Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
EQ2 lacking long lasting appeal?
Lugnard
Member Posts: 474
in Everquest II
Saw this thread on EQ2 Vault:
http://vnboards.ign.com/EQ2_General_Board/b22210/77125268/?22
It's a Beta tester's review of the game thus far. To him, the first quarter of the game is excellent but after around level 15/20 or so, it degrades very quickly and becomes repetitive fast. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this post since I'm still testing the EQ2 beta and waiting to see for myself what happens then, it just doesn't sound like the long lasting appeal will be all that great, contrary to all the raving fanbois who said otherwise.
Any other Beta Testers want to comment on this opinion? Agree/disagree?
Comments
"SOE shot my dog, killed my parents, stole my wife, and kiddnapped my lawn gnome."
This place is full of tree-huggers and tofu fartn' faeries...
Im sick of reading reviews, its to one side of the spectrum, to the other. There is no in between. I think ppl have it stuck in their minds before even playing the game that it will either suck or be awesome. I will just have to see for my self.
Signaturen-Creator
EQ2 Qeynos Guild- http://www.imperium-arcanum.com
I miss DAoC
I'm not going to critique the game because quite simply, players have different tastes, and what I dislike, someone else may like.
But to touch on the topic at hand:
Does EQII lack long lasting appeal? Well, for me, yes it does. The "special feeling" I got from EQLive just isn't there. Its been said that SOE's target audience is new players, and players that left EQLive for various reasons. I honestly don't see any former long term EQLive subscriber playing this game for the long haul. Mainly because they'll be looking for that "special feeling" themselves. I will play the game at release, but i'll only play it through once. I wouldn't want to repeat it.
Contrary to popular belief.......
There is no such thing as an unbiased critic. Criticisms are based on one persons perception or opinion about a certain subject. They will always lean to one side or the other and no matter how good their skills at dissecting something so as to see its perceived flaws and strengths it will still come down to whether or not you and said critic share the same tastes.
ROLEPLAYERS UNITE!!!!!
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture.
The real issue is that people like to live in "nostalgia" ... and it is true that, at least for the purposes of romanticism, nothing is better "than the first time".
In many ways I can recall old BBS games that I "remember" more fondly than some current MMORPGs. But, were I to load up or find a way to play that old BBS game, it certainly would not retain my interest long. That is, the memory of the game is better than the game itself.
My first MMORPG (if you can call it that) was Meridian 59 (which actually still happens to be alive, barely, and kicking). I have hugely fond memories of that game and remember a level of enjoyment in that game that I have never experienced since. That being said, I have tried to go back to the game and find, yet again, that my memories are now better than the actual game.
The problem with many games, as you go forward, is that until there is a huge leap in the evolution of the game, you will always compare it to your "first" or "best" time and come up "unsatisfied".
EQlive may ultimately not be a better game than EQ2, WoW, etc ... but too many people will be trapped comparing their "new game" to the memories of their old game rather than the old game itself.
Spooooon!!!!
Spooooon!!!!
Again....
Rhok to say that MXO graphics are subpar is entirely your opinion. There absolutely are no unbiased critics. They always use words that can only apply in a personal description. Anything that you say is lacking, subpar, cartoonish, or any other descriptive word you choose still comes down to what you prefer.
Not to mention that simply listing the facts about a game is not a critique it is an overview. A critique implys that you will be listing what you percieve to be pros or cons about said subject.
ROLEPLAYERS UNITE!!!!!
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture.
Yes it is. And since the advancement of a character is very linear and there is almost only one way to do it, the replayability is almost nonexistant. One good character, one bad. That is all the change you will have.
And to the one saying characters above lvl 20 are rare... Uhm.. lvl 14 takes two days. After that its all about the will to grind (mission quantity slow down and turn more complex). Belive me, there are numerous 20-30. Rare begins 30+ in beta. 40+ a few.
Only game I wait for right now: Imperator.
Go Mythic!
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly.
It should be thrown with great force"
To suggest that a mage is played the same as a tank or a tank plays like a rogue or a healer is ludicrous to say the least. To break it down even further to suggest that a pet class mage would be be played the same as a nuker or crowd control mage is also ridiculous.
As far as Imperator goes I like Mythic also, 2 years of DAoC under my belt before I tired of it. When Imperator hits the shelves I may well look into it, until that time though I need a MMORPG and EQII looks like the best bet for me at this time. A game in hand is better than two in development as the old saying goes.
I will probably even try WoW, I have it pre ordered also, although I will cancel it if EQII sucks me in once I test it. However I doubt I will activate my account or break the seal on the box until all the Bnet kiddies have spent their Christmas money, even if EQII is not all I hope it will be.
I miss DAoC
What I find most disturbing is the lack of diversity that the beta players keep posting about. To me a game that spends as much time as they have giving the players the ability to look unique I am a bit suprised to find that they have neglected to make the charcters skills unique.
I have said before I will not put graphics above gameplay and a game that does not have diverse classes is not something I could get into.
If you wonder where I get this info from just go read the EQ2 forums. This is by and large the biggest gripe they have about the game.
ROLEPLAYERS UNITE!!!!!
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture.
I don't know where you got that he was saying that a tank payed the same as a mage, etc. But yes within a given archetype, the classes are pretty homogenized. Only a couple standouts, like bards in the scout tree, and enchanters in the mage tree. Bards are just a weird class that really doesn't fit into any one catagory. Mages are screwy, because the premise is that any class in a particular archetype can function as well as the next. But Enchanters are the kinds of crowd control. Sorcerer/Summoner don't even come close in that regard. And Sorcerers are by far the leader in the magical DPS catagory. But the poor summoners are kind of hanging out there with little or no class definition(much like in EQ), and frankly any good group is going to pass on a Summoner for a chanter, or a sorcerer, or another priest, scout or fighter. Most guilds might have one or two token summoners for any raid usefull buffs they might have, or get in the future, but that's it.
I don't know where you got that he was saying that a tank payed the same as a mage, etc. But yes within a given archetype, the classes are pretty homogenized.
That was the line I was referring to. I can see where a wizard and a warlock could be said to be the same or berserker could be the same play style as a guardian. However when one mage uses pets the other crowd control and the third nukes I fail to see where they would not all be played in a different manner at least to a degree. Perhaps at the lower lvls below 25 but I doubt if many or any of the testers have reached the 30's and 40's and by that point the classes should see some diversity.
If I understand correctly all mages are the same at lvls 1 to 10 then they split until 20 when they split once again. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this point. This would mean that all mages would share the same spells lvl 1 -10 and one (sixth if you count the Freeport and Queynos separate) third would share the 10-20 spells. However after 20 you would have only 1/6 of the same spells as another mage of opposite alignment.
Another point is to make all classes viable soloists they had to give everyone certain abilities as far as damage, and defense goes. This to me would be preferable to having a non solo able cleric for example. One of things most EQI players had was you had to wait for the 'perfect' group. In EQII you can just grab one of each archetypes and have at it. Certain classes sucked in EQI because no one wanted to group with them or they could not solo at all. A bit of lack in the diversity is the lesser of the two evils in my opinion.
I miss DAoC