I've been reading the EQ2 forums a bit past couple days because I'm thinking about going over there. I have, in fact, been thinking about trying EQ2 for a few years and been going over to those forums.
I have never actually tried Eq2.
There're things that bother me...
One, progression. I want to see the lower level content. It looks like some of it has been removed. The game has changed somewhat too since then. On the plus side, they give you mercs now so you should be able to do quests. On the downside, that reminds me a lot of EQ1 (it has mercs). Personally, I'd like to see them do it another way that's not like EQ1. I'd actually like to see them allow us to script our mercs to give them a personality. Anyway, if EQ2 is anything like EQ1 then I'm worried about how hte progression will feel. Sony hasn't ever earned my respect. I left EQ1, frustrated. Sony is not very friendly so I can only cross my fingers.
Two, this:
http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/p...opic_id=511301
A post like that breaks my heart because it's the heart of the matter. It's the core of things I have been talking about for years and years. I don't always say it right, though. It's a horrible feeling when you feel like an old discarded used up whore. That's how sony made me feel. That's sometimes how this world feels. Sometimes in the rush to change and improve ourselves, we forget about the small things. We forget about the emotions and the people. We focus too much on the golden path. Focus too much on the majority. We become sterile.
The golden path is the path that you go on because it makes sense. It's reasonable. But not everybody is reasonable. Not everybody wants to make sense, either. We should allow people to wander. We shouldn't make our content so that it's too clean or too perfect (according to our wishes). Anytime we come to a point where we think change is necessary, we should have the word "choices" in bold bright letters imprinted onto our brain. We should not have an iron fist. We should not have an iron will. We must be permeable.
No developer can please everyone. No developer can be perfect. If you try to be, you'll only end up being perfekt and people will notice and they'll assault your fake facade. I don't have the answer to all of this. I only know that for every game I look at, I can find people who're displeased with it.
We will never have a perfect society or a perfect game. We will never all agree. Sometimes I think that the only way to make a game for everyone is to be detached from your vision such that the game you make is not for YOU, it's for everybody. But doing that is very hard to accomplish. It's all about choices. Not rightness.
That's hard to explain. How can we make a game that doesn't focus on rightness and instead focuses on choices? How can we please everyone? How can we make a game for casuals and hardcores and roleplayers and everybody else? How can we do this and still allow for players to compare themselves to each other and judge each others status? Would players play a game if it wasn't about competition? What if a game was simply about making your own goals and not about playing better than the next guy? So the golden path wouldn't even matter because it would be relative to your choices, not to the standards set by the developers. I'm not sure it's even possible. Maybe there will always be niche games and mainstream games. But I wonder...
###############
Project 1999, btw, is a niche game. I struggle to use the word "old fashioned" because it has many features that're valuable to niche players. But it -is- outdated. It could be vastly upgraded. But could it be vastly upgraded and still remain the same? I think it could, mostly. But maybe not?
One thing i've always wanted to see the most was a smarter natural language engine. After that, I want to see NPCs act smarter and have more opinions and be able to form friendships with players. I've never been hot for graphics or convenience changes. Another thing is I'd like to see more bind points and the ability to select which one I go to when I drink a gate potion or die. Lastly, I never could get a home in EQ like I could in UO. Getting a home was a form of self-expression in UO, mostly because others can see your home in the same world they adventure in. It was not in an instance in UO (that was well over 10 years ago). It was a source of pride and a way of "breaking in" to the game. So many things I could say. I'm kind of niche about this.
Am I old fashioned for liking the idea of having my home in the same world I adventure in? Personally, I think they put homes in instances to reduce resource loads on players. There're a lot of items/furniture in homes. In a 3d world, that consumes a great number of processor cycles. I think tha'ts probably the biggest reason they instanced homes. The other might be the potential for exploits or just not wanting to worry about where players will build their homes. And also the fact that you need lots of room for players to build homes; homes can't be too expensive. Bottom line, they saved money (and headaches) by putting them in instances. So, in conclusion, the issue of whether homes being in instances is better or not is not one that's settled.