Many people in the Clan Plaid Guild on WOW took their time and energy to assist me during my 10 day free trial. (which ended today)
I will not be purchasing the game.
I now truely believe that *IF* Guild Wars was X-platform... we would have a vibrant Clan Plaid and Friends presence there. It is the superior game.
The Gizmo Voice was the best part of the WOW/CP Guild experience.
As GuildMaster of Clan Plaid on Guild Warz... I will give one more call for members... Then, if we don't get more people, I will search for a larger, more active Guild to join. I will then post the info on this board so all CP/GW members can switch over. We need more active people to enjoy all the great aspects of GW.
PS... Croaker..if you have found that "special" Guild in GW... and they would welcome the wholesale invitation to our small band... please let me know. I trust your judgement.
I now truely believe that *IF* Guild Wars was X-platform... we
would have a vibrant Clan Plaid and Friends presence there. It
is the superior game.
I don't want to start a big kerfuffle, but I can't let this go. I must respectfully disagree.
I play WoW on my PC, I've tried Guild Wars... I vastly prefer WoW. I'm sure we both have different goals and preferences when it comes to these types of games but the two things that made Guild Wars unbearable to play (for me) when compared to WoW:
1. Terrain. In GW, you are a rat in a maze. You don't know what terrain is unpassible by looking at it. You must experiment and "learn" the map to know where you can and cannot go. In WoW, if it's water, you can swim across it. If it's a cliff, you can fall off it if you wish. Depending on height, you may or may not die, but you've made your choice.
2. Immersiveness. GW is a disjointed collection of towns connected by lonely terrain. There is no feeling of a vibrant world because the outdoors are only instanced for a party before it leaves the town. In WoW, I could be walking from one point to another, run across someone and help them if they're in trouble, ask them to group to do a quest, etc. Some people see the travel system in WoW as a disadvantage, as it takes time to fly from one point to another. I see it as an opportunity to see a vibrant world... you see other characters interacting with wandering monsters as you're flying over the land.
Continually seeing messages in chat about the Koreans and Americans duking it out didn't do much to improve the immersiveness either.
I'll add a word about gameplay. It was different than WoW, and i like the added complexity of WoW, but the GW combat was OK. However the pvp experience I had with GW was just a big clusterf-- ... I enjoy the Battlegrounds in WoW (some do not... shrug) Perhaps I didn't give that aspect of GW enough a chance, but there is a battleground in WoW that is the closest thing to controlling one unit in Myth Terries that I've ever seen. It's fun!
I don't want to start a big kerfuffle, but I can't let this go.
I must respectfully disagree.
Well, clearly Nate has had more experience with complex Guild Wars encounters (both pve and pvp) which are a lot of fun (I find a lot of the early game to be snoozeville, but competitive pvp matches are unmatched for a good rush), while you've had a lot of experience with the high level WoW game, which I am sure is also a great time... You are also quite correct in saying they are different games. GW is not about a big immersive world, it's more about complex pve and pvp combat involving a wide variety of skills and classes all interacting to defeat your opponents in a pre-balanced encounter. It's more of a game while WoW is more of an immersive "experience".
I believe Guild Wars takes some time before you can really get to the fun and interesting skill/class combinations and pvp combat, while WoW tends to be fun right from the beginning... However, it takes a lot less of an overall time investment in Guild Wards to get to the point where you are "competitive" in both a pve and pvp sense for all of the end game content (which is quite fun/challenging). In WoW the whole point is the JOURNEY to get to level 60, while in GW the real fun doesn't start until you are level 20 and have acquired most of your skills and equipment.
Anyway, with my exteremly limited time to game right now I'm having a lot more fun jumping into GW for an hour or 2 and getting in some good competitive matches than I would be playing WoW and always feeling really far behind the power curve.
I would love to see more people in the CP GW guild as well, as most of the coolest stuff requires groups of 8+ people and it's just about impossible to put together any kind of "rabble" team.
I play WoW on my PC, I've tried Guild Wars... I vastly prefer
WoW. I'm sure we both have different goals and preferences when
it comes to these types of games but the two things that made
Guild Wars unbearable to play (for me) when compared to WoW:
1. Terrain. In GW, you are a rat in a maze. You don't know what
terrain is unpassible by looking at it. You must experiment and
"learn" the map to know where you can and cannot go.
In WoW, if it's water, you can swim across it. If it's a cliff,
you can fall off it if you wish. Depending on height, you may or
may not die, but you've made your choice.
2. Immersiveness. GW is a disjointed collection of towns
connected by lonely terrain. There is no feeling of a vibrant
world because the outdoors are only instanced for a party before
it leaves the town. In WoW, I could be walking from one point to
another, run across someone and help them if they're in trouble,
ask them to group to do a quest, etc. Some people see the travel
system in WoW as a disadvantage, as it takes time to fly from
one point to another. I see it as an opportunity to see a
vibrant world... you see other characters interacting with
wandering monsters as you're flying over the land.
Continually seeing messages in chat about the Koreans and
Americans duking it out didn't do much to improve the
immersiveness either.
I'll add a word about gameplay. It was different than WoW, and i
like the added complexity of WoW, but the GW combat was OK.
However the pvp experience I had with GW was just a big
clusterf-- ... I enjoy the Battlegrounds in WoW (some do not...
shrug) Perhaps I didn't give that aspect of GW enough a chance,
but there is a battleground in WoW that is the closest thing to
controlling one unit in Myth Terries that I've ever seen. It's
fun!
If you have some lowbie characters in WOW, what you need to be doing is getting together w/ some of us on gizmo and go questing etc. If it wasn't for that aspect i probably would not play, but it has been great to hang out w/ the clan.
I don't want to start a big kerfuffle, but I can't let this go.
I must respectfully disagree.
Hey.... I don't even know what a kerfuffle is.. so I doubt I'll have mine ruffled.
I play WoW on my PC, I've tried Guild Wars... I vastly prefer
WoW. I'm sure we both have different goals and preferences when
it comes to these types of games but the two things that made
Guild Wars unbearable to play (for me) when compared to WoW:
First off.. BB's post mentioned ALOT of reasons why I prefer GW, so I won't repeat most.
1. Terrain. In GW, you are a rat in a maze. You don't know what
terrain is unpassible by looking at it. You must experiment and
"learn" the map to know where you can and cannot go.
In WoW, if it's water, you can swim across it. If it's a cliff,
you can fall off it if you wish. Depending on height, you may or
may not die, but you've made your choice.
I find the stepping off a cliff and dropping to my death... an un-necessary realism. I prefer the terrain paths approach. And, I REALLY like the way my quest goal is highlited on the map... versus some nebulous direction with no clue as to how far it was. Wandering aimlessly is not my idea of fun.
2. Immersiveness. GW is a disjointed collection of towns
connected by lonely terrain. There is no feeling of a vibrant
world because the outdoors are only instanced for a party before
it leaves the town. In WoW, I could be walking from one point to
another, run across someone and help them if they're in trouble,
ask them to group to do a quest, etc. Some people see the travel
system in WoW as a disadvantage, as it takes time to fly from
one point to another. I see it as an opportunity to see a
vibrant world... you see other characters interacting with
wandering monsters as you're flying over the land.
One of my biggest dislikes about WoW is the god-awfull hikes I had to endure to get anywhere. the GW town-portal sytem is so much better. I don't want to find fellow gamers wandering out there screwing up my quest. MY quest BUDDIES are who I want to play with.. and I choose them in town.
Continually seeing messages in chat about the Koreans and
Americans duking it out didn't do much to improve the
immersiveness either.
HA! Knowing who controls the portals to the UNDERWORLD is of VAST importance to all ascended players.. If North America loses control... WE can't get to the richest goodies in the game.
I'll add a word about gameplay. It was different than WoW, and i
like the added complexity of WoW, but the GW combat was OK.
Complexity? I call it an overly complex system that just boggs down the player with too much crap to attend to. If I want realism, I'll play Sim-Life and make my character crap at least once a day, and brush his teeth.. I play GW to avoid that tedium.
However the pvp experience I had with GW was just a big
clusterf-- ...
Interesting as I find the PVP arenas of GW to be vastly superior to the dueling of wow.
I enjoy the Battlegrounds in WoW (some do not...
shrug) Perhaps I didn't give that aspect of GW enough a chance,
but there is a battleground in WoW that is the closest thing to
controlling one unit in Myth Terries that I've ever seen. It's
fun!
And I was gonna say that the PVP in GW gives me ONE unit to use just like in Miff! :0
I enjoy the Battlegrounds in WoW (some do not...
shrug) Perhaps I didn't give that aspect of GW enough a chance,
but there is a battleground in WoW that is the closest thing to
controlling one unit in Myth Terries that I've ever seen. It's
fun!
Completely off-topic here (since I don't play WoW or GW, though I've been considering reinstalling GW), but...
The closest thing I've found to this feeling is actually in the RTS/first-person hybrids. There have been a few games like this that I've played, and they've been phenomenal. Basically, the players are divided into 2 teams. One person on each team plays the "commander" who is playing an RTS game via a god's-eye view. He constructs buildings, buys things, harvests resources, issues orders, etc. All the other players on his team are individual units on the battlefield, playing via a first-person interface.
The first game of this type I played was Allegiance. It was space/sci-fi themed, with players flying fighters, bombers, or even multi-person capital ships. Incredibly fun escorting harvesters, assaulting enemy bases, etc. Overall fantastic game, but it wasn't marketed at all by MS, and thus no one ever heard of it. It won several "Best Game You Never Heard Of" awards.
The second game was Savage, which was fantasy-themed (think Warcraft-like). It also failed due to weak marketing, despite rave reviews. This brings me to the point of my post - a plug! Savage 2 is currently in the works, scheduled for release next summer. Check it out!
Completely off-topic here (since I don't play WoW or GW, though
I've been considering reinstalling GW), but...
The closest thing I've found to this feeling is actually in the
RTS/first-person hybrids. There have been a few games like this
that I've played, and they've been phenomenal. Basically, the
players are divided into 2 teams. One person on each team plays
the "commander" who is playing an RTS game via a
god's-eye view. He constructs buildings, buys things, harvests
resources, issues orders, etc. All the other players on his team
are individual units on the battlefield, playing via a
first-person interface.
The problem I have with these sorts of rts/first-person hybrid games is event though tatically they may be similar to Myth, the game play is totally different. In a first person shooter, you control the unit directly - turning him to aim, moving forward and backwards, side to side, etc. In Myth, you gave orders - move to this location, attack this unit - or attack the ground. I don't enjoy the first way (I find it frustrating) while I do enjoy the second way, reason I probably enjoy myth and to some degree diablo ii and dungeon siege, you give orders to your guys and the computer does the moving/attacking... if that makes sense.
Yeah, fair enough. I guess the problem is that, if you're only given one unit to control, control of that unit needs to be more involved to give you something to do and to actually require some skill on the part of the player. With Myth, the skill involved coordinating multiple units simultaneously.
Interestingly, Savage 2 claims to have:
"FPS fast action paced gameplay for certain characters"
"third person RPG slower paced gameplay for others"
The second item is new to the series (and genre, small as it is). I'm wondering if that part will be more Diablo-ish. Being old and slow, I'm curious about it.
[b]Re: Thanks for all the Help during my WOW...[/b]
[quote] The first game of this type I played was Allegiance. It was space/sci-fi themed, with players flying fighters, bombers, or even multi-person capital ships. Incredibly fun escorting harvesters, assaulting enemy bases, etc. Overall fantastic game, but it wasn't marketed at all by MS, and thus no one ever heard of it. It won several "Best Game You Never Heard Of" awards.
[/quote] I was very impressed by Allegiance, but I wasn't willing to pay the monthly fee for it. I think that more than anything doomed it, it isn't the kind of game people will pay a subscription for.
Fortunately, MS released the source code a couple years ago, and there's a Marius.net like environment for it, so it's stil alive and well. http://www.freeallegiance.org/
[b]Re: Thanks for all the Help during my WOW...[/b]
[quote] I was very impressed by Allegiance, but I wasn't willing to pay the monthly fee for it. I think that more than anything doomed it, it isn't the kind of game people will pay a subscription for.
[/quote] Yeah, true. It was a little weasely of MS to try and get a monthly fee out of it. Thankfullly Savage/Savage 2 are free (other than buying the game itself).
[quote] Fortunately, MS released the source code a couple years ago, and there's a Marius.net like environment for it, so it's stil alive and well. http://www.freeallegiance.org/ -Mori
[/quote] I knew they'd done that, but I wasn't aware that it was still going strong!
Yeah, fair enough. I guess the problem is that, if you're only
given one unit to control, control of that unit needs to be more
involved to give you something to do and to actually require
some skill on the part of the player. With Myth, the skill
involved coordinating multiple units simultaneously.
for most people this is true - but the majority of my Myth playing time was playing coops, where I might control a dwarf, or a group of zerks - rarely a mix of units. I could have fun playing team and ffa games - but I had the most fun playing coops - and I never got very good at controlling a lot of units. I could beat most of the solo levels solo simply because I had played them so much that I knew the scripting inside and out.
Comments
Many people in the Clan Plaid Guild on WOW took their time and energy to assist me during my 10 day free trial. (which ended today)
I will not be purchasing the game.
I now truely believe that *IF* Guild Wars was X-platform... we would have a vibrant Clan Plaid and Friends presence there. It is the superior game.
The Gizmo Voice was the best part of the WOW/CP Guild experience.
As GuildMaster of Clan Plaid on Guild Warz... I will give one more call for members... Then, if we don't get more people, I will search for a larger, more active Guild to join. I will then post the info on this board so all CP/GW members can switch over. We need more active people to enjoy all the great aspects of GW.
PS... Croaker..if you have found that "special" Guild in GW... and they would welcome the wholesale invitation to our small band... please let me know. I trust your judgement.
For FUN and Honor!
N8
I don't want to start a big kerfuffle, but I can't let this go. I must respectfully disagree.
I play WoW on my PC, I've tried Guild Wars... I vastly prefer WoW. I'm sure we both have different goals and preferences when it comes to these types of games but the two things that made Guild Wars unbearable to play (for me) when compared to WoW:
1. Terrain. In GW, you are a rat in a maze. You don't know what terrain is unpassible by looking at it. You must experiment and "learn" the map to know where you can and cannot go. In WoW, if it's water, you can swim across it. If it's a cliff, you can fall off it if you wish. Depending on height, you may or may not die, but you've made your choice.
2. Immersiveness. GW is a disjointed collection of towns connected by lonely terrain. There is no feeling of a vibrant world because the outdoors are only instanced for a party before it leaves the town. In WoW, I could be walking from one point to another, run across someone and help them if they're in trouble, ask them to group to do a quest, etc. Some people see the travel system in WoW as a disadvantage, as it takes time to fly from one point to another. I see it as an opportunity to see a vibrant world... you see other characters interacting with wandering monsters as you're flying over the land.
Continually seeing messages in chat about the Koreans and Americans duking it out didn't do much to improve the immersiveness either.
I'll add a word about gameplay. It was different than WoW, and i like the added complexity of WoW, but the GW combat was OK. However the pvp experience I had with GW was just a big clusterf-- ... I enjoy the Battlegrounds in WoW (some do not... shrug) Perhaps I didn't give that aspect of GW enough a chance, but there is a battleground in WoW that is the closest thing to controlling one unit in Myth Terries that I've ever seen. It's fun!
So there ya go, have fun wherever you are!
Well, clearly Nate has had more experience with complex Guild Wars encounters (both pve and pvp) which are a lot of fun (I find a lot of the early game to be snoozeville, but competitive pvp matches are unmatched for a good rush), while you've had a lot of experience with the high level WoW game, which I am sure is also a great time... You are also quite correct in saying they are different games. GW is not about a big immersive world, it's more about complex pve and pvp combat involving a wide variety of skills and classes all interacting to defeat your opponents in a pre-balanced encounter. It's more of a game while WoW is more of an immersive "experience".
I believe Guild Wars takes some time before you can really get to the fun and interesting skill/class combinations and pvp combat, while WoW tends to be fun right from the beginning... However, it takes a lot less of an overall time investment in Guild Wards to get to the point where you are "competitive" in both a pve and pvp sense for all of the end game content (which is quite fun/challenging). In WoW the whole point is the JOURNEY to get to level 60, while in GW the real fun doesn't start until you are level 20 and have acquired most of your skills and equipment.
Anyway, with my exteremly limited time to game right now I'm having a lot more fun jumping into GW for an hour or 2 and getting in some good competitive matches than I would be playing WoW and always feeling really far behind the power curve.
I would love to see more people in the CP GW guild as well, as most of the coolest stuff requires groups of 8+ people and it's just about impossible to put together any kind of "rabble" team.
If you have some lowbie characters in WOW, what you need to be doing is getting together w/ some of us on gizmo and go questing etc. If it wasn't for that aspect i probably would not play, but it has been great to hang out w/ the clan.
Spit
Hey.... I don't even know what a kerfuffle is.. so I doubt I'll have mine ruffled.
First off.. BB's post mentioned ALOT of reasons why I prefer GW, so I won't repeat most.
I find the stepping off a cliff and dropping to my death... an un-necessary realism. I prefer the terrain paths approach. And, I REALLY like the way my quest goal is highlited on the map... versus some nebulous direction with no clue as to how far it was. Wandering aimlessly is not my idea of fun.
One of my biggest dislikes about WoW is the god-awfull hikes I had to endure to get anywhere. the GW town-portal sytem is so much better. I don't want to find fellow gamers wandering out there screwing up my quest. MY quest BUDDIES are who I want to play with.. and I choose them in town.
HA! Knowing who controls the portals to the UNDERWORLD is of VAST importance to all ascended players.. If North America loses control... WE can't get to the richest goodies in the game.
Complexity? I call it an overly complex system that just boggs down the player with too much crap to attend to. If I want realism, I'll play Sim-Life and make my character crap at least once a day, and brush his teeth.. I play GW to avoid that tedium.
Interesting as I find the PVP arenas of GW to be vastly superior to the dueling of wow.
I enjoy the Battlegrounds in WoW (some do not... And I was gonna say that the PVP in GW gives me ONE unit to use just like in Miff! :0
So, there ya go, have fun wherever you are ! :_)
N8
Heh, guess you never got to try the battlegrounds, but dueling is NOT pvp. Anyways, thanks for the reply!
Completely off-topic here (since I don't play WoW or GW, though I've been considering reinstalling GW), but...
The closest thing I've found to this feeling is actually in the RTS/first-person hybrids. There have been a few games like this that I've played, and they've been phenomenal. Basically, the players are divided into 2 teams. One person on each team plays the "commander" who is playing an RTS game via a god's-eye view. He constructs buildings, buys things, harvests resources, issues orders, etc. All the other players on his team are individual units on the battlefield, playing via a first-person interface.
The first game of this type I played was Allegiance. It was space/sci-fi themed, with players flying fighters, bombers, or even multi-person capital ships. Incredibly fun escorting harvesters, assaulting enemy bases, etc. Overall fantastic game, but it wasn't marketed at all by MS, and thus no one ever heard of it. It won several "Best Game You Never Heard Of" awards.
The second game was Savage, which was fantasy-themed (think Warcraft-like). It also failed due to weak marketing, despite rave reviews. This brings me to the point of my post - a plug! Savage 2 is currently in the works, scheduled for release next summer. Check it out!
-Cauldyth
Savage 2
The problem I have with these sorts of rts/first-person hybrid games is event though tatically they may be similar to Myth, the game play is totally different. In a first person shooter, you control the unit directly - turning him to aim, moving forward and backwards, side to side, etc. In Myth, you gave orders - move to this location, attack this unit - or attack the ground. I don't enjoy the first way (I find it frustrating) while I do enjoy the second way, reason I probably enjoy myth and to some degree diablo ii and dungeon siege, you give orders to your guys and the computer does the moving/attacking... if that makes sense.
Conner
Yeah, fair enough. I guess the problem is that, if you're only given one unit to control, control of that unit needs to be more involved to give you something to do and to actually require some skill on the part of the player. With Myth, the skill involved coordinating multiple units simultaneously.
Interestingly, Savage 2 claims to have:
"FPS fast action paced gameplay for certain characters"
"third person RPG slower paced gameplay for others"
The second item is new to the series (and genre, small as it is). I'm wondering if that part will be more Diablo-ish. Being old and slow, I'm curious about it.
-Cauldyth
[quote]
The first game of this type I played was Allegiance. It was
space/sci-fi themed, with players flying fighters, bombers, or
even multi-person capital ships. Incredibly fun escorting
harvesters, assaulting enemy bases, etc. Overall fantastic game,
but it wasn't marketed at all by MS, and thus no one ever heard
of it. It won several "Best Game You Never Heard Of"
awards.
[/quote]
I was very impressed by Allegiance, but I wasn't willing to pay the monthly fee for it. I think that more than anything doomed it, it isn't the kind of game people will pay a subscription for.
Fortunately, MS released the source code a couple years ago, and there's a Marius.net like environment for it, so it's stil alive and well. http://www.freeallegiance.org/
-Mori
[quote]
I was very impressed by Allegiance, but I wasn't willing to pay
the monthly fee for it. I think that more than anything doomed
it, it isn't the kind of game people will pay a subscription
for.
[/quote]
Yeah, true. It was a little weasely of MS to try and get a monthly fee out of it. Thankfullly Savage/Savage 2 are free (other than buying the game itself).
[quote]
Fortunately, MS released the source code a couple years ago, and
there's a Marius.net like environment for it, so it's stil alive
and well. http://www.freeallegiance.org/ -Mori
[/quote]
I knew they'd done that, but I wasn't aware that it was still going strong!
-Cauldyth
for most people this is true - but the majority of my Myth playing time was playing coops, where I might control a dwarf, or a group of zerks - rarely a mix of units. I could have fun playing team and ffa games - but I had the most fun playing coops - and I never got very good at controlling a lot of units. I could beat most of the solo levels solo simply because I had played them so much that I knew the scripting inside and out.
Conner