I play Landmark fairly consistantly and they are pushing out hefty updates for the content on a weekly basis. The way that the world and everything is set up, they are likely building the tools and the game in parallel to EQN. They haven't been afraid to step back from odd changes that didn't quite work out and I feel that they have been fairly transparent in telling us what they are working on, what problems they are having and listening to feedback in a timely manner.
While I think Sony has squandered their 'lead advantage' they had over competitors by announcing their plans for Landmark/EQN and not having a actual finished product for release back in August 2013. What I am seeing from them now at least shows that they are deep at work at it, and working on it as quickly as they can with untested technology.
I am worried that EQN is still too much of a 'dream' based on the roundtable questions they are asking us. The December 2013 question of "Should there be multiple starting zones for races?" made me flip with incredularity that they hadn't even figured out such a basic conceptual idea yet. But their recent questions have been more in line with advanced development at least.
It's also a bit more comfortable in knowing that they aren't creating lore from scratch, and have the ability to implement existing ideas fairly quickly, and to draw from the landmark creation pool. But in the end we'll have to see. I don't see EQN coming out until late 2015. Depending on the speed of Star Citizen and where it lines up on the release/completion cycle, I pretty much expect Wildstar to be the last AAA MMORPG released for the long forseeable future.
I am worried that EQN is still too much of a 'dream' based on the roundtable questions they are asking us. The December 2013 question of "Should there be multiple starting zones for races?" made me flip with incredularity that they hadn't even figured out such a basic conceptual idea yet. But their recent questions have been more in line with advanced development at least.
Game development is a lot more step by steps than some players believes. You start by implementing basic gameplay and do a "vertical slice" of gameplay. Once that is done you start to create the content and "starting zones" is content.
They said we'd be playing EQ Next by the end of 2013, but now we haven't even seen a video of what the game has to offer outside of some very rough concept videos from E3.
in Nov 2013, SOE announced the Landmark paid alpha would start Jan 2014
No, regarding Everquest Next, not another game, not Landmark, it was said in a tweet from Smedley (early 2013 or late 2012) that we would be playing EQ NEXT by the end of 2013. May have been eluding to a testing phase rather than launch, but thats what was said. Landmark != EQ Next.
Things changed between that remark and that date because they once again went back to the drawing board.
SOE has changed their minds so many times when developing EQN, I don't think even they know what they want it to be. Maybe they've figured it out since last summer, but they've gone back to the drawing board several times on what they want to make. Most recently with the choice to add a voxel engine. Upon seeing what voxels were capable of, it seems to have caused them to rethink everything in order to make better use of this technology. Now I think its gone to their head and instead of making a captivating fantasy game in the spirit of EQ, they want to incorporate moba style classes and combat in a destructible sandbox world with an underlying philosophy more geared towards casuals than that of classic Evercrack. Its mind boggling.
They said we'd be playing EQ Next by the end of 2013, but now we haven't even seen a video of what the game has to offer outside of some very rough concept videos from E3.
I think you are right in some regards, but are losing what I think their intentions are. They said that they could of simply made EQ3 or just another fantasy mmo, but with the addition of Voxel Farm, Storybricks, Forgelight, and whatever other tools they are working with, they want to break out and do something different.
While obviously subjective to our individual memories/history with EQ, it seems very EQish to me. It is the next step and makes sense. Why make EQ3 when neither EQ1/2 are really hitting it out of the park. Sure they are 10-15 years old, but compared to even games many have huge issues with WoW/GW2/ESO/SWTOR, they populations are pretty meaningless. The EQ fanbase does not make up a huge chunk of the mmo one. From the recent lore video, they seem to have a grasp of this and want to make the game welcoming to new players to EQ, while throwing out connections to the past for those that have been here all along.
Shouldn't be surprising that they aren't going the "Evercrack" route as most jumped ship as soon as something less painful came along. Even though the replacement was just as bad. Crack is addictive, not in a good way.
Casuals make up the majority of gamers, but I've yet to hear anything that makes me jump to the conclusion that EQN will be easymode (WoW) style. So far it points to the opposite. A game can cater to casuals - hardcore - average gamers equally if designed well.
Landmark isn't that rough anymore and is a pretty good idea of how EQN will function on the basic level. Obviously no combat/AI/classes or anything, but I wouldn't call it rough. Did you miss the Aug reveal and all the panels? They have quite a bit already out there. Still waiting for the followup to the Iksar concept art they showed a while ago.
The comment you are speaking of was from Smed from Jan 2013. They've obviously done some huge changes since then. While he probably should have a PR person with him at all times, maybe then they did have something that would of been playable, who knows. Jump forward to Aug 2013 and it was obvious that something happened in the middle.
Personally as a long time EQ fan and gamer, I want EQN to be the next evolution of mmo gaming, at least in the fantasy bracket if nothing else. Rushing it or simply doing it like everyone else is not ideal. "Death to Themepark" is good. EQ3 would not have done that.
The small group that wants Pantheon and the "old school" painful addiction isn't going to keep the lights on at SOE and is not going to bring in new players. SOE is looking at the next 10-15+ years, not trying to relive what was fun once but no longer has a place at the front of the line.
But that's exactly what's awful. It's so artificial and hand holding if there's no actual threat or danger in the world. It just pauses when no one's around? Why bother.
Threat/Danger does not exist in games. At least not any I've played. Even in games with permadeath, full looting, and whatever other "hardcore" features, you can always just start again. Threat and danger do not equal challenge to me. As this game seems to be shooting for bringing in the masses, I'm assuming there will be elements to entertain a wide variety of players.
Except we've seen that the masses like consequences for their actions. It makes the world feel alive, and it makes them feel like they're actually making a difference. DayZ wouldn't be the biggest seller if that kind of gameplay wasn't wanted.
But that's exactly what's awful. It's so artificial and hand holding if there's no actual threat or danger in the world. It just pauses when no one's around? Why bother.
Threat/Danger does not exist in games. At least not any I've played. Even in games with permadeath, full looting, and whatever other "hardcore" features, you can always just start again. Threat and danger do not equal challenge to me. As this game seems to be shooting for bringing in the masses, I'm assuming there will be elements to entertain a wide variety of players.
Except we've seen that the masses like consequences for their actions. It makes the world feel alive, and it makes them feel like they're actually making a difference. DayZ wouldn't be the biggest seller if that kind of gameplay wasn't wanted.
While I wouldn't call DayZ "the biggest seller", I do agree people want the illusion of danger/threats. But as seen with the instant popularity of H1Z1, the idea of taking something like DayZ and actually making it have some depth (doubt it will happen) is something people want as well.
We love to get our blood pumping. That is why if you look at the game list on this site, the majority have PVP as an option, regardless if it is meaningless arena scoreboards or OW full loot. People love to compete and prove they are some how better then others in what ever way they can.
There is many ways for players to have impact on the game world and their own character. We've yet to see what SOE really has planned for EQN. Jumping to the conclusion that it will be some hand-holding casual snore fest isn't backed by any facts yet. Not that it couldn't happen, but it seems crazy to think that SOE would restart the project multiple times to try and be different and take the genre forward, and then just end up doing the same old thing again.
Until we start seeing some real "this will be like this" examples and gameplay, we don't know where this game is really going. Personally I think it is going forward, not just treading water like other games in the genre.
Comments
I play Landmark fairly consistantly and they are pushing out hefty updates for the content on a weekly basis. The way that the world and everything is set up, they are likely building the tools and the game in parallel to EQN. They haven't been afraid to step back from odd changes that didn't quite work out and I feel that they have been fairly transparent in telling us what they are working on, what problems they are having and listening to feedback in a timely manner.
While I think Sony has squandered their 'lead advantage' they had over competitors by announcing their plans for Landmark/EQN and not having a actual finished product for release back in August 2013. What I am seeing from them now at least shows that they are deep at work at it, and working on it as quickly as they can with untested technology.
I am worried that EQN is still too much of a 'dream' based on the roundtable questions they are asking us. The December 2013 question of "Should there be multiple starting zones for races?" made me flip with incredularity that they hadn't even figured out such a basic conceptual idea yet. But their recent questions have been more in line with advanced development at least.
It's also a bit more comfortable in knowing that they aren't creating lore from scratch, and have the ability to implement existing ideas fairly quickly, and to draw from the landmark creation pool. But in the end we'll have to see. I don't see EQN coming out until late 2015. Depending on the speed of Star Citizen and where it lines up on the release/completion cycle, I pretty much expect Wildstar to be the last AAA MMORPG released for the long forseeable future.
Game development is a lot more step by steps than some players believes. You start by implementing basic gameplay and do a "vertical slice" of gameplay. Once that is done you start to create the content and "starting zones" is content.
No, regarding Everquest Next, not another game, not Landmark, it was said in a tweet from Smedley (early 2013 or late 2012) that we would be playing EQ NEXT by the end of 2013. May have been eluding to a testing phase rather than launch, but thats what was said. Landmark != EQ Next.
Things changed between that remark and that date because they once again went back to the drawing board.
I think you are right in some regards, but are losing what I think their intentions are. They said that they could of simply made EQ3 or just another fantasy mmo, but with the addition of Voxel Farm, Storybricks, Forgelight, and whatever other tools they are working with, they want to break out and do something different.
While obviously subjective to our individual memories/history with EQ, it seems very EQish to me. It is the next step and makes sense. Why make EQ3 when neither EQ1/2 are really hitting it out of the park. Sure they are 10-15 years old, but compared to even games many have huge issues with WoW/GW2/ESO/SWTOR, they populations are pretty meaningless. The EQ fanbase does not make up a huge chunk of the mmo one. From the recent lore video, they seem to have a grasp of this and want to make the game welcoming to new players to EQ, while throwing out connections to the past for those that have been here all along.
Shouldn't be surprising that they aren't going the "Evercrack" route as most jumped ship as soon as something less painful came along. Even though the replacement was just as bad. Crack is addictive, not in a good way.
Casuals make up the majority of gamers, but I've yet to hear anything that makes me jump to the conclusion that EQN will be easymode (WoW) style. So far it points to the opposite. A game can cater to casuals - hardcore - average gamers equally if designed well.
Landmark isn't that rough anymore and is a pretty good idea of how EQN will function on the basic level. Obviously no combat/AI/classes or anything, but I wouldn't call it rough. Did you miss the Aug reveal and all the panels? They have quite a bit already out there. Still waiting for the followup to the Iksar concept art they showed a while ago.
The comment you are speaking of was from Smed from Jan 2013. They've obviously done some huge changes since then. While he probably should have a PR person with him at all times, maybe then they did have something that would of been playable, who knows. Jump forward to Aug 2013 and it was obvious that something happened in the middle.
Personally as a long time EQ fan and gamer, I want EQN to be the next evolution of mmo gaming, at least in the fantasy bracket if nothing else. Rushing it or simply doing it like everyone else is not ideal. "Death to Themepark" is good. EQ3 would not have done that.
The small group that wants Pantheon and the "old school" painful addiction isn't going to keep the lights on at SOE and is not going to bring in new players. SOE is looking at the next 10-15+ years, not trying to relive what was fun once but no longer has a place at the front of the line.
While I wouldn't call DayZ "the biggest seller", I do agree people want the illusion of danger/threats. But as seen with the instant popularity of H1Z1, the idea of taking something like DayZ and actually making it have some depth (doubt it will happen) is something people want as well.
We love to get our blood pumping. That is why if you look at the game list on this site, the majority have PVP as an option, regardless if it is meaningless arena scoreboards or OW full loot. People love to compete and prove they are some how better then others in what ever way they can.
There is many ways for players to have impact on the game world and their own character. We've yet to see what SOE really has planned for EQN. Jumping to the conclusion that it will be some hand-holding casual snore fest isn't backed by any facts yet. Not that it couldn't happen, but it seems crazy to think that SOE would restart the project multiple times to try and be different and take the genre forward, and then just end up doing the same old thing again.
Until we start seeing some real "this will be like this" examples and gameplay, we don't know where this game is really going. Personally I think it is going forward, not just treading water like other games in the genre.