Everquest 2 vs. World of Warcraft

Gamespy has a piece up today comparing and contrasting the feature sets of Everquest 2 and World of Warcraft. It's a pretty thorough story, covering the newb experience, combat, character customization and more. From the article: "In one corner, you have EverQuest II, the sequel to the undisputed heavyweight MMO champ EverQuest, the game that has probably caused more divorces than any other video game in the world. In the other, you have the challenger, World of Warcraft, the first MMO created by Blizzard Entertainment, the development house best known for StarCraft, Diablo, and the original Warcraft RTS games."

Comments

Groups vs Solo

[comforteagle]

I love playing EQ until I got to the levels where I had to group. I always found that to be a PITA. Must you group to proceed past the newbie levels in WoW?

Re:Groups vs Solo

[33degrees]

I didn't get too far into the beta (level 15), but the feeling I got is that it depends on the class; blizzard seems to have designed the classes so that some work well for soloing (especially the ones with pets) whereas other are better as parts of groups.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[pyrros]

If I was a social person, I wouldn't be playing a mmorpg in the first place ;-)

Being encouraged to party with people is all well and good, as it certainly adds to the fun, but being forced to party, can scare some people away. Besides, not everyone plays at peak hours.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[yasth]

There are times though that you just want to get on and play for 30 minutes, which isn't really time to get a group on, get out to a location, hunt, kill and get back.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[-kertrats-]

I'm confused-if you're not going to play with other people, why are you playing a MMORPG and not just a normal RPG? It sort of nullifies the point.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[code-e255]

Every class can solo up to the maximum level. Also, you don't get any less experience when soloing instead of grouping - in fact, soloing sometimes gives quicker experience. If you find some friends and you lot learn to effectively play together, then grouping is potentially more efficient, though.

You only need groups for instances (dungeons) and raids (obviously).

Re:Groups vs Solo

[TheBot]

I love EQ, and EQ2. But, there comes a time when you have to group. Certain things you'd like to accomplish, say, for example, the Centaur Mastery quest. The Mastery quests require you to collect 5 items of the said creature, in order to Master the creature, as well as 3 non-droppables. The only problem is, most centaurs are ^^, meaning they are much more difficult to defeat, and you will not defeat them solo unless they are grey to you in considering, or, you group up. Giants are even worse, because they're higher level, and the pieces don't drop as often, and you will not have any good luck trying to kill them solo, it just is not going to happen quickly anyhow. If you'd like to solo, go ahead. But I say, GOODLUCK, as an MMORPG is meant to play with multiple people, such it is, being a MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER game. Soloing also yields the least exp unless you kill even cons, or yellow cons. But, you will have downtime. Grouping is always a better choice, why? because: 1-You meet new people(Which isn't always great anyway, some are immature and stupid, flat out, there I said it) 2-Exp intake is much more than solo, you take on much harder mobs, which give much better exp 3-You learn to play your class better, not generally saying you have to play a certain way, but you get to learn how to best use your skills, what their advantages are, and disadvantages as well. 4-Those items you see higher level people have, yeah, you know you could use that +5AGI ring, right? Well, you're not going to get it playing solo, unless you could afford it. You have more of a chance to win it fighting, than spending a bunch of moola buying it. This is all EQ2 experience by the way. Sure, it's a PITA sometimes to group with people who act stupid, aka-y0 that phAt l00t was t!ght y0, i'm g0!ng to g0 g3t s0m3 h0t w00d3lf f0r s0m3 lat3 n!ght l0v!n w/ th!s phAt l00t. Or the ever annoying, PLEASE JOIN MY GUILD WE ARE THE BEST IN THE GAME (Even if the game has been up for a month...and they have capslock on...and they sound like they're going to laugh at the word genitalia) For me, I just ignore it as much as I can(And boy do I try not to blow it). But grouping is only going to help you understand your class, and help you proceed in the game.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[ShawnDoc]

I'm in the same boat. Ran into the same thing when I tried City of Heros. I have a busy life, so I'm lucky if I can play more than an hour at a sitting. That just doesn't work with groups as you end up spending 20 mintues getting the group together, another 10 or 15 while various people AFK or run to buy something, and then another 10 getting there. Now you don't have enough time left to do any real fighting.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Mitijea]

Well... The other chars around you will say more than two sentences before repeating. For myself, I've always enjoyed mmorpg's more for the occasional interaction with more than preprogramed npcs, not to work with them per se, but something to add to the in between times when I'm tired of the mill - socialization if you will. Personally I'd much rather solo when it comes to leveling; I enjoy having others around for variety, but too much is not my style. And grouping is usually too much for me. I just like having other real people around to fill out the world. Sometimes it's fun to chat with someone, maybe help them find their way to some obscure location, or swap advice. But then sitting there grinding with them, ehhhh... that's when I'm ready to head off on my own. Basically what I enjoy most about mmorpgs has everything to do with other people being around, but none of it involves grouping. This level of interaction just isn't available in a "normal" rpg.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Mycroft_VIII]

It's the whole 'massive' part that I get tired of, what I'd like is a game that's just kinda big. Bigger world per player.
UO is the one I have the most experience with (I once lived where I had sub second ping times and better than 28.8) and it was always to crowded. For UO's size more than 50 players is to much.
As far as requiring grouping, well on one hand the second M is for multi-player, on the other locking the player into a type of play that isn't intuitively need for the genre and natural mechanics of the game does kinda suck, and on the gripping hand no one forces you can always take your bussiness elsewhere.
What I would like to see is something about twice to three times the size of morrowind (to start), that's persistant state, and runs at most 100 people per instance of the world (per server, or realm or shard or whatever).

Mycroft

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually Morrowind isn't that big, it's less than a half mile on it's long axis (I wasn't thinking of the second island added in the later expansion), it just gave that impression through clever landscaping.
100 PC's in three times the space is a LOT more than one per square mile. And of there wouldn't be an even placement of pc's, they'll gather at towns and other interesting places.
As far as boring, empty spaces, well that's where pc built towns and the like come in. A nlank canvas leaves much more room to be creative on, provide you have sufficient brushes and paints to work with.
Also I figure 100 people online at a time, maybe 150-250 total 'inhabitants' plus maybe as many npc's depending on how it's put together.
Again I supose it all depends on the structure of the environment.
I really would like to see an online world with an averaged space .25 miles square to 1 mile square on average for all logged in pc's. With enough room for player interaction with the environment such as housing, landscaping(within limits), road building, ect. You could have a game that practically builds itself as long as the simulation behind it was robust enough and seeded with enough interesting npc's and monsters and other items,events,places, etc.
I guess what I'm really looking for is a fantasy world simulator that's a bit more sophisticated than we can do right now and not crowded, with a bit of a frontier like feel.

Mycroft

Re:Groups vs Solo

[DrSkwid]

but Morrowind is so mind-numbingly boring.

I'd read positive reviews of it but when I got my xbox and got MW I gave it two days but really, where is the action ?

All I kept thinking when I repeatedly walked past the crab I had killed was "what this game needs is another 1000 people and 10000 creatures"

I think we'd all like to see dynamic persistent worlds and I'm sure we will but think about it, my EQ2 paks directory is 3,931,710,961 bytes imagine having to download loads of the zone content every time you logged into it, I don't thinks it's really feasable right now.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually you indirectly prove one of my points. Morrowind for xbox is a bad fit imho, You lose half the fun without mods and the contruction set. Try the pc version (and perhaps get the expansions) and look online for mods, MUCH better.
The thing about Morrowind is the user added content and customization capacity, something you don't get with the xbox version. With the better bodies mods (Dark Elves that are atractive, not dark-skined people with traces of scales) and the ability to add in your own building and dungeons and so on it gets a lot better.
Still even playing the built in plot is fairly entertaining, assuming they managed to get the xbox version somewhat faithfull to the pc version.
And yeah the more dynamic the more data you have to download on each connect, which even with normal residential broadband could be a hassle. Though some dynamic data is easy enough; type 034 house facing west at 10023,20795 could be sent as a few bytes I'm shure, add in a couple dozen more for paint shceme 17 using colors 14,8,29,3 and locked and it's not too bad. But start adding in detailed custom clothing and coats of arms with individualy created art and re-mapping of terrain with elevation and vegetation changes and so it gets prohibitive all to easy, that's why I said it probably wasn't doable as yet.

Mycroft

Re:Groups vs Solo

[realdpk]

I've had the same issue as the grandparent.

It's one thing to want to play with other people, it's an entirely different thing if you have to play with other people simply to progress in the game. I've seen many people argue against my thoughts there using that exact same idea -- that I should be playing single player games instead.

Games should be fun, and should not have excessive requirements. Games should NOT involve standing around shouting "Level N druid/warrior/whatever LFG" for an hour (LFG meaning "Looking For Group") but that's what EverQuest involved. If you could solo while you were waiting (druids could, slowly), it wouldn't be so bad.

Or if you could adventure out there and help someone fight a monster, without having to have this artificial "group" mechanism, that would be great, too. (XP based on damage/actions, something where you're not "kill stealing").

It sounds as though EQ2 and WoW both have "forced" grouping in later levels. Definitely not the games for me.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Rallion]

For some things in WoW, grouping is required. For others, you'll have no problem going solo. At any point in the game, you'll probably have both types of quest available to you -- at least up to level 45 or so. Past that, I can't say.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[-kertrats-]

Good troll. Do you want a cookie?

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Snaller]

I'm confused-if you're not going to play with other people, why are you playing a MMORPG and not just a normal RPG? It sort of nullifies the point.

I am SOOOOOOO tired of that! Why is there always someone who brings that up!!

People want to play THAT GAME, but they don't want to play multiplayer - they just don't have a choice. I would never join such a game to play with others, i prefer to be on my own - but since i can't (or it takes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to long, i don't genrally visit. Of course he should have known that, but there you go)

Re:Groups vs Solo

[will_die]

WoW does have alot of grouping, but it is more of the goto quest start, wait around for others doing same quest, do quest, group breaks up. Alot of people do skip theses quests since it is easy to max out without having equipment near the max levels. That said you could solo from 1 to 60 totally solo, would probably requiring grinding a few times when solo only quests are non-existance.
As for future and high level grouping.

All the PvP and high level content is hugly group based, some raids designed for 40 people. Once you hit higher levels(2-3 months depending on play) you can group or just solo old dungeons that you would of done as a group levels below.
The devs in WoW have said that a major push of future stuff in WoW will be more group based.

Frankly it will be really interesting(in a cruel way) to see all the people when they start hitting the upper levels are are forced to start grouping.
Will also beable to see if WoW can change the focus of the game from solo to more group. It worked so well for other games,such as AC2, that tried to change the way the game worked after release.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Golias]

If I was a social person, I wouldn't be playing a mmorpg in the first place ;-)

If I were an anti-social person, I would go for the superior gameplay experience of a non-networked computer RPG.

The presense of ther players is the only advantage which an MMORPG offers. Shun the group dynamics, and you are simply wasting fifteen bucks a month on a game which is not particularilly interesting.

I used to have the attitude that "forced" party adventure is bad, because I might want to do stuff on off-peak hours, or I might just want to blow off some steam for a half-hour or something... but I can always fire up GTA on my console if I want a short, casual gaming experience. It's not as if my current MMORPG is the only recreation available to me.

People who play softball on the weekend don't complain that they gotta find eight other guys and a team to play against before they can have a full game.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[macrom]

I don't have the time this morning to dig through the WoW forums, but one of the lead developers mentioned during the Beta that if you find yourself at a point in the game where you can't solo, let Blizzard know. In their opinion, soloing and grouping should yield the same results, and the game is considered broken if you can't solo effectively.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Austerity Empowers]

Level 30, still no groups. Grouping can be quite disadvantageous on certain quests too...

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Moonshadow]

It sounds as though EQ2 and WoW both have "forced" grouping in later levels. Definitely not the games for me.

Really, WoW is very solo friendly. Some classes are better at soloing than others, but they can all do it well enough. It's possible to solo up to 60 (max level) - with very little, if any grinding.

I currently have a level 40 paladin on Frostwolf, and I've soloed a good 60% of that, and duo'd with a friend of mine for another 35%. The duo matchup is by no means required - we just enjoy playing together. I had a paladin up to level 46 in beta, and easily soloed a good 95% of that character. The only times you really -have- to group are for dungeons or "elite" monsters.

Elites are basically bigger, tougher versions of the equally-leveled counterparts. For example, a level 35 elite troll might have 4x the HP and hit twice as hard as a non-elite level 35 troll, though his armor/resists/difficulty to hit are calculated as though he's a regular level 35. However, they also tend to reward much greater experience and drop better loot than non-elite mobs. Generally, you only see elites in dungeons (hence the grouping requirement), and as the end targets of certain quest lines.

Re:Groups vs Solo

[realdpk]

Hmm, interesting. I do like the idea of pairing up with people occasionally, just not having to work out a schedule with them as to when I'll be on.

You can tell what mobs are elites from a distance I assume?

Btw, are you Moonshadow from EQ Stratics?

Re:Groups vs Solo

[Jaeph]

"if you're not going to play with other people, why are you playing a MMORPG"

I'm very tired of this narrow-minded view of gaming. Not all forms of interaction is combat; there is trading and chatting, for example. You should spend an hour in the auction house in WoW, and you would see that you don't need to group to enjoy a social experience.

Furthermore performing rituals combats is not necessarily "social". I've been in groups in that do nothing but repeat the same pattern over and over again. I earned tons of experience, but it was hardly social.

Finally, like millions of people I work a weekly schedule and have a couple of days off. During the work-week I dabble a little and couldn't manage a group, but on my days off I am pleased to find a group to tackle the more challenging areas.

-Jeff

Good?

[Lord_Dweomer]

"the game that has probably caused more divorces than any other video game in the world."

And this is a good thing? I mean, I know what they meant...but I always thought a game was supposed to be something fun that gave you a break from life, not something that consumed your bank account, hurt your health, and destroyed your marriage.

Re:Good?

[Jormundgandr]

EQ will only consume your bank account if you can't afford an extra ~$20 charge a month. If you can't afford to spend $20 every month on your favorite thing, whether it be Chinese takeout or EQ, then you really should be looking at the problems in your life instead of blaming Everquest.

Re:Good?

[warnerve]

"consumed your bank account"

That sentiment has always seemed misinformed to me. At max, these games are $15 a month. If you allow yourself to be absorbed at all into the game, you will pass on an at least one activity a month. Instead of going to see a movie or to a bar, you may decide to stay in and play. These games aren't the financial hit people think they are.

Re:Good?

[Delphiki]

Well, there have been people who have let EQ get in the way of making a living, so it's not an entirely invalid point. Granted, that's a pretty extreme case, but it has happened.

Re:Good?

[Lord_Dweomer]

What I don't think you realize is that the hardcore players invest WAY more money than that in the game. They buy items and characters and game cash on eBay, and that consumes a FORTUNE.

Re:Good?

[ChristianBaekkelund]

You forget about eBay.

Re:Good?

[Sentry21]

Don't blame the game, blame the gamer. The fact that people get so involved in EQ is disturbing, yes, but it's a disturbing facet of society, not gaming.

I used to be an oper on a middling-sized IRC network for a few years, and eventually was 'retired' from the network due to political concerns - which was probably the best thing that had happened to me at that point in my life. IRC had become too much like a job, after I got out of school I went home and served my 8 hours online. I was good, but I was still wasting my life.

Now that I've been playing FFXI and WoW, it's a very similar situation, but I've managed to avoid the same pitfalls by not putting priority on the game over reality. Still, I can see quite easily how people can get so into these things that they forget about real life.

It becomes your hobby, then it becomes your passion, then it becomes your job, and then you become its slave. A dangerous situation, but the blame lies entirely on the players, not the game itself.

Re:Good?

[Sentry21]

Well, there have been people who have let EQ get in the way of making a living, so it's not an entirely invalid point.

On the other end, there have been people who have used EQ as a way of making a living. At our EB there used to be a guy who would come in every month, buy a copy of Everquest, make a new character and powerlevel it for a month, and then sell it off. He was only supplimenting his income, but he was making a tidy profit to be sure.

Never underestimate the power of laziness as a way to make money.

Re:Good?

[Sentry21]

What I don't think you realize is that the hardcore players invest WAY more money than that in the game. They buy items and characters and game cash on eBay, and that consumes a FORTUNE.

People who buy cash and items on eBay are stupid, period. They don't need them, they just want them, and if they spend that money on their game instead of their real life, they're out of touch with reality, and that's their fault, not the game's.

I will admit, I've considered purchasing money in FFXI, but then I realized - if I need to spend extra REAL money to enjoy a game, then it's not worth playing. I still have the account, because I want some day to come back to it, but I'm not going to spend more than the monthly fee on it. Anyone who does needs to find a new hobby.

Re:Good?

[DrSkwid]

if they were hardcore they wouldn't *have* to buy anything on eBay, I think you are thinking of some other class of player

Re:Good?

[Lord_Dweomer]

You just completely missed my point. I agree these people are stupid too. But my point was, that these people exist, and the game is everything to them so they DO spend all their money on it. Which goes back to my original point that THAT ISN'T GOOD FOR A GAME!

Re:Good?

[king-manic]

That sentiment has always seemed misinformed to me. At max, these games are $15 a month. If you allow yourself to be absorbed at all into the game, you will pass on an at least one activity a month. Instead of going to see a movie or to a bar, you may decide to stay in and play. These games aren't the financial hit people think they are.

Indeed, I'd spend 15$ on lunch. For the hours WOW has entained me, the tradeoff is fair. Hell the $100 I spent on war craft 3 and it's expansion was a bargain, I've played 1 game every other day fro the last 3 years. I spend 100$ on alchohol when I go out, almost all the time. Thats one night.

Re:Good?

[king-manic]

What I don't think you realize is that the hardcore players invest WAY more money than that in the game. They buy items and characters and game cash on eBay, and that consumes a FORTUNE.

And you know, doing cocaine consumes a fortune too. But that does mean I have to do cocaine while I go out clubbing. Clubbing is so so expensive. Drinks and cover. Most people are happy with that as most people are happy just working for their items. But the rare few decide they want the cocaine/bought items so be it.

Re:Good?

[Austerity Empowers]

I understand what you're saying but look at it this way.

To be successful in EQ you had to invest a LOT of time (or a lot of money in eBay). You couldn't play 10 hours a week and hope of ever seeing the fun part of the game in under a year. People do not understand that EQ is not about the journey, it's entirely the destination. The game STARTS at level 65. Not true for WoW, but I digress. You play level based RPGs to progress and succeed, it's escape from life where hard work doesn't always pay off. Ass kissing, brown nosing, back stabbing, etc., will not move you up in these games as in RL.

Now it's true anyone who puts the game ahead of real life needs help. At the same time, only sick people play EQ (I admit to playing it). While I have not lost my job or divorced, I know so many in game who have. Adults with kids, people who should know better. Calling them irresponsible may be a statement of fact, but it also makes the thesis no less true: eq is a causal factor in divorces etc. I suspect not the only cause, but who is to know.

Fortunately with WoW there's no reason to play EQ anymore. You can play it for a few hours, enjoy every minute of it, and put it down knowing you can pick up again tomorrow. In EQ/EQ2/FFXI/CoH it may take over an hour to get a group (let alone a great group), you sometimes don't want to stop because you've finally got something going, etc.

Re:Good?

[slycrel]

I disagree. Others do as well. The game design for EQ especially was made to addict.

Check out this link:

http://www.nickyee.com/eqt/skinner.html

Re:Only post..

[pyrros]

>Blizzard = Evil

Yes, but today is Saturday, and on Saturdays using XML for the UI trumps shuting down server emulators by means of the DMCA.

Try again in a few hours...

It sounds too appeasing to me...

[Polarism]

It's like gamespy was trying to appease both Sony and Blizzard by not knocking their faults too harshly.

Re:It sounds too appeasing to me...

[ChristianBaekkelund]

A game review site that (gasp) pretty much just sucks up to the companies who make the games (gasp)! Perish the thought!

One complaint about the article

[OAB_X]

Is that in the server pages where they looked at the launch behaviour. They mentioned that the WoW servers were really maxxed out. Granted its true, they had the fastest selling PC game ever. It probably exceeded their expectations by a massive amount. However, after playing Diablo II on launch week/month online, they seem to have done a really good job getting everything stable again. Playing DII online was almost not worth it it was so biggy. Lag, warping, random server disconnects (loosing all character progess), etc. abounded. To simply have it put, WoW did much better then Blizzard did in the past. Granted it was far from perfect, but when did a MOORPG NOT have launch problems?

EverQuest II was different, they particularly had some hard-core adopters, a few first timers, journalists, and a few other people upgrading who played EQ before. Its hard to overload the servers when no-one is playing on them in the first place. This may be an exageration (and indeed it is) but as the article suggested, the RP servers were more crowded. This may be because all the RP'ers on EQ just wanted to migrate to EQII and get a head start. Either Sony overcompensated for the server thing expecting a massive launch that never happened, or no-one cared. Its like Tribes II, more people play Tribes one now then play Tribes II.

The launch is important, but not critical, I dont remember LucasArts giving free game extensions to SWG players who got shut out on launch day. Though Blizzard giving free extensions was already covered by slashdot, its commendable and unexpected. Did not Anarchy Online give a free month to subscribers who signed up originally and then dropped out because the fixed the game?

Re:One complaint about the article

[genrader]

SWG sucked. LucasArts isn't calling the shots on SWG, SOE is. SOE however, puts all of their money into EQ2. EQ2 is a good game that's pretty crowded, my server is almost always on "maximum" load.

Re:One complaint about the article

[TheBot]

Ive got to say something about what you said about EQ2. For one, plenty of people were playing on the servers, but some were over-crowded from the get go, thus, leaving some servers pretty barren, that doesn't just automatically mean no one was playing...Two, SOE didn't have enough servers to start with, they had to add multiple servers within the first week of the launch. It was a massive launch, Mistmoore, my server, went down multiple times daily because it was so overcrowded. They've done 2 server splits to migrate people to other servers because it's so full. Oh, and Tribes, yeah, definitly better than Tribes II =D

Re:One complaint about the article

[MrBigInThePants]

"The launch is important, but not critical, I dont remember LucasArts giving free game extensions to SWG players who got shut out on launch day."

What are you talking about?? The "free month" period went on for ages because of the problems that occured.

SoE ran the servers, not lucasarts also.

Re:Heaven Forbid...

[QuantumG]

Blah.. there's many more millions of us who don't play these games and producing More-Of-The-Same is not going to win our business.

How about the rest of the world?

[FoolishBose]

"undisputed heavyweight MMO champ EverQuest" I guess they're ignoring the rest of the world where the number of people playing Lineage far surpasses that of those playing EQ and EQ 2 combined.

Re:How about the rest of the world?

[Mandoric]

Lineage doesn't -completely- count; rather than a monthly fee it's billed at a much lower hourly rate and heavily licenced to PC-bang users, who pay and play less.

That said, FFXI's surpassed EQ in users, with a very strict definition of "player" (account paid in full for the month at time of reporting,) since shortly after the NA release, so even if you don't trust the L/L2 (different billing model) and RO (extremely shaky numbers) figures, there's still a new king of the hill.

Re:How about the rest of the world?

[ChristianBaekkelund]

They probably meant: "in the U.S. and Europe". Or even: "in everywhere but Korea".

Envy

[Sam Jackson]

I'm so envious of the online gaming crowd sometimes. I mean with every MMORPG that you can choose from, the possibilities of playing a warlord barbarian or a rogue space pirate says good times and a lot of angry girlfriends. Since I'm the only person on slashdot with a dial-up, am I missing anything from the new crop of online games coming out?

Re:Envy

[Rallion]

I spent much of today playing WoW WITH my girlfriend. Hah!

Re:Envy

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

WoW is great on dial up and you can probably get your girlfiend in on the action if you create a cute gnome character for her. I even had my grandma playing for an hour or so.

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[QuantumG]

If you knew anything about MUDs you'd know that everything in Everquest and it's knock offs is ancient history reborn. Level based systems do nothing but make people antisocial treadmillers. Class based systems lock people into a pattern of behaviour they are bored with and make them ignorant of other gameplay styles. The ability to teleport from anywhere to anywhere removes any sense of scale and destroys the economy. A stong emphesis on quests makes players dependant on artist created content, removing valuable funds for customer service and maintenance of the software.. and it downgrades entire sections of the game to quest forefillment, removing any sense of immersion for anyone who happens to stumble into that area when they're not on a quest.

A comparison that leaves out a LOT...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a few disputes with this review.

Crafting system, not deep in WoW?

The things they mention (Having to find new recipes), about EQ2, are present in WoW. I'm thinking they only played WoW until mid-level. While yes, you do have to go collect your materials (or buy them from a player who does), I think THIS adds more depth than could be added by buying all of your raw materials from NPCs, as I can only assume EQ2 (and just about every other MMPORPG but UO) does. There are also rare items required for recipes that require players to communicate and *GASP* trade for! There is a LOT more social trade going on simply for -crafting- in this game than any other MMPORPG I've played - excepting early UO, where people actually set up real storefronts, took orders for items, etc etc.

Back End Support

While indisputibly EQ2's servers have stayed up through hell and high water - this article fails to mention the COST of this. That is, every single ZONE is instanced! There are 12 or 15 different copies of the main city floating around, and you'd be lucky to get in the same one as someone you're trying to meet (I'm speeking from speculation, unless SoE has implemented a way to find someone like this)... It also prevents you from randomly running into someone and having a spur of the moment roleplaying moment. WoW has also recompensed those who started their accounts within 3 days of launch with extra free time.

Role-Playing

As mentioned above, the fact that every zone is instanced in EQ2 can be a huge detriment to roleplaying. The only other thing it has going for it is housing and .. uh.. wide open spaces. Whereas Inns, while slightly small in WoW, have LOTS of functional seating, and cozy atmospheres! There is also a very large meeting hall that currently no NPCs reside in, off from the dwarven district of Stormwind. As a side note, I love how the reviewer compares the population of roleplay servers between the two games to determine the quality of roleplaying.

PvP
While it gave WoW winning marks for this, I really think they underplayed the PvP aspects of WoW. The only gripe I have about PvP is that if it's anywhere near a town or graveyard, it's pretty much "who can kill the other side until their equipment runs out" ... there is definite strategy for each class concerning PvP play, though, and outright duelling does NOT determine how well a class will do in PvP.

Graphics

Firstly, my main gripe is about the screenshots they chose to compare. One is of a head in some water and some landscape far away, with an admittedly nice reflection in the water of the landscape. But uh, not of the head: it actually kinda looks like it was -photoshopped- on. The World of Warcraft screenshot however, makes me upset too! They used pretty low detail settings for that screenshot, looks like they turned all the shaders off. World of Warcraft succeeds in making you feel like you're in a comic book. Everquest succeeds in making you feel like you're in a CG movie with bad animation and character interaction. If you're going to make your CG "Realistic," you need to make the way they interact with everything (especially combat) realistic. Otherwise it just ends up looking... silly. And un-executable on a vast majority of systems.

Transportation
While they effectively describe WoW's transportation, I am having a hard time following what they're trying to explain in terms of EQ2s. Granted, I haven't played the game, but ... if there's just two cities, what transportation do you NEED? the main transportation you need is from the city to outlying areas where you'll be fighting monsters; not from different areas in the city to different areas in the city, which is what it sounds like they're describing here. And, uh, what's with comparing the art direction (color-themed areas, transitions, etc) in the travel section? Dur, who's the retarded reviewer?

Character (not physical) Customization

They really

Re:A comparison that leaves out a LOT...

[The Redwin]

your post is misinformed in almost every regard. While you sound like you know how wow works, it is painfully obvious you have not played EQ2. I have played both, and for your edification.. 1) eq2 crafting is far far far more involved and engaging. I'm not saying wow's crafting isn't good.. cause I love being a wow alchemist/herbalist.. but there is NO comparison to the depth and complexity of the crafting encounter system designed into eq2. eq2 crafting also requires adventure zone harvesting, and strict tradeskill class interdependency (MUCH more so than wow in fact), and rare comps that drop VERY rarely but make FAR better items than players can normally acquire.. i could talk for hours on crafting, but take my word for it, you owe EQ2's system another (or first) look. 2) The server thing.. I think its legitimate to say that wow's servers were only unstable cause of the reponse to the game. its a great game and it was flooded with eager players. no knock to your post or blizz here, really. also.. the main city zones (contrary to your statement about 15 instances) never ever instance, you are always in the city with everyone else who is there. a lot of players actually gripe they SHOULD instance, because citys are laggy, while rest of game runs beautirfully. SOE claims though, that instnacing cities would screw over the roleplay value of the many many social systems within the city. your comment there is not only uninformed, its 180 degrees the wrong direction. 3) roleplaying is what you make of it, but i assure you the instancing in eq2 is no detriment to it. its balanced so it only instances if there are REALLY to many people trying to use the area. almost never more than 2 instances of dungeons, and it really is a good thing once you see it in action. 4)pvp.. wow is the win. if you want pvp, play wow. there is none in EQ2. no arguments here, i think wow should play up its pvp as much as possible, cause it IT one of its greatest features. 5)graphics is an opinion so i won't say much. EQ2 is photorealisic graphics, wow is comic book styilized. both are beautiful in my opinion, ad i don't think either looks "Silly" when you watch combat for a while. it all looks very good, though this varies by your card. eq2 looks far better on nvidia hardware than ATI (i have both at home to play it on an compare). 6)transportation.. yea wow is pretty mucht the winner here. eq2 has griffons that seem blatantly stolen from wow hehe. everyone in eq2 gets gate to bring them backt o their home city once an hour, and other than that transp[ortation is very easy, but not very graceful like wow's. 7) The systems aren't really that dif. neither is very hard to master. the talent system in wow IS cool and important, the char traits in eq2 are not as nice, and more window dressing. the power in eq2 is largely from upgrading your spells and skills with scrolls you buy,make or find. they are differnt approaches, but nether really bears a lot on the game itself. 8) i'm sorry but wow's char customization is pathetic. to be honest, eq2's isn't really that great either, but at least eq 2 tries more. wow's is pretty shallow. if wow char creation is a 1 on scale of 1-10, and city of heroes is a 10, then eq2 is about a 3. hehe. So anyway, just as you think their article unfairly skews to eq2, i think your post unfairly skews against EQ2, despite you never playing it. You shuldpossibly give it a shot. though honestly, unless you like cooperative hardcore group play, eq2 is not for you. wow is shallower, and rewards the casual solo player more, and has PVP. if that's what you want (and many do)then wow is your game. but to make blanket fanboy comments like so many thousands are doing all over the intenet, without even playing both.. is silly, cause they both amazingly good games. :)

Re:A comparison that leaves out a LOT...

[will_die]

Meeting up with other people is not a problem, you just agree that you will be meeting in instance and that is were everyone goes. Same way people do it in CoH. Some places even have bells you just ring them and select the instance you want to go to.
Instancing of the outdoor areas is really nice, since it keeps population down thier is no problem with people camping one specific site. No problem with meeting up with other people as you can quickly jump to a difference instance if you need.

Re:A comparison that leaves out a LOT...

[Moonshadow]

The only gripe I have about PvP is that if it's anywhere near a town or graveyard, it's pretty much "who can kill the other side until their equipment runs out"

Actually, I'm pretty sure that PvP deaths don't result in equipment deterioration, so PvP battles can go on forever. It's senseless to use a spirit healer if you want to get back into the fight (which is the only way to lose equipment durability to a PvP death), as the 10 minute res sickness will make you an easy target.

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[I(rispee_I(reme]

How about a MMORPG where you the monsters are also actual people, instead of having AI enemies (which will always encourage spawn camping)?

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[I(rispee_I(reme]

-you. I apologize for the typo, which has sullied the otherwise pristine nature of /.

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[DrSkwid]

you mean like Dark Ages of Camelot which blends both ?

get an MMORPG education

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[DrSkwid]

Level based systems do nothing but make people antisocial treadmillers.

You know, that's so wrong. *some* people do that, others actually have fun!!

Class based systems lock people into a pattern of behaviour they are bored with

So why do they keep paying to play ?

and make them ignorant of other gameplay styles

If you don't know the workings of the other classes you will not work in harmony. Verant has tried hard to provide a framework where you can build a character that suits your gamestyle best.

The ability to teleport from anywhere to anywhere removes any sense of scale and destroys the economy.

I don't know which game you have played but the sense of scale in EQ is great. When you first start the home zones seem massive when you don't know you're way around, everything is bewildering and seems really huge, once you get used to a place it shrinks, even then walking across great swaithes of plains that you can't hunt in is tedious. The only teleportation I can do is once every half an hour I can gate to Temple Street. How you will explain that this "destroys the economy" is an explanation I look forward to.

A stong emphesis on quests makes players dependant on artist created content

er, that's what I'm paying them for

removing valuable funds for [1] customer service and [2] maintenance of the software

[1] The only contact I've ever had is the odd petition to an in-game guide for something trivial and it has *always* been sorted out.

[2] The daily updates (3pm in my time zone, bah!) seem to be maintenance to me.

Verant certainly seem to have quite a handle on this cycle :

1. create content
2. launch game
3. maintain software
4. profit !!!

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[space_jake]

The ability to teleport from anywhere to anywhere removes any sense of scale and destroys the economy.

If you've ever played Eve Online you understand this too well. Trading was a big part of the game and being a lone manufacturer in a isolated part of space used to have its benefits. Often it would be a good 15-20 system travel to get the parts you needed. Or if you were a trader / seller you would buy things at low cost and travel 20 - 25 hops to sell them for profit. Until the developers introduced the "Super Highway" which connected all of the main systems together in one series of jumpgates. Well 25 system travel routes turned in 4-6 hops at worst. All of a sudden people selling goods at manufactured cost were available to everyone in civilized space. No one could sell for profit. And everything was always sold out for trade because the trade routes were so easy to profit on. Funny enough though as long as I played the game the player based courier option never took off due to this.

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[cabjf]

Well in that case, because different car models are all comparable, then they are all just knock offs of each other. It's not really worth looking into which car you buy, they are all the same.

Talk about redundant, "level based, wuest driven, class based?" Sounds like you just defined fanasy role playing games to me. The two games are comparable because they fit the description of a MMORPG, not because they are so similar.

What makes this comarison interesting is that Everquest II was made by the reigning champions of MMORPG's (not counting some of the ones big in asia like lineage) and the other is made by a company known for improving upon problems within a genre.

Having only played WoW

[Dekks]

I was in the WoW beta and had a blast, I also played SWG for over a year, so assuming SWG is somewhat similar in nature to EQ being by EQ and all, I find that WoW was more lighthearted and fun, whereas SWG was a little deeper (for the first 3-5 months) and serious. Anyone here who plays both able to say if EQ 2 is for the serious players and WoW for the casual?

Re:Having only played WoW

[Dekks]

I meant being by SOE, not EQ.

Great article as far as I could see

[MrBigInThePants]

Some of the EQ2 features sound really great, and I may have been tempted by them. (Even though WoW won the review) However I still am burning about the money I spent on SWG and the complete lack of quality that product had. (I would elaborate, but it has all been said before)

So instead I say: You can kiss my well toned butt SOE

I can't imagine I am the only one who thought:
"WoW sounds great, but everquest IS the champion of MMOG..."
But then thought:
"Hang on, EQ2=SOE..."

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[supabeast!]

You mean like every PVP rpg that allows looting the other players after they die? It's been done, and the players hated it.

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[servognome]

Level based systems do nothing but make people antisocial treadmillers
As opposed to those very social 1337 skill FPS & RTSers. Player skill based systems don't make socialization any easier, if you're focusing on the game you are either practicing or levelling.
In game socialization is more a matter of the actual gameplay mechanics, and the "clockwork" system of RPGs makes socialization far easier. You can actually hold multiple conversations in game in EQ during even a difficult fight, you can't even talk to somebody in person during a tough Quake fragfest.
Class based systems lock people into a pattern of behaviour they are bored with and make them ignorant of other gameplay styles.
And skill based systems leads to game imbalances and munchkinism, where people discover the best combination of skills. Skill systems are very difficult to balance because of all the combinations possible; and unless you give people the option to give up skills, you end up with disgruntled self nerfed players.
The ability to teleport from anywhere to anywhere removes any sense of scale and destroys the economy
Sense of scale is a difficult thing to pull off in any game because you want to maintain some degree of content density. You want people to feel they are in a huge universe, but OTOH you don't want them bored. Spending an hour travelling somewhere to do something isn't my idea of fun (though it would give me a sense of scale). Developers use features like teleportation or vehicles as a compromise.
A stong emphesis on quests makes players dependant on artist created content, removing valuable funds for customer service and maintenance of the software
You have to balance both, artist created content is important because it keeps the world fresh. These are subscription services, and the important thing is customer retention. People will tolerate bugs to a degree if they keep getting new content. If an MMO is stagnant, it is dead, because the players will have seen everything there is and won't need to keep coming back.

comparison pieces

[rpillala]

Without reading the review I'm going to speculate that it points out many good features of each game and doesn't pronounce a strong winner. That is, there's plenty to recommend either one. Maybe one edges the other out but only by a little.

Am I right? I don't think gamespy would be the one to come down hard on any MMO game from either of these giants.

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[DrSkwid]

No, it's because they are well designed to feel that way

each city zone comes with a map now

they have really thought about the game, really, I mean it not *just* a fan-boy

It seemed...

[TheBot]

as though the reviewer would be biased on his opinion because he was so into WoW in the first place. Which is unfourtanet because there then would be no easy review, nor even trial...but...maybe they weren't biased. *yeah right* =P

Simple comparision between the two.

[will_die]

Comparing the two with a cake.
EQ2 would be the great tasting cake, but the frosting and looks would be so-so with some unevenly applied. however once you get past the looks it taste really good.
WoW is the cake that looks fantastic, everything is polished and perfect you just want to look at it forever. However once you get past the frosting and take a bite, the cake is rather bland.

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[*weasel]

A slim minority of the people who get so far as to actually buy and try these games stick around and pay to play them.
It seems pretty obvious that something about the core design is alienating [i]most[/i] of the potential market.

The corporates are risk averse, and they keep churning out design knockoffs, rather than trying to take the next legitimate step in advancing the genre.

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[DrSkwid]

Luckily for everybody anyone that makes an MMORPG will now have to copy/beat EQ2 which means 4 years work so it will be a mega game.

Have no doubt, whatever you feel about these games they are here to stay, the user base is truly M all at $15 a month or whatever

You need what is a uber machine to run EQ2 at full tilt, indeed at says "there are no PCs that can use these settings" if you switch it to the highest graphics so they expect the long haul with this engine, and quite rightly so.

I've been in game 7d 9h since November 18 and it's where I want to be when I'm not, luckily I am wise after EQ1 being the final nail in my relationship last time round and made sure I was single for winter 2004 :)

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[*weasel]

Actually, WoW took ~5 years.
Assuming they were about a year along when they announced the title at ECTS 2001.

It certainly does 'pwnz' though, as a feller says.

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[DrSkwid]

good, I'm glad there is a challenger, DAOC is the only other one I tried. My EQ playing friends tried a couple of others but none of them got overwhelming reports of greatness.

EQ2 does p\/\/n0x0r too! Yay, we're all happy

Missing Comparison

[pagen]

Since this is not one of Cowboy Neal's questions, I DO get to complain about missing options!

I would have compared 'in game' events. Although I do not miss Ultima Online, I do miss the in game events. I miss these from the MUD RPG days too. But in Ultima, there were many in game events that just added a little something to the game. Once, many huge daemons invaded a smaller town and people raced to get to the event, mostly to simply die a bunch and tell the tale later! Others were one and two high level creatures that just needed slaying to save a city/town. In some of the early pay-to-play MUD RP Games, they actually had planned DM run events with special prizes and in-game and meta-game rewards.

Everquest also had some major events, but they did not have that same feeling of interaction that these others had. And as I played more, these became fewer. (I think the over concern for the Play Balance and fairness to casual players, lost EQ my vote down the road.) I can just imagine the boards 5 minutes after a higher, tougher daemon showed up in place of a raid camped dragon. Few would get a 'kick' out of the DMs 'adjustment' to further challenge them.

I like playing MMORP games just fine, but I live for the planned, DM run events. CoH has had events (not sure if they were DM run) and even triggers that you may not be ready for built into the code. As for rewards for events, they have put in the concept of Badges (they show as titles) to allow for special events adding something to your character. Even if it is so simple, it made the players I know feel special. (Increased morale, more months paying and playing?)

There has been a lot of discussion on Role Playing from the 'server' perspective, but what of a reward perspective. Your co-players may reward you, but with role playing, I associate DMs and planned events. The generic, scripted pulp is great, but Role Playing Games are about the interaction with the story teller. When you lose that, I am not sure what you get, but it does not have the flavor I have grown accustomed to years before Computers' played D&D. And yes, I understand that computers have limitations. 'grin'

With Morrowind (et all), it is all static and triggered. With an online RPG, you CAN have interaction. With the First Vampire the Masquerade and all of the Neverwinter Nights games, you had great potential for this! This potential exists in MMORPGs, it just doesn't seemed to be realized on the scale that is possible. I bought VtM and NWN solely to encourage them because they attempted the cutting edge even if the games were not enjoyable to my family and friends.

The challenge to make the game be a shared adventure multitudes can play and still personal to you, the player, is for me, the key to great gaming. To do it in this light, Computers alone are still not there and staff time is cost prohibitive (at least according to my spouse.)

When you can have a fighter, put on a ring of normal fire resistance, self-immolate, command the party to run, and then grapple the regenerating troll to save said party, you have a role playing game. Short of this, you have a nice man with a long white beard, but still no Santa.

Sorry for the long winded post, I guess I had something to say on this topic! ;-) Thanks for taking the time to read it.

PaGeN

Re:The fact that they are comparable..

[I(rispee_I(reme]

I can't affort to attend that school, but I do have a BFG in rocket jumping, f00.

Lineage 2 isn't "played" that much

[Timmy D Programmer]

Seems like more people "work" Lineage, farming areas to sell aden on Ebay. Spoiled the game for me. World of Warcraft is Very fun so far. I will be interested in seeing how it is in the higher levels.