Felon said:
Thanee, c'mon. Are you saying it would be boring if characters had a decent chance of getting away from fights they didn't want to be in in the first place?
It's bad enough they do extra damag from rear attacks, but having those attacks actually stun the fleeing character is going out of their way to make there are lots of trips to the graveyard. We're not talking about a challenge, we're talking a tremendous source of frustration.
I'm sorry you've experienced it that way. On the few occasions this has happened to me, I've chalked it up to carelessness on my part: I wasn't paying attention to my surroundings, I hadn't chosen an escape path, and I let myself get into a fight too close to another creature that could join in.
I don't really mind the rear-stun attacks: it gives a sense of tension to the idea of going into enemy territory. If I could reliably escape from battles that were too dangerous, that tension wouldn't be there.
That said, if they went away, I wouldn't mind too much either. It's not a big deal for me.
Forced grouping? Well, yes, if you wait long enough to do a quest you should eventually be high enough to fight off multiple mobs, when they're green or gray to you (and so is the quest). When I was 14th I'd still get killed fighting Burning Blade warlocks on my voidwalker pet quest. There seems to be few classes that can handle multiple attackers. That's a big deal in a game where spawns walk right into you--or even respawn in groups right on top of you. Soloability is pretty much all about the ability to fend off groups, and not just desperately hoping you can successfully pick away at the bad guys one at a time.
This is a place where your experience is very different from mine. Right now I'm clearing out my questbook, which is mostly full of green and yellow quests (due to the amount of time I've spent in instances, which give crazy XP). Except when I'm
really careless and let four or five bad guys whale on me at once, I have very little trouble. Two or three bad guys is no problem.
If you don't have your voidwalker yet, you need to get it, either by going very cautiously through Skull Rock, travelling to the Undercity, or finding another warlock to group with. The voidwalker is key to the early warlock's soloing experience: you can't stand mano a mano with the attackers, but need the voidwalker to taunt them off you.
Forced hunting? Well, hunting for animal pieces has easily constituted the majority of my quests. I've been into one or two caves, and one fort.
For the early game, that's true, especially in the Barrens. If you're bored with it, try travelling to Ratchet, where you can get "slay the pirates" quests, or to Silverpine, where you'll be investigating a wizard who's turning people into his werewolf slaves.
Instanced content? Haven't seen any.
It really starts becoming important around sixteenth level, where you can go to Ragefire Chasm or Pyrewood Village (depending on your location); if you're brave and get a good group together, you can try out Wailing Caverns (although you'll probably want to wait to a higher level).
Hell runs? There are hell runs aplenty, and there's apparently not a convenient keystroke to let you cycle through monsters within your radius.
Again, different experiences. I find the "tab" key to be very convenient.
Class distinction? There's a lot of fun and cool powers to distinguish one class from another, but players do lack distinction and uniqueness from other characters of the same class. Sadly, I am really no different from any other warlock of my level.
This is true, with the caveat that you're not any different from any other warlock of your level
and race. Racial abilities can be key if you use them well. But I wish there were more customization of characters.
Another issue not addressed is what happens when there's a lot of disparity between character levels? I'm already losing ground to my friends who play more than I do.
How is this a problem?
But really, now I want to ask you guys: what is so polished about WoW? What do you think makes it turn other MMORPG's on there heads? If you opt to respond, please be detailed.
The polish:
-I find the graphics to be absolutely beautiful. I know you don't like them, but many people, both among my friends and among online reviewers, agree.
-Combat is fast-paced and intricate without being a twitchfest.
-The quests vary from mediocre to fantastic, with the very good ones being most common. Even though, stripped to their bones, they revolve around three central principles (kill/collect/visit), they're dressed up in sufficient ornamentation and permutations that they really involve me in the storyline.
-No class feels completely better than any other class to me, and many classes can adopt different roles in a group. For example, my brother playing the hunter can choose to be the damage-dealer or the tank; I, playing the druid, can choose to be the tank, damage dealer, or healer. And grouping is lots of fun: the powers of the classes complement each other very well.
-The very rare occasions when you get a loading screen.
-The cool little locations. In your travels, you might come across the abandoned airfield covered with gnomish aeroplanes, or an island populated by members of all races, or a huge sea-monster off in the distance, or a mountainpeak covered in mist the color of dried blood, or the bones of an immense animal; and you just know that this location is going to have a quest at it at some point. Exploring is just tremendous fun.
-The Auction House and Mail System, great improvements to the marketplace.
But see, that's what I mean. They gave a lukewarm review to a game that received a lukewarm reception. And yet, after reading both reviews, I have no idea how the feel WoW is superior EQII. Do you?
I think there's a very good chance that they gave a lukewarm review to a game that received a lukewarm reception
because the game wasn't anything special. Rather thank look for a cause-and-effect relationship between their review and the reception, it seems far likelier that the review and the reception have the same cause.
When I decide which reviews to trust, whether for movies or for games or for anything else, I try to find a reviewer whose tastes jibe with mine. Gamespot's tastes consistently do: I've never loved a game that they reviewed poorly, and I've never hated a game that they reviewed well (except for games in genres that I dislike). It sounds like they're not a very useful reviewer for you, inasmuch as your tastes don't jibe with theirs. That is not, however, sufficient reason to call their integrity into question, by suggesting that they review games well because they just want to fit in with popular opinion.
Do I understand why they reviewed the game well? Absolutely, and I have trouble understanding how, after reading the four page review, you do not. They were very specific about what they liked.
Again, it seems not to be to your tastes; I hope you're able to find a game you like more. I find this game very satisfying, and expect (no starry-eyed glasses here) to continue enjoying it for many months to come.
Daniel
