I don't recall Necromancers ever being weak or less played. Rogues, Warriors, and Clerics were the ones hard to find and they were the best group classes. Any class that could solo like Druid, Necromancer, Shaman, and Mage were usually pretty easy to find. Soloing actually fit the Necromancer pretty well as per their description no one really liked them much. They were shunned by society. They had all the utility spells to survive solo. DoTs, fear, and lifetap worked great for solo, but not so good for grouping. Mages had a variety of pets that even in Vanilla were quite good. I remember them being wanted over Wizards in many cases in groups because they had the pet, could nuke almost as well, and could summon food/drink. The water pet was great against poison monsters as it was immune. The pets healed much faster than players and their damage increased every few levels unlike the players. I believe there were more people who were playing classes that could solo by a large margin in comparison to ones that could just group.
Why are modern games so simplistic compared to games of old? Money. The names D&D and Forgotten Realms were thrown about. In 1995 when rights were acquired there was no such thing as WoW money. A development team could get rights to a rule set for relatively cheap. Today IP holders want their WoW money. IP holders inspect everything looking for infringement on their IP, so they can get their WoW money.
Every feature that you love and miss, someone owns and is holding it hostage in their greedy little fist. That they will only open for their WoW money. Races and their descriptions and attributes are IP, same goes for classes. Someone owns them and wants to get paid.
Another reason for oversimplification, resource overhead. Every additional race is a model library and an animation library that must be stored in memory then transformed for every scene. Some old games used one animation library for all races to reduce the overhead cost. That doesn't fly in modern games. Another cost, finding an artist that can make new and original race artwork and animation. Most can only reproduce what has been done before. They have no soul or life experience, they are mostly posers. Their life is nothing but copying what they have seen other do or be before them. It's sad realy.
Lastly another reason for the dull flavor to our games. Moms. Did a previous game have Deities? Moms don't want pagan religions shown to their kids by games. Did your game have a Thief class, Moms don't want crime romanticised to their kids by games. Now Moms aren't the only reason for the dulling of games, there are cheap Developers at number one. But Moms do come in at number two.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Why are modern games so simplistic compared to games of old? Money. The names D&D and Forgotten Realms were thrown about. In 1995 when rights were acquired there was no such thing as WoW money. A development team could get rights to a rule set for relatively cheap. Today IP holders want their WoW money. IP holders inspect everything looking for infringement on their IP, so they can get their WoW money.
Every feature that you love and miss, someone owns and is holding it hostage in their greedy little fist. That they will only open for their WoW money. Races and their descriptions and attributes are IP, same goes for classes. Someone owns them and wants to get paid.
Another cost, finding an artist that can make new and original race artwork and animation. Most can only reproduce what has been done before. They have no soul or life experience, they are mostly posers. Their life is nothing but copying what they have seen other do or be before them. It's sad realy.
Lastly the main reason for the dull flavor to our games. Moms.
wow, that borders on a manifesto.
Unless you are privy to what developers actually paid for as far as rights to various IP's I don't see how you can make that claim.
However, I think it's fair that people who own an ip get a fair share. why should some game company clean up and pay the owner of the IP peanuts?
I don't think there were "better" artists "way back then" than there are now. I think you "think" the artists are making these decisions but it's probably someone else.
Lastly, as far as I know, and I think I"m right on this account, Moms have been around for longer than you and I and they have always made decisions on what was best for their children.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Why are modern games so simplistic compared to games of old? Money. The names D&D and Forgotten Realms were thrown about. In 1995 when rights were acquired there was no such thing as WoW money. A development team could get rights to a rule set for relatively cheap. Today IP holders want their WoW money. IP holders inspect everything looking for infringement on their IP, so they can get their WoW money.
Every feature that you love and miss, someone owns and is holding it hostage in their greedy little fist. That they will only open for their WoW money. Races and their descriptions and attributes are IP, same goes for classes. Someone owns them and wants to get paid.
Another cost, finding an artist that can make new and original race artwork and animation. Most can only reproduce what has been done before. They have no soul or life experience, they are mostly posers. Their life is nothing but copying what they have seen other do or be before them. It's sad realy.
Lastly the main final reason for the dull flavor to our games. Moms.
wow, that borders on a manifesto.
Unless you are privy to what developers actually paid for as far as rights to various IP's I don't see how you can make that claim.
However, I think it's fair that people who own an ip get a fair share. why should some game company clean up and pay the owner of the IP peanuts?
I don't think there were "better" artists "way back then" than there are now. I think you "think" the artists are making these decisions but it's probably someone else.
Lastly, as far as I know, and I think I"m right on this account, Moms have been around for longer than you and I and they have always made decisions on what was best for their children.
You got me all wrong. I am a strong supporter of everyone making their fair share. I'm not complaining about IP ownership, or denying someone the right to get paid for their work. I'm just stating the little known fact that many wanted game features are locked behind IP ownership. If someone new wants to implement an IP they must either buy it outright or wait for it to become available. At no time did I espouse paying anyone peanuts for their work. I saw gamers asking why were some features not being implemented in modern games. I tried to answer why.
This may be second hand, but it is still factual. And it has nothing to do with now versus yesterday. Most people applying for art jobs aren't artist in the sense of job qualifications. Many try to pass off commercial work as their own, thinking no one has seen it before or can tell the difference.
You're right about Moms having always been there. But that still doesn't free them of any responsibility for the state of gaming today.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
My first 3D MMORPG experience, where I played past a few levels was Shin Megami Tensei - crap, then Runes of Magic -fun at the time, but ruined by cashshop greed -, then post-vanilla, super easy, crappy WoW*, then Everquest 2 (played paladin and troubadour to 95), then Neverwinter, though I've sampled or tried many others, including more modern EQ1 and Vanguard.
*So many damn kill such and such types of animals to get pieces of meat. Ridiculous. And Runes of Magic copied that. My paladin and/or knight/warrior (or w/e class) can fight hordes of monsters or undead for you, but you want him to go get you dinner? lol.
While I never played vanilla EQ, though I was more than old enough to at the time of its release, I do agree that many of its features sound very cool. I even think I like losing experience (maybe even an item or money) after death. It makes death a lot more terrible. Death should have a consequence, though I don't think I like the whole get your corpse or lose all your gear. Characters lost exp in Runes of Magic for dying, a lot more than you lose in EQ2. You had to group for certain things in Runes of Magic, which sounds similar to Everquest. Which meant you really needed to join a guild to do dungeons if you didn't want to look for people to group with in your zone all the time. Though that could be fun too. I don't know whether I like persistent or instanced dungeons more. Both have their pros and cons. But I have to say, I did find it cool to meet people to form a party with after you already entered the dungeon in EQ2. Or to save some lower level's life you came across when you were mentored down and messing around in Kaladim. I didn't play EQ2 until 12/2013-late 2014, but I found it far more fun than WoW. Neverwinter I enjoyed because of the intuitive action combat that actually made you feel in control of your character's movements and actions. And the lack of grind until max level (though they killed that with mod 6 and raising the level cap to 70. Grinding now begins at 60-69). I had a lot of fun playing Everquest 2, perhaps partly because I didn't have experiences with the first Everquest with which to compare it. Whether or not I still would have enjoyed EQ2 as much, I can't say for certain. But, for me, what killed EQ2 and all MMORPGs is the so-called Endgame, which is just endless repetition to keep people playing. Hardly a reward for all the time and effort it takes to reach max level. Did World of Warcraft start that BS, or did Everquest? PVP also fails. It is never fair and balanced. It is never as fun for beginners as it is for people who've been playing longer, are higher level, or paid more money (as far as I know, as far I've experienced). Though someone did explain to me on another thread that PVP was better on EQ1 because death carried such a high cost and players actually considered it a crime to kill another player.
This is exactly why so many of the new games fail, it's lack of variety in class selection and the ability to be unique. DAOC groups size was 8.. not saying that today it should be that way but it also had something like 24 classes at release.. currently sitting between 40 and 50. That's variety, that's interesting to me.
I remember playing DAOC for months and then grouping with a class I had never seen or grouped with.. the group dynamic was totally different for that group.. a new experience that kept me interested for quite some time. Point being, games today are too simplistic, they have no depth and they are designed for a different generation of players who are use to instant gratification. That's not going to change I'm afraid.
Agreed. The early MMOs were not hand holding park rides. They were virtual worlds. There was risk and consequence. They had depth and mystery. EQ,AC,UO,DAoC all had such amazing worlds to immerse yourself in. It honestly felt like stepping into another world.
I remember my first time out in Daoc. I wandered out into contested area without knowing it and I got slaughtered by an Elf player lol. Good times. Everything was new and exciting. People didn't already have guides out before the game left beta. Not to mention, the game worlds were so in depth that it took a long time to even figure out your class. I miss a lot of things about those times.
I agree EQ1 did a lot but there is a lot of corner cutting and layered repeating in the game as well. I never could figure out why Square Enix does not like to use water zones.
Races were done way better in FFXI because they had VERY distinct differences,not +1 or +2/3 in a stat that really means nothing.I just found it amazing that FFXI was done on console PS2,i highly doubt ANY of the developers could ever pull off a FFXI equal on PS2.
However yes i agree,we are seeing VERY poor efforts in game design now a days and why i am almost never happy.We have all these new wave gamer's complaining about the complaining but i guess they simply cannot see how bad the effort has been.
I hate to keep chirping on Chris Roberts but when you look at that guys budget and what he has NOT accomplished,it looks REAL BAD.Most if not all Asian games are the most shallow and nothing has changed that stereotype,they seem more hell bent on fast game design to get it out there and get the cash shop going.
To prove how shallow game design is now a days,look at the very man who helped make EQ1 "Smedley",he recently quit DBG and within a month already was selling some new crappy looking game that a week later folded up shop.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I played EQ and AC, I would not touch games like that again. The grind was horrible and the combat was really slow and clunky. The grouping aspect was a lot better than modern games, but the end game was also pretty bad.
People got fed up with the above and that is the reason WOW did so well in 2004/2005.
So many people complain about instances, but went to play WoW - which has nothing but instances and no really usable contested content with meaningful things to do or gear to farm from - over EQ2, which was basically EQ with the Q and better graphics, even though the engine was/is terrible.
A ton of people did go to play WoW. I played it only because my friends were into it, but i personally hated almost every minute of it EQ2 was eh, just OK. It didn't have the same feel as the original EQ. The engine was(is) indeed downright awful.
EQ2 was basically WoW with +5 difficulty, 10x the content, 10x the things to do in game, 10x the customization, better graphics (if you had the beastly rig to run it), etc. If it couldn't appeal to EQ's player base, then EQN was doomed to fail.
No game is going to have the same feel of the Original EQ. It's not something the majority of players these days are looking for, so I don't fault developers and Publishers for not going that route. The Feel of EQ had as much do to about the literal timeframe of playing the game, the actual people playing the game with you, and the experiences you had playing the game. It has nothing to do with Instances and Raids, or taking 1 hour to go from Neriak to Butcherblock Mountains.
A lot of the "gameplay" in EQ was horrible even back then. The game was magical because it was many people's introduction to MMORPGs/Virtual Worlds and because of the interactions with other people in the game back then.
For example, the mechanic of having to loot your corpse in EQ was horrible, IMO. Especially if you died in a place where you could not reach it - your corpse could rot and all your items would get deleted.
One time I fell down the well in Befallen and I spent about 4 hours asking the zone if they could help me get my corpse. A Necromancer named Nomadl was passing through and offered to summon my corpse if I got the coffin from a vendor. I was a newbie and didn't have that much, so he bought it himself and summoned my corpse.
The mechanic was horrible, but the fact that someone was nice enough to do that made a sort of lifelong impression on me, and it's why I tend to be helpful to newbies in games even to this day. This has nothing to do with EQ as a game itself, but with the interaction I had with the other person in that game, which really sort of affected me in a positive way.
Back then, some of the experiences you had in EQ felt almost as real as real-life events because the concept of virtual worlds was so new to us. MMORPGs are commodity these days. Many of us have been playing them so long that most things are fairly familiar. Things were completely different back then. No "new game" can bring this back... the same way no new festival can bring back the original feel of Woodstock 1969...
That's not going to happen in any new game. Not Pantheon, not BDO, now EQ2 or WoW. Nothing. Not the way it did back then. You cannot replicate the "feel" of EQ and many people are finding out that with all of the games that tried to "out-WoW" WoW. Yes, the game can play very similar, but that magic is gone.
You only get one shot at it.
This is something that MMORPG players (especially the "old-timers") do not want to accept, and it's a persistent driving force in their decisions to dislike or reject newer games.
Everyone is entitled to play what they want, and decide what is fun for them... However, the idea that something needs to give them that "original EQ feel" to hit the right spot is a pipe dream. This will not happen. Its not possible. A game can give you EQ gameplay with upgraded graphics, but it will not be EQ because EQ was about more than the game itself; and that's not something that can be delivered by a software developer.
EQ peaked at 450k subs in 2004. There are not enough EQ players left in the world to really deliver that experience at the scale people expect from MMORPGs these days. You are going to have an EQ-lite game filled with EQ2/WoW/GW/etc. generation players anyways, which completely changes the feel of the game itself.
I have to agree that I will never get that feeling back again, just like I'll never enjoy another Halo Lan party. However, I am not confusing this with EQ's unique and sought aspects. Furthermore, I am, and have always been, a social recluse. I never played with others in EQ, and only occasionally in Vanilla WoW. Yet I still crave something about EQ... I'm afraid your argument here holds as much water as the nostalgia argument.
So many people complain about instances, but went to play WoW - which has nothing but instances and no really usable contested content with meaningful things to do or gear to farm from - over EQ2, which was basically EQ with the Q and better graphics, even though the engine was/is terrible.
A ton of people did go to play WoW. I played it only because my friends were into it, but i personally hated almost every minute of it EQ2 was eh, just OK. It didn't have the same feel as the original EQ. The engine was(is) indeed downright awful.
EQ2 was basically WoW with +5 difficulty, 10x the content, 10x the things to do in game, 10x the customization, better graphics (if you had the beastly rig to run it), etc. If it couldn't appeal to EQ's player base, then EQN was doomed to fail.
No game is going to have the same feel of the Original EQ. It's not something the majority of players these days are looking for, so I don't fault developers and Publishers for not going that route. The Feel of EQ had as much do to about the literal timeframe of playing the game, the actual people playing the game with you, and the experiences you had playing the game. It has nothing to do with Instances and Raids, or taking 1 hour to go from Neriak to Butcherblock Mountains.
A lot of the "gameplay" in EQ was horrible even back then. The game was magical because it was many people's introduction to MMORPGs/Virtual Worlds and because of the interactions with other people in the game back then.
For example, the mechanic of having to loot your corpse in EQ was horrible, IMO. Especially if you died in a place where you could not reach it - your corpse could rot and all your items would get deleted.
One time I fell down the well in Befallen and I spent about 4 hours asking the zone if they could help me get my corpse. A Necromancer named Nomadl was passing through and offered to summon my corpse if I got the coffin from a vendor. I was a newbie and didn't have that much, so he bought it himself and summoned my corpse.
The mechanic was horrible, but the fact that someone was nice enough to do that made a sort of lifelong impression on me, and it's why I tend to be helpful to newbies in games even to this day. This has nothing to do with EQ as a game itself, but with the interaction I had with the other person in that game, which really sort of affected me in a positive way.
Back then, some of the experiences you had in EQ felt almost as real as real-life events because the concept of virtual worlds was so new to us. MMORPGs are commodity these days. Many of us have been playing them so long that most things are fairly familiar. Things were completely different back then. No "new game" can bring this back... the same way no new festival can bring back the original feel of Woodstock 1969...
That's not going to happen in any new game. Not Pantheon, not BDO, now EQ2 or WoW. Nothing. Not the way it did back then. You cannot replicate the "feel" of EQ and many people are finding out that with all of the games that tried to "out-WoW" WoW. Yes, the game can play very similar, but that magic is gone.
You only get one shot at it.
This is something that MMORPG players (especially the "old-timers") do not want to accept, and it's a persistent driving force in their decisions to dislike or reject newer games.
Everyone is entitled to play what they want, and decide what is fun for them... However, the idea that something needs to give them that "original EQ feel" to hit the right spot is a pipe dream. This will not happen. Its not possible. A game can give you EQ gameplay with upgraded graphics, but it will not be EQ because EQ was about more than the game itself; and that's not something that can be delivered by a software developer.
EQ peaked at 450k subs in 2004. There are not enough EQ players left in the world to really deliver that experience at the scale people expect from MMORPGs these days. You are going to have an EQ-lite game filled with EQ2/WoW/GW/etc. generation players anyways, which completely changes the feel of the game itself.
I have to agree that I will never get that feeling back again, just like I'll never enjoy another Halo Lan party. However, I am not confusing this with EQ's unique and sought aspects. Furthermore, I am, and have always been, a social recluse. I never played with others in EQ, and only occasionally in Vanilla WoW. Yet I still crave something about EQ... I'm afraid your argument here holds as much water as the nostalgia argument.
Definitely not nostalgia.
Prove Point while weakly attempting to rebut. Great tactic.
If you crave something about EQ, go play EQ. It's still on the market.
EQ was good in 1999-2004. EQ is a terrible game by today's standards. People are looking back through tinted glasses at EQ and it has nothing to do with how great of a game it is compared to games today, because frankly it isn't that good. It was only great in its time because the games back then were horrible.
There will be niche games like Pantheon that come out, but there's always the risk that the player base won't be able to support the game and if it ends up with empty/low population server or being shut down you'll be back to square one - and it will only strengthen publishers'/developers' unwillingness to design games in that way.
Do you want to support another low population, volatile MMORPG project that may or may not be forced to go the cash shop route just to maintain operation?
You people sound like the PoE fans who act like Diablo II was the most amazing thing ever and the only game that's acceptable is one that basically clones half of its design.
I rebutted your point by countering that I am a recluse, yet still found "magic". 'Twas the same with early WoW; I loved the feeling of gaming with my friends but what really held me, long after they left, and during the 40-odd levels I took to catch up, was the other aspects.
Given that I didn't define those other aspects, your assertion that it is nostalgia that draws me back is just that; an assertion. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." RIP Hitchens.
Thanks for the advice to play EQ; I am doing so. However, I'm playing circa 1999, since the current generation is unpalatable; possessed of those aspects that drive me away from modern mmorpgs, and back to the previous generation, which still possess those objective and distinct aspects I crave.
Here is a video of me analyzing the current generation of EQ and comparing it to Vanguard, a more modern mmorpg, specifically regarding those objective aspects, in this case combat duration.
Edit; my apologies, I didn't reread your first post, and consequently forgot that you DID in fact offer objective definitions of those aspects that I crave. I'll have to address that.
Why are modern games so simplistic compared to games of old? Money. The names D&D and Forgotten Realms were thrown about. In 1995 when rights were acquired there was no such thing as WoW money. A development team could get rights to a rule set for relatively cheap. Today IP holders want their WoW money. IP holders inspect everything looking for infringement on their IP, so they can get their WoW money.
Every feature that you love and miss, someone owns and is holding it hostage in their greedy little fist. That they will only open for their WoW money. Races and their descriptions and attributes are IP, same goes for classes. Someone owns them and wants to get paid.
Another cost, finding an artist that can make new and original race artwork and animation. Most can only reproduce what has been done before. They have no soul or life experience, they are mostly posers. Their life is nothing but copying what they have seen other do or be before them. It's sad realy.
Lastly the main reason for the dull flavor to our games. Moms.
wow, that borders on a manifesto.
Unless you are privy to what developers actually paid for as far as rights to various IP's I don't see how you can make that claim.
However, I think it's fair that people who own an ip get a fair share. why should some game company clean up and pay the owner of the IP peanuts?
I don't think there were "better" artists "way back then" than there are now. I think you "think" the artists are making these decisions but it's probably someone else.
Lastly, as far as I know, and I think I"m right on this account, Moms have been around for longer than you and I and they have always made decisions on what was best for their children.
I'd rather have an original IP. How many of these licensed IPs have turned out like the IP they licensed. Not saying the games were good or bad, but the fidelity of reproduction of the IP.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
What I enjoyed about EQ was the disparity of classes. I played a bard from 1999 to 2004 or 2005. I liked developing strategies and thoroughly learning my class. Of course in those days there wasn't much in the way of guides, maps, and strategies online.
Now-a-days people complain if you haven't gone out and memorized the correct strats from a YouTube video within 2 weeks of the content being released.
Definitely rose colored glasses as there was a lot of frustration from that era that doesn't seem to matter as much anymore... Oh, and you kids get off my lawn!
EQ2 was basically
WoW with +5 difficulty, 10x the content, 10x the things to do in
game, 10x the customization, better graphics (if you had the beastly
rig to run it), etc.
I
agree with everything here except the claim that the graphics were
"better." That is clearly subjective. I admit the that
graphics were technically superior.
If
it [EQ2] couldn't appeal to EQ's player base, then EQN was doomed to
fail.
This
assumes that EQ2 copied the critical aspects that would appeal to the
EQ player-base. The aspects you outlined above do not encompass all
relevant aspects. I claim it was missing several crucial aspects.
No
game is going to have the same feel of the Original EQ. It's
not something the majority of players these days are looking for, so
I don't fault developers and Publishers for not going that route.
Agreed,
and neither do I.
The Feel of EQ had
as much do to about the literal timeframe of playing the game, ...
Not
entirely sure what you mean here. Like the time of my life I was
playing the game? Early teens sorta thing? Or more about how it was
our first online communal chatroom/game?
...the actual
people playing the game with you, ...
This
had almost nothing to do with my experience. I treated other players
as mobile NPCs (also as totally disconnected from the chatroom).
...and the
experiences you had playing the game. It has nothing to do with
Instances and Raids, or taking 1 hour to go from Neriak to
Butcherblock Mountains.
But
those are exactly the experiences we had playing the game. Not so
much raids for me, but Befallen and the Gnoll area were eye-openers
for me, and travel time affects me substantially. This is the core
argument that you dismiss with claims of nostalgia. Our claim is
that these experiences, long travel times, substantial danger, etc,
are the core aspects that did not survive transition to EQ2/EQN/WoW.
The game was magical
because it was many people's introduction to MMORPGs/Virtual Worlds
and because of the interactions with other people in the game back
then.
It certainly was
magical in that sense. But that sense is irrelevant to me today; as
you say, we've gotten used to it. I'm not after that feeling. These
days that desire is satisfied, ironically, by posting on forums.
A
lot of the "gameplay" in EQ was horrible even back then.
...For example, the mechanic of having to loot your corpse in EQ was
horrible, IMO. Especially if you died in a place where you
could not reach it - your corpse could rot and all your items would
get deleted.
This is pure subjective preference. In Mario when
you die you lose your feather or fireflower or whatever. In Final
Fantasy you reset the game to the last save. This mechanic is neither
“horrible” nor “good”.
What you are trying
to say here is that you prefer a lower level of “difficulty” or
consequence, which is fine. However, you go further and claim that
your preference is “better.”
You are arguing
that being able to “save anywhere” in console RPGs is objectively
better than having “save points”. Arguing this ignores the
consequences of the choice between the two mechanics; in this case it
claims that your corpse existing physically in the world is
objectively worse than simply respawning magically elsewhere. There
are VAST differences between those two mechanics.
One time I
fell down the well in Befallen and I spent about 4 hours asking the
zone if they could help me get my corpse. A Necromancer named
Nomadl was passing through and offered to summon my corpse if I got
the coffin from a vendor. I was a newbie and didn't have that
much, so he bought it himself and summoned my corpse.
The
mechanic was horrible, but the fact that someone was nice enough to
do that made a sort of lifelong impression on me, and it's why I tend
to be helpful to newbies in games even to this day. This has
nothing to do with EQ as a game itself, but with the interaction I
had with the other person in that game, which really sort of affected
me in a positive way.
Back then, some of the experiences you
had in EQ felt almost as real as real-life events because the concept
of virtual worlds was so new to us. MMORPGs are commodity these
days. Many of us have been playing them so long that most
things are fairly familiar. Things were completely different
back then. No "new game" can bring this back... the
same way no new festival can bring back the original feel of
Woodstock 1969...
That's not going to happen in any new game.
Not Pantheon, not BDO, now EQ2 or WoW. Nothing. Not
the way it did back then. You cannot replicate the "feel"
of EQ and many people are finding out that with all of the games that
tried to "out-WoW" WoW. Yes, the game can play very
similar, but that magic is gone.
You only get one shot at it.
As you note, this
experience is neutral, tied only to communal gaming. No one can
recreate their original wonder at it, agreed. Your statement that we
cannot “replicate the 'feel' of EQ”, however, assumes that we
seek to recreate that magical communal gaming experience. Again, that
isn't what we are seeking. Those who sought that long ago found it in
their MMO of choice with others of similar taste. Those of us who are
searching for a game that “can play very similar” are still
searching. (Although I'm sure there are those who are unaware of what
quality they actually yearn for.)
This is something that
MMORPG players (especially the "old-timers") do not want to
accept, and it's a persistent driving force in their decisions to
dislike or reject newer games.
I've found that those who've
experienced wonder and lost it tend to be aware that they can't get
it back, the moreso the more “old-time” they are. Cie la
vie.
Everyone is entitled to play what they want, and decide
what is fun for them... However, the idea that something needs
to give them that "original EQ feel" to hit the right spot
is a pipe dream. This will not happen. Its not possible.
“Will not happen”
and “not possible” are vastly different. I agree that it may not
happen.
A game can give you EQ
gameplay with upgraded graphics, but it will not be EQ because EQ was
about more than the game itself; and that's not something that can be
delivered by a software developer.
Here is your main
claim; that EQ was about more than the gameplay. That is simply not
true for many of us, myself included. For one thing, not everyone was
as affected by EQ in that magical communal gaming way. Some of us
were playing MUDs in chatrooms, failing to hook up Warcraft 2 between
two computers, playing pen and paper D&D. We were old friends
with communal gaming. For another, many of us were solid solo
players. Despite playing a primarily group oriented game, we nibbled
at the edges at the solo content and were more than satisfied. It
truly IS about the game mechanics. I don't know how much more clearly
we can explain it.
EQ peaked at 450k subs in 2004. There
are not enough EQ players left in the world to really deliver that
experience at the scale people expect from MMORPGs these days. You
are going to have an EQ-lite game filled with EQ2/WoW/GW/etc.
generation players anyways, which completely changes the feel of the
game itself.
The claim about the
scale of an MMORPG is odd; surely we could just collapse servers and
get the same rough population numbers as before? Again, assuming that
matters.
The population
segment that prefers long term planning, goal oriented self
direction, delayed gratification, setback/progress cycles, etc, has
always been smaller than its polar opposite; in gaming as in real
life. The high schooler who starts a savings account and actually
makes use of it is indeed rare. Look at the popularity of Dust 514,
of 4x games, of space sims (not arcades), of sandboxes before
Minecraft, etc. All these disparities point to fundamental
differences in the preferences of gamers, preferences that have
existed long before EQ, that follow the outlines of objective
differences in game mechanics.
Nostalgia has
nothing to do with a preference for arcade over simulation, for
sandbox over themepark, or for RPG over RTS.
waynejr2 said: I'd rather have an original IP. How many of these licensed IPs have turned out like the IP they licensed. Not saying the games were good or bad, but the fidelity of reproduction of the IP.
Always a big issue. I'm craving a Wheel of Time based game but for the life of me I can't fit it into a good MMORPG mold. I can't imagine how any development team could manage to meet everyone's expectations of how that transition would work.
waynejr2 said: I'd rather have an original IP. How many of these licensed IPs have turned out like the IP they licensed. Not saying the games were good or bad, but the fidelity of reproduction of the IP.
Always a big issue. I'm craving a Wheel of Time based game but for the life of me I can't fit it into a good MMORPG mold. I can't imagine how any development team could manage to meet everyone's expectations of how that transition would work.
Take the book vs film situation. You have 1000 people read a book and you have 1000 imaginations visually imagining what they are reading. But as soon at someone puts it down on film, that is fixed. It won't match the 1000 people's imaginations. A change in media has side-effects.
You will see changes in single player games brought to mmoRPGs.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I miss"TRAINS"...I miss corpse runs!! With all your gear still on your corpse! I miss trying to get to some famed dungeon, only to get your A$$ stomped just trying to get there :-D I have nightmares about Nagafen! Up to three years ago I had a warrior trapped on the Plane of Hate. Was raiding in 1999. Due to a LD/Boot he got stuck. No wizard at the time was willing to risk going there(Pre POP).
EQ days were fantastic! I still remember paying noobie players to run loot for me while I camped Frost Giants with my necro. They made plat, I made plat! Everyone was happy!! Plus they got to keep whatever fine piece steel weapons they wanted :-D
It evolved over time (in some ways for better, in other ways worse) over the 10+ years to what it is today.
After all, WoW has like 13 races and will be 12 classes, but with the Talent system really more like 35 classes (Demon Hunter will only have 2 talent specs.)
It started out with 9 classes (so 27) and 8 races.
And the dungeons? Oh man... look up maps of original dungeons like Scarlet Halls, Dire Maul, Blackrock Depths, Blackrock Spire, Wailing Caverns.
Vanilla WoW really did have everything... depth and complexity, lots of class variety, strong grouping, class interdependence, and tons of content (including lots you could do solo too.)
But it also had problems, I think they just went too far in fixing those problems, but it was by no means perfect.
Here's vanilla WoW: 2 factions 8 races 9 classes (each with 3 specs.. usually defense/offense/both) 2 continents (i think the 2 factions) 41 zones + 22 dungeons 22 dungeons (not sure if these're counted as zones) 6 capital cities 3000+ quests
Here's vanilla Everquest: 100's factions 12 races 14 classes 3 continents 60+ zones (this is tricky, because I count Qeynos as just 1 zone even though it's a couple) 12 starting cities 1000+ quests
This data doesn't mean much. Daggerfall was released in 1996 and had over 5000 towns. Morrowind had a couple dozen. The cities in Daggerfall were randomized, however. This meant recycled textures, quests, etc. Everything in Morrowind was unique. And zone size can differ between games. WoW also had a significnat number of quests and they were very polished, some of htem even with voiceovers. So quality is definitely a concern. Even though WoW only had 2 factions, those 2 factions were filled with hundreds of quests. Some factions in EQ had NO quests attached.
A while back I also looked at the cost of vanilla WoW versus vanilla Everquest. I can't remember exactly what the numbers were, but WoW spent something like $30 to $40 million. Everquest was about $3-4 million. WoW was released 5 years after Everquest, so it makes sense budget costs would be higher. However, even if you factor this into the equation, WoW spent signficiantly more on initial release.
1999 Everquest = 3-4 million. 2001 Dark Ages of Camelot = 3-4 million. 2004 World of Warcraft = 30-40 million. 2005 Guild Wars = 20-30 million. 2011 Rift = 60-70 million. 2011 Star Wars Old Republic = 200 million. 2012 Secret World = 50 million.
While this is an old thread its a bit disheartening to see how little progress has changed in the last 20 months.
Still no confirmed release dates for Pantheon, SC, CU, Crowfall, and LoA which have long been in development, but fans continue to keep the faith.
Some newer titles such as Ashes, COE, New World and some others appear to have quite a ways to go even though their devs seem to believe they will somehow magically overcome the challenges and pitfalls of their forebearers.
On the plus (?) side AO launched, LIF MMO is about to, and of course then there's SotA for comic relief.
We also saw a plethora of half baked MinMO survival titles early release, but at least Ark finally "released" so there's that I guess.
Clearly the "best days of gaming" or so I've been told.
Unless of course you want to play a newer MMORPG with some different designs, then not so much.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
This ties in with the thread about modern-day features and graphics. So much time is spent on quests, helper features, tutorials, items to sell in cash shops, and graphics that there is little time left to make the things that were in old school games. They didn't have any of those features and instead focused on what they could and that was creating complex factions systems, complex class systems with large arrays of spells, and a lot of exploration related tasks. These days it always comes down to either drawing in the largest audience or just the fact that there are too many games out there. If it ever gets to the point where people can quickly produce their own games like they do content with Skyrim we might see some interesting things that aren't regulated by corporations, society, and money.
More races and classes the better. I really liked how EQ / EQ2 did it.
It'd personally rather have a few less classes but which are well designed and balanced than a huge bunch that are not only harder to balance but also for many copy each other's abilities with another spell effect and name.
"Oh look, there's one mage with fireball, the second with frostball, the third with shadowball, the fourth with shitball, the fifth with natureball, etc..."
"Yeah but they are all different classes!!!"
I often find class balance around combat makes the game a bit dull, but that's just me. The classes in EQ were more fun based then combat balance based. They followed D&D 1st and 2nd edition classes and spells pretty closely. I'm not certain there was ever much effort too much the classes balanced. They were just trying to make some classes and abilities that they enjoyed and thought were fun. As it happens the classes did balance out in many cases. For instance, Necromancers could do a bit of everything and solo well, but weren't much wanted in groups and hated in most places making it difficult to sell items. They had a penalty to experience game as well. Pure casters were weak and easily killed, but could often solo better and become more powerful as you might expect a master of magic spells to be. Thieves/Rogues were more support for opening lock, disarming traps, and doing other theify things. Admitedly this wasn't implemented well into Everquest. It was fun in Ultima Online though. The hybrid classes like Ranger and Paladin had hefty experience penalties. I guess I like the fact they were made less around combat balance and more around fun non combat ideals. The worst class was probably fighter in original D&D. It didn't have many abilities to use. It was all automated with gaining extra attacks and defensive passives at level up. I still love the name of spells like Stringing Swarm, Spirit of the Wolf, Drones of Doom, Drifting Darkness, and many others.
Comments
Every feature that you love and miss, someone owns and is holding it hostage in their greedy little fist. That they will only open for their WoW money. Races and their descriptions and attributes are IP, same goes for classes. Someone owns them and wants to get paid.
Another reason for oversimplification, resource overhead. Every additional race is a model library and an animation library that must be stored in memory then transformed for every scene. Some old games used one animation library for all races to reduce the overhead cost. That doesn't fly in modern games. Another cost, finding an artist that can make new and original race artwork and animation. Most can only reproduce what has been done before. They have no soul or life experience, they are mostly posers. Their life is nothing but copying what they have seen other do or be before them. It's sad realy.
Lastly another reason for the dull flavor to our games. Moms. Did a previous game have Deities? Moms don't want pagan religions shown to their kids by games. Did your game have a Thief class, Moms don't want crime romanticised to their kids by games. Now Moms aren't the only reason for the dulling of games, there are cheap Developers at number one. But Moms do come in at number two.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Unless you are privy to what developers actually paid for as far as rights to various IP's I don't see how you can make that claim.
However, I think it's fair that people who own an ip get a fair share. why should some game company clean up and pay the owner of the IP peanuts?
I don't think there were "better" artists "way back then" than there are now. I think you "think" the artists are making these decisions but it's probably someone else.
Lastly, as far as I know, and I think I"m right on this account, Moms have been around for longer than you and I and they have always made decisions on what was best for their children.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
This may be second hand, but it is still factual. And it has nothing to do with now versus yesterday. Most people applying for art jobs aren't artist in the sense of job qualifications. Many try to pass off commercial work as their own, thinking no one has seen it before or can tell the difference.
You're right about Moms having always been there. But that still doesn't free them of any responsibility for the state of gaming today.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
My first 3D MMORPG experience, where I played past a few levels was Shin Megami Tensei - crap, then Runes of Magic -fun at the time, but ruined by cashshop greed -, then post-vanilla, super easy, crappy WoW*, then Everquest 2 (played paladin and troubadour to 95), then Neverwinter, though I've sampled or tried many others, including more modern EQ1 and Vanguard.
*So many damn kill such and such types of animals to get pieces of meat. Ridiculous. And Runes of Magic copied that. My paladin and/or knight/warrior (or w/e class) can fight hordes of monsters or undead for you, but you want him to go get you dinner? lol.
While I never played vanilla EQ, though I was more than old enough to at the time of its release, I do agree that many of its features sound very cool. I even think I like losing experience (maybe even an item or money) after death. It makes death a lot more terrible. Death should have a consequence, though I don't think I like the whole get your corpse or lose all your gear. Characters lost exp in Runes of Magic for dying, a lot more than you lose in EQ2. You had to group for certain things in Runes of Magic, which sounds similar to Everquest. Which meant you really needed to join a guild to do dungeons if you didn't want to look for people to group with in your zone all the time. Though that could be fun too. I don't know whether I like persistent or instanced dungeons more. Both have their pros and cons. But I have to say, I did find it cool to meet people to form a party with after you already entered the dungeon in EQ2. Or to save some lower level's life you came across when you were mentored down and messing around in Kaladim. I didn't play EQ2 until 12/2013-late 2014, but I found it far more fun than WoW. Neverwinter I enjoyed because of the intuitive action combat that actually made you feel in control of your character's movements and actions. And the lack of grind until max level (though they killed that with mod 6 and raising the level cap to 70. Grinding now begins at 60-69). I had a lot of fun playing Everquest 2, perhaps partly because I didn't have experiences with the first Everquest with which to compare it. Whether or not I still would have enjoyed EQ2 as much, I can't say for certain. But, for me, what killed EQ2 and all MMORPGs is the so-called Endgame, which is just endless repetition to keep people playing. Hardly a reward for all the time and effort it takes to reach max level. Did World of Warcraft start that BS, or did Everquest? PVP also fails. It is never fair and balanced. It is never as fun for beginners as it is for people who've been playing longer, are higher level, or paid more money (as far as I know, as far I've experienced). Though someone did explain to me on another thread that PVP was better on EQ1 because death carried such a high cost and players actually considered it a crime to kill another player.
Now playing : FFXIV
Waiting on : TBD
Best MMORPGs played : EQ, FFXI
I never could figure out why Square Enix does not like to use water zones.
Races were done way better in FFXI because they had VERY distinct differences,not +1 or +2/3 in a stat that really means nothing.I just found it amazing that FFXI was done on console PS2,i highly doubt ANY of the developers could ever pull off a FFXI equal on PS2.
However yes i agree,we are seeing VERY poor efforts in game design now a days and why i am almost never happy.We have all these new wave gamer's complaining about the complaining but i guess they simply cannot see how bad the effort has been.
I hate to keep chirping on Chris Roberts but when you look at that guys budget and what he has NOT accomplished,it looks REAL BAD.Most if not all Asian games are the most shallow and nothing has changed that stereotype,they seem more hell bent on fast game design to get it out there and get the cash shop going.
To prove how shallow game design is now a days,look at the very man who helped make EQ1 "Smedley",he recently quit DBG and within a month already was selling some new crappy looking game that a week later folded up shop.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
People got fed up with the above and that is the reason WOW did so well in 2004/2005.
Prove Point while weakly attempting to rebut. Great tactic.
If you crave something about EQ, go play EQ. It's still on the market.
EQ was good in 1999-2004. EQ is a terrible game by today's standards. People are looking back through tinted glasses at EQ and it has nothing to do with how great of a game it is compared to games today, because frankly it isn't that good. It was only great in its time because the games back then were horrible.
There will be niche games like Pantheon that come out, but there's always the risk that the player base won't be able to support the game and if it ends up with empty/low population server or being shut down you'll be back to square one - and it will only strengthen publishers'/developers' unwillingness to design games in that way.
Do you want to support another low population, volatile MMORPG project that may or may not be forced to go the cash shop route just to maintain operation?
You people sound like the PoE fans who act like Diablo II was the most amazing thing ever and the only game that's acceptable is one that basically clones half of its design.
Given that I didn't define those other aspects, your assertion that it is nostalgia that draws me back is just that; an assertion. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." RIP Hitchens.
Edit; my apologies, I didn't reread your first post, and consequently forgot that you DID in fact offer objective definitions of those aspects that I crave. I'll have to address that.
I'd rather have an original IP. How many of these licensed IPs have turned out like the IP they licensed. Not saying the games were good or bad, but the fidelity of reproduction of the IP.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Now-a-days people complain if you haven't gone out and memorized the correct strats from a YouTube video within 2 weeks of the content being released.
Definitely rose colored glasses as there was a lot of frustration from that era that doesn't seem to matter as much anymore... Oh, and you kids get off my lawn!
EQ2 was basically WoW with +5 difficulty, 10x the content, 10x the things to do in game, 10x the customization, better graphics (if you had the beastly rig to run it), etc.
I agree with everything here except the claim that the graphics were "better." That is clearly subjective. I admit the that graphics were technically superior.
If it [EQ2] couldn't appeal to EQ's player base, then EQN was doomed to fail.
This assumes that EQ2 copied the critical aspects that would appeal to the EQ player-base. The aspects you outlined above do not encompass all relevant aspects. I claim it was missing several crucial aspects.
No game is going to have the same feel of the Original EQ. It's not something the majority of players these days are looking for, so I don't fault developers and Publishers for not going that route.
Agreed, and neither do I.
The Feel of EQ had as much do to about the literal timeframe of playing the game, ...
Not entirely sure what you mean here. Like the time of my life I was playing the game? Early teens sorta thing? Or more about how it was our first online communal chatroom/game?
...the actual people playing the game with you, ...
This had almost nothing to do with my experience. I treated other players as mobile NPCs (also as totally disconnected from the chatroom).
...and the experiences you had playing the game. It has nothing to do with Instances and Raids, or taking 1 hour to go from Neriak to Butcherblock Mountains.
But those are exactly the experiences we had playing the game. Not so much raids for me, but Befallen and the Gnoll area were eye-openers for me, and travel time affects me substantially. This is the core argument that you dismiss with claims of nostalgia. Our claim is that these experiences, long travel times, substantial danger, etc, are the core aspects that did not survive transition to EQ2/EQN/WoW.
The game was magical because it was many people's introduction to MMORPGs/Virtual Worlds and because of the interactions with other people in the game back then.
It certainly was magical in that sense. But that sense is irrelevant to me today; as you say, we've gotten used to it. I'm not after that feeling. These days that desire is satisfied, ironically, by posting on forums.
A lot of the "gameplay" in EQ was horrible even back then. ...For example, the mechanic of having to loot your corpse in EQ was horrible, IMO. Especially if you died in a place where you could not reach it - your corpse could rot and all your items would get deleted.
This is pure subjective preference. In Mario when you die you lose your feather or fireflower or whatever. In Final Fantasy you reset the game to the last save. This mechanic is neither “horrible” nor “good”.
What you are trying to say here is that you prefer a lower level of “difficulty” or consequence, which is fine. However, you go further and claim that your preference is “better.”
You are arguing that being able to “save anywhere” in console RPGs is objectively better than having “save points”. Arguing this ignores the consequences of the choice between the two mechanics; in this case it claims that your corpse existing physically in the world is objectively worse than simply respawning magically elsewhere. There are VAST differences between those two mechanics.
One time I fell down the well in Befallen and I spent about 4 hours asking the zone if they could help me get my corpse. A Necromancer named Nomadl was passing through and offered to summon my corpse if I got the coffin from a vendor. I was a newbie and didn't have that much, so he bought it himself and summoned my corpse.
The mechanic was horrible, but the fact that someone was nice enough to do that made a sort of lifelong impression on me, and it's why I tend to be helpful to newbies in games even to this day. This has nothing to do with EQ as a game itself, but with the interaction I had with the other person in that game, which really sort of affected me in a positive way.
Back then, some of the experiences you had in EQ felt almost as real as real-life events because the concept of virtual worlds was so new to us. MMORPGs are commodity these days. Many of us have been playing them so long that most things are fairly familiar. Things were completely different back then. No "new game" can bring this back... the same way no new festival can bring back the original feel of Woodstock 1969...
That's not going to happen in any new game. Not Pantheon, not BDO, now EQ2 or WoW. Nothing. Not the way it did back then. You cannot replicate the "feel" of EQ and many people are finding out that with all of the games that tried to "out-WoW" WoW. Yes, the game can play very similar, but that magic is gone.
You only get one shot at it.
As you note, this experience is neutral, tied only to communal gaming. No one can recreate their original wonder at it, agreed. Your statement that we cannot “replicate the 'feel' of EQ”, however, assumes that we seek to recreate that magical communal gaming experience. Again, that isn't what we are seeking. Those who sought that long ago found it in their MMO of choice with others of similar taste. Those of us who are searching for a game that “can play very similar” are still searching. (Although I'm sure there are those who are unaware of what quality they actually yearn for.)
This is something that MMORPG players (especially the "old-timers") do not want to accept, and it's a persistent driving force in their decisions to dislike or reject newer games.
I've found that those who've experienced wonder and lost it tend to be aware that they can't get it back, the moreso the more “old-time” they are. Cie la vie.
Everyone is entitled to play what they want, and decide what is fun for them... However, the idea that something needs to give them that "original EQ feel" to hit the right spot is a pipe dream. This will not happen. Its not possible.
“Will not happen” and “not possible” are vastly different. I agree that it may not happen.
A game can give you EQ gameplay with upgraded graphics, but it will not be EQ because EQ was about more than the game itself; and that's not something that can be delivered by a software developer.
Here is your main claim; that EQ was about more than the gameplay. That is simply not true for many of us, myself included. For one thing, not everyone was as affected by EQ in that magical communal gaming way. Some of us were playing MUDs in chatrooms, failing to hook up Warcraft 2 between two computers, playing pen and paper D&D. We were old friends with communal gaming. For another, many of us were solid solo players. Despite playing a primarily group oriented game, we nibbled at the edges at the solo content and were more than satisfied. It truly IS about the game mechanics. I don't know how much more clearly we can explain it.
EQ peaked at 450k subs in 2004. There are not enough EQ players left in the world to really deliver that experience at the scale people expect from MMORPGs these days. You are going to have an EQ-lite game filled with EQ2/WoW/GW/etc. generation players anyways, which completely changes the feel of the game itself.
The claim about the scale of an MMORPG is odd; surely we could just collapse servers and get the same rough population numbers as before? Again, assuming that matters.
The population segment that prefers long term planning, goal oriented self direction, delayed gratification, setback/progress cycles, etc, has always been smaller than its polar opposite; in gaming as in real life. The high schooler who starts a savings account and actually makes use of it is indeed rare. Look at the popularity of Dust 514, of 4x games, of space sims (not arcades), of sandboxes before Minecraft, etc. All these disparities point to fundamental differences in the preferences of gamers, preferences that have existed long before EQ, that follow the outlines of objective differences in game mechanics.
Nostalgia has nothing to do with a preference for arcade over simulation, for sandbox over themepark, or for RPG over RTS.
Take the book vs film situation. You have 1000 people read a book and you have 1000 imaginations visually imagining what they are reading. But as soon at someone puts it down on film, that is fixed. It won't match the 1000 people's imaginations. A change in media has side-effects.
You will see changes in single player games brought to mmoRPGs.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
EQ days were fantastic! I still remember paying noobie players to run loot for me while I camped Frost Giants with my necro. They made plat, I made plat! Everyone was happy!! Plus they got to keep whatever fine piece steel weapons they wanted :-D
2 factions
8 races
9 classes (each with 3 specs.. usually defense/offense/both)
2 continents (i think the 2 factions)
41 zones + 22 dungeons
22 dungeons (not sure if these're counted as zones)
6 capital cities
3000+ quests
Here's vanilla Everquest:
100's factions
12 races
14 classes
3 continents
60+ zones (this is tricky, because I count Qeynos as just 1 zone even though it's a couple)
12 starting cities
1000+ quests
This data doesn't mean much. Daggerfall was released in 1996 and had over 5000 towns. Morrowind had a couple dozen. The cities in Daggerfall were randomized, however. This meant recycled textures, quests, etc. Everything in Morrowind was unique. And zone size can differ between games. WoW also had a significnat number of quests and they were very polished, some of htem even with voiceovers. So quality is definitely a concern. Even though WoW only had 2 factions, those 2 factions were filled with hundreds of quests. Some factions in EQ had NO quests attached.
A while back I also looked at the cost of vanilla WoW versus vanilla Everquest. I can't remember exactly what the numbers were, but WoW spent something like $30 to $40 million. Everquest was about $3-4 million. WoW was released 5 years after Everquest, so it makes sense budget costs would be higher. However, even if you factor this into the equation, WoW spent signficiantly more on initial release.
1999 Everquest = 3-4 million.
2001 Dark Ages of Camelot = 3-4 million.
2004 World of Warcraft = 30-40 million.
2005 Guild Wars = 20-30 million.
2011 Rift = 60-70 million.
2011 Star Wars Old Republic = 200 million.
2012 Secret World = 50 million.
Still no confirmed release dates for Pantheon, SC, CU, Crowfall, and LoA which have long been in development, but fans continue to keep the faith.
Some newer titles such as Ashes, COE, New World and some others appear to have quite a ways to go even though their devs seem to believe they will somehow magically overcome the challenges and pitfalls of their forebearers.
On the plus (?) side AO launched, LIF MMO is about to, and of course then there's SotA for comic relief.
We also saw a plethora of half baked MinMO survival titles early release, but at least Ark finally "released" so there's that I guess.
Clearly the "best days of gaming" or so I've been told.
Unless of course you want to play a newer MMORPG with some different designs, then not so much.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon