PDA

View Full Version : Warhammer Online at E3



Cypher
19-05-2005, 10:58
With E3 coming up I figure threads for the two GW related games are in order, this one for Warhammer Online.

As detailed here. (http://pc.ign.com/articles/616/616369p1.html)

Basically it seems that Climax and everything they did are out of the picture. WH:O is now being developed by Mythic, who are responsible for Dark Age of Camelot.

Sgt John Keel
19-05-2005, 13:27
I really have no clue about how good DAoC was/are, but I think this is good news.

As long as they don't screw the graphics up hugely (I liked the way Climax did it. No comic style crap* like WoW) and find good ways to handle the magic and combat style systems (need I mention I hate the way they did it in WoW) I'm very happy.

* Very IMO

/Adrian

Nameless One
19-05-2005, 18:09
Has little use to comment on this news seeing that the game will completely be redesigned from scratch. :p But as a Tomb King player it is nice to see that they will be included within this game.

We can only hope that the game will run on a similar engine as Unreal 3 will do.

*drools*

Cypher
20-05-2005, 06:19
I really have no clue about how good DAoC was/are, but I think this is good news.

As long as they don't screw the graphics up hugely (I liked the way Climax did it. No comic style crap* like WoW) and find good ways to handle the magic and combat style systems (need I mention I hate the way they did it in WoW) I'm very happy.

* Very IMO

/Adrian

I thought the art Climax had done was pretty good. Some stuff was a bit too close to the miniature equivalent, and some of the character models were slightly low quality. Id have taken that over WoW's lame graphics any day.


Has little use to comment on this news seeing that the game will completely be redesigned from scratch. :p But as a Tomb King player it is nice to see that they will be included within this game.

Did I miss something? Where'd you see anything about Tomb Kings? (Im starved for info ;) )

Arnizipal
20-05-2005, 07:11
We've confirmed that the game will include all the usual suspects of the world including Skaven, Tomb Kings, Dwarves and the rest. Whether or not they'll be playable is still up in the air.
It's in the text you linked you know :rolleyes:

Sojourner
20-05-2005, 08:30
Though it's a fantasy game, the team feels that the Warhammer universe won't compete with their existing Camelot world.

Right. Might as well give up on this licence now. They obviously don't have a clue.

Cypher
22-05-2005, 13:12
Ah ok. Sorry, posted that late at night: kinda skimmed over the filler bits of the article.

Delicious Soy
22-05-2005, 13:29
You mean the body of it? :p

An interesting concept, having a realm vs realm base. I assume this means an Empire vs Chaos vs He vs TK and so on? I wonder how many 'realms' they'll be throwing in. Sounds good in concept but I still refuse to play a game that I have to keep paying for.

m1s1n
22-05-2005, 16:41
Sounds good in concept but I still refuse to play a game that I have to keep paying for.


I agree--however I've heard that Guild Wars runs without a monthly fee--so maybe we are seeing a new age for MMORPGs?

I'm not really interested in playing the game, as I don't really feel the draw of MMORPGs.

PBGhost
22-05-2005, 20:07
I agree--however I've heard that Guild Wars runs without a monthly fee--so maybe we are seeing a new age for MMORPGs?

I'm not really interested in playing the game, as I don't really feel the draw of MMORPGs.

Guild Wars isnt actually a MMORPG, so we aren't seeing a new age sorry.

DisruptorX
22-05-2005, 21:52
Its getting to the point that I want to hit someone every time I hear something about "guild wars is a free mmorpg". It is not a mmorpg in any way, shape or form.

m1s1n
22-05-2005, 23:53
Sorry, I'm a little confused--
In all seriousness I didn't really know what Guild Wars was--only that it was online and considered to be "massively multiplayer". Can I get a brief summary?

I think that the best way to construct Warhammer: Online would probably be to feign away from what people typically consider an MMORPG--making it more of an online environment maybe?

Delicious Soy
22-05-2005, 23:58
If it is to be 'realm vs realm' then perhaps a focus more on people forming armies or something?

DisruptorX
23-05-2005, 00:37
Sorry, I'm a little confused--
In all seriousness I didn't really know what Guild Wars was--only that it was online and considered to be "massively multiplayer". Can I get a brief summary?



It is not "massively multiplayer" unless you are in one of the small town zones. Every time you exit a town, the game creates an instanced zone for the party, which can be up to 8 people later in the game.

It is a multiplayer based action RPG with PVP emphasis. It isn't "massive" though, and you will never see the battles you see in WoW with over a hundred people on each side.

Guild Wars is good for what it is, though.

Ozorik
25-05-2005, 20:40
The fact that Mythic are develpoing it makes me uneasy. I played DAoC for about a year and a half and I know how broken that was with mythic not being particullary fast to fix things. The block bug was there for about a year or so IIRC and the classes were seriously unbalanced.

alterion
25-05-2005, 21:06
hmm as i remeber daoc was a poor alteranitve to everquest ect.. so i am worried.. but i supose some game is better than no game? (gulp!

Cypher
26-05-2005, 06:55
Thing about MMOs is that they need support. Never played DAoC but if the game was being run by a team too small for the player base then there would have been problems. Critical to the success of this title is the publisher, because it will be they who decide how much manpower goes into post-release support of the game.