Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EverQuest 2 Beta Confirmed, Producer Quizzed

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the more-refined-crack dept.

PC Games (Games) 43

Kemanorel writes "After a couple years of development, several months of hints and previews, and four weeks worth of drooling after a live demo in Vegas, Sony Online announced that EverQuest 2 Beta sign-ups begin next Monday. Minimum specs are 1 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, and a DX9 compatible video card with at least 64 MB of memory - not too bad. Get in line now!" There's also an interview with EverQuest II producer John Blakely over at GameSpot in which he mentions: "Currently we have over 80 people working on the EQII development team", before arguing that the sequel shouldn't necessarily siphon players from the original: "EQII is being designed to complement EQ in terms of the gameplay experience. EQII is a game that will focus most of our content on the individual and smaller groups, while EQ's endgame encourages large raid forces to play the high-level content."

cancel ×

43 comments

Specs (1)

Reorax (629666) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979131)

Remember when you look at the specs, the actual game won't be coming out for a while. So it's probably not as bad as it seems.

translation (5, Funny)

Hythlodaeus (411441) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979158)

EQII is a game that will focus most of our content on the individual and smaller groups, while EQ's endgame encourages large raid forces to play the high-level content.

Translation: the EQ2 client/server chokes on large number of people in the same place at the same time.

They are lying through their teeth (4, Interesting)

linzeal (197905) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979234)

These specs will never run the game at a decent enough level to participate in raids and the like. Currently 1 GB of ram [sony.com] is being prescribed for most latancy issues. If SWG [amazon.com] is using a lesser engine and they are having problems than I could not imagine that Everquest 2 will run on anything less than that.

Re:They are lying through their teeth (2, Insightful)

Highrollr (625006) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979678)

SWG is using a lesser engine

Actually, that's precisely what I was thinking. Whether you love them or not, Sony is pretty good at what they do, plus they have EQ under their belts. I'm going to wait and see how tightly they can optimize it before I make up my mind on how it will run on my box.

Re:They are lying through their teeth (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 10 years ago | (#8980473)

I went and bought SWG a week or so ago and have a radeon 8500 with 128 megs and 512 megs of ram and I am definately hurting even at 800x600. It is amazing we are not up to 2 gig common nowadays, it seems ram sizes have stalled for the last year in the 128-256 meg range for most prebuilt consumer machines.

Parent is lying through his teeth. (1)

King_of_Prussia (741355) | more than 10 years ago | (#8981049)

SWG cannot be run at 800x600, the minimum is 1024x768

Re:They are lying through their teeth (1)

Murrow (144634) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979847)

Right. The original EQ won't run all that well in a machine with those specs either.

Re:They are lying through their teeth (1)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 10 years ago | (#8983104)

Currently 1 GB of ram [sony.com] is being prescribed for most latancy issues. If SWG [amazon.com] is using a lesser engine and they are having problems than I could not imagine that Everquest 2 will run on anything less than that.

I have a gig of ram, a Geforce 4 video card, and a broadband connection and I still lag in SWG when I'm just running around out in the middle of nowhere with no one around me.

Yet another MMORPG (4, Interesting)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979541)

The MMORPG is here to stay! And here's another one. This one of course is a biggie.

But what will happen in the market?

Will all the EQ players upgrade to EQ2?

Will nobody upgrade to EQ2?

Or will all the players feel rich and buy time on both EQ and EQ2?

What about all the other MMORPG's coming out? Will they steal time off EQ? Is the MMORPG market saturated yet?

And, here's the one I really want to know about, will the open source community make their own sleek, efficient and free MMORPG that runs efficiently on a 286?

Re:Yet another MMORPG (4, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979731)

The problem with free MMORPGs is that MMORPGs require a lot of cash to keep running. Bandwidth, hardware, and colocation cost a lot of money. They also tend to attract annoying little kids who have nothing better to do than play 18 hours a day. These kids tend to harass newer players, leaving the game with a rude community filled with l337 d00dz.

The problem with the concept of opensource MMORPGs is that it makes it extremely easy for players to write their own bots to play the game for them, or a trainer of some sorts (speed hack, teleporting, seeing players through walls). Script kiddies will definitely ruin the game for anyone who wants to play without having XsploitsX's latest trojan infected trainer.

Combine these two and you'll have a game that no one will want to play because it's lagging because it is hosted on some guy's webserver that he is running on his cable connection.

Re:Yet another MMORPG (1)

llefler (184847) | more than 10 years ago | (#8985429)

The problem with the concept of opensource MMORPGs is that it makes it extremely easy for players to write their own bots to play the game for them, or a trainer of some sorts (speed hack, teleporting, seeing players through walls).

Sounds more like an improperly designed MMORPG. There are plenty of closed source ones that already have those problems. Bots aren't evil. The server shouldn't allow speed hacks, or teleporting, and if the client isn't supposed to see it, the server shouldn't include it in the data packet.

The reason the developers do those things is that either their servers don't scale or some bean counter doesn't want to buy appropriate hardware. So they offload processing to the clients. Maybe that's also why we have EQ players here saying they need 1g of ram to play.

Personally, I don't expect to play for free. My gripe is they want $50 for the software and then $15 a month. If you really need the $$$ up front, then give 3 month subscriptions with the $50 retail package. Although I'd prefer to just download the client.

Re:Yet another MMORPG (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 10 years ago | (#8988342)

But if the server was open sourced as well, anyone could host a server, and compete based on customer service. Like role playing? Here's a role playing enforced server with non-rpers immediately IP banned. Want a normal server but without the immature losers? Someone will police it. Want a server that specializes in massive community events? Someone will make one. And since its perfectly ok to charge for these servers there will be a profit motive to make them.

Re:Yet another MMORPG (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979800)

Nothing much, yes, no, no, who cares, maybe, probably not, and ha ha.

Re:Yet another MMORPG (1)

g-san (93038) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979812)

And, here's the one I really want to know about, will the open source community make their own sleek, efficient and free MMORPG that runs efficiently on a 286?

never. next?

Re:Yet another MMORPG (2, Funny)

bishiraver (707931) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979990)

And, here's the one I really want to know about, will the open source community make their own sleek, efficient and free MMORPG that runs efficiently on a 286?
Ever play DikuMUD? :X

Re:Yet another MMORPG (1)

bluesnowmonkey (148168) | more than 10 years ago | (#8985375)

I think we'll see a situation like what happened with AC and AC2. The dedicated players won't want to leave the world and characters they love. New players will go for something else (WoW probably). My money says EQ2 never takes off.

happend before. (1)

Tobias Luetke (707936) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979746)

EQII is a game that will focus most of our content on the individual and smaller groups, while EQ's endgame encourages large raid forces to play the high-level content.

This just means the gfx engine can't handle the amounts of people it requires to create anything what made EQ great.

Jesus, it also looks ghastly [gamespot.com] .
With the behemoth World of Warcraft looming over the genre I forsee that the only reason this project might not flop would be the well known IP.

Re:happend before. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8980082)

Having gigantic raids did not make EQ great, it just made it impossible for anyone who couldn't play hours and hours and at a time to see the end game.

I, for one, would like a MMO where a couple friends and I can log on and get something accomplished, rather than having to round up several dozen people.

Everyone I know who left EQ left in part because of the stupid amount of raiding that was present at the end.

Re:happend before. (2, Interesting)

Tobias Luetke (707936) | more than 10 years ago | (#8980913)

Well so pick one of the games made for this kind of play available today !
AC1 matches EQ in amount of content and plays like an action game ( you can actually jump over arrows and dodge war magic ! )

AC2 looks leagues better then EQ judging from screenshots.
AC2 is great for soloing and grouping and has a fun endgame and the newly released City of Heroes has casual written all over it.
( give that one a try, its a ton of fun )

Re:happend before. (1)

Syriloth (525273) | more than 10 years ago | (#8980154)

It doesn't look too bad. It looks a lot like Morrowind, really. Shame about the spec requirements, considering that.

Re:happend before. (1)

Terminal Saint (668751) | more than 10 years ago | (#8981219)

Yeah [gamespot.com] , it [gamespot.com] looks [gamespot.com] absolutely [gamespot.com] ghast [gamespot.com] ... I'm sorry, what were you saying? I wasn't paying attention...

Female avatars are bound to look good (1)

perrinkog (536087) | more than 10 years ago | (#8983313)

All of those screenshots you linked to are of women. Is it really suprising that the programmers took a little extra time to make the female avatars look good?

I interpreted the original comment that the game looks ghastly to be a reflection on the "style" of the game.

For example:
EQ2 trees [gamespot.com]
WoW trees [blizzard.com]

Basically I see this as a problem I had when I was taking art classes: I'm a perfectionist. I love everything to have nice sharp lines.
That's the EQ2 way (from what I've seen).

Conversly I can't describe the WoW way (I sucked at art, thus I can't pick out what is right). But I know that it doesn't look like a static computer generated world.

Oh NO. NOOO!

I just read what I wrote. Somewhere in those lines up there I became a WoW zealot. GAH! HELP!

Ok, they say the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Right? ... right?

help me! :)

Re:Female avatars are bound to look good (1)

Terminal Saint (668751) | more than 10 years ago | (#8989183)

No no no, the joke was that I was too distracted by the boo... oh nevermind, if it has to explained then it failed.

Re:happend before. (1)

OnyxRaven (9906) | more than 10 years ago | (#8981393)

Way to follow p-a and not read your own conclusions. sheesh.

watch some of the videos. look at some of the other screenshots released recently on www.eqii.com - yeah, they've had some bad ss picks, but in person, the game looks great.

bah never go my minimum (2, Insightful)

cyrax777 (633996) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979872)

that just means it will barely run ie lowest resulution looking like heres the true specs from the site recommended: Operating System: Windows 98/2000/ME/XP Processor: 2 Ghz or greater RAM: 1 GB 16x CD-ROM or DVD-ROM Video Card: DirectX 9 compatible. Pixel shader and Vertex shader compatible hardware with 128 MB of texture memory or greater Sound Card: DirectSound compatible audio hardware that sounds alot more belivable

Re:bah never go my minimum (3, Insightful)

Babbster (107076) | more than 10 years ago | (#8980321)

Yes, yes, and playing Half-Life/TFC on a 450-MHz K6-III with 128 MB of RAM and a 32MB TNT2 card isn't that pretty, either. Yet the game can still be fun on that configuration (or at least I had fun with it). I also had quite a good time with Unreal Tournament on that wimpy little thing.

Fortunately, with a game like EQ[2], frame rates just aren't that big of a deal. It's not a twitch situation. So, if one is willing to put up with the duller graphics I'm sure that the minimum configuration will be fine (assuming one enjoys the gameplay, of course).

Re:bah never go my minimum (1)

Praetor11 (512322) | more than 10 years ago | (#8982467)

Actually, when I got half-life, I was running on a k6-II 400 with a voodoo 2 and the game looked awesome-- I had everything maxed out and still had a nice framerate. I think you might be doing something wrong....

Re:bah never go my minimum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8988677)

at the time it was designed around running on that

Fan Faire Demo (3, Interesting)

Fiz Ocelot (642698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8979986)

At the recent Fan Faire demonstration in Las Vegas they were running it on a system with a geforce 5950, 1gb ram, and I believe a 3.2 ghz P4.

It looked awsome, and no choppiness with quite a few people all together fighting.

They also accidentally ran it on a 512 mb system, on which is was a little choppy. But looks isn't everything.

Re:Fan Faire Demo (1)

OnyxRaven (9906) | more than 10 years ago | (#8981385)

They merely toned down a couple of the agressive graphics settings and the game ran smoothly.

The min specs are really nothing too bad... maybe except for the ram requirement. Everything else is pretty much 'standard' by now.

Just dont assume you can buy an MX440 and run the game.

Re:Fan Faire Demo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8983966)

The specs are meaningless unless we know what resolution they were playing at: if they were playing at 800x600, then that's bad. If they were playing at 1600x1200 with eye candy, that's good.

No flash? (2, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 10 years ago | (#8980369)

In case you are interested in viewing the website without installing Flash, the detection is done in JavaScript, so disabling JavaScript prevents your browser from being redirected to their no flash page.

Game experience may change during online play... (1)

JasdonLe (680479) | more than 10 years ago | (#8981432)

/posts this [sony.com] link and opens the floor to comments

Re:Game experience may change during online play.. (1)

flamingbob (739250) | more than 10 years ago | (#8981932)

Great picture, I want to be her! I don't know if my computer meets the specs though...

Re:Game experience may change during online play.. (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 10 years ago | (#8992351)

There *is* a reason they're called Wood Elves, you know.................

EQ is an Online Community (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8982135)

3D graphics are icing on the cake for a game like EQ or EQ II.

The most important aspect of a game like EQ or EQ II is the sense of "community" one gains while playing it. EQ has possibly the worst graphics of all the popular online role playing games, except for the oldest and largest of them which are completely text-based, so obviously cutting edge 3D graphics isn't as important a selling point as everyone here seems to think because EQ is still one of the most popular, if not the most popular, games in its sub-genre.

If EQ's capabilities for communications and community building equal or surpass EQ, it will do just fine, providing SOE marketing doesn't fall flat on its face. If inter-personal interactions weren't given the highest priority by the designers, followed by sensible game design, it will fail.

Eq is flawed (2, Interesting)

this takes too long (761596) | more than 10 years ago | (#8982797)

Eq is a flawed game. Current mmo game design is time = power. Its a stupid premise and if there wasnt people in the world that have way to much free time on their hands it would fail. The genre can never break mainstream as long as it follows this formula. Except, of course, in korea.

Re:Eq is flawed (1)

thryllkill (52874) | more than 10 years ago | (#9006357)

Where the fuck have you been? It's not like just about every freaking computer game company in america isn't either supporting their own mmo game, or several, or developing one. Wake up, 1998 is over, MMORPGs ARE MAINSTREAM. Game companies are practically tripping over each other to make the great Everquest killer.

It may be a stupid premise (to you) but it is obviously fun for enough people to make it profitable for other people. MMORPGs are not going away, and not for a long time.

NeverQuest2 (1)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 10 years ago | (#8983135)

I still remember buying everquest the day it came out, and taking the box with the pornographic elphette home, doing the install, then trying to log on for the next two days unsuccessfully.

Oh yes, I can't wait to see what a clusterfuck Neverquest2's launch will be, but I'll watch from the sidelines this time. :)

Re:NeverQuest2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8983315)

This is where the Square-Enix strategy pays dividends. Let the entire nation of Japan be your beta-testers for a year, before you actually release the game in the rest of the world.

Play differences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8984074)

It'll be interesting to see if they can indeed keep the gameplay at high levels tailored to soloing/small groups rather than the need for mass guild raids. I would suspect a lot of players get turned off of EQ1 for the sole reason that they don't play enough or have the time to deal with being in a guild. Without a guild, leveling at the high end is almost impossible. I guess by keeping the focus on the smaller party or solo system, they're hoping to keep more casual players longer.

Just like that one episode of Reboot! (1)

bluemeep (669505) | more than 10 years ago | (#8985495)

Do the graphics bother anybody else? It's the strangest thing... I keep thinking that they look almost identical to early episodes of Reboot and the prerendered sprites of Might & Magic VI (example [rolemaker.dk] ). Despite them being fairly cutting edge graphics, my brain keeps telling me "This is so 1998."

Press Release (1)

Napolite (774034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8986855)

Press Release: http://www.sonyonline.com/corp/press_releases/0426 04_EQ2_beta_announcement.html
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...