[GrimGriz]

Anyone playing?

If so, what do you think?

[Eraser55]

tried, didnt work..(well it worked for 5 min.. I killed some NPC got reward.. saw some boobs.. just like wow with better graphics.. gave up.

[skipjack]

I am playing, I'll give a better review after I install a graphics's card that gives me better then 10fps on the lowest rez

[biteme]

LOL it ran pery bad on a 8800gtx Q core system

[Elmdor]

Its alright. Content wise > wow. Mechanics wise Idk.

[skipjack]

put a 9600 gt in and I now get 27fps @ the high settings. I like the combat better then WoW even though it's has been pretty easy so far. I think AoC was really meant to be a PvP game using PvE to learn how to play your char. The quest are good, there is this whole single player and Muli player thing that is stragne. It's nice being able to do quests with out fear of PK'ers. The whole game is instanced which I find anoyning you can be chatting with someone in the same place and not see them. So if you want to group with them you have to bring them to your instance which causes a new loading of the zone for them. Just adding to delays if you have serveral people you are grouping with. I am playing a Priest and because of the range of my healing spells I am alot closer to the combat then I ever was in WoW, but I can use shields and better weapons so I have a chance in a fight.

[skipjack]

Any wanting to join Karash and I, we are playing on Bane a factionial PvP server

[Ratneck]

I just finished my "free" month on Age of Conan, and I canceled my account. There were too many features promised and not delivered on launch, and Funcom waited till a day or two before release to let people know they weren't in on release. They were guaranteeing DX10 on release up till about 2 weeks before release, then the next thing you know it was a day before early access and there was no DX10 support.

My friends and I all wondered why the closed beta had the NDA up for so long...right up till release...and now we know. Funcom is not above board with their users, or have not been.

The game can be fun, I enjoyed the first 30 levels or so and had alot of fun questing with my friends. We're all "casual" and don't level like fiends, but we finally hit the wall where you have to grind to level up. One of the reasons my friends and I wanted to try it out was all of the developer comments and videos that said the game would be playable grouped or solo from 1 to 80 without issue. It was a lie, unless you consider grinding mobs over and over to level "playing". If there were achievements like Jumpgate's medal system I'd prob be a little more likely to grind, but not the way it is set.


Really, they game they delivered was incomplete (and I don't just mean high-end stuff) and they intentionally mislead their customers by not informing them of what was in and what was not before the release. Sieges are still broken for the most part, plus there's no mercenary system. Additionally they have set a cap on how many players can be in a siege, and have made the attackers vs the defenders equal in "army size". Anyone who knows anything about sieging a castle or strong hold knows that the attacker has to bring many more troops then they're attacking, balancing it out in numbers is pointless and completely removes the need for mercenaries.


All in all, it's not a "bad" game but It's not a game I can get overly into. It's exactly the same as WoW with minor differences. Quests are the same, content is the same, "setting" is the same, and I'd even say the combat is the same. Sure, you have to choose your attack direction and combo based on the monster's shields, but that's the only difference in the combat. You're still just mashing buttons as fast as possible. I know of no one who even moves their shields around, so it's once again a button mashing game with little skill involved. I'll stick to TF2 and SoaSE for now I suppose.


This is all just my opinion though.