Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 07, 2022, 11:58:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Guild Wars  |  Topic: Your reaction? Compared to Shadowbane? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Your reaction? Compared to Shadowbane?  (Read 4798 times)
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1538

on: October 31, 2004, 09:24:36 AM

I played for 1.5 hours last night and certainly there are folks that will have far more insightful reviews than myself here so I'll be brief:

1.  Lack of World.  It is like some old single player RPGs (my friend suggests Dungeon Seige) - walk along the path - and nowhere else.  Combined with travel via instancing, I just did not feel like I was in a world.  My early play experience did not grab me like Shadowbane - which offered more world it seemed (and EQ etc.).

2.  Character creation is okay.  Not bad.  Only humans but I appreciated the height customization (laughable in EQII; but SB was better).  The graphics are okay, but hopefully unlike SB - they are more basic to reduce lag during battles.

3.  Class system - pretty good.  Not enough time here really, but at least as good as CoH, perhaps not as good as SB - but certainly better than EQ, EQII (from what I have seen).

4.  Reputation/social - excellent?.  I think GW greatest asset appears to be each avatar you create automatically belongs to the same guild.  This really cuts down on griefing and makes player justice possible.  In SB, it was easy to create an alt with no guild that you griefed with - and then logged on your guilded respectable avatar to farm resources to supply your unguilded griefing avatar.  Hope they keep this - bravo on this decision.

It if it weren't for the reputation system they have - by what seems to be one account per guild, I would prefer Shadowbane over GW (recognizing my limited gameplay to date).

"I think my brain just shoved its head up its own ass in retaliation.
"  HaemishM.
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8960

Reply #1 on: October 31, 2004, 10:59:30 AM

I had more fun than i normally do in SB thats for sure, but thats really an unfair comparison since you start at a reasonable level and with reasonable equipment for this test.  You are correct in that it didn't feel like a "world" to me either, but i don't see that as a plus or a con, its just a different game than SB or EQ2 or anything else.

I'm VERY impressed with the henchman AI, 9 times out of 10 the monk henchman makes a better healer than a player monk and the other guys KNOW to rez the monk henchman if everyone else is dead.  Graphics are extremely nice, but i haven't played anything since SB which looks like ass.  The one thing that bugs me is the way the characters run, since SB has motion captured character models thats one thing they usually do better than any other game (my previous game was EQ and characters moved like marionettes, motion capture 4tw from now on please).

I'll be buying it once it comes out, i won't cancel my shadowbane subscription just yet but its certainly being considered.  I'll have to check out the ToO beta some more to decide, or take a few weeks off to get a fresh look.

I am the .00000001428%
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2337

The Anne Coulter of MMO punditry

Reply #2 on: October 31, 2004, 12:05:00 PM

PVP population is controlled to prevent PvP engagements from being a one-sided rout most of the time.   One thing that I picked up from my Battletech MU* is that in any multiplayer PvP game adequette population controls are a requirement.   Shadowbane lacks this, Guild Wars does not, therefore Guild Wars wins by default.  

But really, different games entirely.   You won't be building any cities in Guild Wars.

Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42401

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring

Reply #3 on: November 01, 2004, 01:27:16 PM

In the entire time in Guild Wars this weekend, I never saw sb.exe. That's a major plus.

It is two different games, but frankly, SB is the catasser nightmare, even with the shallow level curve. I ran into the problem of never being able to be online when the battles were going on because they were all at 3 am.

With GW, there's no worries of being "zerg rushed." PVP is fun, and I found it to be fairly balanced for a beta. It felt like the kind of game I can get into, PVP when I want, build a character without massive time sinks, and then log out when I want. Just based on the two experiences I've had with it, I'm going tonight or tomorrow to get my pre-order.

Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613

Reply #4 on: November 02, 2004, 06:32:31 PM

I really want to like this game... especially since there aren't any good pvp alternatives.  I have 2 concerns.

1) Do any of you have concerns that the maturation of this game will present the concept of loot = character?  Players like phat lewtz.  Players like rare loot.  Rare loot makes for time sinks.  Rare loot also creates loot-centric games.  

2) Getting more skills with time only matters if the different skills come with utility.  What I'm getting at here is the fact that once people play this game a while they will determine which skills have the greatest bang-for-the-buck and you'll start seeing characters using identical or nearly identical skill sets unless the developers painstakingly balance skills to some set standard.  They will also have to marginally improve skills such that people will feel some benefit for their victories in combat.  If the latter is true, then again this game will be reduced to a time = power paradigm, just to a lesser extent than we are accustomed.  

Any comments from those of you with a significant time investment would be welcomed.

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8960

Reply #5 on: November 02, 2004, 08:02:24 PM

I was able to see counters to almost anything you could throw together out there, the skill system they have feels almost like Magic: the gathering in how its set up with skills complimenting and countering each other wonderfully.  I seriously doubt you will see an "standard" set of skills for any class combination.

I am the .00000001428%
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359

Reply #6 on: November 04, 2004, 12:20:17 PM

I find it hard to evaluate the PvP in the game as is.  

You ask to zone into the arena; you appear in a relatively small area with three other strangers wearing a random color.  Four strangers wearing another color try to kill you.  The PvP was so removed from any normal RPG-context that it really felt more like Quake than any RPG PvP.

I suppose it would be more convincing if I had a character for a while and joined a guild.

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
Terracotta Army
Posts: 357

Reply #7 on: November 04, 2004, 12:35:10 PM

I think it's great that they support both randomized team arena fights, and organized guild/team PvP.  If I just want to blow off steam after work, the random arena is great.  I just wish you could be guaranteed of staying on the same team with one other person.  My wife wants to team with me in the arena, but we are always assigned to different teams.  It wouldn't hurt anything, for them to allow 2-person teams to be formed in the arena waiting area.
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1296

Reply #8 on: November 04, 2004, 12:43:20 PM

Mezo, The tourney PvP where you set up your own team was a bit different.  Think of it as counterstrike, with multiple teams, with strategy before the fight in class combinations and whatever.  It is really a mix of counterstrike and RPG.  Counterstrike in the sense of what you are doing, and RPG in the character stats, skills, interaction, teamwork, etc.
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Guild Wars  |  Topic: Your reaction? Compared to Shadowbane?  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC