Originally posted by Brabbit1987 I don't understand why some people link action combat with kids and the console crowd...
Probably because kids have lower attention spans and can't stand still for very long.
Doesn't sound like a very good argument if you ask me. Grasping at straws.
Actually I might even argue those who believe such a thing are more childish because they seem incapable of understanding other people have different likes and dislikes and it has nothing to do with age or platform.
it's because neckbeards don't want to have to think or move their fingers too much, could cause them to overheat and possibly trigger cardiac arrest.
One would argue that if by RPG it really means "Role Playing Game" having more control over your character means role playing them to a greater extent. Having motion be a point of strategy along with RNG if the ability actually hits moves farther out of turn based combat and into a more immersive one IMO. The running? Pre-alpha, look at Landmark for what is intended. "Childish" due to the art style and reticle based combat? Bit of an ironic stance to take but subjective opinions are just that.
Totally disagree with this...Action combat is the exact same thing as "twitch" combat and movement and more closely resembles the movement and action of a FPS than an RPG game. If anything, it causes you to strategically think less and just react. Once you get the timing down on certain moves makes it totally "unrealistic" (even by sword and sorcery standards) and kills that immersion...at least in my view. See GW2 for fine examples of this...
If action movement and combat is your thing, that's fine...I just don't see the value in it for an RPG game. I've playedRPG games with it and am not opposed to play RPG games with it, but it's just not my favorite thing in the world.
I respect that you have your own preconcieved notions of what an "RPG" looks like and gives you a greater sense of immersion (that's why most of us play MMORPGs) but you really didn't mention any universal reason other than your opinion. Why can't a reticle-based combat system also be considered an RPG? GW2 isn't a great comparison because they use a hybrid tab-target/dodge mechanic system. EQN will be fully reticle based and there will be "parkour(sp)" abilities like better jump and double jump that enhance the need for player skill. You may be able to get the timing down on what abilities you use in sucession but depending on the AI of mobs (not to mention PvP) your targets may not be as easy to fight as you think. Besides, tab based combat systems become even more redundant IMO because you mearly need to time the clicks in a certain order.
Whuu? What just happened? Was that game combat footage or did my monitor just blow some pixels out. It was kind of like the old Batman TV series fight scenes. WHAM! POW! BOOM! Apparently any violent action you take in the world of EQ sets off some sort of atomic reaction.
Someone may have mentioned this already but the models seemed to have been defined a lot more. Look at 2:02 and the human face is a lot more defined than in Landmark. The Dark Elves seem to be fairly defined as well.
Originally posted by DMKano I watched both Landmark and EQNext streams live. I am still in utter disbelief of how underwhelming combat is in both games. Also the fact that they show VIDEOS of EQN instead of actual live gameplay says it all.
You do realize that the game is not even in Beta yet right?
You do realize EQNext won the best Game of the Show E3 2013?
Yeah, I love that double-standard, too.
It was far along enough to win "game of show" at E3. It's far along enough to have praise heaped on it.
Criticize it, however, and well... you can't do that. It's not far enough along yet!
/facepalm
It's basically the "can't judge it yet, wait for Alpha... Can't judge it yet, wait for Closed Beta... Can't judge it yet, wait for Open Beta... Can't judge it yet, wait for Launch... Can't judge it yet, because it just launched, wait 3 months for all the bugs to be ironed out... Can't judge it yet, because it only launched 3 months ago, give it at least 6 months... can't judge it yet, because MMOs need at least a year... can't judge it yet, because you didn't play 'til level cap... can't judge it yet, because you played to cap, but haven't done every single thing in the game... can't judge it yet, because MMOs are constantly growing and they're going to keep adding new stuff... can't judge it because if you don't like this game you obviously just don't like MMOs..." routine...
For the die-hard fans, it's never the right time to criticize or point out issues with a game. It's the goal-post that never stops moving.
I think its more a question on what is being criticized, not that it is. Running looks funny and animations are out of synch? That is an issue of being pre-alpha.
In regards to the award it was "Best in Show" because what was shown and talked about was worth it to them. Was that right? That can be debated as long as the facts are properly presented.
One would argue that if by RPG it really means "Role Playing Game" having more control over your character means role playing them to a greater extent. Having motion be a point of strategy along with RNG if the ability actually hits moves farther out of turn based combat and into a more immersive one IMO. The running? Pre-alpha, look at Landmark for what is intended. "Childish" due to the art style and reticle based combat? Bit of an ironic stance to take but subjective opinions are just that.
Totally disagree with this...Action combat is the exact same thing as "twitch" combat and movement and more closely resembles the movement and action of a FPS than an RPG game. If anything, it causes you to strategically think less and just react. Once you get the timing down on certain moves makes it totally "unrealistic" (even by sword and sorcery standards) and kills that immersion...at least in my view. See GW2 for fine examples of this...
If action movement and combat is your thing, that's fine...I just don't see the value in it for an RPG game. I've playedRPG games with it and am not opposed to play RPG games with it, but it's just not my favorite thing in the world.
I respect that you have your own preconcieved notions of what an "RPG" looks like and gives you a greater sense of immersion (that's why most of us play MMORPGs) but you really didn't mention any universal reason other than your opinion. Why can't a reticle-based combat system also be considered an RPG? GW2 isn't a great comparison because they use a hybrid tab-target/dodge mechanic system. EQN will be fully reticle based and there will be "parkour(sp)" abilities like better jump and double jump that enhance the need for player skill. You may be able to get the timing down on what abilities you use in sucession but depending on the AI of mobs (not to mention PvP) your targets may not be as easy to fight as you think. Besides, tab based combat systems become even more redundant IMO because you mearly need to time the clicks in a certain order.
Never once did I say a "reticle based system could not be an RPG". What I said was an action combat and move system/ "twitch" gameplay, so the GW2 comparison fits perfect. Mass Effect did a fine job of a reticle based RPG, that's not the issue. I've already expressed my feelings on the matter and don't expect to sway anyone (that wasn't the point) just offering my opinion as we all are....take it or leave it for what it's worth.
Black Desert may eventually stink as a game, but the character models put EQnext to shame in my opinion. They aren't even in the same league. And this is coming from a lifelong EQ player (already expressed my opinions on this so won't bore anyone again)
Do you think SOE is not capable of making a BD look a like? Is Forgelight just vastly crappier than BD's engine? Or is there a sliver of a chance they went the way they did for a reason?
I get that BD is very pretty, but it isn't in a year or two, it will probably already look dated when you factor in single player games, console games, etc that have a much faster update cycle.
On the other hand, EQN's voxel engine, class system, gear system, horizontal gameplay etc seem to shame what BD has going.
Great to see games made for different types of players though.
That seems like terrible combat. Each fight takes from 2 - 7 seconds. There is no meaning in a fight for combat of such short length.
This is EverQuest. Give us challenge and long fights so we can actually do things and react.
The lights and sound effects need to be toned down as well. Each battle should not be a firework show. Save a bunch of that flash for really special abilities.
Can't tell if you are trolling or not, if so, good work.
Originally posted by DMKano I watched both Landmark and EQNext streams live. I am still in utter disbelief of how underwhelming combat is in both games. Also the fact that they show VIDEOS of EQN instead of actual live gameplay says it all.
You do realize that the game is not even in Beta yet right?
You do realize EQNext won the best Game of the Show E3 2013?
Actually it won Best of Show.
Seriously - yes I realize it - even for pre-alpha it looked *bad* to me.
Looked good to me.
Personally I would have not shown it to the public.
Good thing you aren't in charge.
Also that shield with the little side "mirrors" that unfolded - well I burst into laughter when I saw it, that was some silly stuff right there. Whoever designed that didn't get the memo that its not a comedy game.
Seems many in the crowd and at home loved it. Guess we missed the memo that it was a serious game.
all of the above is my opinion
Besides the first one, this is all my opinion.
Almost as if games are made for different types of players.
I gotta really start hanging out in the COD forum somewhere repeating my opinion on how I dislike the game and will never play it. Whomever designs that game is just stupid. Can't believe they think that is what you call a FPS. So lame.
Destructible world sounds good, but looks bad. After building stuff in Landmark I realized how limited their voxel system is to create detailed shapes with. You see the flaws in the buildings and instead of using good artists, they copied what people made in Landmark. Even though there are some amazing stuff in Landmark, the voxel based stuff wont stand scrutiny. Voxels for terrain is ok, but for buildings etc, not pretty.
What they showed with abilities that digs holes in the ground is just unfitting and unnatural, hey even in Landmark I find it kindda wierd that you can just start up your (forgot the name) "disintegrator5000" and 30 secs later having dug youself a 100m deep hole in solid rock.
First order of business should really be to try and fix the fundamental problems with voxels limited shape options and looks, that is what Landmark needs badly, then it might be acceptable to use for a mmorpg like eqnext that is supposed to compete with beautiful and almost naturalistic style in other mmorpgs.
Yeah, what strikes me is how they just keep pushing the "destructible environment!" thing.
It's like, anything they do, they have to somehow work in "and look guys.... Destructible environments!".. .even if not verbally.
It actually reminds me of how everyone was going bonkers back when hardware accelerated graphics came along (3DFX, etc), and suddenly colored-lighting was possible. Everyone and their grandmother was drowning their games in orange, blue, red, green.. full saturated lighting.. and it just looked ridiculous. It's like they were so excited about the tech, that they felt they had to use it everywhere possible. This "destructible environments!" thing reminds me of that.
I know. You can destroy the environment. You can create large holes in the ground. Wonderful. How about showing me something with more substance now.. you know... actual gameplay... and not a hole-digging light-show bonanza.
Let me know how I'm going to be immersed in your world. How am I going to get that pure, drawn-in "Everquest" feel in EQ:N? How will Norrath make me feel I'm really there? And no, "destructible environments!!" isn't going to do that.
And really.. does anyone else already have expectations that 'destructible environments!" will become some new way of griefing? Someone's out in the wilderness, minding their own business. Maybe they're AFK momentarily.. They come back and are suddenly deep down in a hole, or in some cavern underground... because someone came by and.. "destructible environments!"
I dunno.. I'm over the gimmicks, I'm over the light-shows. I wanna see something of substance. Enough with the dog and pony show.
Do we really need to spell this kind of stuff out to you? Ask yourself, what does this "gimmicky" voxel based, fully destructible world add to game play, in something... like... you know... a Siege of a fortress? Well this isn't like other games where a "spot" on the castle, like a door or a "weak side" is scripted to take damage and disappear when the HP bar reaches zero.
You can literally attack the structure from any side or angle. Hell, maybe you don't even attack it. Maybe you get a team of miners to dig a hole down and then dig horizontally under the castle and come up inside the court yard?
Also, with voxels, the landscape can change without direct intervention from a patch or expansion. You can log in one day and see the top of a mountain gone, now erupting as a volcano for some big Dragon event activated by the emergent AI system. Maybe an area that was just a green forest has had a giant meteor land on it and now it's a huge smoking creator with fire golems rushing out of it. A peaceful village can be in one spot 1 day, but overnight a band of orcs could burn it to the ground leaving nothing but half busted houses and orc-tents being set up by it's new residents.
In short, Voxels open up a huge range of possibilities when it comes to your game play experience.
And besides all this, I don't even feel like they're pushing voxels / destruction THAT hard. In fact, I clearly remember Smed saying something like "Destruction is great, but it's nothing compared to our Story Bricks partnership. The emergent AI is the real prize!" or words to that effect.
And they've also been pushing so many other great ideas and features right along side it. Horizontal progression, multi-classing, gear being about customization in ability and looks (not just some +stat items), Emergent AI, Action combat, Rallying calls, etc etc.
I dunno, maybe you're paying attention to the wrong videos or something. Or maybe you're just looking to complain.
Disclaimer: I've never played EQ, so I don't have any emotional attachment to the franchise.
Graphics are nothing special, but likeable. Art style looks nice.
But combat and animations in general. Oh man, it looks worse than Elder Scrolls Online. If SOE doesn't fix it (highly unlikely IMHO since it's probably taht way due to engine limitations), I think it won't fare well when it goes live.
Originally posted by DMKano I watched both Landmark and EQNext streams live. I am still in utter disbelief of how underwhelming combat is in both games. Also the fact that they show VIDEOS of EQN instead of actual live gameplay says it all.
You do realize that the game is not even in Beta yet right?
You do realize EQNext won the best Game of the Show E3 2013?
Yeah, I love that double-standard, too.
It was far along enough to win "game of show" at E3. It's far along enough to have praise heaped on it.
Criticize it, however, and well... you can't do that. It's not far enough along yet!
/facepalm
It's basically the "can't judge it yet, wait for Alpha... Can't judge it yet, wait for Closed Beta... Can't judge it yet, wait for Open Beta... Can't judge it yet, wait for Launch... Can't judge it yet, because it just launched, wait 3 months for all the bugs to be ironed out... Can't judge it yet, because it only launched 3 months ago, give it at least 6 months... can't judge it yet, because MMOs need at least a year... can't judge it yet, because you didn't play 'til level cap... can't judge it yet, because you played to cap, but haven't done every single thing in the game... can't judge it yet, because MMOs are constantly growing and they're going to keep adding new stuff... can't judge it because if you don't like this game you obviously just don't like MMOs..." routine...
For the die-hard fans, it's never the right time to criticize or point out issues with a game. It's the goal-post that never stops moving.
Well for one thing if you look at what Bioware is going with Shadow Realm (as an example), one person is actually going to be controlling the monsters, traps, etc off screen, almost like a DM.
Yeah that "idea" might have been done years ago when AOL was around, but hasn't been done at all in modern MMO's at the level they are talking about and certainly not to the level where you are going to control dungeons and traps to that extent. That to me is innovation. Sure, they could totally screw it up and it may stink (we haven't seen it yet), but they are at least going with something new. What is this game doing that is even in the same realm?
If I wanted to play GW2 light (which is what this looks like) I would just go back to play GW2 (which I did play when it came out but found the lack of defined roles and...yeah you've heard it all before so I won't bore you with the same complaints). Look I'm being 100% honest I was looking forward to this game bigtime, but everytime I hear or see something about this game...I get less and less impressed to the point where I just don't think it's for me.
Like I said, I'm sure there is an audience that will love the game, and I certainly doj't hope it fails...the more choice we have as gamers the better, It's just not for me.
Shadow Realm is also not the same genre as EQN so options available are no where near the same. There are tiny indie games with crazy new approaches to game play that just aren't possible in a EQN type game. Like I said there are limits even when trying to think outside the box.
Although, they've alluded to players being able to make D&D like experiences in Landmark by creating content (dungeons, mobs, quests, etc). So we might see this in a different SOE game sooner or later.
Looking at the recent games released and other upcoming games, I see very little innovation or even originality. Nothing wrong with that though if the end result is enjoyable. EQN although does seem to have a lot of variety and new takes on traditional systems that other games are staying safe with.
Could you explain the GW2 light though? While I can understand people seeing superficial similarities between the two, if anything I'd say EQN is GW2 on a massive dose of roids, but really not that similar in my eyes.
Sometimes I think we have unfair expectations. Take cellphones for example, within the last few years they've made massive improvements and are now at a point where companies are just trying crazy things hoping it will get them some sales when these "innovations" probably don't add anything that many even want/need. Where people are now just meh it's a phone with a screen, big whoop, forgetting that just a few years ago we were walking around with stone age devices in comparison.
I think gaming is not too different, people scream for innovation, but don't even know what it is they are looking for. Unfair to go, "I don't know what I want, I just want something and you better figure it out game developers!" Or when a company does think outside the box and try it different, everyone screams they want it to be like how it used to be. Never going to please everyone.
As someone who grew up and has played every EQ game since inception...EQnext more closely resembles GW2 (which to me is a shell of an MMO) than any other EQ game.
Your comment about cellphones I don't think fits at all. you're assuming people even care that much on a whole about such a thing or even games for that matter. I for one don't even own a cell phone nor do I feel the need to have one, and I won't be losing any sleep at all if I don't play EQnext or am let down by any video game. I've already told you the type of direction I would have like them to go, and stop with the it's a different genre nonsense...it can be done if a company really wanted to do it. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, but it certainly would be a change, and if used as the groundwork as a complete new system it could be something totally different and new.
To me if you're not going to be the least bit innovative (again in my eyes) why not just make EQ3 and call it a day. The reason they aren't doing that, is the perceived success of games like GW2 so they think if they just copied the same formula and slapped the EQ brand on it they would be all set.
You see the underlying cause for all of this is risk...how much risk, financially, are they(any gaming company) willing to take in development time vs. the perceived profit at the end. As corporations, I would expect them to do nothing less, that is what they do manage risk vs profit, as a gamer that doesn't mean I should like it or not call them out on it. Just because I have a 15 year gaming history with SOE games (mainly EQ) doesn't mean I'm going to blindly just say everything they do is great and they have my undying trust. To the contrary they have done more to damage customer trust, than any gaming company outside of EA in my view and have just started to change that the last few years. So excuse me if I'm the least bit cynical after seeing parts and previews of this game, as I said I'm sure certain people will love it, I probably won't be one of them.
Such a sad state of affairs when people can't see.....or more likely refuse to see the innovation that is in EQN. I won't name them cause you won't listen to them. But I will say one thing, if all you're interested in playing EQ3....with the same tired linear questing elements, the boring combat routines and the forced social interactions then why not play EQ1 or 2? I hear they're still up and running. SOE has already said they were not making the same game that every studio has produced for the last 14 years. Why would they limit their market share by developing a game that only the current players want to play?
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
As someone who grew up and has played every EQ game since inception...EQnext more closely resembles GW2 (which to me is a shell of an MMO) than any other EQ game.
How so? Started playing EQ in 99, but EQN looks great to me personally. Then again I'm not wanting EQ with updated visuals either.
Action combat, visuals look like the same style, to me it's the "dumbing down" of the EQ franchise much like GW2 is a dumbing down of MMO's. It's my opnion, you certainly don't have to agree with it, but that's how I see it.
Your comment about cellphones I don't think fits at all. you're assuming people even care that much on a whole about such a thing or even games for that matter. I for one don't even own a cell phone nor do I feel the need to have one, and I won't be losing any sleep at all if I don't play EQnext or am let down by any video game. I've already told you the type of direction I would have like them to go, and stop with the it's a different genre nonsense...it can be done if a company really wanted to do it. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, but it certainly would be a change, and if used as the groundwork as a complete new system it could be something totally different and new.
Again, you say it can happen but give some examples of what is possible within the boundaries of the genre. Just "I want it to be innovative" or some vague wish doesn't say much.
I don't understand why comparing this to other game mechanics that have multiplayer aspects is an invalid criticism. I'm not comparing to a FPS are Strategy game, I'm comparing it to a game that is an RPG with a multiplayer mechanic. It's not out of the realm that they COULD have done something unique...they decided not too. If your happy with that fine, again enjoy the game I'm sure others will love it as well.
Just not sure why you're defending it and not seeing how they could have done more with it, especially when given a specific example you say people never offer...I offered it yet the answer wasn't to your liking so you dismiss it as invalid. If we don't expect more, we will be destined to get cookie cutter games not just in the MMO genre but in all genre's. Being that it's so corporate today, we may be stuck with cookie cutter games regardless at this point, and if this is all they are going to ffer (they being the game industry) I won't be as apt to spend as much as I used to and will certainly find other things to do with my time.
What I said is very possible in the genre, not sure why you don't think it is...we seem to be talking in circles on this point however and will probably continue to do so.
To me if you're not going to be the least bit innovative (again in my eyes) why not just make EQ3 and call it a day. The reason they aren't doing that, is the perceived success of games like GW2 so they think if they just copied the same formula and slapped the EQ brand on it they would be all set.
What are they copying from GW2? To me, GW2 wasn't that original and a decent chunk of what they had came from other games. I'd at least say EQN is copying those games
See Above....If you're going to copy something and not be innovative, why not copy something you do really well and has been a proven success?
You see the underlying cause for all of this is risk...how much risk, financially, are they(any gaming company) willing to take in development time vs. the perceived profit at the end. As corporations, I would expect them to do nothing less, that is what they do manage risk vs profit, as a gamer that doesn't mean I should like it or not call them out on it. Just because I have a 15 year gaming history with SOE games (mainly EQ) doesn't mean I'm going to blindly just say everything they do is great and they have my undying trust. To the contrary they have done more to damage customer trust, than any gaming company outside of EA in my view and have just started to change that the last few years. So excuse me if I'm the least bit cynical after seeing parts and previews of this game, as I said I'm sure certain people will love it, I probably won't be one of them.
I understand, I'm cynical as well in general, but luckily I fall into the "people will love it" category. Simply curious as to where people get their opinions from such as EQN is coping GW2 or is GW2 light or isn't innovative compared to the competition not random other games in other genres.
I certainly don't judge anyone who is going to like and enjoy this game...to each their own. Life would be boring if we all liked the same stuff. I just don't understand what this offers above and beyond what is already out there (I don't even see how this is an improvement over what EQ2 was on release). As I said before, not going to lose any sleep over it, life is busy enough I'm sure I can find other things to do with my time, by all means if it's your cup of tea enjoy it....as a lifelong EQ fan just giving my critique of what they have given us so far :-)
So basically dumbing down to you means making it action combat? Got it. Thanks for clarifying such an obviously opinionated statement that has zero relativity to what the discussion is all about.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Disclaimer: I've never played EQ, so I don't have any emotional attachment to the franchise.
Graphics are nothing special, but likeable. Art style looks nice.
But combat and animations in general. Oh man, it looks worse than Elder Scrolls Online. If SOE doesn't fix it (highly unlikely IMHO since it's probably taht way due to engine limitations), I think it won't fare well when it goes live.
Really? I played a lot of ESO and it's combat and animations were one of the worst parts about it imho. Each ability was bland and boring and the animations in general were completely comical. Like stiff dolls daintily swinging weapons like they're a teenage girl playing with a pool noodle.
The warrior and Tempest, with just 3 or 4 skills they showed off were already way more impressive and fun looking than ESO lol. To each their own, but are you sure you meant "Elder Scrolls Online" and not some other game? Seriously, those ESO combat animations lol... zzzzzz.
I actually don't understand why some people link action combat with kids and the console crowd. I am neither of those and I personally love action combat a whole lot more than tab target press 12345 type of games. You all sound like a bunch of unimaginative grumpy old coots lol.
I mean why does age play any part in whether or not someone likes action based combat? Why does console play any part in it at all. You all act like there has never been an action combat pc game rofl. People are weird. >.>
I'm 54 and I'll never play another MMO that features bland, boring, slow tab target combat. Nothing worse then people in groups who refuse to do anything other then stand still and go toe to toe with a boss and get 1 shot, or get out of the fire. Putting some of the elements of control at your fingers is what drew me to action combat In the first place.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
So basically dumbing down to you means making it action combat? Got it. Thanks for clarifying such an obviously opinionated statement that has zero relativity to what the discussion is all about.
SO basically you either didn't read or understand what I was saying. Also last I checked this discussion is about the "combat: in EQnext so talking about and discussing the actual combat IS what this discussion is about.
Also this is a forum which is all about opinions...your opinion is no more valid than mine because they are all personal opinions that carry the exact same relevance as in...none.
Such a sad state of affairs when people can't see.....or more likely refuse to see the innovation that is in EQN. I won't name them cause you won't listen to them. But I will say one thing, if all you're interested in playing EQ3....with the same tired linear questing elements, the boring combat routines and the forced social interactions then why not play EQ1 or 2? I hear they're still up and running. SOE has already said they were not making the same game that every studio has produced for the last 14 years. Why would they limit their market share by developing a game that only the current players want to play?
You won't name them because you can't. Let me try to help you out....there is destructible environments which they constantly try to sell based on the minecraft block formula anad will have "underground zones". And they mentioned something about no end game but haven't discussed how that is going to work in detail.
That about cover it? That about all the "innovation" that is generally spoken of in this game?
I should know better than to come and talk about a game in a negative light that people seem to hold up on a pedestal blindly, refusing to ask questions or call them out on what they did vs what they could have done. At any point did I say I hope this game fails or people should not play it? To the contrary I said I hope it it successful and people do play, I simply stated it's not for me. IF me not playing this game concerns you so much...I thank you for your concern, but by all means enjoy playing it I will find something else to do.
Disclaimer: I've never played EQ, so I don't have any emotional attachment to the franchise.
Graphics are nothing special, but likeable. Art style looks nice.
But combat and animations in general. Oh man, it looks worse than Elder Scrolls Online. If SOE doesn't fix it (highly unlikely IMHO since it's probably taht way due to engine limitations), I think it won't fare well when it goes live.
Really? I played a lot of ESO and it's combat and animations were one of the worst parts about it imho. Each ability was bland and boring and the animations in general were completely comical. Like stiff dolls daintily swinging weapons like they're a teenage girl playing with a pool noodle.
The warrior and Tempest, with just 3 or 4 skills they showed off were already way more impressive and fun looking than ESO lol. To each their own, but are you sure you meant "Elder Scrolls Online" and not some other game? Seriously, those ESO combat animations lol... zzzzzz.
Opinions
ESO's animations were not very good.
But EQNext animations are FAR worse - just look at the running animation .. hahahha
Again - it's all in the eye of the beholder.
...
Exactly what I was saying.
ESO's animations and combat are bad, but EQNext's look even worse.
I think its more a question on what is being criticized, not that it is. Running looks funny and animations are out of synch? That is an issue of being pre-alpha.
In regards to the award it was "Best in Show" because what was shown and talked about was worth it to them. Was that right? That can be debated as long as the facts are properly presented.
That sounds all well and good.. Problem is, that's the response to just about any criticism that I've seen.
I'm not even addressing whether it deserved best in show or not. That's not the point of my post.
My point is the double-standards people so blatantly embrace when it comes to games "they like" and have decided they're going to embrace and defend. It has nothing to do with what is being criticized. It's that it's being criticized at all that they take exception with. It's basically, "I've decided this is "my game", and you are not allowed to say negative things about it, because I am going to defend it". It happens all over the forums here, for every game, at just about any stage of its development/existence (hence the "you can't criticize it yet..." thing)...
I agree with you that those that like a game may defend any criticism against it simply because it's their game of choice. It is important to be objective as much as possible but often opinions of MMOs are highly subjective, in this case opinions are often about art style, the usefulness of voxels and the decision to have reticle combat vs. tab target. A lot of the technical aspects that would be objective arguments can fall under the "it's pre-alpha" simply because it is likely to improve before launch.
Then you have those poking the hornets nest with arguments that are inconsequential at best, trolling at worst. Some of it is blatantly obvious and, yes, could be ignored but it often comes with misinformation that to those who like the title should clarify for others who may be watching. I still will never understand what motivates them to comment on titles they seem to have no interest in other than to constantly find fault, especially if the reasons are shallow or simply untrue.
Disapointed..... It looks like a GW2 "clone" and this is what i feared the most. After trying Landmark and now seeing what direction the combat is going i cannot say that i look forward to this mmo....
Realy wanted to wait and see how this turned out and its not my thing to say the least. Hope the fans of EQN arent disapointed as that would be a tripple disaster for EQN.
Glad we have Archeage / Black Desert on the horizon as thats more what i like to play.
I cannot really tell from that video but how twitchy will this game be. Will it be like Wildstar ? Is there a lot of movement and avoiding and hitting keys ?
Comments
it's because neckbeards don't want to have to think or move their fingers too much, could cause them to overheat and possibly trigger cardiac arrest.
I respect that you have your own preconcieved notions of what an "RPG" looks like and gives you a greater sense of immersion (that's why most of us play MMORPGs) but you really didn't mention any universal reason other than your opinion. Why can't a reticle-based combat system also be considered an RPG? GW2 isn't a great comparison because they use a hybrid tab-target/dodge mechanic system. EQN will be fully reticle based and there will be "parkour(sp)" abilities like better jump and double jump that enhance the need for player skill. You may be able to get the timing down on what abilities you use in sucession but depending on the AI of mobs (not to mention PvP) your targets may not be as easy to fight as you think. Besides, tab based combat systems become even more redundant IMO because you mearly need to time the clicks in a certain order.
I think its more a question on what is being criticized, not that it is. Running looks funny and animations are out of synch? That is an issue of being pre-alpha.
In regards to the award it was "Best in Show" because what was shown and talked about was worth it to them. Was that right? That can be debated as long as the facts are properly presented.
Never once did I say a "reticle based system could not be an RPG". What I said was an action combat and move system/ "twitch" gameplay, so the GW2 comparison fits perfect. Mass Effect did a fine job of a reticle based RPG, that's not the issue. I've already expressed my feelings on the matter and don't expect to sway anyone (that wasn't the point) just offering my opinion as we all are....take it or leave it for what it's worth.
Do you think SOE is not capable of making a BD look a like? Is Forgelight just vastly crappier than BD's engine? Or is there a sliver of a chance they went the way they did for a reason?
I get that BD is very pretty, but it isn't in a year or two, it will probably already look dated when you factor in single player games, console games, etc that have a much faster update cycle.
On the other hand, EQN's voxel engine, class system, gear system, horizontal gameplay etc seem to shame what BD has going.
Great to see games made for different types of players though.
Can't tell if you are trolling or not, if so, good work.
Do we really need to spell this kind of stuff out to you? Ask yourself, what does this "gimmicky" voxel based, fully destructible world add to game play, in something... like... you know... a Siege of a fortress? Well this isn't like other games where a "spot" on the castle, like a door or a "weak side" is scripted to take damage and disappear when the HP bar reaches zero.
You can literally attack the structure from any side or angle. Hell, maybe you don't even attack it. Maybe you get a team of miners to dig a hole down and then dig horizontally under the castle and come up inside the court yard?
Also, with voxels, the landscape can change without direct intervention from a patch or expansion. You can log in one day and see the top of a mountain gone, now erupting as a volcano for some big Dragon event activated by the emergent AI system. Maybe an area that was just a green forest has had a giant meteor land on it and now it's a huge smoking creator with fire golems rushing out of it. A peaceful village can be in one spot 1 day, but overnight a band of orcs could burn it to the ground leaving nothing but half busted houses and orc-tents being set up by it's new residents.
In short, Voxels open up a huge range of possibilities when it comes to your game play experience.
And besides all this, I don't even feel like they're pushing voxels / destruction THAT hard. In fact, I clearly remember Smed saying something like "Destruction is great, but it's nothing compared to our Story Bricks partnership. The emergent AI is the real prize!" or words to that effect.
And they've also been pushing so many other great ideas and features right along side it. Horizontal progression, multi-classing, gear being about customization in ability and looks (not just some +stat items), Emergent AI, Action combat, Rallying calls, etc etc.
I dunno, maybe you're paying attention to the wrong videos or something. Or maybe you're just looking to complain.
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
Disclaimer: I've never played EQ, so I don't have any emotional attachment to the franchise.
Graphics are nothing special, but likeable. Art style looks nice.
But combat and animations in general. Oh man, it looks worse than Elder Scrolls Online. If SOE doesn't fix it (highly unlikely IMHO since it's probably taht way due to engine limitations), I think it won't fare well when it goes live.
Perfectly said.. +1..
Such a sad state of affairs when people can't see.....or more likely refuse to see the innovation that is in EQN. I won't name them cause you won't listen to them. But I will say one thing, if all you're interested in playing EQ3....with the same tired linear questing elements, the boring combat routines and the forced social interactions then why not play EQ1 or 2? I hear they're still up and running. SOE has already said they were not making the same game that every studio has produced for the last 14 years. Why would they limit their market share by developing a game that only the current players want to play?
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
So basically dumbing down to you means making it action combat? Got it. Thanks for clarifying such an obviously opinionated statement that has zero relativity to what the discussion is all about.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Really? I played a lot of ESO and it's combat and animations were one of the worst parts about it imho. Each ability was bland and boring and the animations in general were completely comical. Like stiff dolls daintily swinging weapons like they're a teenage girl playing with a pool noodle.
The warrior and Tempest, with just 3 or 4 skills they showed off were already way more impressive and fun looking than ESO lol. To each their own, but are you sure you meant "Elder Scrolls Online" and not some other game? Seriously, those ESO combat animations lol... zzzzzz.
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'm 54 and I'll never play another MMO that features bland, boring, slow tab target combat. Nothing worse then people in groups who refuse to do anything other then stand still and go toe to toe with a boss and get 1 shot, or get out of the fire. Putting some of the elements of control at your fingers is what drew me to action combat In the first place.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
SO basically you either didn't read or understand what I was saying. Also last I checked this discussion is about the "combat: in EQnext so talking about and discussing the actual combat IS what this discussion is about.
Also this is a forum which is all about opinions...your opinion is no more valid than mine because they are all personal opinions that carry the exact same relevance as in...none.
You won't name them because you can't. Let me try to help you out....there is destructible environments which they constantly try to sell based on the minecraft block formula anad will have "underground zones". And they mentioned something about no end game but haven't discussed how that is going to work in detail.
That about cover it? That about all the "innovation" that is generally spoken of in this game?
I should know better than to come and talk about a game in a negative light that people seem to hold up on a pedestal blindly, refusing to ask questions or call them out on what they did vs what they could have done. At any point did I say I hope this game fails or people should not play it? To the contrary I said I hope it it successful and people do play, I simply stated it's not for me. IF me not playing this game concerns you so much...I thank you for your concern, but by all means enjoy playing it I will find something else to do.
Exactly what I was saying.
ESO's animations and combat are bad, but EQNext's look even worse.
That sounds all well and good.. Problem is, that's the response to just about any criticism that I've seen.
I'm not even addressing whether it deserved best in show or not. That's not the point of my post.
My point is the double-standards people so blatantly embrace when it comes to games "they like" and have decided they're going to embrace and defend. It has nothing to do with what is being criticized. It's that it's being criticized at all that they take exception with. It's basically, "I've decided this is "my game", and you are not allowed to say negative things about it, because I am going to defend it". It happens all over the forums here, for every game, at just about any stage of its development/existence (hence the "you can't criticize it yet..." thing)...
I agree with you that those that like a game may defend any criticism against it simply because it's their game of choice. It is important to be objective as much as possible but often opinions of MMOs are highly subjective, in this case opinions are often about art style, the usefulness of voxels and the decision to have reticle combat vs. tab target. A lot of the technical aspects that would be objective arguments can fall under the "it's pre-alpha" simply because it is likely to improve before launch.
Then you have those poking the hornets nest with arguments that are inconsequential at best, trolling at worst. Some of it is blatantly obvious and, yes, could be ignored but it often comes with misinformation that to those who like the title should clarify for others who may be watching. I still will never understand what motivates them to comment on titles they seem to have no interest in other than to constantly find fault, especially if the reasons are shallow or simply untrue.
Finally...something EQN and not EQ Landmark.
Finally.
Disapointed.....
It looks like a GW2 "clone" and this is what i feared the most.
After trying Landmark and now seeing what direction the combat is going i cannot say that i look forward to this mmo....
Realy wanted to wait and see how this turned out and its not my thing to say the least.
Hope the fans of EQN arent disapointed as that would be a tripple disaster for EQN.
Glad we have Archeage / Black Desert on the horizon as thats more what i like to play.