New EQ 2 Player's Objective Observations [Archive]

32ryandonahue36

04-08-2007, 08:06 PM

Hi there. My name is Ryan and I have recently purchased EQ2 and it's expansions and currently am enjoying the game immensely. However, there are a few very obvious and serious problems with the way the game is marketed, designed, and maintained. This is not a post about class-balance. This is not a post about the disparity between content for the good and evil factions. It is a post with a couple ideas for making the game more popular without dumbing it down. Its has been brought up more than a couple times that the advertisment put into this game is far less extensive than the advertisment for Papa John's Pizza, a California based pizza company. This game is made by Sony. I will not write any more about this specific topic. Those two sentences tell the whole story for this one. In addition, though I enjoy the look and feel of the game, I think another large mistake was made. The armor graphics for the most part are pathetic. Yes, that's right, pathetic. This company hires some of the most innovative and interesting content designers on the planet and yet we have clothing and armor that is as imaginative as three-piece suit. Get on the ball. I dont care what the visual programmers are working on, it is not as important as making the game look cool. Period. Finally, though I understand that this gender-neutral clothing might be a half-hearted attempt to iden the target audience for the game, it sucks. I'm an articulate person and if there were a word that better described the situation, I'd use it. For this, though, "sucks" is the proper term. I am a student of the Theatre. I KNOW a few simple changes would solve the problem of server de-population. Face it, WoW is popular because of the PvP, and because it looks COOL. It doesnt look REAL. Real looking things are not for FANTASY games.

Mirander_1

04-08-2007, 08:32 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote> In addition, though I enjoy the look and feel of the game, I think another large mistake was made. The armor graphics for the most part are pathetic. Yes, that's right, pathetic. This company hires some of the most innovative and interesting content designers on the planet and yet we have clothing and armor that is as imaginative as three-piece suit. Get on the ball. I dont care what the visual programmers are working on, it is not as important as making the game look cool. Period.</blockquote>The art team are currently revamping the skeletal models of the player races to greatly reduce the time it takes to create armor models. To give some prespective on this, when they were creating the class hats, it would take months to make four hats. This isn't nesesarily from a lack of effort, but the original model system that was designed is so clunky, that it takes a long time to hand fit all armor to the fifty-something individual character models currently in game. Of course, once that's done, we ought to be seeing a large influx of new armors

liveja

04-08-2007, 08:49 PM

WoW does not look "cool", it looks cartoony & lame. EQ2 armor models are dramatically better looking than any of the nonsense Blizzard stuffed into WoW, as are the character & weapon models.I agree about the advertising, tho.

Ponos

04-08-2007, 09:30 PM

I would hardly tout your uninformed opinions as "objective observations."

Novusod

04-08-2007, 09:48 PM

I don't think you realize how many armor models there are in this game. There are 16 different races that are both male and female so that is 32 and then you throw in the SOGA models that number doubles to 64. So to make one piece of armor SoE has to create 64 different versions of that one model. Also being a new player you probably don't even realize you can change the look of your charactor to a more manga/anime style by enabling SOGA in you options tab (ALT 'O'). I also disliked the standard 'realistic' models and I opted the SOGA models instead as soon as I found out about them.

Blakeavon

04-08-2007, 10:03 PM

<cite>Ponos wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would hardly tout your uninformed opinions as "objective observations."</blockquote> Gee that was rude :p i ahve been playing the game since the day it came out and complete agree with the original poster 1. the advertising for this game is basically doesnt exist. since Vanguard came out the servers have been so barren. And on im AB and it looks like a ghost town. The game needs a lot more fresh blood, its way better than all the others out there. but sony does nothing to make it have a greater impact. 2. the armour is crap, always has been. sure if you grind and grind you might get a piece or so that match but general at 70 i have NEVER seen one person with matching armour that looks cool. that whole 'they are working on new skellies' BAH been hearing that for a year. i love this game, been through all the others but this is the only one has any substance... but like the OP said on these two points he is completely right

liveja

04-08-2007, 10:10 PM

Prideaux@Antonia Bayle wrote: <blockquote>at 70 i have NEVER seen one person with matching armour that looks cool </blockquote>That's because you've never seen me.I'll have to take a couple screenies & post them. I look good.

Ponos

04-08-2007, 10:14 PM

So because you agree with him, they cease to be his opinions and instead become what -- fact?And since you attempted to validate your opinion by stating that you have been playing since the day it came out, I shall neutralize that by saying that I have been playing two days longer than you.Therefore my opinion is what -- x2 more factual than yours?Nonsense.

xOnaton1

04-08-2007, 10:27 PM

Prideaux@Antonia Bayle wrote: <blockquote>2. the armour is crap, always has been. sure if you grind and grind you might get a piece or so that match but general at 70 i have NEVER seen one person with matching armour that looks cool. that whole 'they are working on new skellies' BAH been hearing that for a year. </blockquote>In my opinion, <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=355675" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this Echoes of Faydwer Fury armor set</a> looks really good. So, I would say "never" would not be true. Othesus - Dirge - Lucan DLere Vaspar - Fury - Lucan DLere

Armae

04-09-2007, 02:08 AM

Il go out on a limb here and say i mostly agree with the OP. Unless you know about it from a friend,see it at a store or stumble upon it accidentally...its non-existant.That other game tho...has TV commercials running. Armor..well there are a few ppl that have matching armor sets...out of how many ppl tho?Ppl used to have matching armor,and we all looked like clones...but o ya they nerfed that armor(ebon/cobalt)..and now we have a smorgasbord for the eyes on about 99% of the population.Yes it is possible to get matching armor,but what is the probability?...pretty low.

-AtPlay-

04-09-2007, 03:13 AM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote> In addition, though I enjoy the look and feel of the game, I think another large mistake was made. The armor graphics for the most part are pathetic. Yes, that's right, pathetic. This company hires some of the most innovative and interesting content designers on the planet and yet we have clothing and armor that is as imaginative as three-piece suit. Get on the ball. I dont care what the visual programmers are working on, it is not as important as making the game look cool. Period. Finally, though I understand that this gender-neutral clothing might be a half-hearted attempt to iden the target audience for the game, it sucks. I'm an articulate person and if there were a word that better described the situation, I'd use it. For this, though, "sucks" is the proper term. I am a student of the Theatre. I KNOW a few simple changes would solve the problem of server de-population. Face it, WoW is popular because of the PvP, and because it looks COOL. It doesnt look REAL. Real looking things are not for FANTASY games. </blockquote>Im going to have to disagree on these points (respectively, of course.) For one, I love the armor and the way it looks. I dont get off on purple/orange armor with wings on the shoulders that would block 90% of your view if you were wearing it. I also dont like how "other" games tend to oversize their weapons. Im sorry, you wouldnt be able to wield a 2h sword that is 6x your height and expect to actually kill someone (other than yourself.) Now sure, I agree that there should be something inplace to make armor match a little better, but supposedly they are working on it. WoW isnt huge because of PvP...if it were, the PvP servers would massivly outnumber their PvE servers (when I quit WoW, there were maybe 1 PvP server for 8 PvE servers). WoW is big because of two things: playing to the lowest factor and name. They purposly made their game so that it could run on practically anything...and it shows. Their (over)use of colors to try and hide the fact that they are using graphics that arent as sharp as EQ1 had post SoL, and their constant (under)use of polys just kill the game for me. I have a decent rig, I want to be amazed when I play. The second reason is obvious, they are Blizzard, and this game is based on Warcraft (one of the best selling games of alltime.) It would have been hard for them not to have hit a homer by using their name and making a game that could play on a calculator. When I watch FANTASY movies, or read books, I see what I see in EQ2 (ie. usable Armor and weapons). I cant stand technicolor armor and skyscraper weapons...I swear, its like a bad acid trip. The EQ2 dev team have made a conscious effort to make the game look real (or at least as close as it could with giant humanoid frogs/rats/butterflies). Ive played WoW PvP, and it was good...but its vastly undersupported by their dev team, and is dying out. I mean, I leveled a Shaman to 60 and didnt get ganked once on a PvP server. Not once and its not like I was trying to avoid it. In short, the things you are asking about arent going to happen. We might get a couple extra sets of armor, but they will be realistic (as anything else would look grossly out of place). We also arent going to have anything like the naked Night/Bloodelves dancing at our mailboxes asking for tips...and Im fine with that. And if you think WoW PvP is good, you should give a shot to DAoC. In my opinion, it is vastly superior...unfortunately, the rest of the game is crap.

32ryandonahue36

04-09-2007, 03:59 AM

Actually, you are correct. I am biased. In favor of EQ 2. That was in the original post. Im certain there are plenty of players satisfied in every way regarding the visual design of the armor skins and such. I also understand how much work it is....and how much easier it is to use the millions of dollars at hand to hire skilled professionals in numbers suitable to the task. Is the cost feasable? Would it end up being more profitable contributing those funds to the completion of Vanguard? These are the kinds of questions that determine what should happen. Well, at least aa far as the company is concerned.Anyways, that is all I have in rebuttal for the previous posters.

doctorbow

04-09-2007, 04:15 AM

Yeah, advertisement for this game has been severely lacking. Someone pointed out deadening population after vanguard's release. The reason for that is, the only people that went to Vanguard, *surprise* PLAY EQ2!!! I think they call that 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'... For whatever reason, the powers-that-be at SoE have decided to not advertise EITHER of these fantastic games... So both of them are drawing from the same playerbase/fanbase, with no 'new-blood' coming in. So, our servers dwindle, and theirs do not start out anywhere NEAR as robust as they COULD be... But, that's a horse that's been beaten so many times.... they need to advertise. PS: Not just game mags, gamers KNOW what's out there. Bring it to people who may NOT know what's out there... As to the armor... YEAH it's a TON of work designing different models for 16 races/sexes, etc. Work on skinning making models easier, I'm all for. EQ2's vast STRENGTH over WoW graphic-wise IS it's real-ness to the feel of the world. We need realistic armor, with GREAT appearance. It's a fantasy world, which doesn't necessarily mean cartoonish, in any sense, but our armor and clothing should relate to that fantasy. Gender neutrality be **mned, a little bit of cleavage in the right plate-mail can be a good thing <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Personally, I LIKE the diversity of armor looks late-in-game. Heck, by that time a person basically has 9 different pieces of visible armor anyway, so as someone pointed out, it's unlikely someone is going to match your mottled-look, unless you're wearing freshly crafted pieces of set-armor, or eof, or relic pieces... all else just doesn't really match well... My swash looks like an unlit christmas tree, with red chest and green legs, greyish feathered shoulders, etc... But my HAT is [Removed for Content]' cool. Valid points, all of them. And, you are guaranteed to run across other things that drive you nuts. And, like the rest of us, you'll learn that SoE doesn't necessarily listen to us, and if they do, rarely will they say anything. They work on things silently, break things silently, patch them silently. Nerf/patch/nerf/patch silently.... kinda their MO... you'll get used to it.

Dutchgrrl

04-09-2007, 07:31 AM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hi Ryan! Welcome to EQ2! I am glad that you are enjoying the game - the recent additions and the modifications to the game in the past year have made it fun all over again, and that is just considering regular play. Add in the quests and the underlying game story and it just keeps getting better and better, which is very likely why it is so popular a game...EQ2 is not, contrary to popular myth, in decline. In fact it continues to grow just like all of the other games out there. Server populations do appear to be in flux, but that is not really accurate either, since the population is spread out in a wide venue that relates to level and play style. I can see how you may have gotten the impression that the game is not being advertised enough, tho I think that you are not seeing the true strength behind the approach that SOE uses. I recently took a look at the state of promotion of the game because I was curious as well, and I discovered that EQ2 was being advertised at much the same level of other games, and in fact had more advertising than FFXI!The problem I think you have is that you compared it to WoW... The reason that this is a problem is because EQ2 and WoW exist on different models... The reason that WoW is so agressively advertised is that they expect to lose customers - their advertising approach is based upon the understanding that most of their customers are not long term. They do not establish a lengthy relationship because the content is not there, and the game is based on a very limited system of repitition. The devs at WoW have said numerous times that they are working on developing persistant content, but as it stands now, that appears to be little more than Vaporware. The recent expansion to the game, which came over a YEAR late, has been harshly received due to the lack of original new content. Most of the players I know who play WoW (I am not a WoW player and never was as the game is simply too grind-oriented to interest me) have said that they had understood that the new expansion would include a line of lore content and new play style features that simply were not there. I think it is safe to sum this up as a simple case of comparing apples to pumpkins. While both are fruit, they are in no way the same sort of fruit... EQ2 is an apple, a realistic fruit that is fun to eat, but has so much variety that you never grow tired of eating it. Today you eat a Granny Smith, tomorrow a Delcious Red. WoW on the other hand is the same old Pumpkin every day, and the only variation seems to be left over pumpkin pie from three thanksgivings ago. The strength of WoW is that it is dead easy to play, and so simple a process that you can play it effectively blotto or sober. All you have to do is remember to mash the right button, and substitute 3's for e's and 7's for t's when you talk, and you are all set. The sober players remember to refer to all new players as N00b's and anyone they don't know as [Removed for Content], and thus are elevated to 3l337 status in the game, where they are worshiped by long lines of semi-naked dancing cartoons.A high attrition rate and lack of original content added to the level grind in WoW works out to an average player base lifetime of 6 months. That means that every 6 months WoW has to draw in a new batch of players to maintain its position in the market and remain profitable. To do this, Blizzard uses a large variety of advertising campaigns, pays cartoonists to support them while appearing to be unconnected to the company so that they can use the popular cartoons to slam their competition, and pays for gaming "events" such as tourneys in large cities to drive the publicity monster that guides its PR department. They play down the grind aspect by refering to it as "Excitement" and the crafting system as "Intuitive and easy to master" which I suppose it is... My 9 year old nephew capped his toon in WoW in five weeks this past summer, then lost interest in the game because the game was really just leveling the toon. He plays EQ2 now, btw...I am curious why you think that using a national TV campaign (IE Papa John's nationally franchised Pizza Company) would be better than how they do it today? EQ2 is advertised in highly targeted venues, and relies on the strength and quality of the game to drive its player base. Would it shock you to discover that the vast majority of people who buy Pizza do not play MMO's while they eat it? Word of Mouth has always been the strongest advertising method for games like EQ2. The reason for that has more to do with the real stinkers that have been created and pushed via regular advertising on the consuming public - a public that has grown very distrustful of advertisments for games.Because of this, the vast majority of players rely upon either word of mouth, or websites that review games and disclose their weaknesses and strengths. It is primarily from those venues that customers are created, not from print and TV ads. I totally understand your confusion on the issue, you did explain that you are new to gaming.In many ways EQ2 is a victim of its own success - the game is huge in terms of zones and territory that it has to reduce its server count because the players are spread over so wide an area that there is a perception that the player base is shrinking... Of course if you go to one of the popular areas for playing at your level, you will quickly learn that far from being de-populated, the world has TOO MANY players, and you have to stand in line to get at the content you need for the quest or play you want. No, it is not a perfect world, but there is very little really wrong with it from a design pov. Marketing is a science and SOE is a master at leveraging it, so no worries there. As for how the game is maintained, well, you do have something of a point there.It would be nice if there was more communication on the changes and updates being made - there once was but the person who filled the position that handled that has moved on to another job/place and their slot was never filled after they left. The ninja alterations to gameplay rules are a bit frustrating, but the maintaining issues do not impact the game in any real sense as far as continuity is concerned. There could be more live events - I for one would welcome these - and it would be nice if they gave the volunteer event program a shot in the arm - I have been playing for a long time and have only seen a live event thru the hoods ONCE. I am sorry that you do not like the armor and graphics. I agree that there is room for improvement, but then again we are told that they are in fact making the improvements, so we really should wait and see before declaring it broken... I have had armor in the game that I thought was awesome, and other pieces and sets that I considered too ugly to wear regardless of the benefits... But I think that is true of most games...You spoke with such confidence and authority in your post that I was genuinely surprised to learn that you are a Theatre student... I would have thought CIS, even game design from the way you spoke, but then again clearly we understand that this is a forum for opinion. I applaud your enthusiasm and willingness to share your opinion on how to fix the game tho, that was brave considering that you are a new player with limited familiarity with the game content. Perhaps in the future, when you have better researched the subjects that you commented on, we will see the strength of your opnions and the underlying thread of the subject improve as you gain familiarity and knowledge. I know that I will be happy to see that, and I am sure there are others here as well who will be too, so keep up the good work!Good luck and enjoyKat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi there. My name is Ryan and I have recently purchased EQ2 and it's expansions and currently am enjoying the game immensely. However, there are a few very obvious and serious problems with the way the game is marketed, designed, and maintained. This is not a post about class-balance. This is not a post about the disparity between content for the good and evil factions. It is a post with a couple ideas for making the game more popular without dumbing it down. Its has been brought up more than a couple times that the advertisment put into this game is far less extensive than the advertisment for Papa John's Pizza, a California based pizza company. This game is made by Sony. I will not write any more about this specific topic. Those two sentences tell the whole story for this one. In addition, though I enjoy the look and feel of the game, I think another large mistake was made. The armor graphics for the most part are pathetic. Yes, that's right, pathetic. This company hires some of the most innovative and interesting content designers on the planet and yet we have clothing and armor that is as imaginative as three-piece suit. Get on the ball. I dont care what the visual programmers are working on, it is not as important as making the game look cool. Period. Finally, though I understand that this gender-neutral clothing might be a half-hearted attempt to iden the target audience for the game, it sucks. I'm an articulate person and if there were a word that better described the situation, I'd use it. For this, though, "sucks" is the proper term. I am a student of the Theatre. I KNOW a few simple changes would solve the problem of server de-population. Face it, WoW is popular because of the PvP, and because it looks COOL. It doesnt look REAL. Real looking things are not for FANTASY games. </blockquote>

Zandior

04-09-2007, 09:29 AM

I'm unimpressed w/ much of the armour, robes in particular. I have seen some higher levels that do look better, but haven't really seen someone that makes me say, 'Oh, I want to look like THAT someday.' Seeing that they're working on the skeletal portion of the game makes me happy. I hope they're not changing what the models (specifically, the alternate) look like physically tho? Apologies, I admit not having done a search since I started replying. I hope they introduce new & intriguing variations of armour. The advertising does seem very weak, & this is a FANTASTIC game. There's been so many changes since launch, that in telling people of it, when they reply 'I played @ launch', I tell em they played a different game. C'mon marketing, let people know how great this all is <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Kizee

04-09-2007, 09:38 AM

You should have played the game at release. The armor looks are quite a bit better then release.

StainlessSte

04-09-2007, 10:06 AM

<cite>livejazz wrote:</cite><blockquote>WoW does not look "cool", it looks cartoony & lame. EQ2 armor models are dramatically better looking than any of the nonsense Blizzard stuffed into WoW, as are the character & weapon models.I agree about the advertising, tho. </blockquote> I agree. I am relatively new to EQ2, and I greatly enjoy the graphics and game play. The cartooniness and simplification that is WoW is why I DO NOT play WoW. I am also happy to have the choice of playing a PvE server, which is doing quite well without the PvP aspect.Yes, there should be more advertisement, but word of mouth and player recommendations go far. If anything, there should be more effort in having the game readily available in a variety of stores.<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Fing

04-09-2007, 12:36 PM

<cite>livejazz wrote:</cite><blockquote>WoW does not look "cool", it looks cartoony & lame. </blockquote> EQ2 looks like 'Wallace and Gromet' claymation. In WoW, people dress up, Night Elves mostly, and stand in front of the auction house so they can be gawked at. Not my cup of tea, but they sure were gorgeous. I remember this one NE male, who dress in the tuxedo pants and the red, wide brimmed hat? He would stand on the AH bridge and dance all night long. He thought he looked cool... And he did.I am disappointed in the lack of diversity in EQ2 models. Everyone and everything looks much alike.

Kizee

04-09-2007, 12:48 PM

<cite>Fingis wrote:</cite><blockquote>In WoW, people dress up, Night Elves mostly, and stand in front of the auction house so they can be gawked at. Not my cup of tea, but they sure were gorgeous.</blockquote>Yeah if you are into cartoons. <img src="/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

KBern

04-09-2007, 12:55 PM

Just an FYI, the OP needs to change the title to "Subjective Observations"...

Tib

04-09-2007, 01:00 PM

<blockquote>Fingis wrote: EQ2 looks like 'Wallace and Gromet' claymation. In WoW, people dress up, Night Elves mostly, and stand in front of the auction house so they can be gawked at. Not my cup of tea, but they sure were gorgeous. I remember this one NE male, who dress in the tuxedo pants and the red, wide brimmed hat? He would stand on the AH bridge and dance all night long. He thought he looked cool... And he did.I am disappointed in the lack of diversity in EQ2 models. Everyone and everything looks much alike.</blockquote>Ya know, I have to say... since WoWs release and over 5000 posts on graphics comparisons of EQ2 and WoW you are the first person that thought WoW wins that category. but hey, one mans Daniel Day Lewis is another mans Screech.The only thing that I really dislike about the character models in EQ2 is the fact that EVERY single one is the exact same. Same emotes. Same actions. They are all built on the exact same frame. and all the Froglok is is another character in crouch. I completely disagree with the OP... EQ1 and now EQ2 are a very different market. If you are telling me PvP is the answer I must run for the hills. GENERALLY speaking the EQ2 base is much more mature and skilled and a lot more loyal. I tooled around on the PvP server for about 3 days and that was way too long. Smack talking, name calling and exploiting was all I witnessed. I killed one kid (I won it fairly) and he sent me tells the next 2 days about how I cheat etc etc etc... that happened like 4 times. EQ2 will NEVER be WoW..... A 10 year old can log into WoW, level to the cap and play daily without much "thinking" or teamwork. EQ2 requires a little more skill and focus, which requires a little more work and to really explore the game you must be semi-social..... and for those reasons a lot of people will not enjoy the immersion that is required to be a good EQ2 player and to really see what this game brings.

Fing

04-09-2007, 01:12 PM

Tibbz@The Bazaar wrote: <blockquote> <blockquote> EQ2 will NEVER be WoW..... </blockquote></blockquote> True that. WoW is sucessful. The rest of what you said... Is inaccurate. Half truths at the most.

-AtPlay-

04-09-2007, 01:21 PM

<cite>Fingis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Tibbz@The Bazaar wrote: <blockquote> <blockquote> EQ2 will NEVER be WoW..... </blockquote></blockquote> True that. WoW is sucessful. The rest of what you said... Is inaccurate. Half truths at the most.</blockquote>EQ2 is successful too, just not as successful as WoW. And what exactly wasnt true with the previous statement? I would totally back up that WoW requires the least amount of anything resembling skill of any MMOG Ive ever played. I would also say that the EQ2 players are much more mature...I havnt heard one comparison between Mr. T and Chuck Norris since I left WoW.

Fing

04-09-2007, 02:22 PM

<cite>-AtPlay- wrote:</cite><blockquote>I havnt heard one comparison between Mr. T and Chuck Norris since I left WoW. </blockquote>I had to reroll on AB cause it has some people. Many of the other servers are empty. On AB you hear the same conversations you hear in any MMOG, WoW included.You can pretrend your part of a 'Boutique' MMOG, but the truth is: where did all those subscribers go?WoW.

Morgane

04-09-2007, 02:23 PM

Fingis wrote: <blockquote>...I havnt heard one comparison between Mr. T and Chuck Norris since I left WoW. </blockquote> [Removed for Content]!

ZachSpastic

04-09-2007, 02:28 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote> I am a student of the Theatre. I KNOW a few simple changes would solve the problem of server de-population. Face it, WoW is popular because of the PvP, and because it looks COOL. It doesnt look REAL. Real looking things are not for FANTASY games. </blockquote>WoW does not look cool. WoW looks like a box of crayons melted on my monitor. WoW is popular because it appeals to eight year olds. Perhaps you should go play WoW since you have so many issues with EQ2.

liveja

04-09-2007, 02:30 PM

<cite>-AtPlay- wrote:</cite><blockquote>I havnt heard one comparison between Mr. T and Chuck Norris since I left WoW. </blockquote>I have, tho nowhere near as often as I did in WoW.However, other posters are correct on this much: in EQ2, you will see exactly the same sort of lame, childish, school-boy garbage in the chat channels that you'll see in any other MMO, WoW included.I'd still rather play EQ2, tho, because at least EQ2 doesn't force me to look at character & armor models as hideously fugly as WoW's. I'd go back to freekin' Dark Age Of Camelot ... heck, I'd even go back to Ultima Online, before I'd even think of going back to WoW.

KBern

04-09-2007, 02:31 PM

More people play checkers than chess....it doesn't mean checkers is a better game.

interstellarmatter

04-09-2007, 02:37 PM

I play both EQ2 and WoW. I have different likes and dislikes between the two. WoW does not win in the armor department for me. Maybe the guys like the armor but the female stuff can be downright horrible. Some of the stuff makes the females look like [Removed for Content]. It's like the armor art department is full of guys just trying to make hot chicks.

Fing

04-09-2007, 02:55 PM

Saurakk@Guk wrote: <blockquote>More people play checkers than chess....</blockquote> Just a guess, but I bet this is inaccurate.Yes, some of the WoW armor makes women look like hos. There's one set of armor my wife calls 'cocktail waitress'. I'm not sure how it protects anyone from anything.

liveja

04-09-2007, 02:57 PM

<cite>interstellarmatter wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's like the armor art department is full of guys just trying to make hot chicks. </blockquote>That's because WoW's target audience is teenage boys.

Fing

04-09-2007, 03:01 PM

<cite>livejazz wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's because WoW's target audience is teenage boys. </blockquote> Again, a half truth. EQ2's market is the doughy, basement dweller, who lacks dexterity and has fat fingers.Now, what did we just prove?

interstellarmatter

04-09-2007, 03:04 PM

<cite>Fingis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Again, a half truth.EQ2's market started off being the doughy, basement dweller, who lacks dexterity and has fat fingers. Now, they are trying to compete with WoW but lack the advertisment budget is causing them not to catch up.Now, what did we just prove?</blockquote> Corrected!

liveja

04-09-2007, 03:06 PM

<cite>Fingis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>livejazz wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's because WoW's target audience is teenage boys. </blockquote> Again, a half truth. EQ2's market is the doughy, basement dweller, who lacks dexterity and has fat fingers.Now, what did we just prove?</blockquote>That you can post ad hominems as well as I can.Having said that, I'd rather deal with an art department that doesn't cause women to look like [Removed for Content]. You may, of course, disagree.

KBern

04-09-2007, 03:25 PM

<cite>Fingis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Saurakk@Guk wrote: <blockquote>More people play checkers than chess....</blockquote> Just a guess, but I bet this is inaccurate.Yes, some of the WoW armor makes women look like hos. There's one set of armor my wife calls 'cocktail waitress'. I'm not sure how it protects anyone from anything.</blockquote> Well either or, but I think you get the point I was trying to make. I have never played WoW and probably never will so I am not going to make assumptions or subjective statements about what game is better, but the simple fact of one having more subscribers does not equate to proof of a better game.

Kellin

04-09-2007, 03:27 PM

Stop with the flames, guys. It'll just get this thread locked.I agree with a previous poster who said this should be retitled "Subjective Observations." The OP gave his opinion, which he is certainly entitled to do. Objective means he's not personally invested in the topic and has no pre-conceived notions on how things "should" be. The OP, however, is stating his opinion, which is not the same thing at all. Hence, subjective.Anyhoo, I think just about everyone will agree that EQ2 would benefit from some additional marketing. More coverage in gaming magazines, maybe in some other tech publications, some website banners, etc. Prominent presence at sci-fi, comic and gaming conventions. There's lots of ways to do some targeted advertising that would probably have a pretty good return on investment.Armor, well, I'm of two minds. I don't like the overblown, overstyled, oversized armor look. I'm the sort of person who sees Batman jump over a fence and wonders why his cape didn't get caught, who looks at the enormous shoulder decorations on some superheros in comics and is puzzled by how they get through the door. What happens when Iron Man sneezes? Stuff like that. So the more toned down, realistic armor works for me. The colors, however...The armor designers seem to have a serious fetish for magenta, purple, and hideous shades of green. They seem to like mixing orange with purple and green, and while this is to be applauded in designing a halloween funhouse, it's not my first choice when shopping for garments of war. Not to mention the flayed vultak leggings, the ugliest sweatpants known to man. I understand that real armor comes in very few colors. Leather is usually in shades of brown, chain and plate are either silver, dull grey, or rusty. Cloth can be all colors, but it's the cloth models that have the least amount of diversity; all robes seem to be the exact same model with different skins. And it seems the better the gear, the uglier the colors, and the more they clash.While it would be nice to get a matching set of gear in a reasonable color combination, I'm also grateful that everyone doesn't look exactly the same. So while I'm wearing a magenta breastplate, bright red sleeves, black gloves and green and grey pants, the level 70 mystic standing beside me has a rusty brown breastplate, the ugly sweatpants, yellow boots, green sleeves and grey gloves. Both the same level and class, overall similar quality armor, but we don't look exactly the same. Just two clowns doing the heal dance. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Still, I do miss my mastercrafted ebon armor...that stuff was pretty...What I'm saying is, don't try to make EQ2 look like WoW. They aren't the same game, they shouldn't be, and by trying to emulate the other, each would alienate their current playerbase. Let each stand on its own merits, and play the one you enjoy the most.Also, graphics pull people in. Gameplay makes them stay. Don't sweat the graphics so much.

Fing

04-09-2007, 03:37 PM

<cite>Kellin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Gameplay makes them stay. Don't sweat the graphics so much.</blockquote> QFTLooking good might matter to women like my wife, but I could care less. I often turn the graphics down to 'Best Performance' or what ever it is. I'm having fun in EQ2 so far.When I go back to WoW, it will be for the PvP on demand.We usually play on an RP server, but you can PvP anytime you want no matter what server you're on.There's an older crowd on RP servers. That, and get into one of the old people guilds.

Jai1

04-09-2007, 04:18 PM

The more I play Vanguard, the more I think that game would appeal to WoW players. Ok so, Diplomancy and crafting are a little complex but the UI and spell progression is a lot like WoW. Maybe it takes longer, but I would think some of those 8 million people would be looking for another game eventually. I honestly think the gameplay of EQ2 is more difficult than WoW or VG and maybe Vanguards enviroment(social agro and maybe death) may be more difficult. Just my observations. I don't think VG is neccesarily draining EQ2 of players although the same rigs can probably run both where as WoW players may not be able to run either. I think that has a lot to do with it and SoE's lack of marketing may reflect the tiny high-end PC gamer segment which most of those probably already know about the games on the market. Advertising might just be a waste of effort so building quality games and buddy keys might be the way to go. People don't usually buy home PCs for 3 grand when mostly what they want to do is surf the internet. Gamers tend to buy machines so their game(s) of choice run better. We don't upgrade until a new game comes out that we want to play and we can't with our current equipment. WoW runs on about anything. When they advertise, the market that can run their game is a lot bigger. So they get more bang for their bucks.

Fing

04-09-2007, 04:22 PM

Omni@Najena wrote: <blockquote>I honestly think the gameplay of EQ2 is more difficult </blockquote> Is this a joke? In EQ2 you basically have four or five spells no matter what class you play.Vanguard is an EQ2 clone.

Embret

04-09-2007, 04:50 PM

"Yes, some of the WoW armor makes women look like hos. There's one set of armor my wife calls 'cocktail waitress'. I'm not sure how it protects anyone from anything."I'm okay with this in my Fantasy Adventure GAMES."EQ2's market is the doughy, basement dweller, who lacks dexterity and has fat fingers."You made me spew pop out my nose."That you can post ad hominems as well as I can."Gosh, (I was going to use wow, but it sounded too much like a bad pun.) I haven't seen this term used in ages. I commend you for your command of the English language and your attempt to debate properly. (However, it often seems to be wasted effort on these boards.)<hr />I think the OP has some valid points, even if we take away for giving the post an incorrect title. I do understand what he meant. I've also read some interesting points on realistic armor, although now I'm scratching my bald head wondering why it's important to have realistic armor in a game where there are frogs, rats, cats, and bugs that interact on the hominid level with the rest of the dwarves, elves, humans, haflings, and the occasional troll. (Don't forget the female troll, commonly referred to as a Trollop.)All of that being said; I think that to make armor in a much different manner would not match the rest of the game feel for me. The designers have mentioned the ability to color the armor, but that's been rumored for as long as I can recall. It would be nice, but doesn't truly affect game play. There are much larger issues they need to address first. And, going back to the realism argument, it was very rare for medieval (and earlier) armor sets to match completely unless it was ceremonial or owned by someone of wealth and station. Most warriors made due with what they could afford, were given (deceased friends or patrons), or picked up on the field of battle. Matching armor would not have been a driving force by any but the most foppish of warriors.I do enjoy seeing spirited debates, but cringe when I see fanbois (yes, I used that 1337 term) jump all over someone for not towing the company line. If we don't have people nay-saying on occasion nothing will ever improve. I like improvements (not all change is improvement), but I don't care in the least for the completely silent nerfs and repairs. To me, that's a company saying, "He's too stupid to notice so why bother telling him?"I have many friends who play WoW and quite a few less who play EQII. I spent hours watching both games being played and you see where I am at now. I couldn't stand WoW, but on the other hand I liked the look, feel, and play style of EQII. I don't care for everything they do, and in some cases have stopped playing for periods of time when they really foul something up, but all-in-all, I think it's a much better game. A game that can always be improved upon.

Gorhauth

04-09-2007, 05:13 PM

<cite>Mirander_1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>The art team are currently revamping the skeletal models of the player races to greatly reduce the time it takes to create armor models. To give some prespective on this, when they were creating the class hats, it would take months to make four hats. This isn't nesesarily from a lack of effort, but the original model system that was designed is so clunky, that it takes a long time to hand fit all armor to the fifty-something individual character models currently in game. Of course, once that's done, we ought to be seeing a large influx of new armors </blockquote> Haven't they been working on that skeleton system since like late 2005, early 2006 timeframe? My lack of confidence in that work actually taking place is amazing.

32ryandonahue36

04-09-2007, 06:32 PM

Allow me to make a couple of clarifications. I never suggested that making EQ2 a more PvP oriented game would be a good thing. That is a truly foolish notion. One of the aspects of the gamer I like the most is that the PvE in EQ 2 is more difficult and complex than the PvP of WoW. Furthermore, I never asked for completely different char. models. I simply proposed that cooler looking armor might go a long way to widenening the player-base. Every piece of armor looks the same. It is not poorly created, it is an excellent example of it's genre: renaissance fair clothing. It does not look impressive. Rogue armor doesn't look stealhty and evil. Etc. Etc. I just think it's ridiculous, after looking at the class-specific SS posts, that at level 70 your char. can look much less cool than a level 20 monk in full Mastercrafted. Maybe Im wrong, but I strongly doubt it.In regards to the title of this post, I offered suggestions directly aimed at WIDENING THE PLAYER-BASE, not making the game look 1337 hax. That's why I can call it objective. Maybe you think the armor/clothing looks cool......But I bet if you do you spend alot of time at old people's estate-sales.Some of you have misunderstood my intentions with this post. Quite possibly some of you will dislike it more for this, but I offer these suggestions so that the game might be more popular. More subscribers= more money. More revenue=more improvements and maintanence. More imp. and maint.= better game.

Mirander_1

04-09-2007, 09:03 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Furthermore, I never asked for completely different char. models. I simply proposed that cooler looking armor might go a long way to widenening the player-base. Every piece of armor looks the same. It is not poorly created, it is an excellent example of it's genre: renaissance fair clothing. It does not look impressive. Rogue armor doesn't look stealhty and evil. Etc. Etc. </blockquote>No you didn't, but they are altering the character models because it will make it easier and much less time consuming to make said cooler-looking armor. And to Gorhauth, yes, they have been working on it for, like, a year. But, they said at the begining that this was a long term project, and Scott still does mention that they're working on it every now and then; I think the last time would have been sometime in February. So I'm not terribly worried yet; although I am anxious to see it finished, or at least get some more new details on it.

Lasai

04-09-2007, 09:15 PM

I've played both games, I much prefer the armor look in EQ2 over the hidiously stylized cartoon armor in WOW. Furthermore, Ive done some texture mapping myself, and I would be ashamed of throwing the same maps on all polys regardless of shape and distortion. What is a simple buckle on the chest of a male toon in WOW becomes an undefinable smear of yellow when mapped on a female. Thier texture mapping is terrible and one map fits all simplicity.. bad, expecially bad when you consider they don't have body size variations to deal with. Frankly, talking about taste in armors is just that.. a matter of taste. I think WOW armors are terrible and really don't want them here, I don't even care for some of the new crap.. spikes and skull heads, lame. We need more variations of the "good stuff". There is nothing in WOW that can touch our Female Formal Ensemble.. but, why is that sole dress all we have of that sort? As far as good looking armor goes, IMHO the city faction Plate is really nice, and I would love to see that option available as combat armors. We really need some nicer city Faction Leather and Mail too tho.

Novusod

04-09-2007, 09:35 PM

I just noticed a whole bunch of new armors where added into the game during the last update through the revamping of the DFC zone. There is a whole new line of lvl 37 Mastercrafted set armors for each class in there with new graphics.

liveja

04-09-2007, 10:39 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>it is an excellent example of it's genre: renaissance fair clothing. As I've said/implied, this is precisely why I like EQ2 armor far more than I do WoW's: it looks realistic. I think it looks impressive as heck. I'm very sorry to disagree with you, but it is what it is.Rogue armor doesn't look stealhty and evil. Etc. Etc. I'm a Rogue. I'm not evil, & don't want to look evil. I think my current combination of Nemesis Vest (dull green), Relic Pants (dark brown) & McCabe's (dark brown & gold) looks excellent, & quite Rogue-ish. By contrast, I can't think of a SINGLE set of WoW Rogue armor I thought looked even tolerable, much less good.In regards to the title of this post, I offered suggestions directly aimed at WIDENING THE PLAYER-BASE, not making the game look 1337 hax. That's why I can call it objective.You can call it "objective" all you like, but unfortunately, it would appear you're using the word "objective" incorrectly. It doesn't mean that you're writing with an "objective" in mind. It means that what you're saying is, more or less, *true*, not just a matter of opinion. & unfortunately, value judgments on the appearance of armor are purely opinion, meaning that more than half of your supposedly "objective" post was highly subjective. Sorry.</blockquote>

Gorhauth

04-10-2007, 01:51 AM

<cite>Mirander_1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>And to Gorhauth, yes, they have been working on it for, like, a year. But, they said at the begining that this was a long term project, and Scott still does mention that they're working on it every now and then; I think the last time would have been sometime in February. So I'm not terribly worried yet; although I am anxious to see it finished, or at least get some more new details on it. </blockquote> Last time I had Devs tell me they were working on something this long term, it turned out to be a complete lie, and they never even started it for the year they said they were working on it. Given they are different teams, but the same company. The ethics/morals of a company run deep, plenty of examples of that in modern business.

Ninkobei

04-10-2007, 02:31 AM

the armor could use some work. I'll agree with that.

Armawk

04-10-2007, 05:07 AM

Im.. confused.. by the comments on armour here. While robes are a highly mixed bag with some truly awful nylon quilted housecoats embarrassing caster classes at all levels, actual armour sets seem pretty varied in look, and in some cases really great looking . Some of the chain is especially pretty, try a set of blackened iron or cobalt. My plate templar seems to have no trouble finding cool looking stuff too. Certainly everything looks much better than it did at launch.I would agree that while it makes a lot of sense that what looks best might conflict with what gives the absolute best stat combinations, Id like to see more interesting sets that go together and give targetted bonuses (though I see a LOT of level 70s wearing matched sets), but what we DONT want is every tier 4 scout in the same set because it is flat out best. How to square that circle I dont know.WoW-a-like would be a disaster though. Just awful. Go SOGA if you like more stylised, but still quality design.Is it possible some of the negative views are coming from people running the game at lower visual settings? I wonder, because I seem to see an often beautiful game where others call it fugly. Shaun

32ryandonahue36

04-10-2007, 05:25 AM

Let me try this once more. If you think that making the game's armor skins look a bit more extraordinary would not increase commercial sales of the game and boost subscription numbers, then you can call my observation subjective. However, if you firmly believe the previous statement is true, I can call you a fool. Packaging sells. Disagree with that statement at the peril of sounding plain dumb.To those who thought I implied a desire to WoWify EQ 2, that was never even remotely a consideration. Yes, there are plenty of armor skins in the game.....but besides color and length of crotch cover, how many differences are there? Lets see some different cuts, lets see some different fits. Howabout racially inspired armors for each race? Rusted mossy mail for Trolls or some such. Thats the kind of thing I'm suggesting.

sah

04-10-2007, 05:33 AM

I'm personally fine with the way my gear looks. Making armor look more "extraordinary" would only increase the system requirements and limit the number of people able to play the game on their current system. And I seriously doubt that armor appearances is going to have a significant impact on improving sales...With the exception of hat appearances, probably well over 90% of the people I know really don't care about armor appearances. It is nice to get a really cool looking weapon but that really has no impact on why they choose EQ2 over another game. Also, if you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a dumb fool, than you are not being objective.

Armawk

04-10-2007, 06:12 AM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Let me try this once more. If you think that making the game's armor skins look a bit more extraordinary would not increase commercial sales of the game and boost subscription numbers, then you can call my observation subjective. However, if you firmly believe the previous statement is true, I can call you a fool. Packaging sells. Disagree with that statement at the peril of sounding plain dumb.To those who thought I implied a desire to WoWify EQ 2, that was never even remotely a consideration. Yes, there are plenty of armor skins in the game.....but besides color and length of crotch cover, how many differences are there? Lets see some different cuts, lets see some different fits. Howabout racially inspired armors for each race? Rusted mossy mail for Trolls or some such. Thats the kind of thing I'm suggesting. </blockquote>Packaging sells.. but for you to suggest that only one "look" is extraordinary or that there is only one worthwhile kind of packaging is frankly "dumb" to quote you. Only massively warped body proportions, overscaled weapons, armor with spikes the size of peoples heads, lurid colours etc is good packaging?You seem to forget that packaging only sells if it is seen. I believe that if SOE managed to show the world what EQ2 actually looks and plays like now (as opposed to at launch) then they would have a massive increase in subscribers. With the situation changing in the hardware world (a cheap new pc can now play eq2 at near maximum settings) and the big changes in game, screenshots can look like prerendeered cutscenes, I could post some here that look better than the newest games coming out this year.. which is amazing for a game of this age.You CLEARLY implied a desire to wowify eq2. Otherwise why say it? If you had said you wanted more cuts and fits noone would have disagreed, but those are subtle improvements not a wholesale change of look to a more "cartoon" view of the world. Which are you suggesting? New additions and ideas within the current framework or a total look change?

metacell

04-10-2007, 08:59 AM

<cite>Fingis wrote:</cite><blockquote>[...] EQ2's market is the doughy, basement dweller, who lacks dexterity and has fat fingers.Now, what did we just prove? </blockquote>WoW, you're right on! My girlfriend and I are sitting in the basement of our house when we're playing EQ2! How did you know?? I guess this proves that you can make prejudiced suppositions about people! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Armawk

04-10-2007, 09:09 AM

Dear Dierdre, I've got a fat behind and regularly fall over my own feet, but our house has no basement. What am I to do? Yours, Hopeful of hertfordshire

Sunlei

04-10-2007, 09:47 AM

welcome to everquest. The lower level armors are kind of drab. The devs, and I'm not looking it up have said, not an exact quote...the higher lvl armors, especially the no-trade fabled that drops in raids only will look the best and have the nicer colors. All the other armors will scale down with lvl and quality..and that's why newbies look so drab. The roosters got to have someone to strut around. Make sure you have a good graphics card as the armor looks wonderfull(except color) even at low lvls.doubt EQ will ever have the jelly-bean-crayon cartoon colors like that other game, we're not a cartoon game here <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> tho we can mix and match for some very colorfull effects.

KBern

04-10-2007, 09:47 AM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Let me try this once more. If you think that making the game's armor skins look a bit more extraordinary would not increase commercial sales of the game and boost subscription numbers, then you can call my observation subjective. However, if you firmly believe the previous statement is true, I can call you a fool. Packaging sells. Disagree with that statement at the peril of sounding plain dumb.</blockquote>You should not throw around descriptions such as dumb when you cannot even use a word correctly.Subjective = opinionated observation, regardless of intent.Objective = factual observation, regardless of intent.An Objective observation would be, "The sky is blue." A subjective would be, "I like blue."If you cannot discern the difference, then continue at the peril of sounding plain dumb.

bleap

04-10-2007, 10:06 AM

Saurakk@Guk wrote: <blockquote><cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Let me try this once more. If you think that making the game's armor skins look a bit more extraordinary would not increase commercial sales of the game and boost subscription numbers, then you can call my observation subjective. However, if you firmly believe the previous statement is true, I can call you a fool. Packaging sells. Disagree with that statement at the peril of sounding plain dumb.</blockquote>You should not throw around descriptions such as dumb when you cannot even use a word correctly.Subjective = opinionated observation, regardless of intent.Objective = factual observation, regardless of intent.An Objective observation would be, "The sky is blue." A subjective would be, "I like blue."If you cannot discern the difference, then continue at the peril of sounding plain dumb.</blockquote>You should not throw around the word dumb without knowing how to use it... DUMB= unable to speak, mute... No one can sound dumb.. The word you are looking for is stupid, however because forum rules do not allow for such direct personal attacks you canot use stupid...So how about keeping the converstation on topic. Your constant correction of definitions and grammar do nothing to bolster your arguements. In fact, I am surprised that the moderators have not shut this topic down. There have been several EQ2 versus WoW conversations recently that were locked because like personal attacks, speaking negatively about EQ2 or speaking about WoW in a good light appear to be forbidden as well.

KBern

04-10-2007, 10:16 AM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>Saurakk@Guk wrote: <blockquote><cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Let me try this once more. If you think that making the game's armor skins look a bit more extraordinary would not increase commercial sales of the game and boost subscription numbers, then you can call my observation subjective. However, if you firmly believe the previous statement is true, I can call you a fool. Packaging sells. Disagree with that statement at the peril of sounding plain dumb.</blockquote>You should not throw around descriptions such as dumb when you cannot even use a word correctly.Subjective = opinionated observation, regardless of intent.Objective = factual observation, regardless of intent.An Objective observation would be, "The sky is blue." A subjective would be, "I like blue."If you cannot discern the difference, then continue at the peril of sounding plain dumb.</blockquote>You should not throw around the word dumb without knowing how to use it... DUMB= unable to speak, mute... No one can sound dumb.. The word you are looking for is stupid, however because forum rules do not allow for such direct personal attacks you canot use stupid...So how about keeping the converstation on topic. Your constant correction of definitions and grammar do nothing to bolster your arguements. In fact, I am surprised that the moderators have not shut this topic down. There have been several EQ2 versus WoW conversations recently that were locked because like personal attacks, speaking negatively about EQ2 or speaking about WoW in a good light appear to be forbidden as well. </blockquote>How about you use your ability for reading comprehension and realize my last statement, and the use of the word "dumb" was a cut and paste from the person I quoted. I know you can handle that, right?And you should also break out a Websters once in a while...it can be used either way as many words possess multiple definitions.6 a : lacking intelligence : <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/stupid" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">STUPID</a> b : showing a lack of intelligence <asking dumb questions> c : requiring no intelligence <dumb luck>To further my response to you, I have no arguments on this thread but two. The incorrect usage of Objective, and the claim that people make that a game is better because more people play it. I even stated I personally cannot say what game is better because I have never played WoW, but you probably missed that also. So maybe you should try to follow the entire thread and actually read was is going on before posting.

bleap

04-10-2007, 10:20 AM

<cite>Fingis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Omni@Najena wrote: <blockquote>I honestly think the gameplay of EQ2 is more difficult </blockquote> Is this a joke? In EQ2 you basically have four or five spells no matter what class you play.Vanguard is an EQ2 clone.</blockquote>There is nothing complex about EQ2....teenaged boys (the same ones that play WoW) can level a toon from 1-70 in about 2 weeks played...I have played nearly every class and within the arch types the spells have different names but pretty much do exactly the same thing. Each class gets 1 or 2 spells that are unique to that class and the rest are cookie cutters of the other classes within that arch type with differnt names...So you get together a tank, 3-4 DPS and a healer or 2 and go kill kill kill until you ding ding ding...If you trade skill you collect/gather/buy ingriedients and you go to your TSI and you push buttons until you run out of ingriedients.. What's so hard about any of this? The only thing that takes a little thought in this game are raid strats...and most of them can now be found splatered on the internet.. So what makes this game play any differently than WoW, or any other sword and sorcerey game? Nothing..the only real difference is graphics and UI....EQ2 has great graphics.....IF you are wiling to go out and buy a pretty high end PC to play on...Other games can be played with high end graphics with an out of the box E MACHINE... and there in lies the tale....If SOE truly wants to grab a large portion of market share they would have to make a game that appeals to people with lower end PCs....they didn't...so the game has fewer players...ALL MMOs lose people after a period of time...and EQ2 is no exception...and because they started off with fewer they now have much fewer than WoW. Vanguard made a horrible mistake....using a game engine that was designed for really high end graphics cards...It will prove to be the demise of that game as well... Bottom line is if you want pretty graphics that require a high end gamers PC you won't be as profitable as you would be if you go with a simpler game engine and lower end looks.... in the world of market share and profit....lower end graphics FTW.....

Maldian

04-10-2007, 10:29 AM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote> Hi there. My name is Ryan and I have recently purchased EQ2 and it's expansions and currently am enjoying the game immensely. However, there are a few very obvious and serious problems with the way the game is marketed, designed, and maintained. This is not a post about class-balance. This is not a post about the disparity between content for the good and evil factions. It is a post with a couple ideas for making the game more popular without dumbing it down. Its has been brought up more than a couple times that the advertisment put into this game is far less extensive than the advertisment for Papa John's Pizza, a California based pizza company. This game is made by Sony. I will not write any more about this specific topic. Those two sentences tell the whole story for this one. In addition, though I enjoy the look and feel of the game, I think another large mistake was made. The armor graphics for the most part are pathetic. Yes, that's right, pathetic. This company hires some of the most innovative and interesting content designers on the planet and yet we have clothing and armor that is as imaginative as three-piece suit. Get on the ball. I dont care what the visual programmers are working on, it is not as important as making the game look cool. Period. Finally, though I understand that this gender-neutral clothing might be a half-hearted attempt to iden the target audience for the game, it sucks. I'm an articulate person and if there were a word that better described the situation, I'd use it. For this, though, "sucks" is the proper term. I am a student of the Theatre. I KNOW a few simple changes would solve the problem of server de-population. Face it, WoW is popular because of the PvP, and because it looks COOL. It doesnt look REAL. Real looking things are not for FANTASY games. </blockquote> Going back to the original post.... what turnip truck did this guy fall off of? A theatrical student making comments on a game that he just purchased and has the gall to come here and give his opinion? What is going on with these kids today? Where do they come off trying to act smart about something that they have totally no idea about. Sheesh.... someone please let that kid know that he is not a developer nor an expert on game reviews.

NorrinRadd

04-10-2007, 10:35 AM

Bleap, Thanks for just stating the Truth. After all the debates and rhetoric its refreshing to see.

Armawk

04-10-2007, 10:46 AM

Bleap, there are many definitions of "win" and I really prefer one that gives us the best game, not the one that gives SOE the most money and/or subscribers.

liveja

04-10-2007, 04:03 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Disagree with that statement at the peril of sounding plain dumb.</blockquote>Well, then, I'm not sure why you thought to even bring things up for discussion, since those with whom you disagree are obviously just plain dumb <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />As I've already said, multiple times, the way the armor looks is precisely the way I think it *should* look, & you can claim all you want that you just want to see it look more "extraordinary", but when that's all you claim, & you then point to WoW as an example of what you call "more extraordinary", than people will believe you're saying that EQ2 should look more like WoW.In fact, since you're not getting especially detailed in what you think "extraordinary" means, you're not actually *saying* anything at all, & you're certainly not saying anything that's "objective" in any sense of the word. Sure, I could agree with you that making things look "more extraordinary" might help EQ2 sell better (I doubt it, but whatever) but if you're not going to define the term beyond pointing at WoW, then there's really nothing to talk about.Note that when I say EQ2 armor is the way things should look, I'm stating my subjective opinion; I'm not claiming a thing about what is or isn't "true" for anyone else.

liveja

04-10-2007, 04:11 PM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>EQ2 has great graphics.....IF you are wiling to go out and buy a pretty high end PC to play on</blockquote>My machine: 2.66 CPU (no duocore, etc.), 1.5GB RAM, ATI 9600 vidcard, no SATA/Raid HD, none of the bells & whistles. EQ2 runs perfectly fine on my machine, & looks very nice. I think it looks much better than WoW, & my machine runs EQ2 just as well as it ran WoW. It certainly isn't a "pretty high end" machine, & I didn't have to buy it; I put it together with spare parts that a friend of mine didn't need & wanted to get rid of. However, I could have put it together for pretty darn cheap, if I set my mind to it. Certainly it wouldn't cost even $1k.If you think my machine is "pretty high end", then ... <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Jai1

04-10-2007, 04:28 PM

I don't know why people get up in arms about matching sets. I don't necessarily color coordinate my apparel before I leave the house. That would make me look like my mom still dresses me. Remember Geranimals? I have matching sets of gear but I usually had to go out and get them. There are some in the game. I imagine the EoF sets match.

Tuetatesu

04-10-2007, 04:45 PM

This really caught my eye...32ryandonahue36 wrote:"Real looking things are not for FANTASY games. "I feel the graphics EQ2 and many other Fantasy games are driven by Fantasy Art. If you just Google images for Fantasy Art there are MANY drawings/paintings that portray a realistic views. I'd have to say the Fantasy Art more reflects what is in EQ2 and less reflects WOW's cartoon version.With that said, and being a Fantasy Art fan... Following most Fantasy artistic views real looking renditions of characters and monsters should be in Fantasy Games.

32ryandonahue36

04-10-2007, 05:27 PM

/sigh. Some kid? "Student of Theatre"....That doesn't mean I'm some Sophomore at Glendora High doing Glass Menagerie. It means I've had years of training in Greek Tragedy, Commedia Del Arte, Shakespeare, No, Kabuki, Experimental Theatre, Post-Modernism, etc. Etc. I have been taught by some of the greatest minds to come out of the Graduate programs at NYU, Columbia, Carnegie Melon. To some less discerning persons, the word Theatre may call to mind the pageants their children put on at school. For those with an education, it will call up Dame Judy Dench, Federico Garcia Lorca, and Brecht.Suffice to to say, my excessive background in the "Study of Life" makes me very well suited to knowing what "works" and what "doesn't work". I purposely left my descriptive terms vague, hence "extraordinary". That is because it would be arrogant to say ,"The game would be better if it looked like WoW", which is not only incorrect but also not what I meant. I didn't say anything about where I'd like it to go specifically, because that would not be "objective". ALL I MEANT TO SAY was that it would have a higher circulation if the armor/cloth skins didn't look like some kids went real hard-core for Halloween. Quilts turn into robes and tin foil makes armor? The "look" is not a commercial success, at least not nearly on the same level as most of their other products. Argue with that.

sah

04-10-2007, 05:43 PM

I'm arguing with the fact that you think more people would play EQ2 if it looked better. Not a single person I know has ever chosen to play one game over another just because it looks better. And most of the people I know who play EQ2 don't really care much about what their armor looks like. Cool graphics are nice but ultimately it has very little impact on how many people play the game. And I personally think that if the graphics were more "extraordinary", there would actually be fewer people playing the game because most people do not have high end computers...

Grimwell

04-10-2007, 05:48 PM

This is quite the interesting thread. Let's all be careful to not get cranky with each other and cause bad things to happen ok? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

bleap

04-10-2007, 06:07 PM

<cite>Maldian wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote> Hi there. My name is Ryan and I have recently purchased EQ2 and it's expansions and currently am enjoying the game immensely. However, there are a few very obvious and serious problems with the way the game is marketed, designed, and maintained. This is not a post about class-balance. This is not a post about the disparity between content for the good and evil factions. It is a post with a couple ideas for making the game more popular without dumbing it down. Its has been brought up more than a couple times that the advertisment put into this game is far less extensive than the advertisment for Papa John's Pizza, a California based pizza company. This game is made by Sony. I will not write any more about this specific topic. Those two sentences tell the whole story for this one. In addition, though I enjoy the look and feel of the game, I think another large mistake was made. The armor graphics for the most part are pathetic. Yes, that's right, pathetic. This company hires some of the most innovative and interesting content designers on the planet and yet we have clothing and armor that is as imaginative as three-piece suit. Get on the ball. I dont care what the visual programmers are working on, it is not as important as making the game look cool. Period. Finally, though I understand that this gender-neutral clothing might be a half-hearted attempt to iden the target audience for the game, it sucks. I'm an articulate person and if there were a word that better described the situation, I'd use it. For this, though, "sucks" is the proper term. I am a student of the Theatre. I KNOW a few simple changes would solve the problem of server de-population. Face it, WoW is popular because of the PvP, and because it looks COOL. It doesnt look REAL. Real looking things are not for FANTASY games. </blockquote> Going back to the original post.... what turnip truck did this guy fall off of? A theatrical student making comments on a game that he just purchased and has the gall to come here and give his opinion? What is going on with these kids today? Where do they come off trying to act smart about something that they have totally no idea about. Sheesh.... someone please let that kid know that he is not a developer nor an expert on game reviews. </blockquote>He's right a few simple changes.... 1) ADVERTISE THE DARN GAME 2) Tell people the truth about the reccomended PC Specs...I know of several people who bought the game only to quit playing shortly after starting because they couldn't run it well with teh reccomended specs...they went back to WoW. 3) Add new content on a more regular basis...We were promised adventure packs every 3-4 months and at least one expansion a year, maybe more...We have the expansions, but the adventure packs haven't happened and the ones they released were.....well...not great... 4) How about a little IN GAME customer support? Guides/server GMs? 5) A new billing option so we can keep our 4 additional toon slots without paying $30 a month??

bleap

04-10-2007, 06:08 PM

<cite>sahet wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm arguing with the fact that you think more people would play EQ2 if it looked better. Not a single person I know has ever chosen to play one game over another just because it looks better. And most of the people I know who play EQ2 don't really care much about what their armor looks like. Cool graphics are nice but ultimately it has very little impact on how many people play the game. And I personally think that if the graphics were more "extraordinary", there would actually be fewer people playing the game because most people do not have high end computers...</blockquote>Search these forums,,you will find people that say they won't play WoW because of the cartoonish look of their characters...So some people must play because EQ2s cartoons look less like cartoons than WoWs cartoons...

bleap

04-10-2007, 06:19 PM

<cite>livejazz wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>EQ2 has great graphics.....IF you are wiling to go out and buy a pretty high end PC to play on</blockquote>My machine: 2.66 CPU (no duocore, etc.), 1.5GB RAM, ATI 9600 vidcard, no SATA/Raid HD, none of the bells & whistles. EQ2 runs perfectly fine on my machine, & looks very nice. I think it looks much better than WoW, & my machine runs EQ2 just as well as it ran WoW. It certainly isn't a "pretty high end" machine, & I didn't have to buy it; I put it together with spare parts that a friend of mine didn't need & wanted to get rid of. However, I could have put it together for pretty darn cheap, if I set my mind to it. Certainly it wouldn't cost even $1k.If you think my machine is "pretty high end", then ... <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>Define perfectly fine.... My machine is a bit better than yours (P4 3.0 2G RAM GForce 7600 512MVram...no SATA) and I cannot play with my setting any higher than about midway...which looks OK but the graphics in WoW still look better...and there is less lag in WoW...I have a 6MPS Cable modem so I know it's not my connection causing this...If a player wants their graphics to look great, yes they will need a high end video card....

Armawk

04-10-2007, 07:00 PM

bleap wrote: My machine is a bit better than yours (P4 3.0 2G RAM GForce 7600 512MVram...no SATA) and I cannot play with my setting any higher than about midway...which looks OK but the graphics in WoW still look better...and there is less lag in WoW...I have a 6MPS Cable modem so I know it's not my connection causing this...If a player wants their graphics to look great, yes they will need a high end video card.... This I find odd.. because I have NEVER seen WoW on any machine look better than EQ2 does on high performance settings. Not even close. Not even same gen. Like 5 years behind. Im confused by peoples comments on this.

Natak

04-10-2007, 07:45 PM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>Define perfectly fine.... My machine is a bit better than yours (P4 3.0 2G RAM GForce 7600 512MVram...no SATA) and I cannot play with my setting any higher than about midway...which looks OK but the graphics in WoW still look better...and there is less lag in WoW...I have a 6MPS Cable modem so I know it's not my connection causing this...If a player wants their graphics to look great, yes they will need a high end video card.... </blockquote>Have to disagree that you need a high end video card: P4, 3.0, 3Gb ram, Sata (not raid), and I can play in high quality with a Gforce 6800 (256). I can even play on extreme in qeynos harbor with a little bit of lag. I find that the best way to reduce your lag is to turn off shadows, and a few others (this turns the high quality into a "custom" setting, but still has better graphics than standard balanced). In a raid situation however, it is necessary to drop to balanced setting. I cannot recall a time that I have dropped to below balanced. This is not to say that the graphics could not be optimized. There are enough people who have even better machines that experience lag even on balanced.

Natak

04-10-2007, 07:47 PM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>sahet wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm arguing with the fact that you think more people would play EQ2 if it looked better. Not a single person I know has ever chosen to play one game over another just because it looks better. And most of the people I know who play EQ2 don't really care much about what their armor looks like. Cool graphics are nice but ultimately it has very little impact on how many people play the game. And I personally think that if the graphics were more "extraordinary", there would actually be fewer people playing the game because most people do not have high end computers...</blockquote>Search these forums,,you will find people that say they won't play WoW because of the cartoonish look of their characters...So some people must play because EQ2s cartoons look less like cartoons than WoWs cartoons... </blockquote>I like to think that Wow looks more stylized than cartoonish. Some people like it (i don't mind it, but then again, i like anime and manga) You are right in saying that both are, well, cartoons. I don't think there are any "live actors" in the game.

Illmarr

04-10-2007, 07:57 PM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>Removed the whole thing because every time I tried to fix it it just got worse </blockquote>Completely off-topic: Why the heck does mt attempt at font and color only work on the first three items when I did the exact same thing 5 times? I hate these new boards!

ZachSpastic

04-10-2007, 08:25 PM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>livejazz wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>EQ2 has great graphics.....IF you are wiling to go out and buy a pretty high end PC to play on</blockquote>My machine: 2.66 CPU (no duocore, etc.), 1.5GB RAM, ATI 9600 vidcard, no SATA/Raid HD, none of the bells & whistles. EQ2 runs perfectly fine on my machine, & looks very nice. I think it looks much better than WoW, & my machine runs EQ2 just as well as it ran WoW. It certainly isn't a "pretty high end" machine, & I didn't have to buy it; I put it together with spare parts that a friend of mine didn't need & wanted to get rid of. However, I could have put it together for pretty darn cheap, if I set my mind to it. Certainly it wouldn't cost even $1k.If you think my machine is "pretty high end", then ... <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>Define perfectly fine.... My machine is a bit better than yours (P4 3.0 2G RAM GForce 7600 512MVram...no SATA) and I cannot play with my setting any higher than about midway...which looks OK but the graphics in WoW still look better...and there is less lag in WoW...I have a 6MPS Cable modem so I know it's not my connection causing this...If a player wants their graphics to look great, yes they will need a high end video card.... </blockquote>I run on high (not extreme) with my 3200+ (clocks at 2.0 Ghz), 2GB RAM, 5950 FX (128 MB VRAM) with only a few customizations (such as turning down shadows) and I have no problems at all. And your graphics board is superior to mine.

liveja

04-10-2007, 08:35 PM

32ryandonahue36 wrote: <blockquote>ALL I MEANT TO SAY was that it would have a higher circulation if the armor/cloth skins didn't look like some kids went real hard-core for Halloween.</blockquote>But that is precisely what WoW looks like, yet it has gazillions of subscribers.IMHO, EQ2 looks like a "real" world, which is why I like it.

liveja

04-10-2007, 08:43 PM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>Define perfectly fine...."Perfectly fine" means "fine enough to please me & think they look considerably better than those of kiddie cartoon WoW".I hope you didn't expect me to provide some sort of "objective" definition here, since there is no such thing. but the graphics in WoW still look betterThat's entirely your opinion, just as my opinion is that the graphics in EQ2, at the mid-way setting, look better than WoW's at any setting. Neither of us is "right", neither "wrong", & there's no way to convince each other of the "truth" of our personal aesthetic opinions.</blockquote>The point, here, is that I have a machine even lower quality than yours, yet my graphics are more than acceptable to me, which means that you're entirely wrong to keep claiming that people can only see decent graphics in EQ2 if they buy a "pretty high end" machine. YOU can only see such graphics, if YOU buy such a machine, because YOUR perceptions won't allow you to see the graphics on any less of a machine as "good".

liveja

04-10-2007, 08:49 PM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>2) Tell people the truth about the reccomended PC Specs...I know of several people who bought the game only to quit playing shortly after starting because they couldn't run it well with teh reccomended specs...they went back to WoW. </blockquote> When I first began playing WoW, I was running at the minimum recommended specs. The game ran like absolute garbage. I could not play an Alliance toon, because I couldn't set one foot inside Ironforge without lagging out. I couldn't take the zeppelins between one continent to the next, because the lag was so bad that by the time I was able to move on the other side, the zepp had already pulled out from the tower & I could only get off by jumping to my death. Flying from Moonglade to Thunder Bluff took 20 minutes -- I timed, it one day -- because the lag was so bad. Yes, the game LOOKED awesome, but it was mostly unplayable. Surely you don't want me to think that everything was "good", just because it looked good ... do you?IOW, Blizzard's "recommended specs" were every bit as lame as are the "recommended specs" for EQ2, so really, that's not much of a complaint.

Rijacki

04-10-2007, 08:52 PM

<cite>livejazz wrote:</cite><blockquote>32ryandonahue36 wrote: <blockquote>ALL I MEANT TO SAY was that it would have a higher circulation if the armor/cloth skins didn't look like some kids went real hard-core for Halloween.</blockquote>But that is precisely what WoW looks like, yet it has gazillions of subscribers.IMHO, EQ2 looks like a "real" world, which is why I like it.</blockquote> I agree with you, but it is a taste thing. I will admit, though, I took one look at the hyper neons of WoW and didn't look further. Everytime someone shows me an "awesome" screenshot from WoW, I'm even more glad I went with EQ2. Another nice thing, to me, is that each time I get an upgrade to my computer, especially to graphics, I see incredible new nuances and even more details. I don't feel like I wasted my money. Back, long long ago, before I was playing even EQ1, when I got an expensive video upgrade and the game I was playing at the time looked exactly the same, I was horridly disappointed. In EQ1, I also never saw the incredible details come to life with a new vid card like I do in EQ2. It really does make me feel as if it was worth it to spend the money on the new card rather than stay with the old. I run the game on High Quality most of the time, Extreme Quality for screenshots, and Balanced or High Performance for raids (depending on the raid zone).

jeorat

04-10-2007, 09:30 PM

<misc computer specs removed> Here in Norway, computers with 1 GB has just recently become common in mainstream computer stores and I consider this to be minimum for playing EQ2 with decent framerate and quality. Even if you can easily find 2 GB configurations, the graphics cards are still only barely suitable for EQ2. Not that it matters much, since EQ2 boxes are seldom seen in game stores here any longer and most people seems to buy consoles for gaming anyway. I used to play a tailor alt in Star Wars Galaxies (pre-NGE), and I really miss the diversity in clothing allowed by the tailors there. Simply adding the color customization options from SWG would be great so that I could get rid of that ghastly green color of my Queen's carapace (OT, but I also really miss the huge variations in equipment quality and prices allowed by the resource system in SWG, there was no plain 'cobalt' there :-p). Depending on the situation, whether I'm raiding, exploring, harvesting or doing daily tasks in Qeynos like checking the vendor, I'd find it natural to wear armor / light armor or just plain clothing.

liveja

04-10-2007, 10:04 PM

<cite>jeorat wrote:</cite><blockquote>Depending on the situation, whether I'm raiding, exploring, harvesting or doing daily tasks in Qeynos like checking the vendor, I'd find it natural to wear armor / light armor or just plain clothing. </blockquote> I agree, & while I don't think that the appearance of EQ2 armor/clothing needs to be changed, I would love it if there were more options.I also wish that there were more weapon options for high-level Rogues than there are, particularly more swords, rapiers, & daggers.

Pitt Hammerfi

04-10-2007, 11:00 PM

To the op, if youve just started this game chances are youve seen nothing when it comes to armour.Do you expect a full set of glowing shiney golden encrused spikey armour at lvl 10 ? Get to lvl 70 and then tell me eq2 doesnt have the most unique armour and weapons of any MMOheres a little preview<img src="http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c147/snarkteeth/snarkxarmor.jpg" border="0">i dont know what more you expect from armour mate, because to me this looks like a set of armour worth striving for.oh thats right you wanna see crap like this with 4 polygons [Removed for Content]<img src="http://www.redops.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/9thWarlord.jpg" border="0"> ok this is fun, lets do another one !!guess the game<img src="http://static.flickr.com/103/294004841_b1f416e101.jpg" border="0"><img src="http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7923/armour1uo8.jpg" border="0">

bleap

04-11-2007, 12:08 AM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>bleap wrote: My machine is a bit better than yours (P4 3.0 2G RAM GForce 7600 512MVram...no SATA) and I cannot play with my setting any higher than about midway...which looks OK but the graphics in WoW still look better...and there is less lag in WoW...I have a 6MPS Cable modem so I know it's not my connection causing this...If a player wants their graphics to look great, yes they will need a high end video card.... This I find odd.. because I have NEVER seen WoW on any machine look better than EQ2 does on high performance settings. Not even close. Not even same gen. Like 5 years behind. Im confused by peoples comments on this. </blockquote>I am not comparing EQ2 graphics overall to WoW graphics overall, but if I try to turn up my graphics to max in EQ2 the lag is unbelieveable...and if I do the same in WoW they look nice and I get next to no lag....What I was trying to say is that WoWs graphics look better than EQ2 in modes that I can play in...I have seen EQ2 graphics turned all the way up. A friend of mine has a brand new Alien Ware PC with top end hardware...And while it plays pretty clean with max graphics, there are stil some zones that give him a little grief...If he has trouble only god know what the normal player is confronted with...

bleap

04-11-2007, 12:13 AM

Pitt Hammerfist wrote: <blockquote>To the op, if youve just started this game chances are youve seen nothing when it comes to armour.Do you expect a full set of glowing shiney golden encrused spikey armour at lvl 10 ? Get to lvl 70 and then tell me eq2 doesnt have the most unique armour and weapons of any MMOheres a little preview<img src="http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c147/snarkteeth/snarkxarmor.jpg" border="0">i dont know what more you expect from armour mate, because to me this looks like a set of armour worth striving for.oh thats right you wanna see crap like this with 4 polygons [Removed for Content]<img src="http://www.redops.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/9thWarlord.jpg" border="0"> ok this is fun, lets do another one !!guess the game<img src="http://static.flickr.com/103/294004841_b1f416e101.jpg" border="0"><img src="http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7923/armour1uo8.jpg" border="0"></blockquote>And yet only a small percentage of EQ2 players can actually run their machines at such high graphic levels as to be able to see those graphics like this...So what's the point...My WoW graphics look better than my EQ2 graphics because I can't run my EQ2 graphics high enough to get that kind of quality...So once again you are willing to forgo game playability so you can have great graphics and tons of lag? No wonder SOEs market share is pitiful compared to WoW...They made a game pretty instead of playable....? Crank your grahics down to about half way or just a little less then you will see what most of us see...No better than WoW...and in a lot of cases, much worse...

bleap

04-11-2007, 12:17 AM

<cite>livejazz wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>2) Tell people the truth about the reccomended PC Specs...I know of several people who bought the game only to quit playing shortly after starting because they couldn't run it well with teh reccomended specs...they went back to WoW. </blockquote> When I first began playing WoW, I was running at the minimum recommended specs. The game ran like absolute garbage. I could not play an Alliance toon, because I couldn't set one foot inside Ironforge without lagging out. I couldn't take the zeppelins between one continent to the next, because the lag was so bad that by the time I was able to move on the other side, the zepp had already pulled out from the tower & I could only get off by jumping to my death. Flying from Moonglade to Thunder Bluff took 20 minutes -- I timed, it one day -- because the lag was so bad. Yes, the game LOOKED awesome, but it was mostly unplayable. Surely you don't want me to think that everything was "good", just because it looked good ... do you?IOW, Blizzard's "recommended specs" were every bit as lame as are the "recommended specs" for EQ2, so really, that's not much of a complaint.</blockquote>Was I even talking about WoWs rec specs? I was talking about EQ2 I think....Anyway...WoW will run on MANY more PC configurations that EQ2 will...But the specs on the EQ2 box are misleading...Just like the specs on the Vanguard box were...EQ2s rec spec should be a much better PC than listed...

liveja

04-11-2007, 01:33 AM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>livejazz wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>2) Tell people the truth about the reccomended PC Specs...I know of several people who bought the game only to quit playing shortly after starting because they couldn't run it well with teh reccomended specs...they went back to WoW. </blockquote> When I first began playing WoW, I was running at the minimum recommended specs. The game ran like absolute garbage. I could not play an Alliance toon, because I couldn't set one foot inside Ironforge without lagging out. I couldn't take the zeppelins between one continent to the next, because the lag was so bad that by the time I was able to move on the other side, the zepp had already pulled out from the tower & I could only get off by jumping to my death. Flying from Moonglade to Thunder Bluff took 20 minutes -- I timed, it one day -- because the lag was so bad. Yes, the game LOOKED awesome, but it was mostly unplayable. Surely you don't want me to think that everything was "good", just because it looked good ... do you?IOW, Blizzard's "recommended specs" were every bit as lame as are the "recommended specs" for EQ2, so really, that's not much of a complaint.</blockquote>Was I even talking about WoWs rec specs? I was talking about EQ2 I think....Anyway...WoW will run on MANY more PC configurations that EQ2 will...But the specs on the EQ2 box are misleading...Just like the specs on the Vanguard box were...EQ2s rec spec should be a much better PC than listed... </blockquote>I know you were talking about EQ2's specs <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I was pointing out that WoW's specs are just as misleading. Do I need to explain that further?

liveja

04-11-2007, 01:37 AM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>And yet only a small percentage of EQ2 players can actually run their machines at such high graphic levels as to be able to see those graphics like this </blockquote>Care to document this claim?

Bewts

04-11-2007, 01:41 AM

Comparing WoW to EQ2 is like comparing apples to oranges. We may be in the same basket but we surely have different flavors.WoW caters to someone like the OP (or so it seemed from their post)EQ2 caters to a different crowd of people. I don't think theres a specific crowd, just a different one than the ones who enjoy WoW.I've played both games now, and I prefer EQ2. It may be because I am more comfortable in this game, it may be something else. EQ2 is more my flavor than WoW is.WoW is more the OP's flavor. So be it, but don't bring it to these boards... I don't think its a coincidence that WoW may have more subscribers and that it correlates with the specs to run the game in 'awesome screenshot all the time mode'. Perhaps WoW caters to the people who aren't interested in running the high end systems, are content with a graphics system that has less room for growth than EQ2.I know that the Alienware I purchased 1.5 years ago runs on very high quality for everything but raids (or when I run into a raid setting up). I haven't run WoW on this system yet (it only runs EQ2, TS and the programs needed to support them). I have run EQ2 on my 3.5 year old system, as well as WoW. EQ2 was doable at best (with 512 RAM) where as WoW ran smoothly except on intially running into large cities.I definitely believe WoW caters to the poorer man's gamer systems. It suits its purpose, but I also believe that it lacks the strength to endure hardware improvements that will increase the visual enjoyment of players. EQ2 is not without its own shortcomings as evidenced by prior posts.I'm also sure that if you read the EULA for both games, if its not on one of the first screens before you get into the game, that they reserve the right to change the game as needed. This includes hardware requirements. They only put req's on the boxes so that the consumer can run a stable game. There is nothing on the box that states you will get superior results by running baseline systems. Shoot, some companies put a minimal requirement and a reccomended requirement on their boxes.Tell me, can you run EQ2 at the minimal specs as advertised on the box? Can you run WoW at their minimum specs? Do both games load, can you run around the world, will your game crash or give you errors because the hardware doesn't handle the load on it?Both games will perform. Try a new arguement and please back to WoW with you fanboi.

Pitt Hammerfi

04-11-2007, 02:26 AM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote>And yet only a small percentage of EQ2 players can actually run their machines at such high graphic levels as to be able to see those graphics like this...So what's the point...My WoW graphics look better than my EQ2 graphics because I can't run my EQ2 graphics high enough to get that kind of quality...So once again you are willing to forgo game playability so you can have great graphics and tons of lag? No wonder SOEs market share is pitiful compared to WoW...They made a game pretty instead of playable....? Crank your grahics down to about half way or just a little less then you will see what most of us see...No better than WoW...and in a lot of cases, much worse... </blockquote> umm nope im still running an AGP machine2 gig AMDx2 4200 7800gs - not the greatest machine at all, yet i run in these settings in 1600x1200 and it runs fine, i suggest learning how to tweak your PC to get the most out of it maybe try the EQ2 tech forums for help with that..

Boyar

04-11-2007, 02:47 AM

Hi there. My main is Thud and I purchased EQ2 almost 2 years ago and currently am enjoying the game immensely. However, there are a few things that I personally think could improve the game, and the playerbase. I strongly agree that EQ2 should be advertised outside the Sony universe. I've never met anyone who didn't either migrate from another Sony game, or get dragged in by a current subscriber. I played Ultima Online for 8 1/2 years, and in all that time, the only thing I knew about Everquest, was that it had more market share than UO did. I didn't even know there was an EQ2 until early summer of 2005 when a coworker buddy of mine wanted me to give it a try. WoW on the other hand was impossible to miss, as they bought ads on all the UO community sites that didn't actively refuse them. However, I believe there are limits to the usefulness of comparing the success of WoW vs. EQ2. EQ2 is a PC centric, relatively deep RPG. WoW is a massive wargame, built from a massively popular preexisting franchise, targeted more towards console gamers with very low entrance requirements. EQ2 is elitist, and it should be; WoW is populist, and it should be. Yes, we want EQ2 to thrive, but we don't need to challenge WoW directly. We should at least make sure that misguided souls who really belong here at least know of our existence, though. I personally think that most armor pieces that are in the game are well made, when viewed individually from an art standpoint. The problem I find, is that many classes tend to get pigeonholed to a specific model set that never changes, with only skinning changes to differentiate the different items. At the high end are the class sets, which are generally exquisite, but exclusive to its class and dominating that class, so that every character of that class will be wearing the same model set, with different colors depending on the quality of the gear. Troubadours don't get to choose to look like swashbucklers, illusionists are barred from wearing pointy wizard hats. Only fighters really get much variety of models available, and even then they mostly fall into common sets. I can see the mindset that wants classes to be distinct, but that ends up either narrowing the possibilities for personalization(current situation) or creating a huge workload for the art department, trying to come up with 2(two!) or more(more!!!) possible outfits for every class. Allowing a certain amount of class crossdressing, even as just a visual effect would alleviate some of this. If some wizard wants to run around with my illusionist's hat, it won't make me any less of an illusionist. I agree and would absolutely adore it if clothing and armor were different across race and gender, or at least had the option to be. Even if just a skin modification, it would rock for my ogre/troll/frog/etc to have the option to look shabby/dirty/slimy/etc even when wearing the same gear that looks so spiffy on that wood elf babe over there. I definitely don't want the outrageous looks of WoW, but I can understand the sentiment that EQ2 feels less creative. I don't think that any one model is uncreative, but from the viewpoint of a single player playing a single class trying to stand out from the crowd, EQ2's classist mindset is a formidable obstacle when trying to choose gear to stand out from every other member of one's class. The tailor made 'dress suits' are another example of limitation: I was soo looking forward to the idea of being able to make new and different vanity clothing every few levels; I was really disappointed that there was no variety of models, but each was just a recolored copy of the one universal outfit. If it had been mixed up a bit, even if it just added other already existing clothing models, like robes and such, to the rotation, it would have been of much greater interest. I have no Theatrical or even particularly artisic background, but if becoming visually WoW-like were the only possible path to 'success', then I would eschew 'success' and happily settle for 'viability'. The MMO field needs diversity, and the very nature of diversity is that some populations will be larger than others. This is a good thing. I also understand that people feel challenged and fearful when they see a 'different' group that is more populous than they are. The best comfort I can offer is that Ultima Online is still thriving, even with a much smaller base than EQ. The boards of UO have been teeming for years with doomsayers, all certain that EQ, or later WoW, or whatever new MMO just came out is going to spell the end. It never does, because there are and will always be people for whom it is the exact right game to play. As WoW is for some. As EQ2 is for me.

DwarvesR

04-11-2007, 04:35 AM

More fuel for the "you don't need a top end system to see good graphics" argument:The following screenshot was taken when my system specs were: Athlon 1800+ (1.53 GHz) chip, 1GB Ram, 128 MB GeForce 3 Ti200 video card -- yes, a card that was already over 3 years old when the game released. . . . . My in-game settings were a version of the "High Performance" that I tweaked upward toward "Balanced" though if I tried "balanced" I'd get a bit choppy on my framerates. anyway, here's the shot:<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/352460357_2eaa472465_o.jpg" border="0">As you can see, the details are a bit muddy, but it still looks fine overall, IMO.Now, about a year ago I upgraded the computer. I didn't make it "top of the line" or anything, but did improve a lot of the parts. I now have an Athlon 3000+ chip (yes, different motherboard to support it), and a 128MB GeForce 6600 GS card, and the same 1GB ram, though it's "newer" ram, so therefore faster. I now run in a tweaked "Balanced" setting, one that I've tweaked upward quite a ways, actually. I keep shadows and flora off, but I've got the world level of detail set pretty high, specular lighting, and the character model quality is set to max. Works quite well for me in normal grouping, and in raiding all I do is turn off cloaks, names, and spell effects and I can raid lag-free too. Here's your comparison shot:<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/352510666_e39baf9eca_o.jpg" border="0">Yes, I'm really zoomed out, so you can't really see the character models too well, but still. . . look at the level of detail on the mobs and in the environment itself. Looks pretty darn good, IMO. Definitely better than on my old card, but you gotta admit that a 6600GS still isn't "high end" by any stretch of the imagination either.And with that all said. . . it's still how the game plays and the community of people that play it that keep me coming back. I did the VG and LotRO betas, tried WoW, tried Guild Wars. . . and I'm still an EQ2 player.

Slapfish

04-11-2007, 12:17 PM

Without wading through pages of flame I'm just going to jump right in and respond with a resounding AMEN! to the original poster. As an ARTIST I agree completely with his assessment of the armor and to a large extent the graphics of the game. While they are realistic in detail they lack an overall quality of excitement and wonder. WoW is an example of an exaggerated extreme, however there is a vast area in between that would be more suitable and pleasing to the eye. The colors of EQ2 are for the most part bland and dull. Most armor is somewhere in the neighborhood of brown, beige, gray, off-white and olive drab. The items contain a lot of detail, but the overall shape and design of them is predictable and boring. By the way, artists exaggerate all the time to add emphasis and character. That's just part of what is done. Even classical artists that you might think are very realistic use strong contrast and exaggeration to add drama. Take a look at the exaggerated musculature in the statue of David if you don't believe me. IMO EQ2 needs more drama. It's too bland. If done properly we could have some excitement and still have a classy, mature game. And yes, some people do choose a game for the graphics. If you try out a temp version of a game, or see it on a friends comp, there is not much time to make an impression. If you see glowing swords, bright colors, dramatic scenery in one, and in the other drab, muddied, somber unimpressive gear and landscapes in another, which one are you going to pick? I don't play WoW, but my kids do and sometimes I find myself just looking longingly at their screens wishing that EQ2 had some of the color, fun and drama of their graphics. And yes, I have considered switching just for that reason. I have plenty of realism in every day life. When I play a game I want excitemtent!

Armawk

04-11-2007, 12:52 PM

I was planning on posting some screens, taken at the above mid settings we use, but I dont need to because the screens above, which are at lower settings in ALL cases than we use (and nothing flash about the PCs either) just give the lie to a lot of comments here.RIGHT NOW a pretty cheap gaming pc (not a total bargain basement piece of crap but nothign flash) will make EQ2 look better than any screens posted here. 3 Years ago it was overspecified, now it is not. We dont live 3 years ago.What the hell is dull about the armour in these screens?

Finora

04-11-2007, 01:24 PM

<cite>bleap wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>bleap wrote: My machine is a bit better than yours (P4 3.0 2G RAM GForce 7600 512MVram...no SATA) and I cannot play with my setting any higher than about midway...which looks OK but the graphics in WoW still look better...and there is less lag in WoW...I have a 6MPS Cable modem so I know it's not my connection causing this...If a player wants their graphics to look great, yes they will need a high end video card.... This I find odd.. because I have NEVER seen WoW on any machine look better than EQ2 does on high performance settings. Not even close. Not even same gen. Like 5 years behind. Im confused by peoples comments on this. </blockquote>I am not comparing EQ2 graphics overall to WoW graphics overall, but if I try to turn up my graphics to max in EQ2 the lag is unbelieveable...and if I do the same in WoW they look nice and I get next to no lag....What I was trying to say is that WoWs graphics look better than EQ2 in modes that I can play in...I have seen EQ2 graphics turned all the way up. A friend of mine has a brand new Alien Ware PC with top end hardware...And while it plays pretty clean with max graphics, there are stil some zones that give him a little grief...If he has trouble only god know what the normal player is confronted with... </blockquote>I wish the 'graphics tweaking' thread hadn't gotten eaten in the forum change. Sounds like you could benefit from reading it. Back when EQ2 came out I had a computer that barely was able to handle EQ1 with graphics turned up and luclin models on. It (EQ2) still looked pretty darn good. And the next year when my husband made me a new computer for my birthday (less than 1k spent ), WOW did the game look great. Still does.

Allisia

04-11-2007, 01:34 PM

<cite>Slapfish wrote:</cite><blockquote>And yes, some people do choose a game for the graphics. If you try out a temp version of a game, or see it on a friends comp, there is not much time to make an impression. If you see glowing swords, bright colors, dramatic scenery in one, and in the other drab, muddied, somber unimpressive gear and landscapes in another, which one are you going to pick? I don't play WoW, but my kids do and sometimes I find myself just looking longingly at their screens wishing that EQ2 had some of the color, fun and drama of their graphics. And yes, I have considered switching just for that reason. I have plenty of realism in every day life. When I play a game I want excitemtent!</blockquote> I have not played WoW strictly because of the (IMO) subpar graphics and artistic style of the models. I absolutely hate that style of art. I'm not a fan of exaggeration--I prefer the gritty and grim. Save the happy endings, I want some sorrow and melancholy (but no angst, if you please). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a well rendered scantily clad lady as much as most, but keep that stuff for the box cover and off my monitor. Firiona Vie and Antonia Bayle make nice eye candy, but I wouldn't want to group with them. It might be a tad distracting. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Some people like the exaggerated style, but some do not. I plant my flag firmly in the "do not" camp. The armor could be made more visually appealing without going to campy designs. Many of the in game development drawings show finely detailed armor sets that I simply haven't seen in game. Numerous NPCs sport armor or clothing designs that are unavailable for PCs. You can make the armor interesting by adding small details to them, just like they did historically. Save the shoulder pads of doom and spikes of certain suicide for the box cover.

ZachSpastic

04-11-2007, 03:15 PM

<cite>Slapfish wrote:</cite><blockquote>Without wading through pages of flame I'm just going to jump right in and respond with a resounding AMEN! to the original poster. As an ARTIST I agree completely with his assessment of the armor and to a large extent the graphics of the game. While they are realistic in detail they lack an overall quality of excitement and wonder. WoW is an example of an exaggerated extreme, however there is a vast area in between that would be more suitable and pleasing to the eye. The colors of EQ2 are for the most part bland and dull. Most armor is somewhere in the neighborhood of brown, beige, gray, off-white and olive drab. The items contain a lot of detail, but the overall shape and design of them is predictable and boring. By the way, artists exaggerate all the time to add emphasis and character. That's just part of what is done. Even classical artists that you might think are very realistic use strong contrast and exaggeration to add drama. Take a look at the exaggerated musculature in the statue of David if you don't believe me. IMO EQ2 needs more drama. It's too bland. If done properly we could have some excitement and still have a classy, mature game. And yes, some people do choose a game for the graphics. If you try out a temp version of a game, or see it on a friends comp, there is not much time to make an impression. If you see glowing swords, bright colors, dramatic scenery in one, and in the other drab, muddied, somber unimpressive gear and landscapes in another, which one are you going to pick? I don't play WoW, but my kids do and sometimes I find myself just looking longingly at their screens wishing that EQ2 had some of the color, fun and drama of their graphics. And yes, I have considered switching just for that reason. I have plenty of realism in every day life. When I play a game I want excitemtent!</blockquote>My four year old niece is also an ARTIST, though I'm sure her mother would use a different term. She enjoys Disney cartoons a great deal more than I do. 'nuff said.I think they should stop coloring armor and just give us armor pieces in various metallic colors. I'm not looking forward to wading into the thick of battle wearing a chartreuse chest plate with fuscia legplates.

RFMan

04-11-2007, 03:16 PM

The sad reality is, despite what some people playing EQ2 may think, the graphics in EQ2 are not exciting enough to draw in a mid-sized crowd. I know no one is hoping for WoW-level population (except maybe the devs as some kind of dream), but a number of my friends just don't find EQ2 appealing from an art/armor standpoint. They do play WoW, but there's probably a medium out there somewhere that would make things look a lot cooler. That said, if the devs are working on revamping the character models themselves, maybe this thread should just die off and wait until the new ones come out.

Jai1

04-11-2007, 04:30 PM

SoE thinks about color schemes pretty throughly. They have techniques that really are interesting and something I never thought of before. But I think they work. EQ2 is mostly comprised of soft tones. To me, it's a lot more easy on the eye's. Vanguard is probably the game I feel is the most beautiful right now but it's graphics are sharp and metallic. Going back to EQ2 after playing Vanguard a while made me feel that EQ2 is more cartony. It's really all about preference. I don't think that one can say that EQ2 graphics won't pull in a large player base. I personally think people are playing WoW on $700 machines. You can run EQ2 on those machines but it's not really pretty. I play with the graphics jacked up without shadows in EQ2 and above balanced or whatever on VG. I guess it's all personal taste but I think those two games look a whole lot better than other games out. Maybe armor could be made to look more divererse and interesting but it's got to aliegn with the color scheme of the game which may keep stuff soft and dull. If you want to play a Sony game with a lot of cool looking gear try MxO. I think that game looks sharp too.

SignumX

04-11-2007, 08:31 PM

The one area where i think SoE actually did well is the shields in the game. Theres alot of diversity and style there, from big totem look shields to see through plastic lookin ones to your normal wood and metal ones. The rest of the armor and clothing is just plain "UGH" and "BLAH"

SignumX

04-11-2007, 08:33 PM

As to the two pictures posted above, sigh those do not look good, the armor looks little different from lvl 1 tin chainmail other than color and [Removed for Content] those minotaurs are flat out the crappy melted plastic look that people complain about.

Pitt Hammerfi

04-11-2007, 08:56 PM

<cite>SignumX wrote:</cite><blockquote>As to the two pictures posted above, sigh those do not look good, the armor looks little different from lvl 1 tin chainmail other than color and [I cannot control my vocabulary] those minotaurs are flat out the crappy melted plastic look that people complain about.</blockquote> umm thats because they are meant to be made out of gold, some type of djinn conjurationtheres more than 1 style of minotaur in eq2

liveja

04-11-2007, 09:31 PM

<cite>SignumX wrote:</cite><blockquote>As to the two pictures posted above, sigh those do not look good </blockquote>They do, however, look better than anything I've seen in WoW.

-AtPlay-

04-11-2007, 10:51 PM

Omni@Najena wrote: <blockquote> I personally think people are playing WoW on $700 machines. You can run EQ2 on those machines but it's not really pretty. </blockquote>I play on a $400 machine, on balanced (without shadows) and I think it looks gorgeous. I have yet to see a single screenshot of WoW that I thought was anywhere in the "good" range...even fullpage adds in gaming magazines look crappy (flat textures and blended colors). The adding of completely new armor styles would be far too drastic for this game. Does anyone remember the uproar when the SOGA models were first leaked? It would be far worse if they threw in anything that didnt look a little realistic. Now, they sure could go a little wild with the mage dresses...that's the area that needs the most help in my opinion.

Laiina

04-12-2007, 03:29 AM

<cite>RFMan wrote:</cite><blockquote>The sad reality is, despite what some people playing EQ2 may think, the graphics in EQ2 are not exciting enough to draw in a mid-sized crowd. I know no one is hoping for WoW-level population (except maybe the devs as some kind of dream), but a number of my friends just don't find EQ2 appealing from an art/armor standpoint. They do play WoW, but there's probably a medium out there somewhere that would make things look a lot cooler. </blockquote> The fact is (well, OK, my opinion is...) that graphics don't really DO much to "draw people in". It might help keep them once they ARE in.There are two (or many.. schools of thought on the armor and "look and feel" of clothing. EQ1 had armor dyes - and even though I used them, I also thought that they detracted a lot from the overall flavor of the game.The detail in the existing armor I think is pretty good. Some of the coloring could be adjusted for more variation on the "non standard" - that is, quested and/or mastercrafted, but overall I would put the "realistic" look way ahead of the cartoonish coloring of WOW and the often garish armor of EQ1.One thing I do really think the game could use is a bit more non-armor, that is "formal" or dress up clothing. Perhaps when the work is done on the character modeling/armor fitting we will see more of this.

Slapfish

04-12-2007, 11:27 AM

<cite>SignumX wrote:</cite><blockquote>As to the two pictures posted above, sigh those do not look good, the armor looks little different from lvl 1 tin chainmail other than color and [I cannot control my vocabulary] those minotaurs are flat out the crappy melted plastic look that people complain about.</blockquote>I agree completely. These graphics just don't cut it for me. I would have been completely satisfied if we still lived in an EQ world and this was the only game in town, but I've seen a lot of other games that are just beautiful. Granted those games might have other problems, but for the sake of this argument, we are speaking only of graphics. The detail on the armor is so overdone that at lower rez settings the colors blend and make a muddy mess. In real life detail that small would be lost to the viewers eye at a distance as well. The artists need to lose their obsessions with excessive decoration and focus on overall design. We need more dramatic design. Not to mention that excessively detailed armor would NOT be realistic for fighting anyway, so the realism debate is a moot point. Everything about the posted scene looks plastic. The room graphics look more like a Sims creation than a real environment. Look at the colors in this scene? Does this appear gritty and real? No, it looks like it was molded out of playschool plastic. EQ2 graphics need some help. The artists need to drop the obsession with texture and detail and give us good design. We need some drama. This is created through exaggeration. Exaggeration does not have to be to the extreme of WOW and it can take many forms. It can be with heightened contrast (which IMO this game badly needs) color, line, shape etc...

Sairai

04-12-2007, 12:22 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>The armor graphics for the most part are pathetic. Yes, that's right, pathetic. This company hires some of the most innovative and interesting content designers on the planet and yet we have clothing and armor that is as imaginative as three-piece suit. Get on the ball. I dont care what the visual programmers are working on, it is not as important as making the game look cool. Period.</blockquote>I'm new to the game again (came back after only playing a brief period in the beginning) and I've come across some interesting armor graphics and effects - mostly on higher level characters.

Amethest

04-12-2007, 01:53 PM

My first online rpg was dark ages of camelot, from there I went to WOW. Funny thing was I had to adjust to wows cartooney look. Then again after I got bored with wow at end game, like lots of people have, and came over to EQ2 to play with family. I had to get used to eq2's graphics. Its all a matter of opinion and you know what they say about opinions right? they are just like buttholes, everyone has one. I will tell you this never in wow was I as comfortable with the other people in game nor did I have as much fun or immersion as I do currently in EQ2. I also know that content wise Eq2 is hands down superior to wow. I have barely scratched the surface of this game and will be happy playing it for many many months to come. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Ziviz

04-12-2007, 03:25 PM

I love all these people that jump on their "WoW looks like cartoons, anyone who plays that game is a 6 year old" high horse. Playing EQ2 over WoW doesn't make you a more mature and culturally discerning individual... you're playing a video game just like they are. The side by side comparisons of noob WoW armor vs. high end EQ2 armor was pretty funny also. I currently live in a perfectly photo realistic representation of the US in 2007. When I play a game, I want to be immersed in a different world. It's okay to say that you enjoy EQ2 because the visuals are more realistic than WoW, but don't let it stop there. Live your virtual life to the fullest... demand style.

Armawk

04-12-2007, 06:45 PM

<cite>Slapfish wrote:</cite><blockquote>SignumX wrote: EQ2 graphics need some help. The artists need to drop the obsession with texture and detail and give us good design. We need some drama. This is created through exaggeration. Exaggeration does not have to be to the extreme of WOW and it can take many forms. It can be with heightened contrast (which IMO this game badly needs) color, line, shape etc... </blockquote> I couldnt agree less with this post. Exxageration is precisely NOT the key to creating a game of distinctive and interesting look. Thats the norm in this business, whats almost unique is any attempt at a real look. Texture and detail are the key, not a bad thing!Shaun

32ryandonahue36

04-12-2007, 06:57 PM

Ok, I'll keep it real simple this time. Something you can't argue with....umm....Oh yeah, the robes. What are they made out of? even the T7 stuff looks like it's the quilt that Aunt Mildred made, just re-fitted a bit. The robes are hands-down awful. Okay, okay, before you crucify me I'll add a qualifier: a vast majority of the robes, (almost ALL), look.....truly poor. Truly, truly, Goerge W. poor. Would it be THAT hard to re-configure the color schemes? Admittedly, I'm no programmer....but is it that hard to tell how much most of the cloth grasphics suck? Formal clothing? Good idea.....but I'd like to be able to look cool at level thirty WHILE I'm killing something....Not when I can change clothes to look nice! So...if I'm going to spend hours questing for a set of armor, I'd like it to look nicer than the stuff I got rid of. I think what I am really trying to say is that this game needs more variety. Someone else hit it on the head.....It is a matter of taste....So why not give three or four viable options? Ok, I know, skeletal revamp.....How long have they been working on it? If it were necessary to the success of the game they would have finished it by now. You cannot argue with that. So.....Its taking so long because it's just like what the Administration said about Iraq,: "Those WMDs are there!!! Just wait, you'll see!!!". Well, we know how that turned out.

Slapfish

04-12-2007, 07:18 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Slapfish wrote:</cite><blockquote>SignumX wrote: EQ2 graphics need some help. The artists need to drop the obsession with texture and detail and give us good design. We need some drama. This is created through exaggeration. Exaggeration does not have to be to the extreme of WOW and it can take many forms. It can be with heightened contrast (which IMO this game badly needs) color, line, shape etc... </blockquote> I couldnt agree less with this post. Exxageration is precisely NOT the key to creating a game of distinctive and interesting look. Thats the norm in this business, whats almost unique is any attempt at a real look. Texture and detail are the key, not a bad thing!Shaun</blockquote>That's because you are thinking of the extreme exaggeration of games like WOW. Artists and designers use exaggeration ALL the time, sometimes to a very great degree and sometimes subtly to create atmosphere, drama and effect. As I stated in my very first post, it is used even in art that appears very realistic and classical in style.

interstellarmatter

04-12-2007, 07:20 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok, I'll keep it real simple this time. Something you can't argue with....umm....Oh yeah, the robes. What are they made out of? even the T7 stuff looks like it's the quilt that Aunt Mildred made, just re-fitted a bit. The robes are hands-down awful. Okay, okay, before you crucify me I'll add a qualifier: a vast majority of the robes, (almost ALL), look.....truly poor. Truly, truly, Goerge W. poor. Would it be THAT hard to re-configure the color schemes? Admittedly, I'm no programmer....but is it that hard to tell how much most of the cloth grasphics suck? Formal clothing? Good idea.....but I'd like to be able to look cool at level thirty WHILE I'm killing something....Not when I can change clothes to look nice! So...if I'm going to spend hours questing for a set of armor, I'd like it to look nicer than the stuff I got rid of. I think what I am really trying to say is that this game needs more variety. Someone else hit it on the head.....It is a matter of taste....So why not give three or four viable options? Ok, I know, skeletal revamp.....How long have they been working on it? If it were necessary to the success of the game they would have finished it by now. You cannot argue with that. So.....Its taking so long because it's just like what the Administration said about Iraq,: "Those WMDs are there!!! Just wait, you'll see!!!". Well, we know how that turned out.</blockquote>Do you really think that sprinkling politics in your argument makes you sound more correct or something?

DynamicPerforman

04-12-2007, 08:07 PM

32ryandonahue36 Continue searching for something people cannot argue with, you'll be looking for a long time. Your trying to push YOUR opinion on people as fact. And judging from the response in this thread, it is not.<ol><li>"Goerge W. poor" You insult someone, and can't be bothered to spell their name right.</li><li>"Would it be THAT hard to re-configure the color schemes? Admittedly, I'm no programmer....but is it that hard to tell how much most of the cloth grasphics suck?" Yes it would. No your not. Yes it is.</li><li>"look cool at level thirty WHILE I'm killing something" Cool is subjective. I think my armor looks very nice, but you would probably disagree.</li><li>"Its taking so long because it's just like what the Administration said about Iraq,: "Those WMDs are there!!! Just wait, you'll see!!!". Well, we know how that turned out." Yes. Just like the Clinton administration said about Iraq. *nods* I'll see your mindless Bush bashing and throw in Hitler, Ghandi and a dead baby Seal.</li></ol>Your subjective, enough said. So go back and edit the OP. <ul><li>P.S. my wife's mother, and my wife's brother just quit WoW to play Priston tales. Which is pure cartoony grind.</li></ul>

liveja

04-12-2007, 08:09 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok, I'll keep it real simple this time. Something you can't argue with....umm....Oh yeah, the robes. What are they made out of? even the T7 stuff looks like it's the quilt that Aunt Mildred made, just re-fitted a bit. The robes are hands-down awful..</blockquote>It's nice to know that you have so many subjective opinions, with which you're utterly convinced nobody could POSSIBLY disagree. Sadly, though, you're wrong: I disagree with you entirely on the above claims, though I do respect your right to argue your opinion. But it would be nice if you'd respect the right of others to have differing opinions.BTW, Interstellarmatter is entirely correct to say that adding in RL political comments don't do your claims any good, so please lay off that stuff in future./shrug

32ryandonahue36

04-12-2007, 08:15 PM

If I call a man who killed another man in cold-blood a "murderer", is it an insult or a statement of fact?

32ryandonahue36

04-12-2007, 08:18 PM

" <li>New design engine completed for different armor graphics! See your local armor merchant for details!"</li>Behold, foot in mouth

liveja

04-12-2007, 08:20 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote>If I call a man who killed another man in cold-blood a "murderer", is it an insult or a statement of fact?</blockquote>I'd say it sounds like a statement of fact, but why you'd bring it up in this context is beyond me, since in THIS context we're talking solely about statements of OPINION. Could you explain a bit?

sah

04-12-2007, 08:22 PM

it seems to me that most of the arguments in this thread are not actually about the content of OP's posts but about the fact that he claims that his comments are "objective" when they're clearly not and because of his belief that anyone who tries to disagree with him is obviously wrong and should therefore not even say anything..... <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

32ryandonahue36

04-12-2007, 08:24 PM

<cite>DynamicPerformance wrote:</cite><blockquote>32ryandonahue36 Continue searching for something people cannot argue with, you'll be looking for a long time. Your trying to push YOUR opinion on people as fact. And judging from the response in this thread, it is not. <ol><li>"Goerge W. poor" You insult someone, and can't be bothered to spell their name right.</li><li>"Would it be THAT hard to re-configure the color schemes? Admittedly, I'm no programmer....but is it that hard to tell how much most of the cloth grasphics suck?" Yes it would. No your not. Yes it is.</li><li>"look cool at level thirty WHILE I'm killing something" Cool is subjective. I think my armor looks very nice, but you would probably disagree.</li><li>"Its taking so long because it's just like what the Administration said about Iraq,: "Those WMDs are there!!! Just wait, you'll see!!!". Well, we know how that turned out." Yes. Just like the Clinton administration said about Iraq. *nods* I'll see your mindless Bush bashing and throw in Hitler, Ghandi and a dead baby Seal.</li></ol>Your subjective, enough said. So go back and edit the OP. <ul><li>P.S. my wife's mother, and my wife's brother just quit WoW to play Priston tales. Which is pure cartoony grind.</li></ul></blockquote>I'm referring to point 1.

Armawk

04-12-2007, 08:25 PM

<cite>Slapfish wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's because you are thinking of the extreme exaggeration of games like WOW. Artists and designers use exaggeration ALL the time, sometimes to a very great degree and sometimes subtly to create atmosphere, drama and effect. As I stated in my very first post, it is used even in art that appears very realistic and classical in style. </blockquote> I know all about exaggeration, and how it is used (you really have to stop posting things that imply you have some academic viewpoint that is "higher", a huge number of people here are designers and artists). It is used extensively in EQ2 already, there is frankly nothing in this game that is literally real in proportion or scale. But its relatively subtle, which leads to it being an enhancement rather than the dominant factor in the style. Your problem seems to be you dont have a very subtle view of exaggeration, and would prefer what I would see as badly overdone styling. I think in fact that SOME bits of armour in even this game are overdone structurally. A very few are overdone texturally or in details (though the use of detail and finishes is such a logical and historically based feature or clothing and armour, giving as it does show without compromising functionality) but mostly the texutres are the strongest point of all.Some of the robes are plain ugly though. Maybe twenty percent of them. There are some really nice pieces though.

liveja

04-12-2007, 08:27 PM

<cite>32ryandonahue36 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DynamicPerformance wrote:</cite><blockquote>32ryandonahue36 Continue searching for something people cannot argue with, you'll be looking for a long time. Your trying to push YOUR opinion on people as fact. And judging from the response in this thread, it is not. <ol><li>"Goerge W. poor" You insult someone, and can't be bothered to spell their name right.</li><li>"Would it be THAT hard to re-configure the color schemes? Admittedly, I'm no programmer....but is it that hard to tell how much most of the cloth grasphics suck?" Yes it would. No your not. Yes it is.</li><li>"look cool at level thirty WHILE I'm killing something" Cool is subjective. I think my armor looks very nice, but you would probably disagree.</li><li>"Its taking so long because it's just like what the Administration said about Iraq,: "Those WMDs are there!!! Just wait, you'll see!!!". Well, we know how that turned out." Yes. Just like the Clinton administration said about Iraq. *nods* I'll see your mindless Bush bashing and throw in Hitler, Ghandi and a dead baby Seal.</li></ol>Your subjective, enough said. So go back and edit the OP. <ul><li>P.S. my wife's mother, and my wife's brother just quit WoW to play Priston tales. Which is pure cartoony grind.</li></ul></blockquote>I'm referring to point 1. </blockquote>?????Now I'm TOTALLY confused .... what are you talking about? Are you trying to turn this into a forum for your personal political opinions? Because, I can guarantee the mods will lock this thread in a heartbeat, if you are, so it's best to just drop them out of the conversation entirely.

Grimwell

04-12-2007, 10:25 PM

Aye, let's post here with the forum rules in mind ok?

Josgar

04-12-2007, 10:43 PM

I would LOVE more amor types... but they still need to finnish those gosh darn new character skeletons (which should raise in priority) yay It is time for some math. Okay so we with the arsai we will have 18 races. 18(2 genders) + (2genders)(12 alternate models)= 60 to add each peice of armor to each race's skelly. There is like 7 peices in a set? So it would take someone adding armor to skeletons 420 times to add one entire set.... Hopefully the new skeletons will come soon so we can get our new armor graphics!

Pitt Hammerfi

04-12-2007, 10:57 PM

<cite>Josgar wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would LOVE more amor types... but they still need to finnish those gosh darn new character skeletons (which should raise in priority) yay It is time for some math. Okay so we with the arsai we will have 18 races. 18(2 genders) + (2genders)(12 alternate models)= 60 to add each peice of armor to each race's skelly. There is like 7 peices in a set? So it would take someone adding armor to skeletons 420 times to add one entire set.... Hopefully the new skeletons will come soon so we can get our new armor graphics! </blockquote> well not quite, because many of the races being the same humanoid size would reduce the number of models needed.

Slapfish

04-13-2007, 01:13 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Slapfish wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's because you are thinking of the extreme exaggeration of games like WOW. Artists and designers use exaggeration ALL the time, sometimes to a very great degree and sometimes subtly to create atmosphere, drama and effect. As I stated in my very first post, it is used even in art that appears very realistic and classical in style. </blockquote> I know all about exaggeration, and how it is used (you really have to stop posting things that imply you have some academic viewpoint that is "higher", a huge number of people here are designers and artists). It is used extensively in EQ2 already, there is frankly nothing in this game that is literally real in proportion or scale. But its relatively subtle, which leads to it being an enhancement rather than the dominant factor in the style. Your problem seems to be you dont have a very subtle view of exaggeration, and would prefer what I would see as badly overdone styling. I think in fact that SOME bits of armour in even this game are overdone structurally. A very few are overdone texturally or in details (though the use of detail and finishes is such a logical and historically based feature or clothing and armour, giving as it does show without compromising functionality) but mostly the texutres are the strongest point of all.Some of the robes are plain ugly though. Maybe twenty percent of them. There are some really nice pieces though.</blockquote>Well then I wish the designers and artists would post their opinions on this topic because I'm sure they would agree with me. At least one other person with training in drama and theatre agrees with me. It seems that the only people who do not, are those who would compare my background with that of his 4 year old niece and those who seem unable to comprehend a happy medium between EQ2 and WOW graphics. What am I supposed to assume about their level of artistic knowledge and experience? The use of exaggeration as an artistic technique is similar to spices in food. Too little and the food is bland, too much and the food is too spicy. IMO EQ2 is bland and needs some SPICE! Perhaps for some, WOW is an example of too much spice, but as I have said (three times now I think) there is a BIG range between bland and too spicy. Let's get it right.

Armawk

04-13-2007, 02:13 PM

Slapfish wrote: <blockquote>Well then I wish the designers and artists would post their opinions on this topic because I'm sure they would agree with me. At least one other person with training in drama and theatre agrees with me. It seems that the only people who do not, are those who would compare my background with that of his 4 year old niece and those who seem unable to comprehend a happy medium between EQ2 and WOW graphics. What am I supposed to assume about their level of artistic knowledge and experience? The use of exaggeration as an artistic technique is similar to spices in food. Too little and the food is bland, too much and the food is too spicy. IMO EQ2 is bland and needs some SPICE! Perhaps for some, WOW is an example of too much spice, but as I have said (three times now I think) there is a BIG range between bland and too spicy. Let's get it right. </blockquote> Do you not get it? It just your opinion, not a very humble one it seems.. You think there are those who agree with you and then uneducated idiots. This is arrogant in the extreme, and if you ARE an artist of any value you ought to be ashamed of beign so smug. As it happens I think the level of exaggeration (and your clear suggestion that there is none is farcical, there is a lot of it in there if you actually look) is about right. I am a designer, albeit a relatively commercial one. My girlfriend, a highly qualified fine artist agrees and in fact loves the broad look of the game. We both think there are some badly flawed models, clothing (my conjuror just replaced the most godawful robe I think the game holds) and environmental (I would like to explain some things to the person responsible for the lifts in kelethin). But overall this is outweighed by the general classiness and originality of the look. Subtle exaggeration, fundamental use of texture and detail from the conception of models not just as an afterthought etc.I am not "right" but my opinion is a carefully considered and highly grounded one.Shaun

liveja

04-13-2007, 02:22 PM

<cite>Slapfish wrote:</cite><blockquote>The use of exaggeration as an artistic technique is similar to spices in food. Too little and the food is bland, too much and the food is too spicy. IMO EQ2 is bland and needs some SPICE! Perhaps for some, WOW is an example of too much spice, but as I have said (three times now I think) there is a BIG range between bland and too spicy. Let's get it right. </blockquote>I understand your argument, & it's a perfectly valid *opinion*, as opposed to a documented, truthful *fact*.My opinion is that EQ2 is perfectly spicy enough <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> & since all we're talking about here is *opinion*, whether or not you or anyone else has any amount of theatrical or artistic "training" is irrelevant. You could be a multi-millionaire artist with paintings hanging in the Louvre & I would still disagree with you on this basic point, because while I think more options would be nice, the level of "exaggeration" in EQ2 art work is exactly where I want it to be.

Slapfish

04-13-2007, 10:23 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>Slapfish wrote: <blockquote> Do you not get it? It just your opinion, not a very humble one it seems.. You think there are those who agree with you and then uneducated idiots. This is arrogant in the extreme, and if you ARE an artist of any value you ought to be ashamed of beign so smug. </blockquote>As it happens I think the level of exaggeration (and your clear suggestion that there is none is farcical, there is a lot of it in there if you actually look) is about right. I am a designer, albeit a relatively commercial one. My girlfriend, a highly qualified fine artist agrees and in fact loves the broad look of the game. We both think there are some badly flawed models, clothing (my conjuror just replaced the most godawful robe I think the game holds) and environmental (I would like to explain some things to the person responsible for the lifts in kelethin). But overall this is outweighed by the general classiness and originality of the look. Subtle exaggeration, fundamental use of texture and detail from the conception of models not just as an afterthought etc.I am not "right" but my opinion is a carefully considered and highly grounded one.Shaun</blockquote>hmmm I don't recall ever saying that it was anything other than my opinion. Is there any reason why my opinion should be a humble one? I'm not sure why you're so upset by it.

Armawk

04-14-2007, 06:55 AM

<cite>Slapfish wrote:</cite><blockquote> It seems that the only people who do not, are those who would compare my background with that of his 4 year old niece and those who seem unable to comprehend a happy medium between EQ2 and WOW graphics. What am I supposed to assume about their level of artistic knowledge and experience? </blockquote> Because you wrote this crap?

Slapfish

04-14-2007, 02:51 PM

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Slapfish wrote:</cite><blockquote> It seems that the only people who do not, are those who would compare my background with that of his 4 year old niece and those who seem unable to comprehend a happy medium between EQ2 and WOW graphics. What am I supposed to assume about their level of artistic knowledge and experience? </blockquote> Because you wrote this crap?</blockquote> Sorry, but you lost me there. I had one poster make a snide comment that his 4 year old neice was also an "artist" and others repeatedly misunderstand my argument by complaining that they didn't like WOW type graphics after I had clearly stated there is a happy medium between realism and extreme exaggeration. Perhaps I should have stated it is not the lack of artistic knowledge, but reading comprehension that is the problem. Would that have made you happier?

Thunderthyze

04-14-2007, 06:39 PM

TBH the only thing this game lacks when compared to, say, Guild Wars is the dance emotes. Compared with WoW the graphics in EQ2 are FAR better and more appropriate, especially when you have a chance to play on high settings. It would be nice to have greater flexibilty with the armour models, especially when you become geared up with fabled armour and end up looking like a reject from the Oxfam shop; or greater differentiation available within guild ranks, but these are minor, superficial points. The game engine, quest structure and combat model is second to none IMO, and we should be grateful.HOWEVER, please don't get me started on the EQ2 Players site!! <img src="/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />