(even the devs have stated that if EQ never existed then WoW wouldnt have either, Rob Pardo interview).
Because EQ made MMOs popular. Just like EVE wouldn't exist without EQ, because EQ brought investors to the market.
There are certainly similarities between EQ and WoW(they are both RPG based games), but there are similarities between EVE and EQ, too. Tanks, DPS and support roles, no? You're telling me EVE doesn't have archetypes or classes? C'mon, you're brighter than that.
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Well perhaps we could clone UO for the next 10+ years...I am sure by the end of that time, we'll be sick of UO clones and want something new. But as of now...it's been EQ and WoW clones...so hard to say it's OK to clone UO where there has hardly been anything noteworthy that clones UO.
Originally posted by fyerwall. WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc). Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start. UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
When EQ started there were no epics. Furthermore, very little gear was class restricted. Classes were regulated to specific types of weapons and capped at a maximum armor, but could always choose as to what exactly they were using. Class restrictions on items did not start showing up until later, and then were only tied to very difficult to aquire quested pieces for a long time.
As far as pre-defined roles, they were not as inflexible as you seem to think. Many is the time we had aRranger, Magician or Cleric for a tank. Heck, many is the time my shaman was group tank or the only healer. While certain classes may have been better at certain roles, nothing was written in stone.
Heck, if you set your group up right, you did not even need a tank or a healer. ( Druid, or Necro kite group anyone? )
Class roles did not become as relevent until several years later when elitism started rearing its ugly head.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
The more content the devs make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more theme park it is. The more content the players make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more sandbox it is. So how much of eq1 was player made?
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
The more content the devs make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more theme park it is. The more content the players make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more sandbox it is. So how much of eq1 was player made?
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
In EQ you didn't have any tool to build or create content. But have in mind one thing, not being a sandbox doesn't make it automatically a Theme Park. In my oppinion EQ was not a sandbox game, but it wasn't either a Theme Park.
But, as Nightbringe says, if you played it, you realized there was quite a player controlled features. For instance, guilds organized themselves to loot dungeons, and individual players had to count on each other to survive and do things. That means, community was very tight, and a community doing things together, that is something i understand as being sandbox, althoug I repeat, I don't label EQ as sandbox.
The more content the devs make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more theme park it is. The more content the players make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more sandbox it is. So how much of eq1 was player made?
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
In EQ you didn't have any tool to build or create content. But have in mind one thing, not being a sandbox doesn't make it automatically a Theme Park. In my oppinion EQ was not a sandbox game, but it wasn't either a Theme Park.
But, as Nightbringe says, if you played it, you realized there was quite a player controlled features. For instance, guilds organized themselves to loot dungeons, and individual players had to count on each other to survive and do things. That means, community was very tight, and a community doing things together, that is something i understand as being sandbox, althoug I repeat, I don't label EQ as sandbox.
EQ was true rpg and made effort to hide the fact it was game,It is still "theme park" but it is how a theme park should be approached.People talk all time about Sandboxes(Ulitma) and Themepark (WoW).People often forget that you can put a Sandbox in theme park aka EQ.
You may believe that more people liked EQ than UO because it had more subscribers, but in reality society changed and evolved to accept mmos more in the 2 years between UO and EQ that gave more available people to play mmos, the second thing was EQ was the first major mmo with 3d graphics (kind of) it was the new shiny color car that was fun for a time. I played it while I kept my UO sub going and would swap back and forth because UO was better as far as immersion EQ had better graphics. It is not innovation to copy either game types, though all games and software is built on a prexisiting model or code so nothing in computers is truly innovative in the sense that it is brand new, but what they usually add to a game is what is innovative.
The more content the devs make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more theme park it is. The more content the players make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more sandbox it is. So how much of eq1 was player made?
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
In EQ you didn't have any tool to build or create content. But have in mind one thing, not being a sandbox doesn't make it automatically a Theme Park. In my oppinion EQ was not a sandbox game, but it wasn't either a Theme Park.
But, as Nightbringe says, if you played it, you realized there was quite a player controlled features. For instance, guilds organized themselves to loot dungeons, and individual players had to count on each other to survive and do things. That means, community was very tight, and a community doing things together, that is something i understand as being sandbox, althoug I repeat, I don't label EQ as sandbox.
Aye, EQ wasnt a themepark nor a sandbox... I guess you could just say EQ was EQ. It didnt lead you everywhere and at the same time you didnt have much impact on the world itself. It was just there for players to screw around in and have fun (what ever their definition of fun was). Sure over the years SOE changed the game a lot, but that was pretty much way after the game had peaked and began to cool.
WoW on the other hand took the foundation EQ laid out, built other systems into it, crammed it full of things from other games, slapped a map in your hand and a GPS in your pocket and told you to follow this road to that person. On your way down that road you found smaller attractions off to the side of the road. Those attractions gave you alternate routes to even more attractions. This was the birth of the themepark MMO.
Though all in all WoW isnt what caused stagnation in the Genre. Lazy developers and greedy publishers who would rather ride the success of another game than to make something different did.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by fyerwall. WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc). Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start. UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
When EQ started there were no epics. Furthermore, very little gear was class restricted. Classes were regulated to specific types of weapons and capped at a maximum armor, but could always choose as to what exactly they were using. Class restrictions on items did not start showing up until later, and then were only tied to very difficult to aquire quested pieces for a long time.
As far as pre-defined roles, they were not as inflexible as you seem to think. Many is the time we had aRranger, Magician or Cleric for a tank. Heck, many is the time my shaman was group tank or the only healer. While certain classes may have been better at certain roles, nothing was written in stone.
Heck, if you set your group up right, you did not even need a tank or a healer. ( Druid, or Necro kite group anyone? )
Class roles did not become as relevent until several years later when elitism started rearing its ugly head.
Aye, I know what you are saying as I played EQ from phase 2 beta all the way through PoP. What I was saying though is that in a game like EQ/WoW, classes had defined roles which were defined by their skills and spells which were given to the players without a choice option. As a cleric you were given mostly heal type abilities. Sure you could tank and solo, but the game defined each character to a role by class. Players didnt always have to follow the role, but it was set in stone from the start by the people who designed the game.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
The more content the devs make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more theme park it is. The more content the players make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more sandbox it is. So how much of eq1 was player made?
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
The main thing EQ really had was social interaction. Simply due to downtime groups tended to talk a lot. Since for the most part no one was really using voice technology you had to pay attention. Since most places were actually a challenge other than safe areas you didn't afk as much...
Its not really "user created" its "social" .. the biggest thing in most games now is they really aren't "social".
The more content the devs make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more theme park it is. The more content the players make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more sandbox it is. So how much of eq1 was player made?
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
The main thing EQ really had was social interaction. Simply due to downtime groups tended to talk a lot. Since for the most part no one was really using voice technology you had to pay attention. Since most places were actually a challenge other than safe areas you didn't afk as much...
Its not really "user created" its "social" .. the biggest thing in most games now is they really aren't "social".
You didn't have down time in groups, unless you were in a bad spot and had to wait for respawns.
Really you don't understand why people are sick of EQ clone? A decade of pretty much the same crap culminating in the optimity of theme park games WoW and you are wondering why people would like to see a UO clone.
"Didn’t Everquest, The granddaddy of Theme Park MMOs, prove once before, that it is the style of gameplay that people like most, back then when Sandbox games were dominant? So why is this community so angry when newer games try to follow EQ’s path of gameplay? Blizzard did it with WoW, and had major success. So why can’t others?"
What? Sandboxes were dominating when EQ was release really? I must of missed all the other sections I had open to me when I started play UO in 98.
What did EQ prove?
It proved that people wanted options when it came to races and pvp options.
It proved that many people would much rather be in a 3d world over a isometric world.
It proved that class/level design was much easier for the masses to under stand. Why think about how to build your character properly when you could have a pre-made one handed to you? Why manage several skills when you can just have one simple level? From my little experience in EQ, why think about where and what to kill when all the zones and mobs were laid out in sequential order for you.
I'm not hating on EQ it beat the pants off UO because UO did not or could not evolve.
EQ dumbed down the genre well before Blizzard got their grimy little paws on it. If you don't think EQ was a theme park MMO then too bad for you because it was:
~~UO (flexible skill-based system) was far superior to EQ (level/class based system aka dumbed down system to show players what they should be doing aka D&D lite).
~~UO provided a world of options for players to carve their own destinies, which was greater than EQ's huge, broken theme park world that provided players with limited options that truly shined as soon as players reached level caps. This lead to raids, which were dumbed down encounters that were suppose to mimic D&D's final encounters after a long session.
~~UO didn't create it's world to mimic a level 1 to max D&D-like campain with side quest. It made a world where players could truly live it and be a part of without the need for scripted encounters, pointless quest, useless player loot that had no risk of being lost/stolen/broken.
This is why myself along with others say EQ was a theme park MMO. Not theme park of the Disney land quality, but more like a six-flags type of theme park. WoW would be the Disney version of a theme park MMO, hence the reason more people like it.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Really you don't understand why people are sick of EQ clone? A decade of pretty much the same crap culminating in the optimity of theme park games WoW and you are wondering why people would like to see a UO clone. "Didn’t Everquest, The granddaddy of Theme Park MMOs, prove once before, that it is the style of gameplay that people like most, back then when Sandbox games were dominant? So why is this community so angry when newer games try to follow EQ’s path of gameplay? Blizzard did it with WoW, and had major success. So why can’t others?" What? Sandboxes were dominating when EQ was release really? I must of missed all the other sections I had open to me when I started play UO in 98. What did EQ prove? It proved that people wanted options when it came to races and pvp options. It proved that many people would much rather be in a 3d world over a isometric world. It proved that class/level design was much easier for the masses to under stand. Why think about how to build your character properly when you could have a pre-made one handed to you? Why manage several skills when you can just have one simple level? From my little experience in EQ, why think about where and what to kill when all the zones and mobs were laid out in sequential order for you. I'm not hating on EQ it beat the pants off UO because UO did not or could not evolve.
Again you are missing the point. Why is it ok to clone UO, but somehow is accepted with the fact that it is not innovating? <------- This sums up the question better.
OK so it’s ok to Clone Ultima Online, but it’s not ok to Clone Everquest?
I get this message, because I see a lot of members of this site scream about how the MMORPG industry isn’t innovating, and is copying WoW, yet these same people are perfectly fine with games copying the granddaddy of Sandbox games (Ultima Online). Whats the deal on this? These people complain about Clones of theme park games reducing the innovation in the industry, but wouldn’t UO Sandbox Clones be the same thing Logically?
Didn’t Everquest, The granddaddy of Theme Park MMOs, prove once before, that it is the style of gameplay that people like most, back then when Sandbox games were dominant? So why is this community so angry when newer games try to follow EQ’s path of gameplay? Blizzard did it with WoW, and had major success. So why can’t others?
Is it Everquest, or Theme Park style gameplay’s fault, that newer MMORPG developers are taking too much focus on Graphics, and releasing unfinished products, that ultimately lead to their game’s failure?
No I don’t think so.
So whats so wrong with copying Everquest, that doesn’t apply to games that copy Ultima Online?
As others have said it's not that there is an issue with "cloning" EQ, it's that there has not been an equal or even significant attempt to recreate the gameplay/mechanics and more sim-like features of UO. What some people don't get (because everything has to be either or in their little worlds) is that the vast majority of people on board with this sentiment aren't saying to stop making games like EQ. They are saying we need more games like UO. Just as the Themepark style of games gets a new update every year we'd like to see the other type of game get the same update from equivalent companies.
Too many themepark lovers get their shorts in a knot thinking there is some attack on their favored type game. If they'd come off the defensiveand look at the genre they'd see the imbalance and understand why we want more of the other. We like to have games that we like to play too! And as for any comments about going back and playing those older games, I'd respond okay, how about you go back and play the the older themepark ones. Everyone likes to have an updated version with refined mechanics and new worlds to explore.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
OK so it’s ok to Clone Ultima Online, but it’s not ok to Clone Everquest?
I get this message, because I see a lot of members of this site scream about how the MMORPG industry isn’t innovating, and is copying WoW, yet these same people are perfectly fine with games copying the granddaddy of Sandbox games (Ultima Online). Whats the deal on this? These people complain about Clones of theme park games reducing the innovation in the industry, but wouldn’t UO Sandbox Clones be the same thing Logically?
Didn’t Everquest, The granddaddy of Theme Park MMOs, prove once before, that it is the style of gameplay that people like most, back then when Sandbox games were dominant? So why is this community so angry when newer games try to follow EQ’s path of gameplay? Blizzard did it with WoW, and had major success. So why can’t others?
Is it Everquest, or Theme Park style gameplay’s fault, that newer MMORPG developers are taking too much focus on Graphics, and releasing unfinished products, that ultimately lead to their game’s failure?
No I don’t think so.
So whats so wrong with copying Everquest, that doesn’t apply to games that copy Ultima Online?
As others have said it's not that there is an issue with "cloning" EQ, it's that there has not been an equal or even significant attempt to recreate the gameplay/mechanics and more sim-like features of UO. What some people don't get (because everything has to be either or in their little worlds) is that the vast majority of people on board with this sentiment aren't saying to stop making games like EQ. They are saying we need more games like UO. Just as the Themepark style of games gets a new update every year we'd like to see the other type of game get the same update from equivalent companies.
Too many themepark lovers get their shorts in a knot thinking there is some attack on their favored type game. If they'd come off the defensiveand look at the genre they'd see the imbalance and understand why we want more of the other. We like to have games that we like to play too! And as for any comments about going back and playing those older games, I'd respond okay, how about you go back and play the the older themepark ones. Everyone likes to have an updated version with refined mechanics and new worlds to explore.
HOW IN THE WORLD DOES CLONING== INNOVATING????
Answer that BUDDY!!!!!
All I read on this forum from these EQ clone Haters, is that it is making the genre Less Innovating!
But How would a UO Clone not also do the same thing?
Oh my god. Why are people actually praising WoW. Its a straight up clone that does nothing new or amazing. The only people immpressed with it are people that have never played MMOs before it. With WoW they'll always have that nostalgia aspect and remember it as awesome.
WoW was successful because blizzard had a ton of money to spend on advertising. They spent their money well. Now pay attention They are the ONLY mmo in america to advertise on television because they have the money to do so. As far as the game goes, there is nothing special about it.
ANY mmo can gain success if it had the exposure WoW has. It brought millions of Non-mmo players onto the scene just like myspace brought non-internet people into the scene.
The mmos that have the potential to out due WoW are:
DC Universe (if they used the money from the DC comics which they wont)
Final Fantasy 14 (money from the all the other games, which they wont bother with since they didn't do it with 11)
Until mmo companies in america and other western country spend as much money on advertisement like the guys in asia, WoW will always be popular and the ignorance that its fan base has will continue to grow and harden.
OK so it’s ok to Clone Ultima Online, but it’s not ok to Clone Everquest?
I get this message, because I see a lot of members of this site scream about how the MMORPG industry isn’t innovating, and is copying WoW, yet these same people are perfectly fine with games copying the granddaddy of Sandbox games (Ultima Online). Whats the deal on this? These people complain about Clones of theme park games reducing the innovation in the industry, but wouldn’t UO Sandbox Clones be the same thing Logically?
Didn’t Everquest, The granddaddy of Theme Park MMOs, prove once before, that it is the style of gameplay that people like most, back then when Sandbox games were dominant? So why is this community so angry when newer games try to follow EQ’s path of gameplay? Blizzard did it with WoW, and had major success. So why can’t others?
Is it Everquest, or Theme Park style gameplay’s fault, that newer MMORPG developers are taking too much focus on Graphics, and releasing unfinished products, that ultimately lead to their game’s failure?
No I don’t think so.
So whats so wrong with copying Everquest, that doesn’t apply to games that copy Ultima Online?
As others have said it's not that there is an issue with "cloning" EQ, it's that there has not been an equal or even significant attempt to recreate the gameplay/mechanics and more sim-like features of UO. What some people don't get (because everything has to be either or in their little worlds) is that the vast majority of people on board with this sentiment aren't saying to stop making games like EQ. They are saying we need more games like UO. Just as the Themepark style of games gets a new update every year we'd like to see the other type of game get the same update from equivalent companies.
Too many themepark lovers get their shorts in a knot thinking there is some attack on their favored type game. If they'd come off the defensiveand look at the genre they'd see the imbalance and understand why we want more of the other. We like to have games that we like to play too! And as for any comments about going back and playing those older games, I'd respond okay, how about you go back and play the the older themepark ones. Everyone likes to have an updated version with refined mechanics and new worlds to explore.
HOW IN THE WORLD DOES CLONING== INNOVATING????
Answer that BUDDY!!!!!
All I read on this forum from these EQ clone Haters, is that it is making the genre Less Innovating!
But How would a UO Clone not also do the same thing?
I didn't say that cloning equaled innovation, BUDDY!
I stated that certain folks are want more games to be made in the mold of UO as there is a lack of games made in that method. I also stated that those games would see updates to those systems/mechanics. Updates by nature of the world would prohibit it from being a clone.
And also as I pointed out and you completely ignored, there aren't alot of UO like games out. So even if it was a clone it'd be offering more variety of gameplay than what we're getting at current.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Oh my god. Why are people actually praising WoW. Its a straight up clone that does nothing new or amazing. The only people immpressed with it are people that have never played MMOs before it. With WoW they'll always have that nostalgia aspect and remember it as awesome.
WoW was successful because blizzard had a ton of money to spend on advertising. They spent their money well. Now pay attention They are the ONLY mmo in america to advertise on television because they have the money to do so. As far as the game goes, there is nothing special about it.
ANY mmo can gain success if it had the exposure WoW has. It brought millions of Non-mmo players onto the scene just like myspace brought non-internet people into the scene.
The mmos that have the potential to out due WoW are: DC Universe (if they used the money from the DC comics which they wont) Final Fantasy 14 (money from the all the other games, which they wont bother with since they didn't do it with 11)
Until mmo companies in america and other western country spend as much money on advertisement like the guys in asia, WoW will always be popular and the ignorance that its fan base has will continue to grow and harden.
I disagree. I didnt start seeing WoW adds on TV till I was already playing TBC. By then, WoW was already at the top.
Comments
(even the devs have stated that if EQ never existed then WoW wouldnt have either, Rob Pardo interview).
Because EQ made MMOs popular. Just like EVE wouldn't exist without EQ, because EQ brought investors to the market.
There are certainly similarities between EQ and WoW(they are both RPG based games), but there are similarities between EVE and EQ, too. Tanks, DPS and support roles, no? You're telling me EVE doesn't have archetypes or classes? C'mon, you're brighter than that.
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Well perhaps we could clone UO for the next 10+ years...I am sure by the end of that time, we'll be sick of UO clones and want something new. But as of now...it's been EQ and WoW clones...so hard to say it's OK to clone UO where there has hardly been anything noteworthy that clones UO.
Forgot lvls
Honestly, this is very poor to label EQ as a Theme Park.
First, pre-determined classes has nothing to do with Theme Park.
EQ had very few quests. On the other hand, quests "per se" have nothing to do with Them Park.
Pre determined raids, I don't know what you are talking about.
Restricted level based zones, that didn't exist in EQ.
Linked mobs is a Theme Park feature? Ok.
And Expansion Packs?
Have you ever played EQ? Do you know at all what a Theme Park is?
The more content the devs make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more theme park it is.
The more content the players make, eg zones, mobs, npcs, towns, dungeons, the more sandbox it is.
So how much of eq1 was player made?
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
When EQ started there were no epics. Furthermore, very little gear was class restricted. Classes were regulated to specific types of weapons and capped at a maximum armor, but could always choose as to what exactly they were using. Class restrictions on items did not start showing up until later, and then were only tied to very difficult to aquire quested pieces for a long time.
As far as pre-defined roles, they were not as inflexible as you seem to think. Many is the time we had aRranger, Magician or Cleric for a tank. Heck, many is the time my shaman was group tank or the only healer. While certain classes may have been better at certain roles, nothing was written in stone.
Heck, if you set your group up right, you did not even need a tank or a healer. ( Druid, or Necro kite group anyone? )
Class roles did not become as relevent until several years later when elitism started rearing its ugly head.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
In EQ you didn't have any tool to build or create content. But have in mind one thing, not being a sandbox doesn't make it automatically a Theme Park. In my oppinion EQ was not a sandbox game, but it wasn't either a Theme Park.
But, as Nightbringe says, if you played it, you realized there was quite a player controlled features. For instance, guilds organized themselves to loot dungeons, and individual players had to count on each other to survive and do things. That means, community was very tight, and a community doing things together, that is something i understand as being sandbox, althoug I repeat, I don't label EQ as sandbox.
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
In EQ you didn't have any tool to build or create content. But have in mind one thing, not being a sandbox doesn't make it automatically a Theme Park. In my oppinion EQ was not a sandbox game, but it wasn't either a Theme Park.
But, as Nightbringe says, if you played it, you realized there was quite a player controlled features. For instance, guilds organized themselves to loot dungeons, and individual players had to count on each other to survive and do things. That means, community was very tight, and a community doing things together, that is something i understand as being sandbox, althoug I repeat, I don't label EQ as sandbox.
EQ was true rpg and made effort to hide the fact it was game,It is still "theme park" but it is how a theme park should be approached.People talk all time about Sandboxes(Ulitma) and Themepark (WoW).People often forget that you can put a Sandbox in theme park aka EQ.
One example I will provide.
There was no marketplace in the original EQ. The players created one.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
You may believe that more people liked EQ than UO because it had more subscribers, but in reality society changed and evolved to accept mmos more in the 2 years between UO and EQ that gave more available people to play mmos, the second thing was EQ was the first major mmo with 3d graphics (kind of) it was the new shiny color car that was fun for a time. I played it while I kept my UO sub going and would swap back and forth because UO was better as far as immersion EQ had better graphics. It is not innovation to copy either game types, though all games and software is built on a prexisiting model or code so nothing in computers is truly innovative in the sense that it is brand new, but what they usually add to a game is what is innovative.
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
In EQ you didn't have any tool to build or create content. But have in mind one thing, not being a sandbox doesn't make it automatically a Theme Park. In my oppinion EQ was not a sandbox game, but it wasn't either a Theme Park.
But, as Nightbringe says, if you played it, you realized there was quite a player controlled features. For instance, guilds organized themselves to loot dungeons, and individual players had to count on each other to survive and do things. That means, community was very tight, and a community doing things together, that is something i understand as being sandbox, althoug I repeat, I don't label EQ as sandbox.
Aye, EQ wasnt a themepark nor a sandbox... I guess you could just say EQ was EQ. It didnt lead you everywhere and at the same time you didnt have much impact on the world itself. It was just there for players to screw around in and have fun (what ever their definition of fun was). Sure over the years SOE changed the game a lot, but that was pretty much way after the game had peaked and began to cool.
WoW on the other hand took the foundation EQ laid out, built other systems into it, crammed it full of things from other games, slapped a map in your hand and a GPS in your pocket and told you to follow this road to that person. On your way down that road you found smaller attractions off to the side of the road. Those attractions gave you alternate routes to even more attractions. This was the birth of the themepark MMO.
Though all in all WoW isnt what caused stagnation in the Genre. Lazy developers and greedy publishers who would rather ride the success of another game than to make something different did.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
When EQ started there were no epics. Furthermore, very little gear was class restricted. Classes were regulated to specific types of weapons and capped at a maximum armor, but could always choose as to what exactly they were using. Class restrictions on items did not start showing up until later, and then were only tied to very difficult to aquire quested pieces for a long time.
As far as pre-defined roles, they were not as inflexible as you seem to think. Many is the time we had aRranger, Magician or Cleric for a tank. Heck, many is the time my shaman was group tank or the only healer. While certain classes may have been better at certain roles, nothing was written in stone.
Heck, if you set your group up right, you did not even need a tank or a healer. ( Druid, or Necro kite group anyone? )
Class roles did not become as relevent until several years later when elitism started rearing its ugly head.
Aye, I know what you are saying as I played EQ from phase 2 beta all the way through PoP. What I was saying though is that in a game like EQ/WoW, classes had defined roles which were defined by their skills and spells which were given to the players without a choice option. As a cleric you were given mostly heal type abilities. Sure you could tank and solo, but the game defined each character to a role by class. Players didnt always have to follow the role, but it was set in stone from the start by the people who designed the game.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
The main thing EQ really had was social interaction. Simply due to downtime groups tended to talk a lot. Since for the most part no one was really using voice technology you had to pay attention. Since most places were actually a challenge other than safe areas you didn't afk as much...
Its not really "user created" its "social" .. the biggest thing in most games now is they really aren't "social".
Quite a bit.
If you were there you would understand.
The main thing EQ really had was social interaction. Simply due to downtime groups tended to talk a lot. Since for the most part no one was really using voice technology you had to pay attention. Since most places were actually a challenge other than safe areas you didn't afk as much...
Its not really "user created" its "social" .. the biggest thing in most games now is they really aren't "social".
You didn't have down time in groups, unless you were in a bad spot and had to wait for respawns.
All I learned from this thread is people are jealous, jealousy is illogical so according to OP it shouldn't exist.
"I will not play it nor any other MMO until they make it possible to obtain the best gear without forcing people to group up to do so." SwampRob
Sure you did, every time the healer said OOM
Either that or you had a corpse run.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Really you don't understand why people are sick of EQ clone? A decade of pretty much the same crap culminating in the optimity of theme park games WoW and you are wondering why people would like to see a UO clone.
"Didn’t Everquest, The granddaddy of Theme Park MMOs, prove once before, that it is the style of gameplay that people like most, back then when Sandbox games were dominant? So why is this community so angry when newer games try to follow EQ’s path of gameplay? Blizzard did it with WoW, and had major success. So why can’t others?"
What? Sandboxes were dominating when EQ was release really? I must of missed all the other sections I had open to me when I started play UO in 98.
What did EQ prove?
It proved that people wanted options when it came to races and pvp options.
It proved that many people would much rather be in a 3d world over a isometric world.
It proved that class/level design was much easier for the masses to under stand. Why think about how to build your character properly when you could have a pre-made one handed to you? Why manage several skills when you can just have one simple level? From my little experience in EQ, why think about where and what to kill when all the zones and mobs were laid out in sequential order for you.
I'm not hating on EQ it beat the pants off UO because UO did not or could not evolve.
EQ dumbed down the genre well before Blizzard got their grimy little paws on it. If you don't think EQ was a theme park MMO then too bad for you because it was:
~~UO (flexible skill-based system) was far superior to EQ (level/class based system aka dumbed down system to show players what they should be doing aka D&D lite).
~~UO provided a world of options for players to carve their own destinies, which was greater than EQ's huge, broken theme park world that provided players with limited options that truly shined as soon as players reached level caps. This lead to raids, which were dumbed down encounters that were suppose to mimic D&D's final encounters after a long session.
~~UO didn't create it's world to mimic a level 1 to max D&D-like campain with side quest. It made a world where players could truly live it and be a part of without the need for scripted encounters, pointless quest, useless player loot that had no risk of being lost/stolen/broken.
This is why myself along with others say EQ was a theme park MMO. Not theme park of the Disney land quality, but more like a six-flags type of theme park. WoW would be the Disney version of a theme park MMO, hence the reason more people like it.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Again you are missing the point. Why is it ok to clone UO, but somehow is accepted with the fact that it is not innovating? <------- This sums up the question better.
As others have said it's not that there is an issue with "cloning" EQ, it's that there has not been an equal or even significant attempt to recreate the gameplay/mechanics and more sim-like features of UO. What some people don't get (because everything has to be either or in their little worlds) is that the vast majority of people on board with this sentiment aren't saying to stop making games like EQ. They are saying we need more games like UO. Just as the Themepark style of games gets a new update every year we'd like to see the other type of game get the same update from equivalent companies.
Too many themepark lovers get their shorts in a knot thinking there is some attack on their favored type game. If they'd come off the defensiveand look at the genre they'd see the imbalance and understand why we want more of the other. We like to have games that we like to play too! And as for any comments about going back and playing those older games, I'd respond okay, how about you go back and play the the older themepark ones. Everyone likes to have an updated version with refined mechanics and new worlds to explore.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
As others have said it's not that there is an issue with "cloning" EQ, it's that there has not been an equal or even significant attempt to recreate the gameplay/mechanics and more sim-like features of UO. What some people don't get (because everything has to be either or in their little worlds) is that the vast majority of people on board with this sentiment aren't saying to stop making games like EQ. They are saying we need more games like UO. Just as the Themepark style of games gets a new update every year we'd like to see the other type of game get the same update from equivalent companies.
Too many themepark lovers get their shorts in a knot thinking there is some attack on their favored type game. If they'd come off the defensiveand look at the genre they'd see the imbalance and understand why we want more of the other. We like to have games that we like to play too! And as for any comments about going back and playing those older games, I'd respond okay, how about you go back and play the the older themepark ones. Everyone likes to have an updated version with refined mechanics and new worlds to explore.
HOW IN THE WORLD DOES CLONING== INNOVATING????
Answer that BUDDY!!!!!
All I read on this forum from these EQ clone Haters, is that it is making the genre Less Innovating!
But How would a UO Clone not also do the same thing?
Enough with the freaking "theme park" MMO label already. Jesus.
Oh my god. Why are people actually praising WoW. Its a straight up clone that does nothing new or amazing. The only people immpressed with it are people that have never played MMOs before it. With WoW they'll always have that nostalgia aspect and remember it as awesome.
WoW was successful because blizzard had a ton of money to spend on advertising. They spent their money well. Now pay attention They are the ONLY mmo in america to advertise on television because they have the money to do so. As far as the game goes, there is nothing special about it.
ANY mmo can gain success if it had the exposure WoW has. It brought millions of Non-mmo players onto the scene just like myspace brought non-internet people into the scene.
The mmos that have the potential to out due WoW are:
DC Universe (if they used the money from the DC comics which they wont)
Final Fantasy 14 (money from the all the other games, which they wont bother with since they didn't do it with 11)
Until mmo companies in america and other western country spend as much money on advertisement like the guys in asia, WoW will always be popular and the ignorance that its fan base has will continue to grow and harden.
As others have said it's not that there is an issue with "cloning" EQ, it's that there has not been an equal or even significant attempt to recreate the gameplay/mechanics and more sim-like features of UO. What some people don't get (because everything has to be either or in their little worlds) is that the vast majority of people on board with this sentiment aren't saying to stop making games like EQ. They are saying we need more games like UO. Just as the Themepark style of games gets a new update every year we'd like to see the other type of game get the same update from equivalent companies.
Too many themepark lovers get their shorts in a knot thinking there is some attack on their favored type game. If they'd come off the defensiveand look at the genre they'd see the imbalance and understand why we want more of the other. We like to have games that we like to play too! And as for any comments about going back and playing those older games, I'd respond okay, how about you go back and play the the older themepark ones. Everyone likes to have an updated version with refined mechanics and new worlds to explore.
HOW IN THE WORLD DOES CLONING== INNOVATING????
Answer that BUDDY!!!!!
All I read on this forum from these EQ clone Haters, is that it is making the genre Less Innovating!
But How would a UO Clone not also do the same thing?
I didn't say that cloning equaled innovation, BUDDY!
I stated that certain folks are want more games to be made in the mold of UO as there is a lack of games made in that method. I also stated that those games would see updates to those systems/mechanics. Updates by nature of the world would prohibit it from being a clone.
And also as I pointed out and you completely ignored, there aren't alot of UO like games out. So even if it was a clone it'd be offering more variety of gameplay than what we're getting at current.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I disagree. I didnt start seeing WoW adds on TV till I was already playing TBC. By then, WoW was already at the top.