Figured we could use a place for people to show off their gear, progress, and such.
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning
Game » consists of 4 releases. Released Sep 18, 2008
An MMORPG based on the Games Workshop franchise developed by Mythic Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts. Some of the features were brutal RvR battles (Realm vs Realm) and siege warfare. Warhammer Online was shut down December 18th, 2013.
Official Warhammer Online Showoff Thread
I don't have a picture to post (I'm at work) but:
Knarnak, Greenskin Shaman
Rank 13
Renown 10
Can't wait for mount!
Guild: Signs and Symptoms
Server: Wurtbad
http://realmwar.warhammeronline.com/realmwar/CharacterInfo.war?id=2164&server=200
I just got an purple quality staff from a PQ... pretty awesome.
About scenarios... in WAR, you can queue wherever you want and when you leave the scenario, you respawn where you left off in the world. That's what make the queues bearable for me. Sometimes I'm so into whatever I'm doing that a queue pops after quite a while and I just decline the scenario and re-queue.
(Moblin, 11/8 Goblin Squig Herder, Praag server) If you want to RvR, you can go to the "lakes" in just about every zone. It's not as fun as the full Team v. Team scenarios, but there's always someone from the other faction in there, making trouble and capping the outposts.
@Psynapse: It depended on what server you played on, just like it does in WAR. I play(ed) WoW from release on an original server and queues were a nightmare. Half an hour for WSG, 2 hours for AV up until the 2.1 patch. Right now it takes about 20 minutes for scenarios on my server. Which is fine right now because you still have a whole laundry list of stuff to do while you wait. It will probably get annoying once everyone gets to the cap, but Mythic was good in Dark Age of Camelot with making people travel around to RvR to keep their Realm on top. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until then.
"Vinchenzo said:Hardly a troll. I just hear mixed things on Warhammer. Such as the spell effects being terrible, but the game looking overall great. I also believe graphics don't mean everything, since art direction is a primary concern. Then again, that character does look ugly regardless of graphical quality."demonbear said:trolld.""Are those just your settings, or are the graphics just that bad?"
Demonbear, Chaos Zealot
Rank 17
Renown 12
Guild: Catastrophe
Server: Wastelands"
Demonbear definitely has his settings turned down, looks like 1024x768. Mine was running at full settings, 1280x1024 on an ATI x1800 when I snapped it. The game really does look good. The spell effects aren't horrible at all, but if you want to compare it to a 4-year old MMO with 11 million subscribers...I guess you can do that. = /
As far as the graphics go in WAR.. in my opinion they kind of feel soulless and uninteresting. Kind of a contrast in basic vision between it and WoW: WAR is better technically (textures and such) while WoW is wayyyyy better in terms of overall feel and artistic depth!
"As far as the graphics go in WAR.. in my opinion they kind of feel soulless and uninteresting. Kind of a contrast in basic vision between it and WoW: WAR is better technically (textures and such) while WoW is wayyyyy better in terms of overall feel and artistic depth!"Can't say that I agree with that. Graphically, the game looks a hell of a lot nicer and presents a much more alive feeling to the surroundings. My only real problem with it is the animations.
"RedCricketChase said:What is wrong with comparing a 4 year game to a 1 month game? WoW has never been changed as far as anything that has been brought up. Warcraft just has a great art direction, which is what keeps the game going. Almost any computer can run it at top specs, and it still looks great despite being older. If anything, WoW is just more polished and bug-free which is what those 4 years do. WAR can require more specs as much as it wants, but art direction will almost always be a bigger draw."As far as the graphics go in WAR.. in my opinion they kind of feel soulless and uninteresting. Kind of a contrast in basic vision between it and WoW: WAR is better technically (textures and such) while WoW is wayyyyy better in terms of overall feel and artistic depth!"Can't say that I agree with that. Graphically, the game looks a hell of a lot nicer and presents a much more alive feeling to the surroundings. My only real problem with it is the animations.Oh, and again...you are comparing a 4 year game to a 1 month game. = / Although, in arguments against WAR...the damn thing shouldn't have ANY of the animation problems it has with a 3 year dev time.I'm gonna probably jump back on tomorrow and start playin the hell out of it again. Situation with my roommate has kept me from being able to play the past few days."
Thanks, jakob187, i forgot about the almost nonexistent animations in WAR... man. That world just isn't one I want to spend any time in, unlike WoW :( I really wanted to love WAR too! Me and my BF were hoping to switch to it from WoW..
"jakob187 said:WoW is a cartoony knock-off of Warhammer. So if anything, I'd at least call it unoriginal art direction. = / But that's another debate on its own, and would create tons of nerd rage, which is not the purpose of this thread. We wanna debate about that one, start up a new thread."RedCricketChase said:What is wrong with comparing a 4 year game to a 1 month game? WoW has never been changed as far as anything that has been brought up. Warcraft just has a great art direction, which is what keeps the game going. Almost any computer can run it at top specs, and it still looks great despite being older. If anything, WoW is just more polished and bug-free which is what those 4 years do. WAR can require more specs as much as it wants, but art direction will almost always be a bigger draw.""As far as the graphics go in WAR.. in my opinion they kind of feel soulless and uninteresting. Kind of a contrast in basic vision between it and WoW: WAR is better technically (textures and such) while WoW is wayyyyy better in terms of overall feel and artistic depth!"Can't say that I agree with that. Graphically, the game looks a hell of a lot nicer and presents a much more alive feeling to the surroundings. My only real problem with it is the animations.Oh, and again...you are comparing a 4 year game to a 1 month game. = / Although, in arguments against WAR...the damn thing shouldn't have ANY of the animation problems it has with a 3 year dev time.I'm gonna probably jump back on tomorrow and start playin the hell out of it again. Situation with my roommate has kept me from being able to play the past few days."
"Vinchenzo said:You're right, forget all the other Warcrafts."jakob187 said:WoW is a cartoony knock-off of Warhammer. So if anything, I'd at least call it unoriginal art direction. = / But that's another debate on its own, and would create tons of nerd rage, which is not the purpose of this thread. We wanna debate about that one, start up a new thread. ""RedCricketChase said:What is wrong with comparing a 4 year game to a 1 month game? WoW has never been changed as far as anything that has been brought up. Warcraft just has a great art direction, which is what keeps the game going. Almost any computer can run it at top specs, and it still looks great despite being older. If anything, WoW is just more polished and bug-free which is what those 4 years do. WAR can require more specs as much as it wants, but art direction will almost always be a bigger draw.""As far as the graphics go in WAR.. in my opinion they kind of feel soulless and uninteresting. Kind of a contrast in basic vision between it and WoW: WAR is better technically (textures and such) while WoW is wayyyyy better in terms of overall feel and artistic depth!"Can't say that I agree with that. Graphically, the game looks a hell of a lot nicer and presents a much more alive feeling to the surroundings. My only real problem with it is the animations.Oh, and again...you are comparing a 4 year game to a 1 month game. = / Although, in arguments against WAR...the damn thing shouldn't have ANY of the animation problems it has with a 3 year dev time.I'm gonna probably jump back on tomorrow and start playin the hell out of it again. Situation with my roommate has kept me from being able to play the past few days."
"You're right, forget all the other Warcrafts."*ugh* Guess I've gotta offer a history lesson in the wrong thread:
But Blizz obviously has more skill in designing animations and cohesive, visually interesting color schemes, and living, breathing worlds that people want to be in. ^ ^
"But Blizz obviously has more skill in designing animations and cohesive, visually interesting color schemes, and living, breathing worlds that people want to be in. ^ ^"And you trying to base subscription numbers by comparing a 4 year old game against a 1 month old game. Hrmmm...
"RedCricketChase said:Sorry to continue this argument where I previously got "owned" but, it's not that cartoony, just overexaggerated."But Blizz obviously has more skill in designing animations and cohesive, visually interesting color schemes, and living, breathing worlds that people want to be in. ^ ^"And you trying to base subscription numbers by comparing a 4 year old game against a 1 month old game. Hrmmm...I'm not saying that WarCraft doesn't have a good sense of art, but I am saying that you can't compare the two. I don't even understand where people are getting the WAR-to-WoW comparison IN TERMS OF GRAPHICS, besides the fact that they lessened everything in WAR to try and get it to run on simple computers, as well as the over-exaggeration of the character models. Other than that, Warhammer is set in a slightly more reality-based style of world.Warcraft purposely tries to be like watching a Saturday morning cartoon.
Personally, I like both art styles. I just happen to enjoy WAR's brutal assertion to it all more.BACKONTOPIC!!!"
Edit: And by that cartoony, I meant as much as a morning cartoon. It has humor, bright colors, but the characters are still pretty serious.
"jakob187 said:Vinchenzo...I hate you sometimes. o_o Quit bustin' my balls. lol = P"RedCricketChase said:Sorry to continue this argument where I previously got "owned" but, it's not that cartoony, just overexaggerated."But Blizz obviously has more skill in designing animations and cohesive, visually interesting color schemes, and living, breathing worlds that people want to be in. ^ ^"And you trying to base subscription numbers by comparing a 4 year old game against a 1 month old game. Hrmmm...I'm not saying that WarCraft doesn't have a good sense of art, but I am saying that you can't compare the two. I don't even understand where people are getting the WAR-to-WoW comparison IN TERMS OF GRAPHICS, besides the fact that they lessened everything in WAR to try and get it to run on simple computers, as well as the over-exaggeration of the character models. Other than that, Warhammer is set in a slightly more reality-based style of world.Warcraft purposely tries to be like watching a Saturday morning cartoon.
Personally, I like both art styles. I just happen to enjoy WAR's brutal assertion to it all more.BACKONTOPIC!!!"
Edit: And by that cartoony, I meant as much as a morning cartoon. It has humor, bright colors, but the characters are still pretty serious."
"Demonbear definitely has his settings turned down, looks like 1024x768. "Again, NO its a compressed jpg from a screenshot which is already a jpeg, jesus i cant believe i'll have to take another snapshot for the graphic pussies out there....
And my character rules, he looks like a shirtless Rob Zombie. I love it. Go roll a gnome, Bambie-lover!
EDIT : i found this earlier picture of my character, again, NOT high rez....
"Royale said:It just seemed like you're judging the graphics quality of a game you haven't played from a enlarged extremely cropped compressed screenshot. Check some of the screenshots on the site if you want a real idea about the graphics in the game."Vinchenzo said:Hardly a troll. I just hear mixed things on Warhammer. Such as the spell effects being terrible, but the game looking overall great. I also believe graphics don't mean everything, since art direction is a primary concern. Then again, that character does look ugly regardless of graphical quality.""demonbear said:trolld.""Are those just your settings, or are the graphics just that bad?"
Demonbear, Chaos Zealot
Rank 17
Renown 12
Guild: Catastrophe
Server: Wastelands"
In regards to the characters ugliness, it's hard to make a good looking male chaos anything. Chaos are evil and ugly and that's about it. Even the female chaos are unattractive.
I've got a very nice looking level 15 Zealot named Oberynne, I'll post a screenshot later tonight.
I've dyed his gear so it's some pretty awesome shades of red. :)
To the people comparing this to WoW: WAR's graphics are vastly superior in every way. I'm playing both games on the highest settings on my current computer and WoW cannot compete at those settings.
But the point about art direction is true: WoW's art direction is, in my opinion, superior. The zones, especially in Burning Crusade, are astounding, and many of the enemies are very cool looking. It's quite cartoony, but that's part of the personality of the game.
WAR is much grittier and dark generally. Admittedly, the Order areas are brighter, but still have that gritty, realistic feeling. But, to me, that also makes it look a little bit less friendly. That said, the character designs generally blow WoW's out of the water. Goofy Illidan looks like something out of Dragonball Z, while many of the characters in WAR look like something out of Lord of the Rings.
One thing must be said against WAR, though: It has major animation problems. Problems that used to exist in WoW but have mostly been fixed are rife in WAR currently (characters getting frozen in poses, mobs not being where they look like they are, ranged attacks looking very strange). But again, it's two weeks old and WoW is four years old--I don't expect it to be as polished as WoW yet.
But the gameplay, which is what truly counts, IMO, is vastly superior in WAR. It especially seems that Blizzard is doing a rush-job on WOTLK and really messing up most of the classes with very weak new talent trees on top of stale gameplay. Anyway, if you must keep playing WoW, have fun, but you're doing yourself a disservice.
Cool beans, guys.
"Patchinko said:Never played Guild Wars, eh? I remember how much black dye cost on that game...I've dyed his gear so it's some pretty awesome shades of red. :)Holy crap... I never thought I would have liked this feature as much as I do! :)"
Alright, busted Rank 24 today. Dyed my armor up a little bit, plus got the OP axe from the Chapter 12 Dark Elf influence. For those Destros out there that haven't heard about this, the Chapter 12 advanced reward is a completely OP weapon for Rank 24 toons. To compare:
Chaos Chapter 12 offers a blue mace at ELITE that is 33.0 DPS with something like a 3.2 speed, some decent stats.
So how's everyone else been progressing along? Hope everyone is still enjoying the game as much as I am.
Alright, folks. It's been a few days. Let's get some updates from the community! WHOO-HOO!
"I still can't find a class to really play, well I mean, I just keep restarting characters, need to stick to one ._."A bit of advice: you will NOT see any of a class' capabilities until after level 20. I kept feeling like my Marauder was worthless...until I hit 20. The skills that I was getting afterwards made me a vital addition to any RvR match. Between the ailments, the healing debuff, and my now massive attacks (thanks to respeccing Savagery), I can easily say that I'm happy with the choice of class that I made.
and if you go order... you pick bright wizard! FACT! (it seems that whenever i run into the order... its all BW's) oh and an archer that camps one of our roofs lol
Because i keep DC'ing from the game i couldn't pick a melee DPS class or Tank, so i have gone for a zealot! (as you can see above :) however, being killed by a BW 1 level lower killing me in 1 hit is STUPID! but i look crazy and i am usually top 2 in the PQ, just spank the heal button over and over :P
Well, I'm just hoping that the classes don't get nerfed based on 1v1 combat, like Blizz does with WoW. I mean, you can defeat a BW if you work well as a team, but with PUGs, it just turns into an unholy mess. Marauders are actually pretty good against a BW, just because of all the DoTs and ailments we get to counter-act some of their stuff. We're nothing without heals, though.
i think its what they are pushing for, end game team battles... the hole RvR thing is there moto, so i dont see it being 1v1, if you get a team that works well together it should be ok... i am thinking that armour/spells/talismans might help counter in the long run, i am sure there will be a way to work around it, like a talisman that has loads of resistance to fire and/or charms - but then you will be open to the other classes, i hope its more like that than "NURF HIM BECAUSE HE HAD 2 EXTRA DMG THAN ME!" personaly i am not into the hole numbers game... i play a class because they look cool not because of a calculator (also, i really wanted to be a marauder lol, love the mutations!)
I understand what you are saying completely. I'm looking at things, however, from the fact that it seems all the community has to do is QQ even moderately and Mythic will change it up. I'm afraid that too many people will bitch about their class being underpowered or some shit based on the fact that, like, a witch hunter beat their ass or something...and the next thing we know, we're in WoW all over again.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment