I will most likely try it because I didn't play original EQ1 (though I could have, I'm old enough), couldn't play Vanguard because the computer I had at the time lagged too bad, and I enjoyed playing EQ2 until endgame (even in 2014). But if endgame is mostly just gear grind and raiding, I don't see myself continuing to play it after reaching max level with one or two characters.
I haven't read much about it, but I will soon. I hope they make it more realisitc with things like hunger, thirst, weight, and encumbrance, such as were originally present in the EQ games. Actually, I hope they make it more realistic than those games attempted to be
Typically you find those sorts of things in survival games. Interesting how that happened. Old games frequently had this then it modernized and branched into a separate genre apparently because some players don't like it.
I think some or many players associate that with micromanagement. They usually also don't like inventory or skill or gear management. Maybe I'm off saying this, but they're the first to be against +1/+2/+3 items because it's "unnecessary" in their words. Apparently only different kinds of weapons are legitimate, but not qualities. Qualities are "unneeded". Also any sort of repairing is equally unwanted.
Sorry if the boiling blood is showing. This is a topic goes back long time with me. I respect games with KISS systems though. They can be hard to master, like Tetris. They're great games to be sure. Sometimes I want different.
Should I bring up immersion? Yes, I think immersion is part of it. It's not just about managing. Items make a world more believable. Food does the same thing. Weight and encumbrance also reinforce the idea it's a world. Of course, fantasy can be anything. But we come from Earth and here XYZ apply. We're perfectly capable of playing games without XYZ, but sometimes we want XYZ anyway. There's a point at which fantasy is so unreal some of us are no longer able to relate.
So for example my hammer outside is getting old and needs to be repaired or junked. In the game I'm playing, my hammer never gets old or needs repairing. Most of the time, that's fine. But sometimes I like to play a game where that hammer gets old and needs repairing or maybe trashed. To immerse. Moreso, those rules are enforced. I don't pretend my hammer is old. The game rules make it old.
Just because someone doesn't socialize very often does not mean they are trolling the boards asking for solo friendly game changes. If Pantheon is to be a living world, it will benefit from having all sorts of people in it. Not just one type of personality.
For example, I knew a girl in EQ who was in my guild. She liked to do two things. Solo, and make people food. That was her whole EQ experience. What a great lady. And what a loss it would have been had she been encouraged to move on because she was too casual.
Well...She was making people food. That's Player Interaction right there.
I think what some people don't get is that when we talk about Player Interaction we don't mean that players have to Interact 100% of the time with other Players. Even just being the Guild Chef like the lovely lady you were talking about is considered good player interaction.
I am sure she was popular and everyone in your Guild remember her even today, even if she never Raid with you once, that's what Player Interaction means. And that's what MMORPGs should be all about.
Typically you find those sorts of things in survival games. Interesting how that happened. Old games frequently had this then it modernized and branched into a separate genre apparently because some players don't like it.
You are spot on my friend. Survival Games are extensions of Old School Games, things that Developers considered outdated or too tedious or too time consuming for the MMORPGs have been recycled in Survival Games which are quite popular indeed.
It's a shame the MMORPG Industry is so obtuse to understand that not everyone is a Casual Player and the WoW lookalikes aren't for everyone.
Getting sense of adventure back and actually playing with other people instead of qrinding quests single. Rush of adrenaline of high risk and and reward is great. I hope this game will be something like EQ in terms of difficulty and adventure.
This is really all im looking for. I want to start up an MMO and go exploring while meeting people to go do things with. Thats pretty much it. No MMO has even attempted to explore this basic idea in recent times. Just give me that MMO aspect and less of that "Am I playing Zelda?" aspect and we are golden.
Interesting that you mention Zelda. The latest installment is a 100 times more of a real, interactive and explorable world then any MMO I know. The only thing you can't do is meet other people, but its world is an exciting thing of beauty and free to explore.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Thing is, interacting with other people should be first and foremost in MMOs, it's their greatest advantage over other game types.
Their gameplay features come secondary and as much as possible should be focused on increasing player interaction.
I think the biggest problem in this area is motivational. While difficulty and things like that can push more interaction. Many have simply grown tired of that being the prime motivator in this genre. New ideas are sorely needed here. Hell the biggest change up in that regard in years was SWTOR's multiplayer dialogue system. Which was still only centered around small group play and was all about story. Hardly something that brings the community at large together.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think the biggest problem in this area is motivational. While difficulty and things like that can push more interaction. Many have simply grown tired of that being the prime motivator in this genre. New ideas are sorely needed here. Hell the biggest change up in that regard in years was SWTOR's multiplayer dialogue system. Which was still only centered around small group play and was all about story. Hardly something that brings the community at large together.
Mhhhh...not only that, it helped tearing them apart.
That was one of the most annoying thing about SWTOR, having to wait until everyone had finished talking with the NPCs. That's the type of fake Social Interaction feature a MMORPG really don't need.
For me I play games for many different reasons. Looking at eq1 and seeing what old school was for me, id say my aim is the journey and experience along the way. I want raids that are challenging and fun at the same time, building a reputation for myself in whatever role I play as. In these type of games I lean toward tanking, being the MT in a raid or a difficult dungeon is always fun. Especially when you have chain pulling and crazy dps classes to make it harder for you to do your job.
Making those friends that make runs like that is part of the journey in itself, some people are nice but just don't play there class well, some people are jerks, some are just down right fun to play with. Setting up camp in an area and just having fun is what I'm looking forward to.
If people can find pleasure in the simple things, and they don't mind that the game requires greater interaction for greater achievements, it's all good. So long as the game doesn't cater to that.
In my case it comes down to 2 things: difficulty & difference from the rest of the modern MMOs.
I really want a MMO with a tougher open world, the oldschool games did that good, nowadays the open world just feels like a long easy tutorial for the hardly existing endgame.
And i am just tired of playing the same game with different skin over and over. While Pantheon do improve some things from EQ and Vanguard it hardly is something completely innovating but it does differ a lot from the games we seen the last 10 years.
Besides, it does look pretty fun. If not I have put $100 on something worth trying at least.
I don't personally want something completely innovative. I'll take a highly cooperative game with the dangerous open world, a steep death penalty and just a splash of innovation, thanks. Innovation suggests change, and I don't think much of that is necessary.
I don't personally want something completely innovative. I'll take a highly cooperative game with the dangerous open world, a steep death penalty and just a splash of innovation, thanks. Innovation suggests change, and I don't think much of that is necessary.
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?"
To me it's like football. If I could travel 100 years into the future, I imagine football will have undergone many changes. Probably robots instead of people, and much much faster play. I don't want any of that. I want the game of football I have loved all my life. A change now and then is ok, but I want the basic concept to remain intact. Deliver the core things that make the game compelling and there won't be a need for lots of changes.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
To me it's like football. If I could travel 100 years into the future, I imagine football will have undergone many changes. Probably robots instead of people, and much much faster play. I don't want any of that. I want the game of football I have loved all my life. A change now and then is ok, but I want the basic concept to remain intact. Deliver the core things that make the game compelling and there won't be a need for lots of changes.
I find it interesting that you used football as an analogy. Over the years football has evolved into what some would say is an entirely different game albeit at a slower pace than the MMOs did. I'm not advocating for newer MMOs or against the classic MMOs - I'm just pointing out that things evolve (for better or worse) over time.
Football might not be the best analogy being only 50 years old. I've watched old football, and it still looks a lot like football today for the most part (American football that is). A couple of hours watching, and I think most would conclude that it's still true to the original premise.
A few hours watching MMOs from 15 years ago, people would think it's almost an entirely different game. Even the uninitiated observer would notice much more interacting with other players, more danger and potential for loss, and much more interaction with the world rather than client menus.
Well, for the record, I'm all for improvement and innovation. I'm also all for mainstreaming - remove or quicken elements that arent part of the real game. However the final game has to make sense and for many modern MMOs, they just dont do that.
One thing I absolutely loved about Vanguard is that even after years of playing, I still could find new aspects and strategies on my characters. I fear very much that wont be part of Pantheon, though.
Well, for the record, I'm all for improvement and innovation. I'm also all for mainstreaming - remove or quicken elements that arent part of the real game. However the final game has to make sense and for many modern MMOs, they just dont do that.
One thing I absolutely loved about Vanguard is that even after years of playing, I still could find new aspects and strategies on my characters. I fear very much that wont be part of Pantheon, though.
I don't know why you would fear that. That is probably one of the few things that we can bank on.
Both Vanguard and EQ offered that. Combat was strategic and offered you various options (items/abilities) to solve any problem. Unlike other mmos, not everyone used the same exact items or same exact abilities. There were more choices, and that's something they're striving to achieve with Pantheon.
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?"
Well, for the record, I'm all for improvement and innovation. I'm
also all for mainstreaming - remove or quicken elements that arent part
of the real game. However the final game has to make sense and for many
modern MMOs, they just dont do that.
One thing I absolutely
loved about Vanguard is that even after years of playing, I still could
find new aspects and strategies on my characters. I fear very much that
wont be part of Pantheon, though.
I don't know why you would fear that. That is probably one of the few things that we can bank on.
Both Vanguard and
EQ offered that. Combat was strategic and offered you various options
(items/abilities) to solve any problem. Unlike other mmos, not everyone
used the same exact items or same exact abilities. There were more
choices, and that's something they're striving to achieve with Pantheon.
I never played EQ myself, but from what EQ players told me when I played Vanguard, EQ was a lot different than Vanguard.
In Vanguard you had an ambundance of abilities and you worked on what ability to use when.
In EQ you had a lot less abilities and you often had to wait for the right moment for actions. The term EQ players used a lot was 'Mana Management'.
Well, for the record, I'm all for improvement and innovation. I'm
also all for mainstreaming - remove or quicken elements that arent part
of the real game. However the final game has to make sense and for many
modern MMOs, they just dont do that.
One thing I absolutely
loved about Vanguard is that even after years of playing, I still could
find new aspects and strategies on my characters. I fear very much that
wont be part of Pantheon, though.
I don't know why you would fear that. That is probably one of the few things that we can bank on.
Both Vanguard and
EQ offered that. Combat was strategic and offered you various options
(items/abilities) to solve any problem. Unlike other mmos, not everyone
used the same exact items or same exact abilities. There were more
choices, and that's something they're striving to achieve with Pantheon.
I never played EQ myself, but from what EQ players told me when I played Vanguard, EQ was a lot different than Vanguard.
In Vanguard you had an ambundance of abilities and you worked on what ability to use when.
In EQ you had a lot less abilities and you often had to wait for the right moment for actions. The term EQ players used a lot was 'Mana Management'.
They were very different and it was largely because EQ combat revolved much more around resource management. That did not change the fact that players of the same class, at the same level, often played their characters very differently. There was and still is a massive expanse between normal player and a great player. That was due to having more options, and knowing when to use them.
Those options are much more limited in the linear mmos of today.
Well, for the record, I'm all for improvement and innovation. I'm
also all for mainstreaming - remove or quicken elements that arent part
of the real game. However the final game has to make sense and for many
modern MMOs, they just dont do that.
One thing I absolutely
loved about Vanguard is that even after years of playing, I still could
find new aspects and strategies on my characters. I fear very much that
wont be part of Pantheon, though.
I don't know why you would fear that. That is probably one of the few things that we can bank on.
Both Vanguard and
EQ offered that. Combat was strategic and offered you various options
(items/abilities) to solve any problem. Unlike other mmos, not everyone
used the same exact items or same exact abilities. There were more
choices, and that's something they're striving to achieve with Pantheon.
I never played EQ myself, but from what EQ players told me when I played Vanguard, EQ was a lot different than Vanguard.
In Vanguard you had an ambundance of abilities and you worked on what ability to use when.
In EQ you had a lot less abilities and you often had to wait for the right moment for actions. The term EQ players used a lot was 'Mana Management'.
They were very different and it was largely because EQ combat revolved much more around resource management. That did not change the fact that players of the same class, at the same level, often played their characters very differently. There was and still is a massive expanse between normal player and a great player. That was due to having more options, and knowing when to use them.
Those options are much more limited in the linear mmos of today.
I love telling this story, even if it's a little embarrassing on my part.
In the early stages of Vanguard I decided to play a healer for the first time (Cleric). My first group, I was standing back healing players like any traditional mmo.
And a player asked my how come your not fighting ?... I'm the healer !... No your a fighter too !... So I started fighting too !!!!!
Point being: Easiest class to play, hardest class to play right. At around level 15 or so, I had to really take a step back and study how to REALLY PLAY.
Well, for the record, I'm all for improvement and innovation. I'm
also all for mainstreaming - remove or quicken elements that arent part
of the real game. However the final game has to make sense and for many
modern MMOs, they just dont do that.
One thing I absolutely
loved about Vanguard is that even after years of playing, I still could
find new aspects and strategies on my characters. I fear very much that
wont be part of Pantheon, though.
I don't know why you would fear that. That is probably one of the few things that we can bank on.
Both Vanguard and
EQ offered that. Combat was strategic and offered you various options
(items/abilities) to solve any problem. Unlike other mmos, not everyone
used the same exact items or same exact abilities. There were more
choices, and that's something they're striving to achieve with Pantheon.
I never played EQ myself, but from what EQ players told me when I played Vanguard, EQ was a lot different than Vanguard.
In Vanguard you had an ambundance of abilities and you worked on what ability to use when.
In EQ you had a lot less abilities and you often had to wait for the right moment for actions. The term EQ players used a lot was 'Mana Management'.
They were very different and it was largely because EQ combat revolved much more around resource management. That did not change the fact that players of the same class, at the same level, often played their characters very differently. There was and still is a massive expanse between normal player and a great player. That was due to having more options, and knowing when to use them.
Those options are much more limited in the linear mmos of today.
I love telling this story, even if it's a little embarrassing on my part.
In the early stages of Vanguard I decided to play a healer for the first time (Cleric). My first group, I was standing back healing players like any traditional mmo.
And a player asked my how come your not fighting ?... I'm the healer !... No your a fighter too !... So I started fighting too !!!!!
Point being: Easiest class to play, hardest class to play right. At around level 15 or so, I had to really take a step back and study how to REALLY PLAY.
Best class ever
Vanguard healer was a great class, many who didn't play Vanguard won't know you could wear heavey armour and use Hevey weapons.
Comments
I think some or many players associate that with micromanagement. They usually also don't like inventory or skill or gear management. Maybe I'm off saying this, but they're the first to be against +1/+2/+3 items because it's "unnecessary" in their words. Apparently only different kinds of weapons are legitimate, but not qualities. Qualities are "unneeded". Also any sort of repairing is equally unwanted.
Sorry if the boiling blood is showing. This is a topic goes back long time with me. I respect games with KISS systems though. They can be hard to master, like Tetris. They're great games to be sure. Sometimes I want different.
Should I bring up immersion? Yes, I think immersion is part of it. It's not just about managing. Items make a world more believable. Food does the same thing. Weight and encumbrance also reinforce the idea it's a world. Of course, fantasy can be anything. But we come from Earth and here XYZ apply. We're perfectly capable of playing games without XYZ, but sometimes we want XYZ anyway. There's a point at which fantasy is so unreal some of us are no longer able to relate.
So for example my hammer outside is getting old and needs to be repaired or junked. In the game I'm playing, my hammer never gets old or needs repairing. Most of the time, that's fine. But sometimes I like to play a game where that hammer gets old and needs repairing or maybe trashed. To immerse. Moreso, those rules are enforced. I don't pretend my hammer is old. The game rules make it old.
That's Player Interaction right there.
I think what some people don't get is that when we talk about Player Interaction we don't mean that players have to Interact 100% of the time with other Players.
Even just being the Guild Chef like the lovely lady you were talking about is considered good player interaction.
I am sure she was popular and everyone in your Guild remember her even today, even if she never Raid with you once, that's what Player Interaction means.
And that's what MMORPGs should be all about.
Survival Games are extensions of Old School Games, things that Developers considered outdated or too tedious or too time consuming for the MMORPGs have been recycled in Survival Games which are quite popular indeed.
It's a shame the MMORPG Industry is so obtuse to understand that not everyone is a Casual Player and the WoW lookalikes aren't for everyone.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
That was one of the most annoying thing about SWTOR, having to wait until everyone had finished talking with the NPCs.
That's the type of fake Social Interaction feature a MMORPG really don't need.
Making those friends that make runs like that is part of the journey in itself, some people are nice but just don't play there class well, some people are jerks, some are just down right fun to play with. Setting up camp in an area and just having fun is what I'm looking forward to.
How much I'll actually enjoy it, well thats a different matter.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I really want a MMO with a tougher open world, the oldschool games did that good, nowadays the open world just feels like a long easy tutorial for the hardly existing endgame.
And i am just tired of playing the same game with different skin over and over. While Pantheon do improve some things from EQ and Vanguard it hardly is something completely innovating but it does differ a lot from the games we seen the last 10 years.
Besides, it does look pretty fun. If not I have put $100 on something worth trying at least.
I don't believe many people play for innovation.
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?"
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I find it interesting that you used football as an analogy. Over the years football has evolved into what some would say is an entirely different game albeit at a slower pace than the MMOs did. I'm not advocating for newer MMOs or against the classic MMOs - I'm just pointing out that things evolve (for better or worse) over time.
A few hours watching MMOs from 15 years ago, people would think it's almost an entirely different game. Even the uninitiated observer would notice much more interacting with other players, more danger and potential for loss, and much more interaction with the world rather than client menus.
One thing I absolutely loved about Vanguard is that even after years of playing, I still could find new aspects and strategies on my characters. I fear very much that wont be part of Pantheon, though.
Both Vanguard and EQ offered that. Combat was strategic and offered you various options (items/abilities) to solve any problem. Unlike other mmos, not everyone used the same exact items or same exact abilities. There were more choices, and that's something they're striving to achieve with Pantheon.
Other than that vanilla wow server? Not sure anymore.
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?"
In Vanguard you had an ambundance of abilities and you worked on what ability to use when.
In EQ you had a lot less abilities and you often had to wait for the right moment for actions. The term EQ players used a lot was 'Mana Management'.
Those options are much more limited in the linear mmos of today.
I love telling this story, even if it's a little embarrassing on my part.
In the early stages of Vanguard I decided to play a healer for the first time (Cleric). My first group, I was standing back healing players like any traditional mmo.
And a player asked my how come your not fighting ?... I'm the healer !... No your a fighter too !... So I started fighting too !!!!!
Point being: Easiest class to play, hardest class to play right. At around level 15 or so, I had to really take a step back and study how to REALLY PLAY.
Best class ever
Vanguard healer was a great class, many who didn't play Vanguard won't know you could wear heavey armour and use Hevey weapons.
Disciple was my favourite in vanguard