most players here were eq players.... or still are, some tested both games so know how each perform.
Yep. I know I am not the only one. ANd this is WOW discussion, where we are discussing WOW, including its flaws. But many here want it to be a cyber bidet for blizzard and if you criticise anything about it they ty to turn it into a flamewar about EQ2. Just like in the EQ1/2 board (read the titles we have one) where every EQ2 thread they come and post misinformed crap.
Have you missed how many people have said that despite EQ2s higher res graphics, that everything looks soulless? Did you miss the link to that slate article about why that is?
Yep. Missed the slate article. Guess that was the end all be all of any discussion.
Did you miss the fact that anyone who does NOT have a state-of-the-art machine is going to have to lower the graphics settings so much to get a decent frame rate that the models will look WORSE than EQ1? I saw a screenshot of a halfling taken on someone on the 2nd-from-bottom graphics setting, and my gods, it looked like something from a PS1. It was basically a tan lump with a smaller lump on top of it for a head, and 4 lumpy limbs. There was functionally no face at all, just a couple darker patches here and there.
So, you are saying that if you deliberatly try to take an ugly screenshot to "prove" how bad something is, it means that it must suck?
I have seen widely varying reports on how well the game runs and widly varying screenshots from low end systems. EQ2 doesn't use 5 year old graphics. It won't run on old machines as well as new. But it hardly has to be "state of the art" to run well.
I've seen EQ2 screenshots at high resolutions. Landscape looks nice, water is WAY too reflective, and I just don't like the character models. Not to mention, I'd probably get about 2 FPS on my system with any sort of reasonable visuals. My machine doesn't suck, but it's not stellar either. (XP2000, 512 ram, GeForce FX 5600). More polys does not necessarily give you any sort of artistic style. Sure, WOW's graphics are lower res than EQ2s, but they fit into a great thematic whole, and what they do with the engine is pretty amazing.
No, your computer would run it fine. Would you be able to crank everythng up? No. But the game looks fine unless you have a computer bogged down with problems. "I would probably get 2 FPS" is not a valid arguement.
Now, how about that EQ2 questing system? You actually LIKE having to run around to every single NPC that MIGHT give you a quest and hail them every single level to see if they have a new quest? You like hunting over multiple zones for 1 specific NPC with no real guidance on where to go?
Who said I like hailing every NPC? I said the missions were much better. In fact in another thread I think I even talk about how crappy that part is. The missions are much better done though, and there are many that blow anything WOW offers out of the water.
And yeah, I like missions where they don't spoonfeed you the entire thing. Quests where you actually have to do some work and figure something out.
I simply fail to understand how ANYONE can like the concept of group XP debt...
Well, there are lots of people who share your opinions, but very few who have played it share it. I can understand how bad it sounds, and how you think horrible things will come from it. The system works though.
If you think pulling, mezzing, or other CC was so easy that anyone could do it, you were obviously either a retard or playing with lots of them. I know I've seen some of the best pullers to ever play do some REALLY amazing things, that 99% of other pullers I've seen could never dream of doing. I've seen amazing enchanters keep battles under control where a battle half that size would overwhelm most lesser enchanters. etc. etc. etc. Forcing all pulls to be exactly pre-ordained, and doing away with CC just dumbs everything down, and doesn't promote skill in the least.
For 99% of EQ1 it was the exact same thing over and over again that anyone could do if they put attention and effort into it. Listing specific rare examples are nto what I am talking about. And again, who said they did away with CC? CC is no longer the end all be all of every fight. Chanters adn bards are no longer gods. Its still there you have to use your brains though. But I do agree with your here " Forcing all pulls to be exactly pre-ordained, ...doesn't promote skill in the least." Thats exactly my point! In EQlive and in WOW all pulls are the same. You sinlge and you split. Its the same thing over and over for 99% of the game.
How about the lack of replayability? Every single character you EVER make is going to be doing EXACTLY the same things and EXACTLY the same quests in EXACTLY the same place, at least for the first 5 levels.
Yep. The isle of refuge is the same thing. Know what? If you can't stand to do the same basic thing for <2 hours to get to level 5, get decent money to start with, great exp, but be forced to do the same content you did before...
That's gonna get REAL old by the 2nd character, and downright tedious by the 3rd and later. And if you want to make someone who starts out as the same low level archtype, that's even more levels of identical content. At least even EQ1 had tons of starting zones, so every race/class combo you picked would have at least SOME differentiation. WOW does this, as do most, if not all other MMOs. How is making a dis-incentive to make new characters a GOOD thing? Lots of people I know are alt-a-holics, who love the low levels, and make tons of different kinds of characters. You see this a lot in COH especially. Those kind of people are going to HATE EQ2.
So, all the starting zones after the newbie island are the same? Wow. I could have sworn every race gets their own. Nm, a few do share like trolls and ogres.
Perhaps you should play the game instead of ranting with poor second ahnd information? I am sure some of the people like Taxx who blindly hate it would be happy to give you their beta account to try it.
I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff in EQ2, buried under all the bad design decisions and bugs unfixed due to the artificially rapid release date. I trust my friend who's a coder for the game implicitly to do good work, and I don't think the game's going to be another Daikatana. However, if it didn't have the "EQ" name attached to it, I think it would be in danger of being another Horizons or Shadowbane.
I think WOW and EQ2 without the names behind them would both got he ways of SB and Horizons. The interest in them is because of the name. Even before horizons released there was huge press abot how innovative it was etc, but it did crap for release because this market is pretty full. COH did well because it targetted a new fanbase.
