Slashdot Mirror
Lords Of EverQuest RTS Previewed
Thanks to the folks at Gamespot for informing us they have the first in-depth preview of Lords Of EverQuest, the recently announced real-time strategy game for PC seeking to extend the EverQuest franchise to other genres. The game, being developed by San Diego-based Rapid Eye Entertainment, is focused on the single-player experience, promising over 75 hours worth of action, and Gamespot closely compares the game to Blizzard's Warcraft III, even suggesting that "If imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery, Lords of EverQuest heaps lavish praise indeed at Blizzard's feet." But they also emphasize some differences, and still, Warcraft III didn't suck, right?
WCIII was an OK game, but it was hardly worth the hype and was definitely not a major improvement to the WC-line. Yes, it's difficult to do much innovation within a time-tested, well-established genre, but I expected far more from WCIII than it delivered.
NOTE: I don't do the online-gaming thing much, so this p.o.v. is solely from a single-player experience.
I found the "battles" repetitive and very droll. I took great offense at having to kill "civilians" (even though they were about to become zombies) and I longed for the energetic feel of C&C.
I doubt I'll spend the cash to give an EQ ripoff version of it a try.
Mind the gap...
Am I the only person who thinks games are just getting too damn long? I mean, LoE is supposed to take 75 hours? Where the hell am I going to find 75 hours to play one game?
Games should be 40 hours tops. 20 is a perfectly fine length. I want to be done with a game in about two weeks of semi-casual play.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Whoever made the "RTS" Ogre icon did a good job. ;)
Strategy games normally require careful balancing otherwise the game is useless. No one side should be seen to be more powerful then the other, and all sides should bring something to the table.
Slapping the name "Everquest" on a Strategy game is a bit like designing a classic text-based adventure game and marketing it to the Quake crowd.
Oh well, it can't flop worse then Everquest Online Adventures for the Playstation 2.
I am interested to see what World of Warcraft comes out like, considering that at one time the #3 guild in Everquest (Legacy of Steel was heavily populated with the World of Warcraft design team. At least Blizzard didn't throw together a quick and dirty MMORPG to try to make cash, they spent a long time and a lot of money to make a graphically impressive MMORPG to try to make cash.
LOL the EQ A online for the PS2 made a huge belly flopp, it might be tough to equal that :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
"Most successful real-time strategy titles follow the same formula we have here," he said. "The big difference is that we've also been provided an excellent opportunity to expand the tremendously popular EverQuest universe. We've got this great background world and these great characters to play with. Few competitors can claim that."
Translate - we've found that slapping "Everquest" on anything will sell, so we can produce a whole slew of games using our brandname by borrowing ideas from innovating companies rather than innovating ourselves, and do it pretty cheaply.
The only innovative aspect about Everquest is that it's accessible. Dungeons and Dragons, LORD (Legend of the Red Dragon), etc have all done it before and done it better, this is yet another example of Sony taking a great idea, throwing a huge budget behind it, and making profit thanks to the innovation of others.
Everquest can be extremely enjoyable. It really brings paper D&D to life, lets you meet people from all over the world, and is like having a good Dungeon Master around 24/7, but acknowledge that all they do is take existing ideas and capitalize on them. This RTS is just another example.
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
Oh well, it can't flop worse then Everquest Online Adventures for the Playstation 2.
Hmm...please check your facts before you start spouting off misinformation. If EQ:OA was such a disaster then why would they already be making an expansion already?
I wouldn't normally go off topic like this, but the parent post is nothing more than a troll to slam Everquest and hype up WOW..nothing to do with the EQ RTS. And personally, after playing the Pocket PC version of Everquest, am looking forward to seeing Lords of Everquest.
EQ:OA is a piece of crap, anyone that is playing it has either:
a) never played any other Online RPG and thus they have no frame of reference to understand just how bad that game is.
b) Living in denial
sorry if this offends anyone here, but you need to get out more.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
It's not only that that made Starcraft better. The campaign was really good. Cause of the balance that Blizzard got in the game it meant lots of fun playing time, and still does.
The add-on is great as well and doubled the playing time again.
WC3 on the contrary has a dull story and gets you bored soon. Which was not the case with WC2 and tides of Darkness.
Perhaps for new players it's good enough, but for a veteran like me (;)) that deer hopping around in the forest won't do.
I don't think the multiplayer is so much better either, Starcraft has a better balance and is faster (for me at least). Still I haven't played WC3 in multiplayer; just during the beta.
The average player doesn't really care about balance. Why do I say that? Because your average player is the person who does the single player missions and doesn't care about multiplayer.
That may sound odd, considering that the Korean market has a professional market, with players dressing up garishly to attract attention and market products. Have any of you paid attention to the current U.S. or European markets? The online community is huge (probably 1-2 million strong), but that is a fraction of the 14+ million player RTS genre.
Granted, the loudest players are the ones who play online- they're the ones who will get their friends to buy the game, post online, and generally spread the word. But with EverQuest being a consistent front-liner on the news, I'm unsure how badly it'll do. I would say expect at least 1 million copies sold, but who can say if that's enough to cover their costs? (The average AAA title needs to sell AT LEAST 1 million in the PC market, usually between 1.5-2 million based on product development/marketing costs)
At least for once, a company is trying to emulate Blizzard. Age of Empires clones come out in spades (who usually clones the 2nd biggest in the genre and not the first?), but at least they're going after the big market.