What was wrong with EQ2.

2

Comments

  • GorweGorwe Ald'RuhnMember RarePosts: 4,243
    Mostly graphics and such. Very bad optimization etc.

    But the entire game felt odd yet endearing at the same time.
  • GeekyGeeky Huntington, INMember UncommonPosts: 262
    DMKano said:
    It's worth noting that I only played EQ2 at launch - what happend after the first month and all the years later - I'll never know as I never went back.
    I was never that much into EQ1.  I played years of DAoC before EQ2 came out.  So moving from DAoC to EQ2 was smooth and it was just what I was looking for at the time.  You may have missed a good game and, lore wise, a good follow-up to the stories of EQ1.

    As for those that say Specs were the issue, I can't help but think this is just an excuse to say thats why you, or heard of people not wanting to try the game.  I lived in Guantanamo Bay at the time and in GTMO we were still using dial-up internet, I also had an average, at best, PC and never had much issues with the game.  So idk..
  • TheAmirTheAmir Traverse City, MIMember UncommonPosts: 412
    I had great times in EQ2 back in its heyday (or what passed as its heyday).  But that engine was ALWAYS clunky, you had to have a beast of a machine to run it well without lag, and it was STILL ugly, even back then. Great game hidden under a horrific engine. Now, though, it's so top heavy and all those systems built right on top of each other is intimidating for new players, and difficult to navigate. Pity, because it could have been up there with WoW (ugh) but has gone into obscurity.
    Geeky

    image
  • 7thRankedNoob7thRankedNoob NDIP, QCMember UncommonPosts: 7
    I'm surprised at the % of comments not bringing up it's requirements more. Even with a beast of the day, EQ2 ran poorly.

    No one has mentioned how they had to dial back the fidelity of their models either. The avatars used to be much more detailed (though they did still look plastic) ... that's how bad it was. They had to do it in order to get the game to play on people's mid range machines.

    Another thing was how they gated the starting. If memory serves you only started as 4 classes (warrior/Cleric/Rogue/Mage) and didn't actually unlock your true class until something around level 20(?).

    ex: Warrior until level 10; Crusader until 20(?); finally you got to choose Paladin/Shadowknight after that.

    People didn't like that. They wanted the 'freedom' of being locked to the class they started with from the start, like in EQ1.
  • DKLondDKLond AlbertslundMember RarePosts: 2,118
    edited November 8
    For my part, I had a hard time getting past the horrible engine and optimization. Didn't care for the combat system much either. Sort of archaic and clunky all-round.

    I did enjoy the depth of mechanics and such, though.

    In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty obvious that WoW - a much more polished and accessible experience - had a profound effect on the popularity of EQ2, as it was released soon after.

    It clearly demonstrated that you don't need to punish players to motivate them to play or engage. It's enough to challenge them.
    Post edited by DKLond on
  • Panther2103Panther2103 Edmonds, WAMember RarePosts: 3,538
    Honestly I didn't get into it when it came out because I don't think my PC could handle the game. Unfortunately by the time I did finally get into it, I got a tad overwhelmed and had little help due to most of the community being near or max level. I feel like the graphics were weird, the engine was poorly optimized (my PC blew the requirements out of the water and still struggled on max settings) and in my opinion there were too many skills that did similar things. By level 20 I had almost 2 bars full of skills on my Paladin. I just felt like that was way more than necessary. But the game itself is pretty fun once you get past those things. 
  • AnthurAnthur StolbergMember UncommonPosts: 853
    Nothing was wrong with EQ2 for a themepark MMO.

    Why was it not as successful as WoW ? Higher pc requirements and WoW had from it's single player Warcraft RTS series also a much bigger player base and therefore popularity as EQ2 with EQ which had still a tiny community compared to other games/genres. And SOE marketing sucked compared to Blizzard.
    ByrgenarHofen
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,098
    Anthur said:
    Nothing was wrong with EQ2 for a themepark MMO.

    Why was it not as successful as WoW ? Higher pc requirements and WoW had from it's single player Warcraft RTS series also a much bigger player base and therefore popularity as EQ2 with EQ which had still a tiny community compared to other games/genres. And SOE marketing sucked compared to Blizzard.
    in 2004 I picked EQ2 instead of WoW namely because I found the WoW graphics annoying. A friend of mine selected WoW. I asked him why, he said PvP.

    now that is based on memory and I have no idea if WoW had PvP from the start or not but that is how I recall the conversation

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • ArChWindArChWind Some Place, WIMember UncommonPosts: 1,283
    SEANMCAD said:
    Anthur said:
    Nothing was wrong with EQ2 for a themepark MMO.

    Why was it not as successful as WoW ? Higher pc requirements and WoW had from it's single player Warcraft RTS series also a much bigger player base and therefore popularity as EQ2 with EQ which had still a tiny community compared to other games/genres. And SOE marketing sucked compared to Blizzard.
    in 2004 I picked EQ2 instead of WoW namely because I found the WoW graphics annoying. A friend of mine selected WoW. I asked him why, he said PvP.

    now that is based on memory and I have no idea if WoW had PvP from the start or not but that is how I recall the conversation
    WoW had PvP once you got past level 20 IIRC. I played to level 12 or so I don't know for sure and had EQ2 also. My decision to go to EQ2 was very similar to yours. I could not seem to get into the cartoonish characters.
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,680
    DMKano said:
    Everything - because naively, I expected a better version of EQ1.

    What SoE was doing however is - they made a game that had almost no overlap with EQ1 so that it could attract a playerbase that wouldn't compete with EQ1.

    Still - what a massive disappointment for me EQ2 was.

    It's worth noting that I only played EQ2 at launch - what happend after the first month and all the years later - I'll never know as I never went back.

    I feel similar to you.  I played at release and made it 60 days until I switched to wow.  I wish I had picked wow instead of EQ2.

    Note:  The EQ Next announcement was the same kind of feeling for me.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,098
    edited November 9
    waynejr2 said:
    DMKano said:
    Everything - because naively, I expected a better version of EQ1.

    What SoE was doing however is - they made a game that had almost no overlap with EQ1 so that it could attract a playerbase that wouldn't compete with EQ1.

    Still - what a massive disappointment for me EQ2 was.

    It's worth noting that I only played EQ2 at launch - what happend after the first month and all the years later - I'll never know as I never went back.

    I feel similar to you.  I played at release and made it 60 days until I switched to wow.  I wish I had picked wow instead of EQ2.

    Note:  The EQ Next announcement was the same kind of feeling for me.
    wasnt WoW and EQ2 basically the same game play just different graphics?

    To be honest even though I played EQ2 I was not impressed with it, WoW was not interesting to me, Archage was basically the same boring bullshit.

    That is my 'mainstreaming' MMO experiences for you
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on
    postlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • zeroscloudzeroscloud bakersfield, CAMember UncommonPosts: 22
    It ran like crap on most mid to lower end PCs, and the it was still actually pretty good despite that until they decided to dumb it down to compete with WOW
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,098
    It ran like crap on most mid to lower end PCs, and the it was still actually pretty good despite that until they decided to dumb it down to compete with WOW
    I got my character, jumped into the tutorial, got to the city and started exploring. I spent what seemed like hours going from one location to the next ignoring the missions and quests because honestly I just wanted to see outside. Everywhere I went was inside places.

    Then when I finally got out into the open I had to ask people 'why are all the mobs red and yellow'

    'oh because you dont have a chance to kill them at your level you have to go back'

    fuck me...almost didnt come back after that

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • HarikenHariken Brighton, MAMember RarePosts: 1,716
    The only real problem i have ever had with EQ2 was the quest tracker and map. I have always wanted them to update them to something easier instead of having to download a 3rd party map.
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,680
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    DMKano said:
    Everything - because naively, I expected a better version of EQ1.

    What SoE was doing however is - they made a game that had almost no overlap with EQ1 so that it could attract a playerbase that wouldn't compete with EQ1.

    Still - what a massive disappointment for me EQ2 was.

    It's worth noting that I only played EQ2 at launch - what happend after the first month and all the years later - I'll never know as I never went back.

    I feel similar to you.  I played at release and made it 60 days until I switched to wow.  I wish I had picked wow instead of EQ2.

    Note:  The EQ Next announcement was the same kind of feeling for me.
    wasnt WoW and EQ2 basically the same game play just different graphics?

    To be honest even though I played EQ2 I was not impressed with it, WoW was not interesting to me, Archage was basically the same boring bullshit.

    That is my 'mainstreaming' MMO experiences for you
    If you mean you create a character with a class that has skills, stats and gets gear running around a game controlled by a keyboard and mouse, then yes.

    Wow was superior experience over EQ2.  Therefore, they are not the same on some level.  Don't need to spell it out though.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,098
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    DMKano said:
    Everything - because naively, I expected a better version of EQ1.

    What SoE was doing however is - they made a game that had almost no overlap with EQ1 so that it could attract a playerbase that wouldn't compete with EQ1.

    Still - what a massive disappointment for me EQ2 was.

    It's worth noting that I only played EQ2 at launch - what happend after the first month and all the years later - I'll never know as I never went back.

    I feel similar to you.  I played at release and made it 60 days until I switched to wow.  I wish I had picked wow instead of EQ2.

    Note:  The EQ Next announcement was the same kind of feeling for me.
    wasnt WoW and EQ2 basically the same game play just different graphics?

    To be honest even though I played EQ2 I was not impressed with it, WoW was not interesting to me, Archage was basically the same boring bullshit.

    That is my 'mainstreaming' MMO experiences for you
    If you mean you create a character with a class that has skills, stats and gets gear running around a game controlled by a keyboard and mouse, then yes.

    Wow was superior experience over EQ2.  Therefore, they are not the same on some level.  Don't need to spell it out though.
    oh I am sure it was, but I am curious in what way.

    Like, unlike EQ2 bullshit, can a low level character travel to any map and still find something to fight or is it this lineal bullshit like EQ2 is/was
    postlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,680
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    DMKano said:
    Everything - because naively, I expected a better version of EQ1.

    What SoE was doing however is - they made a game that had almost no overlap with EQ1 so that it could attract a playerbase that wouldn't compete with EQ1.

    Still - what a massive disappointment for me EQ2 was.

    It's worth noting that I only played EQ2 at launch - what happend after the first month and all the years later - I'll never know as I never went back.

    I feel similar to you.  I played at release and made it 60 days until I switched to wow.  I wish I had picked wow instead of EQ2.

    Note:  The EQ Next announcement was the same kind of feeling for me.
    wasnt WoW and EQ2 basically the same game play just different graphics?

    To be honest even though I played EQ2 I was not impressed with it, WoW was not interesting to me, Archage was basically the same boring bullshit.

    That is my 'mainstreaming' MMO experiences for you
    If you mean you create a character with a class that has skills, stats and gets gear running around a game controlled by a keyboard and mouse, then yes.

    Wow was superior experience over EQ2.  Therefore, they are not the same on some level.  Don't need to spell it out though.
    oh I am sure it was, but I am curious in what way.

    Like, unlike EQ2 bullshit, can a low level character travel to any map and still find something to fight or is it this lineal bullshit like EQ2 is/was

    That should be a homework assignment for you to figure out... Assuming you really don't know that already.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,098
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    DMKano said:
    Everything - because naively, I expected a better version of EQ1.

    What SoE was doing however is - they made a game that had almost no overlap with EQ1 so that it could attract a playerbase that wouldn't compete with EQ1.

    Still - what a massive disappointment for me EQ2 was.

    It's worth noting that I only played EQ2 at launch - what happend after the first month and all the years later - I'll never know as I never went back.

    I feel similar to you.  I played at release and made it 60 days until I switched to wow.  I wish I had picked wow instead of EQ2.

    Note:  The EQ Next announcement was the same kind of feeling for me.
    wasnt WoW and EQ2 basically the same game play just different graphics?

    To be honest even though I played EQ2 I was not impressed with it, WoW was not interesting to me, Archage was basically the same boring bullshit.

    That is my 'mainstreaming' MMO experiences for you
    If you mean you create a character with a class that has skills, stats and gets gear running around a game controlled by a keyboard and mouse, then yes.

    Wow was superior experience over EQ2.  Therefore, they are not the same on some level.  Don't need to spell it out though.
    oh I am sure it was, but I am curious in what way.

    Like, unlike EQ2 bullshit, can a low level character travel to any map and still find something to fight or is it this lineal bullshit like EQ2 is/was

    That should be a homework assignment for you to figure out... Assuming you really don't know that already.
    I assume its exactly the same, if you dont explain otherwise I will just go with that

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,680
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    DMKano said:
    Everything - because naively, I expected a better version of EQ1.

    What SoE was doing however is - they made a game that had almost no overlap with EQ1 so that it could attract a playerbase that wouldn't compete with EQ1.

    Still - what a massive disappointment for me EQ2 was.

    It's worth noting that I only played EQ2 at launch - what happend after the first month and all the years later - I'll never know as I never went back.

    I feel similar to you.  I played at release and made it 60 days until I switched to wow.  I wish I had picked wow instead of EQ2.

    Note:  The EQ Next announcement was the same kind of feeling for me.
    wasnt WoW and EQ2 basically the same game play just different graphics?

    To be honest even though I played EQ2 I was not impressed with it, WoW was not interesting to me, Archage was basically the same boring bullshit.

    That is my 'mainstreaming' MMO experiences for you
    If you mean you create a character with a class that has skills, stats and gets gear running around a game controlled by a keyboard and mouse, then yes.

    Wow was superior experience over EQ2.  Therefore, they are not the same on some level.  Don't need to spell it out though.
    oh I am sure it was, but I am curious in what way.

    Like, unlike EQ2 bullshit, can a low level character travel to any map and still find something to fight or is it this lineal bullshit like EQ2 is/was

    That should be a homework assignment for you to figure out... Assuming you really don't know that already.
    I assume its exactly the same, if you dont explain otherwise I will just go with that

    Pay me $500.00 to teach you this.  Cash up front, US Dollars only.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,385

    So I was one of those people who pre-ordered, looked forward to, and played EQ2 for about 8 months until my friends slowly but surely left for WoW until I was last man standing, eventually I relented and played WoW with them.


    That being said my opinion is there were 2 things that really hurt EQ2 that were directly the games fault.

    First and foremost was performance issues.  I actually built a brand new $1300 gaming rig specifically for the game with an at the time high end GeForce 6800 GT.  At 1280x1024, with all setting maxed, I was averaging in the mid 20's with frequent dips into the low teens.  These were slowly fixed over time, but still plagued the game for a couple years (basically until hardware progressed to the point of "overkilling" the problem).

    Second (and this is more my opinion) is the fact that they "gated" all the content by levels.  So for example, if you were the type who liked to go explore, and loved the danger of trying to check out a higher level area even knowing that the mobs would roflstomp you if you got too close... you couldn't. You would get to the zone in area and it would tell you to go fly a kite until you reached a certain level.  This was eventually removed but not until the damage was done.

    Third, and this is minor, but I remember a LOT of complaints about the art style.  Lot's of complaints of it being "plasticy" and "shiny" looking skin and that sort of thing.


    The main thing though that hurt EQ2 wasn't really their fault "per se", was the fact that it released within a few weeks of World of Warcraft.  Obviously blizzard being what they are, the warcraft IP being what it is, generated a LOT more interest and such, and frankly it was a poor decision by Sony to try to release at the same time.  However, they kind of had to.  It was either release significantly earlier (and have the associated problems with bugs, and such potentially kill the game) OR, release after WoW and hope that somehow they would be able to take market share.  Pretty much it was a lose/lose proposition in that respect.

    It is actually a fantastic game, and if anybody is looking for something with a ton of content and also likes to explore, there is a lot of fun to be had. 

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • AmatheAmathe Miami, FLMember RarePosts: 2,958
    It's like they cooked a plate of asparagus and named it Chocolate II. Your taste buds are ready for some epic chocolate and you get a soggy flavorless veggie instead. 

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

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,385
    I'm surprised at the % of comments not bringing up it's requirements more. Even with a beast of the day, EQ2 ran poorly.

    No one has mentioned how they had to dial back the fidelity of their models either. The avatars used to be much more detailed (though they did still look plastic) ... that's how bad it was. They had to do it in order to get the game to play on people's mid range machines.

    Another thing was how they gated the starting. If memory serves you only started as 4 classes (warrior/Cleric/Rogue/Mage) and didn't actually unlock your true class until something around level 20(?).

    ex: Warrior until level 10; Crusader until 20(?); finally you got to choose Paladin/Shadowknight after that.

    People didn't like that. They wanted the 'freedom' of being locked to the class they started with from the start, like in EQ1.


    I honestly don't remember a single person complaining about the class pathing thing.  If they only had 4 classes and it only ever was 4 classes, certainly that would have been a problem.  However, level 10 was very fast, as was 20.  I was level 13 in the first day of playing and level 19 by the second day.  So getting to 20 to "unlock" your class or whatever wasn't really an issue that people complained about.

    As you said before, the performance issues were the VAST majority of the complaints, with the graphics/fidelity/overall art style being the second biggest source of complaints.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • GeekyGeeky Huntington, INMember UncommonPosts: 262
    Amathe said:
    It's like they cooked a plate of asparagus and named it Chocolate II. Your taste buds are ready for some epic chocolate and you get a soggy flavorless veggie instead. 
    I love asparagus.  Bake it, flavor it with some lemon and salt and pepper and it's great.  I feel like making some now.
    blueturtle13
  • ElidienElidien Atlanta, GAMember UncommonPosts: 1,166
    As others have said, it was mainly performance. EQ1 ran on a relic at the time so when EQ2 launched, it did not. It was said that a developer once said that "The computer that could run EQ2 on max settings had not been invented yet!". 

    Compare that to WOW that ran on basically the same computer you were playing EQ1. So for many it was a financial decision. I personally could not afford to upgrade to get EQ2 to run decently and look ok. Compare it to WOW which ran beautifully on much less computer.

    Another issue was the class gating. It was not initially an issue but if you wanted to try a different mid or end class, you still had to go through 10 or 20 of the same levels. It really hurt the interest level for replayability.

    Lastly, I think a lot of your EQ players were growing older, graduating college, getting jobs, starting families, etc... They could not commit to a game like they did with EQ. EQ2 required a huge commitment whereas WOW did not (except end game but Blizzard reacted quickly and swiftly - dropping raid requirements in terms of numbers, etc...). It was the time of the start of the casual vs. hardcore debate which still rages.
  • krulerkruler PerthMember UncommonPosts: 488
    Hrimnir said:
    I'm surprised at the % of comments not bringing up it's requirements more. Even with a beast of the day, EQ2 ran poorly.

    No one has mentioned how they had to dial back the fidelity of their models either. The avatars used to be much more detailed (though they did still look plastic) ... that's how bad it was. They had to do it in order to get the game to play on people's mid range machines.

    Another thing was how they gated the starting. If memory serves you only started as 4 classes (warrior/Cleric/Rogue/Mage) and didn't actually unlock your true class until something around level 20(?).

    ex: Warrior until level 10; Crusader until 20(?); finally you got to choose Paladin/Shadowknight after that.

    People didn't like that. They wanted the 'freedom' of being locked to the class they started with from the start, like in EQ1.


    I honestly don't remember a single person complaining about the class pathing thing.  If they only had 4 classes and it only ever was 4 classes, certainly that would have been a problem.  However, level 10 was very fast, as was 20.  I was level 13 in the first day of playing and level 19 by the second day.  So getting to 20 to "unlock" your class or whatever wasn't really an issue that people complained about.

    As you said before, the performance issues were the VAST majority of the complaints, with the graphics/fidelity/overall art style being the second biggest source of complaints.


    The class thing was very much after your first char play through, by the time you got to your 3rd or fourth char try it just got plain bloody annoying, they did fix this and the starter experience and different locals to choose from was a massive improvement.

Sign In or Register to comment.