You will never experiance again what you have experianced with EQ/UO. It was your first MMO and its like first kiss, first bike ride, first sex etc. You wont feel the emotion once again.
If you were running groups without a healer or a rogue your DM was coddling you.
And I was the DM, my groups lasted years, and they were some of the best days of my life. I doubt I would be spending much time on the computer if we all still lived in the same area. Playing with a group of good friends in real life has always been far more enjoyable than online play for me.
No because there were always different ways around challenges. Unless you and your players lacked imagination. Also encounters in D&D were not tank and spank like single player games and EQ. Person x didn't stand in front taking all the damage while person y hides and heals, while z sneaks around to attack from the side.
There were different ways to deal with challenges in P&P games because it wasn't being run on computers and able to only do what existed within the lines of code. In D&D or any other roleplaying game played with a DM you could try to do anything you could imagine. It was more like interactive storytelling really and people were only limited by their own imaginations.
For example; you could tell the DM that you wanted to climb around to the top of a cliff and try to start an avalance. Or that you wanted to start a forest fire. Or you were going to grab that housecat and throw it in the guards face to distract him while you made a run for it. Of course computer games are more limited than that. It's not a fair comparison at all and I would challenge you to find any computer game that let's you try anything you can imagine.
I do agree that EQ did damage to the genre even though I had a lot of fun in EQ. And then WoW kept the worst parts of EQ, threw out the best parts, added their new thing which was solo quest grinding and leading players around by the nose, and did incalculably more damage.
We are now further away from the dream of a fun virtual world than the genre has ever been. Developers aren't even thinking in terms of worlds anymore they are thinking in terms of guiding players through a tightly controlled content path.
I agree with you. But if mmo were to put more effort into character development and not force x class into y role with no possible devation. Also we really need to get away from being such loot whore design. Greed is also another factor that is killing mmos.
IT'S COMING! Blizzards workshop is running *HOT* They said their new game won't be in competition with WOW. So they are making a game for the Vets / no lifers / Hardcores / Mature people.
That is how I think of it on good days.
On others, I wonder if it just means that they're going to be trying their hand at an MMOFPS or something.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
You will never experiance again what you have experianced with EQ/UO. It was your first MMO and its like first kiss, first bike ride, first sex etc. You wont feel the emotion once again.
I don't know about that. My first kiss and the first time I had sex were awful, I've certainly had better in every way. Meanwhile, my first MMO was The 4th Coming, which... yeah.
EDIT: Sorry about the double-post. I'd remedy it if I could.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
EQ ruined mmos. Taking single player group based design and forcing it into a multiple player environment. What a stupid idea. Gone are the days of online world replaced with cookie cutter rpgs.
How did it ruin something that barely existed?
EQ1/UO set off the MMORPG market.
MUDS and DIKUS started the market and were pretty successful. UO and EQ just slapped graphics onto them. The paradigms that dictated the game play for early games is still very much present in modern games, that part has never changed. They have have added the casual paradigm recently, but hardcores still get the best of the best even in casual games, only because developers insist on it, not because it's the natural flow of a casual game.
What has really changed is that developers insist on hybridizing MMOs and in return end up pissing off both hardcore and casual audiences. It's far past time for them to accept smaller, but healthier and longer lasting audiences for their games by specializing. The only reason why casuals are considered flighty is because even casual oriented games shaft us with hardcore elements like raiding and PvP. Why the hell should we stick around if the developers give preferential treatment to the secondary target audience? Only hardcore gamers fully embrace the "haves and have not" formula.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
If you were running groups without a healer or a rogue your DM was coddling you.
And I was the DM, my groups lasted years, and they were some of the best days of my life. I doubt I would be spending much time on the computer if we all still lived in the same area. Playing with a group of good friends in real life has always been far more enjoyable than online play for me.
No because there were always different ways around challenges. Unless you and your players lacked imagination. Also encounters in D&D were not tank and spank like single player games and EQ. Person x didn't stand in front taking all the damage while person y hides and heals, while z sneaks around to attack from the side.
Yes, there were USUALLY ways around specific obstacals, but the need for specif abilities was always present.
Without a cleric you could not heal between encounters, wounds would accumulate until the party was forced to retreat back to a safe location and spend weeks healing.
Without a rogue, your scouting ability was limited, you had no means to open locked doors without drawing the attention of everyone within a hundred feet, and traps would tear you apart.
The presence of a wizard greatly enhanced the groups versatility in bypassing challenges and collecting information.
The fighter was the one that could be easily replaced.
For some reason you seem to equate group play with tank and spank. Group play is about using the combined abilities of several individuals to overcome challanges that could not be overcome alone. A good group will choose their fights and use those diverse abilities to overcome obsticals in creative and unique ways.
And if your answer is "I don't need a healer, I have healing potions", my response would be that they either cost less than iron rations or every bandit in your world was carrying a kings ransom. Healing potions cost wizards experience to manufacture (as does every other magic item in the game), make more than a few and they de-level. That fact alone would make them a scarce commodity, reserved for emergencies. In the older school versions of D&D, the potions did not cost the wizard xp, but all magic items were far more time consuming and expensive to manufacture. You would need a highly skilled individual investing days per potion to supply you with a constant supply.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Paradise is less obvious when you are there; it is more obvious when you're gone, or long for it. -- Me What happened to the three Cs:
Challenge Community Content
Millions of us are Ready, Willing, and Able to experience an MMORPG that returns the 3 Cs to the fold. An opportunity to recapture the spirit of each of them, without one overwhelming the other. An appropriate balance, achieved through items, mobs, dungeons, class diversity, class spells, and so forth.
We are ready for innovation; and we are ready for tradition (the three Cs).
Noble post. I was too lazy to read the other replies.
Let me sum it up for you, buddy. The developers may actually want to put out this sort of game, but the publishing side and executives are only interested in one thing, the lowest common denominator for making big bucks. Everyone out there is trying to make the next WoW, I just hope their attempts do not become too desperate.
Then again, I wouldn't mind an officially Megan Fox licensed MMO where the objective was to destroy Marvel super villains while riding on Transformers with Megan Fox doing a VirtuaGirl type strip-tease where the lack of clothes would depend on your progression. After this you could use a stargate to beam aboard the starship USS Enterprise that would be full of Megan Foxes in skimpy white outfits and you would be armed with a squirt gun. Isn't this what we all want? Why won't somebody make this game!!?
Dont take the below as a rant directed at you OP:
The truth is, developers and game designers have very innovative concepts all the time, what prevents us from seeing many of these creative ideas is administration. Let's all take five to hate middle-aged men in gray suits!
During these tough financial times loose capital isn't exactly easy to come by. If you want to create the mecca of MMOs many of the people on MMORPG.com seem to crave oh-so-much, a pre-cu SWG SUPER-SANDBOX experiece, you need a lot of cash. That isn't enough, however. You need a immensely strong IP to bring in the consumers and a large team full of talent to realise the concept and give create your MMO-saviour.
EQ was new, it was revolutionary, and it was unforgiving. It took the MUD experience and wrapped it in lovely (then) 3-D graphics, creating an immersive world. This was class-based grinding at its finest; sit on a spawn and kill for several hours until you level up enough to go to the next spawn (or until that item drop you were waiting for to become 0.5% better finally happens).
As many people have pointed out already, nostalgia is a dangerous emotion. EQ was great - at the time. Although many games have borrowed from EQ's concepts, the genre has subtly changed in good and bad ways. The real problem isn't that EQ was better, but that new games are just more of the same.
Believing again, to me, means a whole new experience. Make EVERY user feel like they are a part of something more each time they log-in, not just another nameless waste of space that kills off some of the (returning) monster population and gets a few silver for doing so. Build a dynamic (or insert other popular catch-phrase) world that affects players and vice versa. Stop focusing so much on graphics and start focusing on the overall experience.
EQ was an abomination. It introduced the idiotic class/level, hero story single-player crap into something that was supposed to be a whole new way of interactive online experience. It was an alien thing to the very nature of what an online game is supposed to be. EQ is the crap. MMOs would have been much better if there were never the crap that is EQ. The fails that you see now are all due to EQ setting a completely wrong premise for what MMORPGs are supposed to mean.
However, it was EQ that was 3d and the players back then could fall on something that they could understand in this bewildering new world of multiplayer - the crappy leveling "hero story" progression regardless of whether it's in any way appropriate for the new medium - online. I spit on EQ and all its progeny, WoW included most of all. I suppose I'll die before I'll get a chance to play a mmo that is a real massive multiplayer online role playing game. The paradigm has been set and there is no way we'll see a big budget mmo that deviates from EQ model before the grown-up greysuits that were (pretty dim, tbh) enthusiasts and geeks die off and make room for the new generation of developers. ("Oh wow, I get to kill the dragon and save the world, ONLINE, wow!!!! How cool is that!!!?!!") Bleh, I'm off to be sick and play some ET:QW, there's more mmorpg there than in anything listed on this site except EVE.
EQ was an abomination. It introduced the idiotic class/level, hero story single-player crap into something that was supposed to be a whole new way of interactive online experience. It was an alien thing to the very nature of what an online game is supposed to be. EQ is the crap. MMOs would have been much better if there were never the crap that is EQ. The fails that you see now are all due to EQ setting a completely wrong premise for what MMORPGs are supposed to mean.
Actually, MMOs are supposed to be what the players want. The players wanted a fun game like EQ in the 90s, WOW in 2004, ect. If they wanted UO at the time, most would've been playing it instead of EQ, right? The genre is supposed to be exactly what it turned into. High quality, content rich MMOs that don't punish its players through specific mechanics or horrible interfaces and bugs, SELL subscriptions. Sandboxes which force players to create your own adventure and just exist in a virtual chat room, don't sell subscritions. (Excpetions like Eve don't count) Sorry to break it you, but most people really don't like paying a fee to essentially entertain themselves. They want to be entertained. Themepark MMOs fit that bill.
If MMOs were supposed to be sandboxes, WOW would've been a UO clone instead of an EQ clone. MMOs are only supposed to be what the market determines. Business 101.
If you played FFXI you'd know it have the 3 C's The only problem is that FFXI's Challenge went overboard and turned into a masochistic art form. Japanese made it, and somehow that made sense consider how their society are structured. EQ1 I did not like it enough to have kept playing.
No, what happened here with FF XI's challenge is that it remained a rogue-like, a game with a brutal death punishment to encourage people to not suck, and this fitted perfectly with the group-based gaming of FF XI.
It is a tough game. But at no point did FF XI's challenge go overboard. Maybe for casuals, but not for gamers that want to see more games with harsher death punishments.
Well, if there is one thing I learned from 6+ years of FFXI is that no matter how brutal the penality, people can still suck, and I am very lenient about what is considered good and bad playing. Casual does not even exist in FFXI, everyone either need to be good or just simply wasted time.
What you highlighted was actually how I praise the game (Some servers do this). We call it sadistic and call ourselves masochistic, and that is what make it fun. SE enjoy dishing out the abuse, and we enjoy taking it. It is a joke, but I guess it was only an inside joke for some servers.
Don't mean to derail this thread, this is last reply on this subject. Just clearing up a misunderstanding.
Ah, so that highlighted part was an irony joke. Ok, I get what you were going at. It makes me really wish now that I wasn't going to college or a trade school soon, otherwise I'd play it. Here's to hoping that FF XIV is not a casual dumbed-down version of FF XI, otherwise it will die just like in the manner of EQ2.
Originally posted by Josher There weren't millions playing EQ back in the day and there aren't millions looking to recreate that pathetic excuse for a MMO, by TODAYS standards. Want proof? Look at how well received Vangaurd was when it released. It basically recreated much of what EQ was like. But people weren't interested because horrible bugs & lousy content isn't what people look for in a MMO today.
You're definitely right that there's not millions looking for a new EQ. But there are enough of us that a new EQ could be very successful. You don't need WoW type numbers for that.
And please don't use the failure of Vanguard as "proof" that people don't want a new EQ. You said it yourself: horrible bugs and lousy content, i.e. it tried to replicate the feeling of EQ, but failed to make a stable game. Why would people who appreciate the "good old days" want to play a sub-par version of what they remember? Your "proof" is the opposite of proof and explains absolutely nothing.
Originally posted by Josher There weren't millions playing EQ back in the day and there aren't millions looking to recreate that pathetic excuse for a MMO, by TODAYS standards. Want proof? Look at how well received Vangaurd was when it released. It basically recreated much of what EQ was like. But people weren't interested because horrible bugs & lousy content isn't what people look for in a MMO today.
You're definitely right that there's not millions looking for a new EQ. But there are enough of us that a new EQ could be very successful. You don't need WoW type numbers for that.
And please don't use the failure of Vanguard as "proof" that people don't want a new EQ. You said it yourself: horrible bugs and lousy content, i.e. it tried to replicate the feeling of EQ, but failed to make a stable game. Why would people who appreciate the "good old days" want to play a sub-par version of what they remember? Your "proof" is the opposite of proof and explains absolutely nothing.
Yes, EQ didn't have shoddy animations and horrible game-breaking bugs, wait...
Vanguard pretty much exactly recreated EQ, just with a graphics upgrade.
Originally posted by Talin Believing again, to me, means a whole new experience. Make EVERY user feel like they are a part of something more each time they log-in, not just another nameless waste of space that kills off some of the (returning) monster population and gets a few silver for doing so. Build a dynamic (or insert other popular catch-phrase) world that affects players and vice versa. Stop focusing so much on graphics and start focusing on the overall experience.
yep agree to that. That being said Ryzom was a bit more dynamic and that flunked.
If you were running groups without a healer or a rogue your DM was coddling you.
And I was the DM, my groups lasted years, and they were some of the best days of my life. I doubt I would be spending much time on the computer if we all still lived in the same area. Playing with a group of good friends in real life has always been far more enjoyable than online play for me.
No because there were always different ways around challenges. Unless you and your players lacked imagination. Also encounters in D&D were not tank and spank like single player games and EQ. Person x didn't stand in front taking all the damage while person y hides and heals, while z sneaks around to attack from the side.
Yes, there were USUALLY ways around specific obstacals, but the need for specif abilities was always present.
Without a cleric you could not heal between encounters, wounds would accumulate until the party was forced to retreat back to a safe location and spend weeks healing.
Without a rogue, your scouting ability was limited, you had no means to open locked doors without drawing the attention of everyone within a hundred feet, and traps would tear you apart.
The presence of a wizard greatly enhanced the groups versatility in bypassing challenges and collecting information.
The fighter was the one that could be easily replaced.
For some reason you seem to equate group play with tank and spank. Group play is about using the combined abilities of several individuals to overcome challanges that could not be overcome alone. A good group will choose their fights and use those diverse abilities to overcome obsticals in creative and unique ways.
And if your answer is "I don't need a healer, I have healing potions", my response would be that they either cost less than iron rations or every bandit in your world was carrying a kings ransom. Healing potions cost wizards experience to manufacture (as does every other magic item in the game), make more than a few and they de-level. That fact alone would make them a scarce commodity, reserved for emergencies. In the older school versions of D&D, the potions did not cost the wizard xp, but all magic items were far more time consuming and expensive to manufacture. You would need a highly skilled individual investing days per potion to supply you with a constant supply.
When it comes down to healing yes nothing could replace a cleric. A bard could help but would run out of spells quickly. But then a person could also multi class to gain some healing ability. There are potions, rings, wands and a host of other options that while individually couldn't replace the cleric when joined together could come pretty close. Also as dm if your party had no one that wanted to play a cleric you could easily add a npc cleric to fill the rants.
Scouting could be handled by a ranger or a multi class rogue plus a wizard could use several spells to scout. Also after 3 which is a much more realistic take on D&D allowed classes to pick cross class skills. So a (insert class here) could try to move silently and hide in shadows just like a rogue could.
MMO group play with the exclusion of possible DDO is tank and spank. You stand here and tank, you stand here and heal, the rest of you wait till tank has significant agro then you dps.
D&D offered options while mmo following the EQ model offer rigid hard code.
Originally posted by Josher There weren't millions playing EQ back in the day and there aren't millions looking to recreate that pathetic excuse for a MMO, by TODAYS standards. Want proof? Look at how well received Vangaurd was when it released. It basically recreated much of what EQ was like. But people weren't interested because horrible bugs & lousy content isn't what people look for in a MMO today.
You're definitely right that there's not millions looking for a new EQ. But there are enough of us that a new EQ could be very successful. You don't need WoW type numbers for that.
And please don't use the failure of Vanguard as "proof" that people don't want a new EQ. You said it yourself: horrible bugs and lousy content, i.e. it tried to replicate the feeling of EQ, but failed to make a stable game. Why would people who appreciate the "good old days" want to play a sub-par version of what they remember? Your "proof" is the opposite of proof and explains absolutely nothing.
Yes, EQ didn't have shoddy animations and horrible game-breaking bugs, wait...
Vanguard pretty much exactly recreated EQ, just with a graphics upgrade.
Oh good point. I loved that aspect of EQ and that's what I really want in a new game! Thanks for explaining it to me. Wait...
I'm not saying EQ was perfect, but it was in no way as bugged and unplayable as Vanguard was at release. If it was, it would not have succeeded, plain and simple. The animations and graphics for the time were fantastic. Obviously, a new EQ would have to improve over the old one in that regard, and would have to be stable and relatively bug-free.
I guess I'm a little confused why anyone would assume that desiring a game with the same feeling as EQ also means desiring things that were bad about it (like bugs). Why would we want that? The OP wants the "three C's" back, as he calls them, and for what it's worth I agree. But you don't need to replicate everything from the original game to make that happen. Suggesting that I should be happy that Vanguard brought a ton of bugs with it because it's truer to EQ makes precisely no sense.
And on a side note, people who hated the original EQ have their reasons, most of which are valid. But they also have their new games that removed the grind and forced-grouping that they hated. Why do these people get so upset when we would like a game that caters to what we like about it? There is room for many different types of gamers in a genre this size.
Originally posted by Vallanor But you don't need to replicate everything from the original game to make that happen. Suggesting that I should be happy that Vanguard brought a ton of bugs with it because it's truer to EQ makes precisely no sense. And on a side note, people who hated the original EQ have their reasons, most of which are valid. But they also have their new games that removed the grind and forced-grouping that they hated. Why do these people get so upset when we would like a game that caters to what we like about it? There is room for many different types of gamers in a genre this size.
What should be replicated and what should not be replicated from the original EQ is kinda the crux of this discussion. IF you are going to drop the 'bad' parts then who will decide what those 'bad' parts are?
As for your other point, the problem is that despite all the complains about too many MMOs there are in fact not enough MMOs. People are looking for the perfect MMO and they hope that the next release will be The One. So every MMO that is released that does not cater to their ideal vision of a MMO is a step back and deprives them of the game they are looking for. Of course who is 'greedy' and 'selfish' about this is a matter of opinion. Do the old-school EQers deserve teh next game to cater to them or did they already have their turn and should wait in line?
Originally posted by Josher There weren't millions playing EQ back in the day and there aren't millions looking to recreate that pathetic excuse for a MMO, by TODAYS standards. Want proof? Look at how well received Vangaurd was when it released. It basically recreated much of what EQ was like. But people weren't interested because horrible bugs & lousy content isn't what people look for in a MMO today.
You're definitely right that there's not millions looking for a new EQ. But there are enough of us that a new EQ could be very successful. You don't need WoW type numbers for that.
And please don't use the failure of Vanguard as "proof" that people don't want a new EQ. You said it yourself: horrible bugs and lousy content, i.e. it tried to replicate the feeling of EQ, but failed to make a stable game. Why would people who appreciate the "good old days" want to play a sub-par version of what they remember? Your "proof" is the opposite of proof and explains absolutely nothing.
Yes, EQ didn't have shoddy animations and horrible game-breaking bugs, wait...
Vanguard pretty much exactly recreated EQ, just with a graphics upgrade.
Oh good point. I loved that aspect of EQ and that's what I really want in a new game! Thanks for explaining it to me. Wait...
I'm not saying EQ was perfect, but it was in no way as bugged and unplayable as Vanguard was at release. If it was, it would not have succeeded, plain and simple. The animations and graphics for the time were fantastic. Obviously, a new EQ would have to improve over the old one in that regard, and would have to be stable and relatively bug-free.
I guess I'm a little confused why anyone would assume that desiring a game with the same feeling as EQ also means desiring things that were bad about it (like bugs). Why would we want that? The OP wants the "three C's" back, as he calls them, and for what it's worth I agree. But you don't need to replicate everything from the original game to make that happen. Suggesting that I should be happy that Vanguard brought a ton of bugs with it because it's truer to EQ makes precisely no sense.
And on a side note, people who hated the original EQ have their reasons, most of which are valid. But they also have their new games that removed the grind and forced-grouping that they hated. Why do these people get so upset when we would like a game that caters to what we like about it? There is room for many different types of gamers in a genre this size.
It WAS that bad, just the standard was lower at the time. I still loved playing it back then, there was nothing better out there. Just because it was the best thing out there at the time, does not mean it would stand up to par today.
I get your point, comparing the date of release and the quality of the game, no EQ was nothing like Vanguard, you are right.
Oh good point. I loved that aspect of EQ and that's what I really want in a new game! Thanks for explaining it to me. Wait... I'm not saying EQ was perfect, but it was in no way as bugged and unplayable as Vanguard was at release. If it was, it would not have succeeded, plain and simple. The animations and graphics for the time were fantastic. Obviously, a new EQ would have to improve over the old one in that regard, and would have to be stable and relatively bug-free. I guess I'm a little confused why anyone would assume that desiring a game with the same feeling as EQ also means desiring things that were bad about it (like bugs). Why would we want that? The OP wants the "three C's" back, as he calls them, and for what it's worth I agree. But you don't need to replicate everything from the original game to make that happen. Suggesting that I should be happy that Vanguard brought a ton of bugs with it because it's truer to EQ makes precisely no sense. And on a side note, people who hated the original EQ have their reasons, most of which are valid. But they also have their new games that removed the grind and forced-grouping that they hated. Why do these people get so upset when we would like a game that caters to what we like about it? There is room for many different types of gamers in a genre this size.
It WAS that bad, just the standard was lower at the time. I still loved playing it back then, there was nothing better out there. Just because it was the best thing out there at the time, does not mean it would stand up to par today.
I get your point, comparing the date of release and the quality of the game, no EQ was nothing like Vanguard, you are right.
What was there to compare against in 98? UO and AC. Neither of those games were examples of stability either. Vangaurd basically was EQ with a graphics upgrade and some new concepts. It was just about as playable as EQ was back at release, meaning hardly playable at all. People just didn't care in 1998. Running around in a 3D world blinded everyone to the reality of how bad the game actually played. The expereince of running through vast environments and chatting with actual people was enough. NOW, logging into an online world is no big deal. We expect more. Thats why Vangaurd failed. Its not just because of the bugs. Its because of the old school rules as well. Its the same reason EQ3 modeled after EQ1 would fail or underperform. Of course it will have its players. Theres no doubt people will buy it. But how many? I guess EQ2 is gimping along with its less than stellar numbers, so maybe EQ3 can technically work. But who's going to gamble on it? Sony certainly didn't expect EQ2 to be in the position its in right now. Basically in their eyes, it failed.
Everquest made some people believe, for me it was Asheron's Call. Asheron's Call had challenge, community, and content.
The world was massive, the user had complete control over what their character's role would be. Custom attribute and skill allocation gave the player many different options. Leveling was tedious and "grinding" was necessary to do so. The death penalty (vitae) lowered your stats until you gained more experience. The player had to remember quests and areas (mainly by coordinates on the map). The community was not very large, but I liked the size. Most people were willing to help with almost anything.
I cherished the earlier days, but my interest declined as the years passed.
Mortal Online seems to have quite a bit of potential.
It WAS that bad, just the standard was lower at the time. I still loved playing it back then, there was nothing better out there. Just because it was the best thing out there at the time, does not mean it would stand up to par today. I get your point, comparing the date of release and the quality of the game, no EQ was nothing like Vanguard, you are right.
Meh, you're probably right. I guess I don't remember it being terribly buggy but the standard definitely was different back then. I guess what I'd really like to see is a game that is similar to EQ in how the game feels more than the actual game mechanic, but also one that fits today's standard when it comes to bugs and graphics. And I know a lot of people like to point to Vanguard and say "See, a EQ type game just doesn't work anymore," but there were a lot of things wrong with Vanguard beyond the bugginess. It just never felt like a coherent game to me and never held my interest. So yes, on paper Vanguard is very much like EQ, but in reality it just isn't the same. Maybe it is nostalgia to a certain degree, but I think there is definitely something that EQ had that games today just seem to lack. When I figure out exactly what that is, I'll let you know, lol.
What was there to compare against in 98? UO and AC. Neither of those games were examples of stability either. Vangaurd basically was EQ with a graphics upgrade and some new concepts. It was just about as playable as EQ was back at release, meaning hardly playable at all. People just didn't care in 1998. Running around in a 3D world blinded everyone to the reality of how bad the game actually played. The expereince of running through vast environments and chatting with actual people was enough. NOW, logging into an online world is no big deal. We expect more. Thats why Vangaurd failed. Its not just because of the bugs. Its because of the old school rules as well. Its the same reason EQ3 modeled after EQ1 would fail or underperform. Of course it will have its players. Theres no doubt people will buy it. But how many? I guess EQ2 is gimping along with its less than stellar numbers, so maybe EQ3 can technically work. But who's going to gamble on it? Sony certainly didn't expect EQ2 to be in the position its in right now. Basically in their eyes, it failed.
I guess I'd have to disagree about EQ2 being a failure. Compared to WoW and even EQ1, it really doesn't have a lot of subscribers, granted. But they still have the developer power to crunch out a new expansion every year, and in my opinion, it's one of the highest quality games out right now. So, no, I wouldn't classify it as a failure. I agree it vastly underperformed though.
And I still think there are reasons beyond the "old school rules" of Vanguard that caused it to fail. If you remember the pre-release hype of that game you might recall that it was pretty intense. A lot of people were extremely excited that Sigil was making the "spiritual successor to Everquest." But then the beta leaks started and it was clear the game was an absolute mess. Had they actually executed the game, I'd pretty confident it could potentially have up to 300,000 players (but that's probably about the highest it would ever get). Sure, that's not huge by today's standards but it's far from a failure and would be more than enough to sustain it's continued development.
I really do think there's enough interest out there for a "new EQ" to capture a substantial player base. It will not be a "WoW killer" but I don't think anyone on my side of things really cares about that. We just don't feel like there's a good game out there right now that really caters to us. And frankly, I'd be surprised if any companies are willing to try in today's market. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Originally posted by Vallanor I guess I'd have to disagree about EQ2 being a failure. Compared to WoW and even EQ1, it really doesn't have a lot of subscribers, granted. But they still have the developer power to crunch out a new expansion every year, and in my opinion, it's one of the highest quality games out right now. So, no, I wouldn't classify it as a failure. I agree it vastly underperformed though. And I still think there are reasons beyond the "old school rules" of Vanguard that caused it to fail. If you remember the pre-release hype of that game you might recall that it was pretty intense. A lot of people were extremely excited that Sigil was making the "spiritual successor to Everquest." But then the beta leaks started and it was clear the game was an absolute mess. Had they actually executed the game, I'd pretty confident it could potentially have up to 300,000 players (but that's probably about the highest it would ever get). Sure, that's not huge by today's standards but it's far from a failure and would be more than enough to sustain it's continued development. I really do think there's enough interest out there for a "new EQ" to capture a substantial player base. It will not be a "WoW killer" but I don't think anyone on my side of things really cares about that. We just don't feel like there's a good game out there right now that really caters to us. And frankly, I'd be surprised if any companies are willing to try in today's market. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Yes. I see it the same way Vallanor. The only point I would make about Vanguard beyond what you've already stated, is two things.
Vanguard did have its core audience worked into a frenzy that it was going to be the 'new EQ'. The first problem: it was discovered in the final stages of beta that it was meeting that quota in about 30% of its gameplay structure. People quickly caught on that it was super solo friendly and it was probably the #1 or #2 complaint daily and ongoing for weeks+. 30% doesnt get it done. That leaves 70% of the rest of the game solo'n to advance/experience the game. 70% less grouping and experiencing, the best VG had to offer, happening everywhere and getting worse by the hour.
What sucked even more was that 30% was fucking awesome. The dungeons and group content was exactly what the core wanted. Weeks to launch this all came to the forefront and it blew up bad. I personally started with the headstart and took(dont quote me, pls) about 2-3 weeks appx. to level, 75% solo, to 40(roughly top 100 in the game and top 20 on Thunderaxe, top 5 in all Psionicist and top Goblin Psion, in level. quoting ok).
I had a guild(home to the 1st 50-Necro on TA) and they rarely grouped cause it wasnt of any real benefit to advance. Plus, all that solo'n created finding members when groups were short, rare. I loved that solo experience, do not get me wrong, cause I did like it alot, but it was not the experience that sold me the game. The groups I constantly searched hrs for were great. Being a grouper, I managed my group potential while advancing my character throughout.
Point 2. When Vanguard released technology was taking a major turn. First turn was the transition to Vista. The second was 768mb+ video cards and Sli. Third was ever progressing dual core, and the introduction of quad core processors. The requirements for the game, tech-wise, were large. Also, the game didnt always perform well for some who did have those tech advancements.
I didnt experience any of the blue screens that tons of people were. None. I had just built a very large, future ready(2.5yrs later and its still a monster), gaming machine and was using 64bit Vista w/4gigs of Ram, which most werent. After posting my specs. many places, it usually blew up, by those frustrated by facts. Fact is I never experienced any real problems running VG. Sorry for those that did.
The community tanked and so went the attraction to the game. The game is brilliant, without debate. No way you could put Vanguard into a 'new EQ' mold, cause it really was a beautiful anti-EQ in its execution. Those are still Vanguards most devastating skeletons in the closet that cost Sigil, and now SOE, the most patrons to thier game.
Comments
You will never experiance again what you have experianced with EQ/UO. It was your first MMO and its like first kiss, first bike ride, first sex etc. You wont feel the emotion once again.
If you were running groups without a healer or a rogue your DM was coddling you.
And I was the DM, my groups lasted years, and they were some of the best days of my life. I doubt I would be spending much time on the computer if we all still lived in the same area. Playing with a group of good friends in real life has always been far more enjoyable than online play for me.
No because there were always different ways around challenges. Unless you and your players lacked imagination. Also encounters in D&D were not tank and spank like single player games and EQ. Person x didn't stand in front taking all the damage while person y hides and heals, while z sneaks around to attack from the side.
There were different ways to deal with challenges in P&P games because it wasn't being run on computers and able to only do what existed within the lines of code. In D&D or any other roleplaying game played with a DM you could try to do anything you could imagine. It was more like interactive storytelling really and people were only limited by their own imaginations.
For example; you could tell the DM that you wanted to climb around to the top of a cliff and try to start an avalance. Or that you wanted to start a forest fire. Or you were going to grab that housecat and throw it in the guards face to distract him while you made a run for it. Of course computer games are more limited than that. It's not a fair comparison at all and I would challenge you to find any computer game that let's you try anything you can imagine.
I do agree that EQ did damage to the genre even though I had a lot of fun in EQ. And then WoW kept the worst parts of EQ, threw out the best parts, added their new thing which was solo quest grinding and leading players around by the nose, and did incalculably more damage.
We are now further away from the dream of a fun virtual world than the genre has ever been. Developers aren't even thinking in terms of worlds anymore they are thinking in terms of guiding players through a tightly controlled content path.
I agree with you. But if mmo were to put more effort into character development and not force x class into y role with no possible devation. Also we really need to get away from being such loot whore design. Greed is also another factor that is killing mmos.
Dude where is the passion in your life?
I find this kind of attitude = F A I L
R.I.P Chikaca Whachuchu
That is how I think of it on good days.
On others, I wonder if it just means that they're going to be trying their hand at an MMOFPS or something.
I don't know about that. My first kiss and the first time I had sex were awful, I've certainly had better in every way. Meanwhile, my first MMO was The 4th Coming, which... yeah.
EDIT: Sorry about the double-post. I'd remedy it if I could.
Hi all:
Ok, EQ was the best there ever was . (simple). I have never found one that will replace it and it's been a while.
How did it ruin something that barely existed?
EQ1/UO set off the MMORPG market.
MUDS and DIKUS started the market and were pretty successful. UO and EQ just slapped graphics onto them. The paradigms that dictated the game play for early games is still very much present in modern games, that part has never changed. They have have added the casual paradigm recently, but hardcores still get the best of the best even in casual games, only because developers insist on it, not because it's the natural flow of a casual game.
What has really changed is that developers insist on hybridizing MMOs and in return end up pissing off both hardcore and casual audiences. It's far past time for them to accept smaller, but healthier and longer lasting audiences for their games by specializing. The only reason why casuals are considered flighty is because even casual oriented games shaft us with hardcore elements like raiding and PvP. Why the hell should we stick around if the developers give preferential treatment to the secondary target audience? Only hardcore gamers fully embrace the "haves and have not" formula.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
If you were running groups without a healer or a rogue your DM was coddling you.
And I was the DM, my groups lasted years, and they were some of the best days of my life. I doubt I would be spending much time on the computer if we all still lived in the same area. Playing with a group of good friends in real life has always been far more enjoyable than online play for me.
No because there were always different ways around challenges. Unless you and your players lacked imagination. Also encounters in D&D were not tank and spank like single player games and EQ. Person x didn't stand in front taking all the damage while person y hides and heals, while z sneaks around to attack from the side.
Yes, there were USUALLY ways around specific obstacals, but the need for specif abilities was always present.
Without a cleric you could not heal between encounters, wounds would accumulate until the party was forced to retreat back to a safe location and spend weeks healing.
Without a rogue, your scouting ability was limited, you had no means to open locked doors without drawing the attention of everyone within a hundred feet, and traps would tear you apart.
The presence of a wizard greatly enhanced the groups versatility in bypassing challenges and collecting information.
The fighter was the one that could be easily replaced.
For some reason you seem to equate group play with tank and spank. Group play is about using the combined abilities of several individuals to overcome challanges that could not be overcome alone. A good group will choose their fights and use those diverse abilities to overcome obsticals in creative and unique ways.
And if your answer is "I don't need a healer, I have healing potions", my response would be that they either cost less than iron rations or every bandit in your world was carrying a kings ransom. Healing potions cost wizards experience to manufacture (as does every other magic item in the game), make more than a few and they de-level. That fact alone would make them a scarce commodity, reserved for emergencies. In the older school versions of D&D, the potions did not cost the wizard xp, but all magic items were far more time consuming and expensive to manufacture. You would need a highly skilled individual investing days per potion to supply you with a constant supply.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Noble post. I was too lazy to read the other replies.
Let me sum it up for you, buddy. The developers may actually want to put out this sort of game, but the publishing side and executives are only interested in one thing, the lowest common denominator for making big bucks. Everyone out there is trying to make the next WoW, I just hope their attempts do not become too desperate.
Then again, I wouldn't mind an officially Megan Fox licensed MMO where the objective was to destroy Marvel super villains while riding on Transformers with Megan Fox doing a VirtuaGirl type strip-tease where the lack of clothes would depend on your progression. After this you could use a stargate to beam aboard the starship USS Enterprise that would be full of Megan Foxes in skimpy white outfits and you would be armed with a squirt gun. Isn't this what we all want? Why won't somebody make this game!!?
Dont take the below as a rant directed at you OP:
The truth is, developers and game designers have very innovative concepts all the time, what prevents us from seeing many of these creative ideas is administration. Let's all take five to hate middle-aged men in gray suits!
During these tough financial times loose capital isn't exactly easy to come by. If you want to create the mecca of MMOs many of the people on MMORPG.com seem to crave oh-so-much, a pre-cu SWG SUPER-SANDBOX experiece, you need a lot of cash. That isn't enough, however. You need a immensely strong IP to bring in the consumers and a large team full of talent to realise the concept and give create your MMO-saviour.
EQ was new, it was revolutionary, and it was unforgiving. It took the MUD experience and wrapped it in lovely (then) 3-D graphics, creating an immersive world. This was class-based grinding at its finest; sit on a spawn and kill for several hours until you level up enough to go to the next spawn (or until that item drop you were waiting for to become 0.5% better finally happens).
As many people have pointed out already, nostalgia is a dangerous emotion. EQ was great - at the time. Although many games have borrowed from EQ's concepts, the genre has subtly changed in good and bad ways. The real problem isn't that EQ was better, but that new games are just more of the same.
Believing again, to me, means a whole new experience. Make EVERY user feel like they are a part of something more each time they log-in, not just another nameless waste of space that kills off some of the (returning) monster population and gets a few silver for doing so. Build a dynamic (or insert other popular catch-phrase) world that affects players and vice versa. Stop focusing so much on graphics and start focusing on the overall experience.
EQ was an abomination. It introduced the idiotic class/level, hero story single-player crap into something that was supposed to be a whole new way of interactive online experience. It was an alien thing to the very nature of what an online game is supposed to be. EQ is the crap. MMOs would have been much better if there were never the crap that is EQ. The fails that you see now are all due to EQ setting a completely wrong premise for what MMORPGs are supposed to mean.
However, it was EQ that was 3d and the players back then could fall on something that they could understand in this bewildering new world of multiplayer - the crappy leveling "hero story" progression regardless of whether it's in any way appropriate for the new medium - online. I spit on EQ and all its progeny, WoW included most of all. I suppose I'll die before I'll get a chance to play a mmo that is a real massive multiplayer online role playing game. The paradigm has been set and there is no way we'll see a big budget mmo that deviates from EQ model before the grown-up greysuits that were (pretty dim, tbh) enthusiasts and geeks die off and make room for the new generation of developers. ("Oh wow, I get to kill the dragon and save the world, ONLINE, wow!!!! How cool is that!!!?!!") Bleh, I'm off to be sick and play some ET:QW, there's more mmorpg there than in anything listed on this site except EVE.
Actually, MMOs are supposed to be what the players want. The players wanted a fun game like EQ in the 90s, WOW in 2004, ect. If they wanted UO at the time, most would've been playing it instead of EQ, right? The genre is supposed to be exactly what it turned into. High quality, content rich MMOs that don't punish its players through specific mechanics or horrible interfaces and bugs, SELL subscriptions. Sandboxes which force players to create your own adventure and just exist in a virtual chat room, don't sell subscritions. (Excpetions like Eve don't count) Sorry to break it you, but most people really don't like paying a fee to essentially entertain themselves. They want to be entertained. Themepark MMOs fit that bill.
If MMOs were supposed to be sandboxes, WOW would've been a UO clone instead of an EQ clone. MMOs are only supposed to be what the market determines. Business 101.
No, what happened here with FF XI's challenge is that it remained a rogue-like, a game with a brutal death punishment to encourage people to not suck, and this fitted perfectly with the group-based gaming of FF XI.
It is a tough game. But at no point did FF XI's challenge go overboard. Maybe for casuals, but not for gamers that want to see more games with harsher death punishments.
Well, if there is one thing I learned from 6+ years of FFXI is that no matter how brutal the penality, people can still suck, and I am very lenient about what is considered good and bad playing. Casual does not even exist in FFXI, everyone either need to be good or just simply wasted time.
What you highlighted was actually how I praise the game (Some servers do this). We call it sadistic and call ourselves masochistic, and that is what make it fun. SE enjoy dishing out the abuse, and we enjoy taking it. It is a joke, but I guess it was only an inside joke for some servers.
Don't mean to derail this thread, this is last reply on this subject. Just clearing up a misunderstanding.
Ah, so that highlighted part was an irony joke. Ok, I get what you were going at. It makes me really wish now that I wasn't going to college or a trade school soon, otherwise I'd play it. Here's to hoping that FF XIV is not a casual dumbed-down version of FF XI, otherwise it will die just like in the manner of EQ2.
You're definitely right that there's not millions looking for a new EQ. But there are enough of us that a new EQ could be very successful. You don't need WoW type numbers for that.
And please don't use the failure of Vanguard as "proof" that people don't want a new EQ. You said it yourself: horrible bugs and lousy content, i.e. it tried to replicate the feeling of EQ, but failed to make a stable game. Why would people who appreciate the "good old days" want to play a sub-par version of what they remember? Your "proof" is the opposite of proof and explains absolutely nothing.
You're definitely right that there's not millions looking for a new EQ. But there are enough of us that a new EQ could be very successful. You don't need WoW type numbers for that.
And please don't use the failure of Vanguard as "proof" that people don't want a new EQ. You said it yourself: horrible bugs and lousy content, i.e. it tried to replicate the feeling of EQ, but failed to make a stable game. Why would people who appreciate the "good old days" want to play a sub-par version of what they remember? Your "proof" is the opposite of proof and explains absolutely nothing.
Yes, EQ didn't have shoddy animations and horrible game-breaking bugs, wait...
Vanguard pretty much exactly recreated EQ, just with a graphics upgrade.
yep agree to that. That being said Ryzom was a bit more dynamic and that flunked.
If you were running groups without a healer or a rogue your DM was coddling you.
And I was the DM, my groups lasted years, and they were some of the best days of my life. I doubt I would be spending much time on the computer if we all still lived in the same area. Playing with a group of good friends in real life has always been far more enjoyable than online play for me.
No because there were always different ways around challenges. Unless you and your players lacked imagination. Also encounters in D&D were not tank and spank like single player games and EQ. Person x didn't stand in front taking all the damage while person y hides and heals, while z sneaks around to attack from the side.
Yes, there were USUALLY ways around specific obstacals, but the need for specif abilities was always present.
Without a cleric you could not heal between encounters, wounds would accumulate until the party was forced to retreat back to a safe location and spend weeks healing.
Without a rogue, your scouting ability was limited, you had no means to open locked doors without drawing the attention of everyone within a hundred feet, and traps would tear you apart.
The presence of a wizard greatly enhanced the groups versatility in bypassing challenges and collecting information.
The fighter was the one that could be easily replaced.
For some reason you seem to equate group play with tank and spank. Group play is about using the combined abilities of several individuals to overcome challanges that could not be overcome alone. A good group will choose their fights and use those diverse abilities to overcome obsticals in creative and unique ways.
And if your answer is "I don't need a healer, I have healing potions", my response would be that they either cost less than iron rations or every bandit in your world was carrying a kings ransom. Healing potions cost wizards experience to manufacture (as does every other magic item in the game), make more than a few and they de-level. That fact alone would make them a scarce commodity, reserved for emergencies. In the older school versions of D&D, the potions did not cost the wizard xp, but all magic items were far more time consuming and expensive to manufacture. You would need a highly skilled individual investing days per potion to supply you with a constant supply.
When it comes down to healing yes nothing could replace a cleric. A bard could help but would run out of spells quickly. But then a person could also multi class to gain some healing ability. There are potions, rings, wands and a host of other options that while individually couldn't replace the cleric when joined together could come pretty close. Also as dm if your party had no one that wanted to play a cleric you could easily add a npc cleric to fill the rants.
Scouting could be handled by a ranger or a multi class rogue plus a wizard could use several spells to scout. Also after 3 which is a much more realistic take on D&D allowed classes to pick cross class skills. So a (insert class here) could try to move silently and hide in shadows just like a rogue could.
MMO group play with the exclusion of possible DDO is tank and spank. You stand here and tank, you stand here and heal, the rest of you wait till tank has significant agro then you dps.
D&D offered options while mmo following the EQ model offer rigid hard code.
You're definitely right that there's not millions looking for a new EQ. But there are enough of us that a new EQ could be very successful. You don't need WoW type numbers for that.
And please don't use the failure of Vanguard as "proof" that people don't want a new EQ. You said it yourself: horrible bugs and lousy content, i.e. it tried to replicate the feeling of EQ, but failed to make a stable game. Why would people who appreciate the "good old days" want to play a sub-par version of what they remember? Your "proof" is the opposite of proof and explains absolutely nothing.
Yes, EQ didn't have shoddy animations and horrible game-breaking bugs, wait...
Vanguard pretty much exactly recreated EQ, just with a graphics upgrade.
Oh good point. I loved that aspect of EQ and that's what I really want in a new game! Thanks for explaining it to me. Wait...
I'm not saying EQ was perfect, but it was in no way as bugged and unplayable as Vanguard was at release. If it was, it would not have succeeded, plain and simple. The animations and graphics for the time were fantastic. Obviously, a new EQ would have to improve over the old one in that regard, and would have to be stable and relatively bug-free.
I guess I'm a little confused why anyone would assume that desiring a game with the same feeling as EQ also means desiring things that were bad about it (like bugs). Why would we want that? The OP wants the "three C's" back, as he calls them, and for what it's worth I agree. But you don't need to replicate everything from the original game to make that happen. Suggesting that I should be happy that Vanguard brought a ton of bugs with it because it's truer to EQ makes precisely no sense.
And on a side note, people who hated the original EQ have their reasons, most of which are valid. But they also have their new games that removed the grind and forced-grouping that they hated. Why do these people get so upset when we would like a game that caters to what we like about it? There is room for many different types of gamers in a genre this size.
What should be replicated and what should not be replicated from the original EQ is kinda the crux of this discussion. IF you are going to drop the 'bad' parts then who will decide what those 'bad' parts are?
As for your other point, the problem is that despite all the complains about too many MMOs there are in fact not enough MMOs. People are looking for the perfect MMO and they hope that the next release will be The One. So every MMO that is released that does not cater to their ideal vision of a MMO is a step back and deprives them of the game they are looking for. Of course who is 'greedy' and 'selfish' about this is a matter of opinion. Do the old-school EQers deserve teh next game to cater to them or did they already have their turn and should wait in line?
You're definitely right that there's not millions looking for a new EQ. But there are enough of us that a new EQ could be very successful. You don't need WoW type numbers for that.
And please don't use the failure of Vanguard as "proof" that people don't want a new EQ. You said it yourself: horrible bugs and lousy content, i.e. it tried to replicate the feeling of EQ, but failed to make a stable game. Why would people who appreciate the "good old days" want to play a sub-par version of what they remember? Your "proof" is the opposite of proof and explains absolutely nothing.
Yes, EQ didn't have shoddy animations and horrible game-breaking bugs, wait...
Vanguard pretty much exactly recreated EQ, just with a graphics upgrade.
Oh good point. I loved that aspect of EQ and that's what I really want in a new game! Thanks for explaining it to me. Wait...
I'm not saying EQ was perfect, but it was in no way as bugged and unplayable as Vanguard was at release. If it was, it would not have succeeded, plain and simple. The animations and graphics for the time were fantastic. Obviously, a new EQ would have to improve over the old one in that regard, and would have to be stable and relatively bug-free.
I guess I'm a little confused why anyone would assume that desiring a game with the same feeling as EQ also means desiring things that were bad about it (like bugs). Why would we want that? The OP wants the "three C's" back, as he calls them, and for what it's worth I agree. But you don't need to replicate everything from the original game to make that happen. Suggesting that I should be happy that Vanguard brought a ton of bugs with it because it's truer to EQ makes precisely no sense.
And on a side note, people who hated the original EQ have their reasons, most of which are valid. But they also have their new games that removed the grind and forced-grouping that they hated. Why do these people get so upset when we would like a game that caters to what we like about it? There is room for many different types of gamers in a genre this size.
It WAS that bad, just the standard was lower at the time. I still loved playing it back then, there was nothing better out there. Just because it was the best thing out there at the time, does not mean it would stand up to par today.
I get your point, comparing the date of release and the quality of the game, no EQ was nothing like Vanguard, you are right.
It WAS that bad, just the standard was lower at the time. I still loved playing it back then, there was nothing better out there. Just because it was the best thing out there at the time, does not mean it would stand up to par today.
I get your point, comparing the date of release and the quality of the game, no EQ was nothing like Vanguard, you are right.
What was there to compare against in 98? UO and AC. Neither of those games were examples of stability either. Vangaurd basically was EQ with a graphics upgrade and some new concepts. It was just about as playable as EQ was back at release, meaning hardly playable at all. People just didn't care in 1998. Running around in a 3D world blinded everyone to the reality of how bad the game actually played. The expereince of running through vast environments and chatting with actual people was enough. NOW, logging into an online world is no big deal. We expect more. Thats why Vangaurd failed. Its not just because of the bugs. Its because of the old school rules as well. Its the same reason EQ3 modeled after EQ1 would fail or underperform. Of course it will have its players. Theres no doubt people will buy it. But how many? I guess EQ2 is gimping along with its less than stellar numbers, so maybe EQ3 can technically work. But who's going to gamble on it? Sony certainly didn't expect EQ2 to be in the position its in right now. Basically in their eyes, it failed.
Everquest made some people believe, for me it was Asheron's Call. Asheron's Call had challenge, community, and content.
The world was massive, the user had complete control over what their character's role would be. Custom attribute and skill allocation gave the player many different options. Leveling was tedious and "grinding" was necessary to do so. The death penalty (vitae) lowered your stats until you gained more experience. The player had to remember quests and areas (mainly by coordinates on the map). The community was not very large, but I liked the size. Most people were willing to help with almost anything.
I cherished the earlier days, but my interest declined as the years passed.
Mortal Online seems to have quite a bit of potential.
Meh, you're probably right. I guess I don't remember it being terribly buggy but the standard definitely was different back then. I guess what I'd really like to see is a game that is similar to EQ in how the game feels more than the actual game mechanic, but also one that fits today's standard when it comes to bugs and graphics. And I know a lot of people like to point to Vanguard and say "See, a EQ type game just doesn't work anymore," but there were a lot of things wrong with Vanguard beyond the bugginess. It just never felt like a coherent game to me and never held my interest. So yes, on paper Vanguard is very much like EQ, but in reality it just isn't the same. Maybe it is nostalgia to a certain degree, but I think there is definitely something that EQ had that games today just seem to lack. When I figure out exactly what that is, I'll let you know, lol.
I guess I'd have to disagree about EQ2 being a failure. Compared to WoW and even EQ1, it really doesn't have a lot of subscribers, granted. But they still have the developer power to crunch out a new expansion every year, and in my opinion, it's one of the highest quality games out right now. So, no, I wouldn't classify it as a failure. I agree it vastly underperformed though.
And I still think there are reasons beyond the "old school rules" of Vanguard that caused it to fail. If you remember the pre-release hype of that game you might recall that it was pretty intense. A lot of people were extremely excited that Sigil was making the "spiritual successor to Everquest." But then the beta leaks started and it was clear the game was an absolute mess. Had they actually executed the game, I'd pretty confident it could potentially have up to 300,000 players (but that's probably about the highest it would ever get). Sure, that's not huge by today's standards but it's far from a failure and would be more than enough to sustain it's continued development.
I really do think there's enough interest out there for a "new EQ" to capture a substantial player base. It will not be a "WoW killer" but I don't think anyone on my side of things really cares about that. We just don't feel like there's a good game out there right now that really caters to us. And frankly, I'd be surprised if any companies are willing to try in today's market. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Yes. I see it the same way Vallanor. The only point I would make about Vanguard beyond what you've already stated, is two things.
Vanguard did have its core audience worked into a frenzy that it was going to be the 'new EQ'. The first problem: it was discovered in the final stages of beta that it was meeting that quota in about 30% of its gameplay structure. People quickly caught on that it was super solo friendly and it was probably the #1 or #2 complaint daily and ongoing for weeks+. 30% doesnt get it done. That leaves 70% of the rest of the game solo'n to advance/experience the game. 70% less grouping and experiencing, the best VG had to offer, happening everywhere and getting worse by the hour.
What sucked even more was that 30% was fucking awesome. The dungeons and group content was exactly what the core wanted. Weeks to launch this all came to the forefront and it blew up bad. I personally started with the headstart and took(dont quote me, pls) about 2-3 weeks appx. to level, 75% solo, to 40(roughly top 100 in the game and top 20 on Thunderaxe, top 5 in all Psionicist and top Goblin Psion, in level. quoting ok).
I had a guild(home to the 1st 50-Necro on TA) and they rarely grouped cause it wasnt of any real benefit to advance. Plus, all that solo'n created finding members when groups were short, rare. I loved that solo experience, do not get me wrong, cause I did like it alot, but it was not the experience that sold me the game. The groups I constantly searched hrs for were great. Being a grouper, I managed my group potential while advancing my character throughout.
Point 2. When Vanguard released technology was taking a major turn. First turn was the transition to Vista. The second was 768mb+ video cards and Sli. Third was ever progressing dual core, and the introduction of quad core processors. The requirements for the game, tech-wise, were large. Also, the game didnt always perform well for some who did have those tech advancements.
I didnt experience any of the blue screens that tons of people were. None. I had just built a very large, future ready(2.5yrs later and its still a monster), gaming machine and was using 64bit Vista w/4gigs of Ram, which most werent. After posting my specs. many places, it usually blew up, by those frustrated by facts. Fact is I never experienced any real problems running VG. Sorry for those that did.
The community tanked and so went the attraction to the game. The game is brilliant, without debate. No way you could put Vanguard into a 'new EQ' mold, cause it really was a beautiful anti-EQ in its execution. Those are still Vanguards most devastating skeletons in the closet that cost Sigil, and now SOE, the most patrons to thier game.