I was thinking the same thing Azarhal. Landmark is simply a building tool atm. The final Landmark product is going to be a procedurally generated sandbox, complete with Emergent AI, quest creator, dungeon creator, mobs, generated dungeons, loot, combat etc. Right now it's just a shell of that, giving the devs time to optimize the engine, clean up and add more building tools, and allowing players to help create structures for EQN.
There is no way to judge the success of Landmark right now because it's no where near complete and the end result of Landmark and it's success or failure is not indicative of EQN's appeal because they're 2 completely different games.
And SOE has a great track record historically.
EQ - Basically created the standard that other MMOs emulate to this day.
EQ2 - A better WoW for people who didn't have a shitty PC.
SWG - Amazing game and if it wasn't for LA forcing SOE's hand it would never have gotten such a bad wrap. I'm actually surprised that SOE continues to take the fall for LA's abuse and stupidity.
Vanguard - Fixed it up and saved the game from implosion for many years after Sigil screwed the development big time. If SOE hadn't come along and saved it, it would have been shut down in under 12 months after release. Some criticize what SOE did to the game after they took it over, but you can only polish a turd so much. I think their work on Vanguard and keeping it open even though it wasn't profitable is a testament to how SOE respects gamers and cares for it's community.
Planetside - Amazing, enough said.
Planetside 2 - Again, Amazing, and probably the best F2P model I've ever seen. A pure win.
So sure, there are some emotional kids out there that think SOE is a bad company, but I think their complaints and hatred are far from warranted. When compared to most other major game companies, SOE is saint-like in comparison.
That part in red.. where did you get that info from? That sounds like a complete game aka EQNext..
Landmark is going to be a complete game on it's own. It was announced many times that it's not "just a building tool". It's going to have a lot of game play outside of the building, quest and dungeon creator. The game play will probably be very similar to Terraria when it's done (generated dungeons, mobs, bosses, combat, gear/weapon loot drops, crafting, etc).
EQN is going to be more of a traditional MMO experience, but it ties in with Landmark in that players can use landmark to create structures that make it into EQN, and Landmark players will apparently be able to create instanced content that will transfer over into EQN somehow (dungeon creator, quest creator, etc).
But both EQN and Landmark are going to be complete games in the end, each unique in their own way. I don't mind that people are confused on this though. Landmark up to now has been entirely a building tool, so it gives people the impression that's what Landmark is... but when it's finished, it's going to be far more than that.
Even in aspects that both games have, like combat, is going to play out differently in one game than it does another. An example of this would be that the combat in EQN will be class/multiclass based. Your skills come from learning new classes and unlocking the class's skills, while Landmark is set to be gear based in combat.
Equip a staff and now you use magic, equip a bow and now you get ranged archery attacks. (Like Terraria).
But ya, both are going to be full games on their own.
Well I dont want them to work to a release date i want them to make an amazing game and if they are pushing themselves to release the game on a certain date then they will ahve to cut corners.
So I am happy for them to take their time and release the game they want to release when its done.
I think people are pessimistic about SOE for a reason though, mostly historical. I also would not be surprised if the reason why they are unwilling to commit to a release date so far, is also due to Landmark, but rather than because of the games success, but because the game probably hasn't had as much appeal as SOE had envisaged. Landmarks primary purpose after all, may well have been to test the water, to see if EQN's format was a viable one.
In a way it reminds me of what happened with Blizzards 'Titan' where they decided to do over, rather than continue with their current build, it may be that the results of Landmark has forced SOE into a similar scenario
What?
Landmark's goal has nothing in common with EQNext. You can't use it to determine if EQNext is going to be popular or not. Landmark isn't even feature complete, you can't even use the current sate of the game to say if Landmark is going to have appeal after release.
Landmarks goal, seriously? When talk was of EQN it was always that Landmark was the forerunner, the taste as it were, of what was to come with EQN, so its highly disingenuous to try and move the goalposts now, to say that it was never the case, when it so clearly was.
I think people are pessimistic about SOE for a reason though, mostly historical. I also would not be surprised if the reason why they are unwilling to commit to a release date so far, is also due to Landmark, but rather than because of the games success, but because the game probably hasn't had as much appeal as SOE had envisaged. Landmarks primary purpose after all, may well have been to test the water, to see if EQN's format was a viable one.
In a way it reminds me of what happened with Blizzards 'Titan' where they decided to do over, rather than continue with their current build, it may be that the results of Landmark has forced SOE into a similar scenario
What?
Landmark's goal has nothing in common with EQNext. You can't use it to determine if EQNext is going to be popular or not. Landmark isn't even feature complete, you can't even use the current sate of the game to say if Landmark is going to have appeal after release.
I was thinking the same thing Azarhal. Landmark is simply a building tool atm. The final Landmark product is going to be a procedurally generated sandbox, complete with Emergent AI, quest creator, dungeon creator, mobs, generated dungeons, loot, combat etc. Right now it's just a shell of that, giving the devs time to optimize the engine, clean up and add more building tools, and allowing players to help create structures for EQN.
There is no way to judge the success of Landmark right now because it's no where near complete and the end result of Landmark and it's success or failure is not indicative of EQN's appeal because they're 2 completely different games.
And SOE has a great track record historically.
EQ - Basically created the standard that other MMOs emulate to this day.
EQ2 - A better WoW for people who didn't have a shitty PC.
SWG - Amazing game and if it wasn't for LA forcing SOE's hand it would never have gotten such a bad wrap. I'm actually surprised that SOE continues to take the fall for LA's abuse and stupidity.
Vanguard - Fixed it up and saved the game from implosion for many years after Sigil screwed the development big time. If SOE hadn't come along and saved it, it would have been shut down in under 12 months after release. Some criticize what SOE did to the game after they took it over, but you can only polish a turd so much. I think their work on Vanguard and keeping it open even though it wasn't profitable is a testament to how SOE respects gamers and cares for it's community.
Planetside - Amazing, enough said.
Planetside 2 - Again, Amazing, and probably the best F2P model I've ever seen. A pure win.
So sure, there are some emotional kids out there that think SOE is a bad company, but I think their complaints and hatred are far from warranted. When compared to most other major game companies, SOE is saint-like in comparison.
your version of SOE's history seems to differ from most peoples recollection, and still has a few holes in it. granted nobody likes to dwell on their mistakes, but how often does SOE actually try to learn from them?
EQ2 for instance, plagued by mediocrity so much so that they had to revise the game several times, to very little effect,
SWG's demise may well have been instigated by LA's insistence, but it was SOE's lack of understanding of their own game that killed it, but even then, the 'official' history isn't perhaps the one people remembered.
Vanguard, little can really be said about, though there has been a great deal of speculation that SOE dragged their heels on actually fixing the game, because it would have been a direct competitor for EQ2,and EQ2 was in trouble pretty much from launch.
Planetside 1, great game, until they spoiled it, with cavern combat and BFR's at that point the game began to die, that its still going is probably testament to the games original popularity, but sadly the game is plagued with hackers.
Planetside 2, some improvements, but again, for some unknown reason, plagued with hackers, a bit of a dodgy launch mostly due to the fact that, if you don't have a 64bit OS the game doesn't run that well..
and then there is Matrix online, and POTBS, im sure SOE would prefer to not mention them too.
Landmark and EQN may well be SOE's last fling of the die, but one thing for sure, they have few real fans, and a lot of people with longer memories than they would prefer.
Originally posted by Myrdynn I remember being excited last year at this time
yeah, me too...
Same here. I was also really excited (until I saw the graphic). However I still hope the game will have good gameplay even if I am prepared it will be a huge disappointment as EQ2 became.
Originally posted by Myrdynn I remember being excited last year at this time
yeah, me too...
Same here. I was also really excited (until I saw the graphic). However I still hope the game will have good gameplay even if I am prepared it will be a huge disappointment as EQ2 became.
If it failed as hard as EQ2 then EQN will be an awesome MMO lol. That game is still going strong =-)
Originally posted by Myrdynn I remember being excited last year at this time
yeah, me too...
Same here. I was also really excited (until I saw the graphic). However I still hope the game will have good gameplay even if I am prepared it will be a huge disappointment as EQ2 became.
If it failed as hard as EQ2 then EQN will be an awesome MMO lol. That game is still going strong =-)
lol. It was what I felt. It was a huge disappointment for me regarding how the world was built up, how the characters looked like and how the gameplay mechanism was compared to for example EQ. It felt like a mediocre game for me. EQ felt like a world you want to live in compared to EQ2 (my opinion).
I think people are pessimistic about SOE for a reason though, mostly historical. I also would not be surprised if the reason why they are unwilling to commit to a release date so far, is also due to Landmark, but rather than because of the games success, but because the game probably hasn't had as much appeal as SOE had envisaged. Landmarks primary purpose after all, may well have been to test the water, to see if EQN's format was a viable one.
In a way it reminds me of what happened with Blizzards 'Titan' where they decided to do over, rather than continue with their current build, it may be that the results of Landmark has forced SOE into a similar scenario
What?
Landmark's goal has nothing in common with EQNext. You can't use it to determine if EQNext is going to be popular or not. Landmark isn't even feature complete, you can't even use the current sate of the game to say if Landmark is going to have appeal after release.
I was thinking the same thing Azarhal. Landmark is simply a building tool atm. The final Landmark product is going to be a procedurally generated sandbox, complete with Emergent AI, quest creator, dungeon creator, mobs, generated dungeons, loot, combat etc. Right now it's just a shell of that, giving the devs time to optimize the engine, clean up and add more building tools, and allowing players to help create structures for EQN.
There is no way to judge the success of Landmark right now because it's no where near complete and the end result of Landmark and it's success or failure is not indicative of EQN's appeal because they're 2 completely different games.
And SOE has a great track record historically.
EQ - Basically created the standard that other MMOs emulate to this day.
EQ2 - A better WoW for people who didn't have a shitty PC.
SWG - Amazing game and if it wasn't for LA forcing SOE's hand it would never have gotten such a bad wrap. I'm actually surprised that SOE continues to take the fall for LA's abuse and stupidity.
Vanguard - Fixed it up and saved the game from implosion for many years after Sigil screwed the development big time. If SOE hadn't come along and saved it, it would have been shut down in under 12 months after release. Some criticize what SOE did to the game after they took it over, but you can only polish a turd so much. I think their work on Vanguard and keeping it open even though it wasn't profitable is a testament to how SOE respects gamers and cares for it's community.
Planetside - Amazing, enough said.
Planetside 2 - Again, Amazing, and probably the best F2P model I've ever seen. A pure win.
So sure, there are some emotional kids out there that think SOE is a bad company, but I think their complaints and hatred are far from warranted. When compared to most other major game companies, SOE is saint-like in comparison.
your version of SOE's history seems to differ from most peoples recollection, and still has a few holes in it. granted nobody likes to dwell on their mistakes, but how often does SOE actually try to learn from them?
EQ2 for instance, plagued by mediocrity so much so that they had to revise the game several times, to very little effect,
SWG's demise may well have been instigated by LA's insistence, but it was SOE's lack of understanding of their own game that killed it, but even then, the 'official' history isn't perhaps the one people remembered.
Vanguard, little can really be said about, though there has been a great deal of speculation that SOE dragged their heels on actually fixing the game, because it would have been a direct competitor for EQ2,and EQ2 was in trouble pretty much from launch.
Planetside 1, great game, until they spoiled it, with cavern combat and BFR's at that point the game began to die, that its still going is probably testament to the games original popularity, but sadly the game is plagued with hackers.
Planetside 2, some improvements, but again, for some unknown reason, plagued with hackers, a bit of a dodgy launch mostly due to the fact that, if you don't have a 64bit OS the game doesn't run that well..
and then there is Matrix online, and POTBS, im sure SOE would prefer to not mention them too.
Landmark and EQN may well be SOE's last fling of the die, but one thing for sure, they have few real fans, and a lot of people with longer memories than they would prefer.
My version of SOE's history is the correct one, but I agree that many people are sadly confused on this matter. It's the nature of over emotional and entitled teens and 20-somethings that don't have a grasp on reality or the ability to look at something in a more objective way.
EQ2 was, as I said, offered everything WoW did, with better graphics. The only real issue with the game was that it required a pretty strong PC to run it while it's direct competition could be run on your momma's emachine. This is actually a huge problem in the PC game industry because games that tend to push hardware requirements are met with poor sales because there are far less people with good PCs than there are ones with old and substandard PCs. This is pretty common knowledge.
SWG's demise was entirely on LA. They forced SOE's hand by threatening to not renew their SW IP licencing, which would have shut the game down anyway, if SOE didn't make the changes to the game that LA wanted to see. Those changes that were later found to be very unpopular with the community. It's sad that players still blame SOE in part or in whole for SWG when it was entirely LA's fault.
Vanguard was a disaster from the start, worst than anything I'd ever seen in my past 20 years of experience with MMOs/MUDs. The fact that SOE even bothered to try and save the game even though it was a clear mess and was never going to return a profit is nothing short of heroic. Yet you claim they "dragged their heals". Again it seems more like the ramblings of someone looking to vilify them instead of looking at the facts.
PS1, Again, another non-objective view from a person looking to vilify someone. PS1 was an amazing game and just because you didn't personally like some changes they made down the road does not negate that fact. Hackers are in every game btw, welcome to the world of PC gaming. However I will say that in the years I played PS1 I saw maybe 2 or 3 hackers total. So I think you're emotionally exaggerating the situation in order to sound as if you have a case to make against SOE, when you don't.
Planetside 2 ran perfectly fine with and without a 32bit OS. It's a massive game that clearly has higher minimum requirements than many games, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means you need to have the appropriate hardware to get the best experience out of it, just like any game. And again, hackers on a PC game? Ya don't say!?
I never played matrix or POTBS, so I wouldn't comment on their quality, but even if they were bad that doesn't negate all the great and innovative things SOE has done over the years. Is that how you work? A game company is only good if they have a 100% perfect spotless record? Well by those standards I guess no company, indie or AAA, is good in your eyes.
Please try to be more objective in your assessments. It takes practice but I'm sure you'll figure it out if you try.
I think people are pessimistic about SOE for a reason though, mostly historical. I also would not be surprised if the reason why they are unwilling to commit to a release date so far, is also due to Landmark, but rather than because of the games success, but because the game probably hasn't had as much appeal as SOE had envisaged. Landmarks primary purpose after all, may well have been to test the water, to see if EQN's format was a viable one.
In a way it reminds me of what happened with Blizzards 'Titan' where they decided to do over, rather than continue with their current build, it may be that the results of Landmark has forced SOE into a similar scenario
What?
Landmark's goal has nothing in common with EQNext. You can't use it to determine if EQNext is going to be popular or not. Landmark isn't even feature complete, you can't even use the current sate of the game to say if Landmark is going to have appeal after release.
I was thinking the same thing Azarhal. Landmark is simply a building tool atm. The final Landmark product is going to be a procedurally generated sandbox, complete with Emergent AI, quest creator, dungeon creator, mobs, generated dungeons, loot, combat etc. Right now it's just a shell of that, giving the devs time to optimize the engine, clean up and add more building tools, and allowing players to help create structures for EQN.
There is no way to judge the success of Landmark right now because it's no where near complete and the end result of Landmark and it's success or failure is not indicative of EQN's appeal because they're 2 completely different games.
And SOE has a great track record historically.
EQ - Basically created the standard that other MMOs emulate to this day.
EQ2 - A better WoW for people who didn't have a shitty PC.
SWG - Amazing game and if it wasn't for LA forcing SOE's hand it would never have gotten such a bad wrap. I'm actually surprised that SOE continues to take the fall for LA's abuse and stupidity.
Vanguard - Fixed it up and saved the game from implosion for many years after Sigil screwed the development big time. If SOE hadn't come along and saved it, it would have been shut down in under 12 months after release. Some criticize what SOE did to the game after they took it over, but you can only polish a turd so much. I think their work on Vanguard and keeping it open even though it wasn't profitable is a testament to how SOE respects gamers and cares for it's community.
Planetside - Amazing, enough said.
Planetside 2 - Again, Amazing, and probably the best F2P model I've ever seen. A pure win.
So sure, there are some emotional kids out there that think SOE is a bad company, but I think their complaints and hatred are far from warranted. When compared to most other major game companies, SOE is saint-like in comparison.
your version of SOE's history seems to differ from most peoples recollection, and still has a few holes in it. granted nobody likes to dwell on their mistakes, but how often does SOE actually try to learn from them?
EQ2 for instance, plagued by mediocrity so much so that they had to revise the game several times, to very little effect,
SWG's demise may well have been instigated by LA's insistence, but it was SOE's lack of understanding of their own game that killed it, but even then, the 'official' history isn't perhaps the one people remembered.
Vanguard, little can really be said about, though there has been a great deal of speculation that SOE dragged their heels on actually fixing the game, because it would have been a direct competitor for EQ2,and EQ2 was in trouble pretty much from launch.
Planetside 1, great game, until they spoiled it, with cavern combat and BFR's at that point the game began to die, that its still going is probably testament to the games original popularity, but sadly the game is plagued with hackers.
Planetside 2, some improvements, but again, for some unknown reason, plagued with hackers, a bit of a dodgy launch mostly due to the fact that, if you don't have a 64bit OS the game doesn't run that well..
and then there is Matrix online, and POTBS, im sure SOE would prefer to not mention them too.
Landmark and EQN may well be SOE's last fling of the die, but one thing for sure, they have few real fans, and a lot of people with longer memories than they would prefer.
My version of SOE's history is the correct one, but I agree that many people are sadly confused on this matter. It's the nature of over emotional and entitled teens and 20-somethings that don't have a grasp on reality or the ability to look at something in a more objective way.
EQ2 was, as I said, offered everything WoW did, with better graphics. The only real issue with the game was that it required a pretty strong PC to run it while it's direct competition could be run on your momma's emachine. This is actually a huge problem in the PC game industry because games that tend to push hardware requirements are met with poor sales because there are far less people with good PCs than there are ones with old and substandard PCs. This is pretty common knowledge.
SWG's demise was entirely on LA. They forced SOE's hand by threatening to not renew their SW IP licencing, which would have shut the game down anyway, if SOE didn't make the changes to the game that LA wanted to see. Those changes that were later found to be very unpopular with the community. It's sad that players still blame SOE in part or in whole for SWG when it was entirely LA's fault.
Vanguard was a disaster from the start, worst than anything I'd ever seen in my past 20 years of experience with MMOs/MUDs. The fact that SOE even bothered to try and save the game even though it was a clear mess and was never going to return a profit is nothing short of heroic. Yet you claim they "dragged their heals". Again it seems more like the ramblings of someone looking to vilify them instead of looking at the facts.
PS1, Again, another non-objective view from a person looking to vilify someone. PS1 was an amazing game and just because you didn't personally like some changes they made down the road does not negate that fact. Hackers are in every game btw, welcome to the world of PC gaming. However I will say that in the years I played PS1 I saw maybe 2 or 3 hackers total. So I think you're emotionally exaggerating the situation in order to sound as if you have a case to make against SOE, when you don't.
Planetside 2 ran perfectly fine with and without a 32bit OS. It's a massive game that clearly has higher minimum requirements than many games, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means you need to have the appropriate hardware to get the best experience out of it, just like any game. And again, hackers on a PC game? Ya don't say!?
I never played matrix or POTBS, so I wouldn't comment on their quality, but even if they were bad that doesn't negate all the great and innovative things SOE has done over the years. Is that how you work? A game company is only good if they have a 100% perfect spotless record? Well by those standards I guess no company, indie or AAA, is good in your eyes.
Please try to be more objective in your assessments. It takes practice but I'm sure you'll figure it out if you try.
The worlds most advanced rendering engine or what have you doesn't make a game great.... if it requires a cray computer to move your character 2 inches, you're doing it wrong. Great games run well, but more importantly are fun to play. Who the hell cares if you can blow things up if you're not into blowing things up. A lot of games sell the glitz and smoke and mirrors yet fail to deliver on the very basic level... entertainment. If a baby can find a simple cardboard box the best thing in the world, there is no need to spend $1000 on Barbies Funhouse. Entertainment value rarely ever equates to technological advancements.
The worlds most advanced rendering engine or what have you doesn't make a game great.... if it requires a cray computer to move your character 2 inches, you're doing it wrong. Great games run well, but more importantly are fun to play. Who the hell cares if you can blow things up if you're not into blowing things up. A lot of games sell the glitz and smoke and mirrors yet fail to deliver on the very basic level... entertainment. If a baby can find a simple cardboard box the best thing in the world, there is no need to spend $1000 on Barbies Funhouse. Entertainment value rarely ever equates to technological advancements.
I never suggested anything of the sort. Fancy graphics and GPU/CPU intensive features like destructible environments aren't required for a fun game. Some of the most fun I've had playing a video was with games like Faster Than Light. However, my point was more along the lines that games that are actually very fun that also have extremely high system requirements are often met with poor sales, and sales are not == to quality.
If FTL was rendered using cutting edge graphics that required beefy hardware to run, but it was still the same core game as it is now, it wouldn't be a "worst" game just because less people can run it.
And it's not like Planetside 2's system requirements were out of control anyway. It ran perfectly fine on my damn work laptop. They weren't asking for much, yet people still cried about performance lol.
I did leave for WOW, two months later but it was not because EQ2 had problems
WOW was much more fun for soloing in a mmo - I wish i stayed with EQ2 back then but O well ...
Very true. Everyone has their own personal taste. I dislike most RTS games, but I wouldn't say Star Craft was a "bad game". It was a solid game and did what it set out to do well, even if I didn't personally like it.
Just like EQ2 gave a comparable experience to what WoW did, but with far more advanced graphics.
It's ok to prefer one game over another for any set of reasons. But that alone doesn't give anyone the right to say the other game was "bad" or "poorly done". We can be a bit more objective about games if we try.
I did leave for WOW, two months later but it was not because EQ2 had problems
WOW was much more fun for soloing in a mmo - I wish i stayed with EQ2 back then but O well ...
Very true. Everyone has their own personal taste. I dislike most RTS games, but I wouldn't say Star Craft was a "bad game". It was a solid game and did what it set out to do well, even if I didn't personally like it.
Just like EQ2 gave a comparable experience to what WoW did, but with far more advanced graphics.
It's ok to prefer one game over another for any set of reasons. But that alone doesn't give anyone the right to say the other game was "bad" or "poorly done". We can be a bit more objective about games if we try.
Oh,, I wouldn't say that entirely.. I was there when EQ2 first launched and it was junk.. So much so, that EQ2 had to reinvent itself similar to SWG's NGE.. Many of us older vets that played EQ1 for years, left EQ2 for WoW because of all the problems.. Original EQ2 was nothing similar to WoW, or current EQ2's current formula.. And customers have EVERY right to call whatever they want good or bad, rather it be a car, food or even a game..
I did leave for WOW, two months later but it was not because EQ2 had problems
WOW was much more fun for soloing in a mmo - I wish i stayed with EQ2 back then but O well ...
Very true. Everyone has their own personal taste. I dislike most RTS games, but I wouldn't say Star Craft was a "bad game". It was a solid game and did what it set out to do well, even if I didn't personally like it.
Just like EQ2 gave a comparable experience to what WoW did, but with far more advanced graphics.
It's ok to prefer one game over another for any set of reasons. But that alone doesn't give anyone the right to say the other game was "bad" or "poorly done". We can be a bit more objective about games if we try.
Oh,, I wouldn't say that entirely.. I was there when EQ2 first launched and it was junk.. So much so, that EQ2 had to reinvent itself similar to SWG's NGE.. Many of us older vets that played EQ1 for years, left EQ2 for WoW because of all the problems.. Original EQ2 was nothing similar to WoW, or current EQ2's current formula.. And customers have EVERY right to call whatever they want good or bad, rather it be a car, food or even a game..
You can call McDonalds "Fine dinning" all you want, and you can claim that the food at Osteria Francescana is nasty, but that wouldn't make you even remotely correct, even if that was your honest opinion.
I know a lot of EQ1 vets that played EQ2, went to WoW, then returned quickly to EQ2 because of WoW's notoriously low standards when it came to group and raid content. I also know a lot of older EQ vets like myself who still prefer EQ1 to both WoW and EQ2. But lets not pretend like EQ2 was some sort of terrible game. Both WoW and EQ2 were solid games that did what they set out to do very well.
People that played Landmark, I'm sure have felt the potential for Everquest Next. The voxel engine to me really feels like it's bringing the genre into a new era. I see the possibilities.
The Voxel engine looks horrible. You are just 5 feet away from something and it completely changes shape, get away a longer distance and everything turns into a weird colored blob. You dig the ground and grass, rocks etc pop up out of nowhere that where not there before.
Why people think Voxel engines are good is beyond me, they look crap and they have even worse performance.
On the other hand, I too lost interest when realising the actual landmark gameplay is still not here after more than 6 months of alpha and beta. Still no mobs in the game. Weekly updates are generally nothing more than a new costume in the marketplace, and when there is content, I've never seen it getting introduced without something else breaking.
The "game" has not evolved at all, it's still the ugly, buggy and slow performing mess it was 6 months ago.
The release of Everquest Next has to be flawless, and they can't be so lenient as they have been with Landmark updates. Criticism these days spreads like fire, on forums like MMORPG.com, and games can die from that alone. So I hope they do take their time.
If Landmark uses the same engine it is doomed. There is no way they can deliver a good looking game with that piece of crap engine.
People that played Landmark, I'm sure have felt the potential for Everquest Next. The voxel engine to me really feels like it's bringing the genre into a new era. I see the possibilities.
The Voxel engine looks horrible. You are just 5 feet away from something and it completely changes shape, get away a longer distance and everything turns into a weird colored blob. You dig the ground and grass, rocks etc pop up out of nowhere that where not there before.
It's still in heavy development, but I think a lot of the environments and assets they've shown off have looked pretty solid. Sure it's not Crysis 3, but EQN and Landmark are fully destructible and allows for procedurally generated content/environments, which will assist in making the game feel more like a living, changing world.
Why people think Voxel engines are good is beyond me, they look crap and they have even worse performance.
Procedurally generated environments, full destruction, endless building possibilities without the need for developer created assets, just to name a few reasons. Yes they require a bit more processing horse power than non-voxel based games, but the benefits outweigh the performance cost in terms of game play and features. Also, I get a solid 55 - 75fps average in Landmark, right now, with non-optimized drivers and the game being in an early closed beta. Maybe it's time for some PC upgrades (or just wait to see the performance after launch, which will be much better than it is now)
On the other hand, I too lost interest when realising the actual landmark gameplay is still not here after more than 6 months of alpha and beta. Still no mobs in the game. Weekly updates are generally nothing more than a new costume in the marketplace, and when there is content, I've never seen it getting introduced without something else breaking.
The "game" has not evolved at all, it's still the ugly, buggy and slow performing mess it was 6 months ago.
I suspect many of the big updates and improvements to Landmark are going to be shown off at SOE Live. And even if they haven't made much progress, that's just the nature of game development. Especially when you're building something as revolutionary as EQN / Landmark. I think it's rather sad that you seem to think you can judge a game by how fast or slow they're pushing updates to players during development.
The release of Everquest Next has to be flawless, and they can't be so lenient as they have been with Landmark updates. Criticism these days spreads like fire, on forums like MMORPG.com, and games can die from that alone. So I hope they do take their time.
If Landmark uses the same engine it is doomed. There is no way they can deliver a good looking game with that piece of crap engine.
Funny, since most people would agree that it's voxel engine is one of the core aspects of EQN/Landmark that makes it stand out from the sea of competition and a part of what has lead many journalists and industry professionals to consider EQN the first truly "Next Gen" MMO.
I did leave for WOW, two months later but it was not because EQ2 had problems
WOW was much more fun for soloing in a mmo - I wish i stayed with EQ2 back then but O well ...
Very true. Everyone has their own personal taste. I dislike most RTS games, but I wouldn't say Star Craft was a "bad game". It was a solid game and did what it set out to do well, even if I didn't personally like it.
Just like EQ2 gave a comparable experience to what WoW did, but with far more advanced graphics.
It's ok to prefer one game over another for any set of reasons. But that alone doesn't give anyone the right to say the other game was "bad" or "poorly done". We can be a bit more objective about games if we try.
Oh,, I wouldn't say that entirely.. I was there when EQ2 first launched and it was junk.. So much so, that EQ2 had to reinvent itself similar to SWG's NGE.. Many of us older vets that played EQ1 for years, left EQ2 for WoW because of all the problems.. Original EQ2 was nothing similar to WoW, or current EQ2's current formula.. And customers have EVERY right to call whatever they want good or bad, rather it be a car, food or even a game..
You can call McDonalds "Fine dinning" all you want, and you can claim that the food at Osteria Francescana is nasty, but that wouldn't make you even remotely correct, even if that was your honest opinion.
I know a lot of EQ1 vets that played EQ2, went to WoW, then returned quickly to EQ2 because of WoW's notoriously low standards when it came to group and raid content. EQ2 had NO RAID content when it first launched, and EQ2 required interdependence killed most of the game.. Most left the game after hitting the solo ceiling around 15th level and crafting was BORKED.. too many recipes REQUIRED products made by other players.. I also know a lot of older EQ vets like myself who still prefer EQ1 to both WoW and EQ2. But lets not pretend like EQ2 was some sort of terrible game. Both WoW and EQ2 were solid games that did what they set out to do very well. If ORIGINAL EQ2 was so wonderful why is it GONE.. Lets not fool ourselves.. EQ2 as it is today is NO WHERE near what it originally was designed..
Your opinion the game is of no consequence and frankly isn't even relevant to this conversation.
I know a lot of EQ1 vets that played EQ2, went to WoW, then returned quickly to EQ2 because of WoW's notoriously low standards when it came to group and raid content. EQ2 had NO RAID content when it first launched, and EQ2 required interdependence killed most of the game.. Most left the game after hitting the solo ceiling around 15th level and crafting was BORKED.. too many recipes REQUIRED products made by other players.. I also know a lot of older EQ vets like myself who still prefer EQ1 to both WoW and EQ2. But lets not pretend like EQ2 was some sort of terrible game. Both WoW and EQ2 were solid games that did what they set out to do very well. If ORIGINAL EQ2 was so wonderful why is it GONE.. Lets not fool ourselves.. EQ2 as it is today is NO WHERE near what it originally was designed..
Your opinion the game is of no consequence and frankly isn't even relevant to this conversation.
I agree many people didn't like the fact that EQ2 kept with tradition of EQ in really putting a large emphasis on grouping, but I rarely see anyone on these forums suggesting that's a bad thing. Most people on here complain about the fact that almost all MMOs have gone down the solo route instead of being more group-heavy, and I'd agree with them. However, as I already said, you're arguing from your subjective "me me me" opinion and it really has no weight in this conversation.
EQ2 isn't gone, it's still live, 10 years later, because it's a solid game. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a well put together game.
I know a lot of EQ1 vets that played EQ2, went to WoW, then returned quickly to EQ2 because of WoW's notoriously low standards when it came to group and raid content. EQ2 had NO RAID content when it first launched, and EQ2 required interdependence killed most of the game.. Most left the game after hitting the solo ceiling around 15th level and crafting was BORKED.. too many recipes REQUIRED products made by other players.. I also know a lot of older EQ vets like myself who still prefer EQ1 to both WoW and EQ2. But lets not pretend like EQ2 was some sort of terrible game. Both WoW and EQ2 were solid games that did what they set out to do very well. If ORIGINAL EQ2 was so wonderful why is it GONE.. Lets not fool ourselves.. EQ2 as it is today is NO WHERE near what it originally was designed..
Your opinion the game is of no consequence and frankly isn't even relevant to this conversation.
I agree many people didn't like the fact that EQ2 kept with tradition of EQ in really putting a large emphasis on grouping, but I rarely see anyone on these forums suggesting that's a bad thing. Most people on here complain about the fact that almost all MMOs have gone down the solo route instead of being more group-heavy, and I'd agree with them. However, as I already said, you're arguing from your subjective "me me me" opinion and it really has no weight in this conversation.
EQ2 isn't gone, it's still live, 10 years later, because it's a solid game. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a well put together game.
Listen carefully.. ORIGINAL EQ2 is GONE.. EQ2 underwent a massive change after it's original launch when it lost most of their players.. Sorta like their own NGE.. Lets not confuse that EQ2 as it is today is NOT original EQ2.. Just like EQ1 today is NOT original EQ1..
Listen carefully.. ORIGINAL EQ2 is GONE.. EQ2 underwent a massive change after it's original launch when it lost most of their players.. Sorta like their own NGE.. Lets not confuse that EQ2 as it is today is NOT original EQ2.. Just like EQ1 today is NOT original EQ1..
While I agree with you, the same could be said for a good majority of mmos if not all of them. For better or worse (usually worse) games change over time. Either to copy what others are doing or try some randomness in hopes to bring in players. Those that were there from the start or before the changes usually get angry and leave when what they initially bought into is no longer what is offered. Which is why I like the shift to F2P in general and what it looks like SOE is doing with EQN.
Basically saying upfront that the game won't be a static eternal experience and that if someone takes a break for a year, things might look totally different, beyond simply adding an xpac and 10 lvls and new zone. They have a lot of creative freedom to take the lore, world, game in general in so many directions, especially with the what is hopefully better AI. Crossing my fingers they don't do away with multi-classing or huge sweeping changes a year or two down the road, but if they can make a "better" game and experience for me, so be it.
Not sure what the point of all this bickering is besides everyone trying to prove they know best when in reality it is all pretty subjective and someone can love EQ now just as much as they did in 99 even with all the changes. Same goes for EQ2, WoW, SWG (in spirit at least), etc.
Really hoping this weekend provides some insight into the game and we can at least haves something new to argue about. Having to go back to EQ2 is a sign that we run out EQN discussion content. Despite everyone's opinions on this or that, we all seem to be in the same spot looking for something "better" to come along. EQN might be it, or it could just be another stop along the way. We shall see.
Listen carefully.. ORIGINAL EQ2 is GONE.. EQ2 underwent a massive change after it's original launch when it lost most of their players.. Sorta like their own NGE.. Lets not confuse that EQ2 as it is today is NOT original EQ2.. Just like EQ1 today is NOT original EQ1..
While I agree with you, the same could be said for a good majority of mmos if not all of them. For better or worse (usually worse) games change over time. Either to copy what others are doing or try some randomness in hopes to bring in players. Those that were there from the start or before the changes usually get angry and leave when what they initially bought into is no longer what is offered. Which is why I like the shift to F2P in general and what it looks like SOE is doing with EQN.
Basically saying upfront that the game won't be a static eternal experience and that if someone takes a break for a year, things might look totally different, beyond simply adding an xpac and 10 lvls and new zone. They have a lot of creative freedom to take the lore, world, game in general in so many directions, especially with the what is hopefully better AI. Crossing my fingers they don't do away with multi-classing or huge sweeping changes a year or two down the road, but if they can make a "better" game and experience for me, so be it.
Not sure what the point of all this bickering is besides everyone trying to prove they know best when in reality it is all pretty subjective and someone can love EQ now just as much as they did in 99 even with all the changes. Same goes for EQ2, WoW, SWG (in spirit at least), etc.
Really hoping this weekend provides some insight into the game and we can at least haves something new to argue about. Having to go back to EQ2 is a sign that we run out EQN discussion content. Despite everyone's opinions on this or that, we all seem to be in the same spot looking for something "better" to come along. EQN might be it, or it could just be another stop along the way. We shall see.
Opinions are subjective, however you can evaluate things in a far more objective manner. The point I was trying to pound through his skull with the EQ and EQ2 conversation is that there can and often is a very clear difference between a game you don't like, and a game that is actually done bad.
For example, I don't like WoW, but it's not a "bad game". It's a well designed and clearly put together by a team of hard working professionals. I get tired of people who don't know how to evaluate games. Opinions are useless. Good, thoughtful evaluations are not useless. I wish people would differentiate between the two.
Sure it's not Crysis 3, but EQN and Landmark are fully destructible and allows for procedurally generated content/environments, which will assist in making the game feel more like a living, changing world.
<more snipping>
Procedurally generated environments, full destruction, endless building possibilities without the need for developer created assets, just to name a few reasons.
I've not posted in awhile, but I had some time to look around the site today, and found something that bothers me. It's persisting a bit from last year's posts.
Allow me to focus on one particular aspect that I see frequently used as justification for EQN. A lot of posters seem to have the idea that being 'fully destructible' is a good thing for games. I'm not convinced.
The demonstrations that SOE displayed last year weren't conclusive to the idea that 'destructibility' is somehow good for games. The mechanism itself seems more conducive to anti-social behavior rather than a constructive advance in game-play. It opens the door to detrimentally affecting a player's character even when the player isn't around to 'oppose' the destruction. At least if someone is killing a player's character, that player has traditionally been active and able to attempt some form of self-defense. The basic destructive mechanism is something that can unilaterally alter the state of the game, including other player's property, without opposition. At that point, it ceases to be a game, and becomes e-vandalism.
If a person knocks down the deck attached to my house, I have legal recourse and possibly criminal actions that can rectify the problem. In a virtual environment, there isn't a parallel. And since there is a distinct possibility that property ownership in EQN will have some degree of real-money invested, the feature of 'full destruction' becomes more than a gaming issue.
At what point does it become a legal issue? I don't know. I can predict that if SOE charges money for plots, materials and other elements of the e-property, someone will spend far more money than I would consider reasonable to build their dream e-castle. And, given a 'fully destructible' environment that includes e-property, there will be others who will enjoy kicking over their sand castle. I expect that SOE will probably cordon off housing areas as non-destructive, but there have already been outcries (on these forums) about that expected action being not in the spirit of 'fully destructible'.
Perhaps, there are situations where being 'fully destructible' can be a positive enhancement to game play. I haven't seen them. Doesn't mean they don't exist. But SOE's use of that term as a feature list hasn't convinced me.
Being able to dig up the ground might be amazing fun. But what is wrong with set 'locations' where digging will actually work? It is really necessary to allow a perfectly nice bit of terrain to be ripped up at every possible X-Y coordinate to achieve the same degree of underground discovery?
For the record, procedurally generated environments have been around since Rogue, most recently the Diablo series. But even the random game worlds of Civilization could also be considered procedurally generated. Let's not toss this feature around like it's a new innovative idea. It may be new to a persistent MMO world, with new complexity, but the idea's not new.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
Landmark is going to be a complete game on it's own. It was announced many times that it's not "just a building tool". It's going to have a lot of game play outside of the building, quest and dungeon creator. The game play will probably be very similar to Terraria when it's done (generated dungeons, mobs, bosses, combat, gear/weapon loot drops, crafting, etc).
EQN is going to be more of a traditional MMO experience, but it ties in with Landmark in that players can use landmark to create structures that make it into EQN, and Landmark players will apparently be able to create instanced content that will transfer over into EQN somehow (dungeon creator, quest creator, etc).
But both EQN and Landmark are going to be complete games in the end, each unique in their own way. I don't mind that people are confused on this though. Landmark up to now has been entirely a building tool, so it gives people the impression that's what Landmark is... but when it's finished, it's going to be far more than that.
Even in aspects that both games have, like combat, is going to play out differently in one game than it does another. An example of this would be that the combat in EQN will be class/multiclass based. Your skills come from learning new classes and unlocking the class's skills, while Landmark is set to be gear based in combat.
Equip a staff and now you use magic, equip a bow and now you get ranged archery attacks. (Like Terraria).
But ya, both are going to be full games on their own.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Well I dont want them to work to a release date i want them to make an amazing game and if they are pushing themselves to release the game on a certain date then they will ahve to cut corners.
So I am happy for them to take their time and release the game they want to release when its done.
Landmarks goal, seriously? When talk was of EQN it was always that Landmark was the forerunner, the taste as it were, of what was to come with EQN, so its highly disingenuous to try and move the goalposts now, to say that it was never the case, when it so clearly was.
your version of SOE's history seems to differ from most peoples recollection, and still has a few holes in it. granted nobody likes to dwell on their mistakes, but how often does SOE actually try to learn from them?
EQ2 for instance, plagued by mediocrity so much so that they had to revise the game several times, to very little effect,
SWG's demise may well have been instigated by LA's insistence, but it was SOE's lack of understanding of their own game that killed it, but even then, the 'official' history isn't perhaps the one people remembered.
Vanguard, little can really be said about, though there has been a great deal of speculation that SOE dragged their heels on actually fixing the game, because it would have been a direct competitor for EQ2,and EQ2 was in trouble pretty much from launch.
Planetside 1, great game, until they spoiled it, with cavern combat and BFR's at that point the game began to die, that its still going is probably testament to the games original popularity, but sadly the game is plagued with hackers.
Planetside 2, some improvements, but again, for some unknown reason, plagued with hackers, a bit of a dodgy launch mostly due to the fact that, if you don't have a 64bit OS the game doesn't run that well..
and then there is Matrix online, and POTBS, im sure SOE would prefer to not mention them too.
Landmark and EQN may well be SOE's last fling of the die, but one thing for sure, they have few real fans, and a lot of people with longer memories than they would prefer.
Same here. I was also really excited (until I saw the graphic). However I still hope the game will have good gameplay even if I am prepared it will be a huge disappointment as EQ2 became.
If it failed as hard as EQ2 then EQN will be an awesome MMO lol. That game is still going strong =-)
lol. It was what I felt. It was a huge disappointment for me regarding how the world was built up, how the characters looked like and how the gameplay mechanism was compared to for example EQ. It felt like a mediocre game for me. EQ felt like a world you want to live in compared to EQ2 (my opinion).
That's why we can't fault them for not making a date...
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
My version of SOE's history is the correct one, but I agree that many people are sadly confused on this matter. It's the nature of over emotional and entitled teens and 20-somethings that don't have a grasp on reality or the ability to look at something in a more objective way.
EQ2 was, as I said, offered everything WoW did, with better graphics. The only real issue with the game was that it required a pretty strong PC to run it while it's direct competition could be run on your momma's emachine. This is actually a huge problem in the PC game industry because games that tend to push hardware requirements are met with poor sales because there are far less people with good PCs than there are ones with old and substandard PCs. This is pretty common knowledge.
SWG's demise was entirely on LA. They forced SOE's hand by threatening to not renew their SW IP licencing, which would have shut the game down anyway, if SOE didn't make the changes to the game that LA wanted to see. Those changes that were later found to be very unpopular with the community. It's sad that players still blame SOE in part or in whole for SWG when it was entirely LA's fault.
Vanguard was a disaster from the start, worst than anything I'd ever seen in my past 20 years of experience with MMOs/MUDs. The fact that SOE even bothered to try and save the game even though it was a clear mess and was never going to return a profit is nothing short of heroic. Yet you claim they "dragged their heals". Again it seems more like the ramblings of someone looking to vilify them instead of looking at the facts.
PS1, Again, another non-objective view from a person looking to vilify someone. PS1 was an amazing game and just because you didn't personally like some changes they made down the road does not negate that fact. Hackers are in every game btw, welcome to the world of PC gaming. However I will say that in the years I played PS1 I saw maybe 2 or 3 hackers total. So I think you're emotionally exaggerating the situation in order to sound as if you have a case to make against SOE, when you don't.
Planetside 2 ran perfectly fine with and without a 32bit OS. It's a massive game that clearly has higher minimum requirements than many games, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means you need to have the appropriate hardware to get the best experience out of it, just like any game. And again, hackers on a PC game? Ya don't say!?
I never played matrix or POTBS, so I wouldn't comment on their quality, but even if they were bad that doesn't negate all the great and innovative things SOE has done over the years. Is that how you work? A game company is only good if they have a 100% perfect spotless record? Well by those standards I guess no company, indie or AAA, is good in your eyes.
Please try to be more objective in your assessments. It takes practice but I'm sure you'll figure it out if you try.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
The worlds most advanced rendering engine or what have you doesn't make a game great.... if it requires a cray computer to move your character 2 inches, you're doing it wrong. Great games run well, but more importantly are fun to play. Who the hell cares if you can blow things up if you're not into blowing things up. A lot of games sell the glitz and smoke and mirrors yet fail to deliver on the very basic level... entertainment. If a baby can find a simple cardboard box the best thing in the world, there is no need to spend $1000 on Barbies Funhouse. Entertainment value rarely ever equates to technological advancements.
I never suggested anything of the sort. Fancy graphics and GPU/CPU intensive features like destructible environments aren't required for a fun game. Some of the most fun I've had playing a video was with games like Faster Than Light. However, my point was more along the lines that games that are actually very fun that also have extremely high system requirements are often met with poor sales, and sales are not == to quality.
If FTL was rendered using cutting edge graphics that required beefy hardware to run, but it was still the same core game as it is now, it wouldn't be a "worst" game just because less people can run it.
And it's not like Planetside 2's system requirements were out of control anyway. It ran perfectly fine on my damn work laptop. They weren't asking for much, yet people still cried about performance lol.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
to give another opinion (everyone has one
)
I enjoyed EQ2 when it launched
I did leave for WOW, two months later but it was not because EQ2 had problems
WOW was much more fun for soloing in a mmo - I wish i stayed with EQ2 back then but O well ...
EQ2 fan sites
Very true. Everyone has their own personal taste. I dislike most RTS games, but I wouldn't say Star Craft was a "bad game". It was a solid game and did what it set out to do well, even if I didn't personally like it.
Just like EQ2 gave a comparable experience to what WoW did, but with far more advanced graphics.
It's ok to prefer one game over another for any set of reasons. But that alone doesn't give anyone the right to say the other game was "bad" or "poorly done". We can be a bit more objective about games if we try.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Oh,, I wouldn't say that entirely.. I was there when EQ2 first launched and it was junk.. So much so, that EQ2 had to reinvent itself similar to SWG's NGE.. Many of us older vets that played EQ1 for years, left EQ2 for WoW because of all the problems.. Original EQ2 was nothing similar to WoW, or current EQ2's current formula.. And customers have EVERY right to call whatever they want good or bad, rather it be a car, food or even a game..
You can call McDonalds "Fine dinning" all you want, and you can claim that the food at Osteria Francescana is nasty, but that wouldn't make you even remotely correct, even if that was your honest opinion.
I know a lot of EQ1 vets that played EQ2, went to WoW, then returned quickly to EQ2 because of WoW's notoriously low standards when it came to group and raid content. I also know a lot of older EQ vets like myself who still prefer EQ1 to both WoW and EQ2. But lets not pretend like EQ2 was some sort of terrible game. Both WoW and EQ2 were solid games that did what they set out to do very well.
[mod edit]
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
If some fan really wants to make a mark and is able to as a question to the devs;
IF Smedley should be around:
-Ask if SOE plans a NGE if EQN should not perform as good as expected-
should be good for some eyebrows raising and a few good laughters in the audience. ^^
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
too funny..
that being said, it's sad and comical that SOE owns the rights to "NGE" and the negative impact that comes from those 3 letters.. lol
I agree many people didn't like the fact that EQ2 kept with tradition of EQ in really putting a large emphasis on grouping, but I rarely see anyone on these forums suggesting that's a bad thing. Most people on here complain about the fact that almost all MMOs have gone down the solo route instead of being more group-heavy, and I'd agree with them. However, as I already said, you're arguing from your subjective "me me me" opinion and it really has no weight in this conversation.
EQ2 isn't gone, it's still live, 10 years later, because it's a solid game. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a well put together game.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Listen carefully.. ORIGINAL EQ2 is GONE.. EQ2 underwent a massive change after it's original launch when it lost most of their players.. Sorta like their own NGE.. Lets not confuse that EQ2 as it is today is NOT original EQ2.. Just like EQ1 today is NOT original EQ1..
While I agree with you, the same could be said for a good majority of mmos if not all of them. For better or worse (usually worse) games change over time. Either to copy what others are doing or try some randomness in hopes to bring in players. Those that were there from the start or before the changes usually get angry and leave when what they initially bought into is no longer what is offered. Which is why I like the shift to F2P in general and what it looks like SOE is doing with EQN.
Basically saying upfront that the game won't be a static eternal experience and that if someone takes a break for a year, things might look totally different, beyond simply adding an xpac and 10 lvls and new zone. They have a lot of creative freedom to take the lore, world, game in general in so many directions, especially with the what is hopefully better AI. Crossing my fingers they don't do away with multi-classing or huge sweeping changes a year or two down the road, but if they can make a "better" game and experience for me, so be it.
Not sure what the point of all this bickering is besides everyone trying to prove they know best when in reality it is all pretty subjective and someone can love EQ now just as much as they did in 99 even with all the changes. Same goes for EQ2, WoW, SWG (in spirit at least), etc.
Really hoping this weekend provides some insight into the game and we can at least haves something new to argue about. Having to go back to EQ2 is a sign that we run out EQN discussion content. Despite everyone's opinions on this or that, we all seem to be in the same spot looking for something "better" to come along. EQN might be it, or it could just be another stop along the way. We shall see.
Opinions are subjective, however you can evaluate things in a far more objective manner. The point I was trying to pound through his skull with the EQ and EQ2 conversation is that there can and often is a very clear difference between a game you don't like, and a game that is actually done bad.
For example, I don't like WoW, but it's not a "bad game". It's a well designed and clearly put together by a team of hard working professionals. I get tired of people who don't know how to evaluate games. Opinions are useless. Good, thoughtful evaluations are not useless. I wish people would differentiate between the two.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I've not posted in awhile, but I had some time to look around the site today, and found something that bothers me. It's persisting a bit from last year's posts.
Allow me to focus on one particular aspect that I see frequently used as justification for EQN. A lot of posters seem to have the idea that being 'fully destructible' is a good thing for games. I'm not convinced.
The demonstrations that SOE displayed last year weren't conclusive to the idea that 'destructibility' is somehow good for games. The mechanism itself seems more conducive to anti-social behavior rather than a constructive advance in game-play. It opens the door to detrimentally affecting a player's character even when the player isn't around to 'oppose' the destruction. At least if someone is killing a player's character, that player has traditionally been active and able to attempt some form of self-defense. The basic destructive mechanism is something that can unilaterally alter the state of the game, including other player's property, without opposition. At that point, it ceases to be a game, and becomes e-vandalism.
If a person knocks down the deck attached to my house, I have legal recourse and possibly criminal actions that can rectify the problem. In a virtual environment, there isn't a parallel. And since there is a distinct possibility that property ownership in EQN will have some degree of real-money invested, the feature of 'full destruction' becomes more than a gaming issue.
At what point does it become a legal issue? I don't know. I can predict that if SOE charges money for plots, materials and other elements of the e-property, someone will spend far more money than I would consider reasonable to build their dream e-castle. And, given a 'fully destructible' environment that includes e-property, there will be others who will enjoy kicking over their sand castle. I expect that SOE will probably cordon off housing areas as non-destructive, but there have already been outcries (on these forums) about that expected action being not in the spirit of 'fully destructible'.
Perhaps, there are situations where being 'fully destructible' can be a positive enhancement to game play. I haven't seen them. Doesn't mean they don't exist. But SOE's use of that term as a feature list hasn't convinced me.
Being able to dig up the ground might be amazing fun. But what is wrong with set 'locations' where digging will actually work? It is really necessary to allow a perfectly nice bit of terrain to be ripped up at every possible X-Y coordinate to achieve the same degree of underground discovery?
For the record, procedurally generated environments have been around since Rogue, most recently the Diablo series. But even the random game worlds of Civilization could also be considered procedurally generated. Let's not toss this feature around like it's a new innovative idea. It may be new to a persistent MMO world, with new complexity, but the idea's not new.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.