RuneScape is easy to get (no download, no shopping just enter a site).

 

RuneScape is cheap!

 

RuneScape is easier to understand!

 

RuneScape has more background history!

 

 

 

I have 5 minutes of WoW starter experience my experience compared to the times I for fun tries Tutorial island is that RuneScape is easier, more simple and you get further in 5 minutes while in WoW there is more action and RuneScape is like a school bench.

 

 

 

And as Latinoking says they should make a big update where they add 50% more land. 25% more quests. More skills. More Mods. 1 guild for every single skill. Ability to be other races than mankind. No autoers. More indepth tutorial island. Better economy (like in WoW with Gold, Silver and Bronze and maybe a Stockmarket). Ingame clan system. More minigames. And offcouse MORE SERVERS!

 

 

 

I like the idea of being more then one race but all in all; Humans are the top of the food chain; I think that Gold, Silver, and Bronze currency won't be added because people already has gotten to use just gold.

 

 

 

Stock Market- I love this idea; no need to merchant anymore when you can let your own gold work for you

 

 

 

Yeah but would be hard to organize. It would require a ingame "Firm system" allowing players to start companies whoms economy would be closely watched. Plus also a big building to be put up in Falador, Varrock, Ardougen, Yanille. Besides players should be able to survive losing in the finance world. But still a good idea from me.

The % is like the current "health" of the game on the market...like how much life and spirit it has left in it.

 

 

 

 

 

honestly this does not make sence to me. is it saying 60% of the community is repeat business?

 

 

 

 

 

your example is simple yet... really doesnt answer the thing. what does the %'s have to do with it?

honestly this does not make sence to me. is it saying 60% of the community is repeat business?

 

 

 

 

 

your example is simple yet... really doesnt answer the thing. what does the %'s have to do with it?

 

 

 

You have to understand that I'm not the one who's writing the magazine and coming up with these facts...I'm just interpereting them as I best see fit. I don't really know how else to explain it, so I'll just give you the EXACT exerpt from the magazine and let you figure it out:

 

 

 

 

 

=======================================================================

 

 

 

Health Meter: MMO RPGs (pg 28)

 

MMO juggernaut World of Warcraft continues to dominate, sucking the life out of its would-be competitors.

 

Can there be only one? Here's our snapshot of the life left incyberspace.

 

 

 

{Insert colored health bar ranging 0-100 here. Under the bar there are little boxes with the games and their "%'s"

 

inside them at the correct postitions on the bar.}

 

 

 

=======================================================================

 

 

 

 

 

You see, all they are doing is presenting the games in a way that you can compare them more effectively. They could just list the games in order of how popular they are (Warcraft at #1, Runescape #2, ect.), but that way you wouldn't be able to see just how popular one is compared to the next (you wouldn't know if WoW was in 1st by a lot, or if RS was very close behind it or something). Get it now? :roll:

My guess is WoW will eventually die, RuneScape is guaranteed updates indefinitely whilst WoW may loose whatever updates it gets when Blizzard moves onto another game. It seems all that WoW has is it's graphics and graphics get outdated as time goes by.

RuneScape us way better than WoW in my opinion. Everquest...I can't believe it's that low, but then you have to pay for it like Wow, but RuneScape is monthly. All those expansion packs/upgrades is so confusing...

i personally find this type of info comforting, RS deserves regonition like this. This matches up to other reports of Runescape being the #2 most popular online game! w00t!

You see, all they are doing is presenting the games in a way that you can compare them more effectively. They could just list the games in order of how popular they are (Warcraft at #1, Runescape #2, ect.), but that way you wouldn't be able to see just how popular one is compared to the next (you wouldn't know if WoW was in 1st by a lot, or if RS was very close behind it or something). Get it now?

 

 

 

 

 

the thing that honestly baffled me about this was the fact that you did not even post the entire article in the first place. it was like a spark to start the questioning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i understand you didnt write the article. and i find things that can not be precise when talking about stuff with graphs where it gets into physical visual displays, i want to know what im looking @ and what it represents and the units its measured by.

 

 

 

 

 

when i did reports and saw, oh wow chili exports 9.5% of the worlds cotton(an example because i dont know or care.) its like wow how big is that on a bar graph and then its like i would want to know how much they export yearly. in terms of weight/yards.

 

 

 

 

 

honestly, i know of game pro or EGM whoever wrote it(not going back to page1...) is a credible magazine...but still their data is weird. i mean, its a subtle report presented in a elegant done up manner. that infact down right confuses me. just say wow = #1 dont give %'s thats just dumb. be like runescape is #2. then back it up with why and how. not just #'s.

 

 

 

its simple and it serves the purpose to throw in #s and %'s and stuff like that is just total filler and stuff to make the games look good.

 

 

 

 

 

also the way you presented the your interpretation on how you thought it meant, aka it had "this much life left in it" didnt make sence honestly(not just to me) it was logically unsound in the fact that 99.9% you cant get much better then that, and if you did is it noticable? i doubt it. what?? add another weapon? add another 10 max combat lvls? that .1% aint nothing then it would be @ 100% meaning that the health is maxed, and the only way for it to travel is down. or more likely for a time, sideways.

I eventually agree, it should rather been put up by "Percentage" of total population of the world. Or number of people who join who doesn't becomes in active sooner or later (Either by never playing or giving up later but still have an account in both cases). If it was measured that way I believe that RuneScape and WoW would be equal.

By definition, guild wars is not an mmo, it shouldn't even be up there. Anyway, it is pretty amazing how far a Java, browser based game can go. Runescape is living proof that great graphics dont decide a great game.

By definition, guild wars is not an mmo, it shouldn't even be up there. Anyway, it is pretty amazing how far a Java, browser based game can go. Runescape is living proof that great graphics dont decide a great game.

 

 

 

WHERE WERE YOU THEN I WAS IN YEAR 4... I really needed someone like you explaining that graphics weren't the important part of a game.