This is like diablo-guildwars-rift hybrid. Not that any are bad games, and this won't be bad either... but its nothing-- new, interesting, or fun excepting the voxel terrain stuff.
This is absurdly cartoon looking... to the point of seeming to go back in time 10 years or more graphically speaking... and if landmark is any indication on performance / responsiveness it's abysmal... and def not quality that's for sure.
Think this is one game off my 'watch list'... which makes me sad. I played eq1, eq2, swg, etc... they're kinda bombing this so far.
Originally posted by redcore ill stick to wow (again). there is no game on the market which can beat wow gameplay - its responsive, smooth, animation is nice and fluid - everything just works!
I'd argue rift does at this point (post-panda) and at least based on beta as far as I've seen archeage does as well. They manage to suck less... but I want real innovation, the things voxel terrain adds is pretty nifty (deformation and such), but it's not worth dumbing the game play as far as it seems eqn is doing.
My little cousins play a game called Lego: Indiana Jones. I thought it was a joke but its smooth and its fun when you topple stuff down with the little lego animations they have. I actually beat that game it took me 13 hours but anyway heres how the original Everquest looked like in pre-alpha :
And they mentioned something about no end game but haven't discussed how that is going to work in detail.
AI + procedurally generated content + no focus on vertical progression are some of their ways.
Would just like to point out that anything you do max level is just "content" i have no idea what in the world your talking about there. If it's alternative leveling content, non leveling content, skill content, finding new classes content its still content. That something special your talking about is still going to be "content"...so..yeah no clue what you mean with that one. Content is Content regardless of what it actually is...if it's something your character is doing it content.
For me, it seems an "end game" is the"best" content either most challenging, most rewards, or both. Essentially you can "beat" the game by completing it. Which is why in almost every game I've played, people rush to be the first and best to then hit a wall and stomp their feet to complain there isn't enough to do.
EQN shouldn't have this issue. If (big if) they pull off Storybricks working with the dynamic world, challenges of all kinds should last forever. One day we might fight a Giant rampaging through the land, next it might be 200 kobolds, next it might be a Dragon, next 1000 giant rats, whatever. Without a reliance on instancing and vertical static content, unless someone sets their own personal "end game" there won't be one.
If I go "When I unlock all 40 classes, I've maxed out" that is my choice. Or I plan to kill 1000 Giants. Or whatever it may be. I choose and play accordingly. Instead of being told X lvl is max, X build is best, X gear is best, X boss is hardest, the end.
So while they haven't given very detailed explanations, with a bit of connect the dots, it should make some sense. Obviously if someone loves vertical progression and being able to brag about being a server first or having max something, they might not enjoy EQN. While I think the term "Sandbox" isn't specific to any one thing, EQN has elements of being an open experience where going North or South are both viable, heck Up or Down in its case. Instead of A - B - C - D finished.
Nothing wrong with having different views or opinions. Some of us might be right, wrong, doesn't really matter. If you think SOE isn't innovative and is just making the same old thing, no harm in that. When a game comes out that is innovative and in this genre, please let me know, I'd love to play it.
I'm a gamer. Don't care if it's SOE, Blizzard, Mythic, Carbine, ArenaNet, etc. As of today, none of the games out or coming out seem to have enough uniqueness for me besides EQN. One game might have 1-2 nice features, another might have a couple, but usually all are lacking quite a bit. EQN is aiming to hit as many targets as possible, which can go either way. They've drawn the line when it comes to combat/progression and a few other things, so people can either accept it or play something else. All will be good in gamer land.
Guess my biggest issue is people coming into a game's forum full of fans and being overly negative without much to offer. Someone going "Graphics suck" is free to think that, but what did that add? "I hate action combat" nice, I'm sure SOE will totally overhaul the game for those that don't like it, heck 4th time might be the charm. While I know I probably sounds like a blind fanboi, honestly don't care. This is a forum to talk about the game I like. Everyone is free to do what they want, but if people really dislike something so much, why waste even a few seconds on it?
In order to be eligible for consideration in the 2014 Game Critics Awards: Best of E3, a game must be on display at the 2013 E3 Expo in Los Angeles, June 10-12, 2012. Games shown in private meeting rooms are eligible along with those shown publicly on the show floor.
Playable Format In order to compete, a game be shown in hands-on playable format"
Yeah - which is what many other Awards require - but MMORPG.COM and TenTonHammer done goofed and gave an award to a non-playable presentation.
Ooops.
How did they goof? Those aren't their rules. Pretty sure the Academy Awards and MTV Movie Awards don't go off the same standards.
If you expect a certain standard, look for sites/awards that match it. A site that gives "Most Purdy" is probably not the best source for ratings (no offense guys).
I've said it multiple times, but I really don't get the importance to begin with. What did them giving EQN an award do exactly? Were you personally harmed some how? Did you have huge bets placed on the winner?
Have you brought this to their attention that they were tricked or confused or just plain dumb for picking it? What do you expect to get from fans of the game in question?
Will you be vindicated if they take the award back?
Why is this such a big deal the same time SOE Live happened? Last month you were too busy? How about when the award was given out over a year ago?
Honestly doesn't make a lot of sense. The point is going over my head if there is one.
Originally posted by Aelious Actually amx brings up a good point. It was playable in some fashion since they were playing it live but not for public consumption.
Playable Playable Playable Playable
What exactly does that mean? By devs in a studio, devs in front of fans, by fans, you?
Landmark looks fairly playable, managed to log in Monday even, so it's still working. Pretty sure it runs off the same things as EQN. Not sure why one wouldn't be playable. Maybe you can't download and install a release copy, doesn't mean they aren't having a blast in the SOE studio. The idea that they "had" to play it in front of people to "prove" something is your view. I didn't need to see it as I have Landmark and have seen plenty of dumb "movie director" videos of games early on where they set everything up for that perfect shot and it usually looks stupid (EQN new class videos for example).
It's hard to take a best of show award seriously for something that's not even in a "press playable" state a year after the fact - and most likely 2 years after the fact.
It's hard to take you seriously if you put that much importance in these awards to begin with. If you look to them as your guiding light to say what will be good/bad, that's a shame. I would never base my game choice on a site review. Maybe a friends or something, but not some random person on the internet. "OMG ESO beat Wildstar for Best Game award, I'm so not playing Wildstar now even though I think ESO looks dumb, they know better!"
This is absurdly cartoon looking... to the point of seeming to go back in time 10 years or more graphically speaking... and if landmark is any indication on performance / responsiveness it's abysmal... and def not quality that's for sure.
Graphically speaking, what game was as good or better than EQN 10 years ago? How did you determine this?
No one will be happier than we naysayers if SOE launches a game we want to play. So far the innovations don't outweigh the negatives.
DMKano's post is exactly correct. It's always the right time to criticize a game, especially one who won best of show.
What's the criticism add to the conversation? Such as posting a picture of EQN vs a game going for a completely different look with different engine and tech? Is this useful for anything beyond pointing out the obvious that two games look different? Or is it a sad hope that SOE might completely redo two games entirely with new visuals? Or to make one look bad? Criticism without the constructive part is just being negative for the heck of it to me.
Originally posted by Allein
Originally posted by DOLPHYNNThat seems like terrible combat. Each fight takes from 2 - 7 seconds. There is no meaning in a fight for combat of such short length. This is EverQuest. Give us challenge and long fights so we can actually do things and react. The lights and sound effects need to be toned down as well. Each battle should not be a firework show. Save a bunch of that flash for really special abilities.
Can't tell if you are trolling or not, if so, good work.
He's not trolling but you might be. His post is 100% on point. Three second combat is absolutely not Everquest. In Everquest, even combat between a level 1 noob and a flimsy bat felt thrilling.
You do realize the combat shown was not "real". It was staged to show off the skills. AI wasn't active. Same they showed last year. Mobs might move or even swing, but it isn't a real representation of combat. Merely showing fans all the pretty sparkly things they've wanted. Because after all, sparkly things > gameplay. You are right that 3 second combat is not EQ. Not that it is EQN either, but EQN =/= EQ. You shouldn't be confused about this.
Originally posted by goboygo Whuu? What just happened? Was that game combat footage or did my monitor just blow some pixels out. It was kind of like the old Batman TV series fight scenes. WHAM! POW! BOOM! Apparently any violent action you take in the world of EQ sets off some sort of atomic reaction.
LOL the "BAM!, POW!, KLUNK!" would fit perfectly IMO.
It does since they are specifically going for a "Heroic" theme. People are free to dislike or mock it though. Doesn't change anything. "OMG Mario looks like it was made for 5 year olds, can't believe adults play it." This is said so often.
Originally posted by ShadusThis is absurdly cartoon looking... to the point of seeming to go back in time 10 years or more graphically speaking... and if landmark is any indication on performance / responsiveness it's abysmal... and def not quality that's for sure.
Graphically speaking, what game was as good or better than EQN 10 years ago? How did you determine this?
Wow is the only one you can make a good comparison with but to be fair that's with more modern screenshots, but even lets say 5 years ago, compare it to any game that came out in that time period... these are cartoon graphics, not modern game graphics... this is a huge step backwards in the graphics department... frankly, it shouldn't be a step back PERIOD... and worse yet it doesn't confer (at least based on landmark performance - yah yah blah blah blah performance beta/alpha blah blah blah, I was in the eq1 beta and heard the same spiel, performance will improve... but not massively based on previous experience in any games beta unless they really screwed the pooch and messed up a render path significantly and that is usually caught very early on) any performance advantage you'd expect with graphics that poor. The simple reality is they're trading the flexibility of voxels for realism. Frankly current everquest 2 (10y), wow (10y), rift (3y), archeage (1y) all look better despite 3/4 of those having been out for YEARS now and are limited by the graphics engines they launched with and needing to still be playable by relatively older machines. Graphics aren't supposed to take these kind of steps backwards.
As for how i determined this? I played landmark and I played those games. (recently) I took screens and I compared. I looked at others screens. I watched live. shrug. Graphics aren't a huge thing to me, I'm playing eq1 right now as my current mmo, but next/landmark graphics/performance are embarrassingly horrible.
Edit: The actual performance and way it feels reminds me of ffxiv prior to the relaunch. It has the same ... "slip" that game had... where everything has a weird delay even when you have great frame rate, I kinda wonder if they're doing some client processing server side for anti-cheat code or something... hmm... I hope not, that was a large part of what killed ffxiv the first time. People won't tolerate that kinda of craptastic lag.
i have installed landmark and uninstalled it after 30 mins. i don't know why but it feels "laggy". no matter what i did - i felt like 1 sec lag in everything i tried to perform. kind of like "easy in - easy out" animation curve, and i hate that in games. the game doesn't feel responsive. you just "wait" for every action...i was like - move finally, do it!
i tried to set max graphic (cca 35 fps/sec), lowest graphic (around 50 fps). neither helped..the game still felt laggy. i just waved goodbye and uninstalled it. and i have realized that i don't give a damn crap about housing and building.
long story short - gameplay failed.
ill stick to wow (again). there is no game on the market which can beat wow gameplay - its responsive, smooth, animation is nice and fluid - everything just works!
It's in alpha.
And all you need to do is turn off Shadows atm. I get a solid 60fps no problem at all.
And combat is getting added to Landmark in a few days, and it's also going to have a slew of other features added in the future to make it it's own unique game outside of building.
Long story short. Landmark's "game play" didn't fail. Your understanding of what Landmark is, and how it's going to be updated over the coming year are what failed.
This is like diablo-guildwars-rift hybrid. Not that any are bad games, and this won't be bad either... but its nothing-- new, interesting, or fun excepting the voxel terrain stuff.
-You missed a few things aside from voxel engine: Emergent AI, Horizontal progression, SOEmote/facial animations, heroic movement system. But you were close I guess. So I'll give you an A for effort.
This is absurdly cartoon looking... to the point of seeming to go back in time 10 years or more graphically speaking... and if landmark is any indication on performance / responsiveness it's abysmal... and def not quality that's for sure.
Nice try though. And performance in Landmark is great considering where it's at. I get 60fps constant when I turn off shadows, and it's not even optimized yet and doesn't have very good driver support that it will have at release.
Think this is one game off my 'watch list'... which makes me sad. I played eq1, eq2, swg, etc... they're kinda bombing this so far.
Considering the only innovation you could name was "voxel engine", we can only assume you came to that conclusion through a lack of knowledge about the game and what it's going to offer.
This is like diablo-guildwars-rift hybrid. Not that any are bad games, and this won't be bad either... but its nothing-- new, interesting, or fun excepting the voxel terrain stuff.
-You missed a few things aside from voxel engine: Emergent AI, Horizontal progression, SOEmote/facial animations, heroic movement system. But you were close I guess. So I'll give you an A for effort.
This is absurdly cartoon looking... to the point of seeming to go back in time 10 years or more graphically speaking... and if landmark is any indication on performance / responsiveness it's abysmal... and def not quality that's for sure.
Nice try though. And performance in Landmark is great considering where it's at. I get 60fps constant when I turn off shadows, and it's not even optimized yet and doesn't have very good driver support that it will have at release.
Think this is one game off my 'watch list'... which makes me sad. I played eq1, eq2, swg, etc... they're kinda bombing this so far.
Considering the only innovation you could name was "voxel engine", we can only assume you came to that conclusion through a lack of knowledge about the game and what it's going to offer.
A total misrepresentation. The WoW screenshot is obviously showing in-game action, and the EQN one is obviously posed to make it more heroic or artistic.
All you have to do is take a screenshot of the EQN video and post it alongside that WoW screenshot to get a fairer comparison, and once you do that, you'll realize they both really aren't that great, but at least you can see what the hell is going in WoW without all the obscuring spell effect flashes.
Yes, WoW is 10+ years old, but what is SOE's excuse? Their character models are horrible, and so are the animations and spell effects. Is it any wonder they try to hide those terrible things behind the "cartoony" art style? Pre-alpha, tech-demo, whatever you want to call it, is still just an excuse for a crappy presentation, which is supposed to show the world their "next-gen" game.
I've been in Landmark for over 6 months now, and it's nothing really special. I would go into the reasons why Landmark will fail, because of the UI, Keybinds, Character Customization, Optimization & Latency issues, Dev Roadmap changing too frequently, etc., but it's not really important. The sad thing is, that it had potential to really become next-gen, and to truly push the MMO genre into a true sandbox era. So far, the only innovation to come from it are Voxels, which is their biggest problem, since the tech wasn't ready at all. It's almost exactly what Bioware did when they used the Hero Engine, even when it wasn't ready to be used for an MMO project.
Landmark is directly tied into EQN, and this is why people should worry. Just about everything in Landmark will be used for EQN, and that's not a good sign at all. It's funny you mentioned 60 fps, but what is it when you're around 5 or more people or going through very detailed terrain? Yes, it sounds exactly like swtor's ilum openworld pvp, and anyone who was there can attest how unplayable it was. Now imagine when Landmark gets combat and there's 5+ people in combat with all those effects and animations going off.
Storybricks is their last hope to save it, and even that might bomb.
Originally posted by DMKano I watched both Landmark and EQNext streams live. I am still in utter disbelief of how underwhelming combat is in both games. Also the fact that they show VIDEOS of EQN instead of actual live gameplay says it all.
I love how SOE are continuing to release highly-edited video sequences and calling it a demonstration of game play or combat or anything (without interfaces, I might add). This particular video doesn't even maintain the same focus character through out. If the game switches viewpoints as much as this video does, I will get sick. From this example, I can see that the first thing I'll need to do after the first fight is turn off all the glowing combat effects. Let me see a 1st person view and how the combat is controlled (auto-fight, mouse moves, etc.), how monsters are selected and how to start a spell. I would be more convinced if someone interrupted the character and simply had them open a backpack.
I remember them doing mass PVP videos at their Austin office with no lag.
When the patch went live it was server crashes when there was a 20 vs 20.
Even a video with UI I wouldn't trust completely because they run it with 0 ping on the best machines they can build.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Originally posted by DMKano the fact that they show VIDEOS of EQN instead of actual live gameplay says it all.
I'm a SOE fan but i agree
i was expecting something more than -new- tech demos
Lol EQN is not even in ALPHA Development yet, they are Making the tools and the basic combat system in Landmark, Landmark is the tech development engine turned into pre-release test game , once Landmark is gold only then will they start making the EQN game
Originally posted by Innkwell ...at approximately 1:00 and on he states "The Idea was, with the question, that we wanted to find out what people who DIDN'T play EQ2 thought about the ratonga. And whether or not they would be interested in playing."They have ZERO interests retaining in old players of the game. They want to capture a newer, larger, console audience. If you cant read between the lines, just go watch every video and listen to the words they choose...
Exactly. In other words, if you look past the smoke and mirrors, SOE's mantra has not changed. They are selling out their IP in hopes of attracting WoW players; just like they sold out Vanguard: SOH. I hope it works out for them, frankly. I guess we millions of ex EQ players and ex EQ2 players aren't enough. (Smed stated, years ago, that over five million people have played Everquest.)
Originally posted by redcore ...long story short - gameplay failed.ill stick to wow (again). there is no game on the market which can beat wow gameplay - its responsive, smooth, animation is nice and fluid - everything just works!
oops on Smed
Originally posted by azzamasin Your definition of thrilling is my definition of snoozefest!!!! I find shallow, slow, methodical combat to be one of the wrost aspects of the early MMO's. Not only is it boring but it is so unimmersive and contrary to real life. I can't think of anything as dumb as 30sec-1min combat where foes trade blows and nothing happens till mysteriously one of them falls over dead. Talk about boring and silly!
I think this can be easily explained. You see an MMO as a game, and I see it as an online, social, virtual world. Game companies can't please us both; and looks like EQN may be your game. Enjoy.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I think this can be easily explained. You see an MMO as a game, and I see it as an online, social, virtual world. Game companies can't please us both; and looks like EQN may be your game. Enjoy.
Why can't companies do both? All of these games are online, so that's out. Social, is what you make of it, again it's out. Virtual world is subjective to our personal definition, but an open world not focused on channeling players through set path or being instanced or whatever seems fairly "virtual world" like. DG really likes to use that term as well for EQN. I've yet to play an mmorpg that isn't all of these things, including being a game. It is all entertainment.
Originally posted by ShadusThis is absurdly cartoon looking... to the point of seeming to go back in time 10 years or more graphically speaking... and if landmark is any indication on performance / responsiveness it's abysmal... and def not quality that's for sure.
Graphically speaking, what game was as good or better than EQN 10 years ago? How did you determine this?
Wow is the only one you can make a good comparison with but to be fair that's with more modern screenshots, but even lets say 5 years ago, compare it to any game that came out in that time period... these are cartoon graphics, not modern game graphics...
You saying WoW 10 years ago not so much, but 5 years ago looks "better" then EQN? Did I miss a total overhaul of everything? They haven't even released the new models yet and they aren't even as good as EQN from what I've seen.
The simple reality is they're trading the flexibility of voxels for realism.
Why does EQN or any game for that matter have to be realistic? EQ games have never looked hyper realistic to me. Always been fairly colorful and sparkly. It is stylized on purpose. Do you think Nintendo couldn't do a life like version of Mario?
Frankly current everquest 2 (10y), wow (10y), rift (3y), archeage (1y) all look better
Graphics I can understand as Eastern mmorpgs do have more of a "WoW" factor (not the game) when zoomed in on the models, but overall they all look fairly similar and just a steady increase in tech as time goes on.
But to say a game is "better" looking is fairly subjective. I liked some of EQ's original race models to the new ones and I liked both sets better than EQ2's models. Regardless of what came first or was more sparkly.
next/landmark graphics/performance are embarrassingly horrible.
No clue how you know what EQN performance is like, but Landmark works fine for me and many others. Don't have a beastly machine either. So either your's is terrible or the game simply needs more time to bake. No game in alpha/beta works perfectly on everyone's machine that I've seen. At least not with the tech/engine they are using. Is it perfect? Of course not, but to embarrassingly horrible is a bit much to me.
Visual appeal is a very personal thing. You like what you like. Personally, I'd rather they have more going for the game and take a hit to how pretty it is. Voxels > Black Desert visuals to me. With that said, I still think EQN looks pretty nice for being stylized "cartoon" looking. I don't know of any other mmorpg that looks as good in this department. But I also think every Eastern styled mmo looks the same. FF, GW2, Aion, Lineage, Bless, Black Desert, ArcheAge, etc. Do they look bad? Not at all, but they aren't what I like. Wildstar looks "better" than WoW to me. Which it should considering how old each is. EQN looks "better" than both. WoW's new race models look pretty nice with emotions and what not, but are still fairly dated looking over all.
To me though it is silly to dismiss a game based on visuals. Shovel Knight for example is a fun game. Yet them graphics is pretty "bad" in comparison to today's possibilities.
A total misrepresentation. The WoW screenshot is obviously showing in-game action, and the EQN one is obviously posed to make it more heroic or artistic.
So lets show some similar in-game animations of both.
So is it the art style or the effects? Eastern mmos like FFXIV, Bless, Black Desert have nice Graphics, yet over the top effects. Do they look terrible as well?
Also assuming you seem to miss that what was shown wasn't from a player's POV (which is dumb on their part because it makes everything look worse than it may or may not be). When you are in player POV it won't be so flashy. Look at what they've shown in a more realistic POV and nothing looks overly flashy to me (Landmark Keynote, Combat from SOE Live 2013).
I wish and hope they have a tool that allows people to NERF the spell effects.. I think the character graphics are fine, my only issue is all the eye candy flashes in combat.. I don't want to see any of that.. When I swing a sword I don't want to see fireworks.. I do not want my combat encounter to look like Disney threw up everywhere.. We should have 3 options.. 1) NO spell effect at all, 2) Minor spell effect to give you notice you actually did something (20%) and 3) Full spell effect (100%)..
In a group setting or raid setting, I can see combat effects being a distraction..
Wow. I was soooo excited for EQN but now I have no idea what to say.
Possibly switching EQN to the same setup as Landmark.. was a bad idea. The style , voxels , action combat . etc feels at home in Landmark .. In EQN I feel it could be holding the game back. Go launch Planetside 2 and then Landmark.. I would rather be running around an EQN that looked like PS2 than Landmark.
I feel the same way.
HOWEVER
the tradeoff for destrucible world (voxel farm on top of Forgelight engine) - is that the game looks FUGLY (my opinion).
PS2 looks fine to me.
I run around in Landmark - and it's just blotchy blobby poop - that's what things look like (especially in distance) - like globs of putty.
EQNext as the game touted to "revolutionize the genre" - umm... no.
I am again and again surprised how less imagination and visions most MMO players have.
Does EQN not look good? Good in comparsion to Crysys, Battlefield 4 or any other recent highend graphic game? Of course.. it does not look like that.
Does it look better than Minecraft? Hell, yes.
EQN does revolutionize the genre. Well.. it is not exactly a revolution, or it have to be seen. But, EQN is more or less the first MMO since years(or decades) that actually want to improve/revolutionize in a few areas.
Hell.. if they would improve only in one area.. it could be called revolutionized.. but they try it in two. A changeable world(atomic level), because destructible world is calling it short and is a revolutionary step. Minecraft already was a revolution in that way.. it just was not a MMO, and EQN does go a step further. (and a lot of steps are ahead in that regard, and actually we will have to wait until hardware acceleration actually supports that better(like early 3D hardware for 3D graphics).
The same is true for the emergent or emotional AI as represented with Storybricks.
As a third i could calll procedural generation(though EQN isn't doing much in that one).
Those 3 things will affect gaming the most in the next 10-20 years, and are most probably more influencial as 3D graphics was in the past.
Yeap.. EQN may just make tiny steps in that direction(it remains to be seen), but they do and try at least something.. instead of all other games releasing the exact same thing as twenty and more years ago.(yet another DikuMUD with updated graphics).
But yes.. some maybe just want a small game with shiny graphics.. and some games will maybe exactly deliver that.. but don't expect a lot else (beside shiny graphic) then.
PS: Overall to SOE live 2014:
Well.. not a lot new information.. it is basicly still the same news as SOE live 2013. Hopefully we actually hear and see more next year around.. there wasn't a lot this year.
As a third i could calll procedural generation(though EQN isn't doing much in that one).
EQNext is actually doing a lot of that one. SOE have been working on procedural algorithms to place props that aren't just trees and rocks since last year (aka buildings, ruins, barrels, chests, etc). The entire cave systems is going to be periodically procedurally re-generated.
I watched that video and I am not too sure how reflexive is the combat. How would you compare it to DCUO, Wildstar,ESO or GW 2. I just want to know how actiony you think the combat is .
I watched that video and I am not too sure how reflexive is the combat. How would you compare it to DCUO, Wildstar,ESO or GW 2. I just want to know how actiony you think the combat is .
No one really knows. Aug 27th Landmark will be getting the shell of what combat will be like in EQN. At that, its the first iteration as the devs have ask for feedback on whats fun and not fun as things will change. Anyone who tells you they know what combat is like now, is making things up.
Comments
Wow... disappointing.
This is like diablo-guildwars-rift hybrid. Not that any are bad games, and this won't be bad either... but its nothing-- new, interesting, or fun excepting the voxel terrain stuff.
This is absurdly cartoon looking... to the point of seeming to go back in time 10 years or more graphically speaking... and if landmark is any indication on performance / responsiveness it's abysmal... and def not quality that's for sure.
Think this is one game off my 'watch list'... which makes me sad. I played eq1, eq2, swg, etc... they're kinda bombing this so far.
Shadus
I'd argue rift does at this point (post-panda) and at least based on beta as far as I've seen archeage does as well. They manage to suck less... but I want real innovation, the things voxel terrain adds is pretty nifty (deformation and such), but it's not worth dumbing the game play as far as it seems eqn is doing.
Shadus
For me, it seems an "end game" is the"best" content either most challenging, most rewards, or both. Essentially you can "beat" the game by completing it. Which is why in almost every game I've played, people rush to be the first and best to then hit a wall and stomp their feet to complain there isn't enough to do.
EQN shouldn't have this issue. If (big if) they pull off Storybricks working with the dynamic world, challenges of all kinds should last forever. One day we might fight a Giant rampaging through the land, next it might be 200 kobolds, next it might be a Dragon, next 1000 giant rats, whatever. Without a reliance on instancing and vertical static content, unless someone sets their own personal "end game" there won't be one.
If I go "When I unlock all 40 classes, I've maxed out" that is my choice. Or I plan to kill 1000 Giants. Or whatever it may be. I choose and play accordingly. Instead of being told X lvl is max, X build is best, X gear is best, X boss is hardest, the end.
So while they haven't given very detailed explanations, with a bit of connect the dots, it should make some sense. Obviously if someone loves vertical progression and being able to brag about being a server first or having max something, they might not enjoy EQN. While I think the term "Sandbox" isn't specific to any one thing, EQN has elements of being an open experience where going North or South are both viable, heck Up or Down in its case. Instead of A - B - C - D finished.
Nothing wrong with having different views or opinions. Some of us might be right, wrong, doesn't really matter. If you think SOE isn't innovative and is just making the same old thing, no harm in that. When a game comes out that is innovative and in this genre, please let me know, I'd love to play it.
I'm a gamer. Don't care if it's SOE, Blizzard, Mythic, Carbine, ArenaNet, etc. As of today, none of the games out or coming out seem to have enough uniqueness for me besides EQN. One game might have 1-2 nice features, another might have a couple, but usually all are lacking quite a bit. EQN is aiming to hit as many targets as possible, which can go either way. They've drawn the line when it comes to combat/progression and a few other things, so people can either accept it or play something else. All will be good in gamer land.
Guess my biggest issue is people coming into a game's forum full of fans and being overly negative without much to offer. Someone going "Graphics suck" is free to think that, but what did that add? "I hate action combat" nice, I'm sure SOE will totally overhaul the game for those that don't like it, heck 4th time might be the charm. While I know I probably sounds like a blind fanboi, honestly don't care. This is a forum to talk about the game I like. Everyone is free to do what they want, but if people really dislike something so much, why waste even a few seconds on it?
How did they goof? Those aren't their rules. Pretty sure the Academy Awards and MTV Movie Awards don't go off the same standards.
If you expect a certain standard, look for sites/awards that match it. A site that gives "Most Purdy" is probably not the best source for ratings (no offense guys).
I've said it multiple times, but I really don't get the importance to begin with. What did them giving EQN an award do exactly? Were you personally harmed some how? Did you have huge bets placed on the winner?
Have you brought this to their attention that they were tricked or confused or just plain dumb for picking it? What do you expect to get from fans of the game in question?
Will you be vindicated if they take the award back?
Why is this such a big deal the same time SOE Live happened? Last month you were too busy? How about when the award was given out over a year ago?
Honestly doesn't make a lot of sense. The point is going over my head if there is one.
What exactly does that mean? By devs in a studio, devs in front of fans, by fans, you?
Landmark looks fairly playable, managed to log in Monday even, so it's still working. Pretty sure it runs off the same things as EQN. Not sure why one wouldn't be playable. Maybe you can't download and install a release copy, doesn't mean they aren't having a blast in the SOE studio. The idea that they "had" to play it in front of people to "prove" something is your view. I didn't need to see it as I have Landmark and have seen plenty of dumb "movie director" videos of games early on where they set everything up for that perfect shot and it usually looks stupid (EQN new class videos for example).
It's hard to take you seriously if you put that much importance in these awards to begin with. If you look to them as your guiding light to say what will be good/bad, that's a shame. I would never base my game choice on a site review. Maybe a friends or something, but not some random person on the internet. "OMG ESO beat Wildstar for Best Game award, I'm so not playing Wildstar now even though I think ESO looks dumb, they know better!"
Wonderful contextual comparison. Ironically both quotes could be applied to EQN, we'll have to see.
Another irony: "Coming second half of 1998"
...
They were a year late! Total fail!
Wow is the only one you can make a good comparison with but to be fair that's with more modern screenshots, but even lets say 5 years ago, compare it to any game that came out in that time period... these are cartoon graphics, not modern game graphics... this is a huge step backwards in the graphics department... frankly, it shouldn't be a step back PERIOD... and worse yet it doesn't confer (at least based on landmark performance - yah yah blah blah blah performance beta/alpha blah blah blah, I was in the eq1 beta and heard the same spiel, performance will improve... but not massively based on previous experience in any games beta unless they really screwed the pooch and messed up a render path significantly and that is usually caught very early on) any performance advantage you'd expect with graphics that poor. The simple reality is they're trading the flexibility of voxels for realism. Frankly current everquest 2 (10y), wow (10y), rift (3y), archeage (1y) all look better despite 3/4 of those having been out for YEARS now and are limited by the graphics engines they launched with and needing to still be playable by relatively older machines. Graphics aren't supposed to take these kind of steps backwards.
As for how i determined this? I played landmark and I played those games. (recently) I took screens and I compared. I looked at others screens. I watched live. shrug. Graphics aren't a huge thing to me, I'm playing eq1 right now as my current mmo, but next/landmark graphics/performance are embarrassingly horrible.
Edit: The actual performance and way it feels reminds me of ffxiv prior to the relaunch. It has the same ... "slip" that game had... where everything has a weird delay even when you have great frame rate, I kinda wonder if they're doing some client processing server side for anti-cheat code or something... hmm... I hope not, that was a large part of what killed ffxiv the first time. People won't tolerate that kinda of craptastic lag.
Shadus
It's in alpha.
And all you need to do is turn off Shadows atm. I get a solid 60fps no problem at all.
And combat is getting added to Landmark in a few days, and it's also going to have a slew of other features added in the future to make it it's own unique game outside of building.
Long story short. Landmark's "game play" didn't fail. Your understanding of what Landmark is, and how it's going to be updated over the coming year are what failed.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
A total misrepresentation. The WoW screenshot is obviously showing in-game action, and the EQN one is obviously posed to make it more heroic or artistic.
All you have to do is take a screenshot of the EQN video and post it alongside that WoW screenshot to get a fairer comparison, and once you do that, you'll realize they both really aren't that great, but at least you can see what the hell is going in WoW without all the obscuring spell effect flashes.
Yes, WoW is 10+ years old, but what is SOE's excuse? Their character models are horrible, and so are the animations and spell effects. Is it any wonder they try to hide those terrible things behind the "cartoony" art style? Pre-alpha, tech-demo, whatever you want to call it, is still just an excuse for a crappy presentation, which is supposed to show the world their "next-gen" game.
I've been in Landmark for over 6 months now, and it's nothing really special. I would go into the reasons why Landmark will fail, because of the UI, Keybinds, Character Customization, Optimization & Latency issues, Dev Roadmap changing too frequently, etc., but it's not really important. The sad thing is, that it had potential to really become next-gen, and to truly push the MMO genre into a true sandbox era. So far, the only innovation to come from it are Voxels, which is their biggest problem, since the tech wasn't ready at all. It's almost exactly what Bioware did when they used the Hero Engine, even when it wasn't ready to be used for an MMO project.
Landmark is directly tied into EQN, and this is why people should worry. Just about everything in Landmark will be used for EQN, and that's not a good sign at all. It's funny you mentioned 60 fps, but what is it when you're around 5 or more people or going through very detailed terrain? Yes, it sounds exactly like swtor's ilum openworld pvp, and anyone who was there can attest how unplayable it was. Now imagine when Landmark gets combat and there's 5+ people in combat with all those effects and animations going off.
Storybricks is their last hope to save it, and even that might bomb.
I remember them doing mass PVP videos at their Austin office with no lag.
When the patch went live it was server crashes when there was a 20 vs 20.
Even a video with UI I wouldn't trust completely because they run it with 0 ping on the best machines they can build.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Lol EQN is not even in ALPHA Development yet, they are Making the tools and the basic combat system in Landmark, Landmark is the tech development engine turned into pre-release test game , once Landmark is gold only then will they start making the EQN gameExactly. In other words, if you look past the smoke and mirrors, SOE's mantra has not changed. They are selling out their IP in hopes of attracting WoW players; just like they sold out Vanguard: SOH. I hope it works out for them, frankly. I guess we millions of ex EQ players and ex EQ2 players aren't enough. (Smed stated, years ago, that over five million people have played Everquest.)
oops on Smed
I think this can be easily explained. You see an MMO as a game, and I see it as an online, social, virtual world. Game companies can't please us both; and looks like EQN may be your game. Enjoy.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Why can't companies do both? All of these games are online, so that's out. Social, is what you make of it, again it's out. Virtual world is subjective to our personal definition, but an open world not focused on channeling players through set path or being instanced or whatever seems fairly "virtual world" like. DG really likes to use that term as well for EQN. I've yet to play an mmorpg that isn't all of these things, including being a game. It is all entertainment.
Visual appeal is a very personal thing. You like what you like. Personally, I'd rather they have more going for the game and take a hit to how pretty it is. Voxels > Black Desert visuals to me. With that said, I still think EQN looks pretty nice for being stylized "cartoon" looking. I don't know of any other mmorpg that looks as good in this department. But I also think every Eastern styled mmo looks the same. FF, GW2, Aion, Lineage, Bless, Black Desert, ArcheAge, etc. Do they look bad? Not at all, but they aren't what I like. Wildstar looks "better" than WoW to me. Which it should considering how old each is. EQN looks "better" than both. WoW's new race models look pretty nice with emotions and what not, but are still fairly dated looking over all.
To me though it is silly to dismiss a game based on visuals. Shovel Knight for example is a fun game. Yet them graphics is pretty "bad" in comparison to today's possibilities.
I wish and hope they have a tool that allows people to NERF the spell effects.. I think the character graphics are fine, my only issue is all the eye candy flashes in combat.. I don't want to see any of that.. When I swing a sword I don't want to see fireworks.. I do not want my combat encounter to look like Disney threw up everywhere.. We should have 3 options.. 1) NO spell effect at all, 2) Minor spell effect to give you notice you actually did something (20%) and 3) Full spell effect (100%)..
In a group setting or raid setting, I can see combat effects being a distraction..
I am again and again surprised how less imagination and visions most MMO players have.
Does EQN not look good? Good in comparsion to Crysys, Battlefield 4 or any other recent highend graphic game? Of course.. it does not look like that.
Does it look better than Minecraft? Hell, yes.
EQN does revolutionize the genre. Well.. it is not exactly a revolution, or it have to be seen. But, EQN is more or less the first MMO since years(or decades) that actually want to improve/revolutionize in a few areas.
Hell.. if they would improve only in one area.. it could be called revolutionized.. but they try it in two. A changeable world(atomic level), because destructible world is calling it short and is a revolutionary step. Minecraft already was a revolution in that way.. it just was not a MMO, and EQN does go a step further. (and a lot of steps are ahead in that regard, and actually we will have to wait until hardware acceleration actually supports that better(like early 3D hardware for 3D graphics).
The same is true for the emergent or emotional AI as represented with Storybricks.
As a third i could calll procedural generation(though EQN isn't doing much in that one).
Those 3 things will affect gaming the most in the next 10-20 years, and are most probably more influencial as 3D graphics was in the past.
Yeap.. EQN may just make tiny steps in that direction(it remains to be seen), but they do and try at least something.. instead of all other games releasing the exact same thing as twenty and more years ago.(yet another DikuMUD with updated graphics).
But yes.. some maybe just want a small game with shiny graphics.. and some games will maybe exactly deliver that.. but don't expect a lot else (beside shiny graphic) then.
PS: Overall to SOE live 2014:
Well.. not a lot new information.. it is basicly still the same news as SOE live 2013. Hopefully we actually hear and see more next year around.. there wasn't a lot this year.
EQNext is actually doing a lot of that one. SOE have been working on procedural algorithms to place props that aren't just trees and rocks since last year (aka buildings, ruins, barrels, chests, etc). The entire cave systems is going to be periodically procedurally re-generated.
I asked this before but no one answered me
I watched that video and I am not too sure how reflexive is the combat. How would you compare it to DCUO, Wildstar,ESO or GW 2. I just want to know how actiony you think the combat is .
No one really knows. Aug 27th Landmark will be getting the shell of what combat will be like in EQN. At that, its the first iteration as the devs have ask for feedback on whats fun and not fun as things will change. Anyone who tells you they know what combat is like now, is making things up.