given a 'fully destructible' environment that includes e-property, there will be others who will enjoy kicking over their sand castle. I expect that SOE will probably cordon off housing areas as non-destructive, but there have already been outcries (on these forums) about that expected action being not in the spirit of 'fully destructible'.
new EQN info begins tomorrow at SOE Live
last year, it was stated that some things can not be destroyed
Players will occasionally be prevented from destroying things, Georgeson says, because otherwise "player cities would become player parking lots." Monsters, however, can and will show up to wreak havoc, and left unchecked, they can do plenty of damage to player settlements. A dragon, for instance, may come in and knock a castle wall down, necessitating repairs.
in Landmark, SOE said property owners can flag their land indestructible -- if they want to
Starting with personal plots, players are able to set permissions on their individual claims. You can build solo or allow friends to help. You can also make things open for destruction or keep them locked and safe.
I for one would have preferred if they had stayed with the similar style they used for Planetside 2 for EQN ( terrain anyway. The player models are blurry and terrible ). But if they can fine tune performance when they add in multi core support for Landmark ( and hopefully EQN will have it from the get go ) and off load things to the GPU like shadows to drastically improve performance I would be happy.
Outside of combat in Landmark the one other major thing I think is missing is getting some real landcapes going. The current island setup is holding the game back IMO because you have to try and get hills , flats , gullys , mountains , forests ..etc in such a small area and it really detracts from the game. Having a continent sized landmass with rivers ( when they can get water to work correctly ) , creeks , mountains , flats , all tiers of resources..etc. would really open up the game and start creating an in game community.
While EQN will share similarities to Landmark we wont have to worry about space ships , toilet bowels , vegas signs..etc to break immersion. And to top it off a handcrafted and well made world which are far superior to randomly generated ones.
Listen carefully.. ORIGINAL EQ2 is GONE.. EQ2 underwent a massive change after it's original launch when it lost most of their players.. Sorta like their own NGE.. Lets not confuse that EQ2 as it is today is NOT original EQ2.. Just like EQ1 today is NOT original EQ1..
While I agree with you, the same could be said for a good majority of mmos if not all of them. For better or worse (usually worse) games change over time. Either to copy what others are doing or try some randomness in hopes to bring in players. Those that were there from the start or before the changes usually get angry and leave when what they initially bought into is no longer what is offered. Which is why I like the shift to F2P in general and what it looks like SOE is doing with EQN.
Basically saying upfront that the game won't be a static eternal experience and that if someone takes a break for a year, things might look totally different, beyond simply adding an xpac and 10 lvls and new zone. They have a lot of creative freedom to take the lore, world, game in general in so many directions, especially with the what is hopefully better AI. Crossing my fingers they don't do away with multi-classing or huge sweeping changes a year or two down the road, but if they can make a "better" game and experience for me, so be it.
Not sure what the point of all this bickering is besides everyone trying to prove they know best when in reality it is all pretty subjective and someone can love EQ now just as much as they did in 99 even with all the changes. Same goes for EQ2, WoW, SWG (in spirit at least), etc.
Really hoping this weekend provides some insight into the game and we can at least haves something new to argue about. Having to go back to EQ2 is a sign that we run out EQN discussion content. Despite everyone's opinions on this or that, we all seem to be in the same spot looking for something "better" to come along. EQN might be it, or it could just be another stop along the way. We shall see.
Opinions are subjective, however you can evaluate things in a far more objective manner. The point I was trying to pound through his skull with the EQ and EQ2 conversation is that there can and often is a very clear difference between a game you don't like, and a game that is actually done bad.
For example, I don't like WoW, but it's not a "bad game". It's a well designed and clearly put together by a team of hard working professionals. I get tired of people who don't know how to evaluate games. Opinions are useless. Good, thoughtful evaluations are not useless. I wish people would differentiate between the two.
What makes you the more apt judge? Your opinions are just as biased as his. It's one thing to tick off a feature list, it's quite another to declare that all systems were implemented and integrated well and calling it a great game as a fact rather than personal opinion. Reading your posts on this topic has done nothing but paint you as some kind of company lackey.
Just because he didn't like the game personally, doesn't discount or discredit the possibility that many others share his point of view. As so many are apt to say on the site, popularity does not necessarily indicate quality. EQ2 is still a viable game financially, I'm assuming since it hasn't closed down, but that does not prove it a quality game either.
Listen carefully.. ORIGINAL EQ2 is GONE.. EQ2 underwent a massive change after it's original launch when it lost most of their players.. Sorta like their own NGE.. Lets not confuse that EQ2 as it is today is NOT original EQ2.. Just like EQ1 today is NOT original EQ1..
While I agree with you, the same could be said for a good majority of mmos if not all of them. For better or worse (usually worse) games change over time. Either to copy what others are doing or try some randomness in hopes to bring in players. Those that were there from the start or before the changes usually get angry and leave when what they initially bought into is no longer what is offered. Which is why I like the shift to F2P in general and what it looks like SOE is doing with EQN.
Basically saying upfront that the game won't be a static eternal experience and that if someone takes a break for a year, things might look totally different, beyond simply adding an xpac and 10 lvls and new zone. They have a lot of creative freedom to take the lore, world, game in general in so many directions, especially with the what is hopefully better AI. Crossing my fingers they don't do away with multi-classing or huge sweeping changes a year or two down the road, but if they can make a "better" game and experience for me, so be it.
Not sure what the point of all this bickering is besides everyone trying to prove they know best when in reality it is all pretty subjective and someone can love EQ now just as much as they did in 99 even with all the changes. Same goes for EQ2, WoW, SWG (in spirit at least), etc.
Really hoping this weekend provides some insight into the game and we can at least haves something new to argue about. Having to go back to EQ2 is a sign that we run out EQN discussion content. Despite everyone's opinions on this or that, we all seem to be in the same spot looking for something "better" to come along. EQN might be it, or it could just be another stop along the way. We shall see.
Opinions are subjective, however you can evaluate things in a far more objective manner. The point I was trying to pound through his skull with the EQ and EQ2 conversation is that there can and often is a very clear difference between a game you don't like, and a game that is actually done bad.
For example, I don't like WoW, but it's not a "bad game". It's a well designed and clearly put together by a team of hard working professionals. I get tired of people who don't know how to evaluate games. Opinions are useless. Good, thoughtful evaluations are not useless. I wish people would differentiate between the two.
We can be objective, but I haven't really read anything from you, him, myself, or anyone else that comes off that way for the most part.
Unless we all agree on what "bad" and "good" mean, it is all fairly pointless. Just like trying to talk about what a "sandbox" is or buzzwords that mean a million different things to different people. If people like and play a game, not sure how you can objectively ever call it bad. Might have the worse mechanics, graphics, pay system ever (to you), but some might think it is a digital slice of heaven, people are strange.
Such as EQ2. I think the graphics are some of the worst I've ever seen in a mmorpg, not to mention AAA level. Gameplay for me was not WoW-like beyond superficial aspects. To me, a game not being able to be played is bad. I had a decent PC and the game still wasn't anywhere near the performance as EQ, DAoC, WoW or other games out at the time. Vanguard probably the only one to top it. Add that with the actual gameplay itself which wasn't WoWish to me and it was "bad" in my opinion. If it wasn't, I'd play it.
There is no way I can be objective and go "Well I hate the graphics, gameplay was meh, tech performance was sub par, but it is still a A+ effort SOE."
WoW now or vanilla, EQ now and Project 1999 versions are still great games, but will never touch them again. They aren't fun for me anymore. If any game was "good" to me, I'd play it and not be wasting time chatting it up on here and reddit about a game far from release.
Many games seem to be very popular (such as WoW), but I have no interest in them. I can't give an honest objective review without all my personal baggage tossed in. If you can, you are a rare breed.
I think the three of us are all fairly stuck in our ways and none of us are every going to get the other to go "OMG you are so right, can't believe I was so blinded by my personal likes/dislikes that I didn't see things through your eyes, thank you so much." It just isn't going to happen.
Honestly tired of all the circle jerk gamer conversations and really would like to get some real details and actually play this game. Hopefully the first happens over the next couple days. Second is sadly a ways off most likely. Until then I'm sure we'll all continue to try to build a taller soapbox to prove our point to the world (not that any of us are really listening to each other).
Your view on SOE's record is pretty personal as well. Taking EQ for example and changing it in so many ways over a few expansions isn't "good" to me. Obviously many continued to play and still do, but when a game either loses a huge chunk of players or simply can't pull in new ones that flock to other games, that seems like a "bad" situation. Popularity doesn't equate to "good" by default, but it sure helps make it look that way. They took a game I was enjoying and flipped it on it's head, much like most games that have a decent shelf life. My parting words are never "Well the game is still good, but I can't stand it, peace out." Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Perhaps, there are situations where being 'fully destructible' can be a positive enhancement to game play. I haven't seen them. Doesn't mean they don't exist. But SOE's use of that term as a feature list hasn't convinced me.
For the record, procedurally generated environments have been around since Rogue, most recently the Diablo series. But even the random game worlds of Civilization could also be considered procedurally generated. Let's not toss this feature around like it's a new innovative idea. It may be new to a persistent MMO world, with new complexity, but the idea's not new.
It's called hype and using loud wording to get everyone excited (or not). The game won't literally be "fully" destructible, at least from what they've said. Would be a pretty stupid move to make it so. Obviously depends a great deal on how they handle housing and PVP in general, but highly likely that people can opt-out of their pretty homes being burned to the ground at least from players. Also said that it will take a decent amount of effort to even do destruction. A day 1 player probably can't take a rusty nail and blow a hole through a Freeport wall. Going to assume that at least one dev on the team went "We probably shouldn't let players do anything they like, some might take it too far." Regardless of player huffing and puffing, the masses keep the lights on.
As far as things being "new", very true. Dismissing it being on the mmorpg level is kind of pointless though. That is why it is important. No game of this level has done it or at least well from what I know. I don't care if 100 different games in different genres already do it, this is where it matters. At this point, very little these days is "new" or innovative. Everyone borrows and copies, sometimes improving and sometimes destroying what came before. If they can toss in great elements from fantasy mmorpgs, minecraft/builders, moba/action games, etc and make it a total package, win for us.
Listen carefully.. ORIGINAL EQ2 is GONE.. EQ2 underwent a massive change after it's original launch when it lost most of their players.. Sorta like their own NGE.. Lets not confuse that EQ2 as it is today is NOT original EQ2.. Just like EQ1 today is NOT original EQ1..
While I agree with you, the same could be said for a good majority of mmos if not all of them. For better or worse (usually worse) games change over time. Either to copy what others are doing or try some randomness in hopes to bring in players. Those that were there from the start or before the changes usually get angry and leave when what they initially bought into is no longer what is offered. Which is why I like the shift to F2P in general and what it looks like SOE is doing with EQN.
Basically saying upfront that the game won't be a static eternal experience and that if someone takes a break for a year, things might look totally different, beyond simply adding an xpac and 10 lvls and new zone. They have a lot of creative freedom to take the lore, world, game in general in so many directions, especially with the what is hopefully better AI. Crossing my fingers they don't do away with multi-classing or huge sweeping changes a year or two down the road, but if they can make a "better" game and experience for me, so be it.
Not sure what the point of all this bickering is besides everyone trying to prove they know best when in reality it is all pretty subjective and someone can love EQ now just as much as they did in 99 even with all the changes. Same goes for EQ2, WoW, SWG (in spirit at least), etc.
Really hoping this weekend provides some insight into the game and we can at least haves something new to argue about. Having to go back to EQ2 is a sign that we run out EQN discussion content. Despite everyone's opinions on this or that, we all seem to be in the same spot looking for something "better" to come along. EQN might be it, or it could just be another stop along the way. We shall see.
Opinions are subjective, however you can evaluate things in a far more objective manner. The point I was trying to pound through his skull with the EQ and EQ2 conversation is that there can and often is a very clear difference between a game you don't like, and a game that is actually done bad.
For example, I don't like WoW, but it's not a "bad game". It's a well designed and clearly put together by a team of hard working professionals. I get tired of people who don't know how to evaluate games. Opinions are useless. Good, thoughtful evaluations are not useless. I wish people would differentiate between the two.
What makes you the more apt judge? Your opinions are just as biased as his. It's one thing to tick off a feature list, it's quite another to declare that all systems were implemented and integrated well and calling it a great game as a fact rather than personal opinion. Reading your posts on this topic has done nothing but paint you as some kind of company lackey.
Just because he didn't like the game personally, doesn't discount or discredit the possibility that many others share his point of view. As so many are apt to say on the site, popularity does not necessarily indicate quality. EQ2 is still a viable game financially, I'm assuming since it hasn't closed down, but that does not prove it a quality game either.
Because I'm not making any claims about what makes a good game or a bad game or injecting personal wants or dislikes. I'm specifically commenting on design and the consequences of the design. The design and it's impact on what it means for the game, which is something you can be objective about. Hope that clears things up for you.
Listen carefully.. ORIGINAL EQ2 is GONE.. EQ2 underwent a massive change after it's original launch when it lost most of their players.. Sorta like their own NGE.. Lets not confuse that EQ2 as it is today is NOT original EQ2.. Just like EQ1 today is NOT original EQ1..
While I agree with you, the same could be said for a good majority of mmos if not all of them. For better or worse (usually worse) games change over time. Either to copy what others are doing or try some randomness in hopes to bring in players. Those that were there from the start or before the changes usually get angry and leave when what they initially bought into is no longer what is offered. Which is why I like the shift to F2P in general and what it looks like SOE is doing with EQN.
Basically saying upfront that the game won't be a static eternal experience and that if someone takes a break for a year, things might look totally different, beyond simply adding an xpac and 10 lvls and new zone. They have a lot of creative freedom to take the lore, world, game in general in so many directions, especially with the what is hopefully better AI. Crossing my fingers they don't do away with multi-classing or huge sweeping changes a year or two down the road, but if they can make a "better" game and experience for me, so be it.
Not sure what the point of all this bickering is besides everyone trying to prove they know best when in reality it is all pretty subjective and someone can love EQ now just as much as they did in 99 even with all the changes. Same goes for EQ2, WoW, SWG (in spirit at least), etc.
Really hoping this weekend provides some insight into the game and we can at least haves something new to argue about. Having to go back to EQ2 is a sign that we run out EQN discussion content. Despite everyone's opinions on this or that, we all seem to be in the same spot looking for something "better" to come along. EQN might be it, or it could just be another stop along the way. We shall see.
Opinions are subjective, however you can evaluate things in a far more objective manner. The point I was trying to pound through his skull with the EQ and EQ2 conversation is that there can and often is a very clear difference between a game you don't like, and a game that is actually done bad.
For example, I don't like WoW, but it's not a "bad game". It's a well designed and clearly put together by a team of hard working professionals. I get tired of people who don't know how to evaluate games. Opinions are useless. Good, thoughtful evaluations are not useless. I wish people would differentiate between the two.
We can be objective, but I haven't really read anything from you, him, myself, or anyone else that comes off that way for the most part.
-As I've already stated, I'm specifically talking about the design of the game's features and the technical aspects of the game on an objective design -> outcome perspective, which is objective. If I started making comments about liking or disliking these aspects, that's when we get into subjective territory and it's where most people judge a game from (not from a design point of view, but from a personal subjective point of view).
Unless we all agree on what "bad" and "good" mean, it is all fairly pointless. Just like trying to talk about what a "sandbox" is or buzzwords that mean a million different things to different people. If people like and play a game, not sure how you can objectively ever call it bad. Might have the worse mechanics, graphics, pay system ever (to you), but some might think it is a digital slice of heaven, people are strange.
-There are badly designed games and you can evaluate the design in objective ways. For example, Superman 64 is an objectively bad game from a design standpoint. What you like and don't like come down to personal preference and are useless comments. Saying something like "I prefer vertical progression over horizontal progression" is a subjective opinion based comment that's useless. Discussing what horizontal progression does for the game play and how it effects the player's experience is not subjective and makes for good discussion.
Such as EQ2. I think the graphics are some of the worst I've ever seen in a mmorpg, not to mention AAA level. Gameplay for me was not WoW-like beyond superficial aspects. To me, a game not being able to be played is bad. I had a decent PC and the game still wasn't anywhere near the performance as EQ, DAoC, WoW or other games out at the time. Vanguard probably the only one to top it. Add that with the actual gameplay itself which wasn't WoWish to me and it was "bad" in my opinion. If it wasn't, I'd play it.
-EQ2's graphics are technologically superior to WoW's. What you like and don't like about the aesthetics are pretty subjective. Some people like EQ2's better. Some people like WoW's better. But EQ2's graphics were technologically better than WoW's without a shadow of a doubt. Your performance complaints are duly noted and EQ2 did, objectively, require a much stronger PC to run than WoW did. I had no issues running it but I've always had an enthusiast grade PC. However, EQ2's system requirements for good performance were not unreasonable, they were just higher on average than most other games. You could personally dislike the decision, but then we're getting into subjective territory. Crysis 3 could have ran on a lot more systems had they dumbed down the graphics, but they made a technical choice that they wanted and they did it well for what they wanted to accomplish.
There is no way I can be objective and go "Well I hate the graphics, gameplay was meh, tech performance was sub par, but it is still a A+ effort SOE."
-You could if you were being objective about the game instead of being subjective about your ratings. EQ2 was not a Vanguard. It wasn't plagued with an abnormally high amount of bugs or issues. It wasn't unplayable. It did what it set out to do in a good way. You may not personally have liked the game, but it's not like it was a "bad" game. It wasn't some sort of disaster like Aliens:Colonial Marines, Superman 64 or Vanguard.
Remember, what you like personally has little to no bearing on if a game is actually a good game or not. I don't like Star Craft. I really can't stand to play it. It doesn't appeal to me at all. However it's still a good game.
Many games seem to be very popular (such as WoW), but I have no interest in them. I can't give an honest objective review without all my personal baggage tossed in. If you can, you are a rare breed.
-It's not rare. It happens all the time. Just like when a good game journalist reviews any game, even one from a genre or series he or she doesn't like. You evaluate the design, the mechanics... you compare it to other games from the same genre, you evaluate the features it offers and how it executes those features and you give as unbiased, and non-subjective rating as you can. RTS games are one of my least favorite genres and a type I never choose to play willingly. However it's not that hard to sit down, play it, test it and give it an honest evaluation.
I think the three of us are all fairly stuck in our ways and none of us are every going to get the other to go "OMG you are so right, can't believe I was so blinded by my personal likes/dislikes that I didn't see things through your eyes, thank you so much." It just isn't going to happen.
-You've missed the point entirely. This isn't to tell you that you have to like EQ2 or any of the decisions being made for EQN. This is to say that you chose your words poorly and seem to lack the ability to be objective about games. You are free to think EQ2 is a game you personally wouldn't enjoy playing. But no one really cares lol.
Honestly tired of all the circle jerk gamer conversations and really would like to get some real details and actually play this game. Hopefully the first happens over the next couple days. Second is sadly a ways off most likely. Until then I'm sure we'll all continue to try to build a taller soapbox to prove our point to the world (not that any of us are really listening to each other).
-When you comment from a subjective point of view, indeed, no one is going to listen to you. That's why you should stick to more objective comments. Talk about a feature or aspect of the game, what effects it has on the game play. How does it tie into other features. What does it accomplish or not accomplish. No one really cares "what you like", except maybe your mother, but I doubt it. So it's best to keep those kinds of comments to a minimum.
Your view on SOE's record is pretty personal as well. Taking EQ for example and changing it in so many ways over a few expansions isn't "good" to me. Obviously many continued to play and still do, but when a game either loses a huge chunk of players or simply can't pull in new ones that flock to other games, that seems like a "bad" situation. Popularity doesn't equate to "good" by default, but it sure helps make it look that way. They took a game I was enjoying and flipped it on it's head, much like most games that have a decent shelf life. My parting words are never "Well the game is still good, but I can't stand it, peace out." Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
-I think I already covered all of this. Refer to the replies above to correct your mistakes made here.
It is clear that Ohio State's scarlet (red) color is far superior then Alabama's crimson (red).. This is not subjective or opinion.. lol.. Oh I'm sure there will be some hurt feelings from the boys down south, but everyone else on the planet prefers wearing the superior scarlet color.. And if anyone brings up candy apple red.. OMG.. We all know that color is so inferior, and only works on Corvettes.. LOL
Next month we'll discuss greens and which ones are good and bad.. lol
-As I've already stated, I'm specifically talking about the design of the game's features and the technical aspects of the game on an objective design -> outcome perspective, which is objective. If I started making comments about liking or disliking these aspects, that's when we get into subjective territory and it's where most people judge a game from (not from a design point of view, but from a personal subjective point of view).
So "EQ2 - A better WoW for people who didn't have a shitty PC" is objective? Could you list off what EQ2 had that was "better" than WoW and how would you determine this? WoW obviously destroyed all of SOE's games in the number arena, would that imply a poor outcome? Or is everyone a winner since both made a game a at least a few showed up to play?
Also "I'm specifically commenting on design and the consequences of the design." If their design decisions drove off a decent chunk of long time players and possibly caused millions upon millions to overlook their games and go to the competition, would that be a consequence of poor design? Or is this a case of the majority just being wrong and not knowing what is "better"? Would having to make on going changes that resembled the more popular competition show signs of poor design of the initial and on going game?
-EQ2's graphics are technologically superior to WoW's. What you like and don't like about the aesthetics are pretty subjective. Some people like EQ2's better. Some people like WoW's better. But EQ2's graphics were technologically better than WoW's without a shadow of a doubt.
Ah, guess I was going with aesthetics as that's what most people mean when they say graphics. Yes EQ2 has more advanced graphics, but to me it looked like garbage. Polygon count < my eyes not puking. Why you would use this as advantage over WoW or any game is confusing though. While I'm sure some play games simply for graphics, I'm assuming most go for gameplay. If Crysis involved running around in a circle probably wouldn't have a lot of fans.
People can say they don't like the stylized-cartoon look of WoW/EQN, but it would be hard to say they look bad compared to another similar game like Wildstar. On the other hand, EQ2 doesn't look better then any game except maybe Vanguard which also went for the graphics over aesthetics approach. Upping the graphics at the cost of alienating a huge chunk of gamers seems like pretty poor design decision and would be a con to me.
You could if you were being objective about the game instead of being subjective about your ratings. EQ2 was not a Vanguard. It wasn't plagued with an abnormally high amount of bugs or issues. It wasn't unplayable. It did what it set out to do in a good way. You may not personally have liked the game, but it's not like it was a "bad" game. It wasn't some sort of disaster like Aliens:Colonial Marines, Superman 64 or Vanguard.
Compared to WoW side by side it was the the loser for me. Call it bad, less favored, whatever, it wasn't "better" to me. Being objective, comparing what I experienced with the basics in EQ2 vs WoW, it doesn't win. So we are both right? Or does this go back to everyone is a winner in the politically correct game review world?
Remember, what you like personally has little to no bearing on if a game is actually a good game or not. I don't like Star Craft. I really can't stand to play it. It doesn't appeal to me at all. However it's still a good game.
So has there been any "bad" mmorpgs in the last 15 years or ones that made bad design decisions? Lets stick to one genre with easily compared products. I'm assuming no to you. Which again puts you in the rare category as most of us seem to go more with our opinions and not living in neutral town.
-It's not rare. It happens all the time. Just like when a good game journalist reviews any game, even one from a genre or series he or she doesn't like. You evaluate the design, the mechanics... you compare it to other games from the same genre, you evaluate the features it offers and how it executes those features and you give as unbiased, and non-subjective rating as you can. RTS games are one of my least favorite genres and a type I never choose to play willingly. However it's not that hard to sit down, play it, test it and give it an honest evaluation.
If doing this professionally or whatever with a list of items to look for Graphics, Audio, Tutorial, etc sure I could be objective to some degree, but I'm a fan/player. I'm not a robot/reviewer and I'm not speaking as one on here. I go in with the intention of enjoying myself not evaluating with a clipboard. These are two entirely different views and approaches. I find it hard to believe that a reviewer enjoying or hating a product isn't going to reflect that in someway in their notes. There is no way to remove our memories and preconceptions. Obviously this would make someone better at reviewing then others, but kind of seems pointless for discussion by fans on a game's forum.
-You've missed the point entirely. This isn't to tell you that you have to like EQ2 or any of the decisions being made for EQN. This is to say that you chose your words poorly and seem to lack the ability to be objective about games. You are free to think EQ2 is a game you personally wouldn't enjoy playing. But no one really cares lol.
True no one cares, yet here we all are anyway. I didn't choose my words poorly, I freely admit I am not objective or that I'm right/wrong. I simply don't think you are either despite you thinking it. Even when on topic discussing EQN, we are both fans obviously, but I do not agree with you on many of your views. We both have our opinions based on details provided, but until we know more, no one is right/wrong. Some of your comments come off as factual. Such as SOE has a great track record, in your eyes sure, but I could easily list off ways they have a poor one, neither will ever be correct unless we come to an agreement to what that even means and then it is still just in our own little bubble.
-When you comment from a subjective point of view, indeed, no one is going to listen to you. That's why you should stick to more objective comments. Talk about a feature or aspect of the game, what effects it has on the game play. How does it tie into other features. What does it accomplish or not accomplish. No one really cares "what you like", except maybe your mother, but I doubt it. So it's best to keep those kinds of comments to a minimum.
I think you basically said that these forums shouldn't exist? What's the point of an entirely objective conversation about facts? Game has classes. Classes do stuff. Stuff appears to have high replay possibility. Good job stuff. Leaves little remove to discuss pretty much anything without tossing in our likes-dislikes-wants etc which seems to be pretty much what these forums are all about, maybe it's just me though. I can objectively say that I am not an emotional kid which you seem to objectively think some are because they don't agree with you.
It is clear that Ohio State's scarlet (red) color is far superior then Alabama's crimson (red).. This is not subjective or opinion.. lol.. Oh I'm sure there will be some hurt feelings from the boys down south, but everyone else on the planet prefers wearing the superior scarlet color.. And if anyone brings up candy apple red.. OMG.. We all know that color is so inferior, and only works on Corvettes.. LOL
Next month we'll discuss greens and which ones are good and bad.. lol
While you appear to be objective, are you sure your PC is powerful enough to fully appreciate the fine detail of Alabama's crimson?
It is clear that Ohio State's scarlet (red) color is far superior then Alabama's crimson (red).. This is not subjective or opinion.. lol.. Oh I'm sure there will be some hurt feelings from the boys down south, but everyone else on the planet prefers wearing the superior scarlet color.. And if anyone brings up candy apple red.. OMG.. We all know that color is so inferior, and only works on Corvettes.. LOL
Next month we'll discuss greens and which ones are good and bad.. lol
While you appear to be objective, are you sure your PC is powerful enough to fully appreciate the fine detail of Alabama's crimson?
OK.. you got me.. I busted a gut when I read this.. Good thing I wasn't drinking my coffee at the same time..
-As I've already stated, I'm specifically talking about the design of the game's features and the technical aspects of the game on an objective design -> outcome perspective, which is objective. If I started making comments about liking or disliking these aspects, that's when we get into subjective territory and it's where most people judge a game from (not from a design point of view, but from a personal subjective point of view).
So "EQ2 - A better WoW for people who didn't have a shitty PC" is objective? Could you list off what EQ2 had that was "better" than WoW and how would you determine this? WoW obviously destroyed all of SOE's games in the number arena, would that imply a poor outcome? Or is everyone a winner since both made a game a at least a few showed up to play?
-That is a subjective comment for sure. You caught me. However, I was just making a point that the games were comparable in quality and features, but one required a far beefier PC to run. You're free to prefer WoW, but I was just making a point.
Also "I'm specifically commenting on design and the consequences of the design." If their design decisions drove off a decent chunk of long time players and possibly caused millions upon millions to overlook their games and go to the competition, would that be a consequence of poor design? Or is this a case of the majority just being wrong and not knowing what is "better"? Would having to make on going changes that resembled the more popular competition show signs of poor design of the initial and on going game?
-There are tons of games that have very low sales that are amazingly well put together and greatly designed that simply have a more niche appeal. The CoD series has wide spread appeal. It's well put together for what they wanted to achieve by a clearly professional team of developers. However, I wouldn't say that any FPS game that has less appeal is inferior, or a "bad game" just because it appeals to less people. There is a difference between "I don't prefer this game" vs a "bad game". You can dislike a good game, you can like a bad game.
-EQ2's graphics are technologically superior to WoW's. What you like and don't like about the aesthetics are pretty subjective. Some people like EQ2's better. Some people like WoW's better. But EQ2's graphics were technologically better than WoW's without a shadow of a doubt.
Ah, guess I was going with aesthetics as that's what most people mean when they say graphics. Yes EQ2 has more advanced graphics, but to me it looked like garbage. Polygon count < my eyes not puking. Why you would use this as advantage over WoW or any game is confusing though. While I'm sure some play games simply for graphics, I'm assuming most go for gameplay. If Crysis involved running around in a circle probably wouldn't have a lot of fans.
People can say they don't like the stylized-cartoon look of WoW/EQN, but it would be hard to say they look bad compared to another similar game like Wildstar. On the other hand, EQ2 doesn't look better then any game except maybe Vanguard which also went for the graphics over aesthetics approach. Upping the graphics at the cost of alienating a huge chunk of gamers seems like pretty poor design decision and would be a con to me.
-Again, more subjective nonsense. WoW makes my eyes puke. Who cares. You make comments about graphics then you bring up game play. People who enjoy EQ2 presumably enjoyed the game play as well as the graphics. This goes back to the design I was talking about. EQ2 offered a lot of great content. It was well put together for what they wanted to achieve. Just because YOU didn't like it is of no concern. I don't like RTS games and I dislike Star Craft. Does that mean that Star Craft is a bad game? A poorly created game? Do not continue to confuse the 2.
You could if you were being objective about the game instead of being subjective about your ratings. EQ2 was not a Vanguard. It wasn't plagued with an abnormally high amount of bugs or issues. It wasn't unplayable. It did what it set out to do in a good way. You may not personally have liked the game, but it's not like it was a "bad" game. It wasn't some sort of disaster like Aliens:Colonial Marines, Superman 64 or Vanguard.
Compared to WoW side by side it was the the loser for me. Call it bad, less favored, whatever, it wasn't "better" to me. Being objective, comparing what I experienced with the basics in EQ2 vs WoW, it doesn't win. So we are both right? Or does this go back to everyone is a winner in the politically correct game review world?
You're free to prefer WoW over EQ2. I never suggested otherwise. However, you continue to confuse what you don't like, for a "poorly created/designed game". They are not one in the same.
Remember, what you like personally has little to no bearing on if a game is actually a good game or not. I don't like Star Craft. I really can't stand to play it. It doesn't appeal to me at all. However it's still a good game.
So has there been any "bad" mmorpgs in the last 15 years or ones that made bad design decisions? Lets stick to one genre with easily compared products. I'm assuming no to you. Which again puts you in the rare category as most of us seem to go more with our opinions and not living in neutral town.
-Of course there have been quite a few poorly created MMORPGs over the past 15 years. Don't be silly. EQ2 just wasn't one of them lol. Vanguard was a terrible game by any measure. I could write you a 10 page essay on everything that game did wrong. Everything from technical aspects, like how it hitched and ran like crap on my $3500 custom built PC I had made a couple months before it launched lol, BSOD every 10 - 15 minutes, etc. Along with all the terrible design issues and problems with broken or missing features in the game. I could go on and on about everything actually bad about the game.
But you know what. I still liked it better than WoW, even though WoW was put together much better than Vanguard was lol. That's the difference with being opinionated and dealing with facts. There's also nothing wrong with stating your opinion, but your whole conversation is based around your personal opinion, and you make big blanket statements about a game that you just didn't prefer, stating that it was "bad" simply because you liked other games better, is beyond childish.
-You've missed the point entirely. This isn't to tell you that you have to like EQ2 or any of the decisions being made for EQN. This is to say that you chose your words poorly and seem to lack the ability to be objective about games. You are free to think EQ2 is a game you personally wouldn't enjoy playing. But no one really cares lol.
True no one cares, yet here we all are anyway. I didn't choose my words poorly, I freely admit I am not objective or that I'm right/wrong. I simply don't think you are either despite you thinking it. Even when on topic discussing EQN, we are both fans obviously, but I do not agree with you on many of your views. We both have our opinions based on details provided, but until we know more, no one is right/wrong. Some of your comments come off as factual. Such as SOE has a great track record, in your eyes sure, but I could easily list off ways they have a poor one, neither will ever be correct unless we come to an agreement to what that even means and then it is still just in our own little bubble.
-Again you confuse your personal likes and tastes and then tie them into SOE's track record. Blizzard has made many RTS games (Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Star Craft, Star Craft 2). I dislike RTS games... there for Blizzard has a "poor track record"? That's pretty dishonest nonsense right there. SOE isn't perfect, but the major mistakes, actual bad calls, were forced on them by LAs during the SWG nonsense. And on the flip side SOE created EQ, SWG, Planetside, EQ2, PS2... amazing games that were very well put together. I liked, personally, some of the changes they made to these games over the years. I disliked others. Personally. But the point is that they do a really good job. They're innovators and have done a ton of great things along the way. To claim they have a "bad track record" is intellectually dishonest.
-When you comment from a subjective point of view, indeed, no one is going to listen to you. That's why you should stick to more objective comments. Talk about a feature or aspect of the game, what effects it has on the game play. How does it tie into other features. What does it accomplish or not accomplish. No one really cares "what you like", except maybe your mother, but I doubt it. So it's best to keep those kinds of comments to a minimum.
I think you basically said that these forums shouldn't exist? What's the point of an entirely objective conversation about facts? Game has classes. Classes do stuff. Stuff appears to have high replay possibility. Good job stuff. Leaves little remove to discuss pretty much anything without tossing in our likes-dislikes-wants etc which seems to be pretty much what these forums are all about, maybe it's just me though. I can objectively say that I am not an emotional kid which you seem to objectively think some are because they don't agree with you.
-No I just think you need to branch out your comments a bit. It's ok to inject your opinion into an already meaningful conversation. But when all you talk about is "I didn't like this game/feature/expansion/patch, cuz it's bad N I dun like it"... when all you do is make subjective comments without basing them on any real substance, the only one listening to you, is yourself.
So "EQ2 - A better WoW for people who didn't have a shitty PC" is objective? Could you list off what EQ2 had that was "better" than WoW and how would you determine this? WoW obviously destroyed all of SOE's games in the number arena, would that imply a poor outcome? Or is everyone a winner since both made a game a at least a few showed up to play?
-That is a subjective comment for sure. You caught me. However, I was just making a point that the games were comparable in quality and features, but one required a far beefier PC to run. You're free to prefer WoW, but I was just making a point.
What point? You just flatly said EQ2 > WoW. No "facts" to back this up as there aren't any.
So has there been any "bad" mmorpgs in the last 15 years or ones that made bad design decisions? Lets stick to one genre with easily compared products. I'm assuming no to you. Which again puts you in the rare category as most of us seem to go more with our opinions and not living in neutral town.
-Of course there have been quite a few poorly created MMORPGs over the past 15 years. Don't be silly. EQ2 just wasn't one of them lol. Vanguard was a terrible game by any measure. I could write you a 10 page essay on everything that game did wrong...... Along with all the terrible design issues and problems with broken or missing features in the game. I could go on and on about everything actually bad about the game.
But you know what. I still liked it better than WoW, even though WoW was put together much better than Vanguard was lol. That's the difference with being opinionated and dealing with facts. There's also nothing wrong with stating your opinion, but your whole conversation is based around your personal opinion, and you make big blanket statements about a game that you just didn't prefer, stating that it was "bad" simply because you liked other games better, is beyond childish.
So people that think Vanguard was the best mmorpg ever, bugs an all are incorrect? Yes there are some that say this. Was it bad, good, or just liked/disliked? Are we just talking semantics?
-Again you confuse your personal likes and tastes and then tie them into SOE's track record. Blizzard has made many RTS games (Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Star Craft, Star Craft 2). I dislike RTS games... there for Blizzard has a "poor track record"? That's pretty dishonest nonsense right there. SOE isn't perfect, but the major mistakes, actual bad calls, were forced on them by LAs during the SWG nonsense. And on the flip side SOE created EQ, SWG, Planetside, EQ2, PS2... amazing games that were very well put together. I liked, personally, some of the changes they made to these games over the years. I disliked others. Personally. But the point is that they do a really good job. They're innovators and have done a ton of great things along the way. To claim they have a "bad track record" is intellectually dishonest.
I don't believe SOE has a "bad" track record. I think they like many companies have made many mistakes or at least design calls that caused them to suffer in multiple ways. But I don't understand how you can say they have a good track record based on your subjective list and I can't say a game is bad based on mine. Why is your opinion more valid? You aren't stating universal facts with all context, you are pointing out specific details that back up your opinion.
Not sure why you keep using the RTS comparison. I love mmorpgs. Western, eastern, scifi, fantasy, slow/action, whatever. EQ2 was simply a poor experience for me. Not because I didn't like the graphics or one element, just overall didn't have the polish or quality that I prefer. I accept it was a good game for others, just not for me. Words are funny, we obviously don't all use them the same, but I'm sure you can point me to a dictionary or something.
-When you comment from a subjective point of view, indeed, no one is going to listen to you. That's why you should stick to more objective comments. Talk about a feature or aspect of the game, what effects it has on the game play. How does it tie into other features. What does it accomplish or not accomplish. No one really cares "what you like", except maybe your mother, but I doubt it. So it's best to keep those kinds of comments to a minimum.
I think you basically said that these forums shouldn't exist? What's the point of an entirely objective conversation about facts? Game has classes. Classes do stuff. Stuff appears to have high replay possibility. Good job stuff. Leaves little remove to discuss pretty much anything without tossing in our likes-dislikes-wants etc which seems to be pretty much what these forums are all about, maybe it's just me though. I can objectively say that I am not an emotional kid which you seem to objectively think some are because they don't agree with you.
-No I just think you need to branch out your comments a bit. It's ok to inject your opinion into an already meaningful conversation. But when all you talk about is "I didn't like this game/feature/expansion/patch, cuz it's bad N I dun like it"... when all you do is make subjective comments without basing them on any real substance, the only one listening to you, is yourself.
What meaningful conversations are you speaking of that aren't based almost or entirely on subjective opinions? On these forums? Maybe I read upside down or something.
You are again totally right. I am listening/reading to myself, kind of a release actually to get my thoughts out there. But I'm a gonna tell you a secret, I'm pretty sure that is what most others are doing as well. No one is listening to anyone, look at any thread it is just a mess of people stating their view and disagreeing with anyone that differs. Welcome to the internet.
We all seem to be basing our comments on what we consider substance, not sure how what you do is better or the correct way to do it. Like I said, I'm a fan/gamer and speak as such. I'm not a neutral party. If I was, I'd go to game forums that I don't like or have no interest in and discuss them. I'm not a professional reviewer and have no need to act as such.
Also don't know why you continue to act as if you are superior to those that disagree with you. Calling names (kid/childish) and alluding to less intelligence is pretty lame. I'm 32, been online gaming for 18+ years. Can't say I'm the most mature or intelligent person in the world, but I'm not an idiot either. Simply disagree with what others say sometimes.
And thank you for summing up how I felt about EQ2 very clearly...
"The ESO characters had high res, more realistic textures... but they were bland, lifeless, boring looking soul-less dolls." Although I'd add that EQ2 looked more like clay than realistic.
100% subjective and correct to you. I happen to agree, but there are plenty that disagree obviously. No one is correct. We all have the freedom to say whatever we want and no one can prove anyone knows better. You feel free to stay neutral (not that you do obviously), but I have no intention to.
Feel free to actually make objective or subjective comments based on "real" substance, I'll be listening. I'd love to know what "real" substance is and how you measure or grade it. All the panels need to happen already, I'm so bored lol.
I don't expect to see this game any time soon. They shot themselves in the foot with H1Z1 talking about release in a few weeks which is now more than a few months and counting. I don't even think Landmark is released yet so I don't expect EQN even in 2015. I'll be impressed if they even get the beta out next year.
Originally posted by Ragnar1337 I don't expect to see this game any time soon. They shot themselves in the foot with H1Z1 talking about release in a few weeks which is now more than a few months and counting. I don't even think Landmark is released yet so I don't expect EQN even in 2015. I'll be impressed if they even get the beta out next year.
Dave stated they're about 60% done with EQN already in an interview. Given that info it's safe to say that we'll see a pay-for Alpha sometime within the next 6 months, if not earlier, with full release sometime next summer. If you think that's soon or not is completely up to you though.
Personally I'm down to let them take as much time developing the game as their budget lets them. I'd gladly wait for a solid game instead of quickly getting a rushed game. If they can afford it, I say let them take their time lol.
What point? You just flatly said EQ2 > WoW. No "facts" to back this up as there aren't any.
It was satire mostly. You're welcome to "prefer" WoW over EQ2. You continue to confuse "what you don't like" for "a poorly created, bad game". I'm not sure why you have a hard time understanding this concept.
So people that think Vanguard was the best mmorpg ever, bugs an all are incorrect? Yes there are some that say this. Was it bad, good, or just liked/disliked? Are we just talking semantics?
-It's not semantics. You're probably just not understanding the context of this conversation. A person is not wrong in their opinion of Vanguard if they like to play it or not. However, it was a poorly created game. It was a disaster technically and a huge mess design-wise. You can "like" a bad game. You can dislike a "good game".
Not sure why you keep using the RTS comparison. I love mmorpgs. Western, eastern, scifi, fantasy, slow/action, whatever. EQ2 was simply a poor experience for me. Not because I didn't like the graphics or one element, just overall didn't have the polish or quality that I prefer. I accept it was a good game for others, just not for me. Words are funny, we obviously don't all use them the same, but I'm sure you can point me to a dictionary or something.
-You're almost there buddy, keep that thought train going, I knew I could get through to you. EQ2 was a good game in the sense that it was well designed and professionally crafted. It wasn't a "bad game". Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it was a bad game. It's completely possible to dislike a bad game. It's also possible to like and want to play a "bad game". But EQ2 was not a "bad game". You might have liked other games far better, but it wasn't like EQ2 was a poorly designed and atrocious mess like Vanguard.
This conversation isn't about saying you have to like anything. I'm just educating you on the difference between "I didn't like it" vs "Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing".
"I don't like WoW (here's a MMORPG reference for you), but WoW wasn't / isn't a "Bad game". You don't have to "remain neutral" in your opinions of what you like / dislike. I'm simply asking you to distinguish between the two different concepts of "what you like" vs "a poorly created, badly designed game".
What meaningful conversations are you speaking of that aren't based almost or entirely on subjective opinions? On these forums? Maybe I read upside down or something.
You are again totally right. I am listening/reading to myself, kind of a release actually to get my thoughts out there. But I'm a gonna tell you a secret, I'm pretty sure that is what most others are doing as well. No one is listening to anyone, look at any thread it is just a mess of people stating their view and disagreeing with anyone that differs. Welcome to the internet.
-Just because it's a common problem on the internet doesn't mean you have to be a part of the problem. I think you posses the ability to rise about this kind of mentality.
We all seem to be basing our comments on what we consider substance, not sure how what you do is better or the correct way to do it. Like I said, I'm a fan/gamer and speak as such. I'm not a neutral party. If I was, I'd go to game forums that I don't like or have no interest in and discuss them. I'm not a professional reviewer and have no need to act as such.
-This misses the point.
Also don't know why you continue to act as if you are superior to those that disagree with you. Calling names (kid/childish) and alluding to less intelligence is pretty lame. I'm 32, been online gaming for 18+ years. Can't say I'm the most mature or intelligent person in the world, but I'm not an idiot either. Simply disagree with what others say sometimes.
-I'm not "acting superior". I have entered into this conversation because you seem capable of comprehending this topic. If I thought you were incompetent and not capable of having a rational and enlightening discussion then I wouldn't even bother to reply to you.
And thank you for summing up how I felt about EQ2 very clearly...
"The ESO characters had high res, more realistic textures... but they were bland, lifeless, boring looking soul-less dolls." Although I'd add that EQ2 looked more like clay than realistic.
-EQ2's graphics were technologically superior to WoW's graphics, objectively. You are free to have an opinion on what game's aesthetics you like best though, but you already know this. A good example for right now however would be comparing ESO to EQN. If we only went by textures/polycount, EQN and ESO would be comparable with neither one winning out. They're both very well done, modern models.
EQN takes a different approach style-wise, but they're both offering a great model and texture system with high-end leading technologies backing them up. Now to add to this however, I'd say EQN is very superior in terms of showing emotions and facial animation system. Then throw in SOEmote. So what game has better models? Well technologically, EQN does.
With this said however, you could certainly have the opinion that you like ESO's better because that style appeals to you.
This is an example of objective commentary vs subjective opinions/preferences.
Honestly this seems like a matter of what we consider "bad" to mean.
not good in any manner or degree
inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use
of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient
I'm assuming you are going with option one and I'm going with the other two.
In that case, yes EQ2 was not "bad," it has a lot going for it and I accept that. For me personally, it is inferior to EQ, DAoC, AC, WoW, UO and other games of that time.
Funny thing is after going back after all this colorful mess, I didn't even call it bad. I said the gameplay was bad for me. Which it was. I was being honest about my own experience.
I do think the visuals were bad, but that is my own personal tastes. They might have been the best thing tech wise, but that is meaningless to me. Tech specs that don't add anything to my experience aren't useful. Although I do see EQ2 design in the new EQN models. Finally Rosie is getting the tech to support her artistic design.
Having to have a fairly high end PC to run a game for no real benefit seems like a poor or "bad" design choice as well. The numbers kind of speak on this as EQ2 suffered along with game play changes happening after release to compete with the competition. They might of accomplished the goal of making a "good" game, but not one worth playing over others apparently so much that they had to change the game to fight this.
EQ2 isn't a "bad" game in of itself. It was a bad experience for me though. While I could say SOE managed to make a game that did stuff as intended, if I disliked it, I'll say so. No reason to sugarcoat or exclude my subjective thoughts when discussing it.
While I do find it silly when others or even I say blanket statements such as those saying EQN looks bad simply because it is stylized, I still think they are free to do so. I wish they would at least back up their comments with some substance beyond "Disney hahaha". As you did with ESO. Tech wise it is "good" but it looks bland and very unexciting to me. Even then, someone might feel EQN's more colorful models are too bright or whatever and detract from a fantasy world or some random subjective element that they use to say ESO > EQN. I'm fine with that, I realize lots of people have bad taste and that mine is the best obviously
Overall, I think there are just way too many variables to assume there is a standard of what is good/bad, high/low quality, what failed, what was an accomplishment etc.
Vanguard for example. Maybe they intended to make a terrible game and make as much money off people as they could before going down in a ball of flames. Mission accomplished? Good game? Wouldn't be the first time. It might of been the best worst game ever.
This is why I stick to being subjective. I speak my mind. Being objective, at least in gaming, serves no purpose for me. I don't really care what others think of my opinions and have no belief that I'm going to convert the masses to stand with me. I'm just here to discuss, debate, chat, waste time, whatever.
You say your comment was satire, how is anyone to know that? From everything you've said, it sounds like you clearly think EQ2 was superior to WoW. Regardless if both were good or not. Listing a bunch of things that might now be satire or subjective and then saying "be more objective" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you feel EQ2 > WoW, stand by it. Give reasons. You said other games were "Amazing" was this satire or subjective or just objective fact that no one can ever dispute?
We have no way of knowing if the other is being serious, joking, stating fact, opinion, total made up BS, etc. That's why I just say what I feel/think and let others respond if they want. No need to walk around the subject or stay out of the fire. I just go for it. Oh well if I look bad. My feelings will be okay.
there is such a thing as good graphics. and some models can look good even if they dont do well in the backround, but 95% its plausible and even a boost. I think EQNexts graphics are the best in an mmo but i agree it looks mediocre at points, plus it doesnt mesh but stylized means they can improve it many times over and has a long life
I started playing an MMO when I played Everquest in 1999. When I heard Everquest 2 was coming I was beyond ecstatic and never paid any attention to World of Warcraft. Then EQ 2 was released and my computer had a lot of trouble running it. Doing dungeons with shared debt ,that is sharing the debt of people who were poor players did not sit well with me. I tried WoW and got hooked.
Awhile later I went back to EQ 2 and between the amazing crafting and wonderful quests I finally realised it was the better game. It was not doing so well but I loved my houses and was happily playing the game and enjoying the multitude of things to do including the public dungeons design. EQ 2 is a very good game that many people never liked well what to do you ,you can bring a horse to the water but not force him to drink.
So far I am unsure about EQ Next mainly because I am a bit weary of action combat . However it seems to be the way of the future. Wildstar proved too much for this old nag .Hoping EQ Next is not like that.
Dave in interview soe 2014 said they are 60% feature complete for EQN and after LANDMARK OPEN BETA they push content and AI for NEXT, in terms of development time what does it mean?
I think LANDMARK OB will be this Christmas so therefore we start counting from here the rest of 40% of development for Next more or less or I misunderstand?!
Check the video below just after 11'min and 12' min
Comments
new EQN info begins tomorrow at SOE Live
last year, it was stated that some things can not be destroyed
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/02/everquest-next-is-real-and-its-amazing
Players will occasionally be prevented from destroying things, Georgeson says, because otherwise "player cities would become player parking lots." Monsters, however, can and will show up to wreak havoc, and left unchecked, they can do plenty of damage to player settlements. A dragon, for instance, may come in and knock a castle wall down, necessitating repairs.
in Landmark, SOE said property owners can flag their land indestructible -- if they want to
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/08/04/soe-live-2013-delving-deeper-into-eqns-landmark/
Starting with personal plots, players are able to set permissions on their individual claims. You can build solo or allow friends to help. You can also make things open for destruction or keep them locked and safe.
EQ2 fan sites
I for one would have preferred if they had stayed with the similar style they used for Planetside 2 for EQN ( terrain anyway. The player models are blurry and terrible ). But if they can fine tune performance when they add in multi core support for Landmark ( and hopefully EQN will have it from the get go ) and off load things to the GPU like shadows to drastically improve performance I would be happy.
Outside of combat in Landmark the one other major thing I think is missing is getting some real landcapes going. The current island setup is holding the game back IMO because you have to try and get hills , flats , gullys , mountains , forests ..etc in such a small area and it really detracts from the game. Having a continent sized landmass with rivers ( when they can get water to work correctly ) , creeks , mountains , flats , all tiers of resources..etc. would really open up the game and start creating an in game community.
While EQN will share similarities to Landmark we wont have to worry about space ships , toilet bowels , vegas signs..etc to break immersion. And to top it off a handcrafted and well made world which are far superior to randomly generated ones.
What makes you the more apt judge? Your opinions are just as biased as his. It's one thing to tick off a feature list, it's quite another to declare that all systems were implemented and integrated well and calling it a great game as a fact rather than personal opinion. Reading your posts on this topic has done nothing but paint you as some kind of company lackey.
Just because he didn't like the game personally, doesn't discount or discredit the possibility that many others share his point of view. As so many are apt to say on the site, popularity does not necessarily indicate quality. EQ2 is still a viable game financially, I'm assuming since it hasn't closed down, but that does not prove it a quality game either.
We can be objective, but I haven't really read anything from you, him, myself, or anyone else that comes off that way for the most part.
Unless we all agree on what "bad" and "good" mean, it is all fairly pointless. Just like trying to talk about what a "sandbox" is or buzzwords that mean a million different things to different people. If people like and play a game, not sure how you can objectively ever call it bad. Might have the worse mechanics, graphics, pay system ever (to you), but some might think it is a digital slice of heaven, people are strange.
Such as EQ2. I think the graphics are some of the worst I've ever seen in a mmorpg, not to mention AAA level. Gameplay for me was not WoW-like beyond superficial aspects. To me, a game not being able to be played is bad. I had a decent PC and the game still wasn't anywhere near the performance as EQ, DAoC, WoW or other games out at the time. Vanguard probably the only one to top it. Add that with the actual gameplay itself which wasn't WoWish to me and it was "bad" in my opinion. If it wasn't, I'd play it.
There is no way I can be objective and go "Well I hate the graphics, gameplay was meh, tech performance was sub par, but it is still a A+ effort SOE."
WoW now or vanilla, EQ now and Project 1999 versions are still great games, but will never touch them again. They aren't fun for me anymore. If any game was "good" to me, I'd play it and not be wasting time chatting it up on here and reddit about a game far from release.
Many games seem to be very popular (such as WoW), but I have no interest in them. I can't give an honest objective review without all my personal baggage tossed in. If you can, you are a rare breed.
I think the three of us are all fairly stuck in our ways and none of us are every going to get the other to go "OMG you are so right, can't believe I was so blinded by my personal likes/dislikes that I didn't see things through your eyes, thank you so much." It just isn't going to happen.
Honestly tired of all the circle jerk gamer conversations and really would like to get some real details and actually play this game. Hopefully the first happens over the next couple days. Second is sadly a ways off most likely. Until then I'm sure we'll all continue to try to build a taller soapbox to prove our point to the world (not that any of us are really listening to each other).
Your view on SOE's record is pretty personal as well. Taking EQ for example and changing it in so many ways over a few expansions isn't "good" to me. Obviously many continued to play and still do, but when a game either loses a huge chunk of players or simply can't pull in new ones that flock to other games, that seems like a "bad" situation. Popularity doesn't equate to "good" by default, but it sure helps make it look that way. They took a game I was enjoying and flipped it on it's head, much like most games that have a decent shelf life. My parting words are never "Well the game is still good, but I can't stand it, peace out." Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It's called hype and using loud wording to get everyone excited (or not). The game won't literally be "fully" destructible, at least from what they've said. Would be a pretty stupid move to make it so. Obviously depends a great deal on how they handle housing and PVP in general, but highly likely that people can opt-out of their pretty homes being burned to the ground at least from players. Also said that it will take a decent amount of effort to even do destruction. A day 1 player probably can't take a rusty nail and blow a hole through a Freeport wall. Going to assume that at least one dev on the team went "We probably shouldn't let players do anything they like, some might take it too far." Regardless of player huffing and puffing, the masses keep the lights on.
As far as things being "new", very true. Dismissing it being on the mmorpg level is kind of pointless though. That is why it is important. No game of this level has done it or at least well from what I know. I don't care if 100 different games in different genres already do it, this is where it matters. At this point, very little these days is "new" or innovative. Everyone borrows and copies, sometimes improving and sometimes destroying what came before. If they can toss in great elements from fantasy mmorpgs, minecraft/builders, moba/action games, etc and make it a total package, win for us.
Because I'm not making any claims about what makes a good game or a bad game or injecting personal wants or dislikes. I'm specifically commenting on design and the consequences of the design. The design and it's impact on what it means for the game, which is something you can be objective about. Hope that clears things up for you.
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
It is clear that Ohio State's scarlet (red) color is far superior then Alabama's crimson (red).. This is not subjective or opinion.. lol.. Oh I'm sure there will be some hurt feelings from the boys down south, but everyone else on the planet prefers wearing the superior scarlet color.. And if anyone brings up candy apple red.. OMG.. We all know that color is so inferior, and only works on Corvettes.. LOL
Next month we'll discuss greens and which ones are good and bad.. lol
While you appear to be objective, are you sure your PC is powerful enough to fully appreciate the fine detail of Alabama's crimson?
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Landmark public alpha was scheduled for Feb 2014
http://www.eqhammer.com/news/landmark-beta-dates-and-founders-program-announced
EQ2 fan sites
OK.. you got me.. I busted a gut when I read this.. Good thing I wasn't drinking my coffee at the same time..
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
Dave stated they're about 60% done with EQN already in an interview. Given that info it's safe to say that we'll see a pay-for Alpha sometime within the next 6 months, if not earlier, with full release sometime next summer. If you think that's soon or not is completely up to you though.
Personally I'm down to let them take as much time developing the game as their budget lets them. I'd gladly wait for a solid game instead of quickly getting a rushed game. If they can afford it, I say let them take their time lol.
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
What point? You just flatly said EQ2 > WoW. No "facts" to back this up as there aren't any.
It was satire mostly. You're welcome to "prefer" WoW over EQ2. You continue to confuse "what you don't like" for "a poorly created, bad game". I'm not sure why you have a hard time understanding this concept.
So people that think Vanguard was the best mmorpg ever, bugs an all are incorrect? Yes there are some that say this. Was it bad, good, or just liked/disliked? Are we just talking semantics?
-It's not semantics. You're probably just not understanding the context of this conversation. A person is not wrong in their opinion of Vanguard if they like to play it or not. However, it was a poorly created game. It was a disaster technically and a huge mess design-wise. You can "like" a bad game. You can dislike a "good game".
Not sure why you keep using the RTS comparison. I love mmorpgs. Western, eastern, scifi, fantasy, slow/action, whatever. EQ2 was simply a poor experience for me. Not because I didn't like the graphics or one element, just overall didn't have the polish or quality that I prefer. I accept it was a good game for others, just not for me. Words are funny, we obviously don't all use them the same, but I'm sure you can point me to a dictionary or something.
-You're almost there buddy, keep that thought train going, I knew I could get through to you. EQ2 was a good game in the sense that it was well designed and professionally crafted. It wasn't a "bad game". Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it was a bad game. It's completely possible to dislike a bad game. It's also possible to like and want to play a "bad game". But EQ2 was not a "bad game". You might have liked other games far better, but it wasn't like EQ2 was a poorly designed and atrocious mess like Vanguard.
This conversation isn't about saying you have to like anything. I'm just educating you on the difference between "I didn't like it" vs "Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing".
"I don't like WoW (here's a MMORPG reference for you), but WoW wasn't / isn't a "Bad game". You don't have to "remain neutral" in your opinions of what you like / dislike. I'm simply asking you to distinguish between the two different concepts of "what you like" vs "a poorly created, badly designed game".
What meaningful conversations are you speaking of that aren't based almost or entirely on subjective opinions? On these forums? Maybe I read upside down or something.
You are again totally right. I am listening/reading to myself, kind of a release actually to get my thoughts out there. But I'm a gonna tell you a secret, I'm pretty sure that is what most others are doing as well. No one is listening to anyone, look at any thread it is just a mess of people stating their view and disagreeing with anyone that differs. Welcome to the internet.
-Just because it's a common problem on the internet doesn't mean you have to be a part of the problem. I think you posses the ability to rise about this kind of mentality.
We all seem to be basing our comments on what we consider substance, not sure how what you do is better or the correct way to do it. Like I said, I'm a fan/gamer and speak as such. I'm not a neutral party. If I was, I'd go to game forums that I don't like or have no interest in and discuss them. I'm not a professional reviewer and have no need to act as such.
-This misses the point.
Also don't know why you continue to act as if you are superior to those that disagree with you. Calling names (kid/childish) and alluding to less intelligence is pretty lame. I'm 32, been online gaming for 18+ years. Can't say I'm the most mature or intelligent person in the world, but I'm not an idiot either. Simply disagree with what others say sometimes.
-I'm not "acting superior". I have entered into this conversation because you seem capable of comprehending this topic. If I thought you were incompetent and not capable of having a rational and enlightening discussion then I wouldn't even bother to reply to you.
And thank you for summing up how I felt about EQ2 very clearly...
"The ESO characters had high res, more realistic textures... but they were bland, lifeless, boring looking soul-less dolls." Although I'd add that EQ2 looked more like clay than realistic.
-EQ2's graphics were technologically superior to WoW's graphics, objectively. You are free to have an opinion on what game's aesthetics you like best though, but you already know this. A good example for right now however would be comparing ESO to EQN. If we only went by textures/polycount, EQN and ESO would be comparable with neither one winning out. They're both very well done, modern models.
EQN takes a different approach style-wise, but they're both offering a great model and texture system with high-end leading technologies backing them up. Now to add to this however, I'd say EQN is very superior in terms of showing emotions and facial animation system. Then throw in SOEmote. So what game has better models? Well technologically, EQN does.
With this said however, you could certainly have the opinion that you like ESO's better because that style appeals to you.
This is an example of objective commentary vs subjective opinions/preferences.
No one is correct.
-I am correct.
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
No I am! Er dang it.
Honestly this seems like a matter of what we consider "bad" to mean.
not good in any manner or degree
inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use
of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient
I'm assuming you are going with option one and I'm going with the other two.
In that case, yes EQ2 was not "bad," it has a lot going for it and I accept that. For me personally, it is inferior to EQ, DAoC, AC, WoW, UO and other games of that time.
Funny thing is after going back after all this colorful mess, I didn't even call it bad. I said the gameplay was bad for me. Which it was. I was being honest about my own experience.
I do think the visuals were bad, but that is my own personal tastes. They might have been the best thing tech wise, but that is meaningless to me. Tech specs that don't add anything to my experience aren't useful. Although I do see EQ2 design in the new EQN models. Finally Rosie is getting the tech to support her artistic design.
Having to have a fairly high end PC to run a game for no real benefit seems like a poor or "bad" design choice as well. The numbers kind of speak on this as EQ2 suffered along with game play changes happening after release to compete with the competition. They might of accomplished the goal of making a "good" game, but not one worth playing over others apparently so much that they had to change the game to fight this.
EQ2 isn't a "bad" game in of itself. It was a bad experience for me though. While I could say SOE managed to make a game that did stuff as intended, if I disliked it, I'll say so. No reason to sugarcoat or exclude my subjective thoughts when discussing it.
While I do find it silly when others or even I say blanket statements such as those saying EQN looks bad simply because it is stylized, I still think they are free to do so. I wish they would at least back up their comments with some substance beyond "Disney hahaha". As you did with ESO. Tech wise it is "good" but it looks bland and very unexciting to me. Even then, someone might feel EQN's more colorful models are too bright or whatever and detract from a fantasy world or some random subjective element that they use to say ESO > EQN. I'm fine with that, I realize lots of people have bad taste and that mine is the best obviously
Overall, I think there are just way too many variables to assume there is a standard of what is good/bad, high/low quality, what failed, what was an accomplishment etc.
Vanguard for example. Maybe they intended to make a terrible game and make as much money off people as they could before going down in a ball of flames. Mission accomplished? Good game? Wouldn't be the first time. It might of been the best worst game ever.
This is why I stick to being subjective. I speak my mind. Being objective, at least in gaming, serves no purpose for me. I don't really care what others think of my opinions and have no belief that I'm going to convert the masses to stand with me. I'm just here to discuss, debate, chat, waste time, whatever.
You say your comment was satire, how is anyone to know that? From everything you've said, it sounds like you clearly think EQ2 was superior to WoW. Regardless if both were good or not. Listing a bunch of things that might now be satire or subjective and then saying "be more objective" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you feel EQ2 > WoW, stand by it. Give reasons. You said other games were "Amazing" was this satire or subjective or just objective fact that no one can ever dispute?
We have no way of knowing if the other is being serious, joking, stating fact, opinion, total made up BS, etc. That's why I just say what I feel/think and let others respond if they want. No need to walk around the subject or stay out of the fire. I just go for it. Oh well if I look bad. My feelings will be okay.
Any chance we could get a moderator in here to get this thread back on track pls.
EQN will release on PC first
Planetside 2 is getting a console version
the game released two years ago - and no console version yet
both PS2 and EQN use the Forgelight game engine
SOE said last year that the Planetside2 was coming to PS4
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/2016559/planetside_2_on_ps4_is_basically_pc_version_on_max_settings.html
EQ2 fan sites
I started playing an MMO when I played Everquest in 1999. When I heard Everquest 2 was coming I was beyond ecstatic and never paid any attention to World of Warcraft. Then EQ 2 was released and my computer had a lot of trouble running it. Doing dungeons with shared debt ,that is sharing the debt of people who were poor players did not sit well with me. I tried WoW and got hooked.
Awhile later I went back to EQ 2 and between the amazing crafting and wonderful quests I finally realised it was the better game. It was not doing so well but I loved my houses and was happily playing the game and enjoying the multitude of things to do including the public dungeons design. EQ 2 is a very good game that many people never liked well what to do you ,you can bring a horse to the water but not force him to drink.
So far I am unsure about EQ Next mainly because I am a bit weary of action combat . However it seems to be the way of the future. Wildstar proved too much for this old nag .Hoping EQ Next is not like that.
Dave in interview soe 2014 said they are 60% feature complete for EQN and after LANDMARK OPEN BETA they push content and AI for NEXT, in terms of development time what does it mean?
I think LANDMARK OB will be this Christmas so therefore we start counting from here the rest of 40% of development for Next more or less or I misunderstand?!
Check the video below just after 11'min and 12' min