Why is Dave Georgeson still in a position to ruin games? Then again I've been asking the same question about his idiot boss John Smedly for over a decade now. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
What SOE fails to realize is the type of people that like to build and be attracted to this sort of game don't PVP! PVP arenas failed big time in EQ2, and will fail here too. Why they think they'll encourage a PVP community in this type of game is beyond me. The combat is a nod towards how Janpanese or Korean developers do their combat. SOE's current crop of developers really are not that talented in creativity, they can code, but their creative juices are rubbish as a team.
Originally posted by IAmMMO What SOE fails to realize is the type of people that like to build and be attracted to this sort of game don't PVP! PVP arenas failed big time in EQ2, and will fail here too. Why they think they'll encourage a PVP community in this type of game is beyond me. The combat is a nod towards how Janpanese or Korean developers do their combat. SOE's current crop of developers really are not that talented in creativity, they can code, but their creative juices are rubbish as a team.
But you realize one of the most popular things to do in Minecraft is PvP arenas and Hunger Games which is pretty much survival pvp. So they probably see that and want to get some of those people. There is always a niche crowd for everything, and some of the building community happens to enjoy PvP in their games as well.
Originally posted by IAmMMO What SOE fails to realize is the type of people that like to build and be attracted to this sort of game don't PVP! PVP arenas failed big time in EQ2, and will fail here too. Why they think they'll encourage a PVP community in this type of game is beyond me. The combat is a nod towards how Janpanese or Korean developers do their combat. SOE's current crop of developers really are not that talented in creativity, they can code, but their creative juices are rubbish as a team.
But you realize one of the most popular things to do in Minecraft is PvP arenas and Hunger Games which is pretty much survival pvp. So they probably see that and want to get some of those people. There is always a niche crowd for everything, and some of the building community happens to enjoy PvP in their games as well.
Did a headcount did you? Those that PvP in Minecraft can make whatever rules and area they want.. That isnt going to happen in Landmark for some reasons. Many players left when they added PvP to LM and just now are they coming back with the addition of PvE. There are also new players coming in now and that didnt happen with PvP.
1. Claims arent going to get big enough to promote anything special.
2. Players cannot make custom rules. They can only choose from what SOE chooses to make. Anything more and FFA , TDM and CTF is expecting to much.
3. People are not going to be able to run custom Landmark servers.
Now the type of PvP Landmark could do is PvP servers with SOEs own custom rules... FFA , Faction , Contested Territory , Relic Capturing , Last Man Standing..etc.
The combat is atrocious. Not even as a "we were just trying to see if..." aspect is it acceptable. They need to scrap the concept and go back to the drawing board.
I have no problems with aimed combat. Honestly I'm sick and tired of playing tab target games where some archer or mage tabs me and presses a button and their attack curve balls and chases me for nasty burst damage even as I'm well away or hiding behind something.
This ain't it though. They really need to go steal some talent from Capcom, SNK Playmore, hell go find the guys who did the combat for Kingdoms Of Amalur or something.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Yes, because cartoony graphics with massive as fuck shoulder armor and bright primary colors is "new" and "different"...
Have you seen the recent patch items? No massive shoulders, overly done rainbow color use and compared to Wildstar/WoW, not too "cartoony" either. They said the human models will be updated next as surprise surprise, they aren't the finished product... Personally, EQ's SOL models are my favorite from previous games and they look just as "cartoony" as EQN. Simple not the exact same style.
So your defense of EQnext using action combat are those games? NW (empty), Tera (empty), Wildstart (empty), GW2 (empty), and ESO. ESO is the only game you listed that is doing half way okay and even that is completely underperforming when you take into consideration the Elder Scrolls franchise and how many fans they have to start with.
So unless a game is WoW or as big as WoW, it is empty and a failure? Got it. Going by your requirements, every single other mmorpg (especially fantasy) is a flop. Guess SOE better go back to the drawing board and make another WoW clone, er EQ3.
Again going by the numbers logic, all TAB mmorpgs have failed besides WoW as well. Guess if you aren't working for Blizzard on WoW, should find a different profession as no matter what you make, going to have a failure...
If your best defense are the games you listed, you should probably take a step back from your EQnext fetish and reevaluate why you are being so positive about it.
I'm being positive because I like what I see, plain and simple. Maybe you should take a step back from your WoW fetish and realize there are other ways to make games that people enjoy.
The landmark servers are empty. No one plays the game. Its a paid alpha/beta and still no one who paid bothers logging in. People clearly are not enjoying it. The combat is just one more thing to throw on the pile of terrible that is being shoved down everyone's throat as Everquest. I actually received an email from SOE yesterday listing reasons why I should come back and play landmark some more, a beta. When you have to start marketing the game to people who have already paid, your game is in trouble.
Lots of people haven't been playing because they were waiting for the recent patch which brought a lot more to the game. Same when the AI tools are added. Not a huge difference from WoW and people leaving and coming back for an expansion. Landmark is in beta and it has wipes. Dumping hours and hours of time into a beta usually isn't usually the best use of time. Landmark has people playing, maybe join general chat or something. Not thousands or millions, but it isn't at a point where that makes any sense currently.
Worst example of EQ2 Is better in some ways than best example EQNext. Notice that the character is still proportioned in a better way for the race, and the lack of giant eyes and hominid posture is also a better choice.
The textures and detail are not up to par for a modern game, but it's an old game. This attempt at ridicule failed, because for me that picture is EQ. A newer version should have been like that but improved, not a cartoon.
The eyes have two functions, SOEmote and use of dramatic emotes and what not and simply part of the art style. EQ2 like so many other games shares in the dead fish eyes and emotionless look. Not that you can really see it without zooming in or whatever, but same goes for Black Desert and its very high end models. In regular panned out POV, it is totally wasted.
Where are you seeing the "hominid" posture? Hunched over or knuckle dragging going on that I'm not seeing or you talking about something else? They are also going for the "heroic" look which might be part of it, don't know though.
I loved EQ's original and more so, SOL models. Hated and now laugh at EQ2 models. So it is simply a matter of personal taste. EQ2 looks like ReBoot and not EQ to me. EQ looks like EQ. EQN looks like EQN. When these games have very different art styles, there is no defining characteristics that any new game must follow to fit in with the cool kids. Unless you believe EQ2 looks like EQ1?
Human models will be getting a face lift (literally I hope) coming up. They aren't the final design. While I think the large eyes and general look will remain, hopefully the faces will get some more detail and life beyond the perfect disney photo shop look they have now. We shall see.
x1000 wrong. Any product will be evaluated initially and sometimes perpetually on its aesthetics. The game that SOE is making is not up to the standard of technological achievement as perceived by the gaming public. They are aiming to get console and MOBA players, so there are all kinds of considerations for how the game will be matched up in the market. People don't care about excuses (destructible world, longevity, etc.), they only care about the product they see. And don't compare it to minecraft because that was the indy equivalent of WoW. EQNext is just a mish mash of features thrown together under an IP that they threw under the bus.
How do you speak for the gaming public? I'm a member and you don't seem to have my opinion factored in.
While the style they've chosen isn't Black Desert, I don't know of many other cartoony or stylized games that look better from a graphics of tech perspective.
Think about how the Wii had an innovative control system, but didn't match up to the visuals on PS3 or Xbox360 AND was aimed more at kids. Nintendo sold a lot of units initially , but the cartoon graphics and gimmicky controller didn't keep people around.
Very true, the Mario, Zelda, DK, etc franchises had very short life spans... I just bought a Wii U, even though the games don't look anything like Destiny or insert high end graphics game. Still having a blast with all the co-op games that PS4/XBO lack.
The other segment of the population is the PC MMORPG crowd. A good portion of which are WoW vets who have just been given a graphics upgrade to their game. There is a small wandering audience and a large temporary audience that peeks in at any new Game.
So thise segment that had no problem playing WoW which is even sillier looking then EQN/LM will have an issue with stylized graphics now?
EQNext punches you in the face with a cartoony look that many people will simply bypass for simpler but better looking games, especially on the console.
Which would be? Guess I missed all the upcoming competition. Black Desert is the only "better" looking game I see and its style of combat is even more over the top compared to Landmark's which people seem to be flipping out about. But I'm guessing they'll be okay with its crazy combat since it looks pretty?
EQNext is on a course toward underperforming in a market that has better looking games, and also sandbox games that do a better job of taking the PC MMORPG player into consideration.
Again, which are? I must need to get out more because I sure am not seeing what you are.
Originally posted by Vutar So what he's saying is, even though action style combat has failed in every MMORPG to date, the EQnext team refuses to acknowledge this and will charge ahead into the abyss. Okay, I guess.
All I hear is, "I don't like action combat. Therefore, it must have failed."
Originally posted by Vutar So what he's saying is, even though action style combat has failed in every MMORPG to date, the EQnext team refuses to acknowledge this and will charge ahead into the abyss. Okay, I guess.
All I hear is, "I don't like action combat. Therefore, it must have failed."
You want a little more cheese with that whine?
You have summed up what a vast majority of the game failure posts are about around here of late.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Originally posted by Vutar So what he's saying is, even though action style combat has failed in every MMORPG to date, the EQnext team refuses to acknowledge this and will charge ahead into the abyss. Okay, I guess.
All I hear is, "I don't like action combat. Therefore, it must have failed."
You want a little more cheese with that whine?
Really, cause all I hear is, "I don't have any points either, so I will make a stupid comment and whine about whiners."
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Really, cause all I hear is, "I don't have any points either, so I will make a stupid comment and whine about whiners."
It's kind of hard to have a constructive conversation when people make such generalizations. Like the art style is stupid for example. There's no real room for any logic or back and forth. Slapping fail or stupid and dismissing things without any objective reasoning or facts beyond personal tastes and beliefs really keeps it one sided.
We aren't going to all agree obviously, but if people are going to waste their time posting on forums, might as well leave some room for discussion. At least that's what I thought the point was. Guess others just like to drop in, say fail, and move on. Mission accomplished?
I like having multiple sides and views, keeps it interesting, just wish there was a bit more substance overall. Instead of saying "fail" or "stupid" maybe suggestions or ideas of what could be done differently beyond "start over." Wishful thinking I guess.
Really, cause all I hear is, "I don't have any points either, so I will make a stupid comment and whine about whiners."
It's kind of hard to have a constructive conversation when people make such generalizations. Like the art style is stupid for example. There's no real room for any logic or back and forth. Slapping fail or stupid and dismissing things without any objective reasoning or facts beyond personal tastes and beliefs really keeps it one sided.
We aren't going to all agree obviously, but if people are going to waste their time posting on forums, might as well leave some room for discussion. At least that's what I thought the point was. Guess others just like to drop in, say fail, and move on. Mission accomplished?
I like having multiple sides and views, keeps it interesting, just wish there was a bit more substance overall. Instead of saying "fail" or "stupid" maybe suggestions or ideas of what could be done differently beyond "start over." Wishful thinking I guess.
Yeah, I agree but my post and the one preceding it were not discussion. You do a good job of being mostly about the discussion and a discourse that has value. You should try to ignore the stuff that doesn't pertain to an actual discussion, and I say that with sincerity and no ill-will, etc.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
In a short, but meaningful, post on the Landmark forum, Dave "Smokejumper" Georgeson acknowledges that the team should have better prepared players for combat in Landmark. Choosing, he says, to get input from the community releasing it in its early form without that preparation was a mistake.
I've been reading a bunch of the threads here blah blah blah
Combat will improve just as the rest of the game has improved since Alpha. You'll see.
This is still Closed Beta and this game is still in development. More to come!
Not sure what the kerfuffle is about? Check out the combat video released by SOE below:
i dunno if i remember well but landmark was supposed to be a free to play builder game with paid early access to be released into the end for 2013.. am i wrong with this ?
now this is an alpha where you pay to do the job others are paying for and to generate content others are paying for ... nice
Originally posted by Vutar So what he's saying is, even though action style combat has failed in every MMORPG to date, the EQnext team refuses to acknowledge this and will charge ahead into the abyss. Okay, I guess.
All I hear is, "I don't like action combat. Therefore, it must have failed."
You want a little more cheese with that whine?
You have summed up what a vast majority of the game failure posts are about around here of late.
Have to agree. There are a few people on the forum that hate action combat and I guess were fans of EQ who are slamming a game that has not even been released because they are disappointed in the choice of combat system.
It is a similar story with the inclusion of pvp in LM, suddenly the sole reason LM has "failed" is because they added rudimentary pvp to test combat.
Comments
Why is Dave Georgeson still in a position to ruin games? Then again I've been asking the same question about his idiot boss John Smedly for over a decade now. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
But you realize one of the most popular things to do in Minecraft is PvP arenas and Hunger Games which is pretty much survival pvp. So they probably see that and want to get some of those people. There is always a niche crowd for everything, and some of the building community happens to enjoy PvP in their games as well.
Did a headcount did you? Those that PvP in Minecraft can make whatever rules and area they want.. That isnt going to happen in Landmark for some reasons. Many players left when they added PvP to LM and just now are they coming back with the addition of PvE. There are also new players coming in now and that didnt happen with PvP.
1. Claims arent going to get big enough to promote anything special.
2. Players cannot make custom rules. They can only choose from what SOE chooses to make. Anything more and FFA , TDM and CTF is expecting to much.
3. People are not going to be able to run custom Landmark servers.
Now the type of PvP Landmark could do is PvP servers with SOEs own custom rules... FFA , Faction , Contested Territory , Relic Capturing , Last Man Standing..etc.
The combat is atrocious. Not even as a "we were just trying to see if..." aspect is it acceptable. They need to scrap the concept and go back to the drawing board.
I have no problems with aimed combat. Honestly I'm sick and tired of playing tab target games where some archer or mage tabs me and presses a button and their attack curve balls and chases me for nasty burst damage even as I'm well away or hiding behind something.
This ain't it though. They really need to go steal some talent from Capcom, SNK Playmore, hell go find the guys who did the combat for Kingdoms Of Amalur or something.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Have you seen the recent patch items? No massive shoulders, overly done rainbow color use and compared to Wildstar/WoW, not too "cartoony" either. They said the human models will be updated next as surprise surprise, they aren't the finished product... Personally, EQ's SOL models are my favorite from previous games and they look just as "cartoony" as EQN. Simple not the exact same style.
The eyes have two functions, SOEmote and use of dramatic emotes and what not and simply part of the art style. EQ2 like so many other games shares in the dead fish eyes and emotionless look. Not that you can really see it without zooming in or whatever, but same goes for Black Desert and its very high end models. In regular panned out POV, it is totally wasted.
Where are you seeing the "hominid" posture? Hunched over or knuckle dragging going on that I'm not seeing or you talking about something else? They are also going for the "heroic" look which might be part of it, don't know though.
I loved EQ's original and more so, SOL models. Hated and now laugh at EQ2 models. So it is simply a matter of personal taste. EQ2 looks like ReBoot and not EQ to me. EQ looks like EQ. EQN looks like EQN. When these games have very different art styles, there is no defining characteristics that any new game must follow to fit in with the cool kids. Unless you believe EQ2 looks like EQ1?
Human models will be getting a face lift (literally I hope) coming up. They aren't the final design. While I think the large eyes and general look will remain, hopefully the faces will get some more detail and life beyond the perfect disney photo shop look they have now. We shall see.
I find it funny that some people in this thread are trying to disparage "action combat" as a whole just because some devs design it poorly.
Landmark's combat doesn't look too bad, but it does seem very fast paced in that video.
All I hear is, "I don't like action combat. Therefore, it must have failed."
You want a little more cheese with that whine?
You have summed up what a vast majority of the game failure posts are about around here of late.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Really, cause all I hear is, "I don't have any points either, so I will make a stupid comment and whine about whiners."
It's kind of hard to have a constructive conversation when people make such generalizations. Like the art style is stupid for example. There's no real room for any logic or back and forth. Slapping fail or stupid and dismissing things without any objective reasoning or facts beyond personal tastes and beliefs really keeps it one sided.
We aren't going to all agree obviously, but if people are going to waste their time posting on forums, might as well leave some room for discussion. At least that's what I thought the point was. Guess others just like to drop in, say fail, and move on. Mission accomplished?
I like having multiple sides and views, keeps it interesting, just wish there was a bit more substance overall. Instead of saying "fail" or "stupid" maybe suggestions or ideas of what could be done differently beyond "start over." Wishful thinking I guess.
Yeah, I agree but my post and the one preceding it were not discussion. You do a good job of being mostly about the discussion and a discourse that has value. You should try to ignore the stuff that doesn't pertain to an actual discussion, and I say that with sincerity and no ill-will, etc.
i dunno if i remember well but landmark was supposed to be a free to play builder game with paid early access to be released into the end for 2013.. am i wrong with this ?
now this is an alpha where you pay to do the job others are paying for and to generate content others are paying for ... nice
Have to agree. There are a few people on the forum that hate action combat and I guess were fans of EQ who are slamming a game that has not even been released because they are disappointed in the choice of combat system.
It is a similar story with the inclusion of pvp in LM, suddenly the sole reason LM has "failed" is because they added rudimentary pvp to test combat.