All Posts by MaXiMiUS

Originally posted by elondor

 

Originally posted by WiccanCircle

I am curious.  It is 72-hours after launch so I can see why people have strong emotions still tied in to games that they have played for thousands of hours, but I read all of these posts about how Age of Conan isn't the greatest and that there are so many better games out there. 

Oh Really?  

Where?   I would love to play one of those. 

Combat?   Quests?   Equipment?   Classes?   Graphics?   Sound? 

Skills?  (strange this is my number one priority in a game yet it is almost never mentioned by most other MMO players, aside from the rediculous mythical quest for 'balance' issues.)

Most of these posts reference some vague 'betterness' elsewhere but leave the specifics to the readers imagination.  I am curious, all of the parts of AoC that people, a few hours in to the game, are saying aren't as good as other games - really?

What Games Have Better MMORPG Components?

 

 

in order..

LOTRO

Vanguard

Everquest

Everquest 2

WoW

EvE .. do you need me to keep going?

 

Age of Conan is built like a console game, except it doesn't run nearly as good as a console game...

I've played games at both ends of your spectrum (630+ hours in LOTRO, even more in WoW.. around 100 hours in EVE).. if that's the "best" that MMOs have to offer, then damn.. MMOs really are all hype.

I've also played (a _LOT_) of stereotypical asian MMOs, and DAoC (never really got "in" to DAoC.. but that was mostly because I joined way too late, I think).

I still have to say that the best MMO I ever played was Face of Mankind. That game had an AWESOME open beta.

Originally posted by VenerableD

If you mess around reading guides and god knows what else before you play it then it is marginally better however the whole player run aspect of FoMk destroys all gameplay. Player run missions and player run politics????  Why are Duplex surprised that doesn't work??

 

As for graphics............well they are just the icing on any cake and the ones in FoMk would be adequate were the actual gameplay and setting better.

I'm not one to disagree, but when the player run missions and politics DID work, it was AMAZING. I wouldn't trade that kind of an experience for anything.

I first started FoM with the FDC. Moved over to the MotB shortly afterwards.

If I could've justified paying $15 a month when this game went out of beta, I would've. Some of my best gaming memories lie here.

The only time this game ever got boring for me was when we had to sit around for hours defending somewhere, and NOTHING HAPPENED! The game really needed something "more" to do other than just sit around like this. I much preferred contracts where we were asked to attack a planet or location, rather than defend -- epic battles always ensued.

I never really liked the armor system.. I just kind of.. collected armor in my apartment. Vibrating stacks of armor (and ammo) -- hilarious to watch.

The last things I remember being implemented were aliens (woo, vulnerable to FMJ rounds, and all that).. and some planet getting revamped. A couple planets, actually. The planet revamp thing kind of made me sad.. I preferred the older versions, even though the new ones were prettier -- the old ones just "played" better.

Anyways.. I can't really think straight.. it's 2:38AM here, and for some reason I'm really missing this game.

If FoM ever comes back, you'll probably see me as Max Lothrik of the MotB. If it doesn't.. well, R.I.P., Face of Mankind. You'll always be a great game in my memories..

 Edit:

I just kind of noticed I never really gave a reason WHY I liked FoM. This was, or rather, IS, the only game I've ever played that doesn't need to immerse you; You do that yourself -- and that was powerful to say the least. This game gave you a true sense of adventure, without imposing it on you.