| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (18)

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 4:10PM mysecretid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Last time I logged into EQ II (Shadow Odyssey) I realized that the game's aging graphics had finally fallen below acceptable limits for me.

I just couldn't stand to look at it any more, unfortunately. Particularly my own character.

I like EverQuest II -- it has been my favorite high-fantasy MMORPG for years, but I seriously think it needs a graphical update to go along with all these other improvements.

Or will they just announce "EverQuest III" instead? Who knows?

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 11:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You can't make EQ2's graphics "better" without raising the bar again for performance, which raises the barrier to entry. There is some serious rendering quality going on there, regardless if current consumers don't like the 'style'.

WoW can be run on trivial hardware because it's textures, polygons, and characters are.. trivial. The reason they get away with it is the artistic (cartoony) style. Seriously, look at those textures in each starting WoW racial area. They're worse, in same areas, than original EQ. And the WoW character models are laughable in complexity when compared with EQ2. Trees, landscape, structures... gah, so ... primitive in WoW!

Have you SEEN the hands of an Undead, Tauren, or Troll in WoW? Really? Go look right now. It's... horrific in comparison to EQ2.

It's just that WoW runs so damned fast people don't care. 60fps any zone, any time, night or day, with any (reasonable) number of players is hard to criticize. Lowest barrier to entry (system requirements) of any MMO is why they've got their millions of subs.
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 2:36AM Unverfied B said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There is something wrong with EQ2 textures or the shaders, i dunno... EVERYTHING looks like plastic, including the characters.

About WOW, yeah the starting areas (and generally a lot of the old world) looks very dated... because it was made 6-10 years ago. If you look at newer stuff you'll notice a raise in poligon counts and texture quality with every expansion, and every expansion raised the bar on system requirements to compensate.

What makes wow look GOOD is actually not related to polygons and texture resolution, it's the artistic style they chose and stick to. While games that try to look "photorealistic" can hold for a few years, as people expectations raise over time fall right into the Uncanny Valley.

Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 6:05PM wjowski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's not a matter of graphical power, it's a matter of EQ2 having no sense of aesthetics at all.
Reply

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 4:31PM Miffy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I didn't like EQ2 because of all the zoning. If they made the whole game seamless and then replaced bells with boat rides and that without loading screens then I'll come back.

True on the graphics too, they look really old and it is weird that this game does and WoW looks pretty modern. The textures they use are really poor too and the ugly models need replacing. What is worse is how poor the game runs for something that looks pretty bad.

I miss the alpha look of the game in them early screenshots, they looked much better. They then changed the art style and it just doesn't look good anymore. As each expansion comes they've made it more and more cartoony.


Yeh if the made the game seamless then I would give it another go.

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 4:42PM Daemodand said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's the downside of going realistic with your graphics. Your game ends up looking dated in a few years. WoW's approach leads to lower system requirements and it ages very gracefully. WoW still looks like it could have been released yesterday by comparison.

12 million playing WoW,
Reply

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 4:45PM Daemodand said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Note to self: massively doesn't like the less-than symbol in combination with a number lol.

Truncated part from above:
...less than 150K playing EQII, this is one of the reasons why.
Reply

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 4:49PM Jef Reahard said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm interested as to where you came up with the 150k number. Not saying you're wrong, but as SOE doesn't release numbers, I'm always curious where people get their estimates. Usually it's Bruce Woodcock's guesses.
Reply

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 5:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't understand why you would want to taper the leveling curve for players at this point. Perhaps they want players experiencing all of the content within their level range instead of doing multiple runs through one dungeon.

As for the graphics, here we are years later and I still can't understand who was looking at the character models and thought they looked good. That is my frustration with the game; EQ1 has some really low poly models and they still had more quality/character for their time.

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 6:09PM Bhagpuss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've been playing EQ2 since beta and my main server is Test. I have NO idea what this is about.

I've done all those instances many times with many characters and I had no idea there was any xp exploit or benefit available from zoning in and out of them. I would have imagined that making them persistent would be welcomed.

What exactly was it that you used to be able to do in these instances that you now can't?

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 6:32PM pcgneurotic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I *think* what they mean is (having only read the massively post, not the full text), that once you 'finish' a dungeon, the mobs won't respawn again for you, so you can't go back in and kill a few just for xp.

On the graphics/performance front, I can agree that *perhaps* they look a little dated; however, they still look really good to me, and performance-wise, the game runs like an absolute dream at 1280x960 on my mid-range desktop. Smooth as silk. EQ2 has possibly the most options of any game I've ever seen, so if any one is still experiencing performance issues, most likely they just haven't taken the time to sort their options out.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 1:56PM sandwiches said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Neurotic
Can't people level through just questing or what? What's the big deal that you miss out on a little bit fo XP?
Reply

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 7:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They changed a bunch of old instances from the old lock-out system (i.e., you zone in and kill something, you set a lock-out, and if you leave you can't go back) to the new lock-out system (i.e., you zone in, you're temporarily locked to that zone for 30 minutes, you kill a named/loot something, and you're locked to the zone for around a day, and can leave and zone back into that zone).

The article is misleading. It means that you don't have to do everything in one trip there, you can leave and come back to it. The people it would affect are people that would zone into an instance, clear trash, and zone out and back in again, which is silly since Clefts and Silent City in DoF and SoS and PoA in KoS are much better xp.

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 7:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
First off, there is a huge leveling issue right now in EQ2 where you can level characters to max level pretty quickly if you know what you're doing. It's so bad that if you roll a new character the newbie quests will grey out before you can complete them and it really needs to be toned down. But honestly, I think this change has less to do with XP and more to do with making all instanced zones persistant. All of EoF and onwards already was, so to me it seems like certain people are blowing this out of proportion.

As far as the graphics go, I will admit that the graphics system is out of date, but only performance wise, not quality wise. And they are working on it, they just recently put in Shader 3.0 and a little before that GPU shadows. The origional models are kinda bad but that's more a style issue and that's what the alternate asain style models are for.

How come I always end up sounding like some fanboi?

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 8:08PM pcgneurotic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I sympathise man. It's because we're conditioned by years of knee-jerking lolz trollz to believe that any sort of rational, reasoned response can only really be rampant fanboyism. :D
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 12:54AM TKOtheKDR said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You want to talk about a waste of time in EQ2? I remember camping "The Weaver" in RoV for over 8 hours in one play session. Also, the old bug that grayed out the mob names when someone ran away or died caused what amounted to a 96 hour camp of Captain T'Sanne.

The only way I ended up getting both of those was playing with a friend in shifts. One heck of a time sink.

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 9:49AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
EQ2wire is normally a blog I read a lot and has a lot of useful and insiteful stuff, but this time its way off base and innacurate.
This will, in no way, stop people from doing exactly what Feldon is saying will stop. Zoning in, killing the trash, zoning out and back in so it respawns.
All of these zones have always had a lockout timer. Some set the timer the instant you enter, some as soon as you kill anything, most as soon as you kill a named mob.
This has not changed, but now, if something occurs and you have to leave any pof the zone shalf way through, you can re-enter a day or two later and continue where you left off.

That all being said, if you are after 'fast grind' xp, there are far, far better places to go anyway.
In the same time you spend in these zones, you can earn much more xp and have a lot more mobs available in many other places.

Posted: Jul 12th 2010 12:56PM Mithan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hate long level grinds. It makes the game unfun.


Featured Stories

One Shots: The sacred bosom dance

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 10:00AM

Make My MMO: September 14 - 20, 2014

Posted on Sep 20th 2014 6:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW