Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

General: Fighting Words: EQ2 vs Vanguard Pt. 1

2456

Comments

  • TheMaelstromTheMaelstrom Member UncommonPosts: 393

    Originally posted by Terranah

    OP has a horrible sense what constitutes beautiful in terms of graphics.  I think he is either blind or...well...he's just blind.  To say this is one of the most beautiful games out is to stretch credulity beyond the normal limits of our physical universe. 

    You should have started this post with the words, "In my opinion...", but then you would have realized how silly the rest of your "facts" are, and wouldn't have bothered to post it. BRAVO!

     

    On topic: I've played both, and enjoyed both immensely. The reason I never got past my mid-30s in Vanguard was simple: I knew the game was never going to get support / expansions / Alternate Advancement, and it seemed like a waste of time to invest in my character knowing full well as soon as I hit cap and raided for a couple of months there would be absolutely nothing new.

    No godless person can comprehend those minute distinctions
    in doctrine that provide true believers excuse for mayhem.
    -Glen Cook

  • shakermaker0shakermaker0 Member UncommonPosts: 194

    Apologies for missing that they have done away with the Beginner Isle, I must admit I haven't spent much time with the game since earlier this year.

    EDIT: This is an opinion piece so you don't have to agree in the slightest; personally, I adore EQ2's look, however, you may not.

  • dragonbranddragonbrand Member UncommonPosts: 441

    Originally posted by TheMaelstrom

    edited for relevence

     

    On topic: I've played both, and enjoyed both immensely. The reason I never got past my mid-30s in Vanguard was simple: I knew the game was never going to get support / expansions / Alternate Advancement, and it seemed like a waste of time to invest in my character knowing full well as soon as I hit cap and raided for a couple of months there would be absolutely nothing new.

     I don't know of any game that after you hit lvl cap and spend a couple of months there it isnt going to end. No MMO is ever guaranteed expansions andor and ever-lasting life. Even WOW will end at some point. I understand the time frame is different as Vanguard has been suffering ever since Sigil dropped the ball.

    My point is that lots of people say they like the game but aren't playing because 1) the population is low; a Catch-22 arguement. If they joined more poeple would join. 2) no support; another Catch-22 as SOE would support a game that had more people playing it (EQII for example) and the list goes on.

    Gaming since Avalon Hill was making board games.

    Played SWG, EVE, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Rift, Vanguard, WoW, SWTOR, TSW, Tera
    Tried Aoc, Aion, EQII, RoM, Vindictus, Darkfail, DDO, GW, PotBS

  • CymTyrCymTyr Member Posts: 166

     

    OP has a horrible sense what constitutes beautiful in terms of graphics.  I think he is either blind or...well...he's just blind.  To say this is one of the most beautiful games out is to stretch credulity beyond the normal limits of our physical universe. 

    EQ2 with the proper hardware has graphics that rival recently released mmo's in terms of detail and precision. If you're referring to the mobs that look like stickmen from a distance, there's a graphical setting which fixes that.

     

    VG has good graphics as well. If you fail to see those FACTS when comparing them to other modern mmo's that came out in the same timeframe, then I think you have unrealistic expectations of mmo's that can run on a wide range of hardware and still be future-proofed. Just because an mmo doesn't look like Crysis doesn't mean it has bad graphics.

    image

  • Daffid011Daffid011 Member UncommonPosts: 7,945

    Originally posted by dragonbrand

    My point is that lots of people say they like the game but aren't playing because 1) the population is low; a Catch-22 arguement. If they joined more poeple would join. 2) no support; another Catch-22 as SOE would support a game that had more people playing it (EQII for example) and the list goes on.

    There really isn't a catch 22 here.  Either soe feels confident enough to invest in a game to attract players or they don't.  Players themselves cannot affect how much money soe will spend or developers they will commit to a game. 

    For example, players will avoid a game they think is going to die or not going to get enough support like has happened with vanguard.

    However there is no guarentee that if more players joined or spent more money that any of those resources would be reinvested back into the game like eq2. 

    Any additional funds would most likely be siphoned off to one of soes other projects.  That is pretty much all they have been doing for a while now.

     

     

     

     

  • Master-NalaMaster-Nala Member UncommonPosts: 37

    The article exposes something I've long felt about EQ2.  EQ2 gets it's biggest criticism not for what it is, which is a fun, pretty 2nd generation MMO, but what it isn't, i.e. a direct port of Everquest with new graphics.

    This despite SOE saying at length that they weren't trying to do that.  So many EQ1 vets claim that they are looking for a game like that, but that's what Vanguard was supposed to be.  It failed miserably and had to be rescued by SOE.  Those boring tedious games like EQ1 are in the past and will stay there, thank goodness.

  • MardyMardy Member Posts: 2,213

    Originally posted by EvilGeko

    The article exposes something I've long felt about EQ2.  EQ2 gets it's biggest criticism not for what it is, which is a fun, pretty 2nd generation MMO, but what it isn't, i.e. a direct port of Everquest with new graphics.

    This despite SOE saying at length that they weren't trying to do that.  So many EQ1 vets claim that they are looking for a game like that, but that's what Vanguard was supposed to be.  It failed miserably and had to be rescued by SOE.  Those boring tedious games like EQ1 are in the past and will stay there, thank goodness.

    You're wrong with your history & facts.  SOE was the one trying to sell EQ1 players that EQ2 was going to be an updated EQ1 with newer engine, newer graphics, but EQ1 gameplay.  As a result, many EQ1 players (myself included) flooded into EQ2 on november 2004.  We went, we saw, we played, and we went w t f.  EQ2 turned out to be nothing like EQ1, it played nothing like EQ1, and it even didn't feel like EQ1.  Hello EQ2 freeport, you aren't what I remembered, and I personally don't like zoning 5x just to get through a darn city.

     

    So those of us disappointed with EQ2 either went back to EQ1, or went on to play WoW, which ironically, was a game more like EQ1 at launch than EQ2 was.   But that shouldn't surprise anybody, WoW was developed by ex-EQ1 players.  Vanilla WoW had everything EQ1 had, minus some changes to the tedious parts such as death penalty & exp loss.  EQ2 lost out big time, they lost EQ1 players' support, and they failed to attract the newer generation playerbase.

     

    EQ2 as a game went through 2 years of revamps, changes, tweaks, and engine performance improvements before Smed finally came out and said, yeah, we probably should've called this a different name, because EQ2 is nothing like EQ1.  By the way, EQ1 remained to be a higher populated game than EQ2 up until recently about a year and half ago.   Please don't use Vanguard as a benchmark when comparing games like EQ1.   EQ1 is a success story all around, the game that was #1 on the market for 4 years, the game that jump started the 3D MMO genre.  Vanguard....failure all around, from beginning to the end, everything about Vanguard was a failure.

     

    Vanguard failed to live up to its hype, mainly because Brad McQuaid couldn't manage $30 million budget.  He spent 5 years developing a game and couldn't deliver, he went over budget and the game launched in a poor state.  Most of us that beta'ed and played Vanguard agree it was at LEAST 2 years from being finished.  Heck the game released without visible player helmets, no raid interface, and a very very unoptimized engine.  How in the world could you release a game in 2007 in such a bad state?  People like to bash SOE for their lack of support for Vanguard.  If I ran SOE, I would've never bought Vanguard, I would've told Brad to fail and not try to ever run a company again.  The guy has creative ideas, but the guy doesn't know how to manage a company for crap.

     

    Please for people trying to use Vanguard's failure as a way to bash EQ1 or old school gameplay, you aren't being fair and you know it.  Vanguard was a failure all around, inside out, from beginning to the end.  Why are people still talking about Vanguard when it has soon to be 1 server with SOE admitting that the game has no full time developers working on it, I just don't know.  Let Vanguard rest in peace, the game needs to die so maybe someone else out there can make a new Vanguard with a better game engine, a finished game at launch, and a company that doesn't bankrupt within 3 months of launch.

     

    It's how I feel about it.  I used to be a VG fanboy, spent a year and lots of money & time playing it.  But it does tick me off when people try to use Vanguard's failures to say why a new EQ1 would fail.  Yeah, so are we to say newer games based on newer generation games should always succeed?  Hello Warhammer Online (aka WoW-wanna be), hello AoC, hello overhyped STO, hello all the other new overhyped games that released but don't deliver.   Failed games are failed games, they have nothing to do with older games.  They are failed games of their own, they failed for many different reasons.  Vanguard didn't fail because it was built to be like EQ1, Vanguard failed because it was released as a broken game, with broken promises, and a very badly managed company that went bankrupt within 3 months of launch.

    EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO

  • DaakkonDaakkon Member UncommonPosts: 607

    Originally posted by Mardy

    Originally posted by EvilGeko

    The article exposes something I've long felt about EQ2.  EQ2 gets it's biggest criticism not for what it is, which is a fun, pretty 2nd generation MMO, but what it isn't, i.e. a direct port of Everquest with new graphics.

    This despite SOE saying at length that they weren't trying to do that.  So many EQ1 vets claim that they are looking for a game like that, but that's what Vanguard was supposed to be.  It failed miserably and had to be rescued by SOE.  Those boring tedious games like EQ1 are in the past and will stay there, thank goodness.

    You're wrong with your history & facts.  SOE was the one trying to sell EQ1 players that EQ2 was going to be an updated EQ1 with newer engine, newer graphics, but EQ1 gameplay.  As a result, many EQ1 players (myself included) flooded into EQ2 on november 2004.  We went, we saw, we played, and we went w t f.  EQ2 turned out to be nothing like EQ1, it played nothing like EQ1, and it even didn't feel like EQ1.  Hello EQ2 freeport, you aren't what I remembered, and I personally don't like zoning 5x just to get through a darn city.

     

    So those of us disappointed with EQ2 either went back to EQ1, or went on to play WoW, which ironically, was a game more like EQ1 at launch than EQ2 was.   But that shouldn't surprise anybody, WoW was developed by ex-EQ1 players.  Vanilla WoW had everything EQ1 had, minus some changes to the tedious parts such as death penalty & exp loss.  EQ2 lost out big time, they lost EQ1 players' support, and they failed to attract the newer generation playerbase.

     

    EQ2 as a game went through 2 years of revamps, changes, tweaks, and engine performance improvements before Smed finally came out and said, yeah, we probably should've called this a different name, because EQ2 is nothing like EQ1.  By the way, EQ1 remained to be a higher populated game than EQ2 up until recently about a year and half ago.   Please don't use Vanguard as a benchmark when comparing games like EQ1.   EQ1 is a success story all around, the game that was #1 on the market for 4 years, the game that jump started the 3D MMO genre.  Vanguard....failure all around, from beginning to the end, everything about Vanguard was a failure.

     

    Vanguard failed to live up to its hype, mainly because Brad McQuaid couldn't manage $30 million budget.  He spent 5 years developing a game and couldn't deliver, he went over budget and the game launched in a poor state.  Most of us that beta'ed and played Vanguard agree it was at LEAST 2 years from being finished.  Heck the game released without visible player helmets, no raid interface, and a very very unoptimized engine.  How in the world could you release a game in 2007 in such a bad state?  People like to bash SOE for their lack of support for Vanguard.  If I ran SOE, I would've never bought Vanguard, I would've told Brad to fail and not try to ever run a company again.  The guy has creative ideas, but the guy doesn't know how to manage a company for crap.

     

    Please for people trying to use Vanguard's failure as a way to bash EQ1 or old school gameplay, you aren't being fair and you know it.  Vanguard was a failure all around, inside out, from beginning to the end.  Why are people still talking about Vanguard when it has soon to be 1 server with SOE admitting that the game has no full time developers working on it, I just don't know.  Let Vanguard rest in peace, the game needs to die so maybe someone else out there can make a new Vanguard with a better game engine, a finished game at launch, and a company that doesn't bankrupt within 3 months of launch.

     

    It's how I feel about it.  I used to be a VG fanboy, spent a year and lots of money & time playing it.  But it does tick me off when people try to use Vanguard's failures to say why a new EQ1 would fail.  Yeah, so are we to say newer games based on newer generation games should always succeed?  Hello Warhammer  Online (aka WoW-wanna be), hello AoC, hello all the other new overhyped games that released but don't deliver.   Failed games are failed games, they have nothing to do with older games.  They are failed games of their own, they failed for many different reasons.  Vanguard didn't fail because it was built to be like EQ1, Vanguard failed because it was released as a broken game, with broken promises, and a very badly managed company that went bankrupt within 3 months of launch.

    Amen brotha, UO (Pre-Trammel), EQ1 (Pre-SOL), EVE (Pre-Exodus), AC1 still remain the best mmo's ever created.

  • neilh73neilh73 Member Posts: 239

    I have played both these games, not a lot, but I have played them.  I played EQ2 for 5 months and Vanguard for 9 months (spread over 3 seperate terms). 

     

    I have to say that I preferred Vanguard in almost every way.  The sheer scale of Vanguard is impressive and I have to disagree with the OP on the graphics.  Excluding the terrible human character graphics (the other races look great) Vanguard blows EQ2 out of the water graphically.  Again, the sheer scale and scope of some of the vistas in Vanguard has to be seen to be believed.  EQ2 didn't really impress me at all graphically, then again I don't really like the artstyle so that puts me off quite a bit.

     

    For me, crafting is also better in Vanguard than in EQ2, as are most of the dungeons.  Its hard to explain, but I love the general atmosphere and immersion that I feel in the huge world of Telon.

     

    As I said I think I prefer Vanguard in almost every way.  With some love and attention from SOE (which it will never get) Vanguard could be the best fantasy PvE themepark MMO on the market.  The problem is that there are still glaring bugs and performance issues that have riddled the game since launch.  This, along with no possibility of any decent new content is what kills the game.

     

    To sum up, I wouldn't play or reccomend either of these games.  EQ2 I personally find really 'meh', while Vanguard could be a great PvE game (never a great PvP game though), but it will never reach its potential due to lack of funding and support from SOE.

     

    MMORPG History:
    Playing - EVE Online.
    Played (Retired) - AO, SWG, MxO, WoW, RFO, SoR, CoX, EQ2, GW, L2, Vanguard, LotRO, AoC, TCoS, Aion.
    Favourite MMO - Pre-CU SWG, 3 Years, 4 Accounts, 2 Pre-CU Jedi (1 Pre-9).
    Awaiting - Star Wars: The Old Republic, The Secret World, Earthrise.

  • ShazanneShazanne Member Posts: 4

    Love both games and am currently playing EQ2 extended and would play Vanguard again if they did the same.

    BTW, was it just me or did the red and blue writing go 3D just to keep up with current trends )))

  • TheMaelstromTheMaelstrom Member UncommonPosts: 393

    Originally posted by Daffid011



    Originally posted by dragonbrand

    My point is that lots of people say they like the game but aren't playing because 1) the population is low; a Catch-22 arguement. If they joined more poeple would join. 2) no support; another Catch-22 as SOE would support a game that had more people playing it (EQII for example) and the list goes on.

    There really isn't a catch 22 here.  Either soe feels confident enough to invest in a game to attract players or they don't.  Players themselves cannot affect how much money soe will spend or developers they will commit to a game. 

    For example, players will avoid a game they think is going to die or not going to get enough support like has happened with vanguard.

    However there is no guarentee that if more players joined or spent more money that any of those resources would be reinvested back into the game like eq2. 

    Any additional funds would most likely be siphoned off to one of soes other projects.  That is pretty much all they have been doing for a while now.

    I completely agree with Daffid011. Not playing to cap and raiding because I know there are no developers working on the game isn't a Catch-22. It's being realistic and knowing that regardless of how much *I* am willing to invest in Vanguard, I know SOE is not willing to invest anything at all in it.

     

    As much as I enjoy Vanguard it's, SADLY, a dead end.

    No godless person can comprehend those minute distinctions
    in doctrine that provide true believers excuse for mayhem.
    -Glen Cook

  • teakboisteakbois Member Posts: 2,154
    'With some love and attention from SOE (which it will never get)'

    VG got love and attention from SoE. The game, even with performances fixes and some polish, still showed only decline. There has been absolutely nothing to indicate that it makes sense for SoE to show any more support for the game. What has been done has not helped the game grow, or even stay stagnant with subs. Sometimes you just gotta cut your losses and move on.
  • SgtFrogSgtFrog Member Posts: 5,001

    I have not played either one of them long enough to compare the two but interesting read.

    image
    March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 31,937

    Originally posted by TheMaelstrom

    Originally posted by Daffid011



    Originally posted by dragonbrand

    My point is that lots of people say they like the game but aren't playing because 1) the population is low; a Catch-22 arguement. If they joined more poeple would join. 2) no support; another Catch-22 as SOE would support a game that had more people playing it (EQII for example) and the list goes on.

    There really isn't a catch 22 here.  Either soe feels confident enough to invest in a game to attract players or they don't.  Players themselves cannot affect how much money soe will spend or developers they will commit to a game. 

    For example, players will avoid a game they think is going to die or not going to get enough support like has happened with vanguard.

    However there is no guarentee that if more players joined or spent more money that any of those resources would be reinvested back into the game like eq2. 

    Any additional funds would most likely be siphoned off to one of soes other projects.  That is pretty much all they have been doing for a while now.

    I completely agree with Daffid011. Not playing to cap and raiding because I know there are no developers working on the game isn't a Catch-22. It's being realistic and knowing that regardless of how much *I* am willing to invest in Vanguard, I know SOE is not willing to invest anything at all in it.

     

    As much as I enjoy Vanguard it's, SADLY, a dead end.

    I have to say I agree. And I'm s subscriber. I had to take a few months off but I kept my sub going because I believe that the game needs to be supported.

    Having said that, Sony seems to gather up these games and put them on life support. Instead of gathering up games like the matrix or Vanguard and investing a lot in order to make them superb, they just throw them on the station exchange.

    And as you say, if a company doesn't look like they are 100% behind the game then the players will stay awa.

    I'll still continue to keep my sub as I don't require the same thing that other players require. I just like to log in, explore, take it easy. But I don't see Sony investing heavily in Vanguard with their upcoming games on the horizon.

    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • dragonbranddragonbrand Member UncommonPosts: 441

    Originally posted by TheMaelstrom

    Originally posted by Daffid011



    Originally posted by dragonbrand

    My point is that lots of people say they like the game but aren't playing because 1) the population is low; a Catch-22 arguement. If they joined more poeple would join. 2) no support; another Catch-22 as SOE would support a game that had more people playing it (EQII for example) and the list goes on.

    There really isn't a catch 22 here.  Either soe feels confident enough to invest in a game to attract players or they don't.  Players themselves cannot affect how much money soe will spend or developers they will commit to a game. 

    For example, players will avoid a game they think is going to die or not going to get enough support like has happened with vanguard.

    However there is no guarentee that if more players joined or spent more money that any of those resources would be reinvested back into the game like eq2. 

    Any additional funds would most likely be siphoned off to one of soes other projects.  That is pretty much all they have been doing for a while now.

    I completely agree with Daffid011. Not playing to cap and raiding because I know there are no developers working on the game isn't a Catch-22. It's being realistic and knowing that regardless of how much *I* am willing to invest in Vanguard, I know SOE is not willing to invest anything at all in it.

     

    As much as I enjoy Vanguard it's, SADLY, a dead end.

     Maelstrom -

    Your point is fine. Your reasons for not playing are OK with me too. Daffodils commentary on why the lack of support from SOE is not a catch-22 I can buy into as well. His point(s) are well taken.

    However, taking out my original comment to why you left at mid-30s level and using the second part of my reasoning isn't valid. I didn't use my catch-22 arguement about the amount of players to try and refute your reason for leaving the game. I pointed out that at some point in time all games will stop getting expansions and stop being supported, so that depending on your view of an acceptable timeframe, any game can succumb to your agruement and therefore not be worth playing.

    Gaming since Avalon Hill was making board games.

    Played SWG, EVE, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Rift, Vanguard, WoW, SWTOR, TSW, Tera
    Tried Aoc, Aion, EQII, RoM, Vindictus, Darkfail, DDO, GW, PotBS

  • DaakkonDaakkon Member UncommonPosts: 607

    Their upcoming games will fail...I jus thave a good feeling about it. People will try EQnext but I guarantee it'll be like wow.

  • dlunasdlunas Member UncommonPosts: 206

    Originally posted by penandpaper

    I think the OP is dead on. 

    The only thing I disagree on is graphics.  The autohor didn't factor in character models.  And no offense, but Vanguard has some of the worst looking models out there.  EQ's are pretty and different, and at times stunning. 

    I think that's because the player character was a separate subject.

  • Master-NalaMaster-Nala Member UncommonPosts: 37

    Mardy, your revisionist history aside, SOE stated multiple times that EQ2 is not EQ1 with prettier graphics.  Any thoughts to the contrary are in your fevered imagination.

  • shakermaker0shakermaker0 Member UncommonPosts: 194

    Making a sequel to a game as succesful as EverQuest was and then doing something completely different is a dumb move though. People expected a sequel and they got a spin-off. I think its fair rating the game on EverQuest-ness simply because it bares the same name.

  • tank017tank017 Member Posts: 2,192

     "Vanguard is your game. EverQuest’ness? This game is EverQuest 2 by all rights."

     

    QFT^ 

     

    Ive always felt that Vanguard was the REAL Everquest 2

  • warmaster670warmaster670 Member Posts: 1,384

    Originally posted by EvilGeko

    Mardy, your revisionist history aside, SOE stated multiple times that EQ2 is not EQ1 with prettier graphics.  Any thoughts to the contrary are in your fevered imagination.

    This, if you thought that then well its your own fault.

    Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
    Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.

  • Bad_MojoBad_Mojo Member Posts: 32

    heavy-hitters?

    I can see that applying to EQ2, but unless Vanguard has picked up steam since I played it I wouldn't put it in that category.

    I played Vanguard on three different occasions (About a year after release, 6 mo. or so after that, and then a year after the second try) and every time I would put in a solid 4-5 hours of play and I never saw more than three other characters on screen at the same time.  I ended up quitting because despite mountains of potential, the game had no real single player draw - and that's what I felt like I was playing, a poorly designed single player fantasy tromp.

    A quick search is only showing me two servers for Vanguard?  Is that correct?  If so, opinions of the author aside, I think pocket books have already decided the outcome here.  If I'm wrong and the whittling away of servers has improved the Vanguard experience (it's certainly possible, it worked for both Warhammer and Conan) I'd certainly give it a go again.

  • tikitiki Member Posts: 395

    EQ2 is the narrow sighted game that SOE didn't have much passion in.  Vanguard is the sequel to EQ from the original master mind of EQ.

    East Carolina University, Computer Science BS, 2011
    --------------------
    Current game: DAOC

    Games played and quit: L2, PlanetSide, RF Online, GuildWars, SWG, COH/COV, Vanguard, LOTRO, WoW, WW2 Online, FFXI, Auto-Assault, EVE Online, ShadowBane, RYL, Rappelz, Last Chaos, Myst Online, POTBS, EQ2, Warhammer Online, AoC, Aion, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, Allods, Darkfall.

    Waiting on: Earthrise

    Names: Citio, Goldie, Sportacus

  • Bad_MojoBad_Mojo Member Posts: 32

    Originally posted by Lobotomist

    It was just a frankenstein monster cooked up to combat WOW. In which it laughably failed.

    But SOE keeps and keeps investing all its resources in it ...

    Crazy. ... But thats SOE


     

      EQ2 was released before WoW, and included many features WoW didn't adopt until later.  Having played both from each's respective beta, I'd put my money on early WoW taking the early MMO crown largely due to the far FAR easier system requirements.  In the years since WoW has proven itself and brought many things to the MMO table, but it had extremely little that was "unique" at launch.

  • SonikFlashSonikFlash Member UncommonPosts: 561

    Originally posted by Ozivois

    Originally posted by OoMpAlOmPaZ


    Originally posted by Ozivois

    In this day and age there is no reason to go back and start playing an MMO that is more than 3 years old unless you have a bunch of friends in there wooing you.  So in other words, this discussion is in the category of "nobody cares" unless the purpose is to potentially upset those who are currently playing one of them.

     

    I played both and can tell you that both "were" amazing games.  However, now they are old.  I do miss the bg music for EQ2 though.

     

    I disagree with you, older mmo's are whats good, I just recently started playing EQ1 again, still playing UO, am an alpha/beta tester for EVE and would still be playing it if I didn't get perma-banned. New mmo's suck imo

     I am sure you have social reasons for going back to EQ1 - there is no way you can convince me that it's because it is the best MMO to play these days.

    This is what we call being closed minded.


Sign In or Register to comment.