How do you feel about modern concepts like guns and Ninjas in EverQuest Next?

It's more like a forum asking about input for Windows 8.2, and nobody there knowing all the good things from Windows 3.1 .

Everquest changed on its own (so did UO, for that matter). It didn't need WoW or any other external force - the dev team felt the way things were either weren't working or the changes would make them better. Judging by what happened to their subscriptions, I'd say they were right.

If Next is the next 'evolution' of Everquest, you don't go all the way back to before any of the improvements to the game were made. Look at what Everquest is today. Now how can you make that better? Look at how EQ 2 is today (again, much different than launch). How can you make that better?

\

Nope, not confused at all. Not only that, but I don't even consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, and I certainly don't think that wanting a bit of challenge and sense of accomplishment in a game makes someone "hardcore". We just understand that every little "feature" that some view as a convenience has unwanted side effects. Fast travel, for example, isn't just a convenience. It's an immersion killer and stifles potential content opportunities, exploration, and a sense of awe. But again, I've already gone into great detail about this... if only you had read my link instead of continuing to ignore what others have said.

And why exactly is a middle ground better? So we can have more watered down with developers trying to appeal to everyone and in return appealing to no one? Yeah, I'll pass and instead give my honest opinion, especially when it's being asked of me.

There's likely not a single person in this entire thread that said guns were easy mode. That argument doesn't even make any sense. I'm not going to go back and scour all 341 pages either, but the overwhelming argument was simply that we don't like the flavor and feel of them in a high fantasy game. That's it. This is now the 90283490823489th time I've said this, but I guess you still haven't quite picked up on exactly why people don't want guns. Speaking of the general intelligence of humanity....

My comments on pvp? You called it griefing when it was clearly a working as intended game feature. PvP is not griefing.

ORLY?! Why don't you go take a look at that thread again and see exactly what I said. The theme of my message was pretty straight forward: I want PVP, RP, PvE and everything else all rolled in to one. I'll even save you the energy of searching and post a link like I did with my previous message

https://forums.station.sony.com/eve...alty-server-types-question-inside.214/page-20

Uh, no, I didn't. But thanks for playing. If you're referring to the other dude who posted the link about an ex Blizz employee, well, that wasn't me.

I do all of those things. And has been stated 50 million times in this thread alone, guns in MMOs are not innovative or rare. They basically all have them these days it seems. I've tried it, I love trying new things. I don't like guns in high fantasy games. Why don't you go stick some my little pony stuff in your first person shooters, hmm? Might be fun to mow down dolls and ponies in Battlefield 4 right? Can't knock it until you try it! Or would that be out of your comfort zone? No? It would just be stupid? Yeah......

Stupid argument is stupid. Just because I don't have any financial obligations to pay for their product, that doesn't mean I have nothing invested. I'm a fan of the Everquest lore and franchise (well, to a degree... I loved EQ1, but EQ2 sucked). I have my hope invested in the game because other than the bad graphics, I seem to like what they are trying to accomplish. I want to see it succeed and be a fun game because everything released in the past decade has been total trash.

I fail to understand how it's childish for someone to want a high fantasy game (or any that matter) with a specific feel and setting, and being uninterested in that game if that setting isn't what they are looking for. I wouldn't play a war game with my little pony stuff in it because it wouldn't appeal to me, just like a fantasy game with guns doesn't appeal to me.

And yet, I never said that amazingly enough. That's now 3 or 4 things you've accused me of saying that I haven't actually said. In fact, the other guy who ACTUALLY said something to the effect of this didn't say people who haven't played EQ "have no say". He simply said that they have nothing to compare today's trash MMOs to, which was the point of my post about UO which you never seemed to grasp.

I'm not going to quote your post Portis, but that was well said.

I still don't agree with you on much, but you state your opinions, and either back them with reasons or else simply state that that's your preference (which is reason enough for many things in life).

Something like this really depends (I think) a lot of what your first introduction to 'high fantasy' is or was. A lot of James Bond syndrome going on, which isn't a Bad Thing, it's just a natural human tendency.

My "base" in fantasy is Dungeons & Dragons, going back to the first Red Box set (I missed out on OD&D, sadly). That setting eventually included guns (Forgotten Realms), spaceships (SpellJammer), blasters (Expedition to Barrier Peaks), and a host of other things while still maintaining a 'fantasy' feel. Or at least, that's my perception of it through my own rose tinted glasses.

I can see a pretty good case for ninjas in some form - we've already got shuriken throwing scouts, and the lore is easy: the reason no one has ever seen them is ... they're ninjas

Guns I could take or leave. Won't break my heart either way, so long as it's done well - ie: not AK-47's and Glocks, but that's just the start. WoW did a good job making guns fit with the dwarves in that setting, right down to the artwork - and that's not an easy thing to do.

You can call the game 'cartoony' if you want (though I've never seen a graphical MMO that didn't look like a cartoon) but it was consistent - and it's held up pretty well over time, something 'realistic' graphics often fail to do.

If the devs here put in all that work, time, and effort to make guns fit in Next, I'll be cool with it. But honestly, I can think of a bunch of other things in the bucket list I'd like to have them work on first - and there's only so many zots to go around, SCRUM or no SCRUM.

Which is why I never argued based on "lore." I just don't care for them, and wish they'd remove even that much from EQN.

Yup. I'd gladly pay a subscription fee again for a truly smart, and difficult (By virtue of complexity, not just by making the mobs invincible) game.

If a hundred people agree that a duck is a swan, it's still a duck.

I did play WoW, from Vanilla, and agree with what is said in the first paragraph above. But I went to vanilla WoW after 6-7 years in Everquest, because even though I loved Norrath, the interface and graphics had become so patched-together and outdated I couldn't stand it anymore. Plus they had added too many arcade elements. First the Nexus, then PoK had made it no longer feel like a world, just a setting for "runs."
In Vanilla WoW, the only real source of fast travel for the masses was the flight network. This was not so bad; at least you could see the world below you as you traveled, and it sped things up without making it instantaneous. But then, over time, that became insufficient and they implemented a number of instantaneous travel strategies, culmination in the Dungeon and Raid Finders, which mean you never have to cross the landscape at all.

But I have a real problem with your disdain for nostalgia and 'happy moments'. If a game doesn't generate happy memories, and things that stick with you, and real friendships and social interaction, then what's the point? If all you're looking for is the kind of twitchy "fun" that you get from combat mechanics....then you might as well just ingest some kind of euphoric and sit on the couch.

The experience of playing a game that is geared toward immediate gratification and fun over all: Your comment years later will be "Yeah, that game was fun."

If the game is geared toward challenge, interaction, and accomplishment, your comments years later will be "OMG, let me tell you this story about...." Which is to say, substance. Real, living memories.


I know which one I want.

Actually...I hesitate to mention this in a forum hosted by SOE and hope they won't hold it against me...but EQ changed because CORPORATE STEPPED IN. The original EQ was run by Verant, and they ran the sandbox we loved. SOE took control (I think, don't quote me on this) around the time of Luclin. If I remember correctly, before that they were hands-off financial backing. It changed because a mega-corporation said "We need to sell more of this. More profits." So it was watered down to appeal to a larger demographic - i.e., they short-changed their core players to sell to the ADD/ADHD crowd. (Which is entirely different than the AD&D Crowd )

And you look at where EQ is today, and yes, you look at what improvements HAVE been made and incorporate them.
Just one thing...could you list three? Because I don't really see any. At all. A lot of ADDITIONS and EXPANSIONS have happened...but not improvements. The only time I ever saw an improvement was when they updated the graphics engine in Luclin.

If Windows 3.1 had great features that were discarded with 3.11 Windows for Workgroups, then more that were discarded for 95, and 98...etc etc., then actually YES, looking back at 3.1 would be a GOOD THING. But you seem to believe that because something was changed, it was wrong. Sometimes changes are done for bad reasons, sometimes they're poorly implemented. Sometimes they're just mistakes.

You shouldn't make assumptions and assertions about what people have or haven't played.

I played WoW since closed beta prior to vanilla release. Then off and on until lich king.

Several days is absolutely nothing. Months is absolutely nothing.

Then you remain with a limited viewpoint of the evolution of this genre.

That's the problem with this forum. Sorry to point you out but it's people like you who simply don't know and cannot understand the roots of the genre without first hand experience.

The original team from Verant was not retained. Many of them moved on and then EQ1 proceeded to commit suicide with the Gates of Discord expansion. It was so atrocious that they even flew in experienced players in to try and figure out why.

What EQ is today is an entirely different game compared to the 1999-2003 era.

I'm not against having nostalgic memories. But I am against those nostalgic memories being so intense they cloud judgment in development of new ideas/worlds. Like I said, I wasn't impressed with EQ1 and I have no nostalgic memories. My impression was short, brief, and not at all sweet. So all I have to take from the game was mechanics...and they didn't impress me either.

Some things need to be worked for and shouldn't be twitchy. But that doesn't mean that making things easier is in itself 'easy mode'. Are concessions we make for the handicap in RL catering to self indulgent people or making things more assessable to the whole?

It's the same with any game. Not everyone will have the 'skills' or time to invest for everything. Should a player be punished for having responsibilities outside of the game (raiding)? Should a player be rewarded for ignoring one half of the game for another, one that might be in far smaller scope and has no bearing on the game at large (instanced pvp)? Is there really any harm in having quicker travel to certain parts of the world, similar to how trains didn't go everywhere, but got you closer (fast-travel)?

All these questions are valid in their own right. Some have found answers in different ways, and yes some have taken them to far. But the opposite extreme might be why people felt the current trend was necessary. This is why nostalgia is so dangerous, especially in development in a new game. Portlis talked about the POSITIVE things from UO and it's crafting system, but he skipped over the NEGATIVE even if he did mention it briefly. The reason we don't trade items we own is because of the people who DID steal others items. It happened in UO, it happened in Anarchy Online, and it sucked supremely every time it happened. Maybe not to the whole, but it did to the individuals it happened to. Should we just say the minority don't matter then?

THAT is where I begin to view nostalgia with disdain. This is a game, if I want people to be able to cheat me out of things I earn I can go to work. The ultimate problem I see with the 'old school' and 'hardcore' crowds is they don't take the time to really understand WHY changes were made.

Guns maybe are not everyone's cup of tea, but pointing to wow and saying, as some have, that technology is why the game went down the gutter is both ignorant and idiotic. The plain and simple truth is that Blizzard didn't know when to STOP making the game accessible. It's enough to put in a ramp to the front done. But having someone to push you, and electric lift, and automatic swinging doors is TO accessible.

I'm sure there is a MLP mod out there somewhere, might have to try it.

As for your 'argument', you already have that game. It's called Everquest, you seem to claim you know it. But this is Everquest NEXT. A game not yet built, and doesn't share lore with Everquest ONE or Everquest TWO. Your comments about bad graphics makes me point back to not knowing the WHY of decisions.

Your inability to find compromise is disturbing. THAT is above all why you come across as childish. NOBODY would think you want guns if you say 'I don't want guns'. You have. So what happens IF they DO get added? You said you would just not play, which is fine. But that won't change the fact they would be implemented, and you cut yourself off in HOW they would be implemented. If you don't see how that is cutting off the nose to spite the face...think more strategically.

Yet reviewers don't have time to play games for 'months' before writing a review. I'm a reviewer, and I stand by my review of EQ1, it hasn't changed much even with me having just re-entered this morning. Saw a naked man run up and ask for cyber. No thanks, keep your nostalgia if that is what I have to slog through for 'months' to get to.

I did have first hand experience. Sorry, if I have a bad date with a 'gentleman' should I continue to have dates to try to find his softer side? Or just take my impression and leave?

We're not here to please reviewers who have limited time to evaluate a product. Certain products require you to live and breathe them for a very long time, if you want to have in-depth understanding. This isn't some random little game where you can quickly jump in and make accurate judgment.

I can't expect you to have any understanding of this if you didn't thoroughly play EQ prior to Gates of Discord.

No...but if you have a bad date with a gentleman, you probably shouldn't assume every man in that city is a jerk and move away, either. Which sounds like what happened for you with Everquest. You encountered some griefers and unpleasantness and assumed that was all it was. It's my contention that that is an unfortunate but isolated thing. And apparently you've had a couple of such encounters.

Thanks.

I quoted this part of your statement because I think it's the most important thing that you and others who share your opinion could really try to understand about those of us who don't want guns at all.

I could be all patronizing and ask a bunch of questions about technological advancements and lore within the EQ realm, I could tell you that if you don't want AKs and Glocks that you're being too hardcore, old school, stubborn, unwilling to find compromise, and looking at past games through rose-colored glasses. But I won't, because I clearly understand that you not wanting AKs and Glocks is a personal preference and I can completely understand it.

You clearly have a "cutoff point" for guns. You're happy with dwarven blunderbusses and what have you, but AKs and Glocks are taking it too far and might start to ruin your game experience by tainting the setting and overall feel of the game. For us, blunderbusses are AKs and Glocks. We both agree that there's a point where it's been taken too far, we just reach that point much more quickly.

If I have to play X amount of time before I start enjoying something, or even have to pay money over that time, is it really worth it? Now if we are talking something that would make my life TANGIBLY better such as an education or learning a physical sport that is different. We are talking about a video game though.

So if I don't start enjoying the game after a few days, I have other things I can play/do/work on. I review games, and a small amount are there for my off time enjoyment. EQ1 doesn't come close to that being one of those games, especially since the only reason I logged on was to give it a second chance...and sorry but the COMMUNITY blew it. First time was ten years ago when a MODERATOR was part of the problem, and today when a community member ran up naked asking for cyber. Sorry, not interested.

So yeah you are right, some things require more time to understand to enjoy. But there are only 24 hours in the day, and unless my relaxation time with a game leads to enjoyment I don't see the point in continuing the game. Period. I don't like wine, and don't see the point of drinking it if I have to 'acquire' a taste for it. I don't see how that as any different here.

Oh, and by the by? Reviewers are how many gamers choose their games. So yeah, a game pretty much is required to cater to reviewers...it's how copies get sold. Why do you think most games start out well and go down hill? So you shouldn't be saying 'we don't cater to reviewers', you SHOULD be saying 'we want the level of quality you present to reviewers present through the WHOLE game.' Considering most people only play one mmo at a time, a game needs GREAT publicity to get players to switch, even MORE to get them to come back.

We are not talking about every other man. I clearly still play games and even mmos to boot. In this case the 'man' in question is Everquest. I wouldn't even be looking at this page if someone hadn't mentioned the supposedly 'holy grails' in development. I've had a lot of developers promise me and the players of games I review the moon and more. But this time, there was actual video there to show it off, so I have guarded optomism for the EQN.

But Everquest as a franchise? ESPECIALLY Everquest one? Not much there for me. When people can't trust/control the moderators, that is it. That not only is a bad sign for the game, but for the business BEHIND the game. I didn't quit just because of some griefing, I quit because of WHO was doing the griefing.

But i'm not a teenager in my parent's house anymore, and haven't been for a good 10+ years now. Means I don't have as much disposable income. If I get a reviewer account for landmark? I'll review it honestly and fairly. But at this point I'm not inclined to invest in this game because of the COMMUNITY and the things the COMMUNITY keep clamering for, or closing their minds to. So yeah, if my JOB requires me to invest time in EQ1 I will, if it requires me to play Landmark I will, or even Everquest Next. At this point though, not spending my personal time or money for it.

Look, I hate to be brash, but if your only experiences with EQ were 5 years after it launched and then 15 years after it launched, your opinion of "EQ1" is basically invalid anyway because you essentially weren't even playing EQ1. The game as it is today basically sucks. It's been hit hard by 15 years of bloat and mudflation and has essentially zero of the charm left that made it a great game in the first place. At 5 years in, the game had already started it's downward trendwith LDoN, GoD and OoW having been released. LDoN was abysmal, and GoD was a travesty as has already been well documented.

The "golden age" for any given MMO is always that first couple years. You're around other people leveling up, you form friendships, and you actually encounter other people while roaming the world. It's not all boring end game content with everyone caring nothing about the inbetween. If you weren't there for the first couple years, you'll never understand. It's really that simple.

Also, if you let other people ruin your game experience so easily, you're in for a lifetime of disappointing gaming experiences.

It is so hard for new players to get immersed into a game after it has been around for a few years. One reason I am hoping for a progression server that starts at day 1 (game release) and the Rally Calls are twice/three times as fast and catches up to where most servers are. At that point players can transfer to a server of their choice as long as its the same type of server. After a week of the transfers the remaining players are transferred to the most underpopulated server and the server resets at day 1 again.

Every time its about to reset there could be advertisements trying to entice new players to try the game and experience it fresh. Have a strong customer service presence to police the community and it can bring in tons of players even years later.