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

[-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

[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]

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

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?

[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?

[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

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. :)

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?

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..

[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.