WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.
So, yes!
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after it (though obviously the game has now hit past its maturity). That’s how you make maintain a successful game.
In any case, I hope pdemo was enlightened by how some of us guessed the concurrency.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after it (though obviously the game has now hit past its maturity). That’s how you make maintain a successful game.In any case, I hope pdemo was enlightened by how some of us guessed the concurrency.
It did better than the other three or four big name MMOs out, but that doesn’t make it better. Back in the day, VHS recorders were inferior to beta recorders in almost every way…but VHS was used in more homes and eventually replaced beta. Popularity is no guarantee of quality. I’m sure more people eat at McDonalds than the fine steak house next door to it. Doesn’t mean anything.
If WoW launched at a time when there was 2 or 3 other MMOs, none of which were free to play, and it had an advertising budget (which most games really didn’t), that’s enough to explain its success. Now it might really have been better. That’s a possibility. But I don’t think anything is proved by its success except that it had good timing and good marketing. That’s enough to pretty much get anything to sell.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after it (though obviously the game has now hit past its maturity). That’s how you make maintain a successful game.In any case, I hope pdemo was enlightened by how some of us guessed the concurrency.
It did better than the other three or four big name MMOs out, but that doesn’t make it better. Back in the day, VHS recorders were inferior to beta recorders in almost every way…but VHS was used in more homes and eventually replaced beta. Popularity is no guarantee of quality. I’m sure more people eat at McDonalds than the fine steak house next door to it. Doesn’t mean anything.
If WoW launched at a time when there was 2 or 3 other MMOs, none of which were free to play, and it had an advertising budget (which most games really didn’t), that’s enough to explain its success. Now it might really have been better. That’s a possibility. But I don’t think anything is proved by its success except that it had good timing and good marketing. That’s enough to pretty much get anything to sell.
Word of mouth also affects a game’s success. WoW had a good reputation because players found it fun and overall a good quality game, because it was (still is?).
It’s ok if you don’t find it fun. Other players did, hence its success.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after it
Personally for me EQ2 was by far the better game .. however WoWs main advantages
were that their engine ran on crappy hardware, and that they had all those Blizzard
Fans from Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo .. and i bet without them it had also been
just another MMO.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after it (though obviously the game has now hit past its maturity). That’s how you make maintain a successful game.In any case, I hope pdemo was enlightened by how some of us guessed the concurrency.
It did better than the other three or four big name MMOs out, but that doesn’t make it better. Back in the day, VHS recorders were inferior to beta recorders in almost every way…but VHS was used in more homes and eventually replaced beta. Popularity is no guarantee of quality. I’m sure more people eat at McDonalds than the fine steak house next door to it. Doesn’t mean anything.
If WoW launched at a time when there was 2 or 3 other MMOs, none of which were free to play, and it had an advertising budget (which most games really didn’t), that’s enough to explain its success. Now it might really have been better. That’s a possibility. But I don’t think anything is proved by its success except that it had good timing and good marketing. That’s enough to pretty much get anything to sell.
Word of mouth also affects a game’s success. WoW had a good reputation because players found it fun and overall a good quality game, because it was (still is?).
It’s ok if you don’t find it fun. Other players did, hence its success.
Last post on this topic because it is off-topic but there are as many people who hate WoW as there are who love it, including entire domains that had been set up by WoW haters. My niece, an MMO player called WoW the Evil empire.
But none of this really has anything to do with Guild Wars 2’s concurrency figures anyway. What we can deduce is that the high concurrency number given was from early in the games life and it’s certainly gone down from there, but regardless there are still lots of people playing and the game seems to be doing fine.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after itPersonally for me EQ2 was by far the better game .. however WoWs main advantages
were that their engine ran on crappy hardware, and that they had all those Blizzard
Fans from Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo .. and i bet without them it had also been
just another MMO.
In ANet’s case, we could also say GW1’s reputation helped GW2’s success.
The difference is that ANet didn’t know how to keep building on its success like what Blizzard did with WoW.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after itPersonally for me EQ2 was by far the better game .. however WoWs main advantages
were that their engine ran on crappy hardware, and that they had all those Blizzard
Fans from Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo .. and i bet without them it had also been
just another MMO.In ANet’s case, we could also say GW1’s reputation helped GW2’s success.
The difference is that ANet didn’t know how to keep building on its success like what Blizzard did with WoW.
I don’t know of that’s true. I’m not sure Guild Wars 2 could have built on Guild Wars 1’s success. Guild Wars 1 was always going to be a niche game. Nothing that wasn’t Guild Wars 1 would have likely appealed to Guild Wars 1 players.
It’s so easy to say things are being done wrong. The problem is no one really knows if they were done differently if it would have worked out better.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after itPersonally for me EQ2 was by far the better game .. however WoWs main advantages
were that their engine ran on crappy hardware, and that they had all those Blizzard
Fans from Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo .. and i bet without them it had also been
just another MMO.In ANet’s case, we could also say GW1’s reputation helped GW2’s success.
The difference is that ANet didn’t know how to keep building on its success like what Blizzard did with WoW.
Dude, history is full of examples (exceptions) like WoW.
Youre making a case claiming you know how to win a lottery (or how some dude did it…truth is he just crossed the numbers and stars aligned)
Well, good luck with that.
I don’t know of that’s true. I’m not sure Guild Wars 2 could have built on Guild Wars 1’s success. Guild Wars 1 was always going to be a niche game. Nothing that wasn’t Guild Wars 1 would have likely appealed to Guild Wars 1 players.
It’s so easy to say things are being done wrong. The problem is no one really knows if they were done differently if it would have worked out better.
I mean build on its own success, like WoW built on its own success. WoW took Warcraft’s history then stood on its own and grew. GW2 took GW1’s history then accepted the normal MMO trend.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after itPersonally for me EQ2 was by far the better game .. however WoWs main advantages
were that their engine ran on crappy hardware, and that they had all those Blizzard
Fans from Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo .. and i bet without them it had also been
just another MMO.In ANet’s case, we could also say GW1’s reputation helped GW2’s success.
The difference is that ANet didn’t know how to keep building on its success like what Blizzard did with WoW.Dude, history is full of examples (exceptions) like WoW.
Youre making a case claiming you know how to win a lottery (or how some dude did it…truth is he just crossed the numbers and stars aligned)
Well, good luck with that.
Yep. History shows hard work pays off. Hat’s off to Blizzard.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after itPersonally for me EQ2 was by far the better game .. however WoWs main advantages
were that their engine ran on crappy hardware, and that they had all those Blizzard
Fans from Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo .. and i bet without them it had also been
just another MMO.In ANet’s case, we could also say GW1’s reputation helped GW2’s success.
The difference is that ANet didn’t know how to keep building on its success like what Blizzard did with WoW.
Hmmm .. i know a lot of people who never wanted to touch GW2 because they
thought it was the same “crap” than GW1 .. personally i would also haven’t bought
it if it were like GW1.
On the other hands all the GW1 players seem to be those persons that hate GW2
the most. I know a german Forum called “Wartower” that is sooo toxic from all
the GW1 players .. you simply can’t go there as a GW2 fan or you just want to
slap some persons in the face every 10 seconds.
WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.
We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.
The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.
Actually its not in their game. Because every wow clone (which are actually better games in many aspects) would be as popular as wow.
So….no.
You call them WoW clones, so why bother playing them while knowing they are clones? Just play the original.
Where “WoW clones” may be better in a few aspect, WoW does better as a whole package. That’s why it remained popular in the first place.So, yes!
You see, and thats why your claim is pretty much….not very applicable.
WoW was right product at the right place at the right time, not better or worse than the lot, nothing more noting less. Its not first product of that type and its not last. Stars align from time to time to allow that.
It’s ok if you don’t like WoW.
It did better than the competition because it was overall a better game than games before it and games after it (though obviously the game has now hit past its maturity). That’s how you make maintain a successful game.In any case, I hope pdemo was enlightened by how some of us guessed the concurrency.
It did better than the other three or four big name MMOs out, but that doesn’t make it better. Back in the day, VHS recorders were inferior to beta recorders in almost every way…but VHS was used in more homes and eventually replaced beta. Popularity is no guarantee of quality. I’m sure more people eat at McDonalds than the fine steak house next door to it. Doesn’t mean anything.
If WoW launched at a time when there was 2 or 3 other MMOs, none of which were free to play, and it had an advertising budget (which most games really didn’t), that’s enough to explain its success. Now it might really have been better. That’s a possibility. But I don’t think anything is proved by its success except that it had good timing and good marketing. That’s enough to pretty much get anything to sell.
Word of mouth also affects a game’s success. WoW had a good reputation because players found it fun and overall a good quality game, because it was (still is?).
It’s ok if you don’t find it fun. Other players did, hence its success.Last post on this topic because it is off-topic but there are as many people who hate WoW as there are who love it, including entire domains that had been set up by WoW haters. My niece, an MMO player called WoW the Evil empire.
But none of this really has anything to do with Guild Wars 2’s concurrency figures anyway. What we can deduce is that the high concurrency number given was from early in the games life and it’s certainly gone down from there, but regardless there are still lots of people playing and the game seems to be doing fine.
I think there’s a LOT more that hate WoW than love it, with over 93 million that quit playing it compared to only 6 million that do, if it were to launch today with its terribad graphics and antique systems it would fall flat on it’s face.
(edited by Karizee.8076)
I think there’s a LOT more that hate WoW than love it, with over 93 million that quit playing it compared to only 6 million that do, if it were to launch today with its terribad graphics and antique systems it would fall flat on it’s face.
Personally i don’t hate WoW itself .. i just can tick off when people think that everything
was invented by WoW .. even since WoW is in the end mostly an EQ clone.
Its like :
-Hey .. have you seen the Lord of the Rings Movie ?
-Pahh .. Tolkien sucks .. he has stolen the Orcs from WoW .. that Movie is just a cheap WoW ripoff.
(edited by Beldin.5498)
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.
