EQNext" will be the world's largest sandbox-style MMO ever made"

DarkStryke said:
RZ was fine, it was TZ & VZ that had the large problems, and it was almost entirely due to the rule-sets used.

It's not just rose coloured nostalgia, most "PVP" games these days offer nothing but a cheap arcade experience. If people are going to be dicks in a modern game, there's literally nothing that can be done about it. Players policing themselves (exploits aside), was kind of the whole thing that made EQ, UO, etc work.
Click to expand...

No, EQ PVP was bad on all servers. There was no player policing and it was all abut the massive inbalances and exploits. Look at the crap Fansy pulled. As someone who was actually there in early PVP thats the kind of crap that was going on constantly. If you actually ran into someone to fight it was either a class that was OP or an exploiter.
 
Stiler said:
Look at modern shooters. They have developed a system for rewarding playing longer with new weapons , cosmetic items, etc but the gameplay is still largely skill based.

The weapons you unlock aren't neccessarily "Better" then the ones you start with just different.



Also look at a game like Mount and Blade, it mixes both RPG style progression with SKILL based combat extremely well. A newebie low lv character can still kill someone if they have good skill.
Click to expand...

i've watched mount and blade vids. it sounds like the game you're looking for is not a MMO, but a FPS. since halo 2 (i think?), FPS games have been incorporating MMORPG elements into them to get people to play them longer.

the rather new genre of game MOBA might appeal to you as well.

someone really needs to turn the MMO genre on its head, as most genres of gaming have stolen the good parts of MMORPG'S and successfully incorporated them into their design to increase player enjoyment and interaction. while on the other hand, MMORPG's keep getting shiny-new graphics, but the game play has completely stagnated since the behemoth WoW stifled all innovation in the genre.
 
Disposed said:
No, EQ PVP was bad on all servers. There was no player policing and it was all abut the massive inbalances and exploits. Look at the crap Fansy pulled. As someone who was actually there in early PVP thats the kind of crap that was going on constantly. If you actually ran into someone to fight it was either a class that was OP or an exploiter.
Click to expand...

Oh fansy how I miss his stories...
 
andrewbub said:
i've watched mount and blade vids. it sounds like the game you're looking for is not a MMO, but a FPS. since halo 2 (i think?), FPS games have been incorporating MMORPG elements into them to get people to play them longer.

the rather new genre of game MOBA might appeal to you as well.

someone really needs to turn the MMO genre on its head, as most genres of gaming have stolen the good parts of MMORPG'S and successfully incorporated them into their design to increase player enjoyment and interaction. while on the other hand, MMORPG's keep getting shiny-new graphics, but the game play has completely stagnated since the behemoth WoW stifled all innovation in the genre.
Click to expand...

How the hell did what I say mean I don't want an mmo?

What you said makes no sense, you say I don't want an mmo because I want combat that's more skill-based. Then you go on to say you want someone to turn mmo's on their head and that the gameplay has gotten stagnate.

Part of the reason the genre has gotten stale is becuase of that line of thinking, that mmo's "MUST" be strict rpg's.

Mount and Blade (the single player) is extremely rpg based You make a character, you level up and build up your skills and attributes, which CAN affect combat in slight ways. However the combat is skill based to a great degre, much more then your usual rpgs, to a point that any new player can still take down tougher enemies.

MMO's aren't like your other genres of games. They aren't defined by the combat or must mmo's be "rpgs" (IE WWIIonline, The short lived Alliegence space mmo, and Planetside are examples of this).


When it does come to mmoRPGS though I feel they have also gotten stagnate. One only has to look at where the single player rpg market is. A lot of the more popular rpgs, like TES, Mass Effect, etc have moved toward a more player skill combat and less "Die roll" style that rpgs used to be.

TES as an example, go back to Morrowind, the game had it's die roll focus in combat. You could swing your sword, and visually clearly see it "hit" the enemy, but because of the design and being tied to a die roll system if it rolled a miss, even if the player themselves "hit" it still counted asa miss. This created a disconnect for many players and was one of the few negative things many people disliked about morrowind. After this in Oblivion and Skyrim it was changed, if you hit something yourself, you hit it, no die roll to hit.

MMOrpgs , for the most part, have gotten stuck chasing their own tails. After EQ came out most AAA backed mmo's followed it's core formula. The "trinity" setup, the theme-park designed world, where you go is more dependent on your level and feeding through quest lines. WoW itself was built around this same formula and with it's huge success it only helped other AAA publishers look at mmo's and think "This is how we must make them."

The combat is hands down the WORST (imo) aspect of most mmorpgs, from EQ, to WoW, SW:TOR, etc. It's simply not that fun for most people. Sitting there, hitting the number keys in preset patterns (as usual in most mmo's you find one pattern that best maximizes your dps and that's what you use most of the time). Then combat is just repeating that set pattern, over, and over, and over. Fighting mobs that just stand around int he world waiting for people to kill them.

IF they made any current action game have the same combat and AI of an mmo, it would be one of the lowest rated games of all time.

With EQnext they have talked about wanting to change things, to have a leap forward. I for one hope that htat leap includes combat.
 
Stiler said:
How the hell did what I say mean I don't want an mmo?
Click to expand...

you keep talking about skill based and not time based pvp.


this already exists. but it doesn't exist in MMO's. if there wasn't a reward for sinking tons of hours into the game, no one would play it.

i hope in the future the mmorpg genre can adapt and implement some of these features, but for the time being devs aren't taking any risks.

skill based pvp exists in MOBA's, and FPS games. mount and blade/war of the roses/chivalry (or whatever the name of the new one is) are all melee FPS games if you look at them for what they really are.
 
andrewbub said:
you keep talking about skill based and not time based pvp.


this already exists. but it doesn't exist in MMO's. if there wasn't a reward for sinking tons of hours into the game, no one would play it.

i hope in the future the mmorpg genre can adapt and implement some of these features, but for the time being devs aren't taking any risks.

skill based pvp exists in MOBA's, and FPS games. mount and blade/war of the roses/chivalry (or whatever the name of the new one is) are all melee FPS games if you look at them for what they really are.
Click to expand...


WWIIonline, pure fps mmo.
Planetside (and the upcoming planetside 2)


As far as time invested/rewards, did you read my earlier post? You can still give rewards, allow character building (like Mount and Blade), give new equipment, more customization options, weapons, etc but you do NOT have to make it so that time invested = I Win button in pvp.

MMo's need to stop looking at the "carrot on a stick" routine to keep people playing and strung out. It got old in EQ and has been beaten to death by now. It's repeitive, boring, and one of the main reasons people burn out on mmo's.

What they need to do is put GAMEPLAY, not "time invested" as the main focus. Make combat actually FUN and exciting, not an archaic out-dated "I played more then you, so I win" but actually fun.

Why do you think people play Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, and other popular >action< games? Because it's just simple fun, you do not NEED to reward time investment in an mmorpg through harming the player skill involvement in combat and making higher levels far outclasas lower ones. There are many many different ways to reward players for playing the game through customization (and yes, people WILL play to unlock more customization options, hell League of Legends , which is the most played free-to-play game and even surpassed Halo/CoD, survives on people buying customization skins and things).

If they made an mmorpg, where the combat was fun, exciting, dynamic, people WOULD play, you do not need to hold their hand or play the carrot on a stick trap, that's why we are so stuck in mmo's that are built around it. Just kill shit to get "ph4t l00t" to kill bigger shit to get even better "ph4t l00t" to rinse and repeat ad nausem til you get the end game, then quit and wait for the next expansion to come back and do it again and again, until finally many people wake up and realize how mundane and boring that is and grow tired of it.
 
Disposed said:
No, EQ PVP was bad on all servers. There was no player policing and it was all abut the massive inbalances and exploits. Look at the crap Fansy pulled. As someone who was actually there in early PVP thats the kind of crap that was going on constantly. If you actually ran into someone to fight it was either a class that was OP or an exploiter.
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me. EQ PvP was a thousand times better than this trivial battleground noob crap that is "PvP MMORPG's" today. Anyone who says otherwise is either clueless or wasn't any good at it to begin with.
 
Disposed said:
No, EQ PVP was bad on all servers. There was no player policing and it was all abut the massive inbalances and exploits. Look at the crap Fansy pulled. As someone who was actually there in early PVP thats the kind of crap that was going on constantly. If you actually ran into someone to fight it was either a class that was OP or an exploiter.
Click to expand...

Fansy existed because SOE put in the "cannot be killed under level 6" rule in there to make PVP more appealing to carebears "I got PVPed at lvl 3 waaah." Sure there were exploits. The main one is if you deleveled, you didn't lose your skills. I had a lvl 50 ranger on Rallos that I deleveled on purpose back to lvl 5, so I could attack level 1's with my trueshot ranger bow and one shot the bastards because I had 200 bow skill, not to mention 200 duel wield, 200 double attack, 200 defense, 200 parry. Nnot to mention the plane of fear ranger armor (no drop). I was basically invincible. That is why they put in the level 6 rule which produced Fansy. Instead they could have just fixed the problem and made it so you lost your skill when you deleveled. They did, eventually, after the level 6 rule was already in place.
 
Vega said:
You've got to be kidding me. EQ PvP was a thousand times better than this trivial battleground noob crap that is "PvP MMORPG's" today. Anyone who says otherwise is either clueless or wasn't any good at it to begin with.
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me. UO PvP was a thousand times better than this heavily population/gear/class imbalanced noob crap that was "PvP MMORPG's" of yesteryear. Anyone who says otherwise is either clueless or wasn't any good at it to begin with.
 
Stiler said:
WWIIonline, pure fps mmo.
Planetside (and the upcoming planetside 2)


As far as time invested/rewards, did you read my earlier post? You can still give rewards, allow character building (like Mount and Blade), give new equipment, more customization options, weapons, etc but you do NOT have to make it so that time invested = I Win button in pvp.

MMo's need to stop looking at the "carrot on a stick" routine to keep people playing and strung out. It got old in EQ and has been beaten to death by now. It's repeitive, boring, and one of the main reasons people burn out on mmo's.

What they need to do is put GAMEPLAY, not "time invested" as the main focus. Make combat actually FUN and exciting, not an archaic out-dated "I played more then you, so I win" but actually fun.

Why do you think people play Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, and other popular >action< games? Because it's just simple fun, you do not NEED to reward time investment in an mmorpg through harming the player skill involvement in combat and making higher levels far outclasas lower ones. There are many many different ways to reward players for playing the game through customization (and yes, people WILL play to unlock more customization options, hell League of Legends , which is the most played free-to-play game and even surpassed Halo/CoD, survives on people buying customization skins and things).

If they made an mmorpg, where the combat was fun, exciting, dynamic, people WOULD play, you do not need to hold their hand or play the carrot on a stick trap, that's why we are so stuck in mmo's that are built around it. Just kill shit to get "ph4t l00t" to kill bigger shit to get even better "ph4t l00t" to rinse and repeat ad nausem til you get the end game, then quit and wait for the next expansion to come back and do it again and again, until finally many people wake up and realize how mundane and boring that is and grow tired of it.
Click to expand...

You want EQNext not to be an RPG, it seems. Custom skins and titles aren't character progression. While player skill plays an important role (even in EQ), the power of the character you've built should grow as you level and get better gear. Otherwise, it would just be an action game in a fantasy setting. There are plenty of those to choose from, not sure why you'd have such a vested interest in seeing EQNext turn into that.

Yes, having skill should be rewarded, but not rewarding time and effort is a recipe for a different genre.
 
eurin said:
You've got to be kidding me. UO PvP was a thousand times better than this heavily population/gear/class imbalanced noob crap that was "PvP MMORPG's" of yesteryear. Anyone who says otherwise is either clueless or wasn't any good at it to begin with.
Click to expand...

UO wasn't even the same class of game. 2D map overhead view is more akin to Diablo than EQ.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
You want EQNext not to be an RPG, it seems. Custom skins and titles aren't character progression. While player skill plays an important role (even in EQ), the power of the character you've built should grow as you level and get better gear. Otherwise, it would just be an action game in a fantasy setting. There are plenty of those to choose from, not sure why you'd have such a vested interest in seeing EQNext turn into that.

Yes, having skill should be rewarded, but not rewarding time and effort is a recipe for a different genre.
Click to expand...


Where did I mention, and why are you so hung up on, telling me I don't want an RPG?


You seen arpg as defined by boring ass special-spam combat? Making level based characters that are "uber" over lower level based characters?

Have you played Skyrim? Mount and Blade? Gothic? Ultima Online? All of these are great RPGS that have combat that is by far more skill-based then usual mmorpgs. Y ou can still have character progression, gaining new abilities, skills, combat moves, but that doesn't mean you have to make combat lopsided. Even the tiering system like what's used in both Warhammer and Guild wars 2 helps do this (lower levels are raised to the higher level stat wise, but don't have the combat abilities of higher levels).

I DO want EQnext to be an rpg. I want to learn new character abilties and grow my character. I want to discover and explore lands (without it being LEVEL restricted/theme parked in, so at a low level you can explore, a la TES style). I want to do quests that are interesting, I want to have pvp in the open world. I simply do NOT want the same boring ass, special-based combat system that most mmo's have out there. I do not want combat to be pre-set and determined, no "I win" for a higher lv player over a lower level player. I want combat that is FUn, challenging (at any level, if they do use a level system that is, they could do a skill system a la UO). Why is this aspect so hard for you to understand? I want an rpg with ifun, skill focused combat, you do not have to make rpgs use outdated and tired combat that others use.

As long as they make combat more evenly matched, where lower level players and higher level players can compete against each other, and it's player skill>character skill>level, that's the best route for any mmo with pvp in it imo.

Rpg's are not defined by their combat. There's a reason most rpgs don't use die-roll based/turn based combat that much anymore. I loved those classics but when using a computer you do not need to roll a die, when you can simulate a player swinging a sword and actually tell if the player hit them or not, it's better for the game to skip using the die roll for that.
 
Vega said:
UO wasn't even the same class of game. 2D map overhead view is more akin to Diablo than EQ.
Click to expand...

UO was the same class of game....did you even play it or just youtube a video and judge it?

UO is NOTHING like diablo, It's not a "hack and slash" game at all. It's an isometeric skill based (instead of level based, IE you use a sword and over time your character gets more skill in it) mmorpg.

The main difference between UO and EQ was that it was a "sandbox" designed mmorpg that used a skill based system and wasn't 3d. It was however still in the same genre as an "mmorpg" which diablo is by far not.
 
Man you guys, give it a rest.

I just want to be a bard again....
 
Stiler said:
Where did I mention, and why are you so hung up on, telling me I don't want an RPG?


You seen arpg as defined by boring ass special-spam combat? Making level based characters that are "uber" over lower level based characters?

Have you played Skyrim? Mount and Blade? Gothic? Ultima Online? All of these are great RPGS that have combat that is by far more skill-based then usual mmorpgs. Y ou can still have character progression, gaining new abilities, skills, combat moves, but that doesn't mean you have to make combat lopsided. Even the tiering system like what's used in both Warhammer and Guild wars 2 helps do this (lower levels are raised to the higher level stat wise, but don't have the combat abilities of higher levels).

I DO want EQnext to be an rpg. I want to learn new character abilties and grow my character. I want to discover and explore lands (without it being LEVEL restricted/theme parked in, so at a low level you can explore, a la TES style). I want to do quests that are interesting, I want to have pvp in the open world. I simply do NOT want the same boring ass, special-based combat system that most mmo's have out there. I do not want combat to be pre-set and determined, no "I win" for a higher lv player over a lower level player. I want combat that is FUn, challenging (at any level, if they do use a level system that is, they could do a skill system a la UO). Why is this aspect so hard for you to understand? I want an rpg with ifun, skill focused combat, you do not have to make rpgs use outdated and tired combat that others use.

As long as they make combat more evenly matched, where lower level players and higher level players can compete against each other, and it's player skill>character skill>level, that's the best route for any mmo with pvp in it imo.

Rpg's are not defined by their combat. There's a reason most rpgs don't use die-roll based/turn based combat that much anymore. I loved those classics but when using a computer you do not need to roll a die, when you can simulate a player swinging a sword and actually tell if the player hit them or not, it's better for the game to skip using the die roll for that.
Click to expand...

So, you want levels to mean basically nothing, just have a tiered use based skill system? While there is nothing wrong with a use based system for leveling skills, there needs to be a distinction between a character that has 500 hours of time logged vs. one that has 50 hours of time logged.

Things like armor need to be more than just cosmetic. Someone with 200 points in the dodge skill shouldn't be hit by a new player with 5 points in the sword skill. Whether you have a traditional level based system, a 100% use based system with no levels or a hybrid of the two is somewhat arbitrary if they are all balanced the same way. Which they can be.

Wanting to be able to survive in every zone from the point of creation, however, is ridiculous. Monsters and quests should never be level scaled. If you don't have the skills / levels / abilities to take on those tasks, you shouldn't be able to. The Gothic games, especially, never had level scaling. Yes, at level 1 you could probably kill almost any single monster or bandit. The issue was that the only way to do that would be to kite, stunlock, exploit geometry or otherwise cheese it. Leveling up and gaining better skills was the only way to legitimately progress in those games.
 
Did you ever play UO? The entire point of a sandbox is freedom. In UO you could explore at your hearts content. This doesn't mean you couldn't run into shit that could kill (same with Gothic and Skyrim).

For your example, dodging. Dodging should be a PLAYER controlled function. If someone wants to dodge, let them dodge.

Howevre, you can still give improvements to this through a player building up their character. If someone wants to build up dodge (or agility as a stat) allow them to dodge >faster< then someone who hasn't.

Likewise if they invest in dodge, but don't invest in say, a skill like stability (something say, a more heavily armored/tanky guy might want) then when they do get hit, they have a higher chance to be knocked down/over. Liekwise the guy with higher stability (but lower dodge) who is slower to dodge, when he does get hit, he has a greater chance not to be knocked down.

There are many ways to give MEANINGFUL character progression without taking skill/player control away from the player and still having the "rpg" part play a role as you develop your character.
 
Stiler said:
Did you ever play UO? The entire point of a sandbox is freedom. In UO you could explore at your hearts content. This doesn't mean you couldn't run into shit that could kill (same with Gothic and Skyrim).

For your example, dodging. Dodging should be a PLAYER controlled function. If someone wants to dodge, let them dodge.

Howevre, you can still give improvements to this through a player building up their character. If someone wants to build up dodge (or agility as a stat) allow them to dodge >faster< then someone who hasn't.

Likewise if they invest in dodge, but don't invest in say, a skill like stability (something say, a more heavily armored/tanky guy might want) then when they do get hit, they have a higher chance to be knocked down/over. Liekwise the guy with higher stability (but lower dodge) who is slower to dodge, when he does get hit, he has a greater chance not to be knocked down.

There are many ways to give MEANINGFUL character progression without taking skill/player control away from the player and still having the "rpg" part play a role as you develop your character.
Click to expand...

In the vast majority of zones, you could exlore to your hearts content in EQ as well. There were only ever a few keyed zones, and level restricted zones only happened in a couple expansions, plus the original Planes. Most of the game is open.

I'm not sure why Skyrim keeps on being used as an example though. There was level scaling every new zone you entered. It was handled better than Oblivion, but near the end of the game all you're doing is fighting hit point bloated draugrs that would have taken 2 swings to kill at the start of the game, but now take 10. The leveling system is also pretty bad.

Gothic, however, is a good example. Especially if you're talking about G2+NotR. Player skill made a big difference in that game, and games like Dark Souls. Still, leveling skills and learning new abilities made fights you struggled with early on trivial. There was the ability to kill almost anything from the start, but you'd have to cheese with geometry exploits, stunlocking and kiting to do that. It ended up being a fairly healthy balance between player skill and character skill.

While I will admit I would love a hybrid UO/Gothic style MMO, I'm just not sure how you'd shoehorn it into the EQ universe. For me, continuity is an issue. I'd want an EQ game to play like an EQ game, but obviously improved and polished. It sounds to me that you want EQ to be UO. Why not focus on the next Ultima MMO to do things right rather than wanting EQ to become something it isnt?
 
LeninGHOLA said:
In the vast majority of zones, you could exlore to your hearts content in EQ as well. There were only ever a few keyed zones, and level restricted zones only happened in a couple expansions, plus the original Planes. Most of the game is open.

I'm not sure why Skyrim keeps on being used as an example though. There was level scaling every new zone you entered. It was handled better than Oblivion, but near the end of the game all you're doing is fighting hit point bloated draugrs that would have taken 2 swings to kill at the start of the game, but now take 10. The leveling system is also pretty bad.

Gothic, however, is a good example. Especially if you're talking about G2+NotR. Player skill made a big difference in that game, and games like Dark Souls. Still, leveling skills and learning new abilities made fights you struggled with early on trivial. There was the ability to kill almost anything from the start, but you'd have to cheese with geometry exploits, stunlocking and kiting to do that. It ended up being a fairly healthy balance between player skill and character skill.

While I will admit I would love a hybrid UO/Gothic style MMO, I'm just not sure how you'd shoehorn it into the EQ universe. For me, continuity is an issue. I'd want an EQ game to play like an EQ game, but obviously improved and polished. It sounds to me that you want EQ to be UO. Why not focus on the next Ultima MMO to do things right rather than wanting EQ to become something it isnt?
Click to expand...


Because since EQ every mainstream AAA mmo has followed the same basic formula it had. Same combat, trinity class focus, themed park zone design , etc.

In the interview they mention how they want EQnext to be big, a leap forward. They mention wanting a sandbox (EQ was not a sandbox world by far) which is what UO was.

Part of the main things that are holding mmo's back are imo the combat and carrot-on-a-stick gear routine.

Instead of focusing the game on fun gameplay and combat, they focus on finding uber gear, to kill bigger enemies, rinse and repeat.

Did you read the interview posted a while back?
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

The engine and underlying technology has not changed. A lot of the guts and infrastructure are staying the same. What we're really changing is what the game is all about, all the design elements. We made one fundamental shift to emergent gameplay.

Once we made that shift, everything else had to follow. And what we saw was RIFT. We saw the writing on the wall with SWTOR. We saw The Secret World. We saw all these games that we knew were in development and very high-quality, but we saw what was going to happen -- this big spike and then it goes down. That's the truth of what's been happening with MMOs. The fans need to realize that if you don't change the nature of what these games are, you're not going to change that core behavior. We want to make games that last more than 15 years. That's why we made the decision to change it.
Click to expand...

I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have. EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system. You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it. In EverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making.
Click to expand...
 
I read it, I just disagree with what you took from it. He even states they aren't saying it will be a huge shift to a skill based system.
 
I know that, I'm just stating my opinion on the subject.

Virtually everyone I've ever met playing m mo's have never once said "I play it for the fun/engrossing combat."

Most people understand combat is the mmorpg's weakest part usually, most people play it for the social interaction/loot (for a while, til it gets boring and repetitive).
 
Bdonedge said:
EQ pvp wasn't as broke as some of you made it out to be
Click to expand...

$5 says you only think that because you played an OP class... There have been enough examples given in this thread alone to prove otherwise. One guy that was even claiming the same as you then went on to describe how he used the skill exploit that lasted YEARS...
 
Disposed said:
$5 says you only think that because you played an OP class... There have been enough examples given in this thread alone to prove otherwise. One guy that was even claiming the same as you then went on to describe how he used the skill exploit that lasted YEARS...
Click to expand...

It was lots of fun for some of us. Hundreds of arena FFA and hundreds of duels later, I still feel like it was a good time. It could have used more balance, but that would have been something that would have detracted from PVE if overdone.
 
Disposed said:
$5 says you only think that because you played an OP class... There have been enough examples given in this thread alone to prove otherwise. One guy that was even claiming the same as you then went on to describe how he used the skill exploit that lasted YEARS...
Click to expand...


I actually SUCKED at pvp and I played a warrior. Still enjoyed it
 
I remember when I walked around with 125+ resists on my normal gear, the only spell that would stick was stuff after tash hit me, which wasnt often, or mana burn.
 
Are there any mechanics that people don't want to see from EQ in EQNext?

For me - loading zones...
 
You know another thing I miss, is that feeling of fright when you walked up to the shoe of a hill giant, and realized it was a shoe, not a hill. Big mobs now days have to be end raid bosses for some reason...
 
ob1 said:
You know another thing I miss, is that feeling of fright when you walked up to the shoe of a hill giant, and realized it was a shoe, not a hill. Big mobs now days have to be end raid bosses for some reason...
Click to expand...

I agree. Nothing except end-game feels "epic" anymore
 
Every zone in EverQuest had a feeling of adventure and "epicness" - I think a large part due to the risk and the amazing size of mobs like giants as an above poster said.

Dying at any point... meeting new monsters. Not having a map... great shit!
 
That is one of the things EQ did so right. Walking around and running into a giant and being like "oh shit" and running away.

I hope they sitll have some big/giant creatures that roam around the world.
 
arachn1d said:
Every zone in EverQuest had a feeling of adventure and "epicness" - I think a large part due to the risk and the amazing size of mobs like giants as an above poster said.

Dying at any point... meeting new monsters. Not having a map... great shit!
Click to expand...

Yup, and its amazing how current games lack even these basic principles. That is what makes them crap. The way has been lost. Games aren't designed anymore to be great games. They are designed for the sole purpose of getting as many subscribers/purchasers as possible. If people demand garbage, they get garbage (and most of the time people love garbage). It's all about maximum profit.
 
You guys know with all the reminiscing of EQ you can still join up, it is F2P. Yeah the model blows but get your nostalgia and leave or stick around a while.
 
The game is just a carcass of its former self. I think a lot of people would like to see EQNext be reminiscent of the original EQ era, and not like the current one nor the current doll-drum games that are out there.
 
Vega said:
The game is just a carcass of its former self. I think a lot of people would like to see EQNext be reminiscent of the original EQ era, and not like the current one nor the current doll-drum games that are out there.
Click to expand...

Meh original EQ would fail in its first month these days. I know a lot disagree and look back with nostalgia and think how awesome it would be now but it would fail miserably. See vanguard for an example.
 
Bdonedge said:
I agree. Nothing except end-game feels "epic" anymore
Click to expand...

The best epic thing I ever remember was my first clear to the Froglock King, fresh group, initial clearing. You get to see random floating eyeballs, fallen castles, hidden doors, tons of turns and about 45 minutes to an hour of dungeon crawling. Very worth it once you get there.
 
Pringle said:
I'm sorry but if you were expecting gw2, a FTP game, to be the holy grail of mom's, you were fucking delirious


Posted from Hardforum.com App for Android
Click to expand...

Yeah, I expected bigger things for gw2 and ended up getting sick of it pretty fast.
 
My main concern is the new engine they are using with this game. Planetside 2 is using the same engine and it is NOT optimized for older systems as of right now. Major bottlenecking with the CPU. GPU is barely being utilized. They are aware of the issue and haven't made any major steps in the right direction yet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top