Howdy, Stranger!

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

'Could You Have Delivered?' 'Yup, absolutely' Says Georgeson

2»

Comments

  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,759
     If someones building had to many voxels that alone would lag out even the most powerful system. Slower net speeds would bog people down. I thought they would have dropped the 100% destructible world to fix it. The overhead was just to much. I'm not sure how Landmark is a few months from release, should not even be in beta. It's still very much alpha feel.
    Again, You are mistaken EqNext for a builder game, it was not Landmark, and the players were not given huge voxel manipulating powers. Therefore the amount of manipulated voxels would have been limited. Maybe still impossible, but lets get the facts straight before jumping to conclusions based on wrong assumptions.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,857
    Volgore said:
    Coulda shoulda woulda

    If the queen has balls she would be the king!!
    Yeah, but the difference is that the queen didn't have a shot at growing a set, fail and come back and say......well, I coulda.
  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,722
    Denambren said:

    Not with the ForgeLight engine, he couldn't.

    That POS engine was able to scratch by with the terrible visuals of Planetside 2 and H1Z1, but Everquest needed much more complex geography/geometry to be successful, which ForgeLight would never have been able to deliver. Taking a quick look at the performance of Everquest Landmark demonstrates how limited this engine truly is, and that "game" was just scratching the surface of what was needed graphically.
    The ForgeLight Engine would have worked better than Columbus Nova behind the company, that im sure.




  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Volgore said:

    Scorchien said:

    Well , what else would he say ....wtf



    Yes, we'll never know.
    Still with " a 27-year track record of never failing. All products shipped. All made money." he is pretty much entitled to claim that.

    What exactly was Daybreak's reason to cancel again? "Couldnt make it fun"... alright.

    Who do i trust more?
    ... and the industry gave him such a confidence vote in his abilities as a producer that they gave him a job in community relations.

    Nope he can say what he wants but he doomed the project at the outset by making the scope too large. The guy is great at talking but a good manager he isn't.
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740

    DMKano said:

    Tech was never the issue. Money was.

    Tech was absolutely an issue, voxel stream overhead is a huge issue in an open world voxel game.  With instancing it's doable, otherwise there's just no feasible way of doing it if you get 300+ players in one area all terraforming, completely unplayable.
    It was worse than that, the planned AI turned every mob and npc into a 'player' as far as overhead was concerned. The lag would have been horrendous. Then there was the feedback loop for soemote with changing facial expressions. 
  • ThebeastttThebeasttt Member RarePosts: 1,130
    Georgeson was a major driving force in the ruining of the Everquest franchise, EQNext being the most recent example. There aren't enough pink slips on planet earth to make up for this treachery.
  • DenambrenDenambren Member UncommonPosts: 399
    Kiyoris said:

    Denambren said:


    Not with the ForgeLight engine, he couldn't.

    That POS engine was able to scratch by with the terrible visuals of Planetside 2 and H1Z1, but Everquest needed much more complex geography/geometry to be successful, which ForgeLight would never have been able to deliver. Taking a quick look at the performance of Everquest Landmark demonstrates how limited this engine truly is, and that "game" was just scratching the surface of what was needed graphically.



    Forgelight is a pretty decent engine, EQNext looked great. It's not junk like Unity.

    The animations were awesome.

    I'm going to agree that the animations were awesome, but I feel that's more a representation of the sheer talent of the animators and artists that worked on the demo video. The actual engine itself still struggles with performance when having to render a larger environment with even average detail. 
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    edited March 2016
    Kiyoris said:

    Denambren said:


    Not with the ForgeLight engine, he couldn't.

    That POS engine was able to scratch by with the terrible visuals of Planetside 2 and H1Z1, but Everquest needed much more complex geography/geometry to be successful, which ForgeLight would never have been able to deliver. Taking a quick look at the performance of Everquest Landmark demonstrates how limited this engine truly is, and that "game" was just scratching the surface of what was needed graphically.



    Forgelight is a pretty decent engine, EQNext looked great. It's not junk like Unity.

    The animations were awesome. 
    Careful, your ignorance is showing.




  • GolelornGolelorn Member RarePosts: 1,395
    edited March 2016
    He did not have 27 years of lead experience. I do not believe him. I believe a company who came in and had to bail out the first mainstream MMO studio. Not someone who was installed as lead by the same company that ran off hundreds of thousands of players due to stupid design decisions. SOE was once on top not that long ago. And now they are gone. Let that sink in. Daybreak has come in and made huge changes for the betterment of the game. I feel very good about this company's decisions.
  • KilrainKilrain Member RarePosts: 1,185
    Kiyoris said:

    Denambren said:


    Not with the ForgeLight engine, he couldn't.

    That POS engine was able to scratch by with the terrible visuals of Planetside 2 and H1Z1, but Everquest needed much more complex geography/geometry to be successful, which ForgeLight would never have been able to deliver. Taking a quick look at the performance of Everquest Landmark demonstrates how limited this engine truly is, and that "game" was just scratching the surface of what was needed graphically.



    Forgelight is a pretty decent engine, EQNext looked great. It's not junk like Unity.

    The animations were awesome.




    It looked badass for sure, but your Unity comment is pointless.
  • muffins89muffins89 Member UncommonPosts: 1,585
    this guy creeps me out.
  • Master_PantzMaster_Pantz Member UncommonPosts: 18
    Looking at those animation pics, the art style has finally grown on me. Too late!
  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,925
    kjempff said:
    What else could he say.
    Anyways, I loved his visions for EqNext, it was in line with the dreams I (we) had for what mmorpgs could evolve into back in early 2000s, and exactly what this genre needed to revive and renew itself from the WoW themepark era. A real complex and dynamic sandbox world.

    But hey, here is an Idea Dave :) Make the dream happen with other company, the vision is still valid, it was only the circumstances that failed. Be a part of creating this kind of game somehow, and change the history of the mmorpg genre. Cheers.

    personally i think holly longdale has taken EQ franchise into a dark and bad place meant for a few selected geeks

  • cronius77cronius77 Member UncommonPosts: 1,652
    i love some of the comments about tech here, this is the same group of people that took almost 10 years to finally allow GPU and multicore support to EQ2. I think a lot of people like to remember things in rose tinted glasses way to much here. Remember how people had monster machines and got 20 fps on eq2 for years because they gambled on larger single core processors? How many years did players yell for them to properly fix this and the tech team didnt know how? You really think this tech team could pull off some voxel based game in a mmorpg setting? There is a reason voxel games look the way they do and most are not more than a dozen or so players on a server.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,875

    Torval said:


    kjempff said:


     If someones building had to many voxels that alone would lag out even the most powerful system. Slower net speeds would bog people down. I thought they would have dropped the 100% destructible world to fix it. The overhead was just to much. I'm not sure how Landmark is a few months from release, should not even be in beta. It's still very much alpha feel.


    Again, You are mistaken EqNext for a builder game, it was not Landmark, and the players were not given huge voxel manipulating powers. Therefore the amount of manipulated voxels would have been limited. Maybe still impossible, but lets get the facts straight before jumping to conclusions based on wrong assumptions.


    Well said. You know if every project threw in the towel because it got hard or they couldn't figure out how to make it fun we wouldn't have any games at all.



    Dont think you get it. To make Landmark work, they had to make small island. They were trying to build a large open world with the tech. The small islands were not working as it was. No matter what Dave thinks, he would not have been able to build the game he set out to. Changes would have to been made. More zones like EQ1, remove 90% of the voxels and use them just for buildings and set areas for things they wanted to do. The overhead of a 100% destructible world + masses of players in an area was unplayable.
  • Daffid011Daffid011 Member UncommonPosts: 7,945
    edited March 2016
    kjempff said:
     If someones building had to many voxels that alone would lag out even the most powerful system. Slower net speeds would bog people down. I thought they would have dropped the 100% destructible world to fix it. The overhead was just to much. I'm not sure how Landmark is a few months from release, should not even be in beta. It's still very much alpha feel.
    Again, You are mistaken EqNext for a builder game, it was not Landmark, and the players were not given huge voxel manipulating powers. Therefore the amount of manipulated voxels would have been limited. Maybe still impossible, but lets get the facts straight before jumping to conclusions based on wrong assumptions.

    Consider that there was not even a build of EQNext when Dave was in charge.  EQN was just a concept, Landmark was all they had.  I'm not sure it is safe to assume that EQN would have any different problems than Landmark.
  • Daffid011Daffid011 Member UncommonPosts: 7,945

    Dave's 27 year record of never failing includes Landmark. 

    I get that Dave is a likable guy, but if he thinks Landmark is not a failure, then his definition of what he could accomplish in EQNext and pretty much every other gamer are two completely different things.

    I wouldn't even qualify his time at SOE as successful.  The company tanked with him in charge of crown jewels.


    Daybreak didn't fire him and the leadership of EQN for no reason.

  • HatefullHatefull Member EpicPosts: 2,503
    edited March 2016
    Denambren said:

    Not with the ForgeLight engine, he couldn't.

    That POS engine was able to scratch by with the terrible visuals of Planetside 2 and H1Z1, but Everquest needed much more complex geography/geometry to be successful, which ForgeLight would never have been able to deliver. Taking a quick look at the performance of Everquest Landmark demonstrates how limited this engine truly is, and that "game" was just scratching the surface of what was needed graphically.
    Forgelight is not nearly as bad as you are making it out to be.  Would it have fit the bill for EQN? mmmm I doubt it very seriously and I agree with you here that EQ(whatever it ends up being) needs to be a visually stunning as well as great in every other area.  I believe that none of the developers to date have taken full advantage of what that engine has to offer.  


    If you want a new idea, go read an old book.

    In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    Liar.

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

Sign In or Register to comment.