WoW v EQ2

[Sky]

Save yourself the money on CoH by downloading the free character creation disk that EQ preorders got, it has about 99% of the gameplay CoH does.

C'mon, now. CoH has one of the best implementations of mmo pve combat, if not the best. Just because you apparently didn't care for it doesn't mean it's not there. The game has flaws, but gameplay isn't one of them.

I'm sorry, but none of these really appealed to me at a low level in CoH.

All the archetypes are about equivalent at low levels, you get no real feel for the differences until a lot later on.

[Rasix]

I'm sorry, but none of these really appealed to me at a low level in CoH.

All the archetypes are about equivalent at low levels, you get no real feel for the differences until a lot later on.

I didn't experience that at all. They all seemed different but none of them what I was looking for.  

Anyhow, this is a debate for another thread. I liked a CoH a ton at first, the game just lost all interest for me at about the 10th reroll.  I just couldn't get myself to break past the newbie barrier.

[HaemishM]

Just about all of you motherfuckers know you'll be sick to death of both of them in about 2 months after release

Yea, but that's four months of gaming (2+2) until Guild Wars and/or City of Villains :)

To further illustrate, in that 2 months, your WoW character will probably be close to max and have used up most of the content available for his race/class, whereas in EQ2, you will probably just have reached low-mid levels, have learned your first profession and grown sick to death of every vendor in your home city hawking his wares at you LOUDLY every time you walk down the street.

Or even more succintly, if you liked Everquest 1, and aren't sick to death of that gameplay style, you'll like either one of these games. If you burned out on EQ1 or hated that style of play from the get-go, you'll be bored to death of both of these games.

These games are NOT second, third or fourth generation games. These are patches on the First Generation gameplay of MMOG's. They have not advanced the overall state of MMOG's ONE FUCKING IOTA beyond the very basic tenets set out by EQ.

[Slayerik]

So Haemish, what do you REALLY think about them ;)

I cannot put tons of hours into gaming like I used to, so I will be trying out WoW. I am currently Beta testing it and having a very good time. Shamans kick ass. Can't wait to see some of my friends playing also, instanced dungeons with friends will be cool.

[Tige]

Alright Haemish, we get it already.  You are angry, bitter and discontented and like to swear alot when you talk of mmogs.

-Tige

[HaemishM]

You're new here, aren't you?

It ain't just MMOG's.

[Fargull]

Haemish is great.  He has of course been pummelled about the head with the salmon of cynicism, but overall his thoughts on what the hell is wrong with most games is spot on.  I dont agree with him about the arguement he is making against EQII and WOW, but it has raised an interesting question in my mind.  What the hell really equates a second generation MMORPG?  Do we have a list that needs to be qualified to equal that stature or are we hoping the dart hits the center on a dart board in a pitchblack room?  I would put forward that COH is the first second gen MMORPG.

WOW did not feel like EQ1.  Not in anyway shape or form, except for the fact that it was based on Diku.  I have zero feel for EQII since I have not looked at anything SOE has mentioned since my brain was abused by SWG.

[El Gallo]

Eh, I'd say that both games will release a couple iotas better than EQ1.  Low downtime, quest-based advancement, games designed from the ground-up with expansion in mind are each worth an iota or two.  At the risk of getting into a "I am even more jaded than you" contest, I'd say that is a pretty phenomenal achievement for this genre.  If UO was released tomorrow, it would be the best game released in the genre in 5 years.  If EQ1 was released tomorrow, it would be the best game released in the genre in 5 years.  For the past 5 years, we have seen nothing but "UO done shittier" (SWG); "something kind of new and shitty" (SB, Sims); and "EQ done shittier" (everything else).  

 Would I willingly trade my life to be plugged into the EQ2 or WoW matrix?  No.  Will either provide the intellectual satisfaction of a good game of chess?  No.  But that isn't what I am looking for.  I just want to see, at long last, some progress in the genre.

[HaemishM]

Applauding progress in this genre is akin to clapping when a retard manages to eat with a fork without stabbing itself in the eye.

[Sky]

Hammy reminds me of the twin brother I consumed in the womb.

the game just lost all interest for me at about the 10th reroll.

Imagine playing through the newbie experience 10 times and getting bored :p Even I prefer the post 14 game where you actually get a travel power to reduce the amount of hoofing it in slo-mo. I'm not trying to convince you CoH is a great game you'd like, just saying maybe you didn't give it a totally fair shot, that's all.

[Sky]

Applauding progress in this genre is akin to clapping when a retard manages to eat with a fork without stabbing itself in the eye.

You always have to bring that up, don't you? I use sporks now, only one good eye left!

[personman]

Imagine playing through the newbie experience 10 times and getting bored :p

I guess I love the newbie life in CoH.  I have six characters, all in their high teens or low twenties, and I've been playing since the third month of GA. :-)

[Nebu]

I got bored with CoH faster than any other mmog that I've played (read: subscribed to rather than beta tested) to date.  Yes, there is no arguing that they did character customization and combat well.  It just played too much like a console game for me and I really hate console games.  If I want to play console games, I'll buy a console.  I play games on a pc expecting a certain level of added depth... maybe this is why pc games continue to disappoint me, the depth just ain't there like it used to be.  

Holy shit, I think I'm on to something.

[Venkman]

I have never, nor will ever, claim these games are second generation. They do nothing more than fix the fuck ups of the first round of shit we put up with. And they spent a zillion dollars to do it. Maybe they're generation 1.25. Add 0.25 if you think graphics matter.

Both were designed by committee. Both come from big companies that, yes, sometimes make decisions for profit. Both have faults and highlights, can be fun or a drag. They are flavors of exactly the same thing.

So no, they are not second generation.

However, they can also be fun.

There's nothing wrong with asking. Saying both suck doesn't answer the original question posed. Some people do want a better version of EQlive. How these games make EQlive better is the question being asked. That's a very different question than "are these games second/third/twelfth generation titles designed by altruistic clerics for the advancement of all mankind", no matter how many think that's the question they need to answer.

[Morfiend]

They have not advanced the overall state of MMOG's ONE FUCKING IOTA beyond the very basic tenets set out by EQ.

I would disagree with you here. Both games are quest driven advancement. Some thing none of the early MMOGs managed to do very well. CoH was the first to succed at this, but then CoH quests are a lot more simplistic. I can only speak for the WoW quests, but I hear the EQ2 ones are a lot the same, except with an abundance "OMG WHERE DO I GO????.??..>>/?"

[Nebu]

I would disagree with you here. Both games are quest driven advancement. Some thing none of the early MMOGs managed to do very well. CoH was the first to succed at this, but then CoH quests are a lot more simplistic. I can only speak for the WoW quests, but I hear the EQ2 ones are a lot the same, except with an abundance "OMG WHERE DO I GO????.??..>>/?"

Am I the only one that thinks that CoH quests are implemented in a manner nearly identical to AO's quests from a few years earlier?  

Now fun 3d combat, that's an advancement (at least without having to be underwater aka ToA in DAoC).

[Riggswolfe]

Am I the only one that thinks that CoH quests are implemented in a manner nearly identical to AO's quests from a few years earlier?  

Now fun 3d combat, that's an advancement (at least without having to be underwater aka ToA in DAoC).

Almost exactly the same really. The only differences are cosmetic at best. I would disagree that WoW (and potentially EQ2) have not advanced the genre. They have not revolutionalized but they have evolved. I hope they will be the last of the old school games and that a couple years from now we see something new that works. (SWG was an attempt to change how the genre worked but I'd say it was a failure except on the social/crafting side)

[chinslim]

It cracks me up that PvPers now use the term carebear to embarass PvE players. It's probably one of the biggest bits of spin doctoring I've ever seen pulled off.

If you want to go back to the original meaning, "care bears" would probably mean zerging with nothing to lose(throwaway alts).  This was at a time when dieing as a red meant stat loss, so you didn't PK without risk.  There's 2 or more sides to every issue and Chesapeake had strong roleplaying and PVPing communities with their own senses of play ethics and honor.

Anyways, I don't think the term "carebears" is used in a derogatory or embarrassing way nowadays.  Hell, Carebears call themselves carebears.

[Riggswolfe]

[Anyways, I don't think the term "carebears" is used in a derogatory or embarrassing way nowadays.  Hell, Carebears call themselves carebears.

It is but I think most PvE players have become largely immune to it. I for one tend to dismiss the words of a PvP player who resorts to calling PvE players carebears. I'd say the closest analogy is the N-word. It was used to be derogatory towards black people. Now no sane white person would use it and black people call each other it. Cool way to disarm the word in my opinion, just adopt it for yourself.

And yes, considering the story behind it all I can totally see the original meaning being a player who zergs with throwaway characters.

[Toast]

I have been pretty disappointed in the genre, but what the heck else am I supposed to play? I don't have the time to be a hard core player, but there is value in this genre.

Single player games just don't cut it for me. I lose interest so quickly.

Looks like I'll probably end up trying out both of them in the end. It's only money.

[El Gallo]

Here's a worthwhile post on one significant design problem with WoW

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=462528&p=1#post462528

[Soukyan]

Here's a worthwhile post on one significant design problem with WoW

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=462528&p=1#post462528

Quick disclaimer: I read the entire post, but got the gist pretty quickly.


Translation based on undertones: I'm an FoH guild member and too many non-uber guilds are leveling too quickly and we can't be the lone, uber alpha wolf in this game. Please make the grind come back and require grouping for everything.


[edit]Haha! Best reply EVAR! in that thread:

Yo Greuken,
(shitload of white space)
go back to EQ. kthxbye

*giggle*[/edit]

[Kageru]

It's being discussed elsewhere, so I've read it. What it effectively represents is a hardcore gamer being pissed off that WoW doesn't force everyone to be a hardcore gamer. It's also fatally flawed in that following his suggestions won't train better gamers, it will simply cause the vast casual mass to leave, which means less funds to build content to keep the content hungry hardcore happy. And the solution is obvious, a range of endgame content for different skill levels, with rewards to encourage you to go as far up the challenge ranks as your skill can take you.

In short this is an example of superb game design, allowing casuals and hardcore to co-exist in one world, he just can't cope with play styles other than his own preferred one. A continuation of the casual vs. uber debate that raged in EQ to a new domain.

[El Gallo]

Eh, I took the post to mean that the game is too easy when you are in groups because almost everything is designed so that a naked soloer hitting random keys can win, and that the game should stop actively punishing people for grouping with lower xp gain.  Then again, I didn't see his guild tag and immediately turn into a raving lunatic, like most of the morons in that thread did.  That go back to EQ line was especially off the mark, considering how he went out if his way numerous times to talk about how the gameplay in WoW is vastly better than EQ's or EQ2's and said about 37,000 times that he didn't want to remove soloing as a viable advancement mechanism, he just wanted some group content that wasn't unrewarding and mindlessly trivial.

Actively punishing grouping is not what I would call a superb example of game design.  Mindlessly trivial encounters are not what I would call a superb example of game design, either.

Anyway, most pickup groups I have been in in WoW have sucked.  They essentially degenerate into 5 people soloing, because that is all most people know how to do.

[Faust]

Here's a worthwhile post on one significant design problem with WoW

You have GOT to be kidding me, right?  "significant design problem"?

You want Casual Gamers and don't want huge level grinds BUT you think that there should be no soloing or visible level advancement.

How you people can whine about BOTH sides of an issue is beyond me.  I swear to god it really looks like your trying to find ANY complaint you can find.

WoW might not be a huge leap into the infinate, and it might not be a revolution ... but it is a serious attempt at improovement over SOE's previous efforts.  For that I applaud.  Will it be my favorite game in 6 months?  Maybe not.  But it has the potential for it.  That's the most hope I've had for a game in a long time.

[Kageru]

As I understand it the WoW design calls for most of the mobs in the general wilderness to not be too uber. They're soloable mobs, there to make travel a bit challenging, and are of course trivialized in a group. The tough mobs are generally in the instanced dungeons which are balanced for a group. These are the "special area's sectioned off" that he refers to in the post. So what he's saying is that the entire game should be balanced at the high end and on the expectation of needing a group. In short he wants his preferred play style to be global.

Similarly progression content shouldn't be the most elite stuff. The stuff aimed at under the level cap should be reasonably approachable because it's designed to encourage and train people. The really hard stuff, like this with a group of 5;

http://forums.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=262922

should be at the top level where it can be a continuing challenge.

And yes, the average pickup group in any game will suck. Short of hypnotically re-programming people as they play that's just a fact of life.

[jpark]

I got bored with CoH faster than any other mmog that I've played (read: subscribed to rather than beta tested) to date.  Yes, there is no arguing that they did character customization and combat well.  It just played too much like a console game for me and I really hate console games.  If I want to play console games, I'll buy a console.  I play games on a pc expecting a certain level of added depth... maybe this is why pc games continue to disappoint me, the depth just ain't there like it used to be.  

Holy shit, I think I'm on to something.

And maybe that was the intent.  But we all agreed upon release that CoH while barren did an amazing job on what it said it would deliver.

Importantly, they are adding well thought out aspects to the game.  Their version of crafting comes out soon - for free.  It appears to be casual friendly like the rest of the game - and different from standard crafts.

City of Villians is just around the corner.  If the game is not your style I can see that - but in addition to be well executed this is a game that is growing.

EQ2 is a bit of the opposite.  A lot was promised...

[El Gallo]

You want Casual Gamers and don't want huge level grinds BUT you think that there should be no soloing or visible level advancement.

I said that you shouldn't be punished for grouping, and I said that everything in the game should not be utterly trivial for a competent group, and I said that good groups should get xp at a higher rate than soloers.  Obviously this means I want "no soloing" and no "visible level advancement."  Or something.

what he's saying is that the entire game should be balanced at the high end and on the expectation of needing a group. In short he wants his preferred play style to be global.

what he said was...

If being able to solo in every single non-instanced zone of the game is so uber important that it overrides all other design concerns, then you should at least have created a system where grouping does not therefore trivialize the hell out of everything. Yeah, DAOC had that bring a friend mess, which I thought was pretty clunky and odd. In WoW that would just translate into AEing the hell out of everything. At the very least, creatures in WoW could have their hitpoints increased (doubled) to the point where a 1 on 1 fight is still soloable, but not three at a time, or ten single mobs in a row without rest. At least this way a group might have time to push two hotkeys before their target dies.

and

I don't dislike soloing, in fact I hate grouping in this game primarily because people are so bad at it due to having so little practice.

and

Basically, I see a problem of being able to group and kill all these mobs that are meant for soloing without some kind of system in place to make it interesting to do so. That is, I should be able to group and do 'solo' content without being bored to hell, instead of "these five elite mobs here are for groups, thse five million non elites are for soloing" Its sort of an opposite spin on the (ridiculous) plea for making the current miniscule group content soloable.

and

the massive glut of soloable creatures is so stupidly trivial for grouped players that grouping is useless.

[Sky]

FoH, surprise, wants the game to be harder and longer and less fun. Well, less fun for everyone but the 'ubers' who invest the time to deserve to have fun.

At the very least, creatures in WoW could have their hitpoints increased (doubled) to the point where a 1 on 1 fight is still soloable, but not three at a time, or ten single mobs in a row without rest.

That's why everyone can agree CoH's combat is the worst in the genre. Needs more downtime.

Tool.

[schild]

These same asshats (well not the exact same...anyway) asked for more downtime in EQ2, and as far as I can tell, they gave it to them. The  majority of the vocal minority are goddamned gamebreaking fools.

[Nebu]

Having played WoW and reading what you are saying about EQ2, I think the choice for me is pretty easy:

A. WoW
B. EQ2
C. None of the Above

I think I'll go with C.  I am tempted to wait and see it for myself, but the discussions coupled to the fact that loot doesn't motivate me to play (no pvp generally = bored fast) makes for a bad outlook.  On the bright side, it's almost ski season (I think Loveland is already open).

[Viin]

Having played WoW and reading what you are saying about EQ2, I think the choice for me is pretty easy:

A. WoW
B. EQ2
C. None of the Above

I think I'll go with C.  I am tempted to wait and see it for myself, but the discussions coupled to the fact that loot doesn't motivate me to play (no pvp generally = bored fast) makes for a bad outlook.

Did you get a chance to play PvP in WoW? I'll probably play WoW, mostly because I think SOE sucks and WoW was easy to have fun in. I also enjoyed the PvP I experienced in WoW but am really looking forward to the PvP in Guild Wars.

  On the bright side, it's almost ski season (I think Loveland is already open).

Isn't Loveland _always_ open?

- Viin

[Venkman]

The one bit of potentially useful information I gleened from that post was his lack of experience with quality groups.

I had the same experience.

It's not that the people were bad or stupid. It's just that in the 10 days of the Stress Test, most players I encountered only grouped to achieve specific objectives. That meant most times they were soloing. That meant they were awesome soloers and that when they grouped, they soloed in that group.

So I had the same concern.

However, I never played past the mid-teens, so I have no idea if the soloability of the early game is the same as it is in the late.

[Riggswolfe]

I pray to all that is holy that Blizzard employees simply snicker at his post. The one thing I love about WoW is that I don't have to have a group to take a step into the god damn game world. If I want to do an instance, I need a group. That's what my guild is for, so I don't have to worry about pickup groups in instances.

Good lord. What a whining asshole. I may have to go over to their forums in a bit and explain why he is wrong in the nicest terms I can.

[El Gallo]

"I want more group content, more challenging group content, I want groups to get xp at least as fast as soloers do, maybe a Diablo-like mechanic where mobs dynamically increase in challenge and reward when encountered by a group would be a possible way of effectuating these goals without affecting soloers one bit" means the same thing as "I want to require a group to step into the god damn game world."  

WoW's current non-instance group combat mechanic (everybody hits one button once and the thing dies in 2.5 seconds) is the end-all-be-all of gaming, because only that is "skill based" gaming.  The only other choice is EQ1.  Allah be praised.