vs
Latest
Leaderboard: Age of Wushu vs. ArcheAge vs. EQNext
Are sandbox games making a comeback in the MMO space? That remains to be seen, but there are a handful of major titles in development that self-identify as either sandboxes or sandparks, and all of them will be playable to one degree or another in 2013. First up is Age of Wushu, currently in a public beta and scheduled to officially debut in February. Next up is ArcheAge, which, while still in limbo for the western market, will certainly launch in Korea and probably China in 2013. Finally we have EverQuest Next, which SOE has said will be playable at its annual SOE Live event in the fall. Assuming you're a sandbox fan, which of these three titles do you see yourself playing the most? Vote after the break! Ever wish that you could put to rest a long-standing MMO debate once and for all? Then welcome to the battle royal of Massively's Leaderboard, where two sides enter the pit o' judgment -- and only one leaves. Vote to make your opinion known, and see whether your choice tops the Leaderboard!
Leaderboard: Good guys vs. bad guys in open PvP
Age of Wushu has an abundance of interesting MMO mechanics, chief among them a PK penalty system that puts players in virtual jail if they're caught murdering their fellows. The mechanic is a crucial part of the game's PvP system, and as Massively columnist Patrick Mackey explained in his beta preview, it's a novel approach for preventing an open PvP world from devolving into a gank-fest. The system also allows for player alignment to actually mean something beyond a number on a character sheet or a statement in a bio, and in Age of Wushu you really can be a bad guy or a good guy and use your powers to affect your fellow gamers. That brings us to today's Leaderboard question. Assuming you play open PvP games, or games with meaningful alignment systems, how do you generally present yourself? Do you play the good guy? The bad guy? Do you stay neutral if the option exists? Vote after the cut! Ever wish that you could put to rest a long-standing MMO debate once and for all? Then welcome to the battle royal of Massively's Leaderboard, where two sides enter the pit o' judgment -- and only one leaves. Vote to make your opinion known, and see whether your choice tops the Leaderboard!
Inevitable: Oppo Find 5 meets Xiaomi Phone 2 and Meizu MX2
With all three major Chinese phone makers now showing their quad-core cards, it's only natural for us to take a friendly portrait of their latest flagships: from left to right we have the Meizu MX2 (due December 19th), the Xiaomi Phone 2 (already out) and the freshly announced Oppo Find 5 (due January). At 8.86mm thick, the Find 5 is subtly slimmer than our two other 10.2mm-thick phones when compared visually, but the five-inch 1080p screen is clearly a winner in terms of size and pixel density -- the latter is made more obvious by the fine details on the tactfully designed icons; just too bad you won't be able to fit much 1080p video content into the 16GB built-in storage. As for aesthetics, we're currently leaning towards the Find 5 for its less obvious bezel around the glass panel, and the phone's shape is also a nice change from the usual rectangle-with-evenly-rounded-corners form factor. Still, the feel and contour of the Meizu MX2's crystal back cover gave the most comfortable grip out of the three, only to be hampered by the Flyme OS' eccentric UX. Obviously, we shall do a more detailed comparison once we have our review unit, so stay tuned.
Leaderboard: RIFT vs. EverQuest II
So you're in the market for a fantasy themepark, but you're angry at Aion, leery of Lord of the Rings Online, and weary of World of Warcraft. RIFT and EverQuest II seem pretty interesting, then, but they also seem pretty similar. Both feature high fantasy settings, celebrated housing mechanics, ridiculously deep character development options, and more PvE content than you could consume in two lifetimes. The similarities don't stop there, as the two titles also share composers, producers, and a lengthy list of devs who include both games on their resumes. One major difference is the respective business model. RIFT is firmly in the subscription camp (if you discount its free trial up to level 20), while EverQuest II is fully free-to-play, though you don't have to look very hard to find folks who think it's not free enough. Visuals are also a difference-maker; EQII is eight years old and showing its age, while RIFT is still basking in the equivalent of MMORPG adolescence. So after all of that, how about it? RIFT or EverQuest II? Vote after the break!
Leaderboard: Holidays to game or holidays from games?
It's Thanksgiving week in the United States, which means that a lot of the Massively staff members will be hanging up their hats for a day. It's an entire day when almost everyone in the country doesn't have to work, and that means an entire day free to game... or an entire day free from gaming. Let's face it, you can get a whole lot taken care of in game when you've got a whole day to devote to leveling or farming or even just crafting. But you can also recharge your batteries away from the daily routine of logging in, and you can appreciate the game a little bit more after a day of fun with friends and family. Besides, you can only clear daily quests in Star Wars: The Old Republic or daily achievements in Guild Wars 2 the one time. So with the holiday looming, which do you think is the better option? Using a holiday specifically to spend a full day in the game? Or using a holiday specifically to spend a full day away from it?
Leaderboard: Poor planning or poor circumstances?
If you missed playing Final Fantasy XIV on Saturday, well, you're not getting to play again for a while. The world sort of ended. Unfortunately for the people who were playing Saturday evening into Sunday morning, attempting to actually play during this world-ending event resulted in frequent disconnects and server crashes from the sheer number of people teleporting hither and yon. The epic finale before the trailer wound up mostly just being a confusing mess on the server. Final Fantasy XIV isn't the first title to implement a huge live event that caused a server-breaking mess. Today, our question centers on magnanimity vs. culpability. When these sorts of server events happen, is your first reaction that the development team should have planned for this popularity instead of letting the whole thing go cross-eyed? Or do you say that the team probably did everything possible and that there's a certain point past which planning doesn't help?
Leaderboard: One character or many?
Final Fantasy XIV does not encourage players to have multiple characters. Even disregarding the game's somewhat strange pricing structure, you're expected to have one character because that one character can level every class and clear every quest. All that having another character does is slow your overall progress -- you'd only be doing things twice. By contrast, Star Wars: The Old Republic all but insists that you make alts. The game's Legacy feature encourages you to level several different characters, and the fact that chunks of the game's story differ depending on your choices means that a single character doesn't see the whole game. Having another character enhances both characters to the point that filling your character slots is almost expected. Most players fall somewhere away from either extreme on the sliding scale of alts. But let's assume you have a game that gives you only the two options -- have one character or have all the characters. Which would you prefer: a lone character who can do everything or an army of characters that collectively do everything?
Leaderboard: Dynamic events vs. investigation quests
Guild Wars 2 decided to do something a little different when it was time to put together the game's content. Rather than having a few hubs where players can gather and grab a laundry list of quests, the game offers a few points of open-ended content and a lot of random events jumping up all over. The Secret World went in a very different direction with the same goal of mixing up the final experience. Not every quest is a matter of just clicking the right stuff in the right places. There are quests where the answer lies behind a puzzle, something to challenge the mind of the player rather than just your character's murdering arm. In the case of the former, dynamic events keep areas feeling fresh time after time, but they've also garnered some criticism for their simplicity or awkwardness compared to normal quests. On the other hand, the latter is pretty stagnant the second time you're solving the same puzzle, but it offers you a mental tease you don't always get from MMOs. So which do you think is the more interesting breakout? Dynamic events or investigation quests?
Leaderboard: Go it alone vs. go it together
A lot of modern games don't really require you to have someone along with you at all times. Star Wars: The Old Republic gives you a companion for your leveling adventures, but there's no need to have a real person with you when completing the game's solo content. World of Warcraft is tuned so that everyone can level through quests solo, even if sometimes you make it through by healing yourself until monsters give up and die of boredom. It's a welcome change from logging on, finding out your friends are offline, and giving up for the evening. But let's say you have a friend who will play alongside you if you want. On the one hand, you can suddenly make your life much easier by pairing up to tackle content designed for just one, doubling what you can accomplish. On the other hand, there are always quests that become more frustrating with two people after the same objectives, even when those two people are ostensibly working together. Plus, working alone means never having to stop for five minutes because your partner has to put a squalling baby to bed. Given the choice, would you rather be grouped up or solo when taking on content that allows for soloing?
Leaderboard: New hotness vs. old and trusted
There's always something awesome just over the horizon. MMOs are coming out all the time, and it seems like it's only a couple of months before one new title or another is launched. It almost seems silly to stick around in a single game when there are so many titles already out there and so many more due out soon after. Why not live a little and see everything that the online gaming space has to offer? But there's always new stuff coming out for existing games, and that might be even more satisfying. There's something comforting about having all sorts of high-level perks to fall back upon in your game of choice, things you can't accomplish unless you stick with the game for a few years and learn its nuances. Truly embedding yourself in a game is a wonderful feeling, and it means that you always have a home to come back to (unless you get stuck with a shutdown notice, but that's another topic). Absolutely none of us is immune to the siren call of a new game or the familiarity of an older one, but that's not the point. Given the option, do you generally look forward to the next title? Or do you find a game, settle in, and stick with it as long as it's operational?
Leaderboard: MMO most worthy of resurrection
I had an interesting revelation this past week. While it seems that we've had so many MMOs shutting down over the year, when I look at the big picture of all of the major titles that have been released, the vast majority of them are still in operation. It made me realize just how resilient and strong this industry is. Yet there are those games that have seen their final days and exist now only in our memories and dusty screenshot folders. Some might be good riddance to us; others are still painful wounds. We've all harbored fantasies of MMOs coming back from the great beyond for a second lease on life, but if you had to choose just one, what would it be? That's the topic for today's poll, so look at the following list and think long and hard about your choice. Resurrection isn't something that happens every day in MMOs, after all.
Leaderboard: Complexity vs. simplicity
A wise man once said to me, "Now, the world of MMOs don't move to the beat of just one drum, what might be right for you, may not be right for some." That may have also been '80s TV talking, but the point is still valid. When it comes to the wide range of our gaming buffet, we have everything from incredibly complex games that require a Masters-level course to Fisher-Price games with condescending colors and icons just in case we can't read. I appreciate both and everything in between on that spectrum. Complexity certainly does drive people away and present a real obstacle to growing a playerbase, but it also asks folks to step up and learn something instead of be handed welfare epics. Simplicity is relaxing as well because life is complicated enough. Sometimes you just want to see big numbers and things going poof. So take out your imaginary crayons today and draw a line. To the left are complex MMOs and to the right is simplicity in its finest. Don't levy judgment on which is better overall; just tell us where your preferences lie -- to the complex or to the simple? Vote after the jump!
Leaderboard: Fight for City of Heroes or let it go
You may have heard of this little kerfuffle involving NCsoft summarily shutting down City of Heroes and axing Paragon Studios, as well as a massive player movement to save the title. It's... been mentioned. Some people see it as a David vs. Goliath story, with NCsoft taking the role of the giant that tramples over the little people while pursuing the almighty dollar (or won). While the protesters have a lot of support, both inside the game and in the larger MMO community, there are those who have taken NCsoft's side in this. They see an aging game that perhaps needs needs to be let go after its good run. So while they may have sympathy, these players are at peace with City of Heroes sunsetting this November. But where does that leave you? Are you part of Occupy Paragon, or do you think it's time to let the game go? Vote after the jump!
Leaderboard: Would you have played Copernicus?
We just love tantalizing ourselves with "what ifs?" in the MMO sphere, don't we? There are so many alternate possibilities for the development and growth of these games, not to mention all of the ones that didn't even make it to launch day. The most recent of these, of course, is "What if Project Copernicus had actually launched? What if it were as close to completion and as good as they said?" For some, that's just a mild shrug; for others, it's a maddening proposition. Since the collapse of 38 Studios, we've seen several pieces of concept art and videos that will most likely be the closest we'll ever get to Copernicus. So today's Leaderboard is simple: Given everything you've seen and heard of the game, would you have played it? Did Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning convince you that this world would've made for a great MMO? Did Copernicus look like it had merit, or was it yet another fantasy game that probably couldn't compete for your affections? Vote after the jump!
Leaderboard: Launch strategies
With the community facing the reality of a Guild Wars 2 launch this next week and plenty of other releases this fall, launches are on my mind. How we deal with launches, wouldn't you agree, is just as important as how we deal with life? Or botched Braveheart quotes? So when it comes down to a game that you are looking to play, there are really three strategies for launch. There are those who will do anything and everything to get into a head start/early access type of situation, even if it means paying for a premium product or turning their Facebook timelines into a giant ad for the game. Then you have the folks who are OK with just being there on launch day, even though it's really like launch plus three days at that point. Finally, there are the "wait and see-ers" who prefer to let the initial crush of the stampede pass so that they can enjoy the game at their leisure. Which are you? Vote after the jump and let the world know of your idiosyncrasies!
Leaderboard: Battle of the fall expansions
Thought expansions were a thing of the past for MMOs? Don't tell 2012, which has three major releases lined up this fall! First up is Lord of the Rings Online: Riders of Rohan, which sends players into the titular Rohan region for the first time. Not only will there be epic confrontations with Saruman and Sauron's forces on the plains, but characters will be able to fight from horseback for the first time with the new mounted combat system. Next is World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria, Blizzard's fourth expansion for its hit MMO. There's a grab bag of goodies in this release, including a new race, additional continent, pet battle system, talent revamp, and more. Finally, RIFT: Storm Legion is coming out at an unknown point this fall. Trion's first expansion promises four new souls, two huge continents, player housing, and expanded game systems. So as you look at the big board (just pretend you have a big board -- it makes your life more exciting), which of these three looks the most promising? Which wins in potential and promise, at least, compared to the other two? Vote after the jump!
Leaderboard: Raid vs. small group content
When it comes to partying up in MMOs, it seems like everyone has his or her own preference for what size is ideal. While I've dipped my toes into the waters of raiding, I found it far too chilly and impersonal for my temperament. Yet while I prefer small group instance runs, I'm not blind to the fact that raiding remains immensely popular among part of the population. Small group content offers a more intimate setting for you and a few friends (or strangers with potty mouths) to tackle an instance. Because there are so few of you, each player needs to pull his or her own weight and become a hero. These runs tend to be less stressful and far more accessible to the game's population. On the other hand, raids offer the most challenging content in the game. A raid requires all involved to be geared up, skilled, and knowledgeable in the ways of fight patterns. Participating in one can feel downright epic, especially when you consider that you can see content that many players will never witness. So let's put it to a vote! Which do you prefer: raid or small group content?
Leaderboard: Picking your Guild Wars 2 main
Once in a while, we're going to take a break from our head-to-head battles on Leaderboard to spread a wider canvas. As some of you have pointed out, it's not always "one or the other" when it comes to choices and preferences. Sometimes you like both, sometimes neither, and sometimes there's a third, fourth, and fifth option. With Guild Wars 2 arriving in under a month, eager players with nothing else to do are fine-tuning their final plans for launch day. I'm right there with them, agonizing about what race and class I'll be rolling. And as for all of the personal storyline decisions? It's too overwhelming to settle on right now; I might have to wing that when the time comes. So for today's Leaderboard, I'm asking all of you prospective Guild Wars 2 players what your main character will be -- what race and what class. If you can't settle on the idea of a "main," then at least check in with the first character you're planning to roll. We're very interested to see how this shakes out!
Leaderboard: Ninja vs. pirate
Theirs is a rivalry born not from historical conflict but from bored nerds eating cheap pizza and debating hypothetical grudge matches. Well done, nerds -- now the entire world thinks that you can have pirates and you can have ninjas, but you cannot have both without an epic beatdown. Everyone seems to take a side on which is cooler: the roguish pirate or the mysterious ninja. Practically all fantasy MMOs have both represented in some way, whether it be World of Warcraft's Bloodsail Buccaneers or Guild Wars Factions' Assassin. If developers really wanted to inject some life into PvP, they'd make it PvN -- Pirate vs. Ninja. In any case, these two pajama-clad murderers are inseparable from our games, and chances are you've come to a conclusion as to which adds more flavor, panache, and coolness to the setting. I'd like to say that we're going to settle this debate today, but whom am I kidding? It's never going to be settled because people are still bickering about Mike vs. Joel, Picard vs. Kirk, and Big Red vs. Doublemint. Let's just say our piece and then commence with a duel at dawn in the comments, m'kay?
Leaderboard: Open world vs. instanced PvP
In the great coliseum where PvP warriors go to clash metal and drench the sand with blood, there are two doors. One leads to a place where open world PvP is embraced; the other leads to instanced PvP. Each warrior must make his or her choice which door to step through, and once that decision is made, there is no going back. Except there totally is. Open world PvP has the allure of PvP happening anytime, anywhere. Theoretically, players can vie for control of towns and regions, amassing in large armies to sweep the land of unclean filth. Or they can just zerg a spot and be zerged in return. Instanced PvP is attractive for its tightly controlled setting. The teams are usually evenly matched in numbers, and clear objectives for winning are given. So out of the two flavors of MMO PvP, which is the superior one? Vote after the jump and then back up your decision in the comments!
