I'm saying that SOE paid a team of developers to design a game they could take to market and they have failed to do that for over seven years now. You can squabble over what you think caused that failure all you want, but the only important aspect is they failed with multiple attempts during massive time frame.
If you pay a team $100 million to develop an MMO and after 5 years their only result is throwing out everything they developed, TWICE, and starting over a third time, then that is the very definition of failure. You can try to use new world thinking and paint this as some sort of success that has been deferred to a future time, but that is just plain nonsense.
Why assume the worst?!?!?! Perhaps because there is literally nothing to support a best case scenario? The history of failures surrounding the company? The closure of the forums? The lack of communication from the developers? The loss of Storybricks? The firing of the lead designers? The loss in manpower? The lack of interest from fans? The sale of the company to an investment firm?
Can you tell me why anyone should assume the best case scenario? Other than "hey pigs might learn to fly, so anything is possible."
This and this again.. Perfectly said.. TY
Originally posted by Aelious Suig
Allien and myself have tried to give known information and keep things as factual, as can be in this situation, as possible but as you said you won't beleive it anyways so what's the point? It has gotten way too heated, on both sides, and the only thing left is to just avoid the noise. In reality, we're all trying to predict what will be based on nothing we can directly control. My only reason for entering this arena, literally, is because some people think their view of the situation is fact even though they couldn't possibly know and there is information contradictory from more reliable sources. From there dogs in the fight came out and I'm not going to participate in other people's grudges anymore.
So you're right, its not worth it but there are no victims here. If anything it's inventive to come up with topics not so based around spite and negatively. I'm looking forward to EQN.
Sorry Aelious, but through this entire situation of EQN over multiple post, many of us have repeated our concerns about EQN, both from a gameplay issue to very REAL technical issues that plague the hardware limitations.. NONE of our concerns are being addressed and responded to.. Being a "devil's advocate" many times in life I see so many Murphy's Law that it's almost instinctive to ask what if.. I know some of us share the same questions, over and over, and conveniently no one has ever cornered a dev to respond to very obvious questions.. I wonder why.. Fear of not having an answer to a problem, which is probably why Storybricks is gone and EQN isn't any closer to development then Landmark buildings..
So anytime you have some FACTS to my concerns, let me know.. Cause all I'm reading from a few here are hopeful speculation based on hearsay and word of mouth..
Context is the ability to see the events surrounding why something happened and is important for complete understanding. It's not mythical that DGC decided to go a different direction with EQN September of 2011, thus causing the total time of development of the next EverQuest. Does that indicate failure? That depends on how EQN ends up since we'll never know what would have been with the other themepark versions.
It's not mythical that Landmark doesn't have the features in place yet to gain and maintain a decent population of average "Joe Gamers." When Landmark does have those tools AND it still has the population it does now would it seem reasonable to say it is a failure.
Thing is, people can have opinions but when they come to a specific forum it's expected that they know something about the MMO they are referring to and making claims on, unless they are trolling. That's the point I just figure they have a bone to pick with DGC or the design of EQN, which lessens the validity of their claims. I could give my top ten reasons I think EQN could be a failure but why? Seems people are already holding the fort on that end lol.
This is what Rydeson meant when he said you talk around the truth.
No where do you say anything of substance while completely trying to dismiss and discredit actual information. Exactly what context do you think may exist that would change those two previous design efforts to create an MMO into anything but what they are... failures?
Interestingly enough, you had no problem speaking with authority about why the developers cancelled the first two attempts to create EQN when it suits your views, when someone else does you then claim no one can know such things and we can't use those events in any meaningful way? You can't have it both ways.
If you really want context then look no further than Landmark. Even if you don't want to admit that it is EQN, it too is representative of the developmental failures surrounding this project. It is the tangible results of 7 years of developmental efforts and speaks all that needs to be said.
Context is the ability to see the events surrounding why something happened and is important for complete understanding. It's not mythical that DGC decided to go a different direction with EQN September of 2011, thus causing the total time of development of the next EverQuest. Does that indicate failure? That depends on how EQN ends up since we'll never know what would have been with the other themepark versions.
It's not mythical that Landmark doesn't have the features in place yet to gain and maintain a decent population of average "Joe Gamers." When Landmark does have those tools AND it still has the population it does now would it seem reasonable to say it is a failure.
Thing is, people can have opinions but when they come to a specific forum it's expected that they know something about the MMO they are referring to and making claims on, unless they are trolling. That's the point I just figure they have a bone to pick with DGC or the design of EQN, which lessens the validity of their claims. I could give my top ten reasons I think EQN could be a failure but why? Seems people are already holding the fort on that end lol.
This is what Rydeson meant when he said you talk around the truth.
No where do you say anything of substance while completely trying to dismiss and discredit actual information. Exactly what context do you think may exist that would change those two previous design efforts to create an MMO into anything but what they are... failures?
Interestingly enough, you had no problem speaking with authority about why the developers cancelled the first two attempts to create EQN when it suits your views, when someone else does you then claim no one can know such things and we can't use those events in any meaningful way? You can't have it both ways.
If you really want context then look no further than Landmark. Even if you don't want to admit that it is EQN, it too is representative of the developmental failures surrounding this project. It is the tangible results of 7 years of developmental efforts and speaks all that needs to be said.
This from the king of making up facts lol At least Aelious says things like, this is my guess. But when you use conjecture you spin it as fact.
If you share Suig's sentiments and don't trust what information DGC is or has released I totally get that and things make more sense. You can't expect myself or anyone else that has followed EQN to give information on things that haven't been talked about by the devs.
Combining distrust of the only knowledgable source and expectation of Murphy's Law is going to have a great effect on how you view anytging. I mean my life motto is hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Completely understandable. In the future just expect that if I do respond to your posts, unless it's opinion based of course, that it's not necessarily for you but spectators.
We may just have to agree to disagree. I'm not talking around the truth, I am providing the only known information surrounding the "reimiagining" of the next EverQuest. You know why? Because neither of us were in those meetings or prototype evaluations. You can GUESS as to the reason for the change but what I've posted came from the mouths of people from DGC. If you don't believe that information as being truthful I can't help that.
Regarding Landmark. If you read the Jan '14 of PC Gamer you'll see what I'm taking about. Landmark's purpose was to not only help build assets for EQN but also be a standalone sandbox for players to create their own content. That is still planned according to the "blueprint" but is not currently there. I'm not surprised at all regarding the current population because the tools that would keep the everyday gamer playing aren't there yet.
If you still think I'm talking around truth than ask me a singular direct question. It may just be I don't have the answer you're looking for.
Everything in my experience and I have read tells me me to answer "No".
SOE = Fail
Landmark = Fail
New Company never heard anything from = fail
Combat like GW2/WS = fail
Everyone learning everything = fail.
The game sounds more like its cracking up to be the next big single player game with other people getting in your way. Sounds like GW2 part 2. Sounds like they took everything people loved about EQ and replaced it with everything except what people liked. Between the information available, and the many many many bridges burned by these same Devs...leads me to my personal opinion that there isn't anything here to be hyped about, and suggest the burden of proving that wrong be placed on the Dev/Company and not blind faith of the fans. If it doesn't suck, they should not charge money for early access/testing/beta/alpha/whatever. If its not terrible, they should let it be tried for free (not even referring to f2p, i mean like 5 day trail, 10 hours, something). Stop throwing money at them before they redeem. Place the burden of making a good game on them, and convincing you that its good.
If you share Suig's sentiments and don't trust what information DGC is or has released I totally get that and things make more sense. You can't expect myself or anyone else that has followed EQN to give information on things that haven't been talked about by the devs.
Combining distrust of the only knowledgable source and expectation of Murphy's Law is going to have a great effect on how you view anytging. I mean my life motto is hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Completely understandable. In the future just expect that if I do respond to your posts, unless it's opinion based of course, that it's not necessarily for you but spectators.
I've heard and seen the same sources as you have, maybe not as many. I pretty much gave up on that. I would be very hesitant to call these declarations as 'information' and a 'knowledgable (sic) source'. At best, the developers have outlined promises of desired game features, not solid, indisputable deliverable facts. About the only fact that most of the community can agree on is that on day n at event e1, dev x said 'y'. Calling 'y' an actual fact rather than a promise or goal or marketing hype pushes many people's credibility limits. It becomes a matter of trust, some trust that 'y' is a fact, others do not. Trust is built over time, and, for many, the developers in question have been found to be untrustworthy, for whatever reason.
That is why I think DGC's decision to shut down the forums and essentially go 'silent' on EQ:N is a beginning effort to heal this divide and rebuild trust to a universal level. They will take this time to develop a strategy and plan for future project related announcements. We may see them step away from all previous promises that have been made, and maybe even a name change to try to step away from older information, opinions, rumors and misinformation. If you search this site for 'EQ:N' you will see the sheer number of threads that are already in existence, each discussing aspects of the communities impressions of this project, and all the news (and pseudo-news) concerning this project. This silent mode will probably last until they figure out which way they want to proceed, and that will be a way that does the least harm to their product, their company, and the reputations of both.
At this point, I really expect that the next official announcement from DGC will be the first step in re-booting the project, and re-educating the community. It will not surprise me at all to see a name change for this project, maybe even dropping the 'Everquest' brand in favor of something else, maybe a 'new' IP.
How this project proceeds from here is anyone's guess. Any way they choose to proceed, we're in for an interesting time.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
(1) We may just have to agree to disagree. I'm not talking around the truth, I am providing the only known information surrounding the "reimiagining" of the next EverQuest. You know why? Because neither of us were in those meetings or prototype evaluations. You can GUESS as to the reason for the change but what I've posted came from the mouths of people from DGC. If you don't believe that information as being truthful I can't help that.
(2) Regarding Landmark. If you read the Jan '14 of PC Gamer you'll see what I'm taking about. Landmark's purpose was to not only help build assets for EQN but also be a standalone sandbox for players to create their own content. That is still planned according to the "blueprint" but is not currently there. I'm not surprised at all regarding the current population because the tools that would keep the everyday gamer playing aren't there yet.
If you still think I'm talking around truth than ask me a singular direct question. It may just be I don't have the answer you're looking for.
(1) You put too much faith in what the developers say while turning a blind eye to everything else that is actually happening. So no, you really are not posting the only known information.
And just to clear this up, since you cannot seem to understand the point I was making. I'm not guessing at WHY the changes were made. Read that again before you go floating off in some other tangent accusing me of things I don't know. I'm saying the team twice failed to deliver a game that the company would release. That is a fact, not a guess. I don't care why, I just know the teams was tasked with making a product the company could sell and twice their designs resulted in failure to do that.
(2) I point out Landmark as an example of what the development team is capable of producing and you talk about what it was intended to be and how "it isn't there yet". This is why I give up on asking you direct questions and why you have been called out for talking around the truth.
Landmark is a more accurate representation of what the EQN team is capable of beyond any of the excuses you are going to offer for its condition and lack of success.
(1) We may just have to agree to disagree. I'm not talking around the truth, I am providing the only known information surrounding the "reimiagining" of the next EverQuest. You know why? Because neither of us were in those meetings or prototype evaluations. You can GUESS as to the reason for the change but what I've posted came from the mouths of people from DGC. If you don't believe that information as being truthful I can't help that.
(2) Regarding Landmark. If you read the Jan '14 of PC Gamer you'll see what I'm taking about. Landmark's purpose was to not only help build assets for EQN but also be a standalone sandbox for players to create their own content. That is still planned according to the "blueprint" but is not currently there. I'm not surprised at all regarding the current population because the tools that would keep the everyday gamer playing aren't there yet.
If you still think I'm talking around truth than ask me a singular direct question. It may just be I don't have the answer you're looking for.
(1) You put too much faith in what the developers say while turning a blind eye to everything else that is actually happening. So no, you really are not posting the only known information.
And just to clear this up, since you cannot seem to understand the point I was making. I'm not guessing at WHY the changes were made. Read that again before you go floating off in some other tangent accusing me of things I don't know. I'm saying the team twice failed to deliver a game that the company would release. That is a fact, not a guess. I don't care why, I just know the teams was tasked with making a product the company could sell and twice their designs resulted in failure to do that.
(2) I point out Landmark as an example of what the development team is capable of producing and you talk about what it was intended to be and how "it isn't there yet". This is why I give up on asking you direct questions and why you have been called out for talking around the truth.
Landmark is a more accurate representation of what the EQN team is capable of beyond any of the excuses you are going to offer for its condition and lack of success.
(1) Oh I understood the point you are trying to make. The only fact is that they shelved the first two iterations of the next EverQuest for what is now EQN. We agree on that. It's the reason for the other ones being shelved that we are arguing and neither of us really know other than what has been told to us. If you say the reason doesn't matter you are ignoring key elements to your case. SoE Live '12 Smedley stated that the iterations they had of the next EverQuest was too "me too" in comparison the other EverQuests (and the market in general) and they went back to the drawing board. If EQN was the same type of MMO as the other iterations were I'd agree with you that it was developer mistakes that led to the other ones being shelved. This isn't the case, EQN is a different type of game. They changed their vision for the next EverQuest. Why? Well they've stated why and the info is out there.
(2) Landmark is exactly what it is supposed to be: An open, in-development MMO that is being added to, subtracted from, and all tweaks in-between in real time while people are playing it/testing it. If you're judging it as a completed and polished product you didn't read the side of the box. That's why I said what I did, the tools and functionality aren't in to attract anyone but builders. It's only half a sandbox at this point. I personally think they've done a good job thus far though I will change my mind if they decide not to add in full content creation tools. Are you asserting that because populations are low that it means the quality of Landmark is to blame?
I'm not sure what truth I'm supposed to be talking around. I asked that you provide a singular question since you're accusing me of it but nothing. If you want to say or think that DGC is failing as a developer on EQN and Landmark because of x,y,z you don't need my approval, you're free to think what you would like there's really no proof to it other than your opinion.
If you share Suig's sentiments and don't trust what information DGC is or has released I totally get that and things make more sense. You can't expect myself or anyone else that has followed EQN to give information on things that haven't been talked about by the devs.
Combining distrust of the only knowledgable source and expectation of Murphy's Law is going to have a great effect on how you view anytging. I mean my life motto is hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Completely understandable. In the future just expect that if I do respond to your posts, unless it's opinion based of course, that it's not necessarily for you but spectators.
I've heard and seen the same sources as you have, maybe not as many. I pretty much gave up on that. I would be very hesitant to call these declarations as 'information' and a 'knowledgable (sic) source'. At best, the developers have outlined promises of desired game features, not solid, indisputable deliverable facts. About the only fact that most of the community can agree on is that on day n at event e1, dev x said 'y'. Calling 'y' an actual fact rather than a promise or goal or marketing hype pushes many people's credibility limits. It becomes a matter of trust, some trust that 'y' is a fact, others do not. Trust is built over time, and, for many, the developers in question have been found to be untrustworthy, for whatever reason.
That is why I think DGC's decision to shut down the forums and essentially go 'silent' on EQ:N is a beginning effort to heal this divide and rebuild trust to a universal level. They will take this time to develop a strategy and plan for future project related announcements. We may see them step away from all previous promises that have been made, and maybe even a name change to try to step away from older information, opinions, rumors and misinformation. If you search this site for 'EQ:N' you will see the sheer number of threads that are already in existence, each discussing aspects of the communities impressions of this project, and all the news (and pseudo-news) concerning this project. This silent mode will probably last until they figure out which way they want to proceed, and that will be a way that does the least harm to their product, their company, and the reputations of both.
At this point, I really expect that the next official announcement from DGC will be the first step in re-booting the project, and re-educating the community. It will not surprise me at all to see a name change for this project, maybe even dropping the 'Everquest' brand in favor of something else, maybe a 'new' IP.
How this project proceeds from here is anyone's guess. Any way they choose to proceed, we're in for an interesting time.
I agree with this for the most part other than the end portion. I don't think DGC has any reason to change course on the EverQuest portion of EQN. If they lose people because of the connection I don't see how they would hope to keep them anyways since another "EverQuest" wouldn't be more than a prototype. Plus you have the added cost of reevaluating the world assets (that was said to be seeded and worked on prior to Live '13) as well as the lore. I guess anything is possible it just wouldn't make sense to me.
Regarding "known information", that's all I've tried to provide and be careful about when I inject my own personal stances. I get that the sources may not be trusted but it's literally the only source that would know. Right now, EQN is being played/tested inside the walls of DGC while us out here are arguing about how it will turn out or what state it's in. There are bits and pieces that arguments can be made from, using "official" sources. To me that is far more relevant than the opinion of someone using their "experience" in playing MMOs to say why things behind closed doors are happening.
Too many half-arsed releases over the past seven or eight years have made me as jaded as feck when it comes to looking forward to new titles. I may look into EQN again when the actually have a product, but right now they don't have shit to show.
As it stands,I couldn't give a rat's arse about any of the titles on the horizon.
(1) We may just have to agree to disagree. I'm not talking around the truth, I am providing the only known information surrounding the "reimiagining" of the next EverQuest. You know why? Because neither of us were in those meetings or prototype evaluations. You can GUESS as to the reason for the change but what I've posted came from the mouths of people from DGC. If you don't believe that information as being truthful I can't help that.
(2) Regarding Landmark. If you read the Jan '14 of PC Gamer you'll see what I'm taking about. Landmark's purpose was to not only help build assets for EQN but also be a standalone sandbox for players to create their own content. That is still planned according to the "blueprint" but is not currently there. I'm not surprised at all regarding the current population because the tools that would keep the everyday gamer playing aren't there yet.
If you still think I'm talking around truth than ask me a singular direct question. It may just be I don't have the answer you're looking for.
(1) You put too much faith in what the developers say while turning a blind eye to everything else that is actually happening. So no, you really are not posting the only known information.
Their word is worth miles more then yours or any other negative nay sayer on a forum.
And just to clear this up, since you cannot seem to understand the point I was making. I'm not guessing at WHY the changes were made. Read that again before you go floating off in some other tangent accusing me of things I don't know. I'm saying the team twice failed to deliver a game that the company would release. That is a fact, not a guess. I don't care why, I just know the teams was tasked with making a product the company could sell and twice their designs resulted in failure to do that.
Where do we have facts it failed twice. Maybe round one would have released and done well. Who is to say. You are guessing on the negative side of it. All we have is the devs words that the first two iterations were not what they wanted. They wanted something next gen. Will they have that? who knows. lots of RD here.
(2) I point out Landmark as an example of what the development team is capable of producing and you talk about what it was intended to be and how "it isn't there yet". This is why I give up on asking you direct questions and why you have been called out for talking around the truth.
Because you fail to see your judging a beta project as a finished project. Its not there yet is the right words from him. The fact you are to thick to get what he is saying is not his fault.
Landmark is a more accurate representation of what the EQN team is capable of beyond any of the excuses you are going to offer for its condition and lack of success.
You have no clue what they are capable of at this point. Lets wait and see what their first finished project, as a new company with new owners, looks like before you pre-judge. Bad start At this point no one knows if anything they will make will be good or bad.
I am moderatly hyped about the game, would sure be grea to head over to Norrath again.
Having different mechanics is not a problem to me as long as they work and the game is fun. But I do fear it will release in a worse shape than even EQ2 was at launch.
If Daybreak do their homework and actually release the game when it is ready I think it actually will be very fun.
Their word is worth miles more then yours or any other negative nay sayer on a forum.
Just because others point those things out doesn't mean it is a case of their word vs the developer.
Like I can say, "SOE was sold" or "Columbus Nova let go roughly half of the company" and it isn't a case of my word vs the developers. You choosing to ignoring everything except for what developers said years ago when they were a different company with different lead designers in charge, you are more than welcome to... but there is more to the situation that just what developers say.
Ironically remember a few weeks ago when you were arguing against everyone that roughly half of SOE/Daybreak wasn't fired... even though developers confirmed it with EQ news sites and the Daybreak filing in California was second confirmation... Good times. /s
Where do we have facts it failed twice. Maybe round one would have released and done well. Who is to say. You are guessing on the negative side of it. All we have is the devs words that the first two iterations were not what they wanted. They wanted something next gen. Will they have that? who knows. lots of RD here.
I'm not guessing, I'm not speculating how the game would have done if it was ever released, but thank you for validating my point.
The team was charged with designing something next gen, but the first two iterations did not succeed in delivering what the company wanted.
When someone is tasked with doing something and they don't achieve the goal that was set.... they have failed. No joke, it is the very first *example* in the Merriam-Webster dictionary to describe the word fail.
The irony is that you ponder if Daybreaks third attempt at EQN will be the next gen design they want. So if their third attempt is not the next gen design they want then they have ________ to get the design they wanted from the team they tasked with designing it? A) Succeeded Failed
I do agree that no one will ever know how those first two designs would have done if they were released. The fact that SOE had more faith in throwing out millions of dollars and years worth of work instead of releasing either of those designs is pretty damning about what was delivered, but who knows right? Just to be balanced for you, maybe those designs were good, but just not good enough to meet the standards SOE has set for MMOs they release.
Because you fail to see your judging a beta project as a finished project. Its not there yet is the right words from him. The fact you are to thick to get what he is saying is not his fault.
Where did I say it is a finished product? The lack of finish is exactly one of the points I was making about this teams capabilities. Again, thank you for validating my points.
You too seem to ignore reality of what is in front of you and instead try to replace that with some possibility that someday something positive might happen and you can then point to that as evidence of whatever it is you desire.
The hilarity of the situation really flies over the head of the blind fans. After failing two designs for the first game, the EQN team was moved to make a second game. The goal of the second game was to have players make content for the third iteration of the first game. The second game is still in testing with no end in sight, so it isn't much help to the first game. Meanwhile the first game is waiting for the second game to get out of beta testing so it can get assets the players will make and then build the first game which will eventually go into testing.
and that is the condensed version...
You have no clue what they are capable of at this point. Lets wait and see what their finished project looks like before you pre-judge. Bad start
I think everyone has seen enough of what SOE has put out over the last 10 years to have an excellent idea of what this team is or rather isn't capable of.
Where do we have facts it failed twice. Maybe round one would have released and done well. Who is to say. You are guessing on the negative side of it. All we have is the devs words that the first two iterations were not what they wanted. They wanted something next gen. Will they have that? who knows. lots of RD here.
This is why I love reading your posts, Nanfoodle. On one hand, you lambaste someone for not believing everything the developers say and do, then immediately turn around and imply that those same developers may have been wrong when they, not anyone else, decided that the 1st incarnation of the game wasn't going to work. As to 'who is to say' about the possible success or failure of a prior version, SOE (now DGC) developers said by the direct action of canceling the game. And the statement 'maybe round one would have released and done well' certainly smacks of questioning those developers' decision to me, just with a positive speculative conclusion.
My poor logic professor is probably quite upset at the incessant twisting his corpse is undergoing in his grave.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Their word is worth miles more then yours or any other negative nay sayer on a forum.
Just because others point those things out doesn't mean it is a case of their word vs the developer.
Like I can say, "SOE was sold" or "Columbus Nova let go roughly half of the company" and it isn't a case of my word vs the developers. You choosing to ignoring everything except for what developers said years ago when they were a different company with different lead designers in charge, you are more than welcome to... but there is more to the situation that just what developers say.
Ironically remember a few weeks ago when you were arguing against everyone that roughly half of SOE/Daybreak wasn't fired... even though developers confirmed it with EQ news sites and the Daybreak filing in California was second confirmation... Good times. /s
You also ignore their first video where after they become DGC. We are still making the same game. The plan is still the plan. If things change we will let you know. You dodge facts all the time like they dont matter. All we can do is sit back and see if they keep their word. Keep trying, you fail non-stop. Like watching a baby fighting a Boa with a rattle.
Where do we have facts it failed twice. Maybe round one would have released and done well. Who is to say. You are guessing on the negative side of it. All we have is the devs words that the first two iterations were not what they wanted. They wanted something next gen. Will they have that? who knows. lots of RD here.
I'm not guessing, I'm not speculating how the game would have done if it was ever released, but thank you for validating my point.
The team was charged with designing something next gen, but the first two iterations did not succeed in delivering what the company wanted.
I highlighted where you are speculating. SoE/DGC never said they failed. Not releasing something does not mean fail. Every time someone changes their course of action in your books that would be a fail. You said they failed. Where is your source? My guess its your @$$.
I do agree that no one will ever know how those first two designs would have done if they were released. The fact that SOE had more faith in throwing out millions of dollars and years worth of work instead of releasing either of those designs is pretty damning about what was delivered, but who knows right? Just to be balanced for you, maybe those designs were good, but just not good enough to meet the standards SOE has set for MMOs they release.
How do you know how much it cost them? Making it up as you go along as always? First 2 iterations could have been no more then white board talk and sketches or it could have been millions. Again we have no clue. If it was more, who knows how much was salvaged for the next iteration. But your mind is made up they chucked out millions. This is what I keep pointing at, the most negative road is the only one you see and you will bash DGC with that negative stick till your fingers bleed. I say we have no clue and wait to see what the outcome is. If the game is good people will play it. If its not I will make fun of it myself but unlike you, I will walk away after I have said my peace and leave the game to its fans.
I think everyone has seen enough of what SOE has put out over the last 10 years to have an excellent idea of what this team is or rather isn't capable of.
The dynamic of the company has changed so vastly only a fool would think they could call what that team can do. The lead creative directors are not the same people. The weekly updates that we have gotten have shown how much focus has changed. So much has changed with this company its a shadow of what they once were. Is that for good or bad? Who the hell knows till we see over the next year or two how the make and run their current games. I hope its for the better and theirs you with your negative stick. Whats to say beyond that? Go find a game you like. I have gone through you history and its rare you have something nice to say about a game. Mostly you chase after DGC posts and bash the game, company and fans alike. Hows that working for you? =-)
Originally posted by ace80k I was looking forward to it 3 or 4 (lost count) years ago when the game was first announced. But now, it's like..whatever. Game probably won't be released until 2017. Most of the creative minds behind the game were let go and now the game is being funded by a company I've never even heard of. Over the years, I associated EQN with the people who were let go. I tuned into the podcasts to see how the game was progressing. The people in the podcasts added a sense of personalization to that process. Maybe they were let go for the best, but getting rid of people who were so fundamentally involved with EQ at it's core (Jeff Butler cough cough) just leaves me feeling very meh. I have higher hopes for Pantheon at this point. Never thought I'd say that. So sad.
Agreed. Except for Pantheon. That game is going to be a train wreck just like Vanguard. Brad, fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Would you like a fresh bat to beat that dead horse with?
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Where do we have facts it failed twice. Maybe round one would have released and done well. Who is to say. You are guessing on the negative side of it. All we have is the devs words that the first two iterations were not what they wanted. They wanted something next gen. Will they have that? who knows. lots of RD here.
This is why I love reading your posts, Nanfoodle. On one hand, you lambaste someone for not believing everything the developers say and do, then immediately turn around and imply that those same developers may have been wrong when they, not anyone else, decided that the 1st incarnation of the game wasn't going to work. As to 'who is to say' about the possible success or failure of a prior version, SOE (now DGC) developers said by the direct action of canceling the game. And the statement 'maybe round one would have released and done well' certainly smacks of questioning those developers' decision to me, just with a positive speculative conclusion.
My poor logic professor is probably quite upset at the incessant twisting his corpse is undergoing in his grave.
You miss my point. My stand is I hope it turns out but Im in the wait and see how it turns out camp. Im still an EQ fan and stick of 2 people on these forums turning every thread into a bash DGC, EQ and the fans. You cant even talk about the game any more. They dont even have anything to add but the same 3 posts over and over. They want to start an I hate DGC thread and post their crap there. Im all for it. Have fun but can the two main haters keep out of said threads? Nope. Every EQN thread may as well have the same topic. I have no clue if this game will be good but I sure would like to be able to talk about it outside of the same regurgitated circle.
You also ignore their first video where after they become DGC. We are still making the same game. The plan is still the plan. If things change we will let you know. You dodge facts all the time like they dont matter. All we can do is sit back and see if they keep their word. Keep trying, you fail non-stop. Like watching a baby fighting a Boa with a rattle.
Sure Daybreak has been good about letting us know when something has changed.... past tense.... long after they have internally made those decisions. Like they did AFTER they closed the forum and AFTER they fired half the staff and AFTER they threw out and changed designs twice and AFTER.....
However you are arguing against something I didn't say. I'm not saying they are not working on the game. I'm saying that their work is a train wreck.
The plan is still the plan... which means what exactly? I'm sure their plan wasn't to take 7-10 years to make the game, or sell the company, or fire half of the staff, or post -$60 million dollar losses, or create two designs that failed to meet their desired goals... but hey, the developers said the plan hasn't changed right. and?
I highlighted where you are speculating. SoE/DGC never said they failed. Not releasing something does not mean fail. Every time someone changes their course of action in your books that would be a fail. You said they failed. Where is your source? My guess its your @$$.
You are trying to redefine what a failure is so that you can defend your game of choice. Sorry it doesn't work like that.
By the way, the source I'm referencing is SOE. It is their words you are arguing against, not mine.
How do you know how much it cost them? Making it up as you go along as always? First 2 iterations could have been no more then white board talk and sketches or it could have been millions. Again we have no clue. If it was more, who knows how much was salvaged for the next iteration. But your mind is made up they chucked out millions. This is what I keep pointing at, the most negative road is the only one you see and you will bash DGC with that negative stick till your fingers bleed. I say we have no clue and wait to see what the outcome is. If the game is good people will play it. If its not I will make fun of it myself but unlike you, I will walk away after I have said my peace and leave the game to its fans.
This is funny coming from the person who was matter of factly stating this game cost $200 million to produce and went on and on about how many hundreds of millions SOE spent developing games. You are such a hypocrite it is beyond words.
In a twist of fate, I will name you as one of the sources about how many millions were wasted developing EQN. You can choose which of your claims you want to choke on.
The dynamic of the company has changed so vastly only a fool would think they could call what that team can do. The lead creative directors are not the same people. The weekly updates that we have gotten have shown how much focus has changed. So much has changed with this company its a shadow of what they once were. Is that for good or bad? Who the hell knows till we see over the next year or two how the make and run their current games. I hope its for the better and theirs you with your negative stick. Whats to say beyond that? Go find a game you like. I have gone through you history and its rare you have something nice to say about a game. Mostly you chase after DGC posts and bash the game, company and fans alike. Hows that working for you? =-)
Only a fool believes repeating the same thing will produce something different. You are the guy who just can't stop repeating that the developers plan has not changed. Nope, same plan.. nothing has changed.
Sorry, but all the people at Daybreak are the same people that were at SOE. The only difference is there are about 50% less of them and they have less resources. All of the upper management is still in charge.
Is it good or bad you ask like we don't know how they will run their current games? Go ask the players how they like the new customer service changes. I mean if you can handle actually looking at something tangible happening now.
Ironicially didn't I just catch you in the Pantheon forums crapping on that game saying it will bomb based on rumors you read on the internet and the past history of the developer? What ever happened to your mantra of shut up and wait for the game to come out and be positive?
LOL. I cant say what you are or I will get a temp ban. You posts are all the same, bashing DGC, EQ and its fans. You puke up the same 3 posts over and over like you have something to say lol. Do you own or rent you space under the bridge? (((walks away with a huge smile on his face)))
I currently play EQ and I'm a pretty big fan of the game. Again you are taking liberties with what you think you know about me in order to throw your own brand of hate around.
If all I post is the same 3 things over and over, I'm not sure why you have so often misrepresent the things I say and then attack me as if I said those things.
Lastly, sorry if the word hypocrite comes off as offensive, but I did just show you twice doings things you often criticize others for, especially me.
Daff.. You owe me a computer screen.. It's 4am here, and I'm sipping my coffee as I slowly wake up to start the new day.. After a productive day off yesterday, I figured I would come to the forums and see what I miss.. Little did I know I would soon read some of the best post in recent months.. I was successful in not waking up the family with my burst of laughter, but the coffee found it's way to the computer anyways..
Excellent post and I commend you and your eloquent use of words and logic.. Keep on writing.. Maybe one day this train wreck in progress will stop, and actually comment on the game in development.. Having Rosie and friends talk for hours, as to which player-made buildings look the best to HER eye, is not the same as informing us about the game and the progress it's taking.. I remember ole pony tail Georgie repeatedly say, ".. and we like the direction it's going" over and over during the Sony Live yip yaps.. If I heard him say that one time, I just wanted to run up and put duct tape on his mouth..
I'm waiting for actual intel I can sink my teeth into, but I won't hold my breath.. My gut tells the silence we are experiencing right now with Daybreak is for good reason..
I'm a huge fan of vanilla EQ, but not so much modern EQ due to all the changes.. EQ2 I was never a fan of, because it's just a poor copy of World of Warcraft.. In fact the original EQ2 that came out of the box was horrid.. I was one of the original players on launch day that LEFT EQ2 rather quickly along with thousands of others..
EQ2 Release date: 9.11.2004
WOW release date: 23.11.2004
Please explain how EQ2 could be a poor copy of WoW...
I'm a huge fan of vanilla EQ, but not so much modern EQ due to all the changes.. EQ2 I was never a fan of, because it's just a poor copy of World of Warcraft.. In fact the original EQ2 that came out of the box was horrid.. I was one of the original players on launch day that LEFT EQ2 rather quickly along with thousands of others..
EQ2 Release date: 9.11.2004
WOW release date: 23.11.2004
Please explain how EQ2 could be a poor copy of WoW...
Easy.. (take notes).. Current EQ2 is "nothing" like the original EQ2 that was launched.. I think you confused my comment about WoW as meaning that original EQ2 was like WoW.. But lets not fool ourselves that the patches and changes in EQ2 over the years is to mirror that of WoW..
Daff.. You owe me a computer screen.. It's 4am here, and I'm sipping my coffee as I slowly wake up to start the new day.. After a productive day off yesterday, I figured I would come to the forums and see what I miss.. Little did I know I would soon read some of the best post in recent months.. I was successful in not waking up the family with my burst of laughter, but the coffee found it's way to the computer anyways..
Excellent post and I commend you and your eloquent use of words and logic.. Keep on writing.. Maybe one day this train wreck in progress will stop, and actually comment on the game in development.. Having Rosie and friends talk for hours, as to which player-made buildings look the best to HER eye, is not the same as informing us about the game and the progress it's taking.. I remember ole pony tail Georgie repeatedly say, ".. and we like the direction it's going" over and over during the Sony Live yip yaps.. If I heard him say that one time, I just wanted to run up and put duct tape on his mouth..
I'm waiting for actual intel I can sink my teeth into, but I won't hold my breath.. My gut tells the silence we are experiencing right now with Daybreak is for good reason..
My drink... That mouthful is completely wasted and it's all your fault!
Rydeson
I do agree with you on one point. You said "comment on the game in development". I know they were referring to DGC but it should apply to us as well. Problem is those threads don't gain a lot of traction over the sensationalized ones.
Comments
Sorry Aelious, but through this entire situation of EQN over multiple post, many of us have repeated our concerns about EQN, both from a gameplay issue to very REAL technical issues that plague the hardware limitations.. NONE of our concerns are being addressed and responded to.. Being a "devil's advocate" many times in life I see so many Murphy's Law that it's almost instinctive to ask what if.. I know some of us share the same questions, over and over, and conveniently no one has ever cornered a dev to respond to very obvious questions.. I wonder why.. Fear of not having an answer to a problem, which is probably why Storybricks is gone and EQN isn't any closer to development then Landmark buildings..
So anytime you have some FACTS to my concerns, let me know.. Cause all I'm reading from a few here are hopeful speculation based on hearsay and word of mouth..
This is what Rydeson meant when he said you talk around the truth.
No where do you say anything of substance while completely trying to dismiss and discredit actual information. Exactly what context do you think may exist that would change those two previous design efforts to create an MMO into anything but what they are... failures?
Interestingly enough, you had no problem speaking with authority about why the developers cancelled the first two attempts to create EQN when it suits your views, when someone else does you then claim no one can know such things and we can't use those events in any meaningful way? You can't have it both ways.
If you really want context then look no further than Landmark. Even if you don't want to admit that it is EQN, it too is representative of the developmental failures surrounding this project. It is the tangible results of 7 years of developmental efforts and speaks all that needs to be said.
This from the king of making up facts lol At least Aelious says things like, this is my guess. But when you use conjecture you spin it as fact.
If you share Suig's sentiments and don't trust what information DGC is or has released I totally get that and things make more sense. You can't expect myself or anyone else that has followed EQN to give information on things that haven't been talked about by the devs.
Combining distrust of the only knowledgable source and expectation of Murphy's Law is going to have a great effect on how you view anytging. I mean my life motto is hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Completely understandable. In the future just expect that if I do respond to your posts, unless it's opinion based of course, that it's not necessarily for you but spectators.
We may just have to agree to disagree. I'm not talking around the truth, I am providing the only known information surrounding the "reimiagining" of the next EverQuest. You know why? Because neither of us were in those meetings or prototype evaluations. You can GUESS as to the reason for the change but what I've posted came from the mouths of people from DGC. If you don't believe that information as being truthful I can't help that.
Regarding Landmark. If you read the Jan '14 of PC Gamer you'll see what I'm taking about. Landmark's purpose was to not only help build assets for EQN but also be a standalone sandbox for players to create their own content. That is still planned according to the "blueprint" but is not currently there. I'm not surprised at all regarding the current population because the tools that would keep the everyday gamer playing aren't there yet.
If you still think I'm talking around truth than ask me a singular direct question. It may just be I don't have the answer you're looking for.
Everything in my experience and I have read tells me me to answer "No".
SOE = Fail
Landmark = Fail
New Company never heard anything from = fail
Combat like GW2/WS = fail
Everyone learning everything = fail.
The game sounds more like its cracking up to be the next big single player game with other people getting in your way. Sounds like GW2 part 2. Sounds like they took everything people loved about EQ and replaced it with everything except what people liked. Between the information available, and the many many many bridges burned by these same Devs...leads me to my personal opinion that there isn't anything here to be hyped about, and suggest the burden of proving that wrong be placed on the Dev/Company and not blind faith of the fans. If it doesn't suck, they should not charge money for early access/testing/beta/alpha/whatever. If its not terrible, they should let it be tried for free (not even referring to f2p, i mean like 5 day trail, 10 hours, something). Stop throwing money at them before they redeem. Place the burden of making a good game on them, and convincing you that its good.
~I am Many~
I've heard and seen the same sources as you have, maybe not as many. I pretty much gave up on that. I would be very hesitant to call these declarations as 'information' and a 'knowledgable (sic) source'. At best, the developers have outlined promises of desired game features, not solid, indisputable deliverable facts. About the only fact that most of the community can agree on is that on day n at event e1, dev x said 'y'. Calling 'y' an actual fact rather than a promise or goal or marketing hype pushes many people's credibility limits. It becomes a matter of trust, some trust that 'y' is a fact, others do not. Trust is built over time, and, for many, the developers in question have been found to be untrustworthy, for whatever reason.
That is why I think DGC's decision to shut down the forums and essentially go 'silent' on EQ:N is a beginning effort to heal this divide and rebuild trust to a universal level. They will take this time to develop a strategy and plan for future project related announcements. We may see them step away from all previous promises that have been made, and maybe even a name change to try to step away from older information, opinions, rumors and misinformation. If you search this site for 'EQ:N' you will see the sheer number of threads that are already in existence, each discussing aspects of the communities impressions of this project, and all the news (and pseudo-news) concerning this project. This silent mode will probably last until they figure out which way they want to proceed, and that will be a way that does the least harm to their product, their company, and the reputations of both.
At this point, I really expect that the next official announcement from DGC will be the first step in re-booting the project, and re-educating the community. It will not surprise me at all to see a name change for this project, maybe even dropping the 'Everquest' brand in favor of something else, maybe a 'new' IP.
How this project proceeds from here is anyone's guess. Any way they choose to proceed, we're in for an interesting time.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
(1) You put too much faith in what the developers say while turning a blind eye to everything else that is actually happening. So no, you really are not posting the only known information.
And just to clear this up, since you cannot seem to understand the point I was making. I'm not guessing at WHY the changes were made. Read that again before you go floating off in some other tangent accusing me of things I don't know. I'm saying the team twice failed to deliver a game that the company would release. That is a fact, not a guess. I don't care why, I just know the teams was tasked with making a product the company could sell and twice their designs resulted in failure to do that.
(2) I point out Landmark as an example of what the development team is capable of producing and you talk about what it was intended to be and how "it isn't there yet". This is why I give up on asking you direct questions and why you have been called out for talking around the truth.
Landmark is a more accurate representation of what the EQN team is capable of beyond any of the excuses you are going to offer for its condition and lack of success.
(1) Oh I understood the point you are trying to make. The only fact is that they shelved the first two iterations of the next EverQuest for what is now EQN. We agree on that. It's the reason for the other ones being shelved that we are arguing and neither of us really know other than what has been told to us. If you say the reason doesn't matter you are ignoring key elements to your case. SoE Live '12 Smedley stated that the iterations they had of the next EverQuest was too "me too" in comparison the other EverQuests (and the market in general) and they went back to the drawing board. If EQN was the same type of MMO as the other iterations were I'd agree with you that it was developer mistakes that led to the other ones being shelved. This isn't the case, EQN is a different type of game. They changed their vision for the next EverQuest. Why? Well they've stated why and the info is out there.
(2) Landmark is exactly what it is supposed to be: An open, in-development MMO that is being added to, subtracted from, and all tweaks in-between in real time while people are playing it/testing it. If you're judging it as a completed and polished product you didn't read the side of the box. That's why I said what I did, the tools and functionality aren't in to attract anyone but builders. It's only half a sandbox at this point. I personally think they've done a good job thus far though I will change my mind if they decide not to add in full content creation tools. Are you asserting that because populations are low that it means the quality of Landmark is to blame?
I'm not sure what truth I'm supposed to be talking around. I asked that you provide a singular question since you're accusing me of it but nothing. If you want to say or think that DGC is failing as a developer on EQN and Landmark because of x,y,z you don't need my approval, you're free to think what you would like there's really no proof to it other than your opinion.
I agree with this for the most part other than the end portion. I don't think DGC has any reason to change course on the EverQuest portion of EQN. If they lose people because of the connection I don't see how they would hope to keep them anyways since another "EverQuest" wouldn't be more than a prototype. Plus you have the added cost of reevaluating the world assets (that was said to be seeded and worked on prior to Live '13) as well as the lore. I guess anything is possible it just wouldn't make sense to me.
Regarding "known information", that's all I've tried to provide and be careful about when I inject my own personal stances. I get that the sources may not be trusted but it's literally the only source that would know. Right now, EQN is being played/tested inside the walls of DGC while us out here are arguing about how it will turn out or what state it's in. There are bits and pieces that arguments can be made from, using "official" sources. To me that is far more relevant than the opinion of someone using their "experience" in playing MMOs to say why things behind closed doors are happening.
Not any more.
Too many half-arsed releases over the past seven or eight years have made me as jaded as feck when it comes to looking forward to new titles. I may look into EQN again when the actually have a product, but right now they don't have shit to show.
As it stands,I couldn't give a rat's arse about any of the titles on the horizon.
Their word is worth miles more then yours or any other negative nay sayer on a forum.
Where do we have facts it failed twice. Maybe round one would have released and done well. Who is to say. You are guessing on the negative side of it. All we have is the devs words that the first two iterations were not what they wanted. They wanted something next gen. Will they have that? who knows. lots of RD here.
Because you fail to see your judging a beta project as a finished project. Its not there yet is the right words from him. The fact you are to thick to get what he is saying is not his fault.
You have no clue what they are capable of at this point. Lets wait and see what their first finished project, as a new company with new owners, looks like before you pre-judge. Bad start At this point no one knows if anything they will make will be good or bad.
I am moderatly hyped about the game, would sure be grea to head over to Norrath again.
Having different mechanics is not a problem to me as long as they work and the game is fun. But I do fear it will release in a worse shape than even EQ2 was at launch.
If Daybreak do their homework and actually release the game when it is ready I think it actually will be very fun.
This is why I love reading your posts, Nanfoodle. On one hand, you lambaste someone for not believing everything the developers say and do, then immediately turn around and imply that those same developers may have been wrong when they, not anyone else, decided that the 1st incarnation of the game wasn't going to work. As to 'who is to say' about the possible success or failure of a prior version, SOE (now DGC) developers said by the direct action of canceling the game. And the statement 'maybe round one would have released and done well' certainly smacks of questioning those developers' decision to me, just with a positive speculative conclusion.
My poor logic professor is probably quite upset at the incessant twisting his corpse is undergoing in his grave.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You also ignore their first video where after they become DGC. We are still making the same game. The plan is still the plan. If things change we will let you know. You dodge facts all the time like they dont matter. All we can do is sit back and see if they keep their word. Keep trying, you fail non-stop. Like watching a baby fighting a Boa with a rattle.
I highlighted where you are speculating. SoE/DGC never said they failed. Not releasing something does not mean fail. Every time someone changes their course of action in your books that would be a fail. You said they failed. Where is your source? My guess its your @$$.
How do you know how much it cost them? Making it up as you go along as always? First 2 iterations could have been no more then white board talk and sketches or it could have been millions. Again we have no clue. If it was more, who knows how much was salvaged for the next iteration. But your mind is made up they chucked out millions. This is what I keep pointing at, the most negative road is the only one you see and you will bash DGC with that negative stick till your fingers bleed. I say we have no clue and wait to see what the outcome is. If the game is good people will play it. If its not I will make fun of it myself but unlike you, I will walk away after I have said my peace and leave the game to its fans.
The dynamic of the company has changed so vastly only a fool would think they could call what that team can do. The lead creative directors are not the same people. The weekly updates that we have gotten have shown how much focus has changed. So much has changed with this company its a shadow of what they once were. Is that for good or bad? Who the hell knows till we see over the next year or two how the make and run their current games. I hope its for the better and theirs you with your negative stick. Whats to say beyond that? Go find a game you like. I have gone through you history and its rare you have something nice to say about a game. Mostly you chase after DGC posts and bash the game, company and fans alike. Hows that working for you? =-)
Would you like a fresh bat to beat that dead horse with?
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
You miss my point. My stand is I hope it turns out but Im in the wait and see how it turns out camp. Im still an EQ fan and stick of 2 people on these forums turning every thread into a bash DGC, EQ and the fans. You cant even talk about the game any more. They dont even have anything to add but the same 3 posts over and over. They want to start an I hate DGC thread and post their crap there. Im all for it. Have fun but can the two main haters keep out of said threads? Nope. Every EQN thread may as well have the same topic. I have no clue if this game will be good but I sure would like to be able to talk about it outside of the same regurgitated circle.
I currently play EQ and I'm a pretty big fan of the game. Again you are taking liberties with what you think you know about me in order to throw your own brand of hate around.
If all I post is the same 3 things over and over, I'm not sure why you have so often misrepresent the things I say and then attack me as if I said those things.
Lastly, sorry if the word hypocrite comes off as offensive, but I did just show you twice doings things you often criticize others for, especially me.
Daff.. You owe me a computer screen.. It's 4am here, and I'm sipping my coffee as I slowly wake up to start the new day.. After a productive day off yesterday, I figured I would come to the forums and see what I miss.. Little did I know I would soon read some of the best post in recent months.. I was successful in not waking up the family with my burst of laughter, but the coffee found it's way to the computer anyways..
Excellent post and I commend you and your eloquent use of words and logic.. Keep on writing.. Maybe one day this train wreck in progress will stop, and actually comment on the game in development.. Having Rosie and friends talk for hours, as to which player-made buildings look the best to HER eye, is not the same as informing us about the game and the progress it's taking.. I remember ole pony tail Georgie repeatedly say, ".. and we like the direction it's going" over and over during the Sony Live yip yaps.. If I heard him say that one time, I just wanted to run up and put duct tape on his mouth..
I'm waiting for actual intel I can sink my teeth into, but I won't hold my breath.. My gut tells the silence we are experiencing right now with Daybreak is for good reason..
EQ2 Release date: 9.11.2004
WOW release date: 23.11.2004
Please explain how EQ2 could be a poor copy of WoW...
Easy.. (take notes).. Current EQ2 is "nothing" like the original EQ2 that was launched.. I think you confused my comment about WoW as meaning that original EQ2 was like WoW.. But lets not fool ourselves that the patches and changes in EQ2 over the years is to mirror that of WoW..
LOL Good job Robin!
My drink... That mouthful is completely wasted and it's all your fault!
Rydeson
I do agree with you on one point. You said "comment on the game in development". I know they were referring to DGC but it should apply to us as well. Problem is those threads don't gain a lot of traction over the sensationalized ones.