Computer Gaming World rated EQ2 and WoW

In what I would call a much better review than PCGamer CGW rates both games.

They give both equal billing and actually alternate pages in the review which is a bit odd but basically 1 of them is on the odd pages and the other is on the even pages.

They give both games 4.5 stars which I think is fair because in my mind these are 2 solid games that just cater to a slightly different gaming style.

Have you played both? I''d be interested in your take. Or has already been covered?

I never played EQ, but am enjoying WoW quite a bit. What ""different play styles"" do you mean?

I think it has been hashed out arround here a lot but in my mind it boils down to this.

EQ2: More group and adventure focused

WoW: More solo friendly and action focused

That is really the difference. Game play is basically same you get quest you go out and wack creatures. You find/make cool items/loot so you can fight bigger things and so on.

A lot of it is preference too.

I for example think EQ2 interface is much better than WoW and that is comparing EQ2 out of box to WoW with cosmos or not. A lot will tell you though they hate EQ2 interface or at least like it less than WoW and there are many more things that are just preference oriented.

Oh and yes I play both of them now and I been tired for last 2 months.

In WoW, the if you use the home-teleport spell, log out, and log in in an hour, you can use it again.
In EQ2, you have to stay IN the game for an hour before you can use it.

In WoW, when you get a timed ""buff"", you log out, log in in an hour, and your buff resumes from the point of suspension.
In EQ2, when you get a timed ""buff"", you log out, log in in an hour, and you lose it.

That is what they mean by ""difference in gaming styles"".

"shihonage" wrote:

In WoW, the if you use the home-teleport spell, log out, and log in in an hour, you can use it again.
In EQ2, you have to stay IN the game for an hour before you can use it.

In WoW, when you get a timed ""buff"", you log out, log in in an hour, and your buff resumes from the point of suspension.
In EQ2, when you get a timed ""buff"", you log out, log in in an hour, and you lose it.

That is what they mean by ""difference in gaming styles"".

That is certainly part of it but you can turn the tables.

In EQ2 you can take the griffin routes for free without ever having to run to a place first.

In WoW you have to pay and first run there to open route.

In fair disclosure though will add that WoW has more Griffin routes.

In EQ2 you can get mounts as soon as you can afford them, fight on them, and do most anything else while on a mount as long as outside.

In WoW only 40+ can get a mount and then it is travel only.

In EQ2 some of the far out spots can be reached instantly just by paying a small fee and clicking a bell.

In WoW you have to pay a fee and then sit on your duff while you fly there.

Oh and the buff point is not really true for all buffs. There are some that do go when you log but not like you can not take the 5 seconds to recast them and move on.

I play both games. They are both good games but there is a lot of WoW favoritism on this board which is fine but not what I would call unbiased.

Maladen, I have to say you are the model of restraint when it comes to the endless EQ2 v WoW discussions.

Dang, this reminds me of back when there were all of the comparisons involving Ultima Online and Everquest, when all it ever really boiled down to was a particular playstyle (and, heh, computer specs).

In fact, if you really think about it, back then it really had more to do with your computer, as UO was an isometric view-based game that didn''t need the same type of renderings that the EQ first-person view game needed. I wanted to try EQ, but my PC at the time was not the best...

Then there was always the ""in UO you can solo better than in EQ"" argument, which wasn''t exactly true, either. Unless you played a tamer and had a few dragons or white wyrms in your stables, it was pretty darn near impossible to solo in UO against the much bigger prey.

Not to derail the topic, though--I just thought it was interesting to see that these subjects in MMORPGs never really die off.

Oh, and for what it''s worth, I was involved in the WoW beta for about a month and loved it! I thought, at the time, that it seemed perhaps to be the best MMORPG I''d ever played (and to keep things simple, CoH is the only one I haven''t tried). I''m glad to see that it has been getting rave reviews.

I play both games. They are both good games but there is a lot of WoW favoritism on this board which is fine but not what I would call unbiased.

I have been reading a lot of the reviews for EQ2 and Wow and WoW is getting a major pass. Many reviews say that the grind is not in WoW and if it is, you hardly feel it, that is just pure BS. Both EQ2 and WoW run on a grind, EQ2 is just more complex. WoW is much easier to ""pick up and play"" than EQ but it doesn''t offer the depth that EQ2 offers. Depth in tradeskills and combat is greater in EQ2.

EQ2 has a much more flexable UI out of the gate than WoW and I still believe a better newbie experience. WoW has a better level curve than EQ2 but I still think it is too easy to level in WoW.

Ahh, the depth in combat argument again. Ulairi,that is simply not true. Your going to have to get a little higher than 15-20 with most of the classes to have a better educated opinion. The warlock, warrior and priest are prime examples of complex, in depth classes. Actually, at least to level 10, the EQ2 classes are much simpler to play. Once you hit 6 and 10 in WoW, the classes get a wrinkle thrown it them. This usually also happens at level 16 and 20 and for all I know continues at 30 and beyond.

I am still going over and over in my mind, as to which class is the simplest to play in WoW. I am leaning towards the druid. It is a straightforward class and yet shapeshifting adds a significant amount of depth. The paladin is straight forward in that its about buffing and hacking. However, the paladin has 4-5 variable buffs active during the fight. The mage blasts from range, but I could hardly call them simple. The Hunter is the fastest and best soloer. You can fling some arrows and send in your pet and be effective. However, you can tame a pet from the myriad of creatures available. All of the have balances between armor, hp and DPS. The hunter also throws in a wrinkle with traps that are very powerful if used correctly.

These boards are very biased towards WoW. However, I dont think that discredits the WoW supporters at all. It also doesnt mean that WoW isnt a better game. EQ2 is a good game. WoW is a better game.

WoW is headed for a crafting breakdown. There will be a point at which it becomes futile and most everybody will have raced through the recipes and the supplies will dry up and not be as lucrative. I have confidence the developers know this and will be refreshing it with new content of some sort. Dont think EQ2 will be exempt from this. In order for crafting to be taken seriously, it has to grow and change too. Boredom and staling are your 2 worst enemies with fixed content in an MMO. It will be interesting to see how both companies manage this problem. Both companies run the risk of trying to stretch the current crafting system too thin.

WoW is headed for a crafting breakdown. There will be a point at which it becomes futile and most everybody will have raced through the recipes and the supplies will dry up and not be as lucrative.

But fangblackbone, doesn''t this happen in every game? I was a blacksmith in UO and a weaponsmith in SWG and found both skills useful, lucrative, and amusing. . .to a degree. Eventually, in both though, I found working tradeskills not quite as fun as dungeon hacking/adventuring due to the lack of recipe versatility and low quantities of necessary components on any given day. Not to mention the chore of actually bettering my skill through endless repetition.

This my be an ""old"" argument, but I am definitely enjoying reading all of your opinions. I have no experience with EQ or EQ2, so I am interested in how it compares to my beloved WoW. Plus, no one seems particularly biased and everyone can discuss with respect and intelligence. So I say carry on!

Anyway, I''m curious about the ""sight-seeing"" factor. One of my favorite things about WoW is exploring and marvelling at the design. How does EQ2 stack up in this regard?

From what Ive seen very favorably. Sure the art style leans towards realism. However, EQ2 still has the trademark places akin to the bridge in east karanas that give you a grand sense of scale. Plus with the updated graphics, even the normal buildings are meticulously designed/crafted.

unpronounceable,

Anyway, I''m curious about the ""sight-seeing"" factor. One of my favorite things about WoW is exploring and marvelling at the design. How does EQ2 stack up in this regard?

Take a look at my EQ2 player site too see some of the sites I been uploading.

http://eq2players.station.sony.com/e...

I put new stuff up there ever couple days or so if you are interested.