Fanboi? I'm not even playing the game anymore. But it's always fun to see all these people who get so let down by whatever high hopes they'd thrown up and then go on and on and on all over about how this was the worst thing they ever tried. And no, he's not being facetious, he's being stupid. Read the post. Learn the facts. Compare. Fail. Stupid.
And the first 20 levels being like the others? Well, I'd say that pretty much every MMO in the world is pretty much the same as the tutorial area, over and over and over and over again and again and again. Endgame content was there, but bugged to hell. Like in pretty much every other game. Obviously FC bummed out on the hardcore players there, because the game is meant for casuals and casuals still haven't made lvl 80. So, for the majority of people playing the game, it's pretty much fine.
There were lots of things broken and bugged, and I was surprised at the level of polish that was lacking, but if the game had been better focused on giving a good team experience, then all that crap wouldn't have mattered.
And yet again, the whole "i said i would never pay funcom again because 7 years ago they had a bad MMO launch", I hope you do realise how ridiculous that sounds. The launch for this game was better, no doubt lots of problems, but nothing that really destroyed the game for anyone.
Got the demo from Live, played it and found it unremarkable, but the setting was interesting. But then, the whole review thing is silly most places. If a game gets less than 9/10 then it's a bad game. 8.5 is a bad score it seems. A game scoring 6-7 is still in the upper half of the quality scale, and taking into account how good a game would have to be to score above a clean 9, if things were done properly instead of based on money and hype, then 7 wouldn't be a bad score at all...
A local game magazine describes a 6 on it's 10 scale as a mediocre game that will appeal to fans of the genre.
Most people who play it will also read some kind of news, if nothing else, then while waiting for the annoyingly slow "scanning local files" and will know that there's plenty of development on the current game.
But then, people, like you I guess, will think like you posted, that because one thing is being worked on, then another cannot be worked on. "they're working on dx10 port" "oh no, then they won't be working on fixing this bug". A huge development team like the one working on AoC, the full dev team is still working on it, will be able to work on many factors of the game at once, and including DX10 support does not in any way stop the content designers from making/fixing stuff.
It seems strange, but for some reason a lot of people seem unable to realise that a team can work on more than one aspect of a production at once. Do these people never leave their own homes?
WoW had hour long server queues, several days worth of server downtime, lag, instability, exploits left and right. I have seen just as many MMO launches and AoC is in the upper part when it comes to the stability part. There have been no server queues, there have been no extreme server downtimes outside what was scheduled for patching and the client doesn't crash every 5 minutes.
What is wrong with AoC is mainly that it's a singleplayer game set online and that it's target audience is the casual player. It's been live now for almost 3 months and the majority of the problems are apparently fixed. What remains is the redesign of teamcontent. Extremely disappointing from my point of view that the team experience is what was left out of the game, but then, the casual player has no time for team-work.
Functioning stats, didn't really matter too much. Stamina and Mana were affected fine. It was str/agi whatever that was fubared. As a lvl 70 or so soldier it buffed my damage by about 2 dps (from 98 to 100), so not really something that was making or breaking anything.
An enjoyable level experience? I would say that that is highly subjective, but if a highly enjoyable leveling experience is what WoW had at launch, then AoC does trump it heavily. There were loads of quests for each of the 3 races, and grinding wasn't required at all till around lvl 60 if you just ran around and did quests and killing mobs that got in your way doing that. Indeed, AoC also has a whole "singleplayer" questline that follows you from lvl 1 to lvl 80 in your quest to defeat Toth Amon, setting the stage for the final raidboss in the game.
I can't really see much of a difference here, other than AoC's character-centric quest line being better done.
So, take off the rose colored glasses. WoW wasn't better when it launched.
Not really, but then most people remember everything in rosecolored hindsight. AoC is a mediocre MMO, but then all MMOs have been mediocre, at best, when they launched.
The main problem with this one being how much further it takes WoW's annoying obsession with being Singleplayer Online. Stability is fine, performance is fine, some crap bugs with the more advanced stuff but they're mostly fixed as far as patch notes go. But it's still just an Online Singleplayer, and I quit before I even made it to lvl 80. Maybe the next game will have reasons to play with a team of players instead of running around alone. With WoW's success in this area though, I don't hold much hope.
*goes back to Anarchy Online*
It's Quake. What on earth did you expect? Strategy oriented FPS games are pretty much all crap. Noone knows how to really play them, and the ones that do get TK'd by the rest.
Personally I walk in the local bookstores when ever I pass by. Write down names of interesting books, go home and order them online at www.play.com as they're much cheaper than the bookstores here with books in English.
In Anarchy Online even though I've been a paying subscriber since 2001. The ads aren't disturbing in any way really and they're only located in certain areas of the game. If more money gets into the hands of the developers of the game I play, then I am all for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Fanboi? I'm not even playing the game anymore. But it's always fun to see all these people who get so let down by whatever high hopes they'd thrown up and then go on and on and on all over about how this was the worst thing they ever tried. And no, he's not being facetious, he's being stupid. Read the post. Learn the facts. Compare. Fail. Stupid. And the first 20 levels being like the others? Well, I'd say that pretty much every MMO in the world is pretty much the same as the tutorial area, over and over and over and over again and again and again. Endgame content was there, but bugged to hell. Like in pretty much every other game. Obviously FC bummed out on the hardcore players there, because the game is meant for casuals and casuals still haven't made lvl 80. So, for the majority of people playing the game, it's pretty much fine. There were lots of things broken and bugged, and I was surprised at the level of polish that was lacking, but if the game had been better focused on giving a good team experience, then all that crap wouldn't have mattered. And yet again, the whole "i said i would never pay funcom again because 7 years ago they had a bad MMO launch", I hope you do realise how ridiculous that sounds. The launch for this game was better, no doubt lots of problems, but nothing that really destroyed the game for anyone.
Got the demo from Live, played it and found it unremarkable, but the setting was interesting. But then, the whole review thing is silly most places. If a game gets less than 9/10 then it's a bad game. 8.5 is a bad score it seems. A game scoring 6-7 is still in the upper half of the quality scale, and taking into account how good a game would have to be to score above a clean 9, if things were done properly instead of based on money and hype, then 7 wouldn't be a bad score at all... A local game magazine describes a 6 on it's 10 scale as a mediocre game that will appeal to fans of the genre.
Most people who play it will also read some kind of news, if nothing else, then while waiting for the annoyingly slow "scanning local files" and will know that there's plenty of development on the current game. But then, people, like you I guess, will think like you posted, that because one thing is being worked on, then another cannot be worked on. "they're working on dx10 port" "oh no, then they won't be working on fixing this bug". A huge development team like the one working on AoC, the full dev team is still working on it, will be able to work on many factors of the game at once, and including DX10 support does not in any way stop the content designers from making/fixing stuff. It seems strange, but for some reason a lot of people seem unable to realise that a team can work on more than one aspect of a production at once. Do these people never leave their own homes?
Actually all of that is going to be released for free in patches. If you are going to troll, you should make an effort, not just act an idiot.
WoW had hour long server queues, several days worth of server downtime, lag, instability, exploits left and right. I have seen just as many MMO launches and AoC is in the upper part when it comes to the stability part. There have been no server queues, there have been no extreme server downtimes outside what was scheduled for patching and the client doesn't crash every 5 minutes. What is wrong with AoC is mainly that it's a singleplayer game set online and that it's target audience is the casual player. It's been live now for almost 3 months and the majority of the problems are apparently fixed. What remains is the redesign of teamcontent. Extremely disappointing from my point of view that the team experience is what was left out of the game, but then, the casual player has no time for team-work.
Functioning stats, didn't really matter too much. Stamina and Mana were affected fine. It was str/agi whatever that was fubared. As a lvl 70 or so soldier it buffed my damage by about 2 dps (from 98 to 100), so not really something that was making or breaking anything. An enjoyable level experience? I would say that that is highly subjective, but if a highly enjoyable leveling experience is what WoW had at launch, then AoC does trump it heavily. There were loads of quests for each of the 3 races, and grinding wasn't required at all till around lvl 60 if you just ran around and did quests and killing mobs that got in your way doing that. Indeed, AoC also has a whole "singleplayer" questline that follows you from lvl 1 to lvl 80 in your quest to defeat Toth Amon, setting the stage for the final raidboss in the game. I can't really see much of a difference here, other than AoC's character-centric quest line being better done. So, take off the rose colored glasses. WoW wasn't better when it launched.
Not really, but then most people remember everything in rosecolored hindsight. AoC is a mediocre MMO, but then all MMOs have been mediocre, at best, when they launched. The main problem with this one being how much further it takes WoW's annoying obsession with being Singleplayer Online. Stability is fine, performance is fine, some crap bugs with the more advanced stuff but they're mostly fixed as far as patch notes go. But it's still just an Online Singleplayer, and I quit before I even made it to lvl 80. Maybe the next game will have reasons to play with a team of players instead of running around alone. With WoW's success in this area though, I don't hold much hope. *goes back to Anarchy Online*
As if WoW was any better when it launched.
It's Quake. What on earth did you expect? Strategy oriented FPS games are pretty much all crap. Noone knows how to really play them, and the ones that do get TK'd by the rest.
Personally I walk in the local bookstores when ever I pass by. Write down names of interesting books, go home and order them online at www.play.com as they're much cheaper than the bookstores here with books in English.
In Anarchy Online even though I've been a paying subscriber since 2001. The ads aren't disturbing in any way really and they're only located in certain areas of the game. If more money gets into the hands of the developers of the game I play, then I am all for it.
noone posting here seems to have read the actual article that was linked to...