Play ww2online free for 2 weeks

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

I will walk the edge on this one maybe.

The download is a demo. I am leaping to conclusions here perhaps, but a demo is not normally a full game (well at least I have never seen a demo that was).

The monthly fee is a nuisance admittedly.

That would explain why my friends make a habit of sharing accounts on Everquest (from what I know of the game, you can support 8 characters). If you all have the needed password to log in, you can each run one of the 8 characters.

Not sure that dodge is universal to other multi user online games.

The bottom line, is WW2 Online is a game where you either pay the monthly fee, or you likely won't be playing it.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Knavey
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 4:25 am
Location: Valrico, Florida

Post by Knavey »

Let me clear something up...

WW2O is an online only game which is continously improving through addition new features.

You can read more about it at the following post over in AoW.

My brother Feinder has written a huge writeup on it, and there are several people that are online and playing it right now that are there because of the discussions in this post.

You can play for 30 days before you must begin paying monthly. This should give you plenty of time to determine if that 12 bucks a month is worth it.

showthread.php?s=&threadid=35388
x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

Ok I will bite, a free month won't kill me, where do I go to look into it.

Saw some good reviews and saw some negative.

Best way is to just look and see myself.

Got a link handy to lead me to where I can check out the free offer?
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
kungfucheez
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 5:21 am

Post by kungfucheez »

I still dont know where you find this demo from because the demo ended a long time ago and that still doesnt answer my question
Bucket
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:32 pm

Post by Bucket »

I played WWII online a little and I own battlefield 1942. All I remember of WWII online is the following:

1. You walked for twenty minutes (real time) and then get shot by someone you didn't see who's hiding behind one of them square hedges. Realism is nice but walking is boring sadly.

2. The wheels of planes are lethal. They kill things. If I'm correct in thinking, hedges can be fairly lethal to vehicles too.

3. Last time I saw it, everything is flat. I got upset at the flatness and ran away.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is a place for WWII online but I don't think its my kind of thing. Even if some of the bugs I used to play with have been resolved, I'm sure some are still in there somewhere. The walking thing is part of the thing that 'makes' the game so I don't see that vanishing any time soon.

I think of it as Everquest with Nazi's.

1942 on the other hand? Woo hoo! Good clean fun. Realism only where it counts. Shoot a tank in the rear, it takes extra damage. Get shot in the chest, live until it happens again. I like this. It means covering fire is less lethal. The cool thing is though, covering fire can redirect you - this makes a change from flashpoint and ghost recon where covering fire is mostly just lethal.
User avatar
Zakhal
Posts: 1409
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland

Post by Zakhal »

1. Never walk, i have never walked, theres no need to walk. All you have to do is find a fairly crowded spawn (easy) or/and wait few minutes and you always get a ride.

2. ??I have never trippled on a hedge with a vechile if thats what you mean.

3. Not flat anymore.

One of the best things in ww2ol is how far you can see. The distance is really there. 1942 has the (arg) fog.
"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

Hmm is it in the opinion of the "have played it crowd" possible, that the large dead spaces (I mean really large spaces) could be editted such that you zipped from one location to another ie eliminate the walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk (you get the drift I suppose) part of the game.

No, me I am not saying it would automatically bore me, but I would find it odd if the mainstream gaming crowd will ever consider it any fun.

Remember we are talking about people that will sell a cd burner that takes 8 minutes a cd for one that can do it in 4 (8 minutes is such a tragicially long span of time eh, add sarcasm in bucket loads).

While you know, and I know, that the dull spots go towards adding realism, joe gamer is going to yawn and say "yeah but where's the fun?".

I think the game could be just as fun if spaces playable were like crossroads, towns, small forests, river crossings etc, but made as identifiable minor locations.

Understand, I have NOT played the game, I am to some extent basing this whole ramble on having watched Everquest like games. I know Everquest is segmented ie you cross a boundary, and you enter a fresh segment.
I see no reason why the segments could not achieve my notion.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Bucket
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:32 pm

Post by Bucket »

RE:Zakhal

1. Maybe its because I live in the middle of no where but no one was every online when I was around. Well - correction. They were but mostly flying planes or whatever or just shooting at me when I reached destinations. I'm sure a lot more people play now but still, I found the journey aspect of it tedious at times.

2. Maybe this was quite a while ago... But I remember the hedge issue pretty vividly. I also recall machine guns firing backwards. These bugs are probably all but fixed though - so maybe I might give it another ago some day.

Do you think the fogging is really that bad in 1942? I think its fine myself. You can see far enough to the point that visible targets are all but out of range of the sniper rifle. Meaning they'll be a waste of ammo. I think my only real complaint about battlefield would be that the bots could be somewhat more intelligent. I like playing in single player mode. Its fun for practice and without any 'l33+' kiddies taking up the chat space.

RE:Sarge

I like big spaces but I agree with most of what you said. One or two of the bigger 1942 maps put me off playing and are quite unpopular online. Its bizarre that so many people like WWII online. However, its understandble. Its a full on war - therefore its very interesting. You're part of something much bigger and I think thats the main appealing factor.

Anyway, not debating or anything so...

I'd urge everyone to give it at least one go to see what they think. At the same time though, I wouldn't get your hopes up or try to play it on anything but a cable modem. If its not your thing though, try battlefield 1942. :)
Sldghammer
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 10:11 pm

Post by Sldghammer »

I am trying the 2 week trial and the bottom line for me is - no thanks.

CRS in their wisdom has screwed the French in terms of 1941 equipment so the British are gaming the game and taking French cities.

Too many aircraft, too many tanks, not enough infantry. Some good fighting but lots of boring time walking around and trying to find somebody to shoot.

On the ground, tanks still rule and you get killed lots by unseen tanks a mile away.
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

How is it an "unseen" tank can take out single infantrymen a mile away?

I would think a single human would be able to seen a tank a mile away, more easily than a single human a mile away.

I mean these afronts to realism would have my interest crash and burn quite rapidly.

I have likened Battlefield 1942, to a great way to play silly bugger online.

I would hope that WW2 Online was just not an overly complex overly boring copy of silly bugger. If that were the case, I think most would opt for the faster paced easier method of BF 42.

The only thing I think that would attract me to WW2 Online, is being able to group together in say a coherent squad, and then moving around like a squad actually might.

If the game is really just about individuals spending a great deal of time going from point A to point B, just to be sniped by someone using a tank as some wierd form of sniper rifle, you could count on me to pass in a nano second.

I would immediately return to my "unrealistic" game of Steel Panthers where I was sure to have "fun".
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Megadeth
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:44 pm

WWIIOL

Post by Megadeth »

World War Two Online is geared towards a massive team experience, inside of a strategic layer. People looking for a single player experience inside of a MMORP will have to go to Everquest, but those looking for a hardcore tactical WWII simulation inside of a grand strategic game driven by player staffed Operational HQs, this is the only game that has attempted it.

World War Two Online is an excellent flight sim, tank sim, and infantry combat game rolled into a grand strategy recreation of the battle of France. The best part of it is joining a unit and working with a group, employing historical tactics. Anyone who has played inside of these HQ units has been exposed to a completely new experience.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”