f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Everquest 2 => Topic started by: HRose on July 27, 2004, 05:04:41 PM



Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: HRose on July 27, 2004, 05:04:41 PM
Come on, how can this be believable?

http://vnscripts.ign.com/screenshots/images/eq2/45476870.jpg

Not only it looks very ugly, but it's obvious that it's SWG with a different theme.

A collection of ugliness was posted at Anyuzer's forum:

http://www.myimgs.com/data/ladypolaris/omfg.jpg


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Rasix on July 27, 2004, 05:08:18 PM
Eh, window design != same engine. Anyhow, it'd be retarded for them not to borrow some aspects of character creation from SWG. It was well done.

But egads, that's some ugly avatar creation.  Of course, it's not like you can't great fugly avatars in every single mmorpg I've played.

So, I guess my point is?  You seem to have a personal gripe with SoE and it's reduced you to posting crud like this. Let it go.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Big Gulp on July 27, 2004, 05:54:18 PM
Quote from: Rasix

But egads, that's some ugly avatar creation.  Of course, it's not like you can't great fugly avatars in every single mmorpg I've played.


On the upside, my dream of creating a shadowknight version of Corky from Life Goes On has come to fruition!


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Krakrok on July 27, 2004, 07:16:21 PM
They look like characters from Poser before they figured out how to make hair not suck (hint: use transparency).


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Soukyan on July 27, 2004, 08:27:02 PM
They do use aspects of the SWG system. The character creation is not the only thing "similar". Landscape and textures are very similar. Water is 10x better, but hey, what do you expect. Really, I think it's like an SWG 1.5 sorta engine. I imagine some deviation had to occur because EQ2's engine would have been started before SWG was finished, but the basis I truly believe is shared. It does beg the question that if characters can jump in EQ2, why not SWG? ;)


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: geldonyetich on July 27, 2004, 08:46:38 PM
I have to mirror thoughts that EQ2 may in fact be using SWG engine elements, because those heads and bodies look a lot like they're from SWG to me.   However, the choice of the colors and part styles is somewhat more outlandish, which is probably considered acceptable considering the Fantasy backdrop.

I'm not sure what that "WoW is already dead!" sentiment on the second screenshot is already about.   Look! Our Avatars look friggin' outlandish.  You going down WoW!   Or perhaps it was sarcasm.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Numtini on July 27, 2004, 08:54:41 PM
The last gameplay movie, even with the annoying developer, was very good. I didn't like the plastic avatars from the earlier screenshots, but they look greatly improved to me. At least when they're moving.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: HRose on July 27, 2004, 09:06:24 PM
The comment was because NiB thought that WoW's models weren't very good. But by looking at EQ2, WoW looks now awesome.

Aside the graphic. I know that WoW has a wonderful engine which runs way faster than everything I tried on my PC. I'm not sure how EQ2 will perform, also considering that I really hate its style.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Joe on July 27, 2004, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: HRose
The comment was because NiB thought that WoW's models weren't very good. But by looking at EQ2, WoW looks now awesome.


No, it really doesn't. WoW does a lot with its art, but it still looks like ass.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: SirBruce on July 27, 2004, 11:51:18 PM
Quote from: HRose
The comment was because NiB thought that WoW's models weren't very good. But by looking at EQ2, WoW looks now awesome.


And you've concluded this from a few pictures of ugly avatars?  You know, there are ugly people in the real world too; does that mean God's graphics engine sucks?

What matters to me more AS FAR AS GRAPHICS ARE CONCERNED is who has the best of the best graphics, and which has the generally better of the average graphics, not who has the worst of the worst graphics.

Bruce


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alkiera on July 28, 2004, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: SirBruce
What matters to me is who has the best of the best graphics, and which has the generally better of the average graphics, not who has the worst of the worst graphics.

Bruce


Whereas, what matters to me is which I can play meaningfully for as little as 30 minutes at a time, presents me with a character I can care about, and a number of systems to explore, the majority of which do not cause me to apply icepicks to my eyes.  Said majority should include the combat system.  EQ1-like (melee)combat doesn't fit the bill.

--
Alkiera


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: SirBruce on July 28, 2004, 04:26:59 AM
Uhh, yeah, my quote isn't meant to be taken beyond the context of graphics.

Bruce


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Mesozoic on July 28, 2004, 06:30:14 AM
When game art was about working within the rather severe technical limitations imposed by user hardware, most of us could agree that game A was better /  worse than Game B.  It was just a matter of which had more polys or better textures and at what framerate.  Typically, the most recent game won, period.  As hardware becomes more powerful and those technical limitations lift, it really becomes a subjective matter of artistic merit.  

But we're still in the habit of trying to decide if A is better than B.  WoW versus EQ2?  I dunno...lets argue over whether Blue is cooler than Red.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: SirBruce on July 28, 2004, 06:44:07 AM
I agree, but I think it is too easy now to use style as an excuse.  For instance, when I was trying to convince UXO folks that I didn't think their graphics were quite as "good" as EQ2 or WoW, my opinion was disregarded because I just didn't like the "style".  While that's true, I'm not a fan of WoW's style either.

On the one hand, you have actual measurable and verify metrics of graphical capability.  Unfortunately, consumers rarely have access to those metrics, so they often don't know if the models in your games have more polygons than the models in another game, or what the draw distance is, or how many LoDs there are, etc.  On the other end of the spectrum, you have visual "style" which people can like or dislike based solely on opinion.

But somewhere in-between I think there's room for an aesthetic sense of "visual quality" that can be measured in some way by the impression it leaves on the viewer.  One scene can actually have less polygons but look "better' because the models and textures are well chosen, or for a myriad of other aesthetic reasons that go beyond simply "style" and actually delve into implementation, object and level design, and artistic skill.  But it's very hard for non-artists to express this in language that artists and others can understand.

Bruce


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Phred on July 28, 2004, 06:46:11 AM
A long time ago, when EQ2 was in early development, Verant announced SWG, and that it would use EQ2's graphic engine. So I guess it's not that surprising that that they would have some similarity, dispite the SWG guys customizations.

I think there was a post from Raph back on Waterthread as well, right after SWG release, on how they just missed getting EQ1's xml customizable interface into SWG as well, as it was well past when it could be integrated that it finally shipped.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 28, 2004, 08:58:18 AM
EQ2 and SWG are not using the same engine... sort of.  They both STARTED from the same engine and have severely diverged in development.  The engines are no longer the same, but they had the same exact parent.  So I am sure they have elements that are still the same just underneath the surface.  EQ2 has truly stunning water (the water in the char gen is flat so the boat does not rock, but they can do really impressive waves)

As far as EQ2 character generation, my wife did the preorder thing and has the char gen cd.  It is a similar system to SWG in that you have all the facial sliders.  Unlike SWG, the facial sliders don't do nearly as much.  The widest nose is not that wide for instance.  The skin textures are also obviously drawn for one facial structure and then morphed to fit any others.  So if you don't pick near the one they drew the textures for it looks abit smudged and streatched.  This is worse on some races than others.  As in SWG you can make truly hideous characters.  Like the ones in most of the EQ2 screenshots.  Hideous characters.  You can also make decent looking to good characters.  Unless you want to play female dwarf, male gnome, ogre, troll, halfling.  If you want to play one of those you are pretty fucked.

On the preorder cd there is also a movie with some dev or pr guy talking over it.  It contains all the snippets seen in the other movies, but shows more of them in general and does not have all the annoying cuts in it.  The cloth system is pretty visible in many of these scenes and is pretty nice to finally have in an mmog.  The combat looks pretty fluid, how much is autoattack is unknown, but the attacks and animations seem synched unlike EQ1.  Some of the mobs were impressive.  The balrog looking things were great, but already seen many times in past movies.  EQ artists seem to be able to do fantasy monsters pretty well.  Real animals they suck at.  Humanoids are somewhere in between in quality.


Why can't you jump in SWG?  It was a design decision.  It never had anything to do with the engine.  They basically looked at all the problems past games have had with pathing and people using jumping on things to exploit and said 'no jumping'.  The engine is perfectly capable of jumping, atmospheric flight, jetpacks, whatever.  But the devs have chosen for whatever reason not to have that sort of thing.  Fear of exploiting and feature bloat mainly.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Murgos on July 28, 2004, 09:27:12 AM
Quote from: Alluvian
Why can't you jump in SWG?  It was a design decision.  It never had anything to do with the engine.  They basically looked at all the problems past games have had with pathing and people using jumping on things to exploit and said 'no jumping'.  The engine is perfectly capable of jumping, atmospheric flight, jetpacks, whatever.  But the devs have chosen for whatever reason not to have that sort of thing.  Fear of exploiting and feature bloat mainly.

And yet is one of the most complelling features of CoH, again color me unimpressed with anyone at SoE's ability to determine what is and isn't worth the effort to implement and will or will not be enjoyable to the users.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 28, 2004, 09:34:36 AM
No argument there at all.  I will fire up a character just to superjump from building to building with no intention of fighting anyone or doing any missions.  Just leaping across the cityscape.

But CoH also has mind bogglingly good pathing.  Orders of magnitude better than any other mmog I have ever seen.  And the only AI I recall seeing in a MMOG that is even capable of jumping.  I just wish they would use the follow AI on the autofollow command instead of the straight line run they currently have.  At least let it jump over bumps.  Wow, I keep going way off topic here.

The basics have to be fun.  Been said a million times.  In SWG they just aren't.

At the last eq fan faire (my wife likes to go to them to meet with her guide/GM friends) the FIRST thing they showed was jumping up on top of some boxes on the upper deck of the tutorial ship and then jumping down to the lower deck and pointing to the falling damage.  It got a big cheer from the crowd.  How fucked up is that?


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: El Gallo on July 28, 2004, 09:37:18 AM
I have a deep, dark suspicion that EQII will be mind-bogglingly good.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: schild on July 28, 2004, 09:38:57 AM
Quote from: El Gallo
I have a deep, dark suspicion that EQII will be mind-bogglingly good.


This is what Joe and I have been discussing lately.

Specifically, the best sounding part is what the guild sizes should be. Gigantic guilds of hardcore gamers just won't be able to function properly with the current system they have in place. I hope they don't change it to appease the 'kekela, i live in my parent's basement' fucktard category of gamers.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: MrHat on July 28, 2004, 09:52:21 AM
Quote from: El Gallo
I have a deep, dark suspicion that EQII will be mind-bogglingly good.


I read a preview in PC Gamer about EQ2.

Most of the stuff I was reading made me go "Cool."  Then I realized it was EQ and regretted my feelings.  If it had been called something other than EQ maybe many more people would be jazzed about it.

Perhaps many of us are closet EQ2 fans?


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 28, 2004, 09:57:04 AM
I have long had very high hopes for EQ2.  I also expect them to be shattered at some point.  I think the voice is a very cool feature, but could also get annoying.  I like a LOT of their features on paper, basically taking all the best shit from all the current games.  Not a ton of NEW stuff, but a good combination, at least on paper.  The key will be how it all works together.  If the whole is equal to or greater than the sum of the parts it could be a very good game.

Huge guild raids simply will not work due to the graphics engine really.  The engine will force them to single group content, and that is the best kind IMO.

Not a pickup group like I keep hearing in WoW, but a group of friends who play exclusively together.  Just like our small EQ1 guild was.  It seems like the game is being designed as the type of game that my guild tried to make out of EQ with limited to moderate success.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Jon Carver on July 28, 2004, 11:20:57 AM
Personally, I like EQ2.  I wish I could say more about it like (NDA)(NDA)(NDA) but I can't.  About the only thing the NDA allows me to say is that I'm a tester.

So, for those of you here who know you have liked things in the past that I liked, well, I like EQ2.

Hopefully they'll drop the NDA before it ships though I seem to recall the SWG NDA wasn't dropped till very near shipdate.


Title: Re: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: HaemishM on July 28, 2004, 11:49:38 AM
Quote from: HRose
A collection of ugliness was posted at Anyuzer's forum:

http://www.myimgs.com/data/ladypolaris/omfg.jpg


Ummm, look in the lower right corner, at the red-haired mustachio man there.

Shouldn't he be on his knees like a little baby seal in front of a line of Chippendale's dancers right about now? If that's the best EQ2 can do in terms of butch avatars, forget it.

On second thought, forget it anyway.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Sky on July 28, 2004, 11:57:06 AM
I'll be honest. I'll probably check out EQ2 (hopefully over someone else's shoulder initially!). I've also read some decent previews, and the fact that they want to run it concurrently with EQ1, and pander to a different playerbase is the main hope I see for the game.

'Cause I despise the EQ.

Going by someone's screenshot of hideous characters? Not a great indicator, if the person is intentionally trying to make bad characters. Check "Weezie", my SWG dancer:

(http://home.twcny.rr.com/iamthey/mamma.jpg)

She used to get great tips...to put her clothes back on ;)


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Venkman on July 28, 2004, 01:37:22 PM
Quote from: Alluvian
They basically looked at all the problems past games have had with pathing and people using jumping on things to exploit and said 'no jumping'. The engine is perfectly capable of jumping, atmospheric flight, jetpacks, whatever. But the devs have chosen for whatever reason not to have that sort of thing. Fear of exploiting and feature bloat mainly.

It was a function of CSR. Rather than testing the game worlds to ensure nobody got stuck in bad places, they simply deactivated jumping so that players could get stuck in many less places.

Jumping is endemic to a realistic world for me. I've been jumping in games since forever, and along comes a game that requires graphics cards not yet invented and they took a step backwards in terms of playability.

CoH pathing is pretty good, better than most. Pathing's not that hard when you put a hard cap on how many people can watch an event transpire. SWG has no such cap, a fact which has caused them all sorts of headaches (since their engine is fine until you put 200 people in 200 completely different outfits in the same starport).

As to EQ2, I'm more surprised that so many here are hoping it'll be good. I once shared that hope, and was even a reporter for the fan portal for a time. But then I played it at E3. It is EQLive 1.5. They've fixed a few things, and the world is incredibly more immersive, but it is so not the groundbreaking game play it was originally intended to be. Personally, I blame SOE for treating beta testing as a marketing exercise and reward all in one. The first people they invited were the very people for whom the game was not intended. If I'm paying $40 a month for EQLive, how open-minded am I expected to be a game that doesn't target me?

Ah well. Not that it matters. I'm sure I'll end up playing it at some point, but if I happen to have a second kid by then, I know damned well I won't be playing it for long.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Sky on July 28, 2004, 01:46:18 PM
Quote
Personally, I blame SOE for treating beta testing as a marketing exercise and reward all in one. The first people they invited were the very people for whom the game was not intended.

A big reason why I'm not buying it outright, but will watch over the eqholic's shoulder. But I'm a bit more optimistic about it than most mmogs in the pipe, not that that's saying much ;)

Having Legends folks be the test feedback is like hiring Furor to design your high end content imo.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Tige on July 28, 2004, 01:51:17 PM
Quote from: MrHat


Most of the stuff I was reading made me go "Cool."  Then I realized it was EQ and regretted my feelings.  If it had been called something other than EQ maybe many more people would be jazzed about it.


I had the same reaction.  It wasn't until 2-3 weeks ago that I even allowed myself to read or learn anything about EQ2.  I feel so unclean.

After hitting the wall in ffxi a couple months back and reading about eq2 it seems they may actually be on to something.  The biggest knock against ffxi isn't so much the grind as it is you have to have the perfect group assembled to make it even worthwhile to go xp.  That can take hours if there are no red mages or bards around.  It appears eq2 has similiar traits but has some options other than all or nothing.

-Tige


Title: Re: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 28, 2004, 02:01:09 PM
Quote from: HaemishM
Quote from: HRose
A collection of ugliness was posted at Anyuzer's forum:

http://www.myimgs.com/data/ladypolaris/omfg.jpg


Ummm, look in the lower right corner, at the red-haired mustachio man there.

Shouldn't he be on his knees like a little baby seal in front of a line of Chippendale's dancers right about now? If that's the best EQ2 can do in terms of butch avatars, forget it.

On second thought, forget it anyway.


No, those are just incredibly hideous non-attempts at character gen.  You can get far better with randomize all.  The game can make good looking characters, but all the facial sliders are for the most part a waste.  Unless you want to look fucking HIDEOUS like the dark elven female in that picture.  Cheek slider all the way left, the movable cheekbones all the way up, and then the cheekbones sticking out as far as possible as well.  That is about the worst female face I could think of making.  He probably could have made the lips look abit worse if he tried, but he would have to put some effort into it.

And that male gnome too...  You see what I mean by not a single good hairstyle?

The guy in the right corner is awful, but there are some decent beard and mustache options as long as you are not a dwarven female.  And look! He included the horrible dwarven female too.  This is a series of screenshots custom made to make the avatars hideous.  I am not saying there is not bad stuff in there.  There is, and that picture proves it, but you can make decent avatars in most races as long as you put a little effort in.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Soukyan on July 28, 2004, 02:05:50 PM
Quote from: Sky
Quote
Personally, I blame SOE for treating beta testing as a marketing exercise and reward all in one. The first people they invited were the very people for whom the game was not intended.

A big reason why I'm not buying it outright, but will watch over the eqholic's shoulder. But I'm a bit more optimistic about it than most mmogs in the pipe, not that that's saying much ;)


See, but that's just the thing. I know two EQholics and both of them flat out refuse to play EQ2. They just won't do it. I'll admit they might give it a try, but the first thing they encounter that is not like EQ in the gameplay will drive them right back to the old tried and true. I have tried to interest these two in several other MMOGs and they end up leaving after the first month because it's not EQ.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 28, 2004, 02:19:49 PM
Quote from: Soukyan
Quote from: Sky
Quote
Personally, I blame SOE for treating beta testing as a marketing exercise and reward all in one. The first people they invited were the very people for whom the game was not intended.

A big reason why I'm not buying it outright, but will watch over the eqholic's shoulder. But I'm a bit more optimistic about it than most mmogs in the pipe, not that that's saying much ;)


See, but that's just the thing. I know two EQholics and both of them flat out refuse to play EQ2. They just won't do it. I'll admit they might give it a try, but the first thing they encounter that is not like EQ in the gameplay will drive them right back to the old tried and true. I have tried to interest these two in several other MMOGs and they end up leaving after the first month because it's not EQ.


Shouldn't you just be happy for them?  We talk here all the time about finding the perfect game for ourselves (different for each of us) and then you critisize them when they find the game that is perfect for them?

I am still looking for my perfect game.  I wish I was still happy with EQ.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: HRose on July 28, 2004, 03:34:46 PM
Quote from: SirBruce
And you've concluded this from a few pictures of ugly avatars?  You know, there are ugly people in the real world too; does that mean God's graphics engine sucks?


I like more a game with less personalization but where the result is always good.

As another example: I like more a naming system where you can capitalize only the initial.

It prevents the lameness innate in too many players.

When it comes to discuss a style I always put the argument on the "personality". That's what a style is. A style could be liked or not but when it includes a strong personality it means that it has also a quality.

I think that WoW's style is strongly original and personal, while EQ2 seems really lacking of any soul.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: HRose on July 28, 2004, 03:42:43 PM
Quote from: Darniaq
Quote from: Alluvian
They basically looked at all the problems past games have had with pathing and people using jumping on things to exploit and said 'no jumping'. The engine is perfectly capable of jumping, atmospheric flight, jetpacks, whatever. But the devs have chosen for whatever reason not to have that sort of thing. Fear of exploiting and feature bloat mainly.

It was a function of CSR.

No. Way. It's a lot, a lot more.

They don't even have a collision detection coded, not only they erased the CSR issue but they also erased the need of a collision detection. It's not about jumping, it's about coding the controls as a whole. In a game like WoW or DAoC, even if you don't jump, you can climb on a rock, an object or whatever. In SWG you can only slide on the terrain. Objects have no consistence and when you are blocked (rocks, buildings, trees) you are because there's a general "box" around the object.

It's a complete collision system that in SWG doesn't exist. Server-wise the world is flat with a few boundaries here and there. Remember the fact that you can shoot through an hill without the server noticing?

There's a lot, a lot more behind the fact you cannot jump. Don't let Raph fool you with excuses.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Numtini on July 28, 2004, 04:53:58 PM
Quote
I know two EQholics and both of them flat out refuse to play EQ2


I know a lot of people who aren't gamers. They are EQ players. I suspect in the end, they'll upgrade to EQ2 because the gamers in their community probably will. But maybe not.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Venkman on July 28, 2004, 07:50:17 PM
Quote from: Hrose
They don't even have a collision detection coded, not only they erased the CSR issue but they also erased the need of a collision detection


Really? I must stop drinkin' then. These big freakin' buildings, bridge railings and trees keep forcing my finger away from the move-forward key.

Collision detection works just fine. It has to because there is pathfinding in the game that is not based on a hard-coded knowledge of every static element in the world. There can't be. People place and remove structures all the time, changing where the AI can go. Want to see just how pliable the game engine is? Place a camp on the side of a tree covered mountain. Watch what it does. Watch where it allows you and every NPC to go. The world surface, many of the elements, and the calculations the AI has to do to navigate them are there, and dynamic.

It's their choice to turn it off. Like when they turned off furniture-as-objects (it used to block you). Like when they turned off pet blocking.

And it's their excuses that forced them too. Jumping was the first to go, and the benefits for SOE live on through this day. Try diving full tilt off a "mountain" in a swoop. No matter how fast you go, you will never clear the fence at the bottom and make it to the Kor Vella shuttle on time.

I've said this many times. There's no reason for SWG to be three dimensional other than the obvious bling on the packaging graphics. It could be UO. Heck, it could be Wizardry, and the actual game mechanic wouldn't change one bit. I am the first to revile the control systems. I love getting into high places in EQ with Levitate and Selos. It's a mini game unto itself. But to control the masses, they prevent full movement. Even in a game with /stuck.

SWG chose to shackle the movements of players because it didn't want to deal with a world not fully tested to comply with what players would want to do.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: HRose on July 28, 2004, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Darniaq
Really? I must stop drinkin' then. These big freakin' buildings, bridge railings and trees keep forcing my finger away from the move-forward key.

Quote from: HRose
Objects have no consistence and when you are blocked (rocks, buildings, trees) you are because there's a general "box" around the object.

I was speaking of a complex collision system. SWG doesn't have one it just sets where you can be and where you cannot. In games like WoW or DAoC there are no limits aside the zone boundaries, objects have their precise shape and are dealt in a collision system.

I agree that SWG doesn't have this because of the dynamical environment but as I said is a completely different model that involves the controls. The fact that you cannot jump is just a part about why SWG's controls feel that awful.

I remember when my guild messed with a house partially sinked in a hill and you could go right through the whole house because the "box" surrounding the object didn't have even a roof. At a point a rival guild succeeded at trapping an entire squad of stormtroopers plus an AT-ST.

Make me an example of an object like a box or whatever, that isn't a building, and that will allow my character to not be in direct contact with the ground. I mean something I can climb. There is NO collision system (that isn't a general "box").


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Soukyan on July 28, 2004, 09:19:36 PM
Quote from: Alluvian
Quote from: Soukyan
Quote from: Sky
Quote
Personally, I blame SOE for treating beta testing as a marketing exercise and reward all in one. The first people they invited were the very people for whom the game was not intended.

A big reason why I'm not buying it outright, but will watch over the eqholic's shoulder. But I'm a bit more optimistic about it than most mmogs in the pipe, not that that's saying much ;)


See, but that's just the thing. I know two EQholics and both of them flat out refuse to play EQ2. They just won't do it. I'll admit they might give it a try, but the first thing they encounter that is not like EQ in the gameplay will drive them right back to the old tried and true. I have tried to interest these two in several other MMOGs and they end up leaving after the first month because it's not EQ.


Shouldn't you just be happy for them?  We talk here all the time about finding the perfect game for ourselves (different for each of us) and then you critisize them when they find the game that is perfect for them?

I am still looking for my perfect game.  I wish I was still happy with EQ.


Good point. I guess I'm just being selfish. One of them constantly pesters me to start playing EQ again though. It gets rather tiresome. I'm not totally happy for them because for them, it's almost a lifestyle. I suppose I just never thought of games as being something you should do every day for several hours a day. But then again, I play several instruments, write poetry and music and act in productions on occasion, so I have other leisure time interests. I think my concern stems from the fact that one of those guys used to play instruments as well and had other interests, but now he eats, sleeps, works and raids. I guess we all change. *shrug*


Edit: Quotes are HARD.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 29, 2004, 08:55:59 AM
Quote
It's a complete collision system that in SWG doesn't exist. Server-wise the world is flat with a few boundaries here and there. Remember the fact that you can shoot through an hill without the server noticing?


You are simply wrong on this one Hrose.  Darniaq pointed out some of the reasons you were wrong, another is that terrain DOES block line of sight and shots now.  It has for months now.  The capability was always there, they had it in early beta and then it got shut off for reasons unknown to me.

When talking to Raph on the beta boards he seemed to be under the belief that it was never taken out.  He tried to describe how it might have been server lag letting you shoot through terrain.  It was of course NOT server lag, but after being out since late(ish) beta till a few months ago it is now back in the game.  You can't shoot jack shit from in a ditch.

Let me throw in a caveat.  This is from my playing with it about 2 months ago after hearing it was back in the game.  For all I know they may have taken it out again.  The capability for it DOES exist though.  It is not anything the engine is lacking.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Sky on July 29, 2004, 09:35:34 AM
Quote
It has to because there is pathfinding in the game that is not based on a hard-coded knowledge of every static element in the world. There can't be. People place and remove structures all the time, changing where the AI can go.

But it still sucks. Down by Tian Bay I was always able to pull those big herbivores (forgot their names, so eminently interesting were they) and they would always get stuck behind a big mineral harvester. Every time.

I was always seeing the AI get stuck on player structures. The pathfinding seemed no better than it was in the original release of UO (and UO's improved since).


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: TripleDES on July 29, 2004, 09:44:02 AM
Quote from: Alluvian
another is that terrain DOES block line of sight and shots now.  It has for months now.  The capability was always there, they had it in early beta and then it got shut off for reasons unknown to me.

...

It was of course NOT server lag, but after being out since late(ish) beta till a few months ago it is now back in the game.  You can't shoot jack shit from in a ditch.

The last few days I've been shooting shitloads of stuff thru hills. Only things blocking LOS are structures and rocks/vegetation.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 29, 2004, 09:46:17 AM
Exactly right Sky.  The pathfinding is not very GOOD in the game I will back that fully.  Hell, when I used to still play the current lame exploit was to Kimo hunt with harvestors.  Put them down near the spawn and then run the kimo back and forth till it gets stuck on it.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: kaid on July 29, 2004, 10:35:19 AM
Pathing in SWG is insanely erratic. Sometimes things can follow you well but just ask any creature handler pets often will get hung up on the weirdest things and often will still stop/disappear when crossing a server boarder.

As for character creation in eq2 I have made a number of characters I am happy with. Personally I have to disagree with alluvian about trolls I myself really like the new trolls but this is all highly personal preferance. My biggest gripe is there are a number of race/genders that just need more hair/beard options. Some of this is already stuff that they were doing some like iksar scale patterns/ogre beards had some bug and were taken out of the character creator but should be there for release.

If you want to see some attempts at more serious character creation in eq2 and a bit less picking ugly crap just to make a ghastly character I will post a few of my pics.

Gnome female

http://www.innmates.com/kaidpics/dalgnome.JPG


Barbarian
http://www.innmates.com/kaidpics/kaid.JPG

Male troll
http://www.innmates.com/kaidpics/trollsk.JPG

Ratonga
http://www.innmates.com/kaidpics/ladyrat.JPG

Female halfling
Halflings have issues but this is about the best I could do with one.

http://www.innmates.com/kaidpics/brideofchucky.JPG


I have others as well but those are just some of the ones I am more likely to play when the game goes live. I am hoping eq2 is good I played the last one for 5 years and still can enjoy it when I do play. One of the better things is that most content is 1 or 2 group encounters with the largest raids capped at 24. There is nothing I detested more in eqlive than being a cog in the wheel of a big raid just adding another warm body to do x dps. Hell you could follow somebody and go watch tv for all anybody would notice.

Kaid


Title: ...
Post by: angry.bob on July 29, 2004, 10:48:14 AM
$900 in store credit at EB Games and the vaguely erotic lure of free J-Boots for preorder accounts compelled me to pick the thing up this morning. The thing I noticed messing around with it is that the females all have insanely big hips and asses, and there's no way to change it. It's really bad looking. Worse than some piece of shit bass/ghetto trash CD cover bad, but without the thong to distract you from how fat and ugly the asses and hips really are. Other than that the characters can look really good. I made a dark elf female that looks pretty good and as soon as I can get in the game and toss on some old school DE assless leather pants I'll be set.

Oh well, I'll get my money's worth by training giants on people again with the J-Boots if the game sucks.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: kaid on July 29, 2004, 10:53:45 AM
I think some of the fat assedness is also made worse by the really shitty newbie outfit. It just hangs badly and the neutral wide legged stance they have in the generator makes it look very bad. I am witholding some judgement on that until I see them in more normal outfits. The movies and pics I have seen I do not notice the issue like I did in character select.


Kaid


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Sky on July 29, 2004, 11:09:05 AM
Quote
the vaguely erotic lure of free J-Boots for preorder accounts

Jboots for EQ2 or for EQ? If they are handing out EQ2 jboots for preorders, I might go for it. I friggin hated the hellish torture that was trying to get jboots in EQ.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: kaid on July 29, 2004, 11:11:11 AM
The jboots are for eq2 but be advised I do not think they will be anywhere near as strong as the eqlive ones. Still anything that makes you faster than normal is a hell of a bonus for traveling.

kaid


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Soukyan on July 29, 2004, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: kaid
The jboots are for eq2 but be advised I do not think they will be anywhere near as strong as the eqlive ones. Still anything that makes you faster than normal is a hell of a bonus for traveling.

kaid


No official confirmation, but I'm thinking the JBoots freebie may be a charged item (like 5 shots and you're done) type deal. Perhaps not, but I have a feeling.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Big Gulp on July 29, 2004, 11:15:43 AM
Quote from: kaid
I think some of the fat assedness is also made worse by the really shitty newbie outfit. It just hangs badly and the neutral wide legged stance they have in the generator makes it look very bad. I am witholding some judgement on that until I see them in more normal outfits. The movies and pics I have seen I do not notice the issue like I did in character select.


Kaid


SOE simply needs to hire better artists.  The current batch they have are the worst sucks that ever sucked.  I'm sorry, Kaid, but while your characters look better than those displayed in the other shots they're still fucking abominable.  There are good artists out there, folks.  CoH has 'em, WoW has 'em, AO has 'em, AC2 has 'em, etc, etc, etc.

With so many people unemployed in the tech sector (which includes graphic design people) you can find better talent than this group of fucked up hacks for a song.  Some pink slips have been in order for a while now, and they should have realized it when a whole lot of people were saying how atrocious they looked.

Hire competent artists and modellers, for fuck's sake.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: angry.bob on July 29, 2004, 11:21:40 AM
Quote from: Sky
Jboots for EQ2 or for EQ?


It doesn't actually specify, but the picture of them is EQ2-ish and the slip says to make sure you activate them on the station account you're going to play EQ2 with - no mention of EQ at all. The EQ2 preorder box also says "will grant your character one pair of journeymen boots for an extra burst of speed when you play the game". My unfrozen caveman internet lawyer experiences lead me to believe that they're EQ2 JBoots. However, their tricky wording could be interpreted to mean that they're either single use like a potion now or that they give you some sort of 30 second sprint that you can use every half an hour. After all, what's a Sony game without a last minute shifty colon bludgeoning. Especially when it's an Everquest game.

Edited to say Doh - two other people already said pretty much the same thing.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Sky on July 29, 2004, 11:52:48 AM
Hmm. Good points. It's a hell of a carrot to dangle, though. I quit DAoC mostly due to the slow movement speeds.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: El Gallo on July 29, 2004, 12:00:12 PM
Ninety bucks for the collectors edition.

Quote
SOE announced the specifics of what's included in the Collector's Edition today. If you pre-order any version of EQ2 from most retailers, you also get the EQ2 Starter Kit, the contents of which have already been listed.

From the official boards:

"Today our PR department sent out the following information:

The pre-order disc for EverQuest II, Sony Online Entertainment’s (SOE) highly-anticipated fantasy Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG), is currently being distributed, and the pre-order program will be in full distribution the week of August 2nd, at select retailers. Three versions of the final game will be available at launch, all of which can be pre-ordered at participating retailers. Here is a list of the three different skus:

CD Version ($49.99 SRP)
Includes EverQuest II on a series of CDs, in-game item (exclusive paintings of EverQuest II scenery/screenshots to be used in player housing), and in-box item (poster with Qeynos and Freeport maps on each side).

DVD Version ($49.99 SRP)
Includes EverQuest II on a series of DVDs, in-game item (talking statues of Antonia and Lucan to be used in player housing), and in-box item (poster with Qeynos and Freeport maps on each side).

Collectors Edition ($89.99 SRP)
Includes EverQuest II on a series of DVDs, and the following in-game items:
· Paintings of EQ II scenery/screen shots to be used in player housing
· Talking statues of Antonia and Lucan to be used in player housing
· Exclusive baby dragon pet for player house

The collectors edition will also include the following in-box items:
· Exclusive Art Book
· Bonus DVD with all the trailers, gameplay videos and behind the scenes footage
· Soundtrack CD
· Collectors coin with velvet pouch
· Cloth map of the Shattered Lands
· Poster with Qeynos and Freeport maps on each side
· Poster with Antonia and Lucan on each side

Note: This information pertains to the US market. Details on international editions will be posted soon.

============================
Moorgard
EQII Community Guy"

Cheers,

Sorran.



Source: http://fohguild.org/forums/showthread.php?s=35080b1a66ff580a771a5fe68ee35a9d&threadid=12098


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Soukyan on July 29, 2004, 12:02:05 PM
Nice. Glad to see the collector's edition of EQ2 will be just as good as the one for WoW... since I ordered both like a good addict should. ;)


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: El Gallo on July 29, 2004, 12:03:53 PM
And a decent interview with the producer here http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=107310

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many people are currently in the beta right now?

Sites: Right now, including all the people at the company and their friends and family, we've got about six hundred in the beta test.

What would you say you've learnt most from it so far?

Sites: Aside from all the bugs we've been fixing you mean? We've found that a lot of the things that people had been complaining about - the encounters, the reduction on raiding sizes, for example... People had been saying that because something didn't work that way in EverQuest, it was therefore going to be bad.

We've found that once people actually started playing the game and see the changes they complained about before trying them, they find they actually really like them. We'd found that just with the game in general there had been a lot of people that didn't really expect that they'd even want to play the game.

We found that if we could just get them to sit down and try it even for an hour it completely changed their perspective.

How hard has it been to get them to try it?

Sites: Back at the EQ Fan Faire in April there were so many people that were saying they had no interest in EQII because they didn't feel we could create a game that would be any different to EQ. We sat them down, they tried it and were like, 'Oh my god! This isn't what I was expecting at all!'

The big thing is that change isn't necessarily bad. Just because players have been used to doing things a certain way for five years in EverQuest, it doesn't mean that changing it will be a bad thing. Just getting them to try it out though, that's the key. That's the biggest thing we've had to figure out.

How much are you expecting the overall game to change from your initial designs once the beta test runs its course?

Sites: Based on what we as a company have seen in the past, we're expecting it to change significantly. There are a lot of the systems and areas, such as the tutorial and the introductory part of the game on the Isle Of Refuge, that we feel we've now refined to a point where it's not likely to change a whole lot. But the big areas that probably will change are things like the encounter systems, the population sizes of the dungeons.

All the things that require lots of sets of eyes to go through and look at and experience before we can say definitively say something needs to change. The worst thing a development team can do is get used to something and then just change it for the sake of it. One of the problems any team has is when they create something phenomenal, see it every day and become jaded towards it and then feel it needs changing as a result when that's not necessarily the right thing.

So by letting people into the beta it's been really nice just to see their reactions to things. You get completely unbiased opinions at that point.

Where do you draw the line between changing something because lots of people ask for it and you as the developer saying, 'no, we really think it's best if it stays as it is'?

Sites: First and foremost, as much as we're making a game that we love, we need to make a game that the public are going to love more. We love the game with a passion, but if we're the only ones that like a system and 90 percent of the public don't understand or like it, then it's going to change.

A lot of it comes from going through the feedback. If lots and lots of people are complaining about something then we'll try to improve it. It's a subjective process but that is what the beta is for, to get all that information.

There aren't many people in the world with more subjective views than gamers, most of them different...

Sites: One thing we have found out is that it doesn't matter what we do, we'll never please everyone. We found that out in EverQuest. You can give people a million dollars each and someone will complain they have to pay tax on it.

When, for you guys, is 'finished'?

Sites: When the game is fun, which again is a subjective part of the process. We have in-game polling forms that come up asking you about your experience, ratings on a scale of one to ten. When we start getting those back with consistently high numbers that's when we'll consider ourselves close to being able to ship the game. But it is subjective.

We're not going to be forcing this game out the door though just for the sake of meeting fiscal needs. We've been stating that all along. This is going to be the game that's the sequel to the game that made the company what it is today. So we want the game to be a worthy successor to EverQuest.

That feeling of independence, not beholden to shareholders and publishers, must be invigorating?

Sites: Yeah. I have quite a few friends who work for companies at EA and Microsoft and they're all beholden to shareholders for the most part. We feel very lucky that we can work on a game that's not going to go out until it's ready to do so. That said, we do want to get the game done!

We've been working on it for four years now and we definitely can't wait for the moment people can start playing it. That's the most rewarding part. EverQuest for instance now has hundreds of thousands of people playing the game and that's great, especially seeing them at Fan Faires and so on.

When you see that sheer devotion that people have to your products, how much does that become a burden of responsibility when you design future games?

Sites: Oh it's huge. When we were making EverQuest we couldn't even comprehend the level of dedication the players would have. It was just a $3 million project and we were really only making a game that we liked. Then it launched and we were like 'Oh my god! People REALLY love this game!' and our development process definitely changed as a result.

One of the problems a lot of MMOGs have is having these great big worlds with nothing happening in them...

Sites: Right. Actually, when we first started making the game we had planned on this grand world, this great expanse of space. We started planning this giant dungeon but discovered that you know what, it's not fun running for fifteen minutes and not finding anything. So we ended up pulling the size and scope in and focussing on the content in the different areas.

That's where we're at right now, players are walking through the city and having characters calling out to them, based on what they've done and what quests they can do, instead of having to run for ten or fifteen minutes at a time just to try and find something to do.

What sort of things?

Sites: There are simple things like a little girl chasing her cat around the city knocking stuff over, or big things like the Freeport militia marching through the city, giving speeches to the citizens. It's all things that will help make the world seem more alive.

How much work does that entail?

Sites: We actually have 34 designers on the project, so we have groups of these guys that are just dedicated to adding events like these to the cities.

Do events like that happen outside the cities as well?

Sites: They will do, but the way that we're designing the content is from character creation on outwards. So we're putting all our focus on the cities right now, then slowly working our way outwards so that when the beta testers come in, they're not finding they have nothing to do because, say, we decided to design all the high-level dungeons before we worked on the starting cities.

Are you able to keep tabs on how far the testers have explored into the game and how far ahead you need to be designing?

Sites: Oh yeah. The way the beta test is being run right now means that we basically 'rope off' the areas that we want people to be testing in. Right now players can create their characters, go to both Qeynos and Freeport, the outer lands in the common areas outside in Antonica and access two of the dungeons in each of those areas. This way we get very focussed testing and feedback and can get those areas refined. Then, once those are ready for 'prime time', we start opening up the next zones further and further away.

The zones are all planned in advance and then left to the players. How possible is it for you on the server side to jump into zones when players enter them and direct the NPC's actions on the fly, in a sort of 'dungeon master' role?

Sites: We can do that, although mostly the zones are scripted in such a way as to be completely self-contained and capable of handling things. Once everything has been tested and refined, very rarely will we need to have people go in and watch the players and change things on the fly. Still, we have that option at our disposal if we need it.

How big are the cities in total?

Sites: Each of the cities are made of eighteen zones, each consisting of the town centre, the villages or neighbourhoods which is where you start out and where each player has his or her own apartment.

The houses are given out automatically to each new player?

Sites: Right. When you create a character you're given a little one or two room apartment within which you can place furniture, hang stuff on the walls and customise the interior. When you get into a larger guild or group and start pooling your money you can then buy larger structures within the actual city, decorated with your guild's emblems. When people walk by they'll be able to see who the badass guilds are.

In terms of overall size, how does EQ 2 compare to EQ?

Sites: It's slightly smaller in size than EQ, but the first game has had five years of development work adding to it. The only reason they have a larger physical size is because they have loads of really huge zones left over from the earlier expansions. Like Kunark. That has huge, empty zones simply because we didn't then have the ability to populate them completely. So, we have slightly smaller areas, but lots, lots more content in them.

What sort of mass transit systems are there?

Sites: We have boats for travelling between the shattered islands that make up the world. We'll also have player mounts that are racially specific. So the humans and the mid-size races will have horses, the gnomes and halflings and dwarves will ride wolves, and we haven't decided on what to have the larger races riding, although we're thinking about things like rhinos or elephants. Very large creatures.

I remember seeing the letterbox effect at the Fan Faire and thinking how it was such a small thing but had such a big impact on giving a real cinematic effect to the game...

Sites: It not only adds a cinematic effect but also has its benefits for speeding up rendering times. But everything else in the game was already so cinematic - the voices and so on - that I just wanted to add that in. A lot of people really liked it when we got it up and running.

How is the voice acting working out so far?

Sites: Really well. We just started a two month-long recording session last week, two sessions going on simultaneously for two months straight. We have 117 actors and that's filling the majority of our v/o needs right now.

How much focus is there on the audio side of the game?

Sites: One thing that's nice is that on EQ we had three people on our audio team. Now we have an entire audio department. Which means full audio, 5.1 surround sound support.

How on top of the hardware and peripheral world are you guys? Are you constantly looking for new gadgets to utilise?

Sites: We're working really closely with nVidia, you'll see their logos in our games already. They provide us with all the latest hardware before it becomes available on the market and we work closely with their engineers to request special modifications for our game. We're very on top of the technology. We're also working closely with ATi. We like to make sure that the two hardware kings are both in our corner.

How about other advances such as voice comms?

Sites: We're going to be allowing voice comms although we haven't fully integrated it yet. The only problem we see with it is obviously with the players. With real voices you'll interact with a female wood elf and quickly realise it's a forty-five year old guy. It's kind of immersion breaking.

What about the genre as a whole? What do you see as being the next major innovation to hit MMOGs?

Sites: Hardware is definitely the biggest limitation right now. Once we reach a level where the majority of people can afford to purchase the high-end types, that's when we'll get a lot of extra players coming in. The US has a really high-end hardware market, but there are still a lot of countries out there that operate at a year or two behind that in technology terms. Once we get everybody's specs up to par then the games will become that much more accessible.

One of the things we're doing to get the international community more involved and interested with EQII is full voice translations. We're doing a simultaneous launch in North America, UK, France and Germany, then shortly after that we'll have Japanese, Korean and Chinese releases.

How is the interest in Japan?

Sites: Actually we worked out a deal with Square Enix, in theory one of our big competitors with Final Fantasy XI Online, to be our publisher in Japan. So we're working really closely with them on ways to localise it not only with language but also visually.

That hasn't been ironed out completely yet, but there's a reason why EQ is really popular in the US and Europe, but not so in China and Korea where games like Lineage are. So we're trying to figure out exactly what those differences are.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: jpark on July 29, 2004, 12:03:58 PM
I could give EQ2 a try - but the graphics just kill me.  Great detail, awful style.  I think it was HRose who talked about how bright the colors were in WoW and how that made an impression on him.  The almost total absence of the color spectrum when I see EQ2 terrain shots is depressing.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 29, 2004, 02:06:30 PM
Kaid, tone down the yellow barbarian hair dye, hehe.  That hair color is totally unnatural.  Even colorblind me can see that  :)  The best blondes we were able to get in the game are with highlights on certain hair colors.

Some hairs have the highlights as 'bands' in the hair and for those you can't get a decent blonde.  Just light brown or YELLOW.  But for the highlightable hair you can mix the light browns with a hightlight yellow and get what approximates a blonde.

All in all, the hair is just not very good in the game.  It is a plastic helmet at best.  Same problem with all MMOGs so far, but it just stands out more in EQ2 than in most other games.  It looked pretty bad in swg too.  Worse in character select than ingame though.  Character creation always suffers from super bright white lighting that gives everything more shine than it ever has from ingame lighting.

Same thing happens in CoH where the colors look abit different, especially at night where they play with the color pallete abit by adding more blues to the lighting.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: kaid on July 29, 2004, 02:28:18 PM
The picture also is I think a bit brighter than what it looks like in the sunset lighting of the character creator. Kaids hair color for the eq2 model in the creator looks almost exactally the same shade as eqlive which is still pretty painfully blond.


That is my other big gripe of the character creator. Why the fuck is the lighting in the creator basically just past sundown from the look of it. It causes weird shadows and things all seem a bit to dark.

A character creator screen should be a very neutral light with minimal shadows having deep shadows of a very late afternoon type lighting makes things look odd.


kaid


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: HRose on July 29, 2004, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Alluvian
Darniaq pointed out some of the reasons you were wrong, another is that terrain DOES block line of sight and shots now.  It has for months now.

Quote from: TripleDES
The last few days I've been shooting shitloads of stuff thru hills. Only things blocking LOS are structures and rocks/vegetation.

I resubbed the last week (because I'm an idiot). I always check two things when I do:
1- If I'm still able to sit outside a chair
2- If I'm able to shoot through solid terrain

I was able to do both.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: schild on July 29, 2004, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: El Gallo
Ninety bucks for the collectors edition.

Quote
stuff about the editions


That collector's edition is a lot better than the..ahem, digital sunglasses.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 29, 2004, 03:28:29 PM
Okay, so why the fuck did they take out terrain LOS again?  Too much strain on server or something?  I don't get it. Meh.


Title: Re: ...
Post by: MrHat on July 29, 2004, 03:28:39 PM
Quote from: angry.bob
$900 in store credit at EB Games and the vaguely erotic lure of free J-Boots for preorder accounts compelled me to pick the thing up this morning. The thing I noticed messing around with it is that the females all have insanely big hips and asses, and there's no way to change it. It's really bad looking. Worse than some piece of shit bass/ghetto trash CD cover bad, but without the thong to distract you from how fat and ugly the asses and hips really are. Other than that the characters can look really good. I made a dark elf female that looks pretty good and as soon as I can get in the game and toss on some old school DE assless leather pants I'll be set.

Oh well, I'll get my money's worth by training giants on people again with the J-Boots if the game sucks.


Preorder = Beta?


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 29, 2004, 03:32:07 PM
Preorder = Character creation disk and ingame Jboots when the game releases.

What Jboots even ARE in EQ2 is unknown.  They could be moonboots with a big J on the side and no powers for all we know.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: MrHat on July 29, 2004, 03:33:41 PM
Mmmm, character creation....

That's why CoH had such a hold on me for so long...so much character creation.

That does it for me, EQ2 added to the preorder list.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: schild on July 29, 2004, 03:34:11 PM
JBoots are regular boots that let you run faster - but do not replace speed buffs (according to http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board?board.id=faq). I'm pretty confident they won't be as ugly as say, Sammy's Specialpants in Horizons.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: El Gallo on July 29, 2004, 03:43:15 PM
Quote from: schild

That collector's edition is a lot better than the..ahem, digital sunglasses.


Yeah but the SWG CE came in an excellent box.  Very solid.  I used to use that thing to write on when I was sitting in the big, comfy chair in our den until the wife threw it out.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alkiera on July 29, 2004, 11:32:38 PM
Quote from: EQ2 Starter Kit FAQ
Will the Starter Kit be made available for download?
We have no plans to offer the Starter Kit for download. The primary purpose of the kit is to generate interest for EverQuest II at retail outlets.


Well, I dunno how this .iso got on my hardrive then...  of course, I didn't preorder, either, maybe that has something to do with it.  I do use BitTorrent a lot, which is why I thought it was available for download.  8)

In short, MrHat, there are ways to play with their character creation without violating the 'wait 3 months' rule.

--
Alkiera


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: MrHat on July 30, 2004, 12:02:18 AM
Quote from: Alkiera

In short, MrHat, there are ways to play with their character creation without violating the 'wait 3 months' rule.

--
Alkiera


Alas, I'm weak and had credit at EB to spare.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: schild on July 30, 2004, 12:08:00 AM
Quote from: MrHat
Alas, I'm weak and had credit at EB to spare.


Nah, the journeyman boots will be useful. If they felt the need to give them out, and mention speed buffs, I have a feeling it's going to be dreadfully slow like SWG original movement speed (without sprint on). I'm sure EQII will have a sprint mode for 30 seconds/5min wait also. Hopefully the boots will be like permanent speed.

In addition, they've confirmed their necessity more so by saying they are untradeable/unsellable. The picture is also on the front of the box, they look pretty neat.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alkiera on July 30, 2004, 12:19:56 AM
Quote from: schild
In addition, they've confirmed their necessity more so by saying they are untradeable/unsellable.


Obviously a quote from someone who's forgotten just how much stuff in EQ was nodrop.  I stopped in part due to that.

--
Alkiera


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: schild on July 30, 2004, 12:41:16 AM
They've already talked about no_drop, and that's only going to be the ridiculously high level shit. They've also said the epic levels are going to be instanced, so camping for that gear won't mean shit, you just have to be strong enough to get it.

I'm not proud of following EQII, but they've addressed a lot of the problems they had from when I played it. It's piqued my interest.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: TripleDES on July 30, 2004, 06:59:08 AM
So I was trying to warez me the EQ2 Starter Kit and found out that it is FREAKIN A 482 MEGS ISO! WTF!


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Soukyan on July 30, 2004, 07:29:18 AM
Quote from: TripleDES
So I was trying to warez me the EQ2 Starter Kit and found out that it is FREAKIN A 482 MEGS ISO! WTF!


Well, umm, the starter kit did come on TWO CDs, so that could have something to do with it. Apparently what you're attempting to get is just the second CD info with the character creator. I doubt anyone would bother with the movies as they're already freely available for download from SOE.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: TripleDES on July 30, 2004, 07:36:37 AM
The release is specifically tagged as CD2 and Character Creator. 480megs is a bit much for a CC, I suppose there's loads of other crap on CD2?


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Soukyan on July 30, 2004, 07:56:09 AM
Quote from: TripleDES
The release is specifically tagged as CD2 and Character Creator. 480megs is a bit much for a CC, I suppose there's loads of other crap on CD2?


Nope, just the character creator. Did you forget how much space the assets for the entire game are going to take? Last count I heard was that they're up to 8 CDs for the release game.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on July 30, 2004, 08:55:16 AM
I doubt they had much incentive to remove bulk out of the character creation.  They are most likely having a good laugh over the extra size taking more time from those downloading it.  While at the same time they are moving the non-jboots movement speed down day by day, heh.

SOE is supposed to be evil afterall, so just go with it.  There are probably 300 megs of textures that just say "HAHA" on them.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: MrHat on July 30, 2004, 08:59:13 AM
Quote from: Alluvian

SOE is supposed to be evil afterall, so just go with it.  There are probably 300 megs of textures that just say "HAHA" on them.


I'm showing 388MB installed.  I wouldn't be surprised if you are right Alluvian.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: El Gallo on July 30, 2004, 09:20:42 AM
I have found that I really like WoW's ubiquitous "bind on equip" as a solution that cuts down on mudflation a lot while still allowing a trade economy, and avoiding the annoyance of repair.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Soukyan on July 30, 2004, 09:30:28 AM
Quote from: El Gallo
I have found that I really like WoW's ubiquitous "bind on equip" as a solution that cuts down on mudflation a lot while still allowing a trade economy, and avoiding the annoyance of repair.


So how does this "bind on equip" work? Does this mean I can't carry several bind-on-equip armor items to swap on and off, or does it just mean once you loot the item and wear it once, you can no longer drop or trade it? That would suck if it worked like a cursed piece of equipment that had to be destroyed if you wanted to replace it to wear something else.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: El Gallo on July 30, 2004, 10:03:20 AM
The latter.  When you find it, you can trade it.  Once you put it on, you cannot trade it.  You can still take it off and on all you want, and you can still sell it to an NPC vendor (nobody else can buy it from the vendor).  

WoW uses this for most of the good loot that drops randomly.  The good loot that drops from particular mobs (usually bosses in instances) tends to be "bind on pickup" to prevent farming.  Those you can only sell to a vendor or destroy once you loot them.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Venkman on July 30, 2004, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: Hrose
Make me an example of an object like a box or whatever, that isn't a building, and that will allow my character to not be in direct contact with the ground. I mean something I can climb. There is NO collision system (that isn't a general "box").

Again, that's not a function of the engine. It's a function of developer choice. And if any collision system in any MMORPG is anything but a general "box" (or strung-together boxes), I'd love to hear about it.

Quote from: El Gallo
WoW uses this for most of the good loot that drops randomly. The good loot that drops from particular mobs (usually bosses in instances) tends to be "bind on pickup" to prevent farming. Those you can only sell to a vendor or destroy once you loot them.

That's a pretty compelling solution actually. Nice way to mitigate the min/maxxers who realize they only got a 0.5% effectiveness boost after parsing their four-hour logs from screwing up the economy.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Merusk on August 01, 2004, 02:48:07 PM
Yeah 480MB for the chargen is friggin huge.  But the game itself will be multiple DVDs, so comparitivly it's tiny, right?!  It's going to be a bloated storage space hog, that's for damn sure.  (For comparison, EQlive is taking up 4.81 gigs on my hard drive at the moment.)

I would expect the EQ2 j-boots will be a permanent run buff like those currently in EQlive.  They can go ahead and do this because it's been stated several times that EQ2 will strip/suspend movement buffs and slow your movement down when you're in combat mode in order to elminate the kiting "problem" that plagued EQlive.

I've been following EQ2 and WoW for a while now.  I'm not sure which will be the more 'casual friendly' game.  I'm beginning to suspect neither will, though becuase both are inviting the hardcore and using their feedback to develop the games.  C'est la vie.  I'll still check both of them out  and see which has better combat options for the melee types. (Preferably in beta) CoH has done great in this regard with the scrappers.  If I don't get that level of play I'll just move along and  see if casters are worthwhile.  If not, many dollars in monthly subs will be saved on my end.

If it came down to style, I'd pickup WoW hands down.  Polys don't impress me, and much less so when you create models like the EQ2 ones with all of them.  I'll echo Big Gulp's call for some pink slips. Even when they move they're still stiff and unimpressive. They look more like they're moving along planes than any type of natural movement.  Bring back Milo, bish.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Numtini on August 01, 2004, 08:51:25 PM
Quote
I'm not sure which will be the more 'casual friendly' game.


It would be hard for me to imagine a more casual friendly game than WOW. Mind you, I hated the game, but it's all solo. Very very very dumbed down and very very easy to play with a low commitment required to play and succeed at.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Merusk on August 01, 2004, 10:09:25 PM
Quote from: Numtini
Quote
I'm not sure which will be the more 'casual friendly' game.


It would be hard for me to imagine a more casual friendly game than WOW. Mind you, I hated the game, but it's all solo. Very very very dumbed down and very very easy to play with a low commitment required to play and succeed at.


That's not much better.  Casual friendly doesn't have to = 'stupidly simple.' It just means that you shouldn't be required to dole out chunks of your life in 5+ hour chunks on a regular basis to advance in game.  That's what I see as 'low commitment'  Low-commitment doesn't have to = 'dumbed down'.  CoH is also low-commitment but it's got some decently complex mechanics. It just lacks depth of game experiences.  

Meh. I'm still unimpressed then.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Venkman on August 02, 2004, 11:01:06 AM
The deeper issue is using "time" as a rating in "casual" at all. The true casual do not sit down and say "I have 2.5 hours to play, I will therefore do a quest and work on achieving 25% more skill in crafting." They say "I'm going to play a game for a bit of time. I'll leave when I get bored or something more interesting comes along".

Sure, experienced MMOGs know how to scale their per-session expectations to 20 minutes or 5 hours ("I'll log in to check harvesters", "I'll log in to do a quick task", "I'll log in to move myself to a more convenient point for hunting tonight"). But they're experienced. And they accept the rules of the game because they do have the time to invest, and mentally justify doing so.

Until devs understand this, and stop with the nonsense about "we've reduced 5 hours to a 2 hour investment", they'll keep missing the point. Planetside is the closest to a "casual" game. CoH comes closer, but inevitably scales into truer MMORPGs by the teen levels.

If WoW can keep the casualness throughout, they'll score good with the true casual who're coming to MMORPGs for their first time through Blizzards godlike status. But they aren't coming looking to invest time. They are coming to play until bored.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: HRose on August 02, 2004, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Darniaq
They are coming to play until bored.

So they are probably coming to catassing.

I don't mean that WoW is so perfect that it's impossible to feel bored. But if you are it means that you'll probably choose to cancel directly. If the game appeals you, instead, you'll never encounter a point in the game where there's a "pause" that leaves you with nothing to do or the feel of emptiness.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Numtini on August 02, 2004, 04:24:47 PM
Quote
It just means that you shouldn't be required to dole out chunks of your life in 5+ hour chunks on a regular basis to advance in game


Then WOW fits the bill. It doesn't require blocks of time; friends; research into items, spells, and so on; or staying very much in practice. One of my friends loves it, but she hated other MMO games. She described it as Diablo 2 in 3d. It's not quite that, but it's closer to that than any of the larger MMO games.

While the blocks of time drive me loopy, the lack of the rest of it left me wondering why I should play a pay to play game rather than just playing a free one. In that sense, I think WOW's big competition isn't EQ2, it's guild wars.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Venkman on August 02, 2004, 09:21:20 PM
I thought it was established that WoW was D2 in 3D? At least, that was the impression I thought many of us had from last E3.

Not that it matters. I'm right with ya. The reason I can't pay for CoH is the lack of anything to do. WoW is exactly the opposite, but may be lacking the other thing that compels me to pay: reasons to do stuff with other people.

No worries though. Fun can be fun by itself. Whatever else WoW can be only matters at the 29th day.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Big Gulp on August 02, 2004, 10:06:08 PM
Quote from: Darniaq

But they aren't coming looking to invest time. They are coming to play until bored.


I'd argue that those are exactly the kind of people who won't pay a monthly fee for a game.  At their very core, these games require a certain amount of obsessiveness.  That's what most differentiates them from other genres.  Oh sure, you could point out the multiplayer element, put really I think that's just window dressing.  You can try to minimize it, put to a certain extent these games are all about power gaming.

These aren't just games, they're also geekboy dick waving contests, and that's deep down why people are willing to shell out $15 a month for them.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Venkman on August 02, 2004, 10:25:30 PM
I agree there :) I MMOGs are still sort of a sub-niche off of RPG in my opinion. They're not the sorta thing the average Sims players jumps right into. That's why I was hoping Guild Wars would usher in a different direction. Massive without the fee, doable through expansion. Like how PS should be.

But I was more referring to casual MMOGers. The folks that just leave without looking back. The ones who don't bother with game forums much less the meta communities like here. I suspect that's who SOE is thinking will be their ticket to a doubling of the account base or something.

Not that I agree of course. JTL is still an expansion (and initially sold only as an expansion) to a not-very-Star-Warsy game that requires a monthly fee. I personally think it'll do well, but more for ex-SWGers than a whole new age of new ones.

And really not at all for the casual gamer. They've moved on to Consoles for their space sim fixes, or keep playing Freespace 2 :)


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: Alluvian on August 02, 2004, 11:41:17 PM
Space sims on console?  Don't make me laugh.  Space sims all universally suck on consoles because of the television resolution limitations.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: HRose on August 03, 2004, 12:43:37 AM
Quote from: Alluvian
Space sims on console?  Don't make me laugh.  Space sims all universally suck on consoles because of the television resolution limitations.


This means you haven't played Colony Wars.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: geldonyetich on August 03, 2004, 12:49:54 AM
I thought Star Wars: Jedi Starfighter was pretty good myself.


Title: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG
Post by: angry.bob on August 03, 2004, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: Darniaq
The reason I can't pay for CoH is the lack of anything to do. WoW is exactly the opposite, but may be lacking the other thing that compels me to pay: reasons to do stuff with other people.


Rawr. You can always join the Bob horde and do Bobish things with those of us still around who will be Bobs. There are many group-friendly Bob activities to engage in... suicidal mass attacks, Shouting demoralizing messages in town, mocking the French (or in this case the smelly gnomes) are just a few.

For more information and some fairly wretched, faggy WoW fiction check out the Bob website (www.brotherhood-of-bob.com). Sadly, it's been very neglected since we bought a 97 year old house and started rehabbing it.