Howdy, Stranger!

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

Remember -- EQNext was awarded "Game of Show" twice.



  • dinamsdinams Member Posts: 1,362
    Originally posted by Krimzin

    For a game to win Best in Show at E3, that isn't just a fluff award. Games are voted on by everyone and unless it is actually a solid game it wouldn't win. Have there been games in the past that won and were crap, probably. I don't believe this is the case for EverQuest Next.

    There are always going to be supporters and there are always going to be Trolls.

    I choose to be a supporter and could care less what the trolls think.


    On my many years of being a disgruntled mmo player, I discovered that both sides are correct to an extent

    "It has potential"
    -Second most used phrase on existence
    "It sucks"
    -Most used phrase on existence

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by Xthos
    Originally posted by tixylix
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    But PS2 was great.

    [mod edit]

    Seems to be largely opinion, as some hail it as the best pvp experience out there now, and some hate it...  I have not played it.

    You should download it and try it.  It's F2P and it's awesome.

    Even as a level one with starter weapons you'll be able to freely engage and kill anyone given your skill is good enough.  So you don't have to worry about "grinding" gear or levels to "catch up".

    Just jump in and have fun.  If you like it, buy the sub and you get bonus exp/certs to buy different weapons and vehicle unlocks.

    If you don't.  Well no harm done and you can add it to your game experiences.  You can even download it steam, if you like that medium.

    I recommend hooking up with a squad of players and following them around.  Team work and community effort is a large part of the game.  You may not enjoy being a lone wolf, trying to fumble around the game getting shot up.  Play with a squad or platoon for best experience.

    Once you learn the game, you can get away with solo or duo fighting, but to get your bearings, you should group up and learn the ropes.

    Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL

  • tixylixtixylix Member UncommonPosts: 1,288

    There is no sense of progression, the base designs suck, the weapon designs suck, still no sancs or cont locking and all that ever happens is you camp the spawns and the defenders leave and fight somewhere else.

    They took Planetside, dumbed it down and made a new engine.

  • ArakaziArakazi Member UncommonPosts: 911
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by Arakazi
    By that reasoning the Oscars can be decided on trailers or previews that only a select few have seen.

    Games, especially  MMORPGs, are different than movies.

    Movies are a static experience that lasts a very short, finite amount of time.  MMORPGs have huge amounts of content and are impossible to fully view before a review is given.

    Also, by your failed logic, how would YOU having seen the game or read the article the same day the award was given have anything to do with who got the award?

    Would you have phoned the journalist, told him you thought it wasn't good and made him change the award? LOL

    The point is, he saw the product in action, got a low down on the features, mechanics, graphics, concepts, etc, and contrasted that to all the other ones he got to see at the show, and  gave the award to the one he thought deserved it.

    The fact that YOU did not get to see it has zero weight on his decision.

    What the hell?! Nobody got to see it but a select few journalist, and they have a perfect track record on judging how good games are going to be (not). It wasn't open to the public, yet it was giving a reward. We can't scrutinize the game and say it deserved the reward which makes it worthless. Any reasonable person would be at least a bit skeptical about that. YOU didn't see it either, but here you are trumpeting on like some love struck teenager about how great this game is going to be yet you know as much as I do about the game. Gimme a break, your full of it. MMO are given a review based on what a reviewer has played over a few days, they may not play every single dungeon or do every single quest but they have played enough to have a reasonable idea what the game is like. They can describe the mechanics, the graphics and the sound etc. and will show a video and a few screenshots to go with the actual review. With the best of the show they were given about 40 minutes and that was it.

    What did we get with EQNext? Nothing, zilch. We don't even know if that's the actual title of the game, yet there it is with a reward which has become pointless other than to tantalize us. Sorry but I am rather contemptuous about the business.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,526
    Originally posted by Arakazi
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky


    Originally posted by Gallus85

    Originally posted by Kyleran

    Originally posted by Gallus85

    Originally posted by Roin
    I could never accept a "Best of Show" or "Best at Show" that was only shown behind closed doors. Me, personally that would instantly disqualify it from even being considered.

    Why?  That's some weird logic.  The people who saw it behind closed doors got to see it for themselves.  They weren't taking someone's word on it.


    They evaluated what they saw vs the other, public shown MMOs and made the choice they felt was best.  The fact that they got a screening to something others didn't should have zero bearing on what level of quality they thought the game was.

    The picked the best from what they saw.

    Hmm, would it be OK for a movie to win the Academy Award for best picture if it had never been released to the public? Probably not. Game site reviewers seem more susceptible to the hype train than most, and these awards are frequent based more on what is promised vs the final delivery so are not good indicators of future market success.
    The awards they gave were specific to their site.  The only people who needed to see the game to rightfully award such praise are the people who work for and write articles for the sites.  The logic of "It's not fair, I didn't see it, so they shouldn't be able to judge it" is beyond comical.
    They did not back up the award.
    "Why is it the Best of Show?"
    "Because we said so!"
    This does not make for great journalism.


    How many other "interested parties" were there? Why did only 2 out of however many give this award? Kyleran's movie analogy was spot on.

    It may have been the best game at the show. No facts have been presented to support this award. Can't talk about it? Don't give the award. Or accept the hit your reputation will take.

    It's best in show.


    You'll find out in about a week when SOE live hits and the journalists can release their article explaining why they named it best in show and will see the product yourself on August 2nd.

    Why is this hard for you guys to understand?  Does the fact that you're going to hear why at a later date some how negate the fact that they picked what they thought was the best in show?  They would gladly have told us why they had picked it if it wasn't for the NDA.

    Sure that's great for the Journalist who managed to get to see the sneak peak. But to give the rewards to a game they can tell us nothing about until a month and a half later is just bullshit. They should of given it to another game, that way we can have a look at the demos and the videos and examine the content and even have a discussion based on some facts. As it is, they give out a reward and can't give us a single reason as to why they gave them a reward and the rest of us are left scratching our heads while some are wetting themselves in anticipation. It has made the reward pretty much pointless. Don't give rewards to games under a NDA no matter how good it is.

    And somehow people still think their opinion or lack of opinion on a game should somehow affect their decision to award a game.

Sign In or Register to comment.