Well ... what is the point of EQ3, aside from an update of the graphics ?
A game with a new world, good variety of classes/skills/races, more competent coding. Eq1 suffers from end-game-itis. New players cannot find a home so it will continually dwindle in population. Vanguard had good classes and races and a good new world but suffered from poor coding. If I could find a game with the balanced classes and variety of races, a new world, and it didnt suck code wise, Id jump on it in a heartbeat. Also, good lore is cool but brand new lore is better than copying old eq lore. Ive always thought that the spirit of eq was not the lore but the design.
Sooo ... you just want them to recreate EQ and EQ2 in a different way ?
More competent coding ? Now what the heck would that be ? Games will always be buggy. Only way to get a bugfree game is to make said game correspondingly simple.
I dont think the issue of Vanguard was lack of competence - the issue is that a 200+ developer game was, in the middle of the development process, suddenly published and soon after brought down to 25 or so developers who are not only expected to fix the bugs, but also emit new content. Yes, Vanguard IS in a very funny state ... but its problem is lack of funding.
I still dont see how EQ3 will be anything but EQ/EQ2 with better graphics.
Sooo ... you just want them to recreate EQ and EQ2 in a different way ?
More competent coding ? Now what the heck would that be ? Games will always be buggy. Only way to get a bugfree game is to make said game correspondingly simple.
I dont think the issue of Vanguard was lack of competence - the issue is that a 200+ developer game was, in the middle of the development process, suddenly published and soon after brought down to 25 or so developers who are not only expected to fix the bugs, but also emit new content. Yes, Vanguard IS in a very funny state ... but its problem is lack of funding.
I still dont see how EQ3 will be anything but EQ/EQ2 with better graphics.
I dont think many expect a game to have zero bugs, but you have to admit at launch vanguard was infested with bugs anywhere you went in that game. Add in the fact that even people who had high end computers had problems running it and you have a lot of players quitting. I had guild mates build brand new computers just so they could play this game and they said it still wasnt great.
It got better sure, but by the time the performance issues were dealt with (not entirely) they were hacking away at many of the features they promised at release. I gave vanguard 2 tries (played at launch then quit for a year), stayed and played that game for about 5 months each time. It has amazing concepts for races/classes...possibly my favorite ever in a game. I loved so many things about vanguard but too much of the crap they were throwing at us drove me away.
Knowing SOE, I would expect Everquest Next to be a cash shop game with anime models aimed at the pre-teen market and accessed through Facebook. I imagine that's what Brenlo left EQ2 to work on.
It would be nice, but as others mentioned I fear it will just be some cash shop version.
So much of what I loved about EQ1, they completely removed in EQ2. Being able to buff new players, or heck anyone, was something I sorely missed in EQ2. It was a great way to initiate interactions and just was a nice feeling helping people. Then there were the so overly balanced classes in EQ2. They all felt the same with none of the uniqueness their EQ1 counterparts had. The original content and EoF retained much of what I loved about Norrath, but subsequent expansions were mostly a bunch of ugly islands in the sky over and over. Parts of EQ2 I did really like...the crafting, housing, shiny collecting, guild structure, events.
Vanguard, on the other hand, did have classes I enjoyed playing, but just lacked other things. I always wished they could take the best ideas from both games and mix them together.
I'd love to see Norrath again. I don't want to get too hopeful, but still curious to see what they will come up with the third time around.
I think the basic Genre that EQ represents is a dead fantasy period. This applies to all other kill/grind/quest style MMO's. For the first time in over 10+ years of continous MMO playing i have no interest at all in playing that format of an online game ever again. It would be silly to make another of the 1000 MMOs that require us to kill a bear and return to level gaming formats. It's time to move on to the next level which will be social networking MMOs more based on relationships from the beginning to any super ultra story line.
MMOs are starting to loose their luster, they're being made to easy, and they're going heavy on the flashy graphics with little content to the stories. I miss actual content and quests that were more then just go x and kill y. I complain about selling a game on graphics, though I'll admit I can't stay interested in the old games anymore because I have seen what they can look like.
I have recently started missing Everquest's story and huge amount of content. There doesn't seem to be any news of a new one, but wouldn't it be nice?
They have a great story, they could make a great game again, or they could remake an old giant with a new look.
I'd like to think im not alone in wanting a fresh new look at Norrath, and a game worth devoting time to.
As i remember, EQ is mostly a bunch of hunting place to kill mobs for xp. There is nil story in most of the places and i wouldn't call mobs standing around to be killed a lot of content.
That is of course pertaining to the leveling experience.
MMOs are starting to loose their luster, they're being made to easy, and they're going heavy on the flashy graphics with little content to the stories. I miss actual content and quests that were more then just go x and kill y. I complain about selling a game on graphics, though I'll admit I can't stay interested in the old games anymore because I have seen what they can look like.
I have recently started missing Everquest's story and huge amount of content. There doesn't seem to be any news of a new one, but wouldn't it be nice?
They have a great story, they could make a great game again, or they could remake an old giant with a new look.
I'd like to think im not alone in wanting a fresh new look at Norrath, and a game worth devoting time to.
As i remember, EQ is mostly a bunch of hunting place to kill mobs for xp. There is nil story in most of the places and i wouldn't call mobs standing around to be killed a lot of content.
That is of course pertaining to the leveling experience.
I don't consider the above statement to be fact at all. Look at the most popular mmorpg to-date WoW. It has very little story whatsoever. Everquest 2 certainly has a more fleshed out Lore than World of Warcraft I'm sorry.
Warhammer has a HUGE story, tons of lore. Mythic screwed the pooch on that one. 'Off Topic I know<---
So like I said a few posts above, If Sigil /verant makes the next Everquest I'll play it. Give them a massive budget and have EA publish it. Yes i'd rather have EA publish it than Sony......
A man or "gamer" should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Sooo ... you just want them to recreate EQ and EQ2 in a different way ?
More competent coding ? Now what the heck would that be ? Games will always be buggy. Only way to get a bugfree game is to make said game correspondingly simple.
I dont think the issue of Vanguard was lack of competence - the issue is that a 200+ developer game was, in the middle of the development process, suddenly published and soon after brought down to 25 or so developers who are not only expected to fix the bugs, but also emit new content. Yes, Vanguard IS in a very funny state ... but its problem is lack of funding.
I still dont see how EQ3 will be anything but EQ/EQ2 with better graphics.
I dont think many expect a game to have zero bugs, but you have to admit at launch vanguard was infested with bugs anywhere you went in that game. Add in the fact that even people who had high end computers had problems running it and you have a lot of players quitting. I had guild mates build brand new computers just so they could play this game and they said it still wasnt great.
It got better sure, but by the time the performance issues were dealt with (not entirely) they were hacking away at many of the features they promised at release. I gave vanguard 2 tries (played at launch then quit for a year), stayed and played that game for about 5 months each time. It has amazing concepts for races/classes...possibly my favorite ever in a game. I loved so many things about vanguard but too much of the crap they were throwing at us drove me away.
Thats exactly what I said above, in the part you quoted. Vanguard was published before it was ready, and thats why it had, among other things, a lot of bugs, lack of highlevel content, etc. Thanks to the state of the game, it failed. If you can learn anything from Vanguard, then its that you shouldnt publish unpolished games. Ever. Unless you like failures.
While bugs have been fixed and content has been added, Vanguard is nowhere near where it should be in respect to player count.
As i remember, EQ is mostly a bunch of hunting place to kill mobs for xp. There is nil story in most of the places and i wouldn't call mobs standing around to be killed a lot of content.
That is of course pertaining to the leveling experience.
What’s the difference between camping mobs that stand or patrol (patrol as many did), or re-entering the same instance time and time again where mobs are in the same place?
It’s the pot calling the kettle black… though the pot is void of other players *yawn*
To get story, every popular camping spot had quests linked to it. You either did quests or you didn't, but many did as we'd often be pulling qust items from drops.
MMOs are starting to loose their luster, they're being made to easy, and they're going heavy on the flashy graphics with little content to the stories. I miss actual content and quests that were more then just go x and kill y. I complain about selling a game on graphics, though I'll admit I can't stay interested in the old games anymore because I have seen what they can look like.
I have recently started missing Everquest's story and huge amount of content. There doesn't seem to be any news of a new one, but wouldn't it be nice?
They have a great story, they could make a great game again, or they could remake an old giant with a new look.
I'd like to think im not alone in wanting a fresh new look at Norrath, and a game worth devoting time to.
As i remember, EQ is mostly a bunch of hunting place to kill mobs for xp. There is nil story in most of the places and i wouldn't call mobs standing around to be killed a lot of content.
That is of course pertaining to the leveling experience.
I don't consider the above statement to be fact at all. Look at the most popular mmorpg to-date WoW. It has very little story whatsoever. Everquest 2 certainly has a more fleshed out Lore than World of Warcraft I'm sorry.
Warhammer has a HUGE story, tons of lore. Mythic screwed the pooch on that one. 'Off Topic I know<---
So like I said a few posts above, If Sigil /verant makes the next Everquest I'll play it. Give them a massive budget and have EA publish it. Yes i'd rather have EA publish it than Sony......
FIRST EQ .. not EQ2 .. plus a bunch of lore written in text is pointless. It does not show up in gameplay.
And there is no gameplay but kill stuff in EQ (at least for the leveling part). In fact, few pays attention to the lore of WOW, except things like the Undercity quest where you actually experience some story through scripted events.
As i remember, EQ is mostly a bunch of hunting place to kill mobs for xp. There is nil story in most of the places and i wouldn't call mobs standing around to be killed a lot of content.
That is of course pertaining to the leveling experience.
What’s the difference between camping mobs that stand or patrol (patrol as many did), or re-entering the same instance time and time again where mobs are in the same place?
It’s the pot calling the kettle black… though the pot is void of other players *yawn*
To get story, every popular camping spot had quests linked to it. You either did quests or you didn't, but many did as we'd often be pulling qust items from drops.
Differences ... quests drive players to kill different mobs as opposed to the same one at the same spot over and over again. And going though an instance .. at least you get to crawl through a dungeon, and kill some bosses .. than just repeat the SAME spawn again, again and again.
And true .. story is irrelevant in either case (it is not like people care abt wow's story while grinding instances for xp) but i prefer an instance dungeon crawl any day any time over killing the same spawns over and over and over again.
Yes, a new EverQuest game would be awesome. But only if it's more like EQ1 and not made by SOE. I don't want a subscription + cash shop type game. Plus, SOE would do anything for their game to become WoW2.
This is pure specilation but you can expect any game coming out from Sony to follow the Free Realms model... Web platform with some form of cash shop and even social network implimentation, so you can nag all your facebook friends to join you EQ "Mafia"
I can swear I read somewhere that The Agency was following the Free Realms platform, it would only make sense they do this for all other incarnations of games they produce moving forward, at least from a business perspective...
Personally I am not a fan, but hey "It ain't show friends, it's show business"
I don't for a minute agree that it makes sense for SOE to follow the same business model with every game they produce. What makes sense is that they identify for each game the market they are aiming at and the most viable and appropriate business model for that particular market. If they are looking for Everquest Next to fill a gap in the Free Realms market then adopting the same business model as that game would make sense, but if they're looking to recapture the original EQ market then it wouldn't make a lot of sense to adopt the Free Realms business model at all.
“By gamers, for gamers” A meaningless fluff statement these days, every person thinks they could make the perfect MMO. Every company thinks they must make the next WOW and spin PR pretending they are not trying to… It’s all about the dollars and no sense.
I am sadly disenchanted at this point with most upcoming online games. When MMO’s arrived it was the baby’s breath of a new kind of gaming media, social interaction, exploration, and player competition.
Much as Doom rung in a new game type staple (FPS) that can easily have the “more things change the more they stay…” quip applied to it. MMOs appear to have suffered a similar and yet worse fate.
Early MMO games brought with them the hope and expectation that we would see more and more innovation and excitement in online experiences. Passing 10 years of mainstream online gaming, MMOs have peaked and begun devolving into cash injection mechanisms. Have we seen much that’s actually new in game mechanics? New in the way the game is approached or experienced by its players? Have we seen larger, grander, and more flexible sandboxes designed? That was the original direction and I believe intention of many early MMO designers.
MMO’s took the rails off of the computer and console role playing game. Today they are snapped right back on in theme parks. Though often beautiful, you can’t live in a theme park. Try Disneyland for 10 days straight. Eventually you feel it’s time to go home, even if you love it there.
Create more worlds to role play in, I do not mean “I shall strike thee down vile baddie”. I am referring to immersion role play, imagining you are living in the world you explore. Crossing over a hill with anticipation on what is on the other side. Feeling as though the world is seamless, natural, and full of wonderment, not contrived or heavily instanced.
The newest thing we have seen is acceptance by companies and players of cash shop acquired items. Micro-transactions, and pay per minute is on the horizon as a prominent pay plan. (Some countries already have this due to their play limit rules.) This means nothing to players and all to the bean-counters.
Nearing 500 words so I will end…
Based on current offerings, it appears the best I have to look forward to is more of the same. Just a different world, maybe different class names for Wizard. Oh a mystic, oh a demonologist, necromancer, etc… It’s not the class archetypes or skill trees. It is the seeming lack of imagination or ability to create net-new experiences or in the least broader experiences. Even though every upcoming game’s claim to fame sounds like “we’re different!” Just like everyone else.
As i remember, EQ is mostly a bunch of hunting place to kill mobs for xp. There is nil story in most of the places and i wouldn't call mobs standing around to be killed a lot of content.
That is of course pertaining to the leveling experience.
What’s the difference between camping mobs that stand or patrol (patrol as many did), or re-entering the same instance time and time again where mobs are in the same place?
It’s the pot calling the kettle black… though the pot is void of other players *yawn*
To get story, every popular camping spot had quests linked to it. You either did quests or you didn't, but many did as we'd often be pulling qust items from drops.
Differences ... quests drive players to kill different mobs as opposed to the same one at the same spot over and over again. And going though an instance .. at least you get to crawl through a dungeon, and kill some bosses .. than just repeat the SAME spawn again, again and again.
And true .. story is irrelevant in either case (it is not like people care abt wow's story while grinding instances for xp) but i prefer an instance dungeon crawl any day any time over killing the same spawns over and over and over again.
♦Quest driven players- it's the same in both examples. As I explained, camps are a part of quests too. That is just a fact.
♦Killing mobs over and over agian- again, be it camping or instances, you kill the same mobs over and over again.
♦Moving- You are moving over the same inch of land 10x over or more. And anyway camps move too, especially pullers.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but it's just marketing hype, it's the same thing, just now they save tons of money using instances as they are very efficient on bandwidth usage. It's not even mmog content but multi-player/solo content that the stale CRPG’s have been doing for years, but with a marketing spin.
Early MMO games brought with them the hope and expectation that we would see more and more innovation and excitement in online experiences. Passing 10 years of mainstream online gaming, MMOs have peaked and begun devolving into cash injection mechanisms. Have we seen much that’s actually new in game mechanics? New in the way the game is approached or experienced by its players? Have we seen larger, grander, and more flexible sandboxes designed? That was the original direction and I believe intention of many early MMO designers.
We have seen much better gaming experience (instances, faster travel, dungeon finder). We have seen new directions like fully voice and real stories injected into MMOs (TOR is not out yet).
Plus, sandbox is a old and failed idea. More sandbox -> going back to the old days and that is not innovative. Innovative is something new .. like branching story lines.
The original "direction", as you called it .. failed and replaced by innovations.
More like Sony bought it so they could let it rot and not be in competition with their EQII and eventually EQIII they're mostly likely developing atm.
Extrapolating on eq2, EQ3 will have no death penalty. It will have an in game cash shop. It will be soloable. Plenty of instancing and so on. The only thing it will share with EQ1 is some lore.
So another WOW clone? I dont think so. I think we are entering a new era in mmo's. Time will tell however and im sure there will be a few released in the same tired manner but I look for new ideas to emerge in the next couple of years. GW2 is looiing in that direction now it seems.
More like Sony bought it so they could let it rot and not be in competition with their EQII and eventually EQIII they're mostly likely developing atm.
Extrapolating on eq2, EQ3 will have no death penalty. It will have an in game cash shop. It will be soloable. Plenty of instancing and so on. The only thing it will share with EQ1 is some lore.
So another WOW clone? I dont think so. I think we are entering a new era in mmo's. Time will tell however and im sure there will be a few released in the same tired manner but I look for new ideas to emerge in the next couple of years. GW2 is looiing in that direction now it seems.
I don't thnk he is far off.
the new era of mmo's, at least for mass consumption, will be easy to get into, cater to the working person, will have a cash shop of some sort, allow greater tools for socialization and not in the standard ways it's been done. I think some devs might try to capitalize on the whole social networking site idea or at least try to tie it in somehow.
I see future mass consumption mmo's getting easier and catering more toward casual players.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Unfortunately, if there ever is another Everquest, and SOE has any hand in it, I will avoid it like the plague. SOE just can't be trusted.
But as far as the high fantasy genre, how could it possibly die? There's just too much to cover if you have a little imagination. The thing about WoW, is that they took EQ, gear ladder and terrible economy and all, and put it on steroids, gave it simple but colorful graphics, and some sound effects, and people flocked to it. But it is a high fantasy MMO, so I am guessing that the concept has plenty of life in it.
Thats exactly what I said above, in the part you quoted. Vanguard was published before it was ready, and thats why it had, among other things, a lot of bugs, lack of highlevel content, etc. Thanks to the state of the game, it failed. If you can learn anything from Vanguard, then its that you shouldnt publish unpolished games. Ever. Unless you like failures.
The more important lesson to learn from the Sigil/Vanguard debacle is to not try to develop a game that your funding cannot support. Vanguard was published early and incomplete because Sigil run out of money way too early and their publishes did not like them enough to throw good money after bad. SOE is really the only reason the game was actually released at all. Not publishing the game at all would probably have been an even bigger failure.
Early MMO games brought with them the hope and expectation that we would see more and more innovation and excitement in online experiences. Passing 10 years of mainstream online gaming, MMOs have peaked and begun devolving into cash injection mechanisms. Have we seen much that’s actually new in game mechanics? New in the way the game is approached or experienced by its players? Have we seen larger, grander, and more flexible sandboxes designed? That was the original direction and I believe intention of many early MMO designers.
We have seen much better gaming experience (instances, faster travel, dungeon finder). We have seen new directions like fully voice and real stories injected into MMOs (TOR is not out yet).
Plus, sandbox is a old and failed idea. More sandbox -> going back to the old days and that is not innovative. Innovative is something new .. like branching story lines.
The original "direction", as you called it .. failed and replaced by innovations.
The original direction did not as much fail but stagnate and fail to evolve. EQ evolved into WoW and the 'themepark' design is now in danger of stagnating as well. Both design-bases need jumpstarts that will push them into a new generation.
The old 'sandbox' design is outdated and seems to produce games like Darkfall. A next generation 'sandbox' has to take the basic principles of sanbox play, discard the 'traditional frills' that are now holding them back and push it into a higher orbit.
eg. SWG had player cities and EVE has territorial control and player owned stations. A next gen sandbox game should push these concepts so players can bind together to build working nations and civilzations rathet than the skeletons that are today's guilds and corporations.
Comments
Sooo ... you just want them to recreate EQ and EQ2 in a different way ?
More competent coding ? Now what the heck would that be ? Games will always be buggy. Only way to get a bugfree game is to make said game correspondingly simple.
I dont think the issue of Vanguard was lack of competence - the issue is that a 200+ developer game was, in the middle of the development process, suddenly published and soon after brought down to 25 or so developers who are not only expected to fix the bugs, but also emit new content. Yes, Vanguard IS in a very funny state ... but its problem is lack of funding.
I still dont see how EQ3 will be anything but EQ/EQ2 with better graphics.
I dont think many expect a game to have zero bugs, but you have to admit at launch vanguard was infested with bugs anywhere you went in that game. Add in the fact that even people who had high end computers had problems running it and you have a lot of players quitting. I had guild mates build brand new computers just so they could play this game and they said it still wasnt great.
It got better sure, but by the time the performance issues were dealt with (not entirely) they were hacking away at many of the features they promised at release. I gave vanguard 2 tries (played at launch then quit for a year), stayed and played that game for about 5 months each time. It has amazing concepts for races/classes...possibly my favorite ever in a game. I loved so many things about vanguard but too much of the crap they were throwing at us drove me away.
Knowing SOE, I would expect Everquest Next to be a cash shop game with anime models aimed at the pre-teen market and accessed through Facebook. I imagine that's what Brenlo left EQ2 to work on.
It would be nice, but as others mentioned I fear it will just be some cash shop version.
So much of what I loved about EQ1, they completely removed in EQ2. Being able to buff new players, or heck anyone, was something I sorely missed in EQ2. It was a great way to initiate interactions and just was a nice feeling helping people. Then there were the so overly balanced classes in EQ2. They all felt the same with none of the uniqueness their EQ1 counterparts had. The original content and EoF retained much of what I loved about Norrath, but subsequent expansions were mostly a bunch of ugly islands in the sky over and over. Parts of EQ2 I did really like...the crafting, housing, shiny collecting, guild structure, events.
Vanguard, on the other hand, did have classes I enjoyed playing, but just lacked other things. I always wished they could take the best ideas from both games and mix them together.
I'd love to see Norrath again. I don't want to get too hopeful, but still curious to see what they will come up with the third time around.
I think the basic Genre that EQ represents is a dead fantasy period. This applies to all other kill/grind/quest style MMO's. For the first time in over 10+ years of continous MMO playing i have no interest at all in playing that format of an online game ever again. It would be silly to make another of the 1000 MMOs that require us to kill a bear and return to level gaming formats. It's time to move on to the next level which will be social networking MMOs more based on relationships from the beginning to any super ultra story line.
As i remember, EQ is mostly a bunch of hunting place to kill mobs for xp. There is nil story in most of the places and i wouldn't call mobs standing around to be killed a lot of content.
That is of course pertaining to the leveling experience.
I don't consider the above statement to be fact at all. Look at the most popular mmorpg to-date WoW. It has very little story whatsoever. Everquest 2 certainly has a more fleshed out Lore than World of Warcraft I'm sorry.
Warhammer has a HUGE story, tons of lore. Mythic screwed the pooch on that one. 'Off Topic I know<---
So like I said a few posts above, If Sigil /verant makes the next Everquest I'll play it. Give them a massive budget and have EA publish it. Yes i'd rather have EA publish it than Sony......
A man or "gamer" should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Thats exactly what I said above, in the part you quoted. Vanguard was published before it was ready, and thats why it had, among other things, a lot of bugs, lack of highlevel content, etc. Thanks to the state of the game, it failed. If you can learn anything from Vanguard, then its that you shouldnt publish unpolished games. Ever. Unless you like failures.
While bugs have been fixed and content has been added, Vanguard is nowhere near where it should be in respect to player count.
EverQuest Next is a browser game and will gain the same popularity as Farmville.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
What’s the difference between camping mobs that stand or patrol (patrol as many did), or re-entering the same instance time and time again where mobs are in the same place?
It’s the pot calling the kettle black… though the pot is void of other players *yawn*
To get story, every popular camping spot had quests linked to it. You either did quests or you didn't, but many did as we'd often be pulling qust items from drops.
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
FIRST EQ .. not EQ2 .. plus a bunch of lore written in text is pointless. It does not show up in gameplay.
And there is no gameplay but kill stuff in EQ (at least for the leveling part). In fact, few pays attention to the lore of WOW, except things like the Undercity quest where you actually experience some story through scripted events.
Differences ... quests drive players to kill different mobs as opposed to the same one at the same spot over and over again. And going though an instance .. at least you get to crawl through a dungeon, and kill some bosses .. than just repeat the SAME spawn again, again and again.
And true .. story is irrelevant in either case (it is not like people care abt wow's story while grinding instances for xp) but i prefer an instance dungeon crawl any day any time over killing the same spawns over and over and over again.
Yes, a new EverQuest game would be awesome. But only if it's more like EQ1 and not made by SOE. I don't want a subscription + cash shop type game. Plus, SOE would do anything for their game to become WoW2.
This is a fact. Vanguard was bought exactly for this reason...
This is pure specilation but you can expect any game coming out from Sony to follow the Free Realms model... Web platform with some form of cash shop and even social network implimentation, so you can nag all your facebook friends to join you EQ "Mafia"
I can swear I read somewhere that The Agency was following the Free Realms platform, it would only make sense they do this for all other incarnations of games they produce moving forward, at least from a business perspective...
Personally I am not a fan, but hey "It ain't show friends, it's show business"
What are your other Hobbies?
Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...
I don't for a minute agree that it makes sense for SOE to follow the same business model with every game they produce. What makes sense is that they identify for each game the market they are aiming at and the most viable and appropriate business model for that particular market. If they are looking for Everquest Next to fill a gap in the Free Realms market then adopting the same business model as that game would make sense, but if they're looking to recapture the original EQ market then it wouldn't make a lot of sense to adopt the Free Realms business model at all.
“By gamers, for gamers” A meaningless fluff statement these days, every person thinks they could make the perfect MMO. Every company thinks they must make the next WOW and spin PR pretending they are not trying to… It’s all about the dollars and no sense.
I am sadly disenchanted at this point with most upcoming online games. When MMO’s arrived it was the baby’s breath of a new kind of gaming media, social interaction, exploration, and player competition.
Much as Doom rung in a new game type staple (FPS) that can easily have the “more things change the more they stay…” quip applied to it. MMOs appear to have suffered a similar and yet worse fate.
Early MMO games brought with them the hope and expectation that we would see more and more innovation and excitement in online experiences. Passing 10 years of mainstream online gaming, MMOs have peaked and begun devolving into cash injection mechanisms. Have we seen much that’s actually new in game mechanics? New in the way the game is approached or experienced by its players? Have we seen larger, grander, and more flexible sandboxes designed? That was the original direction and I believe intention of many early MMO designers.
MMO’s took the rails off of the computer and console role playing game. Today they are snapped right back on in theme parks. Though often beautiful, you can’t live in a theme park. Try Disneyland for 10 days straight. Eventually you feel it’s time to go home, even if you love it there.
Create more worlds to role play in, I do not mean “I shall strike thee down vile baddie”. I am referring to immersion role play, imagining you are living in the world you explore. Crossing over a hill with anticipation on what is on the other side. Feeling as though the world is seamless, natural, and full of wonderment, not contrived or heavily instanced.
The newest thing we have seen is acceptance by companies and players of cash shop acquired items. Micro-transactions, and pay per minute is on the horizon as a prominent pay plan. (Some countries already have this due to their play limit rules.) This means nothing to players and all to the bean-counters.
Nearing 500 words so I will end…
Based on current offerings, it appears the best I have to look forward to is more of the same. Just a different world, maybe different class names for Wizard. Oh a mystic, oh a demonologist, necromancer, etc… It’s not the class archetypes or skill trees. It is the seeming lack of imagination or ability to create net-new experiences or in the least broader experiences. Even though every upcoming game’s claim to fame sounds like “we’re different!” Just like everyone else.
♦Quest driven players- it's the same in both examples. As I explained, camps are a part of quests too. That is just a fact.
♦Killing mobs over and over agian- again, be it camping or instances, you kill the same mobs over and over again.
♦Moving- You are moving over the same inch of land 10x over or more. And anyway camps move too, especially pullers.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but it's just marketing hype, it's the same thing, just now they save tons of money using instances as they are very efficient on bandwidth usage. It's not even mmog content but multi-player/solo content that the stale CRPG’s have been doing for years, but with a marketing spin.
Don't drink the kool-aid!
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
Early MMO games brought with them the hope and expectation that we would see more and more innovation and excitement in online experiences. Passing 10 years of mainstream online gaming, MMOs have peaked and begun devolving into cash injection mechanisms. Have we seen much that’s actually new in game mechanics? New in the way the game is approached or experienced by its players? Have we seen larger, grander, and more flexible sandboxes designed? That was the original direction and I believe intention of many early MMO designers.
We have seen much better gaming experience (instances, faster travel, dungeon finder). We have seen new directions like fully voice and real stories injected into MMOs (TOR is not out yet).
Plus, sandbox is a old and failed idea. More sandbox -> going back to the old days and that is not innovative. Innovative is something new .. like branching story lines.
The original "direction", as you called it .. failed and replaced by innovations.
So another WOW clone? I dont think so. I think we are entering a new era in mmo's. Time will tell however and im sure there will be a few released in the same tired manner but I look for new ideas to emerge in the next couple of years. GW2 is looiing in that direction now it seems.
I don't thnk he is far off.
the new era of mmo's, at least for mass consumption, will be easy to get into, cater to the working person, will have a cash shop of some sort, allow greater tools for socialization and not in the standard ways it's been done. I think some devs might try to capitalize on the whole social networking site idea or at least try to tie it in somehow.
I see future mass consumption mmo's getting easier and catering more toward casual players.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Unfortunately, if there ever is another Everquest, and SOE has any hand in it, I will avoid it like the plague. SOE just can't be trusted.
But as far as the high fantasy genre, how could it possibly die? There's just too much to cover if you have a little imagination. The thing about WoW, is that they took EQ, gear ladder and terrible economy and all, and put it on steroids, gave it simple but colorful graphics, and some sound effects, and people flocked to it. But it is a high fantasy MMO, so I am guessing that the concept has plenty of life in it.
Kool-aid.
Fast travel isn't new, just way over used now.
Dungeon finders, you only need them in over instanced games that are more solo/multi-player games rather than mmo's.
Voice isn't new.
Innovation? Marketing wrapper.
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
The more important lesson to learn from the Sigil/Vanguard debacle is to not try to develop a game that your funding cannot support. Vanguard was published early and incomplete because Sigil run out of money way too early and their publishes did not like them enough to throw good money after bad. SOE is really the only reason the game was actually released at all. Not publishing the game at all would probably have been an even bigger failure.
The original direction did not as much fail but stagnate and fail to evolve. EQ evolved into WoW and the 'themepark' design is now in danger of stagnating as well. Both design-bases need jumpstarts that will push them into a new generation.
The old 'sandbox' design is outdated and seems to produce games like Darkfall. A next generation 'sandbox' has to take the basic principles of sanbox play, discard the 'traditional frills' that are now holding them back and push it into a higher orbit.
eg. SWG had player cities and EVE has territorial control and player owned stations. A next gen sandbox game should push these concepts so players can bind together to build working nations and civilzations rathet than the skeletons that are today's guilds and corporations.