Kickstarter

You are what I would describe as a "rounded person".

You take a choice, join the circle, and then come back right to the point you made the first decision you thought was the right one.

You say I have bad ideas.
And yet you're paraphrasing everything I've said -in convoluted form- that changing anything never works.
Read what I have said in the OP. Read it over and over again until the cement in your head loosens up.

And your gravitation to Matrix Online is the only reason you even replied. You have little interest that EQ2 is no worse or, ever better in the future. And if a decade really should be a point where it should be completely revamped.

MMOs are not changing. They shouldn't change; and you'd be right about that.
You can change the background all you like, but gamers will remain the same. A period in their lives where they need to be somewhere else without all that painful mucking about in reality.

I am in no way accusing DBG or the EQ2 developers, of any cover up that is illegal or harmful to others.

Those who shout or, assume out loud others', to have the failings of a conspiracy theorist-
probably enjoyed X-Files quite a bit more than the majority gave it credit for.

Wikipedia.
Nobody notices the evolutionary scale and distance it has situated itself, from the debauchery that is "Facebook" and "Twitter".

A smart person would know that I am not affiliating myself to Wikipedia; in the sense that my growth is -in any way- defined by it because somebody thinks I'm a fruit-cake.

Are you just referencing that I'm using buzzwords so you can mention Ad Libs.

As if either or, one, has any plausible connection to any of my posts: it makes your post a worthy candidate for just saying something that you think is "cool".
You're fist-bumping thin-air.

The internet is a powerful place. Big corporations are using it to, literally, dissect your mind and its attention to other things; but, you know, I know that nobody will believe what I am saying.
It's not that I don't care. It's that nobody's path can be changed just by telling them (whether it's beneficially truthfully or, not).

Your own exposure to the internet: unable to process all that information to any coherent form where you might consider it wrong or, even appropriate.

You see, when you learn about these things -10 years from now- it becomes beautifully clear that the no.1 objective is to get something out of you in any way that is possible, to the very few that shouldn't be allowed to possess it in such massive quantities.

At least it makes it easy to identify good and bad. It's the getting there that's the problem.
It's always too late.

Treat the Internet like a mirror. On the other side of it is there are some words that read: "You were a better person from behind."

First logical thing you've said yet.

Mate I am in fact saying you have bad ideas. Your idea is to create a kickstarter for a 10 year old game that still exists. Financing is not the issue here for DBG, they're just unwilling. We'd all love to have the original game back, but DBG won't do it because it wasn't profitable enough to begin with. Simple as that, it's not complicated.

What I was pointing out is mistakes they've made with other games and how they continue to make the same mistakes again, that has nothing to do with whatever it was you're on about. So no, I wasn't paraphrasing anything.

I've tried reading your posts, and it's a chore to extract something that resembles a concise thought from them so I don't think I'll be revisiting them. I hope that you work out your issues. You're making yourself an easy target for anyone with more than two rocks in their head to kick around, let alone a brain full of cement. I was actually trying to help you out, and you responded like a crazy homeless person who was offered food instead of the 2 dollars they wanted.

So yeah, have fun with that.

Gamers are hilarious.

Somehow, we have had posters categorically highlighting the core problem of any game that has ever been made. Then don't want it to change... because... there's a crazy person amongst them that they can identify as such based off of...

"that has nothing to do with whatever it was [I was] on about"

and then talk about that instead.

Then it moves to some weird "reading comprehension", "personal issues", "being an easy target", "trying to help me", "a crazy homeless person, begging for money"


Game developers are making games that fit a demographic.
That demographic has been fulfilled.
You're seeing it all the time now when a game developer makes a game, and when they keep it going.

And you don't even notice the connection. You couldn't. The demographic is the problem; developers are using this self-gratifying trick to fulfil the questionable expectation that nobody could possibly know better than game developers... because, "it's not complicated".

"We'd all love the original game back"
"DBG won't do it [developers]"
"It wasn't profitable to begin with"

All of what you have said is incorrect. It's wrong.

You don't make a thing better by making it worse.
I can think a hundred things they could have done, that are better than what they are doing.
But like I said: the problem is the demographic they're chasing... all the time.

And until that demographic learns not to be a self-centred, self-indulgent and "for my own personal sustainability", these types of conversations and posts will always follow a certain path:

Somebody suggest a move for improvement
Everybody finds more problems than the improvement ever had to begin with

That's the internet for you.
It's actually hilarious.

That's what has happened to the past.
It gets put in a book or some other medium, the future comes to look at it and says, "Boy, have we come a long way".

The story of course is, "Not really. No."

People claim "health" has improved.
But for whom has it improved and why did it need improving.
We are creating problems, just by looking for them. That then creates even more problems.
Health Care gets better?: But it doesn't.
It's just the original source of the problem died in large enough numbers for the new generation of adopters for change, to change a few laws of nature and the understanding of it.

And the cycle repeats.

Game Development.
It's sort of the same thing; only, the population paying for it is looking to make it fit within their immediate life-styles.
Ten years is about right when you become obsolete because that's where you're placing yourself.

Game Developers get wise quickly on this sort of problem: and create EQN's graphic design for a new demographic. The existing is just widening a hole constantly being filled in.

Is this problem getting clearer now or, is the thought of your own time on this planet too high a priority.
Interrupt me if I'm dying too slowly here.

I'm inherently against the idea in this thread, but reading between the lines I think I understand what dcracknell wants so I'm going to defend it for a bit. If I'm wrong I'm sure he'll let us all know soon enough.

DBG was taken over by an investment firm. As such DBG is looking to turn as much profit for as little investment as possible. A Kickstarter project is great because it raises investment capital without any of the liability normally associated with it. If the project gets funded all DBG has to do is finish the project that they promised from the beginning. Even if it is horrible, as long as something that works is produced they have fulfilled their obligation. It is also easier to convince DBG's owner to throw a few more million into an already funded project than it is to convince them to fund the entire project. That could also explain why H1Z1 is a greenlight project on Steam offering early access to what should become a F2P game.

While people say they want the next gen MMO that revolutionizes the genre what they actually want is something familiar and that works with mechanics they are use to, but with improvements. If you look at EQ1 and then compare it with EQ2 and WoW you'll find that WoW is actually closer to EQ1 mechanically than EQ2 is. You'll also find that the farther both WoW and EQ2 got from their respective launch titles the more similar the two games became. It isn't just EQ2 becoming more WoW like, it is also WoW borrowing mechanics from EQ1 and EQ2. In short, the more successful MMOs borrow ideas from each other. The big point I'm trying to make here is that WoW (the more popular game) is basically a refined version of EQ1 and it is less of a departure from EQ1's mechanics than EQ2 is, because that was what Blizzard thought people wanted.

Then look at the rumor mill about EQNext. From my perspective (as ill informed as it is), Next is going to be some horrible abortion of the EQ franchise that will go over about as well as EQ:OA did. Which is to say its going to be a horrible disappointment that will win a few thousand loyal supporters and be rejected by the vast majority of players. I'm certainly open to being wrong here, but with the entire Everquest franchise basically getting turned on its head and a lot of players aren't thrilled with the entire idea.

So instead of a completely foreign idea dressed up as an EQ game dcracknell was proposing a reboot of EQ2 with better graphics, some gameplay changes and a fresh start. More of an EQ3 or even an EQ2.5. Same-ish world, better game.

OP, a considerable part of the negative reaction to your ideas is because you have demonstrated a noted lack of understanding and knowledge in the areas that you speak. I've been a software developer for 13 years, I'm not some random scrub on the interwebs who picked up programming 101 and suddenly thinks they're an expert. That makes me qualified to judge what you're saying, and my judgment is that you're at best a layman with no actual understanding of software development, or at worst an inept software developer, the kind who poison codebases with their ideas of "best practices", the kind people like me have to come in after to clean things up. The fact that you think EQ2's engine is "no different from Forgelight" pretty much sealed the deal for me that you're the former. It's that kind of ignorance and lack of knowledge that completely discredits everything you're trying to say. The fact that you're so sure of yourself just makes it sad.

Your responses here are so meandering and incoherent that I'm led to believe you are either trolling us, on some kind of illicit substance, or have a real issue that you should probably seek professional help for. That that your reply to me goes off at a complete tangent and start talking about the X-Files, Facebook, and Twitter, and using terms like "debauchery", leads me to strongly lean towards the latter.

You're kind of blinded by your own inherency of software development. You're inside of it.
Those of us who look at if from the outside, don't see software development: they see "cheapest way to get to point Z".

Where in the hell do you guys come up with lines like:
"POISONS CODEBASES WITH THEIR IDEAS OF BEST PRACTICE"

I've already had one poster with some kind of perceived idea that ended in them describing me as a homeless guy begging for money.

The only problem with this problem, is that the problem draws in the core issues with game development. Right now. As it stands before me.
Right here. Now.

Starting with You.

I'm not going to tell you whether I am in software development or, if I have 20 years of this or that.
It's some company you probably have no interest in them personally whilst you waved something at them that says, "I'm interested in this stuff and I have no prior convictions to devoid employment."

I understand many things, and I don't understand the same amount.
But I understand people and I understand our society.

Software Development expertise doesn't make you anything; an authority to or, of something.

"you have demonstrated a noted lack of understanding and knowledge in the areas that you speak"
If I could put a picture of me here that describes my face after reading that, this would be it:



I've never used that image in my entire life; up until now, I've never been inclined to describe my personal feelings to anybody.

Somebody or someone, is handling game development poorly.
It's not that they're incompetent: I am not saying that.

You can handle things poorly, with relatively little change that causes detriment.
But it sure as heck isn't progress.

After 10 years, I think re-evaluation, more than anything, overrides any cavity effect because somebody mentions a large investment of time and money into a single thing that has survived that amount of time.

"Your responses here are so meandering and incoherent that I'm led to believe you are either trolling us, on some kind of illicit substance, or have a real issue that you should probably seek professional help for. "

You have got to be shi-tting me.
You're way worst than the poster basically calling me out as a good for nothing beggar.

You've got 13 years experience of s-it. Let me tell you.

I'm not exactly keen for somebody to act as my mouth piece here, but it is closer to what I am saying.
But I am only talking about the benefits of a Kickstarter. Nobody can expect any software developer to focus toward what is recognised as a horrifically random chance for success by other means.

So the key offset to that is a -I'm trying very hard not to use this word out of context- charitable contribution from the player base (and those that exist elsewhere) to -this is getting harder- gift the software developers that have kept it going this amount of time with the understanding that being rooted in the same place is asking for trouble.

All software developers are doing is avoiding danger for as long as possible, without doing anything unnecessarily. Nobody wants to make a wrong decision.
But gamers just expect the right one to be made... at some point. That's why you're being paid, that's why micro-transactions sort of work (but not ethically).
Development just can't be based solely on a sustainability model: stuff has to accommodate a wider spectrum.

You're already 5 years too late. Is that not in itself the danger already surpassed- nothing really bad has happened over that time. No risk could surmount higher than that.
The core player base is largely intact.

Somebody needs to sit down and think a few things over.
Blizzard are never going to look at Everquest 2's engine and think, their games will benefit using that. So how can it benefit EQ2.
Because you're so used to it.
And there is my point.

Blizzard denote graphics because of a demographical slant toward the appropriate audience that it entertains.
EQ2's original design was a Beta interpretation of what it could have been, severely hampered by a game engine that was cut-down by at least 80% to accommodate the technology of the time.
And it's now even worse than it was before.
Every change has just been the wrong direction. You have to ask yourself, how does it maintain the player base fairly successfully.

EQ2 is not ending: that is not what I am saying.
But it is invisible and undetectable for a large majority as the MMORPG it was supposed to be.
After all this time, it's a worse game than the worse period it was ever in.

Meirril brought up EQN: so I may as well say something about that as well.
If EQN carries on with that horrific visage that is the "Pixar Label for Children In Need", I hope you're prepared for the astonishing set back that would result if you do hold steady.

EQN as I saw it, is worse than bad. Not the way it's been developed, but the way in which it is re-directed away from MMORPG, RP and Cosplay type people (you know, the types that number in the hundreds of millions world-wide).

It's just uncomfortably misdirected from any perception that MMORPG could possibly get.
Why don't you just put a message on your forums so that veteran MMO gamers can understand what's going on there:
"You're too old. Fu-k Off."

Huh.

After a bit of reading, re-reading and thinking all I can come up with is this is pointless rambling. Established games aren't suddenly going to reinvent themselves. Sure they can evolve. Look at Team Fortress 2 for an example of an established title developing but nothing major has been done to the game.

You can make comments if you want about the subscription vs F2P (aka funded by micro-transactions) model of games today. Simply put the F2P model gets more business unless your Blizzard, Valve, Nintendo or some other publisher with a rabid fan base of over a million that will buy any shlock you push out the door.

Blizzard and SoE have very different design philosophies the two companies follow. Blizzard starts a project by benchmarking what is considered a standard gaming rig today so that when their project releases 3 years from now most of their player base has the machine needed to run the game. That means Blizzard games don't push the envelope of what a graphics processor can do, it means they appeal to the masses. What Blizzard has been really good at is fine tuning what you can get out of an older game engine concept.

SoE on the other hand does this thing where they try to anticipate where hardware will be when their game releases and tries to make sure that it will be impressive for quite a while after release. EQ2's graphic engine is a beast and was way ahead of its time. At extreme performance it still compares favorably with a lot of new releases 10 years later. And one of the big things to say about EQ2's graphic engine was...it was built with the assumption that computer processors were going to continue with the single core processor and when computers switched to multi-core processors it left EQ2 in a barely playable state. EQ2 still suffers from this assumption and its too expensive to fix it.

Also SoE lacks polish. Any long time customer expects memory leaks, crash bugs and other major problems along with any major change in the game. Customers also expect major changes instead of fine tuning adjustments. Anytime dev goes to fix a problem they use a sledgehammer instead of a screwdriver.

Then there is the art itself. Blizzard is really good at doing something styalistic and appealing with older code. SoE made an advanced graphics engine and used inferior artists. A lot of complaints centered around the hair for player characters. A huge complaint was that it all looked like playdough. 10 years later its been poked at a few times but you can't say its been fixed. There is also the limitations on adding more armor and clothing. More problems with the engine, and no affordable way to fix it.

While its true that SoE over-sold EQ2 and didn't deliver on every promise, they did deliver on most of what they were claiming. If WoW didn't debut 2 weeks after EQ2 the game would probably have a slightly larger player base now. I say slightly because WoW actually created a lot of MMO players, dragging its own fan base into the genre. Saying that SoE cut back its game engine by 80% due to technical limitations is just plain ignorant of both what was achieved, what the goals were and general programming practices for any project.

What's astonishing is that anyone can decipher what dcrack keeps posting. It's impenetrable.

"Everybody?" Really?

Yes, let's make it so that solo players can not walk outside the city gates without being killed immediately! Such a wonderful suggestion, if your goal is to see the player base diminish by at least 40% instantly. Like many have said already, including at least one developer, the way things were is not so hot as you are remembering. And what you are asking for is even beyond how things were--ever. We all tend to remember the good and forget the majority of the bad--remembering only the bad parts that were of traumatic scale.

"You'll figure it out?" I think it has already been figured out. Brad McQuaid tried launching a Kickstarter for a game that rubs your face in the dog poo on a regular basis and the Kickstarter failed miserably. The truth is, few people want to play a game that abuses the players the way some games have done in the past.

Don't believe me? Then I challenge you to go play EverQuest, make a Dark Elf Shadowknight character, and grind out your faction to become friendly to the Paladin guild in Qeynos--not the guards, that is too easy-mode--I mean the paladin guild. I don't think you have the guts. Have fun carrying those LORE haybales--chop, chop, get to work! Let me know when you finish just how much fun that was! I'll be watching for your reply--oh, about this time next year!

Sorry, quoted out of context, I know, but it just fit so well!

Personally, I have always been a bit disenchanted with how some games begin. For example in Diablo II, I show up at the Rogue's camp, as this "special person" who has come to "face the great evil"--yet I show up naked, with no weapons! I must be a real moron! In all fairness, I do take the time to cut the corners out of a flour sack and wear it for a tunic, and grab a stick of firewood for a club on the way!

It's fascinating. It's like Watson had a threesome with Wikipedia and InfoWars and went off the deep end.

.

Demographics are generally interested in their own best interests, or as you say "own personal sustainability" that's what demographics do and that's why they have them. Because we can narrow down using very broad strokes what they like, the way they think, what is going to get their attention etc. You wanting an entire demographic to suddenly not care about what their interests are means that demographic would cease to exist for any of the purposes we actually use demographics for.

SOE/DBG's problem, and the one I pointed out in my post that you took such offense to, is they have habitually abandon one demographic for another and try to grab at another audience and get dollars that weren't meant to be theirs. What I illustrated for you is that they have a history of doing this, and one of their former employees of note has pointed out that this has been tried and it fails.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what engine EQ2 runs on, or kickstarters or any of that garbage. They have a business practice that alienates their fanbase, and they have shown a complete unwillingness to change it even after they've admitted in the past they were wrong.

What the **** does that actually have to do with what you're talking about?

If by rambling, you mean, unsuccessful explaining...
Sony, and now DBG, said hello.

And you're just referencing "rambling" as your own contortionist view of a whole, rather than specific areas.
Fine. It's understandable I guess.

I think more than anything, you're just bored of me as much as you're bored of the direction of EQ2. None of it really makes any meaningful sense. It's just words and words stacked on top of each other.

"Blizzard and SoE have very different design philosophies"
That's great and all, but one of them is a whole lot better than the other.
And it has nothing to do with whose got the better luck of the draw.

I also have a philosophy:
It's called saying what you mean, and meaning what you say.

You don't go, "I study the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."
It's generally accepted verbatim if you look up the meaning of "Philosophy".

The reason it's not though, is that it "rifts" the common person.
You.
Me.
Your Dog.

You see, if you inferred "you are learned", you would talk like that because you're not incomprehensible.

"Blizzard starts a project by"
Who gives a crap.

"They [Blizzard] appeal to the masses"
I don't know what's funnier. You saying that or, me paraphrasing it like it's an important footnote.

"SoE on the other hand does this thing where they try to anticipate where hardware will be when their game releases"
No they don't.
No they didn't.
Neither does DBG.

Crytek, Epic et al do that sort of thing.
All SoE did was context whatever was popular.
And whoever did the Forgelight Engine in Japan.
But even then, they don't. They don't give a f-ck about that.
Because it doesn't really change. It hasn't since, well I don't know. 1970?

PC x86 isn't going to change until somebody takes a running kick to the balls of Intel Corporation.
Silicon isn't going to change until some investor is assured that they'll make trillions doing it.

We're living in a world where "a billion wing-wangs" is getting to be a tiresomely small figure.

"EQ2's graphic engine is a beast and was way ahead of its time"
And then, like 5 years later, it was too great and got toned down-
to computers that were massively more powerful.
And then they couldn't be bothered to modify the engine because... "much more difficult than you think and is misunderstood outside of..."
right?

"it was built with the assumption that computer processors were going to continue with the single core processor"
About 1% of the population run the world the way you see it today and whom make the common people - you and me - like monkeys with sticks.

I've known colleagues - like "Bart from Sweden". He started in Merchant Banking at 19. He could do anything he wanted. He had Degrees coming out of his ears. Ph.Ds. You name it. With ease. Didn't even try.
One day I asked him a question: What's really going on, Bart?
And he told me.

There is no assumption to anything. The true expanse of our science is already known 30 years before it happens.
All of what you know is a time-line tethered down by a capitalistic-driven world abusing real progress - in every single facet of our lives and you're just filling in the gaps.

He was also very suicidal at times when I knew him and he knew that I knew. That happens when your IQ is 183.
Human nature was incredibly difficult for him to comprehend; not comprehend its meaning, but its justification of actions taken.
It's really, really hard, when you truly understand the problem. And nobody listens.

Nothing is ever built with an assumption.
It's just resources and the someone who fronts the money; because to make money, you have to spend it. And more. And then more. And then some more.
The "it went wrong" and "it went right part" isn't really relevant - you just get your photo taken.

"Also SoE lacks polish"
My turn.

"Huh"

"Kickstarters"
It's an awesome idea, dcracknell. and I fully endor-

Oops, you didn't say that did you, Meirril.
Go on. You want to.

It would look like that if you didn't have the guts to say what you really think.

What with being a copy-typist.

Spoken like a true arm-chair quarterback who looks at last weeks game and tells everybody how much better they would of done it now that they know how the game finished.

Little new flash: Everything is done with assumptions. Like for instance, I'm assuming your going to be alive to read this. Or for that matter, I'm assuming someone will actually read this. Both are good assumptions, but they are assumptions.

All of science is an assumption. The reason everything in science is called a Theory instead of a Fact is because anyone who really thinks about the history of science knows that everything we hold true today will be disproven sometime in the future. And we still use science because those incorrect assumptions are still useful. And to a scientist the most useful assumption is that what you know now isn't absolutely correct and it is ok to question the status quo. Without it science wouldn't make progress. It would stagnate and become theology.

What I said was the history of what went on with EQ2, and specifically its graphic engine. If you're too full of yourself to even look at it in good faith then go ahead and keep making things up and running your mouth off. If you don't like my analysis of Blizzard and SoE come up with reasons why I'm wrong. Flat assertion that the analysis is incorrect with no argument as of why its incorrect just means you have a weak counter argument based on your credibility alone, and that credibility is rejected by most people here.

You need to do better.

As for why the comparison matters, its on all levels of your argument. It points to success in MMOs not being based on graphics, or a slightly improved version of a previous game, but more to how a company approaches a game concept and carries it out. Could your idea work out? Sure, it could. But I'd be more convinced it would work if Blizzard was behind it.

Then again, Blizzard wouldn't kickstart a project because they can sell anything. Fanboys are a scary thing.

no they are realists unlike you.they understand there are folks who are still using systems with the minimum required to run the game as it is now who would be unable to play the game such was I till some nice people(who I will be eternally greatful to) built me one when we found out my graphics card did not meet the minumum requirements like I thought. last november. so while I probably wouldn't have any troubel there are still those using micorsoft xp and a system not supported by forgelight.

LOL he did read it dcracknell he quoted you he answered every point 1 by 1 it is not his problem if you don't remember what you wrote( I can only assume you don't remember since you do not seem to recognize what Feldon put between the quote tags)

it was in context see my above reply about your not recognizing what Feldon was quoting.