truth. Text MUDs were the originators. When I first logged into EQ or WoW my estimation of how good the game was had to do with how well the critical MUD features were translated over into a GUI. For me, this is where WoW really wins.
As for the text in the boxes, and all those notifications you get about everything all the time (in text), the only difference between this and an oldschool MUD is that you've got it coming out in a pretty box overlaying a 3d environment.
How dare you present him with logic! Don't you understand? He fights epic fights, in epic games, with epic toons....eats epic food and takes epic dumps! He has more e..pic..icity...ness in his little finger than you have in your whole unepic body! - ChicagoCub
MUD's are the only place you will find roleplaying in its truest, unadulterated form. MMORPG's don't even come close.
Exactly. They don't come close, hence your answer is WRONG.
MMOs do NOT come from MUDs. There are virtually no similarities left, as you yourself said. The OP was asking, which was the FIRST MMO, from which had the MOST PEOPLE COPY FROM. And that is EverQuest.
MUD's are the only place you will find roleplaying in its truest, unadulterated form. MMORPG's don't even come close.
Exactly. They don't come close, hence your answer is WRONG.
MMOs do NOT come from MUDs. There are virtually no similarities left, as you yourself said. The OP was asking, which was the FIRST MMO, from which had the MOST PEOPLE COPY FROM. And that is EverQuest.
When EQ first hit the scene, believe it or not, there were a good number of people RPing. I did too in fact, as I came from a MUD called Gemstone 3, where RP was enforced. I think a lot of MUDS out there are still far more complex than MMOs in general. However I think you are right, their similarity seems to end in the fact that theyre fantasy based. Id go so far as to say console RPGs had as much to do with the birth of the MMO as muds did, if not more.
Meridian was more a mud than a MMO. UO was the first real MMO. Most of today's games were copied from Everquest though, that was the first game to introduce classes which everyone seems to emulate.
EQ took the single player console design forced it into multi-player game.
I dont know what your going on about right here, because EQ is a heavily group reliant game.
I'll chime in.
The concept of grouping and the holy trinity group build which EQ brought to the table is based on solo games. Solo group games are designed around tank, dps and healing classes, which works our good for a solo game where a person can play all roles. But when you take this exact same concept and force it into a multi-player game it leads to crappy grouping because of over and under played classes, bad class design, etc, which lead to most people preferring not to group.
Look at pnp DnD or even most novel there groups are not based around this "perfect" groups concept that mmo force you into.
All pnp DnD classes could take/avoid hits in different ways. Healing was something you usually did inbetween battles.
This is why I feel grouping in mmo is completely flawed in it's concept because it is based on a solo player game.
Mostly EQ. But then, newer MMOs do everythign better than EQ. What people remember as better back than were the players and how the games made them feel. The games themselves certainly weren't better designed. Not by a long shot.
The first real MMOs were The Realm and Meridian 59. Both had rather small player bases, around 30K i think, but are still active today and you can play.
NEXUS: Kingdom of the Winds was the first real MMO from Korea, again you can still play it.
Ultima Online was the first MMO that really started making them popular.
But EQ was the one that really grew the genre and is the blueprint that most games have been made from, though they have never even touched how good the first was.
UO, EQ and AC were the big three but at the highpoints EQ had about twice as many players as either of them. Not saying that to cause a fight, not saying that because i think EQ was better, just saying it because it is true. Which is why you see more PVE based games out and less PVP based games.
i came into the MMO scene late starting with Vanguard. All i hear is that ##### is just a copy of ##### or that #### is just a cheap ripoff of #####. So what MMO was truly "original"
all first person shooters are just a copy of Wolfenstein 3d.
I'd say that EQ1 and UO were truly original.... but some might argue if they really get into the nitty gritty.
Grymm MMO addict in recovery! EQ,SWG preCU,L2,EQ2,GW,CoH/CoV,V:SOH, Aion,AoC,TR,WAR,EVE,BP,RIFT,WoW and others... no more!
EQ took the single player console design forced it into multi-player game.
I dont know what your going on about right here, because EQ is a heavily group reliant game.
I'll chime in.
The concept of grouping and the holy trinity group build which EQ brought to the table is based on solo games. Solo group games are designed around tank, dps and healing classes, which works our good for a solo game where a person can play all roles. But when you take this exact same concept and force it into a multi-player game it leads to crappy grouping because of over and under played classes, bad class design, etc, which lead to most people preferring not to group.
Look at pnp DnD or even most novel there groups are not based around this "perfect" groups concept that mmo force you into.
All pnp DnD classes could take/avoid hits in different ways. Healing was something you usually did inbetween battles.
This is why I feel grouping in mmo is completely flawed in it's concept because it is based on a solo player game.
funny, its MMO grouping that has kept me playing these games for 10 years..........
Grymm MMO addict in recovery! EQ,SWG preCU,L2,EQ2,GW,CoH/CoV,V:SOH, Aion,AoC,TR,WAR,EVE,BP,RIFT,WoW and others... no more!
i can't see how lineage isn't in the discussion. its just as old as the others mentioned (i was in the korean beta in 96 or 97).
so many games are basicly copies of that, pretty much every asian grinder, hp potion popping, equipment enhancing game that the freaks here think will be the new big thing is just a poor imitation of lineage but 3d instead of 2d.
I really do not agree that MMOs, especially new ones are almost all copies of "the one original MMO". New MMOs like WoW and Atlantica online brought considerable innovations in the genre that cannot be said to have only copied from "the MMO". Atlantica for example deferred from the band wagon trend of hack-and-slash based MMO. It introduced a turn-based battle system which is a right kick to the right direction to improve MMO gaming experience in general.
Comments
Really, all MMO's link back to the table-top game of the 1970's "Dungeons and Dragons".
first stand alone original that most will quote is UO.
First 3d game EQ.
First real realm vs realm where you cant chat with your enemy: DAOC.
First mmo [i think] that had cut scenes: DACO (they even hired the same guy to do the wow narration).
WoW cloned EQ & DAOC.
If I recall ex UO and ex EQ worked on the wow title.
MUD
truth. Text MUDs were the originators. When I first logged into EQ or WoW my estimation of how good the game was had to do with how well the critical MUD features were translated over into a GUI. For me, this is where WoW really wins.
As for the text in the boxes, and all those notifications you get about everything all the time (in text), the only difference between this and an oldschool MUD is that you've got it coming out in a pretty box overlaying a 3d environment.
Got back into an old character here recently: http://www.aardwolf.com/ . MUDs are not dead.
How dare you present him with logic! Don't you understand? He fights epic fights, in epic games, with epic toons....eats epic food and takes epic dumps! He has more e..pic..icity...ness in his little finger than you have in your whole unepic body! - ChicagoCub
This.
MUD's are the only place you will find roleplaying in its truest, unadulterated form. MMORPG's don't even come close.
This.
MUD's are the only place you will find roleplaying in its truest, unadulterated form. MMORPG's don't even come close.
Exactly. They don't come close, hence your answer is WRONG.
MMOs do NOT come from MUDs. There are virtually no similarities left, as you yourself said. The OP was asking, which was the FIRST MMO, from which had the MOST PEOPLE COPY FROM. And that is EverQuest.
Darkfall Travelogues!
This.
MUD's are the only place you will find roleplaying in its truest, unadulterated form. MMORPG's don't even come close.
Exactly. They don't come close, hence your answer is WRONG.
MMOs do NOT come from MUDs. There are virtually no similarities left, as you yourself said. The OP was asking, which was the FIRST MMO, from which had the MOST PEOPLE COPY FROM. And that is EverQuest.
When EQ first hit the scene, believe it or not, there were a good number of people RPing. I did too in fact, as I came from a MUD called Gemstone 3, where RP was enforced. I think a lot of MUDS out there are still far more complex than MMOs in general. However I think you are right, their similarity seems to end in the fact that theyre fantasy based. Id go so far as to say console RPGs had as much to do with the birth of the MMO as muds did, if not more.
Meridian was more a mud than a MMO. UO was the first real MMO. Most of today's games were copied from Everquest though, that was the first game to introduce classes which everyone seems to emulate.
I dont know what your going on about right here, because EQ is a heavily group reliant game.
I'll chime in.
The concept of grouping and the holy trinity group build which EQ brought to the table is based on solo games. Solo group games are designed around tank, dps and healing classes, which works our good for a solo game where a person can play all roles. But when you take this exact same concept and force it into a multi-player game it leads to crappy grouping because of over and under played classes, bad class design, etc, which lead to most people preferring not to group.
Look at pnp DnD or even most novel there groups are not based around this "perfect" groups concept that mmo force you into.
All pnp DnD classes could take/avoid hits in different ways. Healing was something you usually did inbetween battles.
This is why I feel grouping in mmo is completely flawed in it's concept because it is based on a solo player game.
Mostly EQ. But then, newer MMOs do everythign better than EQ. What people remember as better back than were the players and how the games made them feel. The games themselves certainly weren't better designed. Not by a long shot.
The first real MMOs were The Realm and Meridian 59. Both had rather small player bases, around 30K i think, but are still active today and you can play.
NEXUS: Kingdom of the Winds was the first real MMO from Korea, again you can still play it.
Ultima Online was the first MMO that really started making them popular.
But EQ was the one that really grew the genre and is the blueprint that most games have been made from, though they have never even touched how good the first was.
UO, EQ and AC were the big three but at the highpoints EQ had about twice as many players as either of them. Not saying that to cause a fight, not saying that because i think EQ was better, just saying it because it is true. Which is why you see more PVE based games out and less PVP based games.
all first person shooters are just a copy of Wolfenstein 3d.
I'd say that EQ1 and UO were truly original.... but some might argue if they really get into the nitty gritty.
Grymm
MMO addict in recovery!
EQ,SWG preCU,L2,EQ2,GW,CoH/CoV,V:SOH,
Aion,AoC,TR,WAR,EVE,BP,RIFT,WoW and others... no more!
I dont know what your going on about right here, because EQ is a heavily group reliant game.
I'll chime in.
The concept of grouping and the holy trinity group build which EQ brought to the table is based on solo games. Solo group games are designed around tank, dps and healing classes, which works our good for a solo game where a person can play all roles. But when you take this exact same concept and force it into a multi-player game it leads to crappy grouping because of over and under played classes, bad class design, etc, which lead to most people preferring not to group.
Look at pnp DnD or even most novel there groups are not based around this "perfect" groups concept that mmo force you into.
All pnp DnD classes could take/avoid hits in different ways. Healing was something you usually did inbetween battles.
This is why I feel grouping in mmo is completely flawed in it's concept because it is based on a solo player game.
funny, its MMO grouping that has kept me playing these games for 10 years..........
Grymm
MMO addict in recovery!
EQ,SWG preCU,L2,EQ2,GW,CoH/CoV,V:SOH,
Aion,AoC,TR,WAR,EVE,BP,RIFT,WoW and others... no more!
That's interesting because, if that was their goal, they succeeded in making a game with more faults than EQ ever had.
Faults? how many subs EQ + EQ2 ever got?
ALL modern MMOs are based off of Neverwinter Nights from 1991 (my first graphic mmo). It was the first graphical MMO, and all others copy it!
Didn't say grouping is bad just flawed in it's concept.
Muds-> Meridian 59 -> UO -> Asherons Call -> Everquest -> Everything else.
As far as the American MMO scene.
i can't see how lineage isn't in the discussion. its just as old as the others mentioned (i was in the korean beta in 96 or 97).
so many games are basicly copies of that, pretty much every asian grinder, hp potion popping, equipment enhancing game that the freaks here think will be the new big thing is just a poor imitation of lineage but 3d instead of 2d.
everquest
ultima online
dark age of camelot
thats all.
I really do not agree that MMOs, especially new ones are almost all copies of "the one original MMO". New MMOs like WoW and Atlantica online brought considerable innovations in the genre that cannot be said to have only copied from "the MMO". Atlantica for example deferred from the band wagon trend of hack-and-slash based MMO. It introduced a turn-based battle system which is a right kick to the right direction to improve MMO gaming experience in general.