Howdy, Stranger!

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

Does it HAVE to be completely revolutionary?

RusqueRusque Member RarePosts: 2,783

There's a very binary discussion going on in the threads regarding the AI, consequences and "dynamic" events. It seems that there's no grey area, no room for "this is a positive next step in MMO questing" it's all or none.

Does it have to be life altering to be good? What if it's simply better than the current status quo, isn't that enough, or is the size of the difference between what we currently see and might get from EQN the defining factor?

Their proposed system has it's potential weak spots, bots, mega guilds/griefers, etc. But overall it looks like a positive step in creating a more interesting world to run around in. While GW2 didn't deliver what people were expecting, I'd say that people usually don't look upon GW2's questing unfavorably. It's an improvement over static linear quests (even if it's a small improvement).

I think people see new MMO's announced and have this idea that changes happen in leaps and bounds when it's really a more iterative design process. Each MMO draws from previous ideas and incorporates what they think will work for them (and what they're able to do time/money wise).

WoW expanded upon EQ's quests as people were a bit tired of grinding for levels. And introduced heavy instancing to limit and reduce spawn camping and griefing. You look at it now and people complain about how restrictive it is and that they want free open design, but the discussion in 2003-2004 was how this new leveling/dungeon running method was great. It shows, people really responded to it.

WAR brought in some static group events, which Rift borrows and turned into "rifts" which allowed enemies to flood a zone and kind of take it over for a bit. GW2 took those and created spawning chain events that allowed your gathering mission to turn into an escort mission which turned into protect the area mission which turned into kill the boss mission.

And during this time we've seen various iterations of phasing (good and bad), WoW also saw the more dynamic group events and created timeless isle which people responded well to, allowing more free form questing with puzzles, and rare spawns which are sometimes brought on based on a precursor event.

GW2 did (does? have they stopped it?) the living world updates creating new larger scale events that last for a couple weeks.

Neverwinter gave players tools to build their own content - not dissimilar to what we've seen in SRPG editors.

MMO's are basically idea soup and EQN is no different, I do think they're take on an evolving world is a good one and can be a great success if they create it with consideration, but also that it doesn't have to be earth-shattering in its impact. It can just be a slightly better way of creating player content. Still within limits, but not so strict and linear.

What say you, bloodthirsty crazed denizens of the forums?

«1

Comments

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910

    Whether a game is or is not revolutionary, it will be advertised as revolutionary.  So you get people talking about the game as if it is going to be completely different (both both for and against), but you'll also have people challenging the idea that the mechanics actually are completely different.  You'll have groups challenging the mechanics as presented as being workable or not, then groups challenging the mechanics as they believe they'll actually exist as being workable or not.

     

    Sometimes it's a wonder we can have conversations on these forums at all.

     

    With EQN, I don't think there's any debate about how revolutionary the systems are attempting to be.  StoryBricks has been much more than an iterative change in game questing, much less MMORPG questing since its inception.  Add to that the voxel based world and you have a game that is substantially different from existing quest based MMORPGs.

     

    I think most of the discussion is surrounding whether or not the mechanics will work as advertised, and whether they'll work at all, even if they function as advertised.  I don't see many people who are upset by the attempt at being revolutionary, only the potential results.  E.g. the game will be wonderful until a thousand people log in, at which time it will be the same typical game play in spite of the revolutionary game mechanics they are attempting to implement.

     

    Apropos of nothing; I would love to see StoryBricks married to Minecraft.  Like actual Minecraft, not EQN's Voxel Based Take On Minecraft.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • g0m0rrahg0m0rrah Member UncommonPosts: 325

    Does it HAVE to be completely revolutionary?

     It has to be entertaining for more than 1 hour, which by our current mmo standards sounds revolutionary to me...

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130

    I think that creating a game which introduces drastic changes to the current expectation is difficult and, potentially, a death sentence on its own. 

     

    I think they'd be smart to implement a solid game that still remains true to the EQ series and how the previous games have played (with improvements of course). 

     

    Drastic changes do a couple things. First, it alienates EQ fans, so they don't even recognize what they are playing, hate it, and return to old EQ. New players (the ones usually pushing for change) will take a look at it, call it a WoW Clone and then move on. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • cesmode8cesmode8 Member UncommonPosts: 431

    Really cool post, OP.  I agree with most of it.

    I dont love or hate quest hubs.

    I think GW2 is a step up in questing, although what they promised they did not deliver.  Protecting some village means squat in the overall scheme of things.  Theres no real world consequence for events failing and I have posted my suggestion for a system to support this on the GW2 forums as well as the CDI topics...but no one cares or listens.  Briefly, it would be a system like the WvW system.  By controlling and successfully completing events ALL across Tyria, you add to the "player score" vs the "NPC score".  The better you do as a server, the better server-wide bonuses you receive.  Something to that effect, similar to WvW.   With the addition of megaservers, it all but squashed this idea.  Maybe somehow it could work.  I dont know.

    Neverwinter's player made content was overhyped.  Some people were really good at it and made interesting quests.  But there was next to no incentive to do any of it.

    Rift's public events and invasions were really good.  I wish games would do this more where NPCs destroy towns and NPCs/quest givers until you take it back.

     

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406

    OP:

    some perspective might help to understand this. Gaming is a technology. Here is the technology that didn't exist when EQ2 came out.

    BlueRay

    SmartPhones

    3d printers

    Movie streaming on the internet

    widespread GPS

     

    just a few examples//

     

  • cesmode8cesmode8 Member UncommonPosts: 431

    One more thing to add and pretty much sum everything up:

    If you don't make enough changes to the current model, you are considered a WoW clone and we all get upset.  Unless you are able to justify the dev cost vs maintaining only 250-1mil players, then...yeah.

    Or if you make too many changes, people can't get acclimated because they have been conditioned by the likes of EQ and WoW and cannot settle into the new-age MMO.  Alas, we complain again.

    I think there are very few exceptions to this.  GW2 MIGHT be one of them, but we have no idea how many players concurrently play.  Basically, if you want to play a popular MMO, you are stuck with WoW.  If you dont mind playing an MMO that has a substantially smaller playerbase, Id say ~500k or less, then there you go.

    But given WoW's success and the name it has made for itself, coupled with the fact that there are dozens of MMOs out there, we will never see another game with 5-10 million subscribers or concurrent players.  Not unless WoW closes shop.  The MMO playerbase is spread too thin to blob up in a single new MMO.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,744

    I dont see the OP post really meaning anything to worry about. Comes down to two things. 1. Give the masses a new system or security system and people will find a way to exploit it. 2. People mostly follow the path of least resistance, so again people will exploit weaknesses. 

    9 out of 10 times Dev have no clue what the masses are going to do to break the game till its launched. Some testers will find things but not the majority. I can see what you saying is very true and its gona happen. I have thought so for a long time but it wont make me rage quit. SoE has a good team and will fix things over time.



  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,095

    I am 100% positive in my mindset that it DOES.  I have said on several occasions that EQN is the last grasp for me in this genre.  For far too long this genre has been stagnated with the WoW/EQ1 Themepark model and since I grew bored of 6 years of daily WoW play I quit 3 years ago and have been in a never ending spiral of MMO hoping but to no avail.

     

    If EQN isn't fundamentally different from the core on up then I am most likely done with the genre for good.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • cesmode8cesmode8 Member UncommonPosts: 431
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    I am 100% positive in my mindset that it DOES.  I have said on several occasions that EQN is the last grasp for me in this genre.  For far too long this genre has been stagnated with the WoW/EQ1 Themepark model and since I grew bored of 6 years of daily WoW play I quit 3 years ago and have been in a never ending spiral of MMO hoping but to no avail.

     

    If EQN isn't fundamentally different from the core on up then I am most likely done with the genre for good.

     

    I am pretty much in the same boat until I played Wildstar and saw EQN big reveal last year.  Wildstar is still a fun game, I wish I had time to devote to its classic endgame, but I do not.  

    Heres to hoping EQN can bring back the MMO glory days for me while providing enough for the solo player to do at endgame.  And no, I dont want to sit there and craft, do dallies, pvp..Something designed specifically for solo player progression...like a solo player instance or raid that enables character progression.

    Sure Ill join a guild, but I want solo player stuff too.

     

  • OzivoisOzivois Member Posts: 598

    Revolutionary needs to include content that provides more social interaction. These games now with 5 minute, whack-a-mole quests have players running constantly from one place to the next, grouping briefly with another player so that they don't interfere with each other's quest updates, and then disbanding. 

    They really need to get back to grinding camps, grinding areas, etc. The game should be designed so that players within a few levels of each other are able to meet each other to help with content, and then run into each other day after day. Why is all the loot (equipment) nowadays via quest rewards only? (I am talking about you ArcheAge) What happened to rare drops, hunting for named mobs that special rare drops, etc.? In the absence of those kind of features players are basically just questing to max level, do end game stuff for a while, and then done.

    A revolutionary game would provide content that would make grinding camps fun and challenging again.

  • WillowFuxxyWillowFuxxy Member Posts: 406

    EQ2 came out in 2004.

     

    compare the changes in technology in the past 10 years.

    now...

    compare the changes in gaming technology in the past 10 years..

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Overall I don't think EQN has to be completely revolutionary but with the plans they have it would be IMO. They have changed so many things it really has no other outcome that I can see.

    I think EQN does need to be revolutionary to those unhappy with it going away from its predecessors. A validation that the decision to change so much was worth what was given up, something that they wanted to see.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,744
    Originally posted by cesmode8
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    I am 100% positive in my mindset that it DOES.  I have said on several occasions that EQN is the last grasp for me in this genre.  For far too long this genre has been stagnated with the WoW/EQ1 Themepark model and since I grew bored of 6 years of daily WoW play I quit 3 years ago and have been in a never ending spiral of MMO hoping but to no avail.

     

    If EQN isn't fundamentally different from the core on up then I am most likely done with the genre for good.

     

    I am pretty much in the same boat until I played Wildstar and saw EQN big reveal last year.  Wildstar is still a fun game, I wish I had time to devote to its classic endgame, but I do not.  

    Heres to hoping EQN can bring back the MMO glory days for me while providing enough for the solo player to do at endgame.  And no, I dont want to sit there and craft, do dallies, pvp..Something designed specifically for solo player progression...like a solo player instance or raid that enables character progression.

    Sure Ill join a guild, but I want solo player stuff too.

     

    I truly think their open world PvE will be as dynamic as they are shooting for, Im just not sure its gonna keep people playing like they think. Its like GW2 public quest system. At first there was no pointers, all exploring and tester kept posting how lost they were, so they added pointers. 90% of the people left at step 1 of a public quests ending and didnt stick around to see the story develop right in game and the next step to start. In the end they have tones of end game content in all sorts of zones and almost no one is doing them. They all standing in the city in Q for instance dungeons.

    I know I want what SoE is making, Im just not sure the masses will want or get it.  



  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,095
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by cesmode8
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    I am 100% positive in my mindset that it DOES.  I have said on several occasions that EQN is the last grasp for me in this genre.  For far too long this genre has been stagnated with the WoW/EQ1 Themepark model and since I grew bored of 6 years of daily WoW play I quit 3 years ago and have been in a never ending spiral of MMO hoping but to no avail.

     

    If EQN isn't fundamentally different from the core on up then I am most likely done with the genre for good.

     

    I am pretty much in the same boat until I played Wildstar and saw EQN big reveal last year.  Wildstar is still a fun game, I wish I had time to devote to its classic endgame, but I do not.  

    Heres to hoping EQN can bring back the MMO glory days for me while providing enough for the solo player to do at endgame.  And no, I dont want to sit there and craft, do dallies, pvp..Something designed specifically for solo player progression...like a solo player instance or raid that enables character progression.

    Sure Ill join a guild, but I want solo player stuff too.

     

    I truly think their open world PvE will be as dynamic as they are shooting for, Im just not sure its gonna keep people playing like they think. Its like GW2 public quest system. At first there was no pointers, all exploring and tester kept posting how lost they were, so they added pointers. 90% of the people left at step 1 of a public quests ending and didnt stick around to see the story develop right in game and the next step to start. In the end they have tones of end game content in all sorts of zones and almost no one is doing them. They all standing in the city in Q for instance dungeons.

    I know I want what SoE is making, Im just not sure the masses will want or get it.  

    the problem with GW2 is first they had Hearts to guide players along.  I want an old school feel where you decide where to go....as long as you find content instead of aimlessly wander around.  Sparse density of points of interests like Dungeons, Group mobs, dynamic events lead to boredom.  GW2 had a lot of that.  Even minus the hearts you could wonder from 1 end of a zone to another and not find an event taking place.

     

    Couple this with the fact your statement showcased what not to do.....Remove any type of instant content and make eveyr thing open world.  Do not give the players the option to stick around in a dungeon queue.  Open World or Bust.....but that open world has to be rewarding, hard, dense and worthwhile.  If they can capture the spirit of Asheron's Call with lengthy progression, meaningful progression all in an open world then it will do fine.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852

    Originally posted by Rusque

    Their proposed system has it's potential weak spots, bots, mega guilds/griefers, etc. But overall it looks like a positive step in creating a more interesting world to run around in. While GW2 didn't deliver what people were expecting, I'd say that people usually don't look upon GW2's questing unfavorably. It's an improvement over static linear quests (even if it's a small improvement). Agreed..  I have become to loathe linear connect the dots questing..  I don't mind "hubs" so to speak, but they don't need to be connecting and linear as they are..  Instead of having 50 quest that go from A to Z.. Why not just have 5-10 bounty turn-ins..  This allows for more grouping since people are not split up being at different steps in the quest lines.. Gives players more freedom to do what they like in that given area..

    WoW expanded upon EQ's quests as people were a bit tired of grinding for levels. And introduced heavy instancing to limit and reduce spawn camping and griefing.  I never tired of grinding levels.. I actually like a slower progression like EQ.. I don't need to loot a new upgrade every day or rage quit..  People should really step back and look at why they play a certain game.. If loot rewards were removed, would you still play? IMO, so many players are obsessed and addicted to "loot", they ignore the lack of content in the game..

    And during this time we've seen various iterations of phasing (good and bad),  (90% bad).. lol

    GW2 did (does? have they stopped it?) the living world updates creating new larger scale events that last for a couple weeks. YES, good programing, but difficult to understand and keep up with "what to do".. Rift's special events were just as bad..

    Neverwinter gave players tools to build their own content - not dissimilar to what we've seen in SRPG editors. Not familiar with this, but sure sounds like good instanced fun., but should be treated like a hobby with minimal experience, so that it doesn't compete or replace OPEN world gaming..

    Originally posted by CrazKanuk

    I think they'd be smart to implement a solid game that still remains true to the EQ series and how the previous games have played (with improvements of course).  That is what most of us EQ1 vets were asking for, but didn't receive.. 

    Originally posted by cesmode8

    I think GW2 is a step up in questing, although what they promised they did not deliver.  Protecting some village means squat in the overall scheme of things.  Theres no real world consequence for events failing and I have posted my suggestion for a system to support this on the GW2 forums as well as the CDI topics...but no one cares or listens.  IMO, I think the reason why GW2 DE's didn't play out like they wanted, is because instanced dungeons have better rewards then the open world karma farming.. I tried and look for groups and fun at the top tier zones, but they are often ghost zones..

    Rift's public events and invasions were really good.  I wish games would do this more where NPCs destroy towns and NPCs/quest givers until you take it back. Me too,, but same problem as with GW2, I and most others quit Rift because the rewards (vendors) didn't make Rift hunting a viable method of play..  Too many players would rather just queue up for dungeons with better rewards.. This left little to actually fight the zone events, and in off hours = FAILURE..

     

    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    SoE has a good team and will fix things over time. (like they did with SWG  and EQ1 and EQ2?)  lol

     

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by Ozivois

    Revolutionary needs to include content that provides more social interaction. These games now with 5 minute, whack-a-mole quests have players running constantly from one place to the next, grouping briefly with another player so that they don't interfere with each other's quest updates, and then disbanding. 

    They really need to get back to grinding camps, grinding areas, etc. The game should be designed so that players within a few levels of each other are able to meet each other to help with content, and then run into each other day after day. Why is all the loot (equipment) nowadays via quest rewards only? (I am talking about you ArcheAge) What happened to rare drops, hunting for named mobs that special rare drops, etc.? In the absence of those kind of features players are basically just questing to max level, do end game stuff for a while, and then done.

    A revolutionary game would provide content that would make grinding camps fun and challenging again.

    exactly exactly exactly.. 

         I have been preaching this for years, but no one is listening..  The linear quest system is ANTI social & ANTI group..  Players are all over the place at different steps and phases to whack a mole quest hub..  Seldom to people group, unless it's just a short lived thing so they aren't stepping on each others quest target..   Instead I would like to see the entire linear quest system scrapped and replaced with bounty system..  Remember in EQ, when you could turn in gnoll teeth, or deathfist belts and receive XP, faction and coin?  That is what I would like to see..  It gives players more freedom to group up and play in the areas they want to.. 

         I agree that I'm not a fan that I have to DO EVERY SINGLE quest in the linear quest chain, or I lose out on valuable equipment upgrades (almost required)..  I do like what GW2 does with a Karma system with vendors..  Too many loot drops too.. I remember when you would get an upgrade, it would last you for weeks.. Shit, these days you get a new upgrade every 5 minutes..  Hello Monty Hall, I'll take what is behind curtain #2..  I win !!!!!!.. 

         For me.. slow the game down and make the games more about content, NOT "chase the loot carrot"..

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    the problem with GW2 is first they had Hearts to guide players along.  Agreed.. replacing a ! with a heart didn't fool me..  I want an old school feel where you decide where to go... Ditto, I either went out exploring for new content or I asked fellow players in game direction to go..  .as long as you find content instead of aimlessly wander around.  Sparse density of points of interests like Dungeons, Group mobs, dynamic events lead to boredom.  GW2 had a lot of that.  Even minus the hearts you could wonder from 1 end of a zone to another and not find an event taking place. Agreed.. GW2's DE system needs tweaked..  

    Couple this with the fact your statement showcased what not to do.....Remove any type of instant content and make eveyr thing open world.  Do not give the players the option to stick around in a dungeon queue.  << this I couldn't agree with you more.. I think instancing is a cancer to open world gaming..  Open World or Bust.....but that open world has to be rewarding, hard, dense and worthwhile.  If they can capture the spirit of Asheron's Call with lengthy progression, meaningful progression all in an open world then it will do fine.

    I was hoping that GW2 and Rift fulfilled that.. but they fell short as they allowed for instancing with better rewards.. The open world is more of a ghost town then anything..  If it was up to me.. I would shit can all instanced dungeon, created more open world dungeons, and promote reasons to group up..  I miss grouping up with friends, strangers that became new friends day after day doing open world content..  

    I"m just not convinced that EQN is going to do that.. and again that twitch combat system is a game breaker for me.. It's not an improvement, it is just a different way, and one that I don't like..  It's like comparing CivV (which is turn based) to Starcraft (which is real time).. One is not better or worse, it's just preference of style..  BTW.. I"m a turn base kind of guy..  The only real time strategy game I enjoyed was Command and Conquer Generals..

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,744
    Originally posted by Rydeson

    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    SoE has a good team and will fix things over time. (like they did with SWG  and EQ1 and EQ2?)  lol

     

    EQ1 and EQ2 are two of the longest running MMOs out there and doing very well and both have a wack of expansions under their belt and one of the best online communities I have played with. You knock the validity of the MMO that made MMOing what it is today, EQ1, you lose all footing. The people who built EQ1 still work for SoE and many of them are working on EQN. 



  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by Rydeson

    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    SoE has a good team and will fix things over time. (like they did with SWG  and EQ1 and EQ2?)  lol

    EQ1 and EQ2 are two of the longest running MMOs out there and doing very well and both have a wack of expansions under their belt and one of the best online communities I have played with. You knock the validity of the MMO that made MMOing what it is today, EQ1, you lose all footing. The people who built EQ1 still work for SoE and many of them are working on EQN. 

         I think the comment was "FIXING" things..   You don't fix what isn't broken..  I noticed you didn't include SWG in your comments..  EQ1 wasn't broken before SOE started messing around with it..  The vets of EQ1 which does INCLUDE ME, will tell you that PoP expansion was a major step in the wrong direction and was the start of their decline..  If anything.. PoP broke EQ1, and the community was never the same..  So lets not pretend that EQ1 is as strong as once was..  As for EQ2, it was broken the day it launched, and SOE had to scramble to salvage what was left of it..

    BTW.. did SOE fix Vanguard too?   I think most will agree with me that SOE does NOT have the Midas touch, but I could be wrong.. 

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,744
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by Rydeson

    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    SoE has a good team and will fix things over time. (like they did with SWG  and EQ1 and EQ2?)  lol

    EQ1 and EQ2 are two of the longest running MMOs out there and doing very well and both have a wack of expansions under their belt and one of the best online communities I have played with. You knock the validity of the MMO that made MMOing what it is today, EQ1, you lose all footing. The people who built EQ1 still work for SoE and many of them are working on EQN. 

         I think the comment was "FIXING" things..   You don't fix what isn't broken..  I noticed you didn't include SWG in your comments..  EQ1 wasn't broken before SOE started messing around with it..  The vets of EQ1 which does INCLUDE ME, will tell you that PoP expansion was a major step in the wrong direction and was the start of their decline..  If anything.. PoP broke EQ1, and the community was never the same..  So lets not pretend that EQ1 is as strong as once was..  As for EQ2, it was broken the day it launched, and SOE had to scramble to salvage what was left of it..

    BTW.. did SOE fix Vanguard too?   I think most will agree with me that SOE does NOT have the Midas touch, but I could be wrong.. 

    Part highlighted is all you needed to say. Didnt talk SWG because I dont play SiFi games often and dont know much about it. Im a 1999 vet as well. Played EQ1 from launch day for 6 years straight. Came back a few times over the years and it still had a great end game community and a great game. Got married and Wife didnt like how old school it was so we jumped to EQ2 and again great end game community and again one of the most sold MMOs I have played to date and I have been around the block. As for Vanguard, when the lead developer has a failing game because of his drug habits, I dont think SoE should have ever tried to save that game as it was a fail long before they touched it. Fact they kept its doors open as long as they did I was shocked. As for the Midas touch, even Blizzard's WoW is here because of the developers that work for SoE and what they made with EQ1 into. They are the developers that made this industry what it is today. 



  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405

     

    SOE seems to have a talent for fucking the fans. They are experts at having an abusive relationship with their customers. They give you just enough to want to play, to want their product and then they inevitably do something that becomes an obvious knife in the back but is justified as "A New Direction," "New Gaming Experience," "A Home for Displaced Fans." I applaud SOE for their ability to do this perennially.

    I would have loved to see the Storybricks stuff put into a game that looked like that very early leaked art of EQ3. They instead chose to go sort of Minecraft, but not full; cartoon graphics that are admittedly better than the previous games in fidelity but also have no common ancestor in previous games and don't even look as good as the style used in SWTOR, which came out a while ago. Then they put in action combat without the familiar roles, and made the characters able to have all of the classes so there was no reason to get rid of the Trinity because anyone can be anything.

    Then the gods were slain.

    The new mythology bears no resemblance to the original EQ. This was the last bit of familiarity that many people seemed to be hanging on to. It seems that Dave Georgeson has decided that in the case of Everquest, Greedo indeed shot first.

    The Pollyanna EQN forums are starting to now register as many complaints as glowing reviews of features as of yet unseen, but assumed to be the fulfillment of your MMO dreams. Why would you assume that? Because they fucking told you as much with sales-speak. SOE shrewdly saw the discontent in the MMORPG marketplace, watched forums like these, looked at sales trends and surmised that what the MMORPG community wanted was a savior

    The rhetoric was designed to entice you into worshipping the one game that will deliver the future. To make this thing seem more friendly it will be Free to Play (see how ungreedy we are?), and it will have a round table so that there will be democracy. The rest of the features would take the existing mechanics of MMOs and simply use the converse. The EQ IP was sacrificed to further pull in the audience, considering the game actually has nothing to do with EQ anyway. The result was a game that is designed to capitalize on MMORPG user ennui, and rake in dollars through the entrance and satisfaction cycle.

    Well that's business isn't it? Certainly companies must make a profit, and if they do so by meeting a need there is nothing wrong with that. While these statements are true, they are also the camouflage by which the whole thing is supposed to function. Smedley (you should trust this guy about as much as you can throw him, and he looks like he is about 260) and the Dev team are making a new game with an old SOE dynamic: Use the game as a marketing platform and make it bend to those winds, period. EQNext is their most ambitious effort to date because they are targeting everyone, and the rest of the companies out there have given them the opening they needed to do this.  The final piece they need are useful idiots with fat wallets.

     

    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • DamonVileDamonVile Member CommonPosts: 4,818
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by Rydeson

    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    SoE has a good team and will fix things over time. (like they did with SWG  and EQ1 and EQ2?)  lol

    EQ1 and EQ2 are two of the longest running MMOs out there and doing very well and both have a wack of expansions under their belt and one of the best online communities I have played with. You knock the validity of the MMO that made MMOing what it is today, EQ1, you lose all footing. The people who built EQ1 still work for SoE and many of them are working on EQN. 

         I think the comment was "FIXING" things..   You don't fix what isn't broken..  I noticed you didn't include SWG in your comments..  EQ1 wasn't broken before SOE started messing around with it..  The vets of EQ1 which does INCLUDE ME, will tell you that PoP expansion was a major step in the wrong direction and was the start of their decline..  If anything.. PoP broke EQ1, and the community was never the same..  So lets not pretend that EQ1 is as strong as once was..  As for EQ2, it was broken the day it launched, and SOE had to scramble to salvage what was left of it..

    BTW.. did SOE fix Vanguard too?   I think most will agree with me that SOE does NOT have the Midas touch, but I could be wrong.. 

    Vanguard was broken long before SOE ever took it over. In fact doesn't something actually need to work before it can be broken ?

    And if you don't think SWG was broken and needed fixing you didn't know much about the game. It had a lot of great features going for it and the NGE was a sledgehammer to the face but that doesn't mean the game was healthy and growing before it happened. So in it's case it needed work and lots of it but it got all the wrong changes.

  • sonicwhip2sonicwhip2 Member Posts: 86
    I'm just hoping they dont do what guildwars 2 did and advertise a dynamic changing world that is just the same events repeating every 5-10 minutes. Anet has gotten away with advertising the biggest lie in mmo history and people still respect them and play their game.
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    SoE wants to be a trend setter, not a trend follower. For the first time since EQ they have that chance and are taking it. Some may not like that and come up with all sorts of name calling and conspiracy theories but there are two certainties: 1, SoE wants EQN to be successful and 2, they want people to enjoy it for a long period of time.

    The second part of #2 is important, "a long period of time." This concept is the reason for most of the features complained about by those wanting EQ3. Which is surprising since part of what made EQ great IMO was how long I played, how invested I got in logging in every night.

    Let's take the lore, for example. How long could EQN have carried yet another version of the same lore before it got predictable? One year? Two? Five? Stories will be happening all over the new Norrath on a constant basis. Let's keep in mind the other two EQ's, that more or less share the same timeline, are still going and expanding those stories. Really want to add a third over the next ten years?

    SoE is not perfect, no company is, but they have been making MMOs for almost the last 20 years. I'll trust their call on EQN because they also have the most to lose.
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    Originally posted by Aelious
    SoE wants to be a trend setter, not a trend follower. For the first time since EQ they have that chance and are taking it. Some may not like that and come up with all sorts of name calling and conspiracy theories but there are two certainties: 1, SoE wants EQN to be successful and 2, they want people to enjoy it for a long period of time.

    The second part of #2 is important, "a long period of time." This concept is the reason for most of the features complained about by those wanting EQ3. Which is surprising since part of what made EQ great IMO was how long I played, how invested I got in logging in every night.

    Let's take the lore, for example. How long could EQN have carried yet another version of the same lore before it got predictable? One year? Two? Five? Stories will be happening all over the new Norrath on a constant basis. Let's keep in mind the other two EQ's, that more or less share the same timeline, are still going and expanding those stories. Really want to add a third over the next ten years?

    SoE is not perfect, no company is, but they have been making MMOs for almost the last 20 years. I'll trust their call on EQN because they also have the most to lose.

    Yeah but successful is relative, and can be achieved in a short amount of time compared to contemporary launches. There is too much of the This is exactly what you want type talk. The two posiibilities that exist on this are that they are either too ignorant to realize what they are doing, or they have purposely decided to market the game as Snake Oil because there has been so many failed launches that at this point it doesn't matter.

    No one is holding a gun to their head saying SOE is over for good if EQNext doesn't outperform WoW, so they can release this thing, let it soak money, and then let it float down the stream with the jetsom of peer MMORPGs while doing R&D.

    Why did they make some of these dubious design decisions that do not work particularly well together?

    The given reason is that SOE cares. The problem with that is that they are making the sausage, they are not going to be players in that sense. Another problem with that is that they have decided to steamroll the fans who are a concrete segment of the population. You know who they are, you can quantify them. So you care, but you decide to kill everything the fans liked, in order to do what exactly?

    Note: I apologize to fans of the game for the Useful Idiots remark, as I meant it to be a description from the SOE perspective, not as a description of founders in an objective sense.

    I hate conspiracy theories, but given Smedley's past behavior I think this is not unthinkable. The Market has been screaming for something else. Poof I give you EQNext: Every Next Gen feature in one box, and by Next Gen I mean console too. Step right up, Step right up.

     

    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Sign In or Register to comment.