WoW Reviews Compilation Thread

[schild]

Rasix's take on login2crush.

[Furiously]

I had a similar experience. Marc was the first level 50 on my EQ server...

I wasn't that amazed with WOW. I didn't delve that deep however, so I'm sure HRose will tell me I'm totally wrong. Then again, I realized I didn't want to do the quests again in release, it would become a quest-treadmil.

PvP is where WOW will shine from what I have seen. The fights last the right amount of time. Levels make a bit of a difference, but not at the EQ level 49 always looses to a level 50 type of thing.

If I do play on opening day, it will be on the PvP server with 4 friends.

[jpark]

I enjoyed the review because it recognized the strengths of EQ the rest of us many not necessarily enjoy and how WoW has improved on them.

What intrigues me is the holy trinity in WoW.  The mage has limited crowd control - but no class seems to stand out in this regard - am I missing something?

I am confused about the warrior report.  On the one hand I hear that WoW has done great things to give warrior options for combat.  On the other hand, given the way taunt is set-up, the warrior has to use all his rage just to hold aggro.  He becomes a defecto EQ style "taunt bot" since there is not enough rage to utilize his extra strategic options.

Any warrior experiences folks can report on whether there is enough raget to both taunt and do something useful?

The druid description is ironic to me coming from Blizzard.  My impression of EQ was that the Druid was the most popular class and a lot of subseqent "balance" changes kept the advantage of this class.  My friend speculated based on class popularity WoW would be wise to make this class superior to appeal to the Druid oriented players of EQ.

Well when I heard Druids have taunt...

At this point I don't even think Paladins have taunt.  Correct?

WOW is not falling short of the EQ 1.5 billing in anyway.  It may even be favoring the same class imbalances potentially with the druid?   (Warlock = Necro = best solo class would be the next revelation).

Thanks for the write-up Rasix.

[SirBruce]

Paladins have a taunt... although I don't know if it's enough to pull a mob to the character it is cast on, it does make them more "sticky".

WoW is halfway to getting a thumbsdown from me due to near impossibility of soloing, particularly for Elite quests.  I know, I know... they are Elite.  But I'm totally against forced grouping, and the rewards for the quests are fixed at a particular level.  So what that means is, 5 level 18s can do an elite quest and get the reward at 18, but a soloist won't be able to do it until, what, 21?? ... and the reward will no longer be valuable to them.

The biggest problem with soloing is swarming mobs.  You take so much damage just dealing with one mob of even lower level that 2 or 3 are pretty much impossible to handle at once, unlike many other MMOGs.  The fact that Paladin heals are subject to interruption means you need lots of health potions... but there's a timer on health potions, too.  I'd be tempted to try soloing with a Rogue, but they get even less armor.

I like the quest-directed experience now, but I'm not going to subscribe to this game over EQ2 unless they make it dramatically easier to solo.

Bruce

[MrHat]

I can attest that a rogue can take 2 guys easy because of sap.

As for the paladin, doesn't he have that invincibility so he can heal himself uninterrupted?

[kaid]

I am not sure how much more soloability they could add without making the game a complete joke for difficulty. Heck my rogue a class arguably not a great soloing class solos quickly and easily.

When soloing its mainy a matter of paying attention to what you are fighting and how close together things are. Yes you can get swarmed if you try pulling a mob from the middle of a campsite.

Hell for the first 20 levels unless you are hunting in an elite dungeon soloing is MUCH easier and quicker than grouping especially during the stress test. With so many people around its hard to find enough mobs of your level to support a group.

If not for elite mob dungeons there would be no point to grouping at all as things stand.

If you are so against ever grouping then likely a mmrpg is not for you.

edit paladin taunts.

Paladins innately have a bit extra taunt in their attacks but trust me if you have a rogue and or a mage around the paladin is going to have SERIOUS issues pulling agro. They really need some kind of low end taunt ability to help them out a bit.

Kaid

[Rasix]

I'd be tempted to try soloing with a Rogue, but they get even less armor.

Rogues have sick evasion.  I saw a level 13 warrior fight an equal leveled rogue and the rogue barely squeaked it out because the warrior was missing almost every other time.  The warrior had something like 2.5 times the AC of the rogue.

I've yet to have any difficulty at all soloing, but I really didn't get to play that much so I didn't go too deep into the game. I got a druid to 11.5, a warlock to 5, and a hunter to 4.  All could solo with ease and when I got mobbed I could easily run away.  The warlock is a really interesting take on the necro from EQ.  Their curses, dots, dd's and versatile pets make them a fun class to tinker around with.

I never even died in the stress test.  I got close once, but the fact that the druid regen is insta-cast has saved me a couple times while fleeing.  

Even though I despise forced grouping, I can see myself asking for the help of others if it means completing a quest I might not be able to do solo.  I don't mind grouping with people I don't know for an hour or so, but when it comes to needing to be in random groups for hours at a time, I'm not playing.

[MrHat]

The warlock gets really fun when you get the fear spell.

DoT, DoT, fear, shadowbolt, fear, DoT  all the while little Juk'dron is casting firebolt on the thing, you hardly get hurt.  it's great.

[SirBruce]

If not for elite mob dungeons there would be no point to grouping at all as things stand.

Well, since I said specifically elite quests, then this should have tipped you off as to where I was going.

If you are so against ever grouping then likely a mmrpg is not for you.

No, THIS mmorpg is lkely not for me.  Another solo-friendly MMOG would be.  Examples: EQ2, AC2, etc.

Bruce

[Pineapple]

Paladins arent finished yet. Any class without talents is not finished, and yes talents make that much of a difference.

I have played 4 classes past 15. I have played 3 past 25. All of them can solo fine. 3 of the 4 have talents, so there you go. None of them are Paladins but I do hear more paladin work is coming.

As for being forced to group, you arent. You will still have many quests in your quest list that arent Elite status. You can go do those. If what you meant was that you want every aspect of the game to be soloable, then you will be disappointed in this and every other MMOG to come out. That includes AC2, EQ2, whatever else.

You can get from level 1 to the level cap doing quests the entire time, and never do an Elite instanced quest. You just have to look around to make sure you have all your quests from the various towns, if you get low.

[geldonyetich]

It's funny, I picked up the opposite impression: World of Warcraft is too solo friendly.   The game lacks a compelling purpose as a result, becuse there's very little social hook.   Any groups I got into were simply temporary things get a particularly hard quest completed, but in another two levels I oculd have soloed them as well.  I don't think I'll be buying WoW.  I can't even get myself to log into it right now.  

But then, I was supporting SWG and am playing FFXI now, so perhaps I have no taste.   Or, at least, not appreciation for the kind of game WoW is.   It really heavily resembles City of Heroes in some ways - the action is very spastic, and the players as well.    

My current theory is that WoW will do about as good as CoH.   1-3 Months of relative oohs and aahs, followed by everybody whining at top levels because they've no idea why they're even logging in anymore due to lack of compelling purpose within the game.

I'll give WoW another spin in Open Beta and see if my opinion has changed since then.   I suppose if you're grown bored of FFXI and CoH, then WoW is pretty much the only game in town.

[Rasix]

You do know that the upper tier game is primarily going to be raids and instanced content that will require a group?  Or consentual player v. player.  Of course, I could be wrong but that's just what I've been hearing and reading.

While the content climb may be overly solo friendly, remember, this game is being designed by people that make even a hardened catass like yourself look casual. There's no reason to believe they'll make the game into a giant version of Morrowind at the extreme higher levels.

And early grouping in EQ was just about the same at launch. Spastic retards having no goddamn clue on how to play the game. The game really didn't settle down and mature for a while.  I'd wager the same will happen here.

[Jain Zar]

"Like Everquest".  Ok.  So that's all I needed to know.  Thanks for saving me 50 bucks!

[geldonyetich]

While I might come off as a bit of a catass to say I want the game to have a compelling purpose to stick around, I've standards.  The game has to be fun too - I wouldn't be caught dead playing Lineage 2.   WoW, fortunately, is reasonably fun, but I also need that compelling purpose to stick around.   Color me catass if that's what that means.

While the content climb may be overly solo friendly, remember, this game is being designed by people that make even a hardened catass like yourself look casual. There's no reason to believe they'll make the game into a giant version of Morrowind at the extreme higher levels.

Here's hoping.  Right now, things are feeling cheapened.   A giant version of Morrowind would be more epic than how WoW feels right now.

Part of the issues I'm having with lack of motivation to log into WoW may stem from the knowledge that my characters are toast after the 7 day stress test period are over.   Perhaps things would feel a bit more epic once the sense of knowing my character's going to exist as long as I'm willing to subscribe to it manifest.

[sinij]

Is PvP nonexistant in WoW? I don't see how tank/nuker/healer model will translate well into PvP, for fun PvP your character should be profficient in both dealing and countering damage, with one-sided characters PvP is very one sided.

[Riggswolfe]

To answer a few questions:

PvP is in WoW in a limited form.

Grouping is pretty much required from level 35-40 on. Almost all quests are difficult if not impossible to solo at that level. Even the non-elite ones.

Warriors in early levels are great fun to play. In later levels they are expected to be nothing but taunt-tanks at all times. People literally will kick a warrior out of a group if that is not how he wishes to play.

Warlocks are greatly underpowered according to most people who play them. Druids are as well. Druids can taunt but only in bear form. Paladins cannot taunt. Rogues solo probably the best of any class except the mage.

One problem before the last patch was that people only wanted warriors priests/pallys/druids and mages in their groups at higher levels. Rogues and warlocks were almost literally begging for groups. Things have changed for the rogues though not the warlocks.

Also all the elite mobs got vastly buffed after the last patch and some of the instances have become almost impossible now.

Anyway, I'll be happy to answer questions if anyone has them and they are legit. No "So how much is WoW going to suck compared to EQ2" type of questions. This means you Schild.

[schild]

No "So how much is WoW going to suck compared to EQ2" type of questions. This means you Schild.

Don't worry, I've changed my, *ahem*, tune. But WoW suxx0rs, am i rite? ^_^

[Morfiend]

Ok, Ill try to get a few points in.

1) Warriors and taunt stuff. Warriors are GREAT solo'ers, and great groupers, that is due to having multiple "stances". Warriors start in Battle Stance, and get the majority of their cool abilities in Battle. At lvl 10 you do a series of quests, that end up earning you Defensive stance. At level 30 you get another serties of quests that earns you Berserker stance.

Battle stance is GREAT for solo play. You have charge (what I consider the coolist ability around) you also get a pretty badass snare, and a few good offinsive attacks, including a dot, and a conditional attack, that is usable after the target dodges.

Defensive stance is for grouping higher level mobs, and instances. You get taunt, sundering strike, disarm, and a few others. Sundering strike is a 20 second STACKABLE armor debuff. While it is true that after the last patch, when in def stance, you will spend a LOT of range doing taunt. But taunt is an instant ability, so its not like you arnt doing any damage while you taunt. Also in def stance, you get bloodrage, where you can turn hit points to rage, with a good priest you will be spamming this.

So, a warrior COULD spend his whole time in a group spamming taunt, but a good warrior wont.

2)

Your backpack is accessed by hitting 'b.' For the first few days I continued to hit 'i' and continued to be greeted by my spellbook. Your backpack is also not acompanied by your paper doll for equipping yourself in various manners. This is annoying and stupid to the point that it just seems like an oversight. I can see some point to this as having seperate smaller windows leaves more real estate for on-screen action.

I like this, I dont think this is a bad thing. Some time you want to use some thing in your bag while in combat, and you dont want your character sheet comming up at the same time. If it REALLY bugs you just hit "C" "B" really quick, and there you go. I dont think this was an oversight at all, I think it was a design choice, and unlike you, I for me, it was the right one.

3) To Bruce. If you read the description of an elite mob, it says "A monster designed with group play in mind." If you dont want to group, then dont. Skip these quests. They are easy to identify, they say "Elite" by them. You dont HAVE to do them.

Now, I know your responce, they have the best loot. That is not true. They do have good loot in the dungeons, but you can also find drops just as good in the wilderness soloing.

I think it is good that solo is so viable, but they have put in harder mobs scaled to grouping. Like grouping? group and do an instance. Dont like grouping? dont group, and go solo some other quests, pretty simple.

Try soloing with a rogue, they solo fricking great. Also, right now, due to talants and the spirit bug (spirit is not regenerating as much mana as it should) casters are at more of a disadvantage in solo.

4) Talants at release. I dont see any way they can NOT have all talants in for release. With every thing they have shown so far, they are making sure every thing is good, and balanced. They could supprise me, but I think that would be a desaster, and they know it.

5)

Is PvP nonexistant in WoW? I don't see how tank/nuker/healer model will translate well into PvP, for fun PvP your character should be profficient in both dealing and countering damage, with one-sided characters PvP is very one sided.

As one of those one sided classes you mentioned, a warrior. I do GREAT in pvp. Am I the most powerful? no. but I can play my character well, and in a 5 level spread, I win about 75% of the time. See my points above about warriors.


Im calling my shots now, and saying that schild will like WoW, a lot.

*EDIT*

5) Hotbars.

I dnot have enough hot bar spaces, even with the hotbars switching when I change stances. I have a 3rd party program call thottbott, that add one hotbar on each side of the screan, and another one above the vurrent one. Blizzard is learning from thottbott, and slowly implementing most of the features. At release, expect to have the option to add sidebars.

[SirBruce]

3) To Bruce. If you read the description of an elite mob, it says "A monster designed with group play in mind." If you dont want to group, then dont. Skip these quests. They are easy to identify, they say "Elite" by them. You dont HAVE to do them.

Then I would say the game isn't solo-friendly.  I'm like level 18, and over half my quests now are Elite quests.  About half of the quests I've completed after level 15 or so were also elite.  There's very little else for me to do right now.

Now, I know your responce, they have the best loot. That is not true. They do have good loot in the dungeons, but you can also find drops just as good in the wilderness soloing.

No, that's not my response.  My response is "make content accessible to everyone."  The elite, group-only content isn't really available to me as a soloist.  At least in City of Heroes, the group-only content was segregated into very limited and specific areas, which I could still choose to accomplish but which were not required for me to enjoy the other missions in the game.

I think it is good that solo is so viable, but they have put in harder mobs scaled to grouping. Like grouping? group and do an instance. Dont like grouping? dont group, and go solo some other quests, pretty simple.

I can't disagree more.  No, the DON'T have to put in harder mobs scaled to grouping -- that's an old-fashioned solution to the problem, and a bad one at that.  Better solutions have be developed, such as simply allowing groups to kill more of the same mobs faster, having the loot and/or mobs scaled to the size of what they are fighting, instanced content, and so on.

Try soloing with a rogue, they solo fricking great. Also, right now, due to talants and the spirit bug (spirit is not regenerating as much mana as it should) casters are at more of a disadvantage in solo.

I might, but I probably won't, because I don't want to be a Rogue.  I would much rather play another game where I can pick the class I want and still be a viable soloist.

Bruce

[dusematic]

This whole debate is curious.  MMORPG's are made to be played and enjoyed with others through design.  WOW is one of the most solo friendly games, if not the most solo friendly, that is on the market in its respective genre.  I'm not going to talk down to you, and tell you that you would be better off playing a conventional RPG, which by and large share the same game mechanics and offer more tailored and "epic" gameplay.  What I felt obligated to point out however; is that of the other games you mentioned (AC2,EQ2) well, the former is complete crap and the latter has yet to be released.  I respect your opinions, you are obviously an intelligent person, and have been writing about MMO's for some time; but I struggle to understand why this is so when MMORPG's are so obviously keyed in on interacting with other people.  Personally, I am not going to buy WOW, I think it is decently fun but I am waiting for something that takes a big leap, or failing that, until enough time has passed so that many baby steps finally constitute said big leap.  Having said that, I don't believe there is a legitimate gripe here as all the quests are not implemented and all the classes are not finished.  Blizzard has repeatedly said that soloing with all classes will be a viable option.  Will it happen?  Fuck if I know, but as that is their stated intention, then I assume it will be so, until I hear differently or the game is released and it is not so.  As to your potential solutions, well...perhaps.  But I suppose that is for another debate eh?  Cheers.

[SirBruce]

You and other people have a problem understanding this concept too, I know.  It's been argued numerous times before and I'm thinking of writing a definitive explanation to post on a web site so I can just hand out people the URL when they ask.

Basically, the point is MMOGs are like going to the movies.  You can go to movies WITH your friends, but you don't HAVE to in order to enjoy the movie.  And yet, the experience of being AT the movies, by "yourself" and yet with lots of other people, is part of a collective enjoyment.  Same as any similar activity where large groups gather to enjoy entertainment together -- concerts, sporting events, etc.

If MMOGs were only about "the group", then people would just play NWN or FPS games with their friends... and lots of people do.  And yet others enjoy a game where there are thousands of "others" they interact with in that world, yet do not have to be part of their "group" that enjoys specific content.  The same applies to the soloist; it's simply a "group" of one.  The fact that there are thousands of "others" outside the group is the same in either case, so going down that path to discount solo play is a red herring.

Bruce

[MrHat]

Basically, the point is MMOGs are like going to the movies.  You can go to movies WITH your friends, but you don't HAVE to in order to enjoy the movie.  And yet, the experience of being AT the movies, by "yourself" and yet with lots of other people, is part of a collective enjoyment.  Same as any similar activity where large groups gather to enjoy entertainment together -- concerts, sporting events, etc.

Bruce

I haven't gotten to the point where I have epic quests (mainly because I dont' want to ruin too much of the game).  So I don't totally understand when you say that WoW isn't solo friendly.  But I will say that this is a VERY good description of an MMO.

[Morfiend]

3) To Bruce. If you read the description of an elite mob, it says "A monster designed with group play in mind." If you dont want to group, then dont. Skip these quests. They are easy to identify, they say "Elite" by them. You dont HAVE to do them.

Then I would say the game isn't solo-friendly.  I'm like level 18, and over half my quests now are Elite quests.  About half of the quests I've completed after level 15 or so were also elite.  There's very little else for me to do right now.

I would say, maybe 5% of the quests are elite, thats pretty solo friendly.

Move to a new zone or do the other half of your quests, and by that time, you should have outleveled the elite quests any way.

I do not agree with you that ALL quests should be doable solo, and scale for party size.

You bring up COH and how the Group Quests are in only a little seperated area. Thats what elite quests are, they are mostly in epic feeling dungeons.

I enjoy it. I solo most of my time, but some times I like to group up, for those times I hit an elite dungeon.

Your posts have almost reach the Anit-HRose point of being trollish in steadfastly trying to make the game fit in to what you want from it. I dont think thats going to happen, I also dont think from your nitpicking of what I consider a ver fun game, that you will find a MMOG that suits your needs any time in the near, or far, future.

Also, just so I dont sound like a rabit fanboy, I agree this game is not for every one, I also agree it has problems. Quite a few. But UNLIKE any other beta I have been in, Blizzard is doing a GREAT job at fixing and balancing. Damnit, now I sound like a fanboy again.

Anyway, you cant solo all the content, so you dont like it. We get it. Time for you to move on and be disapointed in yet another game.

[Rasix]

2)

Your backpack is accessed by hitting 'b.' For the first few days I continued to hit 'i' and continued to be greeted by my spellbook. Your backpack is also not acompanied by your paper doll for equipping yourself in various manners. This is annoying and stupid to the point that it just seems like an oversight. I can see some point to this as having seperate smaller windows leaves more real estate for on-screen action.

I like this, I dont think this is a bad thing. Some time you want to use some thing in your bag while in combat, and you dont want your character sheet comming up at the same time. If it REALLY bugs you just hit "C" "B" really quick, and there you go. I dont think this was an oversight at all, I think it was a design choice, and unlike you, I for me, it was the right one.

Yah, I know, at times you want access to just your backpack and not have your screen obscured during a quest or battle situation.  That's what I was trying to convey in the last sentence.

With how they've designed quests and with the limited amount of hotkey space, I can see how it's a valid and useful design decision.  Still doesn't prevent me from being annoyed. And I still (or did, going out of town so my beta ends here /sigh) hit "i" all the damn time. That's just been so ingrained into my brain.  I suppose I could always remap my keys and stop bitching.

For your last point in the post, I hope Blizzard does allow more ingame UI customization.  It seems so flexible, it would be a shame if you had to script all of it.

[El Gallo]

Woah.  Did someone just say that they are going to EQ2 because a small segment of the content in WoW is group-only?  You DO know that a significant slice of the EQ2 content will be group-only/raid-only as well, right?

It is not necessary to ever enter an instance or ever do an elite quest or ever group with another person to get to max level.  There are no spots where you are forced to do anything but solo quests (though the Horde is very thin on quests in a couple level ranges, a problem that they have identified already).  The game is trivially easy in solo mode, and you can get everything you need to solo just from soloing.

In fact, one of the things many people say is one of WoWs biggest weaknesses is the fact that, while the instanced dungeons are for the most part extremely well-done group experiences, they are inefficient to enter.  The most efficient way to play is to level outside to the cap, and then go to the last few instances for gear.

Rasix, nice review.  I agree with you almost completely.  If you are still playing (I dont remember when the stress test ends) go get the user interface Cosmos (there is a link to it on thottbot.com).  It's a very solid UI.  36 hotkeys up at once, and other assorted goodies.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I've seen nothing of or about World of Warcraft to indicate it is nothing more than a 6 year backslide for MMOGs as a genre.

Unless you're talking about the minimum hardware requirements. Tell me some of the things that WoW is presenting for the 'first time anywhere' that makes it an 'evolution' on the EQ (which means MMOG genre as a class) formula.

I ask this, because here's the skeletal version of this update:

WoW is evolutionary because....

1. Interface: all the buttons are in good places, much of them are like any other MMOG

2. graphics: *gush* *gape* *gasp*

3. gameplay: its just like EQ

4. Summary: WoW has graphics that aren't cutting edge but 'fit the game' (huh??), WoW doesn't crash to desktop, WoW has features that most MMOGs have - and I'm only half sure I will buy it.
---------

So I'm left wondering why this site, by and large, thinks WoW is the robot Jesus of teh future. Sounds to me like very soon, our choices will be EQ 1.5 (WoW), or EQ 2.0 (EQ 2.0).

[SirBruce]

Woah.  Did someone just say that they are going to EQ2 because a small segment of the content in WoW is group-only?  You DO know that a significant slice of the EQ2 content will be group-only/raid-only as well, right?

No, I said I'm probably going to EQ2 because it is, generally and supposedly, more solo-friendly than WoW.  I think WoW has a largerly percentage of group-only content than you suggest, and EQ2 has a lesser percentage than you imply.  Of course, I could be wrong; I've only gone by what each has said and what I've seen first hand in WoW.

Bruce

[geldonyetich]

WoW doesn't crash to desktop

Does for me.  Sometimes in mid-gameplay for no particular reason.  Quite often when I'm quitting from the login screen.

[Alluvian]

If you think EQ2 is more soloable than WoW, you are wrong.  I know a person in the beta and you have to group for at least 2 quests (arguably 3) even on the newbie island.  Maybe that is just to teach people how to group, but in those cases it is 'forced' on you if you want to do the quest.

You can choose not to, but according to your definition chosing not to is still not solo friendly.

[Fargull]

I hate fileplanet.  So I did not take that road into beta and have yet to receive a magic email.

Can anyone enlighten me on how the design of the world is done?  I found DAOC way to drab and lifeless after a time.  EQ presented such variation in design of its zones and was one of the reasons I stuck with it for more than a few months.

The grouping concern is not a big issue for me, though I do spend a good amount of time solo.  I am a little concerned the travel downtime, but that is all subjective.

Thanks for the right up!

[Alluvian]

World design is more EQ like.  But with brighter more cartoony colors.  There seems to be large variance in scenery depending on zone, just like in EQ.  A good feeling of location.  Many have said you could be dropped in almost any zone, spin around and immediately know at least what zone you were in.  From what I have seen I would say that is true.

[Nebu]

So I'm left wondering why this site, by and large, thinks WoW is the robot Jesus of teh future. Sounds to me like very soon, our choices will be EQ 1.5 (WoW), or EQ 2.0 (EQ 2.0).

I'm wondering too... I've been saying pretty much the same things about both WoW and CoH.  Yes, they are improvements... but they are more new builds of the tired old mmog platform we've seen since EQ's debut.  Couple this to the fact that I get gushing fanbois emails on almost every site I post because some web designer at Blizzard adopted the same handle... it makes for a nightmarish hell.

I guess I need to take a step back and look at WoW this way: if people are having fun, then why not.  It's their money.  I just wish there were something else worth playing.

This leaves me wondering: Is WoW an example of "baby steps" within the genre or are mmogs stuck in an abyss that investors are afraid to break away from?

[Fargull]

Thanks Alluvian.  Damn, read over my post and it looks like crap I typed in highschool.

Nebu,

I guess you did get the treatment.  I can only imagine the grief your getting.

People keep arguing back to the DIKU'sque and what will break out of that mold.  I keep seeing three huge barriers to that feature, one revolves around character advancement, another revolves around the current concept of grouping, and the third revolves around preceived limitatations/greifing of PVP.

Right now DIKU is safe.  Which is not really a barrier, but a matter of fact statement, though Horizons might show the flaw in the word safe as applied.  Anyway, when I get some more time, I will have to write up something to post in the Dev section.

[kaid]

If you are pinning your hopes of eq2 being a soloers game I think you are in for a surprise. There is soloing content in eq2 so that you can solo but the game is designed around group vs mob group combat so much of the content will be geared towards at very least small groups of players. Also mobs are split into tiers where the lower the tier the lower grade loot the mob can drop. The solo mobs will in general be lower tier than mobs you would take on in a group.

I have a level 16 rogue in WoW and I have all of 2 elite missions both to the same dungeon. I have probably a good 20 other non elite missions pending. If you want to do instanced dungeons in wow you will likely need a group. If you want to do instanced dungeons in eq2 you likely will need a group.

I just cannot wrap my noodle around why having content designed to be a challange for a group is a bad thing in a massivly multiplayer game.

Is wow a huge leap forward for MMRPG nah its a good implementation and I think many folks will enjoy it. Myself I think I lean more towards eq2 as it is designed to be more group oriented. WoW so far just seems a bit to directed at solo play for my tastes.

kaid

[Alakhai]

I agree that making CoH and WoW out to be these innovative, groundbreaking games is a mistake.  Saying that they are fun and worthwhile is not.

It is always little baby steps, in all genres.  Unfortunately, since an MMO is based on the concept that you'll play for more than a couple weeks, baby steps aren't fast enough for most people thay play MMOs.  As examples, I offer two games that I've been playing recently (one, that I just got today.)

Burnout 3:

It is a good bit like Burnout 2...  It has a couple new modes, some new tracks, cars, etc.  But, really, it is a racing game.  It is just like EVERY OTHER racing game I've played, with slight tweaks.  But, I'll probably play it for a few weeks, beat the solo play, get tons of phat cars, and then it'll be a multiplayer-only game.  After a month or two of playing it multiplayer occasionally, I'll most likely sell it, and use the cash to buy a new game.

Star Ocean, Till the End of Time:

It is a console RPG.  It has some new systems, of course, just like a game from Enix or Square (each final fantasy has new systems.. materia for 7, guardians for 8, item-learning for 9, sphere grid for 10, etc, etc, etc.)  It actually has better combat, like Tales of Symphonia... but the Tales series started on, what, Saturn?  Maybe earlier?  And it has had real-time combat for a while.



Anyways, my point is, games aren't innovative.  I think there is two directions MMOs can go.  

1.  Try and take huge steps, like say Shadowbane (Shadowbane failed its jump check and fell on it's face though.)  This is unfortunately a hard thing to do, because of publishers, obviously.

or

2.  Take small, safe steps, and be very careful to not step on something.  CoH and WoW are both very quest-centric, and that is their small-step.  Saying they have good art-styles and don't crash every 10 minutes isn't something we should praise them for, that should be expected (contrary to popular PC gamer belief, it seems).  In EQ, you only did a quest for faction or a good reward, because the exp wasn't enough to notice.  Quest-centric games make you feel like you are killing foozles for a REASON, which is more enjoyable for a lot of people.  The other key to this approach, I think, is frequent content updates.  Either that, or a small/no monthyl fee.  Say I play WoW for 2 months, I can justify paying $50 for that.  It is like buying a game I'll play for 3 weeks, except that I won't get my $10 back for selling it.  But, monthly fees almost make me want to rush to get finished (if there aren't content updates) because if I pay monthly fees, now I'm paying $65 or $80 for a game...


Man, I rambled a lot, my bad.