(even the devs have stated that if EQ never existed then WoW wouldnt have either, Rob Pardo interview).
Because EQ made MMOs popular. Just like EVE wouldn't exist without EQ, because EQ brought investors to the market.
There are certainly similarities between EQ and WoW(they are both RPG based games), but there are similarities between EVE and EQ, too. Tanks, DPS and support roles, no? You're telling me EVE doesn't have archetypes or classes? C'mon, you're brighter than that.
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
Uhh. You're wrong? I don't know what else to say.
In EQ you are defined by what class you pick.
In WoW you pick a class, then you can play any role basically because of the 'talent system'. They gave every class every ability. A druid can tank, be DPS, or be a healer. Since classes can do most things in a game like WoW, your class doesn't matter all that much.
If I pick a Paladin in Everquest, I can tank and heal. But I can't change that mid-game like in stupid games like WoW
So when you pick a character in WoW, your role is defined over time, not at character creation. EQ had better defined classes and roles than WoW did.
WoW is a clone of EQ.
It uses the same class system. (main--> Sub Class)
You seem to be blind. Because if there was no EQ, there would be no WoW. WoW follows EQ, in the grindy feel, and in the use of Large Scale PvE.
Also it introduced the use of Quest, and Lvls. WoW is not 100% EQ, but it evolved from EQ.
WoW grinds quests, or instances that automatically respawn.
EQ grinds NPCs, and camps that are global.
LARGE SCALE PVE..LOL
What? the 25 mans? I didn't realize 25 man was large scale now. I mean aren't they reducing it even more soon? I bet 10 man will be the norm in future WoW expansions, because its gonna be so hard to get 25 competent players together on a single WoW server. Maybe 10 is a safe bet.
And saying WoW has some kind of grind? Yeah right. They start DKs at 55, and you can go from level 1-80 in WoW within 10 days /played. Not much of a grind or challenge like EQ was. In WoW you just run around to level up because the amount of quests they give you to level up.
EQ didn't have "quest to level" like WoW did either.
So take a couple features WoW had in common with EQ, and then call WoW and EQ clone? That is an insult to EQ. WoW is not EQ, it's nothing like the game. EQ had massive zones with lots of depth. WoW has instanced crap.
Take all of WoWs instances from the original 2 continents, they probably wouldn't even fit into one Skyshrine (EQ Zone). The games are so different. It's really misleading to label WoW as an EQ clone though.
There were no EQ clones, period. That is why trashy linear games like WoW are so popular. No sandbox-type gamse like EQ.
It's like saying "WoW has characters, so does EQ, so WoW must be an EQ clone". Again, if you even played EQ you would know the games are totally different.
I forgot to say that you're wrong again about the Main -> Sub Class. There aren't sub classes in EQ, try again. You pick a class, that is it. There is no sub class, or talent tree in EQ...
(even the devs have stated that if EQ never existed then WoW wouldnt have either, Rob Pardo interview).
Because EQ made MMOs popular. Just like EVE wouldn't exist without EQ, because EQ brought investors to the market.
There are certainly similarities between EQ and WoW(they are both RPG based games), but there are similarities between EVE and EQ, too. Tanks, DPS and support roles, no? You're telling me EVE doesn't have archetypes or classes? C'mon, you're brighter than that.
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
Uhh. You're wrong? I don't know what else to say.
In EQ you are defined by what class you pick.
In WoW you pick a class, then you can play any role basically because of the 'talent system'. They gave every class every ability. A druid can tank, be DPS, or be a healer. Since classes can do most things in a game like WoW, your class doesn't matter all that much.
If I pick a Paladin in Everquest, I can tank and heal. But I can't change that mid-game like in stupid games like WoW
So when you pick a character in WoW, your role is defined over time, not at character creation. EQ had better defined classes and roles than WoW did.
WoW is a clone of EQ.
It uses the same class system. (main--> Sub Class)
You seem to be blind. Because if there was no EQ, there would be no WoW. WoW follows EQ, in the grindy feel, and in the use of Large Scale PvE.
Also it introduced the use of Quest, and Lvls. WoW is not 100% EQ, but it evolved from EQ.
WoW grinds quests, or instances that automatically respawn.
EQ grinds NPCs, and camps that are global.
LARGE SCALE PVE..LOL
What? the 25 mans? I didn't realize 25 man was large scale now. I mean aren't they reducing it even more soon? I bet 10 man will be the norm in future WoW expansions, because its gonna be so hard to get 25 competent players together on a single WoW server. Maybe 10 is a safe bet.
And saying WoW has some kind of grind? Yeah right. They start DKs at 55, and you can go from level 1-80 in WoW within 10 days /played. Not much of a grind or challenge like EQ was. In WoW you just run around to level up because the amount of quests they give you to level up.
EQ didn't have "quest to level" like WoW did either.
So take a couple features WoW had in common with EQ, and then call WoW and EQ clone? That is an insult to EQ. WoW is not EQ, it's nothing like the game. EQ had massive zones with lots of depth. WoW has instanced crap.
Take all of WoWs instances from the original 2 continents, they probably wouldn't even fit into one Skyshrine (EQ Zone). The games are so different. It's really misleading to label WoW as an EQ clone though.
There were no EQ clones, period. That is why trashy linear games like WoW are so popular. No sandbox-type gamse like EQ.
It's like saying "WoW has characters, so does EQ, so WoW must be an EQ clone". Again, if you even played EQ you would know the games are totally different.
I forgot to say that you're wrong again about the Main -> Sub Class. There aren't sub classes in EQ, try again. You pick a class, that is it. There is no sub class, or talent tree in EQ...
EQ is anything but a sandbox game. I am sorry that you do not understand what a sandbox game is. But EQ is not a sandbox game. EQ was the starting point for the linear games like WoW, Lotro, EQ2 to branch from. Heck if you watch the Everquest Documentary they even state this right within it.
Sandbox games branched off the Ultima Online formula. A game that had to innovate just about everything within it at the time. (Yes they did borrow things from Muds but going from a text based game to a graphical game you have to reinvent the way it works.)
Really? Aside from the small number on THIS website (lets face it a couple of thousand may sound like a lot, but in MMO terms it's nothing). Personally, I've yet to be convinced that there's enough to warrant Blizzard spending 40+ million bucks on the development of a pure sandbox game.
However, Blizzards playerbase is more likely to respond positively to another MMO with themepark elements than one that was completely sandbox. Therefore, I'm more of the opinion that a hybrid is more likely than a true sandbox game. One that has both sandbox and themepark elements.
Yup.
You're not thinking outside the box nor business-wise. Blizzard is not interested in "double dipping" into their already established player base. New prospects = new money. And despite what people may think, there is a huge interest in sandbox games. The Sims proved it. Millions played and loved it. Blizzard wants those millions of NEW people who played and enjoyed that (but have no interest in or ever considered playing current MMOs).
They're looking to create a new market. New targets. They already have your money. They want the people who never will play World of Warcraft to play their "new" game. I'm telling you. Blizzard's new goldmine lies in a very casual Sandbox game. I'm sorry but their new MMO is not being made for you or any of us. Its being made for anyone else who's not currently playing an MMO. That is not to say that millions of WoW players won't play it too. Alot will. But they will still keep their WoW account because the two games will be entirely different. See where I am going with this? Double profits.
When you think about this from a business perspective, it will start to make more absolute sense. But, your right, it may have a few theme parked elements in it. But certainly not focused on theme park. The vast majority of it will be completely sandbox. It will be a Sims-like MMO. I'm betting on it.
Ok, obviously your complete faith in this belief is clouding your judgement a little to the point whereby you are just making up reasons without much, if any, factual data:
1) The Sims Online shut down. Companies don't shut down MMO's unless theres a very good reason, such as a lack of enough income.
2) Second Life is already established. Yes, theres a possibility that Blizzard may want to compete with it, but again there's no confirmation that that is their intent.
3) New propects MAY potentially mean new money, but gaining enough for the project to be considered a "success" isn't guaranteed. There are different degrees of risk. Just look at the amount of variety in failed MMO's to see the risks that developers have taken in the past. Yes, sometimes you need to take risks in order to accumulate more money. But often risks are weighed up by investors and developers before they participate in it. Often they will only take risks that have a certain degree of certainty attached to them. Therefore, just because Blizzard has yet to tap into the "Sims Online" genre MMO market, doesn't guarantee that they will.
I commend you for you total and unwavering belief in what you say, but I am yet to be convinced that Blizzard will follow the "Sims Online" foundation for their next MMO. Finally, let us appraise what we DO know:
1) It will be based on a new IP
2) It will be aimed at a "broader" audience (according to sources). Although such a term is deliberately vague.
3) They are currrently working on many aspects of the game, including the lore (which suggests it won't be a true sandbox game).
(even the devs have stated that if EQ never existed then WoW wouldnt have either, Rob Pardo interview).
Because EQ made MMOs popular. Just like EVE wouldn't exist without EQ, because EQ brought investors to the market.
There are certainly similarities between EQ and WoW(they are both RPG based games), but there are similarities between EVE and EQ, too. Tanks, DPS and support roles, no? You're telling me EVE doesn't have archetypes or classes? C'mon, you're brighter than that.
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
Uhh. You're wrong? I don't know what else to say.
In EQ you are defined by what class you pick.
In WoW you pick a class, then you can play any role basically because of the 'talent system'. They gave every class every ability. A druid can tank, be DPS, or be a healer. Since classes can do most things in a game like WoW, your class doesn't matter all that much.
If I pick a Paladin in Everquest, I can tank and heal. But I can't change that mid-game like in stupid games like WoW
So when you pick a character in WoW, your role is defined over time, not at character creation. EQ had better defined classes and roles than WoW did.
WoW is a clone of EQ.
It uses the same class system. (main--> Sub Class)
You seem to be blind. Because if there was no EQ, there would be no WoW. WoW follows EQ, in the grindy feel, and in the use of Large Scale PvE.
Also it introduced the use of Quest, and Lvls. WoW is not 100% EQ, but it evolved from EQ.
WoW grinds quests, or instances that automatically respawn.
EQ grinds NPCs, and camps that are global.
LARGE SCALE PVE..LOL
What? the 25 mans? I didn't realize 25 man was large scale now. I mean aren't they reducing it even more soon? I bet 10 man will be the norm in future WoW expansions, because its gonna be so hard to get 25 competent players together on a single WoW server. Maybe 10 is a safe bet.
And saying WoW has some kind of grind? Yeah right. They start DKs at 55, and you can go from level 1-80 in WoW within 10 days /played. Not much of a grind or challenge like EQ was. In WoW you just run around to level up because the amount of quests they give you to level up.
EQ didn't have "quest to level" like WoW did either.
So take a couple features WoW had in common with EQ, and then call WoW and EQ clone? That is an insult to EQ. WoW is not EQ, it's nothing like the game. EQ had massive zones with lots of depth. WoW has instanced crap.
Take all of WoWs instances from the original 2 continents, they probably wouldn't even fit into one Skyshrine (EQ Zone). The games are so different. It's really misleading to label WoW as an EQ clone though.
There were no EQ clones, period. That is why trashy linear games like WoW are so popular. No sandbox-type gamse like EQ.
It's like saying "WoW has characters, so does EQ, so WoW must be an EQ clone". Again, if you even played EQ you would know the games are totally different.
I forgot to say that you're wrong again about the Main -> Sub Class. There aren't sub classes in EQ, try again. You pick a class, that is it. There is no sub class, or talent tree in EQ...
EQ is anything but a sandbox game. I am sorry that you do not understand what a sandbox game is. But EQ is not a sandbox game. EQ was the starting point for the linear games like WoW, Lotro, EQ2 to branch from. Heck if you watch the Everquest Documentary they even state this right within it.
Sandbox games branched off the Ultima Online formula. A game that had to innovate just about everything within it at the time. (Yes they did borrow things from Muds but going from a text based game to a graphical game you have to reinvent the way it works.)
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
EQ is a dumbed down version of D&D with it's leveling system. Sure they didn't have clean cut leveling zones like they did in WoW, but they DID have those zones. Nothing about EQ struck me as open-ended. Everything was scripted by devs for players to follow. You may think it was non-linear, but even a single-player rpg like Morrowind can mask it's linear structure with enough side distractions.
And that's where most of us draw the line. In EQ you cannot live your life as a farmer and have a fulfilling experience. In UO you could AND write books in-game about it. The overall structure of EQ did not allow this. Theme park for most of us old school UO players is anything created to urge you in the direction of the masses:
Raid bosses
PvP zones
Level-based zones
Class progression
Mob-based gear drops
Pointless Quest
Everything about EQ screamed poor D&D campaign with EQ devs subbing as the GM. And that is the essence of a Theme park MMO. One big campaign until the next ride opens up aka as an expansion pack. We all know that EQ was the king of expansions.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
EQ is a dumbed down version of D&D with it's leveling system. Sure they didn't have clean cut leveling zones like they did in WoW, but they DID have those zones. Nothing about EQ struck me as open-ended. Everything was scripted by devs for players to follow. You may think it was non-linear, but even a single-player rpg like Morrowind can mask it's linear structure with enough side distractions.
And that's where most of us draw the line. In EQ you cannot live your life as a farmer and have a fulfilling experience. In UO you could AND write books in-game about it. The overall structure of EQ did not allow this. Theme park for most of us old school UO players is anything created to urge you in the direction of the masses:
Raid bosses
PvP zones
Level-based zones
Class progression
Mob-based gear drops
Pointless Quest
Everything about EQ screamed poor D&D campaign with EQ devs subbing as the GM. And that is the essence of a Theme park MMO. One big campaign until the next ride opens up aka as an expansion pack. We all know that EQ was the king of expansions.
Sorry but D&D isn't an MMORPG, it's a boring board game. I don't come here and say MMORPGs copied Lord of the Rings.
Yeah, EQ had zones, where you can level, what a shocker. You can level up too, how scripted and linear that is. I mean when there are 0 quests in EQ that people use for gaining exp, and the fact that there are like 5-10 leveling locations at any given time that a player could be in. Clearly that is linear. Because characters all level in the same zones in Everquest.
PvP zones? All of EQ zones were PvP
Level-based zones? Yeah, a level 1 doing a Rallos Zek raid might be a bad idea, how scripted. What about 99% of EQ zones with no level requirement? Just forgot about those I guess.
Pointless Quest -> Where? Besides faction quests(not used for exping) and epic quests, I don't know of any pointless quests.
Mob-based gear drop? You could loot other players on some of the PvP servers.. What else is gonna drop gear? Fairies?
Class Progression -> What? Oh, characters get more powerful as they level up. Instead of everyone in the game having the same class abilities despite all other factors. I mean, it's bad to reward players for time & effort in an MMORPG. Maybe they shouldn't have levels OR gear for that matter. Progression is bad in mmorpgs.
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
EQ is a dumbed down version of D&D with it's leveling system. Sure they didn't have clean cut leveling zones like they did in WoW, but they DID have those zones. Nothing about EQ struck me as open-ended. Everything was scripted by devs for players to follow. You may think it was non-linear, but even a single-player rpg like Morrowind can mask it's linear structure with enough side distractions.
And that's where most of us draw the line. In EQ you cannot live your life as a farmer and have a fulfilling experience. In UO you could AND write books in-game about it. The overall structure of EQ did not allow this. Theme park for most of us old school UO players is anything created to urge you in the direction of the masses:
Raid bosses
PvP zones
Level-based zones
Class progression
Mob-based gear drops
Pointless Quest
Everything about EQ screamed poor D&D campaign with EQ devs subbing as the GM. And that is the essence of a Theme park MMO. One big campaign until the next ride opens up aka as an expansion pack. We all know that EQ was the king of expansions.
Sorry but D&D isn't an MMORPG, it's a boring board game. I don't come here and say MMORPGs copied Lord of the Rings.
Yeah, EQ had zones, where you can level, what a shocker. You can level up too, how scripted and linear that is. I mean when there are 0 quests in EQ that people use for gaining exp, and the fact that there are like 5-10 leveling locations at any given time that a player could be in. Clearly that is linear. Because characters all level in the same zones in Everquest.
PvP zones? All of EQ zones were PvP
Level-based zones? Yeah, a level 1 doing a Rallos Zek raid might be a bad idea, how scripted. What about 99% of EQ zones with no level requirement? Just forgot about those I guess.
Pointless Quest -> Where? Besides faction quests(not used for exping) and epic quests, I don't know of any pointless quests.
Mob-based gear drop? You could loot other players on some of the PvP servers.. What else is gonna drop gear? Fairies?
Class Progression -> What? Oh, characters get more powerful as they level up. Instead of everyone in the game having the same class abilities despite all other factors. I mean, it's bad to reward players for time & effort in an MMORPG. Maybe they shouldn't have levels OR gear for that matter. Progression is bad in mmorpgs.
Exactly.
I don't get why people that know very little about a game decide to post and pretend to teach everyone how it was.
do you really think we are so simple minded that you must highlight points in colours?
Man, have you been around these forums very long?
anyway the only reason why its ok to clone it is because of the lack of sandbox games (especially compared to Theme park games)
This comment really flies in the face of the anti-cloning argument in its entirety. Cloning, of any kind, is not bringing fresh ideas and innovation. "Cloning," by definition, is making an exact copy.
However, taking pieces of what work from ALL OVER the genre, and then adding new and fresh ideas TO that....might be good. Sadly, with this crowd anyway, if you even include some idea from another game that seems to work across the board, even if it's just the way the UI works....you'll immediately get branded a copycat, regardless of the rest of the game.
For instance...use FFA loot PvP, you're copying SOMEONE...use battlegrounds (or "scenarios") you'll be copying someone else, etc.
People on these forums often make "throwing the baby out with the bath water," sound like it's not only a good idea, but expected. My opinion differs, BUT....cloning....is NEVER a good idea (only in my opinion, of course).
WoW was successful because blizzard had a ton of money to spend on advertising. They spent their money well. Now pay attention They are the ONLY mmo in america to advertise on television because they have the money to do so. As far as the game goes, there is nothing special about it.
Actually Eve Online and Star Wars Galaxies both have had television advertising on American television in the past.
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
EQ is a dumbed down version of D&D with it's leveling system. Sure they didn't have clean cut leveling zones like they did in WoW, but they DID have those zones. Nothing about EQ struck me as open-ended. Everything was scripted by devs for players to follow. You may think it was non-linear, but even a single-player rpg like Morrowind can mask it's linear structure with enough side distractions.
And that's where most of us draw the line. In EQ you cannot live your life as a farmer and have a fulfilling experience. In UO you could AND write books in-game about it. The overall structure of EQ did not allow this. Theme park for most of us old school UO players is anything created to urge you in the direction of the masses:
Raid bosses
PvP zones
Level-based zones
Class progression
Mob-based gear drops
Pointless Quest
Everything about EQ screamed poor D&D campaign with EQ devs subbing as the GM. And that is the essence of a Theme park MMO. One big campaign until the next ride opens up aka as an expansion pack. We all know that EQ was the king of expansions.
Sorry but D&D isn't an MMORPG, it's a boring board game. I don't come here and say MMORPGs copied Lord of the Rings.
Yeah, EQ had zones, where you can level, what a shocker. You can level up too, how scripted and linear that is. I mean when there are 0 quests in EQ that people use for gaining exp, and the fact that there are like 5-10 leveling locations at any given time that a player could be in. Clearly that is linear. Because characters all level in the same zones in Everquest.
PvP zones? All of EQ zones were PvP
Level-based zones? Yeah, a level 1 doing a Rallos Zek raid might be a bad idea, how scripted. What about 99% of EQ zones with no level requirement? Just forgot about those I guess.
Pointless Quest -> Where? Besides faction quests(not used for exping) and epic quests, I don't know of any pointless quests.
Mob-based gear drop? You could loot other players on some of the PvP servers.. What else is gonna drop gear? Fairies?
Class Progression -> What? Oh, characters get more powerful as they level up. Instead of everyone in the game having the same class abilities despite all other factors. I mean, it's bad to reward players for time & effort in an MMORPG. Maybe they shouldn't have levels OR gear for that matter. Progression is bad in mmorpgs.
Ok now you're just side tracking yourself by responding to my points without thinking. The blue highlight is my response to your quoted statement. The double break usually means I'm moving on to another subject. And in the next paragraph I explain to you why some of us are making a clear cut between EQ and UO. Then I state how features in THEME PARK MMOs usually direct it's playerbase by using scripted (dev created) systems in a attempt to direct them. No where in that paragraph did I state that EQ had all those features.... (see the yellow highlighted sentence again)
I simply listed some features that are common in most theme park MMOs. And just to clear things up: scripted, in my book is anything that serves the purpose of alerting the player of what events come next, therefore negating the player's need impose his own agendas/events/goals. Let me explain:
* Raid bosses - They are created to give players a feeling of progression whether it be loot based or superficial.
* PvP zones - They are created so players can avoid conflict until they are "ready".
* Level-based zones - They are created to direct players to where they are suppose to be, where they shouldn't be anymore and where they aren't strong enough to be yet.
* Class progression - The only way some players know they are getting stronger is from leveling, visiting a trainer, getting to wear level restricted loot, actually SEEING more damage from newer skills.
* Mob-based gear drops - Visual cues to how you should progress in shallow crafting systems, visual cues for lower level players to entice them into follow that leveling path (i.e. get higher level-->kill stronger mobs-->get better loot[repeat])
* Pointless Quest - Events used to mask poor leveling systems, a artificial way introduce currency in the economy, to engage players into a pre-determined event that has no bearing on the story/lore.
These are some of the subtle guidelines created by devs to direct players from level 1 to max to get maximum enjoyment out of the experience they have scripted. Each feature is like a ride and they are connected by the MMO itself, just like a theme park.....
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Because EQ made MMOs popular. Just like EVE wouldn't exist without EQ, because EQ brought investors to the market. There are certainly similarities between EQ and WoW(they are both RPG based games), but there are similarities between EVE and EQ, too. Tanks, DPS and support roles, no? You're telling me EVE doesn't have archetypes or classes? C'mon, you're brighter than that.
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
Uhh. You're wrong? I don't know what else to say.
In EQ you are defined by what class you pick.
In WoW you pick a class, then you can play any role basically because of the 'talent system'. They gave every class every ability. A druid can tank, be DPS, or be a healer. Since classes can do most things in a game like WoW, your class doesn't matter all that much.
If I pick a Paladin in Everquest, I can tank and heal. But I can't change that mid-game like in stupid games like WoW
So when you pick a character in WoW, your role is defined over time, not at character creation. EQ had better defined classes and roles than WoW did.
Actually I am not wrong.
Again, even with wows system each class is given a specific set of abilities. Sure you can slightly augment these abilities through talents (like AA's in EQ) but you still only have the same specific abilities alloted to you from start to finish. That is the whole point of a class based system.
Now in a game like UO or any other classless system your characters are defined over time by the choices you make through skill allocation. You dont have to be limited to being just a holy warrior or ranged DPS. You can be a jack of all trades with pretty much every skill. Down side is the more broad ranged you go, the less effective each ability is because of the skill allocation. Some games will even have a skill decay system, where if you raise one skill another might drop in effectivness.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Comments
(even the devs have stated that if EQ never existed then WoW wouldnt have either, Rob Pardo interview).
Because EQ made MMOs popular. Just like EVE wouldn't exist without EQ, because EQ brought investors to the market.
There are certainly similarities between EQ and WoW(they are both RPG based games), but there are similarities between EVE and EQ, too. Tanks, DPS and support roles, no? You're telling me EVE doesn't have archetypes or classes? C'mon, you're brighter than that.
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
Uhh. You're wrong? I don't know what else to say.
In EQ you are defined by what class you pick.
In WoW you pick a class, then you can play any role basically because of the 'talent system'. They gave every class every ability. A druid can tank, be DPS, or be a healer. Since classes can do most things in a game like WoW, your class doesn't matter all that much.
If I pick a Paladin in Everquest, I can tank and heal. But I can't change that mid-game like in stupid games like WoW
So when you pick a character in WoW, your role is defined over time, not at character creation. EQ had better defined classes and roles than WoW did.
WoW is a clone of EQ.
It uses the same class system. (main--> Sub Class)
You seem to be blind. Because if there was no EQ, there would be no WoW. WoW follows EQ, in the grindy feel, and in the use of Large Scale PvE.
Also it introduced the use of Quest, and Lvls. WoW is not 100% EQ, but it evolved from EQ.
WoW grinds quests, or instances that automatically respawn.
EQ grinds NPCs, and camps that are global.
LARGE SCALE PVE..LOL
What? the 25 mans? I didn't realize 25 man was large scale now. I mean aren't they reducing it even more soon? I bet 10 man will be the norm in future WoW expansions, because its gonna be so hard to get 25 competent players together on a single WoW server. Maybe 10 is a safe bet.
And saying WoW has some kind of grind? Yeah right. They start DKs at 55, and you can go from level 1-80 in WoW within 10 days /played. Not much of a grind or challenge like EQ was. In WoW you just run around to level up because the amount of quests they give you to level up.
EQ didn't have "quest to level" like WoW did either.
So take a couple features WoW had in common with EQ, and then call WoW and EQ clone? That is an insult to EQ. WoW is not EQ, it's nothing like the game. EQ had massive zones with lots of depth. WoW has instanced crap.
Take all of WoWs instances from the original 2 continents, they probably wouldn't even fit into one Skyshrine (EQ Zone). The games are so different. It's really misleading to label WoW as an EQ clone though.
There were no EQ clones, period. That is why trashy linear games like WoW are so popular. No sandbox-type gamse like EQ.
It's like saying "WoW has characters, so does EQ, so WoW must be an EQ clone". Again, if you even played EQ you would know the games are totally different.
I forgot to say that you're wrong again about the Main -> Sub Class. There aren't sub classes in EQ, try again. You pick a class, that is it. There is no sub class, or talent tree in EQ...
(even the devs have stated that if EQ never existed then WoW wouldnt have either, Rob Pardo interview).
Because EQ made MMOs popular. Just like EVE wouldn't exist without EQ, because EQ brought investors to the market.
There are certainly similarities between EQ and WoW(they are both RPG based games), but there are similarities between EVE and EQ, too. Tanks, DPS and support roles, no? You're telling me EVE doesn't have archetypes or classes? C'mon, you're brighter than that.
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
Uhh. You're wrong? I don't know what else to say.
In EQ you are defined by what class you pick.
In WoW you pick a class, then you can play any role basically because of the 'talent system'. They gave every class every ability. A druid can tank, be DPS, or be a healer. Since classes can do most things in a game like WoW, your class doesn't matter all that much.
If I pick a Paladin in Everquest, I can tank and heal. But I can't change that mid-game like in stupid games like WoW
So when you pick a character in WoW, your role is defined over time, not at character creation. EQ had better defined classes and roles than WoW did.
WoW is a clone of EQ.
It uses the same class system. (main--> Sub Class)
You seem to be blind. Because if there was no EQ, there would be no WoW. WoW follows EQ, in the grindy feel, and in the use of Large Scale PvE.
Also it introduced the use of Quest, and Lvls. WoW is not 100% EQ, but it evolved from EQ.
WoW grinds quests, or instances that automatically respawn.
EQ grinds NPCs, and camps that are global.
LARGE SCALE PVE..LOL
What? the 25 mans? I didn't realize 25 man was large scale now. I mean aren't they reducing it even more soon? I bet 10 man will be the norm in future WoW expansions, because its gonna be so hard to get 25 competent players together on a single WoW server. Maybe 10 is a safe bet.
And saying WoW has some kind of grind? Yeah right. They start DKs at 55, and you can go from level 1-80 in WoW within 10 days /played. Not much of a grind or challenge like EQ was. In WoW you just run around to level up because the amount of quests they give you to level up.
EQ didn't have "quest to level" like WoW did either.
So take a couple features WoW had in common with EQ, and then call WoW and EQ clone? That is an insult to EQ. WoW is not EQ, it's nothing like the game. EQ had massive zones with lots of depth. WoW has instanced crap.
Take all of WoWs instances from the original 2 continents, they probably wouldn't even fit into one Skyshrine (EQ Zone). The games are so different. It's really misleading to label WoW as an EQ clone though.
There were no EQ clones, period. That is why trashy linear games like WoW are so popular. No sandbox-type gamse like EQ.
It's like saying "WoW has characters, so does EQ, so WoW must be an EQ clone". Again, if you even played EQ you would know the games are totally different.
I forgot to say that you're wrong again about the Main -> Sub Class. There aren't sub classes in EQ, try again. You pick a class, that is it. There is no sub class, or talent tree in EQ...
EQ is anything but a sandbox game. I am sorry that you do not understand what a sandbox game is. But EQ is not a sandbox game. EQ was the starting point for the linear games like WoW, Lotro, EQ2 to branch from. Heck if you watch the Everquest Documentary they even state this right within it.
Sandbox games branched off the Ultima Online formula. A game that had to innovate just about everything within it at the time. (Yes they did borrow things from Muds but going from a text based game to a graphical game you have to reinvent the way it works.)
There are eleventy-billion EQ clones and next to no UO clones, so yes.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I have no idea what''s going on." - Tasos Flambouras
Really? Aside from the small number on THIS website (lets face it a couple of thousand may sound like a lot, but in MMO terms it's nothing). Personally, I've yet to be convinced that there's enough to warrant Blizzard spending 40+ million bucks on the development of a pure sandbox game.
However, Blizzards playerbase is more likely to respond positively to another MMO with themepark elements than one that was completely sandbox. Therefore, I'm more of the opinion that a hybrid is more likely than a true sandbox game. One that has both sandbox and themepark elements.
Yup.
You're not thinking outside the box nor business-wise. Blizzard is not interested in "double dipping" into their already established player base. New prospects = new money. And despite what people may think, there is a huge interest in sandbox games. The Sims proved it. Millions played and loved it. Blizzard wants those millions of NEW people who played and enjoyed that (but have no interest in or ever considered playing current MMOs).
They're looking to create a new market. New targets. They already have your money. They want the people who never will play World of Warcraft to play their "new" game. I'm telling you. Blizzard's new goldmine lies in a very casual Sandbox game. I'm sorry but their new MMO is not being made for you or any of us. Its being made for anyone else who's not currently playing an MMO. That is not to say that millions of WoW players won't play it too. Alot will. But they will still keep their WoW account because the two games will be entirely different. See where I am going with this? Double profits.
When you think about this from a business perspective, it will start to make more absolute sense. But, your right, it may have a few theme parked elements in it. But certainly not focused on theme park. The vast majority of it will be completely sandbox. It will be a Sims-like MMO. I'm betting on it.
Ok, obviously your complete faith in this belief is clouding your judgement a little to the point whereby you are just making up reasons without much, if any, factual data:
1) The Sims Online shut down. Companies don't shut down MMO's unless theres a very good reason, such as a lack of enough income.
2) Second Life is already established. Yes, theres a possibility that Blizzard may want to compete with it, but again there's no confirmation that that is their intent.
3) New propects MAY potentially mean new money, but gaining enough for the project to be considered a "success" isn't guaranteed. There are different degrees of risk. Just look at the amount of variety in failed MMO's to see the risks that developers have taken in the past. Yes, sometimes you need to take risks in order to accumulate more money. But often risks are weighed up by investors and developers before they participate in it. Often they will only take risks that have a certain degree of certainty attached to them. Therefore, just because Blizzard has yet to tap into the "Sims Online" genre MMO market, doesn't guarantee that they will.
I commend you for you total and unwavering belief in what you say, but I am yet to be convinced that Blizzard will follow the "Sims Online" foundation for their next MMO. Finally, let us appraise what we DO know:
1) It will be based on a new IP
2) It will be aimed at a "broader" audience (according to sources). Although such a term is deliberately vague.
3) They are currrently working on many aspects of the game, including the lore (which suggests it won't be a true sandbox game).
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
(even the devs have stated that if EQ never existed then WoW wouldnt have either, Rob Pardo interview).
Because EQ made MMOs popular. Just like EVE wouldn't exist without EQ, because EQ brought investors to the market.
There are certainly similarities between EQ and WoW(they are both RPG based games), but there are similarities between EVE and EQ, too. Tanks, DPS and support roles, no? You're telling me EVE doesn't have archetypes or classes? C'mon, you're brighter than that.
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
Uhh. You're wrong? I don't know what else to say.
In EQ you are defined by what class you pick.
In WoW you pick a class, then you can play any role basically because of the 'talent system'. They gave every class every ability. A druid can tank, be DPS, or be a healer. Since classes can do most things in a game like WoW, your class doesn't matter all that much.
If I pick a Paladin in Everquest, I can tank and heal. But I can't change that mid-game like in stupid games like WoW
So when you pick a character in WoW, your role is defined over time, not at character creation. EQ had better defined classes and roles than WoW did.
WoW is a clone of EQ.
It uses the same class system. (main--> Sub Class)
You seem to be blind. Because if there was no EQ, there would be no WoW. WoW follows EQ, in the grindy feel, and in the use of Large Scale PvE.
Also it introduced the use of Quest, and Lvls. WoW is not 100% EQ, but it evolved from EQ.
WoW grinds quests, or instances that automatically respawn.
EQ grinds NPCs, and camps that are global.
LARGE SCALE PVE..LOL
What? the 25 mans? I didn't realize 25 man was large scale now. I mean aren't they reducing it even more soon? I bet 10 man will be the norm in future WoW expansions, because its gonna be so hard to get 25 competent players together on a single WoW server. Maybe 10 is a safe bet.
And saying WoW has some kind of grind? Yeah right. They start DKs at 55, and you can go from level 1-80 in WoW within 10 days /played. Not much of a grind or challenge like EQ was. In WoW you just run around to level up because the amount of quests they give you to level up.
EQ didn't have "quest to level" like WoW did either.
So take a couple features WoW had in common with EQ, and then call WoW and EQ clone? That is an insult to EQ. WoW is not EQ, it's nothing like the game. EQ had massive zones with lots of depth. WoW has instanced crap.
Take all of WoWs instances from the original 2 continents, they probably wouldn't even fit into one Skyshrine (EQ Zone). The games are so different. It's really misleading to label WoW as an EQ clone though.
There were no EQ clones, period. That is why trashy linear games like WoW are so popular. No sandbox-type gamse like EQ.
It's like saying "WoW has characters, so does EQ, so WoW must be an EQ clone". Again, if you even played EQ you would know the games are totally different.
I forgot to say that you're wrong again about the Main -> Sub Class. There aren't sub classes in EQ, try again. You pick a class, that is it. There is no sub class, or talent tree in EQ...
EQ is anything but a sandbox game. I am sorry that you do not understand what a sandbox game is. But EQ is not a sandbox game. EQ was the starting point for the linear games like WoW, Lotro, EQ2 to branch from. Heck if you watch the Everquest Documentary they even state this right within it.
Sandbox games branched off the Ultima Online formula. A game that had to innovate just about everything within it at the time. (Yes they did borrow things from Muds but going from a text based game to a graphical game you have to reinvent the way it works.)
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
I'd like to see these said EQ clones, because every game SINCE EQ has been nothing like EQ. It's been linear garbage.
Really, name some EQ clones, thanks. You're just like the other poster here who claimed there were EQ clones but then failed to name ONE. Lol
Well there are clones of late EQ, after SOE destroyed it, but there is no clone of early EQ.
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
EQ is a dumbed down version of D&D with it's leveling system. Sure they didn't have clean cut leveling zones like they did in WoW, but they DID have those zones. Nothing about EQ struck me as open-ended. Everything was scripted by devs for players to follow. You may think it was non-linear, but even a single-player rpg like Morrowind can mask it's linear structure with enough side distractions.
And that's where most of us draw the line. In EQ you cannot live your life as a farmer and have a fulfilling experience. In UO you could AND write books in-game about it. The overall structure of EQ did not allow this. Theme park for most of us old school UO players is anything created to urge you in the direction of the masses:
Everything about EQ screamed poor D&D campaign with EQ devs subbing as the GM. And that is the essence of a Theme park MMO. One big campaign until the next ride opens up aka as an expansion pack. We all know that EQ was the king of expansions.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
EQ is a dumbed down version of D&D with it's leveling system. Sure they didn't have clean cut leveling zones like they did in WoW, but they DID have those zones. Nothing about EQ struck me as open-ended. Everything was scripted by devs for players to follow. You may think it was non-linear, but even a single-player rpg like Morrowind can mask it's linear structure with enough side distractions.
And that's where most of us draw the line. In EQ you cannot live your life as a farmer and have a fulfilling experience. In UO you could AND write books in-game about it. The overall structure of EQ did not allow this. Theme park for most of us old school UO players is anything created to urge you in the direction of the masses:
Everything about EQ screamed poor D&D campaign with EQ devs subbing as the GM. And that is the essence of a Theme park MMO. One big campaign until the next ride opens up aka as an expansion pack. We all know that EQ was the king of expansions.
Sorry but D&D isn't an MMORPG, it's a boring board game. I don't come here and say MMORPGs copied Lord of the Rings.
Yeah, EQ had zones, where you can level, what a shocker. You can level up too, how scripted and linear that is. I mean when there are 0 quests in EQ that people use for gaining exp, and the fact that there are like 5-10 leveling locations at any given time that a player could be in. Clearly that is linear. Because characters all level in the same zones in Everquest.
PvP zones? All of EQ zones were PvP
Level-based zones? Yeah, a level 1 doing a Rallos Zek raid might be a bad idea, how scripted. What about 99% of EQ zones with no level requirement? Just forgot about those I guess.
Pointless Quest -> Where? Besides faction quests(not used for exping) and epic quests, I don't know of any pointless quests.
Mob-based gear drop? You could loot other players on some of the PvP servers.. What else is gonna drop gear? Fairies?
Class Progression -> What? Oh, characters get more powerful as they level up. Instead of everyone in the game having the same class abilities despite all other factors. I mean, it's bad to reward players for time & effort in an MMORPG. Maybe they shouldn't have levels OR gear for that matter. Progression is bad in mmorpgs.
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
EQ is a dumbed down version of D&D with it's leveling system. Sure they didn't have clean cut leveling zones like they did in WoW, but they DID have those zones. Nothing about EQ struck me as open-ended. Everything was scripted by devs for players to follow. You may think it was non-linear, but even a single-player rpg like Morrowind can mask it's linear structure with enough side distractions.
And that's where most of us draw the line. In EQ you cannot live your life as a farmer and have a fulfilling experience. In UO you could AND write books in-game about it. The overall structure of EQ did not allow this. Theme park for most of us old school UO players is anything created to urge you in the direction of the masses:
Everything about EQ screamed poor D&D campaign with EQ devs subbing as the GM. And that is the essence of a Theme park MMO. One big campaign until the next ride opens up aka as an expansion pack. We all know that EQ was the king of expansions.
Sorry but D&D isn't an MMORPG, it's a boring board game. I don't come here and say MMORPGs copied Lord of the Rings.
Yeah, EQ had zones, where you can level, what a shocker. You can level up too, how scripted and linear that is. I mean when there are 0 quests in EQ that people use for gaining exp, and the fact that there are like 5-10 leveling locations at any given time that a player could be in. Clearly that is linear. Because characters all level in the same zones in Everquest.
PvP zones? All of EQ zones were PvP
Level-based zones? Yeah, a level 1 doing a Rallos Zek raid might be a bad idea, how scripted. What about 99% of EQ zones with no level requirement? Just forgot about those I guess.
Pointless Quest -> Where? Besides faction quests(not used for exping) and epic quests, I don't know of any pointless quests.
Mob-based gear drop? You could loot other players on some of the PvP servers.. What else is gonna drop gear? Fairies?
Class Progression -> What? Oh, characters get more powerful as they level up. Instead of everyone in the game having the same class abilities despite all other factors. I mean, it's bad to reward players for time & effort in an MMORPG. Maybe they shouldn't have levels OR gear for that matter. Progression is bad in mmorpgs.
Exactly.
I don't get why people that know very little about a game decide to post and pretend to teach everyone how it was.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Actually Eve Online and Star Wars Galaxies both have had television advertising on American television in the past.
EQ's leveling system wasn't nearly as linear as WoWs was. WoWs leveling system was basically looking for quest givers and for things to pop up on your mini map telling you where to go. EQ consisted of exploration, you could level wherever you wanted. I don't see how that is not a sandbox, when there are so many different places to level / explore and no one is telling you where to go.
EQ surely isn't linear. They start you in a zone, then what? do what you want. How is that linear? How about some reasons rather than saying "it is not a sandbox" game 500 times? Or don't you have any? What a joke:
Me> WoWs PvP system sucks because x,y,z.
You> No it doesn''t
Good logic there bud. Somehow just stating a conclusion without any supporting facts is not a valid argument, I don't know why, but that's how it is.
And I didn't want some documentary, I played the game. EQ2, WoW, and other linear games are nothing like EQ.
EQ is a dumbed down version of D&D with it's leveling system. Sure they didn't have clean cut leveling zones like they did in WoW, but they DID have those zones. Nothing about EQ struck me as open-ended. Everything was scripted by devs for players to follow. You may think it was non-linear, but even a single-player rpg like Morrowind can mask it's linear structure with enough side distractions.
And that's where most of us draw the line. In EQ you cannot live your life as a farmer and have a fulfilling experience. In UO you could AND write books in-game about it. The overall structure of EQ did not allow this. Theme park for most of us old school UO players is anything created to urge you in the direction of the masses:
Everything about EQ screamed poor D&D campaign with EQ devs subbing as the GM. And that is the essence of a Theme park MMO. One big campaign until the next ride opens up aka as an expansion pack. We all know that EQ was the king of expansions.
Sorry but D&D isn't an MMORPG, it's a boring board game. I don't come here and say MMORPGs copied Lord of the Rings.
Yeah, EQ had zones, where you can level, what a shocker. You can level up too, how scripted and linear that is. I mean when there are 0 quests in EQ that people use for gaining exp, and the fact that there are like 5-10 leveling locations at any given time that a player could be in. Clearly that is linear. Because characters all level in the same zones in Everquest.
PvP zones? All of EQ zones were PvP
Level-based zones? Yeah, a level 1 doing a Rallos Zek raid might be a bad idea, how scripted. What about 99% of EQ zones with no level requirement? Just forgot about those I guess.
Pointless Quest -> Where? Besides faction quests(not used for exping) and epic quests, I don't know of any pointless quests.
Mob-based gear drop? You could loot other players on some of the PvP servers.. What else is gonna drop gear? Fairies?
Class Progression -> What? Oh, characters get more powerful as they level up. Instead of everyone in the game having the same class abilities despite all other factors. I mean, it's bad to reward players for time & effort in an MMORPG. Maybe they shouldn't have levels OR gear for that matter. Progression is bad in mmorpgs.
Ok now you're just side tracking yourself by responding to my points without thinking. The blue highlight is my response to your quoted statement. The double break usually means I'm moving on to another subject. And in the next paragraph I explain to you why some of us are making a clear cut between EQ and UO. Then I state how features in THEME PARK MMOs usually direct it's playerbase by using scripted (dev created) systems in a attempt to direct them. No where in that paragraph did I state that EQ had all those features.... (see the yellow highlighted sentence again)
I simply listed some features that are common in most theme park MMOs. And just to clear things up: scripted, in my book is anything that serves the purpose of alerting the player of what events come next, therefore negating the player's need impose his own agendas/events/goals. Let me explain:
* Raid bosses - They are created to give players a feeling of progression whether it be loot based or superficial.
* PvP zones - They are created so players can avoid conflict until they are "ready".
* Level-based zones - They are created to direct players to where they are suppose to be, where they shouldn't be anymore and where they aren't strong enough to be yet.
* Class progression - The only way some players know they are getting stronger is from leveling, visiting a trainer, getting to wear level restricted loot, actually SEEING more damage from newer skills.
* Mob-based gear drops - Visual cues to how you should progress in shallow crafting systems, visual cues for lower level players to entice them into follow that leveling path (i.e. get higher level-->kill stronger mobs-->get better loot[repeat])
* Pointless Quest - Events used to mask poor leveling systems, a artificial way introduce currency in the economy, to engage players into a pre-determined event that has no bearing on the story/lore.
These are some of the subtle guidelines created by devs to direct players from level 1 to max to get maximum enjoyment out of the experience they have scripted. Each feature is like a ride and they are connected by the MMO itself, just like a theme park.....
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Hey, Im not arguing with you... just giving a little insight into why people use the EQ clone thing.
Thing is, the system EvE uses is a skill based system akin to UO where the player becomes a specific role over time using skill point allocation or skill training. EvE is more UO in space than a game that can be compared to EQ.
WoW and EQ use the same passive character progression system where you level and points are allocated for you depending on your class. You also only obtain skills designed for that class as well as weapons/gear etc (Druid only epic gear, Paladin only epic gear, Shaman only epic gear, etc).
Basically EQ/WoW - roles are defined from teh start.
UO/EvE - player defines their role over time and by choice.
Uhh. You're wrong? I don't know what else to say.
In EQ you are defined by what class you pick.
In WoW you pick a class, then you can play any role basically because of the 'talent system'. They gave every class every ability. A druid can tank, be DPS, or be a healer. Since classes can do most things in a game like WoW, your class doesn't matter all that much.
If I pick a Paladin in Everquest, I can tank and heal. But I can't change that mid-game like in stupid games like WoW
So when you pick a character in WoW, your role is defined over time, not at character creation. EQ had better defined classes and roles than WoW did.
Actually I am not wrong.
Again, even with wows system each class is given a specific set of abilities. Sure you can slightly augment these abilities through talents (like AA's in EQ) but you still only have the same specific abilities alloted to you from start to finish. That is the whole point of a class based system.
Now in a game like UO or any other classless system your characters are defined over time by the choices you make through skill allocation. You dont have to be limited to being just a holy warrior or ranged DPS. You can be a jack of all trades with pretty much every skill. Down side is the more broad ranged you go, the less effective each ability is because of the skill allocation. Some games will even have a skill decay system, where if you raise one skill another might drop in effectivness.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"