All Posts by Aethios

---

Originally posted by afoaa
Well if its a true sandbox game then the quality should depend on the quality of the players involved shouldnt it?

---

In theory that's how it works, but in reality it depends a lot on the mechanics. Players are only capable of doing what the game will let them do. Based on what we've been told, Darkfall will be everything we've always wanted and more, but talk is cheap and, as you can see above, things almost always look better on paper than they do in reality.

The moral of the story today is that numerical ratings are subjective, and different sites rate games based on different criteria. I would give WAR a 9 for pure fun factor, but it's lacking in almost every other category.

---

Originally posted by Thearix81
1) When I read posts I expect them to be somewhat mature and constructive.

---

Pot, meet Kettle.

---

Originally posted by aurick
Three choices for 1-5 times three for levels 5-10.  That makes nine possible paths from levels 1-10.  Now three more choices for levels 10-15.  That brings you up to 18 possible paths from 1-15 and 27 paths from 1-20.  Work it out on paper if you don't believe me.  It's pretty staggering, and very non-linear when viewed as a whole. 

---

For WoW, use 4 instead of 3. WoW has more starting areas than WAR, and more individual leveling zones as you level up.

In fact, I was just called a troll a page or two ago for trying to point out this very thing. That's why this thread is so comical. There's 3 or 4 different kind of trolls, and each one has his own argument as to why WAR is better than WoW, and some of them even directly contradict each other. So which is it, is WAR more linear than WoW, or less?

---

Originally posted by WSIMike
Of course, thinking about it, there are also the people out there who will play a certain way, assume it is the only way to play, shun any other alternatives, and then blame the company for making it "too linear". Not that you or anyone else here is doing that, but I see it alot. Players blaming the developers for their own self-imposed limited playstyle.

---

That's exactly what's happening here. The OP is trying to say WAR has more PvE content than WoW, and when we point out that it doesn't, the trolls come in and say "well nobody uses that content" and then try to pretend it doesn't exist. Then later they turn it around and try to act like WAR is actually MORE linear than WoW (which it is, but contradicts their earlier argument) and that ALSO somehow makes it better.

When does the double-talk and backtracking stop and when will the trolls finally get what's coming to them? I'm tired of arguing with people who obviously have an agenda, and have no interest in facts or even opinions (other than their own).

---

Originally posted by banthis
The issue here is that while those zones exist and quests exists to take you there...People DON"T go there..they go to the same places as always with every toon.  Every toon follows the same path and yes i know after a while people's alts in WAR will do the same but for now we can jump all over the place do PVE or PVP to level or both and its all satisfactory, there's rarely a lack of playesr to group with unlike WoW where trying to create a low level char and follow a different path means your playing World of SoloCraft.
 
You may find the debate pointless but its only because you don't want to look at the depth of what people are saying and simply go 'well those zones are there' who cares...if they are there..No one hardly uses them. 
WAR Keeps people together...and tahts a good thing because of the core design of the game relies on people being together.  WoW is entirely different which is why I hated the game.  It was TOO solo based a bit more need for community outside of guilds would of probably made me happy..hell even EQ1 did that better than WoW.

---

WoW is not any more "solo based" than WAR. I don't know how you can even write that and keep a straight face. WoW emphasizes PvE grouping, and WAR emphasizes PvP grouping. Grouping for quests isn't even up for debate, since neither game made ANY effort to enforce grouping while leveling (and for good reason).

As for the "zones are there but nobody uses them" argument, well, that's also a moot point. People who level following the same linear path when there are other options have no room to complain about the game being linear and not having options, especially when that argument is being used to show how much "better" WAR is than WoW. You just made my point for me.

Why is this thread not locked yet? The moderators must be sleeping. Obvious troll is obvious, and needs to be banned.

---

Originally posted by DarkPony
Read better next time. He's talking about zones PAST the starting areas.

---

The discussion is about leveling paths, which includes the starting areas. Starting areas were mentioned, perhaps more than once, in his analysis of WAR vs WoW. Don't go around saying stupid crap like "read better next time" unless you know what the discussion is about.

---

Originally posted by DarkPony
In WOW every player ends up questing in STV from his 30's, on to Tanaris, WPL, etc, etc. I'm not even talking about Outlands which is also pretty much linairy quest progress.

---

Wrong again. There's any number of different zones you can go to at various levels and quest, and there are "lead" quests that take you to these zones should you decide to quest there. In fact, having leveled multiple 70s, I can say without doubt that I have skipped many zones entirely and still leveled to cap without grinding.

This whole debate is pointless though, since WAR isn't actually designed to have multiple zones to level through PvE. You're not really intended to level through PvE at all. I'm rather surprised you guys are so busy painting WoW with whatever lies you can come up with that you missed this single, obvious truth. WAR isn't supposed to have more PvE content, and it doesn't.

---

Originally posted by DeadlyByDez
Not being an Ass here but genuinely trying to help here. A lot of people are saying that they there is no general chat. I was talking in it last night, just a matter of hitting /1

---

It's there, but there's a separate chat for each zone, sometimes even separate chats for each area within a zone. Nobody ever uses it because they don't know exactly how far out the chat reaches and you may end up looking for a group for something that's not even in your current chat zone.

I'm sure it will work itself out as people learn where the zone lines are and where the "good" content is, but the point is still that the system is (initially) very confusing and counter-intuitive.

---

Originally posted by banthis
Yes lets compare a game thats had an expansion to a game thats brand new.

---

Yes, let's. Part of the problem with the WAR fanbois is that they insist on comparing WAR to WoW as it was 4 years ago. I'm not playing WoW 4 years ago, I'm playing it now.

Regardless, WoW then was better than WAR is now, so it's a moot argument.

---

Originally posted by aurick
What that means is that there are dozens -- if not hundreds -- of paths that you could take to reach level 40, doing nothing but PvE. In other words, it's far less linear than WoW when you actually play it.

---

What? You can't seriously expect us to believe that. The zones are so linear, you don't have much of a choice but to continue questing in a straight line.

"Well you can just go to a different pairing."

You could say the same for WoW. There's 4 different starting areas for each faction. Wait, that's 2 more than WAR! *gasp*

"Well, at least I don't have to backtrack."

Backtracking is realistic. When you go to an area for a quest, and all that's there is a few trees and a dozen spawns of the mob you've been sent to kill, you can't tell me that's not boring. WoW may reuse the same area, but at least you sort of get the feeling that it's a living, breathing zone and not just a container for XP waiting to be harvested.

I know WoW is not the perfect example of an MMO, but saying WAR has more PvE (or even just more interesting PvE) is just plain wrong.

---

Originally posted by dandy230
This is like a textbook definition of irony. Just saying.

---

No kidding. I can't help but feel a little confused. Is the OP serious, or is this a joke thread?

---

Originally posted by Goldknyght
10million people buying 6.50US dumb key chain for the careless people playing WoW is alot of money that is not necessary.

---

Except it's optional, and not all of us are dumb enough to log in on public terminals, or give our password away to gold-farming companies. If they included it in the box purchase, we'd just be paying for it there instead, and then it would be required. What you're suggesting is exactly the opposite of what's happening.

---

Originally posted by spyder2k5
That is the last boss left standing the franchise is now dead wow is dead and has been dying since the release of TBC and all the false promises since release.

---

Is that why their subscriber numbers are still rising?

Click here for a link to the article.

---

Originally posted by billie
The Blizzard Authenticator is an optional tool

---

It's significantly increased security for those whose accounts are (or have been) at risk, and it's optional. Where exactly does the "sticking" (as in the title of the thread) begin?

---

Originally posted by donjn
P.S. Despite what some people say, Spore rules..I am the follower of ambition. This is why I love Spore and Fable, even if all ideas dont make it to the final product..

---

Incidentally, I didn't even like Spore past the second stage. I just thought my creature looked awesome and I needed an avatar. =P

---

Originally posted by donjn
Once we have 25 votes I will exclusively play the high vote getter for one fuill month at least.

---

I think I could write pages on why this is an exceptionally bad idea, but I'll get straight to the punch-line:

Any poll results will naturally do two things. First, they will be skewed to reflect the hype behind whatever games are coming to release (in this case, WAR). Second, they will totally ignore your personal preference, which plays a HUGE part in what game you decide to play.

Factor in a good number of trolls and rabid/blind fans and you've set yourself up for failure.

---

Originally posted by Slythe
Maybe someone who is a lawyer can let us know, I'm curious as well. I think if you, say, ran an ad on television that called Funcom "Failcom" you might get slued for slander. I have no idea about the internet though.

---

Yeah I agree. I think if it was in a public place, like a newspaper or on TV, then I could see them getting worked up about it. An avatar on a private forum, though? It's just harmless fun, and suing people over it would just be an exercise in futility.

Besides, who exactly would they sue? The legions of semi-anonymous forum trolls? That would be fun to watch.

---

Originally posted by Jackthecat

---

Originally posted by Lithdov

---

Originally posted by Jackthecat

Huh...I wonder what would happen if you rolled on a lower pop server.
 
What a thought!
 
I must be smokin' too much of the good stuff.

---

Sorry, I have friends and we've been playing together since Sunday and we'd like to continue to do so. I'm guessing from your immediate response to a random stranger on the internet to act like a complete jerk-off that you must not know what that's like.

---

 
Well then suck it up. Did you expect some magical solution to this problem by whining on the forums?

---

I think he was expecting a justification for the long queue times, or at least some reassurance that the queues would be gone by the full launch. Apparently the WAR trolls have forgone the usual "it's still beta" responses in favor of direct personal attacks.

---

Originally posted by _Shadowmage
I think not. In order for Funcom to sue they would have to prove that the people using the Failcom avatars were lying about what a crap job they are doing.

---

Even then, I don't think they would have much of a case. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the "FailCom" logo would fall under parody.