Curse

LordEusebiusDragonslayer · Aug 17, 2005, 12:44 AM // 00:44

Greetings all,

A couple of weeks ago I submitted a post with a similar title as this one in the hopes of gaining some insight from former EQ players now playing GW. Since then I have purchased GW and have played it for a few days. I thought I would post my findings for others who may be interested in the comparison. I am likely to get "charred" (pun intended) by some who may not like my conclusions, but here they are:

Differences Between GW and EQ:

1. Character Creation: Initial character creation is much more scientific and strategic in EQ. It takes some thought upfront to get the variables right so that you’re not paying for it down the road. Choices made at this stage are crucial in EQ since you’ll have to live with those choices the rest of your character’s life. GW is much more forgiving in this regard since I can reconfigure the character later if I so desire. It’s okay if I don’t get it right the first time, and I can modify things as I gain knowledge about what works and what doesn’t. GW has the advantage on this one.

2. Leveling: I found virtually no difference in the amount of time it takes to go from level to level in GW and EQ. I had read from several posters that leveling is much quicker in GW. I have not found that to be the case. I suppose if all one did was to go out hunting, leveling would be much faster. But I was following the missions, and some of them didn’t involve all that much killing.

3. Time: No nighttime in GW—no clock time, period. EQ’s world seems more ”real” because of it. In EQ, part of the strategy is to hunt at night (when the undead come out), or travel by say (when some high-level creatures are not out). EQ wins this point. In any case, the real world has daytime and nighttime, and the lack of this cycle in GW detracts from the “realness” of the world. EQ wins this point.

4. Storage: GW has “storage space” merchants (space you must purchase); EQ has banks and bankers (space you do not purchase). Both systems work equally well, as each one allows you to retrieve your items in any new city just by locating the banker/storage person. A virtual tie on this point.

5. Money: The monetary system in GW (gold only) seems simplistic compared to EQ (platinum, gold, silver, copper). Moreover, the economy in EQ is player-driven, based on supply and demand, and is therefore much closer to the real world. Even the merchants seem more “real” in EQ than in GW (and are more plentiful), and many times play into the story line. EQ wins on this point.

6. Weapons: I think it’s a well-known fact that EQ’s weaponry is superior to GW’s, so I won’t elaborate on this point.

7. Art and Design: EQ could take some art lessons from the GW designers. The detail especially of vegetation (from the varied-colored trees to the detailed grasses and flowers) beats EQ’s counterparts hands down. Unfortunately, you’ll see these amazing designs only in the pre-searing part of the game. The rest of the game has a bleak, colorless world. GW wins this point in the initial stages, but EQ takes it in the long run.

8. Zones: Both EQ and GW have zones, but zoning from one place to the other in EQ is like pulling teeth sometimes. GW easy and quick zoning is a breath of fresh air in comparison. GW easily wins on this point.

9. GW characters appear more cartoonish than EQ’s; not so much in their appearance as in their mannerisms and movements. When I run in FP camera mode in EQ, it feels like it is I who is actually running. When I run in FP camera mode in GW, I see that I’m moving, but it doesn’t feel like I’m really running. Also, you can walk in EQ (though almost no one does). EQ has the advantage on this one.

10. GW offers NPC henchmen, whereas EQ does not. The henchmen allow you to perform missions and quests even when you cannot find a group. This is a clear advantage over EQ, and I wish EQ would incorporate this.

11. The instancing of all areas outside of cities and outposts in GW carries both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that no other party will be camped at the place you need to be—and certainly no one will KS you. Still, it makes for an empty-feeling world when you cannot randomly run into another thinking player, whether to help him in the nick of time, to rez his dead corpse, or just to have some company along the way. EQ, of course, has instancing in its dungeons as well. But the major world is . . .well, a “world.” EQ wins on this point.

12. I like the radar system in GW. It allows you to know when you are safe, and to make a decision as to whether you really want to proceed toward a mob that has other mobs around it who will surely gang up on you. EQ has no such radar system, unless you are a ranger (tracking) or cleric (sentinel). GW wins this point.

13. What’s the purpose of veiling the map in GW for those places you have not yet visited? Why not just allow me to see the whole world at once? I wanted to know where Kryta was located, and I had to leave the game to find a map on the Internet. EQ has maps as well, but they are not much better since they are tied to the zone you are currently in. It’s a tie on this one, although I might give the edge to GW.

14. Overall Movement: The labyrinth movement in GW “feels” restrictive. For instance, in one “Greta Northern Wall” mission, I was tasked with finding the Char armies. The hunting area was very small (not a bad thing in itself), but the inability to cross over hills and being forced to stay on the beaten path was irritating. After conducting several more quests, I found the same principle to hold true with the terrain in general. Similarly, I don’t like the fact that I cannot move around while in attack mode without having to re-target a mob I am fighting. And I find it annoying that while my character follows the mob, turning to face the mob whenever necessary, the first-person view does not follow the character’s movement. It feels like I’m not really there, like the character is not really me, and that the action could very well take place without me in any case. In short, the world of GW doesn’t “suck me in” like the world of EQ does.

15. Overall Feel: The attacks from NPCs in GW feel somehow “less serious” than they do in EQ. In fact, I found I have trouble committing to the role of my character in GW, whereas I easily “become” my character in EQ. Indeed, the GW world itself feels less involved, less consequential, less “real.” If I or someone in my party dies, I don’t feel defeated, just inconvenienced. Whereas in EQ the same event feels devastating. Yes, part of that devastation stems from the loss of xp that death incurs, as well as the inevitable corpse run one must make. But what initially seems on the surface to be a GW advantage and an EQ disadvantage turns out to be the opposite. The very reason death is taken so seriously—and by extension, victory over the enemy mobs—is precisely because there are serious consequences to death. But if all I experience is a temporary death penalty—which is easily removed by a short visit to town—then death isn’t so bad, and losing isn’t so bad—and by extension, winning isn’t quite as rewarding. Moreover, in EQ I have weight restrictions on loot that cause me to move more slowly if I exceed them. I must eat and drink in EQ, otherwise I lose stamina and become weak. Again, all this (as frustrating as I may have found it during game play in the past) contributes to the “realness” of the world.

16. Faction: There are consequences in EQ for killing the wrong NPCs—as there should be. Your faction or “standing” with certain groups is either diminished or improved by the choices you make in game play. I don’t find this complex system in GW (though I may have missed it).

17. Fees: No doubt about it, GW wins on this point. An initial $50, and it’s free from that point on, whereas EQ charges about $12-15 a month subscription.

Summary: My assessment is this; GW is, in many respects, a “poor man’s” EQ. I think it is unique in it’s non-subscription approach, and I will always support that. Still, it is clear that EQ requires a more strategic mind than GW requires. Even the initial complaint I made in point #1 regarding character creation, I think as a mature player I actually appreciate the fact that I must make wise choices even at the onset, and that any poor choice I make at that time—or anytime going forward—won’t easily be forgotten. This reflects the real world where bad choices usually result in regrettable results, and where good choices do the opposite. EQ is more of a strategic, thinking man’s game, whereas GW is more of a fun, fast-paced game. Neither one is necessarily better or worse than the other; they are just different, and will accordingly appeal to different tastes. My .02 cents

Fr3sH · Aug 17, 2005, 02:12 AM // 02:12

GW is not a PVE game. Consider PVE to be an introduction to PVP.
If you compare the strategies and tactics it takes to succesfully pvp and win, GW requires strategy similiar to magic the gathering, and competetive play takes it up to the level of counterstrike league play. Eq doesnt.

But anyways there are some wrong points...
The lush world does return, as well as some other different environments.
Also this game has platinum as well.

I guess the only great thing about PVE that eq cannot compare to is UW and FOW, and how regions battle each other.. Eurore, Korea, America in a constant effort to turn the favor of the gods and open the doors to uw and fow to the people in that region. Also certain quests and statues activate throughout the world when favor is achieved.

Btw, Gw pvp is waay more strategic then any other mmo. Perhaps even fps.
When you enter topk and play 8v8v8v8v8v8 or capture the altar, or running relics, or HOH you will see the amount of strategy it takes. For example, winning in the HOH 99% requires voice communication to discuss strategies and tactics.

HawkofStorms · Aug 17, 2005, 05:07 AM // 05:07

Point 13: Read the instruction book. There is a (abiet small) map in there that shows you were the 4 "main areas" of GW are.

Frankly, I don't see how you can complain about EQ characters "drawing you in more." By your own account, you've only been playing GW a few days. It takes time to get used to any game and get truely immersed in its culture and design. Certain games that have unusual design characteristics (ie not cookie cutter FPSs or knockoff RPGs or RTSs) can take some time to get used too. I remeber playing FreeLancer for the first time and disliking the mouse based flight-sim combat, though liking the visuals. Now though, I've become a die hard fan of it. Frankly, I'd like to see you give some more time to the game before you start judging it or calling in a "poor mans" EQ before you've even really gotten the true feel of the game experience.

Zelc · Aug 17, 2005, 05:30 AM // 05:30

On your #2 point, there's a huge difference as the level cap in Guild Wars is 20 and the level cap in EQ is something over 60. Also, note that questing is a huge part of the game, and while it may not make you level quicker, it will give you more skills in the long run.

On your #11 point, it really should be a wash. Having played WoW, it's not much fun when people twice your level come in and kill you. Also, fighting over spawns is really really annoying.

Your analysis also seems to compare only the two games' PvE modes. Guild Wars has an excellent PvP system that's arguably the main focus, or at least not the red-headed stepchild, of the game. Even with Nature's Renewal issues, I'd bet that GW PvP outshines the PvP system of any other RPG game. Additionally, there are limits in the number of people participating in PvP at once, meaning the game doesn't turn into a slideshow like it does at Tarren Mill (Tarren Mosh Pit)/Southshore in WoW.

LordEusebiusDragonslayer · Aug 17, 2005, 11:11 AM // 11:11

To Fr3sh and Zelc: You’re point is well taken. I have not tried the PvP part of GW, only the PvE. My analysis was based on that comparison. Part of the reason I have not tried the PvP part is because I was unable to get into a group on the two or three instances I attempted it. It may be an issue of level (I have attained only level 7 thus far), but no one responded to my LFGs after fifteen or twenty minutes. It was easier just to get the henchmen and go. I’m certain you’re right that GW has a more complex PvP system since EQ doesn’t really have that system at all, save one PvP server and the few scattered PvP arenas that no one really frequents. I’m also intrigued by the constant battle between the nations, and can see there is detailed strategy for engaging in it. So, for PvP I’ll gladly grant GW the advantage.

On the other hand, I still have questions even about that part of it. My main character in EQ is a paladin, and a roleplaying paladin would never engage in PvP indiscriminately (read, against another “good” race or class). That’s one of the other hesitations I have about PvP in GW. The storyline of the PvE part makes it clear that “old animosities” must be buried in order to unite against the Char. So why am I fighting against other “good” classes in PvP except simply to kill them (and to gain the favor of the gods)? Perhaps I just missed it, but I don’t see how PvP in GW contributes in any meaningful way to the storyline.

BTW, just when does the lush world return?

To Hawk: Regarding being “drawn in,” I was comparing my early experience in GW to my early experience in EQ, so the few days is actually legitimate, at least in my comparison. I will continue to play GW, and may ultimately become immersed in it. And I wasn’t “judging” it so much as providing an expectation guide to someone else who may be curious about the game and comes from an EQ environment.

To Zelc: EQ and WoW don’t operate the same way. No one in EQ can just come up and kill you unless you are on the PvP server (which I’m not). However, they can (and do) take your camp and KS you, although that’s rare and usually the activity of some pimply-faced adolescent. There is a reporting system in place for that kind of behavior, and the GMs do issue warnings and remove accounts when necessary. For the most part, players exercise courtesy and recognize social mores not to do certain things.

Thanks for the corrections.

Shaquira · Aug 17, 2005, 11:51 AM // 11:51

You are forgetting something very very important.

The Everquest 2 team has left some serious exploits unhandled when the game went gold. Some ppl have gotten extremely rich and were able to level faster than possible by design.

Then after going gold the dev team has been closing all the gaps leaving the honest and the new players at a disadvantage that they will never be able to repair.

I have been playing Everquest 1 and 2. I quit Everquest 1 a few weeks after planes of power. When it took over 3 hours to even get a team together to be able to do anything and then having to play for several more hours to do it. I am a casual player and cannot commit so much time. Decided to give them a second chance when everquest 2 came out. In less then 3 months i felt they totally nerfed my enjoyment as a crafte (yes crafter) into the ground and left.

Feeling completly sick of MMORPG's, having left Anarchy online, Star wars Galaxies and Shadowbane as well i stumbled onto GW.

My analysis after playing several weeks

IT ROCKS.

The only thing that bugs me in GW is the enormous numbers of scammers. Especially in pre-searing. I really hope they do not scare new players out of the game that way.

Shaquira

LordEusebiusDragonslayer · Aug 17, 2005, 02:23 PM // 14:23

To Shaq:

I wouldn't know about EQ2; I have heard some not-very-good reviews of that game, so I never bought it. I was referring only to EQ 1. Indeed, if I ever went back to EQ it would certainly be EQ 1, not 2. I experienced much the same thing in EQ in regard to getting invited to a group--that is, until I started forming my own groups. It usually took only a few minutes to get everyone together. Over the past year, almost all the groups I have been in were formed by me. That gives me complete control over classes and strategy, which I prefer (I might add, we rarely "lost" in any of my groups). I would do the same thing in GW, but I'm not yet confident enough about the layout, rules, roles, etc. to put one together.

Epinephrine · Aug 17, 2005, 03:54 PM // 15:54

Lol, you are evaluating the game at level 7... You haven't seen anythig of the beautiful areas later.

The games aren't really comparable, they are different beasts. And for those of us who really dislike typical MMOs some of the things you find negative are big plusses.

First, I don't want to be bothered with eating, drinking and stuff when playing. These are frills that appeal to an MMO group but not to an action RPG group.

Another big point that is a plus for me is the "emptiness" of the world. Really, it's post apocalyptic. How many people should there really be out there? Even today, if you wander out into the woods what are the odds of meeting other people? I don't want to see other adventurers out there - it's bad enough that I have to see them in towns. Seeing 40 people milling around in a little desert outpost makes no sense - I am unique, gifted and destined to play a part in things, have trudged through hills, mountains, swamps, jungles and across a desert with my few companions, to come into a little oasis for a rest before taking on a huge ordeal and it is full of people chatting, trading and dancing? Get real. It's even worse in MMOs. People are everywhere, and the story loses out. Knowing that you are alone on a mission is the fun part - there is nobody else out here and there shouldn't be - you are the plot driving characters.

Additionally - GW has it where other games don't - the level cap is the best thing about this game in many ways - the game needs more ascended content, but that's whatthe expansions will be - entirely set for level 20 characters pretty much. This means that I can fall back to help out another player with a mission, and it doens't matter that I have 200 hours more playtime - we're both levl 20, and thus equal in power. It is good for PvP, as it ideally lets you compete in very little time (though this still needs work, it is far too difficult still to get to competitive skills and such in PvP). The fact is that I can drop back to help a friend with missions from about the halfway point onward without wrrying too much about my level playing a huge part, or my gear being that good - the gear available by the desert is basivcally top end, with the exception of armours which are a mere 9 points from top end.

Neo-LD · Aug 17, 2005, 04:45 PM // 16:45

You are comparing GW PvE to EQ... GW is primarily a PvP game, so the fact that it can take almost half of the PvE elements from a PvE game like EQ makes me laugh. Some of the elements, like the gear (which is definately less impressive in gw) are the way they are because they are trying to drive the game towards "victory by skill" EQ, WoW, and D2 are heavily gear and grind based, where you can be the most talented phenom in the world but lose to some troll with an uber axe. Thus, for me, gear is unequivically advantage : GW.

Some other things, like art, you shouldnt judge will you get to kryta, the shiverpeaks, or the ring of fire. Like I said though, on trivial matters such as time and economy, the GW just doesnt have to worry about them. Its a PvP game. Take a look and you'll see that the PvP is 1000x better than any comparable game. Even with current issues with balance etc, I consider GW to easily be the best game in the world. Just wait till balance is fixed and arenanet fixes the grind, and GW will be even better.

So please take into consideration the whole picture before you label GW as a "poor Mans" anything. It is most sertainly, in my mind, easily better than EQ, WoW, or any other MMORPG that you will find.

Fr3sH · Aug 17, 2005, 05:06 PM // 17:06

I will have to come out and state one thing though. Pve in this game gets pretty boring after your second or third time through. Of course, thats what the frequent twice a year expansions will be there for.