LiveviL55
05-30-2008, 01:21
Let me preface this review by stating the following:
1. I was really looking forward to Age of Conan
2. I am desperate to find a "WoW" killer
3. I have been to a certain degree a fanboi of this release
4. I was not in any BETA but did launch with EA
5. I have leveled two characters to level 44 and 35 so I have not maxed
That being said I am sad to say that the more I play this game, the more I am let down and disappointed by some of the core mechanics of this game and am not sure this is really even an MMO (at least not in the typical MMO vein).
The Review
First the good:
Environment - The games "setting" and "environment" is about spot on to what I would consider my "ideal" environment. The mature rating allows for a more adult oriented game, some violence and gore and some sick animations. 9/10
Combat - Probably the best aspect of the game, grinding is still grinding but the "no auto attack" combat certainly keeps you interested and the aforementioned animations are very well done. 9/10
Graphics - I guess this is a love it or hate it aspect of the game, some will say they are dull, but I believe that was a design decision to go with the realistic environment. I personally like the graphics and they are a 180 from the crayon colored cartoon grahics from World of Warcraft. 8/10
Character Creation - AoC comes in second (albeit a distant second) to the character creation system of City of Heroes/Villains. I like the options that are available and coming from AC/AC2 and Wow this is a nice feature. 7/10
Now the Bad:
Now with all the nice things said above, one might wonder how just one negative aspect of a game can take this game down so far in this reviewers opinion. But the one problem I have with this game is a big one and not one that can be fixed with a patch as it was a core design decision.
And that is...
AoC uses a "guild wars" type of instancing system... so much so that one can argue that this game is not in fact a true MMO. So you have picked a server that say supports 2-3000 players (estimated). Now unlike WoW or CoH/V or most MMOs if 1000 players go to any one city you are all not in fact in that city together, you are in one of upwards of 15-20 "instances" of that city or quest area even though you are all on the same server.
What this means is that you are really only playing with 5-10% of the actual server at any one time. This obviously completely ruins PvP. Want to get revenge for a gank? Too Bad! The ganker can switch instances and you are left with A) doing nothing or B) spending the next 30 minutes instance hopping just hoping to catch the offender.
This is completely unacceptable and it baffles me why this decision was made. Performance? Perhaps in 1998, but in 2008 this could not have been a performance issue when all other mainstream MMOs can and do handle > 2500 players per server without this type and level of server instancing.
This decision is very disappointing and really limits the appeal of the game to many who are used to playing with more than a handful of players.
There are other small quibbles (stats make no sense, armor does not seem varied enough, et al) but all of these are fixable. The instancing decisions are core to the game and for many will ruin the experience and any longevity.
If you like Guild Wars then I can completely recommend this game. It has a lot of nice features even some level of innovation, but if you are looking for or are used to a game where all players of a server are available to you, then this game falls woefully short.
1. I was really looking forward to Age of Conan
2. I am desperate to find a "WoW" killer
3. I have been to a certain degree a fanboi of this release
4. I was not in any BETA but did launch with EA
5. I have leveled two characters to level 44 and 35 so I have not maxed
That being said I am sad to say that the more I play this game, the more I am let down and disappointed by some of the core mechanics of this game and am not sure this is really even an MMO (at least not in the typical MMO vein).
The Review
First the good:
Environment - The games "setting" and "environment" is about spot on to what I would consider my "ideal" environment. The mature rating allows for a more adult oriented game, some violence and gore and some sick animations. 9/10
Combat - Probably the best aspect of the game, grinding is still grinding but the "no auto attack" combat certainly keeps you interested and the aforementioned animations are very well done. 9/10
Graphics - I guess this is a love it or hate it aspect of the game, some will say they are dull, but I believe that was a design decision to go with the realistic environment. I personally like the graphics and they are a 180 from the crayon colored cartoon grahics from World of Warcraft. 8/10
Character Creation - AoC comes in second (albeit a distant second) to the character creation system of City of Heroes/Villains. I like the options that are available and coming from AC/AC2 and Wow this is a nice feature. 7/10
Now the Bad:
Now with all the nice things said above, one might wonder how just one negative aspect of a game can take this game down so far in this reviewers opinion. But the one problem I have with this game is a big one and not one that can be fixed with a patch as it was a core design decision.
And that is...
AoC uses a "guild wars" type of instancing system... so much so that one can argue that this game is not in fact a true MMO. So you have picked a server that say supports 2-3000 players (estimated). Now unlike WoW or CoH/V or most MMOs if 1000 players go to any one city you are all not in fact in that city together, you are in one of upwards of 15-20 "instances" of that city or quest area even though you are all on the same server.
What this means is that you are really only playing with 5-10% of the actual server at any one time. This obviously completely ruins PvP. Want to get revenge for a gank? Too Bad! The ganker can switch instances and you are left with A) doing nothing or B) spending the next 30 minutes instance hopping just hoping to catch the offender.
This is completely unacceptable and it baffles me why this decision was made. Performance? Perhaps in 1998, but in 2008 this could not have been a performance issue when all other mainstream MMOs can and do handle > 2500 players per server without this type and level of server instancing.
This decision is very disappointing and really limits the appeal of the game to many who are used to playing with more than a handful of players.
There are other small quibbles (stats make no sense, armor does not seem varied enough, et al) but all of these are fixable. The instancing decisions are core to the game and for many will ruin the experience and any longevity.
If you like Guild Wars then I can completely recommend this game. It has a lot of nice features even some level of innovation, but if you are looking for or are used to a game where all players of a server are available to you, then this game falls woefully short.