Another week in the development of EverQuest Next and Landmark goes by. Some nice new additions to Landmark keep the slavering horde at bay until SOE Live, the culmination of the Dark Elf Workshop and the Kerran winning the vote – leaving the Dwarves sidelined once again. Progress is being made, even in this lull before the information overload we can expect from SOE Live.

Just when you thought it was safe to coast along with the weekly updates, a partner of SOE has been making waves elsewhere.

As someone who closely follows the news and updates around EverQuest Next and Landmark, it can seem a little odd that there is still a group of people out there who are simultaneously interested and unsure of the differences between the two games.

I'm still working on my shorthand answer; it seems difficult to do justice to the innovation and originality of thought behind these new titles in a concise manner. We don't have the vocabulary yet, and describing them in the context of games that have come before can lead to an existential crises.

In Landmark, you are playing an MMO in which you can gather, craft and build in order to create various types of content to be played within not only Landmark, but also potentially in EQNext. The toolset for Landmark is intended to be the toolset used to build EQNext, and SOE wants us to be able to make what they can make.

In EverQuest Next, you are playing an MMORPG in which, through various new technologies, you can interact with the world in unprecedented ways against a constantly and permanently shifting backdrop.

That's what I have so far; they just seem to leave so much unsaid. The first description usually leads to a response of 'so, like Minecraft?' and the second will be met with a healthily skeptical 'we've been sold that line before'.

As regular readers will know, I have a lot of love for Minecraft and I will always encourage skepticism when confronted with the hype train, but I wish it was easier to convey what these games have the potential to be. I'd settle for conveying even what they are intended to be.

I'm sure many of us have encountered this, and it was while pondering this unprecedented obstacle that I started to realize we have the opposite issue as well.

The 'I'm not interested in Landmark, give me EverQuest Next!' crowd.

A strange breed, and one that I'm sure is a smaller group than the amount of cage-rattling they generate would suggest.

Sometimes, a brave soul will approach with the intention of helping them understand the significance of Landmark. We all know how this interaction will end, but hope springs eternal (even online).

So how does one explain? We can point to the development of oceans in the game, explain how eventually liquid physics will mean flowing water. That means we might be changing the course of rivers in EQN, or flooding underground caverns, with lava. Isn't this the kind of information that should amaze and delight players? Imagine the repercussions of this ability—even as a technological feat, it's impressive enough to be noteworthy.

Speaking of underground caverns, how about those caves? We know there will be caves under Norrath as well, and now we can start see what they'll look like. Just imagine, procedural content in an MMO! Worthwhile exploration, moving through an unknown and hostile environment in search of treasure instead of farming the same scripted instance over and over. With the slightest effort of extrapolation we can see the planned purpose of these systems.

Soon we'll see AI systems, some combat and movement abilities, mounts, guilds, VoIP, SOEmote. All of these developments have a direct impact on EQNext, and I'm sure there will be more that we'll be hearing about soon (39 days, not that I'm counting...).

That's not to mention the workshop, where we can learn about the planned aesthetic for different races in Norrath (and not just the visual).

Week after week, I continue to be impressed by the way SOE is continuing to give players the opportunity to contribute to the development of EverQuest Next. Through the roundtable discussions, constant twitter interaction and especially the workshop, the players are being given an unprecedented ability to influence the design of a game that has the potential to change the way we think about MMORPGs. What an incredible privilege, and we're just getting started.

With all the talk of new mechanics and new technology in EQN, it's easy to miss one of the key factors that will define this game and set it apart from the competition. While other games have to sell us on the promise of compelling story or an engaging and lasting endgame experience, Landmark allows SOE to sell us on the entire game world.

As time goes on, and particularly after SOE Live, more and more of us will buy in to EverQuest Next through Landmark. As we continue to move forward, designing and iterating  on all kinds of user-generated content, we'll develop an intimate understanding of the way the world is put together.

For those of us that play Landmark and engage with the workshop and with the community, by the time EverQuest Next opens its doors it will already feel like home.

Imagine setting foot in Norrath for the first time, already knowing the names of every tree, being able to recognize the building styles of different races, and just generally knowing how the world works in a way we wouldn't have dared to dream about a year ago. The stage will be set for the new history of Norrath in a way that we have never experienced.

It's the nature of the beast that MMOs are so bound by their retention strategies, often leading to developers implementing unpopular systems to keep people playing and paying. What if a game could create a retention strategy that made the game more popular? What if the reason we continued to log in was because we were invested in the world, and are proud to be a part of it? I'd take that over being drip-fed on a gear treadmill any day.

The question had to be addressed sooner or later, as in these times of so many quality free-to-play titles, the old strategies just won't fly. We've all played that game, we've had a lot of fun playing that game, but players are smart and we need to be fooled.

We had a lovely chat last week about the way persistent online games are evolving—in particular, how innovation is becoming more possible. As the industry moves on to the fresh scavenging grounds of the MOBA genre and MMO players are becoming savvier and discerning about the type of content they want, the way we think about MMOs is changing.

Inertia, nostalgia and confirmation bias all still play their part, of course. It's not difficult to find examples of all of these in large scale discussions of any game, but it seems there is a growing sense that things don't have to be done the way they've always been done. An argument from tradition is, after all, no argument at all.

In the past a major barrier to innovation has been the massive investment and risk involved in releasing an MMO, and once it was loose, keeping the beast fed with a stream of content and features to maintain a healthy playerbase seemed like an impossible task.

Last week I mentioned No Man's Sky as a specific example of how the industry is changing, as it seems to encapsulate many of the current trends while still managing to be fresh and exciting in a way that the stagnant behemoths around it at E3 couldn't compete with. It was made by just a few people who wanted to make something really special, in a time where that has become more possible than ever before.

With no points, levels or specific goals, emphasis on exploration and emergent gameplay, being voxel based with gathering and crafting being core mechanics, No Man's Sky could be considered a Minecraft clone. I do not mean that in a derogatory way at all, I use the term only to make a point. Are you ready for the point? Here is the point.

As we of a certain age are aware, there was a time when every first-person shooter was called a Doom clone, it was fertile new ground for the industry to explore and it took a while for the genre to mature to the point that games could be considered on their own merits. Once we stopped thinking of these games as clones we could start seeing what possibilities existed.

There have been a fair few games labelled Minecraft clones, including Landmark, which is why it's important that No Man's Sky has largely avoided the tag – not because the comparison is offensive, but because it means the game is being considered on its own merit. We look at the game and marvel at what it is and what it could be without resorting to shorthand.

We made it! I got around to talking about Landmark, finally.

One thing that we, as MMO players, tend to agree on is the fact that it is impossible for a developer to produce content at the same pace players can consume it. 

Obviously this causes many challenges for a team intending to provide the service we call an MMO—if players don't feel like the game is offering them anything new, players will leave. 

We all know, or know of, someone who 'went back to WoW'. I am one such person, just in case you were the one person who thought you didn't. Don't say I never do anything for you. Of course, people don't go back to their old MMO because they're excited at the prospect; it simply acts as a comfortable place to maintain the holding pattern.

The trick for MMO developers then is to find systems that keep players playing and feeling engaged with the content without adding too much expense. This is the reason you have to run the same raid over and over; it's nothing but a timesink designed to keep you on the treadmill.

It's a tactic that's worked for many years, and adding extra goals and rewards into the mix kept the illusion of progression or mastery, and there's nothing wrong with that. Everything we do in these games is designed to give us this illusion, all we're doing is pressing buttons.

The problem comes when the players see behind the curtain—we’ve we've spent years doing laps of this circuit and we've got wise. We know it's a ploy, we know it's all smoke and mirrors, and once the trick is revealed, the magic is gone.

Just when you thought it was safe to hang up your legendary picks, the Landmark development team have dropped an epic reason to dive right back in.

I've spent a number of weeks sharing ideas about EverQuest Next and Landmark through the context of other games and general MMO design goals. I haven't felt the need to share any specific developments about the games with you, as I feel like if you're here you are probably keeping up to date with the news.

This week is different; a new development has come around that, for me, will be a defining feature of Landmark and something that I hope continues for years to come. So permit me, dear reader, to gush for a while about how amazing everything is and how Landmark and EverQuest Next are going to be the best things EVAR.

One of the biggest draws for Landmark when it was revealed, way back in the distant past, was the chance for players to have their own creations show up in the upcoming EverQuest incarnation. This possibility is still incredibly exciting, but now SOE has gone one better and given us optimists something to point at to prove they want the input of players.

I think it's fair to say we're in a bit of a lull as far as excitement levels for Landmark go, and many of us have been looking around for something to scratch our MMO itch as we patiently wait for the game to mature. This is totally understandable; it's all part of the peaks and troughs of open-development – we, as mere mortals, cannot keep up the levels of hype some commenters seem to believe is required for months on end.

With WildStar and The Elder Scrolls Online both floating about there's plenty new MMO to go around, but games of this type just don't excite me like they used to. You may feel the same if you're as excited for EverQuest Next as I am; the sandbox elements and the prospect of the open world having meaning were just as much of a draw as the new systems the team at SOE are bringing to the table.

With that in mind, I've been playing a new game that scratches that itch and then some. I can happily say that I'm excited to log in to a (finished) MMO for the first time in years.

Two whole columns have passed with barely a mention of EverQuest Next or Landmark; today we find out if it was worth it.

As I said in part one, I have been thinking a lot recently about why I enjoy MMOs, why I seek them out, and why I put an inordinate amount of hours into them, as opposed to seeking out the more carefully directed gaming experiences to be found elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I love games like Portal, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, Skyrim, etc, that exist to revolve around the experience of an individual player. I just like to spend the bulk of my playing time in a virtual world, alongside like-minded people like you.

The more I think about the great single player games I have played, the more I lament how much MMOs have been trapped trying to capture success in the same way that they do, and I think it comes down to playing to the strengths of the medium. By and large, MMOs miss out on their opportunities by looking to emulate greatness from other genres.

A good joke doesn't need explanation, you either find it funny or you don't; the same goes for fun. You know if you're having fun, and the only possible effect of someone telling you why is that you stop having fun. You'd have to be some sort of demented sadist to expect anyone to read multiple columns on that topic.

So here we are with Part 2! 

In the previous edition of Your Next, I lamented the fact that I couldn't get on with The Elder Scrolls Online. I have been critical of it for some time, and while that could have clouded my judgement of the finished product, I still feel it is underwhelming overall. Again, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't like it.

One thing the game did give me was the desire to figure out exactly what it was that made MMOs fun for me, why I was still drawn to the genre after so many duds. Maybe it's the same reason we kiss so many frogs when looking for a prince.

So we move on, and look to the horizon for the next potential disappointment. This time we don't have far to go at all, with WildStar already dashing in like a neon cavalry, replete with hoverboards and a sense of humour that is so refreshing after years of po-faced offerings. 

A game called The Elder Scrolls Online launched recently—you may have heard of it. While you may not have heard me make mention of it, I have been pretty critical of the game for some time. There are some things about it that, in my opinion, are simply broken, but you could say that about many games, MMOs in particular. So this week after much goading by friends I decided to give the game a fair shake—many people are enjoying it, after all.

So off on an Elder Scrolls adventure I went, willing to put a whole week of my gaming time on it in the name of research, hoping to be proven wrong. I tried to look past the things I disliked and to enjoy the experience for what it was, and play the game in the way it was intended.

While there are some things that I was too critical of, and other areas that I think are quite good, on the whole I had a terrible time.

When I said before I was willing to put a whole week of gaming time into it, I should have said I failed to put more than a couple of days into it. I am purposefully being as vague as possible about what it is I like and don't like about the game; this isn't a review and the specifics are unimportant.

What it boils down to is that I wasn't having any fun playing the game. I was having fun chatting and joking around on Skype, but the game itself did nothing for me. I'll make it clear at this point—it’s fine if you like the game, I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just making the point that it's not for me.

When push comes to shove, I think the phrase 'it isn't fun' is the most damning thing you can say about a game. While you could write thousands of words explaining in detail why you believed it (just be glad I didn't) the phrase cuts so violently to the core of the issue. It isn't fun.

Of course, fun isn't the only thing games can try to be – the developer CCP maintains that fun is only a very small part of a user's experience, so there's little benefit in trying to design for it. But then, they would say that, they make the utterly brilliant but not obviously 'fun' EVE Online.