Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 22, 2019, 05:25:16 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Shop: Amazon
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Everquest 2  |  Topic: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG  (Read 15287 times)
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
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

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
Rasix
Moderator
Posts: 14502

I am the harbinger of your doom!


Reply #1 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.

-Rasix
Big Gulp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3211


Reply #2 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!
Krakrok
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2146


WWW
Reply #3 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).

Soukyan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1995


WWW
Reply #4 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? ;)

"Life is no cabaret... we're inviting you anyway." ~Amanda Palmer
"Tree, awesome, numa numa, love triangle, internal combustion engine, mountain, walk, whiskey, peace, pascagoula" ~Lantyssa
"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis qu'on a perdus." ~Marcel Proust
geldonyetich
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2337

The Anne Coulter of MMO punditry


WWW
Reply #5 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.

Numtini
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7675


Reply #6 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.

If you can read this, you're on a board populated by misogynist assholes.
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #7 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.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
Joe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 291


Reply #8 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.
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #9 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
Alkiera
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1556

The best part of SWG was the easy account cancellation process.


Reply #10 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

"[I could] become the world's preeminent MMO class action attorney.  I could be the lawyer EVEN AMBULANCE CHASERS LAUGH AT. " --Triforcer

Welcome to the internet. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in a character assassination on Slashdot.
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #11 on: July 28, 2004, 04:26:59 AM

Uhh, yeah, my quote isn't meant to be taken beyond the context of graphics.

Bruce
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359


Reply #12 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.

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
-Numtini
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #13 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
Phred
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2025


Reply #14 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.
Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205


WWW
Reply #15 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.
Murgos
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7474


Reply #16 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.

"You have all recieved youre last warning. I am in the process of currently tracking all of youre ips and pinging your home adressess. you should not have commencemed a war with me" - Aaron Rayburn
Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205


WWW
Reply #17 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?
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213


Reply #18 on: July 28, 2004, 09:37:18 AM

I have a deep, dark suspicion that EQII will be mind-bogglingly good.

This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58718


WWW
Reply #19 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.
MrHat
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7398

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.


Reply #20 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?
Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205


WWW
Reply #21 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.
Jon Carver
Guest


Email
Reply #22 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.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 40703

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #23 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.

Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 30425

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #24 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:



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

Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #25 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.
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 30425

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #26 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.

Tige
Terracotta Army
Posts: 273


Reply #27 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
Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205


WWW
Reply #28 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.
Soukyan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1995


WWW
Reply #29 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.

"Life is no cabaret... we're inviting you anyway." ~Amanda Palmer
"Tree, awesome, numa numa, love triangle, internal combustion engine, mountain, walk, whiskey, peace, pascagoula" ~Lantyssa
"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis qu'on a perdus." ~Marcel Proust
Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205


WWW
Reply #30 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.
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #31 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.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #32 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.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
Numtini
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7675


Reply #33 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.

If you can read this, you're on a board populated by misogynist assholes.
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #34 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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Everquest 2  |  Topic: No, EQ2 doesn't share the same engine of SWG  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC