people playing are having a great time, seeing as they're so slow to log out.

I'm sorry you're having trouble with the queues. The US servers had the same issue. It's pretty much cleared up now.

Incredibly cool.

15 years of no sex to avoid 60 years of work? Of course I'm taking the money.

Originally posted by Arxon

I have to admit that I agree with the OP.

Aion felt like a F2P with better graphics and aggro mobs. I felt as if there was more grind than there was entertainment. Granted the people seemed to be a little more mature and English speaking than they would be in most other F2Ps.

I just think that everyone is trying so hard to replace WoW that they are pretty much willing to accept anything. Which would explain why Aion is getting so much attention. I'm still on the fence with this one.
I really don't ever remember thinking that Aion was at all Difficult or Challenging. Which is rather depressing.

Regardless.. For the same reason I bought WoW I may end up buying Aion. Just nothing else out there.

You got to level ten and quit, and don't know anything about the endgame.

That's fine.

But a lot of us are playing Aion because the game is very challenging for an MMO, isn't an asian grinder, and possesses a fantastic PvP focus.

That sounds like a potential total to me, unless you have a pretty nice car. Body work, up front electronics and lights, possible engine damage (and definitely lots of under the hood work either way).

There's a pretty wide range of prices it can fall into, depending on what specifically requires repair, the car you own, and the pricing of the local auto shops.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

There are no queues, battlegrounds, arenas, or the like.

If you want to PvP, you go to the Abyss (though you'll likely already be there, it's a major part of the game) or you find a rift.

PvP consists of keep battles (timeslot assaults, no keep trading), roving groups, ganking people questing in the Abyss, ganking people questing when there's a rift open to get to them (or getting ganked until you leave if you're bad), and some PvE encounters that the opposing faction can join in on if they want to try to wreck you. I may have left something out, but the gist of it is that most people going to be spending most of their time in the Abyss, which is a PvP zone, whether they're PvPing or not.

I can't wait to get back to the post-20 game again.

Galaga for me. That's the game that turned me on to 'shoot-em-ups.'

Originally posted by noquarter

I didn't read this whole thread but I hope someone realized/mentioned that the reason 24 FPS works in film for the human eye is because the frames are naturally motion blurred due to the nature of film and exposure time, which fills in the motion gaps to make 24 FPS fool the human eye. In 3D rendering, without the motion blur to mesh 2 frames together, they become much more distinct and the FPS requirements go up to produce a smooth image as the brain is capable of distinguishing much higher than 24 fps.

It's covered in multiple of the links I posted (that none of them bothered to actually read).

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Tykero
 
Edit: Seriously, right now you're saying you're smarter than the people at the BBC.
Oh, please actually read the link. Don't skim the first few sentences and exclaim "well it doesn't talk about the human eye and frame rates straight away so WELP CLEARLY THAT'S NOT COVERED AT ALL." 
 
 
P.S. You can't point out what's mixed up because there's nothing mixed up and you know it. Prove me wrong.

---

 

Nice article, unfortunately not related to the topic. Something you would know if you were not an ignorant as you are.

Conclusion paragraph quote:

'Even for television pictures transmitted and displayed at conventional frame rates, capturing at
high frame-rates can offer some improvement to picture quality through temporal oversampling,
giving better control over temporal aliasing artefacts and offering a choice of “looks” to the director at the post-production stage. It also offers improved compatibility with the different conventional frame rates adopted internationally.'

In fact it has nothing to do with displaying FPS but frame speeds to capture the motion picture.

Wow.

You are so incredibly dense it is just stunning.

Hey look basic information about what frame rate means.

Read the damn article, not the closing paragraph.
 

And you say I don't understand what I'm reading. Hilarious.

It is in every way related to the topic at hand, because the article is about, in part frame rates and how they apply to transmitting and displaying high quality picture.

You really just shouldn't speak on a subject at all if you're completely oblivious and unwilling to comprehend information about it, which you're making quite clear, especially if you're going to accuse other people of misunderstanding the very material that you cannot be arsed to understand yourself.

You are simply a terrible person. Stop posting, stop derailing the thread, stop wasting my time.

Edit: From the abstract (which I so kindly quoted earlier, in case you missed it) of the paper itself (emphasis mine):

"In this paper we report
on a programme of experimental work that successfully demonstrated the
advantages of higher frame rate capture and display as a means of improving the
quality of television systems of all spatial resolutions."

From the closing section ( you apparently didn't even read that fully before acting like a fool):

"We assert that a higher capture and display frame rate leads to a step change in picture quality
regardless of the spatial resolution."

Feel free to keep making an ass of yourself, I'll keep proving you wrong.

Originally posted by Tain

Although this thread has somewhat been hijacked, it was still an interesting read. Id just like to throw my two cents in.

While, i don't have any technical specs, or links or anything other than subjective observation. Personally ive always been able to tell the difference in gaming between say 24~30 fps, and 60. I find 60 far more enjoyable and always make sure my video card is powerful enough to max a game up to that point (with vsync enabled on a lcd monitor it caps at 60, due to the artificial refresh rate or w/e). Now i cant really tell the difference between 60 and higher very much, although i had a friend way back when with a Crt, that ran quake at like 200 or so, it looked a little more liquid, but that may have been subjective. I dont know.

And as for the OP, Currently i am running a Samsung Syncmaster 305T, its a 30 Inch S-PVA monitor, i highly recommend a S-PVA, or IPS type panel, TN type panels rely on a technology called color dithering (interlacing) to generate some types of colors, because they cannot reproduce the entire 24 bit range of color. This is essentially just alternating one pixel between two colors rapidly to generate the color in the middle. Dithering gives me headaches like crazy.

 

My thoughts.

Voice of reason.

As somebody who plays PC games, first person shooters especially, quite frequently, I can attest to the fact that the difference between 30 and 60fps is plenty noticeable. Personal experience, combined with the multiple corroborating links I have supplied (in direct contrast to the exact zero links supplied claiming otherwise by those who disagree) should reveal to anyone that the maximum fps limit on the eyes/brain myth is just that.

Flipping off the guys there to help him, then going back to sleep.

Classy to the end, youth of today.

Originally posted by haratu

LCDs available commercially usually have a refresh rate of 60Hz... this is apparent on any LCD that you may have bought.

Usually televisions deal with higher than 80Hz, the primary reason for this is that they draw more power to do this ( A LOT more power) usually on a computer you would not want to draw that amount of power. Televisions of equivalent size also cost more... something to consider as to whether it really is worth it when a 60Hz is usually good enough (i watch dvds regularly on my 60Hz computer screen and notice no problem).

LCDs also have a response time of 3ms or 5ms... this is actually far more important as it relates to how fast the screen reacts to a signal. Do not confuse this with refresh rate.

Who are you speaking to here?