Everquest 2 vs. World of Warcraft 110
Gamespy has a piece up today comparing and contrasting the feature sets of Everquest 2 and World of Warcraft. It's a pretty thorough story, covering the newb experience, combat, character customization and more. From the article: "In one corner, you have EverQuest II, the sequel to the undisputed heavyweight MMO champ EverQuest, the game that has probably caused more divorces than any other video game in the world. In the other, you have the challenger, World of Warcraft, the first MMO created by Blizzard Entertainment, the development house best known for StarCraft, Diablo, and the original Warcraft RTS games."
Re:Only post.. (Score:2)
Yes, but today is Saturday, and on Saturdays using XML for the UI trumps shuting down server emulators by means of the DMCA.
Try again in a few hours...
Re:Heaven Forbid... (Score:2)
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:2)
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:2)
You know, that's so wrong. *some* people do that, others actually have fun!!
Class based systems lock people into a pattern of behaviour they are bored with
So why do they keep paying to play ?
and make them ignorant of other gameplay styles
If you don't know the workings of the other classes you will not work in harmony. Verant has tried hard to provide a framework where you can build a character that suits your gamestyle best.
T
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:1, Interesting)
If you've ever played Eve Online you understand this too well. Trading was a big part of the game and being a lone manufacturer in a isolated part of space used to have its benefits. Often it would be a good 15-20 system travel to get the parts you needed. Or if you were a trader / seller you would buy things at low cost and travel 20 - 25 hops to sell them for profit. Until the developers introduced
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:2)
No, it's because they are well designed to feel that way
each city zone comes with a map now
they have really thought about the game, really, I mean it not *just* a fan-boy
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:2)
It seems pretty obvious that something about the core design is alienating [i]most[/i] of the potential market.
The corporates are risk averse, and they keep churning out design knockoffs, rather than trying to take the next legitimate step in advancing the genre.
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:2)
Luckily for everybody anyone that makes an MMORPG will now have to copy/beat EQ2 which means 4 years work so it will be a mega game.
Have no doubt, whatever you feel about these games they are here to stay, the user base is truly M all at $15 a month or whatever
You need what is a uber machine to run EQ2 at full tilt, indeed at says "there are no PCs that can use these settings" if you switch it to the highest graphics so they expect the long haul with this engine, and quite rightly so.
I've been in game 7d
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:2)
Assuming they were about a year along when they announced the title at ECTS 2001.
It certainly does 'pwnz' though, as a feller says.
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:1)
good, I'm glad there is a challenger, DAOC is the only other one I tried. My EQ playing friends tried a couple of others but none of them got overwhelming reports of greatness.
EQ2 does p\/\/n0x0r too! Yay, we're all happy
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to those very social 1337 skill FPS & RTSers. Player skill based systems don't make socialization any easier, if you're focusing on the game you are either practicing or levelling.
In game socialization is more a matter of the actual gameplay mechanics, and the "clockwork" system of RPGs makes socialization far easier. You can actually hold multiple conversations in game in EQ during even a difficult fight, you can't eve
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:1)
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:1)
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:2)
you mean like Dark Ages of Camelot which blends both ?
get an MMORPG education
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:1)
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:1)
Re:The fact that they are comparable.. (Score:1)
Talk about redundant, "level based, wuest driven, class based?" Sounds like you just defined fanasy role playing games to me. The two games are comparable because they fit the description of a MMORPG, not because they are so similar.
What makes this comarison interesting is that Everquest II was made by the reign
Groups vs Solo (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:3, Insightful)
Being encouraged to party with people is all well and good, as it certainly adds to the fun, but being forced to party, can scare some people away. Besides, not everyone plays at peak hours.
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
If I were an anti-social person, I would go for the superior gameplay experience of a non-networked computer RPG.
The presense of ther players is the only advantage which an MMORPG offers. Shun the group dynamics, and you are simply wasting fifteen bucks a month on a game which is not particularilly interesting.
I used to have the attitude that "forced" party adventure is bad, because I might want to do stuff on off-peak hours
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:1)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
UO is the one I have the most experience with (I once lived where I had sub second ping times and better than 28.8) and it was always to crowded. For UO's size more than 50 players is to much.
As far as requiring grouping, well on one hand the second M is for multi-player, on the other locking the player into a type of play that isn't intuitively need for the genre and natural mec
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
100 PC's in three times the space is a LOT more than one per square mile. And of there wouldn't be an even placement of pc's, they'll gather at towns and other interesting places.
As far as boring, empty spaces, well that's where pc built towns and the like come in. A nlank canvas leaves much mo
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
but Morrowind is so mind-numbingly boring.
I'd read positive reviews of it but when I got my xbox and got MW I gave it two days but really, where is the action ?
All I kept thinking when I repeatedly walked past the crab I had killed was "what this game needs is another 1000 people and 10000 creatures"
I think we'd all like to see dynamic persistent worlds and I'm sure we will but think about it, my EQ2 paks directory is 3,931,710,961 bytes imagine having to download loads of the zone content every time you
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about Morrowind is the user added content and customization capacity, something you don't get with the xbox version. With the better bodies mods (Dark Elves that are atractive, not dark-skined people with traces of scales) and the ability to add in your own bui
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:1)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
It's one thing to want to play with other people, it's an entirely different thing if you have to play with other people simply to progress in the game. I've seen many people argue against my thoughts there using that exact same idea -- that I should be playing single player games instead.
Games should be fun, and should not have excessive requirements. Games should NOT involve standing around shouting "Level N druid/warrior/whatever LFG" for an hour (LFG meaning
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
Really, WoW is very solo friendly. Some classes are better at soloing than others, but they can all do it well enough. It's possible to solo up to 60 (max level) - with very little, if any grinding.
I currently have a level 40 paladin on Frostwolf, and I've soloed a good 60% of that, and duo'd with a friend of mine for another 35%. The duo matchup is by no means required - we just enjoy playing tog
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
You can tell what mobs are elites from a distance I assume?
Btw, are you Moonshadow from EQ Stratics?
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
I am SOOOOOOO tired of that! Why is there always someone who brings that up!!
People want to play THAT GAME, but they don't want to play multiplayer - they just don't have a choice. I would never join such a game to play with others, i prefer to be on my own - but since i can't (or it takes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to long, i don't genrally visit. Of course he shoul
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:1)
I'm very tired of this narrow-minded view of gaming. Not all forms of interaction is combat; there is trading and chatting, for example. You should spend an hour in the auction house in WoW, and you would see that you don't need to group to enjoy a social experience.
Furthermore performing rituals combats is not necessarily "social". I've been in groups in that do nothing but repeat the same pattern over and over again. I earn
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:1)
You only need groups for instances (dungeons) and raids (obviously).
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
As for future and high level grouping.
All the PvP and high level content is hugly group based, some raids designed for
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
Re:Groups vs Solo (Score:2)
Good? (Score:4, Interesting)
And this is a good thing? I mean, I know what they meant...but I always thought a game was supposed to be something fun that gave you a break from life, not something that consumed your bank account, hurt your health, and destroyed your marriage.
Re:Good? (Score:2)
Re:Good? (Score:2)
People who buy cash and items on eBay are stupid, period. They don't need them, they just want them, and if they spend that money on their game instead of their real life, they're out of touch with reality, and that's their fault, not the game's.
I will admit, I've considered purchasing money in FFXI, but then I realized
Re:Good? (Score:2)
Re:Good? (Score:2)
Re:Good? (Score:2)
And you know, doing cocaine consumes a fortune too. But that does mean I have to do cocaine while I go out clubbing. Clubbing is so so expensive. Drinks and cover. Most people are happy with that as most people are happy just working for their items. But the rare few decide they want the cocaine/bought items so be it.
Re:Good? (Score:1)
Re:Good? (Score:2)
Re:Good? (Score:1)
That sentiment has always seemed misinformed to me. At max, these games are $15 a month. If you allow yourself to be absorbed at all into the game, you will pass on an at least one activity a month. Instead of going to see a movie or to a bar, you may decide to stay in and play. These games aren't the financial hit people think they are.
Re:Good? (Score:2)
Re:Good? (Score:2)
On the other end, there have been people who have used EQ as a way of making a living. At our EB there used to be a guy who would come in every month, buy a copy of Everquest, make a new character and powerlevel it for a month, and then sell it off. He was only supplimenting his income, but he was making a tidy profit to be sure.
Never underestimate the power of laziness as a way to make
Re:Good? (Score:2)
Indeed, I'd spend 15$ on lunch. For the hours WOW has entained me, the tradeoff is fair. Hell the $100 I spent on war craft 3 and it's expansion was a bargain, I've played
Re:Good? (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to be an oper on a middling-sized IRC network for a few years, and eventually was 'retired' from the network due to political concerns - which was probably the best thing that had happened to me at that point in my life. IRC had become too much like a job, after I got out of school I went home and served my 8 hours online. I was good, but I was still wasting my life.
Now that I've been playing FFXI and WoW, it's a very similar situation, but I've managed to avoid the same pitfalls by not putting priority on the game over reality. Still, I can see quite easily how people can get so into these things that they forget about real life.
It becomes your hobby, then it becomes your passion, then it becomes your job, and then you become its slave. A dangerous situation, but the blame lies entirely on the players, not the game itself.
Re:Good? (Score:3, Insightful)
To be successful in EQ you had to invest a LOT of time (or a lot of money in eBay). You couldn't play 10 hours a week and hope of ever seeing the fun part of the game in under a year. People do not understand that EQ is not about the journey, it's entirely the destination. The game STARTS at level 65. Not true for WoW, but I digress. You play level based RPGs to progress and succeed, it's escape from life where hard work doesn't always pay off. Ass ki
Re:Good? (Score:2, Insightful)
Check out this link:
http://www.nickyee.com/eqt/skinner.html
It sounds too appeasing to me... (Score:1)
Re:It sounds too appeasing to me... (Score:2)
One complaint about the article (Score:1)
Re:One complaint about the article (Score:1)
Re:One complaint about the article (Score:1)
Re:One complaint about the article (Score:1)
What are you talking about?? The "free month" period went on for ages because of the problems that occured.
SoE ran the servers, not lucasarts also.
How about the rest of the world? (Score:1)
Re:How about the rest of the world? (Score:2)
That said, FFXI's surpassed EQ in users, with a very strict definition of "player" (account paid in full for the month at time of reporting,) since shortly after the NA release, so even if you don't trust the L/L2 (different billing model) and RO (extremely shaky numbers) figures, there's still a new king of the hill.
Re:How about the rest of the world? (Score:2)
Lineage 2 isn't "played" that much (Score:1)
Envy (Score:1)
Re:Envy (Score:2)
Re:Envy (Score:2)
A comparison that leaves out a LOT... (Score:2, Interesting)
Crafting system, not deep in WoW?
The things they mention (Having to find new recipes), about EQ2, are present in WoW. I'm thinking they only played WoW until mid-level. While yes, you do have to go collect your materials (or buy them from a player who does), I think THIS adds more depth than could be added by buying all of your raw materials from NPCs, as I can only assume EQ2 (and just about every other MMPORPG but UO) does. There are also rare items required for
Re:A comparison that leaves out a LOT... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A comparison that leaves out a LOT... (Score:2)
Instancing of the outdoor areas is really nice, since it keeps population down thier is no problem with people camping one specific site. No problem with meeting up with other people as you can quickly jump to a difference instance if you need.
Re:A comparison that leaves out a LOT... (Score:2)
Actually, I'm pretty sure that PvP deaths don't result in equipment deterioration, so PvP battles can go on forever. It's senseless to use a spirit healer if you want to get back into the fight (which is the only way to lose equipment durability to a PvP death), as the 10 minute res sickness will make you an easy target.
Having only played WoW (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Having only played WoW (Score:1)
Great article as far as I could see (Score:2, Insightful)
So instead I say: You can kiss my well toned butt SOE
I can't imagine I am the only one who thought:
"WoW sounds great, but everquest IS the champion of MMOG..."
But then thought:
"Hang on, EQ2=SOE..."
comparison pieces (Score:2)
Without reading the review I'm going to speculate that it points out many good features of each game and doesn't pronounce a strong winner. That is, there's plenty to recommend either one. Maybe one edges the other out but only by a little.
Am I right? I don't think gamespy would be the one to come down hard on any MMO game from either of these giants.
It seemed... (Score:1)
Simple comparision between the two. (Score:2)
EQ2 would be the great tasting cake, but the frosting and looks would be so-so with some unevenly applied. however once you get past the looks it taste really good.
WoW is the cake that looks fantastic, everything is polished and perfect you just want to look at it forever. However once you get past the frosting and take a bite, the cake is rather bland.
Missing Comparison (Score:1)
I would have compared 'in game' events. Although I do not miss Ultima Online, I do miss the in game events. I miss these from the MUD RPG days too. But in Ultima, there were many in game events that just added a little something to the game. Once, many huge daemons invaded a smaller town and people raced to get to the event, mostly to simply die a bunch and tell the tale later! Others were one and two high lev