So we don't get too much paraphrasing and extrapolating of what the review actually said, I want to quote the part I am referring to:
"It's a safe bet that Michael Dell's personal computer will play EQII with little trouble, but most gamers aren't billionaires and can't afford to purchase a $5000 system just so the heat shimmer effect won't slow their systems down to a crawl. The graphics on EverQuest II may be phenomenal, but only those who run it on a HAL9000 will truly know. The engine might be able to hum on future hardware, but it does not scale down to current configurations very well. There are a number of stories about people who wanted to play EQII and couldn't because their current systems weren't stout enough, so they went to one of several other current games that look fantastic and don't require outlandish hardware specifications.
Because of the huge resource requirements, performance is sluggish on most common systems. Characters run in a jerky fashion unless effects are at minimum, and even then it's not very smooth. It's hard to give high marks to the graphics when all the fancy stuff is inaccessible to the average gamer. Things like specular lighting and underwater distortion effects lose their coolness factor quickly when a running troll looks like it's being animated on flip cards."
To me, that's very misleading, in particular the phrases in green. People can decide for themselves whether a game is fun or not, but they may not even think of trying it if they are given some erroneous impression that they can't even run the game. And then, of course, there are the good points raised by Hercules. Do we want to encourage advancement or discourage it.
It may also be worth noting that you can go to the Dell website right now and buy the following for $1599: Pentium 4 processor 550 with HT (3.40GHz, 800 FSB, 1MB L2 cache), 512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 17" (16.0"vis) Monitor, 80GB6 Ultra/ATA 100 Hard Drive, 128MB PCI Express x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI RadeonT X800 XT. You just add 512 RAM and you're running EQ2 at a very high setting. Somewhat less than $5,000, I'd say.
There is a lot of content and loads of zones but many require access quest which i think is in a way wrong as it makes those not too keen on questing to quest.
But the zones and content are there.And as someone who was there in 1999 with EQ1 i say EQ2 has more but of course it does not have as much as EQ1 in its current stage.But EQ1 did have 5 years of content and zones added.
One thing that annoys me but this does not apply to EQ2 alone but all mmorpg.Its the interaction.
Some games make it such a way that you basically are so solo free that you are on a server with thousands but feel like you are alone and might as well be off line.
Some games like EQ2 demand so much interaction that it makes you feel handicapped.Funny enough its not in ability to solo in case of EQ2(like i pointed out i can list areas you can solo at any level in the game).Its everything else.Heritage quets(which are some of the best fun and rewards) require deep co operation for most of them.Crafting is very interdependant.
I wouls really love to see one mmorpg get somewhere in the balance .Closest i seen to this is probably AC2 and maybe DAoC and both have not got the balance right either.
i spend aobut $2600 on a new computer, and i run EQ 2 at Extreme quality, AMD FX-55, 2gb RAM, GeForce 6800 Ultra, no issues on the card with EQ 1 or 2, so, yea, i love it, auctualy i think i spend almost $2700-2800, don't remember, all i know is that i am paying for half, the other half is a graduation present from my parents, lol, andi got a desk from them too, lol, allwell, no biggie
i found the review to be fair, and i appreciated the information
and those that do not beleive the system spec min have issues with this game take a peek at the tech fourms and you will continualy see griffen screen turning black
crash to desktop when loading zones, choppy graphics
Most folks do not go to online sites to order parts many just pick up shelf units and latter as they really get into gaming understand that there system is part of the problem of the preformance of the game
The game ran choppy for me till i bumped up mega on memory then problems seemed to iron themselves out
My troubles came in low 20s' i just couldn't bring myself to log in to watch another group fall in ts doing ac 3 quest and hearing "not worth the effort" or thundering steeps doing beetals skelles gnolls over and over without a full well balanced group, or having axcess to affordable apprentice spells or game drop equipment from useable equipable loot. Big killer was merchant broker system staring endlessly at the bulliten board ( gee lots of fun being stuck in a room)
and Siagon very glad you're still having a ball thats good to hear!!!
Originally posted by Wickes So we don't get too much paraphrasing and extrapolating of what the review actually said, I want to quote the part I am referring to: "It's a safe bet that Michael Dell's personal computer will play EQII with little trouble, but most gamers aren't billionaires and can't afford to purchase a $5000 system just so the heat shimmer effect won't slow their systems down to a crawl. The graphics on EverQuest II may be phenomenal, but only those who run it on a HAL9000 will truly know. The engine might be able to hum on future hardware, but it does not scale down to current configurations very well. There are a number of stories about people who wanted to play EQII and couldn't because their current systems weren't stout enough, so they went to one of several other current games that look fantastic and don't require outlandish hardware specifications. Because of the huge resource requirements, performance is sluggish on most common systems. Characters run in a jerky fashion unless effects are at minimum, and even then it's not very smooth. It's hard to give high marks to the graphics when all the fancy stuff is inaccessible to the average gamer. Things like specular lighting and underwater distortion effects lose their coolness factor quickly when a running troll looks like it's being animated on flip cards." To me, that's very misleading, in particular the phrases in green. People can decide for themselves whether a game is fun or not, but they may not even think of trying it if they are given some erroneous impression that they can't even run the game. And then, of course, there are the good points raised by Hercules. Do we want to encourage advancement or discourage it. It may also be worth noting that you can go to the Dell website right now and buy the following for $1599: Pentium 4 processor 550 with HT (3.40GHz, 800 FSB, 1MB L2 cache), 512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 17" (16.0"vis) Monitor, 80GB6 Ultra/ATA 100 Hard Drive, 128MB PCI Express x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI RadeonT X800 XT. You just add 512 RAM and you're running EQ2 at a very high setting. Somewhat less than $5,000, I'd say.
This issue came up in the thread on the news discussion board. Rather than attempt to reformulate my ideas, I'll just cut & paste that item.
-----
Also Reed, you need to not exaggerate your facts when you are writing a review. it is just not professional and it makes your reviews not very believable. I am referring to your comment about seeing 10 messages during a zone. I see approximately 4 different messages and I for one prefer seeing the progress. I zone in less than 15 seconds and that is not bad. You are perfectly free to express your opinion that you don't like the zoning part of EQII, but you should not attempt to reinforce your opinion by exagerrating the facts.
The comments about 10 messages, as well as those regarding Michael Dell's personal computer and a HAL9000 were intentional exaggerations. This is a literary device known as hyperbole - extreme exaggerating employed to underscore a particular point. The point of such is to emphasize, not deceive. Regardless, the number of messages is not the real issue. The larger issue is the time it takes to zone. I just threw 10 out as a round number, but if there were 50 messages and they clicked by in 5 seconds, I wouldn't be so aware of them. The problem is it takes anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute for me to zone in EQII. The multiple messages and the progress bars make the wait seem longer, in my opinion. This is the idea I was trying to convey.
My point in using the ridiculously high figure of $5000 was to make a point, not to mislead people into thinking that an expenditure of such magnitude was a requisite. I thought most readers would understand my point, but it was obviously lost on some.
The larger point of this section - the one I believe most readers understood - was that EQII is a resource hog, especially when it comes to graphics. Further, all those fancy visuals are useless if the average gamer can't experience them without sacrificing performance. I don't hold SOE at fault for writing a powerful graphics engine, but I do think it is a mistake on their part to make it so advanced that it leaves many current gamers with a need to crank the settings down.
There are players for whom graphics is king. Those players will already have purchased high-end systems and have little complaint with EQII's graphics engine. For the rest of us, though, this is an issue.
----- You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I don't think the reveiew was in anyway off the mark so what is the issue?
The comments were that of the author and is how they saw it. Not everyone sees the same thing but overall I don't see any bias or mention of any other game except the company and what they did before this release.
The game worked fine on my 1.6 P4 with 512 MB DDR and Geforce Asylum 256. Only I KNEW that I would not get the best graphics so I ran in extream mode. I also felt that there was not just a need to group but there was a MUST group push to the game in general and that was IMHO wrong way to get people to group. I am one of these rebel types and if someone is pushing me to do something I just don't do it.
I personally played 2 months but like many others I began to get frustrated with it due to the lack of FUN. IMO fun is the reason to play a game and that was one area that I think was the biggest let down.
There are only a couple things about the review that really bother me. Otherwise, it's your opinion, and that's fine.
It does bother me that your statement concerning system requirements is so off the mark. It could be that this review is the only thing on this site that many people researching the game will read, and that really does leave an incorrect impression. You know as well as I do that you don't need anything approaching a $5,000 system to get a remarkable looking game. Hell, I don't even know anyone who has a $5,000 setup, and I know people running close to max. How in the world do you even make a $5,000 setup lol - I am currently thinking about making myself a new kickass system and pricing components, and what I could get with $1500 worth of goodies would damn near run NASA . But for now I am still running it on a 2.4, 1 gig, with a 4200ti w/64 megs, and frankly it runs and looks really good. I do get lag and choppiness in the more graphics intensive city zones and in some dungeon areas, but not that bad really ... no worse than I STILL get in POK in EQ1 Not enough to bother me, anyway. So I will probably upgrade the graphics card one of these days, but it's hardly pressing. And, in MY opinion - yes it's just an opinion - the game looks really dang good and runs well on the settings I can use efficiently right now.
Yes we all know by now that the graphics engine is intentionally designed to provide more as systems improve over time (a good thing, no?), but the simple reality is that the game works and looks very good right now on routine systems (not ye old Packard Bell Walmart setup). In sum, I feel your assessment of system requirements leaves readers with a very wrong impression.
The other thing that bothers me I guess is that you do seem to be reviewing it from an EQ1 perspective. A good percentage of the gamers I know are all running around bemoaning whether it will ever be possible to duplicate the fantastic experience we had there. No matter which game they try - including ALL of them out there - nothing seems to do that. Yeah, maybe that's a problem for many of us ... it simply may not be possible to duplicate that. Or maybe it's just people haven't given some of the games enough time ... in retrospect, I don't think I hit full blown ecstatic addiction in EQ1 until I had quite a lot of time into the game and we had a big terrific guild going, blah blah blah. It was a lot of factors that resulted in that unique, wonderful experience, and it took a lot of time. Maybe it's just way too soon to know whether EQ2, or WOW, or anything else for that matter, will ultimately provide that kind of high quality long-term experience. In sum, it would be better to try to detach and just review each game in a vacuum as much as possible, rather than immediately asking whether it measure up to whatever. There's just no way you can know that yet.
Wickes, I tried to address your issues from the first paragraph in my previous post, so I'll defer to that one. If I didn't answer your concerns properly, please let me know.
I played EQII on two different systems, each of which experienced the same level of performance. I would have played it on a third - a laptop which plays both DAoC and WoW with no problem, but it would not run because of system reqs. I have spoken to people who have had the same troubles I had and to people who say it runs well on their 64MB older graphics card. These are anecdotal and, as such, I cannot confirm or deny them. I can only report my personal experiences.
As far as reviewing it from an EQ1 perspective, I will admit that I referred to the original EverQuest several times, just as SOE has not been shy about referencing the original game. Some of that is unavoidable. But I think you are referring specifically to my comment about EQII not having the same intangible fun factor that can be found in EQ. That factor can be found in other games as well. I referenced EQ because it is most famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) for its addictive nature, but other games like Ultima Online, Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot have that same feel.
What I think EQII is missing is a sense of genuineness. If feels to me as if a committee got together and decided on a list of EQ's shortcomings and set out to correct them, but along the way, they fixed a few things that weren't actually broken. EQ was wide open and let players explore on their own. EQII feels linear, as in first you go to the Isle, then to the suburb, then to the swamp or forest or ruins, then we'll let you in the city, but then you can only fight in Antonica or the Commonlands, then you can visit the Thundering Steppes or wherever. I know that it's not this strict, but it feels this way. I never felt like I could go where I wanted and discover the world on my own.
Worse, I didn't feel a sense of excitement about the game. This was my criticism, not that it, "wasn't just like EverQuest." I would have been dissappointed if EQII had been nothing but an EQ clone with updated graphics, but I did want to feel that sense of excitement, of discovery, of accomplishment...that sense of fun, and I didn't. That is the only place where my EQ1 experience had me wishing for the original game.
----- You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Koltrane did not say it was running choppy on a Ti4200 (rather old card now), he said it was running choppy even with recommended system. It obviously is a downer.
Of course, a revolutionnary graphic engine, built to scale over generations of new hardware sounds like a good feature! But what if half the clients are running poorly now? Why should we have to wait until a year (or more) from now, to get it to run properly? They had advertise that the higher your system specs would be, the more eye candy you would be able to experience. But the fact is, it is not only an eye candy issue, it is a playability issue right now. The game lags bad in cities if you have only 512 MB of Ram, for example. And it still lags a bit with 1 GB. So it's a downer.
As for comparing with EQ1, well, you have to compare EQ2 to something, some game. It is a way to help people understand the content in the game, even though they haven't played it yet, possibly.
And it's not just about good memories and kick ass guild full of good friends. Comparisons can be made with EQ1, who had a great variety of zones, flavored with the cultural essence of the local race. It is missing from EQ2, I believe, and only shows in flavors here: the good side and the evil side.
I believe it could have worked anyway, but I truly feel SOE rushed the game into market, just to beat others to the mark. And they weren't ready. The game is stable, but not so fun. It is rather bland in many areas. It feels uninspired, and that's another big downer. I hope they will be able to improve it over the next few expansion. It is possible, just look at the 10+ expansions they made for EQ1.
Thanks, Dexter. I was worried that I hadn't been able to convey my thoughts clearly. I feel better now
Your comments are valid in many ways. My main complaint was not that EQII has an engine written for the future or even that the reqs are a bit high by today's standards. My main complaint was/is that the game does not run well on today's average system, that system being well within SOE's stated system reqs. You were right on in your analysis of my comments.
As I said in another thread, my system runs Half Life 2, Doom3, DAoC Catacombs, and World of Warcraft with no problem. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to expect it to run EQII fairly well without cranking down half the graphics settings.
I also agree that the game's environment is bland. Remember Oggok with the big doorways and wide streets or Kelethin with its funky treehouse layout? There's no such "cultural essence" (as you put it so well) in EQII. The cities are very monochrome from a cultural standpoint. Even within the two city paradigm, they couldn've made the different suburbs feel culturally unique. They could've had a barbie area with Norse influence or a troll area built in a swamp. Instead all the suburbs are pretty generic. They have some differences, like the Baubbleshire, but most are overwhelmingly similar.
----- You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
With all due respect to hyperbole , this was not the place for it. There are "soft" and "hard" parts of reviews. The "soft" parts are opinion, and I do believe people recognize them as such. The "hard" parts, such as system requirements, are not looked upon as opinion ... they are looked upon as fact. I certainly know the intent was not to deceive, but I think that's the result. People walk away with a wrong impression of what the game requires.
I agree there are people who can't run it. I can't run it on my laptop (integrated video). I don't think it's ever been in dispute that some can't run it. But the situation is not nearly as extreme as you portray it. Of all the people I know who've tried it (a normal assortment of people - not computer people), very few have had to upgrade in order to get a result satisfactory to them. One had to due to integrated video. Another had to due to a 64 meg card on a P4 1.4. I think those two situations are fairly obvious, and as for the fact that they can run other games currently out, I guess I would say "so what" You simply don't need a $5,000 system nor a Hal9000 to run this game satisfactorily On system requirements, I just think people should be given an accurate view. I think it's quite probable that some people who don't research things thoroughly will simply read that review and immediately and erroneously conclude that they can't run the game at all.
As to the "EQ1 perspective" issue, I won't belabor it here. It would be an interesting thread, if we could have such a thread without the usual thread hijackers destroying it Maybe I will try one anyway ... as somewhat of a student of games, I find the whole EQ1 phenomena endlessly fascinating. Anyway, I agree with a lot of your opinion points about EQ2. Although EQ2 is the best thing I can find for my tastes at the moment, I have a number of complaints.
With all due respect to hyperbole , this was not the place for it. There are "soft" and "hard" parts of reviews. The "soft" parts are opinion, and I do believe people recognize them as such. The "hard" parts, such as system requirements, are not looked upon as opinion ... they are looked upon as fact. I certainly know the intent was not to deceive, but I think that's the result. People walk away with a wrong impression of what the game requires.
I agree there are people who can't run it. I can't run it on my laptop (integrated video). I don't think it's ever been in dispute that some can't run it. But the situation is not nearly as extreme as you portray it. Of all the people I know who've tried it (a normal assortment of people - not computer people), very few have had to upgrade in order to get a result satisfactory to them. One had to due to integrated video. Another had to due to a 64 meg card on a P4 1.4. I think those two situations are fairly obvious, and as for the fact that they can run other games currently out, I guess I would say "so what" You simply don't need a $5,000 system nor a Hal9000 to run this game satisfactorily On system requirements, I just think people should be given an accurate view. I think it's quite probable that some people who don't research things thoroughly will simply read that review and immediately and erroneously conclude that they can't run the game at all.
I guess this is where we will have to disagree, then. With all respect, I think you're taking this piece of my review far too literally. I can't believe that anyone would think that the suggestion to run EQII on a HAL9000, the computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey, could be anything other than farcical. Also, the notion that one would have to be a billionaire like Michael Dell to afford a system that can run a mass market game is ludicrous. I think anyone who reads the entire review and reads those lines in the context of the piece will understand the hyperbole and not consider them as serious system reqs. I give the readership of this site more credit than that.
Had I presented more realistic specs and stated that they were required, then I'd really have been in trouble. People read, "a $5000 computer," or "a HAL9000," and they know it's a joke. People read, "geforce 6," or "radeon 9800 256," and they tend to think that such specfics mean actual reqs. I purposefully kept my comments ridiculously high and non specific to avoid such. (Oh, BTW, I did use geforce 8 in a title, but since that card probably isnt even beyond nvidia's drawing board, it's not meant to be a serious, specific suggestion. Also, it flowed nicely if you sang the line .)
My point is that systems within Sony's specs do not run the game well without dumbing the graphics down. Your comment about a friend who upgraded because he had a P4 1.4 and a 64 MB card makes that point. This is above the minimum reqs of a PIII 1.0 and 64MB. If the game won't run on the minimum specs, then SOE needs to up their minimum specs. I have a friend who is running EQII on 768MB. She admits it's clunky, but she likes the game so she makes allowances for performance. Basically, she puts up with it. Others may do the same and claim it runs fine. I don't really know, nor am I doubting the veracity or sincerity of those who say it runs with little problem on their older systems. All I can do is present findings based upon my actual experience.
As to the "EQ1 perspective" issue, I won't belabor it here. It would be an interesting thread, if we could have such a thread without the usual thread hijackers destroying it Maybe I will try one anyway ... as somewhat of a student of games, I find the whole EQ1 phenomena endlessly fascinating. Anyway, I agree with a lot of your opinion points about EQ2. Although EQ2 is the best thing I can find for my tastes at the moment, I have a number of complaints.
It certainly would. EQ's success is not likely to be duplicated by any game, specifically for reasons I mention in my review. EQII is not doomed to failure because of this. On the contrary, the EQ name has definitely given it a boost, at least from a hype perspective. I think EQ has evolved to the point that the game itself is not the only major draw. I think the social aspect does as much to bring seasoned players back nightly. Not to suggest that EQ has become merely a glorified chatroom, but the community aspect is a big part of it. This has become true of other older games, such as DAoC and Ultima Online, IMO.
Anyway, I appreciate your commentary and your perspective. Thanks for taking the time to write, Wickes.
----- You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I think the review was too soft, I never once saw mention of flying fish, and that was what really nailed the coffin closed for me.
I don't thik that Hal-9000 even had a grahics sub system, it was just an AI in a box with a red light and a voice processor. I don't think it could have even start the game up. "This isn't chess Dave, I want to play chess Dave."
All jokes aside I thought the review summed up exactly how I felt about the game, which is that it is a great game, but not very much fun, has no sense of mystery or excitment.
Yeah I guess we will have to agree to disagree. In this exchange you've essentially acknowledged that statements in your review about system requirements are not accurate, but also indicated an unwillingness to correct them, even though you are obviously well able to state your assessment in accurate terms, as you have done several times in this exchange. Instead, you choose to rely upon explanations of hyperbole and intentional exaggeration, based on the premise, I guess, that readers should simply somehow know what you're doing and why (bearing in mind that even after this exchange I sure don't know what your purpose was in choosing that approach rather than simply stating it accurately).
Certainly it is clear that you didn't mean "Hal9000" literally, but it sure looks like you were trying to convey the impression that a very high level system is required to run the game even adequately (which is false). Had you said "the game will not run adequately on systems meeting Sony's mininum requirements" that would probablyhave been accurate. Sony probably understated the minimum requirements to run the game adequately (I don't know since I haven't tried that configuration). If so, they are wrong in doing so, and you could certainly properly criticize that. But you are equally wrong in going to the other extreme. And it's worth noting that Sony's recommended requirements run the game quite well (my system is below the recommendations).
So I guess "most gamers" (your phrase) will simply have to operate with the grossly inaccurate impression from this site that their systems will be slowed "to a crawl" (your phrase) if they cannot afford a "$5,000 system" (your phrase) ... and this is when it is so simple to state the situation accurately.
Originally posted by Wickes Yeah I guess we will have to agree to disagree. In this exchange you've essentially acknowledged that statements in your review about system requirements are not accurate, but also indicated an unwillingness to correct them, even though you are obviously well able to state your assessment in accurate terms, as you have done several times in this exchange. Instead, you choose to rely upon explanations of hyperbole and intentional exaggeration, based on the premise, I guess, that readers should simply somehow know what you're doing and why (bearing in mind that even after this exchange I sure don't know what your purpose was in choosing that approach rather than simply stating it accurately). Certainly it is clear that you didn't mean "Hal9000" literally, but it sure looks like you were trying to convey the impression that a very high level system is required to run the game even adequately (which is false). Had you said "the game will not run adequately on systems meeting Sony's mininum requirements" that would probablyhave been accurate. Sony probably understated the minimum requirements to run the game adequately (I don't know since I haven't tried that configuration). If so, they are wrong in doing so, and you could certainly properly criticize that. But you are equally wrong in going to the other extreme. And it's worth noting that Sony's recommended requirements run the game quite well (my system is below the recommendations). So I guess "most gamers" (your phrase) will simply have to operate with the grossly inaccurate impression from this site that their systems will be slowed "to a crawl" (your phrase) if they cannot afford a "$5,000 system" (your phrase) ... and this is when it is so simple to state the situation accurately. Thank you for the time you've taken to respond.
You are quite welcome. I stand by the review and the language chosen, for the reasons laid out (exhaustively) in this thread. I'm sorry you refuse to accept my explanations as legitimate. I have done my best to accurately state my reasoning for writing the review as I did. If my previous posts are not adequate enough to convince you, then nothing more I can write will be sufficient. I cannot please everyone.
Thanks to all who commented and contributed to the dialogue.
----- You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Comments
So we don't get too much paraphrasing and extrapolating of what the review actually said, I want to quote the part I am referring to:
"It's a safe bet that Michael Dell's personal computer will play EQII with little trouble, but most gamers aren't billionaires and can't afford to purchase a $5000 system just so the heat shimmer effect won't slow their systems down to a crawl. The graphics on EverQuest II may be phenomenal, but only those who run it on a HAL9000 will truly know. The engine might be able to hum on future hardware, but it does not scale down to current configurations very well. There are a number of stories about people who wanted to play EQII and couldn't because their current systems weren't stout enough, so they went to one of several other current games that look fantastic and don't require outlandish hardware specifications.
Because of the huge resource requirements, performance is sluggish on most common systems. Characters run in a jerky fashion unless effects are at minimum, and even then it's not very smooth. It's hard to give high marks to the graphics when all the fancy stuff is inaccessible to the average gamer. Things like specular lighting and underwater distortion effects lose their coolness factor quickly when a running troll looks like it's being animated on flip cards."
To me, that's very misleading, in particular the phrases in green. People can decide for themselves whether a game is fun or not, but they may not even think of trying it if they are given some erroneous impression that they can't even run the game. And then, of course, there are the good points raised by Hercules. Do we want to encourage advancement or discourage it.
It may also be worth noting that you can go to the Dell website right now and buy the following for $1599: Pentium 4 processor 550 with HT (3.40GHz, 800 FSB, 1MB L2 cache), 512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 17" (16.0"vis) Monitor, 80GB6 Ultra/ATA 100 Hard Drive, 128MB PCI Express x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI RadeonT X800 XT. You just add 512 RAM and you're running EQ2 at a very high setting. Somewhat less than $5,000, I'd say.
There is a lot of content and loads of zones but many require access quest which i think is in a way wrong as it makes those not too keen on questing to quest.
But the zones and content are there.And as someone who was there in 1999 with EQ1 i say EQ2 has more but of course it does not have as much as EQ1 in its current stage.But EQ1 did have 5 years of content and zones added.
One thing that annoys me but this does not apply to EQ2 alone but all mmorpg.Its the interaction.
Some games make it such a way that you basically are so solo free that you are on a server with thousands but feel like you are alone and might as well be off line.
Some games like EQ2 demand so much interaction that it makes you feel handicapped.Funny enough its not in ability to solo in case of EQ2(like i pointed out i can list areas you can solo at any level in the game).Its everything else.Heritage quets(which are some of the best fun and rewards) require deep co operation for most of them.Crafting is very interdependant.
I wouls really love to see one mmorpg get somewhere in the balance .Closest i seen to this is probably AC2 and maybe DAoC and both have not got the balance right either.
i spend aobut $2600 on a new computer, and i run EQ 2 at Extreme quality, AMD FX-55, 2gb RAM, GeForce 6800 Ultra, no issues on the card with EQ 1 or 2, so, yea, i love it, auctualy i think i spend almost $2700-2800, don't remember, all i know is that i am paying for half, the other half is a graduation present from my parents, lol, andi got a desk from them too, lol, allwell, no biggie
My PC is under $1,000 and it runs EQ2 very well.
i found the review to be fair, and i appreciated the information
and those that do not beleive the system spec min have issues with this game take a peek at the tech fourms and you will continualy see griffen screen turning black
crash to desktop when loading zones, choppy graphics
Most folks do not go to online sites to order parts many just pick up shelf units and latter as they really get into gaming understand that there system is part of the problem of the preformance of the game
The game ran choppy for me till i bumped up mega on memory then problems seemed to iron themselves out
My troubles came in low 20s' i just couldn't bring myself to log in to watch another group fall in ts doing ac 3 quest and hearing "not worth the effort" or thundering steeps doing beetals skelles gnolls over and over without a full well balanced group, or having axcess to affordable apprentice spells or game drop equipment from useable equipable loot. Big killer was merchant broker system staring endlessly at the bulliten board ( gee lots of fun being stuck in a room)
and Siagon very glad you're still having a ball thats good to hear!!!
I spent 1700 on mine, and I run everything maxed except for flora and shadows. I get some lag in the cities but thats from slow ISP.
EQ2 Qeynos Guild- http://www.imperium-arcanum.com
I couldn't agree more; I've been actually thinking of restarting on a new server in hope to rekindle the flame.
Ultima Online and EverQuest were absolutely magical for me and everything since them has been a huge disappointment after disappointment.
This issue came up in the thread on the news discussion board. Rather than attempt to reformulate my ideas, I'll just cut & paste that item.
-----
The comments about 10 messages, as well as those regarding Michael Dell's personal computer and a HAL9000 were intentional exaggerations. This is a literary device known as hyperbole - extreme exaggerating employed to underscore a particular point. The point of such is to emphasize, not deceive. Regardless, the number of messages is not the real issue. The larger issue is the time it takes to zone. I just threw 10 out as a round number, but if there were 50 messages and they clicked by in 5 seconds, I wouldn't be so aware of them. The problem is it takes anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute for me to zone in EQII. The multiple messages and the progress bars make the wait seem longer, in my opinion. This is the idea I was trying to convey.
-----
The post can be read in its entirety here:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion.cfm/setstart/21/loadthread/31029/loadforum/510/loadclass/35
My point in using the ridiculously high figure of $5000 was to make a point, not to mislead people into thinking that an expenditure of such magnitude was a requisite. I thought most readers would understand my point, but it was obviously lost on some.
The larger point of this section - the one I believe most readers understood - was that EQII is a resource hog, especially when it comes to graphics. Further, all those fancy visuals are useless if the average gamer can't experience them without sacrificing performance. I don't hold SOE at fault for writing a powerful graphics engine, but I do think it is a mistake on their part to make it so advanced that it leaves many current gamers with a need to crank the settings down.
There are players for whom graphics is king. Those players will already have purchased high-end systems and have little complaint with EQII's graphics engine. For the rest of us, though, this is an issue.
-----
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
MMORPG.com Staff
-----
Old timer.
I don't think the reveiew was in anyway off the mark so what is the issue?
The comments were that of the author and is how they saw it. Not everyone sees the same thing but overall I don't see any bias or mention of any other game except the company and what they did before this release.
The game worked fine on my 1.6 P4 with 512 MB DDR and Geforce Asylum 256. Only I KNEW that I would not get the best graphics so I ran in extream mode. I also felt that there was not just a need to group but there was a MUST group push to the game in general and that was IMHO wrong way to get people to group. I am one of these rebel types and if someone is pushing me to do something I just don't do it.
I personally played 2 months but like many others I began to get frustrated with it due to the lack of FUN. IMO fun is the reason to play a game and that was one area that I think was the biggest let down.
Wickes, I tried to address your issues from the first paragraph in my previous post, so I'll defer to that one. If I didn't answer your concerns properly, please let me know.
I played EQII on two different systems, each of which experienced the same level of performance. I would have played it on a third - a laptop which plays both DAoC and WoW with no problem, but it would not run because of system reqs. I have spoken to people who have had the same troubles I had and to people who say it runs well on their 64MB older graphics card. These are anecdotal and, as such, I cannot confirm or deny them. I can only report my personal experiences.
As far as reviewing it from an EQ1 perspective, I will admit that I referred to the original EverQuest several times, just as SOE has not been shy about referencing the original game. Some of that is unavoidable. But I think you are referring specifically to my comment about EQII not having the same intangible fun factor that can be found in EQ. That factor can be found in other games as well. I referenced EQ because it is most famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) for its addictive nature, but other games like Ultima Online, Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot have that same feel.
What I think EQII is missing is a sense of genuineness. If feels to me as if a committee got together and decided on a list of EQ's shortcomings and set out to correct them, but along the way, they fixed a few things that weren't actually broken. EQ was wide open and let players explore on their own. EQII feels linear, as in first you go to the Isle, then to the suburb, then to the swamp or forest or ruins, then we'll let you in the city, but then you can only fight in Antonica or the Commonlands, then you can visit the Thundering Steppes or wherever. I know that it's not this strict, but it feels this way. I never felt like I could go where I wanted and discover the world on my own.
Worse, I didn't feel a sense of excitement about the game. This was my criticism, not that it, "wasn't just like EverQuest." I would have been dissappointed if EQII had been nothing but an EQ clone with updated graphics, but I did want to feel that sense of excitement, of discovery, of accomplishment...that sense of fun, and I didn't. That is the only place where my EQ1 experience had me wishing for the original game.
-----
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
MMORPG.com Staff
-----
Old timer.
Thanks, Dexter. I was worried that I hadn't been able to convey my thoughts clearly. I feel better now
Your comments are valid in many ways. My main complaint was not that EQII has an engine written for the future or even that the reqs are a bit high by today's standards. My main complaint was/is that the game does not run well on today's average system, that system being well within SOE's stated system reqs. You were right on in your analysis of my comments.
As I said in another thread, my system runs Half Life 2, Doom3, DAoC Catacombs, and World of Warcraft with no problem. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to expect it to run EQII fairly well without cranking down half the graphics settings.
I also agree that the game's environment is bland. Remember Oggok with the big doorways and wide streets or Kelethin with its funky treehouse layout? There's no such "cultural essence" (as you put it so well) in EQII. The cities are very monochrome from a cultural standpoint. Even within the two city paradigm, they couldn've made the different suburbs feel culturally unique. They could've had a barbie area with Norse influence or a troll area built in a swamp. Instead all the suburbs are pretty generic. They have some differences, like the Baubbleshire, but most are overwhelmingly similar.
-----
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
MMORPG.com Staff
-----
Old timer.
With all due respect to hyperbole
, this was not the place for it. There are "soft" and "hard" parts of reviews. The "soft" parts are opinion, and I do believe people recognize them as such. The "hard" parts, such as system requirements, are not looked upon as opinion ... they are looked upon as fact. I certainly know the intent was not to deceive, but I think that's the result. People walk away with a wrong impression of what the game requires.
I agree there are people who can't run it. I can't run it on my laptop (integrated video). I don't think it's ever been in dispute that some can't run it. But the situation is not nearly as extreme as you portray it. Of all the people I know who've tried it (a normal assortment of people - not computer people), very few have had to upgrade in order to get a result satisfactory to them. One had to due to integrated video. Another had to due to a 64 meg card on a P4 1.4. I think those two situations are fairly obvious, and as for the fact that they can run other games currently out, I guess I would say "so what"
You simply don't need a $5,000 system nor a Hal9000 to run this game satisfactorily 
On system requirements, I just think people should be given an accurate view. I think it's quite probable that some people who don't research things thoroughly will simply read that review and immediately and erroneously conclude that they can't run the game at all.
As to the "EQ1 perspective" issue, I won't belabor it here. It would be an interesting thread, if we could have such a thread without the usual thread hijackers destroying it
Maybe I will try one anyway ... as somewhat of a student of games, I find the whole EQ1 phenomena endlessly fascinating. Anyway, I agree with a lot of your opinion points about EQ2. Although EQ2 is the best thing I can find for my tastes at the moment, I have a number of complaints.
I guess this is where we will have to disagree, then. With all respect, I think you're taking this piece of my review far too literally. I can't believe that anyone would think that the suggestion to run EQII on a HAL9000, the computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey, could be anything other than farcical. Also, the notion that one would have to be a billionaire like Michael Dell to afford a system that can run a mass market game is ludicrous. I think anyone who reads the entire review and reads those lines in the context of the piece will understand the hyperbole and not consider them as serious system reqs. I give the readership of this site more credit than that.
Had I presented more realistic specs and stated that they were required, then I'd really have been in trouble. People read, "a $5000 computer," or "a HAL9000," and they know it's a joke. People read, "geforce 6," or "radeon 9800 256," and they tend to think that such specfics mean actual reqs. I purposefully kept my comments ridiculously high and non specific to avoid such. (Oh, BTW, I did use geforce 8 in a title, but since that card probably isnt even beyond nvidia's drawing board, it's not meant to be a serious, specific suggestion. Also, it flowed nicely if you sang the line
.)
My point is that systems within Sony's specs do not run the game well without dumbing the graphics down. Your comment about a friend who upgraded because he had a P4 1.4 and a 64 MB card makes that point. This is above the minimum reqs of a PIII 1.0 and 64MB. If the game won't run on the minimum specs, then SOE needs to up their minimum specs. I have a friend who is running EQII on 768MB. She admits it's clunky, but she likes the game so she makes allowances for performance. Basically, she puts up with it. Others may do the same and claim it runs fine. I don't really know, nor am I doubting the veracity or sincerity of those who say it runs with little problem on their older systems. All I can do is present findings based upon my actual experience.
It certainly would. EQ's success is not likely to be duplicated by any game, specifically for reasons I mention in my review. EQII is not doomed to failure because of this. On the contrary, the EQ name has definitely given it a boost, at least from a hype perspective. I think EQ has evolved to the point that the game itself is not the only major draw. I think the social aspect does as much to bring seasoned players back nightly. Not to suggest that EQ has become merely a glorified chatroom, but the community aspect is a big part of it. This has become true of other older games, such as DAoC and Ultima Online, IMO.
Anyway, I appreciate your commentary and your perspective. Thanks for taking the time to write, Wickes.-----
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
MMORPG.com Staff
-----
Old timer.
I think the review was too soft, I never once saw mention of flying fish, and that was what really nailed the coffin closed for me.
I don't thik that Hal-9000 even had a grahics sub system, it was just an AI in a box with a red light and a voice processor. I don't think it could have even start the game up. "This isn't chess Dave, I want to play chess Dave."
All jokes aside I thought the review summed up exactly how I felt about the game, which is that it is a great game, but not very much fun, has no sense of mystery or excitment.
Yeah I guess we will have to agree to disagree. In this exchange you've essentially acknowledged that statements in your review about system requirements are not accurate, but also indicated an unwillingness to correct them, even though you are obviously well able to state your assessment in accurate terms, as you have done several times in this exchange. Instead, you choose to rely upon explanations of hyperbole and intentional exaggeration, based on the premise, I guess, that readers should simply somehow know what you're doing and why (bearing in mind that even after this exchange I sure don't know what your purpose was in choosing that approach rather than simply stating it accurately).
Certainly it is clear that you didn't mean "Hal9000" literally, but it sure looks like you were trying to convey the impression that a very high level system is required to run the game even adequately (which is false). Had you said "the game will not run adequately on systems meeting Sony's mininum requirements" that would probablyhave been accurate. Sony probably understated the minimum requirements to run the game adequately (I don't know since I haven't tried that configuration). If so, they are wrong in doing so, and you could certainly properly criticize that. But you are equally wrong in going to the other extreme. And it's worth noting that Sony's recommended requirements run the game quite well (my system is below the recommendations).
So I guess "most gamers" (your phrase) will simply have to operate with the grossly inaccurate impression from this site that their systems will be slowed "to a crawl" (your phrase) if they cannot afford a "$5,000 system" (your phrase) ... and this is when it is so simple to state the situation accurately.
Thank you for the time you've taken to respond.
You are quite welcome. I stand by the review and the language chosen, for the reasons laid out (exhaustively) in this thread. I'm sorry you refuse to accept my explanations as legitimate. I have done my best to accurately state my reasoning for writing the review as I did. If my previous posts are not adequate enough to convince you, then nothing more I can write will be sufficient. I cannot please everyone.
Thanks to all who commented and contributed to the dialogue.
-----
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
MMORPG.com Staff
-----
Old timer.