EQ was indeed very much group oriented. Outside of caster classes, you weren't soloing much unless you were geared to the tits. I had a twinked SK in Velious, and even that was really slow going. If I attempted anything beyond dark blue, almost light blue mobs, they usually ran me out of mana and hit too hard to trade blows.
Re: @Tamanous on kiting: kiting is most definitely not a failure of game design. It exists in tons of games across almost every genre, even to this day (in fact, just started playing Ninelives alpha, and kiting is basically all I do on my mage). Its only a failure if you do not intend to make it challenging via timers, ability swapping, resist chance and diminishing returns. As it existed in EQ was rather straight forward, but if they thought for a second it was a failure, they could have easily changed the way it worked.
A few months ago I decided to give EQ2 Time Lock Server a chance. I was under the impression ( marketing ) that it was a server that brought the game back to classic....It was everything but. It was completely changed around with new zones, cash shop, and most of all extremely easy....Daybreak games (SOE) sold us out.
Two weeks ago, my friends from work ( 5 of us ) moved from a Vanilla WoW private server to Guildwars 2, what a mistake, IT WAS SO EASY, IT WAS A JOKE. Not even worth grouping....Reason......to advance you fast to buy the expansion ( marketing ).
Pantheon is our only chance. I just hope developers are prepared for a large amount of players on release......I'm sorry I really believe that.
The hardest part about making a game as a spiritual successor to an older game, is that we have all had around 15 years of additional mmorpg experience. Game systems can't recapture the freshness, the naivete, the awe at experiencing something for the very first time without preconception. More than anything I believe that is the reason for discontent. We want mmos to be new to us again, and they just keep showing up as diluted iterations of something we have now seen 100 times before.
When I was in the Kelethin newbie yard killing bees and skellys, that was my first mmo experience and I was quite excited about it. "Newbie yard" was not then in my vocabulary. But it is now. And no matter how well Pantheon does on its newbie yards, I will know that is what they are. I will know I am in an mmo newbie yard killing yard trash (another word I've learned), as opposed to being a ranger on an adventure in a mysterious forest.
Just look at the long threads on this board arguing in detail over ever game system. The fact that is occurring underscores just how difficult it would be to re-engineer the way any game felt when we first played it.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
@OP..... Exactly how does Pantheon address your opening statement? I'm assuming you mean that there is a misconception that Pantheon is EQ1 remade or some such assertion. But then you attempt to clear up this "misconception" (I don't really believe that it's as big a misconception as you do) with the next opening statement being "IMO"
I would suggest you seriously revise your opening post.
The hardest part about making a game as a spiritual successor to an older game, is that we have all had around 15 years of additional mmorpg experience. Game systems can't recapture the freshness, the naivete, the awe at experiencing something for the very first time without preconception. More than anything I believe that is the reason for discontent. We want mmos to be new to us again, and they just keep showing up as diluted iterations of something we have now seen 100 times before.
When I was in the Kelethin newbie yard killing bees and skellys, that was my first mmo experience and I was quite excited about it. "Newbie yard" was not then in my vocabulary. But it is now. And no matter how well Pantheon does on its newbie yards, I will know that is what they are. I will know I am in an mmo newbie yard killing yard trash (another word I've learned), as opposed to being a ranger on an adventure in a mysterious forest.
Just look at the long threads on this board arguing in detail over ever game system. The fact that is occurring underscores just how difficult it would be to re-engineer the way any game felt when we first played it.
See, the whole nostalgia of falsely remembering days past isn't my issue at all. I was into PC gaming and multiplayer systems long before EQ was even conceived. I know and understand both sides of it, gaming and development so nothing was an experience of wonder . That does not mean EQ didn't have a feeling of experience unique to its own, but for me at least, it isn't like a childlike experience of wonder and amazement to which I was dazzled by the graphics and sound to which most nostalgia is attributed.
I had played single player games of better graphics and systems, so the look and feel wasn't exactly it. It wasn't the open world as there were numerous cRPGs that had open worlds of vast exploration and adventure. Most of the systems had been done in previous games so it wasn't the "newness" of it and playing multiplayer was a common experience I had through numerous multiplayer games before it. It wasn't the difficulty in the systems as nobody thought that way, games were meant to be difficult and required players to work and earn their progress, not buying it or having it handed to them.
It was a combination of factors really that made the game a solid experience (though it was not without its problems). Over the years though, what was "standard" in terms of gaming became more of a focus on "entertainment" and those are two very different design goals depending on your player base. That is, a person who loves games wants what a game is and a person who loves entertainment, wants what entertainment is. While both seek entertainment (ie enjoyment, fun, etc...), why they play a game differs and so what they expect also differs, often to incompatible ends.
This is where I see the industry today. They are building entertainment, not games and so the person seeking a game is often left wanting. EQ while a "world" was still a game. Take away the "game" in EQ and it is a glorified chat room for each individuals own amusement.
So, the developer has to decide... Are they making a game, or are they making entertainment? What they choose will decide the course of their development and eventually the fate of the game. The tenants of Pantheon suggest they are making a game, but the real question then becomes... what are the players honestly seeking and do they even really understand what that is?
Sinist said: So, the developer has to decide... Are they making a game, or are they making entertainment?
For some reason when you say that I always think of this scene from Big Bang Theory:
Penny: [after Sheldon's game account got hacked] Sorry, Sheldon. I know that game meant a lot to you.
Sheldon: That game! Excuse me, Penny, but Doodle Jump is a game. Angry Birds is a game. World of Warcraft is a massively multi-player online role-playing... Alright, technically it's a game.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
The hardest part about making a game as a spiritual successor to an older game, is that we have all had around 15 years of additional mmorpg experience. Game systems can't recapture the freshness, the naivete, the awe at experiencing something for the very first time without preconception. More than anything I believe that is the reason for discontent. We want mmos to be new to us again, and they just keep showing up as diluted iterations of something we have now seen 100 times before.
When I was in the Kelethin newbie yard killing bees and skellys, that was my first mmo experience and I was quite excited about it. "Newbie yard" was not then in my vocabulary. But it is now. And no matter how well Pantheon does on its newbie yards, I will know that is what they are. I will know I am in an mmo newbie yard killing yard trash (another word I've learned), as opposed to being a ranger on an adventure in a mysterious forest.
Just look at the long threads on this board arguing in detail over ever game system. The fact that is occurring underscores just how difficult it would be to re-engineer the way any game felt when we first played it.
The problem with these arguments is that they tend to polarize people. "It's nostalgia" vs. "It's not nostalgia" I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
The closest game to WoW I've ever played was Rift. It was a true "clone" IMO. But I actually don't recall it ever called a "spiritual successor" Nor did I ever hear it called "nostalgic" in reference to WoW.
The hardest part about making a game as a spiritual successor to an older game, is that we have all had around 15 years of additional mmorpg experience. Game systems can't recapture the freshness, the naivete, the awe at experiencing something for the very first time without preconception. More than anything I believe that is the reason for discontent. We want mmos to be new to us again, and they just keep showing up as diluted iterations of something we have now seen 100 times before.
When I was in the Kelethin newbie yard killing bees and skellys, that was my first mmo experience and I was quite excited about it. "Newbie yard" was not then in my vocabulary. But it is now. And no matter how well Pantheon does on its newbie yards, I will know that is what they are. I will know I am in an mmo newbie yard killing yard trash (another word I've learned), as opposed to being a ranger on an adventure in a mysterious forest.
Just look at the long threads on this board arguing in detail over ever game system. The fact that is occurring underscores just how difficult it would be to re-engineer the way any game felt when we first played it.
The problem with these arguments is that they tend to polarize people. "It's nostalgia" vs. "It's not nostalgia" I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
Is it nostalgia though? Honestly, if they were to release a game exactly like EQ today, with only the content changed so it isn't repeating what I did previously, I would play it without reservation (heck, I would play current EQ if it was still EQ and not a WoW clone). Not because of some fond memory of EQ, but because I honestly like EQs systems. I think the right implementation of all its systems provided a very addictive game.
I don't care for P1999, mainly because I have done all of the content already so exploration, adventure, etc.. is no longer exciting (though I still enjoy the systems of play). I have played some other emu's which attempt to take the core game and change it up completely to create a new environment, story, etc.. and those I have found very enjoyable, but... they also tend to lack skill in their applications and also tend to carry far too many mainstream features that I think harms game play (ie soft death penalty, fast exp, easy travel, etc...). Even so, I did enjoy their take on the game and systems.
Point is, EQ is a good game in my honest opinion, and I think in many others opinions as well. If it was a bad game, I doubt it would still be around after all this time.
Like I said, they could make an exact EQ clone today and I would play it in a heart beat, blocky graphics and all.
The hardest part about making a game as a spiritual successor to an older game, is that we have all had around 15 years of additional mmorpg experience. Game systems can't recapture the freshness, the naivete, the awe at experiencing something for the very first time without preconception. More than anything I believe that is the reason for discontent. We want mmos to be new to us again, and they just keep showing up as diluted iterations of something we have now seen 100 times before.
When I was in the Kelethin newbie yard killing bees and skellys, that was my first mmo experience and I was quite excited about it. "Newbie yard" was not then in my vocabulary. But it is now. And no matter how well Pantheon does on its newbie yards, I will know that is what they are. I will know I am in an mmo newbie yard killing yard trash (another word I've learned), as opposed to being a ranger on an adventure in a mysterious forest.
Just look at the long threads on this board arguing in detail over ever game system. The fact that is occurring underscores just how difficult it would be to re-engineer the way any game felt when we first played it.
The problem with these arguments is that they tend to polarize people. "It's nostalgia" vs. "It's not nostalgia" I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
Is it nostalgia though? Honestly, if they were to release a game exactly like EQ today, with only the content changed so it isn't repeating what I did previously, I would play it without reservation (heck, I would play current EQ if it was still EQ and not a WoW clone). Not because of some fond memory of EQ, but because I honestly like EQs systems. I think the right implementation of all its systems provided a very addictive game.
I don't care for P1999, mainly because I have done all of the content already so exploration, adventure, etc.. is no longer exciting (though I still enjoy the systems of play). I have played some other emu's which attempt to take the core game and change it up completely to create a new environment, story, etc.. and those I have found very enjoyable, but... they also tend to lack skill in their applications and also tend to carry far too many mainstream features that I think harms game play (ie soft death penalty, fast exp, easy travel, etc...). Even so, I did enjoy their take on the game and systems.
Point is, EQ is a good game in my honest opinion, and I think in many others opinions as well. If it was a bad game, I doubt it would still be around after all this time.
Like I said, they could make an exact EQ clone today and I would play it in a heart beat, blocky graphics and all.
I wouldn't call your motivations entirely nostalgic. But partially maybe. I don't see it as a negative. Somehow on these boards, some kind of sentiment has connected "nostalgia" with something like being delusional.
The problem with these arguments is that they tend to polarize people. "It's nostalgia" vs. "It's not nostalgia" I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
The closest game to WoW I've ever played was Rift. It was a true "clone" IMO. But I actually don't recall it ever called a "spiritual successor" Nor did I ever hear it called "nostalgic" in reference to WoW.
So one is not always the other.
I don't think the point was about nostalgia as much as it was about exposure. As it's exposure that leads to a feeling of been there done that. It's this feeling that is hard to overcome for a new game, which would explain why many today simply play a game for the story and move on after they've completed the content associated with it. As that's the only discovery they're experiencing in these games, the story line. This is the biggest detriment I see toward having an eye rooted so far in the past on game-play systems, especially systems that have been used to such a degree of repetition. Challenging or not...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Is it nostalgia though? Honestly, if they were to release a game exactly like EQ today, with only the content changed so it isn't repeating what I did previously, I would play it without reservation (heck, I would play current EQ if it was still EQ and not a WoW clone). Not because of some fond memory of EQ, but because I honestly like EQs systems. I think the right implementation of all its systems provided a very addictive game.
I don't care for P1999, mainly because I have done all of the content already so exploration, adventure, etc.. is no longer exciting (though I still enjoy the systems of play). I have played some other emu's which attempt to take the core game and change it up completely to create a new environment, story, etc.. and those I have found very enjoyable, but... they also tend to lack skill in their applications and also tend to carry far too many mainstream features that I think harms game play (ie soft death penalty, fast exp, easy travel, etc...). Even so, I did enjoy their take on the game and systems.
Point is, EQ is a good game in my honest opinion, and I think in many others opinions as well. If it was a bad game, I doubt it would still be around after all this time.
Like I said, they could make an exact EQ clone today and I would play it in a heart beat, blocky graphics and all.
I wouldn't call your motivations entirely nostalgic. But partially maybe. I don't see it as a negative. Somehow on these boards, some kind of sentiment has connected "nostalgia" with something like being delusional.
That I have certainly seen, but I don't think those attacks are honest evaluations as much as they are attempts to dismiss any discussion about the systems of old. I often saw the similar attacks and dismissals with the cRPG discussions when "turn based" play was brought up.
The one thing I never understood is the absolute venom people display over the discussions of using systems of old. You start talking about the merit of older systems and some take it as a personal offense and come to the discussion swinging. I really don't get it.
In the end though, like I said... I like EQs systems, there is no day dreaming going on when I talk about wanting a certain feature in a game as some may tend to imply.
The problem with these arguments is that they tend to polarize people. "It's nostalgia" vs. "It's not nostalgia" I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
The closest game to WoW I've ever played was Rift. It was a true "clone" IMO. But I actually don't recall it ever called a "spiritual successor" Nor did I ever hear it called "nostalgic" in reference to WoW.
So one is not always the other.
I don't think the point was about nostalgia as much as it was about exposure. As it's exposure that leads to a feeling of been there done that. It's this feeling that is hard to overcome for a new game, which would explain why many today simply play a game for the story and move on after they've completed the content associated with it. As that's the only discovery they're experiencing in these games, the story line. This is the biggest detriment I see toward having an eye rooted so far in the past on game-play systems, especially systems that have been used to such a degree of repetition. Challenging or not...
Well, I am a big systems fan. I have nothing against story, but if that is my focus, I read a book. I play games primarily for their systems. I don't mind seeing the same systems, in fact, I like a certain consistency in game systems. I had always hoped that MMOs would have stayed with similar systems, slowly improving and enhancing rather than attempting to completely re-invent the wheel each time.
People have gotten this idea that "new" is better and that "change for the sake of change" is a good thing. With each MMO over the years, it was the same thing, people demanding to be dazzled, bigger and better, different, etc.... It is where I started to see that people were more interested in being entertained than they were in actual game play.
Maybe that is why systems started to take a back seat and story cut scenes, voice overs, etc... took over? Those are popular elements of "entertainment", not game systems themselves. Why spend money on detailed game systems when the bulk of your player base won't even appreciate it?
As much as I enjoyed the older game systems (which continue to have my support), I am far more interested in the feel of the game world (and the feel of my character in that world) than anything else.
In Everquest I fought dragons. In WoW I fought pixilated images of dragons. That isn't because WoW had bad artists. (The WoW dragons actually looked much more realistic). But instead, a lot of things went into why one encounter felt immersive for me and one did not. If I made a list of reasons it would have 100 items, but as an example I was afraid of EQ dragons because I might lose all my stuff, and WoW dragons could never do more than inconvenience me.
But that's on the objective side. Subjectively, EQ dragons were the first 3D dragons I ever encountered that I could fight against with a group of friends, and the newness and freshness of that added a lot to the experience that probably no other game can ever bring back for me.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I don't think the point was about nostalgia as much as it was about exposure. As it's exposure that leads to a feeling of been there done that. It's this feeling that is hard to overcome for a new game, which would explain why many today simply play a game for the story and move on after they've completed the content associated with it. As that's the only discovery they're experiencing in these games, the story line. This is the biggest detriment I see toward having an eye rooted so far in the past on game-play systems, especially systems that have been used to such a degree of repetition. Challenging or not...
Well, I am a big systems fan. I have nothing against story, but if that is my focus, I read a book. I play games primarily for their systems. I don't mind seeing the same systems, in fact, I like a certain consistency in game systems. I had always hoped that MMOs would have stayed with similar systems, slowly improving and enhancing rather than attempting to completely re-invent the wheel each time.
People have gotten this idea that "new" is better and that "change for the sake of change" is a good thing. With each MMO over the years, it was the same thing, people demanding to be dazzled, bigger and better, different, etc.... It is where I started to see that people were more interested in being entertained than they were in actual game play.
Maybe that is why systems started to take a back seat and story cut scenes, voice overs, etc... took over? Those are popular elements of "entertainment", not game systems themselves. Why spend money on detailed game systems when the bulk of your player base won't even appreciate it?
I'd say technically many of those systems are still in play in MMORPGs, while many have been streamlined, on a fundamental level they are the same systems just made more accessible. Whether that streamlining is good or bad is another question of course..
I think the cut-scenes as well as scripted content associated with story-lines, are more or less a band-aid to hide those old layers under. Essentially a bit of make up to make the game feel as well as look modernized. Of course they're taking more strides from the likes of WOW and how it used those systems rather than how EQ or DAOC (I use those examples because they're the two games that seem to be emulated the most, out of the old crop).
Personally I agree with you on a surface level, we shouldn't need to reinvent the wheel outright, however, given the intake one who plays MMO's long term has had of those systems, and the repetitive nature associated with the way they've been used, you can't continue doing that forever.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The problem with these arguments is that they tend to polarize people. "It's nostalgia" vs. "It's not nostalgia" I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
The closest game to WoW I've ever played was Rift. It was a true "clone" IMO. But I actually don't recall it ever called a "spiritual successor" Nor did I ever hear it called "nostalgic" in reference to WoW.
So one is not always the other.
I'd argue nostalgia may bring you to back to something you like, but its the very tangible and enduring qualities that keep you there.
I played EQ emus off and on for nearly 10 years, and I can tell you, "nostalgia" didn't have shit to do with it. The gameplay, especially of the cooperative variety, and meaningful progression are what makes the game continually enjoyable.
There were several threads last year (including this one), where hundreds of people beat to death the notion that our fond memories of EQ were merely nostalgia rather than very specific features, many of which couldn't be found elsewhere (and still can't).
The problem with these arguments is that they tend to polarize people. "It's nostalgia" vs. "It's not nostalgia" I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
The closest game to WoW I've ever played was Rift. It was a true "clone" IMO. But I actually don't recall it ever called a "spiritual successor" Nor did I ever hear it called "nostalgic" in reference to WoW.
So one is not always the other.
I'd argue nostalgia may bring you to back to something you like, but its the very tangible and enduring qualities that keep you there.
I played EQ emus off and on for nearly 10 years, and I can tell you, "nostalgia" didn't have shit to do with it. The gameplay, especially of the cooperative variety, and meaningful progression are what makes the game continually enjoyable.
There were several threads last year (including this one), where hundreds of people beat to death the notion that our fond memories of EQ were merely nostalgia rather than very specific features, many of which couldn't be found elsewhere (and still can't).
I will agree that our old games were good. They didn't suck and that we only played them because there wasn't anything else. I played them with specific day to day objectives I wanted to accomplish. So yeah, you are correct in that if there is somethign good, I'll be drawn to it.
IMO, where nostalgia comes in, is in the repetition of the same.
Meaning, playing a Vanilla WoW server isn't the same as playing a new game that might be based very closely on Vanilla WoW's model (Or EQ for that matter)
The problem with these arguments is that they tend to polarize people. "It's nostalgia" vs. "It's not nostalgia" I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
The closest game to WoW I've ever played was Rift. It was a true "clone" IMO. But I actually don't recall it ever called a "spiritual successor" Nor did I ever hear it called "nostalgic" in reference to WoW.
So one is not always the other.
I'd argue nostalgia may bring you to back to something you like, but its the very tangible and enduring qualities that keep you there.
I played EQ emus off and on for nearly 10 years, and I can tell you, "nostalgia" didn't have shit to do with it. The gameplay, especially of the cooperative variety, and meaningful progression are what makes the game continually enjoyable.
There were several threads last year (including this one), where hundreds of people beat to death the notion that our fond memories of EQ were merely nostalgia rather than very specific features, many of which couldn't be found elsewhere (and still can't).
I will agree that our old games were good. They didn't suck and that we only played them because there wasn't anything else. I played them with specific day to day objectives I wanted to accomplish. So yeah, you are correct in that if there is somethign good, I'll be drawn to it.
IMO, where nostalgia comes in, is in the repetition of the same.
Meaning, playing a Vanilla WoW server isn't the same as playing a new game that might be based very closely on Vanilla WoW's model (Or EQ for that matter)
All I'm saying is that if something is enjoyable, one doesn't continue doing it because of nostalgia.
I love chocolate ice cream. Its always been my favorite since I was a child. By this brilliant nostalgia "logic", a lot of people on this forum would therefore postulate that I really only buy chocolate ice cream because it reminds me of a simpler time and happy memories rather than the fact that chocolate ice cream is amazing, and I want to continue enjoying it.
Unfortunately for many MMO players, the flavor we loved the most hasn't been available for over a decade. Now we hope that we just might just get it back in Pantheon. Not because we think it will give us warm fuzzies "reminiscing about the past" or the glory days of our youth, but because it will be fun. Plain and simple.
I could give or take Nostalgia....It seems as long as its a community mmo, I'm fine with it.
One thing I could say about making another updated version of a same game is it has to definitely be better than the original or people will be constantly comparing. I would think its better to just make a new game with new lore. I'm not a writer or a game developer (obviously), but I would bet it would be just as easy to make new lore as appose to trying to fit old lore into a new game.
Right now I'm playing Vanilla WoW, I love it because its the only game I can find that's a true community based game. I guess I'm too lazy to seek out project 1999 or SWG emulator. I've been playing Vanilla WoW for a few years now and still enjoy it.
However, just in the past year I've tried EQ2 Time Lock Server, Guildwars 2 and LOTRO again. All three games were butchered and made ridiculously easy and with heavy cash shops. The way I see it, their unplayable.....So I'm back to Vanilla WoW.....Nostalgia ?......Not really, but community.
Community has been such garbage after EQ1 that making a group based game will be nostalgic by default. Lol@people criticizing EQ1 nostalgia as if it's ever been delivered since. Even Vanguard was more like WoW then EQ1.
If Pantheon somehow launches, packed full of EQ1 feels and still fails you plebs can downplay nostalgia. Until then kindly gtfo
The problem with these arguments is that they tend to polarize people. "It's nostalgia" vs. "It's not nostalgia" I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
The closest game to WoW I've ever played was Rift. It was a true "clone" IMO. But I actually don't recall it ever called a "spiritual successor" Nor did I ever hear it called "nostalgic" in reference to WoW.
So one is not always the other.
I'd argue nostalgia may bring you to back to something you like, but its the very tangible and enduring qualities that keep you there.
I played EQ emus off and on for nearly 10 years, and I can tell you, "nostalgia" didn't have shit to do with it. The gameplay, especially of the cooperative variety, and meaningful progression are what makes the game continually enjoyable.
There were several threads last year (including this one), where hundreds of people beat to death the notion that our fond memories of EQ were merely nostalgia rather than very specific features, many of which couldn't be found elsewhere (and still can't).
I will agree that our old games were good. They didn't suck and that we only played them because there wasn't anything else. I played them with specific day to day objectives I wanted to accomplish. So yeah, you are correct in that if there is somethign good, I'll be drawn to it.
IMO, where nostalgia comes in, is in the repetition of the same.
Meaning, playing a Vanilla WoW server isn't the same as playing a new game that might be based very closely on Vanilla WoW's model (Or EQ for that matter)
All I'm saying is that if something is enjoyable, one doesn't continue doing it because of nostalgia.
I love chocolate ice cream. Its always been my favorite since I was a child. By this brilliant nostalgia "logic", a lot of people on this forum would therefore postulate that I really only buy chocolate ice cream because it reminds me of a simpler time and happy memories rather than the fact that chocolate ice cream is amazing, and I want to continue enjoying it.
Unfortunately for many MMO players, the flavor we loved the most hasn't been available for over a decade. Now we hope that we just might just get it back in Pantheon. Not because we think it will give us warm fuzzies "reminiscing about the past" or the glory days of our youth, but because it will be fun. Plain and simple.
I fully understand what you mean. ANd I agree with it. We like what we like. On paper Pantheon look like what I want in a game. But I am in the "Wait and see" category. I don't put a tremendous amount of faith in Crowd Funded projects.
-Will this project actually be able to finish?
-How long will this game actually take in reality to create? How many more years really?
-Will the finished product actually resemble the sales pitch?
Historically speaking, the odds are stacked against.
I fully understand what you mean. ANd I agree with it. We like what we like. On paper Pantheon look like what I want in a game. But I am in the "Wait and see" category. I don't put a tremendous amount of faith in Crowd Funded projects.
-Will this project actually be able to finish?
-How long will this game actually take in reality to create? How many more years really?
-Will the finished product actually resemble the sales pitch?
Historically speaking, the odds are stacked against.
I understand how you feel. Also, in case you hadn't heard, Pantheon did secure an investor last year so they are not relying entirely on crowdfunding any longer. That doesn't guarantee anything, but they've made it clear that they intend to finish the game whether they continue getting outside funding or not. That of course would probably scale back their team and push back development, but they got by without an investor before, so they could likely do it again.
They're projecting a release in 2017, and are currently preparing the alpha build for closed testing.
Comments
Re: @Tamanous on kiting: kiting is most definitely not a failure of game design. It exists in tons of games across almost every genre, even to this day (in fact, just started playing Ninelives alpha, and kiting is basically all I do on my mage). Its only a failure if you do not intend to make it challenging via timers, ability swapping, resist chance and diminishing returns. As it existed in EQ was rather straight forward, but if they thought for a second it was a failure, they could have easily changed the way it worked.
A few months ago I decided to give EQ2 Time Lock Server a chance. I was under the impression ( marketing ) that it was a server that brought the game back to classic....It was everything but. It was completely changed around with new zones, cash shop, and most of all extremely easy....Daybreak games (SOE) sold us out.
Two weeks ago, my friends from work ( 5 of us ) moved from a Vanilla WoW private server to Guildwars 2, what a mistake, IT WAS SO EASY, IT WAS A JOKE. Not even worth grouping....Reason......to advance you fast to buy the expansion ( marketing ).
Pantheon is our only chance. I just hope developers are prepared for a large amount of players on release......I'm sorry I really believe that.
When I was in the Kelethin newbie yard killing bees and skellys, that was my first mmo experience and I was quite excited about it. "Newbie yard" was not then in my vocabulary. But it is now. And no matter how well Pantheon does on its newbie yards, I will know that is what they are. I will know I am in an mmo newbie yard killing yard trash (another word I've learned), as opposed to being a ranger on an adventure in a mysterious forest.
Just look at the long threads on this board arguing in detail over ever game system. The fact that is occurring underscores just how difficult it would be to re-engineer the way any game felt when we first played it.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Not even the Pantheon fans think your level of hype is doing the game any good.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
He said he was done posting on this forum not long ago.
Now he is back with his usual: All MMOs suck - only Pantheon will be great!
Exactly how does Pantheon address your opening statement? I'm assuming you mean that there is a misconception that Pantheon is EQ1 remade or some such assertion. But then you attempt to clear up this "misconception" (I don't really believe that it's as big a misconception as you do) with the next opening statement being "IMO"
I would suggest you seriously revise your opening post.
I had played single player games of better graphics and systems, so the look and feel wasn't exactly it. It wasn't the open world as there were numerous cRPGs that had open worlds of vast exploration and adventure. Most of the systems had been done in previous games so it wasn't the "newness" of it and playing multiplayer was a common experience I had through numerous multiplayer games before it. It wasn't the difficulty in the systems as nobody thought that way, games were meant to be difficult and required players to work and earn their progress, not buying it or having it handed to them.
It was a combination of factors really that made the game a solid experience (though it was not without its problems). Over the years though, what was "standard" in terms of gaming became more of a focus on "entertainment" and those are two very different design goals depending on your player base. That is, a person who loves games wants what a game is and a person who loves entertainment, wants what entertainment is. While both seek entertainment (ie enjoyment, fun, etc...), why they play a game differs and so what they expect also differs, often to incompatible ends.
This is where I see the industry today. They are building entertainment, not games and so the person seeking a game is often left wanting. EQ while a "world" was still a game. Take away the "game" in EQ and it is a glorified chat room for each individuals own amusement.
So, the developer has to decide... Are they making a game, or are they making entertainment? What they choose will decide the course of their development and eventually the fate of the game. The tenants of Pantheon suggest they are making a game, but the real question then becomes... what are the players honestly seeking and do they even really understand what that is?
Penny: [after Sheldon's game account got hacked] Sorry, Sheldon. I know that game meant a lot to you.
Sheldon: That game! Excuse me, Penny, but Doodle Jump is a game. Angry Birds is a game. World of Warcraft is a massively multi-player online role-playing... Alright, technically it's a game.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I don't think it's that simple. It's a varying shade of grey here. When I go to a Vanilla WoW server, THAT is nostalgia. P99 is nostalgia. But games that try to capture an essence may or may not be. We constantly see posts and threads about how WoW Clones fail. But they don't. Just being a WoW-Clone does not mean failure. There are a few out there that are still holding their own. It's BAD WoW Clones that fail. Thus it's BAD games that fail. Good games do not fail.
It's the same for this "spiritual successor" concept. Before you can have a good spiritual successor, you have to have a good game. Nostalgia would be to try to replicate the old game. A spiritual successor only needs to generate that certain feeling.
The closest game to WoW I've ever played was Rift. It was a true "clone" IMO. But I actually don't recall it ever called a "spiritual successor" Nor did I ever hear it called "nostalgic" in reference to WoW.
So one is not always the other.
I don't care for P1999, mainly because I have done all of the content already so exploration, adventure, etc.. is no longer exciting (though I still enjoy the systems of play). I have played some other emu's which attempt to take the core game and change it up completely to create a new environment, story, etc.. and those I have found very enjoyable, but... they also tend to lack skill in their applications and also tend to carry far too many mainstream features that I think harms game play (ie soft death penalty, fast exp, easy travel, etc...). Even so, I did enjoy their take on the game and systems.
Point is, EQ is a good game in my honest opinion, and I think in many others opinions as well. If it was a bad game, I doubt it would still be around after all this time.
Like I said, they could make an exact EQ clone today and I would play it in a heart beat, blocky graphics and all.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The one thing I never understood is the absolute venom people display over the discussions of using systems of old. You start talking about the merit of older systems and some take it as a personal offense and come to the discussion swinging. I really don't get it.
In the end though, like I said... I like EQs systems, there is no day dreaming going on when I talk about wanting a certain feature in a game as some may tend to imply.
People have gotten this idea that "new" is better and that "change for the sake of change" is a good thing. With each MMO over the years, it was the same thing, people demanding to be dazzled, bigger and better, different, etc.... It is where I started to see that people were more interested in being entertained than they were in actual game play.
Maybe that is why systems started to take a back seat and story cut scenes, voice overs, etc... took over? Those are popular elements of "entertainment", not game systems themselves. Why spend money on detailed game systems when the bulk of your player base won't even appreciate it?
In Everquest I fought dragons. In WoW I fought pixilated images of dragons. That isn't because WoW had bad artists. (The WoW dragons actually looked much more realistic). But instead, a lot of things went into why one encounter felt immersive for me and one did not. If I made a list of reasons it would have 100 items, but as an example I was afraid of EQ dragons because I might lose all my stuff, and WoW dragons could never do more than inconvenience me.
But that's on the objective side. Subjectively, EQ dragons were the first 3D dragons I ever encountered that I could fight against with a group of friends, and the newness and freshness of that added a lot to the experience that probably no other game can ever bring back for me.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I think the cut-scenes as well as scripted content associated with story-lines, are more or less a band-aid to hide those old layers under. Essentially a bit of make up to make the game feel as well as look modernized. Of course they're taking more strides from the likes of WOW and how it used those systems rather than how EQ or DAOC (I use those examples because they're the two games that seem to be emulated the most, out of the old crop).
Personally I agree with you on a surface level, we shouldn't need to reinvent the wheel outright, however, given the intake one who plays MMO's long term has had of those systems, and the repetitive nature associated with the way they've been used, you can't continue doing that forever.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I played EQ emus off and on for nearly 10 years, and I can tell you, "nostalgia" didn't have shit to do with it. The gameplay, especially of the cooperative variety, and meaningful progression are what makes the game continually enjoyable.
There were several threads last year (including this one), where hundreds of people beat to death the notion that our fond memories of EQ were merely nostalgia rather than very specific features, many of which couldn't be found elsewhere (and still can't).
IMO, where nostalgia comes in, is in the repetition of the same.
Meaning, playing a Vanilla WoW server isn't the same as playing a new game that might be based very closely on Vanilla WoW's model (Or EQ for that matter)
I love chocolate ice cream. Its always been my favorite since I was a child. By this brilliant nostalgia "logic", a lot of people on this forum would therefore postulate that I really only buy chocolate ice cream because it reminds me of a simpler time and happy memories rather than the fact that chocolate ice cream is amazing, and I want to continue enjoying it.
Unfortunately for many MMO players, the flavor we loved the most hasn't been available for over a decade. Now we hope that we just might just get it back in Pantheon. Not because we think it will give us warm fuzzies "reminiscing about the past" or the glory days of our youth, but because it will be fun. Plain and simple.
I could give or take Nostalgia....It seems as long as its a community mmo, I'm fine with it.
One thing I could say about making another updated version of a same game is it has to definitely be better than the original or people will be constantly comparing. I would think its better to just make a new game with new lore. I'm not a writer or a game developer (obviously), but I would bet it would be just as easy to make new lore as appose to trying to fit old lore into a new game.
Right now I'm playing Vanilla WoW, I love it because its the only game I can find that's a true community based game. I guess I'm too lazy to seek out project 1999 or SWG emulator. I've been playing Vanilla WoW for a few years now and still enjoy it.
However, just in the past year I've tried EQ2 Time Lock Server, Guildwars 2 and LOTRO again. All three games were butchered and made ridiculously easy and with heavy cash shops. The way I see it, their unplayable.....So I'm back to Vanilla WoW.....Nostalgia ?......Not really, but community.
If Pantheon somehow launches, packed full of EQ1 feels and still fails you plebs can downplay nostalgia. Until then kindly gtfo
-Will this project actually be able to finish?
-How long will this game actually take in reality to create? How many more years really?
-Will the finished product actually resemble the sales pitch?
Historically speaking, the odds are stacked against.
They're projecting a release in 2017, and are currently preparing the alpha build for closed testing.