Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
EverQuest: Review
Stradden
Managing EditorMember CommonPosts: 6,696
Carolyn Koh takes an in-depth look at one of the genre's hallmark games as she gives us her impressions of EverQuest as it stands for players today.
How does one go about reviewing a game such as EverQuest besides playing it a lot? I told my editor two months. I should have said three. Maybe four months... a year! At launch, this game had 12 races and 14 classes to choose from, and over 65 zones to play in with a level cap of 50. March just saw the 8th anniversary of this groundbreaking game in the Massively Multiplayer Online genre and at this time - April 2007, with 13 expansions released since day one, EverQuest boasts a total of 16 races, 16 classes, over 425 zones to play in, and a level cap of 75
Getting Started
The good thing about EverQuest is the massive amount of content available to the player for a relatively low price. In the past four years, expansions have been released twice a year, with a new retail "collection" box released each year. The expansions alternate between one that is only geared toward the high level population, and one that is tailored for the vast middle-aged population.
;)
Read the whole article here.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Comments
EQ which is years old and looks like crap graphics gets a 8 but World of Warcraft which looks 100 times better visually and artistically gets a 5 :S mmorpg.com reviews make no sense tbh.
Said it before and i'll say it again mmorpg.com staff are biased towards their own feelings on games and seem to be all like "oh im such a hardcore mmorpg player, so i like buggy horrible games" rofl...
I can assure you that there is no "bias" at work here, as the authors are all individuals with their own opinions.
As to WoW... The author of the review for the expansion, Burning Crusade gave the graphics a 5. This choice was made to reflect the fact that he felt that, with an expansion that took as long as did BC to come out, there should have been a graphics upgrade. A 5 was awarded because he felt that very little work was done in that respect on the EXPANSION.
Conversely, the actual REVIEW of WoW gave the game's graphics a 10, while a review of the end game gave it an 8. All three reviews were written by different reviewers.
I say this because while you are free to express your opinions here, positive or negative, making unfounded accusations of "bias" is unfair and I felt that people had a right to know the WoW rating history. In the future, before making serious accusations like this, I would suggest that you review the whole situation.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
I still play EQ. Along with WoW, CoV, and Vanguard. Since I have a job and a family, I don't spend massive amounts of time on any one game. However, EQ still has something that makes me happy. It's not the graphics. If I want pretty graphics, I'll log into another game. Maybe because it was my first and they say you never forget your first. The different choices of things to do and the ability to add to my character via the AA system are what probably keep me playing.
As a side note, the monthly fee for EQ is now $14.99. They raised it several months ago. I pay for Station Access or whatever it's called, but I distinctly remember increasing my checkbook entry before I added Vanguard to my list of games.
EDIT: Just saw the post about "bias." Perhaps bias is the wrong word. Anyway, I agree. Reviews are based on opinions, not fact. I think WoW's graphics are cartoony, actually. I prefer EQ over WoW, but I certainly wouldn't say that EQ has great graphics...lol. It's more of a preference than anything.
Hmm... I checked that fee by logging into my Station Account too, since I thought the fee had gone up a month or so back.
Heh. I just tried it to log into my Station Account and they are "experiencing technical difficulties, please check back again later." So I can't verify it at this time. I'll send an email to SoE to find out for sure.
Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of MMORPG.com or its management.
Read the whole article here.
Stradden,
There are a few missing words and a couple paragraphs that look like they were pasted twice. On page 2, paragraph 10 through 13 were repeated on page 1.
Kedoremos
Life of an MMORPG "addict"
For 7 years, proving that if you quote "fuck" you won't get banned.
It's like asking a Britney Spears fan if her music is good, do you think theyll say no? Even a harsh critic who hates everything is better at making us know the true flaws and strength of a game
I can assure you that there is no "bias" at work here, as the authors are all individuals with their own opinions.
As to WoW... The author of the review for the expansion, Burning Crusade gave the graphics a 5. This choice was made to reflect the fact that he felt that, with an expansion that took as long as did BC to come out, there should have been a graphics upgrade. A 5 was awarded because he felt that very little work was done in that respect on the EXPANSION.
Conversely, the actual REVIEW of WoW gave the game's graphics a 10, while a review of the end game gave it an 8. All three reviews were written by different reviewers.
I say this because while you are free to express your opinions here, positive or negative, making unfounded accusations of "bias" is unfair and I felt that people had a right to know the WoW rating history. In the future, before making serious accusations like this, I would suggest that you review the whole situation.
There are plenty of MMORPG's that didn't had graphical upgrades in expansions. In fact, it is actually rediculous to expect a graphic upgrade in an EXPANSION PACK. A graphic upgrade means higher system requirements, that means that people who played at the absolute minimum settings are getting screwed over if a graphic upgrade is in place, which would be weird especialy in WoW which prides itself in being an mmorpg with low system require,ments. The burning crusade is an expansion pack, not a new game. All other reviews gave WoW's graphics a good score, mmorpg.com is one of the few (if not the only one) who gave the graphics such a low score. Now who is wrong here, all those dozens of reviewers, or mmorpg.com? I think its pretty obvious.
I can assure you that there is no "bias" at work here, as the authors are all individuals with their own opinions.
As to WoW... The author of the review for the expansion, Burning Crusade gave the graphics a 5. This choice was made to reflect the fact that he felt that, with an expansion that took as long as did BC to come out, there should have been a graphics upgrade. A 5 was awarded because he felt that very little work was done in that respect on the EXPANSION.
Conversely, the actual REVIEW of WoW gave the game's graphics a 10, while a review of the end game gave it an 8. All three reviews were written by different reviewers.
I say this because while you are free to express your opinions here, positive or negative, making unfounded accusations of "bias" is unfair and I felt that people had a right to know the WoW rating history. In the future, before making serious accusations like this, I would suggest that you review the whole situation.
stradden, i think that reviews like this one only make it more important for MMORPG.com to take a step up and do something about scores. it is ok that reviews are all the opinion of individuals, but those opinions are posted as oficial MMORPG.com reviews, and on my opinion, there should be some kind of comparative analyse when doing reviews. as can be clearly seen on this review, it is not possible that EQ looks better than The Burning Crusade, but MMORPG.com official scores reflect that EQ looks almost twice as good as TBC.
take it not as a critic, but as a suggestion.
eq is full of instances and leveling is faster than in wow
soe ruined this game, move on
I really don't like this re-review.
The writer, never ever even mentioned the biggest problems with everquest.
She briefly goes over the fact that Everquest is top-heavy, when she should have made it VERY clear that eq is in no way an acceptable game for a new person starting out. There is noone around in the newbee area's.
She has also not once mentioned the constant botting that goes on in Everquest atm, the selling of loot rights, the warping and use of macroquest.
"Death is inevitable in EverQuest. From the first accidental tap of the 'A' key while you have your guild master targeted to the total party wipe or TPW, your character dies. "
This NEVER EVER happens anymore since like years. Guild masters aren't attackable since a long long time.
When the hell was this review made rofl.
Also, the default auto-attack key is "Q"now.
I am lukewarm on this review. It has two audiences: people who haven't played, who might have gotten some idea of what to expect from the review, and people who have, who know what the game was like when they played. There are a few changes that have come along that would be pretty major for ex- or returning players that weren't really covered, like out-of-combat regen and changes to melee combat that added new abilities for warriors that draw on "endurance" (a power pool like mana for magic). For new players, I think I would have at least mentioned that all new characters have the option to start in the same starting city (Crescent Reach), making it a little easier to find and hook up with other players.
On the other hand, there was a lot of ground to cover, and this review does cover a lot of it. It was a big assignment, considering the size of the game. So it isn't really bad.
...
This is where I draw the line: __________________.
EQ evolved, apparently you didn't.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
Well first of all, I don't think that WOW graphics are anything like 100 times better. Unless you like simplisitic very low polygon cartoons and squared off and spiky scenery.
But that aside, a game review should be based on far more than just the graphics, such as content, gameplay, quests, and many other factors. And WOW loses big time there against EQ.
WOW succeeded big time because it IS simple - simple to play, low resolution graphics that will run on almost any machine less than 6 years old, and requires minimul knowledge of the game to level up.
Plus there is the fact that 3 games - UO, EQ, and AC - were the basic ground breakers for MMO's. WOW broke no new ground, and has nothing original nor innovative in it. EQ has managed to hold on for this long because it is challenging and NOT easy. Quite true that it does not and never will have the sub numbers that WOW has, but because of the depth of the game you could literally play EQ for 3 years and never see it all. You can play WOW for 3 months and see everything.
EQ is more of a "harder core" niche game now, but in many ways it is still the leader of the pack - even though it is now somewhat of an old sage in semi-retirement standing out of the limelight while watching the follies of the newer games
And Vanguard proved that you need far more than pretty graphics for a game to succeed.
Well, the flop of VG proved how many real "old time EQ players" there are. Even without instances that you seem to hate (for whatever reason..)
And I have played EQ off and on since about a month after release, and my opinion is that it is MUCH better now than it was.
And leveling is hardly "faster than WOW". It is faster than it used to be before your old friend Brad left, but once past 60 it is far from "easy".
And to be really honest, that really old "SOE ruined it" mantra is pretty tiresome by now. Move along and get a life. That was like FIVE YEARS AGO!!.
EQ is top heavy - but so is every other game that has been out for more than a year. Just look at WOW, EQ2, and other much newer games - you have a large number of high levels compared to noobies. LOTRO has been out for like 3 weeks, and I am already seeing the "race to the top".
As far as your macroquest comment, in my total of playing EQ for around 5 years over it's 8year life, I have NEVER seen a confirmed user of that program. And as far as selling loot rights, I have seen that in every single MMO I have played.
I felt this was a good review, For the life of me i cannot figure out why more dont play eq still, i mean even myself has tried every game to come along after it and besides pvp i feel eq has just about everything covered(player housing still needed but then ive yet to see it useful, the old world of eq was awsome and i still wish they would redo a classic only server for the original eq nothing else but what it was released with (hell levels and all).
as far as other games go i feel wow was a awsome game as well just for a different crowd.
it really comes down to this in the end eq was my first and all others will be judged by this and i have yet to see a spell system as fun as everquest.
i have yet to see a game where folks can pull off 60 man raids with decent graphics and still manage to move.
i have yet to see a game do everything eq did in beginning and do it better then eq , boats swimming advancement and the biggest thing lore.
. i feel the failure of almost all mmo is they expand outward instead of keeping worlds small so folks can find one another the size of original eq was perfect should have just added small zones off of that or kept story line going within that world.
Some lead and some follow I prefer to stand beside!
I feel like the author is being dishonest, though. There is zero grouping oppurtunities in EQ now. It really pisses me off when I see people claim they get groups with no trouble in EQ. Its because they have been hanging out with the same people for 3 or 4 years. EQ was a blast when people used to group. Now all they do is log in at 8pm and raid then go to bed.
Grouping past level 65 without raid gear is a death wish. This game is complete garbage to people who don't like raiding. Let's be honest.
The OP's review is valid, but definitely viewing EQ through rosy colored glasses. i think the biggest harm to EQ nowadays is itself since it does indeed have SO much content. The population to fill that type of environment just doesnt exist anymore. You can survive, but not really thrive if you are a returning player from scratch or a brand new player. Then again, those are based on personal definitions so to each their own. EQ is still a good game. Sony Online Entertainment was sluggish in reacting when casual players were seeking & found alternative MMOGs to play. Hence the drastic population decline over the last couple of years, & probably a contributing factor to Vanguard's lackluster beginning. Vanguard has suffered mostly on it's own merit of broken promises. Those dedicated that have played EQ for years i am sure & hope are still having fun, but it took them a lengthy time to get to that higher tiered stage. Why should any of us returning players or new EQ players attempt such an investment with such a dust-aged game? Sure there is alots of content in EQ, but since it doesnt charge more than most other MMOGs that doesnt mean it is a better value. There is a huge vacuum caused by exactly that amount of content & the lack of population to sustain it properly. i had mentioned in an earlier post about the Anniversary Edition that SOE missed a great opportunity using that product to tempt players to EQ. The OP's review here read to me more like propaganda that had been asked to be posted rather than experienced & given. If any still enjoy EQ though good for them! If i hadn't deleted my account toons a couple of years ago i might've gone back to it as well. A game that has content that cannot be accessed by casual playing even after lengthy time seems due to have troubles. EQ used to get by with that because it was mostly the only MMOG. They rested on their laurels & wouldn't listen much to the player-base during a significant time in EQ so now it suffers. Once SOE buys Vanguard, they need to incorporate a trans-gaming-interface between EQ, EQ2, & EQ3, oops i mean Vanguard, so players from all three can group & play together ... okay i filled my quota of sarcasim for the day. Whichever game one decides to play, just try to have fun.
evolved in a dieing cash cow, milked once a year with a new expansion to please the current subscribers with raidcontent.EQ evolved, apparently you didn't.
4/5 of oldworld zones are deserted.....
yes, eq evolved.
9/10 graphics...lol.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Every time I go back, it is inevietably as a low level toon, I cant say as Ive ever had a problem grouping when I wanted too. The game itself has gone through a wide range of changes over the years and mudflation second to none, but, that is the nature of the beast.
If you have never played an MMO before I really cant recommend EQ when there are modern options available that are so much less painful to play.
EQ is huge, and chances are, a very great chance that is, is that a new player will never, ever, ever see 90% of the content available. On the other hand if your looking for something really meaty to sink your teeth into, and a vast world to explore, EQ is definately worth the paltry cost of admission. Problem is that very few people (relativly speaking) have the personality type required to stick with EQ for 70+ levels of play. Or even 40, my best friend in real life has had an account since launch, it has been active since then, and his highest level toon is 45, now thats casual and perhaps one of the reasons that EQ will be around for years and years to come.
-Gooney
The rating of the graphics is just not what is should be.
Being a reviewer myself i am really sad to see someone rate a game like this.
You have to rate the game in context to other games.
And taking the graphics rating forexample - How would you rate games like Everquest 2, EVE Online, and others when you've almost reached the top with a low-poly game?
Maybe you guys should focus more on news and articles and just stop reviewing games.
Overall, I thought this re-review was fair, accurate, coherent and useful. It does, yet again, bring up the myth that EQ is a difficult or unrewarding game to solo in. When I was last playing regularly, when the level-cap was 70, virtually every class had been soloed to the cap and I am sure that hasn't changed. For the first two years I played, 1999 - 2001, I soloed about 80% of the time and in all the MMOs I have played since I have never found a more enjoyable setting or ruleset for just pottering around at my own pace. I wouldn;t disagree, however, that the game is more exciting with a few friends, but there is a metric ton of things to do on your own when no-one else you know is around, and levelling up your character is very much possible .
I can assure you that there is no "bias" at work here, as the authors are all individuals with their own opinions.
As to WoW... The author of the review for the expansion, Burning Crusade gave the graphics a 5. This choice was made to reflect the fact that he felt that, with an expansion that took as long as did BC to come out, there should have been a graphics upgrade. A 5 was awarded because he felt that very little work was done in that respect on the EXPANSION.
Conversely, the actual REVIEW of WoW gave the game's graphics a 10, while a review of the end game gave it an 8. All three reviews were written by different reviewers.
I say this because while you are free to express your opinions here, positive or negative, making unfounded accusations of "bias" is unfair and I felt that people had a right to know the WoW rating history. In the future, before making serious accusations like this, I would suggest that you review the whole situation.
There are plenty of MMORPG's that didn't had graphical upgrades in expansions. In fact, it is actually rediculous to expect a graphic upgrade in an EXPANSION PACK. A graphic upgrade means higher system requirements, that means that people who played at the absolute minimum settings are getting screwed over if a graphic upgrade is in place, which would be weird especialy in WoW which prides itself in being an mmorpg with low system require,ments. The burning crusade is an expansion pack, not a new game. All other reviews gave WoW's graphics a good score, mmorpg.com is one of the few (if not the only one) who gave the graphics such a low score. Now who is wrong here, all those dozens of reviewers, or mmorpg.com? I think its pretty obvious.
BC graphics are blocky and low poly. After the hundreds of millions of dollars in profit and 2 years to work on it, BC should have had upgraded graphics and I totally agree with the review.
BC is NOT just another expansion for just another game. People waited 2 years for it and WoW is the biggest game on the planet. Should we not expect a bit more?