EQ2 + graphic overhaul?

[arnethis]

Am i the only one who thinks eq2 could do with a graphical update? Maybe im just sayin this because my computer was made for intense graphic games and i really wanna test its potential, which i have with vanguard, COD4 and WIC. But maybe im just being a critic idk..

[Tes Mar'a]

Have you tried to turn up all the grafik options in EQ2, and not just set it on extream grafik.Good luck running that on raids.And it is real nice.But if they optimized the grafik engin, it wold be posibel to run whit better grafik settings on raid.I also think that a 64bit client would make a boost. As long as you are running 64bit OS and have more then 4GB of RAM.So basic I don't thing the grafik is bad, but the engin is old and need to be optimized

[interstellarmatter]

<p>They are suppose to be working on a skeleton revamp, dual core support (one day), optimizing graphics (forever ongoing process).  So, it's not being overhauled but being continually worked on to be improved.</p><p>But at the end of the day, how much overhaul can you really expect from a 4 year graphics engine? </p>

[Celline-Layonaire]

If my memory serves correctly, SOE actually were hiring Graphics Programmer and Senior Programmer early this year to consider graphical enhancements to the game. 

[Seidhkona]

At present EQ2 is not using the GPU to maximum effect - it's using CPU and RAM more.  I wish I could figure out where I saw the recent interview with the devs where they talked about the considerations of upgrading the graphical engine.  The short story: they'd love to but it's not in the near-term.

[Taliasa]

If Anarchy Online, of all games, can overhaul their engine, EQ2 can do it. The tired excuses wear a bit thin after a while.

[Themaginator]

<cite>Taliasa wrote:</cite><blockquote>If Anarchy Online, of all games, can overhaul their engine, EQ2 can do it. The tired excuses wear a bit thin after a while.</blockquote>Okay but how long to you think it took them, however long it was a huge project, and as you can see they have alot of other things to work on right now.

[Espyderman]

<cite>Taliasa wrote:</cite><blockquote>If Anarchy Online, of all games, can overhaul their engine, EQ2 can do it. The tired excuses wear a bit thin after a while.</blockquote><p>Um they're two different engines. Anarchy upgraded their graphics engine not just for Anarchy online but also new projects they have planned for that engine, and other games that previously used it.</p><p>EQ2 engine is quite the opposite.</p><p>Also it should be noted, just because you can upgrade one game engine to do something, does not mean all engines can also see this same upgrade, at times its either impossible, not feasable, or just a complete waste of time/money.</p><p>Your statement wreaks of ignorance and posturing, try using logic and sense when replying...the old "if they can do it, so can anyone else" does not apply to game engines in every instance. Perhaps you should figure out the engine yourself and upgrade it since you say its so easy...</p><p>Ill be awaiting your game engine update...which i beleive will never happen because it aint as easy as your bunghole suggests.</p><p>Based on conversations here it would seem the only real easy fix would be to allow the GPU to handle more then it currently is, however, i cant be sure this is applicable, i have no code to look at to make any judgement on it so its really up the the EQ2 devs, and from what im hearing they are basically saying its too difficult to bother with, not impossible, just too difficult and time consuming, and to be honest i can understand why as a programmer, sometimes code can get very messy and the thought of having to redesign the programming logic to fit a new hardware architecture is just a headache to even consider.</p><p>If they do manage to do it, kudos to them especially after what ive heard, but i wont hold my breathe, im happy with the gfx as is.</p>

[Tel]

I think eq2 is gorgeous. :/Why does it need an upgrade?

[Chay]

EQ2 looks dated. I run at high quality settings as much detail as my machine can handle. The game looks its age even if it makes some newer games look primitive.It also is very limited. Everything looks the same. There should be a lot more uniqueness and flavor.It also isn't utilizing technology very well (at all in some cases). It doesn't utilize multi-core processors, doesn't really use all the abilities of graphics cards, and has memory issues.It could be so much better. It has a lot of potential visually. It could be more dynamic and immersive. Unfortunately they may have waited too long.

[LordFyre]

<p>All this adds fuel to the rumors of . . . "EverQuest III" (reguardless of what it is called)</p>

[Tel]

<cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>EQ2 looks dated. I run at high quality settings as much detail as my machine can handle. The game looks its age even if it makes some newer games look primitive.It also is very limited. Everything looks the same. There should be a lot more uniqueness and flavor.It also isn't utilizing technology very well (at all in some cases). It doesn't utilize multi-core processors, doesn't really use all the abilities of graphics cards, and has memory issues.It could be so much better. It has a lot of potential visually. It could be more dynamic and immersive. Unfortunately they may have waited too long.</blockquote>I thought, correct me if I'm wrong, the skeleton revamp, would at least give them more options on how our characters will look? (Due to less instances of the same armor graphics being required, freeing up memory for new textures ect?)  I would assume it's just not "player" textures they would be able to add.However, i'm not a video game graphics type person.

[Zehl_Ice-Fire]

<cite>Thetmes@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think eq2 is gorgeous. :/Why does it need an upgrade?</blockquote>Most people have to play on extreme performance, my comp is pretty up to par, WELL above min requirements and if I play on pretty mode I can't really move much and it takes 5 minutes to zone.

[GizmoKhan]

I have to agree that EQ2's graphics are not so nice. I'm liking the actual gameplay but my goodness (that ok swearing fascist?!!!)... it seems the engine hasn't been kind to creative thought. Shadows make the FPS flop and this is running on an overclocked 8800 and Core 2 Duo scoring 13,000 on 3DMark 2006. The game was released nearly 5 years ago I mean comon.... The areas are just woefully bland and the tree textures are horrible.The engine needs some serious tweaking and may this be a lesson in NOT future proofing MMO's.Other than that I really like the game.

[OutcastBlade]

Add anisotropic filtering!!!

[Dimhammer]

The graphics are fine and that's not the issue.  The issue is the performance on machines using the latest technology is no better than using a machine that's 4 years old.  I just upgraded my PC to a Quad Core Q6600 CPU, 4GB RAM, BFG 9800 GTX 512mb, Asus Maximus MB.  Overclocked it to 3.1Ghz and can run Age of Conan on max settings and still get 30fps in a crowded city.  But in EQ2 on High Quality setting  I still only get 10-20 fps.They need to upgrade the engine in order to utilize multi core CPU's and put more of the graphical rendering on the GPU's.  There's no reason why they can't do it.  It would be a seperate programing team from the ones that make content.  They did it in EQ1 with the Luclin expansion.

[Orsham]

<cite>Dimhammer wrote:</cite><blockquote>The graphics are fine and that's not the issue.  The issue is the performance on machines using the latest technology is no better than using a machine that's 4 years old.  I just upgraded my PC to a Quad Core Q6600 CPU, 4GB RAM, BFG 9800 GTX 512mb, Asus Maximus MB.  Overclocked it to 3.1Ghz and can run Age of Conan on max settings and still get 30fps in a crowded city.  But in EQ2 on High Quality setting  I still only get 10-20 fps.</blockquote>I agree, it's not the graphics that are the problem but performance. I don't understand the criticism of the graphics. It looks pretty good on my 24 inch Mac!

[Noaani]

<cite>Jestin@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dimhammer wrote:</cite><blockquote>The graphics are fine and that's not the issue.  The issue is the performance on machines using the latest technology is no better than using a machine that's 4 years old.  I just upgraded my PC to a Quad Core Q6600 CPU, 4GB RAM, BFG 9800 GTX 512mb, Asus Maximus MB.  Overclocked it to 3.1Ghz and can run Age of Conan on max settings and still get 30fps in a crowded city.  But in EQ2 on High Quality setting  I still only get 10-20 fps.</blockquote>I agree, it's not the graphics that are the problem but performance. I don't understand the criticism of the graphics. It looks pretty good on my 24 inch Mac!</blockquote><p>While the graphics are fine as they are, it is the graphics engine that causes a lot of the performance issues.</p><p>From what I understand, even the performance issues people have identified with the UI are based on how the graphics engine works, and the fact that multi core support (and more GPU/less CPU dependancy) is such an issue largly because of the way the graphics engine works.</p>

[Editedmind]

I don't want anyone to spend any time what so ever on overhauling the graphics engine if it's just to show off the same old art assets with some more basic colour tinting. I would love it if they increased the actual performance of the current clunky engine so that it ran normally on a top end machine without a hitch, but in the sense of new stuff, I would much rather they invest as much time in adding new art assets as SOE does with LoN.I do understand that EQ2 and LoN are two completely different games, but it cannot be so utterly backbreaking to make some better looking gear. Some new models, no more crash dummy head gear, some new textures, and even a little retinting and recycling which the EQ2 art dept. love so much...

[ratdeath]

As long as they leave us ratongas alone, me likes me as me is!!! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But performance improvements and support for multicore cpu's (with a quadcore cpu I would like that very much yes) and perhaps better use of the gpu (with a 8800gts, and probably later on something new and shiny I would be happy if it got utilizied fully) would take the graphics of EQ2 a long way. Personally I feel EQ2 to be more next generation graphics then many new games who claim to be just that, Vanguard for example.

[GrunEQ]

<span style="font-size: x-small;font-family: comic sans ms,sand;">I wish LoN and EQ2 were 2 completely seperate games!  I also wish that all that time, effort, art, performce, spam were for the actual game instead of what SOE sees as a cash cow revenue maker.  Yeah, they put all the really nice stuff on LoN loot cards.  <smoke streaming from ears>  Wish all that LoN stuff was not EQ2 related at all, and we could have nice quests/collections for the good stuff, with the added plus of a lot less spammage.</span>

[LordFyre]

<cite>GrunEQ wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="font-size: x-small;font-family: comic sans ms,sand;">I wish LoN and EQ2 were 2 completely seperate games!  I also wish that all that time, effort, art, performce, spam were for the actual game instead of what SOE sees as a cash cow revenue maker.  Yeah, they put all the really nice stuff on LoN loot cards.  <smoke streaming from ears>  Wish all that LoN stuff was not EQ2 related at all, and we could have nice quests/collections for the good stuff, with the added plus of a lot less spammage.</span></blockquote><p>Here is the thing;  Worlds Apart (which is in Colorado, btw) is a completely separate development group then the EQ2 team.  So, in a way it is a completely separate game.  </p><p>We could do with less LoN SPAM in EQ2.</p><p>Of course, if they wanted to put LoN loot into EQ2 . . . how about some of that cool art made into EQ2 armors, weapons, items, etc. </p>

[Froed20]

Graphics-wise, when the game is turned up to full quality, its a beautiful game. The art team did a [Removed for Content] good job. Problem is, there's too many technical issues getting in the way. Of course, Most people can't run the game in extreme, and they're working on fixing that. The other issue is that creating armor and equipment is a ridiculously tedious process, which is why the skeletal revamp is in development. The game doesn't need so much of a revamp... they just need to complete those two projects, and things will get much better.

[Hukklebuk]

The engine isn't as efficient as it could be, but they're working on that to some degree. EQ2 still looks fantastic, with only one exception, the shiny dirt in spots, say running up or down the hill to the commonlands dock,  the dirt looks shiny,  highly polished even... at max graphics.

[Mew]

Keep in mind that some of us cash inhibited players cannot afford to replace our 4 year old systems with newer, more powerful machines.  Updating the engine to accomodate the top end technology would leave us in the dust and unable to play.  EQ2 runs just fine on my box now.  I see no reason to change it. 

[Tes Mar'a]

<cite>Mewse wrote:</cite><blockquote>Keep in mind that some of us cash inhibited players cannot afford to replace our 4 year old systems with newer, more powerful machines.  Updating the engine to accomodate the top end technology would leave us in the dust and unable to play.  EQ2 runs just fine on my box now.  I see no reason to change it.  </blockquote>No. What we are primary asking for is a optimizing of the enging.Yes add some new thing, and beable to run more of it on the GPU.This meen that you will also get a boots on old mashines.And you will beable to just upgrade you grafikcard to get a boost, and not the hole system.So ie. if they were to add suport for PPU then the one that has a PPU (or soon Geforce 8, 9 or 200 serien) can have extra nice eye candy, and if you do not have it, Then you don't have that eye candy.But as long as it's only eye candy, then it is not nessesary to have.64Bit client:If you are running a 64bit OS then you can use more RAM if you got it (32 bit Windows can support up to 3.7GB RAM, and that is whit the RAM on your Grafikcard)To beable to use more RAM then the game can put more data in the RAM and safe alot of read/write to the disk, and that boost the preformens.Use more GPU then CPU:Theis will alow that if you have a better GPU then from the release date of EQ2, then you can unload the CPU load.and then less CPU load = you don't need that fast a CPU. or less CPU load then you can use the CPU to preform other tasks. ie. sound, or ekstra eyecandy that the GPU could not do.Multi core CPU support.all newer CPU's are duo core, and why use 100% on one core and 30% on the other, when you can use 100% on both, to use the full computer power that you have.And even more when you get a quad core.Why not use the power when it's there.And yes remember that computers that could run EQ2 at launce will still like to beable run it.But also remember that alot gets new computers, and they would love to use the extra power and featurs to something.a personel exsamble is I have a Geforce 9800GX2I have set it up to dual screen so one GPU per screen.But I tried to set both GPU's to same screen, and there was nothing to gain in EQ2.So why not let people that have SLI or Grafkcards whit more GPU's on use them.

[-Arctura-]

(( One of the main differences between AoC and EQ2 is the skin material on AoC characters has VERY intense specular levels, making them look glistening, sweaty, shiney, etc. (And awesome).EQ2's character textures seem to have nearly un-noticeable specular levels, if at all. Even when its raining and everything in the Environment gets glistening and specular, the characters remain matte and flat looking.Just saying... a relatively easy boost would be to add a stronger specular map to the skin materials for the characters =P ---<img src="http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g69/Arctura000/Skree-sig2008a.jpg" alt="" border="0" />

[Kigneer]

<cite>Sigrdrifa@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>At present EQ2 is not using the GPU to maximum effect - it's using CPU and RAM more.  I wish I could figure out where I saw the recent interview with the devs where they talked about the considerations of upgrading the graphical engine.  The short story: they'd love to but it's not in the near-term.</blockquote><p>What game engine is EQII running on? It reminds more more of Unreal, especially how the levels are loaded. Screenloading isn't really even needed today in gaming, with good sectoring of content, it can take it's place. It'll also balance the use of both the GPU and processor, instead of be demanding only one to work overtime.</p><p>The danger of pushing more data to the GPU, is that it can eliminate a segment of EQII's player's base (those with older computers with AGP) that simply can't process larger textures/polys without serious lag and stutter (1024x1024 textures are demanding as it is. Add more polys for more "realistic" environments, it'll take a first generation card to function well). Folks will be asking folks to have computers to run Crysis on, which is a very small segment of the gaming population (heck, more are playing on consoles now, and they're even less powered than older PCs).</p><p>The last thing EQII needs is a smaller player base. :/</p>

[Armawk]

<cite>LordFyre wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Here is the thing;  Worlds Apart (which is in Colorado, btw) is a completely separate development group then the EQ2 team.  So, in a way it is a completely separate game.  </p></blockquote>And indeed, the LoN game itself is seperate, but all that lovely LoN loot that you get that you can use in EQ2 is made by the EQ2 team and implemented by the EQ2 team. Its a lot of items and illusions and effects too..

[Dreyco]

More GPU Support? The game already does utilize your GPU.   One of the developers posted that there are two things that do not render through the GPU, and come through the CPU.That's animations and particles.  I think that textures are stored in physical memory instead of graphics memory also.I think that blowing it up and saying the entire engine needs to be redone is silly.  If they make it mutli core capable, can you imagine the performance increase? That's all that it really needs, I think.

[Marina]

i think ive read somewhere that eq2 is using unreal engine 1.3  or something like thatthat would explain the heavy cpu usage compared to the gfx card

[Lauree]

<cite>Dimhammer wrote:</cite><blockquote>The graphics are fine and that's not the issue.  The issue is the performance on machines using the latest technology is no better than using a machine that's 4 years old.  </blockquote>The graphics may be ok .. but the art isn't. The character models are fine, but most of the armor is simply boring, thats the big problem for me.

[Mezza]

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>More GPU Support? The game already does utilize your GPU.   One of the developers posted that there are two things that do not render through the GPU, and come through the CPU.That's animations and particles.  I think that textures are stored in physical memory instead of graphics memory also.I think that blowing it up and saying the entire engine needs to be redone is silly.  If they make it mutli core capable, can you imagine the performance increase? That's all that it really needs, I think.</blockquote>Utilize? Yes. Optimize? No. I mean sorry but even the three things that you mentioned are seriously major hits when you put it on the processors workload rather than a beefy card, which to be fair is what most posters here appear to have. In the last year I have gone from 7900gt to 8800GTS then finally to 8800GTX and have seen no real improvement in comparison to the hardware I have fitted. If I was to be offered processor or graphics card optimization and had to choose? Graphics card every single time.I do however agree that an entirely new engine is unfeasible and am generally quite happy with performance and the improvements I have seen in the last month or so. I also know that the UI seems to sap alot of performance away due to the way it was designed but again it is no way as bad as it used to be and this can only be down to one thing. Rothgar and his cronies!!For the increased performance this year alone, I thank you. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Harrysou]

<p align="justify">I think EQ2 is a beautiful game and I spent 8-900 hours in the game world.</p><p align="justify">The PC I built myself was pretty bleeding edge at the time EQ2 got release (2.8ghz intel 1 gig ram Geforce 6800GT oc)</p><p align="justify"> The game never ran smoothly even on reduced or very low settings so it was obvious to see there was a problem with the engine.</p><p align="justify"><b>The engine dosn't even support hyper threading!</b> let alone all the duel core gubbins you guys keep going on about.</p><p align="justify">I havn't been a subscriber for about a year now but i'd come back tomorrow if the performance was alot better.Raiding was a slideshow no matter how low the settings were.EQ2 is by far the worst running game on my PC but my most loved.</p><p align="justify">You can say "yeh well you PC just an't that great" well everytime a new GFX card comes to the market I checkout these forums to see how it runs EQ2 and it's always the same .It dosn't run anything any better than before in most cases.</p><p align="justify">I think about upgrading and coming back but like I say there is no point whatsoever because it'll never be a smooth experience.</p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify">I do hope they make Everquest 3.I'd be there for sure with a brand spanking new PC.I just hope they don't think all these performance issues are because they tried to push the boundries with high detail characters and scenes and then cop out and go for a WoW /*insert generic looking WOW clone MMO here art style.They need to realise themselves the engine is just a waste of space.</p><p align="justify">It's the same with StarWars galaxies which used the CPU to render the terrain.When I upgraded my 1.4 ghz AMD with geforce 3 to a geforce 5 I saw no performance boost.So i went out and bought this 2.8ghz and kept the geforce 3 for a while and saw lots of improvements.Then EQ2 came along and I got the 6800GT and saw massive improvements with this game but it still ran terribly.</p>

[quasigenx]

<cite>Harrysound wrote:</cite><blockquote><p align="justify">(2.8ghz intel 1 gig ram Geforce 6800GT oc)</p></blockquote>If you had spent another $50 for 2GB of RAM instead of 1GB, it would have run pretty smooth.

[Hamervelder]

<cite>Miarina@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>i think ive read somewhere that eq2 is using unreal engine 1.3  or something like thatthat would explain the heavy cpu usage compared to the gfx card</blockquote>Vanguard uses the Unreal engine.  EQ2 does not.  The Unreal engine uses a specific file/directory structure, such as the /system directory, *.u files, etc.  EQ2 doesn't have that structure.

[Celline-Layonaire]

<cite>Chayna wrote:</cite><blockquote>EQ2 looks dated. I run at high quality settings as much detail as my machine can handle. The game looks its age even if it makes some newer games look primitive.It also is very limited. Everything looks the same. There should be a lot more uniqueness and flavor.It also isn't utilizing technology very well (at all in some cases). It doesn't utilize multi-core processors, doesn't really use all the abilities of graphics cards, and has memory issues.It could be so much better. It has a lot of potential visually. It could be more dynamic and immersive. Unfortunately they may have waited too long.</blockquote>Yeah, I just can't agree more. EQ2 + graphic update can even compete with the top-end PC games like Bioshock, Crisis, Star Wars Force Unleashed and....ya name it lol <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 

[Spyderbite]

<cite>Laureena@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>The graphics may be ok .. but the art isn't. The character models are fine, but most of the armor is simply boring, thats the big problem for me.</blockquote>You might want to check out the new reward armor from the current Live event quests. Seems its using a whole new design which is not only more detailed but also reactive to lighting. For example.. in a sunset.. metallic armor glows slightly orange.. or greenish from the lights in the academy as shown below. Perhaps this is just a sampling of upcoming armor redesigns?<img src="http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e101/DJSpyderBite/EQ2/Spyder-Shadow-Armorcopy.jpg" alt="" border="0" />

[Valentina]

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Laureena@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>The graphics may be ok .. but the art isn't. The character models are fine, but most of the armor is simply boring, thats the big problem for me.</blockquote>You might want to check out the new reward armor from the current Live event quests. Seems its using a whole new design which is not only more detailed but also reactive to lighting. For example.. in a sunset.. metallic armor glows slightly orange.. or greenish from the lights in the academy as shown below. Perhaps this is just a sampling of upcoming armor redesigns?<img src="http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e101/DJSpyderBite/EQ2/Spyder-Shadow-Armorcopy.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></blockquote>For what it's worth, I bought the armour above for my swash and was VERY disappointed.  I have all of my lighting settings on max, but the armour on my character was significantly less attractive than it was when looking at it in the dressing room window.It's not really germane to the discussion... I just wanted to vent.  I wasted 7 notes on a tunic and pants that I will never wear.

[Finora]

<p>That's not a new design of armor actually Spyder, that's stuff from KOS (looks an awful lot like the scout only stuff that drops in Vaults of Elurad (or however it's spelled). </p><p>Lighting isn't the only thing you'd have to have turned up to have the armor look good, textures have to be turned up as well and a few more things that effect how it looks.</p><p>I would love to see more done to make EQ2 run better/look better. This past update things seem to be running better than they have since Kunark went live. I'm hoping that trend continues and hope they get the opportunity to take another look at some of the rehashed graphics (trees are a big one that comes to my mind) that will make the world look better. I have hope for the characters, clothing and armor since they have said they are still working on the skeleton revamp.  </p>

[Kigneer]

<cite>Miarina@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>i think ive read somewhere that eq2 is using unreal engine 1.3  or something like thatthat would explain the heavy cpu usage compared to the gfx card</blockquote><p>Explains why the extra high page file usage too. This game eats memory and everything you can offer it. By the looks of it the textures on higher performance settings have to be in the 1024x1024 or higher range. Load those, in this type of game, and expect the page file to explode.</p><p>Even though F.E.A.R. was a monster on computers, I did like how level sectoring of the Jupiter system allowed to divide the proc and GPU usage, giving even slower computers a break. A slight hitching when turning a corner while textures load, but anything is better than ingame load screens. Screen resolution was the main problem, but just lowering the res, boosted the fps considerably (10/20fps).</p><p>Did the Futuremark benchmarking on this 2003 rig. Nothing like the 2008 computers, but the GPU fps is decent (14fps on it's 1024x768 grinds). It's the proc (a 3.2Ghz Northwood) that grinds to a halt -- that mini game Futuremark has, it's but 1 or 2 fps. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Balance is needed. 60/40, 40/60.</p>

[Kigneer]

<cite>Dreyco wrote:</cite><blockquote>More GPU Support? The game already does utilize your GPU.   One of the developers posted that there are two things that do not render through the GPU, and come through the CPU.That's animations and particles.  I think that textures are stored in physical memory instead of graphics memory also.I think that blowing it up and saying the entire engine needs to be redone is silly.  If they make it mutli core capable, can you imagine the performance increase? That's all that it really needs, I think.</blockquote><p>Animations in themselves isn't the CPU killer, it's processing all those polys (and their vector points). Higher the poly count, higher the proc demand. Those on older computers are also limited to a smaller I/O pipe that has to share bandwidth with both proc and GPU instructions. That's the main bottleneck -- no matter how fast your proc/GPU/memory is the I/O is going to be the main limiting factor. A computer can't read any instruction faster than it can be delivered through that straw.</p><p>A MMO will never be like Crysis (a SP game), due to existing hardware limitations. Remember with BF2142 and F.E.A.R., it was a nightmare in getting something visually decent to play online, compared to offline. Offline, the fps was good considering the rig. Online -- 640x480 with every perk turned off to keep up with the C2D/1600dpi mouse bunnies.</p><p>On extreme performance on this 2003 tuned rig for gaming is about all I can do to get through a 8 to 10 mob in this game. Those without the game tuning on older rigs simply couldn't play mob content (no matter what the min requirements say on the box -- in reality online gaming is worse than offline in the fps. Expect 10 to 20fps drops from offline norms. Under 30fps, you will see stutter. Under 20fps it's stop n' go gaming).</p>

[Comit]

As far as MMORPGs go, I think the graphics are ok. Can usually expect all the super high end graphics to be found in more single player games. I'd much rather see the animations improved...the animations while strafting or moving backwards in combat or sneaking are terrible. There needs to be more weapon specific attack animations, spears needing this the most. Idle animations are also pretty unnatural. Tabula Rasa is a good example of life like idle animations IMO.I've love to see a passive animations persona customization. Select appropriate idle animations for your character's mannerisms. Eg a fidgety ratonga, vs a noble/snooty standing elf. Extending on that idea, allow for equipment specific animation options. Eg the ability to use a staff as a walking stick, or the option to keep your weapon unsheathed (but not combat posed) while in a dungeon.But I'm getting carried away. Polish up the moving and combat animations first, that's probably a big job alone D:And mounts on sloped surfaces suck too, but that may or may not be an animations issue <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" />

[Aenashi]

<cite>Comit wrote:</cite><blockquote>As far as MMORPGs go, I think the graphics are ok. Can usually expect all the super high end graphics to be found in more single player games. I'd much rather see the animations improved...the animations while strafting or moving backwards in combat or sneaking are terrible. There needs to be more weapon specific attack animations, spears needing this the most. Idle animations are also pretty unnatural. Tabula Rasa is a good example of life like idle animations IMO.I've love to see a passive animations persona customization. Select appropriate idle animations for your character's mannerisms. Eg a fidgety ratonga, vs a noble/snooty standing elf. Extending on that idea, allow for equipment specific animation options. Eg the ability to use a staff as a walking stick, or the option to keep your weapon unsheathed (but not combat posed) while in a dungeon.But I'm getting carried away. Polish up the moving and combat animations first, that's probably a big job alone D:And mounts on sloped surfaces suck too, but that may or may not be an animations issue <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" />" /></blockquote>that all comes down to the skeletal revamp that has yet to be announced when it will be out.  A lot of new armor looks BLAAAH.  They look smudged and pixalated.    I would post some pics of a friend's bruiser if i just had them at work.  Maxed graphics and they just dont look good at all.

[Tearltwo]

<cite>Kigneer wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>A MMO will never be like Crysis (a SP game), due to existing hardware limitations. Remember with BF2142 and F.E.A.R., it was a nightmare in getting something visually decent to play online, compared to offline. Offline, the fps was good considering the rig. Online -- 640x480 with every perk turned off to keep up with the C2D/1600dpi mouse bunnies.</p></blockquote><p>Not true. There are at least 2 MMO's in production using the CryEngine2. Also, Crysis is both SP and MP...and the MP looks just as nice as SP.</p><p>Go check out CryTek to see who's licensing their engine<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Squallaby]

What I've always thought (note this is JUST a theory of mine) is this:EQ2 runs on a custom engine, this engine was developed with future advances in CPU speed.. that never happened.Remember the early devs always saying "the game was built for future tech" My guess is that some of that was super fast SINGLE core tech that never happened, I mean Intel at the time was saying their CPU's were going to hit 7 ghz by now. And Multi-core/multi-threaded CPU's were n't even being discussed in terms of consumer systems.And from everything I've read, taking a custom engine and modifing it from single to multi-threaded/core support isn't exactly easy. Its better than it used to be, but its not easy.I really just think the game engine was desgined with the idea of a SUPER fast single core CPU, and sadly for them, CPU architecture shifted.. totally.So while I DO think they are working on it, and trying to do things, they are hampered by the decision made a long time ago to try and "future guess" how systems were going to go. They guess.. poorly.

[SilkenKidden]

<cite>Barstile@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>What I've always thought (note this is JUST a theory of mine) is this:EQ2 runs on a custom engine, this engine was developed with future advances in CPU speed.. that never happened.Remember the early devs always saying "the game was built for future tech" My guess is that some of that was super fast SINGLE core tech that never happened, I mean Intel at the time was saying their CPU's were going to hit 7 ghz by now. And Multi-core/multi-threaded CPU's were n't even being discussed in terms of consumer systems.And from everything I've read, taking a custom engine and modifing it from single to multi-threaded/core support isn't exactly easy. Its better than it used to be, but its not easy.I really just think the game engine was desgined with the idea of a SUPER fast single core CPU, and sadly for them, CPU architecture shifted.. totally.So while I DO think they are working on it, and trying to do things, they are hampered by the decision made a long time ago to try and "future guess" how systems were going to go. They guess.. poorly.</blockquote>I hope Sony doesn't forget their original customers, some of whom are playing on the same computers they had when the game came out.  Mine just met the specs back then.  I've upgraded the memory and the video card, but I'm hoping to keep it for a few more years.

[BungFoo]

They've actually made some pretty decent improvements to performance in the last few months. I can finally run the game consistently above 50fps on balanced.If I had to choose between increased performance and improved graphical features I'd take performance every single time.Denn

[Rorasis]

I think this game, before graphics upgrades, needs to be reworked to utilize technology better.  Vanguard runs better than this game does on high-end hardware.  AoC ran with better performance on my machine too.

[DamianTV]

<p>I think an engine overhaul is needed before graphic enhancements can really be done.  Thing is, high end machine or low end, an engine optimization overhaul would benefit everyone.  Those of us with high end machines should be able to max out the quality without going below 60fps now, and if we dont have high end machines, we could see a huge performance increase and at least increase framerates.  Its one thing to not have enough texture memory and not be able to run the highest resolution textures, so taht is pretty well understandable you cant fit 256 megs of vram onto a video card that only has 128 megs available.</p><p>There was also a post on page one about adding anti-aliasing.  Although you can not do it thru the EQ2 Options, you can edit your .ini files to turn anti aliasing on.  I have a feeling that due to the performance hit you'll probably take, the dev's decided to not put an option for it in game.  With an engine overhaul, I think it would be safe to say we could turn it on from the options menu...</p>

[Cassea]

EQ2 runs on the Star Wars Galaxy Game Engine that SOE developed for Lucas and then borrowed for EQ2.The Skeleton Revap have been mothballed so now we are stuck. SOE "can" revamp the game engine just as they did for EQ1 twice but it costs $$$. $$$ that the beancounters does not consider well spent. Right now, IMHO, EQ2 is in "milk mode" in which they are trying to milk as much $$$ out of the game for as little investment as possible. I really beleive that those that run EQ2 want to do all that we ask but the heads of SOE just shake their head and say no to any expenditures of cash that will not increase profit.Let's be honest here... how many new subscribers will EQ2 get? Will the millions invested in a new graphic engine or multi-core support or graphics revamps even make back the money invested? As much as it's the right think to do SOE will only spend "just enough" $$$ to keep as many subscribers as possible.Look at their other games... they spend just enough to make a game stable then go into low cost maintenance mode. This is not me being down on the SOE people in the trenches that run the game... they are very dedicated and hard working people who love what they do... they just do not have the support (Read: $$$) to do the things needed.With under 200k subscribers we should be lucky that we get expansions I guess <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />WoW ruined the entire MMORPG system IMHO because it showed the bean counters that you make more $$$ by placating to the masses and making games for the least common denometor... low end !@#$ computers because lets be honest here.... from their point of view they get the same $15 from someone with an old out of date computer as they do from those with high end state of the art machines....Guess which system is easier to support and create content?Guess which system allows more "potential" subscribers?I'm not knocking WoW for it game features but clearly they do not have to worry about revamping graphics because they have sold everyone that WoW was "designed" to have !@#@$ graphics because it was an art choice.... in reality it was a business desision that ended up making them a ton of $$$ and every other game before and after has been chasing the WoW model which really makes me sick.In 2008 I want and expect graphics to be near photorealistic. Five years ago EQ2 was dead on with graphics for that day and age... today they are sorely lacking and this entire "we could not get the new graphics to work" is pure BS... they did a dollar-cost analysis and new graphics would cost too much money and provide little or no additional income so they were shelved.-JB

[dawy]

I was always under the impression that EQ2 did indeed start life on SWG's engine but they changed over to this one halfway through,i may be wrong but there nothing between the 2 games to say they use the same eengine,SWG looks awful where EQ2 isnt to bad just hampered by a fitire that never happened i.e CPU speed.

[guillero]

<p>EverQuest 2 starts to become dated indeed.</p><p>Especially the latest RoK expansion shows it with the awful terrain textures to allow them bigger zones.</p><p>The zones design is nice, just not the quality of the textures.</p><p>Not to mention that the armorsets starts to become more boring each day. And the scrapping of the Skeletal Revamp was a real letdown for me and a /slap in the face, wich Im sure it was for many of us. As we were really looking forward to this, wich would bring more variation in armorsets.</p><p>The game engine is just horrible when it comes to performance.</p><p>The game runs better on my gf's comp (my old AMD64 3200+ CPU with GeForce7800GS) then my new Dual Core AMD 4400+ with GeForce 8600GTS, because the AMD64 3200+ is faster then a single core of the 4400+ as the new CPU's are about multi-threading over multiple cores!</p><p>When I run EQ2 it clearly shows how outdated the engine is, utilising 100% of a single core my CPU, while my Graphics card is taking a nap <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>I would love to see a revamp of their engine, but I hardly doubt we will ever see one *sigh*</p>

[Cassea]

<cite>dawy wrote:</cite><blockquote>I was always under the impression that EQ2 did indeed start life on SWG's engine but they changed over to this one halfway through,i may be wrong but there nothing between the 2 games to say they use the same eengine,SWG looks awful where EQ2 isnt to bad just hampered by a fitire that never happened i.e CPU speed.</blockquote>It's the very same engine. SWG does not look awful - well 5 years ago LOL. In fact the graphics was the only thing SWG got right. I am sure that the engine has been modified over the past five years but there are the very same. It was a stroke of genious (well at the time) to let Lucas pay for the game engine and then be able to use it for EQ2. Maybe this is why they cannot or choose not to redo the graphics engine now... it would cost too much $$$.Now using the same engine does not mean both games have to play the same but in fact most aspects of both games are identical from character creation to crafting to the player models. Sure the textures are different and since release both games have been independantly modified but they both started off with the same parents so to speak.Making the game run on multiple cores is near impossible. Games need to be "designed" from the ground up to take advantage of mulitple cores. Sure they could hack a few things but EQ2 will never be fully multi-core aware unless they were to rewrite the game from scratch.What they could do, however, is to move the graphics that they currently do on the CPU to the video card. This is not an easy thing to do. It's a core part of the game engine and very few people are expert enough to be able to write game engines which is why so many companies just license existing game engines aka Unreal or Quake enigine. Most people think that companies making games hire programmers to make games from scratch but in reality they license an existing engine and modify it by hiring graphics designers do do the textures, skinning and other graphics and programmers to "modify" the licensed engine to tweak it.In this case we have no idea who did the SWG game engine. Did SOE do it inhouse? If so are the originla programmers still with SOE? Did they license it? Is the company still around?My guess is either one of two things happened:1. SOE hired programmers to create the SWG/EQ2 engine in house but most if not all of those programmers are long gone.2. SOE licensed a game engine from a company that no longer updated the game engine.The company, for example, that did the Unreal Game engine that so many games use today has been making and updating the engine for years. Unreal2, Unreal3 etc... and if you base your game on a game engine that keeps getting updated I would guess that it's much easier to move a game to the next gen engine.Right now SOE probably is stuck. SWG/EQ2 had a huge (at the time) budget to create the game. Part of these millions of $$$'s was to either create or license a game engine. They do not have millions to spend now and since (I'm guessing) the engine they do use has not been kept up to date they would need a total rewite.When a company writes a game engine they hope to recover the costs of production by licensing the engine to others. It would be cost prohibative to create a game engine from scratch for only one game.If EQ2 was a game with more subscribers then maybe they could justify the expense but lets say EQ2 has 200,000 subscribers (and this is a guess on the high end)Each month (assuming all pay $15 but as we know many people pay less for multiple months or in the all-in-one pass)Monthy: $3,000,000Yearly: $36 million3 mill is alot of cash but lets assume they have 25 people working on EQ2 at $100,000 in saleries and benefits$2,500,000Now what about bandwidth... I have to admit that I have no idea what this costs but it's not free. Add in equipment from server farms to development computers etc... and lets assume (BIG BIG assumption) that this costs $5,000,000 per yearSo each year EQ2 makes: 36,000,000-2,500,000-5,000,000Total profit: $28,500,000Wow that's some profit! Could SOE use some of this profit to redo the game? You bet your sweet backside they could. Will the beancounters allow a small reduction in profit to lower their bottom line? You tell me <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Now I know these numbers are just a wild guess and I admit that most are made up but MMORPG's are a huge because their is so much profit to be made. Why else do so many come out each year and even those with lowly subscriber numbers such as 30,000 subscribers still stay in business. Once the game in on the market it's relatively cheap to keep the game going. Expansions do not count because we pay extra for them.What is staggering is how much $$$ Blizzard makes and how little they put back into that game. QAside from customer support, it costs about the same to develope and run a game with 1000 subscribers as it does for 10 zillion subscribers so why does Blizzard, with subscribers in the millions, need the same $15 a month that games with 1/10 the paying customers need? Because people will pay it is the answer. If they charged only $5 a month they would still make a profit but Blizzard ripping off their customers is a subject for another day <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />SOE is a much larger company than just EQ2. They share expenses with many other games, EQ2 just being the largest. If anyone has a more realistic "guess" as to how many employees are actually working "just" on EQ2 or how much bandwidth really costs I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.-JB

[Armawk]

<p>Is there anything in your post that isnt just your guesses and speculation? You know for certain its the same engine as SWG but dont know where the engine came from? I have seen direct SOE employee quotes saying it is NOT the same engine (it is from the same company so it is normal to expect similiar ideas to go into it or even shared designs/modules), so I really am not sure you are right about anything here.</p><p>Shaun</p>

[Cassea]

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Is there anything in your post that isnt just your guesses and speculation? You know for certain its the same engine as SWG but dont know where the engine came from? I have seen direct SOE employee quotes saying it is NOT the same engine (it is from the same company so it is normal to expect similiar ideas to go into it or even shared designs/modules), so I really am not sure you are right about anything here.</p><p>Shaun</p></blockquote>It is the same engine. SWG came out first then EQ2. Both use the same engine... modified, of course, but the same.Why is this a bad thing? The best thing about SWG was the graphics so I'm not knocking SOE using it. Anyone who has played both games knows this to be true. I played both SWG and EQ2 on release date and let me tell you... they are both using the same engine without question.Since they both use the same engine then you would think both could be upgraded at the same time. I guess it's a bit complicated because SOE does not own SWG 100% so they cannot do anything they want.This entire post is about speculation which is all we have because SOE does not volunteer much information. They knew awile ago that the new skeleton system would not be going it and only a few months ago we were told that it was in testing and given the impression that it would be unveiled at the Fan Fair... now we get an.... "Oh... BTW guys no new skeleton system"What?I admited that most of my thoughts were just based on speculation and educated guessed. I'd love SOE to tell us some straight facts... how about asking them and see what answers we get <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Armawk]

<cite>Cassea wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is the same engine. SWG came out first then EQ2. Both use the same engine... modified, of course, but the same.Why is this a bad thing? The best thing about SWG was the graphics so I'm not knocking SOE using it. Anyone who has played both games knows this to be true. I played both SWG and EQ2 on release date and let me tell you... they are both using the same engine without question.</blockquote><p>Ive played both and while I see similiarities in design here and there that I would expect from the same company and some of the same devs, and likely some borrowed secondary modules, I dont see the same engine, in fact the differences in engine fundamentals seem quite marked from my perspective.</p><p>I really think  you are wrong about this.. which is fine, and as you say wouldnt be a bad thing at all, but I think the fact you are stating this as a fact in a quite convincing manner might lead to a lot of people being regrettably misled into believing it to be a real fact.</p><p>By the way I'm not defending them over the revamp (though a re-read of what was said in the interview leaves me confused and wondering/waiting to find out what they ARE actually doing) as Im really unhappy with it, and very much want to see new stuff.</p><p>Shaun</p>

[Cassea]

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cassea wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is the same engine. SWG came out first then EQ2. Both use the same engine... modified, of course, but the same.Why is this a bad thing? The best thing about SWG was the graphics so I'm not knocking SOE using it. Anyone who has played both games knows this to be true. I played both SWG and EQ2 on release date and let me tell you... they are both using the same engine without question.</blockquote><p>Ive played both and while I see similiarities in design here and there that I would expect from the same company and some of the same devs, and likely some borrowed secondary modules, I dont see the same engine, in fact the differences in engine fundamentals seem quite marked from my perspective.</p><p>I really think  you are wrong about this.. which is fine, and as you say wouldnt be a bad thing at all, but I think the fact you are stating this as a fact in a quite convincing manner might lead to a lot of people being regrettably misled into believing it to be a real fact.</p><p>By the way I'm not defending them over the revamp (though a re-read of what was said in the interview leaves me confused and wondering/waiting to find out what they ARE actually doing) as Im really unhappy with it, and very much want to see new stuff.</p><p>Shaun</p></blockquote>Did you play SWG and EQ2 right at release? In the past 5 years both games have been moving in different directions. I have not played SWG in years but on release date SWG and EQ2 were near clones.You are correct in that I have no hard facts. Perhaps I should notch down my opinion a bit <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />There is one thing that is correct, however, and this is that SOE has plenty of cach to do a revamp "if" they so desired. From a dollars and cents point of view it just does not make any sense unless they were to do in in conjunction with an expansion in which they tossed in a few zones and the graphics revamp and thus our expansion $$$'s would pay for it.

[guillero]

<cite>Cassea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cassea wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is the same engine. SWG came out first then EQ2. Both use the same engine... modified, of course, but the same.Why is this a bad thing? The best thing about SWG was the graphics so I'm not knocking SOE using it. Anyone who has played both games knows this to be true. I played both SWG and EQ2 on release date and let me tell you... they are both using the same engine without question.</blockquote><p>Ive played both and while I see similiarities in design here and there that I would expect from the same company and some of the same devs, and likely some borrowed secondary modules, I dont see the same engine, in fact the differences in engine fundamentals seem quite marked from my perspective.</p><p>I really think  you are wrong about this.. which is fine, and as you say wouldnt be a bad thing at all, but I think the fact you are stating this as a fact in a quite convincing manner might lead to a lot of people being regrettably misled into believing it to be a real fact.</p><p>By the way I'm not defending them over the revamp (though a re-read of what was said in the interview leaves me confused and wondering/waiting to find out what they ARE actually doing) as Im really unhappy with it, and very much want to see new stuff.</p><p>Shaun</p></blockquote>Did you play SWG and EQ2 right at release? In the past 5 years both games have been moving in different directions. I have not played SWG in years but on release date SWG and EQ2 were near clones.You are correct in that I have no hard facts. Perhaps I should notch down my opinion a bit <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />There is one thing that is correct, however, and this is that SOE has plenty of cach to do a revamp "if" they so desired. From a dollars and cents point of view it just does not make any sense unless they were to do in in conjunction with an expansion in which they tossed in a few zones and the graphics revamp and thus our expansion $$$'s would pay for it.</blockquote><p>And that's what they should do. Do a revamp through an Paid Expansion.</p><p>EverQuest 2 has come such a long way content and feature wise, that it would be a shame to toss it away and start over with an EverQuest 3. Hence the reason there won't be an EQ3 (At least not on PC as stated in an interview somewhere a while back).</p><p>The only smart move to do is revamping EverQuest 2. </p><p>- update the Technology (better support for Multi Core CPU's and moving most graphic processing to the Graphics card where it belongs) </p><p>- updating the textures and terrain.</p><p>- revamp the old zones to match the newer ones (like automatic zone loading, instead of clicky clicky on doors).</p><p>- And with the technology updated, they can finally revamp the Skeletal models to support more armor / outfit customisation.</p><p>If they are able to pull this off and put it in an Expansion and get their Marketing department to DO their job for a change (and I mean explicitly MORE marketing in Europe as well!!).</p><p>Then I am 100% sure that they will be able to draw in a load of new players!</p><p>You cannot deny that a lot of people are drawn towards Eye candy! That's just how it works. You can see all this as a sort of Relaunch of EverQuest 2 in a brand new Graphic jacket, but with full content and features at hand.</p><p>It will blow the competition right out of the water and give EverQuest 2 at least another 3 to 5 years of life extention.</p><p>A perfect example how it can work is EVE Online and their Trinity expansion. Subscriber numbers have gone up and up ever since.</p><p>Just my 2cents.</p>

[Qandor]

<cite>Jeronas@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cassea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cassea wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is the same engine. SWG came out first then EQ2. Both use the same engine... modified, of course, but the same.Why is this a bad thing? The best thing about SWG was the graphics so I'm not knocking SOE using it. Anyone who has played both games knows this to be true. I played both SWG and EQ2 on release date and let me tell you... they are both using the same engine without question.</blockquote><p>Ive played both and while I see similiarities in design here and there that I would expect from the same company and some of the same devs, and likely some borrowed secondary modules, I dont see the same engine, in fact the differences in engine fundamentals seem quite marked from my perspective.</p><p>I really think  you are wrong about this.. which is fine, and as you say wouldnt be a bad thing at all, but I think the fact you are stating this as a fact in a quite convincing manner might lead to a lot of people being regrettably misled into believing it to be a real fact.</p><p>By the way I'm not defending them over the revamp (though a re-read of what was said in the interview leaves me confused and wondering/waiting to find out what they ARE actually doing) as Im really unhappy with it, and very much want to see new stuff.</p><p>Shaun</p></blockquote>Did you play SWG and EQ2 right at release? In the past 5 years both games have been moving in different directions. I have not played SWG in years but on release date SWG and EQ2 were near clones.You are correct in that I have no hard facts. Perhaps I should notch down my opinion a bit <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />There is one thing that is correct, however, and this is that SOE has plenty of cach to do a revamp "if" they so desired. From a dollars and cents point of view it just does not make any sense unless they were to do in in conjunction with an expansion in which they tossed in a few zones and the graphics revamp and thus our expansion $$$'s would pay for it.</blockquote><p>And that's what they should do. Do a revamp through an Paid Expansion.</p><p>EverQuest 2 has come such a long way content and feature wise, that it would be a shame to toss it away and start over with an EverQuest 3. Hence the reason there won't be an EQ3 (At least not on PC as stated in an interview somewhere a while back).</p><p>The only smart move to do is revamping EverQuest 2. </p><p>- update the Technology (better support for Multi Core CPU's and moving most graphic processing to the Graphics card where it belongs) </p><p>- updating the textures and terrain.</p><p>- revamp the old zones to match the newer ones (like automatic zone loading, instead of clicky clicky on doors).</p><p>- And with the technology updated, they can finally revamp the Skeletal models to support more armor / outfit customisation.</p><p>If they are able to pull this off and put it in an Expansion and get their Marketing department to DO their job for a change (and I mean explicitly MORE marketing in Europe as well!!).</p><p>Then I am 100% sure that they will be able to draw in a load of new players!</p><p>You cannot deny that a lot of people are drawn towards Eye candy! That's just how it works. You can see all this as a sort of Relaunch of EverQuest 2 in a brand new Graphic jacket, but with full content and features at hand.</p><p>It will blow the competition right out of the water and give EverQuest 2 at least another 3 to 5 years of life extention.</p><p>A perfect example how it can work is EVE Online and their Trinity expansion. Subscriber numbers have gone up and up ever since.</p><p>Just my 2cents.</p></blockquote><p>Sounds good and all but no matter what they do there is not going to be a land rush of new players into a 4 year old game. Those who wanted to try it have tried it. Too many new MMO"s in the works that will draw people to them. I'm here but always have one foot out the door. I'm sure there are many who feel the same. </p><p>EVE is probably a poor example. EVE, after a rocky start (yes I was in beta and played the first 8 months after release) has shown modest growth since then. EVE has been a successful game particularly in light of the rather small development team that produced it. It is a unique game in the marketplace right now. Those interested in such a game really have no alternative. The same cannot be said for EQ2. </p><p>SoE is in a bit of a bind though. Their cash cow, LoN, only floats as long as the Everquest franchise has life. Of course, they can spin it off to LoA (Legends of the Agency) if that game draws any interest. One curious thing to note is that when Vanguard inploded, Jeff Butler and Nino (sorry, cannot recall the guys actual name) were removed from the Vanguard team and sent on to a "secret project" at SoE. What that project is has never been revealed as far as I know. Could have been LoN I suppose since LoN hadn't been released at that point but I have never heard exactly where these guys landed or what they might be working on. Butler was a waste of space in Vanguard but Nino was one of Vanguards best assets in my opinion. Could they be involved in a new Everquest game? How much money could LoN earn for SoE if they actually pulled off a wildly popular third Everquest title? EQ and EQ2 do not really warrant significant investment at this point other than at a subsistance level but a new title just might. </p>

[Cassea]

EQ3 does not make sense IMHO. As much as I would love to see a new game based on the EQ universe using state of the art tech and all... it just does not make any sense from a business perspective. Right now nothing can compete with WoW. It's self supportive with so many players that you have to play WoW or you're not one of the "cool kids" and I know a ton of people who do play WoW because it's the only game that their system can run.So many other games have tried to compete with WoW and failed that the only new "fantasy" game that can overthrow WoW would be one that "truely" uses new tech. We keep hearing about promises but on release the games end up being basically the same tried and true formula. AoC was supposed to have all these seige engines and castle battles (which would have been really cool!) but last I heard they were pushed back if we ever see them.So unless an EQ3 could add something really different like real AI in which mobs just do not chase you a short way and then run back or a way in which we could modify the landscape in some way for example it's just not going to fly.What might fly is EQ3 on the Xbox 360 and PS3 but they would have to dumb down the interface for a controller... something I would never use on my PC and it would introduce a huge number of younger players that I'm just not interested in playing with. Don't get me wrong... I'm not against playing with teens but if I wanted to play with teens I would play with my own <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> When I tried WoW awhile back for a few months it was horrible. Kids running around asking for duels, leaving groups at the last minute with no warning or just dropping connection never to be seen again. This is not to say that EQ2 does not have a share of this but it's a very small minority.So I just cannot see how they can introduce EQ3 with EQ1 and 2 still running. All they will do is to strip EQ1 and 2 of players and gain some new players from WoW who are tired of that game.Now what could make sense would be a new graphics engine that they can use in other games/projects but all of this is speculation. SOE needs a flagship and right now they have a pile of games with low subscription numbers. AoC seems to have tanked but that game might have potential if they can put in what was promised and fast. Vanguard was promising but the bad press was so bad that word of mouth, even with an EQ2 like resurection, might not be enought to save it because at lease EQ2 has the popular Everquest name.... Vanguard is just a new made up universe but without and legs.When EQ2 was in trouble because they thought (incorrectly) that EQ2 players wanted a total split from the old EQ1, they brought out new expansions that put the EQ back into EQ2 in the way of familiar dungeons and zones. To this day I still hate the shattered lands and all those boats and bells. Vangard does not have anything to fall back on. They can redo Vangard to make it the best game ever but there is not any draw back to the game like EQ2 has.Only time will tell.

[Qandor]

<cite>Cassea wrote:</cite><blockquote>EQ3 does not make sense IMHO. As much as I would love to see a new game based on the EQ universe using state of the art tech and all... it just does not make any sense from a business perspective. Right now nothing can compete with WoW. It's self supportive with so many players that you have to play WoW or you're not one of the "cool kids" and I know a ton of people who do play WoW because it's the only game that their system can run.So many other games have tried to compete with WoW and failed that the only new "fantasy" game that can overthrow WoW would be one that "truely" uses new tech. We keep hearing about promises but on release the games end up being basically the same tried and true formula. AoC was supposed to have all these seige engines and castle battles (which would have been really cool!) but last I heard they were pushed back if we ever see them.So unless an EQ3 could add something really different like real AI in which mobs just do not chase you a short way and then run back or a way in which we could modify the landscape in some way for example it's just not going to fly.</blockquote><p>There is no such thing as WoW is unbeatable. The very nature of games has proved this over and over again. No game lasts forever and a big hit such as EQ in its day can collapse pretty quickly. WoW can go into decline fairly rapidly if there is a compelling product to challenge it. People are always looking for new games and no matter how much you like a given game, most people will eventually tire of it. </p><p>Having a highly profitable MMO does not require 10 million subs in any event. So a new game does not actually have to beat WoW at all to be successful. Judging by the number of games currently in development, it does not appear that every developer has picked up their ball and gone home because of WoW. If anything, WoW has done all other development houses a favor since they have brought a lot more people into the MMO market. Many of those folks will eventually tire of WoW and be looking for an alternative. Other games will eventually chip away at WoW, not that it will matter at all to Blizzard. They are savvy enough to expect that and will chip away themselves with another MMO offering themselves. If you are going to sit on the sidelines because of WOW's success you might as well go out of business. </p><p>Fantasy is still the most popular genre for MMO's by far, with no sign that the general population is about about to move en masse to a spy MMO for example. If you are after a potential big title, you will do fantasy, if you are content with a niche title, you will make something else. </p>

[Cassea]

<cite>Qandor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cassea wrote:</cite><blockquote>EQ3 does not make sense IMHO. As much as I would love to see a new game based on the EQ universe using state of the art tech and all... it just does not make any sense from a business perspective. Right now nothing can compete with WoW. It's self supportive with so many players that you have to play WoW or you're not one of the "cool kids" and I know a ton of people who do play WoW because it's the only game that their system can run.So many other games have tried to compete with WoW and failed that the only new "fantasy" game that can overthrow WoW would be one that "truely" uses new tech. We keep hearing about promises but on release the games end up being basically the same tried and true formula. AoC was supposed to have all these seige engines and castle battles (which would have been really cool!) but last I heard they were pushed back if we ever see them.So unless an EQ3 could add something really different like real AI in which mobs just do not chase you a short way and then run back or a way in which we could modify the landscape in some way for example it's just not going to fly.</blockquote><p>There is no such thing as WoW is unbeatable. The very nature of games has proved this over and over again. No game lasts forever and a big hit such as EQ in its day can collapse pretty quickly. WoW can go into decline fairly rapidly if there is a compelling product to challenge it. People are always looking for new games and no matter how much you like a given game, most people will eventually tire of it. </p><p>Having a highly profitable MMO does not require 10 million subs in any event. So a new game does not actually have to beat WoW at all to be successful. Judging by the number of games currently in development, it does not appear that every developer has picked up their ball and gone home because of WoW. If anything, WoW has done all other development houses a favor since they have brought a lot more people into the MMO market. Many of those folks will eventually tire of WoW and be looking for an alternative. Other games will eventually chip away at WoW, not that it will matter at all to Blizzard. They are savvy enough to expect that and will chip away themselves with another MMO offering themselves. If you are going to sit on the sidelines because of WOW's success you might as well go out of business. </p><p>Fantasy is still the most popular genre for MMO's by far, with no sign that the general population is about about to move en masse to a spy MMO for example. If you are after a potential big title, you will do fantasy, if you are content with a niche title, you will make something else. </p></blockquote>Well let me explain myself some...WoW cannot be beat because Blizzard decided to go low-tech to allow a much much larger potential customer base. When they designed WoW for 5+ year old machines they allowed 10x the people to be able to play their game. WoW can collapse but right now it's large customer base is feeding off itself. They do not have to advertise WoW as word of mouth brings in new people. For every loss and another grows into the game.I hated WoW from the horrible graphics to the childish player base. I'm not saying it was all bad but I could not help feeling like I was playing a watered down LCD game for the masses.What killed WoW and put the nail in the coffin was the horrible story line. It made no sense. The good guys and evil guys shared a chessboard in which every other zone was good or evil. This made sense for the PvP people but ruined any potential storyline. Everquest and Lotro have a rich detailed storyline and much muhc better graphics. What ruined Lotro for me (soon to be fixed at next expansion???) was that they stuck too much to the books with their lack of magic classes.Yes WoW can come down and someday it might but the number of Blizzard fanboys in the world who will buy "anything" with blizzard on it (Starcraft is another above average dumbed down game that got way too much credit IMHO) are so numerous that I fear the entire MMORPG world will forever be tainted by the beancounters who want the revenue that WoW generates and to heck with graphics or new ideas.I hope I'm wrong

[Qandor]

<cite>Cassea wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well let me explain myself some...WoW cannot be beat because Blizzard decided to go low-tech to allow a much much larger potential customer base. When they designed WoW for 5+ year old machines they allowed 10x the people to be able to play their game. WoW can collapse but right now it's large customer base is feeding off itself. They do not have to advertise WoW as word of mouth brings in new people. For every loss and another grows into the game.I hated WoW from the horrible graphics to the childish player base. I'm not saying it was all bad but I could not help feeling like I was playing a watered down LCD game for the masses.What killed WoW and put the nail in the coffin was the horrible story line. It made no sense. The good guys and evil guys shared a chessboard in which every other zone was good or evil. This made sense for the PvP people but ruined any potential storyline. Everquest and Lotro have a rich detailed storyline and much muhc better graphics. What ruined Lotro for me (soon to be fixed at next expansion???) was that they stuck too much to the books with their lack of magic classes.Yes WoW can come down and someday it might but the number of Blizzard fanboys in the world who will buy "anything" with blizzard on it (Starcraft is another above average dumbed down game that got way too much credit IMHO) are so numerous that I fear the entire MMORPG world will forever be tainted by the beancounters who want the revenue that WoW generates and to heck with graphics or new ideas.I hope I'm wrong</blockquote><p>Low tech was actually a wise move on Blizzards part. I do not think there is a single game made by Blizzard that would be considered graphically stunning. While other developers are falling all over each playing king of the mountain graphically, their games are suffering performance wise and game play wise as a result. Vanguard is a perfect example of what happens when you blow your entire budget on graphics. </p><p>EQ2 boasted that it it was future-proofed and that it would be graphically viable years in the future. As a result It lost many subscribers early on who wanted to play but simply couldn't. It also failed to predict the future in terms of multicore processors and is now hamstrung as a result. </p><p>Surely there is some middle ground that can be reached. When developers stop trying to sell their games on screenshots alone and work to promote engaging game play first and foremost, they may just have a winner. If you design your game for bleeding edge PC's you throw away most of your potential subscriber base as a result. The first year of release is critical to a games success. </p><p>I also fear, as you do, that developers will shoot for the lowest common denominator game play wise in an attempt to garner the biggest share of the market. That will bite them in the rear sooner rather than later. When you try to expand your market by making a game simplistic enough to attract 10 year olds and the senile, you will lose the heart of the market, which is fairly well educated and savvy,  eventually. </p>