.............CONTENT
.Home
.News
.Reviews
.Previews
.Features
.Fun Facts
.Wallpapers
.Forums



.............MISC.
.Advertise
.Contact
.About Us
.FAQ
.Legal
.Privacy Policy



.............AFFILIATES
.insert credit
.DigitalBackSpin
.Rock, Paper, Shotgun
.The Wargamer

	Lords of EverQuest
	Developer: Rapid Eye Entertainment Publisher: Sony Online Entertainment Genre: Real-Time Strategy Players: 1-16 Similar To: WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos Rating: Teen Published: 12 :29 : 03 Reviewed By: Ryan Newman Overall: 3.5 = Poor

Screenshots

- - - -

Intro
With Blizzard taking their real-time strategy title, WarCraft, into the realm of online role-playing games, it would seem fitting for Sony and Verant to take their baby, EverQuest, from online role-playing to real-time strategy. But, remember long ago when you first read the description of Lords of EverQuest and read its description and thought, "Wow… so it's just like WarCraft III", that initial feeling is partially right, because it is like WarCraft III, but a watered-down version of it.

Gameplay: 4.5/10
If you will excuse me while I go about this long-winded analogy - I find it the easiest and best way to explain the nature of Lords of EverQuest - I will say that Lords of EverQuest is to WarCraft III what Body Count was to Doom. Allow me to explain: while Doom wasn't original, in that it was very similar to Wolfenstein 3D (used as an example due to its likeness and prior release to Doom), it did enough so that it wasn't simply a copy. Doom added something to the genre, while a game like Body Count simply copied off of Doom. Now, WarCraft III isn't completely original, as it borrowed heavily from WarLords: BattleCry II, but it added and refined so much that it bettered it and became a more enjoyable title. However, as Body Count was to Doom, in its unabashed unoriginal nature, Lords of EverQuest is to WarCraft III - a carbon-copy title that manages to mimic a successful title, but only superficially, leaving out the magic that made its inspiration so much better.

On the outset, that might not seem all that bad; after all, WarCraft III was a good game. However, in this case, it is bad. Not because of the story or the setting or anything of the sort. Actually, for a game attempting to cram as much EverQuest related material into a title of a genre unrelated to the franchise, it does an admirable job. Also, its story, of civil wars and backstabbing, with each side (Dawn of Brotherhood, Elddar Alliance, and Shadowrealm) all playing their roles out intertwined in each, while not as entertaining as it would seem, is certainly something inline with the genre. The units, consisting of archers, infiltrators, orcs, cavalry, and so on, along with the ability for all units to carry up to four items (one of the few things it does to differentiate itself from the 'other' title), are all good and well-intended implementations. Heroes, now not completely unknown to real-time titles, are, of course, more powerful and are crucial to completing levels. So, while all of this, not necessarily all that good, isn't all that different from other releases, what's so bad about it? I mean, certainly there have been worst real-time strategy titles in the past that - by means of saying that this is actually a decent title, by general comparison.

Sure, there have been. But, there's more wrong with Lords of EverQuest than a quick play-through or screenshots would indicate. Aside from the annoying path-finding errors, the game suffers from poor level design, similar units, and the general lack of any sort of innovation. The levels are all extremely linear in how they are set out, and I don't mean they are small or have intertwining paths, I mean there is only one way for the player to go and that's how they go. The characters may differ in name and appearance, but most of their moves are the same. And, without trying to really innovate, the game is essentially, nothing at all. In its attempt to force story-driven campaigns for the different factions, the player is left with what amounts to simply amassing units and rushing; or, if overwhelmed, simply backtracking to a larger force, then ambushing the pursuing enemies - since only a handful seem to be aware that chasing a lone Defiler far away from their encampment might not be the best idea. This would make sense if the heroes were fantastic units with these worlds built around them, but they really aren't. If killed, a special unit can be trained to exchange their soul to revive them (or their soul for an enemy building, which is a neat trick), so there is no real mortal danger for them. That is important since they aren't given much emphasis on being extremely powerful, other than increased attack and hit points. Their spells aren't so amazing that they can turn the tide of a battle and the story portions generally involve several key players, making the hero one of a group, losing their importance in the process. With all of this, the game is left feeling like it has no point. With levels that seem to be designed to emphasis the continuation of the story, and the hero being the focal point of that, but both the story and hero being weak in representation, all that is left is simply holding off the trickles of attacking foes and bowling the remaining over.

One of the more new features is the game allows the player to bring over a certain number of units from one mission to the next. Since normal units can increase in level while they fight, a unit that is a high level is, naturally, of importance. At the end of a level, the player is given a certain amount of transfer points, with the cost of unit transfers being proportioned to their level (high costing more). But, the problem comes in the fact that the men trained the in the next level are already higher than level 1, making those 3 level 4 grunts seem less important. While the ability to carry over a small squad of strong soldiers is a plus, their importance is muted by new recruits being beefed up out-the-gate and the fact that they will most likely get themselves killed anyway. The units themselves only have a real differentia in their unique abilities, which play a key role only a handful of times. They can, however, be knighted upon reaching a certain level, and the benefits of such are primarily that of a new attack - this does make keeping certain units alive, although it's hard to do so.

It would seem that those dying will be of a certain group more so than others, because of improper balance between the factions. Focusing on keeping men alive is also made more difficult by having to constantly look after building and finding new resources, as platinum (only resource in the game) is collected slowly and is rarely abundant on levels. For most of the levels, players will be hoarding money to build all of the numerous building - most of which, if not all, only train one or two units - and the upgrades corresponding to the units they produce. A more streamlined approach would've definitely helped. I did, however, like the fact that the stronghold could be destroyed and the game continued if the hero was still alive - this interesting feature lead to me winning a mission when I only had my hero and one other unit left, and a good 15 enemies left near the spot where my base once was.

Complementing the single player campaigns are a skirmish and online mode (this courtesy of Sony's own network), but I don't see why that would excite anyone as the game itself isn't that fun. Skirmish modes always keep me amused, as I prefer single, quick combat sessions over the world of online combating, but the game is so uninspired and hack-eyed as it is that even my one-on-ones with the slightly smarter skirmish opponents had me reaching for the quit button. It also didn't help that it was cumbersome to get to; actually, it isn't even a feature, it's the product of creating a LAN game and setting the other players as computer opponents. Although, what strategy can be ebbed out of the game, it's here; and it can be moderately enjoyable at times.

It may sound like I'm being hard on Lords of EverQuest, and that is because I am. I see a game that looks to have the foundation of a solid real-time strategy game, but all that the player is given is this confused concoction of half-baked ideas and poor implementation. Avid fans of the series will get a kick out of seeing their favorite characters/classes in a new setting, as well fans of online role-playing games as it is, but everyone else will be less than thrilled with the final results.

Graphics: 7.5/10
In most cases, I found the character models to be pretty good. The cutscenes use in-game graphics, which meant that some of the lesser-quality characters didn't look too hot, but it also meant that the player could see all the detail given to heroes and other, better looking, units. The levels were decent, some of them being fairly bland, but thankfully the worst of the lot, dungeons, where scarce. The effects of spells, arrows, explosions, etc. all looked good, and served the game well.

Sound: 7/10
I found the music to be pretty good. It was standard fair for the genre, but of good quality and very clear. The voices for the characters where also good in a technical sense, but they often didn't match their on-screen counterparts very well. The various responses that the units say once given an order weren't necessarily funny, as many were meant to be, and although some appropriate, the lack of a large number meant that the same things will be heard far too often.

Control: 5/10
Despite doing an admirable job when being instructed to go across the entire length of a map, the characters seemed to lose their minds when it came time for combat; ignoring orders, any sort of unit cohesion, lack of self-preservation, and poor targeting lead to some frustrating encounters. At the onset of a battle, it will soon become apparent that clicking on a specific enemy isn't as easy as it should be, as any movement from the enemy tends, for the most part, to undo the selection, making the units run to the spot instead of attack the enemy that was initially selected. Following calamities such as that, the player must then wrestle with not only continuing to constantly track an enemy to select it, but also watch as his troops disregard nearby enemies, ignore commands to attack, attack inopportune targets, or just run around. There was on occasion where an archer refused to stop, despite me pressing the 'stop' icon over five times. Events like archers actually running within a units-length from the enemy to attack will also frustrate players. The lack of formations and of the ability for the units to go into any sort of pre-defined formations, and the wavering stability of the stances of defend and stand ground, are also problematic. Problems won't be as apparent as they are in a title like No Man's Land, but they will soon become painfully obvious shortly into the game.

Overall: 3.5/10
Fans of EverQuest will no doubt want to give this a shot, as well as fans of the genre. However, I would say that the demo would be more than enough. I simply cannot recommend this game to anyone. It fails at taking its role as a strategy title seriously, at combining elements to make it not so much rely on the strategy aspect, and being a game someone would want to actually play through. Just go and get Reign of Chaos if you don't already have it, at least then you'll get a better representation of what it feels like the developers were going for.

[ top ]