Our help was needed—again. Such is the fate of a hero. In the world of Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures all manner of fishermen, pirates, merchants, guards, beer wenches, and assorted ne’er-do wells require assistance. This motley cast of characters imbues the game with a vibrant sense of life; we just wish that they showed even a bit of initiative and took care of some of their own problems. We were tasked with passing along loads of messages in order to drive the story forward, but in truth, we quickly lost interest in the game’s narrative, as it simply took away from the game’s finest achievement: its fighting system.
Eschewing a turn-based format, Conan uses a real-time combat system that allows you to take on multiple foes; icons show how strongly each part of an enemy’s body is defended, and you choose attacks and combos that focus on a foe’s weaknesses. Particularly effective attacks reward users with a splatter of blood across the computer screen.
While Conan’s melee combat system is innovative, the rest of the game follows typical MMO conventions. You choose a race and class that falls into one of three basic categories: (tank, damage dealer, or healer) and complete a variety of missions to level up and gain ever more powerful items. While castle sieges and some quests require you to be part of a guild, it’s quite possible to complete much of the game solo. This pick-up-and-play attribute adds to the game’s appeal, allowing you to jump in whenever the mood strikes without having to compare schedules with a half dozen compatriots.
Conan launched with a variety of minor bugs and irritations, but the development team has implemented fixes in a timely manner, assuring we’ll stick with the game—at least until we reach the level cap.
Rich character-creation system; engaging combat.
Too many FedEx missions; bugs at launch.
edrialyse
August 30, 2009 at 2:55pm
FunCom has implemented multiple fixes since launch, including rebalancing of classes and whatnot. I myself began at launch and quit a month in as well, but I have since come back after being bored to death of 3.1 in World of Warcraft and sick of waiting for 3.2, not to mention the fact that the majority of the population in WoW is either pre-teens or chinese powerleveling/goldfarming services.
WoW has lost much of its appeal, even with its upcoming Cataclysm xpack. The Conan xpack, Rise of the Godslayer (if I remember the name correctly) packs much more of an exciting pre-release punch. All Cataclysm provides is a "It's about damn time you let us fly our mounts in Azeroth" feel. Its cons include making the Worgen and Goblins a playable race.
Overall, I feel if Conan were reviewed again, its score should reflect its changes and improvements, making it at least an 8 if not a 9.
Digital-Storm
August 11, 2008 at 7:33pm
I seriously do not think this game should have recieved a 10 and kickass. The game sucked! I unsubscribed after the first month. Way too many bugs, blatant imbalances of classes. You have to play on a pvp server to understand that obviously. No end game content. There is none. Literally, you hit 80, and there is no dungeon to raid. There is nothing!.
nedwards
August 12, 2008 at 1:52am
That's my bad, Digital-Storm. Tom actually gave the game a 7; when I posted the review I didn't select a verdict from the drop-down box and it defaults to 10-kickass.
So let me repeat: The game got a 7. Not a 10. The mixup was my fault.
Justin.Kerr
August 11, 2008 at 10:17pm
I think it has more depth now then World Of Warcraft had at launch.
I especially like it because i'm not a hardcore MMO player and can jump in and out easily, solo if I choose, and feel as though i've accomplished something.
Print
