Everquest Coming To the PS2 292
Boone^ writes "CNET's News.com is reporting that Sony is launching their online network with a bang as the most addictive, non-narcotic drug to ever grace a computer screen will now come to you in full NTSC quality courtesy of the PS2. Currently the release date for both the online network and "EverQuest Online Adventure" are TBA." The article points out part of the reason for introduction will be to drive sales of the Ps2 ethernet adaptor. Now, I haven't played since the Kunark expansion, but I'm hoping this version takes advantage of the Ps2's graphic capabilites, rather then what I've seen on EQ before.
mmm, Squaresoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:mmm, Squaresoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Hot Damn! (Score:3, Funny)
* Crazed loner mode cuts off upcoming broadband connectivity so you can be alone with the voices in your head
* New soundtrack by Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest
* Free Paxil to first 100 buyers
Suicide-blaming entertainment is now coming to a console near you!
Everquest on PS2 (Score:3, Funny)
Think about the children!!! (Score:2)
Surely this is a foolish move on Sony's part. Not only are they opening themselves up to potential legal action, but they're killing off their users!
Re:Think about the children!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Think about the children!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
So what? Phillip Morris has been killing their users for years! Sony is a mere Johnny-come-lately!
Re:Think about the children!!! (Score:2)
Re:Think about the children!!! (Score:2)
Re:Think about the children!!! (Score:5, Funny)
You have to learn to speak like a marketing person.
You don't say 'killing off our users'
You do say 'we're experiencing a reduction in dissatisfied users'.
Memory limitations (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't run on Windows.
And this is NOT a troll. Consoles do need less memory to run games because of the more efficient OS. Check out the minimum PC specs on GTA2, and then consider that GTA3 runs on a PS2.
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
That's true, but the OS also has drivers for all sorts of stuff resident, daemons, and in the case of windows spyware and the like. I could see needing 32M less RAM on a console. (And I remember when 4M was a lot of RAM for a Unix machine...)
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
They absolutely do not. No PS2 game has or ever will keep hundreds of megs of game data in memory. Everquest on a PC does exactly that.
The PS2 is great at what it does. What it does not do is manage very large amounts of data at one time. Console games are carefully designed never to do that.
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
But console graphics chips are in more or less the same boat as PC graphics chips. And, as far as memory issues, we're probably first and foremost talking about textures there. A 5K texture is 5K texture whether or not you're running a 'more efficient OS'. The only case in which a 5K texture is not a 5K texture is when it's subject to compression. Proprietary texture compression schemes will certainly help but, if I recall correctly, the PS2 has no hardware texture compression whatsoever. This makes it worse than pretty much every other chipset on the market for the purpose of economising on memory. Furthermore, I read correctly that the PS2 has 4MB of VRAM, right? I'm assuming half of that has to be framebuffer. So does the PS2 actually have no more texture memory than my Diamond Monster 3D (circa 1996)?
I upgraded from my Geforce and 256MBs of DDR RAM because Dark Age of Camelot came to a halt in any sort of relatively busy scene. Now, with 1GB of DDR and an ATI 8500, DAoC only slows down sometimes, in extremely busy scenes.
No matter how efficient your OS is, bringing an MMORPG that manages somehow to fill 64MB of video RAM and 1GB of system RAM (god only knows how) on a PC to a "more efficient OS" is not going to squeeze the same data into 4MB of video RAM and 32MB of System RAM.
Everquest is another story. Older technology, smaller textures and fewer polys. But the fact remains the same. There are some hardware shortcomings no OS could make up for.
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
The definition of an Operation System is pretty nebulous. The PS2 runs something that can be considered an OS, that OS just isn't very complex, and is doesn't have many of the features of a general purpose OS you would run on a PC.
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
The PS2 version of EQ will not be connected to the PC version of EQ in any way other than name and background fiction.
It's a completely seperate game that happens to have the same style of gameplay.
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
Re:Memory limitations (Score:2)
The game is on a DVD disc, which has upto 18bg of storage, so the game could in effect track which textures needed for the onscreen action, and which models are needed as well. Figure an array for a few hundred items for that.
From there the images can be streamed off of the DVD as needed and stored in memory.
Lacking in the research once again... (Score:1)
Re:Lacking in the research once again... (Score:2)
I think that what is obvious is that you were trolled by Hemos. Good job editors!
Geeks and Dork (Score:3, Interesting)
I know a lot of hardcore Geeks think only Dorks play these kinds of games, but they really have value and you should check them out. To me EverQuest is an evolutionary step towards what VR environments will be like in the future. I first started thinking that about the Doom/Quake series, but EverQuest took it to a whole new level, albeit in a different genre. The immersiveness is amazing, just don't get hooked on the social crap there.
Re:Geeks and Dork (Score:2)
I expressed the same thought [slashdot.org] in a recent /. story on EQ. These games are a great proof of concept for virtual meeting/social spaces. Throw in some advances in voice/video over IP and a bunch more bandwidth, and the future is promising for telepresence.
Re:Geeks and Dork (Score:2)
Yeah, the social scene in these games is nothing short of pathetic. To participate in it actively would be the ultimate ascension to dorkdom.
Government oversight is needed (Score:2, Funny)
thank you
*twitch* (Score:2, Funny)
But ya know, I'll do it cause I'm an addict.
*sigh*
Streamlining=Different Game (Score:2)
IMO, this will cause the PS2 version to be different enough from the PC version so that it won't be as successful. Add to the fact that you will need a bunch of peripherals to chat for the game (can you say 'expensive'?), and this will drive away all but the really hardcore Everquest gamers.
Multi platform world, ya think? (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, will PS2 users play in the same world as PC users?
Re:Multi platform world, ya think? (Score:1)
Streamlined Gameplay says a different version to me. Apart from anything, the PS2 has a mere 4Mb of graphics memory (64Mb total if memory serves), so the 512Mb +32Mb graphics min-spec of Shadows of Luclin would send the poor thing crying home to the PSOne.
Re:Multi platform world, ya think? (Score:2)
Re:Multi platform world, ya think? (Score:1)
Re:Multi platform world, ya think? (Score:1)
Hopefully, playing the PS2 version will give people some insight into the history of Norrath... That right there is a great reason to play for some of us.
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Multi platform world, ya think? (Score:2)
Re:Multi platform world, ya think? (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember when The Sims guy (I think) did an interview where he said that doing multiplayer online worlds across platforms like Win/Linux was incredibly difficult, verging on impossible, due to the tremendously minute detail required in keeping everything in sync. I wonder if this problem appears here as well.
Huh? This is one of the most vapid things I've seen rated to 5 in a long time. EQ isn't impossible on Windows, it's been done. The Sims guy is talking about having multiple people in a Sim-city, a fully dynamic enviornment, which EQ isn't in any way, shape, or form. EQ is entirely static geography, which makes it an entirely different case.
In other words, will PS2 users play in the same world as PC users?
What does that have to do with your first paragraph? The first discusses possibility issues and the second discusses porting issues. Huh?
Congratulations, you have successfully karma-whored by playing buzzword bingo.
Re:Multi platform world, ya think? (Score:2)
I understand quite well. Creating a new type of client doesn't have a significant effect on the data synchronization inside the server cluster, at least, it doesn't if Verant can program worth a damn.
Does anybody here have a clue anymore? Usenet servers don't have to be rewritten every time a new usenet client comes out. That's the point of the client/server split. UO had a linux client for a while, and you can bet for certain that the UO team didn't go out of thier way to support that server-side - and they didn't need to.
You finish with a good point, but I still don't see what the parent post, which is a mishmash of confused topics and miserable english, has to do with anything regarding this story...
Re:Patches? (Score:2)
Actually, you could get around this by having the game contact Sony for an in-memory patch on startup. Keep updating the patch on the master server, and the game patching takes care of itself.
You'd just have to patch a bit more intelligently than most games do (game patches don't *have* to be megabytes if you're only fixing bugs in the engine code).
Re:Patches? (Score:2)
This one apparently won't. I get the feeling that the game will be based on everquest, but will be considerably different in terms of expandability and content. Sounds like a marketing ploy to me, rather than actually bringing Everquest to the PS2.
Synchronization. (Score:2, Informative)
The way real-time game synchronization usually works is to take advantage of the fact that copies of the game on identical platforms will behave exactly the same way, given identical input. This lets you only transmit a very small number of state changes between machines in a multi-player game, with the automatic update of the rest of the world keeping most things in sync.
This starts to break down when you have platforms that handle math substantially differently (x86 and MIPS, in this case). Your world-update calculations will produce slightly different results, which will evolve into very large changes if you don't send corrective information every so often.
You can build a game to be resistant to this kind of drift, and to correct this kind of drift, but the usual result is that you have to send considerably more data during updates, with the game possibly becoming more sensitive to latency as well.
Re:Synchronization. (Score:2)
Re:Synchronization. (Score:2)
An IEEE-compliant math unit will produce an answer that is correct to the ideal value within half a unit-last-place.
Except for operations like square roots, logarithms, sine/cosine, and so forth, where it's impractical or impossible to implement this degree of precision for all possible cases.
And except for systems where the math units aren't perfectly IEEE-compliant (there are many).
So while in theory you could do this, in practice you'll get small errors.
And this isn't even touching the fact that things like dot products are very sensitive to the order in which you choose to perform the fundamental operations required to implement them. If the compilers for your different platforms choose slightly different implementations, you have another source of noise.
In summary, the problem definitely exists.
Besides most of the game data is int's not float. For instance why would you need a fraction of a hit point or a fraction of a movement point, pen and paper games use just int's for instance.
Any game that has a true-3D world uses float to represent pretty much all coordinates. It doesn't take any more space to store a single-precision float than a 32-bit int, and it saves a lot of conversion hassle.
Re:Synchronization. (Score:2)
Re:Synchronization. (Score:2)
All you're pointing out is that you can't elminate parameter noise even for an x86-only game. This is why games still do _some_ synchronization
Check the X-wing documentary from a couple of weeks ago for a description of how they chose to handle the problem.
Add to that all the processors are processing the data a different speeds.
This actually isn't relevant. All that's required is that if, say, you're sending an update every twentieth of a second in virtual time, all of your machines be able to update relevant parts of their world-models in less than one twentieth of a second.
In practice, it's even more flexible than this, as the update time steps for each client instance are allowed to be arbitrary. Naturally, this introduces more noise due to roundoff errors not maching up.
There is no way to avoid having to exploit this effect. A full update of the visible game state for each user would take a vast amount of bandwidth to send every frame. All you've shown here is that _some_ drift is unavoidable under real conditions - and I agree. The problem is that porting across architectures can only make the problem worse (and thus increase the cost of managing the problem).
Re:Synchronization. (Score:3, Informative)
Too many other issues such as client hacks, macros (Score:2)
There's also the reality that software has bugs. No developemnt team in their right minds wants to deal with the outrage their customers would express about having one group of customers not being able to do a quest, or not haveing an even chance in player vs player combat because of a client bug that doesn't effect all clients equally. Bugs are bad enough, but a bug that discriminates agains part of the player base fire people up REALLY fast.
An example of a client hack would be to hack the timer which determines how long it takes to cast a spell in the game. Suddenly that player's characters can cast spells twice as fast as other people. They need to be able to detect such hacks from the server side so that they can ban those players.
Developing a game that players can play on multiple platforms is likely going to be too complicated to be practical. It's just too likely that they will piss off their customer base, significantly increase development and especially testing costs, and not gain nearly enough users to justify the effort.
Better graphics? Not likely. (Score:3, Funny)
Very doubtful. While the PS2 chipset can drive a good framerate, the minimal memory and total absence of a hard drive would require stripping loads of detail from what you see on a PC. This engine is about a real *bulk* of data, not the small set of detailed models and textures in a typical console game.
Getting that sort of game, designed and optimized just for PCs, to run at all on the PS2 is going to be a real feat.
Graphical MUD on Console? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Graphical MUD on Console? (Score:2)
NTSC Quality? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:NTSC Quality? (Score:2)
Yeah, but (Score:1)
1) How will it deal with the lack of keyboard? Communicating (and thus forming parties) will be more difficult.
2) Will the lack of hard drive effect anything? It seems that the game will be un-patchable and unable to work with expansion packs.
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
-After accepting that
-Microsoft denounces Sony's plot to monopolize the online gaming world, giving the PS2 an unfair advantage over Xbox.
-A woman, who blames Everquest for her son's suicide, calls for action against what she calls "an incoming genocide".
-Thousands of Slashdot readers comment. "It's so cool", says some. "So, who cares?", says others. But the predominant opinion is "Microsoft still sucks".
Not the same game (Score:1)
The PS2 doesn't have the RAM or CPU power to play PC-EQ in its current incarnation no matter how powerful the GPU. 256MB of RAM is the practical lower limit on the PC game, the textures that need to be loaded now are -huge-.
PS2 processor power (Score:1)
Well, i have a P3-800mhz, Geforce 2, 192mb RAM and i can barely run the game, i dont know if the PS2 will be able to run it even in a minimized version...
am i wrong?
PS2 first broadband? (Score:5, Interesting)
Please not: this is not a rag on the Xbox. Well, it is, but it's not a rag because it's an Xbox, it's a rag because I like my Xbox and wish MS would stop being shitheads about managing it.
Anyway. Rewind the clock about a year to last years E3, where the Big Three (Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony) were sitting up, talking about their new consoles. I remember this discussion:
Interviewer: So, tell us about your online gaming plans.
Nintendo: Online gaming? We want to make fun games. We'll include online gaming if we need it.
Sony: We have a deal with AOL, and we're going to crush everybody online! Bwahahahaha!
Xbox: We have a built in Ethernet port into the Xbox, so we'll be online out of the box instead of having to buy expensive peripherals, and we'll crush everybody online! Bwahahahaha!
Now, fast forward to November, when I picked up my Xbox, and read in the help manual (page 15 I believe) that said:
Broadband support is coming in June of 2002. Deal with it.
Now we have Sony about to bring out their Ethernet/Hard drive adapter for the PS2. Will it make it as powerful as the Xbox? Probably not - unless you have the Linux kit, you won't be able to rip MP3's to the local hard drive (though I'm sure software developers will get that out), nor can you save games to the hard drive (unless the game is specifically programmed to do so - I could be wrong on this, but I don't think I am.)
Anyway. The point here is this:
Sony, at this rate, will beat the Xbox to true broadband Internet support without using a 3rd party hack. They will do so with Everquest behind them, Final Fantasy XI, and Star Wars: Galaxies. I can plug any standard USB keyboard/mouse into it, and it will work perfectly.
We still don't know what the Xbox plans are. While it has an Ethernet port, it only works on a local UDP network (unless you do some hacking with routers/Gamespy Arcade to get it online). Maybe there will be an update to add simple TCP/IP support, but why this support wasn't out of the fucking box I'll never know. (Come on - isn't the TCP/IP stack BSD license based? This should have been a no brainer, even if they had to put support in the Flash Bios or something instead of the hard drive. And they wouldn't have to worry about those "evil" GNU folks spoiling the party, since BSD doesn't make you share code.)
The Xbox will have... Seriously, I don't recall. Probably Morrowind (maybe - that's a single player game only right now), Halo of course, and some other games. I can't plug any USB things into it, so I have to spend more money for an Xbox keyboard/mouse (which I haven't seen announced yet - they could be out there, I just don't know.)
I like my Xbox - once I replace the controller, I'll like it even more. But I love my PS2, and Sony's making it hard not to like it more. And while I can't stand MMRPG's (experience, level, lather, rinse, repeat), I'm just interested enough in some of them (Final Fantasy XI), in the hard drive, and other bits that make me think that Sony's going to continue to stay in the lead.
Now, if we can just clear up their RIAA issues, and I'll really like them....
Re:PS2 first broadband? (Score:2)
I liked the concept of the XBOX, I liked the idea that things like Everquest would be easy ports. I liked the idea that everything would work with no setup. Heck, that's why I went to consoles this year. I got sick of paying big money every six months to upgrade my GD PC.
However, I went to buy a console last month, and lo and behold... the XBOX had only a handful of games (only 2 of which I liked), no real broad-band, decent graphics, and a controller that sucked, well MicroSoft :)
So, I bought a PS2. Funny that. It was cheaper, cooler, and had every game I could want. Plus, everything I wanted in a console was already there. (Ya know: games I like, a controller that was comfy, technology that was proven, a really cool developer kit, DTS)
I still like the XBOX. I hope that in the XBOX 2 or the XBOX 3 it will become a full-fledged console!
Everquest for the PS2, however, will be very interesting. How are they going to handle all the frigging patches? How about the fact that the game is 1.5 GBs? I bet the initial EQ port is going to stink SOOOOO bad.
-WS
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PS2 first broadband? (Score:2)
Nintendo: Online gaming? We want to make fun games. We'll include online gaming if we need it.
Sony: We have a deal with AOL, and we're going to crush everybody online! Bwahahahaha!
Xbox: We have a built in Ethernet port into the Xbox, so we'll be online out of the box instead of having to buy expensive peripherals, and we'll crush everybody online! Bwahahahaha!
I'm sorry, man, but this is nothing new. Online console gaming has got to be one of the more vaporwared feature in tech history.
Case in point: I remember one of the things that sold me originally on the 16-bit Sega Genesis (when it first came out, like 10 years ago) was the proposed "teleGenesis" modem option. It sounded so sweet! You could play two players game against your buddies across town, and it included a keyboard and additional RAM to power-up your Genesis gaming experience. They even had a picture of it on the back of the box and claimed that special games would come out specifically to support it.
Did that ever happen? Not on your life. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing occurs with one or more of the current consoles: a lot of talk and even some "demonstrations" to keep you interested in the platform and buying software, and then nothing, nada, zilch.
Like mom said, life just ain't fair.
Re:PS2 first broadband? (Score:2)
Isn't hoping MS will stop being shitheads a lot like hoping the government will stop taxing people?
Re:PS2 first broadband? (Score:2)
The PS2 Ethernet Adapter will be $39.99. No more expensive than the DVD remote for XBox which isn't supported out of the box. Same Difference! PS2 isn't behind, it's ahead by a long shot as you indicated with FFXI, EQ, and Star Wars. Not only that but the Ethernet Adapter is already being play tested with games other than the aforementioned, has MS begun testing their online titles yet? Oh right, MS skips the whole testing process, I forgot.
Re:PS2 first broadband? (Score:2)
Is that an exact quote? Personally, I would have taken it back, wrote MS Xbox division, and the FTC.
MS is entering a whole new arena here, and if the treat there console customers they way thet treat there PC customers, they will lose.
The console market does have a lot of vaporware, but when it gets that close to shipping, or is shilling, they don't keep telling you its there. I almost bought one because of their "connectivity out of the box", but bought a PS2 because of the number of games.
I don't care what your product is, treat me like crap, and I return it.
Woo hoo! (Score:3, Funny)
This isn't going to work (Score:2, Interesting)
I can see the ads for this now... (Score:3, Funny)
Somebody help me (Score:2)
Please help. Is there anything I can do to get him to quit playing Everquest and save him from ruining his life (and my sex life)?
Thanks for any advice.
Ann Landers to the rescue! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not sure what this everquest is, but my staffers tell me its a video game. I remember when my husband was addicted to Pong I had no quaters left over to do laundry!
There are two ways you can deal with this.
Its almost may, and the way it sounds your roomate will be placed on academic probation and most likely not returning next semseter. So if you can hold out a little longer...
The second way to deal with this is to be firm but fair. Let him know that you are concerned that he is damaging his grades and social life. And let him know that his behaviour is damaging your chances of hitting the nappy-dugout. All work and no play makes Jack an angry, vindictive, revenge-monger.
If there is no change in his behavior (and your ability to get some) here is your plan: wake up early (10 am) one morning. Your roomate should be passed out from sheer exhaustion. remove his hard drive. remove his mother board. remove his net-connection. re-format his drive. Or just plain remove his computer. Leave a note in its place. He will be forced to go on a scavenger hunt to reclaim his lost computer! His ram is in a locker at the bus station down town.
His mother board is duct-taped to the bottom of a bench. His hard drive is hidden on the roof of the physics building. Have the clues hidden amongst people he must talk to/interact with to get.
This should take at least a few weeks, keeping him out of the room and giving you valuable "together time" with your honey.
Hope this helps!
Signed,
Ann Landers
Re:Somebody help me (Score:2)
a) When he gets up to go to the bathroom, renam his everquest directory, and make it a hidden directory.
b) install a "hidden" firewall blocking the EQ ports.
c) his girlfriend is obviously in need, I suggest you attend to her needs, heck maybe you can get your girlfriend, and his soon to be ex together to "get him" for playing that stupid game.
Top 10 ways to get someone to stop playing everquest:
10)Break their fingers.
9)When in the bathroom, turn the PVP mode on, and give away his stuff.
8)Put a quarter slot on the computer, every half hour, he has to put in a quarter.
7)Mysterious monitor problems.
6)reformat drive, install Linux
5)get his soon to be ex girlfriend to "swallow" if he gives it up.
4)tell him you find him attractive when he plays.(he may still play, but at least he'll be else where)
3)cancel his credit card.
2)call his parents and tell them what he's spending their money on.
and the number one way to get someone to quit everquest, leave a loaded gun next to the computer just before you leave on spring break!
OSU? No big surprise! (Score:2)
In the mean time, I started playing Magic: The Gathering with a few Graduate students. (This was my first RPG-ish experience... no D&D, no Final Fantasy or anything before that.) Next thing you know I am scrounging for cheap common cards and playing M:TG about 12 hours a day in the Union and the Grad dorm lobby, with another 5 hours spent in the computer labs. I slept between 9am and 4pm. Class was a freaking joke; 400 kids in a class, none of the TAs speaking english as a native language. I hated it, and I was 18 and knew everything. *GRIN* These "anti-social" behaviors only made my roommates hate me more.
By chance I found a girl online with like interests... at the University of Wyoming. We started ytalk'ing all the time, and emailing. I flunked out of OSU, said "see ya!" to my parents who were "so disappointed because I had so much potential," and moved to Wyoming. Married my Internet sweetie. Spent three years cutting my teeth doing desktop support, PC/printer repair, and data wiring.
I came back to Ohio with my wife and draw a salary that is comparable to the ones my idiot roommates were bragging that they would have someday, only WITHOUT the $50,000 in student debt, and five years in a classroom trying to figure out if the Teaching Assistant said "pigeons" or "business."
The difference between me and this guy is that this guy has given up on his gf, which is just plain WRONG. College age is the best time to get good nookie. This guy has taken an entertaining habit to an extreme that crimps your style.
On the other hand, Lord Ender, you have to ask yoruself... are you really a geek, or a geek-oppressor?
Re:Somebody help me (Score:2)
Some facts (Score:3, Informative)
- This is not EverQuest as you may know it. This world will not overlap with standard EverQuest. There will be a limited race/class selection, and the world will not require zoning. You will also not get to interact with the rest of the EverQuest player base
- EverQuest in its current form has much improved graphics over what you're used to from the days of Kunark (which was release something like 2 years ago).
- If you haven't tried EQ since Kunark, you're missing much more than just graphics. There's a new playable class (Beastlord), a new race (Vah Shir: the cat people), post-60 advancement, new types of quests and scripted events (zone-wide wars, ring quests/scripts), chat channels (user created), and many more nifty features that older EQ players may want to come back and try out.
If you decide to come back, come look me up. I'm on 7th Hammer, and play Miskaton or Deepone.Re:Wow, post-60 advancement! (Score:2)
If you see EQ as a single-player game, it sucks after about level 40 or so. If you see it as an opportunity to cooperate and game with lots of others, it only starts to get interesting around those levels.
Many people who play past about 35 get stuck in what's called the "experience grinder". They think that the game doesn't begin until 60, so they have to just sit there and weather the next 25 levels. Unfortunately, they find that that's very boring and stop, or worse, they get to 60 and find that it's just more of the same (in some ways).
What people like myself find is that EQ presents almost too much variety, and if you just spend all of your time going into the 5-10 zones that EVERYONE is in, and grouping up with fast pullers, you're missing 90% of the game.
Re:Wow, post-60 advancement! (Score:2)
It was great, before long we where all around level 14-15.
It was pretty fun... one time one of the higher level npc's spawned without a high level player to camp it... we where doing alright until it spawned.. then the magic users where running out of mana and the tanks where running low on health... RUN RUN.. I stayed back and tried helping the tanks... think one died... I fell out the window on accedent at the end... which is funny because thats what saved my life! LOL.
It was great because it was very challenging. We where holding our own, but each of us had to do our best in keeping the group alive. And the thrill of being able to sit in the orc castle for an hour is just great
Another thing thats kinda exciting is trying to trek from freeport to quenos in a small low level group... LOL. Screw teleports, lets adventure!
Re:Wow, post-60 advancement! (Score:2)
Heh... sounds like a fun player event. Call it the newbie marathon! I can just see 100 characters from 1-15 running across the continent. You'd have to do a few things. First, you'd want spotters along the way to make sure there was no cheating. Then bind everyone who wants to race at the starting point (no fair binding in the target city and then letting an orc pawn kill you).
I've heard of events like this. Usually you have to get naked first, since there are various items that would make it easier.
Re:Wow, post-60 advancement! (Score:2)
I'm also seriously in love with the idea of long and complex quests that pretty much require a group. The WIS shield quest in Katta (a new Luclin city) is like this. We get together and camp the mob de jour. We pull whatever we can to make the time pass and gab and get some ok quest armor drops. We just finished our druid's skull collection last night, so the next step is to get a larger group together and go to Katta to turn in the skulls. As soon as we do, we'll get 8 of the mobs that the skulls dropped from, which we have to take out at once!
This sort of thing is what I pay my monthly EQ fee for. It's adventure, pure and simple, from the 8th dimension!
Re:Some facts (Score:2)
Re:Some facts (Score:2)
As with the rest of your message, you're quite vague and don't seem to want to brook any sort of disagreement. The major bugs that I know of that were introduced with SoL have all been fixed. The biggest concern that I've heard from the user-base recently continues to revolve around changes that HAVEN'T been made (e.g. lack of new interface and Bazaar, which were supposed to be part of Luclin)
Most of the new player models from SoL are horrible to look at, although a few are nice upgrades from the old models,
Ok, I guess this is your call, but when I look at side-by-side comparisons, I can't imagine that you found any of the old models more appealing than what we have now. I would still love to see improvements for: Hafling, Dwarf and High Elf, but those races do look better, IMHO, than they did pre-SoL.
and virtually all of the animations are very badly done making the characters very gimpy looking when animated.
Compared to what? It doesn't make any sense to compare EQ to Q3 or Unreal. When's the last time you played Q3, moving across 200 levels with a couple thousand of your best friends logged in? The limitations imposed by having textures and models for thousands of items, dozens of character models, hundreds of type of terrain, etc are going to have an impact on the overall look of the game.
Of course, you can go the DAoC route and have a much more cartoony, hybrid 3D look. That's not a bad solution, and it's working well for them. EQ went for a much more realistic rendering model, and I think that helps gameplay a whole lot.
VI/SOE still hates their paying customers
Again, you're making an assertion about how they feel, but you don't give any evidence to back it up.
and the "new content" of SoL isn't much different that the what was there before.
Ah! Still subjective, but you make a point. Let's look:
* New race unlike any previous
* New class -- hybrid of previous, but unique play none the less.
* Ring events -- definitely new and changes the high-end game quite a bit over waiting for spawns!
* Mid-level scripted wars -- this take content that used to be reserved for the very highest level characters and makes it available to nearly everyone.
How are these things not new? Are you complaining that you want *more* that's new? Have you gone to CT? Have you tried Legends?
Definitely don't come back if you've left, try a different game from a company that actually appreciates your business
Here's the crux. You want people to play the other games. Cool, that's fine. But don't rag on a game you clearly have unfounded personal feelings about without doing some research.
strange sound..? (Score:3, Interesting)
They will, in one quick swoop change EQ from a MMORPG to a MMO???.
Oh well, im waiting for PlaneShift [planeshift.it] or the (really far out it seems) WorldForge [http] -- though it seems the latter is FAR to ambitious to produce any playable MMORPG anytime soon.
Graphics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Graphics (Score:2)
Will it have advertising? (Score:2)
(Today, Yahoo Groups started adding large advertising images to e-mailed group postings.)
Not the same EQ... (Score:3, Insightful)
In essence, I see EQ for the PS2 as something that will be the same in name only.
Now what was that L/R/R/U/D/A/B combo for dragon punch to Tormax again?
Upgraded Graphics.. (Score:2)
Its the channel width, stupid. (Score:2)
I was going to post this in reply to a message, but then I saw about a dozen dipshits all chime in, looking kinda unclever.
Re:Its the channel width, stupid. (Score:2)
No. The RAM plays a very small part. According to the keepers of the mainframe flame, its all about the channels.
It doesn't matter if the PS2 can move 100 Gigabytes/sec, it only has 32 MB of memory to play with. That means fewer models, fewer textures, fewer (sic)objexts.
You forgot to finish your sentence: That means fewer models, fewer textures, fewer objects in memory at any given time. Thus it doesn't need half a gig of ram like the PC does, because, unlike the PC, it can retrieve what it needs very, very quickly.
Honestly now, compare the graphics contained in EQ, even the latest, to GT3, GTA3, Tekken Tag, or SSX Tricky on the PS2. Nowhere NEAR. Repeat after me. The graphics in the latest EQ are NOWHERE NEAR the graphics present in the console. Who gives a fuck if they get the shadows right if you still see corners on your character's ear?
Here in Australia (Score:2)
Re:I personally reckon (Score:5, Insightful)
Please tell me where in "real life" I can go slay orcs and dragons, and cast really big pretty magic spells.
When I heard of people getting 'married' in these games, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
I guess being happy for someone actually enjoying themselves is not an option for you, huh. They gotta either enjoy it your way or be pitied by you, even if they're having fun.
Re:I personally reckon (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like a commercial for the army.
When I heard of people getting 'married' in these games, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.Funny that: When I heard "I really like that ring" in real life, I had the same reaction.
Be nice, already. (Score:4, Insightful)
To start, pay attention to what you wrote.
People who do this are living lives they can't live here and now. Maybe they're not attractive. Maybe they're balding epileptics who live in their mother's house and spend all damn day between contracts playing Everquest. Maybe I have good friends like this, and maybe you should back the fuck off. My bud is having it hard, and self-esteem issues like his aren't helped when some self-appointed judge comes along and calls him a loser.
Or maybe, I'm just havin' fun. Dunno.
Re:Be nice, already. (Score:1)
...but I think that games where you do cool stuff you never usually do...
People who do this are living lives they can't live here and now. Maybe they
If we're talking some disembodied head that's wired up to a life-support machine, then cool, man, everquest it up. But even balding epileptics can go out, catch a band, see a film, talk to friends and maybe even girls!
No matter how unattractive your mate is, he's only gonna be more unattractive in future, and may live to regret wasting his youth online flirting with other bald epileptic dudes with female avatars...
Re:Be nice, already. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bands, movies? What a sad waste of time. How pathetic that you have to go see other people doing things in movies and on stage instead of going out and doing that I like to do.
Surrrrre (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Surrrrre (Score:2)
As for going out and socializing, once again, we're assuming a great deal about the availability of someone's potential mate. My bud happens to have rather odd(from my perspective) tastes, and thus has a VERY hard time meeting these people. No, it's none of your fucking business, but rest assured its legal in every country in the world(even southern U.S.!) Ah well, my point is this: don't be so quick to judge people who can't find things they like doing beyond going online and fantasizing all day. After all, wtf are you doing, going to bands, listening to their music? What are you doing, going to movies? What are you doing, reading? Same fucking thing: fantasizing. Entertainment is all about the unreal.
Re:Surrrrre (Score:2)
I think that's called "geek autism"... there was a /. story on geek autism [slashdot.org] a year or so ago.
Re:Surrrrre (Score:2)
If I post that I spend 20-30 hours a week doing all manners of activity on my computer, people here would react like I said I walk using both legs. On the other hand, people at the rec center would look at me like I grew a third arm out of my forehead.
The real litmus test is this: by doing this activity for this duration, am I harming myself by either causing myself some kind of damage or removing opportunities for other activities that I value? If the answer to this question is no, then no harm no foul. If the answer's yes, for any activity, I have problems.
Re:I personally reckon (Score:5, Insightful)
In no way, shape, or form does EQ, UO, AO, DAoC, etc. simulate "real life". They don't even vaguely attempt to.
They do vaguely attempt to simulate a fantasy world, but most of the nitty gritty stuff that makes life real is not simulated.
Talking to people online isn't simulated either. The fact that you seem to think so shows just how vapid and shallow you really are. There's a real person on the other end of those pixels, who has feelings, thoughts, and motivations just like you do. And therein lies the rub, and the reason why EQ and other MMORPGs have a following that eclipses pretty much every other game out there. Because not only do they allow you to "do cool stuff you never usually do", but they allow you to make friends, chat, and have the social interaction that is lacking in most other games.
Yes, yes, scoff if you want at the concept of social interaction. Then realize that
If you haven't played an MORPG (which includes MUDs) then you won't Get It. Quake and the like aren't the same - the little interaction there is mostly trash talk. IRC, Instant Messanging, and so forth are pretty similar to MORPG's though. All of them allow the intellectual excercise of talking to an intelligent being that is not yourself, and who may agree or disagree with your goals, thoughts, yada yada yada. Yeah, I know, seems all mystic-y and crap, but that's a lot of what human interaction comes down to.
Why do "losers" (your term, not mine) gravitate toward online interaction? Because for introverted personalities (which most geeks are), it's easier to hide behind a persona than it is to go out in real life. It's a matter of comfort and of being able to distance yourself. And to lower those facades at a speed you feel comfortable with (and yes, they do come down as you get to know people better).
All of the crap that occurs in face-to-face interaction - bickering, rumormongering, petty feuds, etc. happen online as well. All of the good stuff - friendships, loves, happiness, etc. can happen as well.
When I heard of people getting 'married' in these games, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Shrug. I've always thought these things were rather silly myself. Most of the real life couples I know who are married aren't married "in-game". Probably because it's assumed they're married.
And I know people who gotten married to people they met online. Most of them don't have "in-game" marraiges either. I don't.
Re:I personally reckon (Score:2)
These games is much more diverse than bowling, or softball. On the other hand you get a lot less exercise playing the game. You also don't get face to face interaction. The lack of face to face interaction has it's benefits and drawbacks.
There's nothing wrong with playing games per se, but I think that games where you do cool stuff you never usually do, like fly jet fighters, and games where you achieve something more than holding a text converstaion with another similar loser, are far superior.
What do you actually achieve in a game where you fly a jet fighter? Both games are entertainment. You do a lot more than hold text conversations with the other players, but it's the interaction with the other players that makes the game unique. Usually, meeting other people is a positive experience, other times, it's not. But it does keep the game interesting.
When I heard of people getting 'married' in these games, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
I guess do whichever you like. I play Asheron's Call, and the in game weddings have been broken for as long as I've played. They apparently just got fixed today. Most people joke about the weddings. Some others take it more seriously, at least from a role playing perspective. Hundreds of thousands of people play these games. There is a tremendously diverse player base. You're idea of two losers chatting probably does exist among that diverse player base, but it's only a small representation.
Of course maybe I'm just one of those "losers" who likes holding text conversations with other "losers". Fine with me, I'm still having fun.
Re:Where's Madden??? (Score:2)