Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Everquest - Let's be honest...

1356789

Comments

  • Ender4Ender4 Member UncommonPosts: 2,247

    As someone who calls EQ their favorite MMORPG ever I can honestly say their vision for EQN is way more exciting than just making another EQ like game would have been. This was my one last big hope for the MMORPG genre finally doing something interesting instead of being gauntlet online which is what it has become. Create a world, not a bunch of dungeons. Let me play with the world, not just kill a pack of mobs over and over.

    I have to imagine with this firing that if EQN actually comes out it won't be anything but another cruddy theme park.

  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,141
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Are you saying not enough companies are making stupid themepark WoW clones and easymode korean button mashers yet and we need another one?

    I just fell out of my chair laughing.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,875
    Originally posted by bcbully

    Everquest wasn't/isn't exactly blazing trails or leading the pack.

     

    Since I've been involved with and following Landmark I must of heard a hundred times "The EQ community wont like this",  "The EQ community expects that...", "The EQ community...", The EQ community". How big is that community exactly? 50k? 100k people?

     

    Don't you think the EQ brand would be better served by looking at what the rest of the gaming community wants? I see this recent shake up as something that could possibly unshackling EQ from the past and allow it to move forward in a more progressive way.  There's no question that Dave and his team had to show their cards (EQN) and what was shown to Nova must not have been the nuts. 

     

    Only time will tell, but am I the only one that sees this move as a potential positive for the franchise?

    Really depends on what Novas plans are. Keep EQ1 and 2 running, then adding a new Sandbox to the mix would be good for business. Let EQ1 or 2 dwindle and make EQN the game for those fans to port over to? Then changing the game to a mix of sandbox and themepark may work. 

    My guess is Daybreak has to much invested in EQN to change major direction again. I think its mostly going to stay the same way its been heading, the biggest Sandbox game ever made. Thats their call and I think thats what we will get.

  • RusqueRusque Member RarePosts: 2,785
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by bcbully

    Everquest wasn't/isn't exactly blazing trails or leading the pack.

    How big is that community exactly? 50k? 100k people?

     

    Honest?

    EQ definitely blazed trails.

    The 'community' in this case isn't just the folks playing it right now, it's every person that has played it and enjoyed it over the years. That's the core audience following this right now. So, yeah, millions I would would say actually.

    My own view... Progressive is good, but progressive for the sake of it isn't. Any designer that throws out the baby with the bathwater for the sake of being different with an established title is an idiot.

    I think most people's view that I have seen is that this could be a fun game, just not one that should be 'Everquest III'. I think that's a valid point of view.

    Yep, EQ definitely did blaze trails. In fact, it was because of EQ setting the standard that WoW was even made.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] CommonPosts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 7,432


    Originally posted by Dullahan
    The EQ community would be better served by just leaving EQ out of their future endeavors.  They have no intention of making something even remotely like Everquest, so they should just stop throwing the name around to make money while people can still think fondly on what it used to be.
    Bingo!

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 7,432


    Originally posted by reeereee
    This is just like those ESO threads where people argued over who the real Skyrim fans are.  The nostalgia is so strong it almost brings a tear to my eye.
    "Nostalgia" for a game barely 3 years old? Really? And many players still playing Skyrim?

    "I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
    - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    You have to realize that these are the people who let Warcraft take over.  They cannot fail the same way EQ2 did.  There is a difference between making 100mil and 1bil.  If you can make 1bil then you are gonna do exactly that.  So the popular thing that makes tons of money and attracts millions of players is bad?  That just means what you like isn't what the gaming community likes.  The massive majority is the gaming community.  Right now the gaming community is screaming they love smaller games and the mmo's aren't really that popular at all.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • EronakisEronakis Member UncommonPosts: 2,249
    Originally posted by Kefo

    The thing that current devs don't seem to understand is that you don't design a game to be profitable if you can only reach a few million subs. Instead you design a game to be profitable with a few hundred thousand subs. Don't try and compete with WoW because you will fail miserably and you will see friends and colleagues laid off when they start shutting down the studio to save money.

    They look where the money is coming from. Right now, WoW and LoL are two different types of games that have the largest population. Developers look to get funds from adventure capitalist, and investors. They need to  have a business plan in place and a High Concept Document outlining how their game vision is going to get their money back. Unfortunately, the current model of WoW is what they believe will continue to make money because they saw it works.

     

    I do agree with you that the Developers need to have a change of direction of when designing and develop for niche communities. Everquest community is a very loyal fanbase and will be loyal if you consistently provide them with a game they're looking for.

     

    The problem with many titles today is the fact that they want to get millions of subs. They don't design nor account for long term gameplay. Thus this is why the game fails when it's a 'wow clone'.

     

    I am all for developers targeting a niche market like the Everquest players. To make your money off the consistency and loyalty of that niche market. That is a direction few are far between now a days. Simply because designing an MMO is a massive risk.  

  • XiaokiXiaoki Member EpicPosts: 4,036


    Originally posted by bobfish
    EQN is impossible. You cannot please EQ fans or EQ2 fans without cannibalizing their subscription numbers and if you please those fans you likely won't please anyone else, which in turn means you are spending money to make a game that isn't going to bring in any more money than you are already making. From my point of view, EQN should be SWG with the EQ IP on it, a sandbox, completely different to the previous two EQ games.
    Great post.


    EQ fans have been dreaming up a new EQ in their heads so no actual product will be able to match their fantasy.

    And what they put into words is an "updated version of EQ1." But each modern update would fracture the community, like the art style.

    So, the EQ fans want a big budget remake of EQ1 tailored for an ever dwindling community that will not hesitate to turn on itself when their own personal interests are not being met.


    So, yes, a new EQ is impossible because of the EQ fans.


  • CalmOceansCalmOceans Member UncommonPosts: 2,437
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

    eq is like every other game, it has quests, you do them and get rewards. Just because it is older doesnt mean it isn't time for a huge change.

    EQ has never relied on quests, but always on grind.  There were quests for epic weapons, quests to unlock access to raid zones,  but other than those, the game relied on grind for progress, not quests.

    It's actually quite different from current MMO.

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 Member Posts: 2,735
    Originally posted by Gestankfaust
    Originally posted by Temp0
    Regardless of what is best for income or "the brand" as you put it, what kind of non-sense is it that a "brand" should abandon its own legacy and fans? Take any of your favorite games and imagine in the next iteration they completely scrapped everything about it and went some different direction with it. That would be utterly crappy (and it happens more often than it should as is without people suggesting it because THEY were not a fan of what came before) for you wouldn't it?

    ^This for the most part

     

    I never did see EQ in the "Next".

     

    And YES I WOULD have LOVED to seen EQ1 remake! Why the hell not!! Or even an EQ1/2 mishmash. What I have seen had nothing to do with all that...then the layoffs.

     

     

    Because we've all been playing EQ remakes for the last 15 bloody years and it's time for something different.

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 Member Posts: 2,735
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

    eq is like every other game, it has quests, you do them and get rewards. Just because it is older doesnt mean it isn't time for a huge change.

    EQ has never relied on quests, but always on grind.  There were quests for epic weapons, quests to unlock access to raid zones,  but other than those, the game relied on grind for progress, not quests.

    It's actually quite different from current MMO.

    EQ came out at a different time when the MMO community was much different. It wouldn't work today because people do not have the patience for it.

  • nbtscannbtscan Member UncommonPosts: 862
    Almost seems like the best thing they can do is rename EQ:N to something different and market it as a new franchise since this isn't the game "EQ fans" want, but I think the damage has already been done.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    EQN is dead.  Pantheon is the only hope for an EQ like game and really for a vibrant virtual world in this dying genre.


  • LobotomistLobotomist Member EpicPosts: 5,980

    1. The first MMO where players actions actually impact the world. Change kingdoms. Rule of evil or good. Timelines. Wars. No servers are the same.

    2. Inteligent MOB and NPCs that travels the world just like players. That need to eat, drink and has needs. Defends territories, invade territories. Gives quests against opposing factions.

    3. Voxel Minecraft like world that player can build destroy mine ...

    4. Hollow earth with thousands of random generated caves and dungeons

    5. Reactive movement system

    7. Open PVP

    8. Multiclassing

    9. Sandbox skill system

    10. Sandbox progression

    11. Twitch combat

    12. Amazing game engine - open world with no invisible walls or loading instances

    ...

     

    Yes. Its nothing special...because it was friggin AMAZING!

     

    If there was ever a chance MMOs will be pulled out of this dark age, it was this super ambitious project.

    And now it s death will be like a grave warning : "do not dare to innovate!"

     

    And we will all go back to enjoy korean F2P MMOs and wonderful Themeparks

     

     

     

     



  • MagikarpsGhostMagikarpsGhost Member RarePosts: 689
    Originally posted by bcbully

    Everquest wasn't/isn't exactly blazing trails or leading the pack.

     

    Since I've been involved with and following Landmark I must of heard a hundred times "The EQ community wont like this",  "The EQ community expects that...", "The EQ community...", The EQ community". How big is that community exactly? 50k? 100k people?

     

    Don't you think the EQ brand would be better served by looking at what the rest of the gaming community wants? I see this recent shake up as something that could possibly unshackling EQ from the past and allow it to move forward in a more progressive way.  There's no question that Dave and his team had to show their cards (EQN) and what was shown to Nova must not have been the nuts. 

     

    Only time will tell, but am I the only one that sees this move as a potential positive for the franchise?

    erm EQ was one of the first mmos out there, Sadly if you look at EQ1 and WoW you can see where WoW stole a lot from it. The community for everquest is a lot more...tough to please then the WoW hoard, because they  have played eq1/2 where you cant get max level in a day or two. (unless you buy it of coarse) where on WoW i can get to 100 in about 3 days. Most of us miss mmos that don't hand you a damn golden star every time you walk/doge or roll. But sadly most mmos give the "everybody wins" method a try because the younger generations now days are being raised with it and expect it.

    free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!

    Click here for trove referral, bonuses to both!

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by jircris
    Originally posted by bcbully

    Everquest wasn't/isn't exactly blazing trails or leading the pack.

     

    Since I've been involved with and following Landmark I must of heard a hundred times "The EQ community wont like this",  "The EQ community expects that...", "The EQ community...", The EQ community". How big is that community exactly? 50k? 100k people?

     

    Don't you think the EQ brand would be better served by looking at what the rest of the gaming community wants? I see this recent shake up as something that could possibly unshackling EQ from the past and allow it to move forward in a more progressive way.  There's no question that Dave and his team had to show their cards (EQN) and what was shown to Nova must not have been the nuts. 

     

    Only time will tell, but am I the only one that sees this move as a potential positive for the franchise?

    erm EQ was one of the first mmos out there, Sadly if you look at EQ1 and WoW you can see where WoW stole a lot from it. The community for everquest is a lot more...tough to please then the WoW hoard, because they  have played eq1/2 where you cant get max level in a day or two. (unless you buy it of coarse) where on WoW i can get to 100 in about 3 days. Most of us miss mmos that don't hand you a damn golden star every time you walk/doge or roll. But sadly most mmos give the "everybody wins" method a try because the younger generations now days are being raised with it and expect it.

    Pretty sure he was referring to modern EQ.


  • Tracho12Tracho12 Member UncommonPosts: 136
    Add me to the list of people that would rather see the Everquest franchise dead and burried than being reincarnated as another cash shop Korean grinder.
  • Xav_MMOXav_MMO Member UncommonPosts: 49
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by bcbully

    Everquest wasn't/isn't exactly blazing trails or leading the pack.

     

    Since I've been involved with and following Landmark I must of heard a hundred times "The EQ community wont like this",  "The EQ community expects that...", "The EQ community...", The EQ community". How big is that community exactly? 50k? 100k people?

     

    Don't you think the EQ brand would be better served by looking at what the rest of the gaming community wants? I see this recent shake up as something that could possibly unshackling EQ from the past and allow it to move forward in a more progressive way.  There's no question that Dave and his team had to show their cards (EQN) and what was shown to Nova must not have been the nuts. 

     

    Only time will tell, but am I the only one that sees this move as a potential positive for the franchise?

    Really depends on what Novas plans are. Keep EQ1 and 2 running, then adding a new Sandbox to the mix would be good for business. Let EQ1 or 2 dwindle and make EQN the game for those fans to port over to? Then changing the game to a mix of sandbox and themepark may work. 

    My guess is Daybreak has to much invested in EQN to change major direction again. I think its mostly going to stay the same way its been heading, the biggest Sandbox game ever made. Thats their call and I think thats what we will get.

    Actually, Daybreak has nothing invested in EQN. They bought a package deal of a bunch of stuff. Some of which they consider valuable (for whatever their plans are), and I'm sure some of them they don't consider valuable.

    But they haven't spent any of their own $$ on development of EQ:N. So to them if they do not view it as a direction they wish to go, it is an easy SNIP to be done with it.

    And personally, that is exactly what I expect to see. I have no ideas on the other games/products/IPs, but EQ:N? I expect it to be killed off. And quickly, before they have to start funneling their own cash into it. (Again, personal opinion)

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,254

    My only problem with EQNext is that they are promising some things that I am just not sure are possible right now. It's the way they talk about how players can interact with the world and how everyone will have an incredible impact on it. If true, it sounds like it will be extremely open to griefing, exploit and all manners of strange unintended consequences. It's one of those ideas that sounds incredible on paper, but is broken in reality.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719

    I have to agree that they should probably have left EQ out of the name since all the things that interest me about the game like the AI, destructible world, nomadic mob spawns, emergent play, etc. have absolutely zip to do with EQ.

     

    And that would have the extra added benefit of keeping the self-anointed Defenders Of The True EQ Faith the hell away from it polluting every discussion about it with the same cartoon graphics, no trinity, no tank, no tab-target whining.

     

    There are many more people interested in the new tech in this MMO than any link it may or may not have to EQ. Which is, I think, the valid point the OP was trying to make which got lost after the tar, feather and pitchforks came out.

     

    Maybe "Norrath Unlimited" would have been a better choice? image

    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • MendelMendel Member LegendaryPosts: 5,609
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I have to agree that they should probably have left EQ out of the name since all the things that interest me about the game like the AI, destructible world, nomadic mob spawns, emergent play, etc. have absolutely zip to do with EQ.

     

    And that would have the extra added benefit of keeping the self-anointed Defenders Of The True EQ Faith the hell away from it polluting every discussion about it with the same cartoon graphics, no trinity, no tank, no tab-target whining.

     

    There are many more people interested in the new tech in this MMO than any link it may or may not have to EQ. Which is, I think, the valid point the OP was trying to make which got lost after the tar, feather and pitchforks came out.

     

    Maybe "Norrath Unlimited" would have been a better choice? image

    I said early on that if the name had been Free Realms: Next, there wouldn't have been nearly the overbearing hype and rampant fanboiism.  And this game, without the EQ connotations, would have had a much, much better chance of seeing the light of day.

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by Mendel
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I have to agree that they should probably have left EQ out of the name since all the things that interest me about the game like the AI, destructible world, nomadic mob spawns, emergent play, etc. have absolutely zip to do with EQ.

     

    And that would have the extra added benefit of keeping the self-anointed Defenders Of The True EQ Faith the hell away from it polluting every discussion about it with the same cartoon graphics, no trinity, no tank, no tab-target whining.

     

    There are many more people interested in the new tech in this MMO than any link it may or may not have to EQ. Which is, I think, the valid point the OP was trying to make which got lost after the tar, feather and pitchforks came out.

     

    Maybe "Norrath Unlimited" would have been a better choice? image

    I said early on that if the name had been Free Realms: Next, there wouldn't have been nearly the overbearing hype and rampant fanboiism.  And this game, without the EQ connotations, would have had a much, much better chance of seeing the light of day.

    Hardly.  They have made 0 effort to please EQ fans.  Their ineptitude is irrelevant.


  • MargraveMargrave Member RarePosts: 1,370

    Personal dream ...

     

    Take all of the original EQ1 content, and remake all of the mesh/model frames, and textures. Same maps, new higher polygon counts for environment, mobs, and players. Migrate everything into a new engine, and just release it as EverQuest HD.

Sign In or Register to comment.