Ogres vs. Dwarves: Who Will Be Next in The Workshop?

The female Ogres look better when you zoom in and can see the more monstrous traits.
I think the shape of the chin is too elfin. I'd prefer a wider, more prominent chin and lower jaw, but...

Throughout all world history absolutely there is a wide variation in terms of what an Ogre is or an Elf or any other fantastical creature. Everquest was not built upon such a wide scope view however. It was founded upon a fairly specific high fantasy genre. So there actually are canon versions of these races. In Everquest's case that canon is primarily D&D which is what Clover, Trost and McQuaid originally based the bulk of their game on. They used heavily recognizable (read, accepted) versions of Ogres, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, etc, to build the entire Everquest universe and thus they drew in the rather large population of people who love that particular genre.

In a very similar way now they're using the heavily recognizable name "Everquest" as a means to draw in people who love this particular franchise. And therein lies the problem. In the eyes of many this still has to primarily look and feel like Everquest otherwise it's going to bring about a high level of disappointment along with a certain sense of betrayal.

This is an important distinction to make here. The public isn't thrusting their preconceived ideas of what an Ogre or Dwarf or Elf should be upon a newly formed world to which they have no previous attachment to. They are instead trying to rationalize fairly large changes within a genre and a franchise they have an extreme attachment to.

The fans are not at fault here. They were brought in because they were told something they love is coming back. The minute Sony said "this is the next Everquest" the expectations and the precedents were already set. You can only blame people so much for being upset at deviations that no longer make this "the next Everquest" for them.

Again, Everquest was built upon a particular genre and version of these creatures, not a "historical database" that encompasses all previous concepts and iterations. Trost, Clover and McQuaid referred primarily to D&D and to other franchises within the same genre. In turn then the public actually has a very good idea what things like Ogres should be by using the very standard Everquest itself was founded upon.

I think the developers have done their best to make it absolutely clear this is not the case. Unfortunately though, if people don't take the time to educate themselves about the game, it's direction and what/where inspiration is drawn from, then the individual really has no one else but themselves to blame when it comes to feelings of being mislead/betrayed/disappointment.

The smart thing to do is to critique and question everything, and more or less that's what they seem to be doing.

Everquest hasn't gone away.
Fans of EQ1 and EQ2 can still play those games.
One of the Holy Grails for EQNext is Change the Core Game.

I'm giving their new approach to Ogres a chance. Bonus if they bring back Clurg as a bartender serving flaming Clurgs again

I'm going to go out there and say I do not dislike the race they are calling Ogres.

I just want to build dwarves more.

I quite simply disagree. If the developers truly wanted people to come into this with zero preconception or expectation they wouldn't have invoked the Everquest franchise at all. In fact I would argue they actually NEED people to see "Everquest"and come to a preconceived interpretation of what that means otherwise the vast majority for persons currently watching this game develop would have never been drawn in to begin with.

Even if the idea is for everyone to come in with the understanding that this is not the same Everquest they used to know -- and they've certainly stated this on several occasions -- that can't always be the blanket retort every time someone expresses disappointment with the changes they've made. J.J. Abrams might make it abundantly clear that Episode VII isn't going to be the same Star Wars people used to know, but I doubt that would be a well received excuse for putting Darth Vader in a pink bunny suit and having him wield a dirty diaper. There is "change" and then there is "this is becoming unrecognizable with what it's linked to".

I don't personally think EQN is in that realm just yet, but I do think they're well on their way. For some they've already jumped the shark. I will say this though. I'd be far more comfortable with all the alterations if I believed for even a minute it was drawing in more people than it's alienating.

So when exactly will it be decided who " won" this poll? I'm sort of dissapointed dwarves seem to have lost yet again, especially since I think they need more fleshing out to take them beyond the standard done-to-death formula while remaining true to their roots.

The ogres are fine I think. I really want to give them feedback on the dwarves.

LOL
Looks like it's already been decided - but the winner will be announced tomorrow during the Workshop show.

Agree that I do not like the Mongolian Ogre concept at all. I like these new sketches.
The bottom one is Dwarf.

Thanks, but at the time this topic was first posted, the images weren't labeled, and I hadn't seen the workshop show yet where they had talked about it.

Basically, I read through the first post and checked out the images. When I saw the first image I thought "okay, that's obviously some kind of dwarf palace or something..." And then I scrolled down to the next image and said "A dwarf forge / smith building..." And then I scrolled further down and said "Where's the Ogre buildings?"

And I still kinda feel that way. That "Ogre" building is way too dwarf looking. The only thing that really separates it from dwarf architecture is SOE's claim that it's supposed to be massive in scale. I am starting to get worried that the EQN Ogres are going to end up feeling too much like big dwarves.

DWARVES FOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, first off, there is no thing as a “specific high fantasy genre”. There is not some international origination that manages genres, and when you start production on a game you don’t select from a list of genres that have hard-coded tropes you’re required to use by universal law. Genres are a categorizing system that are by nature highly subjective and usually misapplied by consumers or marketing agencies who are just trying to target one demographic or another.

In this instance, you are grossly conflating High Fantasy with Forgotten Realms and Tolkien derivatives. While both IPs are popular and are High Fantasy, they are not codifiers of the genre and they are not indicative of the genre as a whole. High Fantasy as a genre is incredibly vague and does not have a canon. There is no genre with a canon, because that is not what a genre is.

High Fantasy roughly equates to any form of fiction set within an alternate world wherein magic and or other fantastical elements exist, and will usually (if books, movies or single-player games) follow specific, very broad tropes such as a conflict between good and evil and the hero’s journey.

There is no user’s manual for the genre that has a chapter on elves telling you that this is how elves are in high fantasy, and if you find such a book, it was written by a lunatic and should be burned.

Also, at the risk of angering the SOE gods and or Jeff Butler: Invoking McQuaid’s name here like that’s supposed to be word of god is ludicrous when the man has effectively become a pariah in the industry after the unmitigated disaster that was Vanguard, and his comically sad new project that’s constantly coughing blood.

You're right, that is a problem, but the problem is that people keep thinking EverQuest Next = EverQuest 1 circa. 1999. It is not, nor has anyone on the project ever said it would be. In fact, they've gone to great pains to stress this is a reboot and a re-imagining that selectively borrows things from the past, but has no obligations to repeat it. This is not a remake, it is a reboot, and there is a fundamental different there that people seem incapable of grasping. It comes up in every round table thread. There is always a cadre of EQ1 fanatics trying to drag the game back a decade because of the mistaken belief that since they played a game fifteen years ago they are entitled to have everything their way, and their way is exactly like it was in their time addled memories with no exceptions.

Both of those quotes also fail to take into account the business side of the industry. New IPs are risky engenders that can cost you millions if they fumble, and you usually cannot assume you will break even until a second or third release. Very few new IPs are runway successes, and those that are definitely are the exception and not the rule.

MMO's are the absolute worst possible place to try and make a new IP. The genre is notoriously unforgiving, risky, and above all ludicrously expensive. If you fail, bankruptcy is all but guarantied unless you're Activision or EA. Do you think Bethesda would have survived reasonably unscathed if instead of making ESO they made a new IP named "Big Time Adventure Buddies"? No, because the game was miserable, and literally the only selling point it had was it's name. People will buy it purely on brand recognition. Either they're the type of fan who think Bethesda can do no wrong, or they are people who never even touched an Elder Scrolls game, but bought into TSO because it was "probably not bad since I hear the series is good".

It's exactly the same with World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, Age of Conan, Final Fantasy, D&D Online, NeverWinter and more. The majority of MMOs are built on a brand because it's one of the very few ways to mitigate the potentially studio-ending disaster that will come should the product fail, as most of them do. No sane studio executive would allow the creation of an entirely new IP when they already own one that has over a decade of market exposure. Using the name EverQuest has very little to do with trying entice players over from EQ1 and EQ2, and given how different the combat is, many of the EQ1 and 2 players are unlikely to play as it is. Using the name is much more about establishing credibility with new consumers.

People know the name EverQuest, even if they've never played the games and know absolutely nothing about the game, they know the name. And like it or not, those people are the future of the company. Judging from outside appearances, SOE cannot survive with it's current playerbase. It's simply too small, and they're too erratic when it comes to spending money. Far too many of them are free players who do everything they can to avoid spending money, and that does not fly when these games cost between fifty and a hundred million to make. This game is not being made for fans of EQ1 and 2, because those fans cannot support the studio or recoup the no doubt massive bill EQn has run up, not unless every single person in those games started spending thousands a year on station cash.

SOE needs new blood to survive, and it is not going to get it by preaching to a dwindling choir. The fact EQn is even at all reminiscent of EQ1 and 2 is down to a design choice, and the developers themselves wanting to remake old zones with better toys. They could have just as easily pulled a Final Fantasy and started over with an completely new world and only a few token references, and it still would have been a valid choice, because as harsh as it may sound, they don't need the "old timers" who complain that combat is too "fast" or "action heavy", and they don't need their "loyal customers" who've had accounts for a decade, they need a LOT of people who will spend money pay SOE's bills. And while I am sure many of SOE's design team would disagree with me on that last point, I'm sure their finical department has run the numbers and found much the same result.

Down-vote away. Maybe I'll set a new personal record?

A foot note to this conversation about lore purism; Vampires don't actually burst into flames in sunlight in folklore or classic literature. They may not like it, it might make them weaker or uncomfortable, it might even cause them pain and minor injury, but they don't explode in the daylight. That's actually a fairly new invention (about 100 years or so) mostly due to motion pictures and later fiction. Later story tellers re-wrote the lore to make vampires combust in sunlight because it was cheap, easy, and sensational. How dare they re-write standards like that? Because that's how story telling works. It evolves to keep people interested. If anything, Twilight is vampire lore purism in that regard.

Also, Ogre Magi. TSR/WotC has had smart Ogres for decades

No downvote. For the most part you're cheering to the pep squad over here. I don't want "EQ1.5", I don't want "EQ2.5". I want EQ Next. If that means re-envisioning the whole world and just keeping some names, then more power to them on that one. I agree that Ogres and Dwarves are what they say they are - My only argument is that Dwarves, as presented, are stale and boring. If they want stale and boring, that's fine, I just won't vote for Dwarves in a contest and I won't play one when they come out.

Your points on the franchise are ones I have made to numerous people on numerous occasions. It is foolish and borderline attempted fiscal suicide to attempt a new MMO IP now that the competition in the genre is so fierce. Wildstar had marginal success, though it is mostly in shambles at the moment. But it's not so much the new IP as it is poor development decisions around catering to the "hardcore raiders" that are now grown up with families, so it's not the best example.

It takes a lot of time and effort to build a brand name, and the Everquest name, even if not the most popular MMO today, still carries a sledgehammer for being one of the first. I think they're doing a solid job of staying true to the old while being fresh and different.

I'll end with the analogy I often use. I know so many, SO MANY comic book fans who were livid when they found out they were making a new Batman movie featuring the Joker.

Some say Heath Ledger was the better Joker.
Some say Jack Nicholson was the better Joker.

They're both right, and they're both wrong.

So the question is, even if you think Jack Nicholson was the better Joker, do you automatically say the new Batman movie was bad? Can you derive no enjoyment from the new simply because you thought the old was better?

They are suppose to look similar the two races have something not yet told that connects the two race.

Maybe the dwarves need to have a little something "new" compared to what they are in every mmos, rpgs, books and movies. the dark elves have the elegant/dark/aggresive and impressive architecture with the blades, the kerrans have their asian/persian/tribal vibe that is a cool mix of influences, etc... Apparently, ogres seems to be more original than dwarves for now and have a nice recast. I love the dwarves, and i am fond of their architecture but, personaly, i don't want to build something that everyone have already seen everywhere. (maybe we could push the style further, their love for the metal, the geometrical architecture, engineering or something else, i don't know)

I agree with Ginsan, Dwarfs are plain boring to build, that's why I voted Ogre. To be able to build for dwarfs we will also need special materials that have small textures, like trims and rivet materials that are only 1 voxel tall, etc, unless we're all supposed to build big forts and huge underground cities. For the Ogres you can build a big house and get away with it but that's not going to be possible for the Dwarfs with the textures we have at the moment.

How well do textures that small render in from a distance? I haven't built anything in Landmark for a while, but I had the impression that some of the textures were as large as they were due to rendering concerns?