Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

EverQuest Sequel Shows Complexity, Ditches PvP 78

Posted by simoniker from the m-to-the-m-er-eff-in-o dept.
Thanks to GameSpy for its hands-on preview of Sony Online's forthcoming PC MMO EverQuest II, as the author discusses the graphics ("EverQuest II is one of the most beautiful games in development... Every square inch begs to be explored"), the play style ("EQ2 has a smaller, more intimate feel, more like tabletop roleplaying games centered on small parties"), and the complexity ("Everyone starts on the same island, then has to choose allegiance to one of two main cities (and belief systems!) From there, more and more options open up, sort of like an inverted gameplay pyramid.") Elsewhere, over at EQ2 Stratics there's further confirmation from devs that: "There are no plans for a PvP [Player vs. Player] server at release. There is no ETA on when or if we will ever have one."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EverQuest Sequel Shows Complexity, Ditches PvP More

EverQuest Sequel Shows Complexity, Ditches PvP

Comments Filter:

  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by obeythefist ( 719316 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @06:45PM (#9425058) Journal
    It's still going to be a levelling treadmill. People will still farm loot.

    But it will look prettier and so it will garner more subscriptions for Sony.
    • In the end, what MMO isn't a treadmill in one way or another?

      You have to stratify the player base somehow. It's a very tough problem.
      • You do? Why?

        (Hint: the answer is you don't)
        • Ok, would-be MMO designer. Give us your best solution instead of an empty 3 word reply.

          • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by *weasel ( 174362 )
            No other genre outside of RPGs seems to need levelling treadmills to engage players.

            They all have to use this thing called 'content' to keep players involved with their game.

            Gameplay for Super Mario Brothers doesn't revolve around getting progressively bigger in order to jump onto progressively larger mushroom men. Grand Theft Auto tends to keep players engaged without giving Tommy Vercetti successively more armor and health so he can defeat successively stronger bad guys.

            Power progression is fine, to a

            • Re:So? (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Number 110 ( 626487 )
              I would disagree. Games like Super Mario Brothers do not have statistics associated with the character and so do not have as clear a leveling concept as a game such as Everquest, however you are not able to start a completely new game of SMB, turn left and confront the final boss. You position within these games in very much akin to your level. Unfortunately this does not generally work for games like Everquest where the basic storyline is non-linear. Games by their nature have to give some form of reward

              • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

                by *weasel ( 174362 )
                I think it's optimistic to call the storyline of Everquest 'non-linear'. I think 'non-existent' would be more fair. I think equating the position within a storyline or set of levels of SMB, to a set of numbers associated with an EQ character is a mistake.

                It is precisely EQ's lack of context given to its gameplay that is the problem. It isn't 'levelling' per se, it's that true progression in EQ requires takes place outside of any sort of story context.

                In a single player RPG, character progression and st

                • Re:So? (Score:2, Informative)

                  by Number 110 ( 626487 )

                  I think it's optimistic to call the storyline of Everquest 'non-linear'. I think 'non-existent' would be more fair.

                  Yeah, but it's also inflammatory and does nothing to progress a dialogue. Certainly you can complain about the amount of content but my point wasn't that EQ was content rich. It was that your statements that a game could be pure content without leveling (at least in some form) is false. EQ is non-linear. Overall you are not forced to go from Zone A to Zone B to Zone C. There may be some insta

                  • Yeah, but it's also inflammatory and does nothing to progress a dialogue.
                    Only those in denial of the truth find it inflammatory. It's not a comment that says "EQ's a bad game", or "those playing EQ are bad people". All the statement does is state that EQ is not played for the story. Tetris isn't played for the story either - and it's a hell of a game.

                    It was that your statements that a game could be pure content without leveling (at least in some form) is false.
                    Whoa now - it's a bit early to call that
                    • I think overall you and I probably agree more than we disagree (which is what makes this dialogue interesting to me). Your basic precept, at least in my opinion, is that leveling was bad and an unneeded and an unnecessary arbitrary constraint and that 'pure content' should replace it.

                      When I said a pure content game couldn't succeed you were right, I should have chosen my phrasing more carefully. In my opinion a pure content game can't succeed, at least not on the level of EQ. Even CoH isn't pure content. Yo

                    • Your basic precept, at least in my opinion, is that leveling was bad and an unneeded and an unnecessary arbitrary constraint and that 'pure content' should replace it.

                      Slight adjustment to that: the core of my posts was meant to convey that all persistent worlds do not have to confrom to the designs that have been used in the past. (treadmill-based levelling)

                      I think replacing the treadmill with pure content can indeed create a game that will find its own market, and potentially a larger market than Yet-An
                • (Bah. Accidentally posted this in reply to my original post instead of in reply to this post. Just ignore the first one and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain)

                  I think it's optimistic to call the storyline of Everquest 'non-linear'. I think 'non-existent' would be more fair.

                  Yeah, but it's also inflammatory and does nothing to progress a dialogue. Certainly you can complain about the amount of content but my point wasn't that EQ was content rich. It was that your statements that a game could be

            • Considering that SMB can be beaten in just over 5 minutes [slashdot.org], I think you're comparing apples and oranges here.

            • Mindless leveling is fun. For some people, at some times, successfully doing something by rote means, or by performing actions where the outcome is rarely in doubt, can be incredibly satisfying. It's almost analagous to building a model. You know what the thing is going to look like; you could have probably bought one that already looked like that; but it's fun sometimes to successfully follow instructions and watch something get created, even if you know what is going to be made.

              Frankly, it's not really m

              • I wasn't picking on levelling, I was picking on the earlier post in the thread suggesting that treadmills were required for MMORPGs.

                I'm just suggesting there are other ways to do it. Some people love EQ, and that's great. But alot of people don't -- in fact most people who actually got as far as buying EQ didn't stay past the first month.
                So there's no reason to assume that what worked for EQ is the way things have to be.
                As I recall original UO was about as different from EQ as it could be -- and it was p

        • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @07:24PM (#9425379)
          Add real content instead of artificially stretching it out by adding time wasting treadmills?

          Not that I expect Sony to do this, but the first MMO designer to do so and not horribly fuck up the game (Shadowbane did so, but forgot to add the content qand realesed the 2nd most buggy game I've seen in my life) will rake in the cash.

          • Re:So? (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            You'll need much larger teams and much more robust content-generation tools to be able to even remotely continue to add enough content for the masses to consume. Look at a single-player game's (say, any RPG) development cycle. Those games have what, 40? 60? hours of game play? Maybe more. Lets be generous and say 100 hours of game-play. Lets be generous, again, and say that takes 2 months to get through.

            Your general population would burn through that content much too quickly for your MMO to have any

            • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

              by *weasel ( 174362 )
              Your general population would burn through that content much too quickly for your MMO to have any legs at all

              No, your hardcore population would burn through that in no time. But they'll burn through your treadmill in (comparatively) no time as well. The only benefit to a treadmill is that it is easy to tune to slow people down. Actual content -- well that has to be fun, and well crafted. The negatives of treadmills -- that could fill a book.

              The rub is that the casual market, the people who have reje

              • Re:So? (Score:2, Informative)

                by Number 110 ( 626487 )

                But no other form of entertainment dares to subject their consumers to repetitive content just to slow them down. What author pads a novel with repetitive slag, just to ensure that speed readers don't finish in a day? What TV series pads its DVDs with timesinks to ensure that hardcore fans can't watch an entire season in a night? Is it really so awful if a subset of your fans finish?

                Really? Watch nearly any network television series. Assuming they even have an overall story arc that continues through the

                • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by *weasel ( 174362 )
                  Really? Watch nearly any network television series. Assuming they even have an overall story arc that continues through the season you will still have a variety of 'filler' shows that have nothing to do with advancement of the character or promotion of the storyline.

                  Are you honestly suggesting that the non-big-conspiracy-plot episodes of X-Files are equivalent to camping a static spawn in Everquest?

                  A tangential episode may not progress the overall story arc - but it has a story and progression of its own

                  • Really? Watch nearly any network television series. Assuming they even have an overall story arc that continues through the season you will still have a variety of 'filler' shows that have nothing to do with advancement of the character or promotion of the storyline.

                    Are you honestly suggesting that the non-big-conspiracy-plot episodes of X-Files are equivalent to camping a static spawn in Everquest?

                    A tangential episode may not progress the overall story arc - but it has a story and progression of its

                    • Having read the entirety of your comment, I went ahead and deleted the response in progress that I'd had. We're going to just have to politely agree to disagree on the economic viability side.

                      Feel free to disregard my positions as opinion; it won't bother me. But those numbers do not sound even remotely correct to me. Until I read their context so I can point out where I believe they've gone wrong and why, or a second source and its analysis weighs in - it's really not worth further discussion.

                      I can't w
                    • Economic models are like any other theoretical model and are right until someone can show where they are wrong. :)

                      I tried to point out that I'm not saying they are right and no one else can be, but they do have good information and a lot of what they have (such as their costs to develop a game) are based on real world projects. While I can respect your position dealling with turnkey network software and I can see how you would think that gives you a good track on the costs to build an MMO, their estimates

                    • Exactly.

                      So we are at an impasse.
                      It's at this point that I make a reference to the Princess Bride's duel of wits, and we duck out of the economic side of the discussion.
                    • I have to say though I think there is something that has not been dealt with. Obviously you have to have content in a game but it does not have to be consumable in the sense you two have gone back and forth on.

                      Take sports games for example... in particular Madden. Football games have been essentially the same since the initial madden release. Same rules. Lots of the same plays etc.... They add new bells and whistles and better graphics but you know what I mean.

                      However the game is a reusable resource. You

                    • You have real people in the game world, let them run the world. People are sordid, scheming and endlessly changing. If you harness your players properly you don't have to create content because they will create it for you.

                      I have enjoyed reading this discussion. However, the above point I believe is worth looking at again:

                      I would argue that the quoted statement is not a good assumption. Look at There and Second Life. Additionally, SWG for most of it's live lifespan has relied upon the players to create

                    • Thank you both Tmortn and Zhirem for your comments (as well as *Weasel without whom this discussion never would have started)

                      I don't think the sports game idea would really work well with an MMO. Sports players tend to be different from MMO players, favoring consoles over PCs and the real world (watching sporting events for instance) over the fictional (watching movies).

                      This is of course a huge generalization and there is cross over with sports players who like movies and suck. There is even a fair amo

                    • I agree very much with what you had to say.

                      I will point out one thing, I know sports have a given competitive and regulated nature but what I was pointing out is that the real game world interaction of EQ is essentially no different at lower levels than it is at higher levels in much the same way that a pitcher approaches a batter the same way in little league as they would in the majors. Subtelties emerge obviously but the essential confrontation remains unchanged.

                      In real life there are real sepreations

    • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ADRA ( 37398 )
      But instead of making it fun, will they take away some of the better parts of MMO's?

      REAL Content?
      Asherons Call 1 was the only game I could stand for longer than a month because there was always so much content.

      Reason for dropping it:
      Costs too much money to add more and more content into the game.

      PVP for some edge?
      If you havn't played in a PVP, You feel physically scared making a mad dash in & out of town fearing a random player coming around and taking a run at you. I wouldn't make PVP manditory, but
    • Hehe. Doom is the most beautiful game in development, Sony simply lied to us... And. I don't actually play RPGs, however, I prefer the run, gun, and ask questions later, First person shooters. At least it is prettier. :D
  • Everquest was by far the most popular mmorpg the US has ever seen... so why are they changing some of the formulas? The major thing that first drew me into the game was the different starting locations for races... it made it feel more like a world than an AIM Client with pictures...

    • You can always just play Everquest, then. EQ2 needs to fill a space in the genre not occupied by SOE's other games - otherwise, they'll just be shuffling around their current subscribers instead of attracting new and previously cancelled ones. Anyway, the devs of the original EQ have said that they plan to keep the game running and updated for perhaps ten more years. (Whether it has that much longevity in the market is anybody's guess, as is how much market share EQ2 will steal from EQ.)

  • now I can pay rent, go to work, and work for the city all for the low low cost of $10 a month.
  • The interface and graphics are a very similar style as EQ1. I really don't see horridly innovative graphics increases, just more pixles, not anything more descriptive or mechanically working better.
    • Really, does anything have revolutionary graphics anymore? Now that cell shading is all over the place, we're back to the same place we've been the last few years: Double the pixels, double the polygons, barely noticeable increase in quality.

  • "every square inch begs to be explored" (Score:3, Funny)

    by scrytch ( 9198 ) <chuck@myrealbox.com> on Monday June 14, 2004 @07:40PM (#9425544)
    One of the most beautiful ... games.

    Bah. Got me all excited over a game?

  • Naysay all you like... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Defunkt ( 179286 )
    I see a lot of naysaying in the comments so far.

    Naysay all you like - I regularly play the EQ2 internal beta build and it is not just EQ with new graphics, nor is it a levelling treadmill. There is tons of content, plenty of balanced questing, and dynamic encounters. Naysay all you like; you'll all be proven to be nothing more than mere armchair critics, while EQ2 goes on to win customers and awards. The game is shaping into something truly incredible, and the rest of you will see that when it is releas

  • Looking through the preview.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CashCarSTAR ( 548853 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @07:55PM (#9425644)
    I would say, that with a downgrade in graphics, and a few slight tweaks, this is basically Final Fantasy XI. Not that this is a BAD thing....

    Actually, that guild system seems like too much of a pain. I like the Linkshell I'm in FFXI, tons of people, always helping each other out, like a strong large community, always growing, and there's no real motive for us not to grow, meet new people and join together.

    No PvP is a big improvement 'tho...PvP attracts the immature set..

    • Not immature, just different. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mongoose Disciple ( 722373 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @07:57AM (#9428529)
      PvP attracts the immature set..

      That's not entirely true.

      Here's a paper written a long time ago about different player types in MUDs. It holds for other games as well. [mud.co.uk] If you dig around, you can also probably find a test to tell you what type you are.

      Granted, I think the author's own biases show. He describes the "killer" type, which would be the type drawn to PvP, as about griefing. I don't think that's true, though it might certainly seem so from an achiever standpoint. More, I think it's about competition, about an ideal that you're the best because you can and do go out and beat other people, not because you log more hours.

      Players of the current crop of MMORPGs are almost universally achievers by Bartle's model. If you wonder why these games turn into super levelling treadmills, the answer is fairly simple: It's because that's what their core audience genuinely wants. They might bitch about the timesink that it is, but their choice to continue playing demonstrates more clearly than words that they anything but despise it.

  • No PvP = no subscription for me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Osmosis_Garett ( 712648 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @08:34PM (#9425933)
    Its sort of sad to see games moving in this direction. There is nothing more challenging than playing vs another human being, and nothing more boring than fighting the same NPC mobs over and over to get the ph4t l00tz. I belong to a PvP guild, and our average member age (of around 140 members) is about 25 years old. I can assure Sony that none of my guild will be playing this game. To be honest, none of us were really considering playing it in the first place, because the EQLive team has never given any serious consideration to the PvP crowd as their crappy PvP servers can attest to. There are much more interesting PvP games on the way (Darkfall [darkfallonline.com], Dragon Empires [codemasters.com], or Guild Wars [guildwars.com] to name a few) to want to lose a few pounds on this level treadmill.

    To the people who feel that 'pvp attracts the immature crowd', mabye you're just a bit too old (or too mature) to be playing video games. We'll be all practiced up and waiting for you when you get bored of kiting a_hill_giant01 for the 100th time to get that last bubble of lvl 35.

    • Re:No PvP = no subscription for me (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:50AM (#9427412)
      There is nothing more challenging than playing vs another human being

      Correction: There are few things less challenging than playing an MMORPG dual against another human being. There is no skill involved in the combat system of these games, apart from the group tactics of fighting large armies of NPC mobs. If you win a PVP match-up in Everquest, AC, or whatever, you have accomplished pretty much nothing. You won because you went into the fight with the more powerful PVP character.

      If you want be "challenged" by other people, go outside and play golf, tennis, basketball, or at the very least play an FPS game on your computer. MMORPG PvP is a joke.

      • I can't really argue with that, and I agree with your correction. Still, one thing which is less challenging than playing a duel with another player is playing a duel with an NPC. Also, once you start playing on the 'free for all' kind of PVP servers, you get a group dynamic which introduces a lot of strategy and also some vaguely militaristic approaches.

      • Re:No PvP = no subscription for me (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Psychochild ( 64124 ) <psychochild.gmail@com> on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:44AM (#9427575) Homepage
        Correction: There are few things less challenging than playing an MMORPG dual against another human being.

        Admittedly, I'm a bit biased since I run my own PvP-focused game, Meridian 59 [meridian59.com], but I'm going to have to disagree with this assertion. While it may feel ultimately hollow in many games, there are some games out there that focus on providing an interesting experience when fighting against other players; it depends on the game.

        Fighting against another player can be a lot of fun because other players can come up with creative strategies and use their abilities in interesting ways in order to fool their opponent. In Meridian 59, you can take over an opponent's guild hall if you can sneak in behind another player. So, one player used a polymorph spell to change himself into a small monster (a dreaded giant rat of all things!) and used the size difference to hide easier.

        In another example, there's a spell called "Mark of Dishonor" which reduces the target's vigor if they are evil. Since vigor is important in regeneration, this can be a crippling blow to an opponent. However the spell is an enchantment that prevents you from recasting the spell. However, you can cast a spell that is normally helpful that removes negative enchantments to remove Mark of Dishonor and cast it on an opponent again. This strategy has the disadvantage that if an ally is trying to cast a harmful spell, like Hold, on the target, you could remove that as well. We simply can't program an A.I. to come up with strategies like that on the fly and realize the consequences of the strategy.

        So, in M59 you have challenge, skill, and the accomplishment of vanquishing a worthy opponent. A bit contrary to your assertion.

        Of course, there are games where this isn't true. Many games are dominated by character level and equipment. A weak opponent has no chance to fight against a much more powerful opponent. When your only strategy is to have a higher level and use your most powerful damage abilities repeatedly, then the game becomes shallow and superficial. Victory means nothing since it was mathematically guaranteed before the first blow was even landed.

        Have fun,
      • MMORPG PvP is a joke.

        Inasmuch as that's true, it suggests a direction for future improvement -- not something all MMORPG developers should give up on entirely.
      • Haven't played Everquest since my 7 free days I got when I bought the game (way back when it came out) expired, but that doesn't count for all MMORPGs.

        The way Ashen Empire's PvP combat works, it comes down to skill, much as players say otherwise. A lot of people just fight it out by beating on each other and clicking their potions, switching to a staff and casting remedy, etc, but the experienced PvPers all know that if you time your movements, you can get in hits on your opponent without them being able t
    • Yeah, but PvP = no subscription for me.

      And if you look at the top selling video games, PvP combat games are (a) the minority in terms of sales, and (b) a market that's glutted with competition.

      It makes perfect sense for Sony to go for the non-PvP MMOG market. It's wide open.

      The question for me is whether they'll do a Mac and/or Linux version, and offer a demo...
      • In addition to being a minority and a glutted market PvP is also about three times as hard to balance. People grumble that their wizard can't kill orcs as fast as a magician of the same level but watch them scream when their wizard keeps getting cacked by the same magician.
  • Jade [pvponline.com] will be pissed.
  • "There are no plans for a PvP [Player vs. Player] server at release. There is no ETA on when or if we will ever have one."

    Well, at least that's better then Sony telling everyone there is going to be PvP at release, then backing out on it, implementing it 3-4 months later, and debugging it a couple more months after that. Then again, with no ETA, who knows if it will ever be implemented or just another broken promise...

  • Ultima has an opening here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by voss ( 52565 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @09:31PM (#9426293)
    A complete rework of Ultima Online adding Complexity and using the Ultima interface which is so much more sensible than that gawdawful EQ interface might topple EQ.

  • Beautiful (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm sorry, but this game really has very little going for it graphically. You could say it has some of the most *advanced* graphics, but not beautiful. If your idea of "beautiful" is having gaudy bump/normal maps applied to every conceivable surface, then it's a graphical wonder!

  • One step backward is two steps forward (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MMaestro ( 585010 ) on Monday June 14, 2004 @10:59PM (#9426769)
    Without complaining about EQ2 copying FFXI, I think its a good idea that they're taking the no PvP system seriously. Ever since the release of Ultima Online, PvP hs generated largely unpopular support. Yeah it was cool you could kill your friends or some random people you just ran into. But it wasn't cool if you were on the recieving end. Or if you got 'PKed' for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. PvP was largely, uncool in MMO games.

    With the expection of the unique cases (Planetside and Lineage 2 FOCUSING on PvP) PvP has largely be unsuccessful in MMO games. GM support is woefully outstretched with most players takings matters into their own hands (spam in a high populated area and guess how many people will mute you... and leave you muted as long they play the game.) One of the most unbelieved results was when players in Ultima Online formed anti-PK clans and went around PKing PKers.

    • From someone who got PK'ed a lot back in the good old days of Ultima Online and for a time, Tallon and Sullon zek of EQ. I enjoyed the PVP aspect, even if it meant dying. Most of all because it gave a sense to the world that other players could affect me, and not just everyone affecting the world by killing the same old mobs over and over. I enjoyed shadowbane for a little while, but the reason I left soon after I started was not because of the pvp, it was because the content was lacking. There were no dung

  • PvP (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Personally, I think having no PvP is a very wise move. Since December, I've been a pretty heavy FFXI player and my experiences of PvP there have been quite amusing.

    When I took up FFXI, there was no PvP, but everybody wanted it. For the first few months, every linkshell I joined was full of people demanding PvP, whining about needing PvP, moaning that they were going to give up the game if they didn't get PvP and saying "just wait until they bring in PvP" to everybody they didn't get along with. Even at the

    • Re:PvP (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mongoose Disciple ( 722373 )
      Disclaimer: I have, in the past, spent significant time as an administrator of a PK MUD. Obviously, this puts a certain spin on my opinions here. [carrionfields.com]

      The outcome of PvP combat in a MMORPG is heavily dependant on the class and level of the participants.

      Historically, this has been true, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

      It's possible to create a game in which one or two classes don't dominate PvP.

      It's equally possible to create a game in which the higher level character does not win 90% of the

  • Bah...still same old EQ (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @04:50AM (#9427902) Homepage
    "EverQuest II is one of the most beautiful games in development... Every square inch begs to be explored"

    Right, maybe when you first start playing, but eventually you figure out where you need to run, and you don't even bother exploring every inch, because there's nothing worth looking for there. Your goal is to get from Town A to Zone B and camp so you can continue the level grind.

    I'm sorry, but I'm extremely jaded from EQ. At least with Ultima Online you could wander around and forage for herbs, and find random wildlife, and harvest natural resources from *gasp* nature.

    This is all without mentioning the fact that now people are able to host their own UO servers.

    When EQ 2 comes out, they could make a LOT of money selling a dev kit for letting people make their own worlds/servers. They could even sell server space. But no...of course not, that would never happen.

  • It is my opinion that the best route to take is to have an 'optional' pvp system. Make the players turn on a feature, or join a faction like SW:G. That way, you know what the hell you are in for and if you complain - well you can stuff yourself into a pringles can before I take you off ignore.

    --- Why doesn't life have an effective /ignore flag.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Close