Curse

Russell.Crowe · Dec 11, 2006, 07:16 AM // 07:16

DoA, SF is too easy when using the suggested party size

Emik · Dec 11, 2006, 07:34 AM // 07:34

SF... Just for the graphical content alone.

I remember my first run through SF and i was immediatly amazed by it's breathtaking beaty and detail.
Postcards anyone?

Now i have to agree that i've not played DoA much lately but still...
The fact that a part is darkened out means that the environment is not as aweing as SF was.
Just my two cents

Fluim · Dec 11, 2006, 07:41 AM // 07:41

SF, Same reasons as MegaMouse
DoA sucks, and it's way to hard to get Razah. There's noone going for gemstones there.

AiLLUSION · Dec 11, 2006, 07:42 AM // 07:42

Sf was actually well developed so it was fun to play.

Doa anet just slapped together in 5minutes with random impossible to kill monsters

MirkoTeran · Dec 11, 2006, 07:49 AM // 07:49

DoA. Finally something a bit harder.

Telcontar of Gondor · Dec 11, 2006, 07:56 AM // 07:56

I've been to SF about 3 times in total, never liked it too much. It's too easy. DoA sounds much more fun

Free Runner · Dec 11, 2006, 07:59 AM // 07:59

Gotta be SF for me. It was just one of those places you could go with a guild team and have a laugh doing the quests and farming greens.Of course i have nothing against DoA.I can only judge that once my guild get into the area

Li Tian · Dec 11, 2006, 08:01 AM // 08:01

DoA - its tough and that makes it fun, also requires a full team of players with good communication and proper thought, too little of that remains in the game, most areas are now henchable and as the world expands there appears to be fewer and fewer players in areas making it hard in an outpost anyway to get a group together.

I Loved SF for sentimental reasons, and for me it was the first of the 'hard to play' area's...some folk have forgotten the first time they went there, got ganked, died in under 5 minutes and then as time went on we got systems so that you ended up running it with four man teams, the same will happen to DoA, I am already solo running some of the areas....its only a matter of time...difficulty is a perspective based on knowledge and experience, so for me DoA.

SanchO987 · Dec 11, 2006, 08:01 AM // 08:01

Well, I haven't actually been to DoA but it sounds like hell on steroids. SF is pretty easy and it's really fun and laid back. With my ranger I'm doing my homework while practically pressing my '1' key(Barrage) constantly while with my monk my fingers are usually off the keyboard (well not really). I do it when i feel like doing something easy while still looking at the breath-taking views of it. I've taken a few screens and one day i was looking through em and I thought those SF ones were from the GW website lol. But my favorite is probably FoW then UW then Deep then SF. P.S Urgo's is just stupid.

Gli · Dec 11, 2006, 08:10 AM // 08:10

Because I consider the Domain of Anguish to be a vile piece of excrement, worse in all aspects than any other area in the game, I'd have to go for SF. Its only redeeming feature is that as opposed to real-life shit, DoA doesn't smell, although it does reek on a non-sensory level. Horribly so.

So, ask me what I like better, the domain of Anguish or [any area you could think of] and my answer would be [the area you thought of], in this case SF.

DrD · Dec 11, 2006, 08:12 AM // 08:12

SF of course

Hauki · Dec 11, 2006, 08:39 AM // 08:39

Deep > SF > DoA.
Foundry especially was more a struggle against ragequitting out due to boredom than against anything remotely challenging from the AI. Honestly, after spending the time to beat all 4 DoA areas I was ready to give up PvE for life.

generik · Dec 11, 2006, 08:42 AM // 08:42

SF, because back then greens were still new and novel, and you actually have some reward from playing it.

DoA is hard to the extreme, needs insane grind to get a PoS reward, and on top of that Anet is probably using Dell (or Dull) servers (spoken as a Mac user). Geez.

Velvet Wing · Dec 11, 2006, 08:46 AM // 08:46

SF
Period

Although I kinda feel like it is comparing apples with oranges...

Koning · Dec 11, 2006, 10:07 AM // 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velvet Wing

SF
Although I kinda feel like it is comparing apples with oranges...

Sorrow's Furnace!

RTSFirebat · Dec 11, 2006, 10:11 AM // 10:11

SF and DoA can't even be compared, they are two different things completely. SF is a walk in the park compared to the DoA.

Kay84 · Dec 11, 2006, 10:13 AM // 10:13

Still have to reach DoA, but since I didn't really like SF I'd have to say DoA.

Shantel Span · Dec 11, 2006, 10:15 AM // 10:15

Based off sheer graphics, SF.
Based off user playability, SF.
Based off difficulty, DoA.
Based off loot and average drops, SF.
Based off taking new guildies there and getting the jaw-drop "wow" statement, SF.
Based off amount of time spent, SF (over half my logged 3500 hours, I swear)

Yeah, overwelming majority...

stamenflicker · Dec 11, 2006, 12:18 PM // 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flav

That statement seems way off to me. There was a free access Deep/Urgoz weekend where anyone can access the Deep/Urgoz. From what I recall, many players did try it and there were many complainers from the Deep/Urgoz regulars saying the place is now filled with "noobs" and couldn't wait until the weekend event was over.

So I would say that a lot more than 1% did set foot at least once in the Deep and Urgoz mission.

Well pretty soon people will be saying that only 1% set foot in DoA. The reality is lots of people take a look at the elite missions. They stay with the ones that a fun and rewarding. What do you get at the end, and does it merit the investment of time?

The staying power of the bonus maps has steadily declined, all because Anet doesn't want people being able to make a run in less than an hour and come out with decent stuff.

seut · Dec 11, 2006, 02:28 PM // 14:28

SF = short fun quests
DoA = endless frustration