bit-gamer.net

Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning

Comments 1 to 25 of 34

Reply
Gunblade 5th October 2008, 10:09 Quote
Good summary and article, brohammer.

The tomb of knowledge, PQ's, Scenarios and lore are the highest points of this game. It was a enough for me to move on from AoC - been having a lot of fun. I just wonder whats my next MMO...that's the problem with these games. Thank god they take forever to develop. Because I jump around to the new game ever since EQ.

The funny thing for me is I literally can't compare this game to WoW. I've never played WoW (well a trial once but I don't believe it truly counts.). So when you compare this game to AoC, DAOC, EQ II, FFXI: Online, and the rest of the "classics" of fantasy MMO genre that I've played. The Warhammer really brings its niche to the table quite nicely. Nothing truly outstanding but nothing terrible about it either at the moment. Just a another solid third generation mmo.
GauteHauk 5th October 2008, 10:43 Quote
Yeah, agreed. Good job on the article. It's the game I wish was more unique, to be honest. I'm sick of MMOs where leveling, grinding(even if 90% of a game is fighting for fun, fighting for xp is still grinding) and such are so common place. I want another game like Ultima Online where I can develop my character to do something through skills that I hone over time. Period. No more of this "grind, get xp, reach the highest level, now have fun."

Call me nostalgic, but Ultima Online was the best MMO I've ever played, followed closely by Planetside(despite the shortcomings of both).

Don't really have anything else to say on the matter, just tired of Ultima Online limping along, dragging out its slow and painful(to those who loved the game back in the day) demise. I want a similar mechanic in another game. UO was not its isometric view. That was part of its charm, but the real draw for me was customizing my character(really cool ways to do that in modern MMOs, with way more customizable character models) with my style armor, clothing(things I could change readily), and skills I could hone to specific numbers, without needing to be the best level in everything to have fun. I want that again. Why is it so hard to give that to the players again? Is it the economic model of "if we let them have too much fun, we won't be able to get rid of the game in a few years when we want to pump out another new game and ten expansions."?

I'm just ranty because I can't have any new, non-grindy MMOs. And yes, I realize UO had some grind, but it wasn't the whole game. WOW and such it is. :/

Yeah.

Ranty.
lewchenko 5th October 2008, 11:56 Quote
All these MMO's are too similar in my opinion. Someone needs to completely reinvent the whole concept of what players are there for.

They seem to try and cater for all, but become masters of none. Every MMO review I read has to balance the PVE vs PVP elements, and to be honest, Im bored with it all.

My best friend is an MMO whore.. he went from WOW to Lord of the rings to Pirates of Burning Sea to Age of Conan and back to WOW... still not finding that holy grail in anything other than the 'flawed' = his words, WOW. He is now reluctant to try Warhammer as he believes its yet another WOW with some improvements.. but never enough to switch.

Plus there is the fact that his online mates are sticky to their favourite MMO, so WOW is like their nest. When one leaves, they always return to WOW as the rest didnt want to leave. I guess trying out new MMO's can be a lonely experience.

For me.. I will wait and see what innovations are coming next on the MMO scene. The only ones Im excited about (for the wrong reasons) are Stargate and Startrek, which the IP is strong, but I have no idea about the gameplay offered, or even if they ever will come to light. EVE has to be the most boring space life/trading simulator Ive yet to play unless you are seriously willing to put 100's of hours in.

Good review though.. told me what I needed to know.
Mentai 5th October 2008, 12:11 Quote
That was the most negative review I've read of this game, and it kinda surprised me. In some ways I'm happy that it's bad, I reaaally wanted to play this as a lot of my friends had gotten into it, but I don't have the time nor money for an MMO right now. Thanks bit-tech :P

Having said that in 6 months time it will probably be significantly better, I don't understand why so many people want to jump into MMO's on their release, there are excessive amounts of balancing/patching over the initial period, it's like paying for a beta.
mookboy 5th October 2008, 12:36 Quote
Considering that the awesomely **** Age of Conan was given 8/10, I'd recommend you try Warhammer before being too swayed by that review, which I don't feel is completely fair.

I'd say it's got a lot of potential, and does a lot of things very right, but a load of other things need sorting out - but then it's less than a month into release and even WoW was ridden with problems on launch. One point I feel needs mentioning, is that yeah, it doesn't really need you to labour over party quests and grouping... but that's not a cut and dry bad thing. The reliance in WoW of needing a guild and constantly finding parties for later levels, isn't in my opinion a good thing. Not everyone plays these games in a completely hardcore, dedicated fashion. Personally I can only put in an hour or two a night at the most, so I want to have fun without wasting most of that time sitting around trying to fill up a group.

Also GOA isn't the games developer - it was Mythic, GOA are just the European distro/publisher/Euro flunkies for Mythic.
BioSniper 5th October 2008, 12:36 Quote
Not being funny but how many levels did this reviewer play through?
There are also quite a series of errors in the review, the most noticible being:

Calling GOA the developer. They are not. Mythic/MythicEA are the developer. GOA is the european publisher.
The name is WAR not WOAoR. WAR being Warhammer: Age of Reckoning.

Sorry if this feels a little harsh but errors like that are very un-bit-tech like.

::edit::
Also it would appear that the reviewer is heavily WoW biased rather than this being an impartial review. I know WoW is the "benchmark" as such however I get the feeling that there may be some WoW/Warcraft/Blizzard Fanboy-ism in there.
Bladestorm 5th October 2008, 12:54 Quote
Quote:
While each class has a speciality it will excel in, GOA (the game’s developer)

Mythic (or EA Mythic, whatever they're being called now, they developed DAoC before) are actually the game's developers, GOA are the subdivision of france telecom that has the license to run servers in europe.

Definetely agree that single body types is a problem, but the single gender problem only really applies to destruction (and they already went against fluff a fair bit to offer as many females there as they do) since all of the order classes can be either gender I believe.
Quote:
In fact, PvP is so integral to the gameplay in WOAoR that unlike other MMOs, where you can choose to either join a PvE (player versus environment) or PvP server, in WOAoR there’s only a PvP option – you have to fight other players,

On "Core" ruleset servers you only have to fight in PvP if you actually enter PvP areas, you aren't forced to fight other players there. There are also RvR servers where everywhere is made a PvP area for those that want it and RP variations on both.

I'd have rated the scenarios as much better than WoW's battlegrounds and the open world pvp gets better as it gets bigger (the lower ones being practically training grounds with easy features) but I guess I like having oponents who are on an even footing more than dumb npc's made to be beaten ;)

Not a bad review all things considered :) even if I would have probably come across a little more favourable myself due to liking RvR combat.
Veles 5th October 2008, 13:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Levelling in WoW for example is an altogether more enjoyable experience

Were we playing the same WoW? My experience of WoW was it was a race to get to the next ding, so you could get to level 60 (or 70 after BC) so you could get to the "real" content, when then people complained wasn't enough of.
mookboy 5th October 2008, 13:31 Quote
WoW is completely about the grind and levelling. WAR adds a lot more to the gameplay than that.
BioSniper 5th October 2008, 14:06 Quote
Exactly mook.
If you also factor in that you can queue yourself up for the RVR arenas WHILE you quest and then get asked if you want to join via a popup while you are playing so that you NEVER have to hang around for stuff to happen WAR is far superior. You level in both questing AND PVPing and there is usually never a dull moment in between.
mookboy 5th October 2008, 15:01 Quote
Yeah one thing I really like is that in contrast to some of the comments in the review, it's actually ALOT easier to party in WAR than WoW. Certainly in the early chapters, you can happily complete the PQs and open RvR stuff without grouping. But I've found past chapter 3, I'm constantly being invited to parties for PQs and the warbands for the open RvR stuff - I've had some really good sessions with people where I've just joined their party for a PQ and we've ended up doing the other two or three PQs in the same zone too.

I think the main difference is that WAR doesn't make running or joining a party a big deal - it's a much easier, more relaxed approach, especially with the open party system.

I think the review made some reasonable comments, but I just can't quite reconcile some of the comments with my own experience.
Malz 5th October 2008, 15:46 Quote
Hmnn for starters reviewing any mmorpg based on the first 10 levels of play is pointless, second letting someone whos only ever played wow.. guess we all gotta start somewhere. Personally I've played quite a few mmorpg's over the past 8-9 years starting in Asherons Call and ending presently in WAR and put far to many hours into them all all with the people i first met all those years ago in AC.

So far WAR has got me hooked, im not bothered about getting to lvl 40 as fast as possible as i play with a group of friends and we're sticking around the same levels so we can see the content together (and more importantly the pvp scenarios). The leveling experience so far has been more fun if a bit slower than other games, but i dont care with the limit being only 40.

Were on an open RvR server so you have to be a bit more alert when travelling around, and as for all that running yes it can be a pain but you get a mount at level 20 and you have plenty of gold to buy it when you get there. Thats quite unlike another game i could mention that makes you grind your ass off, and i can clearly remember how much running i had to do in that game before they added all the extra flightpaths in.. you'll get to enjoy that again in wotlk for a while *grin*

As for customisable characters and graphics, well AOC had the graphics, flashy graphics dont count for anything, noone really cares after the first few hours of gameplay, and i'd rather not have suffer the lag caused by meeting several hundred new players on the battlefield all with a gazillion different faces and armour sets, you spend the majority of the time looking at the back of your avatars head anyway..

As mook said, some reasonable comments but a few more hours gameplay with friends on board would have given you a different experience.

But the game will live or die on its end game (Take note AOC), i for one look forward to pillaging Altdorf..
Tim S 5th October 2008, 16:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malz
Hmnn for starters reviewing any mmorpg based on the first 10 levels of play is pointless, second letting someone whos only ever played wow.. guess we all gotta start somewhere. Personally I've played quite a few mmorpg's over the past 8-9 years starting in Asherons Call and ending presently in WAR and put far to many hours into them all all with the people i first met all those years ago in AC.
There would have been a score had it been a full review... it even says on the first page that it's more of a "what to expect" than an out and out review. I believe Harry is planning to continue playing and will be adding more thoughts in further articles as time passes by.
Spillers_909 5th October 2008, 16:54 Quote
Little disappointed with this review It seems it was all written from the standpoint of a lvl 10. Things do change as you approach 40.
rollo 5th October 2008, 17:05 Quote
Played war solidly for first 2 weeks. Hit lvl cap basically alone btw. Started hte pvp grind. Graphically hes spot on its not improved alot in 4 years. If anything its worse.

Relm vs relm is imba dont get me wrong. But once you tire of killing the same foke again and again. WAR goes on the shelf as another opotunity missed.

And dont be under any illusions the games main base is PVP. The pve side of things is close to none existant.

Joined this as a full guild that has started back in ultimate online to present day wow. ( 45 people )

We all still have our wrath pre orders and once its out i think thats the end of WAR. Just not enough to keep you playing from my pov.

We are all lvl 40 btw

And all are lvling alts to go through what we have missed. ( played probably 6-8hrs a night after work the bulk of us as well)

Still waiting for the next big mmo

Roll on starcraft online
Bluephoenix 5th October 2008, 18:20 Quote
I'll stick with LOTRO, true I play Warhammer on the table, but for now its a wait and see while I hear from friends what its like.

I think with the game world's ability to evolve it will be a waiting game for some until we see if the endgame is imbalanced (like say the empire being constantly under seige because of a massive imbalance toward disorder)
Vash-HT 5th October 2008, 19:47 Quote
Kind of surprised you guys came to the conclusion that this game is a race to level. Everyone I know is taking their time leveling and enjoying it while they're at it. In WoW we all would just power level to 70 as fast as possible because the game was so boring until you reached the level cap. Oh well, different strokes i guess.
mookboy 5th October 2008, 19:51 Quote
I actually don't think it's terribly efficient to race to the next level in this game. Unless you mix the quests with RvR I don't see how it would be quicker. There's loads of XP to be had from the PQs and just playing the scenarios.
[PUNK] crompers 5th October 2008, 22:09 Quote
hmm i may well give this a go when the initial patches are out and im certain it wont go tits up AoC stylee

havent actuall played an mmo yet but this appeals more than wow due to the rvr nature
DriftCarl 6th October 2008, 00:24 Quote
I played early alpha and beta and didnt think that much of it to be honest. Looking at the game now it hasnt really improved either. I still play WoW though after 3 years. The problem is these MMO developers are just doing the same thing over and over. sure WAR is more pvp but the game doesnt appeal to pve players at all, so it can never be as big as WoW, which caters well for pvp and pve players alike. I am looking forward to the next generation of MMO's. something thats guaranteed to be different.
Star Trek Online is definatly going to be different, although that is a fair few years away right now. I am mostly looking forward to star gate worlds though. The concept of that game already seems awesom. I can see alot of potential for great pvp fights and fantastic alien pve encounters. and because there are 1000's of gates, the potential content is basically endless.
Veles 6th October 2008, 00:57 Quote
I think I'll give this a go when I get some money, a few of my friends are into MMOs and they're interested in it too. Although not now, which suits me as I haven't the money spare and it'll give the game a little time to mature too.
Mister_X 6th October 2008, 09:59 Quote
I was dubious about the PVP , RVR focus of this game. I've always prefered PVE/co-op play. But in my opinion its done very very well in this game. The scenarios and keep assaults though tricky for the Order side ( due to chaos being far heavier numbers), are fun and suck you in. Gaining XP whilst combating enemy players is a nice touch and no terribly expensive penalties to put you off, though there is some cost) .
At first glance , heck even at second glance it looks and feels alot like WoW, but take the time to look deeper and its a completely different kettle of orc bits.
Sure there are flaws, yes It needs patching but so has every single other MMO ever created.
Highly recommended.
Baz 6th October 2008, 10:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spillers_909
Little disappointed with this review It seems it was all written from the standpoint of a lvl 10. Things do change as you approach 40.

It's not a review - see, no score, it's more of a first impressions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BioSniper
Not being funny but how many levels did this reviewer play through?

Calling GOA the developer. They are not. Mythic/MythicEA are the developer. GOA is the european publisher.

The name is WAR not WOAoR. WAR being Warhammer: Age of Reckoning.

Also it would appear that the reviewer is heavily WoW biased rather than this being an impartial review. I know WoW is the "benchmark" as such however I get the feeling that there may be some WoW/Warcraft/Blizzard Fanboy-ism in there.

I played for nine and a half hours, and reached level ten - more than enough to pretty much finish any other non-MMO game, and enough we felt, to get a feel for the game and how it would pan out in the long run.

And it's not a review, it's more of a first impressions and what to expect.

Apologies for the error in developer, some slight confusion was caused by the involvement of EA - error corrected.

The decision was made in editorial to abbreviate the game name fully. Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning - five words see, not three, although I know the devs and community themselves refer to it as WAR.

In regards to WoW fanboyism, I specifically stated that myself and WoW parted on less than favourable terms, and while it was fun to level and group heading towards 70, the end game just became a horrible grind for elemental motes and a frustration of pick up groups. I still stand by my statement that the PvE in WoW is far superior to that in WAR, although WAR's in world implementation of PvP is better.

Frankly, I'm a little surprsied at all the reactionary defensive posts in this thread. I by no means hated Warhammer Online and specifically stated that for PvP fans it's a fine MMO, but it's somewhat soulless PvE lets it down, although I realise that's not the focus of the game, and everyone has thier own personal tastes and preferences.
Malz 6th October 2008, 12:30 Quote
Years of wow fanboism makes us jaded and defensive don't take it to heart, but realise anyone who really plays a an mmorpg is hardcore, you have to be to get anywhere. Yes Wow's pve is more involving and on a much greater scale the war, but then thats what its all about (though it is few and far between when you are leveling), pvp was only ever an afterthought and a bloody awful grind for the first year / 18 months, how many hit rank 11 for the full warlord PvP gear in the early days?

Once we start Rvr proper then we will see what war is all about, for me all i can say is if you like pvp give it a try for a month, i've got about 30 hours gameplay in so far most of which have been a thoroughly enjoyable experience, but do try and hook up with friends in game especially for the scenarios as it makes for a better experience all round.

The thing that annoys most of us is that wow is used as the benchmark and a lot of us remember how it was early on not 3 years down the line after numerous patches and additional content has been added. Every game has to start somewhere, so far war has had a great launch, where it goes from now im prepared to wait an see.
The boy 4rm oz 6th October 2008, 14:50 Quote
Nice article, very informative. I am really looking forward to trying this out after I finish school.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums