I tried to post this in the movies section for hours, but I couldn't get in. AI = terrible. AI, not AO.

I've been trying to play AO all morning. Constant crashes, longest play time maybe 10 minutes. Ugh. Not surprising though after reading the AO forums. The graphics are stupendous, but that is the only thing I can say right now. While I'm playing there is no noticable lag, and the interface is more or less friendly (although the rulebook is apparently outdated from what I see on screen - how bad is that?). If I ever level up enough to get out of the training ground I am very excited to see the world.

As compared to WW2OL, well I would take WW2OL stable servers any day (especially if there were only one) over AO's servers, and the gameplay of WW2OL is quite exhilarating (the possibility of being killed by one bullet provides a heart pounding experience when you are running through the city streets). Yesterday I ran smack into a Tommy and gunned him down with my MP40 in a matter of seconds. It was my only kill, but wicked exciting and exhilarating.

I guess AO provides a different experience altogether (char building, exploration) and I will probably go on to play both for quite a while. One thing I think is certain (although the EQ faithfull will be outraged), if the server issues are ironed out for AO, then why WHY why would anyone play anything as graphically ugly as EQ?

My 2 cents done.

"why would anyone play anything as graphically ugly as EQ?"

Didn't you just say you were playing WWII Online? Isn't that uglier by far?

EQ is high fantasy. AO is science fiction. That's part of your answer right there.

rather than the question of "why would anyone play anything as graphically ugly as EQ?", the question i end up seeing is: "why would i want to upgrade my machine to play something as graphically stupendous as AO?"

if people wanna give me free money to upgrade my machine, buy the game, pay the non-average $13/mo for gameplay, find some way to get a broadband connection out to me, then hey! i'm all for this game!

i played around with AO beta4 for about a week. while it *was* graphically impressive, there just wasn't enough there for me, after a week of play, to justify going out and upgrading my machine to make the experience enjoyable.

my combo work/games machine is just a lowly celeron 450, 384MB ram, TNT1 w/ 16M, modumb connection..all on win2000. obviously, there's some no brainers in there that i could upgrade easy (cpu + video), but the net connection is not likely (no broadband here).

if everything i play now and expect to play in the immediate future works fine on what i've got, why _should_ i upgrade? just to play a mediocre sci-fi game where i shoot rodents that make comments about my h4x0r1ng skills? shit, if i want that, all i need to do is get onto irc where i can get that crap for free... AND it's more interactive. AND non-scripted responses. AND i don't need to upgrade my machine. :)

sheesh... AO isn't "all that" (w/ or w/o a biscuit). seems to be a good attempt at a 'next gen' MMORPG, but .. it just doesn't seem to be 'fun'. maybe my experience would be better on a faster machine w/ better video card, but i'm not gonna waste the money to find out.

- mike - somewhere in east-central illinois -

I agree that AO doesn't have any gameplay at present that would be better, or perhaps as good, as EQ right now. But if the gameplay is eventually equal to EQ, I wouldn't hesitate to play the graphically superior game (especially when it seems like a pretty wide gap between the two). I realize that gameplay is king when it comes to judging games, but computer gaming is a visual experience first and foremost.

"if everything i play now and expect to play in the immediate future works fine on what i've got, why _should_ i upgrade?"

I would upgrade when you are ready. In my opinion, AO doesn't yet warrent the upgrade in any circumstance. But eventually some game will get you to upgrade (your system will be extinct someday).

"Didn't you just say you were playing WWII Online? Isn't that uglier by far?"

There is a lot more going on with EQ's graphics, more buildings, textures, and just plain stuff than WW2OL. WW2OL portrays France as a fairly bleak place. But I have been grabbed by vistas afforded by looking down on the valley above Ravin, and really pleased with the towns. EQ just reminds me of that Windows screen saver with the non-stop maze.

"EQ is high fantasy. AO is science fiction. That's part of your answer right there."

I think the differance is pretty paper thin right now. Nano tech is SO just like magic. I've seen a lot of class comparisons on the forums, tracing AO chars to EQ chars. And there isn't any space travel in AO at all (sucks!). I'm hoping they do a good job of distinguishing AO as something "futuristic" rather than same fantasy dungeon with different creature shapes and submachinguns. I would like to see the story take on some psychological twisty type things, something Asimov could enjoy, and I think they should make vehicles very affordable (whats the future without rivers of machines buzzing in and out of cities). Ah! A robot revolution could be fun too. I want my scifi to be separate from my fantasy, but they haven't pulled it off yet.

Anyway, I still say a newbie would have an easy time choosing between between EQ and AO (as long as the technical specifications were met by their computer and the AO people have a functional product).

Thing is, some people just prefer a high fantasy setting to a science fiction one, even if the gameplay's more or less the same.

It's part of the problem I have with AC vs. EQ. I just prefer pounding on orcs and goblins to drudges. I like the familar, Tolkienesque setting.

Mark said: "It's part of the problem I have with AC vs. EQ. I just prefer pounding on orcs and goblins to drudges. I like the familar, Tolkienesque setting."

i like/play AC for a similar, but different reason.

i'm versed in the tolkienesque settings, familiar with (A)D&D, the old D&D computer games, all the ultima's, the bard's tale series (wayyyy back)..

AC is just different enough that it's much more appealing to me than EQ is with it's standardized critters to kill. ho hum.

- mike - somewhere in east-central illinois -

"AC is just different enough that it's much more appealing to me than EQ is with it's standardized critters to kill. ho hum."

Yeah, I completely understand that. I think the designers felt that way too. It seems to be something of a minority position, though.

I think AC would have been much more popular if we could have played as non-humans. I think people enjoy pretending to be an elf or a halfling, etc.

oh, most definately! if given the choice of what race to play, in addition to humans with specific ethnic abilities, it'd be a much more interesting game.

isn't that what Horizons is supposedly going to try and do? i'm somewhat intrigued by Horizons, but some early-on stuff i had read about it sorta turned me off.. something about PvM and/or PvP battles.. it just wasn't right, and i lost interest in it.

oh well. i'll probably stick with AC. it's been pretty stable overall, but some of the economy changes they've made recently have really alienated the playerbase. :(

- mike - somewhere in east-central illinois -

Asheron's Call really amazed me because it was a creative world. I loved that they created their own fiction and non-standard fantasy setting. It really makes the game something new rather than just another dungeons and dragons with thousands of players. The spell system especially is very unique provided you try to learn it on your own. (Where's the fun in having someone tell you all the reagents?)

I've given up on AC simply because I couldn't justify the $10 a month for ANY game. I've considered playing again more than once though because I loved the fiction and the world that Turbine created. The landscapes could be so beautiful from a high peak and yet so alien at times. I also enjoyed the freedom of just going where I wanted alone. I found adventure both with friends and without in their gameworld. There's some creative minds behind that title.

--Dave