"Soe moved the release date up in response to blizzards release date, just so they could release EQ2 2 weeks before wow. It isn't like eq2 was on the market for so long that wow emulated many of the games features. Just look at what game went through combat revamps, crafting revamps, questing revamps, etc."
[1] Which is completely irrelevant to the claim that EQ2 was "cooked up to combat WoW," and in fact further disputes the claim, so thanks for the back up.
"Most of the features that eq2 released with were quickly removed if that says anything. I played on the eq2 test server for the first year after release and for every massive design change that eq2 went through, there were several others that were considered and tested before that one. The devs were litterally all over the map with the direction they were trying to take the game. One day the game would force grouping on players and the next it would be so dumbed down easy nearly anything could be soloed. "
[2] EQ2 remains my longest played MMO and that is grossly exaggerated, feel free to provide a link citing how "MOST" of the features were removed. Regardless, it's still irrelevant to the claim that EQ2 was created to combat WoW, both games were in development simultaneously. I'd also point out that WoW has undergone far, FAR, more massive design changes than EQ2 has - to include dumbing down. Once Cataclysm hits the servers, any comparison between EQ2 and WoW design changes will be even more laughable.
If wow took the crown due to performance, then soe would have spent the first few years of eq2 redesigning the engine and making the game run smooth. Soe spent those first few years redesigning the gameplay, because that was the biggest problem the game had.
[3] EQ2 ran perfectly smooth for me, but my gaming system usually run ahead of the bell curve. It sounds like you are implying WoW had no gameplay issues, but yet here we are years later with so many changes that the early game is considered a separate entity all together and people run clandestine "vanilla" servers on the side. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy both games and currently log more time on WoW - but any claim that a game was specifically created to combat another game that wasn't even released and was being developed concurrently yet is almost impossible, and if you have truly played both games then you realize how ludicrous that is as they are night and day different games. If EQ2's goal was to mimic WoW, they would have done it by now and play similar to Aion/RoM/Allods.
[1]
I read the comment by lobotomist as referencing the post release frankenstein the EQ2 became as it tried to compete with wow after each game released. Once the dust settled, EQ2 did get carved up like a monster from a horror movie. I guess it just depends on how you read the statement. No I don't think EQ2 was originally designed to compete with wow, but most think that is how it ended up.
You claim EQ2 released with many features that wow emulated. I'm curious which those would be.
[2]
Ok, I admit I exaggerated and I try hard not to, but I'm not claiming eq2 was conceived to combat wow. However, eq2 started making some pretty big changes in response to how it was doing in the market compared to what wow was doing and thus started the frankenstein changes to the game. You can see the changes in the patch notes. I don't think any change in wow compares to the combat revamp, just for example. Several classes were completely altered. Not enhanced or updated, but altered to become drastically different than what they were and the revamp still didn't solve the imbalance in the games classes.
Looking at its history it is hard to tell if eq2 is trying to be a solo game, a group game and a raid game, because it changes focus so much. Combine that with the flipflopping of pvp being added and then abandonded. Then look at its long difficult struggle with being a subscription game or a microtransaction game and now both combined in more ways than one.
The game has lacked direction for a long time and is on its fourth of fifth lead producer/designer now? What changes in wow really compare to that?
[3]
Nothing I said comes even close to hinting that wow had no issues at release. Sure all games including wow & eq2 change, but I don't hear people saying wow has been eq2ified, but you hear plenty of people saying eq2 has been wowified.
I read the comment by lobotomist as referencing the post release frankenstein the EQ2 became as it tried to compete with wow after each game released. Once the dust settled, EQ2 did get carved up like a monster from a horror movie. I guess it just depends on how you read the statement. No I don't think EQ2 was originally designed to compete with wow, but most think that is how it ended up.
You claim EQ2 released with many features that wow emulated. I'm curious which those would be.
[2]
Ok, I admit I exaggerated and I try hard not to, but I'm not claiming eq2 was conceived to combat wow. However, eq2 started making some pretty big changes in response to how it was doing in the market compared to what wow was doing and thus started the frankenstein changes to the game. You can see the changes in the patch notes. I don't think any change in wow compares to the combat revamp, just for example. Several classes were completely altered. Not enhanced or updated, but altered to become drastically different than what they were and the revamp still didn't solve the imbalance in the games classes.
Looking at its history it is hard to tell if eq2 is trying to be a solo game, a group game and a raid game, because it changes focus so much. Combine that with the flipflopping of pvp being added and then abandonded. Then look at its long difficult struggle with being a subscription game or a microtransaction game and now both combined in more ways than one.
The game has lacked direction for a long time and is on its fourth of fifth lead producer/designer now? What changes in wow really compare to that?
[3]
Nothing I said comes even close to hinting that wow had no issues at release. Sure all games including wow & eq2 change, but I don't hear people saying wow has been eq2ified, but you hear plenty of people saying eq2 has been wowified.
[1]
I took the term “cooked up” to mean that EQ2 was created on the fly solely to compete with WoW, which I think is an absurd assumption. Were they competitors in the same genre? Sure, and I’m sure there were changes going on with both companies as press releases were put out by the other, hardly an EQ2 only thing.
Things EQ2 had at release that WoW got later:
chat bubbles
weather
last names
higher tradeskill gains for rare items (coming in Cataclysm)
Things EQ2 has had forever that I’m surprised WoW doesn’t have yet. Listed so I can claim WoW is copying when it does get them. Kidding.
guild halls
player housing
“modern” character creation (height/weight, facial structure, etc.)
[2]
Both companies have scrambled with changes; I’d consider the upcoming Cataclysm changes to be WoW’s version of EQ2’s combat changes you reference. Aside from actually changing the map itself, they are revamping the skill trees, removing abilities, changes to the baseline stats, etc.
I think many of the perception of EQ2’s identity crisis (solo/group/raid game) stem from the awkward way they released a few of their expansions. They released one expansion that was almost totally single/small group play because the player base was upset with that aspect of the game. Immediately the raid crowd started crying because they felt they got overlooked. Next expansion tried to make right by being heavily end-game and very little for solo/small group. I don’t agree with the way it panned out, I’m a proponent of “a little for everyone instead of a lot for a few,” but I think they have been trying to make right since.
[3]
I generally hear that in terms of ease of play. I had to say it, but WoW is essentially a casual game you pay for. I’ve gone from level 42 to 72 in like a week and a half, and that’s around a full time job and a family, and I think this ease of play (or maybe more accurately, ‘ease of competitiveness’) is what keeps a lot of WoW’s player base playing. I have a buddy at work with 5 accounts and 14 level 80’s, he can level a toon to 60 in a weekend. Combine that with the HUGE market push to cater to the casual, and I think it’s less “lets copy WoW” and more “Let’s get on the casual gravy train.” I just read that the new Final Fantasy is going to cut experience completely after 15 hours of play in a week. If that doesn’t smack of casualness I don’t know what does. WoW has been accused of catering to the casual since it was revealed that you could gain an exp bonus by not playing.
In my opinion, both companies probably stopped looking at the other as "serious competition" years ago and instead have started scrambling and jockeying for position to withstand the next wave of MMO's to hit the market. Blizzard has been pretty quiet about subscription numbers lately, and I wonder if the 800-pound gorilla hasn't finally topped out. With names as Salvatore and McFarlane joining forces to make an MMO, and IP's like Neverwinter Nights also squeaking into the market, WoW may have it's hands full... these sound like bigger contenders than the previous "WoW-killers."
2) EQ2 NO LONGER has a starting isle ( hasnt since the launch of New Halas in feb) so that rules that one out,, I mean come on,, you can go from level 1 to level 20+ in less than a day in EQ2.
I have a sub to station and have both games on this computer, so yea,, i can tell you vanguard is a better game all around than EasyQuest 2 is..
IMO the author of the article needs to step away from the pipe for a while.
2) EQ2 NO LONGER has a starting isle ( hasnt since the launch of New Halas in feb) so that rules that one out,, I mean come on,, you can go from level 1 to level 20+ in less than a day in EQ2.
I have a sub to station and have both games on this computer, so yea,, i can tell you vanguard is a better game all around than EasyQuest 2 is..
IMO the author of the article needs to step away from the pipe for a while.
While I disagree with your opinions on which is the better game, I do agree I'm not overly impressed with the comparisons the author has been making. What's next? Runes of Magic vs. Age of Conan?
Me and a friend played both games and we used to say that vanguard was a sort of EQ2 on steroids :P the "core game" of vanguard is imo way better than EQ2 but EQ2 obviously have more to offer in terms of content (expecially as the orphan status of vanguard and SOE unwilling to spend money on it)
i disagree with the OP both abouth the graphic and characters.
i always tought that graphic in vanguard is quite beautifull (expecially for its age) i agree that some areas are not that "pretty" but the quality of some areas are amazing, another pro of vanguard in this reguard is its open world approach and there you can really climb on top of a mountain and look around to see rivers, plains, forests and so on... something not really possible to do with EQ2 that have smaller and tematic areas, even if generally they are more developed. I think the games are kinda equal in this reguard, if vanguard had still the old character models (that where veeeery good) it was an easy win but after they chose to replace the beautifull models with ugly ones i'll go for the tie (better char EQ2, better settings VG)
Characters... this is a no contest imo and vanguard wins hands down... EQ2 characters are extremely one dimensional while VG ones are more varied as many of them can cover 2 roles. Is not even true about the no difference about races, as racials powers have quite a big impact, expecially for some classes so, even speaking about races i think Vanguard is a bit better. About the underdevelopement it was kinda true but i found the same in EQ2, i used to play SK there and the class was not balanced at all in reguard of other tanks... well it was lot of time ago and hopefully they fixed that but still... :P
I haven't played either but I loved the writing style. Keep em comin !!!
Waiting for GW2 and playing...kinda...Aion which has virtualy no storyline or lore and some of the most broken PVP I have ever experienced. I was an Aion defender for a long time but I just can't do it any more.
if they put more effort on VG instead of EQ2, I am pretty sure VG will get a healthy population.
Is like come on !!!! VG has every MMORPG fans wanted: Housing, Raids, Guilds PvP, Flying Mount, Ships, yada... yada..yada.....
not to mention having a unique crafting system + a diplomacy mini games.
Oh my my .... shame on SOE.
Agree a hell of a lot... if the effort they put into improving (debateable though) EQ2 had been spent on Vanguard, which, imo has far more potential than EQ2, then its possible that SOE might have a AAA title on their hands, personally i think their pinning too many hopes on DCUO ... without good reason, half the problem with SOE is that, they get a decent game, and either poorly utilize it.. or ballz it up completely (they've managed both though).. half the time i think their still stuck in the EQ1 mindset.. i think Vanguard is probably always going to be one of those games, that will be remembered for the fact it should have been a lot better.
Look at Vanguard is best what old school MMO could ofer all rolled in one hugamonguos game.
Unfortunately this game was abandoned after the shaky launch. It literaly has team of 2 developers working on it. Ever since it was taken by SOE.
Which is crazy.
EQ2 on other hand is ugly ugly joke. The game is so bad , people are not interested in playing it even as free version.
It was just a frankenstein monster cooked up to combat WOW. In which it laughably failed.
But SOE keeps and keeps investing all its resources in it ...
Crazy. ... But thats SOE
Cooked up to beat WoW??? It was released "Before wow"... And with the production time to make MMO's being 3+ years. When they started working on EQ2 initially, the existance of WoW wasn't even known of by ANYONE besides blizzard.
When EQ2 was first released, it was undesputably the most technically/graphically advanced MMORPG in existance... One of the prime factors that attributed it's failure was the fact that people couldn't run it properly on the machines of that day. Hell most people couldn't run it properly till late 07 early 08.
You can argue about the artistic direction EQ2 took all you want, but that is purely subjective...
This makes me excited to think that someone is smoking a finer green leaf than I am! lolol..
EQ2 graphics are the shityest graphics ever known, while parts of vanguard arnt amazing generally it beats most mmo's hands down.
On this point and this point alone I dismiss this entire review, nothing nearly as awesome as the lotro vs wow article.
Bad, very bad indeed. Why not try and convince us that World War 1 was a peacfull time for mankind eh?
Have you ever heard the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" Graphics is largely subjective. The author doesn't use anything factual like polygon counts or texture comparisons - basically resorting to a grading scale of "I think this one is prettier." You are doing the same thing with your rebuttal by using "shittyest ever known" (how many MMO's have you played?) and "amazing."
How does that other saying go? "Opinions are like..."
I guess all I'm saying is this is another thing I'm not liking about the article, but I'm not sure it's worth dismissing the entire thing just because his opinion on graphics differs from yours. It's a short read and he gives a lot of props to Vanguard, you may find other things you like.
SOE is not getting another nickel out of me no matter how pretty a picture you want to paint of its games. The company hates its customers and destroys good games.
Vanguard was going to be the game that I finally left Everquest II. I remember getting so hyped up and excited about the game, but in the end, the game was an absolute mess and to some degree, still is.
Underneath the massive pile of bugs, there's a really great game with a totally unique gameworld, but the population simply isn't large enough to support it. Even if the game had a population the size of EQ2, the world is simply too massive for its own good. The server population of VG would most likely have had to rival the population of a WoW server to fill out all the various quest locations.
SOE is not getting another nickel out of me no matter how pretty a picture you want to paint of its games. The company hates its customers and destroys good games.
I was waiting for the SWG defense.
In my opinion that was the only game they really "destroyed." Vanguard doesn't really count since SOE didn't start taking control until way late in development (completing the coupe after release), more of the blame lies with Sigil I think. Everquest 1 is still going strong. :shrug:
Vanguard was going to be the game that I finally left Everquest II. I remember getting so hyped up and excited about the game, but in the end, the game was an absolute mess and to some degree, still is.
Underneath the massive pile of bugs, there's a really great game with a totally unique gameworld, but the population simply isn't large enough to support it. Even if the game had a population the size of EQ2, the world is simply too massive for its own good. The server population of VG would most likely have had to rival the population of a WoW server to fill out all the various quest locations.
The thing is, I like it that way. Which of course seems bad for business.
what I absolutely hate about these games is that the game worlds try to make it so that every area has people. That feels very artifical to me.
OF course, I'm probably one of those people who wants more of a world feel than a game feel.
Last night I was looking down this coastline, no players in site though I knew there were a few on the Island I was on, and it felt right. It felt like I was on a remote island.
I think where the game fails is that the cities seem so hard to navigate around that they draw less people. I noticed that the busiest city seems to be the on in Qual (or howerver that is spelled) because everything that one needs is easily findable.
This game really is a niche game. Unfortunatley the bugs and issues are such that it never truly feels polished and just won't draw in people who aren't patient with its issues.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
SOE is not getting another nickel out of me no matter how pretty a picture you want to paint of its games. The company hates its customers and destroys good games.
I was waiting for the SWG defense.
In my opinion that was the only game they really "destroyed. Vanguard doesn't really count since SOE didn't start taking control until way late in development (completing the coupe after release), more of the blame lies with Sigil I think. Everquest 1 is still going strong. :shrug:
er.. how about Matrix Online and Planetside. admittedly i thought the matrix game was a bit dire.. but Planetside was awesome.. until they messed it up with bfr's and the caves.. SOE have made some daft choices in the past.. and their present isnt exactly covered in glory either.
After reading this the first time I went and try both games...again. For me it is EQ2 for its game play in similar area's as the writer mentions. I would only add tha EQ2 is easier on the eyes for us that over the age of...older.
SOE is not getting another nickel out of me no matter how pretty a picture you want to paint of its games. The company hates its customers and destroys good games.
I was waiting for the SWG defense.
In my opinion that was the only game they really "destroyed. Vanguard doesn't really count since SOE didn't start taking control until way late in development (completing the coupe after release), more of the blame lies with Sigil I think. Everquest 1 is still going strong. :shrug:
er.. how about Matrix Online and Planetside. admittedly i thought the matrix game was a bit dire.. but Planetside was awesome.. until they messed it up with bfr's and the caves.. SOE have made some daft choices in the past.. and their present isnt exactly covered in glory either.
I thought most, if not all of the development for MxO was Monolith? And I never considered Planetside an MMO, though admittedly I took for granted that you were referring only to SOE's mainstream MMO's as opposed to all the games they have had a hand in. If we are looking at the big picture of "destroyed good games" though, then Activision and Electronic Arts should also not be getting any of your nickels.
Whats Vanguard's subs numbers lookiing like? Is the world more populated than Everquest?
That would be NO!!! They are down to one server in Vanguard a total of possibly 100k at max if even that.
EQ2 has a ton of servers You take the top 3 and you easily beet vanguard's numbers. That is why when I looked saw the title and them giving vanguard the win I rofl.
Oh and vanguards is down to one dev. just one as they fired the other one a couple of months back.
Whats Vanguard's subs numbers lookiing like? Is the world more populated than Everquest?
That would be NO!!! They are down to one server in Vanguard a total of possibly 100k at max if even that.
EQ2 has a ton of servers You take the top 3 and you easily beet vanguard's numbers. That is why when I looked saw the title and them giving vanguard the win I rofl.
Oh and vanguards is down to one dev. just one as they fired the other one a couple of months back.
Comments
imho I love EQ2, its is an awesome game however, Vanguard out shines it in every way. The only problem is that SoE don't see it that way......
[1]
I read the comment by lobotomist as referencing the post release frankenstein the EQ2 became as it tried to compete with wow after each game released. Once the dust settled, EQ2 did get carved up like a monster from a horror movie. I guess it just depends on how you read the statement. No I don't think EQ2 was originally designed to compete with wow, but most think that is how it ended up.
You claim EQ2 released with many features that wow emulated. I'm curious which those would be.
[2]
Ok, I admit I exaggerated and I try hard not to, but I'm not claiming eq2 was conceived to combat wow. However, eq2 started making some pretty big changes in response to how it was doing in the market compared to what wow was doing and thus started the frankenstein changes to the game. You can see the changes in the patch notes. I don't think any change in wow compares to the combat revamp, just for example. Several classes were completely altered. Not enhanced or updated, but altered to become drastically different than what they were and the revamp still didn't solve the imbalance in the games classes.
Looking at its history it is hard to tell if eq2 is trying to be a solo game, a group game and a raid game, because it changes focus so much. Combine that with the flipflopping of pvp being added and then abandonded. Then look at its long difficult struggle with being a subscription game or a microtransaction game and now both combined in more ways than one.
The game has lacked direction for a long time and is on its fourth of fifth lead producer/designer now? What changes in wow really compare to that?
[3]
Nothing I said comes even close to hinting that wow had no issues at release. Sure all games including wow & eq2 change, but I don't hear people saying wow has been eq2ified, but you hear plenty of people saying eq2 has been wowified.
[1]
I took the term “cooked up” to mean that EQ2 was created on the fly solely to compete with WoW, which I think is an absurd assumption. Were they competitors in the same genre? Sure, and I’m sure there were changes going on with both companies as press releases were put out by the other, hardly an EQ2 only thing.
Things EQ2 had at release that WoW got later:
chat bubbles
weather
last names
higher tradeskill gains for rare items (coming in Cataclysm)
Things EQ2 has had forever that I’m surprised WoW doesn’t have yet. Listed so I can claim WoW is copying when it does get them. Kidding.
guild halls
player housing
“modern” character creation (height/weight, facial structure, etc.)
[2]
Both companies have scrambled with changes; I’d consider the upcoming Cataclysm changes to be WoW’s version of EQ2’s combat changes you reference. Aside from actually changing the map itself, they are revamping the skill trees, removing abilities, changes to the baseline stats, etc.
I think many of the perception of EQ2’s identity crisis (solo/group/raid game) stem from the awkward way they released a few of their expansions. They released one expansion that was almost totally single/small group play because the player base was upset with that aspect of the game. Immediately the raid crowd started crying because they felt they got overlooked. Next expansion tried to make right by being heavily end-game and very little for solo/small group. I don’t agree with the way it panned out, I’m a proponent of “a little for everyone instead of a lot for a few,” but I think they have been trying to make right since.
[3]
I generally hear that in terms of ease of play. I had to say it, but WoW is essentially a casual game you pay for. I’ve gone from level 42 to 72 in like a week and a half, and that’s around a full time job and a family, and I think this ease of play (or maybe more accurately, ‘ease of competitiveness’) is what keeps a lot of WoW’s player base playing. I have a buddy at work with 5 accounts and 14 level 80’s, he can level a toon to 60 in a weekend. Combine that with the HUGE market push to cater to the casual, and I think it’s less “lets copy WoW” and more “Let’s get on the casual gravy train.” I just read that the new Final Fantasy is going to cut experience completely after 15 hours of play in a week. If that doesn’t smack of casualness I don’t know what does. WoW has been accused of catering to the casual since it was revealed that you could gain an exp bonus by not playing.
In my opinion, both companies probably stopped looking at the other as "serious competition" years ago and instead have started scrambling and jockeying for position to withstand the next wave of MMO's to hit the market. Blizzard has been pretty quiet about subscription numbers lately, and I wonder if the 800-pound gorilla hasn't finally topped out. With names as Salvatore and McFarlane joining forces to make an MMO, and IP's like Neverwinter Nights also squeaking into the market, WoW may have it's hands full... these sound like bigger contenders than the previous "WoW-killers."
What is this guys smoking?
1) EQ2's graphics are 1/2 of what vanguards are.
2) EQ2 NO LONGER has a starting isle ( hasnt since the launch of New Halas in feb) so that rules that one out,, I mean come on,, you can go from level 1 to level 20+ in less than a day in EQ2.
I have a sub to station and have both games on this computer, so yea,, i can tell you vanguard is a better game all around than EasyQuest 2 is..
IMO the author of the article needs to step away from the pipe for a while.
While I disagree with your opinions on which is the better game, I do agree I'm not overly impressed with the comparisons the author has been making. What's next? Runes of Magic vs. Age of Conan?
Whats Vanguard's subs numbers lookiing like? Is the world more populated than Everquest?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Vanguard only has 10k-20k subs...they are only down to two servers.
EQ has more subs I think.
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
Me and a friend played both games and we used to say that vanguard was a sort of EQ2 on steroids :P the "core game" of vanguard is imo way better than EQ2 but EQ2 obviously have more to offer in terms of content (expecially as the orphan status of vanguard and SOE unwilling to spend money on it)
i disagree with the OP both abouth the graphic and characters.
i always tought that graphic in vanguard is quite beautifull (expecially for its age) i agree that some areas are not that "pretty" but the quality of some areas are amazing, another pro of vanguard in this reguard is its open world approach and there you can really climb on top of a mountain and look around to see rivers, plains, forests and so on... something not really possible to do with EQ2 that have smaller and tematic areas, even if generally they are more developed. I think the games are kinda equal in this reguard, if vanguard had still the old character models (that where veeeery good) it was an easy win but after they chose to replace the beautifull models with ugly ones i'll go for the tie (better char EQ2, better settings VG)
Characters... this is a no contest imo and vanguard wins hands down... EQ2 characters are extremely one dimensional while VG ones are more varied as many of them can cover 2 roles. Is not even true about the no difference about races, as racials powers have quite a big impact, expecially for some classes so, even speaking about races i think Vanguard is a bit better. About the underdevelopement it was kinda true but i found the same in EQ2, i used to play SK there and the class was not balanced at all in reguard of other tanks... well it was lot of time ago and hopefully they fixed that but still... :P
I haven't played either but I loved the writing style. Keep em comin !!!
Waiting for GW2 and playing...kinda...Aion which has virtualy no storyline or lore and some of the most broken PVP I have ever experienced. I was an Aion defender for a long time but I just can't do it any more.
if they put more effort on VG instead of EQ2, I am pretty sure VG will get a healthy population.
Is like come on !!!! VG has every MMORPG fans wanted: Housing, Raids, Guilds PvP, Flying Mount, Ships, yada... yada..yada.....
not to mention having a unique crafting system + a diplomacy mini games.
Oh my my .... shame on SOE.
This makes me excited to think that someone is smoking a finer green leaf than I am! lolol..
EQ2 graphics are the shityest graphics ever known, while parts of vanguard arnt amazing generally it beats most mmo's hands down.
On this point and this point alone I dismiss this entire review, nothing nearly as awesome as the lotro vs wow article.
Bad, very bad indeed. Why not try and convince us that World War 1 was a peacfull time for mankind eh?
Agree a hell of a lot... if the effort they put into improving (debateable though) EQ2 had been spent on Vanguard, which, imo has far more potential than EQ2, then its possible that SOE might have a AAA title on their hands, personally i think their pinning too many hopes on DCUO ... without good reason, half the problem with SOE is that, they get a decent game, and either poorly utilize it.. or ballz it up completely (they've managed both though).. half the time i think their still stuck in the EQ1 mindset.. i think Vanguard is probably always going to be one of those games, that will be remembered for the fact it should have been a lot better.
Cooked up to beat WoW??? It was released "Before wow"... And with the production time to make MMO's being 3+ years. When they started working on EQ2 initially, the existance of WoW wasn't even known of by ANYONE besides blizzard.
When EQ2 was first released, it was undesputably the most technically/graphically advanced MMORPG in existance... One of the prime factors that attributed it's failure was the fact that people couldn't run it properly on the machines of that day. Hell most people couldn't run it properly till late 07 early 08.
You can argue about the artistic direction EQ2 took all you want, but that is purely subjective...
Have you ever heard the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" Graphics is largely subjective. The author doesn't use anything factual like polygon counts or texture comparisons - basically resorting to a grading scale of "I think this one is prettier." You are doing the same thing with your rebuttal by using "shittyest ever known" (how many MMO's have you played?) and "amazing."
How does that other saying go? "Opinions are like..."
I guess all I'm saying is this is another thing I'm not liking about the article, but I'm not sure it's worth dismissing the entire thing just because his opinion on graphics differs from yours. It's a short read and he gives a lot of props to Vanguard, you may find other things you like.
SOE is not getting another nickel out of me no matter how pretty a picture you want to paint of its games. The company hates its customers and destroys good games.
Vanguard was going to be the game that I finally left Everquest II. I remember getting so hyped up and excited about the game, but in the end, the game was an absolute mess and to some degree, still is.
Underneath the massive pile of bugs, there's a really great game with a totally unique gameworld, but the population simply isn't large enough to support it. Even if the game had a population the size of EQ2, the world is simply too massive for its own good. The server population of VG would most likely have had to rival the population of a WoW server to fill out all the various quest locations.
I was waiting for the SWG defense.
In my opinion that was the only game they really "destroyed." Vanguard doesn't really count since SOE didn't start taking control until way late in development (completing the coupe after release), more of the blame lies with Sigil I think. Everquest 1 is still going strong. :shrug:
The thing is, I like it that way. Which of course seems bad for business.
what I absolutely hate about these games is that the game worlds try to make it so that every area has people. That feels very artifical to me.
OF course, I'm probably one of those people who wants more of a world feel than a game feel.
Last night I was looking down this coastline, no players in site though I knew there were a few on the Island I was on, and it felt right. It felt like I was on a remote island.
I think where the game fails is that the cities seem so hard to navigate around that they draw less people. I noticed that the busiest city seems to be the on in Qual (or howerver that is spelled) because everything that one needs is easily findable.
This game really is a niche game. Unfortunatley the bugs and issues are such that it never truly feels polished and just won't draw in people who aren't patient with its issues.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
er.. how about Matrix Online and Planetside. admittedly i thought the matrix game was a bit dire.. but Planetside was awesome.. until they messed it up with bfr's and the caves.. SOE have made some daft choices in the past.. and their present isnt exactly covered in glory either.
After reading this the first time I went and try both games...again. For me it is EQ2 for its game play in similar area's as the writer mentions. I would only add tha EQ2 is easier on the eyes for us that over the age of...older.
Just FYI, you can actually play EQ2 on a cheap computer. I played EQ2 on a cheap ass computer for years with no problems and minimal lag.
Also, PROOF READING, it matters!
I thought most, if not all of the development for MxO was Monolith? And I never considered Planetside an MMO, though admittedly I took for granted that you were referring only to SOE's mainstream MMO's as opposed to all the games they have had a hand in. If we are looking at the big picture of "destroyed good games" though, then Activision and Electronic Arts should also not be getting any of your nickels.
Of course, you can even play Crysis on an old PC... it just won't look as nice.
That would be NO!!! They are down to one server in Vanguard a total of possibly 100k at max if even that.
EQ2 has a ton of servers You take the top 3 and you easily beet vanguard's numbers. That is why when I looked saw the title and them giving vanguard the win I rofl.
Oh and vanguards is down to one dev. just one as they fired the other one a couple of months back.
100k? lol...probably closer to 20k.
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon