Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Their purpose is to entertain. If they do not entertain we stop playing. Simple.
So yes fun now. Fun every time i play.
And their is not any more or less depth. Their is virtually no more or less significant decisions to make in the majority of games old or new. Eq did not have more depth. You just liked it more and so participated more or liked it less and participated less.
Ding Ding Ding....someone gets it.
Did you both have "fun" the last time your arse was handed to you on a plate in PvP? This conflation of why we game with "fun" is quite erroneous.
LMAO PVP is not fun to me so I don't PVP. Very simple sir. Again I ask, is their something wrong with playing games for fun? Please tell me how that is erroneus. Seriously. You calling playing games for fun erroneous is quite erroneous.
You conception of "fun" is simplistic or you are using it to describe such a broad range of activates that it is being inappropriately applied. If you spend ages crating an item that eventfully becomes the best thing you have is that fun?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I really do believe must people are confusing depth with looking something better.
Depth is the number of meaningful decisions that need to be made.
There really is no difference in depth between missy old games and most new ones.
You liking one more than the other does not mean more depth.
I'll give you a single example as I stated above: Diablo.
If you played Diablo 1, you know how much more deph that game from the 90's had in comparison to his older brother that just got released (well, kinda...) Diablo 3. Diablo 3 has no character progression, you can't distribute your stats nor your skills, itemization looks dumb compared to the Uniques you found in Diablo 1 and 2 and the story is just meh, while Diablo 1 and 2 made me feel like I was inside an epic quest to slay down the prime evil himself. And please, don't make me start on the Runewords topic of Diablo 2, wich shows how much more deph it had, because I don't want to punnish D3 even further.
What 'meaningful decision' was there in D1 that D3 doesn't have?
You could make WRONG decision in D1/D2 which is different from meaningful decision. And the kicker was that your only option was to reroll in D1 / D2.
D1 / D2 was setup so players felt they had to avoid being tricked into the wrong decision rather than make 'right' decision.
You really have no idea what deph is in a game. You are just repeating that other users words, thinking deph means "meaningulf decisions", wich is absolutelly wrong. You don't have a concept biased on your own experience to dictate what deph is. I feel I am talking to a mimic or a marionete.
From countless posts that talk about "depth" theres only 1 conxlusion: depth=annoyance. So the more annying game is, it has more "depth".
Yes i still remember all this "depth" and millions upon millions are relieved that this "depth" went way of the dodo.
Yep, as I excpected, your conclusion is completelly flailed.
No, the millions and millions of people are not relieved that depth went away. This new generation of players (wich consits of millions and millions of teenagers) are just too dumb down to play a really complex game. You know, comparing nowadays mmorpgs with the old ones, is like comparing a Barbie game with Dark Souls. But not everyone likes Dark Souls, so I respect that, as I respect when people say they don't like old mmorpgs.
And if you think "millions" are happy that this kind of playstyle went away, just ask the community of EQ or UO if they liked their times playing those game. I am sure most of them, if not all, will say they loved it, and would love to go back, instead of saying they are glad the gaming industry changed.
You see, you are missing the point. Wow has millions of players over EQ not because the game is better, but because of many other factors, like business models, the content aimmed for casual gamers, much easier gameplay, etc.
And I don't blame you for not liking the old games. Tastes are very personal.
Originally posted by fivoroth @neogeo75, no story, no gameplay, no nothing? Why would I play a game like that then?
Don't play then. I not here to convince you otherwise. Story progression or end game content were never the main pursuit of the early day mmo. Leveling with other player was the fun part. It's more of a social gathering and the gaming part just tag along. I don't suppose any mmo gamer hat joined the genre after wow could understand. Nor do I could imagine them playing a game without quest holding their hand from zone to zone till end game.
I am really beginning to hate the EQ community. I am so glad that that game is dead and I would hate to play with the elitist EQ fans anyway.
I mean read your last two sentences. Elitist garbage. But then again my favourite MMO is still alive and on top. EQ is down the F2P garbage route, long forgotten. It's meaningless existence was shortlived. How many people play EQ? 100?
I might enjoyed WOW which had quest and "hand holding" as you said but then again your praised EQ was a stupid grinder. You grinded mobs all day in one spot like a mindless drone.
You sound offended.
The point is, we realize what we like doesn't appeal to everyone. If people don't like it they can play something else. We've said our piece, we aren't out to convince the world.
We like slower harder progression from level 1 on. Not a game that caters to everyone and provides a false sense of accomplishment until you hit the real grind at max level; A grind I might add, that's made worthless by solo content in the following expansion.
This isn't our idea of fun, don't be upset if its yours. Stand by what you like.
Are you for real?
What you like, as time has shown, almost noone else likes.
Almost every new game has slew of "this modern POS, EQ was da shit, all this is POS... ... ..."
EQ was false sense of accomplishment.
Anf why is grind at endgame so bad, but when when whole game is one uber grind with 100s on mindless time sinks its awesome.
These games are gone for 1 reason only - almost noone likes them.
And yes, its uber nostalgia and super rosey glasses. They were super simplistic games with almost no content, just landscape with mobs lined up for grinding.
You are mistaking profit with actual evolution in gaming. Those games didn't "slew" EQ or UO because they are better. They "slew" it because they are MUCH more profitable, since they are aimmed to a vast majority of dumb, avarage players, instead of hardcore players that want to have a virtual life.
If you equate "virtual life" with chatting, you can do that without game. Otherwise those games were infinite times worse than todays games.
Yup, you have no idea what you are talking about, saying that EQ and UO was about chatting, wich means you never played those games yourself, so you cannot have a logical conclusion based on your own experiences. You have no place in this discussion.
Originally posted by fivoroth @neogeo75, no story, no gameplay, no nothing? Why would I play a game like that then?
Don't play then. I not here to convince you otherwise. Story progression or end game content were never the main pursuit of the early day mmo. Leveling with other player was the fun part. It's more of a social gathering and the gaming part just tag along. I don't suppose any mmo gamer hat joined the genre after wow could understand. Nor do I could imagine them playing a game without quest holding their hand from zone to zone till end game.
I am really beginning to hate the EQ community. I am so glad that that game is dead and I would hate to play with the elitist EQ fans anyway.
I mean read your last two sentences. Elitist garbage. But then again my favourite MMO is still alive and on top. EQ is down the F2P garbage route, long forgotten. It's meaningless existence was shortlived. How many people play EQ? 100?
I might enjoyed WOW which had quest and "hand holding" as you said but then again your praised EQ was a stupid grinder. You grinded mobs all day in one spot like a mindless drone.
"I am really beginning to hate the EQ community. "
Having gone back and re-read your posts, your hate is not just beginning it was there all the time.
The main reason for getting pissed off at the EQ fans is not because you guys like something different, that's fine, it's just too many of the EQ fans just look down on other and will constantly throw in comments like fans of game x are sheep, drones, console hippies, don't have MMO standards etc.
"How many people play EQ? 100?"
This is the second time I have read this figure in recent days, I am guessing the other time was you too. It is phrased as a question but it is a deliberate deceit. No one is sure of the exact number of EQ players but 100,000 would be a lot closer than 100.
You really can't tell that that was an exaggeration? I guess you take everything literally.
"I might enjoyed WOW which had quest"
Again if people go back and read your posts it is obvious you are an active WoW player and ardent fan.
I was an active WoW player 10 years ago, not so much now.
The most consistent feature of your posts is vitriol and hate.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Not completely sure I'm following your line of thought on this.
Do you mean instead of the possibility of having hundreds, if not thousands (Highly unlikely, but doable with dedication) of quests ..most in a branching system, although single quests are included as well...to instead drastically cut the number of quests?
No quests are cut. The developer does 100 quests of work and any given player experiences ~8 quests, due to all the exclusive factors (faction-specific, branching, two-stage).
All that work technically exists if you dig for it, but when you see the quest where you either attack the bandits or fortify the town's defenses, you only really think of it as a single quest (even though it represents 2 full quests worth of work just to have the branch) -- so overall you'll end up thinking there are much fewer quests than a typical game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not completely sure I'm following your line of thought on this.
Do you mean instead of the possibility of having hundreds, if not thousands (Highly unlikely, but doable with dedication) of quests ..most in a branching system, although single quests are included as well...to instead drastically cut the number of quests?
No quests are cut. The developer does 100 quests of work and any given player experiences ~8 quests, due to all the exclusive factors (faction-specific, branching, two-stage).
All that work technically exists if you dig for it, but when you see the quest where you either attack the bandits or fortify the town's defenses, you only really think of it as a single quest (even though it represents 2 full quests worth of work just to have the branch) -- so overall you'll end up thinking there are much fewer quests than a typical game.
I gotcha now. But I don't think everyone would see it that way, although I am sure many would too. In essence, I guess some may look at them as epic quests since they'd branch. And nothing saying they can't branch beyond 2 times. Hell...they could branch 3,4,5,6, times..depending on the story arc in question. And in different directions away from the main questline even. Give the player the choice of what is more interesting or important to them.
Just personally think it would make it more interesting than say a single quest type as we've been getting since the dawn of MMORPG's like "Kill X amount of rats" for a rusty sword, "Collect X amount of bear pelts" for this worthless chest armor you will outlevel in 3 hours types. Make the rewards for such quests much more worth while. So it's not just about the story and adventure part of it....for those that are more about rewards than story.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I really do believe must people are confusing depth with looking something better.
Depth is the number of meaningful decisions that need to be made.
There really is no difference in depth between missy old games and most new ones.
You liking one more than the other does not mean more depth.
I'll give you a single example as I stated above: Diablo.
If you played Diablo 1, you know how much more deph that game from the 90's had in comparison to his older brother that just got released (well, kinda...) Diablo 3. Diablo 3 has no character progression, you can't distribute your stats nor your skills, itemization looks dumb compared to the Uniques you found in Diablo 1 and 2 and the story is just meh, while Diablo 1 and 2 made me feel like I was inside an epic quest to slay down the prime evil himself. And please, don't make me start on the Runewords topic of Diablo 2, wich shows how much more deph it had, because I don't want to punnish D3 even further.
What 'meaningful decision' was there in D1 that D3 doesn't have?
You could make WRONG decision in D1/D2 which is different from meaningful decision. And the kicker was that your only option was to reroll in D1 / D2.
D1 / D2 was setup so players felt they had to avoid being tricked into the wrong decision rather than make 'right' decision.
You really have no idea what deph is in a game. You are just repeating that other users words, thinking deph means "meaningulf decisions", wich is absolutelly wrong. You don't have a concept biased on your own experience to dictate what deph is. I feel I am talking to a mimic or a marionete.
From countless posts that talk about "depth" theres only 1 conxlusion: depth=annoyance. So the more annying game is, it has more "depth".
Yes i still remember all this "depth" and millions upon millions are relieved that this "depth" went way of the dodo.
Yep, as I excpected, your conclusion is completelly flailed.
No, the millions and millions of people are not relieved that depth went away. This new generation of players (wich consits of millions and millions of teenagers) are just too dumb down to play a really complex game. You know, comparing nowadays mmorpgs with the old ones, is like comparing a Barbie game with Dark Souls. But not everyone likes Dark Souls, so I respect that, as I respect when people say they don't like old mmorpgs.
And if you think "millions" are happy that this kind of playstyle went away, just ask the community of EQ or UO if they liked their times playing those game. I am sure most of them, if not all, will say they loved it, and would love to go back, instead of saying they are glad the gaming industry changed.
You see, you are missing the point. Wow has millions of players over EQ not because the game is better, but because of many other factors, like business models, the content aimmed for casual gamers, much easier gameplay, etc.
And I don't blame you for not liking the old games. Tastes are very personal.
Complex game, rofl.
This new generation of players is much too smart for you it seems, and want game to actually enterntain then instead spending weeks camping grind spots and bosses. EQ was SO boring that you HAD to chat to drive mindnumbing gameplay away.
So those who wanted to chat discovered cahrooms, those who wanted good games went to WoW and those few thousands that harp even today how crappy game was awesome, but somehow noone wants to play it.
it was so funny when EQ2 dev proclaimed EQ2 "best game evah" and then proceeded to whine noone wants to play it. RL term is "delusional"
WoW had millions of players because it was millions times better than EQ at the time (or any "old school" game, lets not discriminate here). It was actually *gasp* good GAME, it had like, CONTENT and stuff.
Originally posted by fivoroth @neogeo75, no story, no gameplay, no nothing? Why would I play a game like that then?
Don't play then. I not here to convince you otherwise. Story progression or end game content were never the main pursuit of the early day mmo. Leveling with other player was the fun part. It's more of a social gathering and the gaming part just tag along. I don't suppose any mmo gamer hat joined the genre after wow could understand. Nor do I could imagine them playing a game without quest holding their hand from zone to zone till end game.
I am really beginning to hate the EQ community. I am so glad that that game is dead and I would hate to play with the elitist EQ fans anyway.
I mean read your last two sentences. Elitist garbage. But then again my favourite MMO is still alive and on top. EQ is down the F2P garbage route, long forgotten. It's meaningless existence was shortlived. How many people play EQ? 100?
I might enjoyed WOW which had quest and "hand holding" as you said but then again your praised EQ was a stupid grinder. You grinded mobs all day in one spot like a mindless drone.
You sound offended.
The point is, we realize what we like doesn't appeal to everyone. If people don't like it they can play something else. We've said our piece, we aren't out to convince the world.
We like slower harder progression from level 1 on. Not a game that caters to everyone and provides a false sense of accomplishment until you hit the real grind at max level; A grind I might add, that's made worthless by solo content in the following expansion.
This isn't our idea of fun, don't be upset if its yours. Stand by what you like.
Are you for real?
What you like, as time has shown, almost noone else likes.
Almost every new game has slew of "this modern POS, EQ was da shit, all this is POS... ... ..."
EQ was false sense of accomplishment.
Anf why is grind at endgame so bad, but when when whole game is one uber grind with 100s on mindless time sinks its awesome.
These games are gone for 1 reason only - almost noone likes them.
And yes, its uber nostalgia and super rosey glasses. They were super simplistic games with almost no content, just landscape with mobs lined up for grinding.
You are mistaking profit with actual evolution in gaming. Those games didn't "slew" EQ or UO because they are better. They "slew" it because they are MUCH more profitable, since they are aimmed to a vast majority of dumb, avarage players, instead of hardcore players that want to have a virtual life.
If you equate "virtual life" with chatting, you can do that without game. Otherwise those games were infinite times worse than todays games.
Yup, you have no idea what you are talking about, saying that EQ and UO was about chatting, wich means you never played those games yourself, so you cannot have a logical conclusion based on your own experiences. You have no place in this discussion.
Uh-huh. Son, i can objectively look at the past, opposed to some people. Which is quite nicely painted in your response.
Once you look at it without rosy glasses youll be all that much smarter and finally realize how bad those games were AND why they went the way of the dodo (actually OP listed quite a nice list as part for the reference "why noone wants to play them")
I gotcha now. But I don't think everyone would see it that way, although I am sure many would too. In essence, I guess some may look at them as epic quests since they'd branch. And nothing saying they can't branch beyond 2 times. Hell...they could branch 3,4,5,6, times..depending on the story arc in question. And in different directions away from the main questline even. Give the player the choice of what is more interesting or important to them.
Just personally think it would make it more interesting than say a single quest type as we've been getting since the dawn of MMORPG's like "Kill X amount of rats" for a rusty sword, "Collect X amount of bear pelts" for this worthless chest armor you will outlevel in 3 hours types. Make the rewards for such quests much more worth while. So it's not just about the story and adventure part of it....for those that are more about rewards than story.
Quests will tend to feel more epic from what you do, how the results are portrayed, and how well-written it is, more than whether they're chock full of decisions. The decisions do contribute a little (especially if they're well-designed by a narrative designer) but most of the feel will come from other factors.
Quests can branch more times (more decisions per quest) and lead to exclusive other quests (more stages per quest) but it all boils down to the 100 total quests (or 1,000 or 10,000) worth of work that a developer has available, and how much do they want to subdivide that work so that each player only sees a tiny fraction of it?
As for lousy quests and obsoleted armor?
Lousy quests definitely aren't required. Killing bears is often some combination of the environment being designed with lots of wildlife to feel more like an actual environment, and hey we have all these creatures out there so maybe we should give them more purpose by associating them with various quests? It can also be done to intentionally ramp up the caliber of quest you're doing (killing rats to killing bears to saving the town to saving the world) but I find that's pretty rare in practice, mostly because while you're saving the world usually you also have a quest or two to kill 10 Fel Cyber-Bear Warlockmancers, and while that's a very impressive reskin of the original bear model it's still just a "kill 10 bears" quest..
As for obsoleted armor, that's RPGs. You do stuff, you get stuff, you do more stuff, you get better stuff. The old stuff gets vendored. It's not always gear you get from doing stuff, but it's always something that gets replaced in some way to give you a sense of progression -- progression should be felt at all portions of gameplay, not just endgame.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Depth is the number of meaningful decisions that need to be made.
Hmm, I guess this is about the 3rd or 4th time you give this definition, and got to say it's quite good and I don't want to nitpick, but..
Instead of just the number, you should also consider their variety with regard to the choices within the game and also in the genre in general. Meaningful is a rather vague term and the definition should in my opinion take into account
whether the choices complement or take from each other
whether the choices enhance immersion in the lore, character and community
whether they are well presented to the target audience
In my opinion, need is a wrong word. If all the choices are compulsory and easy to prepare to, they also get trivialized. I hope, in the not so distant future, we'll see some randomization involved. For now, I think just removing the need would do.
In essence, if you want to assess the depth of a complex game like a mmorpg, you need an accurate and relatively nuanced definition. Fortunately, at least in my opinion, depth is to a large extent not a subjective measure, but something, that can and should be better assessed as games evolve. Not saying journalists don't do or at least attempt this, but... there's definitely some room for improvement. As is, naturally, with my additions to your definition, too.
I gotcha now. But I don't think everyone would see it that way, although I am sure many would too. In essence, I guess some may look at them as epic quests since they'd branch. And nothing saying they can't branch beyond 2 times. Hell...they could branch 3,4,5,6, times..depending on the story arc in question. And in different directions away from the main questline even. Give the player the choice of what is more interesting or important to them.
Just personally think it would make it more interesting than say a single quest type as we've been getting since the dawn of MMORPG's like "Kill X amount of rats" for a rusty sword, "Collect X amount of bear pelts" for this worthless chest armor you will outlevel in 3 hours types. Make the rewards for such quests much more worth while. So it's not just about the story and adventure part of it....for those that are more about rewards than story.
Quests will tend to feel more epic from what you do, how the results are portrayed, and how well-written it is, more than whether they're chock full of decisions. The decisions do contribute a little (especially if they're well-designed by a narrative designer) but most of the feel will come from other factors.
Quests can branch more times (more decisions per quest) and lead to exclusive other quests (more stages per quest) but it all boils down to the 100 total quests (or 1,000 or 10,000) worth of work that a developer has available, and how much do they want to subdivide that work so that each player only sees a tiny fraction of it?
As for lousy quests and obsoleted armor?
Lousy quests definitely aren't required. Killing bears is often some combination of the environment being designed with lots of wildlife to feel more like an actual environment, and hey we have all these creatures out there so maybe we should give them more purpose by associating them with various quests? It can also be done to intentionally ramp up the caliber of quest you're doing (killing rats to killing bears to saving the town to saving the world) but I find that's pretty rare in practice, mostly because while you're saving the world usually you also have a quest or two to kill 10 Fel Cyber-Bear Warlockmancers, and while that's a very impressive reskin of the original bear model it's still just a "kill 10 bears" quest..
As for obsoleted armor, that's RPGs. You do stuff, you get stuff, you do more stuff, you get better stuff. The old stuff gets vendored. It's not always gear you get from doing stuff, but it's always something that gets replaced in some way to give you a sense of progression -- progression should be felt at all portions of gameplay, not just endgame.
Well yeah...they fill in space. They don't have to hand out armor and/or weapons either. I never really understood why more MMORPG's didn't simply hand out gold/plat (Whatever the game in questions currency is/was) as rewards at times. Or how about travel packs (Inventory bags), possibly crafting items, beneficial potions (Just ones exclusively owned by the NPC.'s, not the same as player crafted ones).
Yes, progression SHOULD be felt at every stage of the game, not just "endgame". It's what's been trying to be said to some here for ages and it doesn't sink in. Most seem to think everything before end game is just a means to an end to get to that goal of 'endgame".
*Disclaimer* Many will not like the following, but it's just my opinions and thoughts on a term used in more modern MMORPG's. Nothing said is fact, just how I feel companies look at things these days.
Speaking of which. Notice I quotationed "endgame". The reason for this is because...again personally, I don't feel the term, nor the definition behind it belong in a MMORPG. Straight off the net....
Definition of ENDGAME
: the stage of a chess game after major reduction of forces; also: the final stage of some action or process
MMORPG's were never meant to have an ending. EQ wouldn't of been called EVERquest otherwise. They'd of just named it Endgamequest. But then again, the term endgame in gaming terms never existed then.
I suppose with the definition given, anything could be endgame. Finishing a quest, finalizing that piece of crafted gear, finishing a potion recipe, etc, etc. But in terms of an MMORPG as a whole? No, it shouldn't exist. They are suppose to be a never ending adventure. Or sadly, at least were at a time. This is why there are console games that exist. They are meant to provide endgame. They have no choice but to do so. Until the sequel comes out under a different name and scenario.
There is no excuse for having "endgame" in an MMORPG. Content can/should be added indefinitely (Well could be).
EQ has like...hell IDK, 23 expansions? It's HUGE! Back in it's prime, the expansions came quick enough that most players couldn't finish all of the previous one before the next one came out. Although there were plenty that could too. But you always had something to do, always. It's why no one complained about $15 a month either really. The sheer amount of content justified the sub feel to maintain it and keep driving the content to continue to churn out.
The reason, in my eyes, that MMORPG's have moved away from monthly subs is because there just isn't enough worthy content to justify a monthly sub. Nor do they bring out expansions quick enough, or with enough quality to keep up with the rate players chew through the content (A lot of this has to do with how easy it is too) to justify it.
Not to mention, I think companies have caught on to if they make their game F2P, it attracts many more players. They get you hooked in with the gameplay...then gimp your gameplay in other ways so you may use their cash shops to stay on the competitive edge (Not everyone does this, but obviously enough do that cash shops are a big deal these days, sadly). And they realized they make much more money this way than through monthly subs because players these days have no patience and are highly competitive towards one another. Also aesthetic items for those that want it.
Not to mention nearly all these games are undeserving of a monthly sub. Shallow and too short. Lacking of long term content to hold the player.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I really do believe must people are confusing depth with looking something better.
Depth is the number of meaningful decisions that need to be made.
There really is no difference in depth between missy old games and most new ones.
You liking one more than the other does not mean more depth.
I'll give you a single example as I stated above: Diablo.
If you played Diablo 1, you know how much more deph that game from the 90's had in comparison to his older brother that just got released (well, kinda...) Diablo 3. Diablo 3 has no character progression, you can't distribute your stats nor your skills, itemization looks dumb compared to the Uniques you found in Diablo 1 and 2 and the story is just meh, while Diablo 1 and 2 made me feel like I was inside an epic quest to slay down the prime evil himself. And please, don't make me start on the Runewords topic of Diablo 2, wich shows how much more deph it had, because I don't want to punnish D3 even further.
What 'meaningful decision' was there in D1 that D3 doesn't have?
You could make WRONG decision in D1/D2 which is different from meaningful decision. And the kicker was that your only option was to reroll in D1 / D2.
D1 / D2 was setup so players felt they had to avoid being tricked into the wrong decision rather than make 'right' decision.
You really have no idea what deph is in a game. You are just repeating that other users words, thinking deph means "meaningulf decisions", wich is absolutelly wrong. You don't have a concept biased on your own experience to dictate what deph is. I feel I am talking to a mimic or a marionete.
From countless posts that talk about "depth" theres only 1 conxlusion: depth=annoyance. So the more annying game is, it has more "depth".
Yes i still remember all this "depth" and millions upon millions are relieved that this "depth" went way of the dodo.
Yep, as I excpected, your conclusion is completelly flailed.
No, the millions and millions of people are not relieved that depth went away. This new generation of players (wich consits of millions and millions of teenagers) are just too dumb down to play a really complex game. You know, comparing nowadays mmorpgs with the old ones, is like comparing a Barbie game with Dark Souls. But not everyone likes Dark Souls, so I respect that, as I respect when people say they don't like old mmorpgs.
And if you think "millions" are happy that this kind of playstyle went away, just ask the community of EQ or UO if they liked their times playing those game. I am sure most of them, if not all, will say they loved it, and would love to go back, instead of saying they are glad the gaming industry changed.
You see, you are missing the point. Wow has millions of players over EQ not because the game is better, but because of many other factors, like business models, the content aimmed for casual gamers, much easier gameplay, etc.
And I don't blame you for not liking the old games. Tastes are very personal.
Complex game, rofl.
This new generation of players is much too smart for you it seems, and want game to actually enterntain then instead spending weeks camping grind spots and bosses. EQ was SO boring that you HAD to chat to drive mindnumbing gameplay away.
So those who wanted to chat discovered cahrooms, those who wanted good games went to WoW and those few thousands that harp even today how crappy game was awesome, but somehow noone wants to play it.
it was so funny when EQ2 dev proclaimed EQ2 "best game evah" and then proceeded to whine noone wants to play it. RL term is "delusional"
WoW had millions of players because it was millions times better than EQ at the time (or any "old school" game, lets not discriminate here). It was actually *gasp* good GAME, it had like, CONTENT and stuff.
WoW bores me to absolute tears though. There's no risk and it is about as immersive as playing Pacman. EQ1's gameplay is dated of course, it is 17 years old now, but it still is actually entertaining, if only marginally. I would like something new that has a harsh death penalty and slower, more tactical gameplay. The mezzing, healing, rooting and combat rezzing and medding, while ancient, was actually pretty fun.
I'd like no instances as well. This game is not going to appeal to a lot of you, and that's fine. We have two disparate game styles we are talking about here, we don't need to agree. We need two separate games, that is all. Doesn't matter if you don't think it would popular, or if you don't like it. There's no need to argue about it, we just play different games. We both get what we like.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I really do believe must people are confusing depth with looking something better.
Depth is the number of meaningful decisions that need to be made.
There really is no difference in depth between missy old games and most new ones.
You liking one more than the other does not mean more depth.
I'll give you a single example as I stated above: Diablo.
If you played Diablo 1, you know how much more deph that game from the 90's had in comparison to his older brother that just got released (well, kinda...) Diablo 3. Diablo 3 has no character progression, you can't distribute your stats nor your skills, itemization looks dumb compared to the Uniques you found in Diablo 1 and 2 and the story is just meh, while Diablo 1 and 2 made me feel like I was inside an epic quest to slay down the prime evil himself. And please, don't make me start on the Runewords topic of Diablo 2, wich shows how much more deph it had, because I don't want to punnish D3 even further.
What 'meaningful decision' was there in D1 that D3 doesn't have?
You could make WRONG decision in D1/D2 which is different from meaningful decision. And the kicker was that your only option was to reroll in D1 / D2.
D1 / D2 was setup so players felt they had to avoid being tricked into the wrong decision rather than make 'right' decision.
You really have no idea what deph is in a game. You are just repeating that other users words, thinking deph means "meaningulf decisions", wich is absolutelly wrong. You don't have a concept biased on your own experience to dictate what deph is. I feel I am talking to a mimic or a marionete.
From countless posts that talk about "depth" theres only 1 conxlusion: depth=annoyance. So the more annying game is, it has more "depth".
Yes i still remember all this "depth" and millions upon millions are relieved that this "depth" went way of the dodo.
Yep, as I excpected, your conclusion is completelly flailed.
No, the millions and millions of people are not relieved that depth went away. This new generation of players (wich consits of millions and millions of teenagers) are just too dumb down to play a really complex game. You know, comparing nowadays mmorpgs with the old ones, is like comparing a Barbie game with Dark Souls. But not everyone likes Dark Souls, so I respect that, as I respect when people say they don't like old mmorpgs.
And if you think "millions" are happy that this kind of playstyle went away, just ask the community of EQ or UO if they liked their times playing those game. I am sure most of them, if not all, will say they loved it, and would love to go back, instead of saying they are glad the gaming industry changed.
You see, you are missing the point. Wow has millions of players over EQ not because the game is better, but because of many other factors, like business models, the content aimmed for casual gamers, much easier gameplay, etc.
And I don't blame you for not liking the old games. Tastes are very personal.
Complex game, rofl.
This new generation of players is much too smart for you it seems, and want game to actually enterntain then instead spending weeks camping grind spots and bosses. EQ was SO boring that you HAD to chat to drive mindnumbing gameplay away.
So those who wanted to chat discovered cahrooms, those who wanted good games went to WoW and those few thousands that harp even today how crappy game was awesome, but somehow noone wants to play it.
it was so funny when EQ2 dev proclaimed EQ2 "best game evah" and then proceeded to whine noone wants to play it. RL term is "delusional"
WoW had millions of players because it was millions times better than EQ at the time (or any "old school" game, lets not discriminate here). It was actually *gasp* good GAME, it had like, CONTENT and stuff.
WoW bores me to absolute tears though. There's no risk and it is about as immersive as playing Pacman. EQ1's gameplay is dated of course, it is 17 years old now, but it still is actually entertaining, if only marginally. I would like something new that has a harsh death penalty and slower, more tactical gameplay. The mezzing, healing, rooting and combat rezzing and medding, while ancient, was actually pretty fun.
I'd like no instances as well. This game is not going to appeal to a lot of you, and that's fine. We have two disparate game styles we are talking about here, we don't need to agree. We need two separate games, that is all. Doesn't matter if you don't think it would popular, or if you don't like it. There's no need to argue about it, we just play different games. We both get what we like.
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I really do believe must people are confusing depth with looking something better.
Depth is the number of meaningful decisions that need to be made.
There really is no difference in depth between missy old games and most new ones.
You liking one more than the other does not mean more depth.
I'll give you a single example as I stated above: Diablo.
If you played Diablo 1, you know how much more deph that game from the 90's had in comparison to his older brother that just got released (well, kinda...) Diablo 3. Diablo 3 has no character progression, you can't distribute your stats nor your skills, itemization looks dumb compared to the Uniques you found in Diablo 1 and 2 and the story is just meh, while Diablo 1 and 2 made me feel like I was inside an epic quest to slay down the prime evil himself. And please, don't make me start on the Runewords topic of Diablo 2, wich shows how much more deph it had, because I don't want to punnish D3 even further.
What 'meaningful decision' was there in D1 that D3 doesn't have?
You could make WRONG decision in D1/D2 which is different from meaningful decision. And the kicker was that your only option was to reroll in D1 / D2.
D1 / D2 was setup so players felt they had to avoid being tricked into the wrong decision rather than make 'right' decision.
You really have no idea what deph is in a game. You are just repeating that other users words, thinking deph means "meaningulf decisions", wich is absolutelly wrong. You don't have a concept biased on your own experience to dictate what deph is. I feel I am talking to a mimic or a marionete.
From countless posts that talk about "depth" theres only 1 conxlusion: depth=annoyance. So the more annying game is, it has more "depth".
Yes i still remember all this "depth" and millions upon millions are relieved that this "depth" went way of the dodo.
Yep, as I excpected, your conclusion is completelly flailed.
No, the millions and millions of people are not relieved that depth went away. This new generation of players (wich consits of millions and millions of teenagers) are just too dumb down to play a really complex game. You know, comparing nowadays mmorpgs with the old ones, is like comparing a Barbie game with Dark Souls. But not everyone likes Dark Souls, so I respect that, as I respect when people say they don't like old mmorpgs.
And if you think "millions" are happy that this kind of playstyle went away, just ask the community of EQ or UO if they liked their times playing those game. I am sure most of them, if not all, will say they loved it, and would love to go back, instead of saying they are glad the gaming industry changed.
You see, you are missing the point. Wow has millions of players over EQ not because the game is better, but because of many other factors, like business models, the content aimmed for casual gamers, much easier gameplay, etc.
And I don't blame you for not liking the old games. Tastes are very personal.
Complex game, rofl.
This new generation of players is much too smart for you it seems, and want game to actually enterntain then instead spending weeks camping grind spots and bosses. EQ was SO boring that you HAD to chat to drive mindnumbing gameplay away.
So those who wanted to chat discovered cahrooms, those who wanted good games went to WoW and those few thousands that harp even today how crappy game was awesome, but somehow noone wants to play it.
it was so funny when EQ2 dev proclaimed EQ2 "best game evah" and then proceeded to whine noone wants to play it. RL term is "delusional"
WoW had millions of players because it was millions times better than EQ at the time (or any "old school" game, lets not discriminate here). It was actually *gasp* good GAME, it had like, CONTENT and stuff.
WoW bores me to absolute tears though. There's no risk and it is about as immersive as playing Pacman. EQ1's gameplay is dated of course, it is 17 years old now, but it still is actually entertaining, if only marginally. I would like something new that has a harsh death penalty and slower, more tactical gameplay. The mezzing, healing, rooting and combat rezzing and medding, while ancient, was actually pretty fun.
I'd like no instances as well. This game is not going to appeal to a lot of you, and that's fine. We have two disparate game styles we are talking about here, we don't need to agree. We need two separate games, that is all. Doesn't matter if you don't think it would popular, or if you don't like it. There's no need to argue about it, we just play different games. We both get what we like.
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
I find it curious why you'd bother coming into this thread and reading posts that you obviously will not agree with nor like in the first place if you think old school games are so terribad (terrible).
And funny you should mention seeing this objectively when you seem incapable of doing it yourself.
The point in the thread was simply to mention those things from past MMORPG's that made them different from other game genres, as well as different from what modern MMORPG's have to offer, or not offer for that matter. And....why seeing those past features listed in the 1st post, incorporated into a modern MMORPG, WITH, many modern features that have indeed improved the genre. Modern UI's, combat systems, etc,etc.
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
The whole pink glasses bit was tired a half decade ago. Get some new material, man.
This post puts you in the same bin as those that you complain about in your first sentence. Good job.
Never played EQ, but during it's time it was top dog with a relatively huge player base and in less than a month it will have been running for fucking 16 years. Obviously there's a hell of a lot of people that didn't find the experience to be "terribad". People still use this, lol? Since we've gone back in time I'm just gonna have to ask you to chillax.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
The whole pink glasses bit was tired a half decade ago. Get some new material, man.
This post puts you in the same bin as those that you complain about in your first sentence. Good job.
Never played EQ, but during it's time it was top dog with a relatively huge player base and in less than a month it will have been running for fucking 16 years. Obviously there's a hell of a lot of people that didn't find the experience to be "terribad". People still use this, lol? Since we've gone back in time I'm just gonna have to ask you to chillax.
People seem to only look at game mechanics in games to judge how good they are. I guess this is a valid way to look at things to an extant, but there are always intangibles that people don't get or had to be there to experience. A lot of what made EQ fun was the social interaction. This was all the result of things people call bad like having to rely on certain classes for certain unique abilities. Having lots of nasty mobs wandering around all over the place that agro and often bring friends. Having all kinds of nasty ailments that last a long time. Having to actually earn things throughout the entire game instead of just at endgame. Non combat spells and abilities. Camping in dungeons for rare items. You couldn't go anywhere in the game without interacting in some way. There were always people around and helping or hindering each other. It made the game feel alive. I soloed mostly in EQ, but still got lots of interaction both good and bad with other people. If you add in all the features like classes/races having starting areas that make sense and having lots of different factions you have a world where it can at least feel somewhat plausible alive. I believe it was this energy generated by having a lot of different people together and interacting that was unique in comparison to MMOs today. It is like having a bunch of people who all like football gathered together at the super bowl. In this case it was a bunch of people who all liked fantasy games and were finding ways to coexist in such a game.
On a side note I was thinking it's not possible to prove EQ was a more fun game as some people will likely never like or get it, but I bet it's possible to prove old games were harder. I know people will just quit most old games and deem them a waste of time because they have no instructions telling them exactly what to do and where to go, but if you could get players to play old games it would be a good test. Lets take a Nintendo game like Legend of Zelda for instance. I bet a lot of players would not be able to figure everything out or possible even progress at all without looking for help online. We can then take almost any game today short of something like Dark Souls and I bet most people could figure out how to beat it because of things like being told exactly where to go and exactly what to do in what situation. I've actually seen this talked about by game developers. For instance Square/Enix remade Dragon Quest VII for the 3DS. It was originally on playstation. They actually said they had to dumb the game down and show players exactly where to go in fear they might quit if they can't figure out where to go or what to do right away. Dumbing down of games for the masses is a reality weather people want to accept it or not. Weather you consider the game more fun in a dumbed down state is a personal thing I guess. Most of the masses are people who don't really care about games. It's just a side attraction to do once in a while. That in itself is ok as I think there are more important things in life myself, but some people do like to invest a lot of time into deeper games. The problem is very few of them actually exist anymore due to games all being made for x demographic.
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
The whole pink glasses bit was tired a half decade ago. Get some new material, man.
This post puts you in the same bin as those that you complain about in your first sentence. Good job.
Never played EQ, but during it's time it was top dog with a relatively huge player base and in less than a month it will have been running for fucking 16 years. Obviously there's a hell of a lot of people that didn't find the experience to be "terribad". People still use this, lol? Since we've gone back in time I'm just gonna have to ask you to chillax.
I've always hated the nostalgia, rose colored glasses argument too. I look at it a different way. If the old games were so bad, I would have quit after a short time. I played games like EQ and DAoC for several years. Today's games, I am lucky to get beyond a month, maybe 2. The last game I played for any decent amount of time was ffxiv and that was a solid 6+ months.
So damn, I must be remembering wrong how I played MMO's that I must have hated, day after day, year after year. Oh and I still go back to EQ every now and then, as much as it has changed and is really dated. I still put in a few months here and there. I'd still be playing daoc if they didn't change so much like the New Frontiers. I even gotten over the whole ToA crap compared to the frontiers.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I really do believe must people are confusing depth with looking something better.
Depth is the number of meaningful decisions that need to be made.
There really is no difference in depth between missy old games and most new ones.
You liking one more than the other does not mean more depth.
I'll give you a single example as I stated above: Diablo.
If you played Diablo 1, you know how much more deph that game from the 90's had in comparison to his older brother that just got released (well, kinda...) Diablo 3. Diablo 3 has no character progression, you can't distribute your stats nor your skills, itemization looks dumb compared to the Uniques you found in Diablo 1 and 2 and the story is just meh, while Diablo 1 and 2 made me feel like I was inside an epic quest to slay down the prime evil himself. And please, don't make me start on the Runewords topic of Diablo 2, wich shows how much more deph it had, because I don't want to punnish D3 even further.
What 'meaningful decision' was there in D1 that D3 doesn't have?
You could make WRONG decision in D1/D2 which is different from meaningful decision. And the kicker was that your only option was to reroll in D1 / D2.
D1 / D2 was setup so players felt they had to avoid being tricked into the wrong decision rather than make 'right' decision.
You really have no idea what deph is in a game. You are just repeating that other users words, thinking deph means "meaningulf decisions", wich is absolutelly wrong. You don't have a concept biased on your own experience to dictate what deph is. I feel I am talking to a mimic or a marionete.
From countless posts that talk about "depth" theres only 1 conxlusion: depth=annoyance. So the more annying game is, it has more "depth".
Yes i still remember all this "depth" and millions upon millions are relieved that this "depth" went way of the dodo.
Yep, as I excpected, your conclusion is completelly flailed.
No, the millions and millions of people are not relieved that depth went away. This new generation of players (wich consits of millions and millions of teenagers) are just too dumb down to play a really complex game. You know, comparing nowadays mmorpgs with the old ones, is like comparing a Barbie game with Dark Souls. But not everyone likes Dark Souls, so I respect that, as I respect when people say they don't like old mmorpgs.
And if you think "millions" are happy that this kind of playstyle went away, just ask the community of EQ or UO if they liked their times playing those game. I am sure most of them, if not all, will say they loved it, and would love to go back, instead of saying they are glad the gaming industry changed.
You see, you are missing the point. Wow has millions of players over EQ not because the game is better, but because of many other factors, like business models, the content aimmed for casual gamers, much easier gameplay, etc.
And I don't blame you for not liking the old games. Tastes are very personal.
Complex game, rofl.
This new generation of players is much too smart for you it seems, and want game to actually enterntain then instead spending weeks camping grind spots and bosses. EQ was SO boring that you HAD to chat to drive mindnumbing gameplay away.
So those who wanted to chat discovered cahrooms, those who wanted good games went to WoW and those few thousands that harp even today how crappy game was awesome, but somehow noone wants to play it.
it was so funny when EQ2 dev proclaimed EQ2 "best game evah" and then proceeded to whine noone wants to play it. RL term is "delusional"
WoW had millions of players because it was millions times better than EQ at the time (or any "old school" game, lets not discriminate here). It was actually *gasp* good GAME, it had like, CONTENT and stuff.
WoW bores me to absolute tears though. There's no risk and it is about as immersive as playing Pacman. EQ1's gameplay is dated of course, it is 17 years old now, but it still is actually entertaining, if only marginally. I would like something new that has a harsh death penalty and slower, more tactical gameplay. The mezzing, healing, rooting and combat rezzing and medding, while ancient, was actually pretty fun.
I'd like no instances as well. This game is not going to appeal to a lot of you, and that's fine. We have two disparate game styles we are talking about here, we don't need to agree. We need two separate games, that is all. Doesn't matter if you don't think it would popular, or if you don't like it. There's no need to argue about it, we just play different games. We both get what we like.
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
I don't believe I am wearing any "glasses" when I say that there are some features that EQ had that I wish modern games had. I just don't agree with you. I think you are just different from me and enjoy different things in your games.
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
The whole pink glasses bit was tired a half decade ago. Get some new material, man.
This post puts you in the same bin as those that you complain about in your first sentence. Good job.
Never played EQ, but during it's time it was top dog with a relatively huge player base and in less than a month it will have been running for fucking 16 years. Obviously there's a hell of a lot of people that didn't find the experience to be "terribad". People still use this, lol? Since we've gone back in time I'm just gonna have to ask you to chillax.
People seem to only look at game mechanics in games to judge how good they are. I guess this is a valid way to look at things to an extant, but there are always intangibles that people don't get or had to be there to experience. A lot of what made EQ fun was the social interaction. This was all the result of things people call bad like having to rely on certain classes for certain unique abilities. Having lots of nasty mobs wandering around all over the place that agro and often bring friends. Having all kinds of nasty ailments that last a long time...
The ironic thing is that these same people complaining about the slow or hard aspects of EQ are likely the same ones playing H1Z1 Day-Z or some other form of survival game. EQ was the ORIGINAL survival MMO. Its totally comical how downtime became a negative feature while survival games require you to go through great lengths to restore health.
There was a lot more to "sitting in one spot" holding down a spawn for hours. If you were in a place camping mobs of your level, you were constantly at risk of dying. Especially if you're trying to get good experience in the meantime. Most camps had roamers with staggered spawn times and chances of harder mobs popping. Death was always one mistake away, and it was imperative to know when to rest. The fact that new games remove downtime means they are only removing one more variable that could potentially add risk, tension, excitement and immersion to the player's experience.
Keep pretending its a bad thing though, you little zombie killers you.
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
The whole pink glasses bit was tired a half decade ago. Get some new material, man.
This post puts you in the same bin as those that you complain about in your first sentence. Good job.
Never played EQ, but during it's time it was top dog with a relatively huge player base and in less than a month it will have been running for fucking 16 years. Obviously there's a hell of a lot of people that didn't find the experience to be "terribad". People still use this, lol? Since we've gone back in time I'm just gonna have to ask you to chillax.
People seem to only look at game mechanics in games to judge how good they are. I guess this is a valid way to look at things to an extant, but there are always intangibles that people don't get or had to be there to experience. A lot of what made EQ fun was the social interaction. This was all the result of things people call bad like having to rely on certain classes for certain unique abilities. Having lots of nasty mobs wandering around all over the place that agro and often bring friends. Having all kinds of nasty ailments that last a long time. Having to actually earn things throughout the entire game instead of just at endgame. Non combat spells and abilities. Camping in dungeons for rare items. You couldn't go anywhere in the game without interacting in some way. There were always people around and helping or hindering each other. It made the game feel alive. I soloed mostly in EQ, but still got lots of interaction both good and bad with other people. If you add in all the features like classes/races having starting areas that make sense and having lots of different factions you have a world where it can at least feel somewhat plausible alive. I believe it was this energy generated by having a lot of different people together and interacting that was unique in comparison to MMOs today. It is like having a bunch of people who all like football gathered together at the super bowl. In this case it was a bunch of people who all liked fantasy games and were finding ways to coexist in such a game.
On a side note I was thinking it's not possible to prove EQ was a more fun game as some people will likely never like or get it, but I bet it's possible to prove old games were harder. I know people will just quit most old games and deem them a waste of time because they have no instructions telling them exactly what to do and where to go, but if you could get players to play old games it would be a good test. Lets take a Nintendo game like Legend of Zelda for instance. I bet a lot of players would not be able to figure everything out or possible even progress at all without looking for help online. We can then take almost any game today short of something like Dark Souls and I bet most people could figure out how to beat it because of things like being told exactly where to go and exactly what to do in what situation. I've actually seen this talked about by game developers. For instance Square/Enix remade Dragon Quest VII for the 3DS. It was originally on playstation. They actually said they had to dumb the game down and show players exactly where to go in fear they might quit if they can't figure out where to go or what to do right away. Dumbing down of games for the masses is a reality weather people want to accept it or not. Weather you consider the game more fun in a dumbed down state is a personal thing I guess. Most of the masses are people who don't really care about games. It's just a side attraction to do once in a while. That in itself is ok as I think there are more important things in life myself, but some people do like to invest a lot of time into deeper games. The problem is very few of them actually exist anymore due to games all being made for x demographic.
Thanks for sharing.
I had many similar experiences in the original Darkfall, though I'm certain to a much lesser extent. EQ: my biggest gaming regret. I was like 20/21 years old and was preoccupied with other things at the time. I do however remember browsing a local gaming store in '99 and seeing the big poster for the game thinking "that looks so cheesy, no way" not even aware of what an MMO was or what I was missing...arrrrgggg!
Ah well, at least I discovered EVE 10 years ago. Not all was lost.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
The whole pink glasses bit was tired a half decade ago. Get some new material, man.
This post puts you in the same bin as those that you complain about in your first sentence. Good job.
Never played EQ, but during it's time it was top dog with a relatively huge player base and in less than a month it will have been running for fucking 16 years. Obviously there's a hell of a lot of people that didn't find the experience to be "terribad". People still use this, lol? Since we've gone back in time I'm just gonna have to ask you to chillax.
People seem to only look at game mechanics in games to judge how good they are. I guess this is a valid way to look at things to an extant, but there are always intangibles that people don't get or had to be there to experience. A lot of what made EQ fun was the social interaction. This was all the result of things people call bad like having to rely on certain classes for certain unique abilities. Having lots of nasty mobs wandering around all over the place that agro and often bring friends. Having all kinds of nasty ailments that last a long time. Having to actually earn things throughout the entire game instead of just at endgame. Non combat spells and abilities. Camping in dungeons for rare items. You couldn't go anywhere in the game without interacting in some way. There were always people around and helping or hindering each other. It made the game feel alive. I soloed mostly in EQ, but still got lots of interaction both good and bad with other people. If you add in all the features like classes/races having starting areas that make sense and having lots of different factions you have a world where it can at least feel somewhat plausible alive. I believe it was this energy generated by having a lot of different people together and interacting that was unique in comparison to MMOs today. It is like having a bunch of people who all like football gathered together at the super bowl. In this case it was a bunch of people who all liked fantasy games and were finding ways to coexist in such a game.
On a side note I was thinking it's not possible to prove EQ was a more fun game as some people will likely never like or get it, but I bet it's possible to prove old games were harder. I know people will just quit most old games and deem them a waste of time because they have no instructions telling them exactly what to do and where to go, but if you could get players to play old games it would be a good test. Lets take a Nintendo game like Legend of Zelda for instance. I bet a lot of players would not be able to figure everything out or possible even progress at all without looking for help online. We can then take almost any game today short of something like Dark Souls and I bet most people could figure out how to beat it because of things like being told exactly where to go and exactly what to do in what situation. I've actually seen this talked about by game developers. For instance Square/Enix remade Dragon Quest VII for the 3DS. It was originally on playstation. They actually said they had to dumb the game down and show players exactly where to go in fear they might quit if they can't figure out where to go or what to do right away. Dumbing down of games for the masses is a reality weather people want to accept it or not. Weather you consider the game more fun in a dumbed down state is a personal thing I guess. Most of the masses are people who don't really care about games. It's just a side attraction to do once in a while. That in itself is ok as I think there are more important things in life myself, but some people do like to invest a lot of time into deeper games. The problem is very few of them actually exist anymore due to games all being made for x demographic.
Ah, someone who actually reads and comprehends
These intangibles still exist
The crucial point is this: why cant these people fit in these intangibles when those are not FORCED on them?
In their roots, "old school" games were definition of anti social. Only if you didnt really care about the game they became social experiences. But question arises: if you didint really care about the game, wtf were you doing there in the first place (already mentioned as "virtual chatroom")
And you will have to define harder. Ultimate time sinks? Yes. Harder. No.
Is finding certain thing wandering all over without a clue harder than if its narrowed to a certain area? No. Much more time consuming? Yes
Is killing 10 of thousands of exact same mob harder than killing 10? No. Much more time consuming? Yes
Is getting a drop from exact same boss with 0,00001% drop rate harder than getting a drop with 10% drop rate? No. Much more time consuming? Yes
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I really do believe must people are confusing depth with looking something better.
Depth is the number of meaningful decisions that need to be made.
There really is no difference in depth between missy old games and most new ones.
You liking one more than the other does not mean more depth.
I'll give you a single example as I stated above: Diablo.
If you played Diablo 1, you know how much more deph that game from the 90's had in comparison to his older brother that just got released (well, kinda...) Diablo 3. Diablo 3 has no character progression, you can't distribute your stats nor your skills, itemization looks dumb compared to the Uniques you found in Diablo 1 and 2 and the story is just meh, while Diablo 1 and 2 made me feel like I was inside an epic quest to slay down the prime evil himself. And please, don't make me start on the Runewords topic of Diablo 2, wich shows how much more deph it had, because I don't want to punnish D3 even further.
What 'meaningful decision' was there in D1 that D3 doesn't have?
You could make WRONG decision in D1/D2 which is different from meaningful decision. And the kicker was that your only option was to reroll in D1 / D2.
D1 / D2 was setup so players felt they had to avoid being tricked into the wrong decision rather than make 'right' decision.
You really have no idea what deph is in a game. You are just repeating that other users words, thinking deph means "meaningulf decisions", wich is absolutelly wrong. You don't have a concept biased on your own experience to dictate what deph is. I feel I am talking to a mimic or a marionete.
From countless posts that talk about "depth" theres only 1 conxlusion: depth=annoyance. So the more annying game is, it has more "depth".
Yes i still remember all this "depth" and millions upon millions are relieved that this "depth" went way of the dodo.
Yep, as I excpected, your conclusion is completelly flailed.
No, the millions and millions of people are not relieved that depth went away. This new generation of players (wich consits of millions and millions of teenagers) are just too dumb down to play a really complex game. You know, comparing nowadays mmorpgs with the old ones, is like comparing a Barbie game with Dark Souls. But not everyone likes Dark Souls, so I respect that, as I respect when people say they don't like old mmorpgs.
And if you think "millions" are happy that this kind of playstyle went away, just ask the community of EQ or UO if they liked their times playing those game. I am sure most of them, if not all, will say they loved it, and would love to go back, instead of saying they are glad the gaming industry changed.
You see, you are missing the point. Wow has millions of players over EQ not because the game is better, but because of many other factors, like business models, the content aimmed for casual gamers, much easier gameplay, etc.
And I don't blame you for not liking the old games. Tastes are very personal.
Complex game, rofl.
This new generation of players is much too smart for you it seems, and want game to actually enterntain then instead spending weeks camping grind spots and bosses. EQ was SO boring that you HAD to chat to drive mindnumbing gameplay away.
So those who wanted to chat discovered cahrooms, those who wanted good games went to WoW and those few thousands that harp even today how crappy game was awesome, but somehow noone wants to play it.
it was so funny when EQ2 dev proclaimed EQ2 "best game evah" and then proceeded to whine noone wants to play it. RL term is "delusional"
WoW had millions of players because it was millions times better than EQ at the time (or any "old school" game, lets not discriminate here). It was actually *gasp* good GAME, it had like, CONTENT and stuff.
WoW bores me to absolute tears though. There's no risk and it is about as immersive as playing Pacman. EQ1's gameplay is dated of course, it is 17 years old now, but it still is actually entertaining, if only marginally. I would like something new that has a harsh death penalty and slower, more tactical gameplay. The mezzing, healing, rooting and combat rezzing and medding, while ancient, was actually pretty fun.
I'd like no instances as well. This game is not going to appeal to a lot of you, and that's fine. We have two disparate game styles we are talking about here, we don't need to agree. We need two separate games, that is all. Doesn't matter if you don't think it would popular, or if you don't like it. There's no need to argue about it, we just play different games. We both get what we like.
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
The funny thing is that you are doing exactly what you "preach against". You are on a holy mission to harass, provoke and bash away all the old school mmorpg players, except the ones that disagree with your opinion.
I agree with the OP for the most part as well. I do miss the seemingly open feel of the leveled zones. I don't miss the camping but I do miss the travel time. Then I really wanted the whole living world feel back then. There have been other games that were fun but EQ was special for a time though I left after Scars of Velious.
Comments
You conception of "fun" is simplistic or you are using it to describe such a broad range of activates that it is being inappropriately applied. If you spend ages crating an item that eventfully becomes the best thing you have is that fun?
Yep, as I excpected, your conclusion is completelly flailed.
No, the millions and millions of people are not relieved that depth went away. This new generation of players (wich consits of millions and millions of teenagers) are just too dumb down to play a really complex game. You know, comparing nowadays mmorpgs with the old ones, is like comparing a Barbie game with Dark Souls. But not everyone likes Dark Souls, so I respect that, as I respect when people say they don't like old mmorpgs.
And if you think "millions" are happy that this kind of playstyle went away, just ask the community of EQ or UO if they liked their times playing those game. I am sure most of them, if not all, will say they loved it, and would love to go back, instead of saying they are glad the gaming industry changed.
You see, you are missing the point. Wow has millions of players over EQ not because the game is better, but because of many other factors, like business models, the content aimmed for casual gamers, much easier gameplay, etc.
And I don't blame you for not liking the old games. Tastes are very personal.
Yup, you have no idea what you are talking about, saying that EQ and UO was about chatting, wich means you never played those games yourself, so you cannot have a logical conclusion based on your own experiences. You have no place in this discussion.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
No quests are cut. The developer does 100 quests of work and any given player experiences ~8 quests, due to all the exclusive factors (faction-specific, branching, two-stage).
All that work technically exists if you dig for it, but when you see the quest where you either attack the bandits or fortify the town's defenses, you only really think of it as a single quest (even though it represents 2 full quests worth of work just to have the branch) -- so overall you'll end up thinking there are much fewer quests than a typical game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I gotcha now. But I don't think everyone would see it that way, although I am sure many would too. In essence, I guess some may look at them as epic quests since they'd branch. And nothing saying they can't branch beyond 2 times. Hell...they could branch 3,4,5,6, times..depending on the story arc in question. And in different directions away from the main questline even. Give the player the choice of what is more interesting or important to them.
Just personally think it would make it more interesting than say a single quest type as we've been getting since the dawn of MMORPG's like "Kill X amount of rats" for a rusty sword, "Collect X amount of bear pelts" for this worthless chest armor you will outlevel in 3 hours types. Make the rewards for such quests much more worth while. So it's not just about the story and adventure part of it....for those that are more about rewards than story.
Complex game, rofl.
This new generation of players is much too smart for you it seems, and want game to actually enterntain then instead spending weeks camping grind spots and bosses. EQ was SO boring that you HAD to chat to drive mindnumbing gameplay away.
So those who wanted to chat discovered cahrooms, those who wanted good games went to WoW and those few thousands that harp even today how crappy game was awesome, but somehow noone wants to play it.
it was so funny when EQ2 dev proclaimed EQ2 "best game evah" and then proceeded to whine noone wants to play it. RL term is "delusional"
WoW had millions of players because it was millions times better than EQ at the time (or any "old school" game, lets not discriminate here). It was actually *gasp* good GAME, it had like, CONTENT and stuff.
Uh-huh. Son, i can objectively look at the past, opposed to some people. Which is quite nicely painted in your response.
Once you look at it without rosy glasses youll be all that much smarter and finally realize how bad those games were AND why they went the way of the dodo (actually OP listed quite a nice list as part for the reference "why noone wants to play them")
Quests will tend to feel more epic from what you do, how the results are portrayed, and how well-written it is, more than whether they're chock full of decisions. The decisions do contribute a little (especially if they're well-designed by a narrative designer) but most of the feel will come from other factors.
Quests can branch more times (more decisions per quest) and lead to exclusive other quests (more stages per quest) but it all boils down to the 100 total quests (or 1,000 or 10,000) worth of work that a developer has available, and how much do they want to subdivide that work so that each player only sees a tiny fraction of it?
As for lousy quests and obsoleted armor?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Hmm, I guess this is about the 3rd or 4th time you give this definition, and got to say it's quite good and I don't want to nitpick, but..
Instead of just the number, you should also consider their variety with regard to the choices within the game and also in the genre in general. Meaningful is a rather vague term and the definition should in my opinion take into account
Well yeah...they fill in space. They don't have to hand out armor and/or weapons either. I never really understood why more MMORPG's didn't simply hand out gold/plat (Whatever the game in questions currency is/was) as rewards at times. Or how about travel packs (Inventory bags), possibly crafting items, beneficial potions (Just ones exclusively owned by the NPC.'s, not the same as player crafted ones).
Yes, progression SHOULD be felt at every stage of the game, not just "endgame". It's what's been trying to be said to some here for ages and it doesn't sink in. Most seem to think everything before end game is just a means to an end to get to that goal of 'endgame".
*Disclaimer* Many will not like the following, but it's just my opinions and thoughts on a term used in more modern MMORPG's. Nothing said is fact, just how I feel companies look at things these days.
Speaking of which. Notice I quotationed "endgame". The reason for this is because...again personally, I don't feel the term, nor the definition behind it belong in a MMORPG. Straight off the net....
Definition of ENDGAME
: the stage of a chess game after major reduction of forces; also : the final stage of some action or process
MMORPG's were never meant to have an ending. EQ wouldn't of been called EVERquest otherwise. They'd of just named it Endgamequest. But then again, the term endgame in gaming terms never existed then.
I suppose with the definition given, anything could be endgame. Finishing a quest, finalizing that piece of crafted gear, finishing a potion recipe, etc, etc. But in terms of an MMORPG as a whole? No, it shouldn't exist. They are suppose to be a never ending adventure. Or sadly, at least were at a time. This is why there are console games that exist. They are meant to provide endgame. They have no choice but to do so. Until the sequel comes out under a different name and scenario.
There is no excuse for having "endgame" in an MMORPG. Content can/should be added indefinitely (Well could be).
EQ has like...hell IDK, 23 expansions? It's HUGE! Back in it's prime, the expansions came quick enough that most players couldn't finish all of the previous one before the next one came out. Although there were plenty that could too. But you always had something to do, always. It's why no one complained about $15 a month either really. The sheer amount of content justified the sub feel to maintain it and keep driving the content to continue to churn out.
The reason, in my eyes, that MMORPG's have moved away from monthly subs is because there just isn't enough worthy content to justify a monthly sub. Nor do they bring out expansions quick enough, or with enough quality to keep up with the rate players chew through the content (A lot of this has to do with how easy it is too) to justify it.
Not to mention, I think companies have caught on to if they make their game F2P, it attracts many more players. They get you hooked in with the gameplay...then gimp your gameplay in other ways so you may use their cash shops to stay on the competitive edge (Not everyone does this, but obviously enough do that cash shops are a big deal these days, sadly). And they realized they make much more money this way than through monthly subs because players these days have no patience and are highly competitive towards one another. Also aesthetic items for those that want it.
Not to mention nearly all these games are undeserving of a monthly sub. Shallow and too short. Lacking of long term content to hold the player.
WoW bores me to absolute tears though. There's no risk and it is about as immersive as playing Pacman. EQ1's gameplay is dated of course, it is 17 years old now, but it still is actually entertaining, if only marginally. I would like something new that has a harsh death penalty and slower, more tactical gameplay. The mezzing, healing, rooting and combat rezzing and medding, while ancient, was actually pretty fun.
I'd like no instances as well. This game is not going to appeal to a lot of you, and that's fine. We have two disparate game styles we are talking about here, we don't need to agree. We need two separate games, that is all. Doesn't matter if you don't think it would popular, or if you don't like it. There's no need to argue about it, we just play different games. We both get what we like.
Thats would be all nice and dandy if EQists wouldnt come to every MMOs forum prolaiming EQ "best game evah" and call everyone too stoopid to see it....idiots.....and all that nice stuff.
Also look at this thread "Say its nostalgia all you want..."....yeah, its freaking nostalgia and rosey glasses, dont really need to say it.
Once you take your rosey glasses off and look at things OBJECTIVELY youll see how terribad "old school" games were. And theres nothing wrong with liking terribad things, people like all sorts of terribad things, every product ever made had its customers....but fact is...its still terribad and THATS the reason why they went way of the dodo. THATS why WoW stomped all over "old scool" games...it was just infinitely better game (and i dont even like WoW, never did)
I find it curious why you'd bother coming into this thread and reading posts that you obviously will not agree with nor like in the first place if you think old school games are so terribad (terrible).
And funny you should mention seeing this objectively when you seem incapable of doing it yourself.
The point in the thread was simply to mention those things from past MMORPG's that made them different from other game genres, as well as different from what modern MMORPG's have to offer, or not offer for that matter. And....why seeing those past features listed in the 1st post, incorporated into a modern MMORPG, WITH, many modern features that have indeed improved the genre. Modern UI's, combat systems, etc,etc.
Anyways...........
The whole pink glasses bit was tired a half decade ago. Get some new material, man.
This post puts you in the same bin as those that you complain about in your first sentence. Good job.
Never played EQ, but during it's time it was top dog with a relatively huge player base and in less than a month it will have been running for fucking 16 years. Obviously there's a hell of a lot of people that didn't find the experience to be "terribad". People still use this, lol? Since we've gone back in time I'm just gonna have to ask you to chillax.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
People seem to only look at game mechanics in games to judge how good they are. I guess this is a valid way to look at things to an extant, but there are always intangibles that people don't get or had to be there to experience. A lot of what made EQ fun was the social interaction. This was all the result of things people call bad like having to rely on certain classes for certain unique abilities. Having lots of nasty mobs wandering around all over the place that agro and often bring friends. Having all kinds of nasty ailments that last a long time. Having to actually earn things throughout the entire game instead of just at endgame. Non combat spells and abilities. Camping in dungeons for rare items. You couldn't go anywhere in the game without interacting in some way. There were always people around and helping or hindering each other. It made the game feel alive. I soloed mostly in EQ, but still got lots of interaction both good and bad with other people. If you add in all the features like classes/races having starting areas that make sense and having lots of different factions you have a world where it can at least feel somewhat plausible alive. I believe it was this energy generated by having a lot of different people together and interacting that was unique in comparison to MMOs today. It is like having a bunch of people who all like football gathered together at the super bowl. In this case it was a bunch of people who all liked fantasy games and were finding ways to coexist in such a game.
On a side note I was thinking it's not possible to prove EQ was a more fun game as some people will likely never like or get it, but I bet it's possible to prove old games were harder. I know people will just quit most old games and deem them a waste of time because they have no instructions telling them exactly what to do and where to go, but if you could get players to play old games it would be a good test. Lets take a Nintendo game like Legend of Zelda for instance. I bet a lot of players would not be able to figure everything out or possible even progress at all without looking for help online. We can then take almost any game today short of something like Dark Souls and I bet most people could figure out how to beat it because of things like being told exactly where to go and exactly what to do in what situation. I've actually seen this talked about by game developers. For instance Square/Enix remade Dragon Quest VII for the 3DS. It was originally on playstation. They actually said they had to dumb the game down and show players exactly where to go in fear they might quit if they can't figure out where to go or what to do right away. Dumbing down of games for the masses is a reality weather people want to accept it or not. Weather you consider the game more fun in a dumbed down state is a personal thing I guess. Most of the masses are people who don't really care about games. It's just a side attraction to do once in a while. That in itself is ok as I think there are more important things in life myself, but some people do like to invest a lot of time into deeper games. The problem is very few of them actually exist anymore due to games all being made for x demographic.
I've always hated the nostalgia, rose colored glasses argument too. I look at it a different way. If the old games were so bad, I would have quit after a short time. I played games like EQ and DAoC for several years. Today's games, I am lucky to get beyond a month, maybe 2. The last game I played for any decent amount of time was ffxiv and that was a solid 6+ months.
So damn, I must be remembering wrong how I played MMO's that I must have hated, day after day, year after year. Oh and I still go back to EQ every now and then, as much as it has changed and is really dated. I still put in a few months here and there. I'd still be playing daoc if they didn't change so much like the New Frontiers. I even gotten over the whole ToA crap compared to the frontiers.
I don't believe I am wearing any "glasses" when I say that there are some features that EQ had that I wish modern games had. I just don't agree with you. I think you are just different from me and enjoy different things in your games.
The ironic thing is that these same people complaining about the slow or hard aspects of EQ are likely the same ones playing H1Z1 Day-Z or some other form of survival game. EQ was the ORIGINAL survival MMO. Its totally comical how downtime became a negative feature while survival games require you to go through great lengths to restore health.
There was a lot more to "sitting in one spot" holding down a spawn for hours. If you were in a place camping mobs of your level, you were constantly at risk of dying. Especially if you're trying to get good experience in the meantime. Most camps had roamers with staggered spawn times and chances of harder mobs popping. Death was always one mistake away, and it was imperative to know when to rest. The fact that new games remove downtime means they are only removing one more variable that could potentially add risk, tension, excitement and immersion to the player's experience.
Keep pretending its a bad thing though, you little zombie killers you.
Thanks for sharing.
I had many similar experiences in the original Darkfall, though I'm certain to a much lesser extent. EQ: my biggest gaming regret. I was like 20/21 years old and was preoccupied with other things at the time. I do however remember browsing a local gaming store in '99 and seeing the big poster for the game thinking "that looks so cheesy, no way" not even aware of what an MMO was or what I was missing...arrrrgggg!
Ah well, at least I discovered EVE 10 years ago. Not all was lost.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Ah, someone who actually reads and comprehends
These intangibles still exist
The crucial point is this: why cant these people fit in these intangibles when those are not FORCED on them?
In their roots, "old school" games were definition of anti social. Only if you didnt really care about the game they became social experiences. But question arises: if you didint really care about the game, wtf were you doing there in the first place (already mentioned as "virtual chatroom")
And you will have to define harder. Ultimate time sinks? Yes. Harder. No.
Is finding certain thing wandering all over without a clue harder than if its narrowed to a certain area? No. Much more time consuming? Yes
Is killing 10 of thousands of exact same mob harder than killing 10? No. Much more time consuming? Yes
Is getting a drop from exact same boss with 0,00001% drop rate harder than getting a drop with 10% drop rate? No. Much more time consuming? Yes
The funny thing is that you are doing exactly what you "preach against". You are on a holy mission to harass, provoke and bash away all the old school mmorpg players, except the ones that disagree with your opinion.
Just something to light up the humors a bit:
http://www.collegehumor.com/post/6951783/if-you-argued-in-real-life-like-you-do-on-facebook