All Posts by Thillian

Originally posted by remusus03

 

Originally posted by Zorndorf

IGN.COM :

Just to compare Conan with other (released) MMORPG in the last years.

(I only took the highest possible ratings of a game ever (incl expansions) - no matter UK version or AU version)

World of Warcraft 9.1

Lord of the Rings 9.0

Burning Crusade 9.0

Dark age of Camelot 9.0

Guild wars 8.5

Ever Quest I and II 8.5

City of Heroes 8.4

Pirates of the Burning Sea 8.2

Ultima On line 8.1

Star wars galaxys 8.0

EVE 8.0

City of Villains 8.0

 

So Conan is on the same rating level for IGN.COM as Lineage 2 (78%) and Vanguard (77%)

The only ones under this score were the Tabula Nixa and D&DOnline games.

Need we say more....

Now let's hear it from the fanboys !!!

 

 

EVE at 8.0 ? lol and WOW at 9.1 who runs this shitGN ? msut be bunch of bought peeps from BUUUZARD entertainment

WoW has got 80$ mil budget for development, ... it's not a good thing for a reviewer that signs his name under the article to give it 15% as it deserves you know. I would struggle as well.

Reviews for video games are like oscar-shows. The pirate that has the biggest popularity will be appraised. Reviewers are too chicken to say something bad about a game with high budget, otherwise they might not get invited to a next big clown show.. I mean gamecon.

Originally posted by Elnator

 

Originally posted by brostyn

I recently left DDO, because most of my time was being spent LFG instead of actually playing. It's the best MMO out when you can find a group, imo. Unfortunately, that last until about lvl 5.

 

Finding a group in DDO is as simple as:

Opening the group pannel (CTRL-G) wow that was hard

And clicking on the "looking for more" tab and joining any of the groups you qualify for.  If none are available then you just start one and people will join it.  I've never had to wait more than 5 or 10 minutes for a group.

Very true. Getting a group in DDo is a question of 10 minutes at worst.

Originally posted by Kerith

Vanguard ... sigh ... it got a 77 rating because of -- what? The empty cities I visited after launch, the broken quests .. the chunk bugs, the unbalanced classes? I played VG and AoC and even if you don't like the overall design, AoC is not at all in the state VG was when it launched. Both games got a pretty good rating and I just wonder why. Maybe they just don't want to piss anyone off? I prefere sites which take a stand. And Gothic III was a no-brainer -- it was not playable at all when it came out.

Now you crossed the line, you seriously hurt my feelings.

Im trolling iGN here if you didn't notice. No need to troll AoC, it's one of the worst games released last years and I'm not counting only MMO's. But still the silly "reviewers" that are 18 years old and their first rpg was SW:Kotor are going to give this piece of s**T marks above 80%.

Ehm, I think, .. Gothic 3 was a good game, and so is VG, but still AoC gots the best rating out of these.

I wonder the same... what the hell is my point?

IGN is the one that gave Gothic III 40% and AoC 78%? How serious can you take such a website? Should be the other way around.

Originally posted by Pappy13

Originally posted by Thillian

Aha, that explains why people actually play  games with "low quality" eh... ,or not.

Um, no that doesn't explain anything.  People play games of "low quality" for whatever reason they choose to play them.  Perhaps it's because it's also low price.  Perhaps although it's low quality, it's still fun in some regards.  Perhaps it's because they are masochistic.  It has nothing to do with their definition of quality.

Originally posted by BarCrow

I don't understand the.."if i want to play solo i'll play a console game" argument. I like mmos...i don't like to group all the time...In reality I have a few good friends...don't mind crowds once and a while but mostly go it alone. The same for mmos..but even in solo play i like the semblance of a living world..and it  provides a different feeling and atmosphere of  realism to a game ...when you see another toon that isn't  simply acting out some programmers algorithm. Maybe when a.i. becomes so brilliant that one can not tell a mob from a toon...then i might buy the "console game" retort....until then.

And what makes you think that players made of bones and flesh are not acting by some programmers algorithm? Can you please give me an example?

You should try DDo someday. That game hates soloers almost as much as I do.

Instance here, loading screen there...

Aha it's a long mmo cycle? Let me get this straight. First MMO's were group oriented. Now they are solo oriented. That doesn't seem like a long cycle to me. In addition, it's not really a cycle yet is it.

And please, please I beg you. Don't copy paste me here the definition of quality from wikipedia.

Originally posted by Pappy13

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by Pappy13

 

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by drbaltazar

i hope other game maker start to catch up to wow quality lol that game is 3 years old lol

The quality you're talking about is mainly affected by the size of the budget. WoW had far biggest budget so far from all other games out there. (5 times more than Vanguard for example) and largest marketing adv campaign. Fortunately the quality you're talking about is not the one I seek.

I can't decide what I like best about your post, your picture, your quote or your actual post so lets take them in order.

 

1)  It's great. I love it.  Fits you perfectly. :)

2)  Was the double negative intended, because it's the funniest part of the quote?

3)  Quality is quality, no matter the price, or if you prefer "You get what you pay for".  That's particularly apropos to both WoW and Vanguard.

Please re-read my post, especially the last sentence.

That was the FUNNY part.  I'm not quite sure what your definition of quality is?  I thought we all had the same definition, but apparently you have a different one.

Aha, that explains why people actually play  games with "low quality" eh... ,or not.

Ok good, in that case DDo has not forced grouping system.

Originally posted by eowdaoc

Yes I agree that literally "forced" grouping is bad and awkward.  When I stated it in my original post I meant to imply that the "forced" part was figurative.  Forced not because it was the only thing to do, but because it was the best thing to do.  Possibly "forced" wasn't the best word I could have chosen, but oh well.

Refer to my above reply.

Ok now it's getting scary. What's so bad and awkward about forced grouping?

Vanguard / DDo are two games that enter my mind when I think about group-based MMORPG. While in VG it's not a must to get a group, it's still maybe twice as fast as solo approach, in DDo in 95% cases you will be in group, because soloing is simply not possible unless you're a munckin prick.

Yes, yes, yes, YES! Agree with everything HALLELUJAH! And yes you definetly are crazy, no less than me.

Originally posted by Pappy13

 

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by drbaltazar

i hope other game maker start to catch up to wow quality lol that game is 3 years old lol

The quality you're talking about is mainly affected by the size of the budget. WoW had far biggest budget so far from all other games out there. (5 times more than Vanguard for example) and largest marketing adv campaign. Fortunately the quality you're talking about is not the one I seek.

I can't decide what I like best about your post, your picture, your quote or your actual post so lets take them in order.

 

1)  It's great. I love it.  Fits you perfectly. :)

2)  Was the double negative intended, because it's the funniest part of the quote?

3)  Quality is quality, no matter the price, or if you prefer "You get what you pay for".  That's particularly apropos to both WoW and Vanguard.

Please re-read my post, especially the last sentence.

And yes, the double negative was intended.