Showdown: World of Warcraft vs. Dark Age of Camelot

William requested that I discuss some of things that made me turn away from Dark Age of Camelot and return to World of Warcraft. However, I want to stress that I did not quit DAoC because of WoW's new 2.3 patch. I quit DAoC because of real life time restraints. I just so happen to have access to my WoW account for the time being and play it casually (very casually).

I want to start this showdown with the one thing I strongly feel that DAoC has cornered the market on, something that WoW has struggled with: PvP. In DAoC, PvP is called Realm vs Realm (RvR). That is a term that can only be found in a Mythic game. Seriously, they trademarked the term.

Semantics aside, RvR is DAoC's form of PvP. RvR pits three realms of players against each other for control of castles and relics. Frontiers are the zones where the castles and relics are located. Open PvP can occur anywhere in the frontiers and there is no shortage of castles and towers to fight over. Both the castles and relics can be captured by opposing forces. This gives real weight to RvR, both for the individual and the entire realm.

WoW on the other hand, focuses on instanced PvP battlegrounds and more recently arenas, both of which have little impact on anything other than the players involved. Since launch, Blizzard has tried several different approaches towards their PvP systems and through numerous rebuilds and tweaks, PvP has simply become a secondary issue taking a backseat to the more popular PvE side of things. That is OK, because WoW's PvE is great and Blizzard should focus on it while letting players bash in each other's heads every once and a while.

The distinguishing trait between the two games PvP, is that DAoC has focused on providing that RvR experience to every single level of play. There are now level-restricted battlegrounds and dungeons for every level range in the game. Players can level from start to finish doing only RvR battlegrounds or dungeons. DAoC knew what people enjoyed and highlighted it. Their only fault is a side-tracked PvE themed expansion that became the bane of DAoC RvR enthusiasts everywhere. Fortunately, Mythic learned their lesson and were able to set the wheels in motion to keep the game afloat.

WoW has tried desperately to fix their PvP, and after dozens of changes the system is still fairly focused on just doing instanced PvP as fast and as often as humanly possible for epic gear. WoW's PvP is still enjoyable, but it holds no weight and is nothing more than a "my l33t sauce is hotter than your l33t sauce". With that said, Blizzard has started tossing around more open world, objective based PvP that shows promise. DAoC does PvP right, with meaning and reason behind it. Hopefully, Mythic will showcase this in their next title: Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning.

With the PvP topic discussed, I will throw down a bullet list of what WoW has done so much better than DAoC, and then we can discuss them.

• WoW's UI, both in modifiability and out-of-the-box functionality.
• WoW's control scheme is unmatched in the MMORPG industry and should be the starting point for any game. I can not stress how important this is.
  
• WoW's quest system trumps the shambled mess that is DAoC's quest system.
• Leveling is actually faster in DAoC these days, but WoW does it with style and without the grind.
  

There are some other bells and whistles, but those are the four things that have drawn my back into WoW time after time after time. Oh, and sexy elves.

The Return Is Over

I chose a really bad time to get nostalgic about Dark Age of Camelot. Between real life and kick ass new games like Call of Duty 4, I have very little time to dedicate to an MMORPG. Especially one that is six years old and fairly set in it's ways.

I enjoyed the thirty or so hours I put into the game over the last month, but I ended up at the same conclusion I did a few years ago: the genre needs to improve. The genre has grown up and new games do some very basic things very well. Things that DAoC has not improved on over the last six years.

World of Warcraft's controls have honestly spoiled me and I can not seem to adjust backwards to the heavy-handed systems of DAoC. Also, the flexibility of WoW's UI mods trumps any of the custom UI packages available for DAoC. There are tons of other items that I've grown used to and playing DAoC again just made me wish for WoW. There is so much to be said for the little things that WoW managed to get right.

But I don't want to make this a WoW is better than DAoC post. DAoC was the game back in the day and I do not regret the three years I invested into it. In my humble opinion, Realm vs. Realm is still an amazing concept and extremely well implemented throughout DAoC. It is just sad to know that the rest of the game aged like rotten cheese.

Oh well, it was good while it lasted.

Digital Distribution Woes

Digital distribution is the the future for gaming. Ten years from now, players won't go to a store to buy their games, they will just download them. The process will be simple, clean, and help to cut the rising cost of games.

Unfortunately, if the Call of Duty 4 launch via Steam is any indication, digital distribution has a long ways to go. The Steam launch has been littered with show-stopping bugs and regional pricing differences, not to mention being launched nearly a week after the box versions hit store shelves. All of this for a game that has Game of the Year written all over it, and that is saying a lot in a period seeing the launch of a ton of AAA games.

The first issue with the Steam launch, as mentioned, was the fact that it was released a week later than the box version. While this is fine for players like myself, who had no plans to jump in at launch, it is a sore spot for many players that have become fond of Steam and other digital distribution solutions.

Tagged onto the week delay, the actual decryption files didn't get released on Steam until midday on Nov 12th (the release date). Most Steam users had expected a 12:01 AM launch, but it was not to be, and many angry gamers spent several hours waiting for the game to be released. Is it a bit much to expect midnight launches via Steam? Maybe, but Valve has shown the ability to do it with their major titles, and I see no reason why that can't carry it over for third-party titles.

The next issue with the launch made me glad to be an American, because the game only cost me $49.95 + tax. Unfortunately, Europeans were stuck with a $69.95 price tag, which did not include VAT. In total, Call of Duty 4 costs almost $80 for Europeans. Again, for a game that has been in stores for $49.95 and that they were getting a week late. There has been no explanation from Activision, the game's publisher, as to the price hike for Europeans using Steam.

NOTE: Prices on Steam are set by the publisher, not Valve.

Thirdly, once the game did become available, a plethora of bugs infested the launch. Pre-loading, the process of downloading the digital game files prior to launch, ended up short for a ton of players. Personally, my download finished 320 Mb short. So, instead of launching right into the game, many players were forced to validate their installation files and download a large portion of the game.

On top of this, there have been many other ugly bugs that have reared their head since the 12th. I will write up a more in-depth post later with details on how I fixed several of them, along with links to appropriate support articles. Needless to say, there are a lot of issues. Issues, that were not present in the boxed version.

With all of this said, the game in question is still probably one of the best games to launch this year. The single-player is short, but no one will be arguing that it isn't the most intense six hours of your gaming life. Yes, it is that damn good. On top of the wonderful single-player, the multi-player is set to challenge Halo 3, if not destroy it in terms of player minutes per month. On Xfire, CoD4 single-player and multi-player combined, are already challenging World of Warcraft as the most played game. Of course, that figure is not counting the players playing via Xbox 360 or Playstation 3. Call of Duty 4 is huge and it just barely missed the boat in regards to digital distribution.

They Really Do Exist

My all time favorite M&M's commercial is the one where the Red and Yellow M&M meet Santa. Upon seeing each other, Santa and the M&M's exclaim: "They really do exist!", before promptly fainting. I LOL in real life every time I see it.

Today, as a gamer, I had the same sort of moment when I came across a story on Digg.com about Fedora Core 8's Game Spin, which just so happens to be the gaming-based operating system I was talking about in my last post. Following it further, I discovered that there were plenty of gaming-related Linux distributions. As the title of this post says, they really do exist!

Unfortunately, my elation was quickly dashed as I realized these were not truly gaming-based operating systems. They were simply Linux distributions with a bunch of freeware games tossed in. The kind of freeware/shareware games that my dad used to buy me when I was ten. Sure, some of them are a bit more polished than the old classics of my youth, but most of them are not and seem to be included in the packages simply to increase the total count they can advertise.

This is not the sort of operating system package I had envisioned when I first heard about the Fedora 8 "re-spin" idea. Nor, is it even really anything special. Anyone with a Linux install could just as easily build this package of games for their system free of charge.

Even with my hopes dashed, I did find some glimmer of hope. A very important part of newer Linux distributions, automated package managers (sort of like Windows Update for Linux), has crossed over to provide updates for many of the included games. This fairly simple idea, central management of all your games updates, could and should be the centerpiece of a gaming-based operating system.

Also, free games are never a bad idea and it makes complete sense for any interested Linux-gamer to probably operate off this Fedora 8 spin off. While it didn't turn out to be what was expected, it is still a start. A baby needs to crawl before it can walk.

Game, The Operating System?

A while back I talked about Linux gaming on Radeon based video cards. In the process, I asked how cool it would be if gamers had the choice of an operating system that was completely dedicated to gaming. Grimwell, Everquest 2's community manager, was very receptive of the idea and I imagine he is not the only one (UPDATE: Jeff Freeman is interested as well).

Amazingly enough, Fedora Core 8, a Linux distribution from Red Hat Inc., is poised to do something that may just make the Game Operating System a reality. Quoting a c|net news article:

...a curious feature of the new version 8, released Thursday, is the ability to strip out the Fedora identity altogether.

The reason: Red Hat wants Fedora to be a foundation for those who want to build their own Linux products on a Fedora foundation.

Further down, this little gem was dropped.

The ability to "re-spin" Fedora is attracting some interest. Among the Fedora-based variations that will be available are one for gaming, one for designing microprocessors, and one for programmers.

That is correct, a gaming based operating system. How fucking cool is that? That is all the information I have found so far, but I am going to keep on digging.

While Linux gaming isn't going to explode overnight because of this, it absolutely lays the groundwork for future incarnations and more attention from game developers.