For the Price, It Provides a Fair Amount of Entertainment

SBFord

For the Price, It Provides a Fair Amount of Entertainment

Landmark started out as a game tied very closely to EverQuest Next. Unfortunately, EverQuest Next was canceled and now Landmark has launched as a standalone game. I don't tend to often enjoy sandbox games too much and I've never really gotten into the whole "Minecraft" sorts of games, so for me Landmark was really different from the usual... and it is quite enjoyable though there are a few issues.

Read the full story here

MikePaladin

For my money they promised EQ Next . I hope they will fail and will go bankrupt .These companies not only make shit games but they also don't have player Trust.... When game has a strong community and players know that their game will still go on no matter what for years this give price to game unlike these cheap trash that can be shut down any day ,,,

Koboli

Uh, is that why the Steam reviews absolutely pan Landmark as an unfinished, unsupported, largely-abandoned bit of garbage? I'm sorry EQ Next was cancelled, but I'm even more sorry for the desperate people who, seeking an innovative new sandbox, were instead saddled with this... thing.

DKLond

I wasted a small fortune on this, hoping it would be relevant to EQ Next. What a fool I've been.

exile01

pls stap it.

fatears

I bought this, it was shit, even when EQNext was a prospect, it was shit. Now it is pointless shit. 

GeezerGamer

OK so, "For the Price, It Provides a Fair Amount of Entertainment"? But it's dirt cheap, and only get's "fair" for the price? I mean if it was like 20 or 30, I could see the point of such an article, but for $9.99 it's only fair? Waste of time.

Arlee

GeezerGamer said:

OK so, "For the Price, It Provides a Fair Amount of Entertainment"? But it's dirt cheap, and only get's "fair" for the price? I mean if it was like 20 or 30, I could see the point of such an article, but for $9.99 it's only fair? Waste of time.

Reviews aren't only done for amazing and wonderful games.

Tekaelon

EQNext could have been something spectacular.

Forgrimm

"For the Price, It Provides a Fair Amount of Entertainment"...Not really a convincing endorsement lol.

DXSins

Lol the anger from people who fell for the hype.... Project Titan cancelled and (supposedly) assets used to make Overwatch - sells 10million, best hero shooter ever released!! EQN cancelled and assets moved over to Landmark - useless POS, just die will you.

All the while EQN shown almost as much gameplay as Titan did aka next to nothing...

Guess Blizzard saved themselves a lot of this hate by not talking about Titan years before it was ready to be a sellable product like SoE did with EQN... taking the typical publisher route of game development. 

For some weird reason SoE decided to take a kickstarter approach of talking about it, while it was still just words on the drawing board that kickstarters need and had no product they were certain would make release just like kickstarters. Will never understand why they decided to talk about it so early and while not go the crowdfunding route, instead of following the traditional publishing model of only showing/talking about it once they had a product near ready for release/testing.

Mikeha

Tekaelon said:

EQNext could have been something spectacular.

I agree, was really looking foward to it.

bartoni33

Of all the turds in the gaming toilet, this one should NEVER be polished! This is a total ripoff for those of us who bought into Landmark as a precursor to EQN. I almost feel worse for those that did so with the promise of making actual money from creating assets to sell for EQN.

This travesty should be swept under the rug like so much dirt and never be spoken of again.

BitterClinger

MrSyn said:

Lol the anger from people
who fell for the hype.... Project Titan cancelled and (supposedly) assets used
to make Overwatch - sells 10million, best hero shooter ever released!! EQN cancelled
and assets moved over to Landmark - useless POS, just die will you.

All the while EQN shown almost as much gameplay as Titan did aka next to nothing...

Guess Blizzard saved themselves a lot of this hate by not talking about Titan years before it was ready to be a sellable product like SoE did with EQN... taking the typical publisher route of game development. 

For some weird reason SoE decided to take a kickstarter approach of talking about it, while it was still just words on the drawing board that kickstarters need and had no product they were certain would make release just like kickstarters. Will never understand why they decided to talk about it so early and while not go the crowdfunding route, instead of following the traditional publishing model of only showing/talking about it once they had a product near ready for release/testing.

There are some big differences. First, Blizzard didn't sell over-priced early access to some unrelated game with "Titan" in the title. Second, Blizzard didn't spend two years deceiving supporters about the state of the project. Finally, there is no comparison between the polished and professionally done Overwatch with the unfinished, unoptimized Landmark.

Reizla

LOL'd at the topic of this news preview... If it REALLY was fair it'd have a 'decent' review rate on Steam and Metacritic, but it's far from that. Of the Steam users only 37% thinks the game is good, and Metacritic hasn't even added it to their list of games to be reviewed (not sure if it's because it was 'released' a month ago)

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

FelixMajor

Wouldn't play it if it was free. RIP SOE.

I hope to see the EQ series continue, even though Next was canceled.

Ridrith

Based on what this game was originally marketed as and eventually became, this should either get a 1 rating or not even reviewed on this website at all to begin with. It's junkware, a half-assed remnant of a failed game project that got put out to recoup some of the costs. I purchased the 100 dollar founders back for myself and my girlfriend after the game was announced.

Honestly these guys are scam artists and this game is shit and represents everything wrong with Daybreak games.

syriinx

blueturtle13 said:

Size of the studio had nothing to do with it.

Blizzard did not spend any more on WOW than SOE did for EQ2.

EQ2's development budget was 25M, WoW's was 60.

MikePaladin

Day Break did a terrible home work with EverQuest Lankmark
they seen the sales and were like WOW this shit sells we must go for it and sell more shit ....but reality was that  most bought Landmark Shit to help build EverQuest Next Shit ...Eventually no body cares for this shit ...

I hope resources wasted on Landmark will be lost and they won't trick people to buy this crap AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And happy end they will go bankrupt ....

Viper482

Slow week at MMORPG?

Kyleran

DMKano said:

MrSyn said:

Lol the anger from people who fell for the hype.... Project Titan cancelled and (supposedly) assets used to make Overwatch - sells 10million, best hero shooter ever released!! EQN cancelled and assets moved over to Landmark - useless POS, just die will you.

All the while EQN shown almost as much gameplay as Titan did aka next to nothing...

Guess Blizzard saved themselves a lot of this hate by not talking about Titan years before it was ready to be a sellable product like SoE did with EQN... taking the typical publisher route of game development. 

For some weird reason SoE decided to take a kickstarter approach of talking about it, while it was still just words on the drawing board that kickstarters need and had no product they were certain would make release just like kickstarters. Will never understand why they decided to talk about it so early and while not go the crowdfunding route, instead of following the traditional publishing model of only showing/talking about it once they had a product near ready for release/testing.

Let's put it into perspective - you are comparing a billion dollar 6000 employee studio (Blizzard) - to financially struggling SoE at the time didn't even have 600 employees?

The reason why SoE chose the kick-started approach with EQN and Landmark is because they didn't have the money like Blizzard to fund it.

EQNext was a 3rd internal iteration of "Everquest 3", and unlike Blizzard who could afford a 40million dollar failed project, SoE couldn't.


There is almost no game studio to compare to Blizzard in terms of resources (money, sheer number of developers etc...) they are in a different league.

It would be like comparing a mom and pop shop (most game studios are under 200 employees) to a large corporation - it's just silly.


Bottom line - it's as clear as day why SoE went the hype/kickstart route - they needed money to fund the development.


Maybe one day posters would just take into account that Blizzard is the "big pharma" of gaming world and stop comparing them to studios that are about 1/20th the size in terms of resources.

While I agree with you, the "S" in SoE stood for Sony right? People might have thought Sony would actually help fund its development.

But it didn't work that way, did it?

Scot

"Now this might seem sever" should equal "Now this might seem severe"

snoocky

For me, it still plays like a beta and feels very empty...

Lheiah

I supported Landmark to support EQN development, now that that's gone I could care less about Landmark. And, until DBG actually puts a decent product on the market, I doubt they will be seeing anymore funds from me. A beacon in the gaming industry that has fallen into rubble. I no longer can see this ending well with CN at the helm. Let's hope EQN is in secret development and they just didn't want to deal with the public anymore.

YashaX

The screen shots show the game still has that ugly fog everywhere, and the description of the gameplay sounds almost exactly like when I last played it, which was a long time ago now.