Closed Beta ends

[nobbie]

It's a lot more ready for retail than EQ2.

I'm going to break a lance for WOW here ;)

I haven't played WOW (beta) or EQ2 (beta), but from what I've read, heard and seen in the Game-TV specials/previews so far, neither WOW nor EQ2 are ready for retail yet - not even close if one considers how complex such MMORPG's with multiple races and "ever-quests" are.

It seems that both Sony and Blizzard want to have their new game flagships out before Christmas. Since WOW and EQ2 are from the MMORPG genre, where most people want to concentrate on one game for financial and time reasons, pressure is high for both companies. The one who has the foot in the customer's door first, makes the deal. As a result of this extremely competitive situation, which is new for Blizzard because their previous titles (Diablo, WarCraft, StarCraft) have been more or less competitionless, WOW will be their first game that can not be considered "finished by Blizzard standards". However, as Ghostiger stated already, WOW seems to be better than most (or all) MMORPG's out there even in its current state, and every MMORPG is an on going evolving process that is practically never finished (an "ever-quest"). In addition to unfinished content and balancing, EQ2 - according to various reports - seems to be also a *lot* more buggy than WOW is at the moment.

The second and obvious plus that WOW has compared to EQ2 is its graphics. In light of WOW, EQ2 seems to be just a graphical hodge-podge of random fantasy elements. It lacks the strong art direction that is typical for Blizzard games. The live-previews of EQ2 looked certainly impressive, and the graphical and animation *details* were better than that of WOW here and there, but they come at the price of very costly hardware. While WOW - according to the tests in TV - is playable in good graphical quality on 3 to 4 years old "high-end" systems (example: GeForce Ti4200, Pentium 4 2Ghz, 256-512MB RAM, 56K modem), the sytem requirements for EQ2 are STELLAR (example: GeForce 6800 Ultra, Pentium 4 3GHz, 512-1024MB RAM, DSL modem) if you want to play it at the level of detail that makes it look better than WOW (the poor art direction and fantasy hodge-podge aside). You can't enjoy EQ2's full graphical quality if you don't own a state-of-the-art high-end PC, and how many potential customers own such a system? The moderators of the live-preview said that EQ2's performance *might* improve until the final release candidate, but I doubt that there will be a significant difference in system requirements.

WOW's third plus are its (familiar) WarCraft backstory and storyline, which are amazingly deep and interesting compared to other games, and its unique, cartoony feel. EQ2 has nothing comparable, so the "Immersive Gameplay" award goes to WOW as well.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Whether or not I personally will play WOW remains to be seen, depending on the time (and money) I can afford for the quite costly entertainment next year. 200+$ per year (provider costs not included) for one game + playing fees makes you think twice before you buy. Some merchandising stuff like the amazing looking "Jungle Troll Voodoo Priest" action figure (which would fit nicely into my current set of 7-inch WarCraft III figures) and the new WOW artbook (from the "Collector's Edition") are definitely on the shopping list, though. If I should make a recommendation for someone who wants to play one of the new "commercial" MMORPG's now, I'd say buy WOW - it will certainly be worth the money if you are into that type of games.