Can you dig it? OK, check this: some online games are free to play, but they trick you into wasting hundred of dollars buying pointless baubles that make your character look like a faerie princess or something. But some of them are actually pretty good! And some are really awful.
Here's some that I played:
Need for Speed World
It combines all the thrills of fast-paced NFS racing action with RPG grinding and F2P cash grabs. For a few bucks, your level can advance faster! Fun! But the game itself is actually pretty solid, if you're just interested in single player racing and the always-good pursuit mode. The graphics are pretty good too, almost as good as a retail title.
Definitely worth playing.
Lord of the Rings Online
Went F2P just within the past few days, so I decided to jump in and check it out. Basically, this is your go-to F2P MMO now. It's solidly built, focuses more on PvE and solo'ing, and just overall looks and feels like a real game. I haven't played as much of this as some of the others, but I've seen enough to know that this is some good stuff.
Definitely worth playing.
Dungeons & Dragons Online
This is Turbine's previous MMO before LOTRO, so you can expect a similar level of quality. It plays out in much of the same way as it successor and injects more story into the game than most other F2P games. With LOTRO F2P now, it's kind of hard to really recommend it though.
Worth playing.
Monster Forest
An anime-inspired frolic through bright colors and non-threatening situations. On the other hand, it's surprisingly fun and has a nice, detailed art style. It's also got turn-based combat, pet collecting, farming, and other little additions that manage to set it apart from the crowded pack. The real downside is that it's painfully easy, with leads to boredom after a while.
Might be worth playing.
Aika Online
A bit of a standard WoW knockoff with all your favorite fantasy tropes, but it does have nice, speedy combat and detailed characters. Story's pretty thin and it features a decent amount of grinding, but it's certainly not all bad. I've played it for a few hours and I have enjoyed it so far.
Worth playing.
Shaiya
WoW knockoff big time, might be an even worse offender in this regard than Aika Online, but that impression could come more from my disdain for the drab art style. Either way, it's a lot like Aika Online, but less fun. It's reasonably well built, but...
Might be worth playing.
Mabinogi
Another anime-inspired romp through non-threatening situations. It's a bit more deep in the skill system than Monster Forest and there's enough going on to make things interesting. But the combat is painfully slow and awkward and the dungeons are bland and lifeless.
Might be worth playing.
LaTale
A 2D side-scrolling MMO with cutesy anime visuals and lots and lots of costumes and hair to spend your hard earned American dollars on to fund Asian gold-farming sweatshops. You filthy traitor. It's kind of fun and the graphics are nice to look at, but the combat and movement feel slow and awkward, when they should be really fluid.
Might be worth playing [but you should probably just download Maple Story].
Ranking:
1. Lord of the Rings Online
2. Need for Speed World
3. Dungeons & Dragons Online
4. Aika Online
5. Monster Forest
6. Mabinogi
7. Shaiya
8. LaTale
All of these games are free to download and free to play [provided that you don't enter the game's official store].
So... the big draw of the MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME called Lord of the Rings ONLINE is it's focus on a solid single player "soloing" experience?
Quote:focuses more on PvE and solo'ing
Meaning PvP isn't a major focus.
I have no idea what your moon speak means. I know what my moon speak means. "Solo" to me means it's not "multi".
My point is that you can solo if you want to. PvE is "player versus enemy" which is the other major focus. PvP is "player versus player" which is NOT a major focus.
So you mean like many players as a team then, as in playerS vs enemy, I get ya.
Or you can play by yourself and not feel like your missing 95% of the game, which was my point.
Eh, I'll stick to Zelda, where I can play by myself without worrying about latency.
Also, without the typical MMO concept of "You fetch me 20 wolf pelts now" or "save these people, who will respawn for eternity so you never feel like you've actually DONE anything".
I guess that could be a potential worry if you're rocking a 56k line.
Free MMOs... yeah, I've downloaded a few here and there, but never stuck with them for more than a couple of levels. I always lose interest in them compared to the much better Guild Wars...
Still though, I could mention a few words on the ones I've played, though I don't know if I've played any of them enough to say much informed about them. (These are any free MMOs I've played in the past five years or so)
Anarchy Online -- I played this a little back in the mid '00s after it was made free, but it didn't seem too interesting. Not-so great graphics too.
Saga of Ryzom -- I actually played this a little in open beta, and then again when it was free. It's a pay game again now, but it was free for a while. The game has a big focus on crafting from what I remember, and somewhat interesting art design as well. It's not free anymore though.
ArchLord -- ArchLord is an alright Korean free MMO. Okay graphics, basic MMO gameplay, but the art design's decent and the game's reasonably fun for its genre, for a while at least. I particularly like the soundtrack, I still listen to it frequently (it's just MP3s or something, you can make it into a playlist). Very limited character creation options.
Dungeons & Dragons Online -- I've only played this one a very little bit, but it's quite obvious that you really need to play in groups for this one, and that's difficult to do with random people in a game designed like this... it seems okay, if you have people to play it with, though. Certainly didn't seem to be as good as GW or (though it is different, with its instanced design) WoW, though.
Sword of the New World -- Some nice graphical design and a somewhat different theme (Carribean pirate era), but it's Korean so there's sure to be lots of grinding. The little bit of it seemed alright, but I haven't played this any more than the ones above. You control three characters at once, instead of one, so it's sort of a party based game. That at least is different.
Allods Online -- WoW clone... Russian title. It's alright, but nothing amazing. Decent game. The graphics really do look a lot like WoW though. I meant to play a bit more of this, but somehow never got around to it... maybe I should.:) Good soundtrack, with some Mark Morgan songs in it.
Dungeon Runners -- Mediocre graphics. The game thinks it's funny, but the jokes are all just genre in-jokes, "laughing at the genre while being a part of it" stuff, that kind of thing, and only sort of work. You need to pay to access a lot of the more interesting stuff. The game quickly got boring and I lost interest quickly.
Probably better than all of these, but definitely not official, would be the SCHTHack server for PSOBB... Diablo 2 style though the game does delete characters if they aren't used for 3 or 6 months or so though, which is something newer games in the genre generally don't do, but PSO is still a great game...
I started playing this new Nexon online game today, Vindictus. Actually, it's in open beta right now, but they're giving out beta codes like candy so just about anyone can get in if they ask around [or ask me].
The combat is fast-paced and completely manual, no auto-combat and maybe pressing "1" and "2" from time to time as you watch your avatar carve through hordes of enemies. No, it's much more action-based and it's got little things like dodging, picking up nearby items and using them as weapons, grabbing and enemy and slapping them around, throwing a spear that you actually have to manually aim, and so on. Overall, from what I've seen of the combat, it's really refreshing and a nice change from what every other MMORPG seems to have.
The graphics are nice, with detailed character models, but it's not GREAT. It does, however, have a sense of scale and, at least early on, has some well done cutscenes that wouldn't look out of place in Dragon Age.
Well, that's my impression from 20 or so minutes. We'll see how well it holds up after a few hours.
There are only two characters so far, right? How exactly is there much character customization?
Yeah, there's just the two classes right, with a third coming soon. There's two more pictures though, so eventually there will be five in all. There's some customization that included different kinds of hair, eyebrows, expressions, bust size [haha], and basic stuff like that. It's really not very deep and a lot of players tend to look the same.
That's the biggest knock against it right now, but it seems to me that the game is more about getting together with a party of two or three other people doing PvE in instanced dungeons, rather than huge groups and PvP.
I would say that, as a solo experience, it's much better than most games of this nature.
Lacking character customization seems fairly common in Korean MMOs, for some reason... for instance, of the games I covered in my post, the two Korean ones, ArchLord and Sword of the New World, have the least character customization options.
Quote:maybe pressing "1" and "2" from time to time
In Guild Wars you have to press 1 though 8 a whole lot more often than that...
Been playing an Asian MMO called Jade Dynasty today. Much like the name suggest, it has an Asian-themed look and backstory. I've played for maybe two or three hours today and have already gotten to level 22. Some places of the game feel a bit empty though and too spread out, but it has an path finding system that will automatically send your character wherever they need to go for a quest, so you can set it and go do something else for a bit. Overall, it's fairly fun to play, nothing truly amazing here, but it does look good and move at a very brisk pace. Not the best, but worthwhile.
More Vindicuts talk: This game is just so much fun. The combat is really rewarding and deep, it's so much more than just massing the number keys until you win. Fighting bosses is really great too, especially with three other people [four is the max for the instanced dungeons]. Also, doing various things in the game, some optional and some not, get you titles that you can wear above your name, they also give you all kinds of stat bonuses just for obtaining them. The instanced dungeons seem a bit simple at first, but as you get farther into the game it becomes clear that they're actually deceptively simple. You see, to fully "complete" an instanced dungeon, you have to fulfill various criteria, which can include dealing a death-blow kick to a boss or collecting certain items. Some quests require you to get a certain score on a dungeon before progressing. This is a really great game and, since it's free, there's absolutely no reason not to try it out.
Updated ranking:
1. Vindictus
2. Lord of the Rings Online
3. Need for Speed World
4. Dungeons & Dragons Online
5. Aika Online
6. Jade Dynasty
7. Monster Forest
8. Mabinogi
9. Shaiya
10. LaTale
Okay you've got my attention. I'll have to give that one a try.
It's also really easy to get a party ready for an instanced battle in Vindictus. You go out to the port and find the dock for the area you want and it shows you a list of all the different parties [shown according to which instanced battle they're going to] that are preparing to leave. You just choose the one you want and it warps you to the pre-battle boat with the other players, where you can chat or buy supplies. When the battle's over, you just disband and go your seperate ways.
There's no asking around to see who wants to go fight with you or trying to find your buddies online to get them to go with you or trying to figure out who's done what quests. You just pick a party and go.
A few more to add to the pile:
Alliance of Valiant Arms
It's basically Counter-Strike the RPG. You pick one side or the other and try to accomplish goals while the other team tries to stop you and there's lots of shooting and blowing up. There's also a ton of things to unlock or purchase with actual money. It's fun, but feels a bit stiff on the control side.
Atlantica Online
Yet another MMO, but this time with turn-based combat! Too bad the combat is boring as heck and totally shallow. Apparently this one is supposed to be really good, but I just don't see it. Maybe I need to play a little bit more, but I haven't seen anything in the first hour or so that's going to draw me back for more.
ACE Online
Flight simulator MMO, now there's a new one. It's still got all the typical grinding and monster chasing, but now with you flying a ship and fighting enemies in realtime with lasers, machine guns, and rockets. The graphics aren't particularly great, but it does manage to be a pretty fun game.
Updating ranking:
1. Vindictus
2. Lord of the Rings Online
3. Need for Speed World
4. Dungeons & Dragons Online
5. Aika Online
6. ACE Online
7. Alliance of Valiant Hearts
8. Jade Dynasty
9. Atlantica Online
10. Monster Forest
11. Mabinogi
12. Shaiya
13. LaTale
League of Legends
A FREE RTS ONLINE GAME [AND DEFINITELY AN MMO] without all the hassles of base-building and resource management. You start out with all the buildings in place and it's up to your and the other hero units to take over the other base, with the help of your regularly-spawning minions, who act as damage sponges. Winning matches gives you experience for leveling up your character and putting points into various things, but also your in-match avatar [which you select before each match] levels up in each game, allowing you to further bolster your hero with upgraded spells and whatnot. You also gain gold in each match which you can use to purchase items and equipment. Basically, it's really good.
League of Legends isn't an MMO... it's essentially standalone DOTA, not an MMO.
Huh? What's next, PSO and Diablo 2 are going to be called "MMOs"? Warcraft III's an MMO, it has online play!
No, of course not. Different genres are different.
I played some more LoL today and it's pretty great, one of more fun of the free MMOs that I've played. Did I mention that it's free? Yeah, it is! Download for free play for free, the only thing you have to buy is optional stuff that you don't actually need in order to have fun with it.
The match I just got out of was really intense. We did good early on, but the other team had this guy that was just everywhere at once and almost impossible to kill. He kept us at bay more than once. But we just kept pushing and pushing, eventually broke through into their base and knocked out there inhibitors [allowing us to spawn super minions]. That really made the difference and we managed to finally take down their base.
Good stuff, you guys should be playing it. Great RTS MMO, in my opinion.
You're just doing that to annoy me... well, it works. :(
You made your point and I even conceded that you'd made your point, then you beat it into the ground anyway.
So, from now on, LoL is an RTS MMO.
Except it most definitely isn't.
Nope, it definitely is. I've played it today and I can say, without a doubt, that is, in fact, an RTS MMO.
Anyway, I haven't played LoL, but I did play some DoTA here and there. I was never a big fan of DoTA though, it was alright for a while, but I never really got into it or got any good, and I haven't played it in years now I think, really. I much prefer other WCII game types like the actual game (multiplayer matchmaking), or my favorite type of Custom map, tower defense... in SC I also liked the beacon-based strategy games like World War II, Axis & Allies, Risk, etc (where you built bases and stuff, but got resources by holding control points, not from mines; there was a timer for each turn, and whoever held the point at the end of the turn got the money), but somehow those didn't make much of a transition to WC3, unfortunately.
And then I played Guild Wars, and had even less interest in DoTA than before.
LoL is great because of how it focuses on automating the little things and letting you take command on the front lines with your super-powered hero. No resource management, no constantly jumping back to the base to get some important building built or to get more units being created, it's just your character out at the front ripping through minions and going head-to-head with other heroes. It get really intense at times.
Great Rumbler Wrote:LoL is great because of how it focuses on automating the little things and letting you take command on the front lines with your super-powered hero. No resource management, no constantly jumping back to the base to get some important building built or to get more units being created, it's just your character out at the front ripping through minions and going head-to-head with other heroes. It get really intense at times.
... Did you not play DotA or something? Because describing LoL without talking about DotA is fairly odd... it all started with Aeon of Strife, though. And I didn't like that map any more than DotA, those "you just have one hero" WCIII maps weren't exactly my favorites.
Nope, I have never played it before and only heard about it recently.
And my problem with Guild Wars is that it's mainly a party-based games, but it doesn't really make it easy to create a party. That's something that Vindictus does really well, getting a party set up and joining a party is really easy and simple. More MMOs should do that, although Vindictus' nature does allow it to streamline things a bit more than some.
Quote:Nope, I have never played it before and only heard about it recently.
And you're the one with the "common knowledge" thread? Pretty ironic there...
What are you going to say next, that you haven't heard the song or something?
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0OzWIFX8M-Y?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0OzWIFX8M-Y?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Or that you think the Tower Defense genre comes from anywhere other than the Starcraft fan community? Even Wikipedia somehow gets that one completely wrong...
Quote:Tower Defense games began in 1990 when Atari Games released Rampart.[6] Early tower defense games later began to appear post-1997 in minigames for other platforms, such as Final Fantasy VII. By 2000, maps for StarCraft, Age of Empires II, and WarCraft III were following suit.[7] The first standalone tower defense game for PC was "Master of Defense", released on November 7th of 2005.
Um, no, it started with Starcraft maps, and then spread to Warcraft III later on.
As for FFVII... what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96_FV60pARE That is not tower defense, your units can move! That's a "units only" RTS, like Myth, Ground Control, etc, except much simpler.
The Rampart comparison is an interesting one, though. TD is definitely very different from Rampart, but perhaps they were inspired by that, a little, I'm not sure... it does have enemy units attacking you and static defenses. Obviously though, the details are quite different. On that note, that made me think of NetStorm... I don't know if I'd ever thought of that, but there are some slight similarities there too, how many RTSes have no moving attack units, only towers? NetStorm is the only one I know of. And NetStorm has bridges you build in the sky with Tetris-like pieces, a little like the walls of Rampart... wow, I wonder if that was an influence, seems quite possible.
Anyway, I don't know where TD came from, other than that it started in Starcraft. Could be any of these, could be none. I don't know what the first TD map was, but I'd be interested to know... the oldest TD maps I have on my hard drive are from October '01, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't go back before that for sure.
Anyway, to my actual point, as I said in that thread -- people can't be expected to know all things, acting like people are stupid just because they don't play the same kinds of games or watch the same kinds of things as you do is silly. They're just uninformed about your interests, like you obviously are about Blizzard RTSes.
Quote:And my problem with Guild Wars is that it's mainly a party-based games, but it doesn't really make it easy to create a party. That's something that Vindictus does really well, getting a party set up and joining a party is really easy and simple. More MMOs should do that, although Vindictus' nature does allow it to streamline things a bit more than some.
It used to be easier to do that in GW than it is now. I do think that I liked Guild Wars the best when there was only one campaign. One effect of adding the three additional campaigns (Factions, Nightfall, Eye of the North) is that the userbase fragmented, so that fewer people were in each area. I didn't have to sit around for long periods of time back then, waiting for a group, like I would now... there were always plenty of people around in mission zones wanting to play. One thing that changed was the added campaigns.
(On that note, the first campaign, Prophecies, is my favorite one. Second would probably be Factions, third EotN, and last Nightfall. I know Factions was probably the least popular one, but I liked it.)
The other thing that changed was, with Nightfall (the second addon), the Hero system. GW had always had Henchmen, AI allies who follow you around and fill your party if you don't have other humans to play with or want to play alone, but Heroes were a whole new level, you have much greater control over them -- you can assign their skillbars from your account's unlocked skillset, give each of them specific move orders, and more. Some basic movement controls for Henchmen were added at the same time, too, to make using them easier as well.
The end result was that suddenly, it became much more possible to solo a LOT more of the game. Groups are still best (or nearly required) for the harder parts, but huge amounts of the game can be soloed by anyone with Heroes and Henchmen. And that's why overall, I think that adding them was sort of a mistake... I always liked exploring exploration zones on my own, with just henchmen, but always did missions with other people. After Nightfall was released, that often became impossible simply because of how many fewer people were still looking for groups.
And it's kind of annoying, because the game really is more fun with player groups, particularly for story missions... exploration is more fun solo (or with someone you know) because you don't really have a goal, but in the story missions, it's more fun with other people. Partially losing that hurt the game, particularly for someone like me who has never played the PvP side of the game that much; apart from occasional plays in the Random Arenas, I've barely touched the rest of the PvP side since launch. In beta I did play the Hall of Heroes sometimes, but after launch that gradually became the domain of strong guilds only, and I was never even remotely in one of those, or interested in joining.
Even so though, it's still easily the second best PC game of the last decade, after only Warcraft III.
I never played Warcraft 3 that much, it just didn't click with me. Same for Guild Wars.
Well then, we know one way you're wrong. :)
Really though, MMOs like the ones you're listing here are so boring compared to Guild Wars...
Guild Wars is a lot more polished, but, no, they're all pretty much the same. Do quests, kill monsters, get loot.
Except I like Vindictus more than Guild Wars.
No, in Guild Wars you never get a quest saying "kill 10 Xes and return with their pelts before you continue". There are collectors which will give you items for monster drop objects (their pelt, hair, fur, teeth, whatever it is), but you also could just sell the stuff, or turn it into crafting materials; quests do not require you to do stupid things like that. You also never have to deal with other people killing the monster you need first and waiting for it to respawn. You do have actual story missions which tell actual stories in a fine fashion. You have strong, balanced multiplayer, both co-op and competitive. You have plenty of strategy in customizing your skillset; you can only take eight skills with you, so deciding which are best is a big challenge. You have no required grind, and levelling is minimized, and in everything but the first campaign you're max level by the time you're done with the starter area. You also have some of the best art design in the industry, and very good music as well. World of Warcraft, for instance, looks awful visually compared to Guild Wars...
No, Guild Wars is not just like standard MMOs. It is quite different.
Vindictus sounds different too (in a different way, not sure if I'd like it or not), but I was talking about the rest of them, the generic MMOs like most of the ones on your, or my, lists...
I've played all these games AND Guild Wars, it's not like I'm talking from some position of ignorance or anything here. Guild Wars has more polish and does some things to make it interesting, but ultimately it plays similarly to many of the others I've played. And all those things you listed in Guild Wars favor are more or less in play with other MMOs like Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons & Dragons Online, and Vindictus. And other, lesser MMOs like Jade Dynasty and Aika Online aren't too far behind.
I wouldn't put it at the bottom, no, but I also don't consider it some extraordinary achievement in the genre which no other game has ever surpassed.
I've tried D&D Online, GW crushes it in gameplay, graphics, art, and game design. Pretty much better in every way, and it's really not close.
Sorry, but I don't agree with that.
You can agree that GW has better art at least, yes? I mean, because GW has unbelievable art direction and artwork...
I remember being intrested in D&D Online when it was announced, but wasn't going to pay a monthly fee for an MMO, so I didn't play it then. I finally tried it when it went free... and it was pretty disappointing. There's absolutely nothing in the game to make me even want to touch it in comparison to GW. The solo play side is TERRIBLE compared to Guild Wars, the art is mediocre at best, the gameplay... bland. Maybe with a regular group it's better, but as a solo game it's a laughable joke in comparison to GW.
I know I was complaining about how GW has sort of made the solo side too good, in Nightfall, but even without that it was still great -- and that matters to me, because I very rarely do anything else other than solo play or random groups for a mission or something.
On that note, having specific areas (lobbies essentially) where people group to do missions was a fantastic idea. It's really too bad that EotN and Guild Wars 2 go so far away from that, but in Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall (and partially EotN), that really helps it make it easier to find people for a mission. Yes, there's also party search, but having a clear "people in this area are doing the mission or exploration or something" breakdown is fantastic. From what I've seen D&DO doesn't have that, it's just "good luck finding someone else in town to do the mission with"...
Quote:Guild Wars has more polish and does some things to make it interesting, but ultimately it plays similarly to many of the others I've played.
More like the other way around, considering that GW was publicly playable from mid 2004 on...
Guild Wars has some nice art, but a lot of the cities feel really big and really empty. The graphics are also starting to show their age as well, the art does what it can to keep it looking good [and succeeds to some extent], but it's not the only MMO I've played in the past few weeks that looked good. Jade Dynasty looks really nice, I'd probably put it over GW in that regard, although Jade Dynasty is pretty much the definition of grinding through killing hoards of monsters, so that kind of dampens things a bit. Vindictus looks really great too and it's got some gorgeous physics and destruction, which gives the overall graphics package a nice boost.
Dungeons & Dragons is kind of standard fantasy stuff, not really anything great but it does its job well enough. So, in that respect, you're right about Guild Wars.
Quote:More like the other way around, considering that GW was publicly playable from mid 2004 on...
Which one came first isn't an issue for me. I'm playing them right now and a lot of them play very similarly.
Quote:Yes, there's also party search, but having a clear "people in this area are doing the mission or exploration or something" breakdown is fantastic. From what I've seen D&DO doesn't have that, it's just "good luck finding someone else in town to do the mission with"...
Isn't what your talking about with Guild Wars almost exactly what D&DO does? It's got the town where everyone is and the combat zone where only you and your party is. Anyone town is getting ready to head out to one of the zones. I don't know if it has the party search, but it's not a wide-open MMO like World of Warcraft.
Quote:Isn't what your talking about with Guild Wars almost exactly what D&DO does? It's got the town where everyone is and the combat zone where only you and your party is. Anyone town is getting ready to head out to one of the zones. I don't know if it has the party search, but it's not a wide-open MMO like World of Warcraft.
You really didn't play Guild Wars much at all, did you?
No. In Guild Wars, Missions have their own lobbies, or "towns" if you will. You do not have to gather a group for a mission from a city or outpost. You go to that mission's specific lobby area, and either ask for other people to join you or use Party Search to find a party. Party Search is accessible from the menu (or of course you can drag the icons onto the screen whereever you want), and it's something they added at some point to try to make finding groups easier. You can set it for the mission, if you're in a mission lobby area, or for questing, or just for exploration/hunting, and choose normal or hard mode (you have to beat a campaign to unlock hard in that campaign), and can fill in a little box for a short text description, ad, whatever. It somewhat automates the process of having to advertise for a group, and makes it a little easier.
Who'd need a universal party search thing, or whatever? Guild Wars has lobbies, you go to the area you want to do something in and use that as the hub.
In DDO, in comparison, you have to just find people in town. Most of the people there aren't there to do your mission. It's much less focused and is definitely a worse design.
Eye of the North, as I said, gets away from this and has a bunch of special dungeons that you'll need to gather groups for in outposts, and GW2 seems to go even farther with this, but the first three campaigns are very good at separating missions out, with their own lobbies.
Oh yeah, and despite the fact that it has zero required grind, GW is a huge game, with four separate areas (Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, Eye of the North (which expands the Prophecies map)). There's a lot of stuff to do. I love just wandering around, exploring, and mapping out and clearing areas (because remember, until you go through a portal to another zone, enemies you kill in the area you'e in stay dead)... you can't do that in an MMO, the monsters respawn and there are other people wandering around fighting them too, and maybe trying to do a quest or something (quests are the ones in your questlog you do in overworld zones, apart from the missions, which of course are in their own areas and follow each campaign's story). One more reason I dislike the direction GW2 is taking, I like that GW can be played as a single player game if you want, outside of the cities/outposts (cities are the gold ringed ones, visible from the zoomed-out map; outposts are other towns that aren't missions or cities), and it's really good at it. From what I saw D&DO is different in that respect, it seemed to mostly just be cities and quests, not cities, missions, and free exploration zones with quests in them. Not as good.
Quote:Which one came first isn't an issue for me. I'm playing them right now and a lot of them play very similarly.
Yeah, I know, that Super Mario Bros. game has so few features compared to modern platformers, who cares that it came first, pretty much?
No, of course when something came out matters. GW is a World of Warcraft contemporary -- went into public beta before WoW, was released after it. And yet it has much better graphics, and better art design too. Of course its graphics aren't as good technically as new games, years have passed. For its time though it looks very good, and runs on a pretty moderate system too -- it ran fine on my old WinME machine, and I can't say that about many PC games released in 2005. By then most either required XP or a GeForce 3 or better. And it still looks pretty good, it's aged fairly well. Of course it's not as amazing looking as it was when I first played it in May 2004, but it definitely still looks good.
Oh yeah, and I should mention the camera. I love Guild Wars' camera, you have real, free control over it -- you have much better camera control than games like WoW. Hold down the right mouse button and you can move the camera all over, or use the scrollwheel to zoom. It's very well designed, and works great. I haven't seen many other MMOs with camera controls anywhere near as good. I mean, how many MMOs have cameras that let you clip through things, and look at the insides of polygon models and stuff? :)
I'm playing all these games right now, I'm not going to swoon over Guild Wars for getting their first if both it and another game do exactly the same thing.
Quote:Oh yeah, and I should mention the camera. I love Guild Wars' camera, you have real, free control over it -- you have much better camera control than games like WoW. Hold down the right mouse button and you can move the camera all over, or use the scrollwheel to zoom. It's very well designed, and works great. I haven't seen many other MMOs with camera controls anywhere near as good. I mean, how many MMOs have cameras that let you clip through things, and look at the insides of polygon models and stuff?
...
Quote:I love just wandering around, exploring, and mapping out and clearing areas
My problem with Guild Wars is that the explorable areas are absolutely massive and rarely have anything in them other than monsters. They feel massive and empty, and lack the sorts of things that I liked about exploring in most RPGs [NPCs to talk to, quests to find, dungeons to fight through, and good loot to pick up]. Guild Wars just doesn't have that.
Of course, most MMOs don't. But Jade Dynasty has a feature that allows you to automatically travel directly to the point you need to be for a quest and Aika Online has a more compact world with relevant points closer together.
Vindictus sidesteps that by having instanced dungeons with you and your party and all the other people present in town and at the docks. Much smaller world, everything is very compact and to the point. Avoids the massive, but empty world syndrome.
My biggest gripe about Guild Wars is the exactly that: wide open but empty. You can wander through some massive zone for a dozen hours and find nothing but monsters to battle for simple loot and minimal experience. I simply don't care for that at all. Other MMOs at least have other people wandering around to give the semblance of life to the world.
But I understand that that sort of thing doesn't bother you. We've had this difference of opinion before with regards to the Elder Scrolls series [massive, repetitive world versus smaller, more detailed world], so there's no need to hash this out further.
Drift City
Anime-theme racing MMO from Korea. It's got stats, loot, and missions, just like a regular MMO! It's kind a neat idea and it does actually work for the most part, the biggest problems is that there just aren't that many people playing it some getting to the some of the features can be difficult. It is fun though, and that's what counts. If only Need for Speed World could have this kind of depth...
Quote:I'm playing all these games right now, I'm not going to swoon over Guild Wars for getting their first if both it and another game do exactly the same thing.
... How does this matter? I mean, honestly, you're actually saying that all games should be held to the same standards, no matter when they came out? That's patently ridiculous. When a game came out matters. Being the first game to do something matters. It doesn't matter if I haven't played the game before, if I know it's doing something no game had done before, it's potentially impressive for that.
Considering how much I've gotten into classic games over the last five years or so, there are many examples of that I could give...
Quote:My problem with Guild Wars is that the explorable areas are absolutely massive and rarely have anything in them other than monsters. They feel massive and empty, and lack the sorts of things that I liked about exploring in most RPGs [NPCs to talk to, quests to find, dungeons to fight through, and good loot to pick up]. Guild Wars just doesn't have that.
As you say, that isn't a problem with Guild Wars. That's a problem with the entire genre, and no other MMO I know of does things any differently from GW -- get quests in a town area, then go out and do them. That's how GW works, with modifications (the story-based missions, for example, aren't like anything in most MMOs, but they're one of the things I like best about GW), and it's how everything in the genre works.
I should say, though (because it's one of the many things I am very worried about, conceptually), the upcoming Guild Wars 2 tries to change that. See this:
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/dynamic-events/
We'll see how it works, but they're definitely trying something new again. Guild Wars 2 really is a new game, and not a sequel to Guild Wars in many basic ways. Bad for big GW fans like me, good for ... um, their potential WoW/other MMO playing prospective audience I guess? Yeah, I don't quite get it, but it's what they're doing.
Anyway, I agree -- one of the biggest problems with the MMO/online RPG genre as a whole is the lack of gameplay variety. All you do in MMOs is kill things, and yes, it definitely gets old after a while. Even in GW, I definitely get bored sometimes, and that is why I've played it off and on for years now -- like all online RPGs it has little variety.
I do wish that there was a way for online RPGs to have the kinds of puzzles and conversations of a single player RPG, but sadly it seems impossible. GW2 for instance is trying to make quest-getting and the world more dynamic, but I don't see any sign of puzzles or dialog trees... somehow they just don't happen in MMOs, just go back and kill more stuff. I can understand this to a degree -- writing a good story that would branch enough to keep MMO players occupied would be borderline impossible -- but still, why not have an online RPG with puzzles and stuff in the dungeons, beyond the extremely basic stuff you see in these games...
Some of the GW EotN special dungeons try to mix things up more, and implement some basic puzzles. They do somewhat succeed, and those are some of the most interesting areas in the game, but they really do require other humans (the EotN dungeons are hard!), so it can definitely take a while to find a good group, and you still mostly do just kill stuff. Still, for an online RPG, they definitely tried there, and it's a good start at least...
But yes, until the genre can come up with ways to have more of the gameplay variety single player D&D-style RPGs have, online RPGs will not be the conceptual equal of games like Torment, BGII, etc.
Quote:My biggest gripe about Guild Wars is the exactly that: wide open but empty. You can wander through some massive zone for a dozen hours and find nothing but monsters to battle for simple loot and minimal experience. I simply don't care for that at all. Other MMOs at least have other people wandering around to give the semblance of life to the world.
"Empty" is one of the last possible words I could ever use to describe Guild Wars. It's so ridiculously far off base that I can't think of any way to justify it apart from if you don't like fighting monsters, but you play MMOs so it can't be that.
I mean, the zones are huge, but varied. There are things in every zone you won't see anywhere else, the art design (as I've said) is amazing and always helps keep me interested, the basic gameplay is brilliant, there is a lot of variety of enemies, encounters, and areas to explore... I have no idea what you want. I mean, there is a world map. You can warp straight to any city, outpost, or mission within your current campaign, or go to another campaign (Prophecies/EotN, Factions, Nightfall) or to the Battle Isles multiplayer area with ease.
OHJ yeah, and of course you can't wander a zone for "a dozen hours", the zones aren't anywhere near that large.
Also, if you want to play with other people, try to find a group to play in... it can be annoying sometimes, waiting, but if you have some quest, mission, etc. you want to do with others, with patience it's usually possible to find others to do it with. This is particularly true for missions.
Also, of course, GW has a much stronger narrative and story than most any MMO, thanks to the missions which tell a continuing story. This is a good thing. As I've said I've always liked doing missions best with other people, thanks to the lobby areas it's not very hard to find others wanting to do the mission, and it's more fun to play in groups than just with heroes and henchmen. It is harder to have player groups for overworld exploration, aside from ones for specific quests or (in EotN) dungeons, but that makes sense because the overworld is large and expansive, and player groups would have to have a specific goal while most people just want to wander around in the overworld and do their own thing, I think.
Also, of course, as I've said, the vast, vast majority of overworld exploration is far from required. I love doing it anyway to see all the different areas and environments the designers have created, there's just so much awesome stuff to see and so much to explore, but people don't have to do that.
But anyway, GW is designed to be both a single and a multiplayer experience, and isn't an MMO. It should be compred as much to something like Diablo as to World of Warcraft. Did you dislike Diablo II's multiplayer mode because it wasn't massive, but instead you had to do everything in groups? Or Phantasy Star Online, another likely inspiration? From your description there, I would think you would...
I personally didn't find Diablo II's multiplayer very interesting at all, but I did like it single player. PSO though is a pretty good game, though like Diablo I had the most fun just playing it through once -- neither game interested me enough to make me want to play the same levels over and over and over to the point you'd have to to level up in those games. I don't care enough about collecting loot for that to interest me for that long. Both games were pretty fun the first time through, and to occasionally go back and play, but not to play for hundreds of hours. Guild Wars, however, has so much content that this isn't an issue...)
Quote:Of course, most MMOs don't. But Jade Dynasty has a feature that allows you to automatically travel directly to the point you need to be for a quest and Aika Online has a more compact world with relevant points closer together.
Um, only quests require you to travel very far to get to them, missions of course have quick-travel points on the map... only the quests, which you get in towns and do in the overworld, are different. And for those the whole point usually is to get to that point and then back, or somewhere else, so some kind of instant warp to that point would completely defeat the entire purpose of the quest.
Quote:Vindictus sidesteps that by having instanced dungeons with you and your party and all the other people present in town and at the docks. Much smaller world, everything is very compact and to the point. Avoids the massive, but empty world syndrome.
That sounds like D&D Online's system. I definitely found it (in D&DO) boring compared to GW.
Quote:... How does this matter? I mean, honestly, you're actually saying that all games should be held to the same standards, no matter when they came out? That's patently ridiculous. When a game came out matters. Being the first game to do something matters. It doesn't matter if I haven't played the game before, if I know it's doing something no game had done before, it's potentially impressive for that.
And now that impressive feat that it got to first doesn't matter, because EVERYTHING does it now and it's not new anymore. I'll lay it out like this: I don't care which got to the formula first. All I care about is which one is more fun. Guild Wars is NOT the most fun. That's all there is to it.
Quote:OHJ yeah, and of course you can't wander a zone for "a dozen hours", the zones aren't anywhere near that large.
And you've missed my point. You can wander a zone for however many hours you want to and it will NEVER CHANGE. You'll never come across another player or see some new event. It's just you, whoever is in your party, and monsters to fight.
Quote:That sounds like D&D Online's system. I definitely found it (in D&DO) boring compared to GW.
And I found GW boring compared to Vindictus. So there you go.
Quote:Did you dislike Diablo II's multiplayer mode because it wasn't massive, but instead you had to do everything in groups?
Never played Diablo II multiplayer. And, before you comment, Diablo II has tons of loot to find, which I like, GW largely does not.
Quote:And for those the whole point usually is to get to that point and then back, or somewhere else, so some kind of instant warp to that point would completely defeat the entire purpose of the quest.
It's not a instant warp, it's an auto-walk. You click the highlighted location on the quest display and your character automatically walks to the destination.
But, really, all this back and forth is irrelevant. You love Guild Wars and everything about it, while I find it largely empty and only somewhat fun. No matter how many points you bring up, I'm still going to see Guild Wars as that and nothing else.
Great Rumbler Wrote:It's not a instant warp, it's an auto-walk. You click the highlighted location on the quest display and your character automatically walks to the destination.
So there are no monsters in the overworld or something? I mean, GW has autorun, just press R and your character runs forward. You'll have to turn, but lining up with a quest marker isn't hard. The monsters along the way will be the main delay. :)
I use R a lot, it'd be pretty tedious if you had to hold W or up the whole time, and click-to-move is no fun.
Also, this was the part of that post that was the most important, and you don't even have a word to say about it? Really?
A Black Falcon Wrote:As you say, that isn't a problem with Guild Wars. That's a problem with the entire genre, and no other MMO I know of does things any differently from GW -- get quests in a town area, then go out and do them. That's how GW works, with modifications (the story-based missions, for example, aren't like anything in most MMOs, but they're one of the things I like best about GW), and it's how everything in the genre works.
I should say, though (because it's one of the many things I am very worried about, conceptually), the upcoming Guild Wars 2 tries to change that. See this: http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/dynamic-events/
We'll see how it works, but they're definitely trying something new again. Guild Wars 2 really is a new game, and not a sequel to Guild Wars in many basic ways. Bad for big GW fans like me, good for ... um, their potential WoW/other MMO playing prospective audience I guess? Yeah, I don't quite get it, but it's what they're doing.
Anyway, I agree -- one of the biggest problems with the MMO/online RPG genre as a whole is the lack of gameplay variety. All you do in MMOs is kill things, and yes, it definitely gets old after a while. Even in GW, I definitely get bored sometimes, and that is why I've played it off and on for years now -- like all online RPGs it has little variety.
I do wish that there was a way for online RPGs to have the kinds of puzzles and conversations of a single player RPG, but sadly it seems impossible. GW2 for instance is trying to make quest-getting and the world more dynamic, but I don't see any sign of puzzles or dialog trees... somehow they just don't happen in MMOs, just go back and kill more stuff. I can understand this to a degree -- writing a good story that would branch enough to keep MMO players occupied would be borderline impossible -- but still, why not have an online RPG with puzzles and stuff in the dungeons, beyond the extremely basic stuff you see in these games...
Some of the GW EotN special dungeons try to mix things up more, and implement some basic puzzles. They do somewhat succeed, and those are some of the most interesting areas in the game, but they really do require other humans (the EotN dungeons are hard!), so it can definitely take a while to find a good group, and you still mostly do just kill stuff. Still, for an online RPG, they definitely tried there, and it's a good start at least...
But yes, until the genre can come up with ways to have more of the gameplay variety single player D&D-style RPGs have, online RPGs will not be the conceptual equal of games like Torment, BGII, etc.
That was the part that I most agreed with you about. I had nothing to add or argue with.
Most MMOs aren't really that great from a gameplay perspective, not compared to standard RPGs [some may disagree with me in that regard, but that's my opinion on the matter]. That's part of the reason I don't play them. But there's a lot out there for free, so I figured I'd give them a go and see what the fuss is about. Overall, some are fun, some aren't, but I'd rather be playing Mass Effect 3.
Quote:So there are no monsters in the overworld or something?
No, there are monsters.