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?

2»

Comments

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    The idea that all, or even most, EQ fans won't like EQN is a false one. The cause/effect of how different EQN is than its predecessors is held to the individual. It's held as a psychological theory that those who are unhappy are far more likely to complain than those that are, making any forum presence mute. Even then 100 people saying how much they dislike EQN's new direction says nothing.

    Making EQ3 would have been a mistake. Would I have played it? Of course I would, I would love EQ pre-PoP with updated graphics and SB AI. The pieces SoE are putting together go beyond that however and it's obvious they understand what it will do in this genre, assuming what they want works. Which is a different topic by itself.
  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    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.

    WoW.. seriously dude..  Don't get upset at me.. I'm just responding to a statement that I found interesting.. That is >> SOE has a good team and will fix things over time.. I didn't say that and obvious SWG and Vanguard didn't get fixed..  Not sure why you are attacking me..

  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    Originally posted by Aelious
    The idea that all, or even most, EQ fans won't like EQN is a false one. The cause/effect of how different EQN is than its predecessors is held to the individual. It's held as a psychological theory that those who are unhappy are far more likely to complain than those that are, making any forum presence mute. Even then 100 people saying how much they dislike EQN's new direction says nothing.

    Making EQ3 would have been a mistake. Would I have played it? Of course I would, I would love EQ pre-PoP with updated graphics and SB AI. The pieces SoE are putting together go beyond that however and it's obvious they understand what it will do in this genre, assuming what they want works. Which is a different topic by itself.

    That's true, the type of people who will participate in a poll are those who have a strong opinion either way, which means that you and I are most certainly on the far ends of the distribution. That having been said, neither one of us have any idea how many people are in the disaffected crowd, so while it is not factual for me to say there are a lot in that camp, the reverse cannot be claimed either.

    I guess the issue at hand is that there is too much difference, and much of that is not looking like it will be an improvement. That is leading me to be cynical about the inception of EQNext, especially with things like Omeed leaving and disregard of tester input in Beta forums.

    How do you figure that they know what it will do in the Genre Aelious? Again there is some fog here concerning what is sales language, and what is actual design. The information that comes out of SOE is pretty much of the formula:

    We thought that it would be great if in EQNext, you got to have X feature instead of Y like in other games. In EQNext you will be able to do X, and it has all kinds of cool possibilities (one small clip shown). In EQNext you can do X and it allows you to play the way you want to play.

     

     

     

     

    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,456

    There used to be large leaps in quality but not anymore,imo i have seen more degrading game quality than advancement.

    Voxels alone is revolutionary to a mmorpg but what matters most is how you play the game.

    If all one does is login and immediately vee-line for the first yellow marker they see,then it does not matter what the rest of the game does,it will be labelled same old Wow clone.We seriously need to lose this linear hand holding design,gamer's are not dummies with the IQ of a snail,they can think for themselves,yes even the 10 year olds.

    I am playing a game now that has no hand holding,you actually have to learn the world ,surroundings and remember where a NPC is.That is like delving into a world that is realistic,nobody wanders around looking for yellow markers,so why do developers continue with this nonsense.I really fear that SOE does not "get it"all they care about is "how do we grind them for money".I am almost positive we will see more linear questing,more yellow markers and more cash shop.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • KanethKaneth Member RarePosts: 2,282

    The way I see it, any mmo developer is more or less screwed before the game is even released. As other's have mentioned; if it's too similar to WoW then it's a WoW clone and fail. If it's not enough like WoW, then it's fail for whatever other reasons people can come up with (take a look at the GW2 hate).

    So when we are asking if a game needs to be completely revolutionary, then we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. Especially when the entire mmo genre has mostly been about reiteration for going on nearly 20 years now. Each following mmo since the days of Meridian59, UO, EQ and AC have been reiterations of a repeating theme. Certain games have brought some evolutionary ideas to the table; like DAoC showing that the general audience can get behind PvP with a purpose, and WoW reiterating on nearly everything that was in the genre already (and made billions because of that). However, to expect EQN to be the virtual messiah is setting up people for major disappointment in a similar way that many were disappointed in GW2.

    I can see EQN being the next step down the path that ANet started with GW2. Removal of quest hubs, giving more reasons to explore, more action oriented combat instead of cooldown management, etc. However, I also don't believe that it's going to change the face of the entire mmo genre.

    Personally, I am looking forward to EQN. I feel like SoE has some interesting ideas that could bring some nice changes to the genre if they pan out. This isn't a do or die game for me though. I can always play WoW, a game that is familiar and fun for me. I have a very nice gaming community in WoW which makes the game 100% better. If EQN turns out to be the virtual messiah then I can be pleasantly surprised. If it turns out to be another few months and done kind of game, well I can have some fun while it lasts and retreat back to more familiar ground.

  • aesperusaesperus Member UncommonPosts: 5,135
    Originally posted by Rusque

    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?

    What say you, bloodthirsty crazed denizens of the forums?

    There is a frustrating catch-22 going on with MMOs currently.

    On the one hand they need to promise to be new, revolutionary, game changing, innovative, 'unique'. Else, people don't even give the game a second look. And immediately write it off as either garbage, or 'Why play that when i can just go play WoW?' etc.

    However, (and this has been common knowledge for experienced developers for almost a decade now), most people don't actually want innovative. They want familiar, comfortable, 'normal'. They just don't want to feel like they are playing the same game (even if they actually are).

    To make the problem worse, a lot of people keep complaining about being bored w/ these games after a week, a month, and yet are largely unwilling to really give new ideas a fighting chance. Perhaps the most successful example of this (in recent years) would be GW2. A game which tried to do a lot of things differently, and was hailed amongst the developer community, and yet people constantly complained about things like a lack of raiding, loot progression, holy trinity, etc. All things that were status quo for MMOs (and still largely are), but don't really need to be.

    Too many people view MMOs as a shopping list of features. They have a list of things they want, and a list of things they don't. If anything on the list is wrong, the game is automatically a 'failure', and they stop playing. Problem is, everyone has a different list. It's one of the main reasons why a lot of developers have been trying to avoid the term 'MMO' in recent years. It comes pre-loaded with too many expectations. Not enough people willing to treat these games as new experiences, and instead compare them to how they match up to old ones.

    TLDR; In my personal opinion I dont think EQN has to be 100% revolutionary. I like that it's trying new things, and would love to see different mechanics in this game. Yes I enjoyed EQ1 a lot. But I don't need to have a carbon copy of the game with modern graphics. I'd rather have a new experience. Though I'm sure that most others would not share the same view on this.

  • BaleoutBaleout Member Posts: 141
    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 totally have to agree with you on this point this will be a turning point for me in gaming.

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,663
    It doesn't have to be completely revolutionary. It has to be fun, engaging, and reasonably priced.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • ArclanArclan Member UncommonPosts: 1,550


    Originally posted by Rusque
    ...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.


    This is the second time I've seen a poster say people played WoW because they were sick of EQ. Does anyone really refute that WoW's success was due to brand name + marketing + making a fun/funny game that non-gamers could play? Let's not suggest the WoW fan base was made up of lots of EQ players. And for the record, I know very few people who said instancing was great.


    We apologize for the interruption and now take you back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • DamonVileDamonVile Member CommonPosts: 4,818
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by Rusque
    ...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.

     


    This is the second time I've seen a poster say people played WoW because they were sick of EQ. Does anyone really refute that WoW's success was due to brand name + marketing + making a fun/funny game that non-gamers could play? Let's not suggest the WoW fan base was made up of lots of EQ players. And for the record, I know very few people who said instancing was great.


    We apologize for the interruption and now take you back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

    Unless you know some kind of math that would turn the 300-400k EQ players into the 12 million I don't know about...no they couldn't make up most of the player base :) but they could make up 300-400 thousand of them and that's enough to be a vocal minority. I'm sure as a long time poster here you know the effect that can have on peoples perception of what " everyone" thinks.

    And instanced dungeons were great! instancing has just been over done...neverwinter for example.

  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    Originally posted by Baleout
    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 totally have to agree with you on this point this will be a turning point for me in gaming.

    I think you will get your wish. It will be as different as it can possibly be. Maybe even to the point of describing a new subcategory like MOBAthemebox Games.

    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • NagilumSadowNagilumSadow Member UncommonPosts: 318
    Assuming all goes well, it should be quite revolutionary based on the available info at hand. However, not very hair of the characters head needs a mini-mandelbrot universe.
  • ArclanArclan Member UncommonPosts: 1,550


    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by Arclan
    This is the second time I've seen a poster say people played WoW because they were sick of EQ. Does anyone really refute that WoW's success was due to brand name + marketing + making a fun/funny game that non-gamers could play? Let's not suggest the WoW fan base was made up of lots of EQ players. And for the record, I know very few people who said instancing was great. We apologize for the interruption and now take you back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
    Unless you know some kind of math that would turn the 300-400k EQ players into the 12 million I don't know about...no they couldn't make up most of the player base :) but they could make up 300-400 thousand of them and that's enough to be a vocal minority. I'm sure as a long time poster here you know the effect that can have on peoples perception of what " everyone" thinks.

    And instanced dungeons were great! instancing has just been over done...neverwinter for example.



    Straw man argument. I never said 'most.' You did.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • SuperNickSuperNick Member UncommonPosts: 460

    If you expect any MMO to be revolutionary at this stage in the genre's life, you're in for a disappointment.

    The genre is well defined and in a way, complete. All the ideas that work have been tried, all the ideas that don't have also been tried. Pretty much all the genre crosses have been done (MMOFPS, RTS etc), all the ideas that have been thrown out have been tossed for a reason.

    I'm not saying there isn't room for innovation, there absolutely is space to evolve the existing models; I just don't see innovation as revolutionary in any way. It's more honing and tweaking ideas from the past and improving upon them.

    When I look at EQ:N, I do see real potential for a good game. When I play Landmark, I think "god this engine is a mess right now" - so really I'm in two minds.

    Sure, the more fleshed out environment destruction is something a little quirky but again it's nothing new. I remember smashing up buildings in City of Heroes; just in a lot less style is all.

    I personally hope EQ:N delivers a solid, fun, well rounded gameplay experience where I actually feel the desire to log on past the first month. Especially since there is basically nothing else in the way of high-profile MMOs after EQ:N. There's Star Citizen I guess but that's still niché and indie to me personally.

    Given the fact EQ:N is free to play, the engine is quite old at this point (Planetside 2 engine) and it hasn't had a single video for well over a year now.. I'm hugely skeptical..

  • IsilithTehrothIsilithTehroth Member UncommonPosts: 454

    Short answer? Yes.

     

    Long answer is yes because we are long overdue to have the stagnant market revitalized. People are nomads these days flocking to and fro mmos in search of a game that is unique and not the same fare we have had for the past 13 years. Each game may be good in one area but lacking hugely in others. We want unique experiences that are clones like SW:Tor, that offer higher player skill, ABP, Darkfall online, great crafting like Mortal online and SWG, Sandbox features like UO, Runescape, and SWG, territory conquest like Darkfall online and shadowbane, player politics like Eve, and darkfall. Most of us what  is best in a certain game and add it into a game that fresh and engaging.

    MurderHerd

  • SiveriaSiveria Member UncommonPosts: 1,411

    It doesn't need to be, it just can't feel like wow clone #9028474576 like wildstar did and most other mmo's. Wow is the biggest mmo least sub wise, most of the people who stoped playing wow really aren't looking for the exact same game in a new skin, which is generally all that is being made, its why they keep flopping so hard. To me a wow clone is a mmorpg where your forced down a linear path going from quest hub to quest hub with no way to choose where you actually go. I'm sorry but i'd like to choose where I quest and not be forced down the exact same path everyone else is. Because of this mmorpg's have gotten pretty stagnant for me, since they all just feel like the same shit in a diffrent skin in each game.

    Back when I first played SWTOR in beta my first impression bascally was "This game is going to flop as a sub based mmo" and lo and behold it flopped hard. It was literally wow in a starwars skin. Heard its doing pretty good now, I'd try it for the hell of it but I heard the f2p is like super restrictive to the point you can't do much of anything as a free player.

    Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:

    A. Proven right (if something bad happens)

    or

    B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)

    Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!

  • HedeonHedeon Member UncommonPosts: 997
    Originally posted by sonicwhip2
    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.

    the only lie from Anet is made up by posters...they described their events very much on spot before they even showed the game - that fans made them into something more than is ever possible, is just childish hopefulness, Anet never promised permanent changes - ofc Id find 5 min to be too short, but it is still the player who decided to stay around and repeat the event, and see the world go back to its status quo - but honestly Ive seen more of the opposite issue, where people claim there werent enough events to level up, since they only did the heart quests and ran away from the quest chain too fast.

    When it comes with EQN the developers already have described, quite detailed how their basic quests function, when the game reaches certain stages a quest will happen - and the game ofc try to reach those stages. so if you as a player follow every single pack of NPCs, you will see through the "smoke and mirrors", that evil SOE were trying to serve to you as game changing, when infact it is just kill 100 orcs/imps/droags and what else quests.

    But just because you make stuff up yourself, as a fan or troll, doesnt make the big bad game industry a liar, they advertise their product, you listen to what they say, not what you hope and wish they said...it is just a game.

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219

    I don't think EQN has to be revolutionary. It has enough features and polish to see it become successful.

    With the voxel stuff to draw in a whole additonal crowd and mmo crowd too who are after some quality themepark stuff that extends the whole public quest thing into "dynamic" territory further than GW2 and the more MOBA-like combat, with a slick engine I think it will do fine on what it presents.

  • SuperNickSuperNick Member UncommonPosts: 460

    The industry has matured now; it's no longer the experimental have-a-go time it was 10 years ago.

    The only thing companies can do now is evolve the existing ideas and do them better. TERA did a good action combat system? Wildstar did it better. Warhammer introduced public quests? Guild Wars 2 did it better.

    For every mechanic, system and "evolution" that you see now, it's likely to have been done somewhere else.

    The same can be said for a lot of genres now - FPS, RTS, ARPG.. etc.

    Is that a bad thing? Not at all. In a way I think trying to be too different is what's killing MMOs.

    If SOE realize this and just plan to do a really solid modern game with lots and lots of enjoyable systems/content then they have a real chance. If they choose to sacrifice half their game in the name of some gimmick combat system or endless daily quest/raid grind... well, they've fallen into the trap so many do.

Sign In or Register to comment.