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

WCIII - yep, it did

[hrbrmstr]

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.

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.

Re:WCIII - yep, it did

[Cassius105]

I enjoyed WC3 single player

but as others have said were the game really shines is in the muliplayer department

i dont think there is another RTS on the market that provides such a fun fast paced strategic battle as warcraft 3

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.

Re:75 Hours???

[d3kk]

Oh, come on. It could be worse. This is an Everquest game we're talking about. Sure, maybe it's only an RTS, but this is the series that regularly steals years from innocent people's lives!

Re:75 Hours???

[Snowspinner]

$5 an hour seems pretty fair to me. Look at what arcade play will set me back. Or movies in the theater. I mean, 20 is a minimum, but it's an acceptable minimum. 40 is just the most I can deal with.

Re:75 Hours???

[AvitarX]

I am totally with you.

Last time I tried to play an RPG (it was grandia II) I thoughoughly (even obsevily for a day) enjoyed it for the first 30 hours or so. The next 7 or so were ok, and the last 3 were excrutiating. (it may have been longer then 40 hours, if so the middle seven is the time I have wrong)

Games I am interested come out often enough that I have a whole bunch of games I have not even installed or played yet (out of bargin bins, not new).

And I never finish a game because it just gets boring after a while. Even a good zero effort TV series gets fatiguin by 80 episodes (40 hours - commercials) why should a game be expected to last double that?

Nice Icon

[ArmorFiend]

Whoever made the "RTS" Ogre icon did a good job. ;)

Re:Nice Icon

[ddd2k]

"This way, no that way!
*fart* heh heh heh, he did it."

Would you trust the Strategy Genre to this company

[EvilBastard]

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.

Re:Would you trust the Strategy Genre to this comp

[Archfeld]

LOL the EQ A online for the PS2 made a huge belly flopp, it might be tough to equal that :)

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.

Re:boring

[17028]

Although I heartily agree with your call for innovation, I wouldn't exactly point to Blizzard as a good example. They're the masters of taking a concept that's already out there and putting a new coat of paint on it.

Re:Would you trust the Strategy Genre to this comp

[Crockerboy]

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.