Could Conan Be the One?

Could Conan Be the One?

Could Age of Conan inspire a love for MMOGs that World of Warcraft could not?

Permalink

Hopefully not ~~

It could be, but for a while as these things go. Then something else will come along.
Still, it's been getting good 'views, I was thinking of trying it out myself, WoW is a bit slow going these days, so AoC might be something to do till Wrath of the Lich King comes out.

And...World of Warcraft -did- inspire a love of mmos in a lot of people, just as Guild Wars did, hell there are a few people who have fond memories of FFOnline so... WoW may not be perfect, but it still has a lot of life left. Though...y'know, I much prefer the Roleplaying aspect and the people than most of the gameplay itself.

Now, as for AoC. It does look nice :D Having just read a number of Howard's short stories I very interested to see how they've used the lore in this game. There's a lot of material for them to have worked from. So hopefully that carries over into the game.

Well, I've got it, and I'd say yes, actually. Heretic though it may make me, I've found myself grinding just because I find the combat really fun. The game feels deep, and real. It's not like WoW where all the characters, save a few are bizarrely asexual; the sex, death and whole piles of gore in the Conan World the game all happily addresses.

Plus I get to ride around on a frickin great Rhino!

I thought this article was about Conan O'Brien when I clicked on it.

I would probably play any game if he endorses it.

Its great that the combat is more involving. Its not just a game where you can chat on msn wile you play. I bet this means that people wont play this as much for many hours. I have to admit, I didn't have high hopes from this game even though I would love if a game developer would finally put the country I live in on the map, but it seems like aoc have fulfilled most of its promises.
Now, I only have to invest in a new gpu and some more ram...

am I the only one not interested? I mean it's freaking Conan, a totally completely dead and uninteresting franchise. Who cares?

Conan is one of the best IPs, it's far from dead.

Gormers1:
Its great that the combat is more involving. Its not just a game where you can chat on msn wile you play. I bet this means that people wont play this as much for many hours. I have to admit, I didn't have high hopes from this game even though I would love if a game developer would finally put the country I live in on the map, but it seems like aoc have fulfilled most of its promises.
Now, I only have to invest in a new gpu and some more ram...

You guys had Aha and Grieg, both who were much better then AoC. ;)

WingcommanderIV:
am I the only one not interested? I mean it's freaking Conan, a totally completely dead and uninteresting franchise. Who cares?

Er...certain movies aside. The stories are still I think entertaining pieces of literature, if a little off in places. And while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you wouldn't be saying something like that about say the works of Shakespeare would you? (No I did not just compare Robert E. Howard to Shakespeare, just using it as a point.) I mean, those plays are what? Several hundered years old by now. And not by any stretch 'dead', nor imo a franchise. Then again, you -may- just have been referring to the movies (first of which I rather liked), and all the god awful attempts to make a successful game out of Conan up to this point.

My laptop would never be able to handle this, so I'm waiting for it to land on the 360. I hear the combat should actually work pretty well with a control pad, too. I'm just concerned about paying monthly for a game. I tend to have gaming ADD, where every couple of weeks I'm moving onto new games, with very few replayed.

GothmogII:

WingcommanderIV:
am I the only one not interested? I mean it's freaking Conan, a totally completely dead and uninteresting franchise. Who cares?

Er...certain movies aside. The stories are still I think entertaining pieces of literature, if a little off in places. And while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you wouldn't be saying something like that about say the works of Shakespeare would you? (No I did not just compare Robert E. Howard to Shakespeare, just using it as a point.) I mean, those plays are what? Several hundered years old by now. And not by any stretch 'dead', nor imo a franchise. Then again, you -may- just have been referring to the movies (first of which I rather liked), and all the god awful attempts to make a successful game out of Conan up to this point.

Well, actually you not only compared Robert E Howard to Shakespeare, after you denied you had, you compared Robert E Howard and Shakespeare a second time. To be honest I started out pretty enthusiastic about AoC and became increasingly less enthusiastic as time went on. Tbh, I'd prefer an MMO with a franchise that hasn't been in both book and film form, I like a little originality in games.

sammyfreak:

Gormers1:
Its great that the combat is more involving. Its not just a game where you can chat on msn wile you play. I bet this means that people wont play this as much for many hours. I have to admit, I didn't have high hopes from this game even though I would love if a game developer would finally put the country I live in on the map, but it seems like aoc have fulfilled most of its promises.
Now, I only have to invest in a new gpu and some more ram...

You guys had Aha and Grieg, both who were much better then AoC. ;)

Well those people aren't exactly young, are they (btw Henrik Ibsen rocks too). 8D

I heard the game gets worse as you level as many of the later areas and quests are less polished and fun.

I've been meaning to take a look at this game since it came out. Unfortunately, I seem to be *just* short of the hard drive space needed on the Vista partition of my Mac, so I'm left with the unpleasant decision of deleting all my other games or reformatting the whole thing and reinstalling the OS. That 30GB install is pretty hard to swallow.

Archaeology Hat:

GothmogII:

WingcommanderIV:
am I the only one not interested? I mean it's freaking Conan, a totally completely dead and uninteresting franchise. Who cares?

Er...certain movies aside. The stories are still I think entertaining pieces of literature, if a little off in places. And while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you wouldn't be saying something like that about say the works of Shakespeare would you? (No I did not just compare Robert E. Howard to Shakespeare, just using it as a point.) I mean, those plays are what? Several hundered years old by now. And not by any stretch 'dead', nor imo a franchise. Then again, you -may- just have been referring to the movies (first of which I rather liked), and all the god awful attempts to make a successful game out of Conan up to this point.

Well, actually you not only compared Robert E Howard to Shakespeare, after you denied you had, you compared Robert E Howard and Shakespeare a second time. To be honest I started out pretty enthusiastic about AoC and became increasingly less enthusiastic as time went on. Tbh, I'd prefer an MMO with a franchise that hasn't been in both book and film form, I like a little originality in games.

Humm...is it still a comparison where you don't put any great detail as to why y is beside x?
Sorry, I just meant that:

Saying X thing is completely dead and uninteresting, so one could return with, as I attempted and failed apparently ^^' = Why is X thing dead and uninteresting and would person consider Y thing the same based on... Using Shakespeare as an example, as it was the oldest (or that someone would recognise) 'thing' I could think off. So, in that way yes it was a comparison, but not in the way as to compare in detail the in depth meanings of works by either Shakespeare or Robert E. Howard.

Or: There is nothing that is ever not interesting to -someone- in this world.

As for originality. That can be good or bad I think, on the one hand, working from the works of others, or history etc. you have a solid base to go from, everything can be built around that with as much changes you do or don't want. So, it's safer I suppose, unless you're risking upsetting fans of a work by doing so, then again you may not care simply wanting to make a good game.

On the the other, as you've said, it's not original, well, not wholly anyway, while new and interesting things may be done with the material, it's still not wholly -your- idea in some cases, so it may I think actually limit the liberties you may take with the source material.
And, in the case as such with a fantasy based MMO, you may just be rehashing your orcs and elves.

In games, a fully realised game world can be a very nice thing. Provided you know what you're doing, you can do anything right? Within reason, and within the scope of the technology you are using of course.

But, if you make something too new, too different, it becomes a little off putting, I'll say to -some-, because a -lot- or -most- sound too hard. This bit I'm trying to think real hard on... Y'know, I actually haven't played a game that was truly 'revolutionary', they all seem to be little progressions on what came before. I'm thinking, was there a game or games that are a kind of 'jump', a real big jump now, something like say going from Pac Man to Half-Life without many of the in between steps? Humm....

I was like you, Adam. I was one of the few who played WoW at launch, got to level 35ish, and then stopped. Hell, I couldn't even go back when Burning Crusade came out. MMOs have always been an idealistic dream for me. I like playing them and just running around with friends, but I was never able to stick with it.

However, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to do it with AoC. It isn't that AoC is just that damn good either. Instead, it is because I've joined a competitive guild that plans to get involved in the siege combat that Funcom outlined. This time, I have an ultimate goal (PvP Sieges) and a lot of people I can group with to help move things along.

You'd be suprised the difference a guild makes.

AlexTaldren:
You'd be suprised the difference a guild makes.

"What a difference a guild makes
Twenty four other little raiders
brought the fun and epic powers
where there used to be pain..."

etc.

Seriously, you were investing lunchtimes on thottbot when you hadn't levelled a character above 30?
That's pretty hardcore.

I think Alex is right - the only characters i have in wow over 35 (a 70 priest and 60 hunter) are the ones that i started on a server with friends and they are still in a major guild and although i play them alot less than i used to, they still get the occasional login.

Without mates, and without a goal or someone to directly compete against and brag to over the watercooler you'll lose interest again around the midpoint.

Level 21 Guardian so far, and extraordinarily impressed. First time in an MMO I haven't created 5 alts before I hit level 10. I have NO alts so far as I'm loving the combat with my virgin toon so much.

As far as longevity goes - that's the big question - is end-game good enough? WoW's endgame is almost perfect....having said that it's old and tired for me so I suspended my account to give Conan my full attention.

Warhammer Online will be a return to the glory of the early days of the genre. RvR endgame > raids FTW!

Age of Conan is just another MMOG. It's anything but world-beating. LotRO is a better MMOG in my opinion.

The quests/story are better
The battle system is better
The community is better (as long as the M for mature holds)
The game looks better
And there is a single player mode that isn't half bad.
The drop rate for quest items is not insanely low (in WOW, 1 out of 10 wolf have a pelt. It's so damn frustrating!)

What's not to love? The only advantage of WoW is that it as matured by now, so you get less "unexpected" behaviors, but AoC will fill the gap quick enough... Hopefully...

TantricYogi:
Warhammer Online will be a return to the glory of the early days of the genre. RvR endgame > raids FTW!

As much as I love the license, not a single Warhammer game out there lived to the players' expectations. I'd be curious to know what makes you think that WO will be any better and won't turn into a MMORTS...

Gutterpunk:

TantricYogi:
Warhammer Online will be a return to the glory of the early days of the genre. RvR endgame > raids FTW!

As much as I love the license, not a single Warhammer game out there lived to the players' expectations. I'd be curious to know what makes you think that WO will be any better and won't turn into a MMORTS...

Humm, not a single one? Do the Dawn of War series not count? Though, granted Soulstorm was a little meh. Though, I haven't played a good Warhammer Fantasy based computer game that was exceptional.

Dawn of war was good, but given how some people seem to believe that the faecal matter of Warhammer Online will be pure ambrosia food of the gods... I doubt it will live up the the hype it's got. It looks like WoW, it will probably play like a slightly more PvP orientated version of WoW.

Archaeology Hat:
Dawn of war was good, but given how some people seem to believe that the faecal matter of Warhammer Online will be pure ambrosia food of the gods... I doubt it will live up the the hype it's got. It looks like WoW, it will probably play like a slightly more PvP orientated version of WoW.

Yeah, that's the impression I've been getting. I have no doubt it'll be worth a try, but it does just seem like WoW with a shinier PvP system. But then I'm a Conan fanboy, so I'll be quiet. (although really you could just say ANY MMO these days looks like WoW only with ...)

My problem with AoC right now is the later content.

Once you start working into the 40's and up, more and more quests are bugged.

The end game instances are all tank and spank; theres nothing at all interesting going on other than them being pretty. The loot itself isn't even that much better or interesting to look at either.

The BIG problem though, is that there are so many issues with the crafting/quest log system right now, and there seems to be very few GMs per server. I've heard many horror stories of people waiting upwards of 4 days to get a problem fixed, only to have their petition deleted once it got into the 20's for the queue.

I think AoC can be a good game in... a year. Unfortunately with the expected 18 month life of MMOs and the sink/or swim first 6 months financially, it's going to be a rough ride.

5 days of gameplay to get to 80 and not knowing what you're doing, but no content at end game that's interesting. Thats a bad omen when they gotta fix everything on the way up first.

I must have been missing something because Conan is at the top of the charts in Germany, Sweden and Spain.

First, Soulstorm was made by some puny third party company whose only previous experience was a Diablo clone.

Second, Mark of Chaos tried too hard to duplicate the tabletop experience, thus dooming it to failure.

Those are about the only failure Warhammer franchise games. The rest? Pure gold. I <3 Chaos Gate.

As far as WoW vs WAR... Well, the art doesn't really look that similar. Sure, humans elves and dwarves are always going to look the same no matter what...but look at the orcs. In Wow, Orcs are basicly your standard hunched human model with tusks, and green. In WAR, you're bigger, less man-like, etc....

And the gameplay is going to be completely different, as far as whats been seen. Cmon, for one of the Chaos quests you slaughter a village, gather the corpses, and launch them from a catapult onto a besieged Castle.

Again, People need to be careful not to put the egg before the chicken...or however that goes. A LOT of things from warcraft were taken straight from warhammer.

I'm saving my money for Warhammer as well. Conan looks fun, but I don't see anything revolutionary about it. Not that Warhammer looks all that different, but the complete dedication to PvP and RvR looks interesting to me. I always felt left out of the PvP part of other MMO's because you could only participate and have fun if you were better than most other players. I hope the Warhammer MMORPG will change that, since just about anything you do in the game is supposed to contribute to your side in some small way.

wiredk:
As far as WoW vs WAR... Well, the art doesn't really look that similar. Sure, humans elves and dwarves are always going to look the same no matter what...but look at the orcs. In Wow, Orcs are basicly your standard hunched human model with tusks, and green. In WAR, you're bigger, less man-like, etc....

And the gameplay is going to be completely different, as far as whats been seen. Cmon, for one of the Chaos quests you slaughter a village, gather the corpses, and launch them from a catapult onto a besieged Castle.

Warcraft "took" nothing from warhammer at all. Instead, GW decided that blizzard wasn't elite enough to represent their game on a computer so they got tossed out AFTER THEY ALREADY MADE THE GAME. So instead of canning everything blizzard decided to change as much of the game they already had and release it under their own name. Now it turns out that GW greatly shot themselves in the foot with that so everytime blizzard does something they start screaming that they did it first, regardless of wether or not it was true.

Your complaint about the ork models: wow orcs look like WCIII orcs with a higher poly count, as they should. warhammer orks look like reskinned dire trolls(from warcraft) instead of the actual warhammer orcs.

As for the quest: Both have been done before many times, just not in the same quest as far as i know. And no, that doesn't make WAR original, it means they are stacking useless gimmicks ontop of eachother in the hope that somebody doesn't recognize all of the parts and thinks it's something new.

Faction vs Faction fights: been done before, also by wow. It's called the Alliance and the Horde. Calling it "Realm vs Realm" doesn't magicly make it better, it just shows you don't know what term means what(FYI RvR means people from otherwise seperated servers fighting eachother, like in wow battlegrounds) Alllowin players to actualy change the status quo based arround fixed factions is another stupid idea because it's aleready obvious that Order is going to own Disorder simply because of their 3:1 player ratio as demonstrated by every game that features a human faction and a non human faction.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here