|
|
The MyGuy Games article (subsequent parts can be found in links at the bottom of the article) takes on the hard job of trying to compare the two giants, World of Warcraft and EverQuest II. They took some input from a couple high level beta characters and then drew conclusions of their own.
Good idea... but here's the problem. Some of the EQII information is based on old stuff - before the last few patches in beta even. There are more problems, so let me give a detailed explanation.
- Both players are asked about 'the grind' as if it is necessarily a bad thing - I don't think thats a question that is universally true for everyone.
- Related, the WoW player says there is no grind in WoW... which would be 'false' - at least as far as I could tell. I have not really seen a MMOG without a grind at some point or another. Yes, it may be disguised with 'quests' but you're still grinding out xp on a certain number of monsters.
- Questions for the EQII player were based on some assumptions - "Is EQII a big improvement over EQ1", for example... why was this question not asked of the WoW player? Its almost of the same validity.
- The WoW player talked about EQII, where the EQII player only talked about EQII. It makes the WoW player look as if they are on the defensive, and really feels way too much like the lame 'name calling' in the presidential debates. Talk about your own issues! If you can't find more to talk about your own issues, maybe you should just shut up!
- WoW Guy says "I looked at the class list from the screenshots, and 75% of them were healer based classes. There was one Scout base out of nearly 30-40 people. In WoW, that doesn't exist. Every class brings something to the table and thus every class is useful." - Ahem... I severely doubt that a class was created without 'something to bring to the table'. That the screenshots this fellow looked at showed a lot of healers or casters is not necessarily the case that everyone plays a healer. I mean, I don't play one, I know plenty of people who don't play one. In fact, they're still in demand and feel 'shorthanded' at times. Scouts, Fighters, Mages, they all have numerous people playing. The WoW guy goes on to talk about the WoW classes, and I found my self thinking 'gee, this is exactly what the archetype->class->subclass system is for too! omg!
- The comparisons start with the graphics. Art styles aside (a pure opinion really), little is said about performance other than EQII looks good on high detail. Frankly I would say that the EQII engine has more power and more expandability than the WoW engine by design. Now, this comes with the cost of higher requirements, but I wouldnt say my desktop or my laptop are state of the art, and they can still run the game, I can play and have fun, and it still looks good.
- Not all the EQII subclasses are divided by evil/good - so you cant say you only have 6 choices after choosing the archetype.
- The reviewer forgets to mention a big thing about item damage upon death - that is, your weapons will always be repairable to 100%, even if they're damaged to unusability. This is a big gripe and misunderstanding of folks coming from DAoC or SWG, where items can be lost to damage. Also, if you do not retrieve a shard, your stats are lower until the shard is retrieved or it is 'auto retrieved' after 72 hours.
- Camping of spawns is not totally eliminated from EQII via instancing, in no shape or form. Most zones do fill up and new instances only seem to come up on very very loaded zones. Some dungeons are instanced, usually only at the boss mob fight, but again, not every dungeon. It gets rid of many of those 'get on the list' moments. WoW does have zones, they're just 'transparent'. AC2, that didn't have zones - zone boundaries were lines across the landscape technically - in WoW there are still doorways and paths that will zone you. In this way, it is still similar to EQII, except that zoning is automatic and instant. WoW uses instances much in the same way EQII does, as I understand it, but only for dungeons. EQII can instance heavily loaded 'regular' zones as well.
- EQII has a full featured 'player finder' for searching out members to fill a group. I'm not convinced that Solo play at all levels is a 'good' thing - yes, its nice to be able to do things on a whim without waiting for a group, but as far as I can tell, EQII has that as well. There will still be waiting for groups in WoW.
- The travel part of the comparison seemed a bit lacking - both the WoW and EQII sections were a bit sparse on information - Race specific mounts are great, but really, its still only one mount type for each person, right? I've heard good things about EQII boat rides too.
- I wouldn't say that the comparison was completely unbiased - no writing really is, especially a comparison such as this. There was a bit of leaning towards the casual player (not necessarily a bad thing, but still a bias), and no leaning towards the more dedicated player.
Some things the articles did not compare that I wish they would have: - Tradeskills - EQII has a active, deep tradeskill system with a seperate advancement path built in - there is quite a bit of tradeskill-class interdependence, as well as adventurer/artisan class interdependence. A tradeskiller almost need not do anything else in the game and still have plenty of quests to do, with plenty of interaction. WoW has a good tradeskill system with 'instant' creation of items. There is some interdependence but it seems much of it can be done by one player themselves. It is not as interactive (you can have the components for 20 items and click 'repeat' and set the counter to 20 and go have a sandwich) Both have a good resource gathering system in the world as well. Both necessitate going into dangerous areas for the really good materials. Verdict: EQII, for having an active, interesting tradeskill and artisan system. WoW may be better for folks who are doing tradeskills very casually (or are bots... I mean...).
- Economy and Trade - EQII has an interesting market system - An item on the market can be bought from the player themselves, through a broker in the city, or even through the 'black market' which spans both cities. I am certainly NOT a fan of the necessity of being inactive in your house to be able to put goods on the market. There are consigners, however, which can sell your wares for a price. WoW has an auction house much like that of FFXI - you set a minimum price, and folks from around the same area can bid on that item and recieve it. EQII does not currently have a mail system to send items to other players who may be offline or just in another area. WoW has this. Verdict: I have to say WoW... I just can't get past the fact that you have to be in your house... not doing anything else. It seems unnecessary. The Auction house and mail system I loved in FFXI, and its here again in WoW, making life easier.
- Music and Sound - This is not focusing on voiceovers and such - but combat sounds and ambient music - Both games have great sound - effects during combat and out of combat fit the action, and aren't annoying. EQII's alerts (like someone joined your group, or you got a tell) are even nicer - smooth almost soothing sounds. WoW's alert sounds weren't apparent to me... Music is one of those things that can easily get repetitive, and both games have great music that doesn't get immediately repetitive, but stay in any place too long and you notice this is the 208th time you've heard this song repeat. Usually I can ignore it and go on, and be pleasantly suprised by some new area, but some people certainly cant, and turn off the music. Verdict: This is really a draw, because both have great quality music and sound, which fit in with the surroundings. I'm glad music has come such a long way and really finds a great place in games.
- User Interface - In EQII, every window, bar, icon, etc can be moved, resized, adjusted for transparency, and sometimes hidden or duplicated. All in all its very customizable even in the default skin. XML skins are available already, and more will come as folks get acquainted with the system. Hotkeys are plentiful and macros are pretty easy to make for siple tasks. The icons are very clear representations of the action they're going to execute. The letterbox'd interface you see is merely an option, and can be resized or gotten rid of completely. Each font and indicator can be resized, color changed, or removed. The UI can look almost exactly how you would want it for whatever situation you're in. In WoW, you're stuck with a bar along the bottom for your hotkeys, pack slots, and buttons. This provides for a quick to learn interface, but is quickly outgrown. The chat box interface is locked in place and size, though the fonts can be cahnged. You cant have two (or more) chat boxes. The Cosmos UI addition brings a lot of customization and automation to the game using LUA scripting, and provides some features that powergamers as well as casual players will appreciate, but it is not supported by Blizzard and it seems every patch breaks it. Verdict: EQII, hands down. The interface WoW takes on reminds me a lot of AC2, with its ease of use, but its ultimate shortcomings.
My overall verdict? I can't say I'm unbiased (like Mike Mikucki of MyGuyGames seems to think he can) because I've played much more EQII than WoW. I saw merits in both - WoW is fun; its a fast, low impact game. But I have to say that EQII feels... deeper, fuller, more alive than WoW. Its all the parts put together, graphics, sound, art, combat, interactions, etc, its all there and its all awesome.
Again, obviously I'm a bit biased towards EQII (I mean heck, look what site I run! Give me a break!), but I still see merit in what WoW is trying to do. They're sort of the 'outlier' in the MMOG world at this point, a game studio that hasn't attempted this scale of game yet, and they're a bit more free to do things. EQII may be a bit hindered by that "2", I think. A lot of it is perception that it will be EverQuest again. This means they weren't able to go to the places that WoW might be able to go because it wouldn't fit in with the expectations. Its too bad, and hopefully down the line people will be able to recognize that this isn't just a sequel, and look past the "2" into the actual game, because it's a new world there, folks.
All of the above being said, the comparison did have a lot of good points, for both games, and I commend the writer for taking on such a daunting and potentially contravercial task. This really is just a great month for gaming in general, and these types of reviews are still wanted. I just wanted to point out some things that I found wrong with the article, and wanted to add.
|
|
Donate
