Stop requesting a remake of EQ1. Will not happen, because such a game would never bring in millions of players. They wanted to make something different to bring in a larger player base and do something that does not necessarliy take away from their EQ1 player base. Why make several games that are similar? The games would compete with each other.
Also regarding the graphics, they stated that they want people to see emotes from a distance. In most realist looking games you have to zoom in on a characters face to see what expressions they are doing. With a more cartoonish look, characters can have enlarged eyes, etc that enable emotes to be seen from a distance.
TY Mark for you expert opinion on game marketing.. Can we quote you to saying "EQN will bring in millions of players".. I just want to be sure we don't misquote you..
None of their previous games hold those numbers. That is why they want to try something different. And different means getting rid of the MUD gameplay. And FYI, Cartoonish graphics sell. Maybe not to the MMORPG.com community, but look at Disney, WoW, etc. A vast majority will not cry because of cartoonish graphics.
OP, considering that all we have is developer chatter and some early video footage, we don't really have anything to base that much off of.. much less to form any serious opinion.. Once it's playable, then you can say it is "soul-crushing" or that you don't like it.. Heck, right now everything is subject to change really..
Honestly, "soul-crushing" isn't even remotely useable in this case.. Have some of your favorite games dumbed-down or actually cancelled, then tell me about soul-crushing..
Just my 2 cents.. (Not refundable in the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, or Denial)
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
Very excited to see so much of what is planned for Everquest next, but not excited for Everquest Next. Its not my game, its just another game for the masses. Say what they will, but what they are crafting is not an immersive, challenging, virtual world akin to MMOs of old, its just another shallow game thats embracing blizzard's philosophy of compromising integrity to attract as many casual players as possible.
I'd like to say I hope its successful so that SOE would take their technology and make a real EQ successor, but i know success would only mean they'd neglect everything else. So I hope they fail and learn that you can innovate and make more money with niche games like Eve, all without trying to reinvent the wheel.
A modern EQ with voxels could have pulled in a few million subs easy.
Shame.
About half of this is your guess and not fact as you're stating it. One thing that's true is this is not like MMOs of old and that's a good thing IMO. Not that EQ or it's general principals aren't a good thing, they are a great thing. One aspect that some either don't want to consider or haven't thought of is that EQN may be a whole lot like EQ. It may even extend EQ's principals depending on what EQ meant to them.
People see what they want to see.
One is able to easily surmise the path of a game based on its design decisions. I'm sorry you can't.
Its plain to see that EQ Next has some revolutionary stuff to bring to the genre. Thats indisputable. Unfortunately, its also plain to see that they originally intended to take these features and make a new Everquest game akin to its predecessors that they thought would be available to the public as early as this year (2013). This can be concluded from articles and interviews from the last 1-2 years.
Then somewhere along their development process, they decided what they already constructed was so revolutionary, so enticing, they needed to keep expanding on their ideas and completely reinvent the genre making it even more appealing to the casual player, more accessible to everyone in general, rather than just improving upon what they know works. This can be surmised from their approach to every single feature they listed regarding classes, grouping and combat revealed thus far.
Hardly conjecture, but I guess from the perspective of someone who hasn't read every article and watched every interview/panel/discussion/stream, you might not understand.
I've never seen so many people, myself included, conflicted over a release in quite some time. It isn't the Hype that is the issue either, and that is highly surprising.
The issue, is that Smed is rolling some of the best aspects of an MMO in with some of the most horrible aspects for an MMO. Together, they form the most frustrating announcements that have been made in the past 10years. Even more frustrating than seeing the first iteration of what we were going to have thrown at us from gamesworkshop in the form of a WoW-Warahmmer 40k (google to see what i'm talking about).
So what's so amazing?
-Sandbox Core Gameplay
-Destructable Voxel based environemtn tied in with 3D models to handle animations (since voxels suck for animation)
-Multi-Class mentality
-Crafting that is trying to copy SWG's amazing system
-Mentality behind "An MMO isn't just made for one person", something Sandbox's actually encompass.
-Smed wants to make an EvE-style based fantasy Sandbox title, woo.
-Exploration being the emphasis over linear achievement.
So what's so absolutely frustrating that are potentially deal-breakers for such an amazing game??
-Graphics aimed at Children, think WoW 2.0
*More like graphics that will age well, you obviously know jack about technology. Show me a SINGLE realistic game that's aged well over time. You can't, because they don't.
-Major mainstreaming of the Everquest brand, ie: dumbing down...something many didn't think was possible for a Sandbox
-GW2's Weapon system, ties in with above point about skills.
-GW2's horribly bland combat system, with attack telegraphs
* There has been no proof that anything has been dumbed down, and your points all seem to point at how limited your experience and ability was in GW2. While you could spam (with a few classes), you obviously never played anything other than guardian, warrior, or ranger since playing as most other classes spamming just means you died. Although you probably just thought that was due to bad luck and not timing...got it.
* 8 Abilities is plenty, and means you have to pick and choose wisely to make the build you want. This is a simple non-issue and really should only lead to deeper gameplay where meaningful choices have to be made. Yes it could mean it's dumbed down but, again, there's been nothing showing that. Yes you've seen a TECH DEMO of combat, again you show your knowledge of gaming and technology if you don't realize that it was only there to show you some abilities, not to show you how the finished combat/game will be.
* As for weapon tie-ins....well, having to make meaningful choices on the abilities you use and the weapons you use makes perfect sense. having attacks be based on weapons makes perfect sense. Show me how you'll do a Ground Pound with a sword and make an indent...right you can't, good point.
-Horizontal progression primarily based on gear (WoW raiding gear-stepping, but without levels?)
-The same engine that runs Planetside 2
-Developers that think making the graphics look BETTER, or correcting their mistakes, is a crime (ie: Banning for SweetFX)
Misc:
-PvP was mentioned, and then thrown under the bus to not be spoken about until Beta?
-How does the world handle "Troll" guilds destroying the world?
-What's the regeneration timer on destroyed world pieces?
-What's the limit to how much/deep you can destroy before the game physically stops you from doing any more?
-How does the Engine handle 100 players in the same area? Does it dynamically-instance players from each other like PS2? (this turned PS2 into a mess btw)
At the end of the day, the game is unplayable with their current WoW 2.0 Cartoon art-style, but is one of the more future-oriented core mechanics games we've seen since SWG/DAOC. Truly a frustrating event !!!
My comments in red....
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Stop requesting a remake of EQ1. Will not happen, because such a game would never bring in millions of players. They wanted to make something different to bring in a larger player base and do something that does not necessarliy take away from their EQ1 player base. Why make several games that are similar? The games would compete with each other.
Also regarding the graphics, they stated that they want people to see emotes from a distance. In most realist looking games you have to zoom in on a characters face to see what expressions they are doing. With a more cartoonish look, characters can have enlarged eyes, etc that enable emotes to be seen from a distance.
TY Mark for you expert opinion on game marketing.. Can we quote you to saying "EQN will bring in millions of players".. I just want to be sure we don't misquote you..
None of their previous games hold those numbers. That is why they want to try something different. And different means getting rid of the MUD gameplay. And FYI, Cartoonish graphics sell. Maybe not to the MMORPG.com community, but look at Disney, WoW, etc. A vast majority will not cry because of cartoonish graphics.
Not sure why you said or tried to argue about cartoon graphics.. I never said I disliked them.. I actually prefer unrealistic art styles.. But I do have you noted as "EQN = next WoW giant".. Good luck with that..
So what's so absolutely frustrating that are potentially deal-breakers for such an amazing game??
-Graphics aimed at Children, think WoW 2.0
*More like graphics that will age well, you obviously know jack about technology. Show me a SINGLE realistic game that's aged well over time. You can't, because they don't.
Well I fail to see how it can age well when it already looks disgusting from the beginning. Not really like it will age and look better after a while Also I would say that Age of Conan still looks very very good graphic wise and it's a pretty old game.
-Major mainstreaming of the Everquest brand, ie: dumbing down...something many didn't think was possible for a Sandbox
-GW2's Weapon system, ties in with above point about skills.
-GW2's horribly bland combat system, with attack telegraphs
* There has been no proof that anything has been dumbed down, and your points all seem to point at how limited your experience and ability was in GW2. While you could spam (with a few classes), you obviously never played anything other than guardian, warrior, or ranger since playing as most other classes spamming just means you died. Although you probably just thought that was due to bad luck and not timing...got it.
Sure is it dumbed down. When you have a combat system announcing what kinds of attacks a monster will do and also the exact range the attack will have with a red line marking the area then it's really dumbed down. How hard can it be to learn by trial and error and actually be careful to look out for the animation of the monster instead of having handholding red lines?
* 8 Abilities is plenty, and means you have to pick and choose wisely to make the build you want. This is a simple non-issue and really should only lead to deeper gameplay where meaningful choices have to be made. Yes it could mean it's dumbed down but, again, there's been nothing showing that. Yes you've seen a TECH DEMO of combat, again you show your knowledge of gaming and technology if you don't realize that it was only there to show you some abilities, not to show you how the finished combat/game will be.
8 Abilities are NOT plenty and will never be.. It doesn't mean that you do more meaningful choices by having few abilities to select from.. you can have 20 abilities and all are very meaningful choices as long as you can use them all.. not at once but depending on the situations that arise during your play sessions and combats. However I do agree that we have yet to see a finalized version of this, but from what we have seen many have showned concerns about it and it is valid as well until the show something that contradicts this.
* As for weapon tie-ins....well, having to make meaningful choices on the abilities you use and the weapons you use makes perfect sense. having attacks be based on weapons makes perfect sense. Show me how you'll do a Ground Pound with a sword and make an indent...right you can't, good point.
I can agree that the skills by weapons are useful to some extent, however it has to be weapon groups and not a single typ of weapon since otherwise it will make all people to have the one specific weapon that gives your the fotm skill.
Title of this thread seems a tad dramatic... "Soul-crushing" is a bit over-the-top for a free-to-play online computer game that isn't coming out for another year.
8 Abilities are NOT plenty and will never be.. It doesn't mean that you do more meaningful choices by having few abilities to select from.. you can have 20 abilities and all are very meaningful choices as long as you can use them all.. not at once but depending on the situations that arise during your play sessions and combats. However I do agree that we have yet to see a finalized version of this, but from what we have seen many have showned concerns about it and it is valid as well until the show something that contradicts this.
When EQ released the warrior had four things it could do: autoattack, kick, taunt, bash (but only if an ogre or if you had a shield). Casters had 8 slots. You continued to have empty slots - you played up to level 20 to even 30 with FEWER than 8 slots used. When they added 2 extra slots through AA's people complained that this was further 'dumbing' down the game.
Now, tell me again that you cannot make an indelible game with a reputation for deep coordinated combat with just 8 abilities.
20 abiliites with meaningful choices sounds a lot like WoW's construction. EQ2 and WoW were the games which formalized this 'everything out where you can use it' combat.
I believe it is valid to be concerned EQN may be a overly-simplified system - because there is a lot of evidence from previous games that it certainly could be. But EQ was able to create a phenomenon with a combat system which was very limited in the beginning and much more restrictive than EQNs.
So just remember, there is also evidence that it might work.
And hey - if not; there are literally dozens of mmo's out there that let you have 20+ abilities on your hotbar.
8 Abilities are NOT plenty and will never be.. It doesn't mean that you do more meaningful choices by having few abilities to select from.. you can have 20 abilities and all are very meaningful choices as long as you can use them all.. not at once but depending on the situations that arise during your play sessions and combats. However I do agree that we have yet to see a finalized version of this, but from what we have seen many have showned concerns about it and it is valid as well until the show something that contradicts this.
When EQ released the warrior had four things it could do: autoattack, kick, taunt, bash (but only if an ogre or if you had a shield). Casters had 8 slots. You continued to have empty slots - you played up to level 20 to even 30 with FEWER than 8 slots used. When they added 2 extra slots through AA's people complained that this was further 'dumbing' down the game.
Now, tell me again that you cannot make an indelible game with a reputation for deep coordinated combat with just 8 abilities.
20 abiliites with meaningful choices sounds a lot like WoW's construction. EQ2 and WoW were the games which formalized this 'everything out where you can use it' combat.
I believe it is valid to be concerned EQN may be a overly-simplified system - because there is a lot of evidence from previous games that it certainly could be. But EQ was able to create a phenomenon with a combat system which was very limited in the beginning and much more restrictive than EQNs.
So just remember, there is also evidence that it might work.
And hey - if not; there are literally dozens of mmo's out there that let you have 20+ abilities on your hotbar.
I will second this. A game is not defined by how many keys it has. There is no reason to believe that a game is better or worse because of how many 'keys' there are. Single mechanic games are just as fun (for their purpose) as multi-mechanic games. Games with 5 keys can be more fun than games with 10.
In my opinion, giving a lot of keys requires you to focus on hitting the right key at the right time. With a smaller set, as EQ1 had, you worry more about the environment, about what is around you, and what tactics are involved. It is necessary for us to get back to this.
People also don't consider clicky items or other hot-bar enabled abilities that may be added. This shouldn't be something we are worried about.
I really dont understand the debate about horizintal vs. Vertical progression. With the multi class system in EQ next, you will gain abilities over time, and become more powerful as you get better gear. The only thing missing is a level ding every now and then. Personally, I like the idea of being able to wonder anywhere in the game from day 1. I like the fact that I wont outlevel my favorite places and feel no incentive to go there any more. I also like the idea of collecting as many classes as I can, as long as balance problems dont make me feel gimped for not using a fotm combination. Im not keen on the weapon based abilities, but I neverplayed gw2, so I have no idea how that type of system plays.
8 Abilities are NOT plenty and will never be.. It doesn't mean that you do more meaningful choices by having few abilities to select from.. you can have 20 abilities and all are very meaningful choices as long as you can use them all.. not at once but depending on the situations that arise during your play sessions and combats. However I do agree that we have yet to see a finalized version of this, but from what we have seen many have showned concerns about it and it is valid as well until the show something that contradicts this.
When EQ released the warrior had four things it could do: autoattack, kick, taunt, bash (but only if an ogre or if you had a shield). Casters had 8 slots. You continued to have empty slots - you played up to level 20 to even 30 with FEWER than 8 slots used. When they added 2 extra slots through AA's people complained that this was further 'dumbing' down the game.
Now, tell me again that you cannot make an indelible game with a reputation for deep coordinated combat with just 8 abilities.
20 abiliites with meaningful choices sounds a lot like WoW's construction. EQ2 and WoW were the games which formalized this 'everything out where you can use it' combat.
I believe it is valid to be concerned EQN may be a overly-simplified system - because there is a lot of evidence from previous games that it certainly could be. But EQ was able to create a phenomenon with a combat system which was very limited in the beginning and much more restrictive than EQNs.
So just remember, there is also evidence that it might work.
And hey - if not; there are literally dozens of mmo's out there that let you have 20+ abilities on your hotbar.
I do agree to some extent... however that is if buffs are not included in these 8 abilties and that out of combat abilities are not included in these 8 hotkeys then it might work. Then again the reference we are using is a game from 1997 and it has evolved since people like to have more options when they are playing instead of having a short rotation of 8 different abilities.
definitely agree with most of this, had they not called this game everquest, i think there would be a lot less frustration.
people expect an everquest game to at least resemble an everquest game to some extent. this game resembles other mmo's more than it does EQ, that's the problem.
its obvious they are making a completely different type of mmo both in mechanics and style, which is great, but it should have never been called everquest.
clearly they only named it that to get more people to play due to the popularity of the already established IP, that's it.
but other than that this is just another MMO, its not everquest.
The frustration comes mainly for people who want EQ1 with better graphics, most others seem to be pretty interested in all the new things this game is trying to accomplish. I really think the old EQ fans are overestimating how many they are and how important they are here; apprently not even SOE want to please that demographic anymore, so why should the rest of us - who like the genre to evolve beyond 1999 mechanics - care about people who refuse to accept that anything not featuring classic, trinity style PvE grind could be considered an MMO?
As for the game not being EQ, well... that's kinda the point of calling it EQ NEXT. It is not classic Everquest, but still part of the IP, saying that it's not is just silly (it would be like claiming WoW is not part of the Warcraft IP because it's not an RTS) - almost as silly as saying it's "just another MMO" when it's clearly not the typical themepark clone we've been spoon fed for the last 10 years.
Besides, what's wrong with creating something new from an existing IP? It has been done numerous times before, and sometimes with enormous success as a result.
The fact is, if SOE can creat an immersive world with fun gameplay, people will play the game. All the whiners who seem to feel they are entitled to the game they want will either play it or not.
I've never seen so many people, myself included, conflicted over a release in quite some time. It isn't the Hype that is the issue either, and that is highly surprising.
The issue, is that Smed is rolling some of the best aspects of an MMO in with some of the most horrible aspects for an MMO. Together, they form the most frustrating announcements that have been made in the past 10years. Even more frustrating than seeing the first iteration of what we were going to have thrown at us from gamesworkshop in the form of a WoW-Warahmmer 40k (google to see what i'm talking about).
So what's so amazing?
-Sandbox Core Gameplay
-Destructable Voxel based environemtn tied in with 3D models to handle animations (since voxels suck for animation)
-Multi-Class mentality
-Crafting that is trying to copy SWG's amazing system
-Mentality behind "An MMO isn't just made for one person", something Sandbox's actually encompass.
-Smed wants to make an EvE-style based fantasy Sandbox title, woo.
-Exploration being the emphasis over linear achievement.
So what's so absolutely frustrating that are potentially deal-breakers for such an amazing game??
-Graphics aimed at Children, think WoW 2.0
-Major mainstreaming of the Everquest brand, ie: dumbing down...something many didn't think was possible for a Sandbox
-GW2's horribly bland combat system, with attack telegraphs
-GW2's Weapon system, ties in with above point about skills.
-Horizontal progression primarily based on gear (WoW raiding gear-stepping, but without levels?)
-The same engine that runs Planetside 2
-Developers that think making the graphics look BETTER, or correcting their mistakes, is a crime (ie: Banning for SweetFX)
Misc:
-PvP was mentioned, and then thrown under the bus to not be spoken about until Beta?
-How does the world handle "Troll" guilds destroying the world?
-What's the regeneration timer on destroyed world pieces?
-What's the limit to how much/deep you can destroy before the game physically stops you from doing any more?
-How does the Engine handle 100 players in the same area? Does it dynamically-instance players from each other like PS2? (this turned PS2 into a mess btw)
At the end of the day, the game is unplayable with their current WoW 2.0 Cartoon art-style, but is one of the more future-oriented core mechanics games we've seen since SWG/DAOC. Truly a frustrating event !!!
*Sigh* You lost me right there. I am a 41 year old man and I enjoy the graphics of WoW, does that make me a f*****g child? And from what I have seen so far of Next I don't get the entire f*****g child thing...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Frankly, OP, SOE already took a gamble on the sort of game you seem to want. Vanguard had very "adult" graphics, it wasn't dumbed down in any way, and character's "life paths" were complex and required work in multiple areas through a variety of game mechanics. It was, in many ways, exactly the game that the old EQ1 crowd had been asking for and it tanked. It has a minimal player base and receives only life-support level support form SOE, but they do still provide basic maintenance and a skeleton crew that works on fixing bugs.
I was one of the players who thought I wanted that sort of game, with the sense of challenge that came with the original MMOs like EQ1 and Asheron's Call. But I was wrong. What I wanted was an excited player base, which we used to have. We put up with a lot of bad design and frustrating mechanics in EQ1 because we were exactly the sorts of people who would flock to the new genre. Most of us were pen and paper gamers first and we were excited primarily by the MM part of the game. What the game didn't have, we brought for ourselves: cooperation, intensity, dedication, imagination, creativity.
EQ:N will succeed or fail because players will or won't bring a willingness to create a game that's fun to play for themselves. It's always been that way. EQ: N is an opportunity for some players to come together in a new kind of world and learn new ways of interacting with it. The ones who enjoy it and stay will be the ones who understand that what the devs give us is just the platform, but we make the game for ourselves.
Frankly, OP, SOE already took a gamble on the sort of game you seem to want. Vanguard had very "adult" graphics, it wasn't dumbed down in any way, and character's "life paths" were complex and required work in multiple areas through a variety of game mechanics. It was, in many ways, exactly the game that the old EQ1 crowd had been asking for and it tanked. It has a minimal player base and receives only life-support level support form SOE, but they do still provide basic maintenance and a skeleton crew that works on fixing bugs.
I was one of the players who thought I wanted that sort of game, with the sense of challenge that came with the original MMOs like EQ1 and Asheron's Call. But I was wrong. What I wanted was an excited player base, which we used to have. We put up with a lot of bad design and frustrating mechanics in EQ1 because we were exactly the sorts of people who would flock to the new genre. Most of us were pen and paper gamers first and we were excited primarily by the MM part of the game. What the game didn't have, we brought for ourselves: cooperation, intensity, dedication, imagination, creativity.
EQ:N will succeed or fail because players will or won't bring a willingness to create a game that's fun to play for themselves. It's always been that way. EQ: N is an opportunity for some players to come together in a new kind of world and learn new ways of interacting with it. The ones who enjoy it and stay will be the ones who understand that what the devs give us is just the platform, but we make the game for ourselves.
I will wait for Ps4 version before I complain. I have to chuckle a bit at this though. People are so heavily invested, but for what? The game is 2 years away, in 2 years you may not even like mmorpgs anymore.
Originally posted by Metrobius The fact is, if SOE can creat an immersive world with fun gameplay, people will play the game. All the whiners who seem to feel they are entitled to the game they want will either play it or not.
The question isn't IF people will play the game. The question is HOW LONG will they play it.
Originally posted by Metrobius The fact is, if SOE can creat an immersive world with fun gameplay, people will play the game. All the whiners who seem to feel they are entitled to the game they want will either play it or not.
The question isn't IF people will play the game. The question is HOW LONG will they play it.
This is the big question. Everyone who loved EQ will play at launch. Everyone who was moderately disappointed with EQ 2 will still play at launch. Everyone who was totally let down by SWG may realize these are the same fools who screwed up the last two tries, and will still play at launch.
I am in all 3 categories, hate the idea of the GW2 combat style, but will still play at launch.
Everything I am seeing so far tells me it wont be long though. If as I suspect it all becomes a DPS wash, I wont waste my time like I did with GW2.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Comments
None of their previous games hold those numbers. That is why they want to try something different. And different means getting rid of the MUD gameplay. And FYI, Cartoonish graphics sell. Maybe not to the MMORPG.com community, but look at Disney, WoW, etc. A vast majority will not cry because of cartoonish graphics.
OP, considering that all we have is developer chatter and some early video footage, we don't really have anything to base that much off of.. much less to form any serious opinion.. Once it's playable, then you can say it is "soul-crushing" or that you don't like it.. Heck, right now everything is subject to change really..
Honestly, "soul-crushing" isn't even remotely useable in this case.. Have some of your favorite games dumbed-down or actually cancelled, then tell me about soul-crushing..
Just my 2 cents.. (Not refundable in the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, or Denial)
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
One is able to easily surmise the path of a game based on its design decisions. I'm sorry you can't.
Its plain to see that EQ Next has some revolutionary stuff to bring to the genre. Thats indisputable. Unfortunately, its also plain to see that they originally intended to take these features and make a new Everquest game akin to its predecessors that they thought would be available to the public as early as this year (2013). This can be concluded from articles and interviews from the last 1-2 years.
Then somewhere along their development process, they decided what they already constructed was so revolutionary, so enticing, they needed to keep expanding on their ideas and completely reinvent the genre making it even more appealing to the casual player, more accessible to everyone in general, rather than just improving upon what they know works. This can be surmised from their approach to every single feature they listed regarding classes, grouping and combat revealed thus far.
Hardly conjecture, but I guess from the perspective of someone who hasn't read every article and watched every interview/panel/discussion/stream, you might not understand.
My comments in red....
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Not sure why you said or tried to argue about cartoon graphics.. I never said I disliked them.. I actually prefer unrealistic art styles.. But I do have you noted as "EQN = next WoW giant".. Good luck with that..
SoE always have been a company looking to monetize their products that's because all of their games are F2P
It was predictable that they would follow a few tendencies looking for more profit.
Are they evil?,is Smed the devil itself? i don't know.
A enterprise is a organization that aims to provide service to customers for profit.
When EQ released the warrior had four things it could do: autoattack, kick, taunt, bash (but only if an ogre or if you had a shield). Casters had 8 slots. You continued to have empty slots - you played up to level 20 to even 30 with FEWER than 8 slots used. When they added 2 extra slots through AA's people complained that this was further 'dumbing' down the game.
Now, tell me again that you cannot make an indelible game with a reputation for deep coordinated combat with just 8 abilities.
20 abiliites with meaningful choices sounds a lot like WoW's construction. EQ2 and WoW were the games which formalized this 'everything out where you can use it' combat.
I believe it is valid to be concerned EQN may be a overly-simplified system - because there is a lot of evidence from previous games that it certainly could be. But EQ was able to create a phenomenon with a combat system which was very limited in the beginning and much more restrictive than EQNs.
So just remember, there is also evidence that it might work.
And hey - if not; there are literally dozens of mmo's out there that let you have 20+ abilities on your hotbar.
I will second this. A game is not defined by how many keys it has. There is no reason to believe that a game is better or worse because of how many 'keys' there are. Single mechanic games are just as fun (for their purpose) as multi-mechanic games. Games with 5 keys can be more fun than games with 10.
In my opinion, giving a lot of keys requires you to focus on hitting the right key at the right time. With a smaller set, as EQ1 had, you worry more about the environment, about what is around you, and what tactics are involved. It is necessary for us to get back to this.
People also don't consider clicky items or other hot-bar enabled abilities that may be added. This shouldn't be something we are worried about.
Personally, I like the idea of being able to wonder anywhere in the game from day 1. I like the fact that I wont outlevel my favorite places and feel no incentive to go there any more. I also like the idea of collecting as many classes as I can, as long as balance problems dont make me feel gimped for not using a fotm combination.
Im not keen on the weapon based abilities, but I neverplayed gw2, so I have no idea how that type of system plays.
I do agree to some extent... however that is if buffs are not included in these 8 abilties and that out of combat abilities are not included in these 8 hotkeys then it might work. Then again the reference we are using is a game from 1997 and it has evolved since people like to have more options when they are playing instead of having a short rotation of 8 different abilities.
The frustration comes mainly for people who want EQ1 with better graphics, most others seem to be pretty interested in all the new things this game is trying to accomplish. I really think the old EQ fans are overestimating how many they are and how important they are here; apprently not even SOE want to please that demographic anymore, so why should the rest of us - who like the genre to evolve beyond 1999 mechanics - care about people who refuse to accept that anything not featuring classic, trinity style PvE grind could be considered an MMO?
As for the game not being EQ, well... that's kinda the point of calling it EQ NEXT. It is not classic Everquest, but still part of the IP, saying that it's not is just silly (it would be like claiming WoW is not part of the Warcraft IP because it's not an RTS) - almost as silly as saying it's "just another MMO" when it's clearly not the typical themepark clone we've been spoon fed for the last 10 years.
Besides, what's wrong with creating something new from an existing IP? It has been done numerous times before, and sometimes with enormous success as a result.
*Sigh* You lost me right there. I am a 41 year old man and I enjoy the graphics of WoW, does that make me a f*****g child? And from what I have seen so far of Next I don't get the entire f*****g child thing...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Frankly, OP, SOE already took a gamble on the sort of game you seem to want. Vanguard had very "adult" graphics, it wasn't dumbed down in any way, and character's "life paths" were complex and required work in multiple areas through a variety of game mechanics. It was, in many ways, exactly the game that the old EQ1 crowd had been asking for and it tanked. It has a minimal player base and receives only life-support level support form SOE, but they do still provide basic maintenance and a skeleton crew that works on fixing bugs.
I was one of the players who thought I wanted that sort of game, with the sense of challenge that came with the original MMOs like EQ1 and Asheron's Call. But I was wrong. What I wanted was an excited player base, which we used to have. We put up with a lot of bad design and frustrating mechanics in EQ1 because we were exactly the sorts of people who would flock to the new genre. Most of us were pen and paper gamers first and we were excited primarily by the MM part of the game. What the game didn't have, we brought for ourselves: cooperation, intensity, dedication, imagination, creativity.
EQ:N will succeed or fail because players will or won't bring a willingness to create a game that's fun to play for themselves. It's always been that way. EQ: N is an opportunity for some players to come together in a new kind of world and learn new ways of interacting with it. The ones who enjoy it and stay will be the ones who understand that what the devs give us is just the platform, but we make the game for ourselves.
Great post.
nooooooo
EQ2 fan sites
What is it i want them to do?
The three things you mentioned would be a nice start.
The question isn't IF people will play the game. The question is HOW LONG will they play it.
This is the big question. Everyone who loved EQ will play at launch. Everyone who was moderately disappointed with EQ 2 will still play at launch. Everyone who was totally let down by SWG may realize these are the same fools who screwed up the last two tries, and will still play at launch.
I am in all 3 categories, hate the idea of the GW2 combat style, but will still play at launch.
Everything I am seeing so far tells me it wont be long though. If as I suspect it all becomes a DPS wash, I wont waste my time like I did with GW2.
to be released in the past
"What is Logic Crash and Burn, Alex?"
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.