I disagree with the "your first mmo colors your experience". UO was my first. I moved on and tried EQ and AC and others. Overall, my favorite was AC (my third), though strangely the most memorable scenes are all coming out of EQ1 (running from Queynos to Freeport, hiding behind trees, peering into actually-dark darkness, trying not to get squished, and feeling genuinely impressed with myself that I made it without getting killed (a few times, anyway)). So, my favorite was my third, and the most memories come out of my second? As for stuff since, Vanguard is it. Diplomacy system, crafting, a giant world to explore that isn't colored-by-numbers and is just as happy to smack you as greet you.
Saddest change in a game? When EQ2 adopted the Wow-esque "glowing symbol" over a quest-giver's head. Why sad? Because they had gone for immersion before that. They made quest-givers wave at you or call your name as you passed -- in other words, trying to get you INVOLVED in the world AS a world, rather than just "hop your quest-treadmill here".
I started playing Asheron's Call with my dad when I was 9. I personally remember how hard the game was, but even thenI always felt really immersed in the game. I also didn't mind grinding nearly as much back then; I used to spend hours hacking away at Lugians in this shitty little dungeon.
I really understand all this nostalgia everyone talks about. I miss how that game used to feel, all the feelings of excitement when I got a new level, getting my next piece of gear, it was a rush. I haven't felt it since then, but I have semi-replaced it with LOTRO. It's another feeling of immersion I'm really getting into lately.
Basically my point is that... I feel like games have been going through a phase. Back during my first run with MMOs, they were new. They were setting a lot of standards that to this day are still being followed. They created large expansive worlds, and classless player characters. After this era, game makers from different companies basically just saw the profit to be made from online games, and cashed in on it, making sub-par games that were both easier to play, and easier to make. Obviously, we're still seeing the effects of this, and me in biased rage considers WOW to be one of these games.
I firmly believe that we are seeing a rise back to that old awesome and cared for feel of games that we felt back in 97. Just cause we went through a shitty decade, doesn't mean it's a sign of things to come.
Something I've noticed about the newbie experience in the modern games I've tried is that although that gentle newbie experience is great for your main, that same content can becomes a great liability when starting an alts - I find it has very low replay value when you are an experienced player with a new character.
I have always enjoyed the older MMOs for the reasons you mentioned much more than the current ones. I'm in the red corner on this fight. I miss the sandbox feeling and the large open worlds.
the old games were more interested in the RPG part (not walking around mucking up in a brit accent, systems that fed the "world" feel), the newer ones with a very few exceptions... not so much. Every time you hear someone say "you've gotta race through the 1-79 so you can get to the REAL game at the endgame" -- that's what I mean. An RPG, be it single-player or an MMORPG, should be about the JOURNEY and the WORLD -- not "rush to RAID and that's it, newb".
I have been playing MMOs for ages and while I'd like to say that the older one's were generally better, I wonder how much nostalgia effects my judgement.
I consider this at times, as well. It's hard for me to compare old titles and new titles without feeling like there's a certain lack of detail, in exchange for something more glamorous, in what's been released during the past ten years or so. If you go through many of my old posts, you'll see I bring up Ultima Online pretty frequently. People have quoted things like FAA PvP, the grinding, or the complete open endedness as bad things, but I'm still reminded that this was a game that had open world player housing, a complex guild and warring system, a karma system to balance PvP, crafting that actually matter and characters were dependent upon, and an environment that allowed any player style to flourish with the right amount of effort and know-how. Really, it's all about the details when you break down MMO titles. What are we getting? How many "things" are there for a player to actually do? Is there enough choice to keep someone interested? It's hard to look at the list of features offered by Ultima Online and find a comparable title that persists today, even almost ten years after its release.
I think it's pretty obvious that my point of view on the matter is that older is better, that MMO companies have developed a stream of games that I associate more with console titles than PC's during the last decade, in that they provide more focused, linear experiences. This is fine, and there are going to be a large majority of people who prefer this. However, there are people like me who struggle to find the point in developing a game and labeling it an MMO when all that's being offered is the same thing that can be found in a single player RPG with a multiplayer feature. I'm not knocking this style, I've played games like this that I've enjoyed, but I want massive worlds in my MMO's, with enough details and options that can keep me playing for years, and customizability that isn't just picking different colors or templates. Kinda like UO.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Think about old versus new this way, as well: starting areas. EQ1 launched with a huge # of starting areas, which meant that you could run more than one character (I refuse to use the terminology "alt") and not feel the "I just did this" sense. WoW launched with 4. Runes of Magic launched with (in effect) 2. the lesson? Make a big world. Fill it with colorful starting areas and interweave the zones and DON'T segregate whole zones into the "only levels 10-20 benefit here" mentality.
"However, there are people like me who struggle to find the point in developing a game and labeling it an MMO when all that's being offered is the same thing that can be found in a single player RPG with a multiplayer feature."
That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I think. Single-player RPGs build out a world and lore that is generally rich and vibrant, with a variety of systems that heighten the immersion and sense of interaction. the newer MMOs drop PRECISELY this in favor of the one-stop-shop of "rush to endgame, RAID" or "PVP above all". A good MMO would have RAIDs and a robust PvP system -- and many, many other systems, because the TOTALITY of the systems is what creates the sense of a world feeling like a world and heightens your involvement in those worlds. The "single-player RPG" aspects are, to me, almost non-existent in the newer games, as the name-of-the-game is to NOT require you to think or figure anything out for yourself.
"However, there are people like me who struggle to find the point in developing a game and labeling it an MMO when all that's being offered is the same thing that can be found in a single player RPG with a multiplayer feature." That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I think. Single-player RPGs build out a world and lore that is generally rich and vibrant, with a variety of systems that heighten the immersion and sense of interaction. the newer MMOs drop PRECISELY this in favor of the one-stop-shop of "rush to endgame, RAID" or "PVP above all". A good MMO would have RAIDs and a robust PvP system -- and many, many other systems, because the TOTALITY of the systems is what creates the sense of a world feeling like a world and heightens your involvement in those worlds. The "single-player RPG" aspects are, to me, almost non-existent in the newer games, as the name-of-the-game is to NOT require you to think or figure anything out for yourself.
I probably could have been more specific. In regards to newer MMO's playing like single player RPG's, I mean in relation to what you're actually doing. Most MMO's I've played in the last year have been entirely single player experiences, without the story. There's no cooperation, no community, no necessities to work together - it's just player A and player B running through the same or similar quests, and whether or not they were actually there is irrelevant, because they're not interacting and nothing changes in these worlds based on who's where, or what they're doing. I might as well be playing them offline, and even then, I'd probably have a better experience in any of the Fallout or Elder Scrolls games.
I'd also agree that the trend is to make things as easy on players as possible, as to avoid critical thinking or discovery, which were two of the greatest boon's to playing an oldschool MMO like UO.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
I would agree 90% of what the writer has in numbers.. The part that I differ a little is the last part about newbie experience.. I'm not sure I would give the "new" mmo a huge win as you did.. I think the old mmo should of been awarded 5 points, instead of 3.. However, to me that is a double edge blade.. You want to have a good tutorial, but do you want someone holding your hand? (shrug)..
In addition I'm curious of your thoughts of instancing in the games.. In the old days, groups often fought over camps, mobs and whatnots.. Yes there were cases that became annoying, and at times just hateful.. However, most of the time we all learned to respect each other, unless it was an epic mob that dropped an epic piece, then it was race on who could do the most damage and win the loot.. Cleric epic camp in EQ1's Skyfire comes to mind.. So many of the newer mmos went down the path of instancing so that everyone has a chance.. I can understand that when it comes to epic quest drops.. But for general loot drops and exp.. I hate instancing.. IMO that game mechanic is anything but social.. It takes players OUT of the open world puts them in their own lil one.. Sorta defeats the whole purpose of a MMO to begin with, doesn't it?
I would of also liked to see your rating on raiding.. To me old mmo raiding was damn near PERFECT.. With the exception of character level, I was never excluded from a raid, EVER.. When guilds did raids back in EQ1 days, such as ToV, as long as you had primary roles filled such as tank, heals, etc.. Everyone went.. I played a druid and was often healer of my group.. Normally that group not being a PRIME tank or pulling group, but support range group like rangers and nukers.. You could of been a brand new lvl 60 toon, and 99% of the time you were invited to raid.. Raiding was large and social, and there were little to no exclusion tools to keep people fom joining in.. In all the days of raiding in the old days.. We never once delayed or ended a raid because people had to leave or were not present at the start of raid time.. The point here is that normally on any given raid night, there was multiple tanks and healers to keep a raid going reguardless who came late, or left early..
Was the old mmos perfect.. oh heck NO.. Even UO, AC and EQ1 needed tweaking, but it appears to me that so many of the new mmos' went overboard and tweaked the flaws into carebear city.. or went off into new genre of Esport.. Not that there is anything wrong with Esport games.. However, my gripe is call it for what it is, and be honest about it.. I can think of one game today that starts off as a RPG game, but ends as an Esport..
Only thing better about new games are graphic and newb experience. I know because my 1st mmorpg was wow. As a newb, i liked it. After 3 months, i left and decided to try an old school style mmorpg. not an old game, but still old school and its Darkfall. Its a niche game, but to me, 100 time better then the mainstream mmorpg that we have nowadays.
This is almost an impossible comparison article because nostalgia automatically adds bias. It is automatic to look back at those games with rose colored glasses but you know they had a lot of flaws too. Some of which that most players wouldn't even put up with today. I think the genre has evolved, in some ways good and in some ways not so much. How can you even compare new player experiences when the games back that are at an automatic disadvantage due to technology? How can you compare game worlds when the games today have the advantage of having that much more resources at their disposal?
Someone who started playing MMO's in 1999 is almost automatically going to have a different weight system then someone who started in 2004, and that's only a 5 year difference. I think the articles should stick to game-to-game comparisons.
Yes, your first few years of gaming in online worlds will influence your opinions, likes and dislikes on gaming. The problem with modern games isn't that they aren't just like older games. Many of the changes to gaming was necessary and have made gaming better. The problem is they lost the things that made the original games so fun despite their problems. Most newer games are just not very challeging. No or little death penalties, instant travel, easy avoidance of random mobs, etc. I haven't felt threatened or excited or anything of an emotional attatchment to any of the newer games. From newbie day one everything is lined up for you to easily follow directions to get from lev 1 to max. There's no reason to explore and nothing surprises you, as everthing is following quests/missions from npc to area and then led to another npc. I used to make hand made maps in everquest to avaid danger spots or to find the zone point and not get lost. It was an adventure just to get to the spot to meet your group.
Not everthing was great about older games, mechanics much improved, but the challenges of the game created tighter communities and a different feel to the game.
I like the fact that there are more stuctured quests and not just time-sink grinding, but not as the only options. There should be areas to just explore and fight and still get enough xp to level. I like not having to run across the world for half hour to get somewhere to fight an over camped mob to hopefully get them to drop a piece of gear, just to die and have to run it again, but there should be some excitement and adventure in travelling across a world filled with monsters.
The answer is to find creative ways to combine the improvements made in game mechanics without losing the feel and adventure of a huge and dangerous world. I'm not a programmer and I know there will be limits to what you can do with mechanics, but some of the excitement and surprise can be brought back to a virtual world.
Example) Have instant travel to get from city to city, but missions that include exploring and travelling-defending a merchant caravan with random attacks by mobs or quests that u use skills to find lost or hidden npc's, temples, ruins, etc-your given a large area of forest to explore using tracking, magic, finding clues etc-find a hermit with info to location, but must do a side quest for him to get info-mobs spawn randomly during travel. (I know that random spawning is possible as I've encountered it in recent games in missions).
Bottom line, bring back a higher threat level for excitement, more surprises and more reason to explore a huge world.
Just remembered, a mob in EQ might chase you all the way across a zone until it caught you or you zoned out. Annoying, yes, but exciting zoning with only a few hit points left.
So you played eq1 in 1999 at an age of eight ? Humm .. owell lets leave it there.
But, you are so spot on it could have been my own words.
I have way too many days /played in mmos since I also started eq1 in 1999.
I rounded eq2, vanguard, wow, conan, aion since and none has ever been close to offering what eq1 did. Eq1 was not perfect and it has definately gone downhill since SoE took over from Verant, but it invoked excitement simply because it made you feel like an adventurer instead of a guided tour through this-and-that game. And dont give me that bull about "first game is always your best" because its just too easy - My first game was space invaders.
So why was games better back then ? it's simple - Back then games were run by enthusiasts and geeks, nowadays games are run by suits. I went down to my bank last week and they had a folder with some picture from wow, where they clearly stated that they thought gamers were wierd geeks but they invested in those games because they could see a profit. To me that folder said it all. It is not a political view, its just an explanation of why we dont see good games anymore.
Did we all clap our hands in excitement when we read about Vanguard thinking "YES this is the real eq2" ? They had all the right intentions for a quality game but unfortunately as we all know, their ambitions weighed more than their purses. What I realized then was there will not be a new game that focus on quality because bling-bling just earn more money.
Back to this article. Description of games over the years is spot on, but the comparison of old vs new is just plain silly.
Cheers, embrace what games can offer nowadays because the past is the past and will never come back.
Originally it was to mask spartan content so that people could not blow through it too quickly. The developers wanted you to prolong your subs. It wasn't immersion or any other romantic ideals. Simply a way to slow people down from finishing the limited things to do.
This is a bogus argument. Asheron's Call had long travel times. Why? Because it was a virtual world, with content all over the place. Ultima Online had long travel times. Why? In order to provide the player with random content, both from other players and monsters. Again it was a virtual world.
I think MMO's today have lost the entire virtual world concept which is relatively open ended and instead embraced the game scope concept where there is a start and a finish. Yes the genre is growing because of it, but I think what people are getting at here is that the genre is growing away from the concepts that originally made it appealing in the first place.
It is no longer virtual reality that is being sought by many games. This is what old farts like me who were around at the beginning wanted, and the next game to improve on the virtual reality aspect will be the game we play.
dar_es_balat you sum it up succinctly, & I agree with your comment wholeheartedly.
A huge amount of the "feel" of the older games was the immersion into a virtual world, this being the setting where your escapism, your suspension of your real & mundane life began.
Modern titles just feel too much like a game & less like worlds & it makes me sad.
Vanguard was the swansong that never was, had it gotten proper backing, proper management & proper development it could have been the best of the older games rolled into one, instead of the messy unfinished technical nightmare it was at release.
Originally it was to mask spartan content so that people could not blow through it too quickly. The developers wanted you to prolong your subs. It wasn't immersion or any other romantic ideals. Simply a way to slow people down from finishing the limited things to do.
This is a bogus argument. Asheron's Call had long travel times. Why? Because it was a virtual world, with content all over the place. Ultima Online had long travel times. Why? In order to provide the player with random content, both from other players and monsters. Again it was a virtual world.
I think MMO's today have lost the entire virtual world concept which is relatively open ended and instead embraced the game scope concept where there is a start and a finish. Yes the genre is growing because of it, but I think what people are getting at here is that the genre is growing away from the concepts that originally made it appealing in the first place.
It is no longer virtual reality that is being sought by many games. This is what old farts like me who were around at the beginning wanted, and the next game to improve on the virtual reality aspect will be the game we play.
Asheron's Call really didn't have a lot of content though. Most of the content involved going from specific hotspots to specific hotspots, leveling in generally generic dungeons by repeatedly bashing something's skull in (unless you were a mage...) and then going to a different spot when it was convenient.
The thing that drove asheron's call wasn't its use of content, but by just having a large, open, easy to traverse world unless you really wanted to go to a particularly far-reaching space (such as fort teth without a portal) and the like with many exploration opportunities for areas that generally were filled with some interesting architecture or dungeon but very little to no real explanation as to it's existence. This relatively hollow "content" was merely augmented by the dev's desire to actually have a story, something most MMO's these days generally miss, make completely static and reusable, and generally don't advance short of token patches every so often, maybe, that adds one dungeon you're expected to do 20 million times over because you have to.
Asheron's Call's content was purely driven by one's desire to explore, and it still fell down to exploring in areas designed for people around your level, else you got horribly murdered by a lugian or an olthoi or virindi or some other bastard that wanted to kill you. However, the game generally wasn't quest driven, it wasn't a sandbox in the sense of "build your own world" and hardly, by today's standards, constituted a lot of content.
It was an explorer's wet dream, but that's just because it had large, expansive spaces with a lot of lore-less dungeons with some lore-driven dungeons intersperced here and there. In general, however, it may as well have been a completely flat world with monster spawns at progressively higher levels with the occasional cave every so-often tailored to a specific level range (or level range for a group) of people.
But, again, the driving force of that game if you weren't into exploration like I was was to simply wait one month for the next wall of text story, the new handful of lore-driven (or simply random) dungeons, a new big-bad (or continuation as such with in-game events) and in general just more of the same. Running around, finding a new dungeon through exploration, and seeing what you can do.
It really didn't have a lot of content. It just happened to spark a person's imagination and make them believe it had a lot of content when it mostly was a barren world. To that end, it actually succeeded really well at the purpose of a video game, which is one of the reasons I still hold it so highly despite its obvious and apparent flaws by today's standards.
As someone who most enjoys exploration in mmos, I know exactly what you mean. Unfortunately, I never got a chance to play AC, but I've found it's quite easy to self-direct in games with expansive open worlds to explore - so long as there are actually interesting things to be found.
The only games I've played that really had that completely openworld feel were SWG and Lineage 2 - but even those (mostly SWG) where really just bumpy planes of terrain with randomly scattered trees and the occaisional river. It's when you realize that fact that exploration becames kind of pointless.
On the flipside, I've even enjoyed exploration in games such as WoW and FFXI - very handcrafted and defined worlds - because they had plenty of interesting things to see. The problem with those is you'll get to most places and realize "oh, this place seems designed for a quest." So the cool stuff doesn't happen unless I go back and get the quest, then come here. And even then, probably almost everyone has seen that cool and interesting place, because they've been directed there by the quest. Again, kinda takes the fun out of it after you realize that.
I wonder if there ever has been/will be a game with a large, open, handcrafted world (nothing randomly generated or repeatedly plain) that is full of things to discover, but you aren't necessarily directed toward them, nor do you need a quest to see them...
So far the only game I see on the horizon that might accomplish that particular goal is TERA, but we'll see - GW2 also seems to cater to explorer types but in a different way with dynamic events. I'm hoping developers understand the pull of this kind of gameplay and start to design for it.
I think there are many well written points here, that are continually ignored during this sort of discussion. As already said, the bottom line is that there is a huge difference between a game and a virtual world, whether people want to admit that or not. A virtual world by its very definition will have more tedious things over a game, because the games usually gut those out and replace them with more 'heroic' action.
The first batch of games in this genre were different in many ways, but they were similar in that they were worlds that players wanted to live in. Today living in a world has been replaced with you being the hero of a game, and as a side bonus, there are hundreds of other heroes online with you. Simple as that.
The rose colored glasses argument is just dumb. For nostalgia to make sense, it would require that the games haven't changed much, other than graphics and bugs obviously. Then you could claim, yeah, you guys are just biased to your first game, things are better now. But the games HAVE changed, in a big way. Could it be that some people don't like the changes? Of course it is. It has nothing to do with your first game played.
I have no such problem in other genres, so why doesn't the argument hold true there. FPS, flight simulators and RTSs have not changed fundamentally at all. The graphics, flash and controls are all better and streamlined. The core of the game has remained, and I enjoy the new ones as much as the old ones, and in fact, really cannot get into the old games because they don't really measure up to the newer ones.
If I take my flight simulators, remove landing, take-offs, flying to objectives, simplify the radar, get rid of stalls and cornering speed management, make the action faster and add more missiles and bad guys to add to the action... well that's not a flight simulator, no matter how flashy the action looks. Its just an action game that looks like the flight simulator i used to play. Yet what i see, to continue the analogy, is people saying, "yeah but all the boring stuff is removed, the game is way better now, the action is way better, you just have nostalgia for your first game,". What???
I only half agree with the newbie experience score. Although it is objectively better in every way in the newer games i always feel like i've sort of cheated because it feels like my character has started at level 5 with some ok gear.
I think the ideal for me would be a newer game style tutorial but with a stock character. So the first time you played you had the option of going through the tutorial mini-zone and it would show you the game but it wouldn't be your character so when it was over you started as "normal", which for me would mean something like level 0 in Surefall in the dark with no torch and no gear apart from some rags and a ****-covered stick.
(I grouped with a really good halfling puller in EQ for a time who turned out to be eight.)
I cannot decide which I like more, the old MMORPGs or the new. Both have things I like and things I don't like. The first game I really got into was EQ1 but I've enjoyed newer games too.
Many new games certainly are much more newbie friendly with introductory quests that help one get familiar with the world, the charcater class and the controls. This makes it easy for a new-comer but I have to agree that we lose the experience and enjoyment of figuring out how things work on our own. Finding out by yourself how to do something is much more gratifying than just being told how to do it. Furthermore, no matter how good an introduction is, it will get very old if you have to repeat it with each new character.
I'm not sure if I agree on the size of the game world. Sure the old games feel larger but it's mainly due to mounts and other fast methods of travel in the new games. Sure, running from Qeynos to Freeport takes time but so does running (on foot, not riding or flying) from Darnassus to Gadgetzan. Old games feel larger also because their sometimes were emptier, where as the new games are shock-full of places and content. The Commonlands and Plains of Karana are mainly grassland with few setlements scattered around. The road from Darnassus to Gadgetzan on the other hand is full of villages and other locations. Again, fast travel and teleportation makes it easier to get from one place to another and reduces time wasted on travelling. Nice and convenient but the other side to this is that it really shrinks the game world and takes away the feeling of being in a "world". An expansive world becomes a small village where you can get almost anywhere you want within minutes. To me this is a big loss. Still I have to admit that it is very convenient to be able to teleport around and not keep your group waiting for you. Then again I was a wizard in EQ so I was teleporting there too
New games may seem linear and sometimes really are - free games more often than commercial, btw - but this is partly an illusion too. All well designed games have several zones appropriate to each level. The illusion of linearity is created, ironically enough, by the content, namely quests that lead the player from zone to zone along a pre-defined path. There are branches here and there but the quests do determine where you go next. Of course, you may ignore the quests chains and explore and pick one quest here and another there, or you may do all quests and end up going everywhere.
Don't get me wrong. Quests are good. I want quests. They add content and give stuff to do and have great potential for driving the story and making the world feel alive. Many old games had more grinding because they had fewer quests. However, the way quests are used to hold your hand and lead you around - sometimes even force you around - like a brainless idiot spoils much of the fun and wastes the potential. There are a lot of good and even excellent quests but there's the danger of blindly following the path quests lay out for you and to forget the freedom you have. It is deceptively easy to fall into the rut of running around doing quests and to forget to look around and admire and explore the world you are in.
Leading you around is acceptable, the really annoying thing is the way quests are implemented in the new games, i.e. the way how they hold your hand and go to extremes to help you and make questing as easy and brainless activitiy as possible. I'm talking about the exlamation and question marks above quest vending machines (aka NPCs) and the detailed instructions on how to carry out a quest. It just makes me feel that my intelligence is being underestimated. I think I might like it if I would actually have to talk to NPCs to find quests and then figure out how to carry them out instead of looking for an exlamation mark and getting a detailed description on what, how, where and when I have to do whatever the quest requires me to do.
Hmm, looks like I'm leaning towards the older games. Maybe I'm just an old school gamer after all. Then again, I returned to Norrath after several years and am having a hard time with the grind needed to level my character. What makes it even worse is that almost all active players have top level characters and the low and mid level zones are literaly empty and feel rather dead. Even the bazaar, previously teeming with sellers and buyers, is now almost empty. No chance to make money by selling spider silk anymore, lol - or anything else really. I'm afraid my EQ glasses have lost some of the rosyness they had before my return to Norrath. Even so, my first MMORPG memories are from EQ and I doubt anything can displace it from the position it has in my heart.
I think it's an unfair comparison really and those arguing about how nostalgia isn't relevent are missing point.
The big thing I think causing nostalgia and people clamouring for the, 'old days', is something a lot of the newer MMOs don't have: A decent community with in community based goals.
I can remember in my ten odd years of playing enduring the most crappy of game mechanics, buggy encounters, tedious grinds/terking. why? Because I liked the people I was with and enjoyed whatever world it was with them.
In the race for more profits I think many companies, have as someone else said, moved away from trying to attract those like minded people and instead tried to appeal to mainstream greed culture. It's worked for some, others will and have failed.
Many of the newer MMO's have improved upon a lot of aspects of the genre. I can't help but wonder though if the price of success has meant the real exciting aspect of working with others has been left behind.
It is a shame he used Everquest as his example because that game is the reason for the morbidity of the genre today. It introduced rigid classes and restrictive levels. Poor guy, he never knew the freedom of games like UO, AC1 and pre NGE SWG. While it is true you could explore in Everquest, the freedom to design and play your character the way you like was non existent. If you are going to through in pvp, then DAoC still has not been bested in that arena.
There is not a game existent today that offers close to the game play of the early games.
I will agree with some of the prior comments, the early games had much better communities, but that is the price of progress, because the genre has expanded so rapidly.
I have yet hope that some developer will wake up and design a game that has some of the flavor of the older games with the freedom of character design and play.
Old vs New.. go play the grandfather of online games! Drakkar! Now that was a game.. old 2D sprite icons top down view but NO GAME has ever promoted group play as this one had! NO GAME! Paladin's best armor was he easiest boss but Paladin until later levels were weak and could not defeat it for many many levels so the class helped the Paladin get their armor.. The first armor for barbarians was the cloak from the second boss the Turtle and everyone and I mean everyone needed Barbarians since they would pump up and get 4 times hit points and 3 times attacking power but also defense decreased by 3 times so they were human pin cushions! At least 2 healers were needed to be casting heals on the barbarian and in later bosses mentalist to be casting partial invisibility and invulnerability on the barbarian to keep him alive.. Paladins at later levels had some good attacks that were great crowd control.. NOTHING has compared since and I bet nothing WILL! At high levels to get best gauntlets for the Monks needed to fight the Vampires and to fight Vamps required mining for Gold to buy Hit Points because they sucked Hit Points from you litterally on attacking! No CLASS had no purpose all were needed to support each other and help each other.. Every class was needed and required on boss hunts!
If you really want to experience a game where classes really mattered and were needed than try out the Drakkar it's still alive and kicking and free! And it IS the grandfather of all online games.. Drakkar and Legends of Kesmai but LOK is no longer around but Drakkar is still alive and well! Try out one of the very unique games that made online gaming popular for yourself! No game with all it's fancy graphics will ever come close unfortunately to say. Drakkar and LOK started on the original BBS boards and moved to Telnet and finally to become the first online graphic games on the internet.. they are the reason Ultima Online spawned as well as many others that were short lived but to this day Drakkar is still alive and kicking!
Sorry I forgot to post the most unique and fun aspects of the classes.. Barbarians when they went berserk they kept pumping up hitting the berserk button were BERSERK! The person controlling the barbarian had to keep the clickng praying the barbarian did not land on a party member because they would ONE SHOT KILL the part members as they were so strong! Talk about unique game play! The idea was to go to the lair.. everyone wait outside the lair.. barbarian go off screen and pump up than run back onscreen and attempt to get in the lair before killing anyone.. as soon as barbarian went in everyone else jumped in and started casting on the barbarian and hoping that the boss monster kept it's agro on the barbarian because if it didn't than not only was the boss a threat the barb was a threat too! Until the barb could get back in control and get back to attacking the boss and not the party members! Now that is what a Barbarians Berserk is suppose to be BERSERK!
While I don't mind giving deference to the people who disagree with me, there have been numerous blogs, interviews, and other material to back up the point that devs placed time sinks into games, like 40 minute travel times, not for some kind of expereience but to prevent people from level capping too quickly or eating up their spartan content. That's pretty well documented whether or not you want to belive it.
That didn't stop people from using the exploration as content. Or the grinding of random mobs along the way as content. Nearly every game did it to some degree or another.
As for rose colored glasses, well perhaps none of you suffer for it. My all time favorite game was one called Starflight. It was brilliant and on my XT, a ton of fun. I recently went back to play it through DOSBox and lo and behold, it was a real pain in the butt to play. Arcane key combinations, elements that didn't flow together, etc. I still love the memory, but the experience is clouded by the fact that it was brilliant for it's time.
Now I'm sure no one here is doing that... <sigh>. Older is not always better, or I'd just be plain awesome now.
Comments
As for stuff since, Vanguard is it. Diplomacy system, crafting, a giant world to explore that isn't colored-by-numbers and is just as happy to smack you as greet you.
Saddest change in a game? When EQ2 adopted the Wow-esque "glowing symbol" over a quest-giver's head. Why sad? Because they had gone for immersion before that. They made quest-givers wave at you or call your name as you passed -- in other words, trying to get you INVOLVED in the world AS a world, rather than just "hop your quest-treadmill here".
I started playing Asheron's Call with my dad when I was 9. I personally remember how hard the game was, but even thenI always felt really immersed in the game. I also didn't mind grinding nearly as much back then; I used to spend hours hacking away at Lugians in this shitty little dungeon.
I really understand all this nostalgia everyone talks about. I miss how that game used to feel, all the feelings of excitement when I got a new level, getting my next piece of gear, it was a rush. I haven't felt it since then, but I have semi-replaced it with LOTRO. It's another feeling of immersion I'm really getting into lately.
Basically my point is that... I feel like games have been going through a phase. Back during my first run with MMOs, they were new. They were setting a lot of standards that to this day are still being followed. They created large expansive worlds, and classless player characters. After this era, game makers from different companies basically just saw the profit to be made from online games, and cashed in on it, making sub-par games that were both easier to play, and easier to make. Obviously, we're still seeing the effects of this, and me in biased rage considers WOW to be one of these games.
I firmly believe that we are seeing a rise back to that old awesome and cared for feel of games that we felt back in 97. Just cause we went through a shitty decade, doesn't mean it's a sign of things to come.
Something I've noticed about the newbie experience in the modern games I've tried is that although that gentle newbie experience is great for your main, that same content can becomes a great liability when starting an alts - I find it has very low replay value when you are an experienced player with a new character.
I have always enjoyed the older MMOs for the reasons you mentioned much more than the current ones. I'm in the red corner on this fight. I miss the sandbox feeling and the large open worlds.
I consider this at times, as well. It's hard for me to compare old titles and new titles without feeling like there's a certain lack of detail, in exchange for something more glamorous, in what's been released during the past ten years or so. If you go through many of my old posts, you'll see I bring up Ultima Online pretty frequently. People have quoted things like FAA PvP, the grinding, or the complete open endedness as bad things, but I'm still reminded that this was a game that had open world player housing, a complex guild and warring system, a karma system to balance PvP, crafting that actually matter and characters were dependent upon, and an environment that allowed any player style to flourish with the right amount of effort and know-how. Really, it's all about the details when you break down MMO titles. What are we getting? How many "things" are there for a player to actually do? Is there enough choice to keep someone interested? It's hard to look at the list of features offered by Ultima Online and find a comparable title that persists today, even almost ten years after its release.
I think it's pretty obvious that my point of view on the matter is that older is better, that MMO companies have developed a stream of games that I associate more with console titles than PC's during the last decade, in that they provide more focused, linear experiences. This is fine, and there are going to be a large majority of people who prefer this. However, there are people like me who struggle to find the point in developing a game and labeling it an MMO when all that's being offered is the same thing that can be found in a single player RPG with a multiplayer feature. I'm not knocking this style, I've played games like this that I've enjoyed, but I want massive worlds in my MMO's, with enough details and options that can keep me playing for years, and customizability that isn't just picking different colors or templates. Kinda like UO.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
the lesson? Make a big world. Fill it with colorful starting areas and interweave the zones and DON'T segregate whole zones into the "only levels 10-20 benefit here" mentality.
That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I think. Single-player RPGs build out a world and lore that is generally rich and vibrant, with a variety of systems that heighten the immersion and sense of interaction. the newer MMOs drop PRECISELY this in favor of the one-stop-shop of "rush to endgame, RAID" or "PVP above all". A good MMO would have RAIDs and a robust PvP system -- and many, many other systems, because the TOTALITY of the systems is what creates the sense of a world feeling like a world and heightens your involvement in those worlds. The "single-player RPG" aspects are, to me, almost non-existent in the newer games, as the name-of-the-game is to NOT require you to think or figure anything out for yourself.
I probably could have been more specific. In regards to newer MMO's playing like single player RPG's, I mean in relation to what you're actually doing. Most MMO's I've played in the last year have been entirely single player experiences, without the story. There's no cooperation, no community, no necessities to work together - it's just player A and player B running through the same or similar quests, and whether or not they were actually there is irrelevant, because they're not interacting and nothing changes in these worlds based on who's where, or what they're doing. I might as well be playing them offline, and even then, I'd probably have a better experience in any of the Fallout or Elder Scrolls games.
I'd also agree that the trend is to make things as easy on players as possible, as to avoid critical thinking or discovery, which were two of the greatest boon's to playing an oldschool MMO like UO.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
TY TY TY mmorpg for addressing old vs new..
I would agree 90% of what the writer has in numbers.. The part that I differ a little is the last part about newbie experience.. I'm not sure I would give the "new" mmo a huge win as you did.. I think the old mmo should of been awarded 5 points, instead of 3.. However, to me that is a double edge blade.. You want to have a good tutorial, but do you want someone holding your hand? (shrug)..
In addition I'm curious of your thoughts of instancing in the games.. In the old days, groups often fought over camps, mobs and whatnots.. Yes there were cases that became annoying, and at times just hateful.. However, most of the time we all learned to respect each other, unless it was an epic mob that dropped an epic piece, then it was race on who could do the most damage and win the loot.. Cleric epic camp in EQ1's Skyfire comes to mind.. So many of the newer mmos went down the path of instancing so that everyone has a chance.. I can understand that when it comes to epic quest drops.. But for general loot drops and exp.. I hate instancing.. IMO that game mechanic is anything but social.. It takes players OUT of the open world puts them in their own lil one.. Sorta defeats the whole purpose of a MMO to begin with, doesn't it?
I would of also liked to see your rating on raiding.. To me old mmo raiding was damn near PERFECT.. With the exception of character level, I was never excluded from a raid, EVER.. When guilds did raids back in EQ1 days, such as ToV, as long as you had primary roles filled such as tank, heals, etc.. Everyone went.. I played a druid and was often healer of my group.. Normally that group not being a PRIME tank or pulling group, but support range group like rangers and nukers.. You could of been a brand new lvl 60 toon, and 99% of the time you were invited to raid.. Raiding was large and social, and there were little to no exclusion tools to keep people fom joining in.. In all the days of raiding in the old days.. We never once delayed or ended a raid because people had to leave or were not present at the start of raid time.. The point here is that normally on any given raid night, there was multiple tanks and healers to keep a raid going reguardless who came late, or left early..
Was the old mmos perfect.. oh heck NO.. Even UO, AC and EQ1 needed tweaking, but it appears to me that so many of the new mmos' went overboard and tweaked the flaws into carebear city.. or went off into new genre of Esport.. Not that there is anything wrong with Esport games.. However, my gripe is call it for what it is, and be honest about it.. I can think of one game today that starts off as a RPG game, but ends as an Esport..
Only thing better about new games are graphic and newb experience. I know because my 1st mmorpg was wow. As a newb, i liked it. After 3 months, i left and decided to try an old school style mmorpg. not an old game, but still old school and its Darkfall. Its a niche game, but to me, 100 time better then the mainstream mmorpg that we have nowadays.
C:\Users\FF\Desktop\spin move.gif
This is almost an impossible comparison article because nostalgia automatically adds bias. It is automatic to look back at those games with rose colored glasses but you know they had a lot of flaws too. Some of which that most players wouldn't even put up with today. I think the genre has evolved, in some ways good and in some ways not so much. How can you even compare new player experiences when the games back that are at an automatic disadvantage due to technology? How can you compare game worlds when the games today have the advantage of having that much more resources at their disposal?
Someone who started playing MMO's in 1999 is almost automatically going to have a different weight system then someone who started in 2004, and that's only a 5 year difference. I think the articles should stick to game-to-game comparisons.
Yes, your first few years of gaming in online worlds will influence your opinions, likes and dislikes on gaming. The problem with modern games isn't that they aren't just like older games. Many of the changes to gaming was necessary and have made gaming better. The problem is they lost the things that made the original games so fun despite their problems. Most newer games are just not very challeging. No or little death penalties, instant travel, easy avoidance of random mobs, etc. I haven't felt threatened or excited or anything of an emotional attatchment to any of the newer games. From newbie day one everything is lined up for you to easily follow directions to get from lev 1 to max. There's no reason to explore and nothing surprises you, as everthing is following quests/missions from npc to area and then led to another npc. I used to make hand made maps in everquest to avaid danger spots or to find the zone point and not get lost. It was an adventure just to get to the spot to meet your group.
Not everthing was great about older games, mechanics much improved, but the challenges of the game created tighter communities and a different feel to the game.
I like the fact that there are more stuctured quests and not just time-sink grinding, but not as the only options. There should be areas to just explore and fight and still get enough xp to level. I like not having to run across the world for half hour to get somewhere to fight an over camped mob to hopefully get them to drop a piece of gear, just to die and have to run it again, but there should be some excitement and adventure in travelling across a world filled with monsters.
The answer is to find creative ways to combine the improvements made in game mechanics without losing the feel and adventure of a huge and dangerous world. I'm not a programmer and I know there will be limits to what you can do with mechanics, but some of the excitement and surprise can be brought back to a virtual world.
Example) Have instant travel to get from city to city, but missions that include exploring and travelling-defending a merchant caravan with random attacks by mobs or quests that u use skills to find lost or hidden npc's, temples, ruins, etc-your given a large area of forest to explore using tracking, magic, finding clues etc-find a hermit with info to location, but must do a side quest for him to get info-mobs spawn randomly during travel. (I know that random spawning is possible as I've encountered it in recent games in missions).
Bottom line, bring back a higher threat level for excitement, more surprises and more reason to explore a huge world.
Just remembered, a mob in EQ might chase you all the way across a zone until it caught you or you zoned out. Annoying, yes, but exciting zoning with only a few hit points left.
So you played eq1 in 1999 at an age of eight ? Humm .. owell lets leave it there.
But, you are so spot on it could have been my own words.
I have way too many days /played in mmos since I also started eq1 in 1999.
I rounded eq2, vanguard, wow, conan, aion since and none has ever been close to offering what eq1 did. Eq1 was not perfect and it has definately gone downhill since SoE took over from Verant, but it invoked excitement simply because it made you feel like an adventurer instead of a guided tour through this-and-that game. And dont give me that bull about "first game is always your best" because its just too easy - My first game was space invaders.
So why was games better back then ? it's simple - Back then games were run by enthusiasts and geeks, nowadays games are run by suits. I went down to my bank last week and they had a folder with some picture from wow, where they clearly stated that they thought gamers were wierd geeks but they invested in those games because they could see a profit. To me that folder said it all. It is not a political view, its just an explanation of why we dont see good games anymore.
Did we all clap our hands in excitement when we read about Vanguard thinking "YES this is the real eq2" ? They had all the right intentions for a quality game but unfortunately as we all know, their ambitions weighed more than their purses. What I realized then was there will not be a new game that focus on quality because bling-bling just earn more money.
Back to this article. Description of games over the years is spot on, but the comparison of old vs new is just plain silly.
Cheers, embrace what games can offer nowadays because the past is the past and will never come back.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
dar_es_balat you sum it up succinctly, & I agree with your comment wholeheartedly.
A huge amount of the "feel" of the older games was the immersion into a virtual world, this being the setting where your escapism, your suspension of your real & mundane life began.
Modern titles just feel too much like a game & less like worlds & it makes me sad.
Vanguard was the swansong that never was, had it gotten proper backing, proper management & proper development it could have been the best of the older games rolled into one, instead of the messy unfinished technical nightmare it was at release.
As someone who most enjoys exploration in mmos, I know exactly what you mean. Unfortunately, I never got a chance to play AC, but I've found it's quite easy to self-direct in games with expansive open worlds to explore - so long as there are actually interesting things to be found.
The only games I've played that really had that completely openworld feel were SWG and Lineage 2 - but even those (mostly SWG) where really just bumpy planes of terrain with randomly scattered trees and the occaisional river. It's when you realize that fact that exploration becames kind of pointless.
On the flipside, I've even enjoyed exploration in games such as WoW and FFXI - very handcrafted and defined worlds - because they had plenty of interesting things to see. The problem with those is you'll get to most places and realize "oh, this place seems designed for a quest." So the cool stuff doesn't happen unless I go back and get the quest, then come here. And even then, probably almost everyone has seen that cool and interesting place, because they've been directed there by the quest. Again, kinda takes the fun out of it after you realize that.
I wonder if there ever has been/will be a game with a large, open, handcrafted world (nothing randomly generated or repeatedly plain) that is full of things to discover, but you aren't necessarily directed toward them, nor do you need a quest to see them...
So far the only game I see on the horizon that might accomplish that particular goal is TERA, but we'll see - GW2 also seems to cater to explorer types but in a different way with dynamic events. I'm hoping developers understand the pull of this kind of gameplay and start to design for it.
I think there are many well written points here, that are continually ignored during this sort of discussion. As already said, the bottom line is that there is a huge difference between a game and a virtual world, whether people want to admit that or not. A virtual world by its very definition will have more tedious things over a game, because the games usually gut those out and replace them with more 'heroic' action.
The first batch of games in this genre were different in many ways, but they were similar in that they were worlds that players wanted to live in. Today living in a world has been replaced with you being the hero of a game, and as a side bonus, there are hundreds of other heroes online with you. Simple as that.
The rose colored glasses argument is just dumb. For nostalgia to make sense, it would require that the games haven't changed much, other than graphics and bugs obviously. Then you could claim, yeah, you guys are just biased to your first game, things are better now. But the games HAVE changed, in a big way. Could it be that some people don't like the changes? Of course it is. It has nothing to do with your first game played.
I have no such problem in other genres, so why doesn't the argument hold true there. FPS, flight simulators and RTSs have not changed fundamentally at all. The graphics, flash and controls are all better and streamlined. The core of the game has remained, and I enjoy the new ones as much as the old ones, and in fact, really cannot get into the old games because they don't really measure up to the newer ones.
If I take my flight simulators, remove landing, take-offs, flying to objectives, simplify the radar, get rid of stalls and cornering speed management, make the action faster and add more missiles and bad guys to add to the action... well that's not a flight simulator, no matter how flashy the action looks. Its just an action game that looks like the flight simulator i used to play. Yet what i see, to continue the analogy, is people saying, "yeah but all the boring stuff is removed, the game is way better now, the action is way better, you just have nostalgia for your first game,". What???
I only half agree with the newbie experience score. Although it is objectively better in every way in the newer games i always feel like i've sort of cheated because it feels like my character has started at level 5 with some ok gear.
I think the ideal for me would be a newer game style tutorial but with a stock character. So the first time you played you had the option of going through the tutorial mini-zone and it would show you the game but it wouldn't be your character so when it was over you started as "normal", which for me would mean something like level 0 in Surefall in the dark with no torch and no gear apart from some rags and a ****-covered stick.
(I grouped with a really good halfling puller in EQ for a time who turned out to be eight.)
I cannot decide which I like more, the old MMORPGs or the new. Both have things I like and things I don't like. The first game I really got into was EQ1 but I've enjoyed newer games too.
Many new games certainly are much more newbie friendly with introductory quests that help one get familiar with the world, the charcater class and the controls. This makes it easy for a new-comer but I have to agree that we lose the experience and enjoyment of figuring out how things work on our own. Finding out by yourself how to do something is much more gratifying than just being told how to do it. Furthermore, no matter how good an introduction is, it will get very old if you have to repeat it with each new character.
I'm not sure if I agree on the size of the game world. Sure the old games feel larger but it's mainly due to mounts and other fast methods of travel in the new games. Sure, running from Qeynos to Freeport takes time but so does running (on foot, not riding or flying) from Darnassus to Gadgetzan. Old games feel larger also because their sometimes were emptier, where as the new games are shock-full of places and content. The Commonlands and Plains of Karana are mainly grassland with few setlements scattered around. The road from Darnassus to Gadgetzan on the other hand is full of villages and other locations. Again, fast travel and teleportation makes it easier to get from one place to another and reduces time wasted on travelling. Nice and convenient but the other side to this is that it really shrinks the game world and takes away the feeling of being in a "world". An expansive world becomes a small village where you can get almost anywhere you want within minutes. To me this is a big loss. Still I have to admit that it is very convenient to be able to teleport around and not keep your group waiting for you. Then again I was a wizard in EQ so I was teleporting there too
New games may seem linear and sometimes really are - free games more often than commercial, btw - but this is partly an illusion too. All well designed games have several zones appropriate to each level. The illusion of linearity is created, ironically enough, by the content, namely quests that lead the player from zone to zone along a pre-defined path. There are branches here and there but the quests do determine where you go next. Of course, you may ignore the quests chains and explore and pick one quest here and another there, or you may do all quests and end up going everywhere.
Don't get me wrong. Quests are good. I want quests. They add content and give stuff to do and have great potential for driving the story and making the world feel alive. Many old games had more grinding because they had fewer quests. However, the way quests are used to hold your hand and lead you around - sometimes even force you around - like a brainless idiot spoils much of the fun and wastes the potential. There are a lot of good and even excellent quests but there's the danger of blindly following the path quests lay out for you and to forget the freedom you have. It is deceptively easy to fall into the rut of running around doing quests and to forget to look around and admire and explore the world you are in.
Leading you around is acceptable, the really annoying thing is the way quests are implemented in the new games, i.e. the way how they hold your hand and go to extremes to help you and make questing as easy and brainless activitiy as possible. I'm talking about the exlamation and question marks above quest vending machines (aka NPCs) and the detailed instructions on how to carry out a quest. It just makes me feel that my intelligence is being underestimated. I think I might like it if I would actually have to talk to NPCs to find quests and then figure out how to carry them out instead of looking for an exlamation mark and getting a detailed description on what, how, where and when I have to do whatever the quest requires me to do.
Hmm, looks like I'm leaning towards the older games. Maybe I'm just an old school gamer after all. Then again, I returned to Norrath after several years and am having a hard time with the grind needed to level my character. What makes it even worse is that almost all active players have top level characters and the low and mid level zones are literaly empty and feel rather dead. Even the bazaar, previously teeming with sellers and buyers, is now almost empty. No chance to make money by selling spider silk anymore, lol - or anything else really. I'm afraid my EQ glasses have lost some of the rosyness they had before my return to Norrath. Even so, my first MMORPG memories are from EQ and I doubt anything can displace it from the position it has in my heart.
I think it's an unfair comparison really and those arguing about how nostalgia isn't relevent are missing point.
The big thing I think causing nostalgia and people clamouring for the, 'old days', is something a lot of the newer MMOs don't have: A decent community with in community based goals.
I can remember in my ten odd years of playing enduring the most crappy of game mechanics, buggy encounters, tedious grinds/terking. why? Because I liked the people I was with and enjoyed whatever world it was with them.
In the race for more profits I think many companies, have as someone else said, moved away from trying to attract those like minded people and instead tried to appeal to mainstream greed culture. It's worked for some, others will and have failed.
Many of the newer MMO's have improved upon a lot of aspects of the genre. I can't help but wonder though if the price of success has meant the real exciting aspect of working with others has been left behind.
It is a shame he used Everquest as his example because that game is the reason for the morbidity of the genre today. It introduced rigid classes and restrictive levels. Poor guy, he never knew the freedom of games like UO, AC1 and pre NGE SWG. While it is true you could explore in Everquest, the freedom to design and play your character the way you like was non existent. If you are going to through in pvp, then DAoC still has not been bested in that arena.
There is not a game existent today that offers close to the game play of the early games.
I will agree with some of the prior comments, the early games had much better communities, but that is the price of progress, because the genre has expanded so rapidly.
I have yet hope that some developer will wake up and design a game that has some of the flavor of the older games with the freedom of character design and play.
I often wonder just how much of the early MMO thrill was the newness of it.
My first MUD, a wopping 30 levels was exiting to. It was way better than adventure and Zork , both of which were good in thier day.
Cackle! Why in the old days when I was a kid I had to go to school and back home in the worst of snowstorms...and it was uphill, both ways!
Old vs New.. go play the grandfather of online games! Drakkar! Now that was a game.. old 2D sprite icons top down view but NO GAME has ever promoted group play as this one had! NO GAME! Paladin's best armor was he easiest boss but Paladin until later levels were weak and could not defeat it for many many levels so the class helped the Paladin get their armor.. The first armor for barbarians was the cloak from the second boss the Turtle and everyone and I mean everyone needed Barbarians since they would pump up and get 4 times hit points and 3 times attacking power but also defense decreased by 3 times so they were human pin cushions! At least 2 healers were needed to be casting heals on the barbarian and in later bosses mentalist to be casting partial invisibility and invulnerability on the barbarian to keep him alive.. Paladins at later levels had some good attacks that were great crowd control.. NOTHING has compared since and I bet nothing WILL! At high levels to get best gauntlets for the Monks needed to fight the Vampires and to fight Vamps required mining for Gold to buy Hit Points because they sucked Hit Points from you litterally on attacking! No CLASS had no purpose all were needed to support each other and help each other.. Every class was needed and required on boss hunts!
If you really want to experience a game where classes really mattered and were needed than try out the Drakkar it's still alive and kicking and free! And it IS the grandfather of all online games.. Drakkar and Legends of Kesmai but LOK is no longer around but Drakkar is still alive and well! Try out one of the very unique games that made online gaming popular for yourself! No game with all it's fancy graphics will ever come close unfortunately to say. Drakkar and LOK started on the original BBS boards and moved to Telnet and finally to become the first online graphic games on the internet.. they are the reason Ultima Online spawned as well as many others that were short lived but to this day Drakkar is still alive and kicking!
Sorry I forgot to post the most unique and fun aspects of the classes.. Barbarians when they went berserk they kept pumping up hitting the berserk button were BERSERK! The person controlling the barbarian had to keep the clickng praying the barbarian did not land on a party member because they would ONE SHOT KILL the part members as they were so strong! Talk about unique game play! The idea was to go to the lair.. everyone wait outside the lair.. barbarian go off screen and pump up than run back onscreen and attempt to get in the lair before killing anyone.. as soon as barbarian went in everyone else jumped in and started casting on the barbarian and hoping that the boss monster kept it's agro on the barbarian because if it didn't than not only was the boss a threat the barb was a threat too! Until the barb could get back in control and get back to attacking the boss and not the party members! Now that is what a Barbarians Berserk is suppose to be BERSERK!
While I don't mind giving deference to the people who disagree with me, there have been numerous blogs, interviews, and other material to back up the point that devs placed time sinks into games, like 40 minute travel times, not for some kind of expereience but to prevent people from level capping too quickly or eating up their spartan content. That's pretty well documented whether or not you want to belive it.
That didn't stop people from using the exploration as content. Or the grinding of random mobs along the way as content. Nearly every game did it to some degree or another.
As for rose colored glasses, well perhaps none of you suffer for it. My all time favorite game was one called Starflight. It was brilliant and on my XT, a ton of fun. I recently went back to play it through DOSBox and lo and behold, it was a real pain in the butt to play. Arcane key combinations, elements that didn't flow together, etc. I still love the memory, but the experience is clouded by the fact that it was brilliant for it's time.
Now I'm sure no one here is doing that... <sigh>. Older is not always better, or I'd just be plain awesome now.