Comments | lucasarcher: For a more detailed thingamabob...

lucasarcher

For a more detailed thingamabob...

Apr 23, 2005 09:35

Back to all threads

killjoy April 23 2005, 15:14:01 UTC

I said much the same thing after I'd played them both, though I disagree with you on the value of EQ2's class system. Personal opinion.

I'd like to play EQ2 simultaneously with WoW (I liked my Iksar Fighter and my Gnome Wizard), but I can't justify the cost with my finances already so tight. WoW is the more enjoyable game, so WoW it is.

lucasarcher April 23 2005, 15:24:46 UTC

Aye, maybe the class system is really a matter of preference. But it can't be denied that EQ2 has far more (eventual) classes than WoW. 24 to 9.

killjoy April 23 2005, 15:57:46 UTC

But as you progressively broaden the classes out from the original four, the variations become fewer amongst the groupings. They are not 24 distinctly different classes. I'm not sure 24 distinctly different classes could exist! I certainly appreciate the breadth of the choices allowed you by EQ2, but you really can't contrast WoW's 9 distinctly different classes against EQ2's often marginally different subclasses (marginal within each class grouping, obviously).

lucasarcher April 23 2005, 23:49:01 UTC

Point taken. I agree that the difference between say, the Paladin and the Warrior is far more pronounced in WoW than in EQ2.

raynbow April 26 2005, 16:00:59 UTC

And it takes you forever to get to the point where they are distinct. That part annoyed me. If you want to do two kind of mages, you have 10 levels the same. If you want to do two kinds of summoners, you have 20 levels that are the same.

Considering I don't tend to get much above 20-30 in most games (except ridiculously fast leveling ones like WoW) that part is annoying.

But I did like EQ2.

The two things that caused me to give it up were the lack of people playing it and the fact that my computer really wasn't good enough to play without alot of slow down.

Back to all threads