Not particularly. The levels really only mattered as far as hit rate, chance to double attack, etc. Your dmg output was based off your gear (at least as a melee). Another example was a caster, their "evocation" skill would determine their resist rate on the mob, but that's really the extent of it. How much dmg they could do was based on their int, and how much mana they had. Someone who was naked for example might only be able to cast 4 DD spells before they were OOM, whereas someone in excellent gear might could do 10, and also would regen mana a lot faster, etc.
Gear was definitely very important in EQ, but skills were as well. I honestly think it was a good balance.
My main thing is while levels indirectly affected things, they didn't DIRECTLY affect things like in WoW. WoW bothered me so much because no matter what, you had certain % chances tied directly to your level vs the mobs level. So, an example I always give, in EQ it was very VERY normal to bring people below max level to raids. A direct example, you could bring a level 53 person to level 60 raid, and they could absolutely contribute. Whereas in WoW, because they would be more than 4 levels below the mob, they wouldn't be able to hit it AT ALL. In EQ, they might only land hits 30% of the time being 7 levels below the mob, but they could still land hits.
It was exactly the same for EQ as it was for WoW. WoW may have simply used level, while EQ used skills which increased only by leveling. The benefit of stats on damage and hit rate were also much the same in both games.
I love EQ as much as the next guy, but there is a way to prevent the rush to endgame mentality, and it's accomplished by making item progression more important that levels. The fact remains, a level 30 with average gear did considerably more damage against a level 25 mob than a level 25 player, with the same attack speed, in top notch gear - simply by virtue of skills. With casters, the level difference was even more pronounced as your resist rate on lower level mobs was drastically lower than those of your level or higher. Thus, players come to realize these things and make gaining experience their top priority.
Not particularly. The levels really only mattered as far as hit rate, chance to double attack, etc. Your dmg output was based off your gear (at least as a melee). Another example was a caster, their "evocation" skill would determine their resist rate on the mob, but that's really the extent of it. How much dmg they could do was based on their int, and how much mana they had. Someone who was naked for example might only be able to cast 4 DD spells before they were OOM, whereas someone in excellent gear might could do 10, and also would regen mana a lot faster, etc.
Gear was definitely very important in EQ, but skills were as well. I honestly think it was a good balance.
My main thing is while levels indirectly affected things, they didn't DIRECTLY affect things like in WoW. WoW bothered me so much because no matter what, you had certain % chances tied directly to your level vs the mobs level. So, an example I always give, in EQ it was very VERY normal to bring people below max level to raids. A direct example, you could bring a level 53 person to level 60 raid, and they could absolutely contribute. Whereas in WoW, because they would be more than 4 levels below the mob, they wouldn't be able to hit it AT ALL. In EQ, they might only land hits 30% of the time being 7 levels below the mob, but they could still land hits.
It was exactly the same for EQ as it was for WoW. WoW may have simply used level, while EQ used skills which increased only by leveling. The benefit of stats on damage and hit rate were also much the same in both games.
I love EQ as much as the next guy, but there is a way to prevent the rush to endgame mentality, and it's accomplished by making item progression more important that levels. The fact remains, a level 30 with average gear did considerably more damage against a level 25 mob than a level 25 player, with the same attack speed, in top notch gear - simply by virtue of skills. With casters, the level difference was even more pronounced as your resist rate on lower level mobs was drastically lower than those of your level or higher. Thus, players come to realize these things and make gaining experience their top priority.
My point is it doesn't have to be so black and white. The difference between WoW and EQ seems minor, but in reality it was huge.
I gave an excellent example. In WoW there were hard blocks. Ways of walling the players in to make sure they didn't do anything outside of what the glorious vision of the developers intended. It wasn't about creating a world for you to explore and create adventures in. It was about guiding you through this themepark ride that they created and you had to experience it the way they wanted you to, not the way you wanted to.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Nope. Games are not entertainment, games are often played for
entertainment, but a game is not entertainment itself. A movie is often
watched for entertainment, but is a movie a game? According to your
brilliant reasoning, it is.
Um, wait, what ? Games are obviously entertainment.
So a movie is a game?
Or... is there a bit more to the definition of a game? Lets put our thinking caps on shall we?
Entertainment is something that a person does for amusement. What is a game? You state it is entertainment, that a game is an amusement. Does that define a game though? A movie may be amusing, is it a game? Reading a book may be amusing, but is that a game?
We have a problem here because you are misusing the definition to define something that does not properly explain it. For instance, while a game may be played for entertainment, not all games are for entertainment. Some games are for training and conditioning. Some are evaluation activities to test and measure ability, yet again if we go by your misuse, those are all entertainment, being done for amusement right?
A game is often played FOR entertainment, a game is not entertainment itself.
So, what is a game? A game is basically a set of objectives, tasks, or obstacles to which a person competes (against another, a computer, or with a given set of conditions by themselves) to succeed according to a set of rules.
That is a game. Some people play games for entertainment. Some people play games to train, or hone abilities. A game as I said, can be entertaining, but a game is not entertainment itself.
Now, knowing that... we understand that some people just want to be entertained and some people want to play a game. You may think they are the same, but they are not as what each one expects is quite different. You see, the former wants to be amused regardless, while the latter is amused by playing a game.
So what is the problem? Well... the problem stems from the content that you provide both. The former expects everything to keep them happy, to always have "fun" regardless of what is going on. You see, obstacles, challenges, etc... are not the point, being amused is and the developers must provide content that constantly keeps these people amused. If they get bored, frustrated due to losing or having hardships, or any other sort of hampering aspect, they are no longer amused, they aren't entertained.
Now the person seeking a game, they are seeking obstacles, objectives, tasks in order to compete to succeed against according to a set of rules. Their "entertainment" or rather amusement is the game (ie the definition of game). They expect to be stumped, to fail, to have hardships, to get frustrated from time to time because this is the up and down process of playing a game.
See the problem now? How do you appeal to both? Well... you don't because the former will almost always conflict with the latter. That is because one is seeking entertainment, while the other is seeking a game.
This is the state of the gaming industry right now. They stopped making games and only put out entertainment now.
I used to be strongly against anything that involved RMT. My reasons were similar to many of those expressed here - opposition to play to win, the trivializing of other people's accomplishments, etc.
But then I played EQ2, where I indulged myself in buying some no/stat, cosmetic armor. I very much enjoyed that. And of course, everyone knows the armor comes from the item shop - so there is no diminution in the status of other people's armor.
I spent years playing as the Pied Piper of Faydark in original EQ, where my armor hardly ever matched and was quite ghastly in fact. So I support being able to buy cosmetic items, at least.
Besides, it helps fund the game. And that means more content, and a longer lasting game, for everyone.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I used to be strongly against anything that involved RMT. My reasons were similar to many of those expressed here - opposition to play to win, the trivializing of other people's accomplishments, etc.
But then I played EQ2, where I indulged myself in buying some no/stat, cosmetic armor. I very much enjoyed that. And of course, everyone knows the armor comes from the item shop - so there is no diminution in the status of other people's armor.
I spent years playing as the Pied Piper of Faydark in original EQ, where my armor hardly ever matched and was quite ghastly in fact. So I support being able to buy cosmetic items, at least.
Besides, it helps fund the game. And that means more content, and a longer lasting game, for everyone.
Enjoyment is not a valid reason to dismiss game play.
No offense Amathe, but the idea is to return to what made EQ game play important. The very thing you complain about with EQ is the very thing that made getting a nice set of gear to look great so appealing. What you are asking for is that because it was so inconvenient to look as you wanted, you would like the game play removed to achieve that so you can pay real money to get what you want.
I mean no disrespect, but it is that very reasoning process that has led us to games today. People should never be able to "buy" their effort in the game. That isn't playing a game, that is attending to cheap entertainment, which there are already numerous games out there that do such.
I understand the desire, but I keep seeing this torn nature between people about this. They keep claiming they want "old school", but then keep arguing for mainstream. Do they really want old school? Do they really want EQ? Or is this just another process of making yet another mainstream game? Can't have "old school" without the "old school" and having to earn your look in game and be beholden to it is a very EQ like thing, a very old school "earn your look" type of game play.
EQ was never just a game. It was a virtual world. That's why they say "you're in our world now." Not everything in EQ was oriented to the values of your particular play style. Heck I knew people for whom the entire game was about role playing.
For it to be a game, it would have to have a scenario in which one or more players "win." There is no such scenario for the game generally (only on an encounter by encounter basis, and even then, is the criterion for best the first, the fastest, or needing the fewest players?) Players define "winning" in a multitude of ways, none universally agreed upon.
They introduced dye for armor in EQ. It was cheap to obtain. That is certainly a precedent for visual appearance that had nothing to do with effort. You seem to have forgotten EQ as it actually was.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
EQ was never just a game. It was a virtual world. That's why they say "you're in our world now." Not everything in EQ was oriented to the values of your particular play style. Heck I knew people for whom the entire game was about role playing.
For it to be a game, it would have to have a scenario in which one or more players "win." There is no such scenario for the game generally (only on an encounter by encounter basis, and even then, is the criterion for best the first, the fastest, or needing the fewest players?) Players define "winning" in a multitude of ways, none universally agreed upon.
They introduced dye for armor in EQ. It was cheap to obtain. That is certainly a precedent for visual appearance that had nothing to do with effort. You seem to have forgotten EQ as it actually was.
Explain how you are going to achieve that experience in a zone with your suggestion? Please, I am interested in how you are going to achieve that virtual world with rubber banding mobs, magically changed appearance slots bought from the magic store in the sky (not game play), while you are zipping across the world instantly and with no real consequences?
As for it being a game, yes... it is a game, there are always win conditions, it is called risk/reward, effort/accomplishment, etc...
As for dyes? SoE put those in long after Verant was gone and when people look back to EQ as the template for what a good game was, it is Verant EQ, not SoE EQ. Besides, Dyes merely turned the gear a different shade of color. It didn't alter the appearance or give some fake look. You could dye that armor all you like, but it wouldn't give you that drop the other person worked to get or that look that a given item gave.
EQ is a game, that gave a sense of being in a virtual world. It was not a SIMS online so people can sit around entertaining themselves playing dress up.
Please, I am interested in how you are going to achieve that virtual world with rubber banding mobs, magically changed appearance slots bought from the magic store in the sky (not game play), while you are zipping across the world instantly and with no real consequences?
Did you mean for this to be funny? Dude the whole game is filled with unrealistic things. It's a computer rendition of a fantasy world. Why does one guard get killed while another stands there and eats a sandwich? How do lizards talk? How do fairies beat the crap out of someone with a sword the size of a toothpick?
But to your example more specifically, how is it more realistic for a mob to run to an arbitrarily selected invisible line on the ground lmao?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Please, I am interested in how you are going to achieve that virtual world with rubber banding mobs, magically changed appearance slots bought from the magic store in the sky (not game play), while you are zipping across the world instantly and with no real consequences?
Did you mean for this to be funny? Dude the whole game is filled with unrealistic things. It's a computer rendition of a fantasy world. Why does one guard get killed while another stands there and eats a sandwich? How do lizards talk? How do fairies beat the crap out of someone with a sword the size of a toothpick?
But to your example more specifically, how is it more realistic for a mob to run to an arbitrarily selected invisible line on the ground lmao?
What makes a virtual world? You made that argument in contrary to my points. You went on to say that it was not a game, but a virtual world but then when I point out the details of how your features directly work against that ideal, you dismiss it.
I am not arguing realism. I even specifically pointed out that realism has to be set aside for game play. You are the one that brought up "Its a Virtual World!" Even so, I specifically argued how such features created a fearful world with risk in exploration and the like. What did you argue with? Oh, that is right, you had no argument, you simply disagreed.
I am interested in playing a game, not a dress up simulator LARPing environment for a bunch of people who think entertainment means getting what you want.There are already numerous games out there attending to such, but there are zero games out there trying to be like EQ.
Lastly, don't call me "dude", I am not some of your kid pals.
I am interested in playing a game, not a dress up simulator LARPing environment for a bunch of people who think entertainment means getting what you want.
So you are angry at people you don't know because they had the temerity to enjoy some game they played?
And you are afraid people might enjoy this game, instead of gathering around you and saying "omg Sinist you have the smallclothes of doom! How did you get it?" If that's true I don't think it's a game you are looking for, so much as self respect?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I am interested in playing a game, not a dress up simulator LARPing environment for a bunch of people who think entertainment means getting what you want.
So you are angry at people you don't know because they had the temerity to enjoy some game they played?
And you are afraid people might enjoy this game, instead of gathering around you and saying "omg Sinist you have the smallclothes of doom! How did you get it?" If that's true I don't think it's a game you are looking for, so much as self respect?
Some people want to be entertained. Some people want a game. What both want do not always mean the same as many who just want to be entertained are not concerned about game play, but getting whatever they want to keep them happy, to attend to their fun, etc....
A person who plays a game is happy because of the "game play", not being handed what they want.
Trying to spin this into an ad hominem is not going to help you.
I want game play, I have very clearly argued why these features should be a part of risk/reward and effort, something a player continuously has to apply to succeed in the game for.
If you do not understand this, then you are in the wrong game as you have very clearly shown many times with the arguments you are making and why you continue to push away from the core aspect of the discussion and turn it into a personal attack.
If you do not understand this, then you are in the wrong game
There is no game. Nor is there a virtual world where people are entertained. For now, unfortunately, there is just a message board to discuss a game that may, or may not, ever be made and sent to market.
You seem to want to shoo away anyone who does not envision every single game feature exactly as you do? I remember Brad making a statement, and this is not a quote but rather a "take away," that he wished people had not been as strident on the Vanguard boards in telling other people that "Vanguard is not for you," because it succeeded in keeping some people from ever playing Vangaurd. Do you want to be "that guy" here? Do you think that means you are helping anyone?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
If you do not understand this, then you are in the wrong game
There is no game. Nor is there a virtual world where people are entertained. For now, unfortunately, there is just a message board to discuss a game that may, or may not, ever be made and sent to market.
You seem to want to shoo away anyone who does not envision every single game feature exactly as you do? I remember Brad making a statement, and this is not a quote but rather a "take away," that he wished people had not been as strident on the Vanguard boards in telling other people that "Vanguard is not for you," because it succeeded in keeping some people from ever playing Vangaurd. Do you want to be "that guy" here? Do you think that means you are helping anyone?
There is a game, there is a site, with Tenants and game feature direction with forums of numerous statements by the designers and discussions concerning the direction and focus of the game. It is like you post here and have no clue about what is going on about the game.
Brad may have felt that way about such, but I have seen game after game completely destroyed by people demanding mainstream over and over. Vanguard failed for reasons having nothing to do with scaring away mainstreamers. I think it had something like 250k sales at release, which would be an enormous success for Pantheon. Thing is, people left because the game was put out too early and had enormous problems at launch, not because it didn't attend to the WoW crowd. The fact is, that crowd never stays, they come in, demand change, are catered to, then they run off back to WoW. That is what I watched over and over the years with any game that tried to even attempt to be different than WoW or mainstream.
You aren't helping the game by asking for mainstream features. Read the tenants, read the forums about what the goals are here. Read Brads blogs, his comments, etc... about the games design. If your argument is that we should cater to mainstream demands, then Brad needs to tell us now that is what he is doing so I and people like me can put this game to rest and you guys can have at it!
By the way, what Brad means is that if people like you could just give the game a try, that you might enjoy it at its intended design. I greatly disagree with Brad here. You don't want EQ, or anything like Old School EQ. You want mainstream because that is exactly what your arguments say. So, catering to you is a waste of time because in order to make you happy, he has to destroy the game for people like me.
Now what we do know is that over the years, your games have been tried over and over and over. Now look where we are? All these games and yet.. here you are.. in this thread talking about wanting this game to put in mainstream features rather than playing the numerous games out there that already provide it. You have options, people like me do not. There is nothing out there worth a shit. All of it is garbage gimmick games for people who want to be entertained, not play a game. So there is nowhere else for people like me to go.
So tell me why yet another game needs to be adjusted to the same types of features that all the other games out there are? Tell me why we should dismiss all the main things that made EQ what it was so you can have yet another game where you will play or a bit, get bored and then run off to the next "new thing" coming out where you again will demand the same features that you left this one for, always blaming the game for why you get bored and move on, but never taking any time to actually evaluate why you are leaving and why it keeps occurring.
What the hell do I know, lets have another McDonalds! It isn't like we have enough already!
I guess I play games for fun. not to boost my ego.
QFT!
Fun is subjective.
Please, explain how you design a game on "fun". Go ahead, tell us all what "fun" is? Do you have some formula that everyone can agree on that somehow establishes what fun is or are we to just accept your fun as the "definitive" fun?
This is why developers who use "fun" to describe their development focus are idiots. That is right... because how in the hell can you define what fun is? It is subjective, it is a meaningless catch word.
Fun is not definable to any reasonable standard. What is fun for some, is not for others, so this constant defense of people to justify "I play for fun" is the epitome of the a pointless trump card that is used to avoid having to deal with the complete failure of given point.
Just for clarity's sake, and sorry if I missed something, but Pantheon will not be a free to play game.
That cannot be known at this time. Brad is looking for investors. If and when those investors are found, they are going to have a lot to say about the intended pricing model.
Plus, quite a lot of games have launched as subscription products that ended up free-to-play. For example, Everquest (in part) and Vanguard ... So things can change.
But I agree of course that is not the plan at the moment.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I am interested in playing a game, not a dress up simulator LARPing environment for a bunch of people who think entertainment means getting what you want.
So you are angry at people you don't know because they had the temerity to enjoy some game they played?
And you are afraid people might enjoy this game, instead of gathering around you and saying "omg Sinist you have the smallclothes of doom! How did you get it?" If that's true I don't think it's a game you are looking for, so much as self respect?
Some people want to be entertained. Some people want a game. What both want do not always mean the same as many who just want to be entertained are not concerned about game play, but getting whatever they want to keep them happy, to attend to their fun, etc....
So are you saying you are not entertained by the games you play? By definition entertainment the act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion;amusement. So games, movies, books are in fact forms of entertainment.
I am interested in playing a game, not a dress up simulator LARPing environment for a bunch of people who think entertainment means getting what you want.
So you are angry at people you don't know because they had the temerity to enjoy some game they played?
And you are afraid people might enjoy this game, instead of gathering around you and saying "omg Sinist you have the smallclothes of doom! How did you get it?" If that's true I don't think it's a game you are looking for, so much as self respect?
Some people want to be entertained. Some people want a game. What both want do not always mean the same as many who just want to be entertained are not concerned about game play, but getting whatever they want to keep them happy, to attend to their fun, etc....
So are you saying you are not entertained by the games you play? By definition entertainment the act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion;amusement. So games, movies, books are in fact forms of entertainment.
"forms", "activities" some do for entertainment. A game is not itself "entertainment", it is not the definition of a game. What makes a game by definition is not what everyone may find entertaining.
The point is, some people want to be amused (ie the definition of entertainment) and they may not be concerned about what a game is. They are only concerned with what amuses them. This could be many things. Why I know some who find amusement in griefing others in PvP. Some find amusement in cheating games, heck "The Game Genie" made a fortune on providing console players a way to use cheat codes in the console games.
The point is, those seeking to be entertained and those seeking to play a game are not the same types. They will differ in focus and in expectation. While you may see the hardships of a corpse run or hard death penalty as "not amusing", I see it as the point of game play, an obstacle or penalty for playing poorly. You may see a game that puts an emphasis on long term travel being meaningful as something that gets in the way of your "entertainment", your "amusement" or simple enjoyment while I see it as another obstacle and element of play, a means to hamper my easy progression, to cause me to think about how I travel and who I might seek to remedy various means of it.
You see, you are interested in simply being amused while I am interested in playing a game. I play a game because what a game is, its definition, is what I find entertaining.
I think a lot of people are forgetting how serious they play games now as compared to when they played eq. It's why you had so much fun back then. You played to play, because playing was fun. You leveled solely through killing the same mobs over and over for hours on end, because it was fun. You PvP'd because killing someone was fun, not for currency.
Anyone who is seeking to derive true personal accomplishment, only based on comparisons to others, is setting themselves up for disappointment. This is especially true for a game.
I think a lot of people are forgetting how serious they play games now as compared to when they played eq. It's why you had so much fun back then. You played to play, because playing was fun. You leveled solely through killing the same mobs over and over for hours on end, because it was fun. You PvP'd because killing someone was fun, not for currency.
Anyone who is seeking to derive true personal accomplishment, only based on comparisons to others, is setting themselves up for disappointment. This is especially true for a game.
I don't see how you figure that. For instance, EQ took far more time and effort than any of the games today. In EQ, contested raid content required people to essentially be jobless to compete for the current raid content. Raids would go on for so many hours that it was not uncommon for some to start raiding on Saturday morning and end the raid Sunday night. In EQ, there were many boss fights that required steady coordination between 40-70+ people for hours of play. Death in EQ was harsh requiring hours corpse retrieval and setup again.
These days, games are easy button smashing fests with preset planned occurrences in special instances with timely fights and easy recoveries. There is nothing serious about games today if you are trying to make comparisons.
Either people are looking to play a game and do so because it is a game or people are looking to be entertained. The difference is that those seeking to be entertained don't care about rules and use "my fun" as a trump card to ignore rules, dumb games down and attend to lazy inept play.
One finds "fun" in the game play, the other is simply looking for entertaining gimmicks.
I think a lot of people are forgetting how serious they play games now as compared to when they played eq. It's why you had so much fun back then. You played to play, because playing was fun. You leveled solely through killing the same mobs over and over for hours on end, because it was fun. You PvP'd because killing someone was fun, not for currency.
Anyone who is seeking to derive true personal accomplishment, only based on comparisons to others, is setting themselves up for disappointment. This is especially true for a game.
You make some very good points. Before there was EQ, there were pen and paper fantasy roleplaying games like AD&D. There were also MUDs. These were the games that ultimately led to EQ. People weren't rushing through those games.
Later, a sub-community of players developed who are very competitive amongst themselves. And then, as sometimes happens in a sub-community, they start to think the game was made only or primarily for people like them, and also that everyone else is doing it wrong.
I had friends in EQ who were dedicated raiders, and I had friends who were happy just chatting in an Inn. There was room for all.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I think a lot of people are forgetting how serious they play games now as compared to when they played eq. It's why you had so much fun back then. You played to play, because playing was fun. You leveled solely through killing the same mobs over and over for hours on end, because it was fun. You PvP'd because killing someone was fun, not for currency.
Anyone who is seeking to derive true personal accomplishment, only based on comparisons to others, is setting themselves up for disappointment. This is especially true for a game.
You make some very good points. Before there was EQ, there were pen and paper fantasy roleplaying games like AD&D. There were also MUDs. These were the games that ultimately led to EQ. People weren't rushing through those games.
Later, a sub-community of players developed who are very competitive amongst themselves. And then, as sometimes happens in a sub-community, they start to think the game was made only or primarily for people like them, and also that everyone else is doing it wrong.
I had friends in EQ who were dedicated raiders, and I had friends who were happy just chatting in an Inn. There was room for all.
The heavy competitive crowd isn't the main problem here. In most of those games, they account for a small percentage of players, just as the hardcore raiders in EQ only accounted for a very small percentage of the population. It wasn't those crowds that drove current game design, rather it is the crowds who don't want a game, but just want simple entertainment.
Those people are the ones that demanded dungeons be streamlined to 5-10 min runs, to have gear rewards changed from drops to token rewards and have numerous elements in the game designed to fit a very fast and easy consumption rate through solo play. These are the people who continued to ask for game play elements be turned into convenience features. They asked for this claiming that they did not play games to work, to be hassled, or be frustrated, that their time was important and they didn't have it to waste stupid things like that in games.
You can go from forum to forum of games over the last decade and see those repeating arguments over and over again. It was the same crowd that goes on about "Their fun", "Their enjoyment", and "Their time" to steer game features to cater to such aspects. At the end of the day, they just want to be entertained, not play a game. There is nothing wrong with people seeking such, but when they demand games be consistently designed counter to game play to promote such "convenience", well... you end up with chat rooms of bored people going on about anyone who wants to play a game as being "hardcore", "overly competitive" and disinterested in "fun(tm)". /shrug
Just for clarity's sake, and sorry if I missed something, but Pantheon will not be a free to play game.
That cannot be known at this time. Brad is looking for investors. If and when those investors are found, they are going to have a lot to say about the intended pricing model.
Plus, quite a lot of games have launched as subscription products that ended up free-to-play. For example, Everquest (in part) and Vanguard ... So things can change.
But I agree of course that is not the plan at the moment.
I don't think you understand. If they go FTP, they will lose a large chunk of the crowd they are shooting for. I and many others I know wanting a game like this will not play FTP.
FTP is the worst move a company like this can make due to the unique nature and focus of it. If they were to go that route now or at a later day, it would be worse than if they started out with FTP as their goal.
The point is, FTP is a death rattle for this game.
I think you need to read a lot more about VR and this game. You seem very uninformed about the details of various topics relating to it.
I and many others I know wanting a game like this will not play FTP.
Yeah that's how the decision will be made. Picture a conference room. Brad, some marketing people, some bankers and maybe some attorneys are conversing They are discussing the pricing model - either the initial one or a new one after launch. The subject of FTP comes up and everyone says "No way. Sinist won't like it. You know Sinist? The guy who used to spam the mmorpg.com boards and insult everyone? Not just him, but " people he knows." Then they will all see they can't use that model. You are right, as always.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I and many others I know wanting a game like this will not play FTP.
Yeah that's how the decision will be made. Picture a conference room. Brad, some marketing people, some bankers and maybe some attorneys are conversing They are discussing the pricing model - either the initial one or a new one after launch. The subject of FTP comes up and everyone says "No way. Sinist won't like it. You know Sinist? The guy who used to spam the mmorpg.com boards and insult everyone? Not just him, but " people he knows." Then they will all see they can't use that model. You are right, as always.
You are missing the point. People who follow this game, most of those who support it, won't play a FTP game.
Do you always go to forums of games you are completely ignorant on and then act as if you have a clue? All of this I am talking about is very clear to anyone who reads the Pantheon forums, has followed the game, and knows their head from their arse about it.
But hey, you go ahead and explain it to me though. I am just itching to hear how ignorance can somehow divine knowledge.
Comments
I love EQ as much as the next guy, but there is a way to prevent the rush to endgame mentality, and it's accomplished by making item progression more important that levels. The fact remains, a level 30 with average gear did considerably more damage against a level 25 mob than a level 25 player, with the same attack speed, in top notch gear - simply by virtue of skills. With casters, the level difference was even more pronounced as your resist rate on lower level mobs was drastically lower than those of your level or higher. Thus, players come to realize these things and make gaining experience their top priority.
I gave an excellent example. In WoW there were hard blocks. Ways of walling the players in to make sure they didn't do anything outside of what the glorious vision of the developers intended. It wasn't about creating a world for you to explore and create adventures in. It was about guiding you through this themepark ride that they created and you had to experience it the way they wanted you to, not the way you wanted to.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Or... is there a bit more to the definition of a game? Lets put our thinking caps on shall we?
Entertainment is something that a person does for amusement. What is a game? You state it is entertainment, that a game is an amusement. Does that define a game though? A movie may be amusing, is it a game? Reading a book may be amusing, but is that a game?
We have a problem here because you are misusing the definition to define something that does not properly explain it. For instance, while a game may be played for entertainment, not all games are for entertainment. Some games are for training and conditioning. Some are evaluation activities to test and measure ability, yet again if we go by your misuse, those are all entertainment, being done for amusement right?
A game is often played FOR entertainment, a game is not entertainment itself.
So, what is a game? A game is basically a set of objectives, tasks, or obstacles to which a person competes (against another, a computer, or with a given set of conditions by themselves) to succeed according to a set of rules.
That is a game. Some people play games for entertainment. Some people play games to train, or hone abilities. A game as I said, can be entertaining, but a game is not entertainment itself.
Now, knowing that... we understand that some people just want to be entertained and some people want to play a game. You may think they are the same, but they are not as what each one expects is quite different. You see, the former wants to be amused regardless, while the latter is amused by playing a game.
So what is the problem? Well... the problem stems from the content that you provide both. The former expects everything to keep them happy, to always have "fun" regardless of what is going on. You see, obstacles, challenges, etc... are not the point, being amused is and the developers must provide content that constantly keeps these people amused. If they get bored, frustrated due to losing or having hardships, or any other sort of hampering aspect, they are no longer amused, they aren't entertained.
Now the person seeking a game, they are seeking obstacles, objectives, tasks in order to compete to succeed against according to a set of rules. Their "entertainment" or rather amusement is the game (ie the definition of game). They expect to be stumped, to fail, to have hardships, to get frustrated from time to time because this is the up and down process of playing a game.
See the problem now? How do you appeal to both? Well... you don't because the former will almost always conflict with the latter. That is because one is seeking entertainment, while the other is seeking a game.
This is the state of the gaming industry right now. They stopped making games and only put out entertainment now.
But then I played EQ2, where I indulged myself in buying some no/stat, cosmetic armor. I very much enjoyed that. And of course, everyone knows the armor comes from the item shop - so there is no diminution in the status of other people's armor.
I spent years playing as the Pied Piper of Faydark in original EQ, where my armor hardly ever matched and was quite ghastly in fact. So I support being able to buy cosmetic items, at least.
Besides, it helps fund the game. And that means more content, and a longer lasting game, for everyone.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
No offense Amathe, but the idea is to return to what made EQ game play important. The very thing you complain about with EQ is the very thing that made getting a nice set of gear to look great so appealing. What you are asking for is that because it was so inconvenient to look as you wanted, you would like the game play removed to achieve that so you can pay real money to get what you want.
I mean no disrespect, but it is that very reasoning process that has led us to games today. People should never be able to "buy" their effort in the game. That isn't playing a game, that is attending to cheap entertainment, which there are already numerous games out there that do such.
I understand the desire, but I keep seeing this torn nature between people about this. They keep claiming they want "old school", but then keep arguing for mainstream. Do they really want old school? Do they really want EQ? Or is this just another process of making yet another mainstream game? Can't have "old school" without the "old school" and having to earn your look in game and be beholden to it is a very EQ like thing, a very old school "earn your look" type of game play.
For it to be a game, it would have to have a scenario in which one or more players "win." There is no such scenario for the game generally (only on an encounter by encounter basis, and even then, is the criterion for best the first, the fastest, or needing the fewest players?) Players define "winning" in a multitude of ways, none universally agreed upon.
They introduced dye for armor in EQ. It was cheap to obtain. That is certainly a precedent for visual appearance that had nothing to do with effort. You seem to have forgotten EQ as it actually was.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
As for it being a game, yes... it is a game, there are always win conditions, it is called risk/reward, effort/accomplishment, etc...
As for dyes? SoE put those in long after Verant was gone and when people look back to EQ as the template for what a good game was, it is Verant EQ, not SoE EQ. Besides, Dyes merely turned the gear a different shade of color. It didn't alter the appearance or give some fake look. You could dye that armor all you like, but it wouldn't give you that drop the other person worked to get or that look that a given item gave.
EQ is a game, that gave a sense of being in a virtual world. It was not a SIMS online so people can sit around entertaining themselves playing dress up.
But to your example more specifically, how is it more realistic for a mob to run to an arbitrarily selected invisible line on the ground lmao?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I am not arguing realism. I even specifically pointed out that realism has to be set aside for game play. You are the one that brought up "Its a Virtual World!" Even so, I specifically argued how such features created a fearful world with risk in exploration and the like. What did you argue with? Oh, that is right, you had no argument, you simply disagreed.
I am interested in playing a game, not a dress up simulator LARPing environment for a bunch of people who think entertainment means getting what you want.There are already numerous games out there attending to such, but there are zero games out there trying to be like EQ.
Lastly, don't call me "dude", I am not some of your kid pals.
And you are afraid people might enjoy this game, instead of gathering around you and saying "omg Sinist you have the smallclothes of doom! How did you get it?" If that's true I don't think it's a game you are looking for, so much as self respect?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
A person who plays a game is happy because of the "game play", not being handed what they want.
Trying to spin this into an ad hominem is not going to help you.
I want game play, I have very clearly argued why these features should be a part of risk/reward and effort, something a player continuously has to apply to succeed in the game for.
If you do not understand this, then you are in the wrong game as you have very clearly shown many times with the arguments you are making and why you continue to push away from the core aspect of the discussion and turn it into a personal attack.
You seem to want to shoo away anyone who does not envision every single game feature exactly as you do? I remember Brad making a statement, and this is not a quote but rather a "take away," that he wished people had not been as strident on the Vanguard boards in telling other people that "Vanguard is not for you," because it succeeded in keeping some people from ever playing Vangaurd. Do you want to be "that guy" here? Do you think that means you are helping anyone?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
There is a game, there is a site, with Tenants and game feature direction with forums of numerous statements by the designers and discussions concerning the direction and focus of the game. It is like you post here and have no clue about what is going on about the game.
Brad may have felt that way about such, but I have seen game after game completely destroyed by people demanding mainstream over and over. Vanguard failed for reasons having nothing to do with scaring away mainstreamers. I think it had something like 250k sales at release, which would be an enormous success for Pantheon. Thing is, people left because the game was put out too early and had enormous problems at launch, not because it didn't attend to the WoW crowd. The fact is, that crowd never stays, they come in, demand change, are catered to, then they run off back to WoW. That is what I watched over and over the years with any game that tried to even attempt to be different than WoW or mainstream.
You aren't helping the game by asking for mainstream features. Read the tenants, read the forums about what the goals are here. Read Brads blogs, his comments, etc... about the games design. If your argument is that we should cater to mainstream demands, then Brad needs to tell us now that is what he is doing so I and people like me can put this game to rest and you guys can have at it!
By the way, what Brad means is that if people like you could just give the game a try, that you might enjoy it at its intended design. I greatly disagree with Brad here. You don't want EQ, or anything like Old School EQ. You want mainstream because that is exactly what your arguments say. So, catering to you is a waste of time because in order to make you happy, he has to destroy the game for people like me.
Now what we do know is that over the years, your games have been tried over and over and over. Now look where we are? All these games and yet.. here you are.. in this thread talking about wanting this game to put in mainstream features rather than playing the numerous games out there that already provide it. You have options, people like me do not. There is nothing out there worth a shit. All of it is garbage gimmick games for people who want to be entertained, not play a game. So there is nowhere else for people like me to go.
So tell me why yet another game needs to be adjusted to the same types of features that all the other games out there are? Tell me why we should dismiss all the main things that made EQ what it was so you can have yet another game where you will play or a bit, get bored and then run off to the next "new thing" coming out where you again will demand the same features that you left this one for, always blaming the game for why you get bored and move on, but never taking any time to actually evaluate why you are leaving and why it keeps occurring.
What the hell do I know, lets have another McDonalds! It isn't like we have enough already!
Please, explain how you design a game on "fun". Go ahead, tell us all what "fun" is? Do you have some formula that everyone can agree on that somehow establishes what fun is or are we to just accept your fun as the "definitive" fun?
This is why developers who use "fun" to describe their development focus are idiots. That is right... because how in the hell can you define what fun is? It is subjective, it is a meaningless catch word.
Fun is not definable to any reasonable standard. What is fun for some, is not for others, so this constant defense of people to justify "I play for fun" is the epitome of the a pointless trump card that is used to avoid having to deal with the complete failure of given point.
Plus, quite a lot of games have launched as subscription products that ended up free-to-play. For example, Everquest (in part) and Vanguard ... So things can change.
But I agree of course that is not the plan at the moment.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
"forms", "activities" some do for entertainment. A game is not itself "entertainment", it is not the definition of a game. What makes a game by definition is not what everyone may find entertaining.
The point is, some people want to be amused (ie the definition of entertainment) and they may not be concerned about what a game is. They are only concerned with what amuses them. This could be many things. Why I know some who find amusement in griefing others in PvP. Some find amusement in cheating games, heck "The Game Genie" made a fortune on providing console players a way to use cheat codes in the console games.
The point is, those seeking to be entertained and those seeking to play a game are not the same types. They will differ in focus and in expectation. While you may see the hardships of a corpse run or hard death penalty as "not amusing", I see it as the point of game play, an obstacle or penalty for playing poorly. You may see a game that puts an emphasis on long term travel being meaningful as something that gets in the way of your "entertainment", your "amusement" or simple enjoyment while I see it as another obstacle and element of play, a means to hamper my easy progression, to cause me to think about how I travel and who I might seek to remedy various means of it.
You see, you are interested in simply being amused while I am interested in playing a game. I play a game because what a game is, its definition, is what I find entertaining.
Anyone who is seeking to derive true personal accomplishment, only based on comparisons to others, is setting themselves up for disappointment. This is especially true for a game.
These days, games are easy button smashing fests with preset planned occurrences in special instances with timely fights and easy recoveries. There is nothing serious about games today if you are trying to make comparisons.
Either people are looking to play a game and do so because it is a game or people are looking to be entertained. The difference is that those seeking to be entertained don't care about rules and use "my fun" as a trump card to ignore rules, dumb games down and attend to lazy inept play.
One finds "fun" in the game play, the other is simply looking for entertaining gimmicks.
Later, a sub-community of players developed who are very competitive amongst themselves. And then, as sometimes happens in a sub-community, they start to think the game was made only or primarily for people like them, and also that everyone else is doing it wrong.
I had friends in EQ who were dedicated raiders, and I had friends who were happy just chatting in an Inn. There was room for all.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Those people are the ones that demanded dungeons be streamlined to 5-10 min runs, to have gear rewards changed from drops to token rewards and have numerous elements in the game designed to fit a very fast and easy consumption rate through solo play. These are the people who continued to ask for game play elements be turned into convenience features. They asked for this claiming that they did not play games to work, to be hassled, or be frustrated, that their time was important and they didn't have it to waste stupid things like that in games.
You can go from forum to forum of games over the last decade and see those repeating arguments over and over again. It was the same crowd that goes on about "Their fun", "Their enjoyment", and "Their time" to steer game features to cater to such aspects. At the end of the day, they just want to be entertained, not play a game. There is nothing wrong with people seeking such, but when they demand games be consistently designed counter to game play to promote such "convenience", well... you end up with chat rooms of bored people going on about anyone who wants to play a game as being "hardcore", "overly competitive" and disinterested in "fun(tm)". /shrug
FTP is the worst move a company like this can make due to the unique nature and focus of it. If they were to go that route now or at a later day, it would be worse than if they started out with FTP as their goal.
The point is, FTP is a death rattle for this game.
I think you need to read a lot more about VR and this game. You seem very uninformed about the details of various topics relating to it.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Do you always go to forums of games you are completely ignorant on and then act as if you have a clue? All of this I am talking about is very clear to anyone who reads the Pantheon forums, has followed the game, and knows their head from their arse about it.
But hey, you go ahead and explain it to me though. I am just itching to hear how ignorance can somehow divine knowledge.
/em sits down and listens intently.