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?

Comments

Re:WCIII - yep, it did

[Lovebug2000]

I think the really critical part of WCIII was the multiplayer, and a lot of it was built upon the fact that a lot of people would play it. Just like FPS's (for the most part) are built on the story of Marine meets aliens, Aliens try to kill marine, Marine kills all aliens. It's the multiplayer that these games are really built for. After all, there's only so much you can do with the ingame AI.

I think the only problem with this new EQ is the fact that anyone who owns WCIII won't really care, because they haven't improved upon any part of the game. It'll be like Street Fighter EX3, if you own anything else remotely close to it, don't bother. This means not as many people will be online, which means not as much fun and new challenges.

Though I do agree, C&C had awesome single player :)

Re:WCIII - yep, it did

[ddd2k]

Well obviously you can't judge WC3 on its single player. You're right, the single player sucked ass, there wasn't much of a story line, and no character developement.
But its success as a multiplayer game is unprecedented. Intensive multiplayer strategy coupled with the flexibility and availability of battle net gives the game a definite edge.
And of course there is the replay value, much accredited to the POWERFUL campaign editor allowing programmers and non programmers alike to express their innovation. New and unique maps are always being produced and the game keeps rolling, which is exactly how Starcraft lasted so long as well. I don't understand why so many other companies have failed to see this.

75 Hours???

[Snowspinner]

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.

Re:75 Hours???

[mabinogi]

See, I look at a game that says 20 hours, and I think, 20 hours?, is that all?, that's $5 an hour, I'm loathe to spend $AU100 on something I could finish in a week...I want a game that will last me a month or more.

boring

[deus_X_machina]

"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.