Howdy, Stranger!

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

Graphics

12346

Comments

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 7,081
    Xthos said:
    EQ only had 1 pure melee character, so their wasn't classes, every other melee was a hybrid that had spells (EQ was balanced around grouping, so warrior almost had to be bland the way they did it, but yes trying to solo level a warrior was like hitting your head against a wall.).

    As for graphics, they are fine, I would rather have content.  They need to work on animations and such, but it isn't even in pre-alpha (they seem to think it is close to going into that phase), and from watching other games, animations/character touches are one of the last things they work on polishing, so it is barely worth nit picking at this point.  They will need to get the animations to be smooth though, a lot of people seem to be sticklers (make or break) for this.  It doesn't bother me that much.


    I agree graphics are fine, I don't even care about the animations.

    I'm worried about coding..... I don't see how people can't understand the difference. 
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 4,122
    Dullahan said:
    Kyleran said:
    Dullahan said:

    No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
    Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.

    It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
    So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?

    I thought that was just a WOW thing. 

    ;)
    Since always. More people thought it was better, but that doesn't make it any less subjective. Regarding better gameplay, yeah I'd say the game with weaker graphics, a clunkier engine and a zoned world that still had 5x the players probably succeeded in achieving better gameplay. Or sorry, gameplay that "appealed to more people" for the sensitive who cannot tolerate such definitive adjectives like 'better'.
    Popularity doesn't equate to merit, and there is nothing definitive about popularity. If such where the case WoW would be incontestably the best.

    Just as the comparative popularity of WoW doesn't cement superiority to other MMORPGs, the comparative popularity of EQ to AC doesn't prove it was inherently better.
  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 9,067
    edited November 2017
    I believe you forgot the monk. That was also pure melee. 

    Why could you all not have done the simple thing of ignoring the person like I said instead of bickering over two games and having a fan hair pulling session.
    Chamber of Chains
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,230
    edited November 2017
    Dullahan said:
    Kyleran said:
    Dullahan said:

    No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
    Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.

    It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
    So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?

    I thought that was just a WOW thing. 

    ;)
    Since always. More people thought it was better, but that doesn't make it any less subjective. Regarding better gameplay, yeah I'd say the game with weaker graphics, a clunkier engine and a zoned world that still had 5x the players probably succeeded in achieving better gameplay. Or sorry, gameplay that "appealed to more people" for the sensitive who cannot tolerate such definitive adjectives like 'better'.
    Popularity doesn't equate to merit, and there is nothing definitive about popularity. If such where the case WoW would be incontestably the best.

    Just as the comparative popularity of WoW doesn't cement superiority to other MMORPGs, the comparative popularity of EQ to AC doesn't prove it was inherently better.
    There is some truth to that.  But then there is NO objective basis to say one game is better than another.  All that can honestly be said is that you like one better than the other. 
    [Deleted User]
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Dullahan said:
    Kyleran said:
    Dullahan said:

    No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
    Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.

    It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
    So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?

    I thought that was just a WOW thing. 

    ;)
    Since always. More people thought it was better, but that doesn't make it any less subjective. Regarding better gameplay, yeah I'd say the game with weaker graphics, a clunkier engine and a zoned world that still had 5x the players probably succeeded in achieving better gameplay. Or sorry, gameplay that "appealed to more people" for the sensitive who cannot tolerate such definitive adjectives like 'better'.
    Popularity doesn't equate to merit, and there is nothing definitive about popularity. If such where the case WoW would be incontestably the best.

    Just as the comparative popularity of WoW doesn't cement superiority to other MMORPGs, the comparative popularity of EQ to AC doesn't prove it was inherently better.
    Think you're missing the point. There is no inherently better when it comes to video games. It's entirely subjective. Nevertheless, you cannot entirely detach a game success from it's value. Yes, that figure can be skewed by things like marketing not afforded to other games, but those numbers, especially in the long term, tell us something of it's value to at least some people.


  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,435
    delete5230 said:j
    Xthos said:
    EQ only had 1 pure melee character, so their wasn't classes, every other melee was a hybrid that had spells (EQ was balanced around grouping, so warrior almost had to be bland the way they did it, but yes trying to solo level a warrior was like hitting your head against a wall.).

    As for graphics, they are fine, I would rather have content.  They need to work on animations and such, but it isn't even in pre-alpha (they seem to think it is close to going into that phase), and from watching other games, animations/character touches are one of the last things they work on polishing, so it is barely worth nit picking at this point.  They will need to get the animations to be smooth though, a lot of people seem to be sticklers (make or break) for this.  It doesn't bother me that much.


    I agree graphics are fine, I don't even care about the animations.

    I'm worried about coding..... I don't see how people can't understand the difference. 
    You aren't being specific enough. What "coding" are you worried about, as graphics are coded you know.

    Netcode, UI, itemization, DBs, core engine, middleware, cloud architecture, client side?
    JamesGoblin

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 7,081
    Kyleran said:
    delete5230 said:j
    Xthos said:
    EQ only had 1 pure melee character, so their wasn't classes, every other melee was a hybrid that had spells (EQ was balanced around grouping, so warrior almost had to be bland the way they did it, but yes trying to solo level a warrior was like hitting your head against a wall.).

    As for graphics, they are fine, I would rather have content.  They need to work on animations and such, but it isn't even in pre-alpha (they seem to think it is close to going into that phase), and from watching other games, animations/character touches are one of the last things they work on polishing, so it is barely worth nit picking at this point.  They will need to get the animations to be smooth though, a lot of people seem to be sticklers (make or break) for this.  It doesn't bother me that much.


    I agree graphics are fine, I don't even care about the animations.

    I'm worried about coding..... I don't see how people can't understand the difference. 
    You aren't being specific enough. What "coding" are you worried about, as graphics are coded you know.

    Netcode, UI, itemization, DBs, core engine, middleware, cloud architecture, client side?

    Lets go back to the original post on page one, it's all explained their.  From, I'm not a programmer to technical problems in the latest video. 

    I'm looking beyond "eye candy" ! 

    Watch the latest podcast on the updated graphics again. 
    - When the team is on the tower, if you watch a player simply disappears.
    - When the player is looking off the tower and zooms out you see clipping of the entire page. Maybe this is reloading the page ?
    - When the Tank goes down, he seems to melt in the ground.
    - When the fighter is in the cave looking below the bridge, his hands and sward are completely clipped from his body.

    Note:
    This is just a fraction of discrepancies, as I just fast watched the video again.

    If you think about early development of mmos, problems such as these plagued Sony Online games the most (EQ1,EQ2,Vanguard). Other early mmos were not as bad for "coding".

    So you listed sub problems..... Take your pick..... Your the programmer, I'm not ! 

    Here watch the video again, and PLEASE look beyond the "eye candy"     

    JamesGoblin
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,435
    edited November 2017
    Kyleran said:
    delete5230 said:j
    Xthos said:
    EQ only had 1 pure melee character, so their wasn't classes, every other melee was a hybrid that had spells (EQ was balanced around grouping, so warrior almost had to be bland the way they did it, but yes trying to solo level a warrior was like hitting your head against a wall.).

    As for graphics, they are fine, I would rather have content.  They need to work on animations and such, but it isn't even in pre-alpha (they seem to think it is close to going into that phase), and from watching other games, animations/character touches are one of the last things they work on polishing, so it is barely worth nit picking at this point.  They will need to get the animations to be smooth though, a lot of people seem to be sticklers (make or break) for this.  It doesn't bother me that much.


    I agree graphics are fine, I don't even care about the animations.

    I'm worried about coding..... I don't see how people can't understand the difference. 
    You aren't being specific enough. What "coding" are you worried about, as graphics are coded you know.

    Netcode, UI, itemization, DBs, core engine, middleware, cloud architecture, client side?

    Lets go back to the original post on page one, it's all explained their.  From, I'm not a programmer to technical problems in the latest video. 

    I'm looking beyond "eye candy" ! 

    Watch the latest podcast on the updated graphics again. 
    - When the team is on the tower, if you watch a player simply disappears.
    - When the player is looking off the tower and zooms out you see clipping of the entire page. Maybe this is reloading the page ?
    - When the Tank goes down, he seems to melt in the ground.
    - When the fighter is in the cave looking below the bridge, his hands and sward are completely clipped from his body.

    Note:
    This is just a fraction of discrepancies, as I just fast watched the video again.

    If you think about early development of mmos, problems such as these plagued Sony Online games the most (EQ1,EQ2,Vanguard). Other early mmos were not as bad for "coding".

    So you listed sub problems..... Take your pick..... Your the programmer, I'm not ! 

    Here watch the video again, and PLEASE look beyond the "eye candy"     

    Apologies, just started my "development" career in June, I'v been a program/project manager most of my career, and my app doesn't have "graphics" ;)

    Sounds like clipping and connecting the avatar to the world are your greatest concerns (not sure what the technical terms are for that), but I understand your point, and I would agree that's very important to resolve. 

    I'll take your word on them btw, rare is the day I'll watch a video, especially about gameplay,  just not what I normally  do. (Especially on phones, way too small)

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,081
    Scott23 said:
    kitarad said:
    Lokero said:
    Kyleran said:
    Dullahan said:

    No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
    Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.

    It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
    So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?

    I thought that was just a WOW thing. 

    ;)
     
    Indeed, numbers don't equal better. There was depth in both games in different ways. I am glad he didn't say it was a sucky game at least. I did play EQ for a while and liked XI better.
    This is a very genuine point.  Back in the EQ era, EQ was basically what WoW became later.

    Most people who played EQ never even tried most of the other MMOs.  EQ required so much invested time that the majority of its user-base hardly glanced at other games.
    Many of the other MMOs that launched in the soon-after era were completely overlooked.  To further complicate things, let's not forget just how niche MMOs were back then, either.  It wasn't like you were constantly hearing about those other games when they popped up.

    Many of those MMOs that followed in EQ's wake, such as Asheron's Call, etc., were victims of the time rather than of inferior gameplay.

    You make it sound like people were living in caves. Any gamer who played MMORPGs checked out other games. I mean what you're saying makes little sense the fact that they found Everquest means they do look for games.


    Not necessarily.  My wife and I were playing EQ when AC came out and we had no desire to check it out.  We were having fun in EQ with our friends (and new friends).  There was no reason to check out another game.  As I remember a few of our guildmates checked it out, but came back because they missed their friends in EQ.

    I don't know if this is just an anomaly or whether people didn't game hop quite so much.


    We didn't game hop as much, back then.  I remember ordering the EQ and Lineage Trials when I started playing in 2000.  I started on EQ, and didn't even make it to installing the Lineage client.  I met a few people that I started leveling with on day one, and didn't want to leave them to try another game.  I ordered the complete game immediately, and subscribed.

    EQ was like a little city.  It really did feel like stepping through that closet into Narnia when you logged into the game.  I think that's what a lot of people miss about it, and those times in general.

    The genre has matured now, so that "magic" is gone.  MMORPGs aren't immersive at all - that is why developers and game companies are trying to move to VR.  Perhaps we will get another EQ when VR becomes commonplace, and affordable for the masses.

    The games back then were such a time sink, and you spent so much time with guild mates and the people you met in game that switching games was almost like moving to another city.

    The entire gaming landscape was different.  A lot of people didn't even have cell phones.  Communication was primarily via email or web forums.  There was no VOIP back in Early EQ.  The only way to really stay connected to those people was to keep playing the same game as them.  If you wanted to talk to those people, you had to log in - for the most part.

    It wasn't until 2003 or so that Internet Access really became a commodity in the first world, and it was possible to reliably use things like Video Chat (in AIM, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, etc.) to talk to people.  But that game's early history was formulated by a market with specific conditions, and people who played to fulfill specific purposes in their lives.

    These days, it's a lot easier to game hop because the social fabric of MMORPGs isn't nearly as strong as it used to be - if it exists at all, frankly.  Because so much communication has been offloaded to applications like TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, Discord, and Skype...  There simply isn't a need to keep playing the same games as your friends.  You can still Voice or Video Chat with them, call them, text them, add them on Facebook or Twitter, etc.  This also leaves games volatile and vulnerable to extreme population shifts or sudden death.

    There is a reason why a lot of really old MMORPGs still run, while many that follow them have faded into history.

    Back in the day, MMORPGs were like our Facebook and Twitter... and iMessage and FaceTime.  They were like social networks, and for some people the primary means of fruitful interaction with other human beings (for whatever reason... they could have been abused, depressed, bullied heavily at school, picked on for their looks/voice/mannerisms/ethnic background/etc. - to a far greater, and "more necessary" extent than they are today.

    The market, and the world, has outgrown a lot of the social usefulness of MMORPG games, but I do think some elements of the "community" has regressed heavily since then, because MMORPG players tended to be a certain spectrum of personalities.  Current games try to bring any and everyone in to profit as much as possible, which creates clashes and can breed toxicity to a much greater extent than me experienced (back then).
    Gyva02
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,081
    Dullahan said:
    Kyleran said:
    Dullahan said:

    No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
    Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.

    It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
    So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?

    I thought that was just a WOW thing. 

    ;)
    Since always. More people thought it was better, but that doesn't make it any less subjective. Regarding better gameplay, yeah I'd say the game with weaker graphics, a clunkier engine and a zoned world that still had 5x the players probably succeeded in achieving better gameplay. Or sorry, gameplay that "appealed to more people" for the sensitive who cannot tolerate such definitive adjectives like 'better'.
    Popularity doesn't equate to merit, and there is nothing definitive about popularity. If such where the case WoW would be incontestably the best.

    Just as the comparative popularity of WoW doesn't cement superiority to other MMORPGs, the comparative popularity of EQ to AC doesn't prove it was inherently better.

    EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC.

    DAoC was successful... enough... because of it's PvP RvR focus.  There is something to be said for that.  It's system was nice.  But the gameplay was not as good as EQ.  Anyone who played both games could see that.

    Graphically, it wasn't that impressive compared to EQ, either, since EQ did update its engine in 2002 - which made a big difference its look and feel.

    DAoC certainly had a better Interface than EQ, though.  It's really funny, cause EQ2 has a pretty awful UI, IMO, as well...  And SoE had more than enough feedback about EQ's to make some of the same mistakes.

    However, EQ's interface became themable/customizeable after the DX9 update, and it had a really active community of modders.  Most people I know ran an Interface from those sites.  Lots of sites in the WoW community are clones of things that popped up during the EQ era (EQInterface, Magelo, Lucy, and that massive Wiki Site that everyone went to for spell and MOB information).

    I actually think that influence comes from EQ players migrating to those other games.

    It's hard to overstate how big of an impact EQ and it's players had on the MMORPG market and gaming culture.

    But, back on topic...  EQ was a better game than AC and DAoC, although those games did do some things [much] better than EQ.

    Microsoft probably regrets not being serious about Acheron's Call.

    Provided there is an end-game in Pantheon and VR doesn't overspec their game (make it so that the system requirements are really high for it to look decent), they'll probably get enough players to at least compete with ESO's player base - at the very lease.  Getting them to pay a sub - particularly if they are gamers of the "new generation" - may be difficult, though.

    I think gamers are pretty clued in on the economics of running an MMORPG.  Many of them are willing to simply go "play something else" while your game withers on the vine, until  you go F2P/B2P.  At that point, they'll come back and demand no "Pay to Win" and other things.

    This is pretty much what happened to ESO.  A lot of the players on PC that still remain are the same people who refused to pay the subscription, but came back later once it was dropped.

    Every niche has its audience, but be careful what you wish for.
  • ScoliozScolioz Member UncommonPosts: 110
    edited November 2017
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.

    The only reason it wasn't as big as EQ was because it wasn't set in the traditional fantasy realm with elves and orcs and shit.  It was too unique in that sense and because of that didn't appeal to the masses of medieval fantasy Nerds.

    If it was along the same D&D'ish fantasy style as EQ it would have been just as big. 



    Gyva02
  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    Scolioz said:
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.


    This is purely a matter of personal opinion.
    dcutbi001[Deleted User]DullahanKiori001

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • Scott23Scott23 Member UncommonPosts: 293
    skadad said:
    All I see are opinions and therefor subjective! ( concerning eq vs ac ) 

    eq1 had rogue warrior monk that were pure melee at start.
    ranger ( dru/war ) paladin ( cleric/war ) shadowknight ( necro/war )  hybrids
    necro wiz mage enchanter - int casters
    cleric shaman druid - priests/wis casters



    You forgot bards under the hybrids :)  It was the ultimate hybrid in that it had aspects of several classes - enchanter, cleric, shaman, druid, fighter, rogue.  A party was always better if a competent bard was in the group :)

    Most parties never even realized it until the bard had to leave...
    [Deleted User]jimmywolf
  • ScoliozScolioz Member UncommonPosts: 110
    edited November 2017
    Scolioz said:
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.


    This is purely a matter of personal opinion.

    no it's a fact...  it had the largest land mass / world of any mmorpg at the time.. and it was seamless / zoneless..

    EQ had neither


    svann[Deleted User]dcutbi001AnthurjimmywolfMrMelGibson
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    If you selectively pick just one or two criteria, you can say anything is better than anything else. Beets are better than bananas - because they are purple and round. Never mind there could be 100 other points of comparison. 
    svannKyleranMrMelGibson

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    Scolioz said:
    Scolioz said:
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.


    This is purely a matter of personal opinion.

    no it's a fact...  it had the largest land mass / world of any mmorpg at the time.. and it was seamless / zoneless..

    EQ had neither

    Specific game feature are factual.

    Best is, and always will be, purely opinion.

    You can list game features in an attempt to persuade others to share your opinion, but you can never "prove" an opinion, because what makes something "the best" is entirely subjective.  For example, I could argue EQ was "the best" based on their implementation of the Shaman and Enchanter classes. It is subjective, an opinion, and it is a fact that, for me, these were the things that made EQ better than any other game.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • XthosXthos Member UncommonPosts: 2,739
    I don't think it is a good comparison (EQ vs. DAoC).  They are different games, and I personally have them in my top 5.   I tried AC as I stated, and I just really did not like it.  I do like a large world though.

    UO/EQ/DAoC, for what they were are my 3 top mmorpgs of their type for me.  I liked Vanguard (yes it had problems, but I had a brand new top of the line computer at the time, got it 3 days before VG released,so a lot of the problems didn't hit me like they did some.), SWG (It had balance/content issues, but it was a good game that needed tweaked, not NGE'd), surprisingly Secret World (I am not a big questor, but I really did like the stories/quests/ease of switching builds, but they didn't have enough money to keep the quality content coming.).

    I play Archeage now, but I think they have killed it with player nations and some of the other things for me.  The blind direction, not too creative pvp content, and they have pretty much ignored pve.  Along with getting worse with their money grabs, but p2w/f2p is a whole other discussion.


    So, when I watch Pantheon videos, I see a lot of EQ, with better graphics so far.  It is too early to know what direction they are going to go with things though, since it is pre-alpha (although we are probably less than a month away from the pre-alpha people getting in), and maybe 1-2 years away from launch.  UI/animations/characters/outfits are often some of the last things that are worked on, so I do not overly focus on those things and if I love them, till closer to launch.  2D UO does not put me off, so as long as the game play/content is good, I have seen no graphic red flags yet.  I do not know how their cash reserves/funding are sitting, but I really hope they have a healthy enough amount to deliver what they say they want to, which is big open world dungeons, big world, good content, and hopefully a good amount of starting cities with unique feel.  I do not see me at least not buying it and playing it.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Scolioz said:
    Scolioz said:
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.


    This is purely a matter of personal opinion.

    no it's a fact...  it had the largest land mass / world of any mmorpg at the time.. and it was seamless / zoneless..

    EQ had neither


    ^never played EQ, and has no idea how big it was. probably read about zones on wikipedia.
    [Deleted User]


  • ScoliozScolioz Member UncommonPosts: 110
    edited November 2017
    When AC1 first launched the land mass size was 1/4 the size of Rhode Island and was completely zoneless... EQ was neither.... and no other mmorpg at the time was either
  • XthosXthos Member UncommonPosts: 2,739
    Antarctica is bigger than Europe, where are you building your house?   I like large game worlds too, but stating that since AC had the largest land mass at launch, it was default the best is silly.  The persons claim it is opinion is correct.

    I dislike instanced housing, some people love it, both sides would claim something superior, for having it their way.  I feel like instanced housing is a bank/closet and not part of the world I am playing in.
    Dullahan
  • MendelMendel Member LegendaryPosts: 5,609
    Xthos said:
    Antarctica is bigger than Europe, where are you building your house?   I like large game worlds too, but stating that since AC had the largest land mass at launch, it was default the best is silly.  The persons claim it is opinion is correct.

    I dislike instanced housing, some people love it, both sides would claim something superior, for having it their way.  I feel like instanced housing is a bank/closet and not part of the world I am playing in.
    The horizontal scale also matters.  A single step of 10 meters is different than a single step of 50 meters.  AC may have claimed to have a larger land mass than EQ1, but were the scales entirely the same?

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,435
    Mendel said:
    Xthos said:
    Antarctica is bigger than Europe, where are you building your house?   I like large game worlds too, but stating that since AC had the largest land mass at launch, it was default the best is silly.  The persons claim it is opinion is correct.

    I dislike instanced housing, some people love it, both sides would claim something superior, for having it their way.  I feel like instanced housing is a bank/closet and not part of the world I am playing in.
    The horizontal scale also matters.  A single step of 10 meters is different than a single step of 50 meters.  AC may have claimed to have a larger land mass than EQ1, but were the scales entirely the same?
    While landmass size is a consideration, i think what content is actually within available landmass is perhaps more important. 


    AmatheMendelKiori001

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    A big world is nice (especially if you can build things in it).

    A lack of zones also can be nice (unless it lags everything out).

    But those are considerations maybe #73 and #74 on a list of what matters most to me in a mmorpg. 

    I never played AC1. It may have been a fantastic game. But I would not lament never playing it based just on world size and zone free play. 
    svannKyleran

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 7,081
    Concentrating on graphics makes everything else take a back seat. 

    The topic is now turning to land mass.  Better graphics time takes away from land mass. 

    I can't speak for AC or EQ1 but I can talk about Vanguard.  It had a lot of empty space because they concentrated on realism.  I for one don't care about realism, however the draw distance was nice to be able to see miles away.  But even still, if this takes away from features then NG.  What keeps people playing are features, graphics may catch the eye but content keeps players playing.

    Housing is another flop in mmos.  Trying to give players a plot of land is a very bad idea.  See Vanguard and ArcheAge, what a mess.  What a waste of time resource that only pisses the players off.



    Now the last developer video was about city building and graphics. It seems VR cleaned up all the flaws from the last one.  No pop in and outs of the players, disconnected hands or odd shaped building placements.  BUT WHAT I DID SEE, is a lot of resource time in making everything look great. 

    I hope this doesn't take away from game play, features and content.  Or worst 5 more years of development only to have a broken game like Vanguard.    


  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,435
    Concentrating on graphics makes everything else take a back seat. 

    The topic is now turning to land mass.  Better graphics time takes away from land mass. 

    I can't speak for AC or EQ1 but I can talk about Vanguard.  It had a lot of empty space because they concentrated on realism.  I for one don't care about realism, however the draw distance was nice to be able to see miles away.  But even still, if this takes away from features then NG.  What keeps people playing are features, graphics may catch the eye but content keeps players playing.

    Housing is another flop in mmos.  Trying to give players a plot of land is a very bad idea.  See Vanguard and ArcheAge, what a mess.  What a waste of time resource that only pisses the players off.



    Now the last developer video was about city building and graphics. It seems VR cleaned up all the flaws from the last one.  No pop in and outs of the players, disconnected hands or odd shaped building placements.  BUT WHAT I DID SEE, is a lot of resource time in making everything look great. 

    I hope this doesn't take away from game play, features and content.  Or worst 5 more years of development only to have a broken game like Vanguard.    


    That last sentence is a valid concern. If development drags too long it can become necessary to do graphics update,  further delaying the game.

    Actually have seen this happen on a few titles.

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






Sign In or Register to comment.