The numbers that played it are actually surprisingly similar to those who play Civs so I don't get the point of that.
Compare the numbers playing EQ II to those playing the Sims 2. Yeah that makes a lot of sense..
WoW and Vanguard both are cut from the same cloth, but EQ 1 and UO were sort of a clash of ideals.
Fact is, this artical was a whine. Too many games offer up the same liner game play as any single player game. DOES THAT MAKE UP THE CASUAL PLAY market? I'd hope not. If that's the case all you bitch asses might as well pop in the next GTA game and live out your illusion of grandure.
MMOs should be community games and part of being in a gaming community might be facing the reality you're not the best player.
Don't worry tho' enough care bear games are being produced for casual gamers to show off for each other.
I just wish you whiners would stay away from games obviously too 'realistic' for you. What's the use of a front page article where some cry baby admits UO was too hardcore for him? Does that make the hardcore market.. Evil? No.
There's two type of MMOers out there and you folks who agree UO was too rough and tumble for you, stick to the style you're able to handle. Don't type up 1,000 + words saying the fact I like to kill or be killed in a fantasy environment is in any way wrong. Hell I think giving hundreds of thousand players the same quests is wrong. I think letting them all strive for the same pool of 'phat loot' is wrong. I think giving them the illusion that in a world of thousands they're something special is wrong. It's boring, but hey please don't leave games like that. Play Vanguard for years and years and be happy with it.
That just means you won't have the chance to whine / bitch / and moan when a good game is finally made to follow up UO.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
I think the main difference in games vs worlds is the feeling you get when playing. In a nonliner game like UO or old SWG I played every second of free time not because I was constantly gaining skills, but because I was entranced with everything there was to do. Now you take a liner game like WoW or EQ2 I still played every ounce of free time I had, the difference is that I wasn't playing because I was so entranced at all there was to do, I was playing to raise my level, rep or get some cool new gear.
The nonliner leaves me content with what I have done while wanting to get on and play more. The liner ones leaves me feeling like I just got off work, but I want to play more so I can keep pace with others I know.
And this view was shared by the MAJORITY of PC gamers out there for YEARS. A successful computer game measured its sales numbers in the millions. For some reason hardcore MMORPG players thought their pathetic market share was something worth noticing. EQ and UO were nothing more than amusing jokes in terms of sales and the computer industry treated MMORPGs just like they deserverd to be treated, amusing jokes not really worth any attention. Now we're finally evolving away from that and here are all these people proclaiming how great UO and the 1st gen MMORPGs were. If they were so great where were the gamers? Where were the numbers that made TRULY successful PC games like Diablo and Civilization? They weren't there because EQ and UO could never have attracted those type of numbers. Because compared to titles like Diablo and Civilization and all the other genres, those first generation MMORPGS were too busy trying to be simulators and ended up being lousy games. And now that the industry is learning from their mistake, there are hardcores telling them go back and bring back the same screwed-up mechanics that stagnated the genre for a decade? Fortunately few modern companires are stupid enough to listen and those that do will fail just like their predecessors.
I dont want to get into any arguments here but this post really doesnt take a lot of things into consideration:
1. UO was made by COLLEGE / non-degreeded novice / students at a little dev studio in austin, tx. I know this for a fact because I worked with the lead programmer on some projects. he's much younger than me like under 30? Consider Everquest was developed with a big budget and UO was developed by a tiny, independant developer powered by entry level programmers that speaks volumes. It was a huge achievement.
2. UO for sure helped grow EQ and countless other MMOs. Go look at gamasutra and see where all the western MMO devs live: Austin. Bioware Austin, Sony Austin, wolfpack (used to be there), NCSoft, and a few others. UO made history and helped make austin what it is today- what many call the thriving MMO center of the western hemisphere.
3. Diablo was made by a major publisher with lots of money backing it. I remember playing it on my plastation. UO just didnt have this sort of backing and from what I understand when it did get some backing by this time everyone did got laid off cause the developer was so unstable and money was really mismanaged. The 2 guys I know that worked on it got laid off
From a casual play perspective it's hard to imagine a worse game than what Ultima Online delivered a decade ago. It's also surprising that from that terrible genesis we have some of the great games we do today, along with the promise of more to come. Even games touted as being by and for the hardcore player, like Vanguard, have moved far away from the horrible experience that was UO.
Rarely do I find myself disagreeing with a column from the very first paragraph. This was one of those times. It's hard to believe a staff writer for an MMO site would actually be bashing the great UO.
From a casual play perspective it's hard to imagine a worse game than what Ultima Online delivered a decade ago.
Are you kidding? UO delivered a great casual game. I still remember years later standing around the bank with tons of other people just chatting and having fun (and maybe picking a few pockets!). Few games since then have had the same casual atmosphere.
It's also surprising that from that terrible genesis we have some of the great games we do today, along with the promise of more to come. Even games touted as being by and for the hardcore player, like Vanguard, have moved far away from the horrible experience that was UO.
If that's the case we could use more "terrible genesis" games because UO was one of the greatest MMO's ever. How many other MMO's are still worthy of discussion after 10 years? There's plenty of content in UO, if they overhauled their graphics people would return. I don't know why you consider it a "horrible experience" when for me it is still in the top of all the MMO's I played, and is the very first one that got me hooked on them all.
==================== Remember man that passes by, as you are now so once was I. And as I am so must you be, prepare yourself to follow me.
Hello all, This will be my third post and it looks like it will be a doosey.
I read the entire article and I found that the writer was not entirely off base. I agree that UO is a very difficult game to get started in. As he said there is no in game guidance to point you in a given direction. I also feel that the lack of guidance is the only mistake UO made.
I come from a strong DnD background and my Game master was very good at giving us many options to follow. He also gently guided us toward the campaign goal. UO did not even attempt to describe a goal to us. It did, however give the player infinite flexibility in the developement of the players character. This is what modern MMOs are lacking. I believe that a game should be skill based as UO was. I don't enjoy being forced a long a specific growth path.
Classes can simplify game play but they do not enrich the experience. Classes and levels simply turn a game into some kind of race against other players. You pick a class and then power level to monotony so that you don't get left behind by your friends. They take away the ability to create a truly unique character.
UO provided the player with many non-combative options. Again I am brought back to my DnD experience. Though combat was essential for survival it was not made to be the core of the experience. My Game Master was very creative in allowing us many non-combative ways to acquire wealth and influence in his world. Modern MMO's are entirely combat based. The non combat aspects of the worlds you must live in are all but removed from the experience.
In conclusion I believe that the debate is not "World vs Game" but actually should be "How to merge the Game and the World into a rich deep and dynamic experience." UO with it's upcoming expansion is going to attempt to provide the players with in game guidance. That will certainly make the game more accessible to players. This one improvement will likely put UO in a position it has never been in before. I hope that this change will show the industry a way to combine World and Game. I hope to see the industry move back to the UO days that allowed a player to make his character into whatever he imagined it to be.
Well, there are my 2 bits. I hope I didn't bore any of you.
This article is complete garbage. No objectiveness what so ever.
UO was the first commercially successful MMO. When they made the game they didn't have any guide lines. They had an idea and they went with it and did a great job of it. Sure UO had it's fair share of problems, but so does every other MMO. The difference is that every other MMO since UO has had commercially successful games to learn from. UO made it and then someone liked the idea but not certain things and came up with EQ. EQ made it big so most of the other game companies seem to have followed their lead as to what a MMO is.
While OSI got some things wrong with UO, and has continued to over the years, they also got A LOT right. So few games have been able to recreate what was (and possibly still is) great about UO. I've played a lot of MMO's and all of them combined don't have the content that UO has. There is just more to do in UO than all the other MMOs I've played combined. (Everquest, Asheron's Call, Shadowbane, Horizons, City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Eve Online, Lord of the Ring Online) And it achieves that feat without a single quest in place.
So many games out there and no game promotes a community like UO did. Only one game (Shadowbane) has matched UO in character development. Most other game the characters are so cookie cutter it's rediculous. WoW for example, each class has a set of different trait trees. If you mix from different trees you're gimping yourself. There are only two or three trees to choose from and your character will be exactly the same as every other character that is the class and tree. All you have to differentiate yourself is the gear you grind for, and even then everyone is grinding for the same gear.
Now UO has problems, it's always been one thing or another. But so does every other game. There are games I may have liked better (well one) but no game I've played really creates a submersive world like UO. And as to the casual player comment no game is more casual player friendly than UO. Sure there is A LOT to learn about the game, but that's half of what the game is learning and exploring.
I've heard Star Wars Galaxies worked off a similar model as UO but with a smaller scope and more problems. Other than that I've only seen a few games really try to emulate parts of what makes UO still such a unique game in a genre flooded with single direction EQ clones.
Pirates of the Burning Sea on the other hand sounds like the developers have taken notice to what UO (and many other games) did right and did wrong. Where so many other developers seem to try and just improve on previous designs Flying Labs seems to have realized what the magic behind the UO experience was/is and seems to be trying to recreate that magic while creating a uniquely design game. A few other games look to be straying from the pack of clones, most notably Age of Conan and Warhammer Online, but Pirates of the Burning Sea is where my hopes lay for keeping the MMO genre from falling stagnant.
[QUOTE] Even games touted as being by and for the hardcore player, like Vanguard, have moved far away from the horrible experience that was UO. [/QUOTE]
youre whole article went astride with that comment man
vanguard has yet to be proven as a game for hardcore players its barely been around long and people are still figuring it out. uo on the otherhand has had many expansion packs (which you know vanguard will) which have improved its quality and consistency. i would be willing to bet that vanguard will not undergo any engine redevelopments as uo has recently undergone, a testamant to the fact that people like uo and people play uo.
and the fact of the matter is, to complain about pk is to complain that a game is to competitive for you. or, you got hustled. in which case, you should learn how to play video games over again haha. get back into it, thats what makes the spirit of the game thrive and thats why uo has enjoyed such sustained longevity.
I develop for a small sci-fi game called Star Sonata that's been released for just over two years now. The interesting thing is that we started out very much as a "world" much more than a "game". The universe was wide open and totally random. You could build bases anywhere, or nowhere at all. Pretty much you could do whatever you wanted, and all there was to do was wander around, find trade routes, try to make money by a number of different ways so you could upgrade your stuff. The players really drove the content, especially since there were only about 50 active players in the beginning.
But as our subscriber base has grown, fixed things that didn't work, added new elements to the game, etc, we have really moved in the other direction. As the universe gets larger and larger to accommodate a growing player base, it can no longer really be totally random. We crafted it so the new players start in easier territories with easier enemies who don't act in their best interest, but act in the interest of making it fun for the newbies. We had to do that, because as the toughest players kept getting tougher and tougher, the toughest NPC's had to keep pace, but they were so far ahead of noobs, artificial separation was required.
Same with classes. We started out without classes, just an open skill system. But people wanted classes, so we put in classes and they loved it. It also made the game a little more interesting because it created more diversity in the ways to play Star Sonata.
We still have a lot of emphasis on base and colony building, and setting up trade routes for your robotic slaves, so there is still a large Sim City-ish aspect to gameplay which will always be more of a world than a game. But in responding to player demands and just what seems to "work" we seem to be moving farther and farther from the wide open simulation-like universe that we began with.
That was one of the more pathetic articles I've read on this site. First off, learn to use SPELLCHECK if you're going to write for the public. Your literacy looks like a mediocre highschooler on a good day. Secondly, this wasn't an article - it wasn't even a rant. This was the biggest and most useless whinefest I have ever seen pawned off as an article.
Thirdly, you're wrong in almost every way possible. About the only place you are right is that you state your OPINION that UO was bad. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even quasi-literate whiners.
- You mention that all the previous RPGs were goal/objective based. However, UO was not really built on the model of the singleplayer RPG (unlike games such as EQ), but rather on the MUD model. UO was a 2D graphical MUD, basically - and an excellent one.
- You mention that UO was the worst MMO you have ever played. All I can say is, you need to play a few more games. It's not the best out there, IMHO, but... I cannot see how ANYONE would place UO as worse than Horizons, Mourning, Irth Online, Dark and Light, or a few other such disasters.
- You mention that the game was hostile to casual players because there was no direction, no handholding. Casual, sir, does not mean dumb. Casual players are perfectly capable of enjoying open-world games like UO and Eve. In fact, a large percentage of the players of those game ARE casual players - because they tend to attract a more mature, thinking audience, who also tend to be the working/parenting adults with less time on their hands to play games. Games that lack handholding are hostile to stupid people; also hostile to lazy people; also hostile to people who like having their entertainment fed to them with a spoon, rather than being interactive in its generation. They are not inherently hostile to casual players.
- Most of your other whines seem to be focused around UO having been full pvp at launch. Full pvp is not for everyone, this is true. Not everyone enjoys downhill skiiing, either. While full pvp tends to favor less casual players, you'll still see a mix there. That said - had you waited a short while, you'd have noticed that the devs rapidly altered their game to halt the rampant PKing. It was the first (well, 2nd if you count Meridian) MMORPG, and they DID copy MUDs very heavily. Most MUDs used full pvp, and got along just fine because their smaller communities were capable of dealing with it well. UO's enormous community created problems the MUDs just didn't have. But this was an issue they addressed very early.
I really have no idea why this article was even published here. Before the author hits the keyboard next time, perhaps he should spend some time actually coming up with a real topic to write about, instead of whining about a game from eight years ago.
It's unfortunate that you didn't actually try more then two days and actually understand what UO was all about.
Freedom
Community
Player Driven Content
And of course PvP
I remember when I was 13 and I my dad bought me this game when it came out. He tried it like you, and didn't understand what he was supposed to do. I started it up, kind of blundered around for a bit. Lost to a rabbit with a starter weapon and shield in town and was wondering what was going on. But after awhile, you begin to understand that UO is what you make it. Whatever you want to do, you can.
I suppose it's what seperates us as players. You on one hand might tend to enjoy a game like EQ, going on raids, quests and collecting the next phat loot. But me as a more freedom oriented gamer tend to like games around the lines of UO and EVE.
There are plenty of PvE centered games around, in fact they dominate the genre now. CoH, DDO, EQ, EQ2, MX0, WoW, Vanguard. And the list goes on and on. Even games that say they have PvP, it ends up having an item grind anyway.
So go ahead and pick one of the above. And leave my already dead niche alone.
Well, its rather surprising to me that so many people don't seem to recognize that the OP is a professional troll and most of his articles are designed to startle and annoy as many folks as he can.
Someone asked...why attack UO 10 years after its release? Because it is held in such high regard by so many people..(a true gaming legend). Nothing will generate flames better than to attack what gamers revere.
He is quite correct though..Computer Gaming World gave it the Coaster of the Year award... but not so much for "poor gameplay" and more because it was a buggy, lagfilled experience. (hey, almost everyone was on dial up back then)
As to another poster's claim that UO was too hardcore for its own good, and didn't attack a wide audience I have to disagree. UO was a revolutionary experience, and a very, very new concept. I stayed away from it myself because of its bad CGW review, the fact that I was on dial-up at the time, the fact that I had no interest in playing games with "other" people. In fact, when I finally broke down and played Lineage 1, I was determined to join the game and not speak with anyone.....just play the game by myself. Such was the mindset of many PC gamers back in the day.
Hardware was another obstacle to overcome... back in the day, only PC fanatics who were willing to spend lots of bucks on graphics could play the early games... Which is almost true today when a game like Vanguard comes out optimized for the top end of the gaming platforms...and not for the PC's that most casual gamers have (like WOW did). This one fact alone helps propel WOW to the top of the sales charts. I'm surprised that developers would rather code to the systems that the market has, but hey, if they want to limit their product to 500K subs or less, that's fine with me.
As to UO not leading people by the hand...that was by design, and what the OP felt was a flaw..many people found a feature. Different strokes for different folks Today many gamers lament the lack of an open sandbox type world in most games..instead being forced into scripted campaigns that really offer them no real choice.... we all end up having to do the exact same thing to get to the top.
As many have said... playing a game for 2 days is not nearly enough to determine if you will like it. I don't think 10 day trials are much better... I figure you have to put in a good solid month or 3...and get a character up to the middle levels (if the game must have levels, another point of contention for some gamers) before you can determine whether you really like or hate a game.
Anyway.... no reason to get so worked up over his obvious attempt to kick up a firestorm.... that's what he's here for. If he posted articles that generated no responses he'd be dressed down for it.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If Steve Wilsons job is to see how many negative posts he can get regarding his articles he is doing his job very well. I hope thats all it is otherwise I am left to think this is a man with no imagination and a low tolerance for challenge of any kind.
He and the "casual players" he claims to represent seem to want everything planned out for them in nice simple steps. Well why bother playing if you already know how everything works. You are the same group always looking for that great character template that everyone else is using. If there is no challenge what is the point of playing? If you want everyting to be linear there are several other types of game to play. Enjoy those rather than bashing a game that is still succesful even without all the crap they put into the newer dumbed down MMO's.
UO had a steep learning curve and that was one of the things that made it fun. It took some time and dedication to get the hang of it. Games like UO and Eve Online give the players the chance to create not only a unique chracter but a world. No two shards of UO are the same. The shard you play on is yours. You help make it what it is. Look at the Shadowclan orcs and the many player owned towns. These are examples of what people with imagaination can achieve in these open worlds.
These are ROLE PLAYING GAMES! The roots of wich are in the pen and paper rpg's. It takes imagination to enjoy pen and paper and the same should hold true with PC rpg's MMO or not. If you lack imagination or the need for a challenge then maybe these games aren't for you.
it was 10 years ago, it was the first of it's kind, it was revolutionary, it was a lot of fun, the devs soon realized their mistakes and created trammel for new players
sorry you are so spoiled with modern games holding your hand, but if not for ultima online, i highly doubt you'd even been working for a site called MMORPG.com
i loved UO and I was 13-14 when it came out? i had the patience and maturity then to appreciate the wonder that was the first graphical online role playing game
btw I'd rrreeeaaallly like to know what the point of this rant was? dissing on a game 10 years ago? are you THAT upset and bitter about it still you had to write this? get over it
there is SO much going on in the the MMORPG market and you wasted the time to write this? write about Vanguard's absolute failure, or The Burning Crusade's astounding success, write about upcoming Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, and Conan....
your piece is like making fun of World War 2 veterans for not having laser guided missles. point is, it's in terribly bad taste
That was one of the more pathetic articles I've read on this site. First off, learn to use SPELLCHECK if you're going to write for the public. Your literacy looks like a mediocre highschooler on a good day. Secondly, this wasn't an article - it wasn't even a rant. This was the biggest and most useless whinefest I have ever seen pawned off as an article. Thirdly, you're wrong in almost every way possible. About the only place you are right is that you state your OPINION that UO was bad. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even quasi-literate whiners. - You mention that all the previous RPGs were goal/objective based. However, UO was not really built on the model of the singleplayer RPG (unlike games such as EQ), but rather on the MUD model. UO was a 2D graphical MUD, basically - and an excellent one. - You mention that UO was the worst MMO you have ever played. All I can say is, you need to play a few more games. It's not the best out there, IMHO, but... I cannot see how ANYONE would place UO as worse than Horizons, Mourning, Irth Online, Dark and Light, or a few other such disasters. - You mention that the game was hostile to casual players because there was no direction, no handholding. Casual, sir, does not mean dumb. Casual players are perfectly capable of enjoying open-world games like UO and Eve. In fact, a large percentage of the players of those game ARE casual players - because they tend to attract a more mature, thinking audience, who also tend to be the working/parenting adults with less time on their hands to play games. Games that lack handholding are hostile to stupid people; also hostile to lazy people; also hostile to people who like having their entertainment fed to them with a spoon, rather than being interactive in its generation. They are not inherently hostile to casual players. - Most of your other whines seem to be focused around UO having been full pvp at launch. Full pvp is not for everyone, this is true. Not everyone enjoys downhill skiiing, either. While full pvp tends to favor less casual players, you'll still see a mix there. That said - had you waited a short while, you'd have noticed that the devs rapidly altered their game to halt the rampant PKing. It was the first (well, 2nd if you count Meridian) MMORPG, and they DID copy MUDs very heavily. Most MUDs used full pvp, and got along just fine because their smaller communities were capable of dealing with it well. UO's enormous community created problems the MUDs just didn't have. But this was an issue they addressed very early. I really have no idea why this article was even published here. Before the author hits the keyboard next time, perhaps he should spend some time actually coming up with a real topic to write about, instead of whining about a game from eight years ago.
First off, I do agree with your opinion of this whiny article. Sounds like the OP finally stopped crying in the corner after 10 years and decided to come share his traumatic experience with the rest of the world. Never have I had such a strong desire to say "STFU Noob."
2 days? Psh.
Anyways, I just wanted to point out that UO was not MUD based. UO was basically a single player game that added multiplayer, which is what led to many of the problems they ended up having with it. EQ was MUD based, Brad and many others on his team (then and now) played MUDs, like Sojourn. Heck, if you ignore the graphics in EQ and just watch the chat screen, it's exactly like a MUD.
This artical has done one thing positive, posters to this topic have brought a lot of info to the subject. I agree that UO being attacked is unjustified 8 to 10 years after the fact. Name a MMO that has lasted that long without addressing its troubles in patches and fixes? I clearly remeber hearing about the PKing in UO and deciding that was not the game for me (in '97). Things have changed and I have a different view and perception of MMO's. This artical is ammo for the World Simulator Vs. Casual Game War. I just see it as 2 different Catagories to the MMO market. Somegames have shades of both but usally fall in either.
What would make a solution to this situation? How about a Casual (Single player driven, Quest guided, Level grinding) Game that once you Master, Unlocks a World Simulator. You learn the basic combat moves with the Casual game set and basic machanics but to qualifiy for the full world you have to graduate as a master of your chosen path. Once Master, you then can develop your character based on Skill Tree and customize to your hearts content. The Casual Game would be much more than a Tutorial but not as detailed and intricate as the full World. From my understanding, this is the flaw of WOW. There is little more to achieve after you reach level 60(now 70). Adding new adventure areas is fun to explore but adding new Achievements is the spice of a good game.
Just an idea. Either way, this thread got me to thinking and thats what the author really should have wanted.
It is difficult to believe that someone - who supposedly has significant game experience- can have such an opinion.
I also started in UO many moons ago and was dropped into the starter town and made to find my way as we all did. I was hooked after 30 minutes and did not look back for five years, such was thedrive to find out more and progress.
If only, if only, if only another game could take such a similar chance today- they would be on a gold mine.
The idea of UO was to make people think, group, explore and be careful, not run up to npc's with exclamation marks on their heads and tell you to run somewhere - on your map- and then run back !
UO was an online world ,was a masterpiece then and remains a masterpiece now.
It is difficult to believe that the op has employment in the gaming industry whilst not understanding UO.
I support the game over simulation also. The farthest I would go toward simulation is in the context of a game. I like the idea that the game has elements of real life situations, but it still has the rewards of a game. I don't want to be thrown into a game without any direction. I don't want to waste my time and virtual resources only to be ganked out of my loot by bullies. I find that system unfair, it rewards high level players to cheat the new players, who either quit playing (and paying), or eventually reach high level to cheat the next new players. Not smart.
(\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!
It's past time someone stepped up and declared UO for what it was - a pathetic excuse of game design that doomed the MMORPG genre to an entire DECADE of being nothing more than a niche market that would only appeal to hardcore masochists.
Originally posted by Vinadil but the fact is there were MANY people sharing that very same conclusion days after UO was released. I remember holding the box for UO in one hand and EQ in the other and asking the guy at Babbage's (now EB or whatever they are) "Which one do you suggest?" He pointed to EQ and and reccommended it unless I liked being constantly camped and killed as entertainment.
And this view was shared by the MAJORITY of PC gamers out there for YEARS. A successful computer game measured its sales numbers in the millions. For some reason hardcore MMORPG players thought their pathetic market share was something worth noticing. EQ and UO were nothing more than amusing jokes in terms of sales and the computer industry treated MMORPGs just like they deserverd to be treated, amusing jokes not really worth any attention.
Now we're finally evolving away from that and here are all these people proclaiming how great UO and the 1st gen MMORPGs were. If they were so great where were the gamers? Where were the numbers that made TRULY successful PC games like Diablo and Civilization?
They weren't there because EQ and UO could never have attracted those type of numbers. Because compared to titles like Diablo and Civilization and all the other genres, those first generation MMORPGS were too busy trying to be simulators and ended up being lousy games.
And now that the industry is learning from their mistake, there are hardcores telling them go back and bring back the same screwed-up mechanics that stagnated the genre for a decade? Fortunately few modern companires are stupid enough to listen and those that do will fail just like their predecessors.
not even wurth to reply to such a stupid view, but men your so wrong in almost every sentence you have wrote in your reply:(
But its useless to argue with guys like you and many these days who like games like wow this weekly was one of dumbest articles ive read period and you are just a fan of his opinion lol.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
It's past time someone stepped up and declared UO for what it was - a pathetic excuse of game design that doomed the MMORPG genre to an entire DECADE of being nothing more than a niche market that would only appeal to hardcore masochists.
Originally posted by Vinadil but the fact is there were MANY people sharing that very same conclusion days after UO was released. I remember holding the box for UO in one hand and EQ in the other and asking the guy at Babbage's (now EB or whatever they are) "Which one do you suggest?" He pointed to EQ and and reccommended it unless I liked being constantly camped and killed as entertainment.
And this view was shared by the MAJORITY of PC gamers out there for YEARS. A successful computer game measured its sales numbers in the millions. For some reason hardcore MMORPG players thought their pathetic market share was something worth noticing. EQ and UO were nothing more than amusing jokes in terms of sales and the computer industry treated MMORPGs just like they deserverd to be treated, amusing jokes not really worth any attention.
Now we're finally evolving away from that and here are all these people proclaiming how great UO and the 1st gen MMORPGs were. If they were so great where were the gamers? Where were the numbers that made TRULY successful PC games like Diablo and Civilization?
They weren't there because EQ and UO could never have attracted those type of numbers. Because compared to titles like Diablo and Civilization and all the other genres, those first generation MMORPGS were too busy trying to be simulators and ended up being lousy games.
And now that the industry is learning from their mistake, there are hardcores telling them go back and bring back the same screwed-up mechanics that stagnated the genre for a decade? Fortunately few modern companires are stupid enough to listen and those that do will fail just like their predecessors.
Yes, the computer industry certainly treated the mmorpg genre as a joke that didn't deserve any attent [/sarcasm]. Wake up. Ultima Online was bought out by mega corporation EA, big names such as Westwood started working on Earth & Beyond after the success of those games, again published by EA. Everquest had SONY behind them.
The replys here make more sence then the whole article, my guess is that most of the people would be able to write a better article then Steve Wilson ever could.
I never played it but my first mmorpg was Project Entropia - I guess more the kind of game the writer wanted UO to be in game design - but it had the intensity of UO (missing in so many mmorpg today) due to the fact real money is the currency of the game. the games that will succeed in the future will the ones that have distinct USP that break the mould - most sane people will get bored of the standard games like EQ, WoW, Guildwars, etc
To me, the whole "casual versus hardcore" debate is a non sequitur, and I think this entire article series on the "casual corner" is just misguided on a fundamental level. In fact, I think we have the entire notion of, "what is casual?," and "what is hardcore?," completely wrong.
What we believe is that a "hardcore player" is one who has more time or money to devote to a game.
Totally wrong.
What a "hardcore player" really means is that the player loves the game so much, they want to spend more time, and more money there, and want to play it to the hilt.
What we believe is that a "casual player" is one who has less time or money to devote to the game.
Again, totally wrong.
What a "casual player" really means is that the player is indifferent to the game, that they would rather do other things, play other games, and devote more free time to things other than the game.
You look at hardcore versus casual drinking, or gambling, or drug use, its never about the differences in the thing obsessed over. Its about the emotional and psychological disposition of the obsessed.
That's why some of the most "casual" games, like WoW, have far more "hardcore" habits displayed in its players, and why some of the most "hardcore" games, like EVE, have players that play it casually. It really has nothing to do with death penalties, realism, playability, travel times, PvP, crafting, etc. I'm convinced that's all just a distraction from the real issue, and that is, players will play games they like better more frequently than games they don't like as much. When they play that game exclusively, for many hours, they are now "hardcore," even if the game was only ever intended to be played casually.
The question is not, I repeat, not : what is the difference between casual and hardcore players, or what is a hardcore game, versus a casual game?
The real question we should be asking ourselves is: what causes the player to commit to a game more strongly, versus a game they can take or leave?
See, we here are under the impression that the industry has determined that consumers of MMO entertainment want more casual games. What we haven't talked about is why the industry wants gamers to spend as little as possible in their games, instead of more time?
When we answer that one, we'll see why we get "games," and not "worlds." Why we get looting, instead of crafting. Why we get portals, instead of big zones. Why we get levels, and not skills. Why we get more "twitch," and less character customization. Why roleplay has disappeared, and why we haven't moved past guilds as a social construct to organize players.
In short, let's entertain the notion that it isn't the players who want casual games. Its the MMO companies who want players to approach the games casually.
Questions?
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Comments
UO was a tough game, it was a 1st gen MMO.
The numbers that played it are actually surprisingly similar to those who play Civs so I don't get the point of that.
Compare the numbers playing EQ II to those playing the Sims 2. Yeah that makes a lot of sense..
WoW and Vanguard both are cut from the same cloth, but EQ 1 and UO were sort of a clash of ideals.
Fact is, this artical was a whine. Too many games offer up the same liner game play as any single player game. DOES THAT MAKE UP THE CASUAL PLAY market? I'd hope not. If that's the case all you bitch asses might as well pop in the next GTA game and live out your illusion of grandure.
MMOs should be community games and part of being in a gaming community might be facing the reality you're not the best player.
Don't worry tho' enough care bear games are being produced for casual gamers to show off for each other.
I just wish you whiners would stay away from games obviously too 'realistic' for you. What's the use of a front page article where some cry baby admits UO was too hardcore for him? Does that make the hardcore market.. Evil? No.
There's two type of MMOers out there and you folks who agree UO was too rough and tumble for you, stick to the style you're able to handle. Don't type up 1,000 + words saying the fact I like to kill or be killed in a fantasy environment is in any way wrong. Hell I think giving hundreds of thousand players the same quests is wrong. I think letting them all strive for the same pool of 'phat loot' is wrong. I think giving them the illusion that in a world of thousands they're something special is wrong. It's boring, but hey please don't leave games like that. Play Vanguard for years and years and be happy with it.
That just means you won't have the chance to whine / bitch / and moan when a good game is finally made to follow up UO.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
I think the main difference in games vs worlds is the feeling you get when playing. In a nonliner game like UO or old SWG I played every second of free time not because I was constantly gaining skills, but because I was entranced with everything there was to do. Now you take a liner game like WoW or EQ2 I still played every ounce of free time I had, the difference is that I wasn't playing because I was so entranced at all there was to do, I was playing to raise my level, rep or get some cool new gear.
The nonliner leaves me content with what I have done while wanting to get on and play more. The liner ones leaves me feeling like I just got off work, but I want to play more so I can keep pace with others I know.
I dont want to get into any arguments here but this post really doesnt take a lot of things into consideration:
1. UO was made by COLLEGE / non-degreeded novice / students at a little dev studio in austin, tx. I know this for a fact because I worked with the lead programmer on some projects. he's much younger than me like under 30? Consider Everquest was developed with a big budget and UO was developed by a tiny, independant developer powered by entry level programmers that speaks volumes. It was a huge achievement.
2. UO for sure helped grow EQ and countless other MMOs. Go look at gamasutra and see where all the western MMO devs live: Austin. Bioware Austin, Sony Austin, wolfpack (used to be there), NCSoft, and a few others. UO made history and helped make austin what it is today- what many call the thriving MMO center of the western hemisphere.
3. Diablo was made by a major publisher with lots of money backing it. I remember playing it on my plastation. UO just didnt have this sort of backing and from what I understand when it did get some backing by this time everyone did got laid off cause the developer was so unstable and money was really mismanaged. The 2 guys I know that worked on it got laid off
From a casual play perspective it's hard to imagine a worse game than what Ultima Online delivered a decade ago.
Are you kidding? UO delivered a great casual game. I still remember years later standing around the bank with tons of other people just chatting and having fun (and maybe picking a few pockets!). Few games since then have had the same casual atmosphere.
It's also surprising that from that terrible genesis we have some of the great games we do today, along with the promise of more to come. Even games touted as being by and for the hardcore player, like Vanguard, have moved far away from the horrible experience that was UO.
If that's the case we could use more "terrible genesis" games because UO was one of the greatest MMO's ever. How many other MMO's are still worthy of discussion after 10 years? There's plenty of content in UO, if they overhauled their graphics people would return. I don't know why you consider it a "horrible experience" when for me it is still in the top of all the MMO's I played, and is the very first one that got me hooked on them all.
====================
Remember man that passes by,
as you are now so once was I.
And as I am so must you be,
prepare yourself to follow me.
Hello all, This will be my third post and it looks like it will be a doosey.
I read the entire article and I found that the writer was not entirely off base. I agree that UO is a very difficult game to get started in. As he said there is no in game guidance to point you in a given direction. I also feel that the lack of guidance is the only mistake UO made.
I come from a strong DnD background and my Game master was very good at giving us many options to follow. He also gently guided us toward the campaign goal. UO did not even attempt to describe a goal to us. It did, however give the player infinite flexibility in the developement of the players character. This is what modern MMOs are lacking. I believe that a game should be skill based as UO was. I don't enjoy being forced a long a specific growth path.
Classes can simplify game play but they do not enrich the experience. Classes and levels simply turn a game into some kind of race against other players. You pick a class and then power level to monotony so that you don't get left behind by your friends. They take away the ability to create a truly unique character.
UO provided the player with many non-combative options. Again I am brought back to my DnD experience. Though combat was essential for survival it was not made to be the core of the experience. My Game Master was very creative in allowing us many non-combative ways to acquire wealth and influence in his world. Modern MMO's are entirely combat based. The non combat aspects of the worlds you must live in are all but removed from the experience.
In conclusion I believe that the debate is not "World vs Game" but actually should be "How to merge the Game and the World into a rich deep and dynamic experience." UO with it's upcoming expansion is going to attempt to provide the players with in game guidance. That will certainly make the game more accessible to players. This one improvement will likely put UO in a position it has never been in before. I hope that this change will show the industry a way to combine World and Game. I hope to see the industry move back to the UO days that allowed a player to make his character into whatever he imagined it to be.
Well, there are my 2 bits. I hope I didn't bore any of you.
--Nullimus
UO was the first commercially successful MMO. When they made the game they didn't have any guide lines. They had an idea and they went with it and did a great job of it. Sure UO had it's fair share of problems, but so does every other MMO. The difference is that every other MMO since UO has had commercially successful games to learn from. UO made it and then someone liked the idea but not certain things and came up with EQ. EQ made it big so most of the other game companies seem to have followed their lead as to what a MMO is.
While OSI got some things wrong with UO, and has continued to over the years, they also got A LOT right. So few games have been able to recreate what was (and possibly still is) great about UO. I've played a lot of MMO's and all of them combined don't have the content that UO has. There is just more to do in UO than all the other MMOs I've played combined. (Everquest, Asheron's Call, Shadowbane, Horizons, City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Eve Online, Lord of the Ring Online) And it achieves that feat without a single quest in place.
So many games out there and no game promotes a community like UO did. Only one game (Shadowbane) has matched UO in character development. Most other game the characters are so cookie cutter it's rediculous. WoW for example, each class has a set of different trait trees. If you mix from different trees you're gimping yourself. There are only two or three trees to choose from and your character will be exactly the same as every other character that is the class and tree. All you have to differentiate yourself is the gear you grind for, and even then everyone is grinding for the same gear.
Now UO has problems, it's always been one thing or another. But so does every other game. There are games I may have liked better (well one) but no game I've played really creates a submersive world like UO. And as to the casual player comment no game is more casual player friendly than UO. Sure there is A LOT to learn about the game, but that's half of what the game is learning and exploring.
I've heard Star Wars Galaxies worked off a similar model as UO but with a smaller scope and more problems. Other than that I've only seen a few games really try to emulate parts of what makes UO still such a unique game in a genre flooded with single direction EQ clones.
Pirates of the Burning Sea on the other hand sounds like the developers have taken notice to what UO (and many other games) did right and did wrong. Where so many other developers seem to try and just improve on previous designs Flying Labs seems to have realized what the magic behind the UO experience was/is and seems to be trying to recreate that magic while creating a uniquely design game. A few other games look to be straying from the pack of clones, most notably Age of Conan and Warhammer Online, but Pirates of the Burning Sea is where my hopes lay for keeping the MMO genre from falling stagnant.
to the op
[QUOTE] Even games touted as being by and for the hardcore player, like Vanguard, have moved far away from the horrible experience that was UO. [/QUOTE]
youre whole article went astride with that comment man
vanguard has yet to be proven as a game for hardcore players its barely been around long and people are still figuring it out. uo on the otherhand has had many expansion packs (which you know vanguard will) which have improved its quality and consistency. i would be willing to bet that vanguard will not undergo any engine redevelopments as uo has recently undergone, a testamant to the fact that people like uo and people play uo.
and the fact of the matter is, to complain about pk is to complain that a game is to competitive for you. or, you got hustled. in which case, you should learn how to play video games over again haha. get back into it, thats what makes the spirit of the game thrive and thats why uo has enjoyed such sustained longevity.
one gamer to another
But as our subscriber base has grown, fixed things that didn't work, added new elements to the game, etc, we have really moved in the other direction. As the universe gets larger and larger to accommodate a growing player base, it can no longer really be totally random. We crafted it so the new players start in easier territories with easier enemies who don't act in their best interest, but act in the interest of making it fun for the newbies. We had to do that, because as the toughest players kept getting tougher and tougher, the toughest NPC's had to keep pace, but they were so far ahead of noobs, artificial separation was required.
Same with classes. We started out without classes, just an open skill system. But people wanted classes, so we put in classes and they loved it. It also made the game a little more interesting because it created more diversity in the ways to play Star Sonata.
We still have a lot of emphasis on base and colony building, and setting up trade routes for your robotic slaves, so there is still a large Sim City-ish aspect to gameplay which will always be more of a world than a game. But in responding to player demands and just what seems to "work" we seem to be moving farther and farther from the wide open simulation-like universe that we began with.
Star Sonata / Star Sonata 2
That was one of the more pathetic articles I've read on this site. First off, learn to use SPELLCHECK if you're going to write for the public. Your literacy looks like a mediocre highschooler on a good day. Secondly, this wasn't an article - it wasn't even a rant. This was the biggest and most useless whinefest I have ever seen pawned off as an article.
Thirdly, you're wrong in almost every way possible. About the only place you are right is that you state your OPINION that UO was bad. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even quasi-literate whiners.
- You mention that all the previous RPGs were goal/objective based. However, UO was not really built on the model of the singleplayer RPG (unlike games such as EQ), but rather on the MUD model. UO was a 2D graphical MUD, basically - and an excellent one.
- You mention that UO was the worst MMO you have ever played. All I can say is, you need to play a few more games.
It's not the best out there, IMHO, but... I cannot see how ANYONE would place UO as worse than Horizons, Mourning, Irth Online, Dark and Light, or a few other such disasters.
- You mention that the game was hostile to casual players because there was no direction, no handholding. Casual, sir, does not mean dumb. Casual players are perfectly capable of enjoying open-world games like UO and Eve. In fact, a large percentage of the players of those game ARE casual players - because they tend to attract a more mature, thinking audience, who also tend to be the working/parenting adults with less time on their hands to play games. Games that lack handholding are hostile to stupid people; also hostile to lazy people; also hostile to people who like having their entertainment fed to them with a spoon, rather than being interactive in its generation. They are not inherently hostile to casual players.
- Most of your other whines seem to be focused around UO having been full pvp at launch. Full pvp is not for everyone, this is true. Not everyone enjoys downhill skiiing, either. While full pvp tends to favor less casual players, you'll still see a mix there. That said - had you waited a short while, you'd have noticed that the devs rapidly altered their game to halt the rampant PKing. It was the first (well, 2nd if you count Meridian) MMORPG, and they DID copy MUDs very heavily. Most MUDs used full pvp, and got along just fine because their smaller communities were capable of dealing with it well. UO's enormous community created problems the MUDs just didn't have. But this was an issue they addressed very early.
I really have no idea why this article was even published here. Before the author hits the keyboard next time, perhaps he should spend some time actually coming up with a real topic to write about, instead of whining about a game from eight years ago.
Owyn
Commander, Defenders of Order
http://www.defendersoforder.com
Its just another whiney writer who make everyone see his whining by posting it front page. Same as the "Vista: Will it work" news article
Blah blah blah, im a whiney $%!%! and "X" Popular thing doesn't work properly for me, i know, i'll make a new post about it.
Stop spamming my Email inbox with worthless articles.
It's unfortunate that you didn't actually try more then two days and actually understand what UO was all about.
Freedom
Community
Player Driven Content
And of course PvP
I remember when I was 13 and I my dad bought me this game when it came out. He tried it like you, and didn't understand what he was supposed to do. I started it up, kind of blundered around for a bit. Lost to a rabbit with a starter weapon and shield in town and was wondering what was going on. But after awhile, you begin to understand that UO is what you make it. Whatever you want to do, you can.
I suppose it's what seperates us as players. You on one hand might tend to enjoy a game like EQ, going on raids, quests and collecting the next phat loot. But me as a more freedom oriented gamer tend to like games around the lines of UO and EVE.
There are plenty of PvE centered games around, in fact they dominate the genre now. CoH, DDO, EQ, EQ2, MX0, WoW, Vanguard. And the list goes on and on. Even games that say they have PvP, it ends up having an item grind anyway.
So go ahead and pick one of the above. And leave my already dead niche alone.
Well, its rather surprising to me that so many people don't seem to recognize that the OP is a professional troll and most of his articles are designed to startle and annoy as many folks as he can.
Someone asked...why attack UO 10 years after its release? Because it is held in such high regard by so many people..(a true gaming legend). Nothing will generate flames better than to attack what gamers revere.
He is quite correct though..Computer Gaming World gave it the Coaster of the Year award... but not so much for "poor gameplay" and more because it was a buggy, lagfilled experience. (hey, almost everyone was on dial up back then)
As to another poster's claim that UO was too hardcore for its own good, and didn't attack a wide audience I have to disagree. UO was a revolutionary experience, and a very, very new concept. I stayed away from it myself because of its bad CGW review, the fact that I was on dial-up at the time, the fact that I had no interest in playing games with "other" people. In fact, when I finally broke down and played Lineage 1, I was determined to join the game and not speak with anyone.....just play the game by myself. Such was the mindset of many PC gamers back in the day.
Hardware was another obstacle to overcome... back in the day, only PC fanatics who were willing to spend lots of bucks on graphics could play the early games... Which is almost true today when a game like Vanguard comes out optimized for the top end of the gaming platforms...and not for the PC's that most casual gamers have (like WOW did). This one fact alone helps propel WOW to the top of the sales charts. I'm surprised that developers would rather code to the systems that the market has, but hey, if they want to limit their product to 500K subs or less, that's fine with me.
As to UO not leading people by the hand...that was by design, and what the OP felt was a flaw..many people found a feature. Different strokes for different folks Today many gamers lament the lack of an open sandbox type world in most games..instead being forced into scripted campaigns that really offer them no real choice.... we all end up having to do the exact same thing to get to the top.
As many have said... playing a game for 2 days is not nearly enough to determine if you will like it. I don't think 10 day trials are much better... I figure you have to put in a good solid month or 3...and get a character up to the middle levels (if the game must have levels, another point of contention for some gamers) before you can determine whether you really like or hate a game.
Anyway.... no reason to get so worked up over his obvious attempt to kick up a firestorm.... that's what he's here for. If he posted articles that generated no responses he'd be dressed down for it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If Steve Wilsons job is to see how many negative posts he can get regarding his articles he is doing his job very well. I hope thats all it is otherwise I am left to think this is a man with no imagination and a low tolerance for challenge of any kind.
He and the "casual players" he claims to represent seem to want everything planned out for them in nice simple steps. Well why bother playing if you already know how everything works. You are the same group always looking for that great character template that everyone else is using. If there is no challenge what is the point of playing? If you want everyting to be linear there are several other types of game to play. Enjoy those rather than bashing a game that is still succesful even without all the crap they put into the newer dumbed down MMO's.
UO had a steep learning curve and that was one of the things that made it fun. It took some time and dedication to get the hang of it. Games like UO and Eve Online give the players the chance to create not only a unique chracter but a world. No two shards of UO are the same. The shard you play on is yours. You help make it what it is. Look at the Shadowclan orcs and the many player owned towns. These are examples of what people with imagaination can achieve in these open worlds.
These are ROLE PLAYING GAMES! The roots of wich are in the pen and paper rpg's. It takes imagination to enjoy pen and paper and the same should hold true with PC rpg's MMO or not. If you lack imagination or the need for a challenge then maybe these games aren't for you.
boohoo waaaah awwwaaaaah booo hoooo *sniffle* wwwaaahhhhh boooo *sniffle*
it was 10 years ago, it was the first of it's kind, it was revolutionary, it was a lot of fun, the devs soon realized their mistakes and created trammel for new players
sorry you are so spoiled with modern games holding your hand, but if not for ultima online, i highly doubt you'd even been working for a site called MMORPG.com
i loved UO and I was 13-14 when it came out? i had the patience and maturity then to appreciate the wonder that was the first graphical online role playing game
btw I'd rrreeeaaallly like to know what the point of this rant was? dissing on a game 10 years ago? are you THAT upset and bitter about it still you had to write this? get over it
there is SO much going on in the the MMORPG market and you wasted the time to write this? write about Vanguard's absolute failure, or The Burning Crusade's astounding success, write about upcoming Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, and Conan....
your piece is like making fun of World War 2 veterans for not having laser guided missles. point is, it's in terribly bad taste
First off, I do agree with your opinion of this whiny article. Sounds like the OP finally stopped crying in the corner after 10 years and decided to come share his traumatic experience with the rest of the world. Never have I had such a strong desire to say "STFU Noob."
2 days? Psh.
Anyways, I just wanted to point out that UO was not MUD based. UO was basically a single player game that added multiplayer, which is what led to many of the problems they ended up having with it. EQ was MUD based, Brad and many others on his team (then and now) played MUDs, like Sojourn. Heck, if you ignore the graphics in EQ and just watch the chat screen, it's exactly like a MUD.
Hmm,
This artical has done one thing positive, posters to this topic have brought a lot of info to the subject. I agree that UO being attacked is unjustified 8 to 10 years after the fact. Name a MMO that has lasted that long without addressing its troubles in patches and fixes? I clearly remeber hearing about the PKing in UO and deciding that was not the game for me (in '97). Things have changed and I have a different view and perception of MMO's. This artical is ammo for the World Simulator Vs. Casual Game War. I just see it as 2 different Catagories to the MMO market. Somegames have shades of both but usally fall in either.
What would make a solution to this situation? How about a Casual (Single player driven, Quest guided, Level grinding) Game that once you Master, Unlocks a World Simulator. You learn the basic combat moves with the Casual game set and basic machanics but to qualifiy for the full world you have to graduate as a master of your chosen path. Once Master, you then can develop your character based on Skill Tree and customize to your hearts content. The Casual Game would be much more than a Tutorial but not as detailed and intricate as the full World. From my understanding, this is the flaw of WOW. There is little more to achieve after you reach level 60(now 70). Adding new adventure areas is fun to explore but adding new Achievements is the spice of a good game.
Just an idea. Either way, this thread got me to thinking and thats what the author really should have wanted.
Oh dear.
It is difficult to believe that someone - who supposedly has significant game experience- can have such an opinion.
I also started in UO many moons ago and was dropped into the starter town and made to find my way as we all did. I was hooked after 30 minutes and did not look back for five years, such was thedrive to find out more and progress.
If only, if only, if only another game could take such a similar chance today- they would be on a gold mine.
The idea of UO was to make people think, group, explore and be careful, not run up to npc's with exclamation marks on their heads and tell you to run somewhere - on your map- and then run back !
UO was an online world ,was a masterpiece then and remains a masterpiece now.
It is difficult to believe that the op has employment in the gaming industry whilst not understanding UO.
Candour
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!
What a crybaby what a whiner what a piece crap is this weekly collum.
My biggest WISH was when i read this?
I want to pk this big whiner man you bring a bad name to mmo,s PLS never write any opinion here anymore.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
And this view was shared by the MAJORITY of PC gamers out there for YEARS. A successful computer game measured its sales numbers in the millions. For some reason hardcore MMORPG players thought their pathetic market share was something worth noticing. EQ and UO were nothing more than amusing jokes in terms of sales and the computer industry treated MMORPGs just like they deserverd to be treated, amusing jokes not really worth any attention.
Now we're finally evolving away from that and here are all these people proclaiming how great UO and the 1st gen MMORPGs were. If they were so great where were the gamers? Where were the numbers that made TRULY successful PC games like Diablo and Civilization?
They weren't there because EQ and UO could never have attracted those type of numbers. Because compared to titles like Diablo and Civilization and all the other genres, those first generation MMORPGS were too busy trying to be simulators and ended up being lousy games.
And now that the industry is learning from their mistake, there are hardcores telling them go back and bring back the same screwed-up mechanics that stagnated the genre for a decade? Fortunately few modern companires are stupid enough to listen and those that do will fail just like their predecessors.
not even wurth to reply to such a stupid view, but men your so wrong in almost every sentence you have wrote in your reply:(
But its useless to argue with guys like you and many these days who like games like wow
this weekly was one of dumbest articles ive read period and you are just a fan of his opinion lol.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
And this view was shared by the MAJORITY of PC gamers out there for YEARS. A successful computer game measured its sales numbers in the millions. For some reason hardcore MMORPG players thought their pathetic market share was something worth noticing. EQ and UO were nothing more than amusing jokes in terms of sales and the computer industry treated MMORPGs just like they deserverd to be treated, amusing jokes not really worth any attention.
Now we're finally evolving away from that and here are all these people proclaiming how great UO and the 1st gen MMORPGs were. If they were so great where were the gamers? Where were the numbers that made TRULY successful PC games like Diablo and Civilization?
They weren't there because EQ and UO could never have attracted those type of numbers. Because compared to titles like Diablo and Civilization and all the other genres, those first generation MMORPGS were too busy trying to be simulators and ended up being lousy games.
And now that the industry is learning from their mistake, there are hardcores telling them go back and bring back the same screwed-up mechanics that stagnated the genre for a decade? Fortunately few modern companires are stupid enough to listen and those that do will fail just like their predecessors.
Yes, the computer industry certainly treated the mmorpg genre as a joke that didn't deserve any attent [/sarcasm]. Wake up. Ultima Online was bought out by mega corporation EA, big names such as Westwood started working on Earth & Beyond after the success of those games, again published by EA. Everquest had SONY behind them.The replys here make more sence then the whole article, my guess is that most of the people would be able to write a better article then Steve Wilson ever could.
To me, the whole "casual versus hardcore" debate is a non sequitur, and I think this entire article series on the "casual corner" is just misguided on a fundamental level. In fact, I think we have the entire notion of, "what is casual?," and "what is hardcore?," completely wrong.
What we believe is that a "hardcore player" is one who has more time or money to devote to a game.
Totally wrong.
What a "hardcore player" really means is that the player loves the game so much, they want to spend more time, and more money there, and want to play it to the hilt.
What we believe is that a "casual player" is one who has less time or money to devote to the game.
Again, totally wrong.
What a "casual player" really means is that the player is indifferent to the game, that they would rather do other things, play other games, and devote more free time to things other than the game.
You look at hardcore versus casual drinking, or gambling, or drug use, its never about the differences in the thing obsessed over. Its about the emotional and psychological disposition of the obsessed.
That's why some of the most "casual" games, like WoW, have far more "hardcore" habits displayed in its players, and why some of the most "hardcore" games, like EVE, have players that play it casually. It really has nothing to do with death penalties, realism, playability, travel times, PvP, crafting, etc. I'm convinced that's all just a distraction from the real issue, and that is, players will play games they like better more frequently than games they don't like as much. When they play that game exclusively, for many hours, they are now "hardcore," even if the game was only ever intended to be played casually.
The question is not, I repeat, not : what is the difference between casual and hardcore players, or what is a hardcore game, versus a casual game?
The real question we should be asking ourselves is: what causes the player to commit to a game more strongly, versus a game they can take or leave?
See, we here are under the impression that the industry has determined that consumers of MMO entertainment want more casual games. What we haven't talked about is why the industry wants gamers to spend as little as possible in their games, instead of more time?
When we answer that one, we'll see why we get "games," and not "worlds." Why we get looting, instead of crafting. Why we get portals, instead of big zones. Why we get levels, and not skills. Why we get more "twitch," and less character customization. Why roleplay has disappeared, and why we haven't moved past guilds as a social construct to organize players.
In short, let's entertain the notion that it isn't the players who want casual games. Its the MMO companies who want players to approach the games casually.
Questions?
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE