Thoughts on GW/EOTN from an ex-WoW player

On the one hand, they're requiring a graphics card, which immediately restricts the game to a (relatively) small group of people, but on the other hand they intend to release a console version to catch the other guys. It's an interesting move, but it depends on the quality of the console version and honestly, more people have a PC without a graphics card than have an xbox 360. I hope they succeed, but at the end of the day requiring a graphics card at all is a restriction they don't need post WoW.

Since when do people without graphics cards play games? I think the majority, if not every 'gamer' has a graphics card.

Heck, everyone that plays GW has a graphics card lol. And I'm sure there is hardly anyone that plays games on the PC as a hobby that doesnt have a 6600 GT as a minimum graphics card.

Yes a lot of PC's might not have graphics cards, but the users of those PC's obviously arent gamers and dont contribute in any way to how many copies a game will sell.

And just look at how well oblivion did before making the stupid comment that people wont buy a game with high requirements:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/10/ob...-and-climbing/

And what's Oblivion's breakdown on PC versus xbox 360 sales?

Oh it sold plenty fine on the PC. I was around on the forums when it was released.

Theres also this bit on the page I linked:

I was trying to find how many copies it sold on the PC up untill today, but that info is pretty hard to find.

Assasins Creed is also currently selling well. Not as well as Oblivion did, but it at the number 3 spot on Play.

You'd be surprised, I've worked in a games developers studio that's had 6600 GT and lower. I'd guess a good proportion of casual PC users don't even know what the graphics card does, let alone what all the numbers mean (I've had to help out friends too many times to believe otherwise). Also, I have to say I really don't think a 6600 is going to cut it for AoC. There is no way in hell anyone's going to be able to run it at a decent graphical llevel and not lag to hell.

Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to playing it, got my money out already as it goes. But then I'm running a decent machine (quad core 8800 with 640meg). But the higher the spec the narrower the market.

Gameplay > all.

Anyway... erm yeh. That was a bit OT. /runs away

I got Oblivion "game of the year" with all three installments for the ps3. Played it for 3 days, became the arena champion in the imperial city and stopped playing it. i don't know if its the game, or the fact that I needed something more action packed at that time, But it bored me to death!

Elder scroll has always been a good game, but it requires a certain mood to really get into it. I'v been on CoD4 modern warfare and Assassins Creed more.


As long as AoC is nothing like the ps3 conan game it might have a chance, The ps3 version is utter crap, complete rip off of God of war and not a good rip off. With the most annoying end game boss fight ever! Defeating the final boss while falling through the hole, hitting the different buttons is a pain because of the speed of the button switch, Press X repeatedly now without warning press square! oops you didnt stop pressing X fast enough= FAIL! Now fight the last boss all over again! WOOHOO!

Guildwars is still better than WoW simply because its free to play. If wow was free to play, GW wouldnt stand a chance.

The 6600 is for minimum settings though, everything turned to lowest settings @ 1024 x 768 resolution.

Depending on how well the engine scales with details turned off, I wouldnt doubt that the minimum settings wont be able to play it.

But it might still not cut it, we will see after it is released just how it does, but from the activity on the forums I do believe it will do just fine.

Then again, when GW was released, how many people didnt have a Geforce 3 or better?

If you didnt like Oblivion, then I really dont think you would enjoy any MMORPG, AoC and WoW included. You may like guild wars, but remember it isnt an MMORPG, it is a completely different game altogether.

But anyway, for anyone in the UK in need of a good, cheap graphics upgrade, I will post this unmissable bargain again:

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/s...jsp?HIS-HD29GT

Cant really complain about AoC system reqs when you can just grab one of these for £45 (as long as your PC supports PCI-E....)

I'm not interested in how well the game performed compared to other PC games. I don't doubt that it sold well. I'm interested in how well it sold compared to the xbox 360 version, since console counterparts tend to sell around 3x more units. If Oblivion sold 1.7 million copies combined, I doubt it sold more than a million on the PC at that point in time.

I never said it's high requirements will stop AoC selling, I just said it's a restriction they don't need, which is pretty accurate as far as I'm concerned. And yet I find myself defending a position I didn't even make. Requiring a graphics card restricts them to people who own a graphics card, know how to install one or what one even is. That's probably more than enough people to sustain the game, but it's hardly reaching out to the casual gamers like WoW did. I'm fine with them going down that route, as I'm in no doubt you are, but post WoW it's just a risky move for an MMORPG is all.

Other people made the made the remark that AoC will flop because of its system requirements, I was posting to counter their claims and using oblivion as an example that high spec games do sell. You just started replying after the discussion has been going on for quite a while and got caught in the middle.

The link I posted with the 1.7 million sales figures is referring to Oblivions sales after just one or two months of launch. If you want to go look up information on how well it sold on the PC vs the Xbox, go and do that yourself. I'm not a google god you know.

We are looing at the release of the first MMORPG with such an advanced graphics system here, and the game has recieved hype and recomendations a plenty from the media, computer game conventions, and review sites. This hype has been carried over and created a huge fan base that are eagerly awaiting the launch of the game. There is also plenty of negativity in the press in the US about the mature content of the game which furthur adds to its publicity.

I havnt ever seen such a hyped MMORPG release yet, and I dont think AoC is going to flop, regardless of how risky its launch may look to fans of other MMOs That is all.

And if I remember correctly, a lot of people prefer GW over WoW because of its better graphics. We now have an MMORPG coming up with even better graphics, so arent these gamers that like nice graphics, and great gameplay ofc, going to be tempted to at least try AoC? I most certainly am.

Is this another "WoW vs GW" thread? Or did it morph into "AoC will be awesome...no, it won't".

BTW, Hellgate suffered from releasing the beta as a finished game to meet a deadline, whereas Warhammer and AoC have no problems moving theirs back so a good game is released. Hellgate didn't release version 1.0 of their game till January. Check the updates.

On topic: It's personal opinion. GW is a CORPG, WoW is an MMO. One you pay a fee per month, the other you buy once(or quartice, if you got all the products) and play for free. some like the fantasy feel of the characters in WoW and the fact that you can travel the whole map. Others like the more realistic look of GW and the more lifelike action of the characters. GW you can put down for a few months, then come back and play to your heart's content. WoW offers more skills, content and higher leveling. Both are successful for the formula each follows, and with GW2 sticking to the one-time payment option, it will attract the same casual base it did with the first game. This guy's thread is just an opinion, and I'm still trying to find where the hell the OP mentions AoC. Though it must be decent, as people like Malice are ditching GW for it(though I can't say whether that is because it's that good, or GW just got that bad).

Now, can we bury the hamburger that's left of this dead horse? Or at least make the /search option a 48 font for the visually impaired?

good observations and agree. I just wish I could wipe my memory and start GW fresh, having all 4 titles to explore. Instead, it's a dead end and we have all there is to have, and once you've seen it all twice (I've seen it all 8 times, as in taken 8 toons through all 4 campaigns completely), it's stale.

But I digress: varied ways to acquire top-stats gear, from super easy not so appealing to the eye yet nonetheless perfectly fuctional, to grind your heart out super leetsauce skins mega expensive and no more fuctional, is highly HIGHLY preferable to the WoW model.

I just wish I could have it all over from the start. Like I've been diverted by another game for a few years, and can instantly jump into this with everything already on the table.

OP: enjoy it, congrats on finding it. It has it's playability life, almost all of us have hit that limit, but you are just starting at the beginning of the journey. In this way, I envy a noob (and I mean that in the best possible way)

Can we just agree that people on teh internets suck and leave it at that vs the "this community sucks more than this other one" debate? Because frankly, any time you get people who can hide their identity and not face actual people, people will turn into jerks. It doesn't matter what game they play or even if they PLAY a game. Welcome to the interwebs, kids.

It is sad to see people give such credence to self avowed trolls.

Im closing up to 4000 hours now, and GW is still the funniest game i've ever played- Glads me to see threads like this again.

btw.. wow is problably the worst game i ever played.. i gave up early on it, but thats cos its pure BAD imo. I dont really understand how so many millions of people actually enjoy that.
But that is ofc up to them and not of my buisness.

Nope. Game sucked, won't waste my money or time looking again.

Which is not just a knock at the game or its developers, it's a valid point regarding consumer behavior. If you release a game that makes a bad first impression, it doesn't matter how good it is because it will always have a stigma attached to it from the bad launch. If AoC comes out and doesn't run for a lot of people, or a lot of people don't even buy it because of the steep requirements, they won't buy it a year later when those requirements become more of a standard. They'll just buy whatever new game is out at that time.

If you're not interested, don't click. The title clearly states what the topic is and yet you clicked for no other reason, apparently, than to whine about it. That's just plain stupid, though I sure wish I had that much spare time.

You must not have played too many games in your time. WoW may be dull and repetitive, but I can think of an awful lot of games off the top of my head that suck a lot more than WoW does.

If you're referring to the insistence on responding to bhavv, it's simple. He's pretending he has so much money that relatively high PC specs are inconsequential to him and he can't imagine how anyone wouldn't be running a $3500 system just to nerd out every Friday night alone. It's basically the dweeb equivalent of telling someone they have a small pecker.

/ troll troll your posts, gently through the thread...

the average computer graphics in North America is an intel GMA950, or a nvidia 6150SE. neither of these will be able to run AoC. that cuts off about 90% of potential players. out of the remaining 10%, only a handful will have something better than a 6600GT.

the fact is, AoC's requirement IS high, and it WILL cut into their sales. just how much we'll have to wait to see.

I completely agree and suspect that Arena Net feels the same if you consider the last released INFO for GW2

and this:

I think we will all be pleasantly surprised how unlike WoW Guild Wars 2 will be; as well, how far the GW1 theme, style and innovations will be taken in GW2.

I'm guessing that Instancing will be so advanced that you'll be able to choose who is in your persistent world and who is not. Add someone to your friends list and you'll likely see them frequently. Remove someone, you'll never have to see them again. Think Facebook. This is just a guess though, maybe I'm wrong and all will be WoW2 . . .

p.s. I'm in beta for AoC, still ToNs of work to do. And if you're not a fan of Asian Grinder styled MMOs (I.E. solid fan of GW) you may not dig the grind, level stratification and character maintenance involved.

Citation or it didn't happen. And we don't care about the "average computer graphics in North America", we care about the "average computer graphics in North America among the target audience of AoC".

Nice idea, almost an extension of the "ignore" feature that removes someone's spew from the chat panel. Don't know if that works in Local for GW as I've never put anyone on ignore. A trigger to make eejits alpha out completely would be handy, although if I did that in Shing Jea it'd end up pretty empty.

I have high hopes for GW2 as well, but I try to keep in mind that this is the team who called mismatching armour and spectacles "more character customisation".

Some of my favorite characters look best in mixed armor, and my Mesmer is gonna look awsome in shades. . . if only I could find a cheap pair in Pre Searing.

Oh, and friends of friends could alpha-in when in towns, cities, thus helping populate things a bit. As well ignoring someone could just turn their character into a generic model/skin, a peasant, beggar, local riff-raff, that can't be heard, nor silly name be viewed. Of course guildies and allies would all be there as well.

Oh I agree, out of 9 (active) characters only one of mine ever wears a full set. Mixing armour is one of my addictions in this game. I actively avoid looking the same as every other bugger in the game if I can.

I just think calling it "character customisation" is stretching it a bit for a few pairs of gloves and glasses. Most of the armour innovation in this game comes from the fun the players themselves have with figuring out what works well.

Stats are irrelevant on max level, so you have to get your depth somehow.

You remarkably underestimate gamers.

World of Warcraft has 10,000,000+ subscribers, and I guarentee you at least half those guys run the game in all low graphics, and you're telling me you expect a ton of people to run AoC w/o buying a new rig?

lo?

I'm not a big fan of UE3. That game had so many framerate problems like jesus christ I could run Crysis better than that shit, and that was with areas that were nearly empty. o_O

The game also had more useless skills than GW does too. Goddamn.

The game could of been good, if they would of used a less TECHNOLOGICALLY NEW engine that didn't suck and actually put some thought into shit. There was some interesting things to the game (elemental shifting, taking some guys fire mana shit and making it all water so he can't do shit = WIN), but too much bad.

It was better than Big Rigs for the PC tho.

I don't even know whats going on with that game anymore, I heard it got worse somehow, which is amazing.

As a current and avid WoW player, I'm glad you're enjoying Guild Wars : ) Both appeal to different audiences, so it's good to see you found your spot.

Welcome to the forums, by the way!

scan though every flyer from futureshop and bestbuy for the past few months, and you'll find intel GMAs and nvidia 6150SE outnumber computers with actual graphics cards 8 to 1. then take into account that these computers will be sold a lot more because they're cheaper, and you'll realize that the majority of people with a computer will have one of those two. i can't be bothered to dig up the actual statistics. i'm sure it's out there somewhere. use common sense and it's obvious that i'm pretty much on the mark.

the "target audience" is pretty much every person over 18 years old with a computer. in that demographic, you'll obviously find your hardcore gamers, but also many, many more college/university kids on laptops (most of which does not have a dedicated graphics chip), middle-aged business men with very little computer knowledge, and probably many older people who are fans of the conan series. only the hardcore gamers (and maybe the college kids and business men) will have machines adequate for AoC. that's certainly a very small viable audience.

the take-home message is this: computer parts are expensive, and not everyone is willing to fork out for them. i mean, why do you think GW and WoW are two of the most successful MMORPGs (even though GW is technically not a MMORPG, but i digress) ever created? it's because they both run on pretty much anything. joey kiddo can go over to his buddy's house, oggle at GW's amazing graphics, go to the local bestbuy and start playing on his 4 year-old machine with little hassle. you just can't do this with AoC.

You dont get the point either, well done to you.

People buying computers with integrated graphics are not buying them to play games on, they are buying them for office or work use, or even just general web surfing.

People that actually play GAMES will buy a PC with a dedicated graphics card. Just about every hosehold in a developed country will have a PC, not everyone in every household is interested in, or buys games.

WoW has 10 million subcriptions after three years of running, and so what?

Guild Wars only has 5 million copies sold, likey 4 copies per the hardcore players, and quite a lot to bots, so the actual number of people playing the game is more like 1 million or less? After 3 years of the game was released?

So does that mean GW is unsuccessful because it doesnt have as many players as WoW? Of course it doesnt.

I dont expect AoC to be as big as WoW, but you dont need 10 million subcriptions to make a game good. Saying otherwise is the same as saying that GW must be crap because compared to WoW, hardly anyone plays it.

True that. Guild Wars, for as good as it can look, is decently optimized. If you want a better example, look at how well Sins of a Solar Empire has sold.

Guild Wars on release had a same minimum requirement equivalent to what AoC has today, dont you understand that?

A geforce 3 three years ago wasnt present in every PC. People still bought the game, it was still successful.

And you still have no clue of how well AoC may be optimised. A 6600 GT is *CHEAP, OLD and ANCIENT* nowadays. Anyone that classifies themselves as a gamer will have a better card then that by now.

It's a big "wait and see". I first got Guild Wars with about a 2-3 year oldish computer. While it was crappy, it was still able to look decent with a happy frame rate. These days, I've run into very few new games that are as optimized as Guild Wars was.

But yes, we have no clue how optimized it will be. We'll wait and see but, giving the fact that I've ran into only a couple of decently optimzied games, I won't really be holding my breath.

(I will say that I'm glad to see a game besides WoW getting mauled at )

A game that targets gamers today will be a financial flop. Double so for the MMO market.

The number of "gamers" is surprisingly small, but definitely too small to support AAA development costs.

The only way to cater to gamers these days is through consoles, the cost of PC development is simply too high. And there's still the old falacy that most studios cater to hard-core gamers and pushing the technology, but leaving playability way behind.

Blizzard is arguably the most successful hard-core game company today. They have a history of never pushing technological boundaries.

But overall, the water-cooled, quad-SLI, LED-illuminated gamer is rare, and overall isn't worth the cost. They exhaust content in several hours, then move on.

It may be also worth pointing out, that the only MMO that succeeded in post-WoW world was Lord of the Rings. All others either folded, were never completed, or are still in development. The few ones that did launch peaked during first month, then went into stagnation.

Just something to think about...

Then you just have been playing with the wrong people.

You could say that to any game, really. What matters is how unfortunate a player is to keep running into those wrong people, and this is what varies from game to game, player to player.

Oblivion, Gothic 3, Far Cry, Crysis, Doom 3, Assasins Creed, Black and White 2....

Dont think any of them were a financial flop

And the engine of AoC scales backwards to graphics cards from three years ago, it isnt just for current gamers. Some people just have a serious lack of reading comprehension.

Also, I dont think any other MMO has been as hyped up and had anywhere near as much interest or critical success prior to its release as AoC has been recieving. It's a success already just waiting to be released.

Bhavv... they're not running one of those schemes where you get free 'stuffs' for virally promoting something as much as possible across teh internetz are they?

I'm beginning to wonder.

Oblivion and Assassin's Creed are available for consoles, to which I would say contributed largely to their success.

Gothic 3? B&W 2? I've heard next to nothing about those games, just previews of them (hell, no one really seemed to notice they were released).

D3 had a huge reputation backing it (Doom), a similar reason to why WoW (and other Blizz games) was such a large success.

Can't say much about Far Cry or Crysis, only that the latter was advertised by EA and was claimed to be the "most advanced game to date".

If I got a quarter for every time I heard that...

Since WoW lacks Missions, one must add Missions to the "questing" category of game play. If one compares ALL the elements of questing GW has to offer (Missions+Quests) it definitely out does WoW's questing system by miles. Missions progress the story line, but most importantly INCLUDE the player in "world changing events" that directly effect lore. So the argument that it doesn't really delve into RP is extremely subjective, after playing a game like Oblivion- sure you may think the RP elements of GW are dumbed down. But even more so are the RP elements of WoW, sure if you're a heroic paladin of the human race and want to bash some horde orcs- thats all fine and dandy, but alas even WoW's quests are repetitive lore wise as well. How many times have "orc raiding parties" crossed onto realm territory and vice versa, or "threats" of hostile actions from a foreign race imposed onto the players. Hell going by Warcraft lore, one thing can be assumed above all others- Theres a lot of races, and they're always warring with each other- sometimes they back stab allies and sometimes they ally with each other against a common enemy. In it's basics its nothing but a long spread drama/epic with few long lasting characters, but rather minor significant characters that play the role of a historical figure that somehow change\ the overall plot. For instance, the characters played in the BMP missions are prime examples. All of the characters in the Warcraft universe are like this to me when viewed within the games and merchandise. The novels are a much better source for lore but to me how its portrayed in the games (especially WoW) has never really been intriguing or persuading enough to delve deeper into the world as many make it to seem.

And if only I got a quarter for every time I heard that.....

I get annoyed by people that know nothing about other games claiming that no one is going to buy them because the system requirements are too high.

They sold / are selling great on the PC too. Assasins Creed on the PC alone is currently on the third spot for PC game sales on play.

Really, if you think that Oblivion wasnt successful on the PC, you really dont know much about how well games with top graphics and gameplay sell. And just because you havnt heard of other games that I mentioned doesnt mean that they werent successful. I had never heard of GW before I bough it, so erm, that means it wasnt successful right? (/sarcasm).

We're claiming that there will be less purchases because the system requirements are too high. And that's true: The higher the requirements, the less accessible it becomes to lower-end PCs and thus lower-ended PC users.

Unless they're catering only to the "gamers", in which case that's a very bad idea for an MMO (see Antheus' post above).

If they *were* successful, do you think I would've heard of them? I've barely heard any publicity on either after their release.

But I was taking that in too much of a literal sense. I knew a lot about Black & White 2 and Gothic 3, most especially that they didn't sell "amazingly". Gothic 3's last records were recorded at about 500k. I have no clue about B&W 2's success (or lack thereof) but given the "disappointment" of the predecessor and Fable I'm not going to say it's too high.

Oblivion's sales have been pretty good, but it hasn't been stated how it's run for the PC has been.

Granted, I did talk a bit out of my ass about sales for AC and OB on the PC. I'll admit that much. Haven't found PC sales for OB, though.

Sorry I insisted in this derailing, Inde : ( You know I can't control myself all the time...

nope, you don't get the point.

the point is to create NEW gamers, not trying to pander towards those who already are. this is because the actual computer gamer population in north america (or anywhere in the world) is TINY. you don't just want to entice over the tiny amount of players to play your game. operating on that is a recipe for financial ruin.

one of the greatest reasons why WoW and GW are successful is because they created NEW gamers, and not just recycled the same people over and over again. the way they accomplished this was that the games can run on a wide variety of machines and still look good. before picking up GW, i had absolutely no interest in online gaming at all. the last game i played before GW was D2 and heroes of might and magic 3. when i found out about how good GW looks even on my intel GMA 910, i was hooked. this wouldn't have happened if, let's say, GW required a FX5200 AGP to start.

the point of a MMORPG is to make as many people play it as possible, and the way to do that is to ensure maximum potential market. as such, limiting your game to those with a 6600GT or better, even today, is sheer stupidity.

Same article, different site:

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/700/700917p1.html

Although it did have the success of morrowind behind it, the hype and the graphics played an important part in its early sales figures. A lot of people simply bought it for the graphics alone.

Oh so the 18+ age rating must be even more stupid then, since most people playing games are below that age

Also, its going to be very hard creating new gamers out of people over 18. People of this age that play games have likely been doing so since they were kids.

A 6600 GT is god damn ANCIENT! It isnt a fast card and you can get better ones for £50 or less nowadays.

When GW was released it was limited to people with a geforce 3 or better. So no one without a Geforce 2 or less could play the game, so they werent really ensuring a maximum potential market either.