Curse

AW Lore · Dec 27, 2007, 04:45 PM // 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Mentioned, what? That GW takes up a lot of time?

read again, he means the opposite, that you cant really play WoW if you dont have a lot of free time, while if you have little free time, GW is your game.

Artisan Archer · Dec 27, 2007, 05:23 PM // 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Hard Mode, at the most, made me rethink a little bit about what builds I bring into those areas. Then it was cake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

For instance, there's one monster in the raid dungeon Karazhan that after a certain point in health will freeze the maintank and attack whoever has the most threat after the tank. Preparing for these little tricks is essential.

So thinking about your built isn't really preparing... ok...

Bryant Again · Dec 27, 2007, 05:30 PM // 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artisan Archer

So thinking about your built isn't really preparing... ok...

That's totally not my point but, okay.

Artisan Archer · Dec 27, 2007, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That's totally not my point but, okay.

Maybe, but it is what you wrote.

EmptySkull · Dec 27, 2007, 06:56 PM // 18:56

Most people will always prefer what they started first. A paradigm is formed and then they play another game and compare it to the previous. Of course WoW is a good game it's subscription base proves that. Gw is a good game. But the games are at the core different- persistant vs instanced. I just don't think you can make a honest side by side comparison. People try and come off favoring one or the other. Never changing anyone's view. Both games offer different things that appeal to a different kind of gamer. I for one enjoy the no P2P and graphics. But for every one of me there are 2 of the WoW fans. Thanks for the read though. You did take time to write it and I'll give ya that for it. But I came away with the conclusion from the start of the article that the conclusion was already determined.

thunderai · Dec 27, 2007, 07:26 PM // 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I have played both WoW and GW extensively. The original post here was very interesting. Thank you, Zinger. In general, my sense was that you feel WoW is the better of the two games.

My own observations (based on what I look for in a game) on the two games can be stated fairly succinctly:

(1) Graphics. GW wins. WoW has some nice landscapes, but I find it feels more like a Saturday morning cartoon. The GW world just looks better. (One point in WoW's favor, however: animals leave pawprints, not shoeprints, in the dust and snow. It always bugs me that my ranger's cat -- and Zhed -- leave human shoeprints. Sheesh!

)
(2) Story. GW wins. GW has an actual story that you work your way through; WoW does not. WoW has a lore backdrop for its quests, which is not the same thing.
(3) Solo player accessibility. Kind of a toss-up here. Most of WoW can be soloed, quest-wise, but not the dungeons. I found grouping to be pretty miserable in WoW, and the dungeons take too long (half the time can be spent finding the group you need--or that "one healer" you need). There is no Dunkoro to take along so you can just go. However, once a group has formed, I have to say I prefer WoW, which feels more like a real group working together, with everyone contributing, to achieve a goal.
(4) Guilds. Draw. Both games play better if you find a good guild. However, I think the guild mechanism itself inherently favors more serious gamers. Casual gamers do not play enough to build the kind of relationships that make a guild work as effectively for them. The support and design system for guilds in WoW is better, imo.
(5) Interface. WoW wins. It is far more customizable (though it can get a bit cluttered!). The chat options make more sense in WoW. The guild window is more helpful, etc.
(6) Instances. Another draw. WoW has well-designed instances, and GW also has enjoyable instances (I am referring here specifically to GW's dungeons/missions, not the instanced regions). The big difference is that, dungeon-wise, WoW's instances are for player groups only. GW, however, has a "workaround" in its Heroes/henches. This gives solo players and small groups (2 to 3 people) the option of completing a dungeon/mission on their own terms and in their own timeframe. You absolutely cannot do this in WoW. WoW's instances are designed for group play only. Period. This is not necessarily good or bad, but it makes WoW's instances much less accessible to casual players, imo.
(7) Travel. GW wins. That first long gryphon ride in WoW is fun... But, have mercy, the long travel times in WoW get really, really old really, really fast.
(8) Class distinctions. WoW wins. I really think WoW has done a better job of making classes unique, with a wider variety of skills. There is nothing in GW to compare to "sheeping," "stealthing", "underwater breathing", "rooting", "shape changing", "teleportation", etc. Although GW does have some nice skill options, such as a necromancer minion master, that WoW doesn't have, I'd say WoW offers a greater and more distinct variety of abilities.
(9) Social/"Real-World Feel". WoW wins. In WoW, you can form partnerships on the fly just about anywhere because you run into people all the time in your travels. I think this really gives an edge to WoW in contrast to the relatively solitary experience you have in GW.

All in all, I have enjoyed both games tremendously, but I generally prefer GW because of its graphics, combat system, single-player accessibility, and free-to-play model. My biggest peeve with WoW was that playing as a predominantly solo/casual/"groups occasionally"-type player makes you feel, especially as you level up, like a "second-class" citizen in Azeroth, whereas in Tyria it hardly seems to matter what your style of play is -- very little in Tyria is "off-limits" to solo players, whereas much of the good (instance/raid) content (i.e., the best gear and instance experiences) in WoW is restricted to group-oriented/dedicated gamers only.

That said, if the wait for GW2 is very long with nothing in between to retain my interest, I will probably return to WoW for a while before GW2 comes out. My hope fro GW2 is that it will incorporate what "works" from an MMO such as WoW, while retaining GW1's best qualities.

QFT. I agree 100% with this post and I think it shows what maybe alot of people think. Having played both games I will have to say there is so much more to do in WoW that you may never see it all. The stuff you can do however is solo by its very nature and not really needed. I dont want to make my own armor and have to craft bolts of linen, etc. the idea of an arrow count, shot count, damaged armor and weapons sounds like a grreat idea but I hate it in practice. Its annoying.

edit, i forgot to mention how much I miss maptravel when in WoW.

tmr819 · Dec 27, 2007, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmptySkull

Most people will always prefer what they started first.

I guess I am an exception to this.

WoW was my first online game, and I quite enjoyed it. I avoided playing GW for the longest time because I had read somewhere that it was less casual/solo friendly than WoW. (Little did I realize that just the opposite was true.) I finally left WoW for GW back in the "pre-TBC" days because WoW turned into a huge dead-end once you hit the level 60 max. At that point, there was nothing left for my level 60 characters to do but extremely time-consuming high-level dungeons and -- worse still, imo -- 10- to 40-player raids.

At that time, I tried Factions on a freebie trial and absolutely loved it. I still think GW is the better game of the two, for me, anyway. In general terms, I think GW is simply better designed for casual players (like me) who like to play alone or with perhaps one or two other people.

Vinraith · Dec 27, 2007, 07:44 PM // 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Comparing or evaluating games based off of solo compatibility is akin to rating off Team Fortress 2 because there's no deathmatch mode.

On the contrary, since a significant proportion of gamers only play games solo it's irresponsible to rate a game solely on the multiplayer experience. This is a major problem in the mainstream gaming press, where the reviewers invariably have a large group of coworkers with with identical schedules and lots of game time to play any game they like with. Many, many gamers spend the vast bulk of their gaming time playing single player, failing to discuss how the game plays for them is irresponsible in the extreme. It's directly equivalent to disregarding how the game plays in MP/with a group.

Dylananimus · Dec 27, 2007, 08:13 PM // 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

GW is a game for lazy/casual players/poor people
WoW is for the dedicated online gamer/no-lifers

I'd much rather be lazy and poor than have no life

I've played both, and liked both for completely different reasons. I'm sticking with GW for now, however. It's a game I don't feel I have to be playing in order not to feel like I'm throwing my money down the drain. If I don't play GW for a week it's cool...no loss. If I'm paying for WoW and don't play for a week...I've effectively lost money, grind time (and my armor will no longer be in favour).

Hopefully all online games will see the light at some point and get rid of monthly fees. Only then could we truly compare.

As it stands, GW is in a class of it's own right now, because it offers us so much for so little. You buy the games, and expansions if you so wish; there's no need to feel you HAVE to buy the expansions in GW as with WoW (to get the epic gear of leetness and those extra 10 levels), and that's it...no need to keep burning money up as you play, or choose to take a week or two off.

The skills needed to play WoW are different from GW. We have 8 skills at our disposal when we enter a mission or leave a town, and it makes you think about what you're going up against, what you'll need, what will be most effective. With WoW, all you have to do is click around your UI, all your skills are there, not much thinking involved beyond 'point and click a bunch of times', in my experience.

There's not so much emphasis on gear in GW. You won't fail a quest because you don't have the right max armor. One of the main things that puts me off WoW is the stupid amount of status put into gear. If you just want to look different, try something new, have a different approach...you're slated, you won't get groups, you'll be laughed at by guild mates. In GW gear is pretty much just aesthetic; the runes and insignias you put on are not THAT important, and by no means a deal breaker when getting into groups or completing quests. By far GW is better for the less anal and more casual player who doesn't feel the need to grind away hours of their lives just to get the 'right' pair of gloves so he/she fits in.

Like I said, both games offer different experiences, and I do miss some aspects of WoW, but not enough aspects to allow me to throw away month after month of money (regardless of how rich or poor I am) on the off chance I might have time to sit and get to that quest that's a balloon ride and a 15 minute horse/cat/raptor ride away, only to discover somebody else already killed the boss, so I have to wait...then have to waste my precious time on all the respawns.

I guess when GW2 lands upon us we'll have more of a level playing field to compare...but even then, GW will be in a class of it's own due to the fact you won't be paying monthly for the pleasure of playing.

Bryant Again · Dec 27, 2007, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

On the contrary, since a significant proportion of gamers only play games solo it's irresponsible to rate a game solely on the multiplayer experience.

Then what do you do when WoW is clearly labeled, and even further explained by the devs to be a fully social and multiplayer game? It's like saying an apple is being a bad orange.

Vinraith · Dec 27, 2007, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then what do you do when WoW is clearly labeled, and even further explained by the devs to be a fully social and multiplayer game? It's like saying an apple is being a bad orange.

Only if the world spends most of its time eating applanges (or orpples, I suppose). It's legitimate to examine any game for its solo playability. Some games are worthless in that regard, but that just means that to an SP player they're worthless games. I have no use for MP only games, and appreciate knowing when an MP only game is really MP only. TF2, for example, was originally advertised to have AI bots to play with. That would have been mildly interesting, whereas in its current form it's worthless to me (fortunately Portal and Ep 2 trivially justify purchasing the Orange Box for me, so I just left TF2 uninstalled).

Similarly it's valuable to point out to MP players that a game does not accomodate their needs. Gal Civ 2 (the best single player strategy game on planet Earth), for example, is worthless to people that insist on playing with other people.

Any review worth spit is going to tell both crowds what to expect from a game for thier respective play types, even if what they can expect is nothing at all.

tmr819 · Dec 27, 2007, 09:23 PM // 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then what do you do when WoW is clearly labeled, and even further explained by the devs to be a fully social and multiplayer game? It's like saying an apple is being a bad orange.

You make a good point here. But the fact of the matter is that most of the time spent in WoW (until you hit the level cap, I imagine) you are on your own, completing quests and whatnot. Even the most dedicated "group-oriented player" in WoW is still going to be spending most of his or her time completing quests on his or her own. If you were to poll the players of WoW (or players of similar MMORPGS) on how much time they spend soloing versus how much time they play in a group, I would imagine the great majority of playing time gamewide is spent soloing.

It therefore seems valid to expect that any worthwhile review of an MMORPG is going to address to subject of soloability vs. player group-only content

EmptySkull · Dec 27, 2007, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I guess I am an exception to this.

WoW was my first online game, and I quite enjoyed it. I avoided playing GW for the longest time because I had read somewhere that it was less casual/solo friendly than WoW. (Little did I realize that just the opposite was true.) I finally left WoW for GW back in the "pre-TBC" days because WoW turned into a huge dead-end once you hit the level 60 max. At that point, there was nothing left for my level 60 characters to do but extremely time-consuming high-level dungeons and -- worse still, imo -- 10- to 40-player raids.

At that time, I tried Factions on a freebie trial and absolutely loved it. I still think GW is the better game of the two, for me, anyway. In general terms, I think GW is simply better designed for casual players (like me) who like to play alone or with perhaps one or two other people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmptySkull

Most people will always prefer what they started first.

No your not an exception. You fit right into my statement. But when you started playing GW you compared it to WoW and liked GW more. And yeah GW is better for the person with a life.

CHannum · Dec 27, 2007, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then what do you do when WoW is clearly labeled, and even further explained by the devs to be a fully social and multiplayer game? It's like saying an apple is being a bad orange.

You're either being deliberately obtuse, or simply disingenous. Let's not kid ourselves that more than a small percentage of either game is playing full on multiplayer. In both games most people are either soloing or, at most, in a 2 or 3 man group of actual friends for the vast majority of their play time and it's very fair to compare how the two serve most of the player base.

In WoW I had a great time with a friend or two doing quests, most of them were much more fun that way. GW is much the same. Missions/Dungeon type content is where GW blows WoW out of the water for this particular gaming scenario. By all means, I've seen nothing in GW that compares to those times when we managed to get a 6+ group of players working together, the issue is just how often that happened, and how often it happened successfully. WoW was a string of standups and bad dates with only the occasional home run for much of the content. Sure, you could try it with only 2 or 3 people, but it only very rarely worked out well (and with XP penalties for dying, you couldn't even have fun trying to Brute Force & Ignorance your way through stuff). In GW, it's just not an issue. Whether it's just me, or me with one or two other friends, the content is almost equally accessible due to the game design, and that is why GW wins out for me. I've never needed to get together half a dozen players at once to tackle something in GW, and that's the way it should be as far as I'm concerned.

WoW's enforced multiplayer for so much of the content is a valid game design choice, just not one I and many others care for. A review should make as much clear. It's not an apples & oranges dilemma, it's one of serving the reader: if you were planning on getting this game and either playing it with just a friend or two, or even mainly by yourself, be warned, a significant percentage of the content is blocked to you, much of it explicitly. Conversely, any review of GW should point out that the game is a much less hard core affair, it won't take too much effort to "beat" the main content and the larger metagame is involved in chasing prettier armors and weapons along with earning "Drunkard" under your character's name. Further, while playing the game with full parties of actual AIs can be a lot more varied and fun (YMMV

), it won't actually get you anything in the game that a guy who never so much as partied up for a free res signet in Pre can get in roughly the same amount of time.

They both appeal to the whole spectrum of multiplayers, from the mainly solo to the mainly large group type players, but they provide very different results because of the game designs.

Lonesamurai · Dec 27, 2007, 09:54 PM // 21:54

WoW = MMO

GW = Not an MMO

End of discussion and comparison

Darkobra · Dec 27, 2007, 10:28 PM // 22:28

You heavily, heavily criticised GW in comparison to WoW, yet left out many of the things WoW lacks that GW has. I'd write a "comparison", but it'd take me 3 hours of writing.

WoW and GW are truly incomparible for what's "better". I love both games, yet they both lack what the other has.

GW: The ability to map travel instantly, you can pick it up and put it down any time you like and items mean nothing. Actually has a story as you play.

WoW: Heavily item based, a more fluent game that normally involves a few hours at a time. "I'll do this quest... Oh look. I got enough ore to make some armour now... May as well sell it off at AH. Wow, look at those offers. I'll take ten of those... Ok, now to finish that quest... Oh another quest!" That's why I only play weekends. Of course seldom playing makes some people think about how much money they're "wasting" by not playing. Lacks an immediate story with a lot of depth in background story.

Bryant Again · Dec 27, 2007, 10:30 PM // 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

Only if the world spends most of its time eating applanges (or orpples, I suppose). It's legitimate to examine any game for its solo playability.

It's fair to examine it as such, sure, but marking down because of it? That was the problem with the first bit that I originally quoted, it was appeared as such that WoW was inferior because it did not cater to solo players. Saying "it is the inferior game" is in that sense unfair, as unfair as giving Bioshock an 8 because it has no multiplayer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

You make a good point here. But the fact of the matter is that most of the time spent in WoW (until you hit the level cap, I imagine) you are on your own, completing quests and whatnot. Even the most dedicated "group-oriented player" in WoW is still going to be spending most of his or her time completing quests on his or her own.

If you were to poll the players of WoW (or players of similar MMORPGS) on how much time they spend soloing versus how much time they play in a group, I would imagine the great majority of playing time gamewide is spent soloing.

There's a difference between having solo content and catering to solo players. WoW does indeed have a lot of solo content (hell, I even know a lot of players enjoying the game that rarely go in parties), but it focuses its main attention to that of group PvP and raids.

What I'm saying is: expect the best stuff in WoW to be only enjoyable with a group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

WoW = MMO

GW = Not an MMO

End of discussion and comparison

Glad to agree with ya, Samurai.

Vinraith · Dec 27, 2007, 10:49 PM // 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's fair to examine it as such, sure, but marking down because of it? That was the problem with the first bit that I originally quoted, it was appeared as such that WoW was inferior because it did not cater to solo players. Saying "it is the inferior game" is in that sense unfair, as unfair as giving Bioshock an 8 because it has no multiplayer.

I've always thought there should be seperate scores for the two. Even in the case of games that have both SP and MP, the two are frequently almost completely different games. A joint score in most circumstances is just silly, and bound to mislead one type of player or the other.

Shuuda · Dec 27, 2007, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Are you looking for a fight or something?

I'm merely trying to get as much fun as possible from this kind of threads. What else can an ass like me do, or can be expected to do. I mean, it's not like anything really productive, like a solid conclustion, or non bias facts will ever come out of this thread.

Plus I'd like to see Zingy-boy answer Ugly Betty question of REAL PvP exp.

Bryant Again · Dec 28, 2007, 12:03 AM // 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

I've always thought there should be seperate scores for the two. Even in the case of games that have both SP and MP, the two are frequently almost completely different games. A joint score in most circumstances is just silly, and bound to mislead one type of player or the other.

That's a good reason why you see "game experience may change during online play" - because it's true. While it also means something more specific, you will be essentially playing what seems like a totally different game when you go online. Dawn of War is a chief example: The campaign modes are a fun and challenging game with a decent story. Go online and you'll be in for a very harsh community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuuda

I'm merely trying to get as much fun as possible from this kind of threads. What else can an ass like me do, or can be expected to do.

...Not post?