April 24, 2017, 03:21:56 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: 1989 Joker or 2008 Joker? on: August 28, 2008, 03:57:36 PM
You guys really are pathetically unfair about this.

How can you personally be insulted because I said the FILM has the moral concepts of a 10 year old. That's my opinion of the film. Are you saying you don't think similar things of some films and that some people like those films? Think of a film you don't think is smart and you'll be surprised how many people disagree.

How you can turn that around to me personally insulting everyone who likes it is incredibly weak.

I said what I thought of the film and didn't include anything personal.

Then I get this:

he didn't understand the actual message of the film and is giving you his view based solely on this inability to grasp that message.  therefore the elaboration will simply be an extension of that misunderstanding.  ergo:  pointless

So I respond in kind with a tongue-in-cheek superior attitude complete with smilies. What else can I do. I've already earned damnation for calling out the films flaws.

You have this love of a film and for some reason you're taking it all extremely personally. I'm sorry, but there's really no other way to respond to such a mob mentality. If I was the kind of person who cared that a mob was despising me because I didn't agree with them, I might be disturbed by your emotional responses.

So I don't always enjoy the most popular films, though I love Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Aliens, etc. I can still bitch about their flaws. So you conclude the obvious that I must hate everything popular because that's the only way you can fit my dislike for your beloved film into an image you can understand.

What's the point of sugarcoating how I feel about a film, really? Are you that insecure about your own opinion that I must word it delicately? I think the film is incredibly flawed - I really do. What the hell can I do except express that opinion as it is. If someone called my favorite films pathetically flawed or stupid - as has happened many times before - what do I do? I shrug it off as another differing opinion. What do you do? You gang up like an insecure bunch of children hating on the nay-sayer.

Now, that really IS pathetic.

So I insulted you all, because you're all behaving like little bully children ganging up on someone because you can.

What a waste of forum space it is to offer conflicting opinions in this place.

Just ban me already. It'll save me the trouble of rediscovering how insecure you are about things, and it'll save you from ever reading my opposing viewpoint again. I'll do my best to stay way in case you can't be bothered to ban me, but eventually i'll forget again and start the cycle all over again.
2  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: 1989 Joker or 2008 Joker? on: August 28, 2008, 02:34:34 PM
Oh my, such emotion slywink

Anyway, interesting reactions all around. Pretty extreme since we're talking about a film that I didn't enjoy as much as you, and felt the need to point out what I found to be crappy about it. I wonder if you get the same urges when you read reviews around the net, and if you notice just how "condescending" people can get when they don't enjoy something. I guess pointing out flaws without smoothing things over is pretentious and preachy to you, hmm? Hehe, whatever.

Anyway, I can see this is a touchy subject.

I'll leave you to it.

Oh, and I especially enjoyed hippy's little comment about pity and wanting me to get help? What a joke. Have you read some of the "didn't like it" comments on IMDB? I guess A LOOOOT of people need psychological help.

Just FYI - it's as irrelevant to me how you feel as ever hepcat. You demonstrated long ago that you didn't have the kind of online personality that I would ever invest anything emotional in. That said, you're probably a nice dude in real life. But you really do come off as a schoolboy drone to me.
3  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: 1989 Joker or 2008 Joker? on: August 28, 2008, 01:03:29 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 28, 2008, 12:32:15 PM

your original statements implied that anyone who thought the story in The Dark Knight had any depth was a 10 year old child.  Now you're simply saying it's not the best movie ever made.   Problem is, no one took issue with the idea that it wasn't the greatest film ever made.  You're just hoping to get SOMEONE to agree with you, it appears. 

Try this statement next:  "It's got people in it!  And there's talking!".  You may get someone on board after that.   icon_lol

I didn't imply that you were 10 years old hippy. I'm not ruling it out, either. You do have that school-boy cleverness about your posting style.

If you thought the Dark Knight was a deep and profound film then you should be glad, as you must have felt like the ticket price was worth it. If you're starting to suspect that maybe you're wrong, and it really IS just fluff in an entertaining package - then don't hate the messenger. I get taken in by the hype once in a while too, and sometimes it takes a while before I realise how easy it is to jump on the bandwagon.

Admit that it's fluff and you'll feel better before you know it slywink

4  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: 1989 Joker or 2008 Joker? on: August 28, 2008, 10:20:50 AM
I don't like anything?

But it's not true!

I like Hellgate, Too Human, and even Space Siege (though not much).


Are you claiming that's a pattern?

But I can't see it!


Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed Dark Knight. So did I, really, and I believe it's a fine film in terms of entertainment. Does it belong where the hype originally placed it (No. 1 on IMDB)? No, and you all know it. I haven't checked the score, but I'm pretty sure it'll end up below top 10 - which is somewhat more realistic.
5  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: 1989 Joker or 2008 Joker? on: August 27, 2008, 09:32:50 PM
You drones crack me up slywink

Next time you join the mass hysteria, please let me know that's the case, so I can avoid being taken in by the hype and waste all that excitement.

You could - of course - try using your brain when watching something, but don't hold me responsible if something bursts  eek

"It's not who you are inside, it's what you DO that defines you!"

I wonder if Lucas helped Nolan with this stuff? Still, Batman Begins was better even with lines like that.
6  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: 1989 Joker or 2008 Joker? on: August 27, 2008, 06:07:07 PM

Quote from: Rowdy on August 27, 2008, 05:40:06 PM

Both Jokers were great.  Ledger was by far the scarier villian, but I disagree with those that think Nicholson was just being himself.  Jack made a great Joker too.  I loved the original Batman, it was a totally different take on the comic but it was just as good.  These days everyone wants to be 'dark' and 'gritty'.  Yay.  That's fine, but the 89 version of Batman was fun and entertaining too.

The funny thing is that the Dark Knight version of "dark and gritty" is like painting over a disney film with black paint. It's still comic book fluff, and being pretentious and preachy about it almost makes me queasy.

If you want a dark film, make it dark please. At least attempt to develop characters in a believable way, instead of holding on to ridiculous concepts like that coin-flipping joke of a villain. I was reminded of the Anakin turn in the last Star Wars prequel. Silly stuff.

I have no idea why this film became so overrated so fast, and I must consider mass hypnosis as an option.

It's an entertaining flick - no doubt - but let's not overstate the matter.

I'm no big fan of Burton's work either, but at least he didn't saturate his Batman films with a 10-year old's moral concepts and preachy raised finger speeches about humanity. Give me a break.

How Nolan went from The Prestige to this I'll never know.
7  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: 1989 Joker or 2008 Joker? on: August 27, 2008, 11:21:00 AM
I prefer Nicholson. Mostly because I actually enjoy the humor aspect of the character, and I think it fits the whole comic book atmosphere better.

Then again, I was one of those people who found Dark Knight to be a decent action film and nothing more. Ledger was great, but nothing beyond that and the role itself is too one-sided and lacks any kind of depth. With the 1989 Batman, you get slightly more insight into his background and why he acts like he does, which I think adds to the character. I never understood the 2008 joker - and I tend to enjoy characters I can relate to more than those who seem to act totally random.
8  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: [MMO's] Realisticly, what did you expect? on: August 26, 2008, 05:44:49 PM

Quote from: SkyLander on August 26, 2008, 05:28:06 PM

Until an MMO can come out and totally do away with the shitty level grind then WOW will be the top. No other company can match the pure content that WOW has, even Blizzard has said it, how are they to top 9 years of time invested into 1 game? Short of investing over 9 years into another MMO before it is released. So the only way to really compete with WOW would be to innovate and provide something different enough that people are willing to look past the lack of content.

When you get down to it though WOW has a pretty perfect formula. They were able to make a game easy enough to get into that average people got into it. Everything else will seem more complicated to those people. Or to them the other games just wouldn't be as fun. I'm sure EVE Online would be a lot bigger than it is if it had less of a learning curve. But it is still been able to compete with WOW and stay alive and grow and expand, why? Because it is inherently different than WOW. Even though people still try to compare it to WOW. So until games start coming out that nukes the shitty level grind, and grinding stupid honor or standing with stuff, make it so that you have goals and risks and rewards and provide a reason to play past "omg shiney new epic item to complete my set."

There is hope on the horizon though. Jumpgate Evolution is looking good. Darkfall also looks interesting and I'm sure there will be many more. WOW has set a giant bar, but they are making so much money that people are trying to get a piece of it so we will get more innovative games. Just need to get past WOW clone number 3450.

From my perspective, the biggest problem WoW faces is a lack of meaningful alternatives to raiding and arena. The game is too much of a grind, and since they reset gear level with every expansion - I have a hard time justifying the cost in terms of time and commitment to a raid. Especially since the gear you obtain during raids is specifically designed to help me in the next raiding instance. I know some people think it's great that they've divided PvP and PvE like they have, but I think it's a horrible design philosophy. In my opinion, those two aspects should be symbiotic and WAR seems to have that part down with more success. Sadly, I don't enjoy that kind of overly balanced and structured sports PvP. Just like I don't like how Bliz handles BGs.

Lake Wintergrasp COULD potentially be the saving grace that combines the two major end-game practices into something I consider meaningful. I don't really believe that, as Blizzard have shown time and time again that they don't really care about having world PvP or truly dynamic content. They apparently don't mind that everything exciting goes on in instances that are far removed from the rest of the world. It seems especially sad because the world is so big and varied - and so beautiful. It could have had fantastic world PvP with its brilliant combat system and wonderful class designs.

But alas, you can't have it all - now can you.
9  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 26, 2008, 02:35:07 PM
In case you haven't noticed - Fileplanet is now offering open beta slots for subscribers.

Apparently, it's NA only - which means I can't test EU servers, even though I'm a subscriber. I still have the faintest of hopes that a really low ping will improve the feel of combat enough to make it bearable.
10  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 26, 2008, 01:16:42 PM

Quote from: Arclight on August 26, 2008, 01:10:10 PM

I guess its how you come to terms with the genre of MMO's. For the last 6 or 7 years the die-hard MMO players have all come to know one important fact: The MMO that ships is not what it will be 4-6 months down the road. In some cases dramatically different.

So when I first play a new MMO, whether beta, or day one release, I keep that in mind. What I do look for is "promise and potential". I then decide if I want to play whats there at the start and wait out the tweaking, balancing, bug fixing that will always come in patches and updates.

But we all have to agree that the MMO genre is a beast all its own. Like it or not, its the way MMO's are made these days. Not one MMO will ever ship completed.
Its whether or not what does ship is enough to keep you playing till the game is substantially patched-up.

With Warhammer and for that matter WoW, you could see the diamond in the rough 1 hour into playing.

Then you have to look at the company behind the MMO. Look at DAoC. Sure its had its ups and downs...but I still hear people say they are going back to give DAoC another try.
Mythic are a MMO company. They are putting alot of hope into Warhammer's long term success.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and work through the early growing pains with them to see a great PvP centric game make a strong bid for top contender.(at least 2nd spot)  icon_wink

But D'Art you don't have to defend your choice at all. Either you like it and want to hang in there with it, or you don't and you move on. I totally respect that. In fact it would be weird if people didn't have opposing opinions on a game.

Well, I observe that we don't really disagree about this - as you're fine with my opinion.

But my point is not that WAR is rough. It's fine. It's just not ME.
11  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: [MMO's] Realisticly, what did you expect? on: August 26, 2008, 01:14:26 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on August 26, 2008, 01:07:02 PM

The point is that it's not something like that.  I *very* much doubt that anyone in your guild made it to 70 in 6 days.  It's probably technically possible, but you'd need assistance, a twinked character and considerable use of rest experience.  Even those who sell leveling guides for $40 (Kopp and Joana's guides - find 'em on Google) tout getting to level 60 in just over 5 days and getting to 70 in just under 9.  And that's using a good leveling guide under optimal conditions.

Facts always matter.  The difference between getting to level 70 in 6 days and - at the extreme end of the spectrum is getting to 70 at 9 days - is 50%.  I know - I've done it and it's actually quite hard.  There's no time for PvP, crafting, raiding, instances or anything else.  It's a grind and it's not that fun.  Again, that's post leveling-nerf.  Before, getting to 60 in under 9 days was a major accomplishment.  

When you throw out the powerleveling guides and do it normally by leaving time for other activities, you're looking at anywhere between 12-18 days.  Now your "6 days" is really off by 2x or 3x.  As such, the "1-2 months AT LEAST for casual players, who play a couple of hours a day" is really 5-6 months (with use of rest exp).  That's a world of difference.  Nitpicking would be if it took 2 1/2 months, not yea, in the context of this discussion, it matters.

You're wrong, I'm afraid. Most guides these days advertise 5-6 days to 70.

But you're missing the basic point that it's not relevant to this debate AT ALL. We were talking about a couple of weeks, and it's possible /played - but it's not what a casual user can achieve. THAT's the point.

What you can or can't do is totally irrelevant to me. You don't get to decide what the curve is based on your own private anecdotal evidence. Google it - times have changed with the new leveling curve.

12  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: [MMO's] Realisticly, what did you expect? on: August 26, 2008, 12:38:45 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on August 26, 2008, 12:17:11 PM

I think you've vastly underestimated the time to level to 70 in WoW.  It's 7-8 days to 60, and that was only after the leveling nerf and with someone who's working hard to level.  I've power leveled quite a few characters in WoW and my best to 60 is just under 6 days played.  If you're taking your time or don't know *exactly* how to level, it'll still take significantly longer.

Well, whatever. The point is that it's something like that.

So you have some anecdotal evidence that says it takes you so long, and I have guild members who're not THAT hardcore who did it (level 70) in 6 days or so they said. So I add a couple of days and that's about it.

Does it really matter?

The point is that it takes a while to level and it will still be 1-2 months AT LEAST for casual players, who play a couple of hours a day.
13  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 26, 2008, 12:21:02 PM

Quote from: Arclight on August 26, 2008, 09:49:39 AM

One point you made D'Art, concerning visual and audio clues to combat skills used, I totally agree with.

I oftened wondered if my skill went off right, or did it hit?

But this is spit & polish that will come eventually.

The black leather boot is there and its well made, it just need spit and polish. I think then it will really shine. (arrrgh sorry, really bad pun)

I don't think it's about spit and polish. It's about underlying mechanics and design. The above post (quoted by jersoc) says that the writer KNOWS for a fact that it'll be fixed. Which is ridiculous. All this blind faith based on nothing solid. How many hollow promises must we experience before we don't accept everything developers say at face value. Some guy actually thinks he can define what a game is and how it'll play for everyone? I mean, how silly can you get. You can't bully people into liking something or accepting "facts" about a game.

You don't care whether I like it or not - well great. I never assumed for a second that you would care. I'm simply stating my opinion for those interested - and if no one cares - it makes zero difference. To me, it's about sharing opinions and information. I have no bias for or against WAR - it's simply not my thing and I'm trying to explain why. It doesn't help that people keep screaming "You must understand that you're wrong and that there ARE so many abilities and so much variety".... Don't you get it? There might be enough for some people, and that's great, but it doesn't mean I can't find it insufficient. It's possible that I'm objectively wrong - which is the only option you will consider - but it's also possible that I'm right in terms of what *I* like and how *I* define flavor and variety. Consider that, for real this time.

Maybe it'll be fixed, maybe it won't. But I can't speak about the future - no one can. I can only speak about what I'm seeing NOW, less than a month from release. The combat might be tuned, it might be improved. They might add new animations and other stuff. But there's an underlying design philosophy and approach, which is required for their vision of RvR.

That - I simply don't see changing.
14  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: [MMO's] Realisticly, what did you expect? on: August 26, 2008, 12:07:30 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on August 26, 2008, 11:51:54 AM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 25, 2008, 08:55:33 PM

...leveling a character in a couple of weeks

Out of curiosity, which MMO allows you to level in a couple of weeks?

If you're talking about /played - then most current MMOs allow that. If not, then it's all about how much you play during the day - where it still takes at least a month for casual players in WoW and those with a similar curve. I believe it's common to level to 70 in ~7-8 days /played (WoW) on average - so you can do the math yourself.
15  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: [MMO's] Realisticly, what did you expect? on: August 26, 2008, 10:51:47 AM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 25, 2008, 10:55:09 PM

The only good yardstick we have to measure progression from Level 1 to Level 70 is time. So while I agree that longevity alone doesn't necessarily constitute challenge, comparing two games - one in which I can level to 70 in 2 weeks, the other I can level to 70 in a minimum of 6 months - I would say the one that takes 6 months is a more challenging game. Does that mean it's more challenging to play, to fight, to avoid death, to get good gear? No. It simply means it's more challenging to get from 1 to 70, and that's the only claim I make.

So why is that important? I think it's important in terms of character investment. I see too often in guilds with "alt-itis" that the people playing one main character are far more attached - and better-skilled - with that main than their various low-level alts. Why? Time investment. They're more emotionally attached. Likewise, it goes without saying that a character you've been playing for 6 months and hundreds of hours is going to mean more emotionally to you than an alt you rolled a couple of days ago and have spent 5 or 6 hours with.

If you look at pencil and paper origins of the RPG like D&D, the focus was on playing a role. People became their character. They spent many, many hours with them. I think it's sad and disappointing that this mentality has been thrown away in favor of "getting to the end as quickly as possible." People no longer want that emotional investment. They just want to get to the end, beat their chest, and say, "I was here first!"

That's why I'm really intrigued about Darkfall's skill-based system. With no levels and dozens upon dozens of skills to build, will we finally see a game where the end-game rush is eclipsed by traditional character development and <gasp> actually roleplaying in a roleplaying game? I don't know, but it's nice to see at least one developer trying to make it happen.

Well, I personally see nothing inherently positive about time spent. The key is the entertainment factor, which roughly translates to a combination of mechanics and content.

If there's enough content AND the mechanics are sufficiently entertaining - then the curve can be however steep. It wouldn't matter if it took 5 years to level.

But if you take something like WoW and stretch out the process - you'll end up with a less entertaining game - in my opinion. I think they tuned the whole thing quite well after recent changes, though I'd actually say it's too fast for new players now.

But if you talk about time exclusively, I really don't see anything good about extending it.
16  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 26, 2008, 09:25:27 AM

I see it's really impossible to articulate my point without endless repetition. I'm sorry I came back to the thread.

Upon release, it will all become clear - because I guarentee that it'll be a common complaint. I still think it's a good game, and I still think it'll be reasonably popular. But I'll come back here and eat any number of hats if class variety and combat feel isn't going to be singled out by quite a few players - even after they've played for months.
17  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 26, 2008, 08:27:53 AM
I don't really know how to convey my problem with the class designs, because it requires an open mind about what I'm saying. It requires you - first of all - to trust me when I say I've really played the game and I've really tested various classes and I've read what the abilities for many classes do. No, my playtime wasn't that long. I think I've played a combined 20 hours or so. My max level is 15. So no, I don't really know the end-game. I do know what I read, and I do know what other players have said. Many agree with you, some don't.

Listen to this, because I really mean it. It's not that there's no variety in terms of abilites. It's not that there are too few abilties. It's that - TO ME - the variety doesn't constitute ENOUGH of a difference. I look at your list, and I see your point. You have your snares, you have your AoE, you have your dots, etc. Yes - the standard MMO stuff. So why am I not happy then? It could be that I'm just throwing something out without having thought about it - or it could be that my personal perception of what's unique is different.

In WoW - for instance - abilites feel distinct. Let's take Gouge, as an example. It's a rogue CC. So it's just a CC like any other right? No, not really. It has a VERY distinct sound, it has a very distinct visual indicator, it has a very specific and limited use, it differs in key ways from every other CC in the game. It builds a combo point, and it's extremely short - and it must be used from in front of the enemy. It breaks on damage, unlike stuns. I know this isn't a sufficient explanation - but it's very much about the FEEL of abilities.

In WAR, I really had a hard time figuring out what abilities were successfully used, because the sounds are weak, the animations are weak and the overall combat system is just DULL. Looking at the ability lists at trainers for the classes I tried, I really saw the same numbers for all classes. I tried 5-6 and at least 3 of them got the exact same AoE snare at the exact same level - with the exact same numbers. I don't know - maybe I was extremely unlucky and all the other classes have totally unique stuff.

Beyond that, there's just nothing - during combat - about them that make them stand out and indicate to the players that THIS just happened, this cool ability. It's just another buff/debuff icon that feels like all the others. There are exceptions, naturally, like the Engineer turrets and the Squigherder pets. But those are exceptions in my experience, and not the rule.

Anyway, I'm not home right now - and I'll try to explain this better when I get the time. But the key I'd really love for you guys to appreciate is that I'm not claiming there's no variety and that all abilities are the same. It's simply that there's nowhere near enough flavor to satisfy ME. I really do see 4 classes with a handful of subtle differences, with very few signature abilities.

18  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 25, 2008, 09:18:55 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on August 25, 2008, 09:01:26 PM

Well, one would think that "one evening" of game play during a "level 30 focus test" would be sufficient to judge the subtleties of each of 20 class structures.

Maybe that's why he used words like "it seemed" and "I don't know enough about WAR..."

I don't see why you need to understand every subtlety of every class to get a general feel for how they're designed. It's not like the game is a revolution in terms of class design. The class design is what it is, and they've done nothing to hide it.

I have no idea why people get so upset about this. No matter how much you want to deny it, they (the classes) are such that SOME people won't find ENOUGH variety. You can read comments to that effect all over the net.

It won't matter if we play it for months on end. We might end up "dealing with it" or find enough little nuances to make us happy, but the overall design philosophy is extremely apparent and there's nothing anyone can say to make that go away.

Deal with it already.

19  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: [MMO's] Realisticly, what did you expect? on: August 25, 2008, 09:10:39 PM
I know people look back and say EQ1 was a grind, and the idea of XP loss is enough to make people look at you like you kicked their puppy. But the fact is, challenge breeds attachment. Risk vs. reward. Where lies the greater sense of pride and accomplishment? The toon you leveled in 2 weeks, or the toon you leveled over the course of 6 months to a year? Call me hardcore if you will like it's a bad thing, but I'm tired of carebear MMOs.

I don't really think I understand the challenge inherent in stretching out a process. If it takes 6 months to level, does that mean it's more challenging? If you take away XP earned for making mistakes, is that more challenging? You might make less mistakes because you don't want to be punished - but I'm not sure that constitutes challenge.

I'd much rather have challenges be challenges in themselves. Have the encounter be hard and require skilled players to defeat, but don't punish them extra for making a mistake. They died and have to run back and retry all over again - and forcing them to regain XP first is hardly a challenge. It's just a way of frustrating bad players. It will never make anyone happy.

There's a reason we have quick save in single player games. I think it's been established that redoing something you've already done is not particularly entertaining. Something which I think is the ultimate goal of any game.

20  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 25, 2008, 08:46:47 PM

Quote from: rittchard on August 25, 2008, 08:36:20 PM

I don't even know how to respond to posts like this.  Clearly you didn't actually play the game or make any attempt to really play the game before throwing out these generalizations.  But as you've said, to each his own. 

Yes, clearly, those of us who're not satisfied with class designs are completely blind and unable to form any kind of coherent opinion. I guess the last decade of playing nearly every single MMO in existence has taught me nothing about the genre and I certainly can't read the ability text. No, we didn't even attempt to play the game, we're just throwing this out there because there's a chance it'll annoy a fan of the game.

Has it occurred to you that maybe because WE don't think there's enough variety, it's still quite possible for YOU to think otherwise. There's no law to define what must be there for sufficient variety in class design, now is there?

Taste could be a factor.
21  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: [MMO's] Realisticly, what did you expect? on: August 25, 2008, 08:35:55 PM
Well, first of all, my personal approach is that I don't expect any game to be "the next big thing". There's hope, surely, and sometimes even I cave to the hype - but I never outright expect anything to be THAT good - not anymore at least. That's why I probably appear extremely bitchy about new games - because I don't invest all that much in them and I won't be heartbroken when I find out they suck. So, yeah, I'm extremely jaded.

Apart from that, it depends on the game itself. Something like Warhammer I never really expected to like, because I knew it wasn't designed for someone such as myself in mind. But I got curious and I was taken in by certain features like Public Quests and the Tome of Knowledge. But I never expected it to be my next big MMO. For a moment, I forgot myself and became excited - but the reality was apparent relatively soon after that. The combat system is ultimately dull and I don't like their class design philosophy. Also, the entire idea of RvR doesn't appeal to me at all - because it's too structured and it's a mob game. I knew that going in - so I was basically right at the outset.

Now, with AoC, the case was different. I had been looking forward to that game A LOT more, and as release came nearer I almost thought it could be the next big thing. It had all the right features and it promised to bring evolution to just the right things from my perspetive. On paper, it was very much what I personally thought the genre needed to be brought forward. Unfortunately, it didn't happen and we all know why.

So - each game brings different expectations and I don't see any game on the horizon that promises to be the next thing for me. I've decided to go back to WoW and play WotLK when it comes out. For all its faults, I still think WoW is vastly superior to everything else currently being played - and that saddens me because I've been there, done that with WoW. I can only hope my interest can be rekindled with the expansion.
22  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer: Best fleshed out class, worst fleshed out class? on: August 25, 2008, 08:23:52 PM
Even as someone who's not a fan - I have to say I think that's a pretty subjective statement attempting to appear objective Arclight.

The dwarves appeared just right to me - and I have nothing for or against the race.
23  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [XBL/PSN]Star Wars :The Force Unleashed demo Impressions on: August 25, 2008, 10:13:26 AM
Tried the demo.

I hadn't expected anything from this, so I couldn't be disappointed. Seems like a fun little game that I'll enjoy and forget about. Perhaps even more than that, though there's nothing to indicate any kind of depth or profound storyline. But who can withstand that old-school Star Wars feel.

Controls are not that great, but I'm getting the feeling that they're the sort of controls you eventually master and consider quite fluid after a while. I say that because I was pretty annoyed with the force grip at first, but already by the boss battle, I had improved my throwing skills at least 100%. Some games are just not that intuitive but they grow on you.

Visually it's extremely pretty and smooth. VERY good Star Wars feeling all around, which is ultimately what appeals to me about it. I just can't get enough of that crap, even with the prequels in mind.

I definitely don't like the "hit pauses" and I fail to see the cinematic appeal about them. I really hope you can disable them somehow or that they'll reconsider that particular "feature".

What will make or break the game - for me - will be the storyline and the character upgrades. I really hope there's some meat to the upgrade system and that the storyline isn't as mindless as the action suggests.

We'll see - but I'll inevitably get this for the 360.
24  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [360] Too Human Impressions on: August 25, 2008, 10:05:36 AM
Seems someone didn't bribe the media quite sufficiently with this one.

I haven't gotten it myself, yet, but everything I've been hearing about it tells me I'll enjoy it quite a bit. Probably not the second coming or anything, but I'm a big enough fan of the genre to withstand some mediocre features, as long as the groundwork is solid enough. Heck, I enjoyed Space Siege from start to finish.

I'll be getting this soon.

Thanks for the feedback, btw, as I likely wouldn't have bothered without that kind of positive comments. Not that I trust professional reviews in the least - but there are times when they're almost convincing.
25  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 21, 2008, 02:14:36 PM
To be honest, I don't feel it's worth the trouble of going back and forth on this pointless debate. Last time I tried to warn people that AoC might have flaws I was nearly crucified because I hadn't played the game to level 80 and obviously had the wrong impression. Right.

All I can say is that my impression of the game didn't come out of nowhere. I'm sure everyone who disagrees with me here has several level 40 characters with extensive playtime - or maybe they're just having a different take on this.

Time will be the judge - and if it turns out that classes really are that different - well then I'll be wrong and no one will agree with me. Of course, there are several complaints stating the EXACT same thing on various boards (like MMORPG and Warhammeralliance) but we could all be wrong.

I'll let you be the judge and leave this thread.

Have fun in the game.
26  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 21, 2008, 01:59:20 PM
You seem to keep avoiding the question people are asking you.  Please give an example of two classes of the same archetype (on the same side) that are identical.  For example, someone asked to compare Warrior Priest vs Archmage.  They are both healers, please tell us how they are identical.

I don't keep avoiding anything. You keep claiming I've said they're identical. I haven't.

I've said that they feel that way to me - which is not to say that there's no difference, but that the differences are negligible to me.

The two classes I've got most playtime with are the Witch Hunter and the Witch Elf - because that's the kind of class that typically appeals to me. They both get exactly the same kind of abilities at the same level. For instance, Witch Hunter gets to load bullets in his gun and Witch Elf gets to poison her blades - that's two different things - but they have the same basic function. The first bullets Witch Hunter gets slows his enemy target, while the Witch Elf gets poison that does the same thing - except there's a slight variation on how the slowing mechanic is implemented.

They both get the exact same (crappy) stealth mechanic at level 10 - but they're called two different things.

I don't recall names and mechanics for that many abilities, and I really don't feel like arguing what's basically just my perception of the classes. For each example I could give, you could counter with "but the slowing effect works differently here" and I'd say "to me they're the same".

Also, I'm aware that the Witch Hunter has a gun which gives him limited range abilities, where the Witch Elf is slightly more restricted because her thrown weapon is not integral to the class. Guess what? That difference is just not enough for me.

You see? It's just my personal opinion and shouldn't be important to anyone else, except if they share the same need for variation.
27  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 21, 2008, 10:53:36 AM

Quote from: Harkonis on August 21, 2008, 08:32:51 AM

Even if we assume all the classes are absolutely identical to their counterpart (which we've already shown is not the case...) there are 10 classes per side.  There are only 9 classes in WoW.  How can you possibly be saying that the 10 classes are not more varied in abilities than the 9 in WoW?  I'm really confused about this whole thing.  I do want to be clear that I'm not trying to push your buttons in any way, I'm genuinely curious as to how you think there is less variety in a game that has 20 unique classes compared to a game that has 9...  It seems completely bonkers to me personally.

4 archetypes = 4 classes.

That's the harsh way of putting it, and no they're not IDENTICAL. My perception of the 5-6 classes I tried between them, is that they're BASICALLY the same with cosmetic and naming variation.

That's still a harsh way of putting it, because you obviously consider each class to be quite sufficiently unique based on whatever you think is necessary for that.

It's not unique enough for me, is what I'm basically saying.
28  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 21, 2008, 06:05:10 AM

Quote from: StriderGG on August 21, 2008, 01:56:38 AM

That's my take on it, and I really don't recognize the differences people are talking about. Sure, one heal spell heals a person for 1200, another heals the group for 1200 (with longer cooldown), etc. Rough example, I know, but it's sort of what it's like. In WoW, you have completely unique signature abilities for all classes, and there are lots of them - and the overlap is hard to spot immediately.

Dart, well, I guess you could also say that in WoW priest, paladin and druid all had variations of the same Heal spell with a bit different graphics and numbers and thus they were basically the same class. You could even go further and say that in any MMO all classes are basically the same - they all do damage, with a rare exception when some classes can also heal.

It all depends on how far one is willing to go with generalization.

Generalizing is easy though. Let's, for example, take two WAR Order healers - War Priest and Archmage. Please demonstrate us how these two classes are basically the same.

"they both heal" doesn't count as argument though.

Paladin has completely unique signature abilities and playstyle though, with stuff like his invulnerability bubble and his judgement and seal system. Druids have shapeshifting with a lot of abilities tied into that. I know that classes in WAR have different names for their abilities, but though I understand that underneath everything we have math and numbers - they sure don't FEEL very unique or different when you play them - but that's based on my own perception only.

Sure, Witch Elves use poison and Witch Hunters use bullets - but if you look at the mechanic it's nearly identical. There's nothing like Pally Bubble for any other class in WoW, nor is there anything like Shaman totems or Rogue stealth. It's just how it feels to me - and I'm use you can find many abilities in WAR and argue they're very different - but that's about your own perception for what's needed to stand out.
29  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 21, 2008, 06:01:23 AM

Quote from: Harkonis on August 20, 2008, 10:43:04 PM

Dart, it sounds like you might not have explored the masteries system either since you were mentioning one tree and each class has three mastery trees.  The renown bonuses are just that, bonuses that let you tweak your playstyle on top of the masteries.

I'm not sure what you mean by masteries, except if it's the paths I mentioned. The Shadow Warrior (Elf ranger thingy) has three paths, like Path of the Scout and Path of the Skirmisher. Those paths are - judging from what they show in the trainer windows - limited to 3-4 new normal abilities, with the rest being passive boosts and morale abilities - with 15 abilities in all. Apart from that, they boost certain normal abilities (available regardless of path) that are integral to the "path playstyle". That's about it. This means that you basically have 3 "builds" within each class. That's fine and not bad at all - except for the fact that most abilities are mirrored across archetypes with slight variations in area of effect, length, cooldown, etc.

The renown system, again, is fine and gives you something to play for beyond RvR alone - but the bonuses are not something you really look that much forward to. They don't represent anything "new" for your class.

30  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 20, 2008, 09:17:03 PM

Quote from: Fez on August 20, 2008, 08:42:38 PM

Well, I obviosuly haven't played yet as I'm waiting to start the preview weekend, but I find Dartagnan's comments interesting.  I've played just about all the MMORPGs, and although its been a while, I recall that DAOC was fairly similar to EQ2 and WoW in the PvE side of things.  That being said, I generally consider VG and EQ2 to have more combat complexity in terms of the sheer number of skills, compared, at least, to games like WoW and AoC.  A big portion of any MMORPG is PvE content, both solo and grouped, so I'm wondering if this is where you had some issues with the game as it currently exists Dartagnan?

Nah, the PvE content has been quite good so far.

If you take just the basic solo quests, they're on par with WoW. They're possibly too easy, but that doesn't bother me - because I just take them as flavored levelling. But the really cool part of PvE is the way they've done public quests. Also, it's sort of a blurry line between PvE and PvP in many cases, because you level up and experience PvP in much the same way you would PvE. It feels more natural and integral to the game, compared to most other MMOs - where PvP is what you do when you don't do anything else.

One major criticism I have, though, is that the areas I've seen - so far - have been structured to literally PUSH you ahead towards the next one. It's like a set journey that you must follow, and it doesn't encourage free exploration like is the case in WoW. They might as well light up the path to take to proceed. That's just another part of how the game is designed to move you forward until you reach the RvR heavy stages.

DAoC - from what I can remember as I was never a huge fan - was a lot more primitive, but that's what MMOs were back then. However, I remain firm in my opinion that WAR class design resembles the utterly dreary class designs from DAoC - though it's still significantly better than that game. But, again, it's a conscious design decision that they've made to fit the whole sports-llike structure of PvP. That's my take on it, and I really don't recognize the differences people are talking about. Sure, one heal spell heals a person for 1200, another heals the group for 1200 (with longer cooldown), etc. Rough example, I know, but it's sort of what it's like. In WoW, you have completely unique signature abilities for all classes, and there are lots of them - and the overlap is hard to spot immediately. That said, it's not hard to break things up and say - well - there are support classes, DPS classes, Tanks and Healers. That's been the case since EQ and even earlier, but there are many ways of handling each individual class and I'm a big fan of the approach that makes each class completely overshadow their archetype. The flip-side is that it's a NIGHTMARE to balance, which is why I think Blizzard made a very brave decision when they designed their classes and allowed every single ability to work identically in both PvP and PvE - though they changed that and ultimately ended up nerfing certain abilities rather significantly for PvP - but the difference and flavor of each class is retained.

About the "specs" of each class, well, there are three "paths" for each of them and they each hold a very limited number of active abilities. It's a mixture of passive, morale (big powers), and normal activated abilities. The sad part is that most of these abilities are mirrored between the archetypes. Not in a completely identical fashion - and there ARE exceptions - but that's my distinct impression overall. You also earn "renown" points, but as far as I can see there's only 1 talent tree (the same for all classes). I might not have looked close enough, but that's what it looked like to me. The "talents" are basically all about adding 2% to dodge, or 2% to crit, etc. Rather boring really.

Anyway, this combined with the sluggish and drone-like feel of combat - not helped by stiff animations - is what ultimately kills the game for me. But that's very much a personal thing, and won't be noticed by everyone.

31  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 20, 2008, 06:18:38 PM
Obviously, my perception of what this game is about conflicts at a basic level with the rest of you here.

I really have no desire to try and "convince" you that I'm right, especially because I see no positive end-goal if I do convince you. I don't want to rob you of a great gaming experience.

If what I've said about PvP structure and class design strikes you as being so wrong, then maybe I'm blind or unable to form a competent opinion based on the playtime I've had and the reading I've done. Let's assume that's the case, and I'll just let you enjoy the game.

I'm personally holding on to the slim hope that WotLK will bring enough changes to the table to make me want to play WoW again, though I doubt it. I think I'm just going to have to wait for a good long while until something that suits me comes out.
32  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 20, 2008, 05:48:49 PM

Quote from: Harkonis on August 20, 2008, 05:27:02 PM

I think playing to 15 should probably give you enough to see the difference.  Just boggles me that some people don't see it.  I guess people just see things differently somehow.  I don't see how you're doing any less in rvr in this game than you do in WoW or in DAOC.

I do think people (similar to what Arc just mentioned) are being overly harsh and are jaded from having put in so many hours in other games that they see anything that isn't revolutionarily (sp?) different as boring.

The game seems very deep to me, from abilities, to tactics, to morale abilities and usage to tactics used during combat.  The customization aspect of tactics combined with masteries and morale blow any of the other games out of the water for me with regards to customizing your character to your playstyle.

I think you misunderstand.

I think RvR seems INCREDIBLY rich and has tons of variety. There's no doubt about that, and it's defintely a huge and wonderful feature. The problem - for me personally - is that I prefer the classes themselves have a lot more variety and I prefer a much less structured PvP system. I don't like BGs in WoW either, because they're exactly the same in terms of concept. RvR is significantly superior because what you do and accomplish means something. But there's no getting around that the combat itself - the fights between individuals - suffers a lot because Mythic wants balance and structure to ensure a fair playing field. That's the aspect that reminds me of sports and not a war. Stealth is almost completely pointless, for instance, which is usually a huge part of the appeal of low survivability classes. The CC abilities are streamlined and simplified because anything else can be exploited or feel unfun for some people.

It's a design philosophy that you can agree with or not, and I just don't.

That doesn't mean it's wrong or bad, it's just not for everyone.

The part of WoW that's better isn't the PvP structure - but the class designs and combat system/pacing.
33  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 20, 2008, 05:24:04 PM
Well, it's easy to assume that because I personally don't enjoy this particular kind of gameplay - there must be something wrong with me, or that I'm suffering burnout. Maybe I'm just not "getting it"? Maybe.

I'm not saying that the game isn't brilliant or even perfect, it's just not my style.

I felt exactly the same about DAoC class design and RvR gameplay, so it's no big surprise that I'd feel the same here.

It might be just the ticket for everyone else, and I really hope it is. I'm just offering my opinion in case anyone has similar tastes - so they understand that there are POTENTIAL problems worth considering.

We're all different.
34  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 20, 2008, 05:05:29 PM

Quote from: Harkonis on August 20, 2008, 02:55:06 PM

Well, I definitely disagree greatly with your statement that there are only 4 real classes.  I don't see this at all.  Having played all the different classes, I can definitely say that there is a very pronounced difference between the 6 healers for example.  They simply don't play the same.  Same goes for any of the other pairings.

I also disagree about your comments on the goals in RvR and the way it's played.  I'm ALWAYS reacting to what the other players are doing.  What they do determines what abilities I should use and how I should move and react.  It's most definitely not about 'just unloading all of your abilities'.

It's one thing to not feel that a game is for you, that I can understand, but if these are the reasons that you feel the game isn't for you, then I have to question your perceptions of the game as a whole.  I'm just not sure how you can come across feeling this way unless all you've done is read about the classes, played 1-2 of them in tier 1 and done scenarios.  Taking or defending a keep is definitely a very amazing experience imo.

While the basic core of the game is in fact that you are loosely in one of the 4 roles (ranged dps, melee dps, healing or tanking) there is a lot of overlap and even when there isn't the way you go about doing your job is different.

Well, when I said 4 classes, it doesn't mean literally.

I've only played 2 pairings, namely the Witch Hunter/Witch Elf and the Shadow Warrior/Dwarven Engineer. It's true that they do have different abilities, but if you look closely, you'll see that they're doing exactly the same thing - with very few exceptions. They get the same abilities at the same levels - and so on. I admit, I haven't looked closely at casters, beyond looking at the trainers and ability lists - and again, I see the same thing with different names and slight variation in terms of exact mechanics.

Now, there's no way I can claim it's identical - because it's not. If you find a sufficient difference between them, then that's great for you.

As for now, it's based on only a few days of playing around - with my highest level char being level 15 - so naturally the end-game could prove me wrong.

About my comments related to the combat system and reacting, I didn't mean that you're not reacting to what the opposing team does, as naturally that's the entire RvR gameplay. I'm talking about class versus class - and again it's not literal and yes naturally, if you're getting damaged you will heal yourself (if able) and so on. But if you compare it to combat systems - like Vanguard and WoW - there's a LOT less going on.

However, all this is based on limited play-time and my impression of the game.

I can't speak about endgame, but I simply find no desire to reach endgame based on what I've seen.

I should also note that many players are stating the same things on warhammeralliance and elsewhere, but naturally it's possible that they're all basing it on limited playtime.

So - in the end - this is my impression of the game, not a full review or anything like that. But I know enough to register that the game simply isn't for me.
35  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Warhammer Online headed to Open Beta on 9/7 on: August 20, 2008, 02:40:17 PM
I have a few thoughts about the game as well:

It's a polished and well put together game, and it works pretty well for what it does.

However, after playing it for a while and investigating closely how it's designed and how the developers think in terms of what's fun - I must admit it's simply not for me. It's a matter of having a VERY different perspective from Mythic about what's fun and what's not, especially related to the PvP structure.

First of all, the game has 20 classes - but in reality there are 4 classes with cosmetic differences and a very limited amount of unique signature abilities. While I can only guess as to the reason why this is, I'm pretty sure it's related to class balance more than a lack of creative input. I personally greatly enjoy games where the classes have a lot of flavor that's unique and yours feels like it's "yours" and not anyone elses. Vanguard did this exceptionally well, as did WoW.

Then there's the structure of PvP - specifically RvR. This is a fantasy sports game, not a war game. Sorry, but there it is.

Mythic obviously feels that everything must be accomplished in a team pursuing clearly defined goals that's perfectly balanced for each side, and that combat must be purely about the abilities of each archetype. As opposed to other combat systems, this is mostly about unloading what you've got - and it will be exactly like what the other team has - and that's about it. You don't truly react to other players in combat, and it's hard to get a feel for what they're doing. Numbers will rule and individual skill/performance matters less than is common in other games.

However, teamplay is exceptionally important and if you're after that kind of structure and strictly team-oriented PvP then this game is for you. It's very much like DAoC in this regard, and the old class design philosophy is back. I got a very different impression from reading the class abilities at first, which is why I was so excited about it.

Anyway, the major selling point of the game is simply not my thing - and I think that's not necessarily going to be a very widespread opinion. I'm sure many are after that kind of PvP - but my understanding of open world PvP is entirely different.

Also, the combat itself is - to me - rather dull and predictable. The pace is sluggish - though it's obviously better than it has been - but unfortunately it retains that drone like feel. The animations are "fine" for the most part, but after playing games like AoC and WoW - it's hard to get used to that lesser level of quality. It's somewhat like LOTRO in that sense.

Anyway, I know this has been all negative and people who want the game to be everything might not appreciate that. But the good news is that if you don't mind the points I've brought up here, chances are you'll love the game - because the rest is VERY well done. The public quests are brilliant and very fun, and the tome of knowledge adds a LOT to the game. Visually, it's hard to judge because the beta has a limit in terms of settings, and apparently the max setting is rather low. But even if that wasn't the case, the game still looks pretty good and has a certain flair of its own. That said, it really does remind me of WoW in feel, only with a more "realistic" style leading to something between WoW and Everquest 2 in the end. It's had to put into words, but I don't foresee that being a big problem for most people.

The loot system is - so far - pretty standard fare, though it seems to me to be much less gear oriented than WoW - which is as much a curse as a blessing. Fortunately, the PvP is structured to last well beyond the level cap and will most likely be a great carrot for people into that - which I suspect most people will be.

Crafting is ok - but nothing too interesting. Obviously not a point of focus, but it's also better than the AoC travesty - though I honestly don't know much beyond the basics. But don't go in expecting anything like Vanguard or SWG. Just think of it as an additonal time sink without that much depth - just like WoW, only in a less traditional style.

All in all, I recommend it to people who thought DAoC was great, or who'd love to play "something like most MMOs" only with the emphasis on balanced and strictly structured PvP with a limited amount of class variety.

36  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: Funcom Q2 Financial Report on: August 15, 2008, 07:46:16 PM
The sad part about all of this, is that there's a brilliant game buried underneath all those horrible design decisions, omissions, and technical problems. Also, I think the game would have done significantly better if Funcom had been more humble and open with the community.

They deserve what they get, but the game doesn't frown
37  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: The Wanderers & Warhammer Online on: August 15, 2008, 06:54:12 PM
More time has passed and I must say that while I still think the concept is great, I'm not quite sure it's really as good as the expression. A matter of taste, naturally, but still.

Details will follow...
38  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: The Wanderers & Warhammer Online on: August 14, 2008, 09:37:28 PM

Quote from: DOSHIGH on August 14, 2008, 09:26:39 PM

Is there a server schedule or place they post info on when it will be up?  I've had beta access for a few weeks but my schedule has been too erratic to figure out if there is some sort of logic to the beta server availability. And where the heck are the Beta forums?  I always get an invalid login using either my game or account login on the Realm beta web page. is the site for information related to the servers.

They've also stated that the beta forum server is full - and they won't be letting in new people for the time being.
39  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: The Wanderers & Warhammer Online on: August 14, 2008, 12:54:14 PM
Who said anything about this being good?

I was talking about expressions and concepts  icon_cool Tongue
40  Gaming / Multiplayer Madness (MMO or otherwise) / Re: The Wanderers & Warhammer Online on: August 14, 2008, 10:48:09 AM

Quote from: Razgon on August 14, 2008, 10:36:24 AM

Quote from: DArtagnan on August 14, 2008, 07:36:07 AM

You know the expression wow, and you no doubt have heard of the horrible concept of war.

Well, I think there's a good chance I might prefer the concept over the expression at this stage.


I'm guessing the North American beta workedout for you then?

anyways, the european website is half-finished it seems. The codes your recieve from buying the pre-order, cant even be registered at the site yet...

Yup, it's working.

The european site is a disgrace at the moment, and I can only hope it'll work upon release so we EU dudes can play with a decent ping. If there's something I can't stand, it's high latency - especially for PvP. It's the reason I can't play on the Vanguard PvP server - for instance, which is a shame as I might have played it a lot more if that was possible.

That said, I think this game is too big for them to mess up the EU release. I'm sure it'll be fine, but for pre-order betas, there REALLY should be more info at this stage.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.225 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.041s, 1q)