Now that we have seen the same stuff as the staff here and at Ten Ton Hammer, I am a bit confused as to how this nabbed best in show at E3. Mainly because none of the footage was actual gameplay. We saw tech demos of the voxel layered world (which is amazing). We saw two players on the screen fighting, jumping, hopping over rocks, falling down holes. We saw some world building tools ala minecraft which is pretty cool too.
However, we did not see the following:
Zero crafting. No raids, no actual quests or objectives, no rallies, no groups to speak of other than two players. No trade functions, chat functions, no character creation videos. We didnt see 40 classes. We didnt see any dynamic AI.
But you were told these things would be in game. You weren't actually shown them. So how exactly did it get best in show? We have not even seen this game working in real time.
I actually got too watch people play Assassin's Creed 4, Destiny, and Watch Dogs. Those games I would qualify as being shown. EQNext was 5% substance and 95% concept. I will agree that what we saw was a cool tech demo of the engine. But that was not a game yet. let alone an mmo and even further from what I would even consider a nominee for best in show at E3.
If you read Bill Murphy's article, then look at the limited amount of footage, you'll realize that amost everything he is talking about that is so amazing is not really in the game or at least not shown. It was al stuff that he was told would be in it. I mean, I can spin a pretty graphic tale of the perfect mmorpg too. Will that garner me game of the year?
So what gives, mmorpg.com?
I actually agree, I don't think it deserved best of SHOW and it wasn't just mmorpg.com either, it was also Tentonhammer. I will never again trust any site with the awards it gives out, because I really bought into thinking there is no way those 2 sites would put their credibility on the line unless they were really shown a alot and it was all amazing. As you said, most of it was all talk and a vision, not something even tangible yet.
I was expecting nothing less than absolute amazingness from something that wasnt even shown. Maybe they held back on the big reveal
We saw everything they saw PLUS MORE actually. There were a few different times Dave even said during the presentation "and this is something absolutely nobody has seen before." There is no way on earth they would have showed MORE things behind closed doors but kept the cool stuff out of the reveal. The reveal was 100% them showing us what they got, all eyes were on them and it was their moment to impress everyone. They wouldn't keep awesome stuff hidden away in that scenario.
I see a lot of people saying EQNext deserved the award based on all the cool features it's GOING TO HAVE. In other words, what's down on paper. Do you know how many countless features have been talked about an never come to fruition the way they plan, or at all?
Did any of you read the original Xysom list of features? It should have won every best of show award around the world based on that vision. You can't give awards for ideas or plans.
Before we even bother to speculate, does anyone remember who the runner-up would have been at E3?
Huh, me neither.
What? All that's required to issue a web award is the ability to craft the logo?
Worth every penny....of an hour's pay for a web designer.
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.
I'm curious about EQN, took time to sign up for beta, but I'm still more excited to be playing FFXIV soon.
Like ESO, EQN looks interesting, as was GW2, but a long term game? That's the real question.
If and I say IF SOE can pull off the truly ever changing world part, AND the game has trinity + decent PVP, dungeons, and raids... it'd certainly get my attention.
But no trinity or raids or dungeons or decent PVP and I'll only try the game and likely move on quick cause its F2P.
And to quote the man behind Voxel Farm (the engine):
At this point I really cannot comment anymore. I do not want to reveal their road map, this is up to SOE. One thing is certain, this is no marketing BS: After working with the EQNext team for a while I now have the realization they will be taking this tech to levels far beyond anything I have been able to do and show here. The best is yet to come.
That "Seed of Andromeda" thing looks as blocky as Minecraft. If they really use the same base engine, it's definitely not the same version.
"I now have the realization they will be taking this tech to levels far beyond anything I have been able to do and show here" - nuff said
The Voxel engine is just the base for handling and manipulating voxels. Think of it as a framework at the very bottom of the engine. SOE has put alot of stuff on top of that.
But if you watch the video I linked you can get a feel to just how powerful Landmark will be.
Now that we have seen the same stuff as the staff here and at Ten Ton Hammer, I am a bit confused as to how this nabbed best in show at E3. Mainly because none of the footage was actual gameplay. We saw tech demos of the voxel layered world (which is amazing). We saw two players on the screen fighting, jumping, hopping over rocks, falling down holes. We saw some world building tools ala minecraft which is pretty cool too.
However, we did not see the following:
Zero crafting. No raids, no actual quests or objectives, no rallies, no groups to speak of other than two players. No trade functions, chat functions, no character creation videos. We didnt see 40 classes. We didnt see any dynamic AI.
But you were told these things would be in game. You weren't actually shown them. So how exactly did it get best in show? We have not even seen this game working in real time.
I actually got too watch people play Assassin's Creed 4, Destiny, and Watch Dogs. Those games I would qualify as being shown. EQNext was 5% substance and 95% concept. I will agree that what we saw was a cool tech demo of the engine. But that was not a game yet. let alone an mmo and even further from what I would even consider a nominee for best in show at E3.
If you read Bill Murphy's article, then look at the limited amount of footage, you'll realize that amost everything he is talking about that is so amazing is not really in the game or at least not shown. It was al stuff that he was told would be in it. I mean, I can spin a pretty graphic tale of the perfect mmorpg too. Will that garner me game of the year?
So what gives, mmorpg.com?
I actually agree, I don't think it deserved best of SHOW and it wasn't just mmorpg.com either, it was also Tentonhammer. I will never again trust any site with the awards it gives out, because I really bought into thinking there is no way those 2 sites would put their credibility on the line unless they were really shown a alot and it was all amazing. As you said, most of it was all talk and a vision, not something even tangible yet.
However that vision, especially the emergent AI, represents the biggest evolution the genre has ever seen. Maybe it wont pan out on the final release but its not like there is a MMORPG that got robbed of the award because of EQN. Almost finished rehashes or a game with the potential to really push the genre forward? In this particular year Id go with the potential.
I see a lot of people saying EQNext deserved the award based on all the cool features it's GOING TO HAVE. In other words, what's down on paper. Do you know how many countless features have been talked about an never come to fruition the way they plan, or at all?
Did any of you read the original Xysom list of features? It should have won every best of show award around the world based on that vision. You can't give awards for ideas or plans.
The destructible world created out of voxels was on display though. Some of the other stuff may be on paper still, but its not like its shown nothing.
Now that we have seen the same stuff as the staff here and at Ten Ton Hammer, I am a bit confused as to how this nabbed best in show at E3. Mainly because none of the footage was actual gameplay. We saw tech demos of the voxel layered world (which is amazing). We saw two players on the screen fighting, jumping, hopping over rocks, falling down holes. We saw some world building tools ala minecraft which is pretty cool too.
However, we did not see the following:
Zero crafting. No raids, no actual quests or objectives, no rallies, no groups to speak of other than two players. No trade functions, chat functions, no character creation videos. We didnt see 40 classes. We didnt see any dynamic AI.
But you were told these things would be in game. You weren't actually shown them. So how exactly did it get best in show? We have not even seen this game working in real time.
I actually got too watch people play Assassin's Creed 4, Destiny, and Watch Dogs. Those games I would qualify as being shown. EQNext was 5% substance and 95% concept. I will agree that what we saw was a cool tech demo of the engine. But that was not a game yet. let alone an mmo and even further from what I would even consider a nominee for best in show at E3.
If you read Bill Murphy's article, then look at the limited amount of footage, you'll realize that amost everything he is talking about that is so amazing is not really in the game or at least not shown. It was al stuff that he was told would be in it. I mean, I can spin a pretty graphic tale of the perfect mmorpg too. Will that garner me game of the year?
So what gives, mmorpg.com?
EQN is supose to be a sandbox MMORPG, it's also the very first time something of the actuall game is being released to the public.
I like it this way, the game isn't near to release, so let them build the game up and let us enjoy the ride seeing it build till completion and hopefully in some way be part of it before release in either Landmark or beta.
I do believe SOE has allot more done then what they have shown us......
Heh, I was wondering the exact same thing today. Cool concepts and ideas? You bet!....but if Bill and the Gang saw what we've all seen thus far, then I'm not sure how you can give a game that isn't even a game yet "best in show".
This will be the first time in the history of the genre where consequences matter, the world is actually alive and truly dynamic, the NPC's are smart, and the way in which you interact with the game is ever changing. Gone are the days of questing, camping as the only means of progressing. Interactivity between you and the world and what you say and do will matter. I find it extremely upsetting that there's this segment that think because it has cartoonish graphics or the combat is reminiscent of GW2 the game is doomed to fail. How many of these people have espoused the ideal to live In a sandbox world a truly dynamic world and yet when some little ittle wittle thing they dislike in the game comes along it's going to sway them forever. Talk about the most shallow hypocritical gamer ever. The attitudes on these forums have made me sick for the future of this genre. It's high time the vocal minority sit down, shut up and GTFO.
Most of the feature you mentioned aren't functional yet, so you can't really say that all of this will work as intended, or even make it to the final product. I love the ideas as much as anyone, but at this point in time, that's all they are.
Originally posted by remyburke Heh, I was wondering the exact same thing today. Cool concepts and ideas? You bet!....but if Bill and the Gang saw what we've all seen thus far, then I'm not sure how you can give a game that isn't even a game yet "best in show".
No one has given a reasonable argument as to what MMO should have won instead
Originally posted by remyburke Heh, I was wondering the exact same thing today. Cool concepts and ideas? You bet!....but if Bill and the Gang saw what we've all seen thus far, then I'm not sure how you can give a game that isn't even a game yet "best in show".
No one has given a reasonable argument as to what MMO should have won instead
All I know is there would have been just as much or more outcry about ESO, or one of the other "demo" games shown being picked.
All the site risks is the dubious risk to its 'reputation'; assuming a site that sells advertising could ever be thought to have one of those.
How's that old joke go? "We've already established what you are, young lady. Now we're just haggling over the price."
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.
Originally posted by remyburke Heh, I was wondering the exact same thing today. Cool concepts and ideas? You bet!....but if Bill and the Gang saw what we've all seen thus far, then I'm not sure how you can give a game that isn't even a game yet "best in show".
No one has given a reasonable argument as to what MMO should have won instead
Maybe look up who won best of show by everyone OTHER than MMORPG.com and TenTonHammer. They weren't offered "exclusive" info, thus judged the games fairly. (as fairly as these things can be anyways.)
Originally posted by remyburke Heh, I was wondering the exact same thing today. Cool concepts and ideas? You bet!....but if Bill and the Gang saw what we've all seen thus far, then I'm not sure how you can give a game that isn't even a game yet "best in show".
No one has given a reasonable argument as to what MMO should have won instead
The other options were, console kiddy MMO's, ESO (or omen as is it seems to be judged around here), a medieval game with cars (if AA was at E3 I'm not sure), The return of a failed game (FF)...
Note: the wording used is to give off the impression those games receive around here.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by remyburke Heh, I was wondering the exact same thing today. Cool concepts and ideas? You bet!....but if Bill and the Gang saw what we've all seen thus far, then I'm not sure how you can give a game that isn't even a game yet "best in show".
No one has given a reasonable argument as to what MMO should have won instead
Any game that actually had more than screenshots and a tech demo to display, that could show you the features they talk about, not just talk about all their iseas and plans. Again, see Xyson. So, every game there likelydeserved it more at this point in time
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Most games at every E3 would not meet your criteria then.Most games shown are only demos or very focused and very limited playable demos at best.By your criteria there would be no game of Show winners for any category any year unless a game was shown that happened to be close to release,which is not the purpose of E3.
E3 is a venue used to announce new games usually a year or two from being close to finished and for the mist not even working as a fully functional game yet.Most of what you see is mock ups and tightly controlled,specially made playable demos of concepts they want to showcase most not even playable by anyone outside the company demonstrators.
A very high percentage of games that have won E3 awards since it's inception would not of gotten awards by what people here have decided should be the criteria and most years there would be no awards at all.
Where I think MMORPG.com erred was you should cater to your audience and giving an award to a game your audience can't also see is not catering to them.
Originally posted by remyburke Heh, I was wondering the exact same thing today. Cool concepts and ideas? You bet!....but if Bill and the Gang saw what we've all seen thus far, then I'm not sure how you can give a game that isn't even a game yet "best in show".
No one has given a reasonable argument as to what MMO should have won instead
So go post a poll thread
What about you guys do your dirty job yourself?
It's you who dispute MMORPG.COM's decision, not us...
Cuz I didn't ask the question.
But to answer it, If there should be a minimum requirement for a game to meet to be considered a game (And I think there should) and there are no games that meet that requirement, then you'd have your answer wouldn't you?
Most games at every E3 would not meet your criteria then.Most games shown are only demos or very focused and very limited playable demos at best.By your criteria there would be no game of Show winners for any category any year unless a game was shown that happened to be close to release,which is not the purpose of E3.
E3 is a venue used to announce new games usually a year or two from being close to finished and for the mist not even working as a fully functional game yet.Most of what you see is mock ups and tightly controlled,specially made playable demos of concepts they want to showcase most not even playable by anyone outside the company demonstrators.
A very high percentage of games that have won E3 awards since it's inception would not of gotten awards by what people here have decided should be the criteria and most years there would be no awards at all.
Where I think MMORPG.com erred was you should cater to your audience and giving an award to a game your audience can't also see is not catering to them.
I think they did pick the one they viewed as catering to us, it really explains the answer the OP is looking for in a simple way. The biggest theme we hear over and over on this site is "we need change", EQN is offering a bunch of it ( at least in words and demonstration). How many times have we heard why SOE changed EQN directions? How many times did we hear how different GW2 was?
This site caters to the theme prevailing on it. SOE has talked a a lot about two of those big themes, Themeparks being dead, and player controlled sandbox features.
Hence they were talking the talk that most fits with the overruling theme of this community.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well I'm glad the employees at MMORPG.com and Ten Ton Hammer get to go to these events it seems they know what's better than the people who are actually buying these games (end sarcasm). Seriously, does anyone have the backbone to say," Hey, the MMO customers don't like feature(s) X or suggest feature(s) X might draw more people to your product"?. No, instead we get kiss asses who'll flap their lips at anything to get a quick dollar. So much for the MMO genre it looks as though we'll have to put up with Multiplayer Action RPGs now.
You're in the wrong place if you want that. The very reason you're visiting this site rather than a place you'd get that is exactly why they don't do it. Exclusive access to the industry.
Their goal is to land these gigs, bring those big names on board, why? Because it brings us here. It's no different than music press.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The truth is, some of these ''editors'' are the biggest fanboys out there and are easily hyped. Can't listen to anything they say, make your own judgement after experiencing it yourself.
Comments
I actually agree, I don't think it deserved best of SHOW and it wasn't just mmorpg.com either, it was also Tentonhammer. I will never again trust any site with the awards it gives out, because I really bought into thinking there is no way those 2 sites would put their credibility on the line unless they were really shown a alot and it was all amazing. As you said, most of it was all talk and a vision, not something even tangible yet.
We saw everything they saw PLUS MORE actually. There were a few different times Dave even said during the presentation "and this is something absolutely nobody has seen before." There is no way on earth they would have showed MORE things behind closed doors but kept the cool stuff out of the reveal. The reveal was 100% them showing us what they got, all eyes were on them and it was their moment to impress everyone. They wouldn't keep awesome stuff hidden away in that scenario.
I see a lot of people saying EQNext deserved the award based on all the cool features it's GOING TO HAVE. In other words, what's down on paper. Do you know how many countless features have been talked about an never come to fruition the way they plan, or at all?
Did any of you read the original Xysom list of features? It should have won every best of show award around the world based on that vision. You can't give awards for ideas or plans.
Before we even bother to speculate, does anyone remember who the runner-up would have been at E3?
Huh, me neither.
What? All that's required to issue a web award is the ability to craft the logo?
Worth every penny....of an hour's pay for a web designer.
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.
I just know that I did not poop myself.
I'm curious about EQN, took time to sign up for beta, but I'm still more excited to be playing FFXIV soon.
Like ESO, EQN looks interesting, as was GW2, but a long term game? That's the real question.
If and I say IF SOE can pull off the truly ever changing world part, AND the game has trinity + decent PVP, dungeons, and raids... it'd certainly get my attention.
But no trinity or raids or dungeons or decent PVP and I'll only try the game and likely move on quick cause its F2P.
The Voxel engine is just the base for handling and manipulating voxels. Think of it as a framework at the very bottom of the engine. SOE has put alot of stuff on top of that.
But if you watch the video I linked you can get a feel to just how powerful Landmark will be.
However that vision, especially the emergent AI, represents the biggest evolution the genre has ever seen. Maybe it wont pan out on the final release but its not like there is a MMORPG that got robbed of the award because of EQN. Almost finished rehashes or a game with the potential to really push the genre forward? In this particular year Id go with the potential.
The destructible world created out of voxels was on display though. Some of the other stuff may be on paper still, but its not like its shown nothing.
EQN is supose to be a sandbox MMORPG, it's also the very first time something of the actuall game is being released to the public.
I like it this way, the game isn't near to release, so let them build the game up and let us enjoy the ride seeing it build till completion and hopefully in some way be part of it before release in either Landmark or beta.
I do believe SOE has allot more done then what they have shown us......
All I know is there would have been just as much or more outcry about ESO, or one of the other "demo" games shown being picked.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Joined - July 2004
Most of the feature you mentioned aren't functional yet, so you can't really say that all of this will work as intended, or even make it to the final product. I love the ideas as much as anyone, but at this point in time, that's all they are.
Joined - July 2004
No one has given a reasonable argument as to what MMO should have won instead
This
So go post a poll thread
All the site risks is the dubious risk to its 'reputation'; assuming a site that sells advertising could ever be thought to have one of those.
How's that old joke go? "We've already established what you are, young lady. Now we're just haggling over the price."
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.
Maybe look up who won best of show by everyone OTHER than MMORPG.com and TenTonHammer. They weren't offered "exclusive" info, thus judged the games fairly. (as fairly as these things can be anyways.)
The other options were, console kiddy MMO's, ESO (or omen as is it seems to be judged around here), a medieval game with cars (if AA was at E3 I'm not sure), The return of a failed game (FF)...
Note: the wording used is to give off the impression those games receive around here.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Any game that actually had more than screenshots and a tech demo to display, that could show you the features they talk about, not just talk about all their iseas and plans. Again, see Xyson. So, every game there likelydeserved it more at this point in time
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
To repeat myself regrettably
Most games at every E3 would not meet your criteria then.Most games shown are only demos or very focused and very limited playable demos at best.By your criteria there would be no game of Show winners for any category any year unless a game was shown that happened to be close to release,which is not the purpose of E3.
E3 is a venue used to announce new games usually a year or two from being close to finished and for the mist not even working as a fully functional game yet.Most of what you see is mock ups and tightly controlled,specially made playable demos of concepts they want to showcase most not even playable by anyone outside the company demonstrators.
A very high percentage of games that have won E3 awards since it's inception would not of gotten awards by what people here have decided should be the criteria and most years there would be no awards at all.
Where I think MMORPG.com erred was you should cater to your audience and giving an award to a game your audience can't also see is not catering to them.
Cuz I didn't ask the question.
But to answer it, If there should be a minimum requirement for a game to meet to be considered a game (And I think there should) and there are no games that meet that requirement, then you'd have your answer wouldn't you?
I think they did pick the one they viewed as catering to us, it really explains the answer the OP is looking for in a simple way. The biggest theme we hear over and over on this site is "we need change", EQN is offering a bunch of it ( at least in words and demonstration). How many times have we heard why SOE changed EQN directions? How many times did we hear how different GW2 was?
This site caters to the theme prevailing on it. SOE has talked a a lot about two of those big themes, Themeparks being dead, and player controlled sandbox features.
Hence they were talking the talk that most fits with the overruling theme of this community.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You're in the wrong place if you want that. The very reason you're visiting this site rather than a place you'd get that is exactly why they don't do it. Exclusive access to the industry.
Their goal is to land these gigs, bring those big names on board, why? Because it brings us here. It's no different than music press.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson